REVIEW: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

As much as people acclaim the "Lord of the Rings" series, there are those who find fault in the nearly nine and half hour saga that's had fan-boys craving more Middle Earth since the end credits of "Return of the King" rolled.  You don't hear much about them, as only six or seven inhabit the world at a time.  I revisited the series this year after seeing them for the very first time in mid 2010.  I have a goal to see all of the Oscar-winning Best Pictures, and because "ROTK" fell into that category, I was obliged to watch the gargantuan trilogy.  I feel foolish now for thinking it was a chore, as "The Lord of the Rings" is a truly moving, ambitious and genius driven trilogy that refreshed how we all looked at science fiction and fantasy, and how it could be crafted as this dead-serious work of art.  Jackson had Hobbit-feet sized shoes to fill with this first of three installments, "An Unexpected Journey."

I've always admired directors who write their own material; Woody Allen, Ben Affleck, and Jackson of course, are the first to spring to mind out of many.  Not only is he tasked with the project of directing this beast, but coming up with appropriate dialogue. Jackson's shooting schedule is no joke either, he's doing with "The Hobbit" series what he did with "LOTR," and that's shooting back-to-back-to-back for three films, this one alone nearly short of three hours.  So when I do criticize the film in this review, realize that I'm looking at it through a purely superficial lens; I know how hard it is to produce a high school musical, endless hours spent singing and perfecting performances, cutting the wood necessary for the sets, etc.  There is no possible way I could even remotely envision hemming a series that has hundreds of millions of devoted followers with the  level of technological brilliance already expected of it.  That said, here's the review, folks:

"An Unexpected Journey" begins on warmly familiar ground, a prelude of the story to come, as "The Fellowship of the Ring" began back in 2001.  A much, much older Bilbo Baggins sits in his comfortable iconic residence, writing down the complete adventure for his nephew, a certain other Baggins we've come to love.  The basic premise to those who haven't read "The Hobbit" (that's me!) is that Bilbo (unexpectedly) meets with the wizard Gandalf the Grey, played with the same mischievous and good-humor as he was in the trilogy by Ian McKellen, who gathers 13 dwarfs together to reclaim the Lonely Mountain of Dwarves, currently inhabited by a diabolical dragon named Smaug, who caused unimaginable fiery destruction years ago.  The de facto leader of this group is a striking dwarf named Thorin Oakenshield.  He received this name  in battle with a Pale Orc, who he claims he slayed.

Did I lose anyone?  Good, because you're lucky to take a breath with all the content Jackson has crammed into this one episode.  Am I wary of what the next two installments bring?  A tad.  "AUJ" feels sadly bloated, and stretched out like that silly putty we played with as kids, until it gets so thin you can nearly see through it, then it ripped apart!  I haven't viewed any of the extended edition versions of "LOTR," but "AUJ" felt like I was watching one of them.  On the up side, performances are solid, the ensemble of dwarfs is likable and light-hearted when need be, but gallant and courageous when fists start to fly.  And don't get me wrong, the length of the battle scenes between the dwarfs vs. enormous wolves, goblins, what have you, didn't bore me. The battle sequences of "LOTR" were one of the greatest filmed in cinematic history, and I'd love to see more of it!

The trolls I have beef with

The length I'm referring to is when the group comes along a trio of horribly grotesque trolls, and I now acknowledge my admiration for Jackson's astonishing direction, but the trolls were just cartoonish and annoying, and childish.  That brings me back to the point about me not reading the original book, which is said to be more intended for children than "Lord of the Rings" was.  But the film's extremely dark overtones and frequent violence would beg to differ.  Yes, there were children in the screening I attended, but they were no doubt likely drawn in from the lauding their parents gave the original trilogy.  Add on to the film's nearly three hour running time, and my patience turned into that aforementioned silly putty.  Dwarfs singing "THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT BILBO HATES!" like they came straight out of "Les Mis."  Truthful to the book, sure, but necessary to the final product?

With all the guff I've given "An Unexpected Journey," I'm still by no means panning it. (It's strongest point comes when a certain someone from "The Two Towers" arrives for a game of riddles with Bilbo.) I saw a great review blurb that read "Disappointed isn't the same thing as disliked."  With all Jackson has on his plate, we're lucky this film didn't get delivered to us by 2016.  The visuals are still remarkable after all, everything looking genuinely authentic of Middle Earth, the elves, dwarfs, hobbits, wizards all stunningly real and gorgeous.  "The Lord of the Rings" series is easily one of the best trilogies of all time, and perhaps if this very movie came out before "Fellowship of the Ring" in chronological order, we'd be singing its praise?  Make no mistake it's still a visual feast, but you might get full off of "An Unexpected Journey" after one serving.

Rating: 2.5/4 stars