The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Gopher]

I never liked the 48 FPS. Even by the end when I thought I was coming around to it someone like Gandalf or Gollum would move abnormally fast and I would be thrown out again. Everything I'd heard was true- the action scenes looked freaky, the CGI looked bad, and the whole film had the ascetic of a Christmas TV special of Lord of the Rings. I can't believe Jackson thought that was a good way to present a film. It looks incredibly silly and adds nothing. It only hurts it.

As for the film... the third act is very strong. Everything after Gollum shows up was also everything I would want out of a Hobbit movie. Characters are suddenly given stakes and the action sequences suddenly become interestingly choreographed. But nothing excuses those two hours that preceded. The film is a weird contradiction: it feels overstuffed yet underdeveloped. Things happen, characters walk from place to place, and without Bilbo as the focus for most of the film I felt like I was left without a reason to care. I thought the extended editions of the LOTR trilogy were consistently engaging, but they needed to shave 30-40 minutes off of this thing.

Ah well. At least it left me plenty excited for Desolation of Smaug.

B-/C+

[Michael Gary Scott]

I was not expecting much based on trailers had not get me excited. However saying that I loved it. The scene with gollum was just awesome. When it was over I wanted more. 9/10

[Impact]

The Hobbit3PMAbout 95% full (tons of sold outs I noticed-should have nice legs it seems due to the Christmas season) Quite a few girls in there 20s-40s.Trailers:Oblvion: Looks kind of odd.Star Trek 2: Looks great. Audience enjoyed it.After Earth: Actually looks decent. Love how they left out the directors name.Lone Ranger: Fantastic reaction. Looks really good.Jack the Giant Slayer: Laughs. Looks decent.Man of Steel: Looks promising-coming from someone who has always disliked Superman.Movie: Really really good. Loved the visuals and the cinematography. Sets and costumes were well done. The 3d was one of the best I've seen for a movie. Loved the fighting parts and the Gollem scenes were great. The audience loved this film. Tons of claps happened at the end. The music was the same as the original-which I loved as why change it? I don't see what the critics deal with this was. But who cares about them-the audience enjoys it.A

[friendofnarnia]

I'm also scratching my heads at what exactly the critics are all making a fuss about. If this had been the first Middle Earth film to be released then I'd expect that the rating would be in the 80's. Apparently the critics were expecting another "Epic" of LOTR scale. I suppose they could have tightened everything up a little, especially near the beginning, but I loved every second of it so I'm not going to complain. It did feel like an "extended version". I'm now curious what exactly will be in the extended edition...My ratings for the LOTR films is:FOTR - A+TTT - AROTK - A-The Hobbit - B+/A-

[jb007]

The movie is not very interesting. A one hour worth of stuff has been stretched for almost three hours. Technically the movie is sub par to LOTR movies. The action scenes move too fast and the set pieces look too fake.

C

[75Live]

Just got out of my showing. Overall, the movie is decent, but there really isn't much going on. There was not any single memorable part or scene.I give it a B. Still pretty good but nothing special.

[friendofnarnia]

There was not any single memorable part or scene.

Oh come on, you know the bunny sled was memorable. Edited December 15, 2012 by friendofnarnia

[75Live]

Oh come on, you know the bunny sled was memorable.

Nope. Only thing memorable about that was it should have been cut

[friendofnarnia]

Okay in all seriousness, how could the riddles in the dark scene NOT be memorable? That scene and the absolute beauty of Middle Earth as they were riding on the eagles is what stood out to me.

[75Live]

Okay in all seriousness, how could the riddles in the dark scene NOT be memorable? That scene and the absolute beauty of Middle Earth as they were riding on the eagles is what stood out to me.

Easily. There's nothing special about that scene. I like Gollum as much as the next fan, but if that scene wasn't there, it wouldn't have affected the story at all. It wasn't "beautiful", it wasn't tense, it was just there. Doesn't mean it was bad, just nothing to write home about.

[friendofnarnia]

Easily. There's nothing special about that scene. I like Gollum as much as the next fan, but if that scene wasn't there, it wouldn't have affected the story at all. It wasn't "beautiful", it wasn't tense, it was just there. Doesn't mean it was bad, just nothing to write home about.

I found it extremely entertaining. That's what made it memorable to me. If those 5-10 minutes were the entire movie I would call the movie memorable. And of course it would affect the story (maybe not this movie, but the ring is quite important in the next one.)Honestly, I think the movie is extremely memorable. I could list at least 10-15 standout moments in my mind.

[75Live]

I found it extremely entertaining. That's what made it memorable to me. If those 5-10 minutes were the entire movie I would call the movie memorable. And of course it would affect the story (maybe not this movie, but the ring is quite important in the next one.)Honestly, I think the movie is extremely memorable. I could list at least 10-15 standout moments in my mind.

And I am not trying to say you are wrong or trying to change your mind. I am just saying how it was for me. That's all

[mattmav45]

Here's the thing..........when it works, it really works. The eagles are majestic, the Gollum scene is effective, and pretty much everything after the Rivendell is pretty damn good.

Unfortunately, the first hour is almost parody-like in terms of how many useless scenes are put in the film. It's one thing if characters are developed during this time, but instead you have a bunch of no-name dwarves just hanging out in Bilbo's house for a good half hour. Someone needs to tell Jackson that film quality is not determined by running time..........that first half hour nearly derailed the whole film.

Luckily, I thought it had a really enjoyable second half, and pretty great ending overall. It's not LOTR-quality, but I still feel it's an above average adventure film with some great scenes.

B

[4815162342]

This is what I don't get about people complaining about the opening act with the chilling at Bilbo's house. If the exact same set of scenes (no changes at all) had been part of say a Quentin Tarantino film, or a dialogue/writing-driven film in general, film critics and internet reviewers would be totally on-board with it and praise it. But since it's part of a fantasy adventure, they groan and moan and bitch about the film not getting to the "action."

Edited December 16, 2012 by 4815162342

[Crusader]

God why oh why didn't the studio interfere like they did countless times before and asked PJ to trim the runtime 20 minutes shorter - excellent 30-35 minutes shorter - perfectIt is painfully obvious why it wasn't as good as it should have been Here's hoping PJ is aware of this and is trimming down the next 2 movies

[mattmav45]

It does nothing to further the story, and it's not even close to qualifying as what one would call good dialogue. It's simply an example of bloating up an already over-bloated film. And hell, I liked the film for the most part.

[fishstick]

This is what I don't get about people complaining about the opening act with the chilling at Bilbo's house. If the exact same set of scenes (no changes at all) had been part of say a Quentin Tarantino film

Dude, QT dialog-writing quality is exceptional. PJ&co`s isn`t at all. Yes, QT talkfest cna drag too but at least dialog is fun and creates characters. OTOH, PJ&co talkfests don`t do shit for characters, KK`s ship ride being a prime example of wasted screen time without learning anything about characters. Edited December 16, 2012 by fishnets

[rockNrollaDIM]

Ok, just saw it, don't feel like getting too