It may have been years in the making, and some cinema goers will almost certainly refer to it as the film event of the year, but unfortunately for Peter Jackson, The Hobbit was far from universally loved, picking up only 6.4/10 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes and attracting fairly wide-spread criticism, not least for its 48fps issues.
Opinions are of course completely subjective, and there are certainly elements of The Hobbit that some audience members enjoyed more than others – some people loved the Stone Giants sequence, while I found it completely superfluous, and others hated the songs, which I found a fitting touch to the original text in an adaptation that slipped quite far away from the source.
So what went wrong? Aside from the technical issues, and the over-extended length, there was definitely something wrong with certain parts of the film from the get go. And now the dust has settled, it seems that the biggest problems weren’t with story-telling, or creative choices (though they each had their issues), but thanks to a lack of that intangible magic that makes grand projects like this so enticing. And the reason for that, chiefly, was the cast.
The film might have been flabby, and the characterisations of certain characters sloppy, but the choices for those main characters just weren’t right in some cases. And that sits even more awkwardly when you inevitably compare it to cast of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy.
Some of the casting was inspired though, and those choices will get their own mentions in due course of this article. But first to the mis-castings…
1. Richard Armitage – Thorin
In many ways the choice for the head of the party of dwarves was always going to be the most difficult: faced not only with the issues of the character himself, the film-makers were also faced with some issues hanging over from the success of the LOTR trilogy.
Unfortunately, the casting of TV actor Richard Armitage was not the smartest move.
As Thorin, Armitage needed to show regality as well as pig-headedness that Tolkien wrote into all of his dwarf characters, but he was clearly also told to take a significant lead from Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn, albeit played slightly more grumpily, and the effect was reductive. The comparison between the two, drawn by the similar ways the characters were brought to screen emphasised that Armitage is the lesser actor. Yes, his character is presented in such a way that we know he’s supposed to be much more important than everyone else, but like The Hobbit itself, by tonal proximity to the Lord Of The Rings, his performance is simply shown up as a little too light-weight.
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.
58 Comments
What have you been drinking or smoking? Did we see the same movie? I don’t have any arguement about the 4 good performances you mentioned but I totally diagree with your 6 bad performances. I’m glad the audiences watch what they want and do not go by what ‘critics’ say. They get paid to trash films. And the 48fps was amazing.
I mostly agree with the writer, good point about the tonal whatever. I noticed that too but didn’t put any words to it.
It had some of the same problems of LotR being long and terribly paced. Thorin was well done at least screenplay wise but I don’t like how they played with Azog(wasn’t he already dead in the book?)and made him minigorn.
Also, dwarves are supposed to be smaller. Why are they apparently four or five feet tall? Picky, really, but I also wanted more ugly. If they took out all the subplots the film would have moved a whole lot better and less taxing.
Actually no, Tolkien’s dwarves were supposed to be mostly between 4 and 5 feet tall. And this is why it annoys me when I see the film criticized for things that it actually did RIGHT.
Middle Earth dwarves are on average taller than hobbits, though there is some overlap with the taller of the hobbits and the smaller of the dwarves being about the same size. In the film Thorin and Dwalin are the tallest dwarves being as they are supposed to be just slightly over 5 ft tall.(As a side note, Merry and Pippin after drinking the Ent draught and growing were supposed to have grown to be quite tall for hobbits at around 4 ft 7 inches in height, of course this didn’t quite stick in the films as at crowning of Aragorn in Return of the King all the hobbits lined up are about the same height)
WHAT!!?? the hobbit was like the best movie of the year!! even prince william came to their premiere, and the royal family don’t do that much!!. Richard armitage played the hardest part in the whole movie!! he had to act so differently from his personality, and from my point of view and millions of other peoples, he did a EXTRAODINARY job. NO ONE could of done it better. And the film was not ‘flabby’ it was mind blowing!! this stupid person who wrote this has got it completley wrong!!!
I understand this is all opinion and stuff, but your opinions are markedly horrible. Your reasoning for Gandalf being ill-cast just makes no sense. Do they pay you to write stuff like this? I hope not.
