Originally published March 2017

The Hobbit movies have managed to become quite the conversation starter. There are a multitude of different directions your conversation can go when you bring them up with someone. Will the conversation be about the films on their own, the book they're based on, or the Hollywood greed surrounding the films? I can't say anything about the quality of the films in relation to the book, The Hobbit, because I've never been a fan of Tolkien's writing and have never read it. However, I did still enjoy the Lord of the Rings films Peter Jackson did a decade before, so the lack of book experience has never been a requirement for me. That being said, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey fails to come close to the quality of the LOTR films and ends up just being a boring expense of time.

Speaking of expenses, this is another trilogy of films, set in the world of Middle-Earth. Three films to tell the story of one book, which was significantly shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books. It's not entirely fair to judge the films based on that single fact, but it's difficult to ignore the (greedy, money-grubbing) decision. This is especially apparent in the first film itself because it sure takes its time to get going or accomplish much of anything.

Pros

• Solid casting, as usual for these films

• Weta Workshop's contributions to set, costume, and props are still great

• New Zealand and the sets brilliantly portray the fantastic world of Middle-Earth as well as they did last time

Cons

• Slow-paced with a lot of build-up for the quest

• Characters are forgettable outside of Bilbo, Gandalf, and Gollum

• Formulaic approach to tension and comedy

• Unnecessary or long scenes stretch out the plot as thin as possible to last three movies

• CGI and green-screen effects look funky in spots

• Too long

Plot & Thoughts

I was extremely bored by The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. So bored, I'm not sure I've got the plot straight, but I'll do my best to recall the important bits. The first ten minutes of the film go into (too much) detail about a dwarven city in the mountains that was once prosperous until tragedy struck in the form of orcs and dragons. After the lengthy bit of exposition and fan-service references to the better movies with brief appearances by Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, it still takes a good 15 - 20 minutes to actually tell us how this backstory applies to the young Bilbo Baggins, played by Martin Freeman. Essentially, Gandalf rallies a group of dwarves and their predestined king from this lost city to convene at Bilbo's home. Though Bilbo had never met any of them beforehand, they're all at his house and they passive-aggressively force Bilbo into going on an adventure with them. Why Bilbo? Good question!

They sort of mention how a hobbit would be useful in their quest, though, I'm still not sure. They say he smells different than dwarves, so to infiltrate their city which is now ruled by the dragon Smaug, they need a small halfling that smells different to sneak in. I don't know. This would be more forgivable in a one-movie story because they'd probably answer it by the, as opposed to leaving it for us to forget about it and then find out in the next film. Regardless of why, Bilbo joins the quest and strikes out on an adventure with them, giving us the opportunity to witness all those memorable places from the other trilogy, again, along with some new ones.

And that's all I could tell you of the plot that occurs in this. Not a whole lot happens or is accomplished, but that's probably because this is supposed to be part 1 of a trilogy for a story that was only one book. As in, this is a nearly 3-hour Act I. How exciting! Yet for all the time they had to play with, I still only felt like I got to know three of the characters by the end of it, and one of them was in the other trilogy. The characterization in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is dull and poor, especially considering the fact that there are 13 dwarves to remember. The best they could do is give them goofy hair-cuts and beards, to help keep track of them on screen, instead of any meaningful personality traits.

"Meaningful" is a term that is relatively absent from this film. None of the "accomplishments" are very meaningful because it never feels like we're getting much closer to the end goal of reclaiming the lost city. Maybe it's because the whole adventure in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is made up of side-quests and distractions. One of the most common distractions is the frequent attempts to discuss and build up the return of Sauron—you know, the plot to the better movies, in case you forgot. It's completely unnecessary to even show us scenes discussing Sauron and his inevitable return in this film because they discussed it at length in the other ones where it actually mattered. Why are we spending so much time talking about something that will have NO impact on this story and its characters? Oh right, the three-movie thing.

This is supposed to be about the dwarves, a wizard, and a hobbit going and reclaiming a city from a dragon and the aftermath of such an event. That's it. All of the big set-pieces or moments of action feel like they're just delays to accomplishing anything. I don't know what took place in the book and what was made up for the movie, but every landmark they visit or action sequence that takes place feels like it takes way too long to complete.

The last thing I want to mention is that even though they've decided to stretch this story out as long and thin as possible, they couldn't come up with creative ways to make the action sequences feel like anything more than formulaic. There are so many shots of a good guy in a precarious situation, about to die, when then the music suddenly swells and other heroes show up to save the day, or at least they show up to delay the action until the next moment where the music swells. Gandalf, in particular, is a walking deus ex machina in this movie because he manages to save everyone at least 3 times on his own, or with those deus ex eagles from the Lord of the Rings movies.

TL;DR (Conclusion)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is yet another romp into Peter Jackson's version of Middle-Earth. It's a nice place, don't get me wrong, but with us all so familiar with it by this point, it could have been more efficient in telling the story, allowing us to get to know the characters, and explaining the things that actually needed to be explained. Instead, we have a 2+ hour act I of a film with poor characterization, poor pacing, and formulaic action. Not even Gandalf and his deus ex machina nonsense can save this one.

Do you agree or disagree? Tell me what you think in the comments!

Fan of death metal? Check out my band on Bandcamp and Soundcloud. If you like what you hear and want to hear more, head to HoundsofInnsmouth.com for more info!