Rating of
3/4
The Best Lord of the Rings Film to Date
JLFM - wrote on 12/15/12
Note: I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in the standard 2-D 24fps format, rather than the 3-D or 48fps format.
You've likely heard of the surprising critical reaction to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit. While the reviews have not been negative, they've been very mixed, and they're certainly not garnering the critical success of the first three films. If the mixed reaction from critics is keeping you from seeing The Hobbit, ignore what they say. The Hobbit tops all three of it's predecessors, and provides an engaging and entertaining experience for Tolkien fans and newcomers.
For those unfamiliar with the plot; here goes. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an adaption of the first 100 pages of J.R.R. Tolkien's book (The Hobbit). Bilbo Baggins, a peaceful and quiet Hobbit has his life changed forever when his house is unexpectedly visited by thirteen dwarves (named Thorin, Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur) and Gandalf the wizard. Baggins is then taken on a journey to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from a dragon named Smaug.
Unlike most, I have not been particularly impressed by the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. I found it to be too slow, too often, and while I still found it recommendable as a whole, it was certainly a bit disappointing after all the hype. Perhaps that's why The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey appealed to me so much: Because my expectations were so low, making my positive opinion of the film a bit *cough* unexpected.
The Hobbit, even with the mixed critical reaction, will not be a hard sell to Tolkien fans. So it matters little whether I hated this film or absolutely adored it; if you enjoyed the previous three films, you'll likely see this one. It will be the Tolkien novices that need convincing.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle here, is the intimidating, neck-aching, bladder-testing 3 hour run time (not to mention commercials and advertisements which run for at least 20-30 minutes). This was also my biggest concern coming in. The original trilogy had more than it's share of slow moments. And one of the critic's biggest complaints about The Hobbit (outside of, perhaps, the 48fps format) is the slowness of the film.
This is surprising to me, as I found The Hobbit to be a very lively experience. The Hobbit does, however, have a few slow bits here and there, but I found The Hobbit to be infinitely faster paced than it's predecessors. The Hobbit does have a lot of padding to it, though. Of course, one would expect this from a film of 3 hours in length adapting only 100 pages of material. But the padding, surprisingly, never really feels like padding. It feels quite natural and fits with the story. The 3 hour run time is still a bit testing (I admit to looking at my watch on several occasions), but this does not make The Hobbit any less engaging.
The tone of The Hobbit, is lighter than of that of the previous films. It's still a relatively dark film, but compared to the previous Lord of the Rings trilogy, it's a bit more light-hearted. As a result, it's also more humorous (don't go expecting belly-laughs though).
And, as one would expect, The Hobbit is visually incredible. Creatures and environment are beautiful, and the cinematography is impeccable, all of which easily tops anything seen previously in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Some fantasy fans that don't have the money to spend right now (or those that are worried by the mixed reviews) will certainly want to wait until The Hobbit comes out on DVD, but I would not recommend this. The visuals are simply outstanding, and you would be doing yourself a favor to see it all on the big screen.
Still, The Hobbit still is missing some key elements from the original trilogy. The characters, for instance, are not nearly as memorable or as loveable as those of the original. Frodo (who actually does appear briefly at the beginning), Sam, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, and the rest are sorely missed. And while some of the characters still remain (such as Gandalf and Gollum among a few others), a majority of the original ensemble is gone. This is a return to middle-earth but not to the original characters.
Still, the new faces hold up relatively well, and while not all thirteen dwarves are quite distinctive, they hold their own much better than one may have anticipated. Of course, a lot of the character's charm comes from the actors behind all the makeup and CGI.
Ian McKellen is as strong as ever as Gandalf, and Martin Freeman does a standout performance as Bilbo Baggins (honestly, he deserves some award recognition, but he's unlikely to get any). Sylvester McCoy has a memorable part as Radagast the Brown, and Richard Armitage as Thorin (the most distinctive of the dwarves) also performs well. And of course, Andy Serkis steals the show as Gollum. Gollum was arguably the best part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that remains true here. It's a shame we don't see him until 2 hours in, though.
The score by Howard Shore is excellent. Familiar and beloved themes return, most notably Concerning Hobbits, and the theme for the ring. The score is perfectly cohesive with the film, and should delight those that enjoyed Shore's work on the other three Lord of the Ring films. If there is a complaint regarding the score, it's the familiarity that so much of Shore's work possesses. At times, it sounds extremely similar to Shore's score for Hugo. At other times, it sounds oddly like John William's score for The Adventures of Tintin.
While the extensive length and weaker characters may be an issue, The Hobbit is still a rousing, entertaining, and visually wonderful film. Fans of the book and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy will find a lot to love. Still, it will be interesting to see if Peter Jackson will be able to squeeze 6 more hours out of only 150 more pages of the book. Seeing the job he did here with The Hobbit, I'm not too concerned.
