An arrogant take on a classic

Rating: 5/10 (12 February 2013)

I looked forward to the Hobbit with a sense of enthusiasm. I liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and forgave the examples where the films diverged from the book. I was forgiving as I guessed that Peter Jackson had to tread a fine line between keeping Hollywood happy, and still trying to stay true to the original. In other words, compromises were necessary and he did as good a job as possible.
The problem with the Hobbit is that, unlike the original trilogy, it is unlikely that these compromises were necessary. Jackson had the clout to remain true to the original. Please, do not misunderstand me; I am not a Lord of the Rings geek. I see them as great stories, but am not of the view that they are anything more than that. Tolkein is just a great and imaginative story teller. This is where my title for this review comes in.
When Tolkein wrote the Hobbit, he created a rather wonderful and childlike story. It was also a story that adults could read and enjoy. In either case, Tolkein showed his great gift for creating a wonderful and rather simple story. Sure, there are hints towards the Lord of the Rings, and hints at a wider story, but the story stood on its own two feet.
However, this was not enough for Peter Jackson. Instead, he sought to turn the story into an epic, and dreamed that he was creating a master work. However, what he really did was show his own arrogance. In place of a simple and childlike story, we have EPIC. In his arrogance, he destroyed the charm of the story. This is not to say that he made a bad film, but rather his arrogance diminished a great story that could have made a GREAT film. The film, as it stands, on its own merits is an okay film.
There are other problems. There are the choices of actors for the dwarfs. Richard Armitage as Thorin could not have been a more misconceived choice; whilst each person who has read the Hobbit will have their own mental image of Thorin, I very much doubt that anyone saw in their mind's eye anyone that might resemble Armitage. Instead, Armitage was undoubtedly chosen as 'eye candy' for the female audience. I have no problem with his acting, which is not a problem, but the problem is that he just is not suitable to play the character from the book. And he is a key character. It was illustrative of the problem with the film overall.
As for the action sequences, they were a little clunky. The giants scene seemed to be lifted from Transformers, and was just silly. Other sequences were okay, but okay is the word that captures the point. Okay.
There are bright spots. Martin Freeman is outstanding as Bilbo; the right manner, the modesty and 'normalness' of Bilbo capture the original character. He is a bright star amongst the disappointment.Ian McKellan reprises his role in the Lord of the Rings well, and provides a solid performance. As such, the film has redeeming features.
In the end though, in contrast to the film, the Hobbit is a short, fun childlike book with a great story told by a master storyteller. This is all lost in the film. Instead, where one long film could do the job, we have three films which try to turn a sweet and fun story into an epic. In his arrogance, Jackson threw out what made the Hobbit one of the best selling books of all time. Apparently, Jackson knew better than Tolkein how the story of the Hobbit should be told. Incredible arrogance when considering the enduring success and appeal of the original book. When watching the film, I could not help but have a sense of regret that so many of the younger watchers would think that this was 'The Hobbit'.