The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[MovieMan89]

Fish's review is far less scathing than I would have ever expected. In fact it's practically a rave given the blood oath she swore to loathe this movie months ago.

Edited December 29, 2012 by HobbitMan89

[Gopher]

Yeah, I feel strange that I gave it the same grade as her.

[fishstick]

Fish's review is far less scathing than I would have ever expected. In fact it's practically a rave given the blood oath she swore to loathe this movie months ago.

I`m objective. It isn`t a hate-able movie outside of the decision not to make it a Bilbo story. But fanboys should take pink glasses off because this wasn`t an A game for anyone. PJ definitely didn`t bring his A game but directed on an autopilot. I do give him props for keeping slo mo to minimum which is due to 3D and HFR constrains more than anything else so praise 3D and HFR! And after enduring Hooper`s close-up nightmare I found a new appreciation for PJ even when he`s working with less than half of his capacity.

Actors absolutely didn`t stand out. Gollum was great but Gollum always steals the show with his schtick. He`s like RDJ, never changes, always himself but that personality acting is what one wants to see. Freeman was cute and likable but far from A game he brings on Sherlock since that TV shows gives him much more to chew on than this empty script. Thorin Emoshield wasn`t even bothering to create a character that`s different from Aragorn Lite. They wanted him to be a knock-off and he was a (poor man`s) knock off. This guy is not happening, good looks or not. Gandalf was doing what Gandalf does. Nothing new here characterwise. Other appearances save Balin cannot be considered characters.They were window dressing ranging from blurred-into-a-bulk-of-people to irritating such as Radaghastly (a trully unnecessary addition) and Annoying and Irritating aka Kili and Fili who were in the movie only because PJ&co needed pretty boys for teen girls. So they were setting up Kili (the girlier of two) as the next Legolas (he`s an archer, can repel arrows with his sword like a Jedi) . Problem here is that Legolas worked because Bloom was really young and this guy`s in his 30s by the look of it and Legolas looked outwordly and this guy looks like a short human. So not much movie magic here. Plus, everyone and their mother can see he`s a substitute as they can see Emoshield is Aragorn clone. He ain`t gonna happen either.

Movie was pretty but it wasn`t gorgeous. They definitely picked more stunning locations for LOTR and Andrew Lesnie definitely did not bring his A game here. Well, nobody did. I guess they feel too comfortable in this world to try something different on any level (direction, script, acting, score, cinematography, costumes,etc). Shore`s main theme was great but the rest was unmemorable. I remember LOTR score and I definitely recognize its usage here but outside of Misty Mountain theme I couldn`t catch any new tune. So forgettable score one strong theme aside.

I actually feel bad for bringing up the negatives because the movie is inoffensive all in all. It`s a cute companion to LOTR. It just isn`t essential viewing. I think that it`ll lose its value once the fans get out of "I`m back to ME and that`s all that matters" mode that makes them forgive the fact that nobody involved in this movie brought their A game. It`ll be remembered for Riddles which easily towers over shoddy content around it and many LOTR scenes for the matter. And I`m sorry but one scene does not a movie make. I fully expect Bilbo and Smaug to be the same type of towering highlight with instantly forgettable stuff around it in DoS. It`s because when you think of it, each movie does seem to be made around one big event and tons of filler before and after it. Riddles is centerpiece of AUJ and it does the book justice and than some. Smaug is the centerpiece of DoS and since HFR camera loves CGI creatures (they look so realistic) he should be gorgeous and fun. Bot5A is the centerpiece of TABA.

I actually love the fact that Riddles blows action out of water. PJ complained how much he hates to direct dialog as opposed to action but he should reconsider. Maybe get Tarantino help with characterisation because QT is a marvel at nailing characters with few short lines. TH huge cast needed such wizardry with words.

Didn`t like the framing device. It was unnecessary and Frodo cameo was completely pointless fanwank. I see Wood hasn`t improved his acting since.

