The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
This will be a very long review...
... but it's a very long movie (2 hours 46 minutes) and based on one of my all-time favorite books, so you'll have to either forgive me for waxing long-winded, or just not read all of the review.
I am going to write up a paragraph or four of my first impressions and general response to the movie without any spoilers. Then (and I will alert you of this) I will go into a little more detail and the rest of the review will probably contain some spoilers. If you haven’t read the book or seen the movie, and you’re like me, you probably don’t want to read the second half of this review until you’ve seen the movie.
Let me start out by saying that I really, truly did enjoy the first installment of the movie trilogy of The Hobbit. Despite the fact that they changed things, left things out, and added quite a bit to the story... I felt that the movie was very well done.
If you’re going to be majorly bothered by any changes to the story - you may not enjoy it. But if you go in knowing that this is a conglomeration of not only The Hobbit, but also the Silmarillion, some of the Lost Tales, and rather a lot of Peter Jackson’s own interpretation of events therein, then you might be able to look over these changes and just enjoy the movie for itself, knowing that no cinematic interpretation is ever going to match your own imagination, probably even if you were the one in charge of the script and direction of the movie.
I know some reviewers have complained about never getting to really know any of the dwarves other than Thorin, I disagree with them on that count... they obviously haven’t read the book. In 317-ish pages (depending on which edition you’re reading), Tolkien attempted to introduce 15 main characters, 5 or so secondary characters, and rather a handful of tertiary characters, as well as an evil dragon. I’ve read the book somewhere upwards of 100 times, and I still come away only really feeling like I got good character shots of Thorin as the leader, Balin as the wisest and most experienced, Dori as the one always losing Bilbo, and Bombur - the fat one. In the movie, I feel like they did a fabulous job getting us well-acquainted with Thorin, Balin, Kili (and to a slightly lesser degree, Fili), and Bombur, and helping us pick Dwalin, Gloin, and Dori out of a crowd as well.
Overall, the movie was fun, fast-paced, and far more kid-friendly than The Lord of the Rings (despite many battle sequences, there was very little blood or gore shown on the screen). It was truly enjoyable to sit down and re-enter the world we grew to love in the cinematic Lord of the Rings trilogy. The casting was fabulous, the dialogue was humorous, the acting was very good, the scenery was beautiful, and we even got to see a few faces we remember from the LOTR. If you’re looking for a movie that feels a lot like LOTR did, and wanting to re-visit Middle Earth, then I highly recommend you go see The Hobbit, part 1 this Christmas season.
Okay, that’s as much as I can give you without spoilers. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, I wouldn’t read any further just yet.
Here are some of my thoughts on the changes that were made - these are, of course, all personal opinion, which is all my reviews ever are. Feel free to disagree with me if you wish.
First of all, the orc-leader Azog. This was an addition I had some issues with. I understand why the character was added. The book, The Hobbit, is a fun, meandering, danger-filled lark of a journey, that really has very little to tie it to Lord of the Rings in feel, in plot, and even in characters. From a movie standpoint, I understand wanting to tie those things more closely so as not to confuse audience members who may not have read the book. However, I did feel that the writers/directors could have added the things with Gandalf and Elrond and Radagast without changing so much of the feel of the story. Azog is an actual character from Tolkien’s stories. He really did kill Thror, but Thorin wasn’t there. Thorin and Thrain, when they heard of Thror’s death, mustered a force of dwarves to seek revenge on Azog. It was duringTHAT battle that Thorin earned the title of “Oakenshield” much as is depicted in the movie, although there is no record of him going up against Azog himself, and it was Dain who killed Azog in that battle.
I felt that this back-story could have still been told. I believe they could have left it all exactly as they put it in the movie, and had Azog actually die. There was no need, in my opinion, to have Azog hunting the dwarves across Middle-Earth on a vendetta of vengeance. This is not in the book, and it only served to needlessly quicken the pace of the story.
This brings me to my next point. The pace of the movie. In the first chapters of The Hobbit, they encounter the trolls, Elrond’s house, the stone giants (who, in the book, are throwing rocks around for a game... not trying to behead one another), and the goblins/wargs. It’s not a super-fast-paced story, despite the dangers they meet along the way. The story moves quickly because it is shorter than LOTR and it was written for children. In the book, the dwarves are not constantly being chased and having to fight ginormous battles every three minutes like they are in the movie. I thought they could have slowed down the pace a bit, made the beginning of the journey a little more light-hearted, and still have plenty of action for everyone (except, perhaps, people who only like watching John Woo films).
Radagast. I liked most of the additions with him. (Could have done without the bird poop in his hair, not gonna lie). I thought his addition tied the story back to the Lord of the Rings well, and served to show that Gandalf and Saruman were not the only wizards in this world. It also helped because it gave Gandalf some evidence to place before the “council” (if a meeting of four old friends can really be called a “council”).
I’m not sure how they could have done this differently, but I really did not follow the chase scene with Radagast and the wargs very well. It was a cool effect... but I thought it was confusing and unnecessary. Probably because it seemed purposeless, as Radagast did not appear to be very successfully leading the orcs away from the dwarven company. It was difficult to see what Radagast was trying to accomplish, and again, it kept Azog in the story and saw our companions being chased into Rivendell... which was NOT the case in the book.
The trolls. Okay. I have to acknowledge that I completely understand why they did this so differently, but it still bothered me that they got this whole sequence so very wrong.
For those who haven’t read the story: In the book, the dwarves see a light in the distance and send Bilbo to investigate. When he doesn’t come back, they each come, one or two at a time, to see what’s happened to him. There is no colossal battle, and each dwarf is captured fairly quickly (except for Thorin, who does put up a good fight before they subdue him).
In the book, Bilbo is NOT the one playing for time. It is Gandalf, and nobody knows it’s Gandalf until he steps out from behind a tree and the sun rises.
Now, in the story until Bilbo finds the ring, he is fairly useless. So, I understand why they gave that bit to him, so that he would be able to garner some respect in the dwarves’ eyes, and the audience’s eyes in the first movie.
Two very minor things that really bothered me about the troll-scene: first, in the movie, Bilbo calls himself a “burglar, uh a hobbit” and the trolls then refer to him as a “burglarhobbit” - in the book, he says he is a “burr.... a hobbit.” and the trolls refer to him as a “burrahobbit” - which is far funnier and I think Peter Jackson should have stayed true to the book there. (I would have told him so, had he had the foresight to ask me my opinion).
Second, one of my all-time favorite lines in the book is the “lots and none at all” bit, and they completely left that out of the movie and I was a bit miffed. They are making a very short book into three very long movies, they should have had plenty of time and room to include my favorite line. (But, it is par for the course, as they left out 2 of my favorite lines from Fellowship, as well).
I didn’t love the animosity of Thorin toward the Dwarves/Elrond, but felt that it was down-played enough that I didn’t hate it either.
That’s all on the changes that bothered me. There were also some changes/additions that I really enjoyed.
The opening sequence that shows Frodo and Bilbo interacting as Bilbo is writing the story, and showing how it ties to the very beginning of LOTR was, in my opinion, brilliant. It set the stage for viewers to slip back into the world of Middle-Earth quite nicely.
The council meeting of Saruman, Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadrial. I really enjoyed this scene. I know others were bothered by it, but I felt that it did a good job showing us a glimpse into a much bigger plot than the “little” quest being undertaken by the Dwarves. It really is a “little” quest, in the grand scheme of the world, and while fraught with dangers, of little consequence next to the quest undertaken by the Fellowship. It would hardly even be worth mentioned, except that it is during this seemingly insignificant quest, that Bilbo acquires the Ring. So I liked seeing that other forces were at work outside of the quest Bilbo was on.
The extras about Smaug’s invasion of The Lonely Mountain, as well as the back-story on Thorin and company - some information on why the elves and dwarves don’t like each other very much, the introduction of the Arkenstone, and various other bits related to Smaug were spectacular (and made me REALLY, REALLY want to see a few very long full-body shots of Smaug, because I really, really hope he lives up to the hype they created in this first installment.
In conclusion, it wasn’t quite like the first time I watched Fellowship of the Ring in theaters... but I doubt very much that anything will ever be that fantastic again (unless it’s seeing my own book on the big screen). But it was every bit as enjoyable as seeing The Two Towers or Return of the King. And I can’t wait for Part Two!