The Hobbit

The LOTR trilogy is very good, I'm going to watch the 'The Hobbit' tomorrow, hope it's as good as the LOTR.

Can't believe it's getting such a lousy critical reaction. Still really excited to see it tomorrow.

__________________

What I don't understand is why The Hobbit prequel is broke into three separate films, outside the obvious reason $$$. Nonetheless, I'm excited about it, curious as to how he managed that?

Sounds like it's mostly with material from The Silmarillion. Some of it sounds pretty reasonable, actually...

My Review SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!





First, the 48fps. Everything you have heard about it is true. It really cheapens the look of the film. I felt like I was watching a middle earth history re-enactment. I'm glad I gave it a shot, and some people might like it. It's not for me though, and I don't really think it's the future of cinema. At least, not yet. CGI has a lot of catching up to do before being able to stand up to 48fps. There is a particular warg/bunny sled chase scene that is hilarious because of how fake it looked. And with the amount of CGI already in this movie, it really doesn't help at all.

As far as the actual film goes, it was really great. Not as good as Lord of the Rings, but it felt like being back in middle earth. It's important to know beforehand that this story is not as important as Lord of the Rings. The fate of the world isn't at stake, and therefor, this movie comes off more as a "mis-adventures" type of tale. I can see why critics are not impressed. However, they are missing the whole point.

If you've read the book, you will know that this whole adventure happens very suddenly. This is the same in the film. Not much reason is given for Gandalf choosing Bilbo to go on this quest. They all just show up out of nowhere, and trash Bag End. Bilbo isn't sure why he is even there for most of the movie, and it feels that way for the audience as well. I can see how this works for and against the film at the same time. Being a huge fan I was honestly thinking "ok, this makes Bilbo seem worthless and totally out of place with all these dwarves". I realized by the end that this is the whole point. When he does end up showing some worth at the end of the film, the pay off is better because he seems so out of place the rest of the time. This movie's story is what's giving it mixed reviews, and I get it. It was a lose/lose situation from the beginning for PJ. Trying to make The Hobbit too much like Lord of the Rings would have upset people. On the other hand, NOT trying to make it like Lord of the Rings would have done the same thing. So what we get is a good middle ground between the two.

There are some bad things though. CGI kind of took over a lot of this movie. There was even a CGI beard on a dwarf king for no reason whatsoever. The main villain, Azog, is a totally CGI Orc who looks like a cross between the N'avi from Avatar and Leatherface. Azog is also tracking the company on their quest in order to get revenge on Thorin Oakenshield, who cut his hand off in a battle years earlier. This was added to give the film more urgency, and was not in the book. Therefor, it felt a little out of place and didn't make a whole lot of sense. Why did he wait years before seeking revenge? Surely it would have been easier to just kill Thorin when he wasn't doing anything as important.

Anyone who has worries about Radagast the Brown ( a loony, mushroom eating wizard) being comparable to Jar Jar Binks can rest easy. He's not anything like that, and he's not even in the film for very long. He's actually pretty enjoyable. Riddles in the Dark is by far the best part of the film (as many before me have said). Freeman and Serkis are amazing together in that scene. Even though we all know Gollum, he is still able to frighten us, and make the audience genuinely fear for Bilbo's life.

Sorry if i'm rambling and jumping from point to point, I'm still kind of coming down from the whole expirience. But i highly recomend this movie to fans of the book, and fans of the Lord of the Rings films. It's very faithfull and almost feels like reading the book. Great film, but no masterpiece of Lord of the Rings standards. I feel it will be better once the trilogy is complete and everything ties together.

Final Grade: (7.5/10) or a B+

__________________
" I see in your eyes, the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, whe we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. May and hour of wolves and shattered shields before the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we Fight! For all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand men of the west!!"
-Aragorn: The Lord of the Rings the Return of the King

Well that really flopped with the critics. It should do alright box office wise, but I didn't think it was promoted well at all

__________________

Personally, I liked it. There was an over abundance of CG (something I'm not a fan of) but I liked it overall.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I felt Radagast interrupted a lot of the flow of the movie there was weird pacing between the time they met him to Rivendell.

The Riddle in the Dark Sequence was pretty amazing. Serkis really took it home. Definitely one of the best scenes of The Hobbit and the LOTR series.

I think, like you said, once it's fleshed out it'll feel better. I think Unexpected Journey will be the weakest of the trilogy

__________________
Let's talk some jive.

Excellent I just bought that book this summer!

I saw this Saturday. The 48 FPS made it look a bit too video-gamey; I like video games, but not in my movies. I am glad I gave the format a shot to see what all the fuss was about, and i feel like this format makes the 3d look a lot better, and that maybe these two technologies are sort of made for each other, but it's a different sort of experience than watching a film, for me anyway. It was more like a ride, I guess.

The film itself was good fun - well played, with only a couple of missteps here and there. Some excellent scenes, and again, the characters were great.

