"The Hobbit" (2012)

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" (2012) Review:

Half way for the Halfling

Prequels: From Star Wars to X Men, they serve one purpose and one purpose only; to extend the franchise beyond it’s natural end. Why? The vast majority of the time it’s because of money. This causes interesting problems such as, why do I care? Or potentially, how are you going to up the anti? These questions have either made prequels decent as they have created compelling reasons to watch a film that you essentially know the ending of, or have made prequels awful. Think “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”(1999). So in walks “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”. The film is this years most ambitious prequel by far as it not only breaks a novel that barely contains enough content for a single film into three films (most likely totaling nine hours), but also pushes the boundaries of technology by increasing the number of frames per second. This film is purely entertainment, yet whether or not it truly achieves this task is another question altogether.
The story is the first part of the tale of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) a hobbit of the shire is recruited by Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) a wizard to travel with a group of twelve displaced dwarfs led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) to reclaim their rightful kingdom under the Lonely Mountain from the grasps of Smaug a dragon. Meanwhile they are hunted by a small army of Orcs (why is obviously not important as the film never really explains why), survive battling mountains, and manage to only make it half way to the Lonely Mountain by the end of this marathon of a film. The films is composed of many smaller parts too such that of Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), a wizard who pops into the film, takes up time, and then leaves. And none of the Lord of the Rings films would be complete without Hugo Weaving, reprising his role as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Andy Serkis as Gollum and Christopher Lee as Saruman.
The plot is obviously scattered, often taking what was a paragraph or passing remark in the book and fleshing it out into a scene that seems almost written to take up time. Though some of these stories are really entertaining and interesting, for the most part they unnecessary and simply make understanding the actual story more difficult to follow. The story’s length is also of concern: as the film is directed at primarily younger audiences, a three hour film where the three hours feel pronounced will not sit well with many family audiences. While the die hard fans may enjoy the smaller touches in the film’s vast story arcs, many children and teens will not.
This being said, if for no other reason than this, see the film for Martin Freeman’s performance. The longtime British character actor fill’s Bilbo’s shoes (well, furry feet) perfectly. With wit and a bit of soul in his character, Freeman held some of the film’s slower moments together; oftentimes instigating a bit of comedy which brought levity to this otherwise dense story. Yet this great performance also comes at a cost; almost every other performance seemed bland and largely interchangeable which did not work in this film’s favor. In large part this was due to the fact that a good deal of the main cast were reprising their roles from the “Lord of the Rings” series. Yet even for the dwarves, not enough time was given to them even to allow the audience to remember any of their names.
Yet do not fear, if acting’s not what you’re seeing “The Hobbit” for well, then you’re still kind of out of luck. The CGI, designed by the famous Weta Workshop who pioneered CGI when “The Return of the King” (2003) was released, was unspectacular. Though much more fluid and elegant looking than it’s predecessors, “The Hobbit” looked significantly more animated than any of the “Lord of the Ring’s” films did. Having a number of gorgeous yet fake looking landscape scenes, the film felt more like George Lucas’ attempt to make “The Hobbit” than Peter Jackson’s. Yet this is not entirely their fault yet is due, largely, to the increased frame rate.
Okay, first, frame rate. That’s how many individual images pass in front of the projector per second. Traditionally that’s twenty four frames per second, a frame rate which is easily interpreted by the human eye. In “The Hobbit,” the frame rate is doubled meaning that 48 frames pass in front of the projector every second; a frame rate for the human eye to adjust to. This was nothing short of distracting for the first half hour and, once my eyes adjusted, added nothing to the film itself aside from giving me a headache by the time I walked out of the theater.
The film’s ending is equally weak, reminiscent of many a film with a sequel to come; a semi-conclusion infused with a ‘road ahead’ energy which after the nearly endless running time felt like a tease and ultimately left the audience with a mixed taste in their mouth.
Ultimately though, this film has a goal (aside from making money) in mind; it desperately wants to show the audience a more beautiful and realistic looking middle earth by way of more CGI, new stories, and new characters. This story however is a hollow shell of the “Lord of the Rings”, so it is unreasonable to expect the eye popping grandeur of the film in a post Avatar world. Perhaps it would have been better to produce the Hobbit in a single solitary film before launching into the “Lord of the Rings” epoch, yet now the moviegoer is left with “The Hobbit” a fun and entertaining story which ultimately doesn’t pack the punch of it’s preeminent predecessor.
Yet it is important to add this caveat; film is, in most circumstances, not about changing the audience’s opinion or winning awards - some films are simply made to entertain. While “The Hobbit” does not always accomplish this, there are more times than not where, as a viewer, it is easy to suspend disbelief and immerse yourself in the world of Middle Earth. Though perhaps not the most epic story, the film is humorous in it’s own small ways, meaningful in somewhat cliche ways, and beautiful as it fully takes the New Zealand landscape to heart. And ultimately, one cannot ask for much when they purchase their 3D ticket in the ways of deep emotional truth, but that’s okay.
Yes, for the die hard fan, this is probably the film for you. However, for a normal filmgoer, be warned. This film is by no means “The Return of The King,” yet rather it is something else. The film is, for the most part, warm; something rarely seen in December films. There are no major deaths, and many minor laughs to be had. Perhaps the title is befitting - it is an unexpected journey.

Stars: 7.5 / 10