ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Entertainment and Media»
  • Movies & Movie Reviews»
  • Science Fiction & Fantasy Films

The Hobbit Movie: A Review from a Tolkien Fan

Updated on December 16, 2012

The Curate’s Egg

Famous cartoon from the 1800s, origin of the phrase "a Curate's Egg."
Famous cartoon from the 1800s, origin of the phrase "a Curate's Egg." | Source

Your reaction to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

So, you've seen The Hobbit, part I. What say you?

See results

The Books Behind the Film

The Hobbit (or There and Back Again)
The Hobbit (or There and Back Again)

The Hobbit, of course. A lovely cover on this edition.


First Impressions

Well, I risked it: a peep at the nearly three-hour movie of The Hobbit by Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh, Guillermo del Toro, et alia. Here are my first impressions, necessarily vague so as to avoid spoilers.

It's entertaining, careening from good to bad to good again. I feel that it lacks the gravitas of The Lord of the Rings films, not just because The Hobbit is at heart a children's story, but also because this production's style is more superficial, exuberant and fantastical, less of a period historical drama. Like the apocryphal curate's egg, portions of The Hobbit movie are excellent.

At times, we enter the parallel universe of Peter Jackson, where globby monsters and invented antagonists subsume Tolkien's vision. Occasionally we fall into the dreaded Realm of CGI, where 3D graphics and vertiginous drops substitute for good dialog and storytelling. At other times, we are delighted to have The Hobbit's admittedly rather two-dimensional dwarves brought to life and given more depth. They are amplified by scraps of backstory drawn from Tolkien's writings on the history of Thorin's family and the behind-the-scenes activities of the White Council (Gandalf, Saruman, and allies). Little touches like the origin of Thorin's moniker "Oakenshield" add occasional grace notes that the book of The Hobbit lacked.

The film's good parts include eye-watering vistas of Middle-earth, roller coaster 3D action sequences, terrifying and powerful glimpses of Smaug, moving character interactions between Balin and Thorin, a brief but heartwarming return to The Shire, a surprisingly excellent dramatization of the "Unexpected Party" in Bag-end, Balin's storytelling, a clever set-piece establishing the White Council and greater dangers building in the world outside Bilbo's quest, a gratuitous Galadriel cameo that once again bewitches, and the entire Gollum sequence complete with— yes!— the riddles, thank goodness. The nuanced Gollum-Bilbo interaction hearkens back to the earlier films, which were often at their best in the intimate one-on-one conversations between Gandalf and Frodo, Aragorn and Boromir, Merry and Pippin, Éowyn and Wormtongue, et alia.

(As an aside: I had not given Jackson enough credit. I predicted that he would skip the songs and poetry which punctuated the text of The Hobbit, but in fact he employed them to good effect. The song of the dwarves is not mere atmospherics, but a motivator to help awaken Bilbo's Took side, just as in the book.)

Martin Freeman is an excellent and worthy Bilbo, and the moment when he yields to the call of adventure is different yet charmingly realized. He helps anchor the whole film with his self-deprecating common sense. Sir Ian is once again the wizard we love, tetchy and kindly, irascible and shrewd, concealing his true power under shabby robes and a battered hat.

The bad parts include the aforementioned blobby invented antagonists — why does Peter Jackson feel the need to invent artificial obstacles and feuds between characters that do not exist in the books? There were too many action sequences devoid of plot, storytelling and dialog. Also, much as I love Sylvester McCoy (the Seventh Doctor of Doctor Who), it would have been wiser not to turn Radagast into some sort of bizarre caricature from a Tim Burton film crossed with a Disney movie.

Verdict: It's an entertaining but flimsy film, certainly not of the same caliber as The Fellowship of the Ring. Most casual fans will find it fun and enjoyable, even if the movie is a bit choppy in quality and longer than it needs to be. Die-hard Tolkien fans should stay home or brace themselves for magical reunions with characters, moments, and places they loved interspersed with scenes as maddening as Aragorn falling off a cliff and getting kissed by a horse.


I'm going to open the guestbook up for what I expect will be a lively discussion. I'll add more specific details and opinions in response to reader comments. Do NOT read the guestbook, if you want to avoid spoilers!


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      steve 4 years ago

      I have watched it. Knowing it was not going to be the book"If you seen LOTR you would have know as well. It was not as bad as I thought it would have been. Peter next time you want to make more money don't add stuff to the book..... Make another movie.!!!! I am glad I did not pay to see it, but I was not upset using the bandwidth.

    • mathom profile image

      E. Brundige 5 years ago from The Shire

      Cindy... I have to admit, I was disappointed: perhaps less than I might have been because I had set my expectations fairly low after seeing they were bloating the Hobbit to three films. LOTR had enough material for three films... it was three books! There was no material available to pad out the Hobbit like that, and if they couldn't tell its story in one film, that's a sign of sloppy scriptwriting and a poor understanding of the book.

      Even Jackson's inventions in the first three films were never as good as when he stuck to Tolkien's actual story. In the Hobbit films, he was inventing much more, and the quality suffered. (It's telling that most people think the Gollum/Bilbo scene, adapted from the books fairly straight, was the best part.)

      I've never been entirely impressed by Jackson, who made it clear on the DVD commentaries that he often felt compelled to "correct" Tolkien's mistakes, when the mistakes were usually his own basic misunderstandings of the books. (E.G. he didn't like Sauron being a flaming eye, so he invented Pig Orc for the third film as a stand-in antagonist, when in fact Sauron was NOT a flaming eye!) It seemed to me that PJ came into this project with a ton of ego: HE knows better than the author of books which have been classics for over fifty years. The ego carried PJ through those first three films, but success has inflated it further. (He remarked a few weeks ago that the first Hobbit movie wouldn't get the Oscars, of course, because the last time around all the Oscars for the series went to ROTK.) I dreaded what he'd do with The Hobbit. It wasn't quite as bad as I feared, but I think it could've been rather better.

    • profile image

      Cindy 5 years ago

      I'm so sorry to say I was so totally disappointed in this movie that it is doubtful I will see the next 2. The story was completely bloated with unnecessary additions, with editions to the original that made no sense, with over-wrought fighting, with conversations and plot-lines that are nowhere near to the story Tolkien wrote. Mr. Jackson, I am sad to say, seems to have left behind his integrity for the money that he hopes will come from this first over-long, over-written, over-dramatized first of 3 movies. I am sad. Disappointed. Yuck and awful.

    • StegToDiffer profile image

      Spunk Nellie 5 years ago from New York, NY

      Great review, I agree with most points. Didn't like the songs, though.

    • profile image

      Bronwyn J Hansen 5 years ago

      Thanks for the advice, mathom. I will definitely be staying home.