Edited December 29, 2012 by fishnets

[Sims]

Wow, this was surprisingly bad. I was expecting mediocrity and I got a Phantom Menace-level turd. There were several points where I was absolutely STUNNED that the visionary behind the LOTR trilogy could make something as inept and bloated as this.The first hour is some of the worst filmmaking I've seen in years. Time literally stopped, and I was expecting the fat dwarves to start discussing the paneling on the floorboards. The entire framing device is pointless and constitutes nothing other than fan service. The film improves SLIGHTLY after the Rivendell nonsense, but never does this come close to even resembling the scope, polish, and entertainment of LOTR.Let there be no doubt that Peter Jackson has experienced a mental breakdown comparable to that of George Lucas. The man has clearly let his achievements get to his head and lost any sense of audience. He has lost his already feeble grasp on the dimension of time; King Kong was fast-paced in comparison to this. In addition, Jackson has no idea how to adapt to the comedic and whimsical tone of The Hobbit after directing an epic like LOTR. The film is an awkward blend of overwrought and humorously incongruous drama and idiotic sight gags.Jackson has somehow managed to sacrifice his vision to Tolkien's source material while also brutally butchering it. I have read The Hobbit, and I have no idea where a good 2/3 of this film came from other than the combination of Tolkien's marginalia and Jackson's egotism. Most of this junk amounts to little more than fanfiction. Not only are entire scenes are devoted to single sentences from the book, but completely irrelevant scenes are devised simply so Jackson can create a 9 hour monstrosity.The entire film could have taken place within 50 minutes to an hour. I am more convinced than ever that there was no goddamn reason for this to be three or even two films.The acting is innocuous but disappointing, mostly due to a lack of character development. Martin Freeman brings nothing new to the character of Bilbo and is often quite irritating. Ian McKellen looks MISERABLE in this film; I've read these articles describing his frustration on set, and I honestly felt like it was visible in his performance. Supporting players range from absent to invisible. I couldn't care less about any of the dwarves. Thorin's story was surprisingly shallow given the ten hours they spent describing it. Radagast was a disaster; he is without doubt the Jar Jar Binks of a new generation. Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, and Hugo Weaving are as pointless as the scene in which they appear; they serve no purpose other than to invoke memories of superior films. Andy Serkis is great as always, but at this point it's a little 'been there, done that.'High frame rate is an unequivocal catastrophe. I urged my friend to see regular 3D with me, but he INSISTED on seeing HFR. The beginning of the film looks like a cheap BBC teleplay, and the action sequences look like claymation. I did not get used to the film's look over the three hour runtime. I am sure the effects look all right in 24 fps, but I was shocked at how cheap and second-rate they looked.HFR aside (and it is a massive aside), I will give praise to the film's visuals; the makeup and art direction are just as charming as in LOTR. Certain moments of the film are entertaining, particularly towards the end. When Jackson isn't abusing slow motion and overdramatic music, he's actually a quite stellar director of action.I give it the same rating I give to Phantom Menace: 3.5/10, D. The fact that anyone thinks this crap is even in the same damn ballpark as FOTR is both hilarious and disturbing.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Sims

[Rovex]

Well that was a pointless read..I can see why Radagast might be a little annoying if you had forgotten that this is based on a KIDS book, but how on earth is he the new Jar Jar Binks?? He wasnt on any level as annoying, stupid, inept, racially insensitive, badly slapstick or ever-present as Jar Jar. Even Jar Jar could have been tolerated for 5 minutes, which is about all the screen time Radagast got, it was the fact that he didnt go away that killed.All this talk of bloat is BS. Turning a line from a book into a scene in a movie isnt bloat. Its only boat if badly done, and i dont think it was. Some of it didn't flow very well i grant you, i had issues with the rock giants scene, it just seemed to happen out of nowhere with no set up, but little was pointless to those who havent read the book.I do think the pacing could use some work, little happened then everything happened and characters were lost in the mess, but i didnt feel that I needed to know who every Dwarf was in detail. The main point is the main story and the main characters.So no one died, so what, does someone have to die for some of you to care? People really are jaded these days aren't they?!

Edited December 31, 2012 by Rovex

[Gopher]

Radagast wasn't that bad. He was bizarre but at least he was something different. Can't say the same for a lot of this film.

[fishstick]

Radagast was awful but I understand what they tried with him even if they failed. He was supposed to bridge the juvenile aspects with darker ones, hence why such a comic relief is the one to descover the Necromancer. Not a bad idea but horribly executed as was their attempt to lighten up White Council by having Saruman make an allusion to Radagast`s drug abuse. That was supposed to be an unexpected humorous moment that fell completely flat in my cinema. Maybe other auditoriums had people rolling on the floor but not in this one. I think that only Gollum`s "then we eats you all" and Bilbo`s response produced a chuckle. But all of the comedy fell flat.

I link AUJ to OST in that it was an OK movie but way too derivative of LOTR and intentionally so by the look of it. Freeman did well as Bilbo but they definitely tried to make the character behave younger than his age, hence why we got that highschool bullshit where Bilbo wants to earn Thorin`s respect. Hello, Bilbo`s a middle aged Hobbit, not one of LOTR teens. No need to write him as a child when he isn`t one.

