Artificial, no emotions, almost annoying

Rating: 4/10 (20 December 2016)

After the thrilling success of "Lord of the Rings", it is imperative to milk the cow and get more money from the audience. So, the producers decided to make a three movies prequel (much like what happened with "Star Wars") inspired by "The Hobbit", the first novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. In this film, the first of this trilogy, young Bilbo Baggins is hired by a group of dwarfs to help them recover their mountain, conquered by a dangerous dragon who watches over a colossal treasure. In the middle of this plot, the film core, is Thorin Oakenshield, heir to the dwarve throne, and Galdalf, the gray wizard who links this plot to another, which develops in parallel and focuses on the struggle against the orks led by Azog, sworn enemy of the dwarfs and a traditional ally of the Dark, who mysteriously work in an abandoned fortress where there lives an evil, without name or physical form.
Anyone who has read the original book may criticize the way the film adapts it, but I'm not the best person to judge it because I did not read the book, I never found it in Portuguese. The actors were fine. Ian McKellen remains impeccable as Gandalf, but brings nothing new to a character we already know from LOTR. In fact, Gandalf does not have as much impact, not to mention that McKellen cannot avoid accusing some fatigue, difficult to swallow in a character who supposedly should look younger in this new trilogy. The film also fails to show us how much time has passed since the arrival of the dragon, especially if we watch characters like Thorin, who seems immune to aging. I say this because there is no difference between this film's Thorin and the one that is represented in some combat scenes, allegedly situated in distant past and shown to the public in a flashback. Martin Freeman made a convincing and credible Bilbo. In the supporting cast, the dwarfs looked good to me, Cate Blanchett always looks good as Galadriel and Sylvester McCoy is very funny in the role of Radagast, a character which could have been introduced in a more elegant way. Cinematography is banal and boring. There are sequences where this is so clearly noted that it removes all emotion from what we're seeing. The special and visual effects are awesome but there is a sense that it has been exaggerated and some scenes are so unrealistic that we simply cannot feel it. Finally, the soundtrack, by Howard Shore, is powerful, impactful and meets the expectations of the public.
The Hobbitt came after the resounding success of LOTR and its difficult to meet expectations. The first film in this new trilogy is not necessarily bad, but its far from the cinematic brilliance of the first trilogy. The sense of danger is rarer, emotion is scarce, everything seems artificial and stagnant.