The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Plain Old Tele]

My one quibble: Often there's too much light. I understand they wanted to make every scene easy on the eyes, but subterran scenes are supposed to be darker - much darker. (The same applied to LotR, Shelob's Lair is a good example of over-lighting).

Yes, I've always thought that Moria, etc should've been almost nightmarishly dark. But at the end of the day, it's really a completely different style than what PJ does... and I'm sure that what I would've found to be an ideal darkness, others would've grumbled that they couldn't see anything.

[Crusader]

Right here it is First and foremost its good ... its actually very good,,, but LOTR-good it ain't PJ still has the touch and is brilliant at bringing Middle Earth to life but yeah its bloated as hell ... The way I see it PJ had 2 paths ahead of him 1 - two movies and acclaim on the same level as LOTR and 2 - adapting everything he imagined And number 2 prevailed cause it also meant more money for everyone involved Everything in the movie is right ... other than the fact that first act is actually first 2 acts and the film only takes off in the final act ( post Rivendell ) As a fan of Tolkien I appreciate everything in the movie ... but I was also putting myself in the shoes of those that aren't ( shame on them but still ) and there is just flatout 40-50 minutes that should have been cut out completely Everyone does the job excellent ...PJ,actors ( Mckellen Freeman and Serkis are standouts ), cinematographer, WETA and so on Frankly it should be a 7 but since I am a Tolkien fan and I did personally like all the stuff that was put in its 8/10 from me btw this forum is not easy on LOTR so I don't expect to be in the majority of those that liked it ... baumer ain't giving more than a 5 I bet my 2 balls on that

[Hiccup]

Okay so I was a hater on this film. I thought it looked stupid and boring. A friend forced me to go at midnight and I LOVED it! The films was amazing and a grand return to Middle Earth. I didn't find it slow or boring at all and the 3 hours flew by. I really liked the back story of the dwarfs because it made the film interesting. Definitely see this!9.5/10

[Ozymandias]

Seeing this on Sunday or Monday, too busy right now.

Very disappointing. It looks like LOTR, it sounds like LOTR, but there's none of the magic that made the original trilogy timeless.

There are several problems, but the biggest one is pretty fundamental: the stakes are too low. In LOTR the stakes couldn't have been higher - it was a fight for Middle Earth against a primal evil. This time it's about reclaiming some dwarf city from a dragon. Since I couldn't give a toss about the dwarf city or the dragon the whole movie becomes a complete bore.

Beyond the lack of stakes, there are other core issues. There are four antagonists, who come in and out of the narrative (did I mention the script is crap?). Two of them are barely in it at all (Smaug and the necromancer)... this in itself isn't a bad thing - look at FOTR, where Sauron's shadow hangs heavily over the whole movie, despite barely being glimpsed in three hours. But the dragon and necromancer are no Sauron. Their shadows don't hang over anything. The other two villains, the leader of the orcs and the goblin king, are just dull and by-the-numbers. After LOTR they're both too been-there-done-that. Going from Sauron and Saruman to some orc dude... it's a major step down in villainy.

Also, I could have done withot the goblin king's giant ballsack chin.

The whole thing just feels so flat, as if Jackson knew the material didn't cut it this time. I'm rewatching FOTR extended edition now as I type this. From the first moment it has a wit and energy to it. Yeah it's long, but it doesn't feel long. An Unexpected Journey feels every minute.

The script is fatally flawed. Not only are the stakes too low, but there isn't a strong throughline. Nothing to really keep an audience engaged. Frankly, the filmmakers should have asked themselves: will an audience be happy to sit through 170 minutes - with the promise of another 340 minutes - about these dwarves trying to reclaim their city? And when they got their answer they should have rethought the whole project.

It's nice to be back in that world, but this story is downright weak. And by being so episodic, and without that compelling throughline, it really, really tests your patience.

All this is compounded by the asthmatically slow pacing. If it had raced by in 2 hours it still wouldn't be a great film, but it wouldn't give us so much time to consider how misguided this movie is. It's as if Jackson had forgotten why we loved the original films. It wasn't because they were slow, ambling guided walks through Middle Earth. It was because they were well scripted stories that were worth telling.

Upsides?

Freeman is good. He's not given enough to do, but he copes well. Obviously the other returning cast all shine, but Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel don't add anything to the narrative. It's more about the thrill of seeing familiar faces from the other, much better movies.

I'll give it a C. Just because I liked Freeman and McKellan.

The best part about this post is that you sound totally surprised that reclaiming a city and treasure is a much lower stake than saving the world from Sauron.

