Rating: 




Among a wave of fan hype and critical cynicism, Peter Jackson’s first entry into his much-debated Hobbit trilogy is here, giving us a glimpse into the director’s process moving forward while also providing a few questions – and a healthy dose of scepticism – for what is to follow. An Unexpected Journey, the first near-3-hour dose of Tolkein we’re going to get over the next 18-or-so months, does plenty to highlight most of the trepidations pundits and fans alike have had about Jackson’s three-film approach, and though the film is enjoyable to a point, it’s difficult to escape the feeling that it’s an unnecessarily drawn-out if industriously-produced exploitation of the Rings fanbase.
An Unexpected Journey begins by introducing us to Bilbo Bagins as we remember him from Lord of the Rings (played by Ian Holm), as he sits about the Shire and briefly chats to his nephew, Frodo (featuring the briefest of brief cameos from Elijah Wood). Jackson then sends us back 60 years to face a youthful Bilbo (Martin Freeman), who is minding his own business when he meets the series’ trusty wizard, Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), who then poses the titular journey, to venture with a band of thirteen merry dwarves to the Lonely Mountain and recover a lost treasure guarded by a fearsome dragon, Smaug.
Running in at 169 minutes, The Hobbit Pt. 1 is of comparative length to each of Jackson’s prior Lord of the Rings films, a point of simultaneous curiosity and scepticism for many Rings fans and commentators, given that The Hobbit’s source material isn’t even as long as any single book in Tolkein‘s Rings series. To distend that out into three films – buffed out by narrative appendices taken from the Rings novels – certainly seems like an act of crass commercialisation above all else, and this first film doesn’t exactly make pains to acquit itself of that charge. It’s a leisurely jaunt and not at all dense in terms of narrative, and that’s because The Hobbit was always a brisk adventure story, which Jackson has attempted to transform into an epic on the scale of Tolkein‘s subsequent magnum opus with mixed results.
It’s the expository back-stories of the various characters and pigeon-holed flashbacks that allow us to really feel the narrative straining at the seams, giving much of The Hobbit’s first act a drawn-out, laborious feel. The film is one-third over before Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarves even leave the Shire. This eventual exit allows Jackson to finally wield the more pronounced elements of his arsenal, and that’s the extravagant, effects-driven set-pieces.
As a spectacle, does it succeed? To a point; Andrew Lesnie’s lush lensing is crisply warm, and it’s certain to say that CGI monsters have come a long way since Return of the King; Azog the Defiler, a villainous mega-orc, looks especially fantastic. Similarly, there are some crazy, though not always very coherent scenes in which the visual effects are splendidly implemented; an ailing hedgehog and a rabbit-sleigh are particularly trippy highlights. One encounter with a trio of superbly-rendered, hungry trolls is good fun, even if in retrospect it feels like meandering filler in a film that already has plenty of it.
There are sure times when the film doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be; should it be true to the lightness of the novel, or should it aspire to be a towering, Rings-esque epic? As a result, Jackson’s script – co-written with Guillermo del Toro, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens – runs a fine line between wit and outright silliness. The Japes are often rather pantomime-like, especially during a repetitive early sequence in which the dwarves invite themselves into Bilbo’s home and he just stands around incredulously. When the dwarves travel through Rivendell later on, one takes a look at the Elven food – largely consisting of greens and fresh food – and asks, “Have you got any chips?”. It’s a perilous tightrope walk between eye-rollingly daft and cheekily playful, and not one that Jackson performs all that well.
The dwarves themselves prove problematic in that, aside from Richard Armitage’s steely contribution as the leader of the Dwarves, Thorin, it’s really a challenge to tell most of them apart, an unfortunate aspect of the film given that they’re pretty much the only characters whose fates we’re likely to be concerned about, knowing Bilbo, Gandalf and Gollum‘s survival as we do. The dwarf make-up effects, however, are uniformly excellent.
The narrative also unsurprisingly doesn’t feel as water-tight as Jackson’s Rings films, at one stage fielding out an onerously trite dialogue about the duality of good and evil, and then one head-smackingly obvious moment of foreshadowing about knowing when to show mercy. The meat of the story – its vertiginous action – meanwhile relies on a lot of convenience; Gandalf is a literal deus-ex machina on at least two occasions, as are a rabble of giant eagles who appear out of nowhere with no explanation later on.
