The new Peter Jackson version of a J.R.R. Tolkien Middle Earth story, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hit the theaters and burst through box office record this weekend. But if you didn't get a chance to take the family and see it yet, and are still torn, what with all the chatter about high frame-rates and two movies expanded into three, we have a few things you might want to know when making up your mind to venture out, or wait for DVD.
I saw Lord of the Rings, so what's this one about?
Based on Tolkien's first, more kid-focused book set in Middle Earth, the trilogy of movies are about a younger Bilbo Baggins (Sherlock's Martin Freeman playing a younger version of the character Sir Ian Holm portrayed in LOTR) setting out on an adventure with Gandalf and 13 dwarves to re-take their ancient kingdom from the dragon who stole it. Along the way, many things happen that will turn the homebody Bilbo into a wiser, more worldly hobbit, not the least of which is finding a certain magic ring.
Will I like it?
If you liked LOTR, you'll like this. If you loved LOTR, you'll love this. But be prepared for a bit more silliness than LOTR. The Hobbit was a story for children, and Jackson and Company play for a lot more laughs than they did in LOTR.
Will my kids like it?
Perhaps more than LOTR. As I just said, it's more aimed at kid, and so the physical humor is played up. The dwarves will delight, and the trolls are hilarious. However, you must be realistic if considering taking younger kids. The wargs (giant wolves) and many of the orcs and goblins could be quite scary. And Gollum is just... Gollum-y.
How about the cast? Who's back from LOTR? Who's new and interesting?
Sir Ian McKellen is back and totally wonderful as always playing Gandalf. Indeed, this Gandalf the Gray is as much or more an action hero than Gandalf the White was in LOTR. Freeman is the younger Bilbo, but we do get some Sir Ian Holm in the beginning to place the tale relative to LOTR. We also get some familiar elvish and wizardly faces as well. The dwarves, to a... dwarf, are wonderful, with Richard Armitage's proud Thorin, and James Nesbitt's (who was Jekyll on BBC) Bofur standing out. Sylvester McCoy (aka the 7th Doctor Who) gives a delightful turn as Radagast, the wizard who has perhaps gone back to nature just a bit too far. Also, Barry Humphries, better known the world over as Dame Edna, gives a grandly disgusting performance as the great goblin.
I heard they were originally planning two movies, but then stretched it to three. How are they padding it out?
Mostly with original material. Even though The Hobbit as a complete story was shorter than one of the three LOTR books, there was a lot of addition information about the time period and events going on adjacent to Bilbo's adventure included in the appendices to LOTR. They screenwriters Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Fan Walsh, and Guillermo Del Toro have pulled significantly from that additional information to help position this story in the larger narrative of Middle Earth. They've also fleshed out some things that were mentioned in passing (many scenes with the other wizard, Radagast the Brown, along with a meeting of the White Council), and tossed in some things made up out of whole cloth as well (a vengeance plot involving an albino orc). However, these screenwriters are very faithful to the material, even as they pump up the action to make a thrilling motion picture, so nothing feels terribly extraneous.
Should I see it in 48fps 3D?
This is a challenging question to answer, because it's obvious from reviews elsewhere that peoples' reactions to the new projection system are mixed. Personally, it took a bit of adjustment at first. It's almost like the first time you ever saw 1080p content. Everything is sharp and "real," especially in 3D where the sense of depth is simply amazing. It feels like you're really in Bag End. There is a sense of artificiality that I put down to how the heightened frame rate makes one acutely aware of camera movements, and the robot-controlled pans that seem smooth at the lower frame rate now seem mechanical. But you get used to it, and then you realize how much you've been missing in every other movie ever made. The attention to detail in production design, make-up, and effects keeps your eyes riveted on the screen. And the huge action sequence in the goblin caves is simple jaw-dropping. So, my answer is yes, go see it as it was meant to be watched.
Best time for a trip to the restroom?
It's a long film, and even a break half way through may not be enough. However, IMO a good spot is when the company first arrives in Rivendell. If you pop out just as they're coming down the trail, you can be back before any of the exposition that ties things into the larger LOTR story happens. You could even go earlier, when they're being chased by the wargs around the rocky plain, which leads to the Rivendell sequence. It's just action, and no plot is advanced.
Is Gollum as good as he was in LOTR?
Better. Mind-bogglingly better. It's hard to believe how much the technology has advanced, but if you thought Andy Serkis and the performance-capture team deserved an Oscar for LOTR, then you'll do whatever it takes to join the Academy and actually vote for it to happen this time. Gollum is real. If they told me it wasn't performance capture, and rather Andy dropped 50 pounds and wore a Gollum suit with special make-up, I'd be demanding an Oscar for the make-up department as well as Andy. Gollum has weight, and presence, and a verisimilitude like no other CGI character has ever had before.
I love Sherlock. I love that Martin Freeman is in this. I know Benedict Cumberbatch is in it as well. Do we get to see him?
Benedict is listed in the credits as playing both the Necromancer and Smaug, the dragon. So, in theory, he's in there somewhere. Anything else would be spoilers.
Should I stay through the end credits?
There is nothing extra in the end credits, so no. No shawarma.
