Greedy as a dwarf and Pete's Dragon: Or How Bilbo Disappeared Without a Ring

Rating: 6/10 (16 December 2012)

Making a film from a book comes down not to "intent," but spirit. We can debate an author's "intent" for ages, but spirit is something more universally agreed upon. While the Lord of the Rings was a massive literary undertaking, the Hobbit was a small story about a small guy out to get some gold and slay a dragon. While the Lord of the Rings movies made notable changes, they kept the sprawling and epic spirit of the original books. With the Hobbit, in the battle to live up to, upstage and match Lord of the Rings, it has lost the small and relatively simple underpinnings of why it is so enduring and accessible.
First off, while technically it is an accomplished work, it's no masterpiece of storytelling. We don't know, learn or watch anything insightful about who Bilbo Baggins is. The movie largely depends on the prejudices we have from the Lord of the Rings movies. But even after reading all the books and seeing all the other movies, I kept wondering, who is this Bilbo guy? A lot of people may already know the books, myself included, but despite Martin Freeman's competent take on the character, he was largely invisible in the story, even without the ring.
Unless it has to do with the larger mythology at work from a number of other works by J.R.R Tolkien, there's just about three chapters worth of story from the actual Hobbit book here. I'm not on a quest of how "faithful" Peter Jackson was or wasn't to the original book, per say. Tolkien went back and tinkered George Lucas style innumerably with the Hobbit after Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit people read today differs in some key areas from the one readers first took up in 1937.
What I am saying is, frankly, there really isn't a whole lot going on for three hours. Shire, quest, bad guys, running, elves, Gollum, running, bad guys. Mountain.
That's the entire movie. It could very well be the other three LOTR movies in summary also. The action is well done, but mostly unmotivated. When things bog, I can almost hear Peter Jackson pressing the Goblin button. "Ah the audience must be shifting after 15 minutes of exposition by these old guys, time to throw in some battle scenes." I think if you simply accept this is just the first in a serialized story, and you're OK with the idea that this is just a prelude piece of mixed quality, then the Hobbit is worth the money. But as a standalone film, it fails in as much as we've already seen this movie done by the same people a few years ago.
If you saw Fellowship of the Ring, you have already seen this movie. It almost feels like a remake. The helicopter shots could have been recycled as well as the filming locations and set piece placements. I know it's the same universe but man, there's a real lifelessness to the whole thing. The actors are all excellent, but it's the writing and production that seem awfully stale. There's a feeling, much like George Lucas in the prequels, Peter Jackson is a little more fascinated with his toys in this than the story.
I'm sure there was a lot of things in this movie for many people to enjoy, but I just couldn't shake the feeling this, like that last Harry Potter movie, is a pure money grab.
Throwing in the mythological expansions, I can accept maybe two movies from this core story. Three? No. That's just pure dwarfish greed. Or perhaps Pete's inner Dragon.
ABOUT HFR 48 FPS:
I'm amazed it ever got all that much press. This is nothing new. They've been over cranking movie shutters for more than 100 years. In some scenes the effect is similar to a Charlie Chaplain movie. In others, it is indeed reminiscent of an old BBC Dr. Who episode. The higher frame rate however does give a FAR better 3D presentation. The 24 FPS 3D is pretty much a waste of money and is a dark murky affair with the glasses on. The real problem is the 3D effect is so pronounced and clear, the actors are even more separated from the background and other computer characters which basically looks like people talking in front of a green screen. The camera moves are a little jerky with the higher frame rate and future uses of HFR would be advised to use softer lighting pallets, and smoother, slower whip pans as there is no longer the blur frames to smooth out the movement visually. Other than that, I think it's largely a manufactured controversy to sap more money from your wallet. HFR is the best way to see the movie, there are indeed problems, but it's not that big a deal.