The
Hobbit is basically mandatory viewing for any fans of Lord of the Rings and
probably any fan of fantasy. So far, the
reviews for the Hobbit are not the overwhelmingly positive reviews that the
Lord of the Rings trilogy enjoyed, with some people criticizing its pacing and
the strange effect that is created by filming the movie in 48 frames per
second. I suspect that this movie suffers most from not being Lord of the Rings
and if it had come out before the Lord of the Rings movies it would have been
better received. As it stands, the Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey,as good
as it may be, will be perceived by most as just an inferior sequel.
I’ll
start off by saying, I was probably seeing the entire thing through rose
coloured lenses. I'm too much
of a geek to not be in love with this movie. And I can't really see this movie
as 'inferior', but rather just different. It's not trying to be a dark,
intense apocalyptic tale. It's just a fun adventure. That being
said, I think I understand the criticisms about the length and pacing of the
movie. Think about it, this was supposed
to be one movie originally. No one complained. Except studio executives I guess, who saw
dollar signs and decided to turn the Hobbit, based on one book, into two
movies. Alright, alright, it’s a business they want to double dip. Can’t fault them for that. Then a month later they decided to go for
broke and turn the Hobbit, one children’s book, into an astounding 3 movies
which will probably be about 3 hours each.
"I have to be in how many of these movies? The first one is almost 3 hours long!?" |
That
my friends is gratuitous. The episodic
nature of the books translates to a movie where you almost feel like, they
could have ended it anywhere after the two-hour mark and had the same effect as
it did after 3. After our heroes leave
the Shire they go on one adventure after another until the movie seems to
arbitrarily stop with them looking at their ultimate destination, the Lonely
Mountain. I also got the feeling that
the movie had a lot of trouble getting off the ground. It starts off way slow with old Bilbo, played
by Ian Holm narrating his life story. As
if that's not enough,Elijah Wood as Frodo shows up to add some more padding to
the movie. Knowing that you have almost
3 hours ahead of you you find yourself asking, "Why? Why Elijah Wood? Why a flashback scene? Can we just get to the point? Or do we
need to make sure there is enough material for 3 movies?"
The
slow narration brings us to Martin Freeman, a younger Bilbo Baggins, languidly
smoking a pipe when Ian McKellen shows up as Gandalf. What follows is a long
but rather long but enjoyable introduction of the 13 dwarves, who recruit Bilbo
on their quest to recover their gold from the dragon Smaug. Now here is where I
prefer the Hobbit over the Lord of the Rings.
Despite having so many characters introduced all at once in one scene, I
find most of them to be far more interesting than the characters in Lord of the
Rings. Most of the characters in Lord of
the Rings are these weird, other-worldy, sometimes alienating archetypes. The dwarves who are central to this story
have had their home taken from them by the evil dragon Smaug. To fit into the world we’re told they have
been forced to take jobs as craftsmen and merchants. Something about their lost home really
resonated with me. Still, despite their
tragic history, they can still turn around and party, without seeming impish
and bizarre like the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings. In short, I love the
dwarves.
I
find Martin Freeman's Bilbo to be a more compelling protagonist than
Frodo. He just seems like he's a more decisive character, making choices
based on compassion and a desire for adventure. Frodo seemed to have been
forced on his journey and is constantly overwhelmed, tormented and
broken. That's no fun. I loved the
grim and almost bitter character of Thorin Oakenshield played by Richard
Armitage. And even though the dwarves
are mostly site gags, the scene where they intrude on Bilbo's home manages to
hit a wide range of emotions from the dwarves.
For those who know the story of the Hobbit, it starts off when a company
of dwarves crash Bilbo’s house and start partying, tracking mud all over his
house and eating all of his food.
They’re singing and partying but when their leader Thorin finally shows
up, the scene immediately becomes heavy and reverent. I was enthralled by the
dwarves singing Over the Misty Mountains Cold, a lament over their lost
home. It was kind of touching.
After
that you feel like there are a few slow unnecessary scenes. Where the Hobbit novel is a brisk tale about
Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit movie is a meandering epic about the Hobbit, a bunch
of dwarves, surprise cameos from the other movies and some pot smoking, hippy
wizard named Radagast who rides a sleigh pulled by rabbits (the rabbits must be jacked up on steroids or something). It's not as focused and I think the movie would have had more of a
punch if it was centered on Bilbo rather than 3-4 characters at once. Of
course, if you know who Radagast is (and have his Middle Earth customizable
card game card…which I do), then you may not mind the added detail.
The story does finally take off and when it does, it's a lot of fun. I wondered if the over the top cartoonish action scenes would be off-putting to some. I liked them. To compare this to Lord of the Rings, I would say that although the Hobbit can hit a few dark notes from time to time, overall it’s a funner, lighter adventure than the often morose Lord of the Rings. I can’t write this review without mentioning the fantastic job they did with the Riddles in the Dark chapter from the book which is of course where Bilbo meets Gollum. Again, Andy Serkis is just brilliant as Gollum in a scene that’s funny, scary and sometimes sad. That scene had everything I love most about this movie, namely its ability to hit all those emotional notes without betraying the tone of the story which never strays too far from being a light-hearted adventure.
Concerning
the 48 fps. Well, have you ever been
watching a blu ray, or a movie in the theater and thought to yourself, “Man, I
wish the frame rate was faster!” Of
course not, but clearly the same people who would try and make 3 movies out of
1 book, would also be very interested in introducing a new gimmick to sell
their movies. This is that gimmick that
no one asked for, 48fps! I found the
faster frame rate little strange. It
makes the movie look like it’s being sped up. You would have to see it to get
the full impression, but it is noticeable.
Allegedly, this faster frame rate is supposed to make the 3D effects
easier to swallow. Now I am a person who likes 3D movies when done
properly. This year I saw Men in Black 3
and Prometheus in 3D and thought those movies looked amazing. The main reason is, 3D glasses normally make
a movie look dark, so the movie itself has to be projected brighter than a
normal movie would. For the movies I
just mentioned everything seemed bright enough that you can enjoy the 3D
effects without losing the colour and detail of the picture. I also saw the Amazing Spiderman in 3D and
didn’t think it looked so good at all. Everything was too dark and the
movie ended up looking like crap.
This looked awesome in 3D. |
Whatever
the format, if you’re a fan of fantasy, you’re going to see this movie at some
point. You might need a little bit of
caffeine to carry you through the somewhat bloated 3 hours, but it seems you’ve
already read this review so you are already an expert on ‘bloated’. As a fan of fantasy, seeing orcs battle
dwarves, seeing wizards throw fire balls at wolf monsters, seeing a dragon sleeping
under a mountain of gold made my inner kid go crazy. The
Hobbit is a welcome addition to the world of Middle Earth. It is different
enough in tone and atmosphere to not feel like a tedious repeat of what we've
already seen and fun enough that I will definitely be seeing it again, while I
eagerly await sequels.
4.5
steroid enhanced rabbits out of 5.