Long Awaited Joy From An Unexpected Journey

I have already wrote a blog dedicated to The Hobbit and how important the book was to me growing up because of my father. However, I owe a lot to Peter Jackson for giving us the films The Lord of the Rings and now The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings was the reason I started loving movies so much. They were the reason I got in soundtracks. And the trailer for The Hobbit that came out around this time last year was the strongest motivating factor for starting this blog.

So it comes as great satisfaction to know that all the waiting for this movie was not in vain. Of course, there will be lots of critics saying this movie isn't worth the time, but they're trying to lead you down the path of ignorance; I'm trying to led you down the path that ROCKS! So let's get straight to it! We'll start with what made this movie so good and then address some of the criticism. Just to stick it to the critics; I'm giving this movie a 9 out of 10! I have to apologize, at the end of the blog I get carried away in going off at critics (that's a lot of prepositions...) Feel free to skip if you desire.

Journeying Down the Path that Rock

1. Acting: Now, I thought I was blown away with the genius Peter Jackson displayed in casting The Lord of the Rings. I mean, come on, I'm convinced Sir Ian Mckellen may actually be a wizard and will anyone ever see Sean Austin as anything other Samwise Gamgee? (Well, maybe as the little kid from The Goonies...) It is pure joy to see that old skill return with Gandalf and Gollum. Of all the great performances Andy Serkis gave us as Gollum in the last films, this one is the crown jewel of the set.

On top of all that, this installment has Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I really can't tell you how many times I laughed just because of his small idiosyncrasies. I, like most of you, became a fan with the "Sherlock" series, but this performance out paces his work on the show by miles. I'm on the edge of my seat (That's a lie: I'm currently comfortably imbedded in my couch.) waiting to see what he'll bring us with the next films. Additionally--though you wont be able to distinguish most of them by the end of the film--each of the dwarfs is spot on.

2. Master of Detail: In the world of directors, Peter Jackson would be Sherlock Holmes! He is a master of detail in the world of film. It's incredible to see how much effort he put into just the smallest parts of the set that only true fans will catch. For instance, in The Lord of the Rings when Gandalf first shows up at Bag End, we see him hit a low hanging chandelier and get frustrated like he's done that enough times to know better. In The Hobbit, we see him do that for supposedly the first time! I know... I'm a dork, and I was the only one who laughed in the theater but that is the kind of detail you expect from these films. Little things that make all the difference.

3. Interpretation of plot: Does Mr. Jackson stay completely true to the plot? No. But that in no way takes away from the overall narrative. One of my favorite additions was getting to see the city of Erebor at the beginning of the film. Then being able to see Radagast and The White Council and the introduction of the Nazgul to Middle Earth. It was probably too much for some of the fans in the audience. Perhaps it is too much for just the average movie goer, but they can feel comforted in the fact that they never have to wait long for the next orc to die.

Most importantly, for those most iconic scene from the book we get to see almost a direct translation into film! I loved getting to see the Riddles in the Dark (probably my favorite part of the movie), the trolls arguing over how to cook the dwarfs, and surprisingly the dwarfs showing up at Bag End was a close second favorite. Fans are fully satisfied and first timers are completely entertained.

4. Music and scenery: It's quite clear that the only reason that Peter Jackson chose New Zealand for his films is because... IT'S AWESOME! Several shots are just to show off, but, really, who cares!? Additionally, Pete's Visual Effects team is a master at creating the creepiest of monsters and the most incredible sets. Three hours of eye candy? Yes, please!

Do I really even need to mention that Howard Shore is back for the soundtrack and it could possibly be the soundtrack to end all soundtracks? I was going to make a compilation of it to share with all those not familiar with his work, but I don't want to break copyright laws so I'll just highly recommend you check it out. My personal favorite is "Over Hill." When this music is combined with the camera work... let's just say the audience may need Pampers ;)

5. Something for everyone: Yes, this narrative is more geared towards kids, but adults should be warned that there is some action intended for adults. And there is a lot of action despite what critics will have you believe. Still the age range is wider than it was for The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are two of the most widely owned books in the world (not including religious text) and it's clear why. This is a universal narrative that everyone can enjoy. The world has been waiting for this film to be made, and I'm thrilled I was alive to see it happen.

Response to Criticism:

1. It's too long: This is the one I have the hardest time understanding. Let me see if I can break this down. People are happier spending $10 to see a 2 hour movie than they are paying $10 to see a 3 hour movie!? I'm no math genius, but that means you prefer spending $5 for an hour of entertainment over spending $3.34 for an hour of entertainment. I think it comes down to attention spans. To make a long story short (no pun intended) the world's is getting shorter.

