THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY Review

[Gollum]

[Gollum]

[Gollum]

And, of course, McKellen is fantastic as Gandalf, a role he was surely born to play. As the meddling wizard, he’s as charming and manipulative as ever. McKellen also continues to show great range as both the soft-spoken advisor, the knick-of-time rescuer and even as the upstart challenger to his superiors and mentors. There’s a great scene that reunites McKellen’s Gandalf with Galadriel (Blanchett), Saruman the White wizard (Christopher Lee) and Elrond (Weaving), all who happen to be more powerful than Gandalf. Not only does it connect the characters throughout the entire arc of Tolkien films, it establishes their relationships and actually manages to strengthen the Lord of the Rings series because of it. A small scene, but a well-directed one. And I can’t forget Serkis, who is brilliant as usual. The scene between Gollum and Bilbo is, not only iconic, but exemplary of Serkis’ performance abilities.

A note on 48fps: I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48fps and 3D in a Warner Bros. studio screening room, so my review can only speak to that experience as a reference. (I’d like to see the film in 2D at 24fps and 48fps to see how it compares, but we’ll see.) Here’s my take on 48fps:

    Pros: Incredible clarity and sharpness of detail. Characters and objects in the background are nearly as clear and defined as those in the foreground of a shot. It makes for absolutely gorgeous establishing shots and exploration of new settings (Erebor, the Dwarven Kingdom before Smaug’s attack, is amazing. I’d love to see a film just about the Dwarves and their lives under the mountain). It’s great when steady or slow-moving camera work is applied. Beautiful for scenery or landscape shots; would make for excellent documentary applications.
    Cons: Definite “motion sickness” potential during scenes of chaotic action or fast-movement; the increased clarity often feels as if you’re standing on set with the actors/characters, so when they take a crazy tumble down a rabbit hole, for example, you feel just as disoriented…which might not be too pleasant for some. There is a bit of an adjustment period for 48fps; I was jarred by it at the start but warmed up to 95% of its usage over time. 48fps means you cannot hide mistakes…period; there were some poorly-rendered VFX sequences that were unintentionally comical and resembled the old-school tactic of filming a stationary actor in front of a moving background. These effects were bad, bad, bad; there’s no way around it.

[Gollum]

[Gollum]

I admire and support Jackson’s decision to use 48fps and 3D going forward, but there is still some work to do to make it seamless. If you want more technical explanations of 48fps, head over to PC Mag’s explanation (via The One Ring). Another quick note on a technical aspect: most of the enemies simply had no weight to them. Goblins were tossed aside like paper dolls with the Dwarves flicking them out of the way without breaking a sweat. I can only think of a handful of instances of this happening in Lord of the Rings, such as the surge down the stone ramp leading out of Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers or parts of the massive Battle of the Pelennor Fields in Return of the King. But for An Unexpected Journey, there was no sense of real danger during most of the fight scenes, right up until the end. This is strange, because the flashback battles were, for the most part, epic and brutal and heavy, with real emotion tied in to the loss of believable warriors. On the plus side, the costume and make-up design for the flesh-and-blood characters and creatures was phenomenal, even managing to surpass the original Lord of the Rings trilogy.

The greatest achievement of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is how well it ties in with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, much better than, say, the original Star Wars films and their prequels, which are widely-considered to be inferior. As we recently discussed in our Star Wars podcast, watching the films in episode order is not only visually jarring, it ruins the dramatic tension of the whole arc. At first blush, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey appears to avoid this pitfall. The film is set up in such a way that new viewers are briefly introduced to Bilbo and Frodo, but regard them only as an old storyteller and his nephew, nothing more. Returning viewers of the Lord of the Rings feel a bit of nostalgia for the old films and are transitioned into the new films by having a familiar starting place. This introductory scene, which some early reviewers cited as unnecessary, links the trilogies together in a much stronger way. I don’t know how Jackson plans to end his Hobbit trilogy, but the opening of An Unexpected Journey and Fellowship of the Ring are already neatly tied together.

[Gollum]

[Gollum]

Also, “Easter eggs” are not just there for fun; they actually refer to each other in the films (depending on which order you watch them in), as well as to the source material in the books. Without giving too much away, An Unexpected Journey enriches the relationship between Gandalf and Bilbo (and, by extension, Frodo), as well as Gandalf and the elder powers of Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman. The film also explores the reasons for the deep-seated hatred between Dwarves and Elves, Gandalf’s connection to nature, the desecration of the Greenwood, the secrets of Saruman, the origin of some of the famous weaponry in the series and, of course, the lore of the Ring. So An Unexpected Journey manages to pay homage to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, while forging strong introductions to the themes that are explored in the chronologically later-occurring films, especially for first-time viewers. It’s evident that much care was given over to consideration of how to weave these two tapestries together and it’s brilliantly achieved.

