'The Hobbit' - Movie Review

Walking into the cinema for The Hobbit I told myself, "Don't be upset if it doesn't stay true to the book - Tolkien won't mind." I needn't have worried about worrying(!) because I was thrilled from start to finish. But I have one bone to pick with the film... in the novel Tolkien creates a new phrase, or 'proverb', as he puts it. When the group of merry gold hunters leave the mountain of Goblins and see the wolves, Bilbo says,

'Escaping goblins to be caught by wolves!' - Imagine people using it today!

I love that saying and was hoping it would be included in the movie so popular culture can adopt it!

You know what one of my favourite parts of The Lord of the Rings movies is? When the history of middle earth is explained at the start of The Fellowship. This might be due to the fact that I'm an epic history nut. I absolutely love the history and applaud Marquette University in the US for offering Tolkien classes in the English and history departments! No it's not 'real' history but as a history and English major I feel I'm able to give it a stamp of approval. History can be done and taught in an  interesting manner, you just might have to get off your snobbish academic high horse. So when this film opened with the history behind the dwarves and the Lonely Mountain, I was right there in the thick of it. I never wanted it to end and didn't care that it took 45 minutes to get to the actual adventure story of The Hobbit. I mean often when you have a preface or a history at the beginning of a book you just want to skim it - did anyone feel the same about the start of the film? 

Ah Bilbo Baggins, we meet again. As a child I wasn't the most adventurous lad, I left a lot of that to the pages of books, so in Bilbo I found a mate. Our introduction in the film was pleasing as it matched the book - with the much loved interplay between the worrywart hobbit and the mischievous wizard. "Good morning", it put a smile on my face. 

Bilbo is a typical Hobbit, in a well-to-do Hobbit hole, who enjoys a smoke, a sit and a read. But one day Bilbo is bothered silly when Gandalf invites a team of dwarves to Bilbo's to plan an adventure. What kind of adventure? That depends whether you are reading the book or watching the film. The film's motive is to win back the Lonely mountain from the evil dragon who killed many dwarves and took their mountain and gold. In the book the dwarves just want to steal back the gold but I suppose with all the talk of honour, duty, service and power the film has to be about more than just stealing back gold... but they still call Bilbo the "burglar" which confuses me. If they were going to take back their home by force then where's the need for a burglar Hobbit? But if their plan was to steal back the gold, then a burglar makes perfect sense. Did anyone else pick that up? 

Finally the tale of the dwarves is brought to the big screen!

Meeting the dwarves was as fun on screen as it is in the book - and it was delightful to sit in my seat and sing the "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates" song!

The dwarves are an interesting bunch. Some reviewers write that apart from Thorin they lack individual personalities. I see where they are coming from but in the book even Thorin (who doesn't come with the immense back story shown in the movie) isn't explored in depth. They make their rowdy and lovable entrance and then are simply seeking the gold. Peter Jackson and the crew seem to want the dwarves to be sentimental favourites as they seek their home (which tugs at the heart strings in a different way to the book). 

Perhaps the screenwriters didn't flesh out the dwarves enough if they wanted to change their motive? But then if they did wouldn't the movie be 4 hours? I'd have my own dwarf beard by then!

Thorin was interesting - in the book he is by far the most intriguing dwarf but in the movie they include a deep back story and in many ways he's the Aragon of the tale. There is no pale Orc chasing him this early in the book and there is no mention of Moria either - actually I'm wondering if The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales was consulted for the extended back story? Some will wonder why/if the back stories were needed but I'm convinced that it added depth and flavour to the story. 

The dwarves work well in the movie, which is more than I can say for the tangent which is the brown wizard. And their costumes, beards and weapons will surely equate to an Oscar nomination!

The picture of Bilbo which accompanies the novel. Itty bitty thin

I think I knew as much about Martin Freeman as I did about Elijah Wood before he played Frodo. Actually if it wasn't for my fiancé's love for everything British I wouldn't have even known Martin Freeman existed. He played the hesitating, fast talking Hobbit quite well and definitely nailed Bilbo's famous trepidation. He's a tad tall, as the hobbit was carried by dwarves in the book, but we can forgive a few inches here and there. And already I'm more interested in Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo than Wood's portrayal of Frodo (I got tired of Frodo's whimpering by the third movie). 

