The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

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. (12/14/2012)

"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. (12/11/2012)

Whereas LOTR was filmed out of love and with little money, The Hobbit was filmed for money. The first viewing made me happy because of the return to Middle-earth, enveloped in Howard Shore’s music. But after the second viewing, I dropped my rating to three stars. It is unforgivable that the scenes with Gollum, who was a highlight of the phenomenal trilogy a decade ago, are so protracted that they cannot keep my attention with every word. In fact, the entire first Hobbit is incredibly protracted. While in LOTR you felt that it could’ve been longer, which it was with the extended editions, the first Hobbit looks as if it’s stuffed with cotton wool. If it portrayed some more intense relationships between the characters, such as Frodo’s friendship with Sam, it would’ve been more engaging. But there aren’t any such relationships. And the key problem compared to LOTR is the most expected: Peter Jackson cannot rely here on the ultimate evil and the menacing darkness, whose portrayal has always been his most powerful directorial asset. He does not have Sauron, Saruman, Mordor or the Uruk-hai, whom the main heroes have no chance against. LOTR’s strongest motif was the courage of the small, peaceful hobbits to confront the invincible, colossally powerful enemy. The Hobbit doesn’t have that. The main bad guy with his bunch of orcs is the most exciting feature of the film, but he’s not playing a bigger role in the story than, say, any of the bad guys from Narnia, The Golden Compass or similar superficial digital affairs. Martin Freeman is excellent, however, and the most beautiful scene of the film for me is the flight of the eagle. (12/19/2012)

“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% (12/13/2013)

Far over the Misty Mountains cold, To dungeons deep and caverns old, We must away, ere break of day, To seek our pale enchanted gold. Peter Jackson returned to Middle-earth and gave me a heartfelt gift that moved me from the first "Dear Frodo". No, I definitely won't be one of those who criticizes The Hobbit for being too much of a fairy tale compared to its more famous sequel, and simultaneously express how annoying it is that the plot, visuals, and everything else are connected or similar to the sequel. The book version of The Hobbit is a playful fantasy full of ideas and mysterious hints of what is happening or will happen in distant lands and times. And yet it was not made for a Hollywood adaptation, and despite being able to offer humor and adventure, it needed an additional factor. That factor arrived with the combination of The Lord of the Rings Appendices and Unfinished Tales. The result is the fulfillment of my dreams as a reader, the end of years of hoping and waiting, and above all, the story of three heroes. The guardian of Middle-earth, a stubborn dwarf leader, and a little hobbit who ran out without a handkerchief to live the greatest adventure of his life. (12/22/2012)