The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) ***½ /5: This is a solid film but not definitive and it remains to be seen whether or not it will suffer for riding high on the many fantastic elements for a three part series.

This story about the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, who set off a chain of events that were to culminate in the Lord of the Rings saga is a solid film although there are some misgivings. There are many complaints about the director, Peter Jackson, manipulating a simple children’s story and adapting it as a three part epic as was done with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03), which is truly one of the first great set of films released in the first decade of the 21^st century. After watching the film I found it hard to disagree with the approach taken by Jackson because he explained everything that is necessary for the story as a whole. On the other hand the film does seem to stretch itself thin by trying to offer climax after climax which is not necessary for the story itself which is a simple tale at its core however in the telling of the story you can understand why it is good to have the many elements of the story developed so as to envelop you in the world as it is experienced by Bilbo Baggins. One feature that was not developed by the critics which would serve to support Jackson’s approach is the actual contrast between The Hobbit and The LOTR trilogy which includes the degree of fantasy incorporated into the narrative. In the LOTR the experience of the characters was one of decay and decline with the hope for a new rebirth and the fantastic elements were few and far between or were mere relics relegated to the history of the Middle Earth. This is why it was quite symbolic for many because most of the fantastic elements were grounded in some quaint medieval reality particularly as it concerned the world of man. By the end of the LOTR it seemed as if the great fantastic ride was over and the world of Tolkien was about to enter a period of idyllic realism as the fantastic elements retreated into the background. This is not the case in this current release The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey where the fantastic elements are very much alive for there is even the dragon Smaug which took over the kingdom of Erebor whereas in the LOTR trilogy it would be said that a dragon would not have been seen in Middle Earth for many years. Trolls actually speak in this current release whereas in the LOTR they were mere images of stone. In this current release we see stone giants clashing amidst a thunderstorm whereas that would seem completely out of place in the LOTR trilogy. What came as a genuine surprise in the LOTR trilogy is a matter of fact in this first installment of The Hobbit and so contrary to some opinions Jackson does have a lot of material to work with from the point of view of fantastical images on screen. This film seems more fantastic in terms of the imaginative elements than the LOTR trilogy hence why Jackson probably felt that the same approach of creating a trilogy could be taken with the children’s book The Hobbit which is not an actual three part series as the LOTR books written by Tolkien. I have read the book and Tolkien did cram a lot of material into that small book because not only is Smaug a threat but the goblins which will clash with elves and dwarves in the war of five armies. The defeat of the goblins will see them vanquished from the north forever hence why in the LOTR they appear as relics of an illustrious past. The approach taken by Jackson seems to be one where he develops the story in a unhurried fashion which is in contrast to the approach taken by Tolkien who did not elaborate on many things but merely mentioned them. It is a single book and so the question remains: Did this children’s book deserve to be made into a trilogy with each film running close to 3 hours? This debate will be resolved when the next installment is released. The one worrying sign is that certain parts of the story do not deserve to be the basis of a climax and does not seem to mesh with the overall objective of the group of companions to reclaim the Kingdom of Erebor.  The best moments involve the distinct character of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins who is at odds with his dwarf companions who do not feel that he is fit for adventure. Gandalf however has faith in his choice of making Bilbo the 14^th companion for the journey. It safe to say that this film will not set the world alight as did The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring when it debuted in 2001.

The film is basically about the tale of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who is swept along, unexpectedly, into an adventure with his 13 dwarf companions and the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian Mckellen) to reclaim the kingdom of  erebor from the Dragon Smaug that took control of the hoard of gold mined from that wealthy dwarf kingdom.

Positives

The visuals are top notch in this film enhanced by the 3D factor. The scale of the film seems much more grandiose in certain parts particularly the flight of the eagles who rescue the dwarves from a certain dilemma. The visuals enhance the fantasy that is on display and the film does seem brighter and more alive than the LOTR as a result. The tone of the LOTR was much more somber and realistic and certainly contrasts with the hobbit where things of lore and myth actually exist. The more fantastic element makes the mood more upbeat even when you encounter Gollum or the dwarves mourn for a home to call their own. It all remains upbeat even when the orcs and goblins are on the hunt. Those elements are merely to give the story some momentum.

