Well, J.R.R. Tolkien's name is back on the big screen. Thanks to Peter Jackson's latest adaption, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, we've been drawn back to Middle Earth for an adventure that should be just as good as, if not better than, The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But as the first of three parts, does it prove to be worthy of yet another trilogy?
Warning: There are spoilers ahead.
The lights dimmed three minutes late and one or two in the crowd cheered. After the four trailers rolled through and "The Hobbit" was clearly displayed on the projector, folks settled in their seats for a near-three-hour epic.
Things began with some added content that helped one who hasn't read the book to understand a bit more about how the story is told. Strangely though, the old Bilbo (Ian Holm) gets quite a bit of screen time, as does Frodo. After he tells the story of Erebor (also known as "The Lonely Mountain", which was the dwarfs' home until Smaug smashed in the front door) the Shire and daily life with old Bilbo Baggins are shown, followed by some overly-lengthy scenes of Frodo speaking with him.
Finally the film starts to pick up in speed, beginning with the young Bilbo of 60 years before. He has no ring to keep him young, nor is he aware that at that very moment, Gandalf the Grey is on his way to the hobbit's humble abode. After much muttering and the abrupt signing of a contract, Bilbo finds himself in for an adventure. "I'm going on an adventure", he tells a gardening neighbor.
That's about all of the plot I need to mention. After that, the "adventure" lives up to its title and serves the viewer a pleasant picture. One problem I had, however, was that the film seemed to be shot in 3D and many objects were blurred with that kind of effect. Since this wasn't a 3D theatre, I assumed this wouldn't be a problem. Apparently not.
There's also the matter of the very overdone visual effects. Some people may say the saturated scenery is beautiful, but it gets to be a burden for your eyes. Mine literally stung after a half an hour. Bright, vivid appearance is nice once in a while, but not the whole film. Peter Jackson focused too much on this section and it shows in other areas of the picture.
The performances delivered by Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are fantastic. Freeman's lighthearted spirit shows that he was made to be a hobbit in a film like this, not just Doctor Watson in the BBC's Sherlock. Richard Armitage and the other dwarves also do a great job of portraying what they are, even though the ratio of 13 dwarves to a single hobbit can get rather irritating. (Unless, of course, you love dwarves.) The real achievement in acting, however, comes from Andy Serkis: Golum.
Everyone loved how he played the "creature" in The Lord of the Rings, but things get even better how. Serkis brings back the character we know in a much better way. From the eyes to his dual-personality, Golum lives on as the character all loved with an extra hint of humour and some riddling twists.
If you've never read The Hobbit and are just looking for a whimsical adventure, this will do. The funny thing is that the soundtrack didn't leave me expecting something so exciting. I thought it'd be a dark and dreary film after listening to Howard Shore's accompaniment, but that was far from the final product.
This was a pleasant experience of humour and beautiful scenery. Of course, The Hidden Valley (Rivendell) can only be so beautiful, and then we must switch to the goblins of the mountains, who are ruthless. Along the way a birthday gift is found, but not by mistake as in the novel. There are definitely a lot of changes to the plot, but most of them are slight. Others are added details from The Silmarillion and some Tolkien drafts and Middle Earth history. They were a pleasant surprise, but only for appeared briefly. On the other hand, some scenes had to be modified to add new information and that ended up giving the film an unnecessary runtime. Little things could have been omitted if it weren't for the marketing involved with a work of Tolkien.
Score: 7/10
Why the lower rating? It was just too long. (The runtime is 172 minutes.) There's really no need for it to be so extended, at least in the cinema. The backstory was in short supply and half the scenes could bore the average filmgoer. In my personal experience, I'd conclude the length to one thing: I won't be seeing this again at the cinema, not even in 3D or IMAX if I have the chance. It seems like a waste of my time, whereas Cloud Atlas (a similarly long film) is something I see myself watching once or twice more.Not only is there a lack of depth, there's also little to remember. The moments of Golum and humour may live on, but other than that people won't care about this more than a few weeks. It's not an epic like the first trilogy, and that's not surprising.