Who could play Gandalf  better than Ian Mckellen? He brings the charisma which is needed for the character who Tolkien poured so much responsibility into. Of course Gandalf fits succinctly into the old fashioned hero quest archetype, and yet despite the predictable role of the wizard, you still feel your breathing ease when he's on the scene. 

Once again though Jackson and the crew forged a new path from Tolkien in that the movie draws viewers towards the growing evil, whereas in the book Tolkien builds everything a lot slower in leading to Lord of the Rings. I was also caught off guard by the whole meeting of the great minds in Rivendell. It was interesting and had you thinking, but it does somewhat take away from the pace and central plot of the adventure to Lonely Mountain. It's like they told Jackson that he has to blatantly connect The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings every 30 minutes. 

There's even a cameo for one of my favourite/funniest Aussies, 

Barry Humphries!

Visually this movie is everything The Lord of the Rings was - and that's saying something. My mind could've never conjured up quite what I saw on the screen... especially that rock throwing fight between the stone giants! My mind had pictured something totally different in reading the book. It's like Tree Beard in the trilogy, most people would picture men who look like trees not actual ancient trees! Oh and don't forget the suicide run through the goblin cave - what a rush! All I could think at the end was,

 "How long will it take theme parks to open Hobbit rides?!" 

A sight to be seen!

 I didn't even see the film in 3D and I was in awe. I've been underwhelmed by 3D movies (I also don't like putting glasses on top of my already geeky glasses) but I've heard the film is shot differently in 3D to others. My mother went to see it in 3D and still hasn't gotten over the experience! Even my Dad, who enjoys nothing but lawyer movies and John Grisham novels, couldn't stop raving about the 3D experience. Perhaps it's worth a shot?

It needs to be made clear though that this movie is not an excuse to bypass the book. It's high time our generation picked up a decent book (I understand that's quite subjective) and engaged our minds, senses and imagination. Too often I hear people say, 

I'll wait till it comes out at the movies!

 Why would I read 300 pages when I can watch it in 2 hours?!

Having read The Hobbit I felt like my experience of the movie was enriched. I was still on the edge of my seat and enjoyed making note of how I imagined something or someone to look compared to the film - and often I was left in awe! Noticing lines which were lifted from the book, songs which were superbly adapted from the book and scenes which scared me as a kid was a joy. I can't stress it enough, go and read the book! Smell the goblins, see the majestic eagles (who even talk in the book), touch the blades of the magnificent swords which Tolkien has given such vast histories. Just sit back and experience the brilliance which is Tolkien's story telling. In the book Tolkien is not a character but he is an external narrator who directs us through, gives us history lessons, informs us of the thoughts of many characters and has us singing songs of many different creatures! In the book you are privy to the thoughts of characters whereas in the movie you aren't. It's the little things.

Memories of reading flooded back when the movie got to the famous riddle scene!

The screenplay is fine. It has twists and turns from the novel and yet it's Tolkienesque. Characters come to life and when our heroes are in peril our hearts respond in kind. Isn't that what we want? Some will say that the start isn't needed, others will say that scenes felt laborious and a few may critique the subplots but I like that they attempted to take the novel and add a new flavour. I did however walk into the cinema wondering how this movie was 3 hours of a trilogy based on a 360 page book, but I left quite satisfied with what I saw. 

Andy Serkin is once again outstanding as Gollum!

I don't know how they managed to make Gollum as frightening as he was in my mind as a boy. Andy Serkis, take a bow! When I reread the book recently I was surprised that Gollum only has one scene. My memory had me thinking Gollum was behind every twist and turn as he frightened me something terrible! I don't know how they do the whole Gollum thing on the screen but I must applaud them. 

Look, I really enjoyed it. I'm not sure if that's partly because I loved the book or if I showed the adaption too much grace. There are sideplots and cameo characters I'm not overly crazy about but I'd like to think I'm wise enough to know that these sideplots will grow and not detract from the adventure of Bilbo and the dwarves.  The scenery of New Zealand, the costumes and the special effects alone would have my bum in a seat but add in a thrilling tale and I'm one of those people - gasping and applauding in my seat. 

9/10