The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

“The World isn’t in your books and maps. It’s out there.” Review of the extended version (I haven’t seen the cinematic release). Though it is presented as an adventure fantasy following in the footsteps of The Lord of the Rings, for me The Hobbit was primarily a story about the transformation of a wayfarer (or nerd) journeying through fictional worlds, who longs mainly for his books, into a real hero. In particular, Bilbo’s lack of capability for epic adventure enlivens and advances the narrative (culinary tips given to giants, escaping from the Goblins). A forgotten handkerchief brings about not only the gradual loss of all creature comforts, but also the protagonist’s transformation from someone who constantly seeks a stronger leader to guide him into a character who acts of his own volition. I believe that this transition toward independence will continue in future instalments. The long introduction in Hobbiton is not important solely for the purpose of outlining the objective of the mission and introducing the dwarves. The depiction of the comfort in which the provincial-minded “no adventure” halfling lives also serves as a contrasting background for the situations in which the protagonist later finds himself. Nostalgia for one’s lost home is a motif that is given greater depth throughout the film, not only through Bilbo, but also through the dwarves living in exile after their exodus. The Hobbit and the dwarves repeatedly overcome their physiognomic preordination, as they have to face enemies much larger than themselves again and again. The gradual intensification of the risks with which the characters are confronted occurs in parallel with a warning of future threats, resulting in The Hobbit becoming a major promise of events that have yet to come. There is no harm in postponing the undiluted spectacle, because the adventure presented to us grows in parallel with Bilbo, who is just getting his bearings in a world of real danger, so he has enough time for riddles with a schizophrenic scoundrel and, like the viewer, must have a lot explained to him. The explanatory passages turn the main storyline into a font of secondary storylines that, however, do not slow down or distract from the primary narrative, as they converge at the initial source and make it clear that their importance will be fully appreciated in the sequel. Only the length of some of the action sequences goes beyond the needs of the narrative, revealing that Jackson, like del Toro, is at heart a gadgeteer with a weakness for bizarre monsters. Furthermore, the raw visual aspect of the action scenes does not fit well with the more lyrical image of the picturesque landscape. Given the multiple screenwriters and the literary and other sources that they drew from, the result is still admirably cohesive and it’s been a long time since I enjoyed such a pure (in genre terms) and (in the good sense of the word) old-fashioned adventure. 85% (13/12/2013)

I was holding my breath to see the Hobbit, then I didn’t manage to go see it at the cinema and so I had to wait for the DVD. I saved every behind-the-scenes video that Peter Jackson put out and that he enticed me with as much as a movie creator possibly could. Each time I enter Middle-earth, it’s a completely unforgettable experience and I expected nothing less from this movie. But throughout the entire time, I was nervous about one particular thing; I couldn’t begin to grasp why the thin little book got adapted into three three-hour movies. I was afraid of a real mess-up and so I wondered if he at least manages to make every single scene meaningful to the movie and makes it entertaining to spend time in the world and go through it all with Bilbo. Sure, he mixed in more stories than just Bilbo’s, but it ended up exactly like I’d feared; a lot of the scenes were pointless and I had downright trouble to make it through the beginning. It took an awfully long time and I felt as if nothing happened throughout the middle part of the movie and only then began the fantastic journey of saving the dwarf lands. But that was probably the only problem. Everything else was a complete classic. A beautiful story, great characters, the same actors (thank goodness), and at times, it was a pleasant surprise to see the same actors once again after a decade. Plus, the amazing atmosphere of the beautiful, wondrous but often inhospitable world and, of course, the amazing music by Howard Shore couldn’t have turned out any different. In the end, I was wholeheartedly happy about the movie, but if the incredibly dragged-out beginning wasn’t there, I’d give it five stars. But not like this, unfortunately. (06/06/2013)

Returning to Middle-earth after so many years is fine. The three hours are still mesmerizing in the perfect WETA world, both in the moments of infantile goofiness (the book itself is a fairy tale) and the ultimate in self-indulgence (the battle of the thundering men of the rocks), yet it all feels somehow... hollow. This is mainly because there is no imaginative moment from a distinctive filmmaker and the only vital moment of the whole film is the puzzle game with Gollum. In the end, I'm actually sorry in retrospect that Guillermo del Toro didn't direct it because Peter Jackson loves this world maybe a little too much. I liked it, and yet I have no reason to ever see it again. (15/01/2013)

When it comes to fantasy, it’s all terribly simple. You just have to create a magical world for the viewer to fall in love with, pick characters that are quirky enough but not too quirky for the viewer to fall in love with, don't mess up the effects, compose masterful music that awakens the little kid in the viewer who longs for adventure every time he hears it, and then just come up with a really, really engaging story. If you can pull this off, even the girl who knew for sure that The Hobbit wasn't going to be for her will still be happy in the end. 4.5 stars. (03/11/2015)

Whereas LOTR was filmed out of love and with little money, The Hobbit was filmed for money. The first viewing made me happy because of the return to Middle-earth, enveloped in Howard Shore’s music. But after the second viewing, I dropped my rating to three stars. It is unforgivable that the scenes with Gollum, who was a highlight of the phenomenal trilogy a decade ago, are so protracted that they cannot keep my attention with every word. In fact, the entire first Hobbit is incredibly protracted. While in LOTR you felt that it could’ve been longer, which it was with the extended editions, the first Hobbit looks as if it’s stuffed with cotton wool. If it portrayed some more intense relationships between the characters, such as Frodo’s friendship with Sam, it would’ve been more engaging. But there aren’t any such relationships. And the key problem compared to LOTR is the most expected: Peter Jackson cannot rely here on the ultimate evil and the menacing darkness, whose portrayal has always been his most powerful directorial asset. He does not have Sauron, Saruman, Mordor or the Uruk-hai, whom the main heroes have no chance against. LOTR’s strongest motif was the courage of the small, peaceful hobbits to confront the invincible, colossally powerful enemy. The Hobbit doesn’t have that. The main bad guy with his bunch of orcs is the most exciting feature of the film, but he’s not playing a bigger role in the story than, say, any of the bad guys from Narnia, The Golden Compass or similar superficial digital affairs. Martin Freeman is excellent, however, and the most beautiful scene of the film for me is the flight of the eagle. (19/12/2012)