#41  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Seriously? You are letting some people on the internet decide what you might like to view?
To be honest, I was never very excited for this. After 3 LOTR movies, I feel like this is just more of the same and a story that doesn't need to be told. Had the reviews been in the high 90% range, I'd check it out.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-13-2012, 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz68 View Post
To be honest, I was never very excited for this. After 3 LOTR movies, I feel like this is just more of the same and a story that doesn't need to be told. Had the reviews been in the high 90% range, I'd check it out.
OK good. Well at least you are thinking on your own first. The first way you explained it just seemed silly to me. I hope the movie gets good word of mouth on here and you change your mind. Well, I hope it is good lol
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-14-2012, 03:32 AM
I pretty much loved it. More later.

My review:

I think it is important to understand the technique with which The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is approached so that one can watch it with appropriate and unbiased eyes. The Lord of the Rings novels are epic works of fantasy with high stakes and strong emotional undercurrents. Jackson’s films thusly followed suit, and they were masterful cinematic interpretations filled with great detail and an amazing scope. The Hobbit, as a novel, is lighter, slighter, and filled with far more humor. It tells a fun and rousing adventure story designed for children that only begins to introduce readers into the world of Middle Earth. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey falls somewhere in between the realm of the emotional epic and the children’s adventure, and to my mind it works beautifully.
The wonderful thing about Middle Earth as designed in Peter Jackson’s films is that it is not of any age. This allows for a seamless and timeless reintroduction into the world that for this fan was akin to coming home. The design and craft of the film is expectedly gorgeous, from the sweeping vistas and production design to Weta’s props and visual effects. Every element of the film is composed with the same precision and attention to detail that we have come to expect from this series. From the warmth of the inviting Hobbit holes in the Shire to the epic city of Rivendell to a stunning underground Goblin Kingdom, the film is filled with visual delights of an epic variety. Howard Shore’s score is once again superb, and his Misty Mountains theme is genuinely iconic. The film feels alive with Middle Earth, and it is never not an exciting and overwhelming visual experience. As a technical note, I saw the film in IMAX 3D which was impressive and well-done, but not in the much-discussed 48fps. I will likely see the film in that format soon and add an additional note regarding my thoughts on it later.

As the story begins to unfold and it becomes clear how Jackson and his team of co-writers (Fran Walsh & Phillipa Boyens alongside Guillermo Del Toro) are adapting the relatively slight The Hobbit into an epic film trilogy, there is both a sigh of relief as to how things are fleshed out and an air of familiarity. Characters and moments are more fully flashed out and a particular villain is given more importance that allows for a tangible, contained arc and a strong emotional connection to one character in particular. There is no doubt that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is strikingly similar in both structure and pace to The Fellowship of the Ring, which I could see as being a repetitive experience for some. The stakes are not as high, but the film is filled to the brim with delight and whimsy. This structure and pace is tried and true and allows for a similarly affecting first chapter in this new epic trilogy. There are certain tangential threads that don’t necessarily fit in directly with the narrative, but for me they never distracted and allowed for a well-rounded adventure. At its core, though, this film tells a very straightforward story about one Hobbit’s internal journey. As Bilbo Baggins, Martin Freeman is genius. His evolution from a neurotic, meek hobbit (and a hilarious one, at that) to a strong hero is great, both in performance and its thematic resonance for the film as a whole. Bilbo’s relationship with both Gandalf (a powerful and magical Ian McKellan) and especially the head Dwarf Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) makes for an emotional push and pull that allows for an intimate connection in the midst of this epic adventure. Armitage is terribly exciting as Thorin: strong, powerful, and regal with a decided hint of sadness. He makes for a terrific hero, and I greatly look forward to seeing his continued evolution in future films.

The action sequences and set pieces are excitingly designed and choreographed (and there are a lot of them), with the sequences in the goblin kingdom particularly standing out as being awesome. This sequence is inter-cut with Bilbo’s meeting with Golum, and this sceneis nothing short of masterful. Andy Serkis (and Weta Digital’s f/x work) is better than ever; a chaotic, challenging, and hilarious mess of a creature obsessed with his precious. To see Golum pre-Lord of the Rings, as well as other characters such as Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman makes for both a fun experience for fans and a strong connection to future films. It places The Hobbit as a story in context and we can begin to see how Middle Earth evolves into the land that we see in the later stories.