Thorin was a total Aragorn knock-off who didn`t have anything to do in the movie but turn his best profile to the camera. They obviously counted on his good looks to smooth unappealing underdeveloped perosnality. Basically, the guy was just brooding his time until his showy scenes in TABA and he did that with bored expression. They even invented this subplot involving his Bond villain Orc archenemy with a Dr No hand. Much like that bullshit about Arwen dying in Shriekpoo that gave Aragorn a personal reason to fight Sauron. No, there doesn`t have to be a perosnal reason for something or specific villain atrgetting one of heroes.

Kili and Fili were Merry and Pipin knock offs in that those 30something dwarves were pranksters as if they were 12 and Kili being the pretty boy was also getting Legolas moments such as repelling arrows with his sword a la Jedi. Both were annoying thanks to actors saying lines as OTT as possible and by the default of being 30somethings behaving like kids.

The cast had ZERO chemistry. ZERO. Nobody cared to develop inter-group dynamics. There was Bilbo on one side, Thorin on another, Gandalf on third and bulk of interchangable dwarves. The latter is trully a pity because they went into such length to give each a distinctive look yet didn`t care to distinct them personality-wise that would make them pop out. Majority didn`t even have a chance to a) say something and appear in the front of the screen, let alone develop chemistry and relationships with their peers.

Framing device was completely unnecessary fanwank. Frodo was awful. He was just there for an obligatory "Look, this is LOTR!" reminder but really had nothing to do. It was a bad cameo and cameos are supposed to be effective. Like Depp in 21 Jump Street.

Prologue and flashback scenes were amateurishly done and voiceover didn`t help. They didn`t resonate emotionally because we were getting too much information and because Erebor dwarves were a bit on a dick side so one can understand why people whom they asked to bow to them would refuse them a refuge.

Why the hell was Thranduil shining like a Noldor? Legolas didn`t shine so there`s no reason for his father to shine other. They are lesser Elves.

So this was really OST to me. Not a bad movie but rehash of previous ones.

Oh, and LOTR looked so much better. I don`t know if they filmed in less stunning locations of Lesnie`s camera lost its flare but the movie didn`t look as gorgeous as the trilogy. Pretty only.

[Phil in the Blank]

The move is kind of a weird one to review. As a fan of Tolkien I enjoyed all the extended stuff and it certainly adds to the the world as a whole but as a film fan one can certainly make the case that it is unnecessary bloat. At the end of the day I guess PJ had a choice between converting the hobbit as is, and making it two, two hour films....or going the whole hog and extending the story to make it really link up with LOTR. As a movie fan I'ld prefer the first and as a Tolkien fan I'ld prefer the second.Personally I enjoyed the movie. While clearly not as epic as LOTR, nor with as many memorable characters, its still an enjoyable romp to me in a world that I find fantastic.

[Phil in the Blank]

On an unrelated noted, I did not see this in 48FPS however....3D please fuck of and die. K?

[IndustriousAngel]

On an unrelated noted, I did not see this in 48FPS however....3D please fuck of and die. K?

Yep, even if I have to say the Hobbit in HFR had the best 3D I've ever seen on a screen, for me it's still a gimmick. I don't mind watching it if it was shot in 3D (Prometheus, Hobbit) but I wouldn't shed a tear if 3D dies a sudden death tonight.

[4815162342]

Why the hell was Thranduil shining like a Noldor? Legolas didn`t shine so there`s no reason for his father to shine other. They are lesser Elves.

You're right that Thranduil is not a Noldor but a Sindaran Elf (those of the Teleri who chose to remain in Middle-Earth). He's still about 7 thousand years old give or take a century so as a one of the Sindaran kings he's accumulated immense power. Also I believe in FOTR Celeborn shone and he too was Sindaran.

[Phil in the Blank]

I actually feel bad for bringing up the negatives because the movie is inoffensive all in all. It`s a cute companion to LOTR. It just isn`t essential viewing.

You hit the nail on the head there.Of course you could say the same thing about the book, The Hobbit compared to the LOTR books

[glassfairy]

A-Not as good as any of the movies in the original trilogy and yet much better than critics give it credit for (and they can suck a bag of dicks honestly). The few minor quibbles I have with it have mostly to do with the movie not really capturing the lightness of the books well. I feel as though parts of the book which were light and fun translated really poorly and ended up being more silly/annoying. It's been a few years since I read The Hobbit and yet I never remember feeling to punch a dwarf like I did watching the movie.Other than that and the fact they are obviously stretching the book out to get every last penny I have no negative issues. Being back in middle earth is lovely and the scenes at Rivendell I put up there with anything else i've seen this year on the big screen in terms of beauty.

