I am lucky enough to have been one of the first in the world to experience the first part of Peter Jackson’s hugely anticipated The Hobbit trilogy, and if you haven’t yet, you can read our extensive review here. It’s clear that while the film has many exceptional aspects, it’s also subject to a lot of the criticism and scepticism that many fans and critics expected going in. It’s evident without a doubt that An Unexpected Journey is a work of excess as well-produced as it is, and that leaves us somewhat unsure of how Jackson is going to proceed with the two remaining films.
Nevertheless, here are 5 things about The Hobbit Part 1 that were awesome, and 5 things that sucked…
5 Things That Were Awesome…
5. Cinematography
The first thing that strikes viewers when watching The Hobbit is how visually striking it is, and that’s thanks to a combination of stunning visual effects – which we’ll get to later – and the evocative, vibrant cinematography from Andrew Lesnie, who has been Peter Jackson’s faithful lenser through all of the Lord of the Rings films, and will be on the impending Hobbit trilogy. Whatever the environment in An Unexpected Journey, Lesnie’s work hugely contributes to the sense of atmosphere throughout, whether it’s the crisp warmness of the Shire at the beginning, the cool cleanliness of Rivendell, or the detached darkness of the goblin tunnels later on.
In many ways, it’s this look that, despite the film’s many misgivings, help give it a consistent feel with the Rings films; it means that the action has an apt sense of scale, but the more intimate, character-based scenes are also effective. Isn’t it just a shame about that script, eh?
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
20 Comments
I feared this was going to happen with the ‘Hobbit’ movies; the LOTR extended editions were such an unqualified commercial success that Peter Jackson has seemingly decided to forgo that approach and throw EVERYTHING into the theatrical cuts, thus the need to extend them from two films to three… at least, I HOPE that’s the approach he’s taking, Lord only knows what this film would be like if it was extended even further!
And I think a 120-minute cut for ‘…An Unexpected Journey’ might be just a little too short; drop the unnecessary Ian Holm prologue, tighten the scenes in the Shire considerably, and tighten the multiple climactic sequences and you could have had a pretty fantastic 140-minute film there, alas…
Were you high, when you watched the film ?!?!? Cuz judging by your profile pic, I’m pretty sure you were !
@Gerry Mander … unnecessary IAN HOLM prologue ?!?!!? Are you f@cking kidding me …. ?!?!? This was one of the best parts of the film … and this prologue TIGHTS both HOBBIT and LOTR very strong !
Let’s face if idiots … it’s a children book, and making it into 3 film will be difficult, but I’m absolutely sure that Peter Jackson will manage to surprise us … !!!
“The story relies on an awful lot of convenience during key moments, usually during the middle of action sequences when Gandalf shows up and kicks ass (notably when he turns the trolls to stone, and again when he kills a fleet of goblins using his powers). Though some might see the term “walking deus-ex machina” as a bit flippant given that Gandalf is basically a God and he’s treated the same way in Tolkein’s novels, it does fast become predictable how often he seems to just swoop in and save the day when the chips are down, primarily because his absences really set this sort of thing up.
Also, in the climactic action sequence when the dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf are stuck up a tree hanging off the edge of a cliff, a gang of giant eagles swoop in out of nowhere with no explanation given and save the day. The fact that it wasn’t telegraphed in the slightest or even explained is a tad frustrating, but then Rings fans are so immersed in the universe by this point that they’ll probably just roll with it anyway.”
Mate, read the f**king book. That’s exactly how things pan out. If you haven’t read it and thus didn’t expect it, that’s hardly Jackson’s fault, and no-one who values good adaptation is going to consider it a down point.
The Eagle scene is right out of the book from which the movie is based.
A lot of these criticisms actually stem from the book – it wouldn’t matter how long it it is, The party at Bag-End is sill raucous, Bilbo gets annoyed, Thorin’s distrusts Bilbo from the off, Gandalf does save the day on two occasions – Trolls (which is an iconic book scene) and the Great Goblin. The Eagles actually show up on their own accord. The eagles are independent creatures with no allegiance and do what they like. What made me laugh though was Gandalf as a walking deus ex machina – see if you think that an hour into the second film. The stuff with Radagast, Galadriel, Saruman and all has to be in the first film (not a DVD extra) as its going to become damn important later. The dwarves in the book are fairly interchangeable as well except for Thorin, Balin, Bombur, Dori and Fili and Kili – at least Jackson has made them a bit more distinct – from the clips I saw Dwalin looks a beast, Bofur has a few distinct lines, so I can tell them apart. The first film is set up anyway. The second has a lot of setpieces and that doesn’t even include the dragon. I see a lot of parallels with early Fellowship reviews which also took nearly an hour to get out of the Shire by the way.
Dude…did you read the book? I haven’t seen the film, so ill reserve judgement both on that and your opinion, but it sounds as though your complaints stem from source material itself and not the adaptation of it. This isn’t LOTR-it’s supposed to have the “tomfoolery” with the dwarves and the banquet with Elrond. He wasn’t just thrown in for the fans-he’s a vital part of the books. I do worry about long run times and three films, but he’s also adding in the appendices that Tolkien himself had wanted to rewrite into the Hobbit and never got the chance for.