The other major element of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the Dwarves. There are many of them, and much time is spent in the first act introducing these characters. On the page they are thin, interchangeable creatures with only hints of personality. There is a certain element of that here, but they are afforded the opportunity to be genuine characters in the film. These are silly, ridiculous, and very funny creatures. They make for a film that is filled with laughs and tonally quite different than The Lord of the Rings. They are a constant reminder that The Hobbit is a story designed for children, even if the film has a plethora of violence. Aidan Turner and Dean O’Gorman as Kili and Fili in particular stand out, and they serve as the sort of Merry and Pippin of this film. In these early sequences it would be easy to say that the film suffers from bloat and that it takes quite a while to get moving, but I loved these characters and their silly antics and songs and was happy spending as much time with them as Jackson allowed.

This, ultimately, points towards the success of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as well as the issues some may have with it. Objectively the film is beautifully crafted, and I found it exciting and structured well with a strong emotional core. It’s also very long, and because of the sillier tone and lower stakes it could easily be argued that this is not justified. I, frankly, did not care. I was utterly enthused to be back in Jackson’s depiction of Middle Earth and thanks to the wonderful performances and incredible attention to detail and clear passion Jackson has for Tolkein’s world, I left the film feeling satisfied and beyond ready for the coming chapters.

Last edited by SpikeDurden; 12-16-2012 at 07:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-14-2012, 04:02 AM
Wow, critics couldn't have been more wrong on this one. I have to say it was a completely amazing film and even exceeded my high expectations (though they had dwindled a bit with all the negative talk). Martin Freeman completely personifies Bilbo Baggins, he was perfect in the role with a sort of naive and goofy charm. Likewise, the actors portraying Thorin and Gandalf throw in some strong perfomances, and we also have some nice LOTR character cameos for the fans. The new cast certainly fits in nicely with Pete's return to Middle Earth and we get some interesting backstory on their characters. There's plenty of action in this one, a good dose of humor (true to the more light-hearted nature of the novel on which this is based), and I'm glad for the three films to give these thirteen dwarves the development they need. Despite its length, the film moved right along, the pacing was fine, and I didn't want it to end. Movies 2 and 3 will be even greater, I feel.

This gets a 10/10 from me. I already feel the desire to check it out again in theaters. Please ignore all the negativity and you'll have a fun time!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-14-2012, 05:06 AM
I loved it as well. It's easily one of my favorite movies of the year. It's very long, but it's never boring and almost always completely enthralling.

I don't know which movie was more visually beautiful this or Life of Pi. Both movies will be on my top 10 of the year. That's for sure.

9/10 from me! It may not quite reach the heights of The Lord of the Rings, but it DEFINITELY comes close!

Loved all of the great cameos as well.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-14-2012, 10:52 AM
Great movie ! Even better then the LOTR-movies in my humble opinion.
Heard critics say there is a lot of boring stuff, but wasn't bored for a second.
The effects are amazing, especially the giant rocks battle.
I have seen it in 24 fps rate, too bad, I wanted to know what all the fuzz was about.
Looking forward to the next two installments.

9/10
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-14-2012, 11:14 AM
Going Sunday so my brothers can tag along....glad to hear the positive buzz on here....
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-14-2012, 04:32 PM
5.5/10

There’s no dodging it, this is a massive disappointment on almost every level. It’s an overly long and rather mind-numbing film that doesn’t even offer the courtesy of a semblance of an ending. Yes, I know they are taking a page from the original trilogy and telling the tale in three parts but I wish they had at least offered some sort of payoff in this installment. The first forty minutes absolutely drags and is as tedious as any film in recent memory. The entire first act feels like a dull parody of a Disney/Snow White/Dwarves film complete with two singing numbers. They couldn’t even use that time to give us relatable bases or depth for the characters they want us to follow for three films. Bilbo is a sniveling ninny throughout all forty minutes and you can’t tell one dwarf from the other outside of the king. Also, the CGI seems to be a step back which is bizarre. A lot of things and scenes looked horribly fake. I’m talking “Clash of the Titans” remake bad CGI (except Gollum- he was again exceptional) Then, there’s the same ole plot flaw from the very first film surrounding the use of those giant game changing eagles. All-in-all, there’s nothing here that’s thrilling and nothing that can come close to matching the grandeur or feel of the originals.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-14-2012, 04:47 PM
Spoiler:
The payoff is that was Bilboe being able to summon the courage and saving Thorin from being killed, thus proving his worth to the group and that he does have it in him to be a part of the team and continue on the quest. The story of this movie was Bilboe's reluctance and ultimately finding out that he does want to be on this adventure and help out the Dwarfs reclaim their home.


