The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Should Have Been a Majestic Journey Instead the Film has no Magic

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings series, King Kong)

Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Torro

Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and Richard Armitage

When I was in junior high school I discovered this book by J.R.R. Tolkien about Bilbo Baggins, and his journey through well, the "unexpected" as he took on a dragon, fought with dwarfs, found a magical ring, and challenged himself to step outside of his comfort zone.  Tolkien's Hobbit was meant to be a bedtime story for his children, and unlike the complexity of his previously published Lord of the Rings series, The Hobbit.  So why did this film try so hard without ever trying?

The Hobbit, which obviously comes before the Lord of the Rings series is a simpler straight forward story about Bilbo Baggins who lives in the shire and helps a group of dwarfs try to reclaim their land from a dragon.  

To be honest this is the best and simplest way to to describe the book written by Tolkien, and yet Jackson and his collaborators will stretch this small yet wonderful book into three films.  For fans of the book, or people who know about the The Hobbit book you may ask how or why this is being done.  Well based on the first movie it seems like Jackson and his team is going to drag this out to try and make this film into something different than what it was intended.

The other problem is that this team put the cart before the horse, the back end of the film series coming before this trilogy sets up The Hobbit to be defined by the Lord of the rings films.  Fans of the films, and not the books would not be "satisfied."  The Hobbit is simpler liter fare, filled with humor and heart.  This is one area where the film succeeds, these many dwarfs are just hilarious and the heart is not fully missing from the film experience.

The other two main problems with the film are the fact that they are stretching the material too far, and the way the film is shot.  I think choosing to break this into three parts is massive mistake because while there was heart, soul, and laughter, which transcends from the original material, the script feel drawn out, and a bit of a yawn at times rather than capturing pointed moments, which make this story great.

The next problem is using the high frame rate technology, which shoots 48 frames per second, which does not add to the quality of film it merely distracts, and tries to hard to make things appear cooler than they actually end up.  This could have been shoot in the more traditional 24 frames per second and could have created a better experience.

The best parts of the film are the visuals, which are truly majestic, and they make you feel the beauty of the previous franchise.  For all its worth, and for the beauty which exists the team who wrote this focused too much on the little used Orc in the original source material rather than focusing on the simple emotional journey which exists in the book.

Jackson wanted to make the Lord of Rings again, but they forget this book is different, and their writing does not lead to strong characters layered characters like Aragorn, but flat characters with no depth beyond understanding they want their home back from the beautiful opening moments.  After the opening moments pass the film lost me along what was meant to be one of the most heartfelt journeys into self-exploration to loud bombastic unnescessary battle scenes.

Are Movies too Long, and Should Intermissions be Brought Back?

After seeing Les Miserables I realized something, some movies are just too long, and you need a break.  The  stage version of Les Miserables is 2 hours and 50 minutes, with a 15 minute intermission. The film versions is 2 hours and 36 minutes, no intermission, but there are almost 20 minutes of commercials and previews prior to the film.  While there have been longer films Titanic, and Avatar, without the intermission, the big question on my mind at the moment is should films have an intermissions again?

Throughout the early history of film there have been numerous movies, which had intermissions to break up the length and emotional impact of the film.  The most notable films with intermissions were:

• The Birth of a Nation (1915)
• Gone with the Wind (1939)
• Fantasia (1940)
• Ben-Hur (1959)
• Spartacus (1960)
• Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
• It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)
• Doctor Zhivago (1965)
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
• Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1974)

The last film to have an intermission was Gandhi (1982), 30 years ago.  There are obviously several reasons the intermission disappeared.  The first the growing Hollywood business multiplex model.  Throughout the early years many movie theatres were single theatre, and now there are up to 18 different theatres in one movie complex.  Now that movies have elongated things even more by adding more commercials has made the time spent in those seats even longer.  Can theatres afford to lose time to show more movies?  No.

One of the other major reasons is the advancement in technology, theatres use different projects today, which would make an intermission impossible.  New digital technology does not use the reels.  Without the reel switch people would have to build this into their film, which could be a bit jarring to film experience.

So the intermission is gone forever, or so it appears.  Both the business model, and newer technology make this old tradition a thing of the past.  In looking at, and researching more about this tradition Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote a great article entitled "Movie theatre intermissions: Gone but not forgotten." The article cites a battle almost between the theatre and film studios, he stated that in talking with theatre owners they would love to bring back the intermission because "they make their money in concessions" and intermissions would lead to more snack buying.  Hartlaub also stated that the multiplexes have contracts with film companies saying that the intermission is gone so they have more showings, and so they can make more money.

Hartlaub's perspective on the growing length of films is a valid point of view.  Within the last month there have been at least three major studio films longer than 2 hour an minute average, The Hobbit: An Uxepected Journey (2 hours and 49 minutes), Django Unchained (2 hours and 48 minutes, and Les Miserables (2 hours and 36 minutes).  Audiences still show up, each films box office gross on a domestic, and foreign level has performed incredibly well.  There have been greater rumblings with movie goers about the length of films more and more. Les Miserables has received the biggest complaints most recently. Does length matter, or does this complaint come with the quality of the film?

The answer may be both.  I think fans would appreciate the time to re-fill their popcorn buckets, stretch their legs, go to the bathroom, and not miss any of the movie.  As a regular audience member I hate leaving my seat in the middle of the film.  I want to enjoy every moment without having to feel I have to run in and out of the theatre, or sneak past people's legs. I also think fans are apt to get more antsy when the enjoy the film less.  Within the stage version of Les Miserable I remember the emotional impact at the end of Act 1 keeping me on the edge of my seat and ready finish their journey with the characters in Act 2.  The film version of Les Miserables could have benefited from (it could have benefited by being better as well).

I think I can say with great certainty that Gandhi will remain the last film to have an intermission.  Film studios are not going to change their mind about this noble theatrical tradition.  I myself am not old enough to have ever seen a movie with this intermission, but I think re-visiting this would be interesting. As I go to see Django this weekend I will test the quality theory even further, ask other friends their own thoughts, and challenge film studios to think more about the film goer, and their own movie experience.

December Moves to See and Skip!

How can you top the stellar November?  With films like Lincoln, Life of Pi, Skyfall, Silver Linings Playbook, and Flight, it does not seem possible.  Look at this month's releases and you may think again.  Either I am getting too easy on movies, or this year has truly ended better than any in many years.

This month ahead is going to busy for movie fans, so save your money, and head to the theatres for Oscar films, and some holiday fun.

December 7th 

Hyde Park on Hudson (limited)

Playing for Keeps

The month starts pretty weak with these two films that appear to be clunkers.  Hudson had promise, but the trailer and reviews make this look sillier than it should have been.  Playing for Keeps looks to be like one of those overstuffed romantic comedies, which will not play well.   Both films are going to do poorly.

December 14th 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

How can they go wrong, maybe splitting the film into three.  No one has seen this film yet (although I imagine some critics have), but I am a little worried that Peter Jackson has lost his touch, with two terrible films after the original series (Lovely Bones, and King Kong).  Nonetheless I am going to be in line to see one of my favorite books on the big screen.

December 21st

This is 40

Zero Dark Thirty

Jack Reacher

The Guilt Trip

Monsters Inc. 3D (2001)

Amour 

The Impossible

I do not think I have seen this long of a list of releases in a long, long time!  This is 40 looks hilarious, and Appatow could restore his good name after Funny People.  Zero Dark Thirty is already shaping up to be the critical hit of the year, and looks incredible.  Jack Reacher will be the action folks may need, but in a crowded season may fall through the cracks, plus the marketing has been awful.  The Guilt Trip will do well getting old and young audiences with strong leads.  Monsters Inc. 3D will be something for the kids.  The last two on the list are the small limited releases, Amour a foreign film, The Impossible, a film about the Tsunami. You have something for everyone and most of them look good!  Happy holidays.

December 28th 

Django Unchained

Les Miserables

Parental Guidance

Django and Les Mis are Oscar bait that look off the charts great!  Parental Guidance looks hookey, but could be some lighthearted fun.  Even if you saw a movie a day there is a lot to see around this time.

See: Everything but Hyde Park on Hudson and Playing for Keeps!