Lacking that certain something...

Rating: 6/10 (6 May 2015)

After having dazzled audiences with the LotR trilogy many years ago, Jackson and co. reunite to tackle Tolkien's The Hobbit, detailing Bilbo's adventures prior to the events of The Lord of the Rings. Young Bilbo is enjoying his simple Hobbit-life, when all of a sudden Gandalf appears and claims to seek someone "to share in an adventure." Bilbo is not interested, but that same night thirteen dwarfs arrive at his doorstep. We learn they seek to take back one of their lost kingdoms, Erebor, which was stolen from the dwarfs by the dragon Smaug. Their plan to take it back requires a non-dwarf (since Smaug is used to the smell of dwarfs) to act as a burglar. At first, Bilbo is uneager to accept with the high chances of being eviscerated, lacerated and incinerated. The next morning Bilbo discovers the dwarfs are gone and that he cannot resist to urge to go an adventure. Thus begin Bilbo and company's not-so-unexpected journey to Erebor which will of course include many dangers
While we expected returning to Middle Earth would be thrilling, many issues become apparent when we take off the rose-colored glasses, one of them being the film's length. Whereas the decision to go from two to three films when filming The Lord of The Rings is an obvious one given that the novels are about 1600 pages long, The Hobbit on the other hand is only about 300 pages long. The amount of skepticism before this film's release is precisely because it was announced that instead of having two films, The Hobbit would also be turned into a trilogy. This raised questions whether The Hobbit would be too spread outand unfortunately it is. I've seen it two times and especially the second time, the first half of the film was considerably harder to bear. The fact that The Hobbit is more considered to be a children's novel becomes more apparent with the time spent on minor detours and makes me pine for the gravitas of the LOTR trilogy. Things pick up speed in the superior second half with the highlight being Bilbo's encounter with Gollum/Smeagol.
The spread out nature of the film is reflected in its story, or rather its lack of story. The amount of character development is minor. Save for Bilbo suddenly deciding to join Thorin and Gandalf, Bilbo feeling homesick, Thorin having to overcome his dwarven pride by requesting the aid of elves, the revenge subplot with Thorin and Azog, I can't help but feel that the amount of story development is minimal. Surprisingly, I experienced a kind of 'fuzzy' feeling whenever 'old' characters from the LOTR trilogy appeared. Though it was already known that characters like Frodo would reappear, the feeling of 'nostalgia' was still surprising and I couldn't help but smile when Frodo popped up all of a sudden. Speaking of characters, that is also a definite weakness in The Hobbit: the dwarfs. Although we spend most of our time traversing Middle Earth with these dwarfs, we only really get to know two of them: Thorin and Balin. The others, though visually distinguishable, remain a tad indistinct.
One cannot review The Hobbit without discussing the use of 3D and 48 fps. I haven't seen the 'normal' version so I can't compare, but there were upsides and downsides. There were moments where I felt more immersed into Middle Earth, butbecause the 48 fps and 3D version creates the expectation of experiencing something 'as real as life', the moments where the CGI looks fake stand out like a sore thumb even more, undermining Jackson's intention: "For me it gives it the sense of reality, and makes you feel like you're leaving the cinema and entering somewhere new" (christianpost.com). Case in point: the scene where Radagast the Brown escapes a pack of Warg scouts by sled.
This scene brings me to another issue with 3D: the shock when something approaches the camera rapidly. For me, this contrasts with the very goal of 3D in The Hobbit: to immerse yourself in Middle Earth. When something suddenly approaches the camera (a Warg or an arrow), I'm thinking less about the fate of the main characters and becoming more aware of the fact that I'm watching a film. There was also the issue of light. Although the image wasn't darkened like other 3D films (The Last Airbender), I found that scenes including large sources of light (like a setting sun) automatically created the stretches of light one sees when squinting one's eyes. This affected the area between the edges of the 3D glasses and the edges of the screen, again making me adjust my way of looking at the screen and more aware that I'm watching a film. Then again, the 3D does create some memorable images such as when one of the eagles flies towards Thorin, lying close to the camera, and picks him up. Here, the way the eagle approaches the camera is beautifully enhanced by the use of 3D.
It was great to hear Howard Shore returning to Middle Earth once again. Besides showcasing new themes (such as those for Gandalf and Erebor), Shore also made numerous references to his LOTR themes, some of which were very brief. For example: when Saruman suddenly appears at Rivendell, Shore reprises his industrial theme for Isengard in a smooth, less obviously evil manner, foreshadowing Saruman's 'turn to the dark side'.
All in all, I find it to be unfair to judge this first part on its own merits since the story is so spread out, even though this was a conscious decision. Once part two and three are released we will be able to judge these films as one whole experience. Until then, this first outing is definitely not as bad as I feared, but worse than I'd hoped.