To me it was no less satisfying than the ending to either Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-14-2012, 05:39 PM
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (5/10)

As a huge fan of the LOTR trilogy it pains to me to say this, but Peter Jackson's new Middle Earth effort is one of the worst films of the year.

It's impossibly excessive, long and tedious, taking forever to really get going, and then still ending up three hours later not much further ahead in the story. It's obvious the adaptation of the 300-page book has been padded with far too much filler to make another trilogy of epic length. As a result of all the filler material the storyline isn't focused enough, feeling all over the place and delving off into all sorts of mediocre subplots (necromancers, giant spiders, the Witch King's sword, the list goes on). The whole thing feels messy and far too often it's simply boring and slow.

Jackson doesn't seem to really be challenging himself as a director. You can't even really feel his enthusiasm behind this project. Most of the movie feels like it could've been directed by someone behind Eragon or something. Maybe the pressure got to him with all the political dramas the film caused in NZ. There are several scenes that are carbon copies of scenes from LOTR (especially the first installment), with different characters and played in a slightly different context. He can't recycle the same shit that worked so well before and expect it to fly again. Where's the interesting characters that dominated the original trilogy? I couldn't even tell you three of the dwarves names, so forgettable where they. Also one-note and annoying. Not endearing and multifaceted like the members of the fellowship. Thorin Oakenshield feels like a poor man's Aragorn, in the same way the climactic battle in this film feels like a poor man's Mines of Moria, in the same way, in general, that this film feels like a poor man's FOTR.

The 48fps did the movie a disservice. It took me out of Middle Earth rather than throwing me into it, and most of the time just looked very awkward. The battle sequences looked totally fake, particularly the final one in the mines. I think I would've actually preferred to have seen the movie at the normal frame rate, not in 3D. Unfortunately it's so long and dull that it's unlikely I'll make the trip back to the cinema to give it a second chance.

The movie isn't all bad - there is a fantastic sequence between Bilbo and Gollum, which feels like it belongs in the original trilogy rather than here. It was definitely a keeper. Cate Blanchett's Galadriel is also used effectively here. She has a great scene with Gandalf that is the film's most emotional, and also among its most beautifully filmed. It was also nice to see Saruman again, and while he doesn't have much to do here, it feels like he will play a more important role in the next two events. Perhaps this trilogy can shed a little more light on what drove Saruman to the dark side.

I'm glad my expectations were low for this. I thought they should've just left the original trilogy alone. It's such a classic already, and I feared that unnecessary inferior prequels would bring them into disrepute. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey only confirms these fears. It belongs in the same league with The Phantom Menace, and is actually comparable to that film in many ways, being a more Disney, PG version of a universe that once seemed much darker, complete with cheesy, slapstick side characters.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-15-2012, 05:32 PM
I quite enjoyed it. I didn't find it to be too long, although it did feel like an extended edition in that it does divert a bit from the main storyline like the extended editions do. I guess the biggest problem, which isn't really the fault of the filmmakers, is that the story isn't as interesting as The Lord of the Rings. There isn't that sense of impending doom and urgency that lingered over those films. However, unlike some critics have suggested, I think Bilbo's arc has enough weight to make the film emotionally satisfying. Highlights for me include the stuff in the Shire (I don't get the complaints, that stuff was great), the Gollum scene (absolute perfection and unexpectedly emotional), and Martin Freeman's performance (casting doesn't get much better than that).

All in all, I'd say it's the second best blockbuster of the year next to Skyfall. It's much better and more emotionally engaging than stuff like The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.

Last edited by Bourne101; 12-15-2012 at 05:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-15-2012, 08:01 PM
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie coming out of it. I hadn't realized how much I missed the LOTR world and was quickly brought back into it. Now granted, the movie is a bit too long and there are ways it could've been cut down to be a leaner movie but I'm not really sure what I would've cut as I enjoyed the whole overall.

