Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Framed by Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) relating a story to his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood), this film details the young Bilbo (played by Martin Freeman) going on a journey with a bunch of dwarves, at the request of wizard Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen). Led by the extremely proud dwarf warrior Thorin (Richard Armitage), they are to reclaim a lost dwarf kingdom from a dragon known as Smaug. Bilbo has been recruited due to his expertise at ‘acquisition’ of items, i.e. theft. Along the way they encounter giants, orcs, The Goblin King (voiced by Barry Humphries!), and even a little tricksy fellow named Gollum (Andy Serkis), who is in possession of a very ‘precious’ ring. Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett, and Hugo Weaving briefly reprise their roles from the “Lord of the Rings” films as soon-to-be-evil wizard Saruman, Elf elders Galadriel and Elrond, whilst Sylvester McCoy plays a wizard named Radagast.

 

I absolutely loved Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films, and consider the trilogy to be one of the best of all-time. But he disappointed the hell out of me with his remake of “King Kong”, which was miscast, bloated, caricatured, and the mixture of CG and motion-capture flopped where in “Lord of the Rings” it was phenomenal and seamless. Now he has gone back to Middle Earth for this 2012 fantasy adventure, and unfortunately he has given me the biggest cinematic disappointment I’ve had since 1993’s mediocre “Jurassic Park”.

 

Jackson, as was the case with “King Kong” has become too interested in technological innovations it seems. I’m not sure if it was because I was watching a 3D film in 2D (and I think you know my stance on this issue by now), or if it was the dreaded 48 frames per second, I don’t know enough about such matters, to be honest. I do know this, however: The film looks completely artificial from moment one, and I was never truly invested in the story or characters for its entire near three hours. Aside from Gollum- astonishing and seamlessly integrated as ever- the CGI looked like CGI to me, the costumes and makeup particularly looked artificial as hell (Having a new costume designer in Ann Maskrey might explain something here), and some of the casting of the dwarf characters especially just seemed wrong to me, to the point where it seemed to ruin the magic of forced perspective that Jackson had perfected in the “Lord of the Rings” films. I understand that there were a lot of dwarf characters in this story and to an extent one needed to differentiate between the various characters, but the makeup here was absolutely appalling. One some characters like the one played by James Nesbitt...well, it was so sparsely used that all you could see was James Nesbitt being fake shrunk pretending to be a dwarf (i.e. His proportions are all-too human, which shouldn’t be right for a dwarf). He is far too recognisable for such a sloppy makeup job. Actors Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner, and Dean O’Gorman, are even worse. Turner and O’Gorman are basically male model-types, once again fake shrunk to supposed dwarf-size, and it just looks ridiculous. They do NOT look like dwarves in the slightest, and the makeup is even more sparingly used on them than bloody Nesbitt. But Richard Armitage as Thorin...oh boy. Whilst forced perspective and excellent makeup seamlessly made the rather tall John Rhys-Davies look like the perfect embodiment of a dwarf, Richard Armitage...looks human. He’s around 6ft tall and at times, he sadly looks it. He looks like Rupert Everett with a giant rubber honker, and sadly he is a main character. You’d swear he had just wandered on set after auditioning for the title role in “Cyrano de Bergerac”, except his acting skills are something in the vicinity of TV’s “Spartacus: Gods of the Arena”. I understand that the dwarves are meant to be a bit taller than hobbits, but there are times when the forced perspective has been so clearly cocked up that Armitage would be as tall as Sir Ian McKellen’s Gandalf (a wizard, who is meant to be very tall) if not for Gandalf’s hat. A wizard named Radagast (played by one of the many “Doctor Who” actors, Sylvester McCoy) further complicates things, because he actually looks more like a hobbit, and far more diminutive than the normally tall race of Wizards. I haven’t read Tolkien’s text (I am, however, pretty well-versed in fantasy literature), but that just seemed odd and wrong to me. I was simply taken out of the whole experience because of this.

 

How did Jackson get it all so horribly wrong? Does making a film in 3D somehow ruin CG and forced perspective when viewed in 2D? Or was it just really sloppily done? Most people I know who have seen both the 3D and 2D version seem to think the 2D is preferable, especially in regards to light levels. But to me, the film just doesn’t look right, and since the “Lord of the Rings” films were all in standard 2D, I can only assume that the cause of the problem has something to do with either 3D, digital filmmaking as opposed to celluloid (which would be my guess for the main problem), or just plain sloppy filmmaking. One could argue that because the number of dwarf characters in this film is much higher than in the “Lord of the Rings” films where Gimli was surrounded by a whole lot of different sized characters, this changes something, but that doesn’t excuse the casting of some of the actors nor the awful makeup. My point is, in the “Lord of the Rings” films, I was transported to Middle Earth and totally bought into the characters and world to the point where I felt like my 13 year-old, fantasy-loving self again. That experience was not replicated here at all. All I saw was a whole lotta rubbery faces and shrunken humans, and if I was seeing the 2D (and presumably 24 FPS) version, I sure hope the 3D (48 FPS) version looked a whole lot less artificial. Sadly, this 2D version is the one we’ll all be forced to watch until the end of time, and I really wish idiot filmmakers would remember that when they permanently stain their films in the pursuit of smoother motion (I’d also like them to go back to celluloid, but I know that’ll fall on deaf ears and to an extent I understand why).

 

The funny thing is, I knew from the trailers that this wouldn’t be on par with the “Lord of the Rings” films, but I still figured I’d like it, because I like the genre. And when it first started, I was in a positive frame of mind. Even though the addition of characters not in “The Hobbit” in written form was obviously a marketing ploy and pretty unnecessary, I can’t deny that I immediately felt like I was at home, or visiting old friends. Being that I’m Australian and the films were lensed in New Zealand probably helped in that regard too and the scenery (at least the non computer-generated stuff) worked once again. I so desperately wanted to love this. Unfortunately, then I saw the CGI buildings, which were already ‘ringing’ false with me. That never happened in the “Lord of the Rings” series. And then the Weta makeup just sent me right over the edge- in the first 20 minutes. Some of the damn dwarves looked animated and cartoony. Some looked like leprechauns, others looked like human dwarves (i.e. What were once called midgets I guess, but seem rather like hobbits here, really), and others, as I’ve earlier said, merely look like artificially shrunken full-sized humans. It’s more “300” than “Lord of the Rings” at times, lifeless and artificial. Do you like R2D2? Me too, but would you like a whole film full of R2D2’s? No, didn’t think so, but that’s what this film is like. Oh, and then the singing starts. Singing? I don’t care if it’s in Tolkien’s text , I do NOT want singing hobbits. Ever. They just come off like grubby, non-blue Smurfs. I mean, this isn’t fucking “Brigadoon”! I did not sign up for singing! The rabbit sleigh was kinda cute, though, and I am aware that Tolkien wrote this story with youngsters in mind.

 

Even Sir Ian McKellen’s Gandalf stood out for all the wrong reasons here. I know McKellen is some 10 years older in real-life now than when we last saw Gandalf, but chronologically, Gandalf is meant to be younger here. McKellen looks older, but he also sounds a lot older, and somewhat sickly. Why does he sound about 20 years older than he did 60 years later? It bugged me every time he turned up.

 

Pacing is a giant issue here, too, because with all the singing and general dwarf/hobbit eccentricity, the film hasn’t even got out of first gear (or The Shire) after 30 damn minutes. And that ain’t the last of the singing, either. Ugh. There’s gonna be two more of these damn films? Really?

 

There were definitely things I liked about the film, and not just the wonderful cameo by Gollum. I missed the pathetic, tricksy little bastard, he’s one of the most memorable characters in cinematic history, and this film would be much poorer without his few moments. It actually seemed like more care was put into this one barely seen character, than anything else in the film. He’s certainly more ‘real’ than any of the damn dwarves. Much of the NZ scenery still looks fabulous (Rivendell still looks astoundingly beautiful), and the CGI orcs looked pretty good too (they seemed to have real weight to them), even if the CGI isn’t all that necessary in my view. There was also one hilarious moment involving the dwarves’ reaction to all the ‘green food’ offered by the elves; ‘Have they got any chips?’. Aussie legend Barry Humphries is good fun as the voice of The Goblin King (I thought that was David Bowie?), even if the CGI, whilst still pretty good, isn’t stellar. If you didn’t know it was Humphries at first, his very Dame Edna-esque singing voice definitely gives the gig away. He’s creepy and fun, but not believable or seamless like Gollum. I believed in Gollum, I didn’t truly believe in anything here, especially the dwarves who come off like Terry Pratchett or “Time Bandits” characters, striking a comedic and silly tone where none is needed. Sure, Gimli was comic relief in “The Two Towers”, but that was his function, whereas here the dwarves are the main characters and are meant to have a seriousness to them.

 

I enjoyed the performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, he’s a great choice for the character who was played by Ian Holm in the “Lord of the Rings” films. He can’t save the film on his own, however. I also commend Jackson for giving Aussie Neil Finn a gig contributing to the soundtrack. Oh shut up, Crowded House are an Aussie band so we’re claiming him. You Kiwis can have Tim Finn, though, if you like.

 

I’m sorry, but I found this film a crushing and frustrating disappointment. Even if the characters weren’t so irritating and uninteresting to me (and they were), there are still huge roadblocks here in the way of my enjoyment. The switch to digital filmmaking seems to have done extremely detrimental things to Jackson’s vision, and combining that with some genuinely poor makeup and costumes, it makes for a film that is extremely difficult to suspend disbelief in. And this comes from a fantasy fan, and someone who absolutely adores the “Lord of the Rings” films. I know that this was meant to be a different kettle of fish to “Lord of the Rings” in some respects, and if you’re a fan of the text, I’m pretty sure you’ll love it. I just thought that it wasn’t even a well-made film (and certainly not up to the “Lord of the Rings” standard), and was incredibly letdown by it. Please, someone help Jackson find his mojo before the next film. Jackson co-wrote the screenplay with his regular team of Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, and filmmaker Guillermo Del Toro (“Cronos”, “Hellboy”, “Pan’s Labyrinth”), of all people.

 

Rating: C