No, Jackson is either utterly mistaken or cynically lying when he says that Tolkien intended to rework The Hobbit with material from the appendices, and it is dismaying to see it repeated here. Tolkien did begin to re-write The Hobbit ca. 1960 — well after The Lord of the Rings had been published, complete with the appendices which were always conceived as a part of that book — but that rewrite was more stylistic in nature, eliminating the first- and second-person asides to the reader, and partly to get some of the narrative details of geography and time to align better with LotR (and with the published maps). It did not include any material from the appendices (he did provide an explanation of why Gandalf could not himself identify Orcrist and Glamdring, one that Jackson did not use, curiously). Tolkien abandoned the rewrite, partly because it was impractical (the time and distance between Rivendell and Erebor proved particularly intractible), and partly because a friend who read it told him basically “This is excellent, but it isn’t The Hobbit”. Jackson’s films, I think, may be subject to the same criticism.
Incidentally, the reviewer somehow missed the ‘Gandalf talks to a butterfly to summon the Eagles’ bit in The Hobbit. Not my favourite innovation on Jackson’s part, but it does prepare fans of the LotR films for the appearance of the Eagles.
I kept rolling my eyes at the last five.
Silly Humor? That’s what makes The Hobbit The Hobbit! It’s funnier than LOTR!
Too many dwarves that look the same? They all are completely unique in look. Not one of them could possible be mistaken for the other. What more, there are 13 of them! They’re not all going to get screentime in the FIRST FILM!!!!
Shouldn’t be epic? The Hobbit most certainly IS Epic! It’s just lighter in tone!
Contrived Storyline? What the hell do you mean!? It’s an adventure story!
Too Long?
You went to see a film about Middle-Earth (the shortest one to date, I might add) and you think it’s too long!?
Is there any career less meaningful, more uselessly annoying, more disgustingly pointless and redundant than that of a critic? You literally are of no use to society! Go get a new job or save us all the trouble and jump off a bridge!
I cant believe how bad this movie was, I have lost all respect for peter jackson is he on drugs?
Numerous Peter Jackson invented Plot holes, unnecessary new content like albino orcs and scenes where a wizard revives a…….hedgehog..and ride a slay pulled by rabbits. Its ok to add stuff, but seriously, this was just stupid and did not help the story one bit, it did not develop anything.
A pretty dramatic scene in the book where the party is attacked by stone throwing mountain giants in the middle of a storm is turned into a…scene from God of War.
Simply horrendous. PJ slaughtered the Hobbit, I cant understand how he could do something as awful as this crap from this material with this budget.
The good: The CG, and looks of most things. Most of the first 30-40minutes and Gollum scene.
People are so damn ignorant. Peter Jackson didn’t come up with a damn thing here. He turned a book with some annotations into a great movie.
this was one of the worst movies i have seen, because the film was just some events happening while the charactersere walking into the woods and then they encounter some goblins and have some fights and then the movie ends with a dragon under some gold it sucked ass!! it had no philosophical meaing unlike the the lord of the rings, this was just fantasy without any meaning, so it has no purpose its just trash art, its like a tatoo with a sailor anchor, it has no meaninggg
this was the first part of 3, and tolkien wrote the hobbit for children, and it has a meaning that you don’t understand…
Tolkien hated people giving “meaning” to his work, he believed people should interpret them the way they feel. If you believe to havb found “the meaning” of the Lord of the Rings then PLEASE try and share with a Tolkienist and see their reaction. Your commentary makes me wonder if you just sat for 2 hours watching the “pwetty pictures”. Don’t like seeing epic walking and events happening ? Don’t like the Lord of the rings or the hobbit then since that is a third of both.
“Bilbo and Gandalf are stuck up a tree hanging off the edge of a cliff, a gang of giant eagles swoop in out of nowhere with no explanation given and save the day.”
Actually, in the movie, it was explained how the eagles got there. While in the tree, Gandalf calls for them through that month/butterfly, similar to the scene in LOTR where he’s trapped by Saruman on top of the tower (of Orthanc?).
Dec 17, 2012
I’m not a professional critic, but I am an intelligent audience member and a fan of Tolkien. Don’t waste your money or time with the first of these “Hobbit” movies. It is an example of unabashed greed. There is no magic, there is no mystery and the story was hijacked by scenes driven by the need to demonstrate every CG gag in the book to serve as filler.
Technically, I would much rather watch something that has atmosphere and grit than the sanitized and antiseptic world created with the way the “Hobbit” was shot. For me personally it made it an impassible barrier to becoming drawn into the world on the screen and suspending my belief.
I am a senior citizen. The movie was incredibly bad. Far too much violence and the audio was waaay too loud. The special effects were excellent if you have the brain of an 8 year old. The movie as a whole is what is wrong in this country today.
The music was so loud.I thought it might have been the DVD but I have had other people say the same thing.We feel we missed about 1/3 of the vocal, which makes one loose interest after awhile.Why does the music have to be so loud ?
In the books the eagles live behind the misty mountains, so they hear the voices of the args and other things. In the movies Gandalf calls the eagles with that butterfly!!
He called the eagles by sending a message with the butterfly dude. The movie sucked anyways LOTR best trilogy ever.
It seems that some people on here deem it a carnal sin to watch this film without reading the book. I think that a movie adaptation should cater for those who haven’t read the book. I didn’t read LOTR, but the movies provided sufficient detail that I could make sense of it. This movie did not. That Dwarven hymn sung at Bilbo’s house- I’m sure some fans who read the book may have had the hairs on the back of their necks stood on end. But to me it was totally lame. Shire sequence would’ve put me to sleep if it wasn’t for the Indian family who were to tight to hire a babysitter and brought an infant (less than 2yo) into the cinema- soon as that dragon showed up he was bawling like a bastard. And someone please explain to my why Gandalf didn’t get an Eagle to fly frodo to mordor, cos getting Frodo and Sam to walk seems a bit of a C@%*s trick!?