[yads]

Seeing this on Sunday or Monday, too busy right now.The best part about this post is that you sound totally surprised that reclaiming a city and treasure is a much lower stake than saving the world from Sauron.

"Surprise" is your interpretation of my post. In reality I was neither surprised nor unsurprised - just disappointed.

[Ozymandias]

"Surprise" is your interpretation of my post. In reality I was neither surprised nor unsurprised - just disappointed.

How can you be disappointed with something you knew was coming? Almost everythng in your post compared it to LotR as if it was supposed to be like those movies. Edited December 14, 2012 by Shpongle

[yads]

How can you be disappointed with something you knew was coming? Almost everythng in your post compared it to LotR as if it was supposed to be like those movies.

What did I know was coming? If I'd known a disappointing movie was coming I wouldn't have paid to see it.Presumably you're referring to the plot. I've never read The Hobbit, and I steered away from spoilers before seeing the movie. I knew the broad strokes of the movie, but that's all. And yeah, obviously the stakes were gonna be lower that LOTR. What disappointed me was that Jackson didn't make me care about the central conflict driving the movie - the attempt to reclaim the dwarf city.Re: comparing it to LOTR. Seriously? You don't think it's valid to compare a Peter Jackson Hobbit movie to a Peter Jackson LOTR movie? Especially when the earlier movies worked so well, and IMO this new one doesn't work remotely as well? Under those circumstances it's pretty inevitable to make the comparison, and try to figure out what went wrong.

[Plain Old Tele]

What disappointed me was that Jackson didn't make me care about the central conflict driving the movie - the attempt to reclaim the dwarf city.

Really? That whole prologue didn't do anything for you? You know, Thorin watching his people destroyed, his home ruthlessly invaded and occupied; his power stripped away, forced to do menial blacksmithing work, fighting Orcs hell-bent on wiping out the last of his race, watching his grandfather slaughtered in front of his eyes..... none of that worked?

[yads]

Really? That whole prologue didn't do anything for you? You know, Thorin watching his people destroyed, his home ruthlessly invaded and occupied; his power stripped away, forced to do menial blacksmithing work, fighting Orcs hell-bent on wiping out the last of his race, watching his grandfather slaughtered in front of his eyes..... none of that worked?

I wouldn't say none of it worked. There were some lovely shots in that sequence, and the beats of the story were laid out well enough. I suppose the problem was twofold: 1) saving a dwarf city, IMO, is a pretty anticlimactic, weak central conflict, 2) after the prologue the next hour is insanely slow and kills any lingering interest I might have had.

[Plain Old Tele]

I wouldn't say none of it worked. There were some lovely shots in that sequence, and the beats of the story were laid out well enough. I suppose the problem was twofold: 1) saving a dwarf city, IMO, is a pretty anticlimactic, weak central conflict, 2) after the prologue the next hour is insanely slow and kills any lingering interest I might have had.

Well, your #2 point is well taken. Fair enough. About #1: it's more about saving a city, it's about reclaiming a kingdom, cultural heritage, etc.And -- maybe not that you care -- but the shit definitely goes down later in terms of how all this plays out.

[yads]

And -- maybe not that you care -- but the shit definitely goes down later in terms of how all this plays out.

I still care about the sequels... and still have hope for them. And I also think there's a good chance that I'll like AUJ more when I've seen the other two and get to see the whole story. Edited December 14, 2012 by yads

[4815162342]

Is this film as good as any of the LOTR films? No it isn't, but that's like saying the delicious dinner you ate isn't as good-looking as the ones Jim Shorts post pictures of in the cooking thread. It gets the job done very well and you'll have fond memories of it, it's just rougher around the edges and a little padded.The only thing I would have cut entirely from the film was the stone giant battle. For everything else it was simply a matter of execution rather than content.

[cookie]

I think the main problem with this film (for a moviegoer like me) is that it drags. The first 45 minutes (which nearly half of it is just the dwarfs crashing Bilbo's house) could have easily been trimmed down to around 30. Many of the scenes later, even really cool ones like "riddles in the dark", the stone giant battle and the climax do have the tendency of overstaying their welcome. Not that I would mind when a movie wants to be a little laid back, developing the characters and building some atmosphere, but this film went way overboard.

Along with the fact that the story drags it does suffer from feeling episodic at times, like you're watching a marathon of episodes from a TV show instead of a cinematic picture. There's also some parts that sounds important at first but won't be brought up until the next film. We have a whole opening dedicated to Smaug yet we only see him again briefly in the "sequel teaser" at the end of the film. The Necromancer (aka Sauron) is brought up more than a few times but never really makes an appearance either.

With that said I did enjoy the journey very much, even if it's just the first third of it. There are some heavy and dramatic scenes like in the LOTR movies but at the same time there's a light sense of humor to ease things up a bit. The actors do a great job (including Andy Serkis' Gollum which is better than ever in this film) and the visuals are spectacular. I did find the dwarfs kind of likable even though some of them can be irritating at times (the burping contest being the most grating, Bilbo's face there says it all). I expect the following films to make them more rounded characters (pun not intended).

You sort of get this feeling sometimes that Peter Jackson wants to top the LOTR trilogy in spectacle even though the story doesn't warrant that treatment. The climax (FYI I'm talking about the wolf-riding orcs confronting our heroes for the second time, not the goblin cave sequence) which I assume is only a minor encounter in the book is played up to ridiculously epic levels here. To be honest it didn't bother me because it was some great spectacle anyway, and that kind of sums up the movie in a nutshell. When it's spectacle, it's really great spectacle. When it's not, you start to look at your watch.

Regarding 48fps I call that a mixed bag. It took around an hour for me to get used to the soap opera look of the whole thing and while it enhances some things like the New Zealand settings and some great CG environments it makes others look oddly artificial. The sets can look too obvious at times and unless the background has a lot of depth in it, 48fps makes it look like someone just painted a wall. There's even parts that feel like everyone is moving at hyper speed which is just distracting. On the other hand, the higher frame rate makes the image clearer and the visuals smoother and more pleasant to look at, so I guess it balances out. As much as I've been against 3D I have to admit it was well implemented this time around. Now only if they can make the glasses more comfortable to wear...

Is The Hobbit Part 1 as good as any of the LOTR' films? Probably not, but when it's done well it's freakin' great. The poor pacing is still a major issue, but I can see myself watching this film again a few times, having to endure it's length just to get to the really good stuff. I don't want to give a grade right now but I'm very glad I saw it because it should be seen on the big screen. I say bring on The Desolation of Smaug!

Edited December 15, 2012 by C00k13

[Plain Old Tele]

Smaug has the potential to be what Gollum was to TTT audiences: a knock-your-socks-off awesome character (who's entirely mocap/CG).I only say "potential" because PJ could do something screwy and mess him up, but honestly, he should freaking rock.

[Noctis]

Does Smaug talk?

[Ezen Baklattan]

Yes, and he's voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch.

[Plain Old Tele]

There's an article in The New Yorker about The Hobbit (book), and Smaug is described, not inaccurately, as a "1-per-center, Gordon Gekko with a flamethrower". That gives you a sense of his personality.

[CoolioD1]

Don't listen to me, I'm totally biased when it comes to these movies but I loved it. Lot of fun, never a dull moment for me personally, actors all fit their parts well. Of course the Gollum scene was the best and got a big reaction from audience.Btw regarding high frame rate - didn't hate it actually. It looked weird at first and it took me a little while to adjust but was fine after that. In fact I thought some bits looked pretty cool with it.

Edited December 14, 2012 by CoolioD1

[RichWS]

I had a decent time, despite being an excruciatingly slow film. I've never read the book so I didn't have much knowledge of the actual story before going in. It's...okay. I understood the stakes, but the movie stretches it out so far, there wasn't any real sense of urgency. I never agreed with those who felt the LOTR films were too long or slow paced, but I kinda know how they felt after seeing this. The Gollum scene was almost worth the ticket (Andy Serkis KILLS it), although I pretty much checked out after that. Can't say I wasn't waiting for the credits during the last 15 minutes.As for the 48, I can't say I hate it, but I don't think it's for me. It works beautifully for some scenes, not so much for others.

Edited December 15, 2012 by RichWS

[4815162342]

It seems like the people who have complained about the stakes being lower simply are just less familiar with the source material. Tolkien in the LOTR appendices essentially retcons the entire purpose and meaning of the quest in The Hobbit, such as Gandalf being the one who pushes Thorin into deciding the time is right for retaking Erebor and that Gandalf already suspects something wicked this way comes and all that jazz and is using Thorin's quest to 1) Kill Smaug to prevent Smaug from ever being used as a weapon against the free peoples of Middle Earth and 2) Rebuild the Dwarven kingdom (and Dale to boot) so there is a strong ally that can be relied upon to fight the minions of evil in the East. The Hobbit's events are really the opening moves of the War of the Ring and the result is Sauron's plans being checked for 60-odd years and (though this is all off-screen in LOTR) him having to divert a good portion of his strength to try and take down the rebuilt kingdoms of Erebor and Dale.