OK first off… you are a dumbass, this review of the castings is completely untrue. The only things you got right were saying that Bilbo, Balin, Radagast and the Great Goblin were correctly cast! And they were.. but so were all the other actors you bashed! If this is the type of review you are going to give then stay away from the next two films!!
It’s opinion Kat – mine can’t be any wronger than yours.
It can be wronger and it is! I agree with kat you are a dumbass!
Well said Simon. Short & sweet, without insult.
What a whinging tool. Fancy saying McKellen was no good and shouldn’t have been cast as Gandalf. What are you on buddy?
Simon, or whatever your name is, stick to misreading tea leaves ‘cuz you have no friggin’ idea what your talking about! Thorin…….miscast? You couldn’t carry Richard’s water glass….or anybody else’s in that cast!
My name is indeed Simon. And I have never read a tea leaf in my life, correctly or otherwise.
This is the worst article I’ve read in a long time. Obviously written by someone who thinks being a “critic” means just criticizing fine actors without any clear reason and rambling nonsense. Gandalf being miscast??? An actor’s performance being held back because he is too good-looking???? Wow, I’m amazed by the nonsense that people write sometimes.
No, an actor’s performance being held back because the director decides to preserve his good looks for a very obvious reason, rather than having him look authentically like the character he is meant to be playing. That is not nonsense, it is exactly what happened.
I would simply like to point out, as an archer my self, it is impossible to have a beard and me a skilled archer without hurting yourself. Also, Kili is still a very young dwarf, barely past his majority. Even if he wasn’t an archer his beard would still not be as long or thick as the other members of the company due to his age.
Next time, please do your research.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Sonya. And Mr Gallagher clearly has nothing but contempt for those he considers to be ‘mere’ TV actors, such as Messrs Armitage and Nesbitt; he made similar demeaning remarks about being ‘limited to TV’ even in respect of actors he claimed to think were ‘well-cast’.
Do hope the poor man’s not forced to suffer the pain of having to watch a bunch of miscast TV actors in the second and third instalments as well …
Of course Christopher Lee looks like he’s aged a lot: the man is 90 years old! Just be thankful for the fact that we still have such a talented actor on screen. This article is terrible.
I dont know what movie you were watching but Thorin miscast….insane, he bought just the right touch regality/pig headedness and mourning for all that he had lost, and if the role was played more light-hearted than Aragon than that too was appropriate since this movie, whose source material don’t forget is a childrens book and is therefor naturally a more lightheated read than LOTR, hence the reason we had the comedy scenes of Radegast and trolls which wouldnt have been right in LOTR….therefore to compare the two is ridiculous
But it isn’t – Jackson made some creative decisions that very obviously encouraged us as an audience to make the comparison. He consciously made The Hobbit a lot more like LOTR than Tolkien’s texts ever did.
I agree PJ’s tone was a little more varied than the Hobbit book, and yes it did drift into vaguely LOTR territory at times but it is still a very seperate tone to LOTR, the only times I felt it drifting was fitting as it was the parts dealing with the actions leading up to LOTR. With regards to your opinion on the casting though I agree with all other commenters. You and I were clearly NOT watching the same performances.
Do not forget, Tolkien himself made an attempt at a more serious revise of The Hobbit, before abandoning it due to the wishes of the publishing company. Tolkien himself wished that he had better tied The Hobbit into the much darker world of LOTR, but unfortunately was not given the blessings by his employers.
“with the obvious exception of Cate Blanchett, whose enhanced ethereal glow made her look exactly the same), which was fairly jarring when we were watching a prequel”
Not really.. considering elves live for thousands of years and this film is set only 60 years before Fellowship…
You’ve cut a sentence in half Yo – the full version reads:
“Pretty much everyone else simply looked an awful lot older (with the obvious exception of Cate Blanchett, whose enhanced ethereal glow made her look exactly the same), which was fairly jarring when we were watching a prequel.”
That I did! I apologise!
So pretty much everyone was miscast?
The film was far longer than it needed to be and every scene felt stretched out. Indeed perhaps with less deference to LOTR and fewer dwarfs who appeared to have walked in from the set of GQ this might have been a much better film.
