The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

6/10

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.

Do people even read the book before bitching about the actual plot or have any sense of Tolkien's world?

__________________
Let's talk some jive.

I will say I was very hesitant about seeing this movie as all I heard was negatives about it, I took the chance and went to see it and think it was amazing! I love how there was some 'comical' parts (The bunnies totally rocked) and it was not all serious, The locations were beautiful, Some parts had me on the edge of my seat, and the ending just made you want more!! I think the only thing negative I have to say in this post is that I should have seen it in 3d.

I have to say I can not wait until the next one! This is a MUST see in my books

Peter Jackson you never fail to amaze me!

It's so crazy how mixed the reactions to this film are. Cleveland's (my city) paper gave it a B+.

I think, being fair, any where in the B range is most reflective of the quality of the film. People who say it's a masterpiece are over-exaggerating, as are people who said it was a disaster.

This film alone was better than all 3 Star Wars prequels, and the dreadful Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It's sad to see it has a lower Rotten Tomatoes rating than Revenge of the Sith.

There aren't multiple versions of this film are there? Because I want to see how bad the version of The Hobbit is that is supposedly worse than Phantom Menace (according to comingsoon.net)

Hell, The Hobbit was even better than The Avengers, which was a ridiculously over rated popcorn flick.

__________________
" 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

There are multiple ways of viewing it, which is what makes some of those reviews more harsh.

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

Suspect's Reviews

I understand people hating 48fps. I hate it myself, and I can't for the life of me figure out why making a film look like a cheap soap opera is supposed to be more immersive.

However, you would think that once critics decided they didn't like 48fps, they would have just disregarded it, and reviewed the film as a film for it's content.

And seeing this in 24fps makes the experience worlds better. I can't really figure out why they screened it to critics in 48fps. They surely knew they were asking for negative reviews that way.

That's the way Jackson, the director intended it to be viewed. Why wouldn't someone want to see the film the way the director envisioned it?

Regardless if it was a mistake or not.

Which is why I saw the film in 3D 48fps first. However, PJ had to know that it wasn't a safe choice to make.

He's watched hours upon hours of footage at 48fps, so that might be the reason he thought others would enjoy it.

The truth of the matter is, 48fps is not entirely new. We've all seen it in soap operas and cheap history re-enactments.
.
I also understand that, if 48fps was the standard, we would certainly reject a 24fps film. At the same time, 24fps makes more sense...for now. Sets, makeup, and CGI need to advance significantly before being able to stand up to 48fps.

There were scenes in The Hobbit at 48fps that I was honestly embarrassed of watching, simply because they looked ridiculously fake.

I would love to see something like Planet Earth in 3D 48fps. THAT would be amazing. But a narrative, with sets and special effects, is not the place for it yet.

Just my opinion.

Books rarely translate well to movies.

I enjoyed it. While it wasn't perfect it was still better than the Star Wars prequels.

You sir, are most definitely checked out in the mental department as that statement has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

The perfect visual impression, excellent music and great scenery are fully anticipated positives of the last Jackson's movie adaptation of Tolkien's works, but that is, more or less, where the positives stop.
After a slow and uninteresting, but visually and emotionally nice beginning, in which we see how and why did dwarfs went on their journey and how Bilbo ends up with them, story evolves in even more slower and not too interesting bunch of relatively unconnected adventures. Book intended to be children story and this movie as children movie would be great, but Jackosn's too serious and too dark approach, like one in Lord of the Rings which are more darker stories, made most of the movie torn between something like half comedy children story and dark and strong wannabe Lord of the Rings story.
Indestructibility of group of dwarfs is also terribly unserious even despite it is a fantasy film. Forest wizard with sleighs which are driven by big rabbits and big thick goblins who perform strongly and fall from one touch while telling a joke, just aren't characters for the movie Jackson wanted to made. There is also too often use of deus ex machina which is making the movie even less serious. Comedy sequences are great and very funny and they even fit in dark atmosphere, but basically they are just one more element which is making this story childish.
A lot of attention was given to unimportant dialogues and scenes while many details are left vaguely, as eagles that help only partially, Saruman and Elvish opposition to return of dwarves, Gandalf power in a one and weakness in other situations, and even the choice of Bilbo.
While the CGI scenes were done almost perfectly, the one without it look amateurish. Camera often hides more than shows, and type of filming dialogues is like one in the soap operas. These were a huge disappointments. On the other hand, acting deserves applause, although not too big.
Too serious and dark approached in screening of novel which just isn't nor serious nor dark is a fundamental mistake. Despite big backlog when compered with first trilogy, The Hobbit, if anything else, brings beautiful visualization and solid entertainment.

7/10

10/10

I loved The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. ^^ I don't know why people expect movies to be exactly like the books because they never are. Of course there are going to be some differences and I'm okay with that. Anyway, like I said, I loved An Unexpected Journey and I can't wait to see The Desolation of Smaug.

__________________
"One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them..."

The Lord of the Rings

The main fault with this film is, even by Lord of the Rings standards, it is too long. It is not that the film length from this perspective is unjustified; Jackson always tries to put the most he can into these films and An Unexpected Journey does cover an awful lot of substance despite not actually getting that far into the original book.

Just watched it and that about sums up my feelings. Good but not great. Bit too much CGI.

