Directed by:
Peter JacksonCinematography:
Andrew LesnieComposer:
Howard ShoreCast:
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Dean O'Gorman, Aidan Turner (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
The first of three epic instalments in director Peter Jackson's blockbuster prequel to his Lord of the Rings' trilogy. Set in Middle-Earth 60 years before events in The Lord of the Rings, the story follows the adventures of Hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who, at the instigation of the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), suddenly finds himself co-opted into joining a company of 13 Dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) to help reclaim the Dwarves' lost kingdom of the Lonely Mountain from the clutches of Smaug the dragon (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch). After setting out on their quest from the safety of Bag End, the band of travellers soon find themselves pitted against a range of strange and fearsome opponents, in addition to a small, slimy creature known simply as Gollum (Andy Serkis). (Warner Bros. Home Entertainment)
(more)Videos (74)
Reviews (18)
The Hobbit does not lend itself to forced conversion into a regular fantasy saga. It is, and always has been, a fairy-tale with a moral, and has never had greater ambitions than to be “just" a good bedtime story. And it is precisely out of this conflict between a fairy tale and an epic fantasy, which is not supported in the narrative structure of the original (or in the appendices), that friction points arise which Jackson does not always manage to smooth over. One moment it's a lovely quest exploring natural beauty, a scene later a fetish fantasy à la Warhammer full of slow-motion shots of muscled dwarves cutting off limbs like on an assembly line, followed by a return to a non-conflict idyll about misadventures on the road. You could probably read the initial six chapters that the first Hobbit movie works with faster than the nearly three hours that Peter devotes to them on the screen. Moreover, PJ opted for an unfortunate stylization to an unacknowledged remake of the Fellowship of the Ring; as if he'd stretched out the Fellowship from one movie into three and interspersed it with great CGI action escapades like in his King Kong. But the best scenes here are the simple ones based purely on actors (led by riddles in the dark). You can clearly see here which of the scenes would end mercilessly on the cutting room floor in the original two-part concept. However, none of the above means that it is not a good movie anyway. Because it is good cinema, plain and simple. Nor is my satisfaction spoiled by the fact that someone else should have taken over from Jackson; perhaps Cuarón or del Torro, because this cut was created for fans and not for a regular audience. However, it is probably clear from the score I gave it which category I belong in, despite all these criticisms; I've been enjoying it since the second screening with a stupid smile on my face, no matter what reason says… The extended version performs a similar function as it did with The Fellowship; that is, an interesting and pleasant expansion. But you won't miss anything if you don't see it. With one exception (a completely reworked Rivendale; especially the night passage), it contains nothing fundamental. It's definitely not an editorial revision that changes one's experience like the longer version did with The Two Towers. A very technical P.S.: HFR 48 fps really is precisely as (r)evolutionary as claimed and is partly changing the way film media is perceived. However, due to its clarity, sharpness, fluency and detail, it is completely unforgiving of filmmaking mistakes/effects and is therefore not suited to films where props, sets and masks play first fiddle. It spoils the cinematic illusion because you can clearly see "where the glue for the dwarf's beard ends" and that "boulder is a painted prop". It also does not work with dubbing since in a normal picture, the dubbing artist can speak to the movement of the actor's mouth, but here every little lip movement of every word can be seen, and it will no longer pass unnoticed -- a rather bizarre impression arises when the visual of the mouth clearly says something different than what you hear. Of course, HFR as such is life-like, immediate, but a bit like being at theatre. However, in non-studio shots of (not only) landscapes or purely CGI moments, HFR is breathtaking, and, for example, for nature documentaries, sports broadcasts, or CGI spectacles, holds indisputable promise for the future. There are undeniable positives, but there are negatives as well, and The Hobbit allows you to feel both fully.
()
(less)
(more)
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.
()
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.
()
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.
()
With “The Hobbit” is like with the weather. When it’s hot, people complain it’s hot, and when it’s cold, they complain that it’s cold. With “The Lord of the Rings”, audiences grumbled that Jackson left out a lot and adapted it to his own image; with “The Hobbit”, they grumble the opposite, that the adaptation is too literal and consistent in quoting Tolkien's book. People just don't know what they want, you can't please anyone and I laugh at this herd mentality. So....did you find Jackson's King Kong overwrought, but you loved it anyway because you admired its perfect filmmaking craft and imagination? Or on the other hand, is there at least a tiny soul of a child left in you who likes to play and wonder? In that case, you’ll sure love The Hobbit. It's like coming to a long-awaited party among old friends and feeling at ease with them. On top of that, Jackson will overwhelm you with so many audiovisual sensations that you will feel like you’re drinking moonshine. Leave the boredom and negativity to the curmudgeons and to Spáčilová with her worn-out compilation of foreign reviews. And for the rest of you, put on your hats and run to the cinema! Jackson is still on top and the spirit of Middle Earth is still alive.
()
Gallery (238)
Photo © New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Warner Bros. Pictures / James Fisher, Mark Pokorny
