The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

So here we are, one of the biggest films expected this year, the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy (Though 'The Hobbit' book was released before 'The Lord of the Rings'), Bilbo's first adventure. We finally get to watch 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'.

By the way I won't be commenting on the high frame rate of 48 frames per second, because I saw the film in 2D where it was apparently shown in 24 frames per second. Also I won't be commenting on the 3D. Because I still hate it.

Here Bilbo Baggins (The older played by Ian Holm, the younger by Martin Freeman) recounts his tale with Gandalf (Ian McKellen), and a bunch of dwarves led by Thorin (Richard Armitage), who are seeking to reclaim the Lonely Mountain and its treasures from the dragon Smaug. Along the way they have to deal with Thorin's old foe Azog (Manu Bennett), as well as some pesky elves, including Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) (By the way they're not actually enemies), and Gollum (Peter Serkis).

First of all, I don't care that the book has been split into three films. It's stupid yes, especially since the Lord of the Rings trilogy was split into...a trilogy and the one Hobbit book has been split into three. But in all honesty, I don't care. They wanted to put as much as the book into the films as possible, and that's what we get. Well, okay I haven't actually read the book but there's so much detail they must have adapted every sentence and didn't make up any stuff...right?

Basically the film has what you can expect from a Peter Jackson film, it's stunning, it's enchanting, and it's bum numbing. That was probably the major problem for me, after a while I just started to get uncomfortable.  And when this film nearly reaches the three hour mark, can you blame me? And after all that, since we all know the book has been split into three films, after those 169 minutes, the story isn't even over yet.

And a majority of this film I feel was padding. Something which the Lord of the Rings films also had to a lesser extent. The locations are beautiful, there's no question about it. But you do feel that about an hour of this film takes up these shots of the country.

The plot is still good, it kind of follows the same plot as Lord of the Rings (Or that follows the same plot of this...whatever). But like Lord of the Rings, there is still a major plot hole; look in the spoiler section. Though you do feel that the film keeps diverting from the story. Also, the film basically rinses and repeats the same thing, the group are ambushed, something runs in off screen to save them, the group are ambushed, something runs in off screen to save them, etc, etc. Then, since this film was split into three, the film just ends. It leaves it at the what was probably the best point, but the film just ends.

The characters themselves are fascinating. Thorin is pretty much the most interesting, putting everything at risk to reclaim his people's home, while Bilbo is really entertaining. Gollum once again steals the scenes, adding some great humor and horror, whichever persona is on screen. The main problem though, is that there are so many characters you do tend to lose track of who is who. Hell Thorin is the only dwarf character's name I can actually remember and identify. And Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McKoy) does just randomly disappear.

The acting is really good, I mean it's terrific. Ian McKellen is his usual brilliant self, I'm a huge fan of Richard Armitage and he doesn't disappoint, and Martin Freeman not only brings the young Bilbo to life but he livens up the film. James Nesbitt meanwhile was an absolute joy to watch, being able to switch between comedy and drama effectively. A special nod however has to go to Serkis for his portrayal as Gollum. Just like the Lord of the Rings he delivers so much power, so much energy to the role, he effectively steals the limelight and is probably the best performer in this film. It is also great to see Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett, and Elijah Wood return to portray their characters from Lord of the Rings (Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel, and Frodo respectively). Oh, and apparently a black, smoke-like figure counts as an appearance from Benedict Cumberbatch.

Now, the creature designs...hmm. Well, the make-up is brilliant, it's fantastic. However, the monsters which are made of CGI, are a bit varied. Some look good, yet others look awful, in particular the Great Goblin (Barry Humphries) and the rock giants which looked really fake. I will say however, that the glimpse of the dragon Smaug at the end of the film, looked superb, he looked like he was there, he looked physical, he actually looked real. One of the orcs had the Wilhelm scream as well. That was fun.

So really, yeah this was a good film. The acting is terrific, the story (Of what there is) is good, the effects are...adequate, and it is a nice little touch seeing what becomes relevant in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It isn't the masterpiece which everyone expected it to be, but it is still a brilliant film to watch.




Spoiler section
Goddamn eagles!



UPDATE (19/12/12)

I have just seen the film for the second time. My friend wanted to see it so I thought why not. And I saw it in 3D. I will therefore say this; congratulations Peter Jackson, you managed to make your 3D look like 2D. There was literally nothing that leapt off the screen, at least the 'Clash of the Titans' remake at least had 3D. That was still terrible but at least it had 3D.

Secondly, I have therefore seen the 48 frames per second viewing now. It sucks. It sucks big time. It made pretty much everything look fake, even the things that weren't CGI. When someone or something moved fast, it was pretty much roadrunner, yet slow at the same time. Basically everything bad you've heard, it's ten times worse when you've also seen the 2D version. Hell, some shots make the background look like a really obvious green screen.