The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

"Set time" in Middle-earth - I can't think about this film in any other way. A prequel for something that doesn't need a prequel, a film that has a hard time finding its pace, a film that can't shake off the specter of the overly strenuous imitation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a film whose characters, despite almost three hours, act like Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and a chubby bunch of blabbering beards (moreover, I'm not quite sure if the step of giving Thorin the position of Aragorn was successful). Since The Return of the King, Jackson seems to me to be lost in a pastel-filled imagination - after the third sunset / sunrise, I have no doubt that what was "beautiful and epic" in the original trilogy is more self-serving and kitschy here (this also applies to the depressing flights, which are supposed to confirm to us "that it's here again and it's as big as an orc double chin"). Still, I'm not overly disappointed. Partly because I didn't expect anything else. Particularly because Tolkien's book was not particularly hurt by the powerful thickening of the "additional" storylines, although the best moments for me are equally identical to those of the books (puzzles in the dark, the Song of Durin's People). In some cases it is a mirror reflection of The Fellowship of the Ring (for example composition: the historical "battle" introduction // the exposition in Middle Earth // the diplomatic interlude in Rivendell // the action mess in the depths, but there are more such connections), while in some case it is its opposite (while The Fellowship of the Ring cut and dynamized, the Hobbit rather stretches and retards with retrospectives and explanations). I can't shake the impression that the original trilogy looked "more cinematic" thanks to a smaller share of digital accessories, and thanks to that it also functioned as "good epic theater". The Hobbit did not give me this feeling even during the eloquent speeches in Rivendell. No, I'm definitely not annoyed, but if I was anxiously waiting to see if the division of the film into three parts made much sense, I have no greater reason to say YES after today. The rating applies to the 3D version with dubbing and hovers a "bit" over three stars. But just a little bit. Edit: not even the original version convinced me. For me, the film between the poetic introduction and the action finale contains an awful lot of dramatically staged rubbish, which did not draw me into its depths for even a moment like any (cut out) scene in The Fellowship of the Ring. It is wide, so I'm wondering if all those dialogic retardations and hinted storylines will be beneficial later. (11/12/2012)

I expected those weird people who in their free time dress as dwarves, elves and goblins and play at fighting in fields and forests to be excited about The Hobbit regardless of its quality, so I took the 86% rating with a pinch of salt and went to the cinema convinced that I wouldn’t give it more than two stars, and that I would regret it. This opinion was the result of the strange intention of the studio to stretch a slim book as much as possible, the bland trailers and, in particular, my negative experience with post-LotR Jackson (value for money, I think King Kong and Lovely Bones are the worst monstrosities Hollywood has produced in recent years). But that didn’t happen and here you have four stars (70%), and even though I’m not trembling in delight, it’s still a pleasant surprise. The Hobbit is nice eye candy with beautiful locations, a likeable protagonist and good special effects (by the most part). No more, no less. It’s hurt, though, by the weird attempt to blend the fairytale spirit of the book with the more adult character of Lord of the Rings. It rides on a similar nostalgic vibe as last year’s Expendables II, though this time it actually worked on me, because, unlike silly action flicks from the 80s, I do like Middle Earth. I will probably be one of the few who enjoyed more the first “boring” half, where the characters only talk and you can quietly soak in the atmosphere of The Shire (from the LotR trilogy, my favourite part is the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring). The second half, good action notwithstanding, is an example of why I generally don’t like fantasy as a genre, and why sometimes I call it a parody of sci-fi. When the heroes get in trouble, the flexible rules of the fantasy world always allow from some bullshit deus-ex-machina to save them, and in the case of the ending The Hobbit, this is literal. 70%. PS: If I ever watch it again, I will have fun trying to count how many times one of the characters screams “Run”! And I will try to remember each dwarf other than by the colour of their hair and beards. (13/12/2012)

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)

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)

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)