It’s been nearly a decade since the release of Return of the King. The original Lord of the Rings trilogy has aged
surprisingly well with a decade under its belt. I’ve re-watched it a number of
times since, and every time it resonates with me. At the time it was released, The Lord of the Rings was everything a
big blockbuster ought to be: A well-acted, scripted, directed work following
interesting, engaging characters within a sweeping narrative. And I don’t believe anyone was surprised when
the announcement was made that The Hobbit
would soon be made into a movie. The question wasn’t really whether it would be
made, but when and how good it would be. I was cautiously optimistic about the
film being produced, and remained so even with the influx of bad press upon its
opening in theaters.
I wanted to return to the world of Middle Earth. I was
excited to see the familiar locales of the Shire and Rivendale, and the familiar
faces of Gandalf and Bilbo. It’s a world worth exploring, and The Hobbit provides a nice but not
entirely consistent or satisfying return to Middle Earth. Nostalgia for the setting
and Peter Jackson’s typical directorial charm can only go so far. And much like a toy you’ve wanted so desperately
for so long that when you get it, you find you’re just a wee bit disappointed, The Hobbit has its problems.
Its main problems stems from the fact that it’s an
incomplete story. The film abruptly ends
after building up for 2 plus hours’ time. It’s highly apparent that it has more
story to tell and the end point feels a bit arbitrary. Unlike Lord of the Rings, which had fairly
obvious demarcations of when its story was meant to end, The Hobbit doesn’t because it’s one book (and a much shorter one at
that). Another problem is that Jackson often doesn’t know when to linger on
plot points or to breeze over them. While a few scenes benefit
from the time to breathe, other such as the dwarfs stay at Bag End overstay
their welcome. Finally, the band of 13 dwarves that accompany Bilbo on his
adventure are significantly underdeveloped. Minus Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield and Ken Stott as Balin, the
rest of the dwarfs are practically an afterthought. This is much unlike the Fellowship of the
original trilogy; we knew who every member of the Fellowship was, their
personality, and what was at stake for them, so when put into conflict we had a
reason to root for them. On the other hand, with the dwarfs, I felt much less
motivated to root for them. Hopefully
the later films will address this problem. I’m aware that the novel doesn’t really make large distinctions between
the majority of them, but it’s not something as easily translated in a movie.
Having read all that, you probably assume I disliked the
film. But that’s not the case. I really do feel that Middle Earth and its stories
as written by Tolkien are worth exploring. I was very entertained by much of the movie, and most sequences of the
story in and of themselves were really fun to watch. I thought the opening with Ian
Holm as an older Bilbo was touching and a nice callback to the older films; the
council scene with Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman was appropriately intense; Bilbos encounter with Gollum was perfectly
staged; the actions sequences with the
trolls, goblins, and orcs were all great sights to behold; the film also pulled off some funnier, lighthearted
moments involving the dwarfs, Bilbo, and Gandalf. However, taken as a whole The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is
less consistent and cohesive than I would have liked.
The fact is that we may need to wait until its sequels are released to truly
make a judgment about how good it is or isn't. And though it's worth seeing, The Hobbit just doesn't live up to expectations.
Grade: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment