The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson)




48 Frames: An Unexpected Journey.

A mild-mannered Hobbit by the name of Bilbo Baggins is tasked with joining a group of Dwarfs, lead by Gandalf, to the Lonely Mountain in the hopes of claiming their home and gold back from the dragon Smaug.

When word first broke out that Jackson would be splitting the 300 some odd pages of the children aimed book The Hobbit, into another epic trilogy, a lot of people groaned at how thin he would be able to stretch the material. In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, everything and anything that would have ended up on the cutting room floor is thrown in here, such as the Rock Giants. Why? Is it because The Hobbit lacks the thrills and spectacle that is the Lord of the Rings. I'm going to put my bottom dollar on yes. Jackson needed something to fill his films with in order to excite the audience, thrill them and make them have the same awe they did more than a decade ago.

I want to say that The Hobbit works wonderfully, and it does for the most part. There are obvious flaws throughout, but my question is this. How do you rate a film, when it is presented in a format so distracting that it hurts you're overall enjoyment of it? Not only am I talking about the use of 3D, but the infamous 48 HFR which it is presented. Let me get these two issues out of the way first.

The 3D here is utterly useless. There are basically two kinds of 3D being presented to an audience right now. The Gimmick and the Immersive. The gimmick is what one would see in the Saw 3D, Final Destination 3D....any horror film really. Gags that poke out at the screen with gotcha moments. The second, the kind that James Cameron is trying to champion is the immersive one, in which the 3D makes you feel like you are in this world. Objects aren't really shooting out at you, but float around you. The most horrid use of 3D, many would have to agree is Clash of the Titans, but I must say, The Hobbit might give it a run for its money. Not once did I ever feel immersed in Middle Earth. It was not used to the scope and scale it should have been. There was depth, sure, but who wants to see depth with two people talking? It is distracting and overworks the brain to compensate for the film trickery.

Second, the 48 HFR. I would suggest that the average movie goer seek out 24. I know Jackson wants to present the film in 48, but it is simply the wrong movie for this format. First and most noticeable. People move quicker, like they are on fast-forward of your DVD remote. Simple task like picking up a cup, are too quick and make for an awkward and unpleasant viewing experience. Later on this is not as intrusive, but most of the damage will already be done. Second, the clear, crispness of the picture. I am one for HD presentation on my television, but here it seems odd and out of place. Many people have compared the look and feel of the film to daytime Soap Operas. I would tend to agree. It feels like something on TV. The digital presentation makes close up scenes seem really out of place when cutting in from afar. Those far away shots and sequences looks spectacular, most of the CGI is wonderfully realized in this frame rate, but everything sticks out like a sore thumb. The first thing I noticed was the fabric and lines on Gandalfs hat. Feels like it was something out of The Wizard of Oz, or a stage play. The realism of the smoothed over 24 is gone, the digital crisp of 48 is a win/lose situation. I had more problems with it than enjoyment.

With those problems constantly battling my enjoyment back to Middle Earth, I did walk away pleasantly surprised with the film. Everyone is on their A-game, which is of no surprise as Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman are always spectacular. Freeman manages to make a character I didn't care for in the original films, likable. Peter Jackson loves this world and his passion shows. One of the drawbacks would be that the film comes off as too cartoonish. This might be because the book was aimed to a younger crowd, but the Dwarfs and their antics are something out of a Star Wars prequel. Sure, they are meant to be comedic relief, but when dangerous and life threatening situations are happening, you don't want to be seeing them jump from tree to tree like some Warner Brothers cartoon.

Of course, being a prequel, it's fun to see things being set-up for the Lord of the Rings. The best sequences is of course the Riddles in the Dark with Gollum, who looks better than ever. The Hobbit is a wonderful film, that doesn't match the scope, energy or emotion of the Lord of the Rings. Go in expecting a good fantasy, nothing more and you'll walk away satisfied....that's if you walk away from a screening in 24 fps.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I may elaborate on this but I loved it, despite having low expectations.

I saw it in 3D and HFR 3D. I wouldn't discredit the 3D to that extent, it's like most 3D that isn't Avatar, surplus to requirement. However, seeing it again in HFR, the difference is noticeable and for the better. I wouldn't hesitate recommending HFR; where the motions on 3D blur and make it hard to focus, HFR reduces all those niggles and makes 3D a lot more tolerable. My old man didn't even notice the fast moving people in HFR but the missus did notice the blurred movement in 3D.

