🧙🏻‍♂️ REVIEW: The Hobbit Trilogy

An Unexpected Mess and Back Again...

 

ᛏᚻᛖ ᚻᚩᛒᛒᛁᛏ ᚩᚱ ᛏᚻᛖᚱᛖ ᚪᚾᛞ ᛒᚪᚳᚳ ᚪᚷᚪᛁᚾ, ᛒᛖᛁᛝ ᚦᛖ ᚱᛖᚳᚩᚱᛞ ᚩᚠ ᚪ ᛁᛠᚱ×ᛋ ᛄᚩᚢᚱᚾᛖᛁ ᛗᚪᛞᛖ ᛒᛁ ᛒᛁᛚᛒᚩ ᛒᚪᚷᚷᛁᚾᛋ; ᚳᚩᛗᛈᛁᛚᛖᛞ ᚠᚱᚩᛗ ᚻᛁᛋ ᛗᛖᛗᚩᛁᚱᛋ ᛒᛁ ᛈᛖᛏᛖᚱ ᛄᚪᚳᚳᛋᚩᚾ ᚪᚾᛞ ᛈᚢᛒᛚᛁᛋᚻᛖᛞ ᛒᛁ ᚹᚪᚱᚾᛖᚱ ᛒᚱᚩᛋ.

The Hobbit is a trilogy of high fantasy films directed by Peter Jackson and based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. The trilogy is divided into three parts: "An Unexpected Journey," "The Desolation of Smaug," and "The Battle of the Five Armies." It is a prequel to Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy.  This is a retrospective review.

Approaching his  111th birthday, the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) begins writing the story of his adventure 60 years earlier for his nephew, Frodo. Long before Bilbo's involvement, the Dwarf king Thrór brought an era of prosperity for his kin under the Lonely Mountain until the arrival of the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). Smaug destroyed the nearby town of Dale, drove the Dwarves out of their mountain, and took their hoard of gold. Thrór's grandson, Thorin, sees King Thranduil and his  Wood-elves on a nearby hillside and is dismayed when they leave rather than aid his people, resulting in Thorin's everlasting hatred of Elves.

In the Shire, 50-year-old Bilbo (Martin Freemen) is tricked by the wizard  Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) into hosting a dinner for Thorin and his company of Dwarves: Balin, Dwalin, Fíli, Kíli, Dori, Nori, Ori, Óin,  Glóin, Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur. Gandalf aims to recruit Bilbo as the company's "burglar" to aid them in their quest to enter the Lonely  Mountain. 

I enjoyed the main story and its additions from the appendices, but it doesn't quite reach the same level as the LOTR trilogy. Martin Freeman's portrayal of a younger Bilbo is great, but by the end of the third movie, I fell like he hasn't changed at all unlike Frodo. Some people didn't like Mr. Freeman's portrayal of him, I thought the actor did good a job, playing as the scared, quiet type closed-minded every-man is good for portraying a hobbit out of his place and thrust into a larger situation.

Richard Armitage's portrayal of Thorin is good, although he's not Aragorn, he does a splendid job. Ian McKellen is always the perfect Gandalf, and I don't think anyone can replace him. All the other actors did an excellent job with their characters, including the minor ones, although some can be a little annoying at times.

I really like the Dwarves in Thorin's company, but I wish the other characters had more development. With three movies, there was plenty of time to do this, but instead of focusing on the existing characters, the writers added unnecessary new ones. (Even the Dwarves from snow white had personalities and it didn't take 9 hours.) It's disappointing to see the underdeveloped characters, especially when you can tell that there was potential for more. (In the extras behind the scenes, the actors love talking about their characters). The focus on the unnecessary love sub-plot and CGI battles took away from the depth the characters could have had. (We'll talk about that later).

Bilbo Baggins and the 13 Dwarves

Benedict Cumberbatch's voice and motion capture of Smaug, the dragon, is amazing. The CGI of the dragon is impressive, and it's one of the main highlights of the trilogy. The CGI of the character is very realistic, especially the facial movements, and it makes him come alive. I think he's one of the best CGI characters in the trilogy along Gollum. Speaking of Gollum, Andy Serkis performance is excellent.

I have some thoughts about The Hobbit trilogy. One common criticism is that the movies are too long and bloated. While I enjoy lengthy films like the original "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and James Cameron's movies, the Hobbit trilogy tries to stretch a 300-page book into almost 3 3-hour films, making them longer than necessary. Originally planned as a two-part film, it was expanded to three parts due to greed, in my opinion.

Though the core story of the trilogy is based on the original 1937 novel, they added elements inspired by the appendices to his 1954–55 The Lord of the Rings novels, which expand on the story told in The Hobbit. Examples include the White Council scene. I like those additions because they give you more lore about Middle-earth and they added characters from the Lord of the Rings who weren't in The Hobbit, such as Radagast, Saruman, and Lady Galadriel. (It's basically fan-service really)

Radagast the Brown, was mentioned briefly in the books but never physically appeared.

 

Additional material and new characters were created specially for the films to fill in the gaps of the runtime. I didn't care much because not all but most of it was filler. For instance, the addition of children to Bard the Bowman's character was not in the original novel, but it did make me sympathize with him more as a family man. I enjoyed the stunning visual action and epic battle sequences, but I felt it was a bit drawn out. Despite her not being in the novels, I did like the inclusion of Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), but the forced romantic subplot with her and one of the Dwavres felt unnecessary and a little cringe. (In the original trilogy, Legolas and Gimli mending the relationship between Elves and Dwarves by becoming brothers in arms was handled a million times better) Interestingly, Evangeline Lilly specifically requested that her character not be put into a love triangle like this when she accepted the role as Tauriel.  For some reason, unknown to me, they reversed that decision and did reshoots to include it.

I was disappointed that some elements and scenes from the book did not make it into the movies, even in the extended editions. For example, the scene where Thorin and Company talked to the Eagles and the thousands of bats covering the sun into darkness during the final battle were missing, which was a shame. I believe it would've made the trilogy a little better.

I don't mean to be a nitpicking jerk, but I just wanted to point out that in the second and third movies, the Token minority extras of some of the Laketown people (no pun intended) stand out like a sore thumb. *Cough* ESG *Cough* The Men of the West are supposed to be based on an Anglo-Saxxon culture and they're not Easterlings. (The Hobbit does not mention such people, only in the Lord of the Rings) Does it ruin the story? No, it's only a few seconds long,  but, lore-wise, it can be a bit distracting and take away from the immersion. This is not Dungeons & Dragons, if it were, that would be different. It's not a huge issue, but it's something that caught my attention.

The three movies, especially the third one, focus too much on action and rely heavily on CGI. The CGI orcs, landscapes, and beards (yes, I'm serious) make it feel like a video game, and the CGI is obvious. Unlike the original trilogy, there are barely any practical effects used, which is a contrast since the original trilogy has aged well. Many of us were told that CGI effects are "cheaper" than using old-school practical effects, but in reality, they are more expensive. In retrospect, the CGI effects show noticeable aging, and the use of practical effects could have helped it age better. Despite this, it's worth noting that not all of the CGI looks outdated; for instance, the depictions of Smaug and Gollum remain impressively realistic.

99% of this scene is CGI including the beard.

Andrew Lesnie's masterful cinematography skillfully showcases the enchanting landscapes of Middle-Earth and the stunning scenery of New Zealand. However, the use of digital filming with Red Epic cameras results in a visually striking yet somewhat overly polished look that deviates from the traditional film aesthetic. While Lesnie's cinematography is undeniably superb and the visuals are undeniably captivating, the heavy reliance on CGI in certain scenes diminishes the organic allure of the New Zealand landscapes.

A real shot of the Kiwi landscape with no CGI

Howard Shore's musical score for the Hobbit trilogy, while not reaching the same level of impact as his iconic score for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, still effectively conveys the essence and atmosphere of Middle-Earth. I found the new Shire music and the "Misty Mountains" song to be particularly enjoyable and memorable. I know not everyone liked the singing but it never bothered me.

Should you watch The Hobbit Trilogy? That's a tough question. Looking back ten years later, it's an overly long CGI slop fest for fans of Middle-Earth. The plot and characters aren't as intricate as in the original trilogy. The story feels hollow, bloated with unnecessary content, and catering too much to fans. Metaphorically, The Hobbit feels like having an appetizer after you've already had the main course. The first movie is a cozy adventure, then the second is a long action movie, and the third weakest one is a stretch mindless war film with an ending that felt (to me) meh.

Would I recommend it?
If you don't mind the CGI and filler, enjoy a movie night with your home theater, and love Middle-Earth, then I'd say go for it. But if you don't want to waste time on a movie that doesn't live up to the original trilogy and is filled with unnecessary content, then I'd say no.

It’s not even that the movies are bad, just not that engaging. I personally enjoyed the trilogy myself despite its flaws, I see it as fun mindless entertainment. I watch in my home theater with my surround sound set up when I have my six movie marathon. (I start from the Hobbit then the LoTR as the real pay-off). 

After Amazon released the non-canonical 1 billion dollar fan-fiction, The Rings of Power, The Hobbit Trilogy is now considered a "masterpiece" by comparison; people are now starting to appreciate it more.

To be fair, at least Peter Jackson liked Tolkien's works. Even with their problems, I can't call the Hobbit trilogy bad, especially given what came after. I think two movies would have been more reasonable and got rid alot of the padding. That said, Jackson tried tying the films into Lord of the Rings with the White Council side plot, which occurred at the same time based on the LoTR appendices.

It doesn't help that Peter Jackson was called into the production of this movie with half the time to finish it. He didn't even want to direct it, but Guillermo Del Toro (the original director) literally just up and quit midway through production. This forced Peter to jump in. There came a point in the shooting when Peter had to stop all shooting so he could just sit and think about what the f*ck was going on in the story and how he was going to shoot it.

These movies should never have been made, it was obvious the people upstairs were just diggin for quick cash. I find it ironic, because one of the themes of the book and movies was about greed.
 
I would blame this movie on the studio's need for more money, but I believe Jackson did what he could (it's not his fault). This movie was to attract families, the writers and cast did what they could with the paper-thin characters. Showing the whole Battle of Five Armies instead of Bilbo being knocked out at the midpoint, focusing more on Thorin overcoming this than Beorn dropping in and destroying the armies, the hunt of the dwarfs adding a reason to be pushed ahead were decent additions.

The Hobbit trilogy, though not as great of the classic Lord of the Rings Trilogy, is 10x better than Amazon's bastardization and ESG infested "Rings of Power" and modern movies that are being made today. I think people should be thankful for what is offered despite it's flaws. While it’s not the original trilogy it’s still a Peter Jackson film that I’ve grown fond of. I don't believe this trilogy deserves this much hate.

I give the trilogy 7 out of 10 Rings

Oh and one more thing. There's an fan-edit called "M4" that takes all three films and turn it into a 4-hour single film, thus eliminating the unnecessary filler. It is the best unofficial alternative version of the Hobbit. Here's the link.

 

Article Author: Æ