Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Martin Freeman

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage and Andy Serkis

I reviewed this film for Next Projection.

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit". So goes one of the most recognizable openings in English literature. Back in 1937, when J.R.R. Tolkien first put pen to paper to create his sprawling fantasy universe, little did he know that it would spawn one of the biggest film franchises of all time.

Now, 11 years after first introducing audiences to his interpretation of Tolkien's world with The Lord of the Rings, director Peter Jackson returns to helm the prequel to his epic trilogy.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a solid and enjoyable outing, albeit one that struggles to recreate the magic of the original trilogy. Those films -- like catching lightning in a bottle -- were a pop culture phenom that captured the imagination of filmgoers from around the globe for three years. And, with his assured direction, Jackson makes The Hobbit work, for the most part.

Set 60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings, we first meet Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) leading a solitary life in his small burrow in The Shire. When the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) appears requesting that he join him on an adventure, Bilbo is hesitant -- and rightfully so. Gandalf wants Bilbo to act as a burglar for a group of 13 dwarves fighting to reclaim their home, the kingdom of Erebor. Hobbits, being fleet of foot, are able to move about sight unseen, sound unheard -- making young Bilbo the ideal candidate for such a dangerous venture.

Having faced a ruthless invasion at the hands of the fearsome dragon Smaug, the dwarves were run out of their kingdom and left homeless. While Smaug lords over Erebor and the dwarf treasure, a plot is set in motion to reclaim their territory by any means necessary. Although riddled with anxiety, Bilbo agrees to leave his idyllic settings for unchartered terrain with a band of bloodthirsty, yet charmingly brash, dwarves.

Freeman is a natural fit for the lead role. He instills Bilbo with a nervous charisma that is as amusing as it is moving. Riding in on the coattails of the immensely popular BBC series, Sherlock, Freeman's fanbase will undoubtedly grow exponentially thanks to his spot-on characterization of one of literature's most popular heroes.

Returning in the role of Gandalf, McKellan manages to make his wise wizard feel younger and more spry than he appeared in The Lord of the Rings. He gives a thoughtful performance with a character he's already perfected.

Ian McKellan

Considering Jackson's knack for coming across talented actors who are not yet household names, the supporting cast are all top notch. It's not only a pleasure to watch the return of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Hugo Weaving as Elrond and a never-better Andy Serkis as Gollum, but the new faces are a delight as well. Richard Armitage as dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield, in particular, is a standout.

Adept at capturing even the tiniest details of Middle Earth, it seems only natural that Jackson would return after original director Guillermo del Toro bowed out due to scheduling conflicts. For the sake of continuity and the overall look and feel, it's fitting that Jackson complete all six films himself. However, the decision to stretch a tiny children's book into three feature films is being called into question.

By the time all the expository information is laid out in the first two acts of An Unexpected Journey, the material has started to stretch a little thin. The meandering plot will likely keep true Tolkien devotees satisfied but may alienate general audiences. The film gains some traction in the third act when much of the action focuses on Gollum and then the epic battle between dwarves and orcs -- but by then the film is nearly over.

However, for all its spectacle and excellent performances, An Unexpected Journey is gaining a fair bit of buzz for the medium in which Jackson chose to film his trilogy.

Jackson made the controversial decision to film his latest Middle Earth outing with a high projection rate of 48 frames per second, which adds up to about twice the normal speed. It's akin to watching the clarity of a high-definition TV show. It will astound as many viewers as it will anger and disappoint. While there are those who will gripe about the 48 frames, there's no denying the often glorious effect it has on specific scenes in the film.

An Unexpected Journey is an enjoyable piece of cinema and you'll be happy that you've returned to Middle Earth -- even if it isn't quite as magical as the first time around.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Movie Rant: The (Perfect) Trailer for The Hobbit

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins

It's finally here! Peter Jackson and co. have finally unveiled the first official trailer for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Sure, it isn't released until December 14th, 2012, but I pretty much consider myself in line already. ...Don't you?

As much as I liked the idea of Guillermo Del Toro taking over for the prequel (he's one hell of a fantastic visual storyteller), I was relieved when a scheduling conflict kept him away. With Jackson back at the helm The Hobbit will look and feel similar to The Lord of the Rings trilogy -- which makes more sense, if only for the sake of consistency.

So, how is the trailer? Well, it's pretty perfect in my opinion. I love the casting choice of Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I'm not overly familiar with his work but he definitely has the perfect look and feel for the role. And, after seeing the trailer, I'm convinced he'll make a wonderful Bilbo (especially since filling the shoes of Ian Holm won't be easy). In fact, in the brief glimpse we get of all the new characters, all the casting choices were right on the money. Not that I had any doubt, seeing as Jackson has a knack for unearthing unknown talent and turning them into household names. The trailer also includes some familiar faces, most notably returning actors Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett and Andy Serkis.

