Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
I’ll admit to feeling excited but also a bit apprehensive about watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey because I am such a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It literally changed my life. That movie and all its homoeroticism and hurt/comfort elements were what caused me to seek out fandom before I even knew what fan fiction was; I just knew I wanted more, and the movies had whetted my appetite for content that the original novels left me wanting. So how can a prequel ever measure up?
Well, it really can’t, quite, but I believe that it has come as damn close as possible while still being, you know, a representation of another novel. I loved it.
As Sherlock is a love letter to fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, so is The Hobbit a love letter to fans of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings-perhaps the movies a bit more than the books, but there are still cute little hints toward the books (verbally acknowledging some of the chapter titles, a few of the songs, etc.). For fans of the movie trilogy, though, we see Frodo and older!Bilbo and Legolas’ dad and Saruman and Galadriel being quietly kickass.
Most of the problems with the movie are just problems with the book, and there isn’t much you can do about that. The similarities to Fellowship in structure, all the freakin’ deus ex machina (so…much…), all the Dwarves. Twelve is just excessive and too many to get to know them all well in one film-and the filmmakers don’t try. I think we get to know Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Bofur, Fili, and Kili well, and that’s it for this movie. Maybe later there will be more of the others. I was surprised we didn’t see more of Glóin, considering he’s Gimli’s dad. I loved the details they put in about them, though, like Thorin’s background, their search for a home, the way they choreograph and coordinate stacking the plates and distributing arms during a fight. The filmmakers have added a few threats to the film to make it more exciting, and to me it works. The movie is 2 hours, 40 minutes long, and I was riveted the whole time.
Some of the plot twists did give me a feeling of, “Oh, we’ve seen this before,” i.e. Rivendell as a safe haven, the hostile mountain, the eagles as deus ex machina, but they usually concluded so differently that I was pleasantly surprised. Let me tell you, it is fascinating to see Elves through Dwarf eyes-untrustworthy, sinister, and with gross food, too!
As in the original series, Gollum steals the show here (for me, anyway). Adorably evil is the only way to describe him. One of the best characters ever created. That look he gives the pool of water when he realizes his precious is gone…that look, oh my God, is the most heartbreaking thing I think I’ve ever seen. My only complaint was that the filmmakers should have made it more clear that Sméagol (...oh holy shit, Word automatically corrects that word…awesome) was not a hobbit but a-what was it, “hobbit-like creature”? Because in the movies, that is not clear at all: in Return of the King, Sméagol looked and acted pretty much like a Took (enjoying boating, very unhobbitlike). So when he meets Bilbo and has literally no clue what he is, it’s a bit weird because nobody’s explained it to us. Like, you remember the taste of your grandma’s eggs but not your own species?
Martin Freeman was, as anticipated, born for this role. His Bilbo seems constantly on the edge of an emotional breakdown but still stoically awesome. I certainly didn’t expect to find character similarities between John Watson, badass army doctor, and Bilbo Baggins, er…hobbit (I think that covers it nicely), but to my surprise and delight, they were there. Bilbo to me acts as a physical manifestation of John’s soul. I think when we meet them at the beginning, they’re both guys who used to be rather adventurous but are now homebodies who aren’t really suited to puttering around at home all day. The difference is that John knows this and is very sad about it-Bilbo just doesn’t know it yet. Sherlock acts as a wake-up call in the show, and Gandalf takes that role in the movie. But they’re both very brave and loyal and protective of their friends…and they both have this potential for inner darkness that is so fascinating. John kills a man and then laughs about it and goes for Chinese. Bilbo…well, I guess we’ll see how far the Ring takes him, won’t we.
I’d rather not get into the discussion about technology at the moment. I didn’t trust the filmmakers enough on my first go-around and chose to see the film in 24 frames per second. It looked absolutely stunning. New Zealand has never looked better. But now seeing how well they handled what I thought was an impossible task with regard to the script and everything, I think I’ll take a leap of faith and see the film as it was intended to be seen in a few days-in 48 fps and 3D. Then I’ll report back. :)
EDIT: I have now seen the movie in 3D, 48 fps. It’s…a little distracting, really, is the only difference. Most of the time I didn’t notice, only when there was swift camera movement, and then it made the motion seem too fast and jerky/unnatural. Like watching a History channel movie or a soap opera (because those are the things that I’m used to seeing in this format). Conversely, it makes the CG characters a bit crisper and more lifelike-I could actually see the eye membranes on Gollum, the Goblin king, and Smaug, which was cool. And maybe the action scenes were a bit clearer? But they also looked much more fake, so I don’t think that trade-off is a good one. But all in all, I’d recommend seeing it in 2D, 24 fps. I admire the filmmakers for taking a risk and being first to go into this new format, but at least at the moment it doesn’t make some things better enough to justify making other things look much worse. (I recommend reading this article if you would like to know more.)
And now rather major spoilers with regard to Benedict Cumberbatch’s CG characters. On both we hardly see them, but they both made me squee. The Necromancer looks like Slenderman but is already scary as fuck, and Smaug literally made me squeal aloud in the theater. This is a dragon that loves gold so much that he not only devotes his life to guarding it, he freakin’ buries himself in it. I already love him, and we’ve only seen his eye.
So, yeah, I loved this movie and am going to see it again very soon and can’t wait for the sequel. A whole year?!?!
