Directed by:
Peter JacksonCinematography:
Andrew LesnieComposer:
Howard ShoreCast:
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Dean O'Gorman, Aidan Turner (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
Bilbo Baggins is swept into a quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield. Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, Shapeshifters and Sorcerers. Although their goal lies to the East and the wastelands of the Lonely Mountain first they must escape the goblin tunnels, where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever... Gollum. Here, alone with Gollum, on the shores of an underground lake, the unassuming Bilbo Baggins not only discovers depths of guile and courage that surprise even him, he also gains possession of Gollum's "precious" ring that holds unexpected and useful qualities... (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (74)
Reviews (18)
The Hobbit does not lend itself to forced conversion into a regular fantasy saga. It is, and always has been, a fairy-tale with a moral, and has never had greater ambitions than to be “just" a good bedtime story. And it is precisely out of this conflict between a fairy tale and an epic fantasy, which is not supported in the narrative structure of the original (or in the appendices), that friction points arise which Jackson does not always manage to smooth over. One moment it's a lovely quest exploring natural beauty, a scene later a fetish fantasy à la Warhammer full of slow-motion shots of muscled dwarves cutting off limbs like on an assembly line, followed by a return to a non-conflict idyll about misadventures on the road. You could probably read the initial six chapters that the first Hobbit movie works with faster than the nearly three hours that Peter devotes to them on the screen. Moreover, PJ opted for an unfortunate stylization to an unacknowledged remake of the Fellowship of the Ring; as if he'd stretched out the Fellowship from one movie into three and interspersed it with great CGI action escapades like in his King Kong. But the best scenes here are the simple ones based purely on actors (led by riddles in the dark). You can clearly see here which of the scenes would end mercilessly on the cutting room floor in the original two-part concept. However, none of the above means that it is not a good movie anyway. Because it is good cinema, plain and simple. Nor is my satisfaction spoiled by the fact that someone else should have taken over from Jackson; perhaps Cuarón or del Torro, because this cut was created for fans and not for a regular audience. However, it is probably clear from the score I gave it which category I belong in, despite all these criticisms; I've been enjoying it since the second screening with a stupid smile on my face, no matter what reason says… The extended version performs a similar function as it did with The Fellowship; that is, an interesting and pleasant expansion. But you won't miss anything if you don't see it. With one exception (a completely reworked Rivendale; especially the night passage), it contains nothing fundamental. It's definitely not an editorial revision that changes one's experience like the longer version did with The Two Towers. A very technical P.S.: HFR 48 fps really is precisely as (r)evolutionary as claimed and is partly changing the way film media is perceived. However, due to its clarity, sharpness, fluency and detail, it is completely unforgiving of filmmaking mistakes/effects and is therefore not suited to films where props, sets and masks play first fiddle. It spoils the cinematic illusion because you can clearly see "where the glue for the dwarf's beard ends" and that "boulder is a painted prop". It also does not work with dubbing since in a normal picture, the dubbing artist can speak to the movement of the actor's mouth, but here every little lip movement of every word can be seen, and it will no longer pass unnoticed -- a rather bizarre impression arises when the visual of the mouth clearly says something different than what you hear. Of course, HFR as such is life-like, immediate, but a bit like being at theatre. However, in non-studio shots of (not only) landscapes or purely CGI moments, HFR is breathtaking, and, for example, for nature documentaries, sports broadcasts, or CGI spectacles, holds indisputable promise for the future. There are undeniable positives, but there are negatives as well, and The Hobbit allows you to feel both fully.
()
(less)
(more)
I expected those weird people who in their free time dress as dwarves, elves and goblins and play at fighting in fields and forests to be excited about The Hobbit regardless of its quality, so I took the 86% rating with a pinch of salt and went to the cinema convinced that I wouldn’t give it more than two stars, and that I would regret it. This opinion was the result of the strange intention of the studio to stretch a slim book as much as possible, the bland trailers and, in particular, my negative experience with post-LotR Jackson (value for money, I think King Kong and Lovely Bones are the worst monstrosities Hollywood has produced in recent years). But that didn’t happen and here you have four stars (70%), and even though I’m not trembling in delight, it’s still a pleasant surprise. The Hobbit is nice eye candy with beautiful locations, a likeable protagonist and good special effects (by the most part). No more, no less. It’s hurt, though, by the weird attempt to blend the fairytale spirit of the book with the more adult character of Lord of the Rings. It rides on a similar nostalgic vibe as last year’s Expendables II, though this time it actually worked on me, because, unlike silly action flicks from the 80s, I do like Middle Earth. I will probably be one of the few who enjoyed more the first “boring” half, where the characters only talk and you can quietly soak in the atmosphere of The Shire (from the LotR trilogy, my favourite part is the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring). The second half, good action notwithstanding, is an example of why I generally don’t like fantasy as a genre, and why sometimes I call it a parody of sci-fi. When the heroes get in trouble, the flexible rules of the fantasy world always allow from some bullshit deus-ex-machina to save them, and in the case of the ending The Hobbit, this is literal. 70%. PS: If I ever watch it again, I will have fun trying to count how many times one of the characters screams “Run”! And I will try to remember each dwarf other than by the colour of their hair and beards.
()
With “The Hobbit” is like with the weather. When it’s hot, people complain it’s hot, and when it’s cold, they complain that it’s cold. With “The Lord of the Rings”, audiences grumbled that Jackson left out a lot and adapted it to his own image; with “The Hobbit”, they grumble the opposite, that the adaptation is too literal and consistent in quoting Tolkien's book. People just don't know what they want, you can't please anyone and I laugh at this herd mentality. So....did you find Jackson's King Kong overwrought, but you loved it anyway because you admired its perfect filmmaking craft and imagination? Or on the other hand, is there at least a tiny soul of a child left in you who likes to play and wonder? In that case, you’ll sure love The Hobbit. It's like coming to a long-awaited party among old friends and feeling at ease with them. On top of that, Jackson will overwhelm you with so many audiovisual sensations that you will feel like you’re drinking moonshine. Leave the boredom and negativity to the curmudgeons and to Spáčilová with her worn-out compilation of foreign reviews. And for the rest of you, put on your hats and run to the cinema! Jackson is still on top and the spirit of Middle Earth is still alive.
()
"Set time" in Middle-earth - I can't think about this film in any other way. A prequel for something that doesn't need a prequel, a film that has a hard time finding its pace, a film that can't shake off the specter of the overly strenuous imitation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a film whose characters, despite almost three hours, act like Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and a chubby bunch of blabbering beards (moreover, I'm not quite sure if the step of giving Thorin the position of Aragorn was successful). Since The Return of the King, Jackson seems to me to be lost in a pastel-filled imagination - after the third sunset / sunrise, I have no doubt that what was "beautiful and epic" in the original trilogy is more self-serving and kitschy here (this also applies to the depressing flights, which are supposed to confirm to us "that it's here again and it's as big as an orc double chin"). Still, I'm not overly disappointed. Partly because I didn't expect anything else. Particularly because Tolkien's book was not particularly hurt by the powerful thickening of the "additional" storylines, although the best moments for me are equally identical to those of the books (puzzles in the dark, the Song of Durin's People). In some cases it is a mirror reflection of The Fellowship of the Ring (for example composition: the historical "battle" introduction // the exposition in Middle Earth // the diplomatic interlude in Rivendell // the action mess in the depths, but there are more such connections), while in some case it is its opposite (while The Fellowship of the Ring cut and dynamized, the Hobbit rather stretches and retards with retrospectives and explanations). I can't shake the impression that the original trilogy looked "more cinematic" thanks to a smaller share of digital accessories, and thanks to that it also functioned as "good epic theater". The Hobbit did not give me this feeling even during the eloquent speeches in Rivendell. No, I'm definitely not annoyed, but if I was anxiously waiting to see if the division of the film into three parts made much sense, I have no greater reason to say YES after today. The rating applies to the 3D version with dubbing and hovers a "bit" over three stars. But just a little bit. Edit: not even the original version convinced me. For me, the film between the poetic introduction and the action finale contains an awful lot of dramatically staged rubbish, which did not draw me into its depths for even a moment like any (cut out) scene in The Fellowship of the Ring. It is wide, so I'm wondering if all those dialogic retardations and hinted storylines will be beneficial later.
()
“The World isn’t in your books and maps. It’s out there.” Review of the extended version (I haven’t seen the cinematic release). Though it is presented as an adventure fantasy following in the footsteps of The Lord of the Rings, for me The Hobbit was primarily a story about the transformation of a wayfarer (or nerd) journeying through fictional worlds, who longs mainly for his books, into a real hero. In particular, Bilbo’s lack of capability for epic adventure enlivens and advances the narrative (culinary tips given to giants, escaping from the Goblins). A forgotten handkerchief brings about not only the gradual loss of all creature comforts, but also the protagonist’s transformation from someone who constantly seeks a stronger leader to guide him into a character who acts of his own volition. I believe that this transition toward independence will continue in future instalments. The long introduction in Hobbiton is not important solely for the purpose of outlining the objective of the mission and introducing the dwarves. The depiction of the comfort in which the provincial-minded “no adventure” halfling lives also serves as a contrasting background for the situations in which the protagonist later finds himself. Nostalgia for one’s lost home is a motif that is given greater depth throughout the film, not only through Bilbo, but also through the dwarves living in exile after their exodus. The Hobbit and the dwarves repeatedly overcome their physiognomic preordination, as they have to face enemies much larger than themselves again and again. The gradual intensification of the risks with which the characters are confronted occurs in parallel with a warning of future threats, resulting in The Hobbit becoming a major promise of events that have yet to come. There is no harm in postponing the undiluted spectacle, because the adventure presented to us grows in parallel with Bilbo, who is just getting his bearings in a world of real danger, so he has enough time for riddles with a schizophrenic scoundrel and, like the viewer, must have a lot explained to him. The explanatory passages turn the main storyline into a font of secondary storylines that, however, do not slow down or distract from the primary narrative, as they converge at the initial source and make it clear that their importance will be fully appreciated in the sequel. Only the length of some of the action sequences goes beyond the needs of the narrative, revealing that Jackson, like del Toro, is at heart a gadgeteer with a weakness for bizarre monsters. Furthermore, the raw visual aspect of the action scenes does not fit well with the more lyrical image of the picturesque landscape. Given the multiple screenwriters and the literary and other sources that they drew from, the result is still admirably cohesive and it’s been a long time since I enjoyed such a pure (in genre terms) and (in the good sense of the word) old-fashioned adventure. 85%
()
Gallery (227)
Photo © New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Warner Bros. Pictures / James Fisher, Mark Pokorny