I won't ramble on about all the things I loved about the trailer because it would take up more than one post. But, basically, I think this film will live up to all the hype and all the hopes of J.R.R. Tolkien fans. Thankfully, Hollywood has people like Jackson making quality blockbusters or we'd all be doomed to endless remakes of dull action franchises. I'm not even bothered by the fact that The Hobbit was filmed in 3D (a cash-grab gimmick I usually loathe) simply because I know that Jackson made every one of those images count -- and it'll look fantastic.

Seeing trailers like The Hobbit are necessary if only to remind us that the things we loved as a child still have enduring popularity -- our childhood isn't dead so long as dedicated directors like Jackson are loyally adapting our favourite books into epic films.

What do you think of the trailer?

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 17

Day 17: FAVOURITE OVERALL CAST 

It's not often that you come across a film where everyone is perfectly cast in their respective roles -- especially a cast as large as The Lord of the Rings. Thanks to director Peter Jackson and his casting directors, fans of J.R.R. Tolkien's novel were treated to an enormously talented international cast.

I always respected the decision to ignore the head honchos of New Line Cinema and go with lesser known actors. Sure, we may have grown up watching Elijah Wood movies when he was a child actor or we may have been familiar with Ian McKellan and Cate Blanchett from big-budget costume dramas; however, when The Lord of the Rings finally debuted on screens, the biggest "star" of the picture (at the time) was Liv Tyler -- and she's wasn't exactly going to be filling seats. Therefore, I admire the decision to use talent over star-power. It's how it always should be.

By the time all three films were released (The Fellowship of the Ring in 2001, The Two Towers in 2002, The Return of the King in 2003) the entire cast had become household names for Tolkien fans and film buffs alike. The decision to cast virtual unknowns worked entirely in the franchise's favour. There were no preconceived notions about the actors going into the film. Most of the faces were completely unfamiliar to its audience and, as a result, there weren't big name stars (like a Tom Cruise or Nic Cage) to ruin the film. It was about the character development and the actual performances. No high-priced egos here.

When most people think of fantasy films, one doesn't normally equate it with great acting. Or, at least, it's not the first thing that comes to mind. This is why, in my opinion, The Lord of the Rings stands head and shoulders well above any other film(s) of the genre and beyond. You've got McKellan, Blanchett and Wood, but you've also got Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Viggo Mortensen, Christopher Lee, Brad Dourif, Bernard Hill, Sean Astin, Sean Bean, David Wenham and ...last but definitely not least, Andy Serkis as Gollum/Smeagol (pictured above). Serkis, especially, became a household name for me and everything I've seen him in since The Lord of the Rings has not disappointed. He's one of the best and most underrated actors working today.

The cast managed to elevate the trilogy even further beyond being just another cash-grab franchise.

Taking the Fun Out of Robin Hood

I finally got around to seeing Ridley Scott's Robin Hood last month. Despite the critical lashing it got from critics and audiences alike, I still wanted to see the film and judge for myself. Before the film's release, I was really excited by the idea of another take on Robin Hood. Since film adaptations of Robin of Loxley have always been light-hearted or straight-out comedies, I thought a more realistic take was long overdue. I love the mythology behind Robin Hood and whether he was real or not has had little impact on his enduring popularity as an English folk hero.

I suppose it was inevitable that it would fail with audiences. The script was plagued from the start. I remember reading that, initially, the Hollywood bigwigs were in talks of taking a more unique angle on the medieval tale, by focusing on the Sheriff of Nottingham, Robin Hood's greatest foe, instead. Russell Crowe was attached to play the Sheriff and, as of the article's publication date, no Robin had been announced as of yet, however, the hero's role would have been reduced significantly in favour of his arch nemesis. I thought this sounded like a really cool idea; I was curious to see if they'd make the Sheriff an out and out villain or a more sympathetic figure. The story of how Nottingham became Robin Hood can be found here. Supposedly, the screenwriters for Nottingham were (understandably) upset that their script was thrown to the wind. Then, Scott's team supposedly lied and told actors vying for the role of Nottingham that the role would be bigger than it actually was (which allegedly didn't impress Matthew Macfadyen, the actor who wound up taking over the role from Crowe).

When Ridley Scott jumped onboard to direct, Crowe agreed to play Robin instead of Nottingham. This is where I think the problems began. They had to re-write the entire script and, as a result, it became a big, jumbled mess with far too many separate subplots and not enough time spent on the stories we wanted to see. On paper, the idea of a film about the origins of Robin Hood seemed like an easy sell to audiences. You take a beloved folk hero and give his tale a new spin by giving him a prequel. And, since very little is known about the actual Robin Hood (if he was indeed real), screenwriters were free to do with his character as they pleased without upsetting purists.

