Commentary on news, politics, sports, religion, TV and movies
 Tom Tangney
Tom on KIRO Radio
Join Tom Tangney and the rest of the radio crew every day KIRO Radio.
About Tom Tangney
By day, you can hear Tom on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM, and by night, he sits in the dark, making snide comments about what he sees on the silver screen.
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.

'The Hobbit' might be too much of a good thing

BY Tom Tangney  on December 14, 2012 @ 9:38 am (Updated: 9:11 am - 12/15/12 )

The trilogy of Lord of the Rings films was a commercial and critical bonanza, earning almost $3 billion at the box office and winning a Best Picture Oscar.

Now along comes another planned trilogy, a prequel trilogy as a matter of fact, beginning today with "The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey."

Been there, done that, or as my Tolkien fan friends of mine would prefer me to say, Been There and Back Again. That best sums up my reaction to this fourth three hour installment of J.R.R Tolkein's Middle Earth saga, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."

Unfortunately, there's nothing very "unexpected" in this go-round at all. The wizard Gandalf? Check! The hobbits Bilbo Baggins and Frodo? Check. Lots of dwarfs and elves? Check. And that conniving, desperate, and vulnerable CGI creation Gollum? But of course! Sound familiar? Of course it does.

And that troublesome ring shows up - all slow-motion shiny - just like it does in all those other Ring movies. And yes, there's a quest at the heart of The Hobbit - this time, not a quest for that particular ring but for a restored homeland for the displaced dwarfs.

This quest necessitates countless battles with all manner of evil creatures like goblins and orcs. And indeed these battle scenes are spectacular to behold - again, just like in the original trilogy.

In fact, there are a couple of great set pieces, including a fight between two giants who are quite literally "mountain men," and an elaborate underground world that rivals Hieronymous Bosch or Dante's circles of hell for intricately detailed particulars.

But even the spectacular can get tiresome when it's spectacular in the same way over and over. Given its 2 hour and 46 minute running time, there's plenty of time to do "spectacular" over and over and over. Too much of a good thing is still too much.

Both Tolkein fans and Peter Jackson's Ring Trilogy fans will no doubt gorge themselves on this overkill, the undeniably exuberant excess of The Hobbit. But the rest of us might be better off pushing ourselves away from the Tolkien table before that bloated feeling sets in.

Tom Tangney, KIRO Radio Host
Tom Tangney is co-host of KIRO Radio's Seattle's Morning News and resident enthusiast of...everything. He loves books, movies, TV, art, pop culture, politic, sports, and Husky football.
More Tom Tangney

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (9)


  • Add A Comment

  • Stevebo wrote...
    So Tom you never really say "why" you feel this is a re-hash...
    December 14, 2012 10:47 am
    Sure... you mention the issue with Golem and the ring... and the common characters we saw in the previous movies.

    But you never really say anything about the movie itself - other than to lament that it somehow feels "tired" and "old" to you.

    Was the storyline contrived? Was it bad? Is the story poorly done from the book?

    What exactly about the movie did you not like?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Saltchucker wrote...
    And up next....
    December 14, 2012 11:01 am
    ...the one the TRUE Tolkien fans have been waiting for.....The Silmarillion!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Elliot Outlier wrote...
    Anything worth doing
    December 14, 2012 11:38 am
    is worth over doing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • masterful wrote...
    Just saw it!
    December 14, 2012 11:55 am
    Tom is entitled to his opinion, but respectfully disagree. I had very high expectations for this movie being a masterpiece of filmography, and those expectations were surpassed. It had excellent pacing, and the creative license that they took with the original story was appropriate and worth every minute. The blend of natural background beauty, live action, and CGI was flawless and jaw dropping. This is good story telling at it's my wife and I will see the next installments on opening day also!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • NWGUY wrote...
    It was good
    December 14, 2012 12:20 pm
    But I probably not worth staying up that late for the next go rounds on opening night. (at least for me)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • longwayhome wrote...
    Tom!
    December 14, 2012 7:40 pm
    Not everyone is a movie snob like you! Tolkien fans aside, the visuals are what people want to see. Not everyone is as critical as you when it comes to the cinema. You are the best in your business but sometimes people want to be overwhelmed with the "visual"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • skydogg123 wrote...
    im curious
    December 15, 2012 10:52 am
    did you like the lord of the rings trilogy? what was your review of it back then? im assuming you must have gave that a negative review also. if your reasoning for it was "But even the spectacular can get tiresome", that's just crazy talk. "And that conniving, desperate, and vulnerable CGI creation Gollum?" can't believe someone who i assume loves movies said that. he is in it for 5 minutes, and you made him sound like Jar Jar.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ronzilla wrote...
    The first trilogy was based upon three different books.
    December 15, 2012 4:39 pm
    The Hobbit is simply ONE book, and not a very long one either. Turning it into a trilogy is baffling to me.

    It occurs to me that The Hobbit would have been best served as one comprehensive film. Is Jackson simply GREEDY?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    'The Hobbit': Bilbo Bags Record $85M in U.S. Box Office Debut
    December 17, 2012 9:24 am
    Seems to be a economic and personnel success but the critics don't like that kind of thing....they tend to like the artzie fartzie stuff.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }