The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[TheUsualSuspect]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson)

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-dwarves.jpg


48 Frames: An Unexpected Journey.

A mild-mannered Hobbit by the name of Bilbo Baggins is tasked with joining a group of Dwarfs, lead by Gandalf, to the Lonely Mountain in the hopes of claiming their home and gold back from the dragon Smaug.

When word first broke out that Jackson would be splitting the 300 some odd pages of the children aimed book The Hobbit, into another epic trilogy, a lot of people groaned at how thin he would be able to stretch the material. In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, everything and anything that would have ended up on the cutting room floor is thrown in here, such as the Rock Giants. Why? Is it because The Hobbit lacks the thrills and spectacle that is the Lord of the Rings. I'm going to put my bottom dollar on yes. Jackson needed something to fill his films with in order to excite the audience, thrill them and make them have the same awe they did more than a decade ago.

I want to say that The Hobbit works wonderfully, and it does for the most part. There are obvious flaws throughout, but my question is this. How do you rate a film, when it is presented in a format so distracting that it hurts you're overall enjoyment of it? Not only am I talking about the use of 3D, but the infamous 48 HFR which it is presented. Let me get these two issues out of the way first.

The 3D here is utterly useless. There are basically two kinds of 3D being presented to an audience right now. The Gimmick and the Immersive. The gimmick is what one would see in the Saw 3D, Final Destination 3D....any horror film really. Gags that poke out at the screen with gotcha moments. The second, the kind that James Cameron is trying to champion is the immersive one, in which the 3D makes you feel like you are in this world. Objects aren't really shooting out at you, but float around you. The most horrid use of 3D, many would have to agree is Clash of the Titans, but I must say, The Hobbit might give it a run for its money. Not once did I ever feel immersed in Middle Earth. It was not used to the scope and scale it should have been. There was depth, sure, but who wants to see depth with two people talking? It is distracting and overworks the brain to compensate for the film trickery.

Second, the 48 HFR. I would suggest that the average movie goer seek out 24. I know Jackson wants to present the film in 48, but it is simply the wrong movie for this format. First and most noticeable. People move quicker, like they are on fast-forward of your DVD remote. Simple task like picking up a cup, are too quick and make for an awkward and unpleasant viewing experience. Later on this is not as intrusive, but most of the damage will already be done. Second, the clear, crispness of the picture. I am one for HD presentation on my television, but here it seems odd and out of place. Many people have compared the look and feel of the film to daytime Soap Operas. I would tend to agree. It feels like something on TV. The digital presentation makes close up scenes seem really out of place when cutting in from afar. Those far away shots and sequences looks spectacular, most of the CGI is wonderfully realized in this frame rate, but everything sticks out like a sore thumb. The first thing I noticed was the fabric and lines on Gandalfs hat. Feels like it was something out of The Wizard of Oz, or a stage play. The realism of the smoothed over 24 is gone, the digital crisp of 48 is a win/lose situation. I had more problems with it than enjoyment.

With those problems constantly battling my enjoyment back to Middle Earth, I did walk away pleasantly surprised with the film. Everyone is on their A-game, which is of no surprise as Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman are always spectacular. Freeman manages to make a character I didn't care for in the original films, likable. Peter Jackson loves this world and his passion shows. One of the drawbacks would be that the film comes off as too cartoonish. This might be because the book was aimed to a younger crowd, but the Dwarfs and their antics are something out of a Star Wars prequel. Sure, they are meant to be comedic relief, but when dangerous and life threatening situations are happening, you don't want to be seeing them jump from tree to tree like some Warner Brothers cartoon.

Of course, being a prequel, it's fun to see things being set-up for the Lord of the Rings. The best sequences is of course the Riddles in the Dark with Gollum, who looks better than ever. The Hobbit is a wonderful film, that doesn't match the scope, energy or emotion of the Lord of the Rings. Go in expecting a good fantasy, nothing more and you'll walk away satisfied....that's if you walk away from a screening in 24 fps.

3.5

[Pyro Tramp]

I may elaborate on this but I loved it, despite having low expectations.

I saw it in 3D and HFR 3D. I wouldn't discredit the 3D to that extent, it's like most 3D that isn't Avatar, surplus to requirement. However, seeing it again in HFR, the difference is noticeable and for the better. I wouldn't hesitate recommending HFR; where the motions on 3D blur and make it hard to focus, HFR reduces all those niggles and makes 3D a lot more tolerable. My old man didn't even notice the fast moving people in HFR but the missus did notice the blurred movement in 3D.

My stance on the two comes down to this- 3D films needs HFR but films don't need 3D.

[wintertriangles]

My stance on the two comes down to this- 3D films needs HFR but films don't need 3D.Tis what I said as well

[Mysticalunicornfart]

Rock Giants were actually in the book, they just weren't interacting quite as directly with the group like in the movie.

[Guaporense]

I though it was decent but it relied too much on tropes/cliches and so became rather silly. 6/10

[TheUsualSuspect]

I know they were in the book, but that did nothing for the story. Like I said, he threw everything and the kitchen sink into these films to be able to stretch it to 3, even stuff in the book that doesn't need to be translated to film.

IE-Rock-Em Sock-em Giants.

[wintertriangles]

I know they were in the book, but that did nothing for the story. Like I said, he threw everything and the kitchen sink into these films to be able to stretch it to 3, even stuff in the book that doesn't need to be translated to film.Except that he's taking stuff from two other books. Derp

[meatwadsprite]

I was very let down, it's a stretch even to call it a "good" movie. The LOTR characters have no place in this movie, the momentum conjured up in the opening scene is completely thrown away by the middle of the film. Instead of getting to know the dwarves, it tries to develop some stupid subplots that lead nowhere.

[urkillinmesmalls]

i wanna see this sooooooo bad!

[TheUsualSuspect]

Except that he's taking stuff from two other books. Derp

Except you keep ignoring what I'm saying.....DERP.:rolleyes:

[gandalf26]

After reading all the "meh" reviews (RT now has it at 65%) I think I will wait for the dvd to come out.

Is Peter Jackson the new George Lucas?

[Pyro Tramp]

I was very let down, it's a stretch even to call it a "good" movie. The LOTR characters have no place in this movie, the momentum conjured up in the opening scene is completely thrown away by the middle of the film. Instead of getting to know the dwarves, it tries to develop some stupid subplots that lead nowhere.

I felt similarly to the inclusion of certain LoTR characters but I got the impression Jackson was making this trilogy to be incorporated into LoTR as a continuous epic. Introducing Saruman here makes his role in LoTR a lot more shocking and the little hints towards Sauron are all build up. I think once the trilogy is complete, it will stand up a lot better as part of a Tolkien epic, opposed to individual endeavour.

Agree that the dwarves aren't handled as well as they should be, considering the running time, that only a handful stand out as individuals and the rest are woefully peripheral characters.

I'm not sure what subplots you refer to- the Necromancer?

[TheUsualSuspect]

I don't think Bilbo taking the ring will lead to anything significant....ever. :p

[Daniel M]

I watched it yesterday in standard 2D 24HFR so I can't really criticise the film where you have, all I can say is that I loved the film and I really do think the criticism of it are a bit harsh, what more did you expect from such a film? Whilst it starts off a bit slow and the dwarfs having supper with Bilbo takes a while, once they get going I was really in to it and you can see Jackson really does love this world he has created, I thought the visuals and special effects on the version I watched were great with some great battle scenes that you would expect, Freeman as Bilbo is an inspired casting choice as well, he was great and I thought some of the dwarves were developed quite well, Thorin obviously but we have 2 more films to share with them as well.

But it's not until Gollum appears that the film really hits top form, Serkis does it again in by far the film's greatest scene that was really something special and fearful that brought back memories from when I originally read the book as a child.

For me, at least a 4

[meatwadsprite]

I'm not sure what subplots you refer to- the Necromancer?

That and the white orc guy. Which is at least half the movie.

[Daniel M]

That and the white orc guy. Which is at least half the movie.

The Necromancer is Sauron isn't it? And then you had when Gandalf was talking to the Elves about a darkness approaching middle earth, all of these might seem pointless but I guess they build up over the three films to give hints of Sauron which would naturally lead to LOTR nicely when they are completed.

And the white orc guy was hardly a sub plot, it was one of the main plot lines of the whole film and him chasing down the dwarves was pretty much constant from the moment we were introduced to his character to the end, it also meant that Thorin got developed pretty well as well, can't really remember what happens with the white orc for the rest of The Hobbit though.

