Into the realm of technology

Rating: 7/10 (8 January 2013)

I must admit I'm not a loyal fan of either J.R.R. Tolkien's or Peter Jackson's work. I've read "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy long time ago, and haven't even finished watching Jackson's adaptations. I found both books and movies fun and good but nothing more. Therefore I wasn't very excited when news of "The Hobbit" adaptation finally came. Even less promising was an announcement that the book will be adapted as a trilogy of movies. Decision to go and see the first one (titled "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey") nevertheless was motivated almost entirely by the 48 fps in which Jackson decided to film it, and in the end I'm not that sorry for it.
The story of "The Hobbit" is already known by everyone, young and old alike, so there's no need to go into it in detail. A young Hobbit by the name of Bilbo Baggins joins thirteen dwarfs and a wizard named Gandalf on a quest to kill a dragon and reclaim the lost dwarven kingdom. That's the basic outline. The problem is there isn't much more to it. As we can expect, the journey can't pass without difficulties, so the merry bunch gets attacked by trolls, goblins and orcs only to be saved by the wizard over and over again, very much like in the LOTR trilogy. But this time it all happens in a dissimilar manner. Instead of creating tension, a feeling of urgency, or any sense of peril, Jackson mostly decided on comedic approach. Thus the dialogues are comedic even when the characters are in great danger as is the way they behave. This, of course, is not the case in all of the situations, but it's present enough to make apparent Jackson's intention of bringing the movie closer to a younger audience. The intention is also apparent in the esthetics of some scenes which resemble video games, like the battle of stone giants or the escape from the Goblin lair. In fact, the whole movie is made similar to a video game, introducing and forming the party in the beginning and then venturing from one battle to the other, occasionally resting on safe ground (Rivendell).
All those things orienting the movie towards youngsters are in fact nothing bad. We mustn't forget that the book was written for children in the first place. What is a little disappointing though is that Jackson obviously didn't have the adults in mind at the same time. The movie has some unnecessary flashbacks and story arcs which may prove too complicated for the youngest to understand while simultaneously being too blunt and shallow for the older audience. Those could have been replaced with some real characterization and meaningful dialogue, or at least left out to give a greater sense of urgency, considering the deadline the characters have. There is also too much dependency on LOTR with the reappearance of the old Bilbo, Frodo, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond, most of which are completely redundant. It's clear that Jackson wants to connect the trilogies as much as possible, it just isn't as clear why. Although, with a classic trilogy behind us and a first part of a prequel trilogy aiming for children, something smells conspicuously like an inside of a tauntaun here.
In spite of all the minuses I've mentioned (or maybe even because of them), the movie is fun. It's a three-hour-long ride through the land of Middle-earth featuring great comedic performances by Martin Freeman as Bilbo, Ian McKellen as Gandalf and all of the thirteen actors playing the dwarfs, as well as the always fantastic Andy Serkis as Gollum. Cinematography, production design, costume design and makeup, as well as the visual effects are all on a level expected of a movie this big, and enriched by the always great Howard Shore's music. The young will probably love "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" as well as the fans of the book and the whole LOTR franchise or those who would like to visit the Middle-earth once again. So if you belong to any of those go to the nearest movie theater and let the journey begin.
P.S.
I've mentioned that I've watched the movie practically only because of the frame rate in which it was shown, so I feel obliged to write a few words about it. The opinions are divided between those who are saying that it looks like a documentary about filming the real movie and those who find the frame rate more immersive. I've been skeptical about it but in the end found out I belong to the latter group. The most obvious advantage of a higher frame rate is in quick camera movements which are fluid as they simply cannot be in 24 fps. The problem is that Jackson abuses it in some scenes, inducing dizziness with all the twisting and spinning at high speed, and even the movements of the characters sometimes seem too fast. 48 fps really make the movie look more real, but not in the bad way. The additional frames help the world of Middle-earth and all that inhabits it feel more palpable, as though it really exists, and they even do so more than the (really good) 3D. No doubt Jackson needed a capable crew and a big budget to make everything feel like an actual thing instead of a prop but he largely succeeded. There are probably some things which could've been done better, but it's a fantasy movie, needing much more to create an illusion of genuineness. I can't wait to see some present-set story filmed in such way. 48 fps make a more immersive visual experience than 3D and with immersiveness being the current goal, my guess is that Jackson just set a new standard.
More reviews at http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/