Disclosure: I saw it in projected 24fps so I'm seeing it as a normal movie. I'd read too much mixed reviews regarding 48fps to wanna have my first experience of the film be that so I might revisit it later on.

Now I'm a bit mystified at how they're gonna expand it to a trilogy considering where the film leaves us. I've never read the book but it doesn't seem to be as epic in scope as LOTR and I could easily see a 2nd movie finishing up everything.

8.5/10
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-16-2012, 06:23 AM
I absolutely loved Jackson's LOTR's trilogy, and could easily identify it as the best trilogy in the history of modern cinema. Now, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a huge disappointment. Besides stretching out a book that is barely over 300 pages, Jackson has managed to find manuscripts of Tolkien's notes and added some material himself to better bridge the gap between this trilogy and LOTR. However, noble as it may be, the actual execution of this is never clearly defined. With the 'gang' finding themselves in the hands of goblins, orcs, and trolls one after the other: everything just seems so messing and incoherent. But what makes this really a shot to the nuts is the ending. After spending two and half hours with our heroes attempting to get closer and closer to the Lonely Mountain, we have
Spoiler:
Eagles
to the rescue that speed up their journey and save the day just like they always do. I'm hoping the Desolation of Smaug is better because otherwise, I won't bother seeing another one of these in theaters.

6/10
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-16-2012, 09:23 AM
I saw it in 24fps 2D (seeing it in 48fps with a friend) and I thought that Peter Jackson nailed it.I never felt that the movie dragged at all and I feel that extras thrown it to blend LOTR and Hobbit together were done spot on.The only gripe I really had was that Azog could have looked better,other than that I really don't understand all of the hate.The Hobbit:An Unexpected Journey could have easily ended up being a mess like Star Wars Episodes I-III and while The Hobbit isn't perfect it is a worthy prequel to the LOTR films. 9/10
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-16-2012, 10:45 AM
Thought it was decent. Reminiscent of Fellowship, but Fellowship had more diverse characters (honestly couldn't really tell the dwarves apart here) and this was more anti-climactic.

7/10
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-16-2012, 01:22 PM
I'm gonna be that guy and say the critics are just really off base with this one.

I find most of the criticisms to be hyperbolic to the extreme. It is no more slower to start then Fellowship. In fact, the 2hrs 40mins flew by. I didn't feel I watched an almost 3hr film at all. The Radagast character is the Jar Jar Binks of the Hobbit? What? The way people are reacting to this character I was expecting a loud, goofy, obnoxious character. What I saw was a nervous old guy with bird shit on his head. He was barely in the film. Sure, the bird dooky was stupid, but its hardly enough to label this guy the next Jar Jar Binks.

In some ways I feel this is an improvement over Fellowship. Bilbo is a more instantly likable and entertaining character then Frodo imo. It took me a while to warm up to Frodo, in The Hobbit Bilbo was instantly endearing. The humor of The Hobbit is also better then the humor in the Rings films and felt more natural.

I can understand people being letdown by the lighter tone and lower stakes of The Hobbit but imo that's kind of common knowledge. The Hobbit is more whimsical and story-book in it's tone. I love how it felt like a archetypal fantasy story on a massive scale. We get a treasure hunt, dragons, trolls, goblins and magic. There is more s genuine use of straight up magic here then in all three Rings films if I'm not mistaken.
Now as much as I'm looking forward to the next 2 films I do share the concern over the decision. I honestly have no clue how they plan to spread this out for 2 more 2.5 hour films.

Overall I was surprised at how much fun I had with this.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-16-2012, 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Spoiler:
Eagles


6/10
I don't understand this criticism. Gandalf is a friggin' wizard after all. Plus, I gotta ask: did they annoy in the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Because they were used similarly a few times in those movies as well.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-16-2012, 04:19 PM
They were overly convenient. I completely understand that criticism. And why did Gandalf seem so much more powerful in this film in comparison with say, The Return of the King, where he did bugger-all wizarding?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-16-2012, 05:11 PM
Never really liked the LOTR trilogy that much. I pretty much shared Randall's perspective from Clerks 2 concerning the films; "Three movies of walking to a fucking volcano!" What's even worse is that the most bloated installment of the 3, (ROTK) had about 5 or 6 points of logical closure, but just kept on going...and now, Jackson has once again taken a simple story and stretched it beyond its logical duration as a film. We don't need 3 films to tell the story of the Hobbit, one would of sufficed. It's as if in the past 10 or 15 years that Jackson forgot how to use an editing room, although one really long film would have been better than 3 separate films concerning the Hobbit, (IMO).

I'm curious to see if I'll enjoy it more than LOTR, but probably not curious enough to go out and spend 11 bucks to see it in theaters.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-16-2012, 05:22 PM
Didn't he use the light of his staff and his powers of talking to butterflies in Return of the King too?

The Hobbit is not as bad as critics are making it out to be. I saw it in IMAX 3D 48 fps and honestly, didn't find a difference at all. The 48fps freaked me out too in the beginning, but it was totally fine. Maybe it was the 3D that made it O.K., I'm not sure, but at the same time I didn't really feel any extra special immersive effects of 3D like I did with Life of Pi this year.

It's not as bad as the critics say it is, but it's nowhere near the levels of LOTR, and other blockbusters this year like The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, Skyfall and Life of Pi where there was better action (Skyfall, Avengers, TDKR), better characters (Skyfall, TDKR, Life of Pi) or more emotional weight (TDKR, Life of Pi). But Jackson and co. are not to blame for that. The Hobbit, as a book, just pales in comparison to Lord of the Rings so it's only natural that the version of the film won't reach those same heights. There's a reason only one dwarf was featured in the whole LOTR trilogy; their shtick gets old pretty fast. Here we have to deal with 12 of them. The main problem with The Hobbit is the decision to stretch it and milk it for all it's worth so that they make as much money as possible out of it. It's all sugercoated to make it seem like it's done for the fans, but truth be told the film would have been much better, and probably a serious awards contender, had it been one 3 hour long epic adventure. Instead we're going to get 3 films, 3 hour long each, so useless scenes are inevitable and stick out like a sore thumb and the reason why it's not a serious awards contender shouldn't surprise anyone.

Spoiler:

What was the point of Saruman appearing? His advice just kept getting ignored by Galadriel's telepathy. He was just there as a wink-wink to LOTR fans. That whole scene was pretty pointless. Just one example.


Martin Freeman does an ok job as Bilbo Baggins, although he has a very transparent way of acting nervous, confused and uncertain which almost started to annoy me. The bigger problem is (and it's Tolkien's fault again, not Jackson's) that the whole premise of why he's on this adventure is weak. It was only to get the ring. A few other things didn't make too much sense and should have been explained better like for example

Spoiler:

How did Bilbo act so normal when putting on the ring and keeping it on for so long, if it made Frodo freak out so much in LOTR and make Sauron and every Ork start spasing out? Can't remember if it was explained in the book or not, it's been years since I've read it


Overall though, it all comes down to how big of a fan you are of Middle Earth. Luckily, I'm a pretty big fan so going back to that world the way Jackson creates it was great fun. Gandalf is still the boss, the visuals and art direction are still amazing and the few action scenes we get were awesome to see on the big screen. Andy Serkis does a great job again as Gollum and provides another highlight. The pale ork was also spot on.

If you like Middle Earth, appreciate the creatures and adventures that come along with them, you're going to enjoy this a lot. If you're not that big of a fan and thought the LOTR films were just ok or whatever, you'll most likely hate The Hobbit because it's got plot and narrative issues up the wazoo and scenes that make you feel like you're watching a web-series in between seasons of a great television show.

7/10

Last edited by DaMovieMan; 12-16-2012 at 05:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-16-2012, 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I don't understand this criticism. Gandalf is a friggin' wizard after all. Plus, I gotta ask: did they annoy in the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Because they were used similarly a few times in those movies as well.
You said it yourself, they were used similarly a few times in those movies too. This is the third time the eagles have sprung to the rescue, though noble, it's now become this redundant overused plot device to get our heroes out of impossible situations.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-16-2012, 06:10 PM
If you want to take umbrage with The Eagles, blame good ol' J.R.R. In the book they just show up because they notice the fire and hate Goblins. In the film they had Gandalf summon them at least. Everybody's problem with this movie seem to stem from the source material over the actual film: The Eagles, Gandalf's power etc...
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-16-2012, 06:20 PM
I don't buy that "the source material is to blame" excuse so many people have with adaptations. "It was in the book so they had to do it like that..." So what? Jackson changed several things about LOTR, and hardly ever to the detriment of the movie. A lot of people (myself included) won't have even read the Hobbit book so they are judging it on its own merits as a movie. Even if the book preceded it and had that plot point, it's still a valid flaw with the movie counterpart IMO.

My problems with the film go much further than the reappearance of the Eagles and the inconsistencies with Gandalf's power. Slow pace, all-over-the-place plotting, shitty visuals, etc. My (badly written) review attempts to explain all that, though I wish I could be a little more eloquent in my writing
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-16-2012, 06:48 PM
I don't know if I'm going to see this in theater or not. I head to Thailand next week, and if it's playing there I might go after I watch "Jack Reacher", "Life of Pi" and maybe something else that catches my interest.
I was curious to see reviews/opinions from other schmoes here. It seems a little 50/50 between good and bad.

I really don't like the last two installments of the LotR and I have a nagging feeling that this will be a tedious, overlong waste of time and I'll be asking myself why the hell it wasn't just one 2hr40min movie.
My ratings for the trilogy is:
FotR - 10/10
TTT - 5/10
RotK - 4/10

With that said, I was never really excited for this and I am quite sure that with PJ being able to do whatever he wants, he's going all-out and unconstrained, most likely to the movie's detriment. I also don't get how a 300 page book that can be well summarized within two hours of film gets 8 hours, and the LotR trilogy of over 1200 pages got that same amount of time.

I am curious, though... are there other elements NOT IN THE BOOK added here? Stuff from the Silmarillion or something?
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-16-2012, 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KcMsterpce View Post
I am curious, though... are there other elements NOT IN THE BOOK added here? Stuff from the Silmarillion or something?
I think the stuff being added is from Lord of the Rings Appendices and some of Tolkien's unpublished writings on Middle Earth, though I'm not 100%
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-16-2012, 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hucksta G View Post
I think the stuff being added is from Lord of the Rings Appendices and some of Tolkien's unpublished writings on Middle Earth, though I'm not 100%
Yes, from the Appendices only. Jackson & Co. did not have the rights to The Silmarillion. I've found the way it was utilized thus far very strong. The stuff with Radagast, The Necromancer, and Gandalf with the council was some of my favorite stuff in this film and truly seems to be making for an epic and well rounded trilogy with seeds planted beautifully for things to come.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-16-2012, 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopontheshoes7 View Post
I'm gonna be that guy and say the critics are just really off base with this one.

I find most of the criticisms to be hyperbolic to the extreme. It is no more slower to start then Fellowship. In fact, the 2hrs 40mins flew by. I didn't feel I watched an almost 3hr film at all. The Radagast character is the Jar Jar Binks of the Hobbit? What? The way people are reacting to this character I was expecting a loud, goofy, obnoxious character. What I saw was a nervous old guy with bird shit on his head. He was barely in the film. Sure, the bird dooky was stupid, but its hardly enough to label this guy the next Jar Jar Binks.

In some ways I feel this is an improvement over Fellowship. Bilbo is a more instantly likable and entertaining character then Frodo imo. It took me a while to warm up to Frodo, in The Hobbit Bilbo was instantly endearing. The humor of The Hobbit is also better then the humor in the Rings films and felt more natural.

I can understand people being letdown by the lighter tone and lower stakes of The Hobbit but imo that's kind of common knowledge. The Hobbit is more whimsical and story-book in it's tone. I love how it felt like a archetypal fantasy story on a massive scale. We get a treasure hunt, dragons, trolls, goblins and magic. There is more s genuine use of straight up magic here then in all three Rings films if I'm not mistaken.
Now as much as I'm looking forward to the next 2 films I do share the concern over the decision. I honestly have no clue how they plan to spread this out for 2 more 2.5 hour films.

Overall I was surprised at how much fun I had with this.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, though not necessarily this being more enjoyable than FOTR. Regardless, it seems to me that many of the elements being criticized in this film were praised in FOTR. The length, the epic nature, the attention to detail and the amount of material the film covers, the over-the-top and exciting action scenes, even the goofy characters and songs (Gimil, Merry/Pippin, etc.).

I don't theorize about why people like things they do or don't, but I do think people like to "pick on the big guy" so to speak and the amount of baggage that this film has released with is almost unparalleled. The 48fps, the shifting from 2 films to 3, the changing of directors last minute... it's easy to go into this film expecting little.

No matter. I (and many others) seem to be loving it, and many also seem to be not liking it. That's the way things roll. I just hope it doesn't unnecessarily get the reputation The Phantom Menace has because I think even objectively The Hobbit is so far superior to any of the Star Wars prequels. Anyways...
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-16-2012, 09:13 PM
4/5

a good start to the story. the score is freaking great. gollum vs. bilbo sequence is great. the movie started ok but got better better. I like how the explain how certain aspects of LOTR like how characters got certain things

Spoiler:
like how bilbo got the sword


Spoiler:
the reason beyond the elf and dwarfs feud
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-16-2012, 10:31 PM
I have no idea what the critics are talking about. This movie was excellent and I was not disappointed. 4.5/5 9/10

It did not feel slow at all to me. The pacing was fine and I actually was surprised when it ended, it did not feel that long at all.

The character building was great for Thorin and Bilbo. I loved all the little cut scenes to LOTR to tie up some loose ends. Gollum was perfect. The score was great. The villain was cool. I can't complain at all.

Go see this movie for yourself if you are a fan of LOTR. Don't let a few idiotic critics and haters tell you what to watch.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-16-2012, 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I don't understand this criticism. Gandalf is a friggin' wizard after all. Plus, I gotta ask: did they annoy in the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Because they were used similarly a few times in those movies as well.
They did actually. As they appeared in this movie, I asked myself: why don't they just carry them the rest of the way?

It's a silly issue, but it did cross my mind. Thought the same thing about them carrying everyone to Mordor in the original trilogy. But maybe Mordor was too dangerous or something.

But anyway, yeah, my complaints are pretty minor. It was a solid, fun movie. Just didn't like the characters as much as in Fellowship and thought the climax wasn't as powerful.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-16-2012, 10:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
... even the goofy characters and songs (Gimil, Merry/Pippin, etc.).
Fuuuuuck. You know what I hated perhaps the MOST from the extended editions? The fucking songs. God, what shite. So if I come into the movie 40 minutes late, will I miss some stupid-ass songs?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-16-2012, 10:44 PM
You'll miss one cringe-worthy song at Bilbo's house that was just...awful. Felt like something out of some Snow White and the Dwarves kids special or something. The other song is the one that played in the trailer and is okay.

Darth Kenshin - I wondered why they didn't carry them all the way too. It made me giggle. They drop the gang at the most inconvenient place ever and they still have miles and miles to walk? Pretty senseless..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-16-2012, 11:25 PM
Aw, I loved the singing by the Dwarfs. I loved every single scene in the shire. In fact, the only scenes I wasn't too overly fond of were the scenes with the goblins inside the mountain. I felt those scenes went on too long. But I adore the rest of the movie. Every single minute.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-16-2012, 11:41 PM
Hm.
I thank you guys for not slamming me about determining whether I want to see this or not.
I think I'm just going to wait until it's on video, so I can see it on my own terms and decide if I want to fastforward through scenes or not lol.

This thread was helpful with that decision, though.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-17-2012, 02:19 AM
I think when it comes to the eagles, they choose to intervene when they feel it's absolutely necessary to do so or are summoned in a moment of crisis by people in danger who feel they have no other alternatives .

In the grand scheme of things they aren't governed by the fate of the ring or the destiny of middle earth's inhabitants, they have no rooting interest but they will assist the forces of good if called upon .

It's not their responsibility to complete a task that someone else is supposed too because that would be doing the ones they are helping a disservice .

The Lotr trilogy has a subtext of personal and "spiritual" growth, there are certain things, a man, a woman, a dwarf, an elf, a wizard must confront on their own or with very little assistance in order to grow and flower .

It's one of the reasons Gandalf enlists Bilbo on this journey, he wanted to encourage him to mature and the only way for Bilbo to do this was to leave his comfort zone and go on an adventure .

That doesn't mean the G man saves his bum every time there is danger, he wanted Bilbo to be challenged in order for his spirit to be enlivened
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-17-2012, 06:32 AM
Sitting in the theatre before the film started ,i wondered if i would be able to lose myself in Middle
Earth 9 years after the last journey there written by the imaginitive J. R. R. Tolkien and brilliantly
directed by Peter Jackson and shaped by an extremely talented staff.
Aside from some off putting distractions my question was answered.

The Hobbit takes its time to get going,as i was introduced to a host dwarves and reintroduced to
the clever and brave hobbit Bilbo Baggins briefly portrayed by Ian Holm and gamely portraying a younger
Bilbo Martin Freeman, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and an extremely brief cameo by Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins
The only other fully fleshed out character is Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and they set out on a quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the dragon Smaug

I suspect the trend of a more drawn out story to continue in the next 2 hour plus films,as characters and sequences not found in the book are created to expand
the film.Which have been said to be created for the audiences who love the films so much why not give them 3 films,but others may view this as a way
to line the pockets of the 3 studios backing the film series.If these created sequences include slapstick like moments that are in the Hobbit it may
even turn the biggest fans of the series off .The Hobbit is not as epic as the previous films but it is involving at times and quite thrilling as we are introduced
to trolls,goblins,and a slighlty seen Smaug the dragon.Also an unrelenting villain Azog the Defiler" or "The Pale Orc portrayed by Manu Bennett.
Last but not least Andy Serkis returns as Gollum his scenes with Freeman truly took me back to the time my mother read these stories to me.Can someone
give Serkis an Oscar already?!?


Now on to the controversial 48 frames per second visual method.
The Good: Some scenes turn out stunningly vivid and Jacksons dream of immersing the viewer in the film really works .Some sequences
feel realistic and incredibly exciting .Kind of like watching a live ,elaborate stage production.
The Bad:Some sequences look like a prologue to a medieval video game.Some as if i pushed the fast forward button on my remote,or
one of those History channel re-enactments.
So it was really a mixed bag for me .I would like to see the film in regular 3D or 2D to compare the differences.

In the end Sci -Fi and Fantasy done on such a meticulous and high quality level as this always appeals to me and its hard to resist a trip to
the theatre to see such work on the big screen.So of course i will be there to continue the journey in
The Desolation of Smaug (2013), and There and Back Again (2014)

Scale of 1-10 a 7˝
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-17-2012, 12:27 PM
box office wise, where do you think it will place with the rest of 2012 releases? i think it was the 5th largest opening of the year (behind Avengers, Dark Knight, Hunger games and Skyfall) which has gotta be a bit of a disappointment. i figure it will be 2nd or 3rd behind the Avengers, still good but probably not nearly what they were expecting from this franchise.

Last edited by castlesave; 12-17-2012 at 12:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-17-2012, 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by castlesave View Post
box office wise, where do you think it will place with the rest of 2012 releases? i think it was the 5th largest opening of the year (behind Avengers, Dark Knight, Hunger games and Skyfall) which has gotta be a bit of a disappointment. i figure it will be 2nd or 3rd behind the Avengers, still good but probably not nearly what they were expecting from this franchise.
November/December openings are never nearly as big as Spring/Summer openings, but they also tend to have much longer legs. I think the opening was directly in line with expectations and that it will continue to make lots of money over the coming weeks. I also expect it to cross 1 billion worldwide, which is all that really matters these days anyways.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-17-2012, 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
November/December openings are never nearly as big as Spring/Summer openings, but they also tend to have much longer legs. I think the opening was directly in line with expectations and that it will continue to make lots of money over the coming weeks. I also expect it to cross 1 billion worldwide, which is all that really matters these days anyways.
Yep. The Hobbit has the highest December opening ever. The time of the year just doesn't allow for one huge weekend. If The Avengers had opened in December it would have opened to half the amount that it did in the summer, but it would make up for it by having minimal drops through the holidays.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-17-2012, 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
Aw, I loved the singing by the Dwarfs. I loved every single scene in the shire. In fact, the only scenes I wasn't too overly fond of were the scenes with the goblins inside the mountain. I felt those scenes went on too long. But I adore the rest of the movie. Every single minute.
the first song was ok but the haunting one later was great. btw the best score this year. especially the final showdown
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump