The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey Review

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry bare sandy hole with nothing in it or to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort."

-J.R.R. Tolkien's first lines of "The Hobbit"

Released in 2012 under the returning direction of Peter Jackson on a budget of $180 million with distribution from Warner Bros. Pictures; "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is the first part to Jackson's adaptation of the wildly popular 1937 fantasy novel by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, the same author who wrote "The Lord of the Rings" in 1954-55. Since their publication, the books created a legion of devoted fans and imitators who were enchanted by this world created by Professor Tolkien. Naturally, over the years, there have been adaptations of his works, from British radio dramas, video games, animated shorts and, of course, film. While some are familiar with the 1978 adaptation by Ralph Bakshi, the adaptation that is practically universally known are the ones done by Peter Jackson, a New Zealand filmmaker who came from being a sort of nobody to becoming the biggest name in Hollywood since Steven Spielberg. From 2001 to 2003, Jackson adapted and released three movies all based on the books by Tolkien and the movies were wildly successful, both in the box office and critically, so much so, "The Return of the King" swept the Oscars that year, garnering Jackson with the gold for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Picture. Now, Jackson returns to the silver screen with his newest adaptation based on Tolkien's previous novel, "The Hobbit." The 1977 adaptation by Rankin/Bass is probably the most well known of the adaptations for the book, but Jackson plans to follow the source material closely, by releasing three movies for a 300 page book….wait what?

Plot:

Taking place in the form of a flashback, 60 years before the events of "The Fellowship of the Ring," Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is approached by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and The Company of Dwarves, Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur (Graham McTavish, Ken Scott, Aidan Turner, Dean O'Gorman, Mark Hadlow, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter) and Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). They arrive to recruit Bilbo to be their fourteenth member to journey with them to The Lonely Mountain and help them reclaim their home from the fierce dragon Smaug. Although Bilbo is hesitant, he agrees and joins their quest, But the trail is laden with danger, from bickering trolls to Misty Mountain goblins to Wargs, and that's only the enemies that were actually IN the book. Our heros also face a Pale Orc that has a history with Thorin and his pack of orc-riding Wargs, a Necromancer who wields the sword of the Witch King of Angmar, and the greatest enemy of them all, the run time.

I'm not joking. Yikes, 2 hours and 45 minutes for the running time yet it feels longer than that, which I wouldn't mind that if they didn't include things that weren't in the regional text. Saruman The White (reprised by Christopher Lee) wasn't in the book, neither was Galadriel (reprised by Cate Blanchett) and nowhere in the book do they mention Sauron, Radagast the Brown Wizard (Sylvester McCoy) wasn't in the book (at least to my knowledge) and, of course, this Pale Orc that is dragged in to add drama even though he's never mentioned anywhere in the book or in any of the other books (to my knowledge, maybe he is mentioned somewhere and I just don't know it). Point I'm making is that there is a LOT here that was not in the book and before you ask, in case you couldn't already tell, yes, I have read the book. I love the book. One of the best books I ever read in fact. Tolkien's world is huge and fascinating, and the tale of personal growth and adventure, makes the book fun to read. This movie felt drawn out and overdone. The story is really straightforward, the plot in the movie feels like it's being dragged away at times just to include plot elements that just continue to lengthen the movie.

But for the parts they do include, some are cool. The scene with the rock giants, though not in the book, is seriously cool, the part with Bilbo and the mountain trolls, in the book and pretty damn funny how it's played out with all the trolls bickering amongst themselves. The highlight of the movie: Bilbo and Gollum in the cave, trust me, it's amazingly directed and superbly handled by the actors.

Still, for the things they kept, they do a good job with it, for the things they included, I hope they are resolved quickly before they're drawn out to the point where they become annoying.

Characters:

Martin Freeman: Probably the best actor in this movie. He really knows how to channel Bilbo's nervousness, his panic to situations like trolls throwing him around and the many times he thinks about home and regrets coming on the journey. It's a performance that's funny, but identifiable and perfectly captures the Bilbo Baggins of the book.

