The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Well...that will teach me to never doubt Peter Jackson again. 

In case you have been living under a rock (or in a hobbit hole), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (which will be referred to as just The Hobbit for the remainder of the post) is the new trilogy from Peter Jackson, director of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. That trilogy, no matter your opinions on the movies, was one of the greatest accomplishments for the medium of cinema throughout history. They are some of my favorite films ever and are truly the "Star Wars" of our generation. There is extremely good reason that The Return of the King is tied for having won the most Oscars ever. *Side note: remember to VOTE in the user poll on the right side of your screen! We all know the Oscars and Golden Globes won't award the right movies so make your voice heard here! What 3 movies were your favorite in 2012?*

"The holes here are too damn small and the
rent is too damn high!"
*Not an actual quote from Gandalf*

But that was a trilogy crafted from three books into three movies. This new trilogy (with the next two

Every shot of nature made me miss
New Zealand more and more...

installments coming in December 2013 and May 2014) is three movies made from ONE book. Which is why I was worried. Would Jackson over embellish like he so often has been known to do *cough King Kong cough cough*? Well yes, he does, but I absolutely loved it. The film is still nearly three hours long but not once did I look at my watch or wonder how much was left. I was just too mesmerized by the fact that I was back in Middle-Earth again. That being said, I'm not sure that Jackson has 6 hours worth of material left to make the final two movies and I am hoping that he knows when enough is enough. 

Thorin. The new Aragorn? Not quite,
but still pretty badass.

But despite this foreseeable problem, The Hobbit is very fun. For those of you who don't know, its story is MUCH lighter than that of The Lord of the Rings. Whereas those films were practically apocalyptic in tone, The Hobbit is just a tale. An exciting tale, but a tale nonetheless. If they fail, the worst that can happen is that they all die. In Lord of the Rings, if they failed, Middle Earth was destroyed as we know it. And I think this is perhaps the biggest difference that people have to get used to when they go to see The Hobbit. Many characters that we have come to love are gone, and the stakes are not nearly as high. There are not grandiose battles in this installment. It is the journey of 13 dwarves, a hobbit, and a wizard in order to save an ancient city from a greedy dragon. But where Peter Jackson saves this movie from lack of urgency (and in my opinion is the smartest thing he could have done) is hints at the evil that is to come in The Lord of the Rings. There is small talk of Sauron, an evil in the forest, a blade from Mordor, and even an appearance from the Nazgul. It makes the whole endeavor seem less of a separate tale and more a part of a bigger, more grandiose epic. 

It's scenes like this which are why my mother would never see
this movie. "He needs a bath!" is what she would say.

With The Hobbit being lighter in tone than it's older brother, it means that Peter Jackson has added a bit more humor into the mix with this installment easily being the funniest of his movies so far. I chuckled at a few parts, but it is by no means as witty or consistently funny as The Avengers or Expendables 2. This film also lets us see much much more of New Zealand. During the three hour run time there are several sweeping views of all types of terrain in the real world Middle-Earth and they are truly incredible. Lord of the Rings had these as well, but not to the extent of this film. But possibly my favorite thing about The Hobbit is Jackson's creativity with the action scenes. Even though there are no Helms Deep or Minas Tirith sized battles, Jackson keeps the action fresh and clever, much like he did in the Mines of Moria in The Fellowship of the Ring. A particular battle against goblins with ropes and moving platforms had me completely enthralled and most of the other fighting scenes were nearly as good. But the best scene in the movie? The return (or should I say introduction?) of Gollum. Bilbo and Gollum's interactions with each other are spot on and both are rather hilarious as they try to out riddle each other so that Bilbo can find his way out of the cave. 

But alas, despite all this praise that I have been heaping onto The Hobbit, it is not perfect. In fact, I would say it is the weakest of the movies to be set in Middle-Earth (but that's not a bad thing when you consider I would probably give the first 3 films all 10/10). Some people have complained about the slow start, but honestly that didn't bother me much. What really bothered me was Peter Jackson's choice to have CG enemies, especially with the Pale Orc. If you remember Lurtz from The Fellowship of the Ring (the bad guy who Aragorn beheads at the end) and the Uruk-Hai from the movies, they were downright terrifying. And I think a lot of that was because they were real people with phenomenal makeup on. In this film, Jackson decides to go largely CG with all of the goblins and the Pale Orc and frankly, I am not a fan. The CG is great dont get me wrong, but I wasn't scared of the Pale Orc. I was terrified of Lurtz. And the difference is in the real person vs. CG. And, for as well as Jackson put together the movie, I think there were scenes that were not entirely necessary and were something that I would expect to find in his famous Extended Editions. 

Gollum's scene is as funny as ever. To say that
he has split personality disorder doesn't do it
justice. 

And lastly, let me talk about the format in which I saw this movie, IMAX 3D HFR (which stands for High Frame Rate of 40 frames per second as opposed to the 24 frames per second that movies have been at forever). There is ONLY ONE theater in Colorado that shows this format, it is in Westminster if you are curious. The IMAX 3D was great, that was to be expected. As for the HFR, I'm on the fence and after seeing it in action there is clearly work that needs to be done. It is absolutely breathtaking during action scenes and aerial shots of Middle-Earth and really makes them truly mesmerizing. But during scenes where there is little movement it is really jarring and ultimately distracting. For example, at the beginning of the movie when Bilbo is searching through a desk and chest, his hands look like he is on crack cocaine...they are almost at a fast forward speed. It's very awkward and stands out like a sore thumb and this is where I think work needs to be done to make it less apparent. James Cameron has shown interest in HFR for his next Avatar films so Lord knows that he will probably perfect it. 

As I said a few paragraphs ago, The Hobbit is the weakest entry of the Lord of the Rings series. But that's not necessarily that surprising considering how good those films were. And, despite my worries and doubts, Peter Jackson came through and provided us with a very good entry to what will hopefully be a fantastic trilogy to come.

I'm still worried for the pacing of the next two films, but if there's one thing I learned from The Hobbit other than to be brave and live life and see the world...it's don't ever doubt Peter Jackson.

Pros:

• Returning to Middle-Earth is so exciting. The scenery is as breathtaking as ever and the lore and culture is something that has been sorely missed since December 2003
• Peter Jackson knows how to make a movie. Script, cinematography, acting, CG...it's all here and it's all done superbly
• The battle sequences are far more inventive than they have any right to be and I had a blast with them. The battle against goblins in the caves is as memorable as anything from the previous trilogy
• Howard Shore's score, while largely copy and pasted from the original trilogy, is still phenomenal. I think I might actually like the main theme for The Hobbit more than I liked the main theme for The Lord of the Rings
• Pretty funny which helps to mask the nearly 3 hour run time. While this ensemble isn't the crew that we have come to know and love, I think that after 3 movies we will love them just as much
• Incorporating the darkness to come, so to speak, was genius on Jackson's part. I loved learning more about the Nazgul and hearing small talk about Sauron knowing what transpired with The Lord of the Rings. It gives the movie more weight than it would have had

Cons:

• Peter Jackson has one successful movie under his belt, but he still plans to milk 6 hours out of this story. Simply put, I'm not sure that there are 6 hours to be had and if there is anything that Jackson is poor at it's knowing when to end a series. Don't believe me? Watch the Extended Edition of The Return of the King (or King Kong for that matter). Both great films, but both had trouble wrapping up
• CG enemies are not what I want and not what the movie needs. The original trilogy set the standard for remarkable makeup in a movie and The Hobbit sadly leans away from that. The Pale Orc would have been SO much more effective had it been a human in makeup
• This isn't Jackson's fault but more Tolkien's...why is Gandalf such a wuss? He is a wizard yet it seems like he always has to call the eagles for help. I want to see him destroy some foes in the upcoming movies...not always whisper to a butterfly and wait for the eagles to come. Stop using your crutch, old man and kick some ass!

The Verdict Is Still Out:

• The High Frame Rate. It is fascinating at times and pretty bad at others. Some work needs to be done to smooth out the rough patches, especially if this is going to become the norm

Rath's Review Score: 9/10