I grew up loving The Hobbit, which is Tolkien's effort at a children's novel; with its epic adventure, great heroes and terrifying villains, and wondrous imagination, it's a wonderful gateway into the more "serious" and epic scope of The Lord of the Rings. With all of that love, I still approached the first entry in The Hobbit films with some trepidation; while I loved the book, I wasn't sure that it really needed to be three movies, nor was I convinced that the movie would benefit from the integration of all of the supplemental materials Tolkien wrote. But it seems that I needn't have worried. From its opening moments, I was reminded just how great director Peter Jackson's grip on Middle Earth really is, and just how wonderfully he can immerse you into that world. From a prologue that sets up the stakes of the world to the charming and entertaining introduction of the dwarves, Jackson proves adroit at both the epic sides of the story and the more low-key humor that drove the children's story along, and the fact that he manages to do both is one of the many joys of the movie. Of course, the casting is wonderful; all of the dwarves manage to make their own impression and personality known, Ian McKellen is every bit as good as you remember him being (is he ever anything else?), and Andy Serkis's return to Gollum is spectacular. But the star here is Martin Freeman, who truly brings Bilbo to live, from his reluctant homebody nature to his steely spine that he hates to admit is there. Yes, to be sure, The Hobbit could do with some pruning; a long adventure in a goblin cave ends up feeling a little weightless and CGI-heavy, and the overall length does start to wear on you. But there's so many great scenes - the dinner party, the White Council, Riddles in the Dark - and the whole thing is so fun and rich that I left the movie ready to go see part 2 as soon as I could.
On 48 FPS: My wife and I saw the movie in the new 48 frames per second 3D, and neither of us were wholly positive about the experience. Maria hated it; she felt that it made everything look cheap and green-screened, and commented that it made the entire film feel like a bad television show. I was more divided; I spent most of the first 20 minutes hating it and feeling like everything looked as though it were running at double speed, a complaint that recurred occasionally in big action scenes or overly kinetic moments. But at other times - the "Riddles in the Dark" scene being one of the best - the HFR 3D made for an incredibly immersive and crystal-clear experience, as though you were looking through a window instead of watching a movie. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but I'm not against it; I feel like it needs refining, but its pros really are amazing. Maria, though, says she'll never see anything in 48 FPS again.
- Josh Mauthe
On 48 FPS: My wife and I saw the movie in the new 48 frames per second 3D, and neither of us were wholly positive about the experience. Maria hated it; she felt that it made everything look cheap and green-screened, and commented that it made the entire film feel like a bad television show. I was more divided; I spent most of the first 20 minutes hating it and feeling like everything looked as though it were running at double speed, a complaint that recurred occasionally in big action scenes or overly kinetic moments. But at other times - the "Riddles in the Dark" scene being one of the best - the HFR 3D made for an incredibly immersive and crystal-clear experience, as though you were looking through a window instead of watching a movie. I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but I'm not against it; I feel like it needs refining, but its pros really are amazing. Maria, though, says she'll never see anything in 48 FPS again.
- Josh Mauthe
