Not entirely successful; still I can't wait to watch the second part!

Rating: 7/10 (16 December 2012)

Boy oh boy, it's been already eleven years since Peter Jackson gave new cinematic life to the work of J.R.R. Tolkien. For mere nostalgia, I'm really happy that since this year December is again synonymous of the Middle Earth (well, the last film is actually set for a July 2014 release). So the first part of the trilogy that precedes THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001-2003) is finally here, after the 2010 departure of Guillermo del Toro and a long production.
One of the first thoughts I had after experiencing THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, in its HFR 3D format (48fps), is that del Toro would have done something closer to the brilliance of "Lord of the Rings". Don't get me wrong, Peter Jackson is obviously a great director; from his early 16 mm guerrilla filmmaking, totally influenced by Lloyd Kaufman and Troma, to his transition to big budget, high technology territory. With "Hobbit 1" (I'm calling it this way to simplify things) Jackson is moving forward in technology matter. But I don't think this time the results are entirely successful.
The first minutes of this movie make evident why Lloyd Kaufman himself always goes for 35 mm and why Quentin Tarantino is thinking in becoming only writer now that almost everything in cinema is digital. No other movie so far has left it as clear as this one did. A movie in a movie theater no longer looks like a movie, as simple as that.
For moments I felt I was watching one of those videos that appear when you're about to begin a video game mission; in other moments I thought that the movie hasn't been yet edited and that I was watching a "behind the scenes". If you wanna find out how a HFR movie looks, just find your LORD OF THE RINGS DVDs or Blu-Rays and check out the behind the scenes features.
Jackson said that it only takes time for you to get used to HFR. But I don't think so, it isn't a matter of get used to it. It's just that there are some shots that do look amazing and really beautiful; some elements did get benefice from this technology. The character Gollum, for instance, looks better than ever.
And to talk about a great Gollum is, without a doubt, a clear indication that "Hobbit 1" ain't only a synonymous of bad news. In fact, Gollum alone makes this worth watching stuff. After his brilliant participation in the reboot RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (Rupert Wyatt, 2011), Andy Serkis returns to the character that gave him immortality, and he simply steals the movie with that classic insanity of his – in this part Bilbo Baggins meets Gollum and the ring.
The story may be taking us to the days when Bilbo was young but it's very similar to what we can find in the first "Lord of the Rings" movie. A clear mission; a fellowship ready to accomplish it (this time mostly composed by dwarfs); Gandalf the gray present for the wisdom and magic; and an innocent hobbit leaving his Shire to see for the very first time the dark side, full of orcs and goblins, of the Middle Earth. Everything is here and is shown in a period of almost three hours too; though I felt them as one and a half hour, which is again an indication that, no matter what, Jackson gave us some good entertainment.
"Hobbit 1" ain't a brilliant masterpiece; it doesn't have battles with moments as memorable and meaningful as the death of Boromir from the last part of "Fellowship of the Ring" (nor characters that stand out from the rest; I'm talking in specific of the dwarfs, hoping that they get better in the next movies). Also, I can't ignore all the visual problems already mentioned. But nevertheless it's a movie that accomplishes its main goal of leaving the viewer with desires of watching the second part of the new Peter Jackson trilogy about the world of Tolkien.
*Watched it on 14 December, 2012