“A review is never late, nor is it early, it arrives precisely when it means to.”
Pros
Beautiful world of Middle Earth with a promising story. Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Moments of brilliant directing.
Cons
A journey that gets sidetracked by side stories. Too many characters make it difficult to care about any one character. Moments of fuddled directing.
Before I begin this review I have to give myself some nerd cred: Yes, I read The Lord of the Rings series and The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien before seeing these films. Senkyoshi +10 XP. Cool!
In the Winter of 2002, my wife and I decided to check out a film by Peter Jackson called Fellowship of the Ring. I had read The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings Series by J.R.R. Tolkien previously and was interested to see what kind of treatment Jackson would give the story. We were not disappointed. We sat for 2 ½ hours in uncomfortable theater seats, only to be left wanting more. I would gladly have sat there for another 2 ½ hours to continue following Frodo, Sam, and their companions on their journey to destroy the ring. I cared for these characters and their important journey. I loved the world of Middle Earth that Jackson transferred from the pages of Tolkien to the big screen. It was a wonderful story in a beautiful world. Jackson did not disappoint in the next installments of the series: The Two Towers and The Return of the King. I enjoyed these films so much that I was beginning to question Star Wars as my favorite films of all time. Of course, this was during George Lucas's hideous prequels which had, in my opinion, soured the Star Wars Universe. No longer was it In-Lucas-I-trust, but Peter Jackson! My wife enjoyed the movies enough to read The Hobbit, which diverted her from her normal reading genres.
Fast forward ten years to 2012. Production was finishing up for the film The Hobbit and would be released in December to take advantage of the Christmas movie-goers. I was very excited, to say the least. My wife and I made plans to see this presumed masterpiece from Peter Jackson. We once again would be able to delve into the world of Middle Earth and follow characters on an exciting quest. We even introduced our three children to The Lord of The Rings movies in anticipation of sharing this new Hobbit film with them.
The film opened with a quick backstory of the dwarves’ eviction from their kingdom in the Lonely Mountain by the dragon Smaug. We then move to The Shire where Gandalf and the dwarves arrive to plan their journey and employ Bilbo Baggins as their traveling companion and burglar. Martin Freeman was the perfect choice for the Hobbit. He seems to always fit the less-experienced character who is willing to learn and meet the expectations from the leader of the group, such as when he plays Dr. Watson in the Sherlock series. It was comforting to have Gandalf back. He was a bridge from the Lord of the Rings films, and it seemed that Ian McKellen never missed a step. We also meet Thorin Oakenshield, the leader of the dwarves, who would play the group's "Aragorn" -- the leader who would lead his group of travelers to victory and reclaim his kingdom.
The meeting at Bilbo's house was perfectly executed. Peter Jackson had done it again. He had brilliantly taken the words off of the pages of The Hobbit and transformed them into wonderment on the screen. The dwarves were singing and scheming, and everything was unfolding just as I imagined it when reading the novel. I did not understand how this movie could have received such negative reviews from others. Before viewing this film, I had defended the film to naysayers. I explained in my proud nerdiness that it was necessary for Peter Jackson to divide the story into three films because he was integrating parts of Tolkien’s other writings. This was done to flesh out the story and give additional background to characters and events. How could some say that this was not The Hobbit?
And then we left The Shire and things began to fall apart. This journey that should have kept rolling forward became sidetracked by many of Jackson's additions. Instead of being The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, as the book is called, it became The Hobbit, or Are We There Yet? It’s like when you’re on a road trip as a child with your family and someone continually needs to stop at each rest area to use the bathroom. You just want to keep going with the adventure, but other things are holding you back. In the case of The Hobbit, there were needless additions, such as the Necromancer and bird poop face, I mean Radagast the Brown wizard. These were mentioned in the book but not in as much detail. I did not want to spend more time than I had to with Bird Poop Face the Brown who added nothing to the journey. He almost made me feel as awkward as I did when Jar Jar Binks was on the screen in the Star Wars prequels. Not as awkward, but almost. The council at Rivendale also slowed the journey down. Once again, the side story of the Necromancer was brought in and we had to sit through a long discussion about something that did not involve the Dwarves and Bilbo. Please Peter Jackson, get back to the journey! The story is losing focus!
Side Note: I’m kind of hungry right now.
In The Lord of the Rings, there was more happening than in The Hobbit, but Jackson was still able to make smoother transitions from one scene or story arc to the next. I felt he failed to do this in The Hobbit. Was he embellishing too much? The Lord of The Rings films seemed more focused than this jumpy mess.
Side Note: Squirrel!
One side story that is not a large part of the book, but that worked in the film, was the addition of the pale Orc Azog and his desire to hunt down and kill Thorin. Azog has a great screen presence and helps move the story forward instead of slowing it down. I am sure we will see more of Azog leading up to a likely meeting with Thorin in the final battle that will occur in the last movie of the series.
Another character that stole the screen was the Misty Mountain Goblin King. The large, grotesque creature was well animated and entertaining.. They pulled him off very well as a character that was both fun and scary. I felt he had more personality than any of the dwarves.
And finally, the character that everyone was waiting to see: Gollum. The scene where Bilbo and Gollum play a game of riddles was wonderful. Once again, I felt like we were back in the book. Gollum's conversations with himself were humorous and managed perfectly by Andy Serkis. It’s too bad we most likely won’t see any more of Gollum in the final two films.
I was disappointed that Bilbo did not receive enough screen time. Wasn’t the hobbit the main character in Tolkien's book? That’s the feeling I had. I felt the character development of Bilbo was lost among the side stories and the numerous dwarves. I forgot about him too often and needed to see more of his progression. Also, due to the numerous dwarves, I was not able to make a connection with any of them.
Despite all the disappointments of the film, I was still able to enjoy it. This may be in small part to the many beautiful scenes, such as the Rock Monster battle and the final battle with Azog's group while Gandalf and the dwarves were up in the trees. I also loved the eagles as they came to carry the caravan off to safety.
One final note. I saw The Hobbit in 2D in 24 frames per second. Due to this frame rate which is the norm for movies, the sweeping scenes showing the mountains and other locations or action and fast paced scenes were very blurry. I know that some who have seen the movie in 48 frames per second complain that the high frame rate gives the film a fake look or home movie feel. Could it be possible for Jackson to come up with a hybrid film? During fast camera sweeps or action, use the higher frame rate and during upclose scenes with characters, cut down to the lower frame rate.
Even with some minor disappointments, I am excited to see were the next films take us. How will Jackson handle Beorn, the spiders and elves in Mirkwood? And then comes the battle with Smaug the dragon and the final war between the many races for the treasure in the Lonely Mountain. So much to look forward to! I just hope Peter Jackson can focus on the main story and not detract from Bilbo's growth or the dwarves’ journey to reclaim their home.
3.5 out of 5 stars.
 |
| Poop Face! |
Here are a few reactions from members of my family and how they rate The Hobbit.
Tallia, female, age 33: "I enjoyed watching scenes from the book translated onto the screen. It was captivating!" 4 out of 5 stars.
Kenna, female, age 11: "It was awesome! I am glad Frodo was back for a little bit. I like the adventures. I loved the Misty Mountains song by the dwarves." 5 out of 5 stars.
Brennan, male, age 9: "I love it because it was a fun adventure." 5 out of 5 stars
Asher, male, age 6: "I am glad that it has dwarves and a dragon. They will take their home back!" 5 out of 5 stars
