© 2024 St. Louis Public Radio
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Review: Fans won't be disappointed in 'The Hobbit'

This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Dec. 13, 2012 - The two essential points, good and bad, you need to know about Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit”: It’s pretty good and it’s being franchised.

If you liked Jackson’s three Lord of the Rings movies, and people overwhelmingly did, if you are a fan of the original and classic trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien, or if you have been waiting years for a movie version of “The Hobbit,” you are likely to enjoy this.

Like Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies of 2001-03, “The Hobbit” is quite long, 169 minutes, and you can settle deep into new technology besides. The movie is projected at twice the usual speed, creating sharp images and brilliant color, all in 3D. But you should also know that the story has been divided into three parts, three entire movies, so you will only be watching a three-hour Part One. Parts Two and Three are scheduled to arrive in 2013 and 2014.

For non-hobbit experts, the basic story line is straightforward fantasy: A wizard and 13 dwarfs, plus one hobbit, go on a quest to win back a vast treasure that was stolen from the dwarf kingdom a century back by a dragon. The “plus one” is a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. A hobbit, also called a halfling, is a three-foot tall creature that seems rather human, except for being sweet-tempered and unadventurous, with pointy ears and hairy bare feet. Baggins is the reluctant hero of the story.

The wizard, the 13 dwarfs and Baggins head east, first through adventures in dangerous forests and dark mountains, then they actually fight the dragon. In the aftermath a massive war breaks out between five armies to see who will get the gold hoard.

The new film presents the adventure with all the spectacle and humor that audiences came to expect from the earlier Lord of the Rings saga. Those movies told a much bigger story that actually occurs after this story of Bilbo Baggins.

The dwarfs (Tolkien the professional linguist called them "dwarves") are not Disney-style. They have the coolest collection of movie-beards ever; they are seriously scruffy warriors, and they are fun. Their leader is Thorin Oakenshield, a Noble But Wronged King, the nominal leader of the quest.

To establish the connection to the Lord of the Rings movies, Jackson has added introductory material that includes many earlier key characters, who appear in cameo. So we see glimpses of Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), “older” Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), Saruman (Christopher Lee), and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), and others. Then, too, the movie has to set up the next two parts, so we also get hints of developments to come, notably the story of the Necromancer.

Ian McKellen is still Gandalf the Wizard and still central to the tale. Richard Armitage plays King Oakenshield, more noble and brooding than in the book. His biggest moment is likely to be in Part Three.

The star of “The Hobbit” is Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, and he is charming. If you are familiar with the recent modernized “Sherlock” TV series from Britain, you will recognize Freeman as Watson, which turns out to be good preparation for playing Bilbo, an underestimated figure in the background who is better than he looks. Incidentally, “Sherlock” actor Benedict Cumberbatch appears briefly, too, as the Necromancer. Look for him to be a big presence in Part Two.

If you want all the hobbit-story you can get, the three-movie deal is going to make you happy. If you just wanted to go see a movie of the famous Tolkien story, you’ll be trapped into watching a really long portion To Be Continued Twice. That could be a problem.

Another negative is that -- though “The Hobbit” came first and was much smaller and more personal in scope – in Jackson’s telling it is only a continuation of “The Lord of the Rings.” Thus, the movies may start to look alike, an endless epic serial rather than one shorter story and one longer story with two separate plots.

To be fair, the movie felt like epic fun, as no doubt intended. I didn’t particularly notice how long it was, while I was watching. But I did start to feel like I had seen some of it already.

Again the sweeping, circling aerial shots zoomed in and out over vast landscapes, whispering: "This is so epic!" over and over. Again the endless legions of filthy, misshapen orcs with bad, bad teeth and stapled-together skulls swarmed over the screen, killing and dying anonymously. And every single ropy footbridge over every bottomless pit seemed to have half of its slats missing so that every single chase was fraught with peril before, of course, the ropy bridge fell.

Whew. All that excitement can be tiring — or tiresome. Some viewers may say, "Enough," but the fan-base is not likely to be disappointed.