I feel like critics and some audience members are becoming much more cynical about these films then is warranted. The filmmakers decide to tie in elements from Lord of the Rings to make a more unified story and you cry fan service. They turn this single book into a three movie adaption and people say that its a money grab. I am really trying to understand your opinion regarding some of your grievances with the cast, but I just don’t see it. I thought the new additions and returning cast were incredible. Saying “No, an actor’s performance being held back because the director decides to preserve his good looks for a very obvious reason, rather than having him look authentically like the character he is meant to be playing,” Clearly shows how misguided you are. I don’t know what you mean when you say that some of the actors weren’t “authentic” looking. You must have preconceived ideas about how a dwarf should look and perhaps you wanted them to be carbon copyies of Gimli. I, personally, am so glad that each dwarf had their own distinct look and personality. People who complain about the fact that these movies are nothing like the book need a real lesson in Tolkien. If you made a direct adaptation of The Hobbit you would quickly realize that this story doesn’t fit in with the continuity and the world that Jackson created for LOTR. I hate having to be the defender of a movie like this because I feel like people are missing so much because their watching it with cynical eyes.
Sean, could you qualify why that statement makes me misguided? And the reason I say the actors weren’t authentic enough is because Tolkien offered pretty precise physical descriptions of dwarves in his books. If you’re looking for a faithful adaptation, you have to take everything like that into consideration, not suspend the rules when someone criticises the movie you love.
“As Thorin, Armitage needed to show regality as well as pig-headedness that Tolkien wrote into all of his dwarf characters, but he was clearly also told to take a significant lead from Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn, albeit played slightly more grumpily, and the effect was reductive.”
Poppycock. Richard does show a regality but he himself says Thorin is reluctant to be considered to be a king yet until he takes back Erebor, there is a pig-headedness because he refuses help from the Elves and believes in his own actions without considering Gandalf or Elronds counsel. Viggo and Richard have a silence around them which draws you into them and the characters and Peter himself says that these films are a departure from LotR in every sense even though they’re in same place, this was many years before, a different story and something more fantastical. Overall I think what they did with Thorin’s character was even better than in the books where at times it feels as though his responsibilities and burdens are not covered but in the film you see that and what conflicts it provides for him on his journey and we’ve only just started.
Sorry Simon don’t agree with the miscastings I thought that they were all great, especially kili, if your talking about taking the book in to consideration then there shouldn’t be any white council stuff, radagast shouldnt even be in it, changes need to be made to the book for Peter Jackson to put his own stamp on it.
All of those added elements were taken from the Tolkien canon though – they weren’t completely fabricated (apart from the Azog sub-plot) – even the Radagast storyline was an evolved version of an account of Gandalf’s investigation of Dol Guldur.
I can’t understand why there’s no mention of Andy Serkis in the “well cast” group…in my opinion he was the best part of the film.
Regarding your description of Richard Armitage as a ‘TV actor’; I assume that comment is meant to be disparaging. I have seen him in several, widely differing, TV roles. I have never seen him turn in a ‘lightweight’ performance, and it’s the last word I would have chosen to describe him in ‘The Hobbit’. In the UK at least, an actor does not require a long Hollywood ‘pedigree’ to be considered good and successful. International audiences (including in America) may only now be discovering Mr Armitage; his ability has been recognised in his home country for a very long time.
Whom, out of interest, would you have preferred to see cast as Thorin?
The fact that I have seen James Nesbitt in other roles didn’t spoil my enjoyment of the film in the least. I was wondering whether your dismissal of him meant that you just had a down on any actor who is better known on the small screen than the large one – until I read your views on the casting of Gandalf. Those I find so extraordinary that I can’t even find a comment to make on them.
I think I’ll leave it at that. I’m just sorry you disliked so much of the casting that it clearly jaundiced your view of the film. I enjoyed it.
Not at all – he is a TV actor simply because he has predominantly acted on TV. It is not disparaging in the slightest. Damian Lewis is a TV actor and is brilliant.
And I know very well how the UK views TV talent – I’m English.
