The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Jessie]

Gollum will e in the sequels. With the amount of shit PJ has to add to these films, he would be an idiot not to give Gollum more screen time, he's the 'scrat' of the LOTR franchise.

[fishstick]

Gollum will e in the sequels. With the amount of shit PJ has to add to these films, he would be an idiot not to give Gollum more screen time, he's the 'scrat' of the LOTR franchise.

he has nothing to do in history of ME between Riddles and FOTR. There`s this shit called Hunt for Gollum where Aragorn and his boyfreind Legolas hunt for him. Big fuckin deal. Better make 50 Shades of Gay with those two cause that`s something many people want to see.

[Michael Gary Scott]

Gollum and bilbo were my two fav part of the film.

[Gopher]

I think a number of critics simply didnt want to like this movie or had invested so much in it before they had seen it that anything they saw would have disappointed them.

I really don't agree with this. Most critics LIKED the movie overall, and most in particular single out the third act as something that really worked. But I was disappointingly bored for the first two acts of the film. Yes, it's based on a kids book instead of an epic trilogy like LOTR was, and the technical craft is still certainly there. But most of the film struck me as saving the best bits for later, and when the characters aren't terribly interesting this time, it just becomes a less compelling piece of filmmaking.

[Cmasterclay]

Not to parrot what everybody else is saying, but this was like the tale of two movies. Except for Freeman, who was great, and the flashbacks scenes with Thorin, everything through Rivendale was barely redeemable- hammy, boring, and bloated. Hell,my brother straight up left the theater and drove home. Starting with the Stone Giants scene, however, this movie was great. That, the mines, the riddles, and the treetops were all brilliant on a technical and emotional level. It's like Peter Jackson forgot how to direct until halfway through the movie, with the exception of Thorin's battle at Moria. However, the second half got me really excited for DOS. B-/C+

[AniNate]

Well, what can I say... I went into this expecting to be underwhelmed but I got a film that I thoroughly enjoyed for the entire 2 hours and 49 minutes of its running time. Almost everything clicked for me from the opening scenes in the Shire to the end and if it weren't for some structural problems I had with the final half hour I would put it on the same level of the original trilogy. I'm very much looking forward to the next installment again.

A-

[Rovex]

I don't understand the polarisation people feel over this movie. It would seem to be based on whether people care about the Dwarfs or not. Even then, how some one can walk out on it is beyond me.

[cozmeesah]

What I find silly is how some of you completely dismiss the opinions of others on this simply because they don't agree with you, either way.For instance, just because one might have thought the beginning was boring doesn't mean there's something wrong with them or that they just "didn't get" the dwarves. And vice versa. Different people have different opinions, there's nothing "wrong" with them if they felt differently.Personally, I would have thoroughly enjoyed the dwarf beginning if it had been half as long as it was. As a non-reader of the book we aren't really given a huge reason to give a shit about the dwarves right off the bat. But alas, for 10-15 minutes they are entertaining & warm. After a bit though, I found myself wishing they'd get on with it. Didn't care that there wasn't any "action," as I'd have taken the bit with them merely walking in the forest at that point. I just hadn't seen any reason to care *that* much about them by then and I didn't feel we were learning a thing about them except that they were silly & hungry.Alas, it did get much more engaging to me after that. I didn't find there to be too many snot jokes, what were there? Two in the troll scene? And they're trolls, what does one expect? I couldn't stop laughing at 'ole Scrotum-chin though.The action pieces were fun, though I did find it a bit unbelievable that not a single dwarf was even injured (until Thorin at the end of course) but it's a kids' book, this isn't *too* surprising.Loved Freeman, loved McKellan & Serkis as usual, and the scenery as well.Overall I'd give it a B/B+, ~83/100. Entertaining, though needing a bit of a shave in the first 30-40 min and in the end the plot wasn't advanced a whole hell of a lot despite the 2.5+ hours of means we'd just been through. But really, it wasn't much more in Rings either (oh hey, Frodo & Sam are still headed to Mordor and the men are still fighting Orcs.)

[Heretic]

After hearing reports of The Hobbit being much lighter than LOTR, I was surprised by how dark and action-packed some scenes actually were. It's really not too far off FOTR at all, although you can see it's aiming for the family crowd, as well as adults.

[rockNrollaDIM]

After hearing reports of The Hobbit being much lighter than LOTR, I was surprised by how dark and action-packed some scenes actually were. It's really not too far off FOTR at all, although you can see it's aiming for the family crowd, as well as adults.

What scenes? I never once felt the characters were in any really danger.

[Heretic]

What scenes? I never once felt the characters were in any really danger.

Not necessarily danger, but the scenes with Azog, especially the flashback of the battle between him and the dwarve were actually very action packed and darker than I expected.

[75Live]

What I find silly is how some of you completely dismiss the opinions of others on this simply because they don't agree with you, either way.

Well said

[BiffMan]

Went out a tried HFR today for my 2nd viewing. Standard mixed bag that most have mentioned, but I'm puzzled by one specific technical element:

Where was the motion blur? I haven't paid close attention, but was PJ intentionally going for the strobe effect? Motion blur at 48fps should work out the same as 24fps and if anything be even smoother, so I have to presume it was something to do with the type of camera he was using. That more than anything is what gave it that BBS-docudrama film feel to me. Just high frame rate would be fine, but being able to pick out specific stuttered images during some of the fast motion was pretty off-putting. Was that in the interest of increased clarity?

It unfortnately made some of the CGI blend even worse with the live action since quite often the CGI did have a motion blur on it (like they would usually do at 24fps) and made the live action stutter stand out all the more for me.

[Dark 33Legend of the Sith]

I have to say my expectations were not as high as one would expect considering I absolutely love the LOTR trilogy. I thought the marketing was very average and "below" the greatness of LOTR. I heard some of the criticisms going into the film but I must say I was thoroughly suprised to say I really liked and may love it on repeat viewings. The only part I thought was a little long was all the dwarf business in bilbo's house. Otherwise I felt the pacing was fine. I agree with some about the characters not being as interesting or likeable which is why it's simply a really good movie instead of a masterpiece. But some of the set pieces were thrilling, the Gollum scene is fantastic, and the action in the cave was superb. It FELT like a LOTR movie-but couldn't quite reach their previous heights. I enjoyed the ending and am definitely excited for DOS. One caveat is that I am a sucker for nostalgia, so the music and past characters is something that I certainly enjoyed. But I must say although it isn't an instant masterpiece like I consider the originals, it's a very good movie.

A-

[Dementeleus]

Went out a tried HFR today for my 2nd viewing. Standard mixed bag that most have mentioned, but I'm puzzled by one specific technical element:Where was the motion blur? I haven't paid close attention, but was PJ intentionally going for the strobe effect? Motion blur at 48fps should work out the same as 24fps and if anything be even smoother, so I have to presume it was something to do with the type of camera he was using. That more than anything is what gave it that BBS-docudrama film feel to me. Just high frame rate would be fine, but being able to pick out specific stuttered images during some of the fast motion was pretty off-putting. Was that in the interest of increased clarity?

I didn't see any strobing. There are two things that affect motion blur: frame rate and shutter speed. Andrew Lesnie shot 48fps with a 270-degree shutter, which equates to 24fps/135-degree shutter -- this was the best combination to deliver images they liked both in 48 and 24 fps. (And a 270-degree shutter shouldn't equate to a highly strobing image, since the shutter is open most of the time). But clearly people are reacting to the HFR in different ways -- I guess the way your brain was processing it meant it looked strobe-y to you.

[BiffMan]

I didn't see any strobing. There are two things that affect motion blur: frame rate and shutter speed. Andrew Lesnie shot 48fps with a 270-degree shutter, which equates to 24fps/135-degree shutter -- this was the best combination to deliver images they liked both in 48 and 24 fps. (And a 270-degree shutter shouldn't equate to a highly strobing image, since the shutter is open most of the time). But clearly people are reacting to the HFR in different ways -- I guess the way your brain was processing it meant it looked strobe-y to you.