I am currently reading A Tale of Two Cities right now and one thing strikes me: there is a lot of detail that has nothing to do with the overall plot. But far from being repulsed by this, I find it extremely refreshing. It's so nice to read something that is just meant to be beautiful and insightful. Additionally, when everything mentioned plays into the overall plot it becomes extremely easy to guess what is coming. My point to all this? The age of nonessential detail is dead. We don't have time for it, care for it, or want it. Our time has "run out" and as a result so will most of the good things in this world.

The moral of the story? If you can't sit still for three hours at a time other then to sleep, you are retrogressing in age. (I have a class of 4-year old's you would fit right in with.) Now if you just don't enjoy the subject matter or movies period that is completely understandable. But if this is your only complaint, you need to reevaluate the speed of your life.

2. It's all just walking: False! For a film with "journey" in the title, we see relatively few scenes where all the characters are simply walking. In the three hours of film there is only one short montage of walking (meaning it's not a chase scene, conversation is taking place while traveling, or usual movement required in daily life), and it's designed mostly to show off the setting of the film (which is GORGEOUS). Just for reference, Alisa and I watched Elf yesterday and there was a traveling montage almost exactly equal in length with The Hobbits. But IT was in a movie that was an hour and a half which equates to a larger portion of the film, and it doesn't get any flack!!

3. It's to juvenile. I know you are, but what am I!?! Perhaps there is basis for this complaint since The Hobbit was written for a younger audience. Perhaps it's not its juvenile nature people have issues with. I think the issue is its lighter more fanciful tale. There are talking dragons, mountains that fight, dumb trolls that play with their food before they eat it... Moreover, the most gaping absence from this film and The Lord of the Rings is the inescapable impending doom. If the dwarfs fail, it's sad but life goes on. If Frodo or Aragorn had failed the world was pretty much over.

Critics have tried to mislead audiences into believing that one is adult and the other is child fantasy: The Lord of the Rings encompasses survival and adventure whereas The Hobbit is all about wonder, discovery and adventure. They forget the talking trees, singing elves, and magic ring from The Lord of the Rings and the fight to extinction in the Battle of the Five Armies from The Hobbit. Both have elements of the other. Both are spectacular for their own reasons and to diminish one using the other is to commit as gross sin. Don't fall into the trap of thinking dark is adult and light is childish. You just come off looking foolish.

That's not to say that I had no issues with the movie. I, for one, wasn't a fan of the Great Pale Orc (the one hunting down Thorin) big role. I don't mind having him mentioned in a back story, but I did have an issue with making him the main protagonist for what appears to be all three movies. But again that is just my opinion. Many fans out there may have enjoyed it and people unfamiliar with the book probably saw it as completely natural. It's sure as heck not enough to keep me from seeing it again and again ;)

Me on my way to see The Hobbit again!!

_ _ _ _

Yesterday I spent far to much time watching the video blogs that Peter Jackson posted detailing what took place during the production period. I think you'll be amazed at how much attention and work went into these films. Enjoy!!

The Hobbit Blog!

_ _ _ _

All right, I hate to darken a review of such a beautiful movie with something so low, but I just have to get this off my chest. Addressing so many of the criticisms leveled at The Hobbit has made me realize something. Scratch that, a year of writing my own reviews--culminating in this review--has made me realize something. Critics are morons! No, wait. Critics are really big morons. Movie review after movie review has turned that idea into truth for me.

I'm unsure if some of these critics are even capable of reading or if they just have secretaries they pay large sums to jot down their inept drawling non-sense. I read one review from a particularly verbose imbecile that claimed that Tolkien himself couldn't make a plot if his life depended on it. Thus the explanation for the stupidity of critics was provided. Most of them never got past a first grade reading level! Hence why most of them love awkward disjointed films, because then everyone else in the audience is just as confused as they are! So here's my advice to Mr. James Rocchi (pictured below): try reading a book with chapters before you give your opinions on a narrative.

"The plot arc of Dr. Seuss's ABC makes my head hurt!"

Perhaps Mr. Rocchi isn't aware--even though he writes for the publication where I found the information--that the most widely owned book (non-religious text) is... you got it, The Lord of the Rings. Not bad for a guy who "can't make a plot at gun point." It must be jealousy that Tolkien's greatest achievement is literature's greatest achievement. Whereas Mr. Rocchi's best work lines the bottom of bird cages. Where do you find these people!! I'm in utter shock that they are getting paid to write this drivel and worse yet that people actually read it! The saddest part of all this is the fact that I read Mr. Rocchi's review on a website that went on to call Twilight one of the greatest movies of the year!! Are you kidding me!? When did movie reviews start sounding like a conversation from the cheerleader squad at South Valley Middle School!?!

If you ever take my advice, let it be on this: never read the work of someone as foolish as Mr. Rocchi for their opinions. I know "Rotten Tomatoes" is a life line for some of you but let it go! In many cases they fail! And it is EPIC! The world deserves movies critics with a mere bit of intelligence, and we shouldn't accept pod scum in their place.