My stance on the two comes down to this- 3D films needs HFR but films don't need 3D.

__________________

Tis what I said as well

Rock Giants were actually in the book, they just weren't interacting quite as directly with the group like in the movie.

__________________
Let's talk some jive.

I though it was decent but it relied too much on tropes/cliches and so became rather silly. 6/10

I know they were in the book, but that did nothing for the story. Like I said, he threw everything and the kitchen sink into these films to be able to stretch it to 3, even stuff in the book that doesn't need to be translated to film.

IE-Rock-Em Sock-em Giants.

Except that he's taking stuff from two other books. Derp

I was very let down, it's a stretch even to call it a "good" movie. The LOTR characters have no place in this movie, the momentum conjured up in the opening scene is completely thrown away by the middle of the film. Instead of getting to know the dwarves, it tries to develop some stupid subplots that lead nowhere.

__________________

i wanna see this sooooooo bad!

Except you keep ignoring what I'm saying.....DERP.

After reading all the "meh" reviews (RT now has it at 65%) I think I will wait for the dvd to come out.

Is Peter Jackson the new George Lucas?

I felt similarly to the inclusion of certain LoTR characters but I got the impression Jackson was making this trilogy to be incorporated into LoTR as a continuous epic. Introducing Saruman here makes his role in LoTR a lot more shocking and the little hints towards Sauron are all build up. I think once the trilogy is complete, it will stand up a lot better as part of a Tolkien epic, opposed to individual endeavour.

Agree that the dwarves aren't handled as well as they should be, considering the running time, that only a handful stand out as individuals and the rest are woefully peripheral characters.

I'm not sure what subplots you refer to- the Necromancer?

I don't think Bilbo taking the ring will lead to anything significant....ever.

I watched it yesterday in standard 2D 24HFR so I can't really criticise the film where you have, all I can say is that I loved the film and I really do think the criticism of it are a bit harsh, what more did you expect from such a film? Whilst it starts off a bit slow and the dwarfs having supper with Bilbo takes a while, once they get going I was really in to it and you can see Jackson really does love this world he has created, I thought the visuals and special effects on the version I watched were great with some great battle scenes that you would expect, Freeman as Bilbo is an inspired casting choice as well, he was great and I thought some of the dwarves were developed quite well, Thorin obviously but we have 2 more films to share with them as well.

But it's not until Gollum appears that the film really hits top form, Serkis does it again in by far the film's greatest scene that was really something special and fearful that brought back memories from when I originally read the book as a child.

For me, at least a

__________________

That and the white orc guy. Which is at least half the movie.

The Necromancer is Sauron isn't it? And then you had when Gandalf was talking to the Elves about a darkness approaching middle earth, all of these might seem pointless but I guess they build up over the three films to give hints of Sauron which would naturally lead to LOTR nicely when they are completed.

And the white orc guy was hardly a sub plot, it was one of the main plot lines of the whole film and him chasing down the dwarves was pretty much constant from the moment we were introduced to his character to the end, it also meant that Thorin got developed pretty well as well, can't really remember what happens with the white orc for the rest of The Hobbit though.

The Necromancer is Sauron yes. I havent seen the movie yet but as far as I remember this white Orc is probably an invention of Jacksons to give the Orcs/Goblins a face/leader rather than a mindless swarm of enemies .

Yeah Azog or whatever seems pretty much fundamental to Thorin's development, hardly a subplot. The Necromancer links in with what I was saying as being part of a whole so I can take it as a criticism, especially if they don't do more with it over the next two but it's a nice lead in.

I read that in the original Hobbit, prior to the creation of LOTR, the necromancer was a plot device also introduced seemingly pointlessly (a MacGuffin) as a reason for Gandalf to travel south and leave the pack to travel alone, it was only after the idea of Sauron as the big bad in LOTR was created that the idea of the necromancer being part of something bigger in the grand scheme of things occured. So I think it may kind of just act as a series of other small plot elements (like the discussion with the elves over the sword Gandalf is given) that are there to make the trilogy a more natural prequel to the LOTR.

I agree that the Gollum scenes were the best ones. Too bad the film failed to hit the same high notes again.