The Hobbit review *SPOILER ALERT*

Today while at the mall with one of my friends, we randomly decided to go see The Hobbit, since we have both read and enjoyed the book. I am also a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, though I have to admit that I wasn't able to get past half way through the second book. It got to the Frodo part and I gave up. I hate Frodo.

Anyway, I'm going to say it now, that I found the movie to be a huge disappointment. I'm going to cut this post into three sections; pros, cons and neutrals.

I also apologize for not posting anything yesterday. I was stuck at my friend's house up on a mountain because of a sudden snowstorm.

Pros

-The acting was amazing. I loved all the dwarves, especially Fili and Kili. Martin Freeman makes an amazing Bilbo Baggins, and as usual, Ian Mckellan was superb as Gandalf.

-It's funny. I know this isn;t really something that should be included in the pros section, especially for an adventure movie like The Hobbit. But the book was funny in some parts, and I love having the comic relief.

-The singing was beautiful. One of the more famous parts in the book was the song in Bilbo's house. It has the deep, dark tone to it, and was song perfectly. It added the solemn tone that persists throughout the movie, and adds the serious element that is only lightened by the comic relief.

-They got some parts right... These some parts include the flaming pinecones, most of the riddle game (Though it was cut short), the golden buttons flying off of Bilbo's shirt (Though it was at the wrong time), and several other small details that escape my mind at the moment.

-The history. It's not part of the books, but I think that it is one of those few times where I actually appreciate something being added. In the book it's hinted to and explained throughout the book, but they couldn't do that without confusing the viewer in the movie, because they cut it into three parts. The only problem is that they got the history partly wrong... And added a few things that were not supposed to be in it. But it got the general message across and was a good start to the story.

-The graphics and filming. It's a small detail that can easily be overlooked, but the details in the movie surpass those of Lord of the Rings. Not by much, but it was still pretty amazing.


Cons

- It didn't follow the book. This will always be the main complaint of anyone who has read a book and later seen the movie for it. I just don't understand why directors cannot follow the book. It's written out for them already, it's just more work for them to re-work everything. In The Hobbit movie, I would say that half the movie was not from the book. That means that half of what they added could have been from the book, and therefore they probably wouldn't have had to cut the movie into three parts.

- It was cut into three parts. I would understand if the book was as large as one of the Lord of the Rings books, but The Hobbit is at least half the size of one book. There was no reason for them to cut it into three parts. Maybe two, since there is a lot going on and sometimes parts need further explanation to let the viewer know what is going on. But the first part is three hours long. I think they could have put at least half the book into one movie, instead of only a third.

- It nearly put me to sleep in some parts. I would not complain so much about the parts they added if they had made those parts interesting. There was way too much talking, and although there was also plenty of fighting, it was the talking parts that bored me. Oddly enough, these talking parts always seem to happen in Rivendale...

- A lot was taken from The Lord of The Rings movies. I suppose like uncle like nephew? There were two huge parts that mirrored each other; Bilbo/Frodo hanging off a cliff and need to be rescued, and Bilbo/Frodo accidentally falling and having the ring slip onto their finger. I understand the hanging off a cliff part, that's done in just about every adventure movie, but the ring part nearly made me burst out laughing.

-Small details that they got wrong. As long as it leads to the same end, I suppose I can't complain, but I would like to see it mirror the book perfectly. But that's an impossible request, as no director can possible do that, right? I suppose it's their way of having a creative touch.

-The Eagles were called by Gandalf. I wouldn't give this a second thought it I had not read the book. But the movie portrays the Eagles as servants to be called upon when in need. Furthermore, they appear to be simple animals, if larger that average. They show no intelligence or hint of being their on 'people'. In the book they happen upon the fire in the trees and pick up Gandalf and company because they owe him a favour. They drop everyone off and stay to chat. This proves that they are intelligent, but also that they are noble, proud and majestic, with a mind of their own that cannot be called upon like a taxi.

Neutral

-The riddle part was cut short. It's not a big deal, I suppose, especially considering I had expected them to butcher it. There was at least one more riddle each with they cut short, one of which it was my favourite riddle. It was disappointing, but I can't really complain.

- The dwarves didn't have hoods. It sounds stupid to anyone who has no read the book, but they entered the house and were mainly described by the colour of their hood and the silver tassel that hung from it. (Hood means hat, by the way) Thorin was the only one to have a golden tassel, marking him as different from the rest. It also goes to show that tiny details were either overlooked or not important enough to deal with, despite the fact that all it needed was a hat added to each dwarf.

-Thorin nearly died. Once again, I can't complain, since it was pretty bad-ass (Pardon my language). It showed his determination, courage and honour, but also an important part that shows up later in the book; his weakness, which is basically just being weak... He is portrayed almost as a god-like figure, strong, bold, and overall an impressive leader. But he is felled with barely a scratch on his foe. It brings him back down to human (or Dwarf) level and shows that he is mortal, and only a little better than his companions.




That's all I can think of for the moment, but I'm sure I will be able to add more later.