The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review

                 In 2001 when Peter Jackson released “Fellowship of the Ring”, the fantasy genre (for better or worse) was forever changed. The scale and scope of his ambitious trilogy was something that was never approached before, and while those films aren’t without their flaws or issues, they managed to pull-off a massive exercise in keeping momentum and quality with millions of variables stacked against it. Despite having a no-breaks shooting schedule, a screenplay that was being typed as the production was moved along, and new visual effects that had never been very well tested, the entire trilogy was nominated for several Oscars, and continually broke box-office records.  Now, eight year later, with new CGI event-films coming out monthly and released in a year of many box-office record breakers, can Jackson’s return to middle earth still satisfy his long awaiting fans?

                 It was decided early on that this story would be split into three separate movies, even though it originates from the shortest of Tolkien’s novels. In this first-third of the book, entitled “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”, we are introduced to a younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman)—60 years before the events of “Fellowship”—as he is roped into an adventure by the wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellan).  His job is to accompany a tribe of wandering Dwarves as a thief, as they plan to steal back their treasure and their home from a dragon named Smog.  On the way, they run into trolls, elves, and Orcs in long action set-pieces, filled with digital effects of varying effectiveness. 

                Because this film is also directed by Peter Jackson and because it’s based on similar source material, this falls very much in line with the style and look of the previous trilogy. However, because this is a smaller story, with lower stakes, originally meant to be much shorter and lighter than “Lord of the Rings”, this film seems to strain and grind a bit within its green-screen adaptation.  The screenplay seems to be unnecessarily front-heavy and incidental minor conflicts from the book are stretched out to give the plot a stronger arc. Sometimes this results in a movie that feels too long…and it is.

                The visual effects are impressive at times and middle earth (aka New Zealand) looks just as majestic as it ever has. But one can’t help but notice how the advancement of digital effects through the years has adversely affected this film.  Meant to be shown in 3D, with a newfangled high-def frame-rate (only fully experienced in limited IMAX), the animated characters don’t have the same grit and weight as they did eight years ago. They may be more expressive and idiosyncratic than they once were, but a lot of times the CGI just looks less believable. In fact, it seems that less practical effects are used in general. Most of the time this isn’t a problem for the film as a whole, but it is a curious distraction.  However, if you want to know the true meaning of distraction, read reviews by those who were able to see this projected in its intended frame-rate—word on the street; it looks weird.

                While I was eyeing my watch from time to time, and while I wasn’t as overwhelmed as I had previously been by Jackson’s Rings movies, I still feel like he understands fantasy in a way very few directors do. He knows when to make something bombastic, when to make something funny and how to respectfully honor a narrative setting that is essentially silly in premise. The character work is strong and occasionally the movie reminds you of how fun it can be, but unfortunately it’s only a piece of a story and ultimately that’s how it feels.

Grade: B-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Dec-2012