The Hobbit

The Hobbit

A "Hobbit-Sized" Review

A Hobbit-Sized Review

Film'Stache may have left this one too late. I'm thinking you guys are smart, and have already seen The Hobbit at your local cinema. Maybe it's best if we move on and do a simple "Hobbit-sized" review.

Although I liked the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, I am barely a J.R.R. Tolkien fan - so much so that I can barely tell an orc and a goblin apart. The Lord of the Rings films were so full of action, darkness, a lurking threat and danger, and empathy towards the heroes you're rooting for. Sadly, The Hobbit lacks most of these qualities.

[spoilers ahead]

The Hobbit is set 60 years prior to the first Lord of the Rings movie, and tells the first part of the story of Bilbo Baggins's unexpected adventure across Middle-Earth. Led by Gandalf and thirteen dwarves, the group travel to reclaim the dwarves' home that had been taken over by Smaug the dragon. It stars Martin Freeman as Bilbo, all of the regulars from LOTR, plus the dwarf newcomers, led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage).

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Disappointment

I have a few problems with The Hobbit. Firstly, Bilbo Baggins is tricked by Gandalf into hosting a party for Thorin and his band of dwarves, and they present Bilbo with a contract to recruit him to join their quest. Bilbo is very reluctant, and turns them down again and again throughout the meeting, with a final "no" at the end of the night. When Bilbo wakes up in the morning, the dwarves and Gandalf have left, leaving Bilbo's contract on his table. Then all of a sudden, despite his heavy objection towards adventure, he quickly packs his things and goes running after them! I don't get it. He just wakes up, thinking "Ok, sweet, let's go"? Nup.

Next, the recurrence of characters from Lord of the Rings makes the whole universe feel veerrrry small. I imagine that Tolkien's world is quite large, and certainly felt that way in watching LOTR. The Hobbit features the same wizards Gandalf and Saruman, elves Galadriel and Elrond (also revisits Rivendell), an scene featuring Gollum, and also the older Bilbo and Frodo at the beginning of the film. 

Also, it doesn't feel like anything's really at stake in The Hobbit. It's simply an adventure. The film fails to make me care for the new characters. We're told the tale of the dragon Smaug taking over the dwarves' land, but I'm really not feeling the dwarves' desperation. Like, if the whole quest fails, it wouldn't bother me as much as it would if the LOTR quest failed.

Bilbo as a main character is a refreshing take on this world. Martin Freeman brings a lot more humour to The Hobbit, and is also more accepting and courageous in the situations he is thrust into. This guy is no Frodo. Also there are some really nice action scenes in the film, in particularly the final battle at the end of the film. I really loved the score building into something epic here, and was awesome at complementing the climax.

Oh, and 48 frames per second? Amazing. You'll hear a lot of critics complaining , and the people follow that opinion like sheep. My opinion? I'm all for it. 48 fps is noticeably smoother. There is a lot less image flicker than traditional 24 fps. This pays off especially when watching in 3D: action scenes are less blurry, screen brightness is improved, plus for those of you who suffer "3D sickness" (my fiance) 48 fps soothes the sensation. It did take a few minutes to get used to, but it does get better after the initial reaction. My guess is that it will be more effective in future movies as the high frame rate and 3D technologies improve.

One bad thing about the higher frame rate: because 48 fps shows extra frames, it presents extra information to your brain so it doesn't have to guess or fill in what's between the flicker of frames in traditional 24 fps, and so CGI and any props used on a set that are meant to look real in 24 fps will look fake in 48 fps.

A great resource that I found useful in understanding frame rates can be found here: About.com - High Frame Rate Video Playback.

Despite my feelings on the movie's shortcomings, it is a nice film. Coming from someone who hasn't read the book, and hearing that the movie feels stretched out due to it being separated into three films, it really doesn't feel that way. I understand that it would feel that way for someone who has read the book, knows the plot points, and knows the overall story. I can assure you that it doesn't feel stretched out, like in the way that the final two Twilight films do (ughh...).