A quick side-note before I begin my review. You may know that "The Hobbit" is the first film ever to be shot using 48 FPS. This means that the picture is supposed to be very clear, have high-definition, and be visually stunning. You may also know that the reaction to this 48 FPS has been very 50-50. Some say it makes the film look incredibly real, others say it gives you a headache. I did not see the film in 48 FPS since the nearest theater to support it is in Tampa, thus you will see no mention of it after this paragraph.
For many fans of the epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, many feared that the chance of Tolkien's prequel, "The Hobbit," becoming a film was slowly decreasing with time. The film had been put into production a few different times only to be cancelled. At one point in time, the film even had director Guillermo Del Toro set to tackle the film, but he too backed out due to scheduling conflict. But finally fans got what they wanted, probably even more in fact. In 2010, it was announced the Peter Jackson would be returning to direct the two-part "Hobbit" film (a few months ago it was announced that "Hobbit" would be made into a trilogy). Now, nine years after the final LOTR film, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has finally made it to the silver screen, but can Jackson recreate the wonderful,
beautiful, and epic scope of the original trilogy?
Those who have read the books (and you will certainly not be lost if you have not done so) know that the events of "The Hobbit" take place 60 years prior to the LOTR films. It is before Sauron has risen back to power, before Middle Earth is plunged into war, and before Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) has acquired the Ring of Power. Bilbo has not gone off on any adventures and he is in no mood to do so.
But when the day comes when Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) stands outside his door, Bilbo is thrust into a dangerous quest with thirteen dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The dwarves seek to reclaim their home that rests inside the Lonely Mountain (which I swear looks just like the Paramount Pictures mountain) from the powerful dragon, Smaug. On this quest Bilbo will face trolls, goblins, and a certain familiar face whose every few words are "My precious" and he will travel through beautiful elven cities and vast mountain ruins, but by the end of his journey he will never be the same.
Now the first thing that everyone is going to do is compare this film to the LOTR films, which is not entirely fair. Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" to be a kid's book, therefore is does not have the same amount of darkness and intensity that the previous trilogy was heavy on. Instead, "The Hobbit" is more whimsical and even humorous. Many of the dwarves provide comic relief throughout and even some of the more menacing creatures such as the trolls and Gollum (Andy Serkis) will make the audience laugh. Plus, believe it or not, there are actually several songs placed throughout the film.
However, while Tolkien may have written "The Hobbit" for a younger audience, this film is still full of sword slinging and decapitations. The film as a whole may be for light-hearted, but there are still a few intense scenes that are not for young viewers. So is it fair to compare "Hobbit" to LOTR? I suppose so, although "The Hobbit" will never be able to have the same epic feel to it that LOTR has, there are some things that this new film improves on.
One of these improvements is the CGI...in a way. The special effects were both an upside and downside to this movie. On the good side, the imagery and CGI landscapes were absolutely stunning. The beginning of the film shows us the inside of The Lonely Mountain where the dwarf king once lived before Smaug destroyed it. The city inside the mountain is a wonderful creation, and so is the elven city of Rivendell. The downside to the CGI is that every creature was created by it. In the LOTR films, the Goblins, Orcs, etc. that were close to the camera were played by actors and extras with costumes and make-up. In "The Hobbit," they are all CGI and while a few of the characters look good, most look really bad.
Of course the action and landscapes would be nothing much without the actors leading the way, and Ian McKellen shines once again as the gentle yet powerful Gandalf. McKellen fills the film with many more wise words and profound encouragements, but what is even more exciting is that you probably get to see him fight more in "The Hobbit" than in any of the past three films combined. It was also fun to see Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee back in their familiar roles. And of course Andy Serkis can add another successful performance to his list of motion-capture roles. His younger and much happier Gollum helps create one of the best scenes in the film.
But what about Martin Freeman? The man that has been chosen to play the main character, Bilbo Baggins? Well, to be honest, near the end of the film I leaned over to the person with me and asked, "Is it me or has Bilbo barely spoken at all in the last two and a half hours?" The person next to me was thinking the same thing. There are a lot of good moments with Bilbo in the very beginning and the very end (plus his scene with Gollum) and in those scenes I feel like Freeman does very well with the character. But overall I do not think I got enough of the character to really judge his performance, but I have two more films to do that.
After nine years, I was very excited to jump back into Middle Earth, especially since I had never gotten the chance to see any of the LOTR films in the theater. The action is great, the story is exciting, the characters are lovable, and the magical world is created by mostly successful CGI. I for one cannot wait to see "The Hobbit" again and I eagerly anticipate the sequel next year. I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has a running time of two hours and fifty minutes and is rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence and frightening images.
