Review: ‘Tolkien’ a capable-enough biopic, but less than riveting |

Review: ‘Tolkien’ a capable-enough biopic, but less than riveting

By virtue of its marketing campaign (and, um, its name), the film ‘Tolkien” suggests that it is a portrait of the formative years of J.R.R. Tolkien, the English author of “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings.”

And while it certainly is a literary coming-of-age story — Nicholas Hoult plays the young J.R.R., or Ronald, as a young man (with Harry Gilby covering his teenage years) — it is also very much a movie about three other young men, or at least Tolkien’s relationship to them.

Those men are Geoffrey Bache Smith, Robert Quilter Gilson and Christopher Wiseman, who with Tolkien called themselves the Tea Club and Barrovian Society (or T.C.B.S.) when the four met as teenage friends at King Edward’s School in Birmingham.

Less than riveting

“Tolkien” is a tale structured, like its subject’s books, around the theme of fellowship. Just don’t expect action and adventure along the lines of the Battle of Helm’s Deep. The movie is a capable and attractive enough biopic, if also less than riveting cinema.

That’s not for lack of trying.

Directed by Dome Karukoski (“Tom of Finland”) from a serviceable screenplay by David Gleeson and Stephen Beresford, the film jumps back and forth between World War I France, where Tolkien served as an officer — before being diagnosed with trench fever and sent home — and the aspiring author’s school days at King Edward’s and Oxford.

Between all the inter-cutting, “Tolkien” leans heavily on a single point: Imagination served as an escape from what Tolkien’s sickly mother calls the “impecunious circumstances” of his youth; his adolescence as an orphan, under the care of a priest (Colm Meaney); and, later, the horrors of war.

Some of the battle scenes are staged as if Karukoski were channeling Peter Jackson: Smoke, fire and enemy combatants resemble hallucinatory dragons and ringwraiths, in Tolkien’s imagination.

These war scenes make for a sturdy framing device for the narrative, but it’s the Oxford scenes that serve as the meat of the movie.

A bit of poetic license

It’s during those passages that “Tolkien” explores the hero’s courtship with his future wife (Lily Collins) and his deepening friendship with the other members of the T.C.B.S., whose meetings are spent in youthful yammering about art, music and poetry, in that plummy British way that will be familiar from similar schoolboy tales.

Although “Tolkien” presents the bond among the T.C.B.S. as brotherly, one relationship, it suggests, was particularly special: that between Tolkien and Anthony Boyle’s doomed poet Geoffrey, whose longing looks in Tolkien’s direction hint of an unrequited romantic attraction.

In the war scenes, Tolkien is shown risking his life in an attempt to find Geoffrey on the front line.

That implication may or may not be a bit of poetic license. Before the film’s release, the late author’s estate released a statement saying that Tolkien’s family members “do not endorse it or its content in any way.” Their reasons are left unstated, and it should be noted that the family had yet to even seen the film.

Still, “Tolkien” is anodyne enough that no one should be terribly upset by it, let alone deeply moved in any other way.

Fox Searchlight Pictures
(From left) Nicholas Hoult as the title character, with Anthony Boyle, Patrick Gibson and Tom Glynn-Carney in “Tolkien.”
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Nicholas Hoult (left) and Lily Collins in “Tolkien.”
Categories: AandE | Movies TV
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.