Critics review 'An Unexpected Journey'

Mrs Figg wrote:Awesome. I took part in the survey as well. I noticed you lot put a spin on things by not telling us the largest Group were fans of LOTR and PJ.

Eldorion wrote:Ain't It Cool News, which you may remember from their very excited and positive coverage from the set of The Hobbit, has posted a review as well. To be clear: it's not written by the guy who was on the set.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59869

As the film sprints through its chaotic prologue, narrative coherence takes a backseat to high-definition visual wizardry; it's a bewildering barrage of footage that looks either spectacular or gallingly fake. But then Jackson's virtual camera plunges deep into the fully-digitized Lonely Mountain to reveal the discovery of the Arkenstone, and suddenly the alleged game-changing promise of AVATAR has finally been realized. What's real and what isn't? I haven't a clue, but it looks amazing. This is the future of event filmmaking, and the possibilities for a director of Jackson's talents to explode it are seemingly endless.

But there are kinks to work out. Many, many kinks. So many that I wonder if Jackson wishes he could've delayed shooting AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY another year while they figured out how to eliminate the occasional and terribly distracting undercranked effect of actors zipping around like coked-up Mack Sennett characters. Also, while the clarity can be awe-inspriring, it has a tendency to make the sets look cheap, the armor chintzy, and the makeup barely worthy of an Asylum production. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY in high-frame-rate 3D is a deep, vicious pendulum swing between transporting and flat-out unwatchable - and it's impossible to fully adjust to the format because you never know when it's suddenly going to look like a demo reel.

Would I feel differently had I viewed the film in standard 24fps 3D? Well, jarring tech hiccups aside, I'd still have to contend with the interminable first act, which left me feeling like I was watching the biggest artistic miscalculation from an elite filmmaker since SKIDOO. So probably no.

I don't know if it's a question of shaking off rust, but once Jackson plunges the party into the Misty Mountains, he roars back to life as a filmmaker. Crosscutting between Gandalf and the dwarves battling a never-ending legion of goblins (led by their grotesque, testicle-chinned king) and Bilbo matching wits with a pathetic little fella named Gollum (Andy Serkis and WETA remain the best show in town), Jackson finds a groove and stays in it for the duration. But this is also where you're reminded of the limited emotional resonance of THE HOBBIT. Aside from Bilbo sparing Gollum, there's not much here to spring the waterworks. This is all prelude to the big opera of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. It's a fine story, sure, but this is just the first act of a book that can easily be read in a couple of sittings.

And therein lies the potential problem with the next two movies. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY runs a healthy 160-plus minutes, and more than half of it is filler. Worse, I know goddamn well there's not 320-minutes worth of story left. Not even close. If I felt like Jackson was attacking this book with the all-in bravado he brought to THE LORD OF THE RINGS (and setting up more than Tolkien's book delivers), I'd forgive the bloat. But the listlessness of AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY reminds me of the slow boat to Skull Island in KING KONG. We're adrift. So please, Mr. Jackson, wrap this up, and get the hell out of Middle Earth. This is beginning to feel more like cartography than storytelling.

I was dreading the King Kong comparisons. I could barely watch that movie.

chris63 wrote:Take away the added bits and its not a bad film. Might watch it again in 2d