Then there’s the cameos from Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) that are milked well past saturation point, and the typical fantasy nonsense that you just have to buy into – dialogues about moon runes and a sword that glows blue whenever Orcs are nearby – and if you can’t, then you’re probably watching the wrong film. Jackson also struggles to rustle up any independent iconography for the series precisely because it’s so invested in the superior story that follows; to this effect, it would seem unfair to compare the two, but then Jackson does himself no favours by trying to fashion this trilogy as an at once competing and complementary “epic” rather than a different, more pared-down narrative in its own stead.
After getting bogged down for far too long in Rivendell for the sake of a cameo carousel that would best be left for the inevitable Extended Edition, Jackson gets back on track for a thrilling battle royale between three rock giants while Bilbo and company desperately try to keep a foot-hold. The arrival at a labyrinthine goblin kingdom late in the day also makes for one of the film’s strongest set-pieces, a high-wire, acrobatic all-out battle that sees the intrepid heroes facing down the grotesque – and gorgeously rendered – Goblin King.
Still, the show-stealer – and really, Jackson’s secret weapon – is the eventual presence of fan favourite Gollum (Andy Serkis) at the two-hour mark, the One Ring in tow as he becomes locked in what’s best described as a “riddle-off” with Bilbo, with each trying to outsmart the other. Serkis, the master of performance capture, is an entrancing presence as the tragic, manic figure, transfixing for every drop of his 15-minutes of screen time, even if the actual riddle game does rather go on a bit. Though Serkis runs circles around his scene partner, it’s in these moments that Freeman really comes into his own; he’ll inevitably be compared to Elijah Wood’s portrayal of Frodo, but he carves out a fine niche for himself as a tepid every-man who just might have what it takes to be a hero by trilogy’s end.
Much like Jackson’s Return of the King, it revels in its own distended sense of narrative, teasing an end-point countless times before actually committing to one. Though very nearly arriving at a suitably downbeat climax to keep us on edge for Part 2, Jackson instead settles on a thoroughly earnest one that isn’t nearly as engaging. The final shot, a tease for what’s to come, at least promises that we might see more of the mysterious Smaug next time. Tolkein nerds are unlikely to be swayed by any negative publicity, and even lesser Rings fans are likely to find it a pleasant enough jaunt, though understandably, An Unexpected Journey is unlikely to garner the series any new fans. This film is pure excess that’s almost definitely motivated by studio greed, but it’s light entertainment that will please fans, and Andy Serkis damn-near runs away with the film during his exemplary third-act appearance as Gollum.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is released in the UK on December 13th, and in the US the very next day.
Click “next” below to read 5 Things That Were Awesome & 5 Things That Sucked About The Hobbit.
We are currently seeking The Hobbit contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a The Hobbit contributor, click here.












25 Comments
Your picture is hawt, bbz.
lol, you didnt read the book if you think the troll scene was just filler.
Good God hire a proofreader.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in this review, although I have yet to see ‘…An Unexpected Journey’ yet, the general consensus across varying reviews seems to be that it’s simply too long and indulgent. Peter Jackson needed to make ‘The Hobbit’ film(s) like the ‘Lord of the Rings’ films hadn’t been made yet, in other words, they needed to stand as films by themselves rather than constantly harkening back to his earlier trilogy – pointless and unnecessary cameos, etc – and if they are determined to make three ‘Hobbit’ films, then considering the length of the book – plus the Tolkien appendices – none of them should be more than 140 minutes at most… three tightly-edited ‘Hobbit’ movies might have worked well, but not three bloated, excessive, and indulgent ones!
