The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review
Almost there and not back again
Full spoiler-free review by Isaac Handelman
The Hobbit rivals and trumps its predecessor Lord of the Rings trilogy in many ways. Its orchestral score is epic, its visuals are sleek and often stunning, its scope is sweeping, its performances are top-notch and it pays plenty of homage to J.R.R. Tolkien’s original work. Yet, through all of this, something seems to be missing. It’s not an integral piece of the puzzle -- nothing that stops The Hobbit from being a riotously entertaining romp through Middle-earth -- but it does lack a certain spark that made Peter Jackson’s original Lord of the Rings trilogy so successful and beloved.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few months or have no preconceptions as to what The Hobbit is, you should know that Peter Jackson (or perhaps his studio heads) have split Tolkien’s original, somewhat short novel into three-separate films, the second and third of which are currently bound to December 2013 and July 2014 releases respectively. An Unexpected Journey, being the first in the trilogy, doesn’t actually get too far in terms of how Tolkien’s book was laid out. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins pledging to retell his grand story to his cousin Frodo (and yes, Elijah Wood has a brief but satisfying cameo). For those who don’t know the story, Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is a hobbit who’s approached by a wizard named Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen) and asked to join a company of dwarves on a quest to slay a dragon called Smaug and take its bounty of gold, which rightfully belongs to the dwarves. I won’t go into specifics as to avoid spoilers, but suffice to say that the film rather fittingly covers roughly a third of the ground of the novel -- and, no surprise here, it does end rather suddenly.
What’s genuinely surprising about An Unexpected Journey isn’t its stumbling points, but instead what it manages to get right. One would assume that a four-hundred page prelude novel split into three films would cause each of the films to move at a torturously slow pace. It’s impossible to judge the other films yet, but at least thus far, Peter Jackson and company have managed to almost entirely avoid this. It takes awhile to get going, but once An Unexpected Journey picks up it rarely slows down, ushering in one fantastic action sequence after another at a sometimes breakneck speed. Of course, a large portion of the film consists of content that’s been added on, or at least has been generously expanded upon, but, with a few annoying exceptions, this content is entertaining and just interesting enough to feel worthwhile, even if some of it doesn’t add much to the overarching narrative. However, when these digressions from the main plot do pop up, they're easy to pinpoint and occasionally just feel like obvious attempts to extend the film's running time.
Most of the basic necessities of an epic Peter Jackson production are entirely intact here, including his trademark knack for awe-inspiring visuals. Putting aside a few odd, plastic-y moments, the CGI is fantastic, and the film contains no shortage of drop-dead-gorgeous crane shots of the vast wilderness of Middle-earth which, when coupled with the film’s rousing orchestral arrangements, are difficult not to marvel at. One particularly mind-blowing scene transpires during the company’s treacherous trek across a narrow mountain path in a thunderstorm. Without spoiling anything, the scene is marvelous, riveting and unlike anything that’s been done in the series before. Despite an amusingly large number of last-minute rescues, the action sequences excel.
But speaking of all this epic action necessitates that I bring up what is perhaps the film’s single most troubling aspect; it attempts to do things that The Hobbit was simply never intended to do. It’s quite obvious that Jackson is hoping for this to be the next Lord of the Rings -- the scope is staggeringly epic, just as its sister trilogy’s was. While Tolkien’s novel served as a precursor to the LOTR trilogy, Jackson’s Hobbit feels more like a straight-up prequel. The stakes have been elevated tremendously from the source material, returning characters from Jackson's original trilogy abound, and while nothing truly comes to fruition, this being the first of its trilogy, it’s apparent that many of the plot threads introduced here will end up tying in directly to Rings lore in later films. That’s not necessarily a bad thing -- it’s just not what The Hobbit is supposed to be. Peter Jackson’s apparent adoration for Tolkien's works seems to have clouded his vision; The Hobbit is supposed to be a short, to-the-point, entertaining standalone fantasy novel. Instead, we the audience are asked to accept it as a fantasy epic that ties directly into Rings. To say that the request is jarring would be putting it lightly.
Many moments within The Hobbit recall the magic of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. More than one scene will send shivers down your spine (with the highlight being the dwarves’ stirring rendition of the Song of the Misty Mountains). Peter Jackson has adapted The Hobbit like so many asked for, but he’s done it in a way that’s entirely different from what many would have expected. Whether that’s good or bad is for you to decide, but there’s no arguing that it’s a departure from the source material. I for one am willing to look past the film’s flaws and be swept up in another of Jackson’s epic trilogy escapades into the engrossing world of Middle-earth. The Hobbit wants you to adore it in the same way you adored The Lord of the Rings, but chances are you’ll be pleasantly entertained and, regardless of your final viewpoint on the film, exit the theater much the same person you were when you went in.
Full spoiler-free review by Isaac Handelman
The Hobbit rivals and trumps its predecessor Lord of the Rings trilogy in many ways. Its orchestral score is epic, its visuals are sleek and often stunning, its scope is sweeping, its performances are top-notch and it pays plenty of homage to J.R.R. Tolkien’s original work. Yet, through all of this, something seems to be missing. It’s not an integral piece of the puzzle -- nothing that stops The Hobbit from being a riotously entertaining romp through Middle-earth -- but it does lack a certain spark that made Peter Jackson’s original Lord of the Rings trilogy so successful and beloved.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few months or have no preconceptions as to what The Hobbit is, you should know that Peter Jackson (or perhaps his studio heads) have split Tolkien’s original, somewhat short novel into three-separate films, the second and third of which are currently bound to December 2013 and July 2014 releases respectively. An Unexpected Journey, being the first in the trilogy, doesn’t actually get too far in terms of how Tolkien’s book was laid out. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins pledging to retell his grand story to his cousin Frodo (and yes, Elijah Wood has a brief but satisfying cameo). For those who don’t know the story, Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is a hobbit who’s approached by a wizard named Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen) and asked to join a company of dwarves on a quest to slay a dragon called Smaug and take its bounty of gold, which rightfully belongs to the dwarves. I won’t go into specifics as to avoid spoilers, but suffice to say that the film rather fittingly covers roughly a third of the ground of the novel -- and, no surprise here, it does end rather suddenly.
What’s genuinely surprising about An Unexpected Journey isn’t its stumbling points, but instead what it manages to get right. One would assume that a four-hundred page prelude novel split into three films would cause each of the films to move at a torturously slow pace. It’s impossible to judge the other films yet, but at least thus far, Peter Jackson and company have managed to almost entirely avoid this. It takes awhile to get going, but once An Unexpected Journey picks up it rarely slows down, ushering in one fantastic action sequence after another at a sometimes breakneck speed. Of course, a large portion of the film consists of content that’s been added on, or at least has been generously expanded upon, but, with a few annoying exceptions, this content is entertaining and just interesting enough to feel worthwhile, even if some of it doesn’t add much to the overarching narrative. However, when these digressions from the main plot do pop up, they're easy to pinpoint and occasionally just feel like obvious attempts to extend the film's running time.
Most of the basic necessities of an epic Peter Jackson production are entirely intact here, including his trademark knack for awe-inspiring visuals. Putting aside a few odd, plastic-y moments, the CGI is fantastic, and the film contains no shortage of drop-dead-gorgeous crane shots of the vast wilderness of Middle-earth which, when coupled with the film’s rousing orchestral arrangements, are difficult not to marvel at. One particularly mind-blowing scene transpires during the company’s treacherous trek across a narrow mountain path in a thunderstorm. Without spoiling anything, the scene is marvelous, riveting and unlike anything that’s been done in the series before. Despite an amusingly large number of last-minute rescues, the action sequences excel.
But speaking of all this epic action necessitates that I bring up what is perhaps the film’s single most troubling aspect; it attempts to do things that The Hobbit was simply never intended to do. It’s quite obvious that Jackson is hoping for this to be the next Lord of the Rings -- the scope is staggeringly epic, just as its sister trilogy’s was. While Tolkien’s novel served as a precursor to the LOTR trilogy, Jackson’s Hobbit feels more like a straight-up prequel. The stakes have been elevated tremendously from the source material, returning characters from Jackson's original trilogy abound, and while nothing truly comes to fruition, this being the first of its trilogy, it’s apparent that many of the plot threads introduced here will end up tying in directly to Rings lore in later films. That’s not necessarily a bad thing -- it’s just not what The Hobbit is supposed to be. Peter Jackson’s apparent adoration for Tolkien's works seems to have clouded his vision; The Hobbit is supposed to be a short, to-the-point, entertaining standalone fantasy novel. Instead, we the audience are asked to accept it as a fantasy epic that ties directly into Rings. To say that the request is jarring would be putting it lightly.
Many moments within The Hobbit recall the magic of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. More than one scene will send shivers down your spine (with the highlight being the dwarves’ stirring rendition of the Song of the Misty Mountains). Peter Jackson has adapted The Hobbit like so many asked for, but he’s done it in a way that’s entirely different from what many would have expected. Whether that’s good or bad is for you to decide, but there’s no arguing that it’s a departure from the source material. I for one am willing to look past the film’s flaws and be swept up in another of Jackson’s epic trilogy escapades into the engrossing world of Middle-earth. The Hobbit wants you to adore it in the same way you adored The Lord of the Rings, but chances are you’ll be pleasantly entertained and, regardless of your final viewpoint on the film, exit the theater much the same person you were when you went in.
Final Score:
7.0/10
“Good”
(Update 12/28/12) Alternate Formats: After seeing the film in 48 frames-per-second and in 3D, I can confirm that neither of these formats add significantly to the experience. No specific moments present themselves as showcases for 3D, and the extra depth the format provides is counter-intuitive, as it makes some characters appear as paper cut-outs. I didn't find the high frame-rate especially detrimental to the experience; during a few scenes that include elaborate fantastical architecture, such as the opening sequence, the proceedings look almost fake and the costumed cast looks silly. For the majority of the film, though, the added frames are neither a major downfall nor a boon of the film. I don't see this format taking charge as a viable option for filmmakers any time soon, but it doesn't ruin The Hobbit.
Comments
Post a Comment