Thanks, wasn't aware of the interaction of shutter and FPS. Could very well be something different folks react to, as I know you're not supposed to be able to see 60fps or above, but I get irritated by the flicker of most flourescent lights or a CRT monitor (remember those? Ha) set at 60Hz. Some people find it strains their eyes, I see a distinct flicker for both of those.Interesting that you didn't see any though. It was so noticeable for me that it kept pulling me out of the immersion. I otherwise thought 48fps was fine and didn't at all mind the fluidity of it. It was mostly in the scenes where one thing was strobing and another wasn't (dish cleanup scene where the dwarves strobe, but the dishes don't), or in particularly fast action outdoors scenes where it really distracted me.So overall I quite liked HFR as a tech demo, but I wouldn't have wanted to see it that way the first time because it would have really made it tough to stay immersed in the story and not be distracted by the presentation.

[Dementeleus]

Thanks, wasn't aware of the interaction of shutter and FPS. Could very well be something different folks react to, as I know you're not supposed to be able to see 60fps or above, but I get irritated by the flicker of most flourescent lights or a CRT monitor (remember those? Ha) set at 60Hz. Some people find it strains their eyes, I see a distinct flicker for both of those.Interesting that you didn't see any though. It was so noticeable for me that it kept pulling me out of the immersion. I otherwise thought 48fps was fine and didn't at all mind the fluidity of it. It was mostly in the scenes where one thing was strobing and another wasn't (dish cleanup scene where the dwarves strobe, but the dishes don't), or in particularly fast action outdoors scenes where it really distracted me.So overall I quite liked HFR as a tech demo, but I wouldn't have wanted to see it that way the first time because it would have really made it tough to stay immersed in the story and not be distracted by the presentation.

If you're interested in the technical aspects more, there's a heated discussion going on at reduser.net (the main site for RED cameras which were used to film the movie). Most who post there are professional cinematographers and/or post-production people, and you'll find a wide range of opinions about high frame-rates:http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90770-The-Hobbit-at-48fps

[BiffMan]

If you're interested in the technical aspects more, there's a heated discussion going on at reduser.net (the main site for RED cameras which were used to film the movie). Most who post there are professional cinematographers and/or post-production people, and you'll find a wide range of opinions about high frame-rates:http://www.reduser.n...Hobbit-at-48fps

Wow, that was quite a lot to slog through, but an excellent read. Sounds like my issue is related to the shutter as you mentioned.I'm good with the home video quality of it, if that's what Jackson was going for and it really did make the action sequences crisp, but unfortunately that strobing regularly broke the immersion for me. Thankfully when I saw it the first time, we came out of it talking about the story and the movie as opposed to coming out of the HFR showing where I was totally focused on the look and feel of the presentation rather than the content itself.I absolutely think it's worth seeing it in HFR, but I wouldn't recommend that someone see it for the first time that way. I guess technically I should now go track down a non-HFR 3D showing to compare how much the 3D benefits from it...

[luna]

- the high frame rate was easily an improvement i thought, though it did give off a very odd feeling, with much of the movement (especially the camera) dancing to a perfectly smooth geometry. i didn't perceive any strobing.- this wasn't really a cinematic interpretation of the hobbit at all, but rather a meandering walk through tolkien. i thought the pacing was beautiful, taking the show don't tell mantra rather to the extreme, but then i love slow, careful movies.- i am finding it rather difficult to take the thematic content of these movies seriously nowadays, with all the hilarity about blood lines and kings and how awesome they're supposed to be, but that's part of the fun i suppose.

Edited December 18, 2012 by lisa

[baumer]

Fell asleep twice during the first 45 minutes. Just a movie about a really long walk and Gandalf coming to save the day on every occassio even though he would have no idea where they were at times.6/10....easily the worst Rings movie