Except for two or three "Lord of the Rings" Detours, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" Stays Rousingly and Faithfully on Cours

Rating: 8/10 (6 March 2014)

I know this sounds weird, but have you ever refused to watch a movie because you haven't read the book or play that inspired it, and therefore don't feel "ready" to see it? For example, that's why (with the exception of "The Sorceror's Stone") I never saw the Harry Potter octology (eight films) based on J.K. Rowling's seven novels. How could my movie impressions compare with those who have immersed themselves in both the Harry Potter book AND movie mythos? Ditto with J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings (LotR)" novel trilogy and Peter Jackson's movie trilogy based on it: I haven't done the LotR "reading homework" (yet, but I'd like to someday), so how can I presume to watch and fully appreciate and understand the LotR movies? I wasn't worthy, I wasn't worthy.
Then Peter Jackson announced many moons ago that he planned a movie adaptation of Tolkien's unofficial LotR prequel, the beloved, durable classic "The Hobbit", and I subsequently became excited. I HAD read "The Hobbit" and even critiqued it on Amazon.com, and so felt prepared to watch "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" (hereafter "Hobbit: AUJ") and even compare and contrast it with the novel, and discuss it with its numerous fans. Then, I found out "Hobbit: AUJ" would incorporate origins of events (such as the White Council and the rise of the Necromancer) only barely alluded to in "The Hobbit" novel but more fully fleshed out in the "LotR" movie trilogy. Furthermore, Jackson planned an epic 9-hour movie trilogy. My enthusiasm wavered. I was starting to doubt I was prepared to watch THIS trilogy either, because I thought it would be altered, attenuated, and mixed up beyond recognition. Therefore, I missed "Hobbit:AUJ" in the theatres.
Recently, however, "Hobbit: AUJ" popped up on HBO, and I finally resolved to devote the time to seeing it. So, especially to those people who have read only "The Hobbit", and even those who have read the unannotated, un-appendixed version, I can state with relief and happy surprise that "Hobbit: AUJ" remains largely and divertingly faithful to the roughly first 50% of the novel it covers. It covers the various set-pieces (e.g. Gandalf's (Sir Ian McKellen) recruitment of the reluctant Bilbo for a territory-reclaiming and burgling adventure, the dwarfs' boisterous visit to Bilbo's hobbit-hole, the encounter with the dull-witted trolls) with vigor, boisterous humor, and exquisitely rendered CGI action. Even the preliminary explanation for the dwarfs' exile from their Erebor home by the barely glimpsed but still astounding dragon Smaug (though not explicitly in the novel) efficiently and rousingly sets up the hobbit's adventure. Yes, there are the lengthy LotR detours such as the wild-eyed, slovenly wood wizard Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) only mentioned once by Beorn in the unannotated Hobbit) discovering the spiders and other evil forces of the Necromancer massing and the White Council including Gandalf, Elrond the Elvenking (Hugo Weaving), and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) contemplating the Necromancers rise. However, I did not find them all that distracting, and perhaps even a little bit useful if I ever tackle both book and movie "LotR".
In general, no movie can be slavishly faithful to its literary source since they are two distinct mediums with distinct advantages and disadvantages. "The Hobbit: AUJ" is certainly no exception. A movie CAN take dramatic license with a book's plot and characters provided it doesn't deviate too much from its spirit. I think "The Hobbit: AUJ" largely succeeds in doing this. I felt one of the main themes of "The Hobbit" novel is that no matter how small, timid, and uncertain you are, you can have the traits and courage to accomplish great things. In "The Hobbit: AUJ", the younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) expresses that theme very well, and even improves upon it.
In the novel, many people might feel that Bilbo was too much of a reluctant hero, too whiny and complaining. Remember in the novel when he practically curled into a quivering fetal position when Gandalf and the dwarfs explain the danger of their quest? In the movie, Bilbo merely comically faints. Furthermore, in the movie Freeman's Bilbo is more refreshingly and amusingly persnickety, fussy, and indignant than in the novel and shows his slowly receding unwillingness to go on the journey more admirably. Still, some "Hobbit' novel purists may balk at Bilbo's "uncharacteristic" slaying of a charging orc (also not in the novel) to save Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). It didn't bother me, because I saw it as the first, spontaneous manifestation of Bilbo's growing Tookish resolve. An even better and touching illustration of Bilbo's resolve comes toward the end of the movie, after the eagles have rescued Bilbo, Gandalf, and the dwarfs from being besieged in fir trees by the hideous, slavering orcs and their wolf-mounts, the Wargs. Bilbo, a complacent bourgeois home-owner, pities the dwarfs' nomadic homelessness and vows to help them reclaim their mountain home from the dragon Smaug.
So in conclusion, if, like me, you have read an unadorned copy of "The Hobbit", you needn't fear that "The Hobbit: AUJ" has mangled and twisted the tale into an unknown shape. It hasn't, and unless you are fastidious and nitpicky, you may enjoy some of Jackson's flourishes (such as the grotesque but eloquent Goblin King's (Barry Humphries's) "fat" beard and his teeming underground kingdom) and still rest assured that "The Hobbit: AUJ" has mostly respected Tolkien's tale – at least so far.
Anyway, I now feel worthy and ready to see "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" in the theatre. If nothing else, I think I will enjoy seeing Smaug the Tremendous, the Magnificent, and the Stupendous!