At a time when our sad old world needs good stories more than ever, the makers of the just-released film The Hobbit have done us an invaluable service. I saw the movie this past Sunday afternoon, and from beginning to end, I was transported. I was in awe, entertained in the purest sense, inwardly laughing in joyous recognition at familiar lines and elements of this well-loved story, a tale which inhabits my life like an old, cherished friend. And I was captivated by new twists, by some unexpected interpretations — brought to the edge of my seat by the plights and heroics of Bilbo and his traveling companions, made to gasp and cringe and sigh and nearly cheer aloud. I can’t remember enjoying a movie this much since . . . well, since The Lord of the Rings.
But the moviemakers have learned so much since the shooting of LOTR! There was so much on which to build, so much design and technology already in place, and the state of the art now allowing for more. There was the experience of how audiences reacted to LOTR informing the writers and production crew on how to go about The Hobbit. And they rose to the challenge — oh, did they rise!
I had seen some Internet headlines in the days prior, headlines calling the quality of the new film into question. I didn’t read the articles, of course; I didn’t want to know any more about the film than I already knew from reading the book as a fifth-grader and from listening to it again on audiobook several months ago. A friend also pointed out to me that certain critics had attacked the movie for being slow-paced, padded in order to stretch a single novel into three big films, and — worst of all — for being filled with material that did not come from Tolkien himself. I am happy to report that, if critics said such things, they were wrong on every count.
It is true that the film includes abundant material that isn’t overtly a part of the book The Hobbit. But with a very few exceptions, this content is directly from Tolkien’s writing-hand — from LOTR, from the appendices to LOTR — and in some cases, quite cleverly and faithfully extrapolated from hints and outlines Tolkien supplied in his tale of Bilbo’s adventure.
Although The Hobbit was marketed as a children’s book, my viewing-companion noted that the film feels bigger, more epic, in a way, than LOTR did. I believe I would agree, and I think I understand why. With the passage of time, with reflection, the film-makers have apprehended a crucial key: that the works of Tolkien are all about milieu. And The Hobbit (movie) delivers the world of Middle-earth much more abundantly than the LOTR films did. I love those LOTR movies dearly, but they had so much to accomplish to satisfy audiences (which, to a phenomenal degree, they did — audiences of hardcore Tolkien fans and of first-time visitors to Middle-earth alike) that what usually got shortchanged was the setting. In the LOTR movies, fantastic though they are, I wanted to see much more of Moria . . . more of Rivendell . . . more of Lothlorien. In The Hobbit, we SEE Middle-earth in its glory! This is a milieu movie, and it comes across as huge.
Are there the Hollywoodish didoes and flourishes that inhabit all first-rank films nowadays? Yes. The treatment of Radagast is distinctly reminiscent of the world of Harry Potter. This first third of a single story is outfitted with amplifications of character, dramatic moments, and an arc to make it a satisfying movie experience. Is that a sin? Is it an abuse of the source material? By no means!
A great story is a great story: like the richest wine, it flows in and fills the vessel of the particular form in which it’s delivered. In the long history of told and written tales, our stories have always been adapted, reshaped in different media for different audiences. So it is with the movie version of The Hobbit. It is not the book — though the book is in perfect health, and still welcomes each new generation of readers to the tale that is exactly as Tolkien wrote it.
It is a stunning and wondrous movie that this reviewer intends to see as many times as resources allow.
“It’s a money-making ploy,” some have said: “repackage a single book as three films to increase profits.” Perhaps. Perhaps that was a factor in the decision to make The Hobbit in three parts. The moviemakers may also have understood that a run of three movies allows for a lot more of Tolkien’s vast creation to be brought to the screen. Three movies? I say, “Hip-hip Hooray!” We get to do it again! As in the days of LOTR, we will be privileged (Lord willing) to look forward to a Hobbit movie each year. Seriously — would anyone rather stop at just one?
The casting is brilliant. The music is superb. The storytelling is amazing, brought to us by J. R. R. Tolkien and by the crew of this most recent incarnation. “Adventures . . . make one late to dinner.” Come with me to the theater, folks. Let’s all be very, very late to dinner.
I am Mr. Brown Snowflake says: 
fsdthreshold 
Scott 
Binsers 
Marquee Movies 
Preacher 
Swordlily 
jhagman 
Buurenaar 
Hagiograph 
Morwenna 