I see. Then if you don’t consider being ‘a TV actor’ to be disparaging, I wonder why you suggest that James Nesbitt would do better to stick to TV? If that isn’t a compliment – and it doesn’t sound like one – then I presume it means you don’t consider that his potential is sufficient for him to act in cinema? Which would suggest, at least to me, that in your ‘ranking’, ‘TV actors’ come much lower down the pecking order than ‘proper’ cinema actors. Or have I misunderstood what you meant, in which case I apologise in advance?
And I’d be interested, if you don’t mind, to know whom you would have preferred to see cast as Thorin? I have been poring over the matter myself but, at least so far, failed to come up with someone I think could have done a better job …
You’re English. Yes, so am I. I, however, live in Switzerland. May I hazard a guess that you live in the United States? Again, my apologies should I be extrapolating erroneously from your comment about Damian Lewis.
Why would I live in the States? I live in England.
And I don’t particularly have any replacement in mind for Thorin – my opinion is based solely on the performance and the way the character is written. But I would probably have prefered to see a break-out actor taking the role, the same way Orlando Bloom was cast as Legolas.
James Nesbitt a familiar TV-face? Just like Sean Bean? Only in the UK, sir. The rest of the world hasn’t got a clue who these actors are. Sean Bean is now primarily known as Boromir, only in Britain you call him Sharpe. You see, The LOTR and The Hobbit aren’t UK-only films, they’re meant to be viewed worldwide. And among big blockbusterfilms, a complete lack of American faces is really refreshing. Australian, Kiwi and British/Irish actors that I’ve hardly seen before are in my opinion quite well cast.
And let’s not get overexited about Viggo’s Aragorn, he was not bad but hardly Oscarmaterial, and when it comes to voice and screenpresence Armitage is capable enough.
I must say, it does seem that Richard Armitage is overacting his dialogue with Martin Freeman. Also thought Freeman was a poor Bilbo, but I daresay I’ll get slated for saying that.
Armitage being cast as Thorin was something I deeeeeeply hated before I saw the film – with his aristocratic features, Armitage was always my first choice as Feanor, if I’m being honest. I know the possibilities of the Silmarillion being turned into a film are slim to absolutely laughable, but regardless, he was my ideal. So the thought of him being a dwarf (decidedly not a very aristocratic-looking race) was just obscene to me, I was horrified at the thought. However, seeing him in the role made me kind of appreciate it and the more I see him as Thorin, the more I like it. Eh. He’s still my ideal Feanor but I guess I’ll take Thorin.
Also completely agree with your side note about Hugo Weaving, gods I truly enjoyed the brief moments that we was onscreen, it was captivating. He was captivating. I liked him much better than I did in the original trilogy. I mean, dang!
I’m sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think Armitage was perhaps the best person for Thorin. He played the role brilliantly, showcasing the flawed side of the dwarves, yet still maintaining regality.
I appreciated all the time and effort that you put in to this analysis… it was interesting but I was disappointed with your disappointment. For me the film was slow in places, but I didn’t mind that one bit – and I did appreciate the faithfulness to the book.
I agree that Gandalf looked very shabby in this film – but I didn’t mind that.
I look forward to films 2 and 3…
Hahahaha this is so stupid, Aidan Turner ‘bad’ as Kili cuz peter jackson kept him looking ‘Pretty’ yes i frikin’ love Aidan Turner and that didnt distrct me from the charcter and storyline only people who really care and are picky on looks are normally jealous of that person, ( so you must be Jealous of how hot Aidan Turner is) because Aidan Turner was frikin’ bad ass as Kili, and you kinda sometimes NEED a prudy face to appreciate in a movie even ones like this! And Richard Armitage was also bad ass as Thorin, his charcter was so well done! Oh and boo who Ian Mckellen looked more ‘tired’, Gandalf is described as frail and old if you’ve read the book (im currently reading it) he is described like that! So suck it up butter cup and just deal with it and dont criticise this bad ass movie!
I found Gandalf cast perfectly and he makes the LOTR movies for me. I don’t think anyone could have done a better job at the role. That being said, no-one should be bashed for their opinion. I disagree with a lot of the article, but the author did his job at articulating his point with legitimate reason, and he expressed his opinion in an entertaining (and literate) way. Enjoy the article for what it is: an opinion skillfully written. If you never exercise critical thought by analyzing opposing points of view, you are limiting yourself from learning… and more importantly, learning how to value different perspectives other than one’s own.
