"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" isn't nearly as tedious as anticipated; although it's still nowhere near perfect

Rating: 6/10 (19 December 2012)

I'm not a huge fan of the three "Lord of the Rings" films so my expectations were pretty low walking into "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." I'm not saying that I don't acknowledge J.R.R. Tolkien's genius and the fact that the movies do look great. I just think that they could have been half the length in their theatrical releases, much less their extended editions.
With all that being said, I must admit this wasn't nearly as painful to sit through as I expected. There was still plenty wrong with it, but it could have been much worse. Strangely, I can only think of a few reasons why the movie appealed to me; I just know that as I left the theater I knew I wanted to see it again.
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" tells the story of Bilbo Baggins and his adventure outside his comfort zone of the Shire in the wilds of Middle-earth. The wizard Gandalf and his band of dwarfs need a master burglar to accompany them on their quest to retake their kingdom from the evil dragon Smaug. Along the way they run into a number of different obstacles including orcs, goblins, and a strange creature calling himself Gollum.
Let's get the things I remember enjoying about the film out of the way first. I liked getting to see Christopher Lee as the very suspicious Saruman, even if it was only for a few minutes. I also was delighted to see Gandalf being a lot more active in battles; even if I knew it really wasn't Ian McKellen doing the fighting.
The other two things I really appreciated were the Pale Orc and the story of the Necromancer. According to people I spoke with after the movie, neither the Pale Orc nor the Necromancer was even in the book. Basically, what I loved about "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" had nothing to do with its source material. The last thing I was thankful for was the limit of only two annoying folk-songs sung by the dwarfs.
I was told that I shouldn't see the movie in 48fps and 3D as it would require me bringing an airplane barf-bag to the theater with me. I really had no intentions of seeing it in 48fps at all, but it was the only way I could at a time I was free. The negative aspects of 48fps are getting blown way out of proportion. It didn't make me ill the way I was told it would.
The experience is comparable to watching a Blu-ray on a hi-def TV, but it's magnified onto a big-screen. That doesn't help when it comes to make-up showing on actors and things of that nature. It also caused scenes with fast movement to blur as well. It wasn't as bad as it was made out to be by people I spoke to before viewing it.
I was very surprised by how bad the CGI in the film was. I would say that three-quarters of the CGI was absolutely dreadful. Everything from Rivendell to the smoke coming out of Gandalf's pipe reminded me that I was watching a movie mostly created on a computer. I wouldn't expect that WETA will be getting much business outside of Peter Jackson after other filmmakers see this.
There were many points during "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" where I found myself drifting off. As usual, Jackson has a tendency to not know when enough is enough with lengthy scenes of landscape, mountains, and walking. He sure loves to watch people walk. The sequence where Bilbo and Gollum quiz each other was also a chore to get through.
I know many people who had high expectations were let down by "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." Maybe my lower expectations made the film seem more acceptable to me. One thing I will say is it's jam-packed full of Middle-earth facts and background information; so much so that at times it feels as if it's going to burst at the seams and spill out all over the audience. I definitely don't think we'll have to worry about any more movies after these three "Hobbit" ones. Jackson will have nothing left to exploit if this first entry is an example of what to expect from the next two.