Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread

[sshuttari]

lol do whatever you want.

I dont care if you believe me or not.

[SnoBorderZero]

Saw this at midnight 3D IMAX with the 48 fps running, so I'll start by saying yes at times it was hard to follow and the frame rate doesn't always work smoothly when the action is whipping around, but that it didn't hinder the viewing like a lot of people (around the internet) have been complaining about. I have always been a big fan of Peter Jackson's work, I've seen all of his films because of how much I loved "The Lord of the Rings" when it came out. This one is not his best, but I can't say I agree with the backlash it's receiving. There is a lot being made of the decision to make this into three films and not two, and while the film's running time is excessive I never was bored by what was going on. Yes there isn't much that occurs early on, but that's the book isn't it? I can certainly understand where the flack for the film is coming from, "The Hobbit" can never compete with the grandiose scale of "The Lord of the Rings" and shouldn't try to, there isn't nearly the level of plot or thematic elements going on to work with. Maybe it was just seeing some familiar faces and getting waves of memories that made me dismiss the film's faults. There are certainly some good scenes here, most notably the one with Gollum which I actually wish they had spent more time with. There are some great set pieces as one would expect from Jackson's production, and once the film gets moving it really starts utilizing its environment for some great battles. It is certainly true that a lot of the film seems a little bit unfocused and for a period the company seems to be thrown from one battle to another, but I liked how Jackson kept the material he had to work with moving. For people to say nothing happened is certainly false, but to say it's a bit disjointed, yeah you have a point there.

Freeman does a great job as Bilbo, I thought he gave the character good life amongst all the dwarves and working off of McKellen. Towards the second half of the film he doesn't particularly do a whole lot other than his encounter with Gollum and his lines shrunk, but once again that's how the book is to this point. I went into this film knowing it would be the first of three and it would end long before I wanted it to. I know typing this I need to see it again, it was nowhere near the level of "The Lord of the Rings" in any way, but at the same time I thoroughly enjoyed watching it and I'm excited for improvements from the sequels to come and a more focused plotline from Jackson. I'm not sure if by liking this I'm in the majority or the minority, but what the hell. Oh, and I forgot about how bad the other wizard is in the film, please no more of him.

8/10

[MasterChief117]

When you said, "always been a big fan of Peter Jackson's work" the rest of the review and the review score kinda made sense. Haha. I kid. Glad to see someone actually enjoys it.

[SnoBorderZero]

True, I am a big fan so I understand if my score is out there, but I'm not excusing the film either. I really did enjoy it, and my theater experience was also crazy and awesome so that helped. I also would say that other than "The Lovely Bones" which was awful, all of Jackson's films have been solid.

[Deexan]

Originally Posted by Neverending

Shall we get Deexan to investigate again?

I've hung up my deerstalker.

To paraphrase Sherlock:

I'm too old for dis s**t.

[FVD]

I've already seen it 3 times - the first couple times in HFR (the latter at Wellington's Embassy Theatre) and yesterday in IMAX. Gotta say I found it a struggle watching in the traditional format though. As for the 48fps I would say DO go check it out especially just to go and form an opinion and not simply avoiding it. Images look fake be damned!!! I'm glad Sir PJ took a chance at filming in such a revolutionary format and quite frankly it was an incredible experience!!! Makes you wonder what James Cameron's Avatar sequels will look at 60fps when they come out.

As for the film well I have already seen it 3 times and I love it!! The moment at the end when Thorin thanked Bilbo with the ROTK music, man oh man the memories of the tears rolling down. That music is some of the most moving themes ever in the history of cinema imho!! The Riddles in the Dark scene too was very well done. Loved the emotion in Gollum's eyes as Bilbo eventually spared his life.

The performances were solid - now I actually LOVED Radagast the Brown!!! Where are these people out there getting their ideas of comparing him to Jar Jar Binks?!?! What a load of utter codswallop!!! The Rabbit Sleigh too was a nice touch not to mention his Rhosgobel Rabbits outrunning the Gundabad Wargs lol!! Even Saruman mentioning his excessive consumption of mushrooms got big laughs at every screening I've been to so far not to mention Bullroarer Took lobbing off the Great Goblin's head hence the invention of Golf LOL!!! Also thought Thranduil looked marvellous not to mention the Elk/Moose/Deer of which he was riding. Looking forward to seeing more of him.

The locations and the interiors not to mention Erebor was gorgeous!! Was in absolute awe seeing the camera taking us down further below the interiors of the Lonely Mountain. And really lookin' forward to Smaug in it's full glory now. All those teases in the Prologue not to mention the end of the film was cleverly executed.

Will definitely go see it again if I've got nothing left to watch seeing as I was in the US recently. Glad I was to have stayed in NZ for the Hobbit hence not wanting to wait til the 26th of December in Oz lol!! Maybe I'll see it in Oz, that remains to be seen ....

9/10.

[Tolkien]

I have to gather my thoughts and try to get into the right frame of mind, but... something happened to me while watching The Hobbit today. Something that I never thought I'd actually feel, and I'm going crazy trying to put together my thoughts but, I think I ****ing hated this film. I swear as a biased Tolkien fan through and through, I DO NOT SAY THIS LIGHTLY. But I think I hated this movie. There were just too many cons and not enough pros. I'll try to get my head in the game and write something but for now, I'm resting at a very, very generous 6/10.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by FVD

9/10.

Nice to read a different opinion. I might give the film a chance and watch it at a cheap matinee.

[PsYkOoOoO]

Despite my low-ish rating (6/10), I'm still glad that many people here, and around me, seem to like the movie. I think many people are just happy to see Middle-earth once again.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by PsYkOoOoO

I think many people are just happy to see Middle-earth once again.

Or.....

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[PsYkOoOoO]

Originally Posted by Neverending

Or.....

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Ah, well there's that too. I have friends who aren't big fans of LOTR liking The Hobbit though. I was actually quite surprised to hear it. I've heard more positive reviews around me than anything else.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by PsYkOoOoO

I've heard more positive reviews around me than anything else.

Yeah, me too. That's why I'll give it a chance, but I'm not gonna spend much money on it. Just one of those cheap 5-or-6 dollar matinees.

[Dracula]

Alright, so, against my better judgement I went to see this tonight. It will be a while before I get around to writing a full review, but there are a couple of points I want to make upfront:

1. The 48 Frames Per Second thing is absolutely terrible. The movie looked like video, especially during day scenes and action scenes. It also makes the visual effects look really bad. It does make the 3D a bit smoother than usual, but it's absolutely not worth it.

2. Speaking of 3D... it's not that great either. It's good from a technical perspective, but Jackson doesn't compose his shots in a way that takes great advantage of it and more often than not it was just a distraction. In general, it's a needless imposition on the iconic visual aesthetic established by the previous trilogy. So if you're going to see this I'd recommend doing it at a regular old 2D theater.

3. Compared to the LOTR movies this kind of sucks. Like, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull level sucks. I'll elaborate at a later date.

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by Dracula

Like, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Well, at least that's better than Phantom Menace.

[JBond]

Is it?

[Neverending]

Originally Posted by JBond

Is it?

Yeah! It is.

[SnoBorderZero]

After going into discussion with a friend, I stand by that this is a 7/10 film. It nowhere nearly reaches the level of the LOTR nor does it move along nearly as well. I still enjoyed it, but I still certainly understand every aspect of the flack it's receiving.

[DarthVader 2004]

Didn't you first give it an 8/10 but really a 7/10 for you is a 9/10 for other people.

[bbf2]

This movie had one of the most inconsistent tones I've ever seen.

It tried to be an epic prequel to the Lord of the Rings movies, but also found itself forced to reenact childish scenes from a kid's book. One or the other would have been fine, but not both.

You can't have an epic battle and speech about "THE THRONES OF ELLMIR ARE UNDER ATTACK *swelling epic music*" and then suddenly cut to a Three Stooges routine that ends with a character being covered in snot.

[Ewok Droppings]

Can anyone tell us anything about the 9 minutes of Star Trek footage before the movie started?

[Deexan]

"THE THRONES OF ELLMIR!"

[Tolkien]

Originally Posted by Dracula

Alright, so, against my better judgement I went to see this tonight. It will be a while before I get around to writing a full review, but there are a couple of points I want to make upfront:

1. The 48 Frames Per Second thing is absolutely terrible. The movie looked like video, especially during day scenes and action scenes. It also makes the visual effects look really bad. It does make the 3D a bit smoother than usual, but it's absolutely not worth it.

2. Speaking of 3D... it's not that great either. It's good from a technical perspective, but Jackson doesn't compose his shots in a way that takes great advantage of it and more often than not it was just a distraction. In general, it's a needless imposition on the iconic visual aesthetic established by the previous trilogy. So if you're going to see this I'd recommend doing it at a regular old 2D theater.

3. Compared to the LOTR movies this kind of sucks. Like, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull level sucks. I'll elaborate at a later date.

This is exactly how I felt. I had a LOTR marathon the two days before I saw The Hobbit and I was completely shocked at just how terrible the footage in The Hobbit was compared to the footage in the LOTR trilogy. And for crying out loud, the LOTR trilogy came out over a decade ago!!! And yet the tone and visual effects in Fellowship of the Ring compared to The Hobbit isn't even in the same harbor, let alone same boat.

[DarthVader 2004]

Originally Posted by Tolkien

This is exactly how I felt. I had a LOTR marathon the two days before I saw The Hobbit and I was completely shocked at just how terrible the footage in The Hobbit was compared to the footage in the LOTR trilogy. And for crying out loud, the LOTR trilogy came out over a decade ago!!! And yet the tone and visual effects in Fellowship of the Ring compared to The Hobbit isn't even in the same harbor, let alone same boat.

Let me ask a question In Star Wars don't most people think there effects looked better then in the prequels. LOTR is a masterpiece and it may never be out done no matter the age of effects. Yes there are 3 prequel Hobbit films but they may never equal what Rings was. People need to except movies can be less and still good. I think some people just expected LOTR reloaded.

[Justin]

But that still doesn't excuse how bad the 48fps looks. I haven't seen it, yet I already have a feeling I'll hate it. The new aesthetic looks like a home movie even in the footage that Ewok posted in some other (or was it this one?) thread. You can't really defend it; if it looks like ****, it's ****. That's completely independent of the movie itself, however.

[SnoBorderZero]

Originally Posted by RedVader 2004

Didn't you first give it an 8/10 but really a 7/10 for you is a 9/10 for other people.

Yes but after thinking about it more I give it a 7.