In case you don’t read past this first sentence, I’ll get this message out up front: Don’t go see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in HFR3D. (More on what that is and why it sucks in a sec).
The Hobbit takes place 60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings. It follows a group of outcast dwarves on a quest to reclaim their kingdom from a dragon, an adventure that, in the film version of the children’s tale, feels more like it’s really about tying a new trilogy into LOTR. After a lengthy setup, this gang of shorties and wizard Gandalf (played once more by charming old dude Ian McKellen) embark on a hike that frames the events that lead a young Bilbo Baggins (played by the ridiculously likable Martin Freeman, a.k.a. Dr. Watson from the BBC’s Sherlock — which, if you haven’t seen, you should probably just stop reading, skip The Hobbit and marathon immediately on Netflix like your friends have been telling you for months — a.k.a. Tim, the British Office’s much cooler version of the U.S. Office’s goodie-two-shoes Jim) to come to possess that "precious" One Ring.
The plot is a tad simpler than the LOTR trilogy, though it amounts to about the same: three hours of walking. But, then of course there’s that rich and wonderful world of Tolkien that all the fantasy fans go so bonkers for. (And, of course, walking is hella good for you, which could explain why Gandalf looks younger 60 years in the future than he does in The Hobbit.) It also tries harder to be more light-hearted and funny than the LOTR films, though there's still plenty of sword clashing, snarling nightmare beasts, and a decent villain in the form of a one-armed white orc named Azog the Defiler.
So, should you go see it? The answer to this question, trolls, disembowelment and HFR after the jump!
The Hobbit takes place 60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings. It follows a group of outcast dwarves on a quest to reclaim their kingdom from a dragon, an adventure that, in the film version of the children’s tale, feels more like it’s really about tying a new trilogy into LOTR. After a lengthy setup, this gang of shorties and wizard Gandalf (played once more by charming old dude Ian McKellen) embark on a hike that frames the events that lead a young Bilbo Baggins (played by the ridiculously likable Martin Freeman, a.k.a. Dr. Watson from the BBC’s Sherlock — which, if you haven’t seen, you should probably just stop reading, skip The Hobbit and marathon immediately on Netflix like your friends have been telling you for months — a.k.a. Tim, the British Office’s much cooler version of the U.S. Office’s goodie-two-shoes Jim) to come to possess that "precious" One Ring.
The plot is a tad simpler than the LOTR trilogy, though it amounts to about the same: three hours of walking. But, then of course there’s that rich and wonderful world of Tolkien that all the fantasy fans go so bonkers for. (And, of course, walking is hella good for you, which could explain why Gandalf looks younger 60 years in the future than he does in The Hobbit.) It also tries harder to be more light-hearted and funny than the LOTR films, though there's still plenty of sword clashing, snarling nightmare beasts, and a decent villain in the form of a one-armed white orc named Azog the Defiler.
So, should you go see it? The answer to this question, trolls, disembowelment and HFR after the jump!
RSS Feed