As films they are good, but I agree with the author in that there are flaws that don’t sit well when compared to the books. It was to my understanding that Tolkien never wanted a Hobbit film made in the first place. What happened to respecting the dead & their wishes? The artist’s piece was defiled and it’s a travesty.
Imagine a world where a person could voice their opinion without being attacked or belittled, or called stupid for simply not going along with the masses. How sad.
Thank you for the article :) I enjoyed it.
Disagree!
Just got to the Aidan Turner comment. Really? LOL Do you have any idea how shallow all this focus on looks makes YOU seem, between this and Richard Armitage? I bet you would have complained about the award winning play of the Elephant Man on which no make up at all was used to make the actor look like the real Elephant Man.
Kili and Fili were probably my favorite dwarves in the books and I love the way Kili was portrayed in the film. The recasting of Fili due to the original actor having some personal issues to deal with I think cut down on some of Fili’s characterization in this film, aside from a couple of scenes I mainly remember him as an adjunct to Kili.
Kili didn’t have a very big role but I thought Turner did a great job with what he had. Kili came across as cheerful, friendly, a little naive, a little rash, wanting his uncle Thorin’s approval, but also protective and brave. Kili and Fili always seemed to me in the books to be rather merry, hopeful dwarves and they were the only two besides, I think, Bombur(sorry cannot remember) who at least in themselves(I don’t think Tolkien said if they actually said it to Thorin himself) disagreed with Thorin’s stand on the issue of sharing the wealth with the people of Laketown. The items they chose out of the riches for themselves were a couple of beautiful musical instruments, fiddles I think.
I feel like Kili’s characterization so far lends itself quite nicely to the character suggested by Tolkien’s writing. A young dwarf who perhaps lacks some of the prejudices of some of the older ones and maybe some of the greed as well. Given how much of that was done non-verbally, I think Turner was very successful in the role.
But hey he looks good, so why pay any attention to his actual characterization? If nothing else at least the movie is consistent in that entire royal line present(Thorin, Kili and Fili) are all “not ugly”. It isn’t all the jarring within the film, IMO, because there is really a sliding scale of looks amongst the dwarves, you have the very Gimli-esque ones but there are levels of lessening until you get to Thorin, Kili and Fili. Bofur and Ori, for example, are easily recognizable as their human actors(James Nesbitt and Adam Brown), so while they do have prosthetics, it isn’t that heavy. Dori and Nori also aren’t very Gimli-eque looking but have heavier prosthetics and elaborate hair styles. And so it goes until you get to Gloin(Gimli’s dad) and his brother Oin.
Wow, I don’t mean to be insulting but this review is horrid. I completely disagree with you. (How could you trash gandalf?) All of the characters that you hated I loved. Every actor (especially Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman) was fantastic.
I’ve a critical mind, but about movies I learned an important thing. You’re not supposed to think about the production. You’re supposed to just sit there and absorb whilst suspending your disbelief. It becomes more and more difficult to enjoy the experience if you’re criticising the aspects of production as you go.
This is not always an easy task, particularly if you’re watching a movie that is based on a book you’ve read, and especially if you love that book.
I have my own issues with the movie, such as ***SPOILER ALERT*** Bilbo being made the hero of the Troll scene by buying time for the dawn to come, rather than Gandalf. And then it seems (though it may not be the case), that Bilbo was made to witness Gollum dropping the ring, which is sort of an “Han shot first” moment, because it means that Bilbo took and kept the ring, knowing from the beginning that it belonged to Gollum.
The only thing I really agree with in Simon’s review is about the general flow that could have been a lot better. Regarding that, I think that if there were fewer scenes, and each was given more time and attention, then it wouldn’t have come across as unbalanced in places as it has for some. Apart from that, Azog’s chase was unnecessary but not a deal breaker for me, and there were other little things here and there.
Overall though, I enjoyed it very much and will see it again. I have a feeling that as part of the trilogy, this first instalment won’t be appreciated as much until it can be reviewed in context with the others, and so I look forward to seeing the next two.