[Wormow]

A-Not as good as any of the movies in the original trilogy and yet much better than critics give it credit for (and they can suck a bag of dicks honestly). The few minor quibbles I have with it have mostly to do with the movie not really capturing the lightness of the books well. I feel as though parts of the book which were light and fun translated really poorly and ended up being more silly/annoying. It's been a few years since I read The Hobbit and yet I never remember feeling to punch a dwarf like I did watching the movie.Other than that and the fact they are obviously stretching the book out to get every last penny I have no negative issues. Being back in middle earth is lovely and the scenes at Rivendell I put up there with anything else i've seen this year on the big screen in terms of beauty.

The movie's A LOT darker than the books. The book was something I would read to a 6 year old.

[Captain Craig]

Grade: A

I've not read the book since I was 14. Never read the Silmarillion so I'm not sure what parts were spliced in(if any at this point but I know they did that for TH trilogy) but I enjoyed the film. It didn't fee overly long for it's actual running time imo. I wasn't bothered by the first hour of the dwarves and Gandalf gathering in the Shire at Bilbo's house. I understand that some(many?) found that to drag and that the singing and frivolity didn't sit well with some. Since I'm not uber versed in the characters I found it enjoyable and a way to get to know them before the quest started and if I might care who dies first(cause someone is going to die I assume). Some of the jokes were flat, some not. I liked the one about crochet.

Great tie ins from the LOTR helped make it feel very much like the prequel it should be.

[Squaremaster316]

Just not as good as the first 3. The supporting cast was too goofy, interchangeable and unmemorable.

[Robertron]

I really enjoyed. After the boring first 40 minutes was up, I was really into it. HFR? Like everybody says - it takes a bit of getting used to. But once id adjusted, I thought it was absolutely stunning. (Avatar 2 would be incredible with it!)And since spoilers are allowed: if the darn birds can rescue you from the falling tree, GET THEM TO FLY YOU ALL THE WAY TO THE FUCKING MOUNTAIN - it'll save you three years and half a billion dollars!!!Rant. Over.7.5/10 Keep in mind I've never seen a LOTR film, so my score is (one of the few) based on The Hobbit and not a comparison of it to any of the LOTR films.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Wreck-It Robertron!

[Plain Old Tele]

And since spoilers are allowed: if the darn birds can rescue you from the falling tree, GET THEM TO FLY YOU ALL THE WAY TO THE FUCKING MOUNTAIN - it'll save you three years and half a billion dollars!!!

The eagles aren't taxis. They might be inclined to momentarily help Gandalf, but they have better things to so than be a ferry service. ;)So, after sitting through this, are you inclined to watch the other LOTR movies?

[Adm56]

Saw it in HFR 3D. I fully expected the format to be an abomination but I ended up liking it. Lets face it....3D is fake looking enough that I don't think 48 FPS detracts from the experience all that much and the motion clarity was a worthy trade off for me. I can completely understand people that hate 3D in general hating HFR though.The movie itself was a bloated mess with many theme and pacing issues. It's a movie about a journey that spends way too much of it's run time dealing with things other than the journey.I like the losing the Lonely Mountain sequence at the beginning, but including it pretty much means you have to cut the framing story of Bilbo writing about his adventures a bit tighter. As is things just take too long to get going.All the Azog stuff has to go. It muddies the water thematically...is Bilbo the main character with his everyman connection to the audience? Or is it Thorin who gets all the screen time? Speaking of theme....is the movie about Bilbo being accepted into the group? Because the dwarves surrendering to the trolls at the beginning seems to suggest he is already one of them and it lessens the impact of them having a group cuddle at the end.I think the movie would work better if the trolls and Goblin town where the main obstacles to overcome. As is there are too many cycles of 'flight/fight/respite' in the film.There are plenty of cool visuals during the run time but it just doesn't come together for me otherwise and really needed to be MUCH shorter. I'm over the cynical cash grab of dividing a short book into three films, but do they have to be three THREE HOUR films. God I hope not...Off to watch Raid: The Redemption now. I imagine it will be more action packed.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Adm56

[Plain Old Tele]

Off to watch Raid: The Redemption now. I imagine it will be more action packed.

THE RAID kicks amazing ass.