Is “The Hobbit” worth spending two hours and forty-six minutes of your life on?
Sure, if you once read the book. Even if you’ve never seen Peter Jackson’s previous Tolkien triumphs beyond the opening scenes of the third movie, it’s worth seeing especially if your stepson is a big fan of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy.
Yes, it’s long, and yes, the special effects are amazing.
I was there firstly for the fellowship (of my family, not the dwarves) and secondly for the story.
Like the 12-year-old boy in the front row of our theater who yelled at his parental units as the credits were rolling, “That’s it? That’s it? You took me to this?!” I was a little disappointed that “The Hobbit” doesn’t actually finish telling Tolkien’s story.
I read “The Hobbit” long ago when I was reading The Chronicles of Narnia, taking in all of Judy Blume’s works and rereading The Little House books. I don’t really recall the details of the plot so an unfinished story is OK by me, but I remember J.R.R. Tolkien’s characters.
Seeing the movie today I was reminded how distinctive dialogue creates a character. More than Bilbo Baggins, I remember from the book Gollum, the creature living in the dark who torments the poor little hobbit. All his unnecessary plurals (“Bagginses” and “eggses”) and multiple personalities evoke a powerful sense of creepiness.
Gandalf, too, speaks with a regal air, full of a cadence of magical incantation.
So don’t go to “The Hobbit” because you want a neat little ending and a 90-minute distraction, but it’s worth your time for all the rest.