I Approve of This Movie: The Hobbit

Off we go again.

The Short Version:
If you have more than a passing love of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, in particular The Fellowship of the Ring, you will love this movie. Probably. You should anyways.

The Long Version:
What's this? A movie that's still in (some) theatres and Rick is reviewing it?! Yes, dear faithful reader(s), I've decided I had better hurry up and write a (somewhat) recent review before this blog becomes a time machine.

That being said, this will not be a straight review in the strictest sense. This is more of an attempt to create a convincing argument as to why this movie overcomes the heavy amount of criticism and/or naysaying thrown at it. I say this because that's what happened to me when I saw it.

After seeing the first trailer for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I would describe my reaction as: Pleased? Satisfied? Excited-but-not-to-the-same-level-as-other-movies-coming-out? I can't quite put my finger on what exactly it was, but it was a positive reaction met with a little doubt. Kind of like seeing an old friend again, but they have a slightly different look and you're still deciding if you like it or not.

Not long after that, however, the deluge began. To the average movie fan who doesn't spend at least several hours a week checking up on new movie buzz the sudden onslaught of pessimism may have gone unnoticed. To fans like myself, it was unavoidable. It was a source of much debate and conversation between my colleagues and I. The highlights were as such:

• Jackson filmed it at 40 frames per second. Why would he do that? Won't it look terrible? Like old British TV terrible?
• It's going to be in 3D. Seriously? Do we really need another crappy 3D conversion that costs more money to see?
• It was two movies. Now Jackson's splitting it into three. What?! The Hobbit is shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books and somehow it's going to be three movies?? Are there going to be five-minute scenes of just walking???

Hehe... that woulda been funny. But seriously now, there were a lot of objections to this movie long before it ever hit theatres. And honestly, most of them seemed very valid. It did look like Peter Jackson was being a bit too indulgent with this film. Most agree that his Lord of the Rings trilogy is an unqualified triumph of epic filmmaking, and I feel that many fans couldn't understand why he would want to mess with a formula that worked so well. After all, these movies are supposed to fit perfectly with the previous ones as one cohesive series. So, as I headed into the theatre my expectations had dropped significantly from when I saw the first trailer.

What's he gonna think?!

Over the course of 2 hours and 45 minutes my expectations and perception of this film changed dramatically. Much like I discovered when I watched Hugo, around the 3/4 mark I realized that I loved this movie and didn't really want it to end. I think the overwhelming impression I got from it was: heart. This movie has a lot of it – in the story, the characters, the visuals, the craftsmanship. Tolkien obviously put a lot of care into his book and Jackson, likewise, put it into his film. No one would dispute Jackson's love for this world. He'd have to love it to spend the better part of a decade working on it. And it shows. Yes, maybe a little too much, but it shows nonetheless.

Now, I have not read The Hobbit. I have read the Lord of the Rings trilogy and about half of The Silmarillion. Unfortunately for me, The Hobbit was a grade 4 reading requirement... until the year I got there. With that in mind, I actually didn't know any of the specifics of the story, just the broad strokes. So I have no way of telling you how accurate the movie was to the book, nor how overindulgent it was in keeping in parts that could have been cut. My sense of it is that it's as faithful as the previous trilogy was. In other words, quite faithful, but not absolutely. My sense is also that it's a bit more indulgent in keeping in little moments or scenes than could have been cut (it would have to be to get 3 movies from 1 book, supplements or no). The common complaint that the first quarter of the movie is slow is valid. But if, like me, you have no previous experience with the group of dwarves that arrive unannounced on Bilbo Baggins' doorstep, then it won't feel as slow as it otherwise might because they are interesting, entertaining characters. And it is in this early part of the film that Jackson put in a touch that I truly loved – and missed a bit in the Lord of the Rings. A song.

Music plays a key role in Tolkien's universe. It can also be hauntingly effective at setting a mood or conveying unspoken thoughts in film, like when Billy Boyd's Pippin gives a lilting, heart-breaking performance in The Return of the King. Same thing here. The weight and magnitude of the challenge before this group really sets in. And aside from perhaps Gandalf – who obviously knows well the dangers that lie ahead – the character that sells this most is Thorin Oakenshield, who has the most awesome-sounding name, ever. This guy:

He's dreaaaaamy.

This portrayal of Thorin (again, haven't read the book) is one of the most enjoyable additions to Peter Jackson's take on Tolkien's universe. His backstory is a tragic tale, excellently told at the beginning of the movie, as he loses his family and his kingdom to Smaug the dragon. And in truth, this film is his story, not Bilbo's. That would be one complaint I would lodge against it – Bilbo, aside from his superb run-in with Gollum (possibly the highlight of the film), is pretty much a tag-along in this movie. It's only towards the end that he really starts to come into his own and move more towards front-and-centre. Before that, all I really wanted to see and hear more from was Mr. Dreamy-Locks above. It's his arc that's most engaging; turning from a bitter, untrusting curmudgeon, to a man who's eyes are opening to the world and people around him, and even willing to trust someone other than his kind. It's basic but potent stuff.

Along the way there are some fantastic visuals and set pieces that in some cases actually got me to elicit an audible "wow". One such moment came as the group was traversing the Misty Mountains and suddenly were caught between an epic battle of colossal Rock Giants hurling boulders at each other amidst a thunderstorm. Even in words that sounds awesome. The incidental nature of this scene caught my imagination – these giants weren't interested at all in our heroes, and the whole scene plays out as simply another fantastical event that's common to Middle Earth. That was something I didn't feel in the Lord of the Rings.

Smashy smashy.

Another excellent action sequence was when our heroes made their escape from the grotesque Goblin King across ladders and walkways in the mines under the mountains. What made this scene stand out from so many others like it was the speed: the characters battled hundreds of goblins while sprinting at full tilt. It was thrilling enough on its own, but – prepare yourself for it – it was actually made better by the 3D. I know. I hardly believe the words myself.

In fact, The Hobbit was another excellent example of 3D used under restraint. At no point did it take me out of the movie or seem like just another gimmick. The con to this pro is that I could also easily see that, while it was very enjoyable, it wasn't wholly necessary. Seeing this movie in glorious Two-Dimensions should be just as good. But if The Hobbit is only playing in 3D at a theatre near you, don't let that stop you (aside from the extra cost, of course). As for the 40 frames per second issue, I think my theatre was showing a traditional 24 fps version. If it was 40 fps I didn't notice it at all, so I'm fairly certain it wasn't and therefore I can't really comment.

All of this is not to say the movie is without flaw. It has its flaws just as the original trilogy does. There are also some of the same logic questions that stick out if you think too hard about the story (why can't the giant eagles just fly them ALL THE WAY there and save everyone some grief?), but those are as much questions for Tolkien as Jackson. And if Tolkien had answers, he won't be sharing them any time soon. What this movie did do successfully was rekindle my imagination for this interpretation of Middle Earth. It felt right at home viewed alongside the Lord of the Rings movies, which I immediately went home and started rewatching. And, perhaps most of all, it gave me hope that Jackson can continue to defy his critics and pull off another hat trick. I'm eager to return next winter and find out.

I'll leave you with Mr. Dreamy-Locks again.

You can't look away.

My Name is Rick Ames and
I Approve of This Movie