Good parts, but not a well-composed whole

Rating: 4/10 (14 December 2012)

WARNING: SPOILERS
It has been nine years since the last Middle-earth-based blockbuster took the world by storm. It was an interlude during which dedicated nerds and casual fans waited with bated breath to see another slice of Jackson's lush take on Tolkien's vast world. Ever since Guillermo Del Toro dropped out of the production, Jackson and company have promised a grand return to a world they had managed to make so recognizable and so lovable the first time around. Well, a lot has happened over the years.
Firstly, a new directorial trend has spread like wildfire through Hollywood. Directors are becoming less and less concerned with the art of the filmmaking and the quality of the storytelling than with the new emerging technologies. First Cameron, now Jackson are forsaking the art of storytelling in favor of newfangled techniques. Even the most conservative of the directors such as Christopher Nolan are displaying a loss of quality in their storytelling, as recent films feel more like a stitched-together series of beautifully-shot sequences than one cohesive story. While I admire the advances in technology and the progressive vision of these directors, those particular concerns are best left to Cinematographers and Producers; Directors need to worry about the story they are telling. "The Hobbit" certainly falls victim to this problem. Storytelling becomes secondary to the visual schmorgesborg Weta has created. And it is certainly a visual treat, but maybe a bit too sugary.
From start to finish, The Hobbit felt disconnected. Sequence followed sequence in an assembly-line of pretty set pieces which neither built on each other nor even raised the emotional stakes. Was this a result of the decision to adapt the book into three films? Probably. Tolkien's story is structured in essentially a three-act cycle, and so we've been given a film covering the first act only. Hardly an engaging story. But I have no intention of beating the dead horse that is criticism of the trilogy. What really hurts the film is the attempt to inject three acts into a film which is really all setup. Bilbo's journey from comfortable Hobbit to unlikely hero only works when he is forced to become a product of his environment and adapt to the situations with which he is faced. It is an evolution that only takes place over the course of a long journey and cannot be forced. This film forces the transition. Thorin's out-of-place comments about Bilbo being unfit for the journey create an artificial situation in which Bilbo feels the need to prove himself to the Dwarfs. The results are cringeworthy. A sequence towards the end of the film in which Bilbo saves the life of the Dwarven leader is both unbelievable and contrived. Forced to find a "safe" place to end the film, Jackson had to create an unnatural high point in the character arcs of Bilbo and Thorin which come out of nowhere because, despite Jackson's attempt to stretch and supplement the story, not enough has happened in the plot to warrant such development.
The poor plot treatment is even more tragic given the fantastic performances of Freeman, Armitage and of course McKellen. All three were able to perfectly embody the characters which those who have read the book know and love. Freeman's Bilbo had some inspirational moments showcasing the character's respectable shock at the prospect of adventuring and his consequential need to become brave. Gandalf had some great wizard moments, and as usual packed a punch with his lighthearted wit and fatherly wisdom. Armitage as Thorin was everything a noble, exiled Dwarf lord should have been – however, he was tragically under-used and given trivial, artificial conflict with such clichéd plot points as an off-screen meeting of Dwarfs where "they all refused to come," a grandfather who somehow inexplicably drew the dragon to Erebor through his obsession with gold, and a horribly misplaced arch-nemesis in the person of Azog, a cartoonish (both in characterization and design) villain reminiscent of a certain "God of War" character.
Of admirable note is Jackson's attempt to appeal to the die-hard fans of Tolkien. At times it worked, and at other times didn't. Radagast serves no purpose in the story except for some hurried, extraneous background information on the Necromancer which could have easily been saved for the next film. On the other hand, some sequences could have been greatly improved by sticking to Tolkien's rendition of it: the Troll scene, along with Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire (tangent: this chapter title became an ill-conceived line in the film), both strong sequences in the book, lose much of their impact when given the Jackson treatment. It does bear mentioning that where the filmmakers went right was in the Riddles in the Dark sequence. Partially because they stuck to the book like a glove, and partially because Gollum was so well-realized (he has the only truly emotional moment in the whole film), the scene is the only really successful sequence of the film. And I do emphasize successful, since a better cinematic rendition of that scene really could not have been hoped for. Perhaps Jackson finally found a sequence he had no imaginable means to embellish.
All in all, I can't say I enjoyed watching The Hobbit. Visually stunning and driven by great performances, it is simply not a well-composed film, and no matter how good the parts are they cannot add up to a great whole without a master builder. Jackson may be a master technician but he has lost the ability to tell a heartfelt, meaningful story with any impact. Technically speaking, the 3D was great (as far as 3D goes) and the 48fps, while extremely distracting at first, is a technical choice I respect even if I don't agree with. Peter Jackson can continue knocking himself out with the technological breakthroughs, but perhaps he should have stuck to letting someone else try their hand at the directing helm.