Scott's Robin Hood is bloated, with too many characters and too many stories to tell. Considering this is the story of one of the most exciting of folk heroes, no one seems to be having any fun. I love Russell Crowe. I think he's a wonderful actor who has been robbed of nominations and awards on more than one occasion. That being said, I couldn't help but feel disappointed with how he played Robin Hood. He was far too serious and didn't seem to have an ounce of fun or charm in him. It was, essentially, like watching Medieval Maximus. What happened to Robin Hood and his ever-so-Merry Men? You can still make a gritty, realistic and exciting historical epic while having a bit of fun at the same time. But this Robin Hood strives so hard to be everything that the other film versions are not that it loses itself along the way.

One of the biggest flaws in this revisionist take on Robin Hood is its decision to give our hero a brand new nemesis. His name is Godfrey (played by Mark Strong) and he's very bald and very angry. Why is he angry? Well, there's a variety of reasons, mainly that he wants to be king and he doesn't like Robin all that much. Godfrey is not interesting. He tries to be, but he's not. He's not frightening, he's not diabolically evil and he's not witty. It's unfortunate it took the entire film's running time before he was killed off.

I think introducing Godfrey was a major error on the part of the screenwriters. In introducing yet another  character to the already bloated cast only serves to take away from what I presume most audiences came to see in the first place: Robin of Loxley vs. the Sheriff of Nottingham. Where is this Sheriff? Well, if you blink you may miss him. He's the grubby grump with about five minutes of screen time. The scripts went from having Nottingham as the main character to barely giving him a moment to string more than two sentences together. Everyone loves a good villain and the Sheriff is a great villain. When you talk about Robin Hood, be it another film version or the historical mythology behind him, you always have to mention the Sheriff. However, in Robin Hood he's nothing more than a footnote. Granted, it's likely this will be made into a franchise and Nottingham will get more screen time in future films, however, it just left me thinking, what's the point? Why diminish the role of this character? Why not take advantage of it and show the early stages of his rivalry with Robin? I can't even judge whether or not Matthew Macfadyen gave a good performance as Nottingham or not because you barely have time to register his character's existence.

I guess I just prefer Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. That's right. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Prince of Thieves knew how to take the myth of Robin Hood and make it pure entertainment. Despite Costner's limited acting abilities, American accent and 1990s hair, I thought he made a great and passionate Robin. He's charming and has great chemistry with his costars. He, and the movie itself, never took itself seriously. It didn't pretend to be something it wasn't, unlike Scott's Robin Hood. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was a lovely Maid Marion in Prince of Thieves. She was feisty on the homefront without having to charge into battle to prove it (I cringed when Cate Blanchett took up the cause in Robin Hood, in full armour, no less!). Robin's Merry Men were all amusing in Prince of Thieves, especially the ever-shitty and craptastic Christian Slater. If his "brother-from-another-mother" speech as Robin's step-sib Will Scarlett doesn't make you smile, I don't know what will ("I was the son of the woman who replaced your dead mother for a time! You ruined my life!"). And, of course, the main reason most people aren't ashamed to admit their love for Prince of Thieves is because of the incomparable Alan Rickman as Sheriff George of Nottingham (pictured right). He's so outrageously over-the-top and clearly having the time of his life, that you can't help but love him.

Ridley Scott and his bevy of script writers did a rush job. They could have done so much with their revisionist telling of an old tale. Instead, they went the dull and bland route. No new dimension was added to any of the characters. In fact, I left the theatre annoyed with the portrayal of some of my favourites, especially Marion. The only two standouts were Danny Huston as King Richard (although his role was too small, but that's no surprise in this version) and newcomer Oscar Isaac as evil King John. I thought those two were wonderful and could have done some great things with their characters if given more time. In the end, you leaving the theatre thinking, what was the point? Robin Hood is supposed to be fun and the plot should be in constant motion. No one wants an emo Robin who spends the first half of the film discovering his uninteresting family history. It's not what we as an audience signed up for.

Should there be a sequel, here's hoping it's a revisionist take on an aspect of Robin's life we all want to see: his rivalry with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Robin Hood wasn't all terrible. It was visually appealing and had some solid battle scenes. I just know there's a great film in there somewhere, waiting to come out. Here's hoping the sequel corrects all of its flaws.

In the meantime, I'd recommend swallowing your Kevin Costner hatred (for those of you who have it) and revisit Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves instead (pictured above).

FINAL GRADE: C+