I was fine with all the cating… I do agree Azog looked a bit less organic in motion than other CGI characters and Christopher Lee(Who is the man by the way) is not as much older looking as he is clearly slower than he used to be… He doesn’t have the same energy or line delivery and kind of just looks tired…. Kili I didn’t mind because the book doesn’t go to great detail to describe what the dwarves look like save for… Balin is old, Dwalin is a big warrior, Bumber is fat and Fili and Kili are young… The movie needed to distinguish their appearences as to not confuse us and I really wasn’t bothered when thy made the choice to make a few of them look a little more diverse and human…
How utterly ridiculous. Although I enjoyed The Hobbit very much, I have to admit that there was quite a lot wrong with it (how incredibly drawn it out being one thing). But the casting and acting was probably one of the best things about it. I can understand different people having different opinions, but that doesn’t mean you need to slate the actors – it just comes across as rude and like you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Although I will agree about Azog, I didn’t really like him personally.
I have to disagree with the mis-castings. As a huge Tolkien fan, I feel that they cast very well. I was entirely please and impressed with the film and it’s actors.
Dont try to defend yourself. You guys clearly asked what others thought of the review. That means people are going to post their opinions, much like you did. So by you commenting on everyones post and defending your review, just goes to show how insecure you really are. Grow up!
okay if we remove gandalf, frodo, old bilbo, galadriel, elrond, saruman and we put new cast according to this review:
all the audiances would leave the theatre and they will only understand if you write the character’s name eatch time they appear
then we got to bilbo, bifur, and thorin, azog, kili, balin we remove them and we put others the movie turns to an empty movie then and only then the theaters would be so empty!
go to hell if you didn’t like the movie don’t watch it
I agree with gandolf looking tired. I had to do a double take to recognize him. For a moment…I thought he actor had been replaced by someone with a bad makeup attempt to look like him. He seemed to drag along in the film. His energy level and strength seemed drawn. Sad really…as I very much enjoyed him in LOTR. I love the acting done by the young Bilbo. He is very good at his job. The more attractive characters were a welcome addition for us ladies. LOTR had a couple nice looking fellas…but one or two were a little out of place in this one. The pale orchestra lacked something. Seemed a bit off to me.
I will say…I thoroughly enjoyed the film overall. I waited too long for it. The graphics made me dizzy in 3d but I found it a fun effect. I pre ordered this in 3d the day u could and waited impatiently for it to get here. Even met the mailman at the curb. Enjoyed it in theater…enjoying it right now.
Auto correct butchered my comments above. I apologize.
Everyone I know who has seen “The Hobbit” has absolutely loved the film…including all the cast actors and their acting. Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman in particular, have been praised by all (except by critics, whose job it seems is to “criticise”). Whatever the reason critics have joined together to rubbish this fabulous film, it does not reduce its obvious popularity with the viewing public. By the way, I have never seen an example of Mr Armitage’s work, tv or otherwise, which wasn’t excellent. Thank you to Peter Jackson, and everyone involved in the film for your superb work, and I, along with everyone else with fine cinematic taste, await with baited-breath for the second installment. – SD, Online Publisher
NEWS FLASH: Why they look older: I don’t know maybe because when making a prequel after the trilogy… people don’t age backwards.
So I have to say, I totally DISAGREE! This is by FAR the worst ARTICLE EVER. Dude your dissing all the good actors! Simon or whatever, if I had to criticism criticizers, I would make you the worst. Every true LOTR fan would love all these people coming back- someone else as Gandalf? I wouldnt watch THAT movie.
i just wanted to say that i thought your comments on the film are very interesting. i have just spent three hours watching the film – i should be at work, but am sick – and i was completely disappointed by most of the plot and especially the final scenes. that is why i decided to find some opinions on the film online – i found yours and just felt like saying that your criticism of the film (leaving out the gandalf miscast bit) is totally spot on. of course, a matter of opinion. but you are certainly not a “dumbass”. :)
It did seem strange that they cast such handsome actors to be dwarves and downplayed the makeup for those performers. I thought that what made Gimli so great was that he was this boorish, strange looking dude, but you would never doubt his honor and bravery. For consistencies sake, the 13 dwarves should have had typically dwarfish features