So close, but so far..

Rating: 5/10 (3 January 2013)

There is no denying that a production of The Hobbit has been a highly anticipated event ever since Peter Jackson and his team first began producing the Lord of the Rings trilogy just over a decade ago. Expectations were high, although there seemed a positivity from fans and critics alike that Jackson and his crew would deliver to the same exceptionally high standard like that of the trilogy for which this film acts as a prequel; regrettably, it does not.
Why by no means would I class this feature as awful, is would be denial to suggest that the picture matches it predecessors in any way other than length. The decision to turn the 300 page book into a trilogy in itself has sparked controversy because of the questioning of its necessity, and yet I would have to suggest that dragging a novel so slight into a production so long is felt when watching the Hobbit. There is very little time to breathe once the quest has begun as it is quite literally one skirmish or battle after the next, leaving very little time to really develop characters and narrative. It almost feels as though we are watching a television series, whereby all of the smaller episodes have been combined into this film. There's just a bit too much going on, but not in a sophisticated interwoven way, rather there is a mess of editing between various characters and plot lines that leaves you feeling confused rather than interested. At first we are given our clear heading, like that of which we should for an adventure film, and in this case it is to regain an ancient dwarf city deep of which resides deep inside a lone mountain which was brutally and unjustly taken from the inhabitants by a cruel and greedy dragon. Simple enough. Yet too much is added unnecessarily around this, whereby the plot digresses into random plot lines like the necromancer of Mirkwood and an old enemy of the dwarf Thorin who decides to make a comeback. We can only assume that these different tangents will indeed link up to formulate a perfected finish which does indeed make sense but at this point we are just left guessing - not out of a curiosity, but rather a hope that there is actually a justification for these random interjections.
Despite this, the technological feats which Weta again achieves are expectedly phenomenal, an academy award nomination (if not win) definitely appears to be in the bag. The make-up and set design similarly achieve a level that so few films do which altogether create a sumptuous visual treat, all of which is aided by the natural beauty of New Zealand itself. Another aspect of the film worthy of true recognition is the cast of which all manage to hold their own despite its vast size. In particular when regarding this is Ian McKellen's Gandalf of whom is played flawlessly, yet even exceeding this is the humorous yet courageous performance of Bilbo Baggin's who is played by Martin Freeman. Freeman is able to channel the reserved, bumbling, quintessential Britishness that compiles Bilbo while at the same time giving him a heartwarming, and undoubtedly likable protagonist. The various cameos of previous characters like that of Ian Holm, Cate Blanchett and of course, the always incredible performance of Andy Serkis' Gollum add a certain nostalgia to the film as well as making the return to Middle Earth all the more real.
Overall it is hard not to be so critical because it has so much to live up to prior to its release. If The Hobbit had been produced before the first trilogy I believe that the expectations would not have been so over-bearing, and therefore the criticism not so harsh. I do not condone Jackson's film as poor, but I do believe that the high standard achieve previously just simply was not met. Arguably, however, with those standards so high, was it ever going to?