I saw it. It takes FOREVER to get out of the shire, but once they do things finally pick up. I haven’t read the book, only seen the cartoon version from teh 70s, so I’m looking at it as a movie not a book– and, without going into it, the troll scene doesn’t really seem to have any narrative function. To whomever says it shows that Bilbo is coming into his own as a burgler– no, not really the way it plays in the movie. It’s supposed to be a light-hearted scene, and it is to some effect, but although Gandalf gives him some credit for running the clock (I shall say no more specifically), the encounter doesn’t really connect with anything burgler-ish, and only moves the plot forward insofar as they get some elf-made swords in the next scene…
I would have preferred a movie that differed tonally from the LOTR movie. The Hobbit doesn’t seem to inherently have the gravitas that LOTRs did… which is fine– why is this 3 movies then? And yeah, it did feel like it was padding quite a bit– no need to hear the whole “washing dishes” song from the Dwarves in a non-extended director’s cut DVD for example.
Overall though, I did enjoy the Hobbit. Ian McKellen is great, Sirkis too… the evil orc bad guy is scarier than the Necromancer I’d say… but anyway, I look forward to the next two– though I wish it were only one. The set pieces were mostly pretty cool, Rivendale looked awesome in 3D– the 10-minutes with Gollem were cool…. go see it, just don’t expect LOTR-quality, at least in this first movie.
I have certain things to say to all these critics -
1. Please stop comparing it to LOTR . LOTR has a completely different scenario with a much darker tone and a different perspective in hand. The hobbit on the other hand is very close to children . If you read fantasy novels, u should understand this more than anything. Dont expect it to have the sentimental value of LOTR.. This movie is more about the essence of adventure.
2. Regarding stretching out the first part of the film. I am sure the things are necessary. If u see the book represents the lazy nature of Bilbo and the film therefore is sluggish at the beginning but as bilbo picks up his courage the tempo of the film changes.. And even the book is written that way. To me it will be a delight of middle earth brought to viewers. Middle earth is not only dark and malicious , Its also fun , serene and adventurous and those who cannot take that essence is obviously expecting a snack instead of that essence
For a movie for children it has a lot of Orc beheadings, though not much blood. I think kids can easily handle it, but just sayin’. Otherwise there are very slapsticky scenes that would probably play for younger kids. But those kids might get nightmares from the beheadings and such… dunno.
I think that rather than doing an extended edition (what more could they add?) once they have released all three movies they should do a special edition where they edit it into one film that is truer to the book. They wont, because for one thing that will only cost the price of one DVD/Bluray. Plus, it undermines their decision if they go, well it could be one really awesome movie, or three……ok movies. Perhaps a fan edit is in order.
I agree with those who have said that this guy hasn’t really read The Hobbit. Or maybe he did in junior high school and doesn’t remember it well enough. In fact, I have read several negative reviews of the movie, and it’s blatantly obvious in each one that none of those critics read The Hobbit. Anyone who is comparing The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings is missing the boat completely, kind of like this reviewer. I agree that making a trilogy from The Hobbit is pushing it, but when you consider the appendices and other writings of Tolkein in connection with his main works, it may not be as “bloated” as it seems.
Isn’t this a film review? Not a book review.
Does that mean the source material is irrelevant? Especially when its such an amazing and historic book/world. This and LOTR absolutely have to be compared and considered to the books when doing a review (if u want it to matter).
Peter you are a RETARD! The movie is of THE BOOK
I hope you guys can accept that the opinions of people who did *not* read the book are also valid, considering this is a film that depends on the patronage of a boatload of non-Hobbit-readers to make its money back.
Look everybody, it doesn’t matter whether this reviewer has read the book or not; it if didn’t work as a film, it didn’t work, period. As far as it being intended as a kid’s film, there is a difference between making an intelligent, whimsical adventure, and making an over-the-top pantomime that insults the humanity of the viewer.
Now, I’ve read the book, but I have not seen the movie yet, so I don’t know whether critics are being unreasonable or not. But I’d thought that Middle-Earth fans were intelligent and considerate enough to respect a reviewer’s knowledge of the genre, and not shoot down an opinion as narrow-minded or misinformed simply because it’s a negative one – particularly when they haven’t even seen the film themselves. Believe me, the reception this film is getting is as disappointing to me as it is to you, but let’s get real here. I’d like to think that someone who can land a job reviewing movies knows their ass from a hole in the ground, and it seems only right that their opinion shouldn’t be challenged just because over-zealous fans ignorant of the quality of the reviewed work didn’t hear exactly what they wanted.
I think it does matter that critics have read the Hobbit, at least to a point. The fact is, the negative reviews I have read are criticizing the film for being what the book was intended to be. If they had actually read the book they would understand that the tone of the movie is simply staying true to its source. But they haven’t read the book, so their criticism isn’t exactly fair. I think this reviewer in particular shows a lack of understanding of the world Tolkein created. All that said, I’m not expecting this movie to be a masterpiece, but I am confident it is very good……at least much better than some of these “so-called” critics are claiming.
So far, the criticisms of tone are not simply that it’s whimsical; it’s that it’s badly done, uneven whimsy. They’re not criticizing the fact that there are jokes, they’re criticizing the quality of them, saying they fall flat. “It’s a perilous tightrope walk between eye-rollingly daft and cheekily playful, and not one that Jackson performs all that well.” He’s saying that cheekily playful is good, whereas eye-rollingly daft is bad – and that this film falls more into the latter category. Again, he doesn’t mind a lighter tone, he minds a badly-done lighter tone, which is fine and reasonable, if that’s how he felt.
And it’s obvious that he understands the book was intended as lighter fare – “The Hobbit was always a brisk adventure story, which Jackson has attempted to transform into an epic on the scale of Tolkein‘s subsequent magnum opus with mixed results”. He’s just saying that Jackson botches it by making it too silly, and by padding out to try and make it feel epic like the original trilogy. In fact – he’s not criticizing the film for failing to be the Lord of the Rings, he’s criticizing it for TRYING to be the Lord of the Rings when its very nature is different. He’s not “comparing it to LOTR”, as some commenters have claimed – and I’d say he understands the intent and tone of the story quite adequately, whether he’s read the book or not (which I suspect he has). Now, I don’t know whether or not he’s right – I haven’t seen the film. I do know, however, that his opinion is based on an intelligent, reasonable viewpoint, and I wouldn’t argue with it on the grounds that it lacks understanding of the story’s intent.
And again, I have to disagree that it’s necessary to read the book to review the film. The film should stand on its own; if it is a light adventure, it should come across as a good one, and not need an explanation and justification from its source material. These critics understand what light adventure is; they can be trusted to come up with an educated opinion on whether it’s a good or bad one without reading the book for guidance. We may disagree, but we can’t disregard their opinion as invalid or ignorant just because of that.
I think the criticism, and one I agree with, is that the tone is a bit uneven. It seems to be silly at times in an awkward kinda “won’t you gosh-darn trolls get out of my house!” kinda cat in the hat way, but at other times it’s very violent and “adult” in the sense of limbs and heads being hacked off.
BTW, sorry – I meant to respond to the comment above you – from “David”.
I will definitely watch THE HOBBIT but another nine-hour trilogy seems a bit too much. THE LOVELY BONES – while having great moments notably Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci – was also tonally uneven in places.
Obviously, the LOTR was fantastic but my favourite Peter Jackson film remains BRAINDEAD. It had humour, drama, gore, pace and a zombie baby. A great bit of entertainment told in 90 minutes. Perhaps too much success can affect the economy of storytelling?
I think and hope it’s going to be amazing. Bloated is good for me. It’s Tolkien and I love it.
If a film cannot separate itself from a book i.e. you need to read the book to appreciate the film, then the film simply isn’t good enough. You don’t need to read The Shining to enjoy the film, you don’t need to read Psycho to enjoy the film. Please stop saying: “Read the book”. It’s a stupid point, and a lousy defence to a poor film.
The studio only wanted to make two movies, so you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Peter Jackson himself pushed for splitting it into three parts.
I give the three Hobbit movies a couple of years and people will be bitching about them like they did the Star Wars prequels….it’s inevitable
I personally enjoyed the film (however got an extremely bad headache from Imax 3d – watch it in 2d would be my recommendation!) however I did get the feeling that it was stretched abit too much. I could see this being 2 movies rather then a trilogy. It also felt at times like it should have been called LOTR: Deleted Scenes, but I enjoyed it and feel 3 stars is the correct rating.
5/5 great film, really enjoyed it