Peter Jackson's talent gets the better of him in An Unexpected Journey, the first film in a planned trilogy adaptation of The Hobbit culled not only from the Tolkein book of the same name but other stories and appendices within his Lord of the Rings literary universe. Beginning approximately 60 years prior to The Fellowship of the Ring, The Hobbit tells the story of a reclusive halfling, Bilbo Baggins (a game Martin Freeman, filling in as the young counterpart to Ian Holm), who is whisked away from his earthy Shire to assist a band of dwarves in reclaiming their home from the dragon Smaug, during which time he will encounter the deranged Gollum (Andy Serkis, barely rising above shtick) and the "precious" ring in which a terrible power lies dormant. The jury is still out on whether the late decision to expand an initially planned two film arc into three sprang genuinely from creative urges in the editing room or mere financial whims, but it's hard to not be cynical about the coming features after this underwhelming and obviously plotted first chapter.The fact that Jackson continues to make this kind of epic filmmaking look easy compounds the feeling that the air's gone out of the balloon on this one, as no quantity of signature landscape shots, trademark Howard Shore music cues or overemphatic nods to characters and events already established in earlier films can compensate for the obviousness of story and dearth of feeling – a bizarre failure for a film that affords itself so much time to cover so little ground. After a promising introduction, the film sets its ducks in a row (the initial scenes with the dwarves are a leisurely high point) before settling in for the long haul, at which point An Unexpected Journey's undercooked narrative – complete with unsubstantiated personal conflicts, thinly rendered characterizations, and viscerally deprived battle sequences – begins to fall to pieces, floundering from setpiece to unjustified setpiece with distressingly little attention paid to narrative friction or subtext. Perhaps ten minutes of inspired imagery could be culled together from this material; compare it to any other ten minutes' worth of what Jackson's done with this world before, and the stark decline in quality control is embarrassing to behold. Butter spread over too much bread, Bilbo might say.
That An Unexpected Journey is more competently made than your average tentpole blockbuster only underscores what a hollow affair it adds up to, and one that borders on odious when it repeatedly acknowledges the sterling footsteps it treads upon. The Lord of the Rings trilogy earned its nine-hour-plus running time by virtue of an exquisitely articulated world in spiritual crisis and the filmmakers' genuinely epic heft (to say nothing of the groundbreaking technical achievements that this prequel fails to sufficiently utilize, opting for less miniature and makeup work and more overly polished CGI), while the effort An Unexpected Journey puts into replicating this effect smacks of being at odds with the more kid-friendly, streamlined source material at hand. Tone-deaf and rhythmically deprived, An Unexpected Journey is a concession to many things: technology for its own sake (I saw the film in standard 24 frames per second 3D, already a waste), audience expectations, fanboy culture, and quite likely both greed and good taste. The magic is gone, replaced with telegraphed gestures and protracted bombast, the offenses of which culminate in a series of third-act contrivances and convenient resolutions so far removed from the baited cliffhangers and lovely denouements of its predecessors that the fact that many of the same creative minds are responsible strikes one as being more fantastical than anything in the film itself.
It is sadly hilarious to me that you criticize The Hobbit abusing "technology for it's own sake" after you personally chose to spend the extra money just to see it in 3D. Your hypocritically garrulous dirigible of a "review" implies both a lack of ethics and a lack of objectivity in all of your works, and especially this one.
ReplyDeleteDoes that (the "sadly hilarious" bit) imply that you're not laughing very much, or that your argument is already reaching?
ReplyDeleteIn fact, my ticket was purchased as part of a group night out, so technically my choice in the matter was minimal. That's not to say that I couldn't have seen it even in 48 FPS 3D had I wanted as a professional perk, but even so, what of the wish to see it in IMAX, or 3D, as Jackson has made enough great films in his career (Dead Alive, Heavenly Creatures, The Lord of the Rings, and arguably others) that I'd happily give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his use of the format, as both a critic and a fan? I can't comment on it without experiencing it, and no thank you to your sweeping "objectivity": Scorsese, Herzog, Spielberg and others have already put 3D to excellent and artistically sound use.
If you want to look for places to exploit your own pet peeves, the internet is a great resource, but you and your pathetically anonymous comment can bite me if you think I'm not going to call you out on it here. Garrulous? Thanks for the vocabulary boost, and what an appropriate one.
That's a long, roundabout way of ignoring probably the most important point: your review was sorely lacking in objectivity. You throw large words at your audience and simply hope that they don't have the intelligence to see through it. What happened to the micro-review I sent in earlier this morning? No good way of proving me wrong? Was it because I used a touch of profanity?
DeleteI don't post comments that are distasteful or that I think fail to contribute to the conversation, and yours fell under both camps. This objectivity you refer to sounds like precisely the kind of stale film criticism I like to avoid both reading and writing, and it seems as thought you're entirely unaware of the many forms and approaches criticism can take. Experiences with art and our opinions on them are inherently subjective but informed opinions can approach a sense of balance; for many, myself included, the idea of a purely objective approach is not only impossible, but goes against the essence of the experience. That and I simply disagree with you. If you want to discuss it further, take a theory class, but count me out of this boring rhetoric. I only posted this typically butt-hurt anonymous comment so as to justify the next thousand that I won't.