Special attention must be given to the musical score of the film, both for original pieces (such as “Misty Mountains,” the haunting yet stirring theme for the Dwarves) and incorporation of the themes from Lord of the Rings. The musical cues go a long way to reinforce the connection I mentioned above. While the Misty Mountains theme pervades the film, there are also ties to the Shire, the Ring and even a heroic bit of music that I won’t spoil here, but will come as a welcome surprise.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has set a high bar for the next two installments, but if the Lord of the Rings trilogy is any indication, I fully believe that bar will be surpassed. Moving forward, I’d like to see the films become a bit more serious, especially since Bilbo is now in possession of a certain ring and all the grave consequences that portends. It would also be a more gradual transition into the Lord of the Rings trilogy and would allow new fans to mature along with the entire six-film arc, much like the Harry Potter films so expertly achieved. While The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is destined to be a stand-alone adventure classic in the vein of The Neverending Story, Willow and Legend, it is surely strongest when viewed as a satisfactory part of a greater whole.

Rating: A-

[Gollum]

For more on The Hobbit, here’s 6 clips from the film and twenty minutes of behind-the-scenes footage.

http://collider.com/hobbit-movie-clips-hobbit-unexpected-journey-clips/215680/

http://collider.com/the-hobbit-behind-the-scenes-footage/215703/

[Gollum]

http://collider.com/hobbit-movie-review/215612/

[Gollum]

Marissa December 4, 2012 at 4:42 pm

I saw it last night, and I have to say I agree with essentially everything you said (a great review, by the way). Honestly, I was not without issues with ‘Lord fo the Rings’, but they’re issues I can get over because the pros outweigh the cons so substantially, it’s difficult not to love. That’s how I felt about ‘The Hobbit’. Sure there were one-liners I cringed at (I know which one you were referring to, and I admit the character was slightly disappointing to me as a whole), disgusting scenes I turn away at, and visual effects I rolled my eyes at. But honestly, I just couldn’t not love it anyway. You feel the energy of the filmmakers at every scene, and in a way, the fact that the 48fps made it look like a film set sort of helped with that. (I won’t comment much on that; my likes and dislikes are the same as yours…very much worth it for the aerial shots, Gollum scene, and fight between the rock giants, but the Radagast chase and some battle scenes were painful.)

Point being both Fellowship of the Ring and Unexpected Journey are both sort of the experimental films to me. Excellent, but the flaws are most prominent in the first of both trilogies. I expect- or at least hope for it to just go uphill from here.

[Gollum]

chauvelin2000 December 6, 2012 at 10:58 am

I must say, this certainly is one of the more sane of the ‘early’ reviews out there … well-balanced, and there’s a true ‘ring’ or sense of refreshing candor, with no hidden agendas. Thank you. One thing is for sure: These early ‘Hobbit’ reviewers need to get on the same page about a couple of things. Someone’s clearly not being honest here, for how are these relatively few ‘first’ media columnists so wildly disparate about, just as an example, the film’s ‘pace’? Some say ‘slow and boring’, ‘overlong, overblown’ (Hollywood Reporter, Box Office, Cinema Blend), others say ‘robustly entertaining and well-paced’ (Empire Online, Screen Daily), ‘engrossing, action-packed’ (Hollywood.com), ‘engaging, winning’ (Playlist). So is it slow or well-paced? Which is it? Can these people be watching the same movie? And how is it that they focus so heavily on the film’s FORMAT (which is only one of many!!!: HFR 3D, IMAX 3D, IMAX, 3D, 2D)? Especially in view of what each KNOWS will be the many and varied CHOICES by which a person may tailor his or her VIEWING of the film to personal taste, what has FORMAT got to do with how these critics ‘judge’ the CONTENT of the film — that is, the MOVIE ITSELF (which it is their job to focus on: the story, actor-performances, direction, costuming, cinematography ITSELF: not how the film is PRESENTLY formatted, as this will be variously, inevitably different for everyone: it will CHANGE) and which seems to so heavily ‘weigh in’ on their ‘bottom line’ or final analysis? How trite to judge an entire film, allow such a factor to impact so dramatically on final verdict, by focusing on its format! FORMAT IS NOT THE FILM! Go see it in 2D traditional ‘flicker’ mode and THEN TELL ME WHAT IT IS — not how a particular viewing mode (which you may loathe) makes it, for the MOMENT, look (I’ve got choices just like you, so don’t tell me how I’m destined to see it: I may see it in a wholly different mode, and who knows, I may LIKE the very one you hate). In any event, here’s to what one reviewer perceives in the film to be a ‘purist’s delight’ and ‘mythologically dense’ Yeah!! Want more of THAT baby! — Bring. It. On. Mr. Jackson!!! And I’ll be the judge myself, thank you.

[Gollum]

Gigolo Joe December 6, 2012 at 11:55 am

Creative implications of making it into 3 films aside, the aesthetics of increasing the frame rate is the most worrying sign of cinema’s future, much more so than 3D.

It’s already difficult to find a 2D showing of new releases, the inferior and cheaper brand of digital projection is also becoming the norm. But 48 frames per second is a fundamental departure from the the established language of cinema. The ‘film look’ which used to be the holy grail of independent filmmakers and is what we’ve all grown up regarding as a mark of quality (contrasted with tacky TV soap opera video etc) – is all of a sudden being sacrificed by an industry scrambling to make up for the creative deficit ingrained in the vertically-integrated movie franchise “product”.

The multi-national corporate structure of today’s Hollywood realises that they are running a production line with a business model centred around high short term sales and repeat business coming from a marketable range of products (movie sequels/prequels/spinoffs). It’s a risk averse approach to maximise profits as quickly as possible before the punters realise no-one will be watching these products 10 years from now. Transformers anyone?

Films like Lawrence of Arabia are treasured and re-released 50 years later continually making a profit, this risk taking approach to epic filmmaking probably ended 10 years ago – Lord of the Rings being the final example of the old Hollywood.

Now we have a media industry so deeply integrated – one division buys advertising from another division of the same company – promoted on their own TV networks and creativity disintegrates.

The marketing ‘experts’ are so important that the story/script cannot proceed without extensive market analysis.

The art of Filmmaking is reduced to a brochure of cinematography, editing, music and design styles, so much that every genre, every story, has the same colour template, applied to it – ever notice the orange and blue look nearly every movie has? – not to mention the shaky cam etc..

Add to the mix the obsessive paranoia of piracy and you have an industry that will continue to clamp our eyelids open with 3D 48fps HFR technologies – desperately trying to convince us that it will blow your mind. Clearly with some morons this approach works.. Not to mention the casual film goers who don’t know or don’t care about the aesthetic implications.

The fact is though – a great many people cannot stand 3D – it does cause visual problems in a significant number of people. Also many people already hate the look produced from 100hz or ‘pure motion’ or whatever crap is shoved into most TVs but marketed as an essential new feature – just so they can sell the latest model. Fortunately in most cases you can turn these things off. But it is depressing to see Directors such as Peter Jackson falling into such an obvious trap and implementing these gimmicks at the production stage.

This demonstrates an ignorance – or a contempt for the cinema language we all know and love. You don’t hear anyone complaining about a properly filmed movie projected in the way perfected over a hundred years – so why are these filmmakers alienating a huge percentage of people, potentially forcing them out of cinemas for good? My guess is that they’re only really counting on teenage boys to flock to blockbusters aimed squarely at them. Particularly James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Michael Bay have all but given up on adults anyway. The rest of Hollywood will follow..

24 frames per second is part of film’s visual language and it’s beauty – you subconsciously register this as familiar to how we see the world (motion blur, judder from eye and head movements) but slightly removed from reality – almost like a dream. This elementally helps you suspend your disbelief at what you’re seeing, blending perfectly with narrative storytelling.

48 frames per second breaks this illusion in the same way as nearly every TV show ever made looks hyper-real which, in the same way that digital effects tend to render everything in focus, ignoring depth of field, draws attention to itself – breaking the illusion. Of course, many US shows, despite the TV signal being 50/60 frames per second, 24fps is still chosen because of it’s aesthetic superiority. The alternative is everything looking like a soap opera.

Most of the Hobbit will look like a behind the scenes feature – or a live broadcast version of a movie, but it’s guaranteed that a chunk of the audience will convince themselves that they don’t need to adjust their eyes – what they’re seeing is not a shameless gimmick but spectacle.. Surely this is the intended effect, because when you throw away your creative voice, spectacle is all you have left!

Maybe we’ll only have the art-house scene tempting anyone over 25 back but personally I’m still waiting for another great Die Hard, grown up sci-fi or even another Star Wars or Spielbergian adventure (Star Trek is the closest there’s been for years)

[Gollum]

Matthew Hawkins · President at Rolling Uphill Lovers Anonymous
The idea of a more serious tone because of the posession of the ring can't quite work in the films and still be true to the books. In the Hobbit story the ring is just a ring that makes the wearer invisible with no noticeable or negative effects on the viewer. Nobody absolutely nobody realizes that this is the one ring of Sauron and it never enters their mind because in The Hobbit Sauron was not publically re-rising to power yetm

[Gollum]

Wayne Littlewood · Top Commenter
This is an excellent review. There are some tantalising titbits in there as well. Of course no review should be afraid to criticise and this review does it fairly. I will make on observation though - The book of the Hobbit changes it's style the further it goes on. For instance if you read "Roast Mutton" and "The Cloud's Burst" chapters you will see a remarkable shift in tone. The Second half of the book is definitely darker and more serious. Remember Bilbo does not have a clue what is going to happen to him and we are along for the ride, seeing everything through his eyes and we grow with him - Take for example Pippin in Lord of the Rings - a cheeky practical joke making devil-may-care scamp but by the end, a proud and noble, battle hardened hobbit with gravitas and honour. See Pippin in Minas Tirith and then go back and see him stealing Farmer Maggott's carrots. So the fact that Bilbo is less rounded in the first film means that the writers, director and actor Martin Freeman are playing him just right.