The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

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)

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)

“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)

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. (12/13/2012)

Returning to Middle-earth after so many years is fine. The three hours are still mesmerizing in the perfect WETA world, both in the moments of infantile goofiness (the book itself is a fairy tale) and the ultimate in self-indulgence (the battle of the thundering men of the rocks), yet it all feels somehow... hollow. This is mainly because there is no imaginative moment from a distinctive filmmaker and the only vital moment of the whole film is the puzzle game with Gollum. In the end, I'm actually sorry in retrospect that Guillermo del Toro didn't direct it because Peter Jackson loves this world maybe a little too much. I liked it, and yet I have no reason to ever see it again. (01/15/2013)

I was holding my breath to see the Hobbit, then I didn’t manage to go see it at the cinema and so I had to wait for the DVD. I saved every behind-the-scenes video that Peter Jackson put out and that he enticed me with as much as a movie creator possibly could. Each time I enter Middle-earth, it’s a completely unforgettable experience and I expected nothing less from this movie. But throughout the entire time, I was nervous about one particular thing; I couldn’t begin to grasp why the thin little book got adapted into three three-hour movies. I was afraid of a real mess-up and so I wondered if he at least manages to make every single scene meaningful to the movie and makes it entertaining to spend time in the world and go through it all with Bilbo. Sure, he mixed in more stories than just Bilbo’s, but it ended up exactly like I’d feared; a lot of the scenes were pointless and I had downright trouble to make it through the beginning. It took an awfully long time and I felt as if nothing happened throughout the middle part of the movie and only then began the fantastic journey of saving the dwarf lands. But that was probably the only problem. Everything else was a complete classic. A beautiful story, great characters, the same actors (thank goodness), and at times, it was a pleasant surprise to see the same actors once again after a decade. Plus, the amazing atmosphere of the beautiful, wondrous but often inhospitable world and, of course, the amazing music by Howard Shore couldn’t have turned out any different. In the end, I was wholeheartedly happy about the movie, but if the incredibly dragged-out beginning wasn’t there, I’d give it five stars. But not like this, unfortunately. (06/06/2013)

"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)

Before the light of day arises, over the misty mountains we go deep into the shadows, for our lost treasure. Peter Jackson returned to Middle-earth and gave me a heartfelt gift that moves me since the first "Dear Frodo". No, I definitely won't be one of those who criticize The Hobbit for being too fairy-tale-like 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 it. 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. However, 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 or The Unfinished Tales. The result is the fulfillment of my reader's dreams, 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)

When it comes to fantasy, it’s all terribly simple. You just have to create a magical world for the viewer to fall in love with, pick characters that are quirky enough but not too quirky for the viewer to fall in love with, don't mess up the effects, compose masterful music that awakens the little kid in the viewer who longs for adventure every time he hears it, and then just come up with a really, really engaging story. If you can pull this off, even the girl who knew for sure that The Hobbit wasn't going to be for her will still be happy in the end. 4.5 stars. (11/03/2015)

It is important to realize that the concept of Tolkien originated not thanks to "The Hobbit," but thanks to the legendary book trilogy "The Lord of the Rings." "The Hobbit" is nothing more, but also nothing less, than a charming adventure children's fairy tale with flat characters and without a functioning alternative universe. The mythical mythological world that appealed to all generations was truly created by Tolkien in "The Lord of the Rings." While in the film trilogy, Jackson had to reduce characters, motifs, and plot, here, he had to add and inflate. One blockbuster film would be more than enough for the literary Hobbit. However, I understand that this fantasy genre is a goldmine, and in the interest of producers and their profits, it is necessary to come up with a new trilogy. The result, however, is the feeling that each shot lasts a few seconds or a moment longer, and the pace of the film is lost. However, it is still an atmospheric affair with a generous budget and, thanks to that, a magnificent spectacle. The camera luxuriates in the fascinating scenery of wild mountains, forests, and fantastic buildings, and the director fills this world with a variety of creatures and brings them to life using top-notch special effects. However, it is very noticeable how much the book is a children's tale because compared to "The Lord of the Rings," the characters are more childish. This applies not only to the behavior of the dwarves but, for example, especially to the wizard Radagast. In addition to the dragged-out plot, I have one more objection. While watching the film, I remembered an old joke about how many heavily armed German tank divisions are needed to overcome two Soviet partisans armed with a pocket knife. This small group of heroes crushes their enemies too easily, destroying one bloodthirsty beast after another, and the viewer doesn't have to fear for their heroes at all. It is surprising that they worried about the fate of Middle-earth in "The Lord of the Rings when this group of dwarves with Gandalf and his hobbit friend would be enough to face Sauron's gigantic hordes. If you know that the heroes cannot die, you don't fear for them, and the dramatic essence of the film is lost. Sometimes (and quite often, actually) it resembles animated slapstick in action scenes. On the other hand, the scenes with Gollum, for example, are truly exquisite, and overall it can be said that it is, if not the best, one of the best popcorn movies of the season. Overall impression: 65%. (02/10/2013)

A return to Middle Earth with all the trimmings. The movie is sometimes a little slow, but not enough to get boring. In places it’s merry and playful, like the bunny-girls, elsewhere it’s dark and fateful with a sub-plot about the rise of Sauron and the principles of the ring. The dwarves keep on blending into one, but they will have their chance again. Primarily, Richard Armitage, alias Thorin, is outstanding, mainly because he’s the hardest nut ever. I was very satisfied with Bilbo. (Thanks also to Elijah Wood) Frodo was almost always a whiney maggot in Lord of the Rings, while Martin Freeman gives the elder Baggins balls. Overall he’s more charismatic, more fun and you want to be on his side. I like the supporting characters and also the alternative shots of Rivendell and Gollum and his jolly songs rock the most of all of the familiar characters. There’s still a lot more of the story waiting for us and I am looking forward like a child to Smaug the Terrible opening his eye. "This thing all things devours: birds, beasts, trees, flowers. Gnaws iron, bites steel, grinds hard stones to meal, slays king, ruins town and beats mountain down." (12/16/2012)

The desire to make "The Hobbit" into an epic trilogy is understandable, but unfortunately, it's not as widely appealing. A decade later, it wasn't a major phenomenon and only half of the people were interested in this prequel. (07/03/2022)

I'll start right away with the most superficial thing, which unfortunately caught my attention the most. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is generally considered visually stunning, it has computer effects, sometimes obvious, but they are beautifully done. So I don't understand how it is possible that after ten years, the technology and the style of shooting digital scenes have not advanced even a bit. How is it possible that everything looks exactly the same as it did ten years ago? The same visual effects, the same digital Orcs, goblins, and similar creatures. Unfortunately, the same goes for other elements, although not always. The plot is similarly extravagant and conceptually conceived as The Fellowship of the Ring. The journey is the same (camera movements, monumental music – by the way, again taken from LotR), the battles are the same, the pilgrimage sites are the same. Not only in terms of location, visualization, but also in terms of emotions. Weathered rocks are again nothing more than fortresses of evil, while a tranquil glade is again a break during a long journey, where the heroes gain energy, strength, and wise advice to continue. There are just too many identical things. It is obvious that the books are similar to each other and similarly written. It is logical that The Hobbit as a film will not be dramatically different. But I didn't expect that it would be “just” as good as the original trilogy in key elements, and worse in all other aspects. Peter Jackson worked brilliantly with the main evil of Sauron, but here there is nothing like that. Iconic slow-motion shots sometimes become annoyingly prolonged. It is still excellent filmmaking, but it feels like it was primarily created for the sake of big money, rather than out of love for the work. The most beautiful scene is the last one with the Eagles. (12/26/2012)