It was fun to be back in Middle Earth again, even if it looked a bit twee this time around.

__________________

I saw it again in 24fps the other day. It was soooooo much better. Almost like watching a different film all together.

I'm finding myself enjoying it more than The Two Towers (which I feel is the weakest in the LOTR trilogy). If you have a chance, see it again in 24fps.

It's really starting to feel on par with Lord of the Rings, which is this films only problem. NOT being Lord of the Rings. Everyone has also had 10 years to get to know the characters from the original trilogy. The more I see Balin,Thorin, and Bilbo especially, the more I like them.

Thorin was fantastic. They all were, really.

Except for Ori. I wanted to punch him when he asked, in the most over-acted prissy voice ever "do they have any chips?". Such a horrible line with horibble delivery.

(Sorry if you enjoyed him)

Radagast is also awesome. I'm down for Stoner wizards in middle earth any time.

I liked the 48fps a lot, however I feel it only works in 3D, so at least 3D has been granted purpose.

Huh...

Just got back from finally seeing The Hobbit. I assume I saw it in the 24fps version -- 2D, etc. Yes? It seemed perfectly fine and normal to me (although the CGI stuff looked a tad too CGI-ish, if that makes sense -- almost more than the previous three films).

I definitely felt it fits right in smoothly with the trilogy, and I kept thinking, "I can't wait to own ALL SIX of these movies and not just the three I have now." Let me add that I've never really felt like that about the six Star Wars movies. LOL

Was great to see everyone in recurring roles playing the same parts, too. Good job not letting some of them look, well, ten years older, even though they all are.

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

I'm sure most of you have seen these, but just in case; Pictures from Desolation of Smaug.






Luke Evans as Bard on the left.

I thought it was a pretty solid movie, the visuals were fantastic. 7/10 from me for the 1st watch.

So I've seen this movie twice now.

The first time in regular 2D, and the second time in 3D HFR.

First the technology:

My plan was to only see this movie in 2D because of the vast amount of negative remarks on the HFR. I didn't want this movie to become cheapened by this "soap opera" effect everyone kept talking about. However, after all of the debates I read online i decided to see HFR for myself and make my own opinion. and here it is. I personally LOVED the HFR. I thought the footage brought extreme clarity and made the movie hyper-real-that was the point. A lot of people are commenting on how they could tell they were at a set, and I agree that at times the weight of the object around you was not as great. This was most apparent at the beginning of the film when the takeover of Erebor at the wrath of smaug was shown. But I think was mostly because my eyes were still adjusting.

In fact the entire first 5 minutes seemed like someone had them in fastforward until my brain caught onto the fact that this is not "high speed" but actually the speed at which normal humans move. From my perspective this was entirely irrelevant 45 minutes into the movie when my brain was fully adjusted.

The detail on screen with HFR is astounding, I was seeing textures, buttons, small tiny details I would have never seen before. This was partly distracting actually. There is so much visual stimulation that it was hard to focus on story sometimes. It was only until halfway through the movie that I was able to cope with all of the visual stimulation plus accept sound and dialogue with it. There are times when what is happening on screen is so beautiful (like the dwarfs walking across mountain tops or the camera following birds) that I just wanted to hit pause and stare at it for a second (which would defeat the purpose because the magic is in the motion).

I was truly confused by all of the negative reviews. The technology is not perfect, and there are parts where it looked like this movie was made in 2001. But honestly, some of the critics are simply out of their mind to call it "plastic" "cheesy" and someone compared it to a "70's version of Dr Who" what the hell are you smoking dude? It looks to me like blu ray on steroids.

I personally think this IS the future of movies, I think most people are not used to it yet and they are rejecting this technology way too prematurely. I remember I had a similar reaction when I got my HD tv and the pictures seemed to be moving too quickly...now I don't even see that aspect of it but I do notice the crystal clear image quality I have. I'm so glad I saw this in HFR, I almost missed out on a great experience.


phew i think I've worn myself out on the tech part of my thoughts..but that's ok because theres not much to say about the actual movie: its not LOTR, but it is definitely middle earth, it is beautiful, the pacing is slightly awkward, but i think peter might have just been setting up the 2nd two movies really well. Excited for part 2 and 3.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

The Hobbit was the wrong movie to do 48HFR in, it should have been a nature documentary, something like Planet Earth. The amount of detail is beautiful, but distracting to the story. The "magic" of movies is gone. IF this is the future of movies, then the production quality of making movies needs to catch up. Several things that went through my head while watching the film.

Those rocks are too plastic looking.
I can see the stitching in Gandalf's hat.
People moving in fast-forward? That's distracting.
Images from afar look beautiful, but up close, too digital.


Thus taking me OUT of the story and noticing HOW they make movies. I don't want to watch a film and see the "Behind the Scenes" right then and there. But that's just me.

My overall thoughts on the film are here.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews