RacheltheWriter's contributions

Most movies of that length feel like just too much, like a waste of time. Every scene of The Hobbit is well executed, indeed, is what would normally constitute a blockbuster shot in a regular movie is what happens in every damn scene. Other reviews were pretty searing about the look: namely, the high-def 3D, but I saw this on a regular screen, and the visuals merely enhanced the story rather than overshadow the brilliant performances. The effects in this film are such a joy, which means there are multiple things to love in each shot, and so I understand why the editors were perhaps loathe to leave out several scenes that they definitely would have were purged when The Fellowship of the Ring first came out in theaters. Fellowship was clearly edited to move quickly and introduce people, especially those who had not read the books, to Middle-Earth. Let's face it, though---nowadays, it is difficult to find someone who has not heard of the original film trilogy. Those of us who saw LOTR don't need much of an excuse to entice us back to Hobbiton, to Middle-Earth.

Yes, there are also things that I, as a story-teller, felt could have been tweaked. The Hobbit could have begun with the flashbacks of the fall of the dwarven city, and that would introduce that story before we get to see Hobbiton. Then the scenes there would have been filled with tension rather than just nostalgia. The theme of home-coming and finding a home, the note that the film ends with, could have been seeded earlier on in every story-line. One scene of Gandalf talking about how he came to be a wandering wizard could have accomplished the task. Galadrial could have talked about home to Bilbo----something he and Gollum would definitely find common ground to discuss or fight about. The LOTR films had clarity because the story throughout was clear: it was Frodo-centric. Also, there were three books to draw material from rather than one, slender volume. The Hobbit is burdened solely on a narrative level because of less source materiel, and the story-tellers had to re-create from scratch more often than not. They succeeded---mostly.

It is a film that really deserves to be seen, especially on days like today when real tragedies invade our safe homes, our consciousness. Often, such acts of violence come from a failure of imagination. That is why we need places like Middle-Earth. Maybe we can begin to prevent such things by getting more people to imagine ourselves in other people's shoes, or in this case, boots---bare feet. Strangely enough, it seems to make us more human.

Most movies of that length feel like just too much, like a waste of time. Every scene of The Hobbit is well executed, indeed, is what would normally constitute a blockbuster shot in a regular movie is what happens in every damn scene. Other reviews were pretty searing about the look: namely, the high-def 3D, but I saw this on a regular screen, and the visuals merely enhanced the story rather than overshadow the brilliant performances. The effects in this film are such a joy, which means there are multiple things to love in each shot, and so I understand why the editors were perhaps loathe to leave out several scenes that they definitely would have were purged when The Fellowship of the Ring first came out in theaters. Fellowship was clearly edited to move quickly and introduce people, especially those who had not read the books, to Middle-Earth. Let's face it, though---nowadays, it is difficult to find someone who has not heard of the original film trilogy. Those of us who saw LOTR don't need much of an excuse to entice us back to Hobbiton, to Middle-Earth.

Yes, there are also things that I, as a story-teller, felt could have been tweaked. The Hobbit could have begun with the flashbacks of the fall of the dwarven city, and that would introduce that story before we get to see Hobbiton. Then the scenes there would have been filled with tension rather than just nostalgia. The theme of home-coming and finding a home, the note that the film ends with, could have been seeded earlier on in every story-line. One scene of Gandalf talking about how he came to be a wandering wizard could have accomplished the task. Galadrial could have talked about home to Bilbo----something he and Gollum would definitely find common ground to discuss or fight about. The LOTR films had clarity because the story throughout was clear: it was Frodo-centric. Also, there were three books to draw material from rather than one, slender volume. The Hobbit is burdened solely on a narrative level because of less source materiel, and the story-tellers had to re-create from scratch more often than not. They succeeded---mostly.

It is a film that really deserves to be seen, especially on days like today when real tragedies invade our safe homes, our consciousness. Often, such acts of violence come from a failure of imagination. That is why we need places like Middle-Earth. Maybe we can begin to prevent such things by getting more people to imagine ourselves in other people's shoes, or in this case, boots---bare feet. Strangely enough, it seems to make us more human.