 |
| Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer |
Even before the Lord of the Rings trilogy concluded in
2003, it was inevitable that a film adaption of J.R.R. Tolkien’s other middle
earth tale, The Hobbit would also
find its way to the big screen and now the nine year wait is now over as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has
arrived. What was not foreseen though was the problems that were had to even
get the film in production. Financial problems at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, one of
the film’s distributers, caused several delays for it to go into production.
Because of these delays, director Guillermo del Toro left the project. Producer
and writer of the film, Peter Jackson, Academy Award winning director of The Lord
of the Rings trilogy, replaced del Toro and now here we are. Shades of Jackson’s
first trilogy are seen throughout The
Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, both enhancing and hindering the film.
Seen as an elderly man in The Lord of the Rings, A much younger Bilbo Baggins is featured in
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as the story takes place sixty years
before the events that transpire in The
Lord of the Rings trilogy. The film begins though with the same older Bilbo
(Ian Holm) writing what took place to lead to his adventure. He explains that
the King of Erebor, the Dwarf Thror, had acquired a massive amount of gold. These
riches tough would soon attract Smaug the dragon, who forces all dwarfs out of Erebor.
Young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) comes into the picture when Gandalf the Grey (Ian
McKellen) and a group of dwarfs led by Thror’s grandson Thorin (Richard
Armitage) recruit him to be groups ‘burglar’. The reason that he is the desired
choice for this position is because as a hobbit, Bilbo has the ability to sneak
around without being heard or seen. Bilbo is first reluctant but then realizes
that he cannot pass up the adventure and accepts the group’s offer. The group’s
mission is to defeat Smaug, take back the gold and reclaim their home, the city
of Erebor.
I do not want to make
the focus of this review on how The
Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey compares to The Lord of the Rings trilogy but it is difficult not to when there
are so many similarities that both hurt and help the film. One thing in general
that sets the film back at times is that there is a feeling of déjà vu. Now this
is not big complaint, as I did find elements from the first trilogy that I
really enjoyed but as far as characters, dialogue, scenery and the courage of a
hobbit theme goes there is really nothing new and can cause for the lose of the
audience’s attention.
With a running time of around
2 hours and 45 minutes, the films length is similar to all three films from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The
length of both The Two Towers and The Return
of the King did not seem to be a problem as much as it did in The Fellowship of the Rings and now The Hobbit. The reason that The Hobbit’s running time is too long
and the film becomes drawn out is due to several scenes going on and on. One
scene in particular featuring Bilbo and Gollum starts out to be a very
promising moment in the film as it is very entertaining but then it begins to
feel that it will never end as it becomes much longer than it needs to be. With
scenes running long or not needed at all, Jackson’s decision to adapt a single book
into three films can be questioned. I have not read the book but it appears
that two or maybe even one film would make for a much more focused, compelling
story.
With all that said though,
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is
still a film that I would willingly return to believe it or not. Despite its
long running scenes and inability to create an identity of its own, The Hobbit still offers plenty of
enjoyment. This has a lot to do with the films titular character, the hobbit
Bilbo Baggins. I really enjoyed all hobbits featured in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and a younger Bilbo from this film
brings an even higher level of enjoyment. In the journey that he partakes in,
Bilbo’s back is always up against the wall. On top of that, everyone, besides
Gandalf, believes he is of no value. This causes Bilbo to constantly fight an
up-hill battle and with Freeman fitting nicely into the quirky, frantic ways of
the character along with the way that Jackson handles him, the film is at its
best when Bilbo is the primary focus. Because of this it would have been nice
to see him more as there are a couple of long stretches where he is nowhere to
be found.
If anything in The Hobbit is a direct copy of The Lord of the Rings it is the music.
Howard Shore’s iconic music from the trilogy is heard throughout the film. It
is such a great score, so great that it would probably be considered a crime
not to reuse it. You may remember from the trilogy, a certain piece of music that
was used when the ring was put into focus and sure enough, when the ring
becomes a part of The Hobbit so does
this same chilling but beautiful piece of music.
Speaking of the ring,
it also had a brief but intriguing role in the film. Obviously, it was a major
aspect of the trilogy and it looks like it will also play some type of role in
the next two films. This is where the intrigue and curiosity of what is to come
is at. I guess I could read the book and find out exactly how the ring is
worked into the story but I think I will let the my curiosity build for a year
and find out more when The Hobbit: The
Desolation of Smaug is released next December.
Grade: B-
I feel like the music and overall aura of the film should not be as heavy as that found in the trilogy. What are your thoughts on the if it's lighter-hearted than the trilogy? The Hobbit is a much more light, and whimsical, tale. The trilogy, on the other-hand, is remarkably dark and paints Middle Earth as a world full of strife. Since The Hobbit is a first person account written by a naive and jovial hobbit, it always kept a easier tone. The stakes just aren't as high.
ReplyDeleteThe story of how a young Bilbo acquires the ring and what he does with it is one of the best I've ever read. The next two films should be markedly more exciting than this one. I recommend you read the book. It could lead to a greater appreciation/anticipation for this new trilogy.
'The Hobbit' is much more light-hearted than any film in the trilogy. Like you said, the story focuses on a hobbit plus on 13 dwarfs. In the trilogy, in the films anyway the hobbits and the dwarf Gimli were often used as comic relief. The dwarfs in 'The Hobbit'our used for humor much more than Bilbo but when the focus is on these brighter characters, the story is naturally going to be very light-hearted.
ReplyDeleteThe ring in the trilogy caused for a very dark tone. This ring really changed people for the worst and was sought after my a power that's evil is much greater than that of the ring. Because of this, Jackson used very dark visuals but also darkened every other aspect of the film. 'The Hobbit' is no where near this because like you said, it is not that type of story.
Since you have read the book you probably have a more valid opinion than I but I think that absent of Smaug or really any protagonist played in this first film really helped create a lighter tone. The orks were the lead protagonist in this film but they were never a huge threat. I think as both the orks and Smaug become more involved, a much darker tone will become present.
I am seriously considering reading the book as I think it will help in my understandment of the story.