Will suffer in comparison to Lord of the Rings, but still a satisfying trilogy opener

Rating: 6/10 (24 December 2012)

Back in 2001, when critics and audiences alike were raving about a new film called The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, I was reluctantly dragged to the cinema to spend three hours watching hobbits and wizards battling orcs and trolls, with lengthy moments of, well, not much, in between. I was relatively disappointed given the excitement surrounding the film, and was left perplexed at how well-received it was. As the months went on, and the DVD release approaching, the film somehow got better in my head, and I felt myself getting impatient to see it again. It finally came out, and I watched it every day for a week. I fell in love with the film, and it ultimately became my Star Wars - a film I could recite from memory, and one that will always be beloved to me. So almost ten years since the release of The Return of the King (2003), and after a change of director, numerous legal wranglings and a perforated ulcer, we finally have Peter Jackson's release of The Hobbit.
For a children's book of only approximately 300 pages, J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit is hardly on the scale of The Lord of the Rings, so it was surprising when the announcement was made that it would in fact take place over two films. Great news, I thought, as this would give Jackson time to flesh out the story and give the vast number of characters (namely the thirteen dwarfs who are often indistinguishable in the book) some much-needed depth. When filming wrapped in summer of this year, even Tolkien die-hard's we're shocked when a third instalment was announced, and that Jackson would not only film The Hobbit, but also integrate some aspects of Tolkien's many appendices to tell a richer tale and expand the universe. So with An Unexpected Journey came an unexpected trilogy (thanks for that line, Marc), and for those accusing Jackson of simply seeing dollar signs, I ask you if you truly believe the man who wore an old jacket and Hush Puppies to the Academy Awards, and who directed low-budget delights such as Bad Taste (1987) and Braindead (1992), really seems the type to care only for his wallet?
For those wanting more of the same magic that came back in 2001, you'll be in for a treat. For those wanting a great film in it's own right will be left sorely disappointed. The near-perfect structure and pacing of Fellowship in mirrored here almost exactly, with a lengthy introduction set in the Shire, a stop-off at Elf kingdom Rivendell, a huge cave battle in the Misty Mountains, and a final battle against a hoard of rampant orcs. And while this approach evokes fond memories of those years between 2001 and 2003, it also slightly undermines The Hobbit as a great story in its own right. Therefore, certain incidents that occur throughout the film feel thrown in to create some kind of bond between it and Lord of the Rings. Gandalf says to Bilbo, "every great story deserves a little embellishment," and this is a clear wink from Peter Jackson to the fans that his intention is to simply expand and elaborate on Tolkien's universe, rather than meddle with it.
Personally, I'm all for Jackson's idea to widen the universe, as long as the results are good enough. The addition of the wizard Radagast is a nice diversion from the central plot, and his encounter with the mysterious Necromancer (played by Benedict Cumberbatch, who will also voice Smaug in the later films) adds a darkness to a relatively light story to rival Sauron's menace in Lord of the Rings. But without an established 'bad guy' (as Smaug is only briefly glimpsed here), Jackson has thrown in the giant goblin Azog (Manu Bennett) to provide an enemy for Thorin, who witnessed his father's beheading at the hands of Azog in the defence of Moria. He provides a suitably despicable villain, but fails to show any real dimension when compared to the likes of Saruman (Christopher Lee) from the original trilogy.
As well as Lee, Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm and Elijah Wood also reprise their roles (given they weren't in the book) as Galadriel, Old Bilbo, and Frodo respectively, and although their appearances are relatively pointless, they add a familiar face and help add to the feeling of continuity. If there's one thing the film nails, it is the celebrated Riddles in the Dark chapter, where Bilbo meets Gollum (Andy Serkis) and unwittingly discovers the One Ring. It's a truly brilliant scene, one of the major standouts in the entire saga, as Serkis delivers another truly exceptional motion-capture performance. His split-personality was magnificently documented in The Two Towers (2002), but here we witness a truly pathetic creature, reduced to pure desperation upon realisation his beloved ring has disappeared. As an invisible Bilbo watches him, Gollum's eyes are filled with a mixture of blind panic and sheer grief. It's another triumph for the special effects wizards at WETA.
It's difficult not to keep comparing this to the previous trilogy as this is very much its own story, but Jackson's insistence in linking the films makes it impossible. An Unexpected Journey doesn't come close to the satisfaction of The Fellowship of the Ring, yet it's still explosive, enthralling and honed with the same amount of love and dedication. Martin Freeman proves a warm lead, although he isn't given the screen time he and his character deserve. Armitage is also a success, but his character channels the same reluctant angst as Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn and is (at this point in the story) merely a warrior to cheer in comparison to the gentler Bilbo. Yet the sequels will determine the trilogy's legacy, and I hope The Desolation of Smaug and There and Back Again (due 2013 and 2014) will expand on An Unexpected Journey's satisfying opener.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com