Peter Jackson’s fantasy is still in good form. He filmed the first part of The Hobbit as an epic fairy tale prologue (with epic flashbacks), in which everyone finds their place. I am almost maximally satisfied. The first film uses a lot of nostalgia and tries to evoke the same atmosphere as in The Fellowship of the Ring. And it works. The opening of the LOTR trilogy is referenced by similar scenes (the beginning in the Shire actually takes place just a few minutes before the Fellowship, then we have the enchantment of Rivendell, the crossing over the mountains reminiscent of the Caradhras Pass...), characters that are great to see (Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett), and the familiar Shore score also helps, backed by a new theme. Martin Freeman was the best possible choice for Bilbo, and I was pleased with the casting and the look of the dwarves, as well as the big action scenes, like the fight between the rock giants or the escape from the orcs. They are playful and breathtaking. And as far as the plot is concerned, the writers have managed to make a simple story appropriately and professionally cute. Tolkien would have been pleased. I don't understand most of the criticisms.__P.S. I liked the extended version even more, I'm especially glad for the expansion of the orc realm under the mountain and the load of humor in Rivendell. Now it deserves five stars. (12/23/2012)

Some of the mixed reviews had shaken my unwavering conviction that the new expedition to Middle-earth will be at least as spectacular and entertaining as the first two parts of the LOTR trilogy (the third one is qualitatively unparalleled, don't get mad at me). But once The Hobbit finally kicked off, once the beautiful and well-known musical theme is played for the first time, and once the whole theatre was immersed in the depths of the amazing dwarf city, I felt I was seven years younger and thought "Here we go again". This feeling stayed with me until the closing credits, and in the last act it was several times stronger and more intense. Jackson was simply the man for the job, unleashed in his favourite setting, and with the generous help of breathtaking effects and natural monuments, he manages to transfer his love of the subject matter to the viewer, just as he did in The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit may not have any memorable scene like Moria in The Fellowship, and instead of the all-powerful Sauron, the main danger here is a bunch of ugly digital orcs, but it’s still first-class adventure fantasy with a magical audiovisual character that completely absorbs and incorporates its secondary motifs into Tolkien's multi-layered mythological tapestry without ever being boring. Considering its length, the story is also incredibly balanced, spiced with pleasant humour and also flawlessly escalated, so in my opinion a new legend is undoubtedly in the making. After all, how many times in a lifetime do we get a film that can reach and influence an entire generation of viewers with its own perfectly thought-out and immensely captivating world? I’ve just counted the fourth, and I hope I don't have to mention which are the three that preceded it. 100% (12/15/2012)

Basically, I have a lot of reservations about The Hobbit, but I still have to admit that Jackson did a good job, though not always as he intended. Dividing the story into three parts turned out to be a terrible solution to the small content of the original book, and it just kills the film. A number of additional motifs, sub-plots and links were added to the austere story, and they are mostly completely useless and only extend the runtime. The Hobbit cannot be compared to any of The Lord of the Rings films, but the film is not that much of tragedy in terms of other ordinary productions. Rather than an epic fantasy, however, the film is reminiscent of an adventurous fairy tale for younger audiences. It’s a weaker version of The Lord of the Rings without grandeur and destiny. 60% (12/11/2012)

Never this year have I left the movie theatre as excited as after seeing The Hobbit. I didn’t expect it to be as good as The Lord of the Rings, and rightfully so. Actually, I didn't expect much of this movie, so it could only surprise me. And surprise me it did. And how! According to the reviews, it seemed like a movie that was only supposed to take money out of people’s pockets. It's true that not much happened in the first installment, but the atmosphere immediately enthralled me with the first sounds of the amazing music and didn't let go even after the ending. Nostalgic memories of The Lord of the Rings kept coming back to me. Of course, there were slightly too many effects, and the story wasn't as well-narrated as in The Lord of the Rings, but from whichever angle I look at it, I just can't help myself. This movie was right up my alley. I give it 5 stars and rank it among the TOP of this year. After almost a year, I watched The Hobbit again on Blu-ray, thinking I would definitely not enjoy it as much as I did the first time. What I got was a three-hour ecstasy of great atmosphere, music and absolutely amazing visuals. I still see the same mistakes, it still bears no comparison to The Lord of the Rings, but I just can't help it and stick with 5 stars. (12/16/2012)