Ian McKellen: Still the wise old wizard as before, but I can't help but feel his screen time sort of affects the interest and mystery of Gandalf the Grey we grew to know from The Lord of the Rings. He's not terrible, don't get me wrong, he's dignified and he knows how to grab your interest in a scene, but I felt kinda cheated out that being a powerful wizard that he is, the most magical things he does in the film is leave a marking on Bilbo's door, break a boulder, disappear and reappear whenever it's convenient and light pine cones on fire to use as molotov cocktails. Come on, isn't this the same Gandalf who used his magic to fling Saruman around 60 years from now?

The actors playing The Dwarves: They fit the roles well, though they spend most of the movie killing orcs/goblins or being funny. They have moments of depth, but it feels downplayed since the movie has so many action scenes and comedic moments that the three seem to blend together.

Hugo Weaving: He's here to collect the nice paycheck, next!

Cate Blanchett: Pretty bland sh*t here, least she got her paycheck. Next!

Christopher Lee: It was pretty fun to see him again, but he was also here just to collect the paycheck.

Andy Serkis: For as brief as his role was, DAMN it was so good to see Gollum again. He's such a fascinating character and it was really interesting to see him play the game of riddles, switching from the Smeagol who is more playful and pitiful to the angry and harsh Gollum. The infamous "Riddles in the Dark" was probably the most flawless scene in the movie.

Production:

If anything can be salvaged from this movie, it's Jackson's production team. Naturally, they go above and beyond. The Cinematography is, again, beautiful, but some landscapes look as if Jackson went back to the same locations he used before but he just picked different spots to film it. For example, the open field with all the rocks where the dwarves run away from the Wargs to find the Hidden Valley of the Elves, looks an awful lot like the same field from "The Two Towers" when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli entered Rohan's border. I'm also a little disappointed that the movie took a back seat to using practical effects and models like in the previous films, the majority of the last third of the movie is so CGI heavy, it becomes depressing. The Pale Orc is all CGI yet all the other Orcs are guys in makeup- oh my mistake, they're CGI'd this time around. That's other thing that's disappointing, the makeup. That's not to say it looks terrible, but what disappoints me is that that the movie uses more CGi than makeup. I loved the makeup in the original trilogy, it felt realistic and it immersed you into the movie and it made the action all that more believable and intense. The action in this film felt like an odd combination of intense and humorous, but humor is something I've come to expect from Peter Jackson, considering this is the same guy who made "Brain Dead." The Music is once again, done by Howard Shore, he definitely helps return you into the world of Lord of the Rings and, even though I was initially tired of the "Song of the Misty Mountain" that had been playing in the trailers, the movie continually integrated it into the soundtrack in the form of a motif, just like how the blaring of the horns from the tune "The Bridge of Kazad Dum" is constantly played throughout the movie to incite the feeling of majesty and excitement, which is what Shore does here as well. At times, the soundtrack does get too goofy, but it sticks to what it does best, being awesome when there is intensity.

Bottom Line: Despite my criticisms, this is still a good movie. If you can tolerate the run time, which really should be an hour shorter than it needs to be, than you will still be entertained. The actors play their parts well, some better than others. Martin Freeman's performance was fun, Ian McKellen was good, the actors who played the dwarves did what the script called for them, even though most of them don't have a lot of depth in the book itself. The scenery is impressive, but the movie feels less realistic than the last time we visited the World of Middle-Earth, but in the long run, that's more of a preference than a criticism. The real criticism comes from the length of the movie, which is full of the material from the original book and the rest from material I have no idea where it came from (though I was told it came from Tolkien's posthumous book "Unfinished Tales") but I'm not sure since I haven't read everything by Tolkien. Because of this added material, it just makes the movie feel longer than needed and at times, I thought I was watching the Extended Cut instead of the actual movie itself. As for the 3D, it worked, I didn't think it was necessary but, eh, it worked. If you're wondering if I saw it in 48 Frames Per Second that the movie is being advertised, no, I planned to, but the theaters that were showing it were sold out. Besides, I saw the original Lord of the Rings in glorious 24 fps and I'll see the next one in the same frames. Regardless, I had fun with the movie, is it flawed? Yeah, it's not as majestic as the original LOTR films but we still have two more movies to sit through before I can make a complete criticism to the adaptation on a whole. But in the meantime, I'll stick to the Rankin/Bass adaptation, it seems to have come the closest to the source material while omitting some elements for the sake of narrative.

Final Rating: 3.5/5

Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for the next time we burn through celluloid.