"The Hobbit" Review: here there be spoilers!

WARNING: THIS POST IS FULL OF SPOILERS FOR "THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY"

When I was in the third grade, I received a beautifully illustrated copy of "the Hobbit" from a great aunt. It was probably my first exposure to an "adult" book - sure, it was a fantasy, and often thought of as a children's adventure book; but it had complex themes, characters had moral ambiguities, and not everyone was guaranteed to live through the tale. It was a wonderful book, and I still treasure my copy of it. When I was older, I went on to read, and also love, the Lord of the Rings books, like so many others do. And when the trilogy came out, I was enchanted once again. Sure, they left out some things; and played fast and loose with a couple plot threads; and added in a couple extra little plot lines here and there: but overall, those changes didn't change the fundamental elements of the story.

So, when I heard that Peter Jackson was making "the Hobbit" into a movie, I was thrilled! Another great book, so, sure, why couldn't it be a good movie as well? I was rather surprised to hear it was being split up into not two, but THREE movies, but still had high hopes. I expected, of course, that they would "pad" things out a bit (though I don't really see why movies have to be 2.5 hours long these days - nothing wrong with a perfectly solid, tight movie at 95 minutes or so!). But I can deal with a little padding if it's done well. So, when another person in my department suggested going to the midnight showing for the premiere, I lept at the chance. I happily reread the text of "the Hobbit," and for good measure, re-watched the extended editions of the LotR trilogy last weekend. You may guess where this is leading: unfortunately, when I left the theater, I was sadly disappointed.

It felt like they couldn't decide between making it an sweeping epic prequel to Lord of the Rings, or a comic action-adventure story. They removed dramatic tension, and put humor in places which are supposed to be scary and creepy. They added full subplots that were never seen in any part of the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, Silmarillion, or the varying appendices.

One of the things I wasn't as wild about in the Lord of the Rings movies was the characterization of Gimli (son of Gloin), as a comic-relief type character. Dwarves are a proud old race - short and stout, to be sure, and they have their comic moments as well - but proud, dignified. "The Hobbit" has 13 dwarves. Thorin Oakenshield actually fits the proud dwarf thing very well, and it goes into his backstory quite a bit (and then some, but we'll get to that). However, despite the length of the film, unless a dwarf is directly interacting with Thorin, or they're fighting... you don't get much characterization of the other dwarves except as funny/silly in the background.

Now... as far as the story. They open the film describing the desolation of the town of Dale and the  way that the dwarves were thrown out of the mountain, then have a bit of a framing device with old Bilbo working on his book the day of the party (via the opening of LotR), with a cameo by Frodo. Not how I would have chosen to present it (over campfire or in a darkened room, like in the book!), but fine.  It shows the elves refusing to help, which explains why Thorin is so reluctant to go to them now. Fine.

But then it adds a whole subplot about how, when trying to take back the mines of Moria, Thorin faces a giant orc, who 1) swears to wipe out his family's line; 2) does so except for Thorin; 3) gets his arm chopped off by Thorin; and 4) is currently HUNTING for Thorin for revenge for the arm, and to fulfill his oath. He rides a giant albino warg. So... throughout the story, we get these random orcs popping up, hunting Thorin and the dwarves, and a great big climatic fight scene underneath the trees in which the dwarves are supposed to be hiding. The goblins under-the-mountain take the dwarves not to devour, but to deliver to this orc, who has placed a bounty on them. You remember the awesome portrayals of the Uruk-hai in LotR? They're ugly, they're nasty, they're primal, they are guttural. The Great Goblin, on the other hand is now a fat, comical figure with terrible dialogue and who doesn't SOUND goblin-y. I just am NOT frightened of this goblin - even the CGI is.. bleh! (A random aside: I found it amusing that they made sure that the line of ponies that the dwarves and Bilbo rode were NOT presumed eaten by the goblins - instead they were scared off in an earlier confrontation with the wargs.)

Similarly: Riddles in the Dark. Oh, I was so looking forward to seeing Gollum again. And this scene is GREAT for his character - he's creepy, scary, but still oddly pitiful in his isolation. At least... that's how it's written in the book. Here - they again exchanged tension for humor, unsuccessfully. I was SO disappointed by this scene, I just... ugh. No.

And finally, Bilbo himself. I realize this first movie was supposed to be about him finding his place in the group, and his footing, as he starts off living in his very comfortable hobbit life. However, the book has some hints early on about where his spirit and thirst for adventure originate, and he starts showing at least some talent pretty early on, in his skill moving through the forest silently and easily. He is NOT, however, used as a hostage by the trolls, causing them to all be easily captured. Nor does he repeatedly fall down cliffs and whatnot and keep needing help to that extent. Nor does he literally DECIDE TO TURN BACK and leave the party when things get rough. There is a big subplot in the film about Thorin doubting the skills of Bilbo, and as much as I love Martin Freeman, I was definitely doubting him myself - and not in a good "oh, character development" way. And the turnaround - Bilbo risking his life to tackle an orc off of Thorin - that's... not really what Bilbo's character is about, now, is it? He's NOT a hobbit of great deeds, and action, and fighting. He's the hobbit who will later give up his share of treasure in exchange for peace. He'll fight if he has to, and to save his friends, but that's not how he proves himself in this story - it's NOT the tale of how Bilbo Baggins becomes an action hero.

Not everything was bad, of course - honestly, I had fun watching the movie and will go and see the next two. Considering we all knew they'd be incorporating some things about Sauron (who is only referenced in the book as a 'necromancer in the south'), and adding Galadriel and expanding the role of Elrond a bit, in order to make it fit with Lord of the Rings more, I think they did that part quite well (ignoring the overly silly portrayal of the brown wizard Radagast, which was quite overdone). Ian McKellen was wonderful as Gandalf, and had some great stuff. Good fight scenes. I love Martin Freeman, he makes a very good Bilbo and also has some very good moments. The way that Bilbo sees the world when he has the ring on is also done just right - the right mix of what Frodo sees in the LotR movies, without the pressing eye of Sauron. The songs that they included, especially "Misty Mountain", were great. And it was, of course, lovely to look at (I saw it in 2D, not 3D high-res, but yes, gorgeous). But since I had such high expectations, these items got overshadowed when I watched the film through.

I think it comes down to one thing. "The Lord of the Rings" is so much story, that you have to cut it down to make three movies out of it; and when details get added, dropped, or changed, well, the bulk of those movies are still true enough to the books that it doesn't matter as much. "The Hobbit" is a very different tale, and it needs - and deserves - to be treated that way. Less complicated and fewer plot-threads, but a lot of heart running through that simple story. Telling it over three movies stretches it too thin, and the content you add to fill it up just... isn't Tolkien, and it's obvious.