Having been made to wait what seemed an unfair amount of time between Return of the King and the first part of the Hobbit, having read every tidbit of news from legal delays to the first production blogs, I was as giddy as a seven year old on a Chuckie Cheese birthday when last Friday finally came. So maybe (erm...no, probably) I was a little sensitive and surprised at the myriad of negative reviews, especially considering I was still as content as a dog in a fart factory upon leaving the theater. I've come to a couple of conclusions in light of this: (1) in large, the critics have been swept suddenly with a fierce bout of ADD, and (2) Peter Jackson did not make his movie to suit them.
The one over-arching complaint in the slew of reviews seems to be about the movie's length, about two and a half hours. Since when did this become something to dig at a movie about? We've been getting movies this long fairly regularly since Titanic, and as far as I've noticed people generally don't notice, mind, or perhaps even feel that, at about $12 a ticket, they're getting their money's worth. It is especially ironic since, 'Fellowship' runs at about the same time, and in hindsight that didn't seem to hold too hard against the movie. Granted, the complaint about the movie's run-time seems to stem from the facts that its pace starts slowly, and that PJ has turned one short book into three long movies (something no critic has failed to notice without a certain snide prejudice, as if they're protecting the interests of consumers' wallets.)
To these complaints I ask this: since when is a slower pace inherently bad? And because the pace changes from the beginning of the movie to the end, this must not be by design but by bad film making? It's like every critic forgot they were about to watch a movie and drank a Mountain Dew-Big-Slam Energy-Asshole-Gulp before the movie and had to piss so bad that all muscle power left their brains for bladder and prostate. So you noticed the movie was long, good job. To the critics that were articulate enough to address why the slow-long pace was insufferable, well I'll show you that you are still wrong. Roeper, to whom I felt a certain degree of affection for his valiant defense of Prometheus, has took it upon himself to decry Bilbo as "an annoying fussbudget", as if that is a count against the story (is he at least familiar, if he hasn't read the book?) He also claims, like others, that "most of the dwarves lack distinctive personalities", and yet in his video review as he claims these two glorious and noble, most distinguished observations, the film's clip shown just following his astuteness is one of the best examples of characterization of both Bilbo and one of the dwarves (serving as an indicator for general temperance of dwarves vs. hobbits, "That's my mother's glorybox!) [his review here: Roeper's wrong review]
Secondly, no critic can seem to resist taking a stab at the fact that one book has been turned into three movies, that obviously PJ is over-padding an already short narrative because...well because he's obviously an asshole. To this I ask, have you ever noticed how no matter how short the book is, the film version is always shorter? Huh? Every narrative must suffer the chopping block to some degree when translating to the visual form, and I believe, and not without some certainty, that Jackson knows what kind of rabid fan base he's dealing with. Even though the Hobbit is a short book, it is jam-packed so full of action and memorable sequences in every chapter, not to mention the weight of which the behind-the-scenes action alludes to. To try to cut this down to one movie would not only be insufferable to fans, but it would make a terrible movie. We still have yet to see how this three movie plan pans out; the first movie still has not made it half way through the book yet, so I have no fears of Jackson "padding" the next two. I never thought I'd hear a reviewer complain that nothing is left out from the book. Therefore to the critics that think themselves blessed with the gift foresight, that three movies is far too much, I say shut up and wait on that call.
This must lead one to the conclusion that Jackson has in fact not made these movies in hopes of wowing the critics, but the fans. I should think that obvious. So all I can say is thank you Mr. Jackson. Thank you for giving the fans what they have long been waiting for.
In conclusion, critics are stupid. But here is one who is not: A right review (i.e. someone who can enjoy a movie, give a balanced view, and does not feel the need to pomp themselves up on false notions of demagoguery.)
No comments:
Post a Comment