2012: The Year in Film: "The Hobbit" Review

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy is quite simply one of the supreme achievements in the history of film.  He took an epic book series beloved by millions worldwide and made an equally momentous series of films that change enough to be unique while retaining what made the books so influential and popular in the first place.  The definitive directors' extended cuts of the first three films are unbelievably epic and quite possibly the greatest trilogy in the history of film.  (That's a discussion for another day...)  The final film absolutely deserved all of the love heaped on it by the academy back in 2004.  The popularity and quality of those films made the transition of Tolkien's earlier children's book featuring some of the same characters and a familiar world a near certainty and much of the last decade has been spent in sorting out the details.  First Guillermo Del Toro was attached, which offered intriguing possibilities as Del Toro is unquestionably a master at creating wonder and creatures.  Alas, Del Toro had to step aside due to delays and conflicts, but luckily the man behind the LOTR trilogy stepped in so we were promised a Hobbit that would feel very familiar and potentially (ultimately) a film series that would have a very cohesive feel.  So how is it?

Unlike the Lord of the Rings books, I've actually read the Hobbit (back in Jr. High and again this week) so I have a different perspective than I did going into those films.  With that being said, I was initially very, very concerned when Warner Bros. announced that the planned two-part Hobbit movies were to be expanded to a trilogy.  After all, the Hobbit is a 300 page novel written for middle and high school aged readers.. what could possibly be so expansive to justify 3 nearly 3 hour films, an identical treatment that the 1300 pages of Lord of the Rings received?  After seeing the film and re-reading the book I can say that the treatment is warranted.  The book is quite limited in scope, focused pretty exclusively on Bilbo, and quite a lot happens that's either off the page or simply glossed over because Bilbo is hungry or whatever.  So I stand corrected.

"The Hobbit" is a tale of an adventure.  A quite unexpected one at that.  If you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings films (and honestly, it's 2012, how are you not?), you're familiar with the world and many of the players.  Some 60 years prior to the events in Lord of the Rings Gandalf (he's gray, it's the past) recruits an unwitting Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's uncle..) on a quest with a band of Dwarves to retake their home, lost some century prior.  The road is long and hard and poses many challenges, but Bilbo enlists as the troop's "burglar" despite himself.  Along the way the group faces goblins and orcs and wargs and meets some familiar faces.  It's Tolkien.  Nothing's a straight line and the journey's half the fun.

The Good: Jackson doesn't miss a step.  The world and the settings and the shots all feel like a continuation of the earlier LOTR flicks, and this is a definite good thing.  It's good to be back in Middle Earth and he spends quite a bit of time relishing in the familiar sights and sounds of the Shire, Rivendell and the like.  Casting Martin Freeman was a tour de force.  Most familiar to me from the BBC's brilliant Sherlock and "Hot Fuzz" the experienced British actor captures the charm and reluctance of a much younger Bilbo Baggins perfectly.  Ian McKellan is, of course, great as Gandalf, and doesn't miss a step returning to the more jovial "gray" version of the character from the first film.  Richard Armitage as Thorin is a particular bright-spot.  Andy Serkis and Gollum... well, you already know, but it's simply a joy to watch.  Gollum has a depressing charm that makes a somewhat despicable character eminently watchable.  The casting and interaction of the characters on the whole was great.  This is a motley crew and Jackson doesn't do them any disservice by making them parallel the much more capable Fellowship from the LOTR films. These people are a band that is in far over their heads, quite relying on Gandalf and his knowledge and expertise to see them through and Jackson and the script use this quality as a source of humor repeatedly.  On the whole this film is much more light hearted than the LOTR films, as is befitting an adaptation of a children's novel.  The action sequences are often great.  The LOTR films feature some of the most impressive and effective epic action scenes in all of cinema, and the Hobbit proudly carries on that tradition.  Despite the long run-time, there isn't much that feels superfluous, and that's a credit to the filmmakers and the source material that so much can be fleshed out of a short novel.


The Bad: there isn't a whole lot of bad.  Most noticeable to me were two things: 1.) the opening scene tried too hard to tie directly in to LOTR and 2.) an over-reliance on CGI in this newer flick.  Jackson didn't go full George Lucas on us, but where the LOTR flicks used extras and make up for many of the effects, here there are many sequences, creatures and the like are fully CGI which can be distracting if you're familiar with the much more real-feeling LOTR films.  Also, not that the film is over-long, but this feels like it's an extended cut in and of itself.. not a problem for me, but if you aren't THAT into Tolkien's world, it could be tedious.  There's an extended scene with a non-Gandalf wizard in the forest that makes little sense except as set-up for something that's quite a ways off that feels utterly superfluous.  In addition, there are a number of falls/events/injuries where people/dwarves/hobbits fall literally hundreds of feet onto rocks without dying or suffering major wounds that rather annoyed me.  But these are minor qualms with a 3 hour movie and in no way cheapen the achievement.

On the whole, this is a worthwhile addition to the universe of the LOTR films.  Freeman, McKellan, Armitage and Gollum make it worth watching for the performances alone.  The film successfully (except for the opening scene/Frodo cameo) ties into LOTR without being heavy-handed about it, and enhances a universe we already know and love.  Consider the Star Wars prequels - this is no easy feat, although admittedly easier when you're dealing with a known and loved pre-existing property than when inventing a prequel from whole cloth - still, there's a lot that could have gone wrong here, and considering very little did?  Success.  Weaker, on the whole, than any of the LOTR films, but not exceedingly so, the Hobbit is visually masterful, very well acted, and overall a very good film.

8/10.