A Great Adventure

Rating: 7/10 (1 January 2013)

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
I admit that I have not read the novel on which this film is based. With that in mind, I will say that I really enjoyed this movie. This is one of the few movies I've seen in many years that I have really liked. What I liked most was how Peter Jackson decided not merely to adapt "The Hobbit," but weave its story into the narrative of "The Lord of the Rings" and of J.R.R. Tolkien's general mythology about Middle-Earth. I understand "The Hobbit" was written for children as a straightforward adventure story, and that "The Lord of the Rings" was a much more gravid tale, full of dark themes and dire consequences. Some reviewers have argued that making "The Hobbit" into a three-part epic like "The Lord of the Rings" was completely unnecessary and nothing more than a cash-in; I disagree. Jackson did not want to go for a simple adaptation, but rather continue to explore the general mythology of "Lord of the Rings," in particular how the hobbits got involved with the One Ring in the first place. Stretching the film out to more than one part allows Jackson to explore the Tolkien mythology more fully--albeit with his own touches added in. "The Hobbit" is *mostly* about the story in the children's novel, but it is so much more: it is about the titanic battle between good and evil in Middle-Earth, and of the story of its sentient beings over the course of that fictional land's history: the Dwarfs, the Elves, and the humans. It is clear Jackson blended the children's "Hobbit" with the information he could coherently gather from appendix from the "Lord of the Rings," which explores the mythology much more thoroughly than the novel did. The result is actually satisfactory.
Jackson understood that, as a children's book, "The Hobbit" had some light moments not found in "The Lord of the Rings," and expressed this well in his film. The trolls in "The Hobbit" are much more comical and less intimidating than the monsters in "The Fellowship of the Ring." Gandalf and the dwarfs escape from the goblins in a scene that mirrors the Fellowship's escape from Khazad Dumb, but the stakes are lower, and the Goblin King is a bit of a buffoon, a clownish, unimposing parody of the Balrog. The goblins are not scary; the Goblin King and the goblins of the Rankin Bass "Hobbit" are much more terrifying (especially the Goblin King *shudder!*). Gollum is back, and he plays a central role. I won't spoil *too* much, but the themes about mercy and compassion that I though *should* have been expressed in "The Lord of the Ring" movies are beautifully expressed here, actually keeping with the text of the "Lord of the Ring" novels. While more light-hearted than "The Lord of the Ring" movies, Jackson's "Hobbit" does have some somber moments, and tries to make connections with the earlier films, particularly with the malignancy permeating Mirkwood. The battle between the dwarfs and goblins at the door of Khazad Dumb provides an obvious link to the greater mythology of Middle-Earth Jackson tried to show in "Lord of the Rings." Jackson is insistent on showing "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" as companion pieces about the history of Middle-Earth than two completely different standalone pieces. It looks like he is successful.
I recommend "The Hobbit;" it will please fans of the "Lord of the Rings," so long as they keep in mind that the film is considerably less dark and contains less gravity in the plot line than "Lord of the Rings." I look forward to Jackson's next installment of "The Hobbit."