It's never a good sign when I show up on this blog. Everybody knows a movie has been very naughty and above all, disappointing when I come around. Sadly, the latest pre-installment/literary amalgamation in the Lord of the Rings universe has certainly been both those things. With a superlative cast, excellent craftsman such as Andrew Lesnie, Dan Hennah and Howard Shore behind the camera and a story crafted by one of the greatest storytellers of the last generation and perhaps all time; what could have possibly gone wrong? Peter Jackson, the golden child of Middle Earth and the inducer of many a sticky trouser within the realm of geekdom, resumes his directorial duties and seeks to lead casual patrons and Tolkienites alike back into the familiar throes of a not so nostalgic Middle Earth. For most people there was a quiver of joy resonating from somewhere most uncivil when they heard the announcement that "The Hobbit" was to be given the same big screen treatment as its older brothers. For anyone with an education and the faintest whiff of common sense, there was a quiver of disgust. The prospect of yet another profitable franchise was the only motivator which propelled the fabled hills of the blessed Shire back before our eyes. And when the project's reins were offered to the architect of the original series he politely, yet firmly, denied. In fact he had to keep denying them, he grabbed prospective director after prospective director and pushed them in front of himself as if to say "Take anyone but me!"The studio searched high and low across all the land for a worthy successor but found no one. For a time Jackson thought he had escaped when Guillermo Del Toro was assigned to the rank of captain but alas, fate tugged him in a different and more prudent direction.
When Del Toro jumped ship, the studio swung their large, lidless eye; wreathed in flame, back to Jackson. And that's what we, the audience, were left with. That lack of fervor shows in the final product. His frustration with the original source material is the root of the film's problems. The filmmakers attempts to rememdy that insecurity by borrowing and swapping passages and subplots from other sources such as "The Silmarillion" and "The Lord of the Rings" appendices were earnest but tragically futile. The numerous and varied influences cause the film to wobble onward with no clear tone or pace; wracked by lengthy scenes of exposition and superfluous details that are shoved through, kicking and screaming, in order to lend a few more minutes to the alreaday astronomical running time while we crawl oh so slowly towards that friggin mountain where that friggin dragon is lying with all their friggin gold.
Pacing aside (for now) we turn to casting and performances. For many people, one of the film's bright spots was the role of Bilbo Baggins, portrayed by an ever boyish Martin Freeman. I happen to disagree with those people. If they had described his performance as stuttering, externality based and a shadowy pastiche of the turn offered to us by Ian Holm as the older, more poised and less flinchy Bilbo then I would heartily agree. The films 1st act campiness is bolstered by Freeman's befuddled blinking as a series of saturday morning cartoons roll around his house, devouring his food, singing and tracking mud on the carpet. By the time he settles down in the 3rd act the pace has gone horribly amiss and then abruptly ends after the most pathetic excuse for an emotionally satisfying climax I've seen in a movie this year. I originally liked Freeman in the role of Bilbo when he was announced for the part but ultimately he lacked the determination and focus to hold down the role with any kind of consistency. Whether this was due to poor direction or something else entirely is irrelevant.
Instead of Freeman I found the breath of fresh air to be in the performance of Richard Armitage as "Thorin" the proud young Dwarf Heir/Prince/King. He harnessed all the steely reserve of a scorned Tom Cruise, the focused and totured intensity of Liam Neeson, all the while maintaining just a touch of Tom Hanks naive, yet earnest idealism. It was by no means a perfect performance, there seemed to be an internal conflict on how exactly his character should arc. If the film had maintained a consistent and traditional pace it might not have been so difficult. As it stood though, characters who dramatically and precisely arced through Tolkien's book were forced to complete an entirely new arc in just the first 3rd of that book in order to facilitate the studios desire to make 2 more movies. I hardly blame Armitage for his frustration and potential confusion when weighing how to handle that role. Much like a high-school reunion I wouldn't absolutely hate going to, all the old familiar faces have returned and waste no time at all in filling their roles with the effortlessness of a well worn leather glove. Ian Mckellan, Cate Blanchet, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis, and Hugo Weaving bring their A-Game. They are, no question, the backbone of the film. But it's so strange to see them in this setting, where their most dire conversations take place while discussing the rebirth of a great evil, hinting morbidly about the return of Sauron. If I hadn't already seen Lord of the Rings then I might, perhaps, be intrigued by this great returning evil that they whisper so loudly about while taking special care to never look at each other unless rebuking or being rebuked.
The trouble is that none of it matters. Even with actors giving above adequate turns in their roles at the end of the day it's just a bunch of whiny dwarves forever moaning about their gold and the fate of their stupid mountain home. Calm down. So the dragon wants to sleep in your gold for 60 years, big deal. I've seen middle earth 4 times now for a grand total of 10 hours and I've seen about a dozen different mountains that are just as big as your old one. Go live there. The stakes are so miniscule when compared to the original series and it feels insulting to have the studios earnestly believe that this story is worth my time and money. Looking beyond the filmmaking mistakes there is simply a lack of interest or gravity in the story, it has nothing to offer me in the form of emotional engagement and thus I don't feel compelled to watch each frame as it passes meaninglessly in front of my face. It's as if Peter Jackson were a small child pulling you by the hand to his room where he can gleefully show you his toys and neat-o Hot Wheels collection. That's all well and good Mr. Jackson, but we've moved on now.
The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is nothing short of standard and imprecise. Nothing outstanding yet nothing too terribly abhorrent. I elected to NOT see the film in 48fps because I came to the theater to see Middle Earth and not an NBC Soap Opera set. Being one who has shot footage at this speed before I could not consciously give my money to watch a film that employed that particular technique. I did, however, get to watch it for free in 3d IMAX after the 2D screening was too full. The 3d was unnecessary and there were many sweeping shots that were panned to quickly in order to take full advantage of 48p causing the shutter to blur in a rhythmic glaze across the scene. In all their rush to push technology forward they forgot the bread and butter of their trade and committed the most atrocious crime that a talented artist can perpetrate in this industry..........they were mediocre. There were no balls to the wall, there was no risk. Just a half baked gamble tied to a dead-weight story all thrown together by a man who was loathe to be there from the beginning.
You don't have to be a scientist or even a sub-par filmmaker to see why this is a poorly made movie. I long to see the day when a studio discovers that you can't just take a previously successful franchise, throw money at it and receive gobs of money in return. But for now the general viewing public disappoints me and thus we will continue to have sub-standard movies such as this, of which I shall continue to have to pay money and see it just to say I've seen it and have an opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment