The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Glitzy Special Effects? Check.3D Technology? Check.Middle-earth people from the shire and other fugly folks? Check.Long beards and pointy hats? Che... read more

Glitzy Special Effects? Check.

3D Technology? Check.

Middle-earth people from the shire and other fugly folks? Check.

Long beards and pointy hats? Check.

Role-playing by Andy Serkis? Check.

Early 20th Century Fantasy-Adventure-Epic saga by JRR Tolkien? Check.

A multidimensional story? Check.

In case you were wondering whether The Hobbit is introducing something very new and unheard of, there. I listed out the broad themes of the film, and as you can see, all of it has already been attempted in Hollywood in good measures. The problem with the Hobbit is that expectations were sky high, and it turned out to be just another fantasy flick. The way it was being promoted - with all of New Zealand gushing with pride as if their GDP depended on it, I had imagined it to be quite grandiose, probably surpassing LOTR. However, the movie is based on a shorter novel written by JRR Tolkien which is being stretched at its seams to create 3 films where one would have necessarily sufficed.

The movie suffers from a one-dimensional story, which when compared to LOTR with its multitude of characters and a fantastic premise falls flat. Add to it the fact that LOTR was introducing an entirely new franchise: now we already know everything about Hobbits, dwarves, orcs, elves and goblins, thus lessening their charm. It would have certainly been percieved much better had it been released before LOTR. The film deals with Bilbo Baggins' (the guy who disappears at the starting of the first LOTR movie) journey towards the Lonely mountain along with a motley bunch of dwarves, who wish to reclaim their land. Although Bilbo is supposed to be the central character, I felt that other characters towered over him, and it might have been more aptly named as Gandalf the great or Thorin the Terrible. Bilbo appears to be lost throughout, undecisive and scared.

The special effects, the sets and the cinematography are truly breathtaking, but since I had already seen a greater film, I felt it was beautiful, but not WOW. Cate Blanchett is in a 5 minute role, and Andy Serkis reprises as Gollum for Ten minutes. 3D is certainly not for 3 hours of use, and I was relieved when I could take the glasses off at the end.

The Hobbit is one film which will make you go Hawwww, not because of cinematic delight but due to the sheer length. Peter Jackson uses a lot of his imagination, skill and budget but ends up simply reinventing the wheel.

view less

A little known kiwi filmmaker known primarily for his whimsical horror films pulled the rug from under Harry Potter's much hyped cinematic debut i... read more

A little known kiwi filmmaker known primarily for his whimsical horror films pulled the rug from under Harry Potter's much hyped cinematic debut in 2001 and gave us the first part of J.R.R. Tolkien's much beloved 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, the rest they say is history. Now eleven years later, Jackson brings us back to Middle-Earth at a stage before the LOTR trilogy, some things remain the same, some things change.

Like in LOTR it all starts with a memoir of his journeys being written by an old but pre-LOTR Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holms) and the narrative then shifts to sixty years earlier where a younger Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is shaken out of the comfort of his home in the shire by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) the wizard and gets embroiled in a quest to reclaim the once prosperous dwarfish kingdom at the base of the lonely mountain. At the base of the mountain lie cravens filled with gold guarded by a fierce fire breathing dragon called Smaug. Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) along with Gandalf leads his band of dwarves and Biblo on a perilous journey across Middle-Earth to reclaim what he rightfully believes is his by birth. Along the way the party encounter trolls, wargs (large wolves), goblins, orcs and Bilbo comes in contact with a foe familiar to LOTR fans, Gollum (Andy Serkis) to play a 'game of riddles' for his “precious”. The movie being the first in a trilogy runs its course, teasing at what will come next.

Nostalgia plays a strong part in 'The Hobbit' and Peter Jackson exploits it to the hilt, everything about the movie from the sets to the costumes to the background score makes you feel like you never left Middle-Earth. However if you observe closely everything is far more polished and why not considering the technological advances since the trilogy over the past decade. The movie however lacks a definite central antagonist despite the presence of at least three different characters, this is something 'Fellowship of the Ring (FOTR)' being the first also of a trilogy set up really well. Also the sense of imminent danger isn't quite as heavy as FOTR. A point being the group escaping a cave full of goblins much like their flight from the mines of Moria, but the sense of excitement pales in comparison to the former.

Gollum looks even more lifelike in this new avatar and Andy Serkis has him down to a pat. His scenes with Bilbo are quite the highlight of the film, though certain changes have been made from the prologue of 'FOTR' as to exactly how Bilbo gets his hands on the ring before playing the game with Gollum.

The prologue sequence with the attack on the lonely mountain by Smaug is easily the highlight along with a small sequence on the dwarfish attack to reclaim Moria. The rest though competently done aren't quite at the same level as the ones in FOTR. Balrog anyone? Still the pace never slackens in the movie despite its huge running length.

Armitage makes for a fine heroic central character with a deeply tortured past and I actually did root for him. Characterisation of the rest of the dwarves is sketchy at best and hopefully the coming parts will do them justice. Martin Freeman is quite good as Bilbo captures his characteristics perfectly. Ian McKellen is just as good as Gandalf and so are Ian Holms, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett in returning roles.

'The Hobbit' is a fine piece of filmmaking which could have done without the 3D. LOTR fans will enjoy it and so will newcomers, just need to have a bit of patience. Now I wait for the Director's Extended Cut to arrive on home video and of course for the sequel out at the end of next year.

view less

  There is nothing more precious to me in the movie world than the Lord of the Rings movies. I have read the books multiple times over the yea... read more

 

There is nothing more precious to me in the movie world than the Lord of the Rings movies. I have read the books multiple times over the years. I have seen the films at least 400 times (not exaggerating, probably underestimating it). It's safe to say that these three films are my favorite films of all time. It's the reason why I watch movies; it's the reason why I irrevocably fell in love with them. I was thirteen when I saw the first film, I literally pointed at the screen and said “THAT”. Love at first sight and sound.

I was highly anticipating the film version of The Hobbit. It is a perfectly enjoyable book about Bilbo, a young Hobbit who has never had any adventures or done anything unexpected. The journey with 13 dwarves (led by Thorin) and a wizard, Gandalf the grey, to the Lonely Mountain to confront the dragon Smaug is an immensely fascinating adventure bursting with childlike wonder. I was wary of the decision to split the book into three movies but I had faith. I believed in the filmmaker who made me believe in the movies. To know your state of fandom, try naming all 13 dwarves in the same breath, if you can, you'll be able to grasp the failure of this film in the same amount of time.

Alas, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a big bloated bore. There is literally a section of the book, which would be 20-odd pages that is stretched into an hour. Film adaptation of a novel essentially means taking a large source material and filtering it. Deletion, not addition is the key. There is a reason why a 1000 page novel was split into three films and it worked. Even then, Jackson had omitted various episodes to make it into a film. The Hobbit runs more like a TV mini-series than a film. It should have been titled “A Trip to Middle-Earth”. Imagine watching a 10 minute sequence on Tom Bombadil, there was a reason why this character was excluded from the Rings films. He wasn't even there in the extended versions which also don't feel as bloated as this. Jackson includes a flashsomething with Radagast the Brown which is so terrible it smells of the gaudy stench of the Star Wars prequels. Jar Jar Binks et al.

Don't be mistaken. I'm not one of those people who want the films to be exactly like the books. In fact, a film needs to stand on its own. Find its own voice. Change it but don't shortchange it. Don't try to become the author by re-writing it. By including various episodes from the appendices, which don't exist in the novel, Jackson is basically telling another story. That being said, I also don't want to see Frodo or Saruman or Galadriel, I want to see Bilbo. I don't want to hear the themes from Lord of the Rings. I want to hear the music of The Hobbit. Howard Shore rehashes the music from the previous films and does nothing original with it (barring the Song of the Lonely Mountain). I want passion to be the reason behind the films, not money. I don't want to watch The Hobbit as a franchise. I want it to be one good film.

In the human anatomy, the appendix is an organ without any known use that can become inflamed. This is the perfect analogy for this film. The appendix is removed from the body for a reason.

The only saving grace is the final hour of the film. The first two hours are a two-star film. This final hour is a three and half star one. Does it cover up for the mess before? Yes and no. “Riddles in the Dark” happens to be one of the finest pieces of writing in Tolkien's cannon. The source itself reeks of literary brilliance. Obviously this segment of Bilbo and Gollum's confrontation could not be messed up by any filmmaker, however he does it. From then on till the end, the film captures the thrill and magnificence of Jackson's talent. Thorin also gives a hug to Bilbo, softening up to him.

I'm sure I'll soften up to this film. Being a fan, I still do recommend you watch it. I'm sure I will watch it again and not find it “that bad”, enjoy it more. But I don't want "not that bad". I want great, at least very good. Not take pity over it and find something enjoyable just because I'm a fan of the Tolkien universe. Mr. Peter Jackson, in your misguided quest of pleasing Tolkien purists, you have broken my heart into 3 pieces. You placed the first piece in front of me and I didn't like what you did with it. I wish you mend it. At least make the pain lesser, bring it back to two films. As Bilbo says "I do believe the worst is behind us", I will surely watch the next two with anticipation and I will hope it gets better but for now, I'm deeply saddened.

view less

Frodo was an inquisitive young man who grew up listening to his uncle's adventure stories. All it took was a little prod to get him going on his jo... read more

Frodo was an inquisitive young man who grew up listening to his uncle's adventure stories. All it took was a little prod to get him going on his journey. Bilbo, though, has grown overly fond of his Mother's china and the comfort of his home. The arrival of Gandalf was probably the best thing that ever happened to him. I understand his need to take some time to make up his mind but eating up close to an 45 minutes of runtime is a little too much.

One of the biggest problems with the movie is its lack of enough new, memorable characters. The film received loudest cheers when Serkis' Gollum appeared. The weight of taking the story forward fell on Martin Freeman's Bilbo, who did whatever he could to give us someone to champion. Since he got no help from his dwarf friends, the effects were not entirely satisfactory. I had read how the dwarves lacked personality and that is very true. The ones I remember right now are Thorin, Kili, the one who wore a Russian fur cap and the sagely old dwarf. The others are largely forgettable. There are some six who I don't remember seeing even after looking at their character posters. And what's the deal with Radagast the Grey? I seriously don't know what happened there. His entire part contributed to further bloat the movie.

There's this scene in a cave between Bilbo and Gollum where he comes to possess the Ring dropped by the latter. Ultimately, after a fantastically staged riddle session, Bilbo is faced with the dilemma of whether to spare Gollum's life or not. In that instant, I couldn't help but look at the bigger picture. About how that particular scene goes on to play such a critical role in history of middle earth, forever altering the course of lives of so many. In a surprisingly touching moment, with a close up on Gollum's faces, Bilbo's decision to spare him echoed Gandalf words: "Courage is not about knowing when to take a life... but when to spare one!” I don't think I will ever find myself even remotely in a position where I'd need that bit of wisdom, but its these lines about compassion, friendship and other qualities that made those three films so damn special.

I was very late to catching up with the Lord of the Rings movies, but even when I did, I had not seen anything like it. I still haven't seen anything like it. Structure-wise, The Hobbit appears to be similar to them. It's hard to look at this movie and not compare it with those earlier ones. It has its share of big action set pieces in the final act but still gives the impression that it is working on a much smaller scale. Like it is playing out to those little kids in the Shire Bilbo tells his stories to, and easily scares with a sudden "puff!". We have already witnessed battles of indescribable magnitude. This feels like a severely watered-down version of middle earth. But after lifting the weight of its unarguably superior sequels off its chest, The Hobbit is an adequately entertaining adventure film.

On the whole, The Hobbit is definitely a bloated entry which could have benefited from Del Toro's vision. It doesn't move any mountains (pun honestly unintended), but injects tiny doses of nostalgia at regular intervals. I am hardly dying to see the next two entries, and to be honest, I wasn't very high on watching this film even before the not-so-impressed reviews started appearing. The Hobbit is a very good Narnia movie. I had fun.

view less

There is no comparison to the cinematic achievement that the LOTR saga was- nothing nine years hence has even come close to the feat the three movi... read more

There is no comparison to the cinematic achievement that the LOTR saga was- nothing nine years hence has even come close to the feat the three movies were in terms of storytelling on celluloid. Unfortunately, Peter jacksons The Hobit competes with the directors own previous work with Tolkein's work and falls a tad short of expectations. At two hours 40 minutes, The Hobit an unexpected journey is over drawn, in need of some serious trimming. \r"\r"Bilbo Baggins is asked to join in a band of 13 dwarves by Gandalf, on an adventure to reclaim the Dwarf kingdom from a fire breating dragon. On the way, Bilbo also finds The One Ring and meets Gollum. And then there are the fights with Goblins, Orcs and a pitstop at Rivendale to say a hi to the elves. Only glitch, all of this happens at an excruciatingly slow pace that is a test of patience for the first one and half hours of the movie. \r"\r"A lot has been said about Jackson milking a 300 page prequel to the LOTR into a trilogy unnecessary- if LOTR was a whole thundering typhoon in a nut shell, The Hobit one seems like a chewing gum chewed beyond its limit- one cannot but agree all of it was right. The Hobit suffers immensely from pacing problems, with a dreary first half introducing how Bilbo decided to join in the adventure. The film picks pace and things start to happen once the journey actually begins, and form then on however, it is one spectacular moment after another in mindblowing 3D. \r"\r"Like the LOTR series, this one too has some stupendous use of CGI, live action filming and motion capture technology. The fight sequences towards the end raise the spirits, Gollums entry is my favorite part of the movie, there has not been a more interesting character made on screen than the split personality Gollum in recent times. \r"\r"The Hobit also is the first in the series to be in 3D- used to such amazing effect one wishes the LOTR could come back with the third dimension. Stones come hurling into your face, fire from the dragons mouth singes your face, or humming birds fly out of the screen on to you in the enchanted forests- The Hobit is best viewed in 3D (no theatre is showing the HFR version anyways here).\r"\r"The Hobit also boasts of some fine acting, something the LOTR couldnt affor owing to the immense amount of story telling it needed to do. At the same time, there is so little happening in the movie for most part, one starts wondering why Gandalf did not fly the entire team on his Eagles in the first place and save us a lot of time.\r"\r"While the Fellowship of the Ring had a sense of awe at watching the world of Middle earth unfold for the first time, The Hobit has the disadvantage of the audience already knowing what to expect. Ha the film ditched the almost 50 minute long introduction and plunged directly into the action thereafter, The Hobit would have been an unparalleled accomplishment. \r"\r"As things stand now, die hard fans can only wait with bated breath with the last image of the dragon in their minds. Those who do not follow middle earth and its shenanigans, count the sheep till interval and brace yourself for a visual roller coaster thereafter. view less