Related reviews: (The Hobbit part 2 and part 3), ( Martin Freeman’s filmography), ( Benedict Cumberbatch’s filmography)
Well, it really can’t, quite, but I believe that it has come as damn close as possible while still being, you know, a representation of another novel. I loved it.
As Sherlock is a love letter to fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, so is The Hobbit a love letter to fans of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings-perhaps the movies a bit more than the books, but there are still cute little hints toward the books (verbally acknowledging some of the chapter titles, a few of the songs, etc.). For fans of the movie trilogy, though, we see Frodo and older!Bilbo and Legolas’ dad and Saruman and Galadriel being quietly kickass.
Most of the problems with the movie are just problems with the book, and there isn’t much you can do about that. The similarities to Fellowship in structure, all the freakin’ deus ex machina (so…much…), all the Dwarves. Twelve is just excessive and too many to get to know them all well in one film-and the filmmakers don’t try. I think we get to know Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Bofur, Fili, and Kili well, and that’s it for this movie. Maybe later there will be more of the others. I was surprised we didn’t see more of Glóin, considering he’s Gimli’s dad. I loved the details they put in about them, though, like Thorin’s background, their search for a home, the way they choreograph and coordinate stacking the plates and distributing arms during a fight. The filmmakers have added a few threats to the film to make it more exciting, and to me it works. The movie is 2 hours, 40 minutes long, and I was riveted the whole time.
Some of the plot twists did give me a feeling of, “Oh, we’ve seen this before,” i.e. Rivendell as a safe haven, the hostile mountain, the eagles as deus ex machina, but they usually concluded so differently that I was pleasantly surprised. Let me tell you, it is fascinating to see Elves through Dwarf eyes-untrustworthy, sinister, and with gross food, too!
As in the original series, Gollum steals the show here (for me, anyway). Adorably evil is the only way to describe him. One of the best characters ever created. That look he gives the pool of water when he realizes his precious is gone…that look, oh my God, is the most heartbreaking thing I think I’ve ever seen. My only complaint was that the filmmakers should have made it more clear that Sméagol (...oh holy shit, Word automatically corrects that word…awesome) was not a hobbit but a-what was it, “hobbit-like creature”? Because in the movies, that is not clear at all: in Return of the King, Sméagol looked and acted pretty much like a Took (enjoying boating, very unhobbitlike). So when he meets Bilbo and has literally no clue what he is, it’s a bit weird because nobody’s explained it to us. Like, you remember the taste of your grandma’s eggs but not your own species?
Martin Freeman was, as anticipated, born for this role. His Bilbo seems constantly on the edge of an emotional breakdown but still stoically awesome. I certainly didn’t expect to find character similarities between John Watson, badass army doctor, and Bilbo Baggins, er…hobbit (I think that covers it nicely), but to my surprise and delight, they were there. Bilbo to me acts as a physical manifestation of John’s soul. I think when we meet them at the beginning, they’re both guys who used to be rather adventurous but are now homebodies who aren’t really suited to puttering around at home all day. The difference is that John knows this and is very sad about it-Bilbo just doesn’t know it yet. Sherlock acts as a wake-up call in the show, and Gandalf takes that role in the movie. But they’re both very brave and loyal and protective of their friends…and they both have this potential for inner darkness that is so fascinating. John kills a man and then laughs about it and goes for Chinese. Bilbo…well, I guess we’ll see how far the Ring takes him, won’t we.
I’d rather not get into the discussion about technology at the moment. I didn’t trust the filmmakers enough on my first go-around and chose to see the film in 24 frames per second. It looked absolutely stunning. New Zealand has never looked better. But now seeing how well they handled what I thought was an impossible task with regard to the script and everything, I think I’ll take a leap of faith and see the film as it was intended to be seen in a few days-in 48 fps and 3D. Then I’ll report back. :)
EDIT: I have now seen the movie in 3D, 48 fps. It’s…a little distracting, really, is the only difference. Most of the time I didn’t notice, only when there was swift camera movement, and then it made the motion seem too fast and jerky/unnatural. Like watching a History channel movie or a soap opera (because those are the things that I’m used to seeing in this format). Conversely, it makes the CG characters a bit crisper and more lifelike-I could actually see the eye membranes on Gollum, the Goblin king, and Smaug, which was cool. And maybe the action scenes were a bit clearer? But they also looked much more fake, so I don’t think that trade-off is a good one. But all in all, I’d recommend seeing it in 2D, 24 fps. I admire the filmmakers for taking a risk and being first to go into this new format, but at least at the moment it doesn’t make some things better enough to justify making other things look much worse. (I recommend reading this article if you would like to know more.)
And now rather major spoilers with regard to Benedict Cumberbatch’s CG characters. On both we hardly see them, but they both made me squee. The Necromancer looks like Slenderman but is already scary as fuck, and Smaug literally made me squeal aloud in the theater. This is a dragon that loves gold so much that he not only devotes his life to guarding it, he freakin’ buries himself in it. I already love him, and we’ve only seen his eye.
So, yeah, I loved this movie and am going to see it again very soon and can’t wait for the sequel. A whole year?!?!
Related reviews: (The Hobbit part 2 and part 3), ( Martin Freeman’s filmography), ( Benedict Cumberbatch’s filmography)