MOVIE REVIEWS: THE HOBBIT, why it sucked

The Hobbit. I've been waiting since the 80s for this movie to come out. I'm not one of those huge nerds that waited and counted down the days, I just enjoyed the cartoon from the first time I saw it. It was made in 77, before my time but I saw it when I was a little kid. It was done by Rankin Bass, the same people who did all those Christmas stop-and-go motion movies and the Thundercats. So how could this new version have been so terrible??? There are several reasons why this movie was painful to watch and why it sucked. Disagree? Money talks, this thing came out in December and here it is March already out on DVD.....that's sad. 

REASON NUMBER ONE: The Wrong Time.

Too little too late is a phrase that comes to mind. When the first Lord of the Rings movie came out people went crazy with excitement and fans of the books were really hard on it but approved and felt the movies were good enough to live up to their imagination's hype. We loved those movies, they did so well at the box offices, they won oscars, the actors were loved and honored and we couldn't get enough of LOTR! But then a few years went by and we had our fill, keeping in mind the WHOLE TIME we all heard the rumors that The Hobbit would be made too, giving a sigh of relief to those of us who still wanted some more. HOWEVER, time went by and things calmed down....too much. We stopped caring about these movies and these characters and when the over due Hobbit came out, people just didn't care as much. Die hard fans of the first movies and the books cared, and they went to see it but the rest of us just shrugged our shoulders. Then the reviews came out and we all figured we better just stay home and see it when it comes out on DVD....we didn't have to wait long. This movie should have come out 2-3 years after The Return Of the King, riding the momentum of the trilogy. Unfortunately they waited far too long and the Hobbit had to make its own waves, and it just couldn't. It's been 10 years since the last movie came out. Kids have grown up, new kids are around now and never even saw the first 3, it's just been too big of a gap.

REASON NUMBER TWO: You're Out of Oder.

The Hobbit was the first book, then came the other three. So wait, why wasn't The Hobbit the first movie? Wouldn't have that made the most sense? YES. I can only speculate here because this always confused me. I knew of The Hobbit for years and years before I ever knew there was anything else and I think a lot of casual fans were in the same boat as me. The Hobbit book was first in order and it introduces all the characters. We see how Bilbo meets Gandalf, we see how he gets the ring, we see where Gollum comes from, and so on. If you watch The Lord of the Rings and have no clue about The Hobbit, you won't be entirely confused, but some things just aren't explained that the readers of the book already know. Perhaps doing the next 3 books was more marketable? I assume they figured with 3 books they could make 3 back to back movies, and since they were continuous, they could switch some things around and go out of order from movie to movie, as long as the information got in one of the 3 movies. Also once the Hobbit is done you have few characters left over, where as in the LOTR three stories, almost all of the same characters appear in each one. 

REASON NUMBER THREE: Messing With Success.

Gimli is the best example of a Dwarf that we have. He was first, he showed us what they looked like, what they wore, how they spoke, and how they acted. He was all we had to go off of at this point because The Hobbit wasn't first, which had many Dwarfs in it, 13 that go on the quest to be exact. So all we know about being a Dwarf comes from our mold, Gimli. I was surprised to see that many of the Dwarfs in this movie, almost all of them, seemed nothing like Gimli. It was a let down and a disappointment because I was thinking, "Alright, 13 Gimli guys running around, this will be so cool!" Well some were clean shaven, skinny, tall-looking, young, and just all around not Dwarf-like. (Again, going on what Gimli taught us about the Dwarf race) I understand that the actor that played Gimli was not a short man in real life, actually being one of the tallest on the set. But in the first 3 movies they did a much better job at making him appear to be dwarf size. The Hobbit used the same old camera, midget, and CGI tricks that the first 3 used but somehow I felt like these 13 dwarfs were just regular humans, unlike Gimli that made me feel like he was only 4 feet tall. 

THIS IS A DWARF!

AND HERE, is what they gave us for The Hobbit. In order from left to right, Nori is kinda a semi dwarf looking guy or what I feel a dwarf should be, Ori, based on looks, just plain isn't a dwarf in my opinion, Dori again somewhat semi dwarf looking, Fili no way in hell are you a dwarf, Kili worst example of a dwarf there could possibly be, (next to Thorin that is, who just happens to be KING of the dwarfs), Oin could pass as a dwarf on a good day I suppose and Gloin is an acceptable Dwarf. But it gets much worse......MUCH WORSE.....

Seriously? Seriously?? This is supposed to be a Dwarf? Really? You expect us to believe this douche-bag is what Gimli is too? No thank you Mr. Jackson, you can take this idiot off my screen and shove that stupid hat up his dwarf hole. Worst part of any costume in any movie of all time. Add some goggles and you have Flick from A Christmas Story, or add a cigar and you have Cousin Eddie. HEY BOFUR, SHITTER WAS FULL! I suppose if we are made to think Bofur came from Canada or Minnesota, then the hat suits him well. I however, do not think any Dwarf should wear anything remotely close to this at any point in it's life. (hysterical on Cousin Eddie btw)

REASON NUMBER FOUR: How Many Movies Does It Take To Tell A Story.

Well the answer isn't one, I know that much! The Lord of the Rings was 3 movies because there were 3 books....I can do that math. The Hobbit is ONE book split into 3 movies. Wait what, why?? Well money, and I can't think of any other reason. If we drag this out, excuse me, stretch this out into 3 movies, we can make more money! Great idea, unless the movie sucks and you have to do this 2 more times with the crowd and targeted audience already tired of it....uh oh....that could cause a problem. It's true, it's a long involved book with many wonderful details and a movie can't capture all of it at one time but  did it need to be made into 3 separate movies? No, no it did not. The problem is, adding to each movie to make it long enough, which is what Peter Jackson did, causing some very angry responses from true fans. He had to though, otherwise he couldn't fill 3 entire movies. Imagine reading 1/3 of a book then stopping for a year, this is what we have to do with these movies now. And to be fair the best part is going to be the dragon Smaug and in this movie we saw some flashes of it flying in a flashback and his eye opening at the end of the movie, other than that we were dragon teased by the movie and leaving us at a point where we really wanted to say, "sure I've been here for 3 hours, but now it's getting good!" We don't even get to see Smaug? The main bad guy of the story....isn't even in the first movie? Yes, that's a fact, the main antagonist does not appear in this movie. 

REASON NUMBER FIVE: Bad Bilbo

Sorry, the guy who played Bilbo was a terrible choice for the part. Martin Freeman was so unlike the Bilbo from the books that I had pictured and so unlike the Bilbo from the cartoon movie and even so unlike the Bilbo from the other 3 movies. (I don't care if this is 60 years earlier) He just wasn't right for the part. He should have been shorter, fatter, jollier, and whinier. He didn't fit the part, and he wasn't believable, not that I thought the Bilbo from LOTR movies was much better, I would have rather watched the movie with him playing the part. This is the main character, he was the most important character, therefore, it was the highest importance that we got the correct human to play the original Hobbit. The Hobbit that we should be measuring all other Hobbits too by the way. I really think they went out and said, who would be the WORST person we can get to do this??? Maybe Martin was the only guy that showed up on casting day? 

REASON NUMBER SIX: No Music, No Movie

For me if a movie doesn't have good music, it can't be a good movie. Think of some of your favorite scores or songs that fit so perfectly into movies. Star Wars? Titanic? Jaws? Rocky? The Lion King? Jurassic Park? Gone with the Wind? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly? I could go on, but you get my point right? Music can make an ok movie even better and it can make a great movie seem not so great. This movie had very little music to inspire us. Really came up short on this one. Sure we had a few hints of the other movies with the Shire theme and the Ring theme and hints from The Two Towers but when it came to The Hobbit having its own special unique theme, which it did, it just left a lot to be desired. NOBODY came out of the theatre humming it, you probably can't right now because it wasn't memorable or catchy. It was too simple and too light for such an epic adventure movie. In the battle scenes all I could think was, "Wow this music doesn't fit this fighting or running or danger or suspense." It's just a shame because this movie deserved a wonderful theme song like the previous movies each had and it just didn't. 

REASON NUMBER SEVEN: CGI

It's no secret I'm not a fan of CGI, (that's computer generated images), I know, I know, every single movie has them and it's just how movies are done now. Well I think it looks fake. And for whatever reason, this movie seemed to spend very little time on their computer graphics. At one point I thought, why have live actors at all? Why not just do an entire CGI movie?? You might as well have for as much as they did with CGI. This was true with the first 3 movies as well I know, and Gollum is one of the best examples of CGI looking realistic that we have but it seemed cheap in this movie. Even Gollum didn't appear to be as real in this movie, which is very strange considering how long ago the first movies came out (2001), our technology should have come even further since then, and yet....I feel like they could have just used some crayons and drew the sets and characters, I would have been just as aware as I was watching this CGI. 

REASON NUMBER EIGHT: Already Saw It

I realize that this is a sequel or prequel in this case, and that many themes and things will be similar but in this movie it was a little too close. When we first saw the fellowship of the ring crossing the mountains with that great music playing we all got chills. When we first saw Gimli, Legolas, and Aragorn running after the Orcs that had captured their hobbit friends we again got chills and wondered, what are we gonna see in this movie that is already turning out so great in the first few minutes?! But this time when we saw the 13 Dwarfs and a wizard and a hobbit crossing the mountains, it was like, over kill. Ok, we get it, New Zealand is a beautiful country, and they're on a quest and long journey, ok, ok. Been there done that. Then when they were attacked by the wolf riders, I was thinking, "Wait, didn't this already happen in one of these movies?" Yes, it had, in the Two Towers. Then Gandalf is off talking to butterflies again and they're running for their lives through a massive cavernous mountain and I'm like, HEY....don't rip me off just cause this is the 4th movie, give me something new! If you can't come up with new ideas then don't bother to make another movie. Again, I reiterate, the books had similar themes, ideas, and settings but still. 

All in all this was a long, drawn out, boring movie that left a feeling of wanting more. You can't put out 3 wonderful movies, leave us to think what if, then answer it with this pile of crap. I give the music for this movie an A for the past snippets from previous movies but an F for their original score and attempts at the songs from the book, which averages out to be a C I guess. I give the actors an A for people like Gandalf and Gollum and Elrond and a couple of the Dwarfs but for Bilbo and the rest of the dwarfs and that HORRIBLE other wizard, I give a strong F, which again averages out to be a C. For original story I'd give it an A because The Hobbit is such a pioneer in this genre....buuuut the other 3 movies already did all they could do and The Hobbit is now just eating table scraps, so I give it an F.

 The writing also was pretty crappy, sure they stuck to the book in some cases but there were clearly scenes made to make the audience laugh out loud and there is nothing worse than that awkward silence that you hear when something isn't funny. I didn't laugh or even get a smile at these parts and doubt fans were that easily tricked into thinking there was any reason to laugh. We are supposed to laugh at a fat Dwarf breaking a chair due to his weight? That's offensive and he may have had a glandular problem! Now don't you feel bad? 

The worst part of this movie was the fact that they were trying to recapture some of that magic that the first 3 movies had........and I'm very careful to say that because in my opinion the last LOTR movie was way too long, too unoriginal, and too anticipated. (I always thought the ending to the series was anticlimactic in the books as well) My next blog should be a rewrite to the end of Return of the King, because what I thought should have happened and what we were led to believe the whole time never does happen and, well whatever that's another rant. 

The point is, maybe we are just done with this series, maybe America has had it's fill of J.R.R. Tolkien and this movie was too late? Maybe we were all frustrated that we had to sit through and wait for 3 separate movies just to see what happens? Maybe Peter Jackson lost his touch or maybe he was just a one trick pony and we've seen it all before? Whatever the reason, I didn't like this movie. It didn't get me into theatres back when it was in them (just a couple of months ago actually) and of all the bad things I heard about it, I'm sorry to say ended up being true. I have to say I ignored those reviews and wanted to develop my own opinions. After the first 10 minutes I was looking at the clock saying, when will this stupid thing be over??? That's a bad sign considering its running time is 2:49. I've waited a long time for this movie but in the end, the 1977 cartoon adaptation was far superior in every way. This movie truly was an unexpected journey, one that I will not be taking again. 

Sorry I want to say more about that dumbass with that asinine hat. How idiotic was that idea? Putting that ear flap hat on him?  Like a reject from Fargo is going to win audiences hearts??? Hell no! Go back to ice fishing or hang yourself with that feminine braid the fat dwarf had. I mean come on, why would you do that?? Someone at some point came up with that idea, then some other idiot said, "Great idea!" Then that moron told someone else about it and it passed through all these people, including the director, and IT MADE IT IN THE MOVIE!!! I just can't fathom that...but it happened. You should take away an oscar just for making that decision.