The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I was holding my breath to see the Hobbit, then I didn’t manage to go see it at the cinema and so I had to wait for the DVD. I saved every behind-the-scenes video that Peter Jackson put out and that he enticed me with as much as a movie creator possibly could. Each time I enter Middle-earth, it’s a completely unforgettable experience and I expected nothing less from this movie. But throughout the entire time, I was nervous about one particular thing; I couldn’t begin to grasp why the thin little book got adapted into three three-hour movies. I was afraid of a real mess-up and so I wondered if he at least manages to make every single scene meaningful to the movie and makes it entertaining to spend time in the world and go through it all with Bilbo. Sure, he mixed in more stories than just Bilbo’s, but it ended up exactly like I’d feared; a lot of the scenes were pointless and I had downright trouble to make it through the beginning. It took an awfully long time and I felt as if nothing happened throughout the middle part of the movie and only then began the fantastic journey of saving the dwarf lands. But that was probably the only problem. Everything else was a complete classic. A beautiful story, great characters, the same actors (thank goodness), and at times, it was a pleasant surprise to see the same actors once again after a decade. Plus, the amazing atmosphere of the beautiful, wondrous but often inhospitable world and, of course, the amazing music by Howard Shore couldn’t have turned out any different. In the end, I was wholeheartedly happy about the movie, but if the incredibly dragged-out beginning wasn’t there, I’d give it five stars. But not like this, unfortunately. (06/06/2013)

With “The Hobbit” is like with the weather. When it’s hot, people complain it’s hot, and when it’s cold, they complain that it’s cold. With “The Lord of the Rings”, audiences grumbled that Jackson left out a lot and adapted it to his own image; with “The Hobbit”, they grumble the opposite, that the adaptation is too literal and consistent in quoting Tolkien's book. People just don't know what they want, you can't please anyone and I laugh at this herd mentality. So....did you find Jackson's King Kong overwrought, but you loved it anyway because you admired its perfect filmmaking craft and imagination? Or on the other hand, is there at least a tiny soul of a child left in you who likes to play and wonder? In that case, you’ll sure love The Hobbit. It's like coming to a long-awaited party among old friends and feeling at ease with them. On top of that, Jackson will overwhelm you with so many audiovisual sensations that you will feel like you’re drinking moonshine. Leave the boredom and negativity to the curmudgeons and to Spáčilová with her worn-out compilation of foreign reviews. And for the rest of you, put on your hats and run to the cinema! Jackson is still on top and the spirit of Middle Earth is still alive. (14/12/2012)

"Set time" in Middle-earth - I can't think about this film in any other way. A prequel for something that doesn't need a prequel, a film that has a hard time finding its pace, a film that can't shake off the specter of the overly strenuous imitation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, a film whose characters, despite almost three hours, act like Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and a chubby bunch of blabbering beards (moreover, I'm not quite sure if the step of giving Thorin the position of Aragorn was successful). Since The Return of the King, Jackson seems to me to be lost in a pastel-filled imagination - after the third sunset / sunrise, I have no doubt that what was "beautiful and epic" in the original trilogy is more self-serving and kitschy here (this also applies to the depressing flights, which are supposed to confirm to us "that it's here again and it's as big as an orc double chin"). Still, I'm not overly disappointed. Partly because I didn't expect anything else. Particularly because Tolkien's book was not particularly hurt by the powerful thickening of the "additional" storylines, although the best moments for me are equally identical to those of the books (puzzles in the dark, the Song of Durin's People). In some cases it is a mirror reflection of The Fellowship of the Ring (for example composition: the historical "battle" introduction // the exposition in Middle Earth // the diplomatic interlude in Rivendell // the action mess in the depths, but there are more such connections), while in some case it is its opposite (while The Fellowship of the Ring cut and dynamized, the Hobbit rather stretches and retards with retrospectives and explanations). I can't shake the impression that the original trilogy looked "more cinematic" thanks to a smaller share of digital accessories, and thanks to that it also functioned as "good epic theater". The Hobbit did not give me this feeling even during the eloquent speeches in Rivendell. No, I'm definitely not annoyed, but if I was anxiously waiting to see if the division of the film into three parts made much sense, I have no greater reason to say YES after today. The rating applies to the 3D version with dubbing and hovers a "bit" over three stars. But just a little bit. Edit: not even the original version convinced me. For me, the film between the poetic introduction and the action finale contains an awful lot of dramatically staged rubbish, which did not draw me into its depths for even a moment like any (cut out) scene in The Fellowship of the Ring. It is wide, so I'm wondering if all those dialogic retardations and hinted storylines will be beneficial later. (11/12/2012)

When it comes to fantasy, it’s all terribly simple. You just have to create a magical world for the viewer to fall in love with, pick characters that are quirky enough but not too quirky for the viewer to fall in love with, don't mess up the effects, compose masterful music that awakens the little kid in the viewer who longs for adventure every time he hears it, and then just come up with a really, really engaging story. If you can pull this off, even the girl who knew for sure that The Hobbit wasn't going to be for her will still be happy in the end. 4.5 stars. (03/11/2015)

“The World isn’t in your books and maps. It’s out there.” Review of the extended version (I haven’t seen the cinematic release). Though it is presented as an adventure fantasy following in the footsteps of The Lord of the Rings, for me The Hobbit was primarily a story about the transformation of a wayfarer (or nerd) journeying through fictional worlds, who longs mainly for his books, into a real hero. In particular, Bilbo’s lack of capability for epic adventure enlivens and advances the narrative (culinary tips given to giants, escaping from the Goblins). A forgotten handkerchief brings about not only the gradual loss of all creature comforts, but also the protagonist’s transformation from someone who constantly seeks a stronger leader to guide him into a character who acts of his own volition. I believe that this transition toward independence will continue in future instalments. The long introduction in Hobbiton is not important solely for the purpose of outlining the objective of the mission and introducing the dwarves. The depiction of the comfort in which the provincial-minded “no adventure” halfling lives also serves as a contrasting background for the situations in which the protagonist later finds himself. Nostalgia for one’s lost home is a motif that is given greater depth throughout the film, not only through Bilbo, but also through the dwarves living in exile after their exodus. The Hobbit and the dwarves repeatedly overcome their physiognomic preordination, as they have to face enemies much larger than themselves again and again. The gradual intensification of the risks with which the characters are confronted occurs in parallel with a warning of future threats, resulting in The Hobbit becoming a major promise of events that have yet to come. There is no harm in postponing the undiluted spectacle, because the adventure presented to us grows in parallel with Bilbo, who is just getting his bearings in a world of real danger, so he has enough time for riddles with a schizophrenic scoundrel and, like the viewer, must have a lot explained to him. The explanatory passages turn the main storyline into a font of secondary storylines that, however, do not slow down or distract from the primary narrative, as they converge at the initial source and make it clear that their importance will be fully appreciated in the sequel. Only the length of some of the action sequences goes beyond the needs of the narrative, revealing that Jackson, like del Toro, is at heart a gadgeteer with a weakness for bizarre monsters. Furthermore, the raw visual aspect of the action scenes does not fit well with the more lyrical image of the picturesque landscape. Given the multiple screenwriters and the literary and other sources that they drew from, the result is still admirably cohesive and it’s been a long time since I enjoyed such a pure (in genre terms) and (in the good sense of the word) old-fashioned adventure. 85% (13/12/2013)