The Stone Giants scene was a bit wtf, the escape from the Goblin mine was terrible, a bit reminiscent of scenes from Indiana Jones 4 or Star Wars prequels. Silly wooden bridges and everyone falling down perfectly into place without harm just felt like a silly scene from a Carry On movie, slapstick nonsense, not to mention Gandalf just showing up out of nowhere bowling all the Goblins over with his power then he just runs away.

I haven't read the book in years and only once so I'm not up to snuff on exactly what the differences are from book>film, but I really liked the prologue that shows us what happened to Erebor, I liked the inclusion of Azog the Defiler because I think it's always good to have recognizable antagonists rather than mindless packs of Orcs/Goblins. I had no problem with the long start in the Shire, in fact I wouldn't say it dragged at all. The highlight was Gollum and Bilbo's scene/riddle duel. Really felt like it was part of the LOTR story and from what I remember they stayed very close to the book on that one. I also liked the inclusion of the Necromancer (Sauron) plotline which I'm sure will include important scene's in the next movie for the whole story.

TLDR;

Really good but nowhere near LOTR standard. Hopefully the second 2 installments will be an improvement.

7.5/10

It was EPIC!Nough said!

This was actually in the book. It wasn't as dramatic as in the movie, but there were stone giants present, and even fighting on the mountain side.

Well I've got to say I enjoyed it. It's a unique film in that it both fell short of, and surpassed the expectations I had for it. It fell short of what I had been dreaming of for nearly 10 years now, but at the same it was better than I was beginning to fear I'd find it after some of the negative reviews that came its way.

It's certainly not close to the original Rings trilogy, and it has its share of flaws (pacing, fleshing out of characters etc) but at the same time it also has a lot of strengths in my eyes - the visuals, the CGI, art design, score and perhaps most of all the performances from McKellen, Freeman, Serkis and Armitage. The Riddles in the Dark sequence is terrific and my undoubted highlight of the film.

Was going to post my whole review but don't want to completely hijack the thread so if you want to read it here it is -

__________________

I saw it last week and have just gotten around to posting about it. I saw it in 3-D, but I have a question? Is every 3-D showing supposed to be in the 48fps mode? If what I saw in 3-D was 48fps, I thought it looked pretty darned great. The only problem for me was watching a 3-hour 3-D film. I was fine until about the last 15 minutes or so, when my left eye started throbbing and I began to get a headache. First time that's ever happened with me and 3-D, so I blame the length.

That said, I loved it. Lots of fun. There are many things included that, if they weren't in "The Hobbit" book proper, they were in "The Lord of the Rings" appendices or in "The Book of Unfinished Tales" by Tolkien. Jackson and crew are pretty well-read on Middle-Earth and Tolkien. What they chose to do was expand upon some things that Tolkien only wrote about as historical background, but which they felt was important and included in this movie.

Take for instance, The Necromancer and Dol Guldor, where is he found to be. It is written in Tolkien's notes and in "The Hobbit" that Sauron is indeed residing there, and they (the wizards, Galadriel and the Elves) form a "White Council" to decide what to do. I guess we saw a mini-version of it in the movie, where they're at Rivendell and are discussing the Necromancer (where Saruman tries to put the quash on the idea of The Necromancer being Sauron, which is also in Tolkien's writings). I'm hoping we'll get a bigger version in the next film where they make up their mind. This does indeed fall into line with what Gandalf is doing when he leaves the Dwarves and Bilbo for a while.

I thought most of everything in from "The Hobbit" book was included (so far) in the movie...except the expansion of the role of Azog, the albino goblin/orc. He did indeed do battle with Thorin, but they've greatly expanded his part. I will agree that this time it was for padding out the running time...but I didn't mind it.

I agree that the Gollum sequence was gangbusters and Andy Serkis can seemingly do no wrong. In fact, there were moments when I thought I could actually see Serkis' features in Gollum's face. I loved how the sword Sting's blue glow faded as Gollum was whacking the orc with a rock. Nice touch.

Loved the sequence in the trees with the wargs, the orcs, and the eagles, which is indeed in the book...again with some extra stuff, but extra stuff that doesn't change the outcome of the sequence at all. What is supposed to happen, happens, and I'm happy with that. This sequence also had probably my favorite 3-D moment in the film: When the eagle swoops in to pick up Thorin, the screen was almost entirely filled with eagle talons, giving you a very good sense of the creature's size compared to the dwarf. Then, when then are carrying the dwarves, one of the eagles entered the screen from the bottom and flew on past some of the others, which worked smashingly in 3-D.

I'm still not a huge proponent of 3-D, because I feel the story comes first but I enjoyed this film in that format (except for the physical effects I mentioned). With the next film, I'll probably go with 2-D.

All-in-all, I thought it was pretty terrific. I won't wait for an extended edition on DVD, because I think they're extending the films as much as possible. I'll buy the Blu-Ray theatrical versions as they come out on DVD, that is if they release them that way. Warner/MGM will probably do that, then release extended versions just to get people to double-dip.

I give it 8/10.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

I loved this movie. The LOTR movies are my favorite ever, and this was almost as good.

There was a lot of filler material, but it didn't really feel like filler, imo. My biggest complaint would be Radagast, but even that was pretty interesting if you're a big Tolkien fan. When I first saw it I was a little annoyed that the dwarves were used too much for comic relief, but when I rewatched it I came to appreciate it. Same with Bilbo. I thought Martin Freeman was trying to do a little to much humor, but when I saw it again I realized that it really did add to my enjoyment. The beginning was a little slow, but not nearly as slow as everyone said, and it was still interesting to me. Really good.

9/10 or A