Movie Review: “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” (2012)

Kudos to my daughter for suggesting we go tonight …

No spoilers! (Well, at least not until the comments.)

So, years after Peter Jackson’s masterful Lord of the Rings trilogy, he comes out with the first of a movie trilogy from Tolkien’s much shorter work, The Hobbit. And what do I think?

I think I wish he’d made six LotR movies.

The Hobbit is long, yes, at 169 minutes — but I never found my attention flagging. As we got to what seemed like the natural endpoint (it was), I wasn’t eager for it to wrap up.  I was ready to head off to the next scene.

Jackson adheres to the story admirably.  Where he adds stuff in (as inspired by Tolkien’s LotR Appendices and other notes, in most cases), it fits quite naturally.  Indeed, he does much of what I think Tolkien would have done with the larger plot, had he been writing The Hobbit for the same audience as (and subsequent to) the LotR.  It’s not just a fairy tale about dwarves (+hobbit) heading through dangers on their way to the Lonely Mountain, but also about the rising darkness in Mirkwood, competing interests in the treasures of the Lonely Mountain, and who might be gunning after Thorin Oakenshield (& Co.) and why.

Casting

Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo. It occurred to me mid-way that while Elijah Woods’ Frodo is characterized by that pained innocent look, Freeman’s Bilbo is characterized by that confused/bemused look, never quite certain what to say or do next in the face of some outrage, threat, or insult.

Jackson is crafting nice character arc for him, too — arguably a bit too forced in places, but reasonable for this trilogy — in terms of both his relationship with the dwarves and his own growth as an adult.

Ian McKellen steps right back into the shoes of Gandalf — notably less robust and more hoarse, but unquestionably our Grey Wizard.

Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield (and, oh, what an origin tale he gets) does a marvelous job as the proud, passionate, embittered heir of a refugee kingdom, deserted by allies and kinfolk, desperate to return his people to their past glory.

Armitage, though, points out one creative decision that Jackson made that I find grating.  The dwarves are — may of them, at least — too human-looking. Doubtless for purposes of both differentiation and action purposes, the dwarves are less compact, bearded bullet-shaped warriors, as Gimli was in LotR, and instead more like short humans (though not quite as short as hobbits).  I understand it, but it still feels off.

It’s difficult-to-impossible to keep a flock of dwarves like this different and distinctive.  Jackson and the actors give it a good old college try, though, with distinctive looks and often distinctive personalities and schtick. It doesn’t quite work (quick, which one was Gloin, the father of Gimli), but at least there’s the sense that these guys are all individuals.

There are a few unexpected stars (well, unexpected to me) who show up — and fit in perfectly.

Humor

While pulling in a lot of the more epic aspects of Middle Earth, as well as the fundamental drama of Thorin & Co.’s situation, the movie still maintains a higher level of humor that ties it to the original book in many ways. The goblins of Goblin Town — the Goblin King (Barry Humphries) in particular — are amusing to look at and to hear (even while being a serious menace). The “unexpected party” remains as humorous (and moving) as in the original as well.

Sylvester McCoy’s Radagast is another good example — two parts cartoon character, one part deadly serious narrator of the rising menace of Dol Guldur.  It’s a blend that shows up multiple times in the movie, and Jackson generally pulls it off well.

Battles

The original book was mostly about the Dwarves + Hobbit creeping through the countryside and getting periodically waylayed, captured, rescued by Gandalf, and running for their lives.  That’s not terribly heroic, so in the movie the Dwarves + Hobbit get into numerous melees, against nearly all threats. They still get captured, rescued by Gandalf, and run for their lives, but when cornered they fight pretty fiercely.

That’s more heroic, perhaps, and it was all delightful spectacle, but sometimes it felt a bit too much.  There are really four major melee scenes I can think of right now (plus one in flashback), which is four (plus one) more than the book actually had.  Not to say that they get repetitive (though, with the number of protagonists in the party, it becomes difficult to distinguish them, except for Gandalf who has a pointy hat and one of the dwarves who uses a bow), but it begins to feel a bit padded.

Scenery

Here’s a shocker: both the real and the virtual scenery are stunningly beautiful.

There are, perhaps, fewer sweeping helicopter shots across lovely landscapes which our heroes are traversing than in LotR, but the trademark shots feel like an old friend.  The “creative” stuff, though, is even better — Rivendell (slightly less leaf-blown than 60 years later in LotR), Goblin Town (which gave Margie LotRO flashbacks), Lake Town, and, most gorgeously, Erebor itself, inside and out.  It puts Moria to shame, in many ways.

Music

LotR eschewed much of Tolkien’s poetry/music, but The Hobbit embraces it.  Well, to a degree. The dwarves singing “Far Over Misty Mountains Cold” is damned stirring (and serves as the motif for much of the Howard Shore soundtrack). We also get the “That’s What Bilbo Baggins Hates” tune. On the other hand, we don’t get the Rivendell elves singing “Tra-la-la-lally” or the orcs chanting the “Fifteen Birds” tune.

I still appreciate the music from the Rankin-Bass production, but this was all pretty darned good.

Deviations

I’ve mentioned the battle bits, and this particular comes into play in the “Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire” scene, changing much of the action and tone of that scene (though for the purpose of furthering some of Thorin’s subplots).

There’s some very odd gratuitous CG bits (hardly story) in the Misty Mountains.

The elf/dwarf conflict gets played up a fair amount in the movie, certainly more than in the book (or this section of the book). It’s to good effect, though, both laying the groundwork for later movie confrontations as well as upping the dramatic tension.

Much of the Thorin backstory-conflict-plotline is new here. I think it works well for a broader, lengthier plotline (it’s just the sort of thing that would be cut for a single movie), and it has an epic feel that would work well with Tolkien’s creation, and it even pulls in a LotR setpiece that made me smile. It also feels like, for various reasons, some of the visual aspects of it date back to  Guillermo del Toro’s involvement in the project.

While the dialog in the Troll scene is … quite a bit different, it has one of the best renditions of the resolution I’ve seen.

Net-net — the variations from the original are no more substantially greater than those in LotR.

CG

The CG was all very well done, though nothing felt particularly breathtakingly different or better than LotR.  Except …

Gollum, who was already an incredible character, is rendered even better here. Simply incredible. And the whole “Riddles in the Dark” sequence is beautifully done (except they left off a verse or two of the Time riddle).

Et cetera

We get a Wilhelm Scream. Of course.

Tolkien writes of the dwarves in an epic / myth / fairy tale sense — golden halls, exiled, king returning to claim his throne. The movie gives us a Diaspora, a dispersed and shredded civilization, refugees broken from greatness to making their way through the world in demeaning service. The emotional stakes are amped way up on this, which is just fine.

Part of putting The Hobbit into a broader context includes language-wise.  We have “orcs” rather than “goblins.”  Rivendell also gets referred to as Imladris, and Gandalf is, to the elves, Mithrandir.  The Lonely Mountain is, often as not, Erebor.  It lends a gravitas to the tale, framing it not as a kid’s intro to the LotR, but something that stands right alongside it.

Why do Glamdring and Orcrist look so different?  (And why don’t they glow blue in the presence of orcs/goblins, too?)

In 3D! (Update!)

Since I knew the movie was filmed in 3D, I thought we’d go see it (once) that way. And, of course, it was filmed at 48fps, which was supposed to mean all sorts of goodness.

Well, the 3D was pretty good — swirling action sequences still get muddied by it, but overall it was pretty nice.

In conclusion

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a worthy successor / prequel to Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. And, as with those, I both want to see this movie again and want the next movie to be out ASAP.