[gandalf26]

The Necromancer is Sauron yes. I havent seen the movie yet but as far as I remember this white Orc is probably an invention of Jacksons to give the Orcs/Goblins a face/leader rather than a mindless swarm of enemies .

[Pyro Tramp]

Yeah Azog or whatever seems pretty much fundamental to Thorin's development, hardly a subplot. The Necromancer links in with what I was saying as being part of a whole so I can take it as a criticism, especially if they don't do more with it over the next two but it's a nice lead in.

[Daniel M]

Yeah Azog or whatever seems pretty much fundamental to Thorin's development, hardly a subplot. The Necromancer links in with what I was saying as being part of a whole so I can take it as a criticism, especially if they don't do more with it over the next two but it's a nice lead in.

I read that in the original Hobbit, prior to the creation of LOTR, the necromancer was a plot device also introduced seemingly pointlessly (a MacGuffin) as a reason for Gandalf to travel south and leave the pack to travel alone, it was only after the idea of Sauron as the big bad in LOTR was created that the idea of the necromancer being part of something bigger in the grand scheme of things occured. So I think it may kind of just act as a series of other small plot elements (like the discussion with the elves over the sword Gandalf is given) that are there to make the trilogy a more natural prequel to the LOTR.

[Guaporense]

I watched it yesterday in standard 2D 24HFR so I can't really criticise the film where you have, all I can say is that I loved the film and I really do think the criticism of it are a bit harsh, what more did you expect from such a film? Whilst it starts off a bit slow and the dwarfs having supper with Bilbo takes a while, once they get going I was really in to it and you can see Jackson really does love this world he has created, I thought the visuals and special effects on the version I watched were great with some great battle scenes that you would expect, Freeman as Bilbo is an inspired casting choice as well, he was great and I thought some of the dwarves were developed quite well, Thorin obviously but we have 2 more films to share with them as well.

But it's not until Gollum appears that the film really hits top form, Serkis does it again in by far the film's greatest scene that was really something special and fearful that brought back memories from when I originally read the book as a child.

For me, at least a 4

I agree that the Gollum scenes were the best ones. Too bad the film failed to hit the same high notes again.

[yellowjacket1]

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.

[Mysticalunicornfart]

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

[movie-chic]

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!

[Uncle Rico]

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.

[TheUsualSuspect]

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)

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

[Uncle Rico]

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.

[TheUsualSuspect]

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.

[Uncle Rico]

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.

[Deep Space]

Books rarely translate well to movies.

[MyLittleRancor]

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

[Equilibrium]

Books rarely translate well to movies.

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.

[Schimo]

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

[FrodoBagginsDazzlesMe]

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. :)

[apnavarun1]

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.

[gandalf26]

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

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

[ivo kam]

It was EPIC!Nough said!

[Mysticalunicornfart]

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

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.

[JayDee]

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 -

JayDee's Hobbit review (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=871774)

[dadgumblah]

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.

[Frightened Inmate No. 2]

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

[RabiaRR]

"almost" as well as the other LoR movies. i never thought the book could be made into something like this so kudos to peter jackson's imagination

[ShannonV]

I loved this movie so much! :D

[UncriticallyAcclaimed]

I was not a fan. I felt it was aimed at a much younger audience. Very poor CG, and overused. Felt like a video game at times, not a big budget feature film. Really nothing unique, new, or original to take with you from this 3 hour epitome of cliche; everything from the directing and characters down to the slow motion, "NOOOOOOOO'S". This might be a hit with every 6th grader... But some will have better taste than this.

4/10

[Voigan]

I thought it was decent enough but rather forgettable. Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo and Andy Serkis was better than ever as Gollum IMO. My main gripe is how much filler there is. Between the forty minute dinner party, the White Council scene that does nothing but remind the audience of how Fellowship is a much better movie, and the innumerable goblin chases the movie really dragged in parts. It's still above average for a fantasy movie but it definitely falls short of the original trilogy. Also, what was the point of Radagast's super bunnies? :confused: Is it just me or were they trying to make a Middle Earth version of Jar Jar Binks?

I'd give it 6.5/10.