Film Review - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Directed by Peter Jackson

There's been a considerable amount of skepticism surrounding The Hobbit movies.  And rightfully so... following up the masterpiece of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, there are pretty high expectations to meet.  Can Jackson successfully bring us back to Middle Earth again?  And why is he shooting it in HFR 3D on digital cameras? Why is a 300 page book being made into 3 films?

Summary: The film, based on the beloved novel The Hobbit written by J.R.R. Tolkien, takes place 60 years prior to The Lord of the Rings trilogy, following Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) as the main character.  Bilbo, a part of a community of homely cheery people called hobbits, lives a quiet life in his home, until a wizard and clan of dwarves visit his home and pique his curiosity when they invite him to join them in an adventure to take back their home from an evil dragon.




*There may be spoilers beyond this point*

Having recently reread the book, which I strongly recommend you read, I was surprised at how well the story included most elements of the book.  However, as is common with adaptations of books, many story elements were added.  Some contributed to the story, and some detracted. I would first like to address the length of the film.  Originally the story of The Hobbit was to be told in two films, however Jackson and Warner Brothers recently extended that to three films.  Many skeptics have wondered how a 300 page book is being made into three movies when 3 much longer books (LOTR) made up a trilogy.  In Jackson's defense I will once again suggest you read the books.  The writing style is very different in the Hobbit when compared to LOTR trilogy.  The Hobbit (novel) is filled with an extensive amount of action and has a pretty quick pace, whereas the LOTR trilogy (novels) is extremely drawn out if not outright boring at parts.  In the end though, I am not a fan of this idea of three movies, two is necessary and adequate, three is not.  As seen in this film, the first 45 minutes are incredibly slow.  The majority of scenes in the film could have been cut down.  All of the character of Radagast could have been cut out, along with other random bits like the mountain giants.  Although many may disagree, I actually liked the addition of the Azog the Desecrator, because it provides for an active villain throughout the story, which is a component that Jackson ran well with in the LOTR trilogy.  I also appreciated a more in-depth backstory on the dwarves and Thorin, which helps you understand why this adventure matters. (An important question to be answered by every film).  The film is filled with scattered nods to the LOTR films (i.e. the opening sequence with Frodo and Bilbo, the ring landing on Bilbo's finger, Gandalf speaking to the moths, etc.)  These were all elements that I did thoroughly appreciate.  However, as a whole, the film felt like an extended director's cut, but with extended scenes that I don't appreciate (as I did with the extended cuts of the LOTR fims).

The movie is more quirky and lighthearted than the LOTR movies, but this is accurate with the book, in fact I would argue to say the movie is overall much darker and more serious than the book.  I didn't like the portrayal of some characters, such as the Goblin King, who was really turned into a mockery rather than a great foe to have defeated. 

The casting was pretty strong, of course we all love Ian McKellen as Gandalf, and the audience when we saw Gollum, our beloved enemy, (played by Andy Serkis) on the screen.  Martin Freeman was a great choice for his role as Bilbo, there are times where he felt a little awkward, but for the most part I really think he portrayed the character well.

I chose to see the film in high frame rate (HFR) 48fps 3D, not because I'm keen on the idea of Hollywood moving over to that format, but because Jackson strongly believed in it, and to capture the entirety of a movie, it is incredibly helpful to view it in the way the director intended it to be viewed.  (As many times as I've watched and loved LOTR in the comfort of my home, there is nothing quite like having seen it in the theaters for the first time).   The HFR was incredibly distracting for about the first 30 minutes, I kept feeling as though I was watching a big budget BBC production.  In some ways it did pull you in more and made things feel more intense, but not necessarily more real.  It didn't feel as cinematic and therefore it didn't feel as real.  It often felt very staged, I felt like the actors were acting... not a good sign when you're watching a film.  The 3D, while incredible at times, was overall a detraction from the story, with so many matte paintings, green-screen filled in backdrops and the like, the 3D really exposed those flat backgrounds and distracted me from the story.  Overall, I was very displeased with both of these elements, along with it all being shot on digital cameras.  I applaud Jackson for taking risks to pioneer new territories of filmmaking, but perhaps such a huge project as the Hobbit was not the right one to try it on.  I do not recommend seeing this film in HFR 3D, not only will it waste your money, it will actually detract from the story and I will be shocked to hear someone else disagree with me on that.

The visual effects were excellent, some of the best, yet perhaps Jackson overdid it a bit.  One thing I loved about what he did with the LOTR trilogy was how well he blended and implemented both practical effects and CGI.  In this film, though, it seemed like he looked for the cheap way out.  None of the locations looked like miniatures, nor were any of the antagonists (goblins, orcs, Azog) played by real people. They were all CGI and it made it feel weaker, glossier, less-than-real.  I read one person compare it to how Lucas overused CGI in the new Star Wars trilogy in comparison to the old one.  While I wouldn't totally agree with that, the argument does have merit.

Now let me take a moment to praise Howard Shore, for composing a compelling score which fought hard to bring the audience back to Middle-Earth.  And being a book filled with singing, the film I felt did a good job of bringing those elements together.


The purpose of this blog is to focus on discussing art from a human perspective, rather than from a cold robotic critics' perspective, so after my very critical analysis I would like to conclude by addressing the heart of the film.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, in the midst of flaws, moments of cheesiness and boredom, carries out many beautiful and heartfelt messages.  What is home?  And what does it mean?  Does it take an upset in our ritual, standards, and traditions, an adventure if you will, that pulls us out of our home and comfort zone to really make us see how special that home is?  That is the essence of the book, I would argue, and I was satisfied to leave the theater feeling that way about the film.  And is it worth sacrificing one's comfort and home in order find and provide comfort and home to another?  Does a man's heart prove himself a man more than his strength?  These are messages the movie portrayed and I can honestly say I thought were well done and spoke to me, as a person who confronts, not the same story, but the same questions and principles in life.