Share revel8or's profile
revel8or
revel8or's stats
- Review count1
- Helpfulness votes0
- First reviewDecember 15, 2012
- Last reviewDecember 15, 2012
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating4
revel8or's Reviews
Overall rating
4
/
5
Better than good, not the best EVAH
PostedDecember 15, 2012
revel8or
from Hamilton, OH
Age:35 to 44
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:monthly
Dialogue
4
/
5
Special Effects
5
/
5
Art Direction
5
/
5
Acting
4
/
5
Story
5
/
5
Camerawork
4
/
5
The movie starts with a pretension that says, "yeah, we know we've built a blockbuster - and we're happy with ourselves." The beginning of the story stutters around a bit, then gets going once they get on the trail. It could be argued that it needed some back story so we could understand the characters with a depth that does *some* justice to actually reading the book. My wife and I agreed that the story really explodes and stays on track around halfway through, probably an hour in.
The effects are, of course, amazing. This isn't a puppet movie of yesteryear. In 3D along with the mighty resolution of today's CGI, Golem is very creepy. The graphics are so good that you can see corneal abrasions when the light hits his eyes just right...wild stuff, man.
Occasionally, as pointed out by my other half, it seemed that some of the dwarves and Bilbo were different sizes when standing next to Gandalf. I'm didn't notice this, but I have to give this mention.
The 3D was well done for the most part. It didn't leap out of the screen like some of the espionage-for-kids movies. Some of the action was very hard to follow because it was so quick, but I'm not sure it had anything to do with the 3D. It was just too darn fast to follow. I may have to go back and see it in 2D so I can tell if it was the 3D effect causing the blur or not.
After the movie, my wife commented on how the music was the same as the last three movies, as well as the backdrop. It *did* seem like they were walking the same trails on the same mountains as the first three movies, but, again, they *are* in the same Middle Earth. I guess that being in the same location necessitates the need for the same march symphonies. I didn't appreciate the background music as it did seem tired.
The songs that the dwarves sang were good if not really good. I enjoyed them fully. They make me want the soundtrack in spite of the background music.
The acting was good, but not Oscar worthy. For some reason, I expected a little better out of Martin Freeman. He seemed to be trying to remember to be a Hobbit while acting. There just wasn't the blur of reality that leads one into that suspension of disbelief. I think that this could be said of Ian McKellen, too. When compared to The Lord Of The Rings, it just doesn't envelope you like expected.
What made the movie boost from good to great, for me, was the special effects, cinematography, and the art direction. They were all spectacular. If everything else was a bit better, then this could have been an *excellent* movie, but it did fall short in ways that I felt it shouldn't. It didn't quite live up to the hype, especially because the Lord Of The Rings series was so incredible. I think that Peter Jackson was resting on the laurels of his previous successes.
Pros great story, incredible effects
Cons action hard to follow, acting weak
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.