Decade of anticipation rewarded perfectly

Rating: 8/10 (16 December 2012)

I have to admit, when I went to the theater I was jittery about what Peter Jackson might do to one of the most cherished parts of my childhood -- and life. Movies, stories and epic fantasy obsessions came and passed by. When the first Rings movies came out I was a fan of a certain teen wizard with a scar on his forehead. Twelve years later, after going through works of Kubrick, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Coppola and Welles; I look back and cringe at why I even saw the first three movies of the Harry Potter series. But the only fanboy hat that consistently remained perched on my head throughout this period was Middle Earth and Tolkien.
Owing to the unprecedented success, there are many kinds of people who watched LOTR movies. There were those who didn't find hairy-feet teens fighting an evil fireball to be their cup of tea, e.g., Ebert. While I have great respect for Roger -- and find myself aligning his reviews many times -- he falls in this category. Fortunately, I do enjoy movies about wizards flying on giant eagles.
There are those who love the books and despise Jackson for botching up their visions of Middle-Earth. I read another guy's review here who said that Twilight movie makers were more faithful to their source material than Jackson. That's understandable. These people had a different view of how Middle-Earth should have been on screen, let's wait for a few more decades and hope someone adapts it again.
Then there are those who were absolutely immersed in the movies. Sure the movies are different from source material. Going back to the Twilight complaint, compared to Tolkien's works it was written last Friday. Being modern, it already was suitable for screenplay in a manner Tolkien's works would never be. I loved reading about Bombadil, but that just doesn't work on a screen. We watched the original movies many many times, extended versions many more, and felt more than delighted to give Jackson the license to entertain us with his interpretation of Middle-Earth on screen. We wished and prayed for another chance to live in that world, we cringed when Del Toro was on the horizon and Jackson was nowhere nearby. We celebrated when Jackson returned with everyone else on board. Being one of these people, I put on my 3D glasses and became concerned as soon as I saw a supposedly younger Gandalf showing the heart-breaking mellowing of Ian McKellen in his face.
Luckily, I have never been happier to be proved wrong. They did it again! For the next two and a half hours I found myself fading away in Jackson's grand vision of Middle-Earth just as I did 12 years ago. Sure, some characters were there who weren't present in the book. Some had their stories modified, but for me, that *worked*. By the time the movie ended I had the *exact* same feeling of anticipation I felt at the end of Fellowship. I wanted it to go on. I wanted to stay in Middle-Earth.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not just a movie based on The Hobbit. It's an adaptation of various events that happened at a certain time period in Tolkien's legendarium. It has Silmarillion, it has Unfinished Tales. But more importantly, it has *Peter Jackson*. It makes you feel nostalgic without losing the novelty. It makes you marvel at the achievement of technology, it makes you gape in wonder at Middle-Earth. Ian McKellen as Gandalf is still the greatest wizard to ever be filmed. Martin Freeman is leaps and bounds ahead of Elijah Wood as the main hobbit (no disrespect to Woods, Freeman's talent is just on another level). Richard Armitage commands authority as Thorin Oakenshielf. Last but not the least, Peter Jackson makes you feel grateful for the chance to be there and back again.
I have no idea how a neutral would find this movie. Perhaps long, tedious, or even fun. I just am glad that I am not a neutral in this case.