The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Director: Garth Jennings

Cast: Martin Freeman, Mos Def, Sam Rockwell, Zooey Deschanel

Have I Seen it Before: I’m fairly sure I had? Although, as  the ending of this version of the story plays out, my memory felt a little fuzzy. That might have more to do with me having read the novel a few times over the years, and that version remains solid in my head.

Did I Like It: At the time of release, a number of sources questioned the casting of Mos Def as Ford Prefect, despite Adams himself saying that Arthur Dent (Freeman) was the only character who needed to be British. I don’t need to guess as to people’s objection to Mos Def, because it’s pretty obvious on the face of it, and I think he’s perfectly cast in the role, channeling a being of pure eccentricities through the film.

The problem is that Prefect is far too truncated in the context of a feature motion picture, so much so that he is delightfully daffy for the film’s opening minutes, and then is relegated to merely a passenger on board the Heart of Gold. It’s a real shame that the film felt the need to find some kind of restrictive structure for itself, and in doing so opted to be a romantic comedy film which could just as easily been titled When Arthur Met Trillian.

I’ve often thought that certain properties are best suited to certain formats. Batman is more at home in a monthly comic book. Star Trek is at its best on hour-long TV. Star Wars reaches its maximum potential in feature-length movies*. Hitchhiker’s is probably better off as either a radio series or in prose. Things are less limiting there.

*And can we be really honest? Only did so in its first two times at bat.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellan, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans

Have I Seen it Before: No. This one Lora and I are sure of. After shrugging our way through The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013), there may have been some desire to catch the final Middle-Earth feature film (especially from Lora, the actual Tolkien fan in the house), but somehow not a lot of followthrough.

Did I Like It: Almost. The run-time is the shortest of any movie Jackson has done since The Frighteners (1996)*. That helps a lot.

However.

Smaug is dispatched in the first reel of this movie. Doesn’t that mean that the story of The Hobbit is done. Sure, Jackson could fill the return to the Shire and the consternation over the fate of the gold under the mountain for forty-five minutes, but shouldn’t we be heading out of the theater before sundown at this point?

I truly have underestimated the man’s ability—nay, pathological need—to pad things out. 

And by the end, things are dispatched with such ruthless speed, I can’t help but wonder if the slightly diminishing returns mandated some changes in the Jackson working style. Evangeline Lilly (little known fact: not played by Liv Tyler) and her love affair with a dwarf is ended with none of the pathos from the LOTR trilogy it was so thoroughly trying to ape.

It’s difficult for me to forgive a fueling sense of nostalgia for a film series I didn’t love to begins with.

Also, which five armies are we talking about here. One, dwarves. Two, men. Three, orcs. Four, elves.

Five… Five? Anyone? Gandalf (McKellan) and a handful of other LOTR characters, who spend the majority of the movie inevitably failing in their goals to forestall something we already know will happen? Bilbo alone (Freeman)? Legolas (Orlando Bloom), who still somehow appears in the film? Are we the viewers—and perhaps, more appropriately, the fans—the fifth army? I can’t readily come up with a more befuddling title for a film, mainly because I’m distracting myself with still shaking my head over this one.

*I’ve now gone two-for-three on referring to The Frighteners in my review of Hobbit films. Maybe it’s time to re-watch The Frighteners…

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Benedict Cumberbatch

Have I Seen it Before: …yes? This is an ongoing debate in my house. We definitely remember going to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in the theater, but I couldn’t honestly say whether my wife and I have ever seen this one.

Did I Like It: Which should tell you something.

Second movies are tricky, especially where the trilogy has any degree of planning. Star Wars - Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) can stand on its own for the most part, but as the years go by, I’m extremely convinced Lucas had no plan as he proceeded, especially for the original trilogy. I might like Back to the Future - Part II (1989) just fine, but plenty of people view it as only part of a movie, and that’s a reasonable criticism to levy.

But when the middle part of the film is only supposed to comprise the middle portion of an entire novel? How can such a film not feel almost entirely of a second act, with the proceedings being nothing more than a cavalcade of incident rushing forth in anticipation of a catharsis that—at least theatrically—wouldn’t come for another year?

For a true analysis of how Jackson attempts to accomplish that, you might just have to wait for my review of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014). There’s some fast dealing here. Fan service pads out the runtime*, forcing Legolas (Orlando Bloom, looking ten years older, despite being sixty years younger, but don’t tell anyone) into a story he didn’t exist in before. We are stuck with a cliffhanger for cliffhangers sake, made all the more strange by…

No. You know what? You will have to wait for my review of The Battle of the Five Armies. How does it feel, Peter Jackson? How does it feel?

*Jackson actually exhibits some restraint with the runtime in this series, as each film clocks in at under three hours, but what happened, man? The Frighteners (1996) was under 2 hours. You have the ability to do this!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Director: Peter Jackson

Cast: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, James Nesbitt

Have I Seen it Before: Yes. At various times in my life, I’ve been dragged to the theater to movies based on Tolkien’s work. I’m usually tired by the end of them, and I end up steadfastly refusing to see the rest of their respective trilogies. Before someone gets unduly bent out of shape, I’ll just say that I did not in any sense grow up with Tolkien’s work, so it didn’t mean much to have the works finally transferred to film. I’m also not a fan of high fantasy, so while the films could be the greatest ever produced, they just aren’t made for me.

Did I Like It: And so it is interesting that with this second trilogy that everyone kind of took my side in their reactions and collectively shrugged. Even my wife, who counts The Lord of the Rings trilogy as among her favorite films has yet to catch the final entry in this newer trilogy. The most obvious explanation for the film’s flaws is that it beggars all understanding that the shorter book is somehow forced to expand itself over an only slightly shorter trilogy than its progenitor. One can easily imagine that the studio was so desperate to recreate the success of the earlier films, even if the process of doing so simply didn’t make sense on its face.

The film is jammed with the same long-form clattering of incidents, trappings of sword and sorcery which launched more than a few D & D games*, and references that I’m certain mean a great deal to some, but next to nothing to me. Every other film in creation, I’m at liberty to be bored if the film stops for long sections of V.O. narration. With these films, I’m expected to ooh and ahh my way for three hours.

Which, I suppose, does make my feelings about these Hobbit films just as controversial as my views on Rings. I think there all of similar quality. Sacrilegious, I know.

But the problems become more fundamental—dare I say, philosophical—than that. I may be a Hobbit at heart. I want to stay in the Shire, and hear people sing songs, and eat dinner, and be left alone to write my books. My ideal version of this story would be obviously much, much shorter.

I get that I may be missing the point, but no level of elaboration, I think, is going to bring me around.

*Where my character would inevitably become inconsolably suicidal, so I could get home earlier.