I believe that Jackson knows what he is doing in making this film a three part series.So far it does not seem as if it has fallen flat on its face; only in a few parts because this story was not necessarily meant to be apocalyptic but a mere story of simple adventure. Regardless of what people say this is not a bad film and so it cannot be rated as such.  There is nothing apocalyptic in it. There is a suitable contrast between the wandering dwarves and the more homely hobbit Bilbo Baggins. The film truly captures how Bilbo is swept up in his journey with even a touch of history regarding one of his ancestors, a Took, who could ride a horse and aided in defeating a goblin king and his army. It seems as if Bilbo has the goods in his blood to be a hero. Gandalf makes it clear that Bilbo of all people should not be so domesticated etc. It is the tide of history that sweeps him into this adventure because he sets off a chain of events that will culminate in the LOTR saga although it would not seem that way for the present as the adventure is merely a simple one. The film stays true to this and gives weight to the light hearted moments as well as the somber ones. We see talking trolls, clashing stone giants, a grotesque goblin king and his followers, Gollum, a white orc with a vendetta against Thorin who is the nominal leader of the dwarf pack having descended from his grandfather Thrain who lost the kingdom to the dragon; there are even elves on the hunt as well as a wizard not yet seen in this universe Radagast the brown who is the lowest wizard in the hierarchy of wizardry it seems and has a chariot driven by rabbits. There is a lot of quirky fantasy here but the main issue here is the finding of the ring of power which is the grounding element as well as the reawakening of the wraiths that were to torment the fellowship in the LOTR. There is no trace of the race of men in this film and so the fantastic elements abound and there is not much to relate to here from a realistic perspective. Elves, Dwarves, trolls, wizards, ghosts, goblins, large wolves and hobbits; oh yes the eagles are no surprise here and are an active part of the action.  The fantasy here is truly at the level of a fairytale where nature comes alive.

The best dramatic moments, however, remain when Bilbo has to justify his worth to the wandering party of dwarves, particularly the leader Thorin. The nature of the hobbit comes alive in these moments particularly when he states that he is no hero and is constantly referred to as the thief or burglar.

As a fantasy film it is leagues ahead of twilight and is much better than the latest Harry Potter film. The standard of this film exceeds most of the fantasy films released in previous years. It is measured only by the LOTR trilogy.

Negatives

The primary negative is the denouement in this film.  It is not necessarily clear whether or not some of the moments that led up to the finale were necessarily elements worthy of a climax in such dramatized fashion. It was really just a minor episode in the book however Jackson tries to give it weight by bogging us down with the history between the white orc and thorin. When the two confront each other it is melodramatic and hardly effective. This climax would have made it seem as if the film is drawn out because it never deserved such a dramatic climax particularly based on how it is presented.  In the Fellowship of the Ring there was the breaking of the fellowship; in the Two Towers there was the defeat of Saruman and in the Return of the King there was the return of the King. In the LOTR these climaxes made it necessary to have a trilogy. It is not so in the case in The Hobbit particularly as it is a simple adventure and most of the episodes, while magical, do not stir you in such a way to make it deserving of this farcical dramatic spectacle. It is pure fantasy that is all; it is not destined to make profound statements  apart from the fact that evil is lurking..

It will have to be seen how the three part arc will play out and so I do not want to make an outright call on the whole franchise. It remains to be seen however comparisons with the LOTR will be rife because it is set up in such a fashion although the events themselves are hardly worthy of such an epic treatment. The film soars high on grand fantasy which renders it almost empty and this is in contrast to the LOTR which emphasized the doom of man and the grand struggle between so called good and evil.  This may be its downfall but one cannot tell but so far it seems that Jackson is milking the many elements of fantasy present in this film with the hope that this will carry the interest of moviegoers for the next three years. This film is certainly not in the league of the LOTR trilogy because those films were documenting the end of an era, literally. It was an epochal sort of film series. The only defense that Jackson has is that the story of the hobbit does take place within the space of a year and so adding weight to that experience does make sense although the elements involved are merely fantastic without being definitive and seems to invite a more pictorial sort of presentation as opposed to a definitive one. When Bilbo sees wonderous sights then we too are to be held in awe and there are many to behold. Is this really definitive, this tide of fantasy? There is no doubt that many will take pleasure in the elements of fantasy and the references to the LOTR but is it not just eye candy and are 3 years of films worth it? This will be seen after the dragon is defeated.

This trilogy will not be as definitive as the LOTR but it will have its admirers.