Wonderful production values, but lacks substance

Rating: 6/10 (25 December 2012)

Going into The Hobbit, it was always going to be about expectations. I must admit my expectations were very low. However, I went in with an open mind. The Hobbit was not as bad as I thought it would be, not a failure either: the production simply is too good. But it does not come close to The Lord of the Rigns either.
One prejudice I had going before actually seeing it was that the splitting into three separate movies was induced by greed for cash. I was wrong. Having seen this, I am now convinced it was indeed a wrong decision to make three movies, but for a very different reason than I thought. Peter Jackson wants to tell every single line of the novel (and the LOTR appendix he used). This is actually a very admirable motive, clearly something a fan would do. The total opposite of milking an audience. But when translating novel to movie, such an approach does not work. An Unexpected Journey almost solely focuses on secondary matters, with perhaps only 20% of screen time contributing to the essential story. Three full-fledged movies for The Lord of the Rings were justified as there was a fleshed out story available. Three movies were mandatory there to tell the story right. This first entry into the new trilogy lacks such a substance. I truly think were this movie made before the success of TLOR a second set of eyes would have intervened, saying: "Cut this and that", resulting in a tighter result (not three movies, but one long or two short). Jackson had carte blanche now and was able to fulfill his dream of filming every line of the novel and more. Admirable, but not tight and substantial.
Still, the production values are stunning. Martin Freeman is well-cast as a young Bilbo too. The landscapes are beautiful again. I must admit the first ten minutes were as good as any of the best scenes of TLOR too. If only there were more of it.