Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I watched "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" during its opening weekend. By some unavoidable drama, I missed the first ten minutes or so. And I hate missing the first part of any movie. Like "Lord of the Rings", I've read the book long before the movies came to existence. Loved the story, but found the storytelling a bore.

Anyway. Even before watching the movie, I've been exposed to viewers' reactions on Twitter. They either loved it, or they hated it. Nothing in between. When I watched the movie, I absolutely loved it. However, at a certain level, it doesn't work. I left the theater feeling unsatisfied. Not cheated, but hollow inside. As I said, unsatisfied.

It took me over a month and a second viewing to really digest my reactions. Since I'm a writer as well, I can't help but analyze the movie through a writer's eyes. So here's what I think:

The things that made the movie work:

1. "The Hobbit" is a high-quality epic Fantasy. I may have strayed to other genres, but Fantasy will always be my home. There aren't many Grade A Fantasy movies out there, therefore I cherish each and every one of them.
   
   
2. The short book has been stretched into three movies. As such, Peter Jackson takes his time to tell the story. Sure, people complain that it takes over one hour before Bilbo finally leaves Bag End, which would have likely taken no more than fifteen minutes had the movie been compressed into one or two episodes. What's important here is that I get to appreciate the beautiful settings and the superb cinematography even more. Nothing is rushed, but nothing is bogged down. Beautifully done, I say.
   
   
3. The score. Oh, the score. Howard Shore is a genius.
   
   
4. Did I mention that the settings are beautiful? Well, they are. The CGIs are seamless.
5. The scene with Gollum. AMAZING!

 

The things that did not make the movie work:

1. The ending. I was wondering what made the story so unsatisfying. The character arc is complete. This is a story about Bilbo Baggins, and he starts off a complacent hobbit who doesn't want any adventure. At the end of the movie, he has found a reason to stay with the dwarves. He has found his purpose. Then I thought about the lack of big moments--the climax. After the second viewing, I find this untrue. There are plenty of climatic moments. For one, Bilbo spares Gollum's life and this is a major moment, which would have been significant had this movie been shown before LotR. As such, everyone (who hasn't read the book) already knows that Gollum survives to play a significant role in LotR. There's also the completion of Bilbo's character arc as I mentioned. There's the death of the Goblin King, and the encounter with Azog the Defiler. Plenty of big moments.
   
   Then I realized it. The party was rescued by an external element: the eagle lords. They were cornered into a corner (or, quite literally, at the edge), with no way to defend themselves, and out of nowhere come these great eagles to rescue them to safety. Sure, Gandalf seemingly summoned them using the ONLY MOTH THAT SO HAPPENS TO BE ON THE SAME PINE TREE, but this is a classic example of a deus ex machina ending. Totally unsatisfactory; cheating, almost. This article agrees with me view.
   
   
2. Similar to point (1), this movie falls victim to the dreaded unfinished episode. Maybe because it's not meant to be a trilogy in the first place. Some Fantasy series I've read have the same problem--some games, too. In every story there is a major antagonist, an arch enemy. In LotR, it's Sauron. In "The Hobbit", it's Smaug the fire dragon. Smaug is introduced at the beginning, and he awakens at the end. Check. In a series, there are lesser antagonists or bosses, obstacles the heroes need to overcome at the end of each book/episode, leading up to the ultimate boss at the end. Azog is the lesser boss, but there isn't a conclusion with him at the end of the first movie. The Goblin King is introduced at the 2/3 mark, which, in itself, is a sin as new elements cannot be introduced at and after the 2/3 mark, and his airtime is so little, with his death so easily obtained, that he's not really considered an obstacle.
3. The 48fps 3D theater. I'm used to 3D, and it's becoming more and more subtle, enriching the movie instead of being used as a special effect, but the 48fps just doesn't work. The images are HD-sharp (too sharp for a cinema), but what jarred me was the extremely fast-moving fast movements like crackling fire and scampering characters. It's like the movie is put on fast-forward, which ruins an otherwise excellent show.

 

Sure, the negative findings are more detailed, but that doesn't mean I won't be watching the movie over and over and over and. Over. Again. It's a beautiful movie, and it's a compelling story. Maybe I'll love it even more when I get to watch the whole story as a marathon.