THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage
Running time: 2 hours 50 minutes.

If you have read the book, you can tell that there is a huge discrepancy in terms of theme, storytelling and characterization between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings although some of the characters are the same. The Hobbit is more episodic and adventurous with a touch of comedy, while Rings is more dark and thrilling.

It is not a surprise since The Hobbit is the second book J.R.R. Tolkien wrote 20 years before he wrote The Lord of the Rings. However an adaptation is independent of having its own interpretation and this time, Peter Jackson falls in the middle. Not bad, but also not as good and thrilling as The Fellowship of the Rings.

Having included footnotes and other materials from Tolkien besides from the book itself, Jackson actually can give the story a better angle but the first half is boring and slow paced. I know that adding materials not originally from the book itself is to make the Tolkien universe of the One Ring intact, so the viewers who had seen The Lord of the Rings trilogy feels the connection between these prequels (and we have two more coming each year), the sort of connection that does not exist if you read the book per se.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey tells a story of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who got visited by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and 13 dwarves lead by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The reluctant Bilbo was persuaded to join the company to go to Erebor, the old dwarf kingdom, to reclaim the land and dwarf gold once own by the dwarves but lost to the dragon Smaug.

Thus commence the journey of the company beyond Shire where they met Trolls, Goblins and pack of Orcs trying to settle bad blood with Thorin.

The second half is exciting, here's where Jackson show off his mastery in choreographing battles and fantastic sets in 3D. Different than the dark and serious The Lord of the Rings trilogy, here the dwarves also work as a comic relief, thus make the tone a little bit lighter.

Martin Freeman is successful as Bilbo Baggins while at the same time reminded me of him as Dr.Watson in Sherlock BBC.

What concerns me is hot 'thin' The Hobbit novel itself than any of The Lord of the Rings books and expanding it into three movies might excite die hard Tolkienist but makes people wonder what else could be put into the other two movies. Sure the appendix and other tidbits from Tolkien universe is plenty but it takes a great effort to pack it into each movie and make it interesting for non-book readers.

As for the technology I didn't watch it in HFR 3D IMAX, just the normal 24 fps RealD 3D and it looks amazing. The visuals and production design is top notch, the sweeping panorama of Middle-earth and the mountains alone in 3D is worth the admission price. The score by Howard Shore is satisfying, although not as memorable as he already did in the previous trilogy, he manages to create another leitmotif which is nice to hear.

PS:
One week after I saw The Hobbit on 24 fps 3D I tried the HFR 48 fps Dolby 3D and I can say that the HFR sucks. Sure everything looks too damn sharp, there is not even any blur during fast movements of the actors but It feels weird and uncomfortable to watch. Sometimes the actions move too fast it felt surreal. Better stick with 24 fps Mr. Jackson.