DeleteI really loved the first 3 movies. I couldn't stand The Hobbit. I literally sat, seething with hatred, for all 23 hours it seemed like I was in the theatre. It seemed forced, I did not care about anyone, and couldn't take the plot seriously. Stuff just happened.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an excellent review of a very disappointing film. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth I think this review is very good.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight: In a job where it is your duty to sway the opinions of as many people as possibly, you overcomplicate the matter to the point where very few even care enough to bother reading? You can keep your high-and-mighty views on critiquing, because I guarantee those views are narrow and blurry.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I did rather like your logic: "If he mentions objectivity, he must mean pure objectivity, and if I cannot make it purely objective, it may as well not be objective at all." Couples nicely with your obviously well-studied "my opinions are facts and your opinions are garbage" tactics. As a wise man once said, "Only Siths deal in absolutes", but I suspect he was verbally dislexic.
And there you are again with the assumptions, and the straw men, and the false implications. I won't waste my breath; this is why I stopped visiting IMDb years ago.
DeleteGreat Review ... Total agreement ...Ignore the dull trolls .. Signed .. JRR Tolkien ...
ReplyDeleteGood review, and although hard not to compare this with LOTR, essentially that's what must be done. If LOTR didn't exist, if we didn't know how good it COULD have been, does that make it ultimately a "bad" movie?
ReplyDeleteI have to say that your English is almost too much for me at places, but I agreed with a lot of what you said. I was disappointed by the film, and I can't help wondering why most of my friends are in raptures. It feels good to see that other people are discontent as well.
ReplyDeleteSoon after the first scenes I came to the unhappy realization that this isn't working. The magic is definitely gone. The whole thing is messy, void of emotion and simply ugly. The film looks uninspired and half-done. I don't understand how this is possible. Was this a holiday project for Jackson? Was he too comfortable?
Love this screenname. Sinisterminister, my English is too much for ME on a regular basis. It used to be much, much, much, much more unruly, although I must confess I nurse a certain longing to perfect the slightly run-on sentence approach as I believe has been for some time now by Mr. Glenn Kenny.
DeleteI think it's good that somebody uses more complicated English on the internet. Enough simple stuff out there. I do my blog in Finnish partly to be able to write tolerable language. My writing in English wouldn't be interesting to anyone, not my countrymen or the whole wide world.
Delete"An Unexpected Journey is a concession to many things: technology for its own sake,audience expectations, fanboy culture, and quite likely both greed and good taste." I believe you have gotten to the core of why the film is so bad. It's actually a bit of a relief to have some sort of an explanation. For some reason I'm taking this cinematic disappointment quite heavily.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteExcellent review, would have actually liked to hear more of your thoughts on it. "Butter spread over too much bread, Bilbo might say" is a brilliant summary!
It seemed like there was more than one director involved in this movie; many scenes were tense and character-driven (riddles in the dark is the obvious example of this) which jarringly shifted into "visually spectacular" (dangerless, empty) action sequences. How many crumbling ledges and impossible drops can a whole group survive? Having seen this in 2D (I blame 3D for the dropping standard in cinematic blockbusters) it is even more obvious how much of the movie is designed for a 3D audience. Lingering epic shots to pad the film out is not a charming feature.
Some touches were nice, the additional orc bad guy (don't care what his name was) worked well within the story, though took away impact from an already dramatic incident (the scene with goblins when captured). I loved the slow moving pace of the group as they set off, and it allowed some well handled character development which obviously was never present in the book.
And yet it is riddled with stale dialogue, plodding narrative, poorly thought-out illogical incidents, and more stupid crap stuffed in that we don't need to know about. Rhosgobel Rabbits? Fuck. Right. Off.
If there was a consistent light-hearted feeling, you could ignore this obvious attempt to please the kiddies. However, when the juxtaposition is so adult; so dark and intense, it does beg the question: who are they aiming this film at?
Finally, you're absolutely right about the shameful LOTR product placement. The Star Wars prequels should have been an indication as to how this tactic looks: lazy. A couple of quick nods to the LOTR and move on to your own story. That's all we needed, if that.
Surely Peter Jackson must know it's drivel? He couldn't make the LOTR and not know.
Sorry for the ramble.
p.s. Having said all this, I still preferred it to Skyfall.
Yes, too true. "Empty, dangerless action" is spot on. It was a safe roller coaster after a point. Tough I do think Radagast's first moments gave it a bit of that juvenile whimsy that the Hobbit sorely needed a lot more of considering the source material. (That is before he pointlessly had the Worgs chase him)
DeleteThe film tried to be another Lord of the Rings instead of the happier and more whimsical "The Hobbit," and came off phony and over-blown.
You could edit it down into a good hour & forty. Throwing out all the dark foreshadowing of Lord of the Rings would be a good place to start.
I count myself a fanboy but, unfortunately, "tone deaf and rhythmically deprived" nails it for me. Excellent review, thanks.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I thought there the battle scenes have been overblown in all the Rings movies, not that this has anything to do with the Hobbit. All them have been milked to unneccesary lengths. Sometimes less is more, but too many directors can't resist excessive CGI, sacrificing crisp and crackling dialogue for action.
ReplyDelete