Director: Peter Jackson
Genre: Adventure, Fantasy
Rating: A-
I wasn't sure whether I was going to like this movie or not going into it - I've never been a huge Lord of the Rings fan, but when I read The Hobbit (something like 15 years ago) I really did enjoy it. I was sure it was going to be good, but I didn't expect to be amazed. To be honest, that's exactly what happened. It was good, there were even parts that were great, and it brought my attention to some actors who I doubt I would have ever really noticed without it (notably Dean O'Gorman, who I haven't seen in anything since he was Iolaus in Young Hercules alongside Ryan Gosling), but it didn't really blow me away. I know, I know, I'm a bad fan of fantasy if I don't love the works of Tolkien, but I don't.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first instalment of a prequel trilogy to the Lord of the Rings trilogy - and if you sci-fi fantasy fans out there don't instinctively cringe when you hear the words "prequel trilogy" I question you. Set sixty years prior to the events of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Hobbit tells the story of how the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) joined the company of dwarves lead by Thorin Oakenshield (Armitage) on a journey across Middle-earth to reclaim their lost homeland, the Lonely Mountain, from Smaug the dragon. The dwarves and Bilbo are joined the the wizard Gandalf the Grey (McKellen). The group comes across Trolls and Orcs on Wargs - the latter who which are hunting specifically for Thorin - Elves, Goblins, and the wizard Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), who tells of a necromancer at Dol Gulder (played by Benedict Cumberbatch). Most important of all, however, Bilbo encounters the slimey creature known as Gollum, who carries with him a mysterious ring.
Okay, so I will say this film is fun - in a lot of ways even more so than the Lord of the Rings films were. There is no dark gloom hanging over our dwarves and hobbit yet, as they embark on an adventure. They're not trying to save the world, they're trying to kill a dragon and take back a home. This instantly makes The Hobbit a lot lighter than its predecessor-sequel, a fact that is added to by the way that it's shot - the colours are a lot brighter and cleaner than Lord of the Rings ever was. There's also a lot more humour here, notably among the dwarves (and their interactions with Bilbo) and Gollum - although Gollum's despair does succeed in bringing a tear to the eye.
I think my favourite part of this movie is the fact that the goal is a lot clearer than in The Hobbit. I realize that things are about to get a bit murky - what with the ring, and the necromancer, and all - but The Hobbit sets out to be a film about dwarves and a hobbit going to a mountain to fight a dragon, and in the end that's what the series is - or should be - about. There's other stuff going on too - the ring, the necromancer, the orcs - but the end goal is clear. You don't feel like anyone is about to stab someone in the back or anything - however unlikely this company is, and however much they might not always like each other, you never feel that they're going to kill each other. Or at least, not yet.
The thing that I disliked the most about this film, however, is the way it tries to tie into the original series and, more importantly, the way that it utilizes the source material - and strays from the source material. I might not be the biggest Tolkien fan, but I really don't like seeing people try to add to a work of literature when they make the conversion. Sure, I understand some things have to get left behind, or merged with other things, but you don't need to add new parts to the story. The way they did that really bothered me - but then, I suppose if Peter Jackson didn't add to the material, he couldn't as easily make The Hobbit into a trilogy. I will say that I did really enjoy the way the film used Ian Holm to set up the idea of Bilbo writing a memoir of sorts about his journey, but I don't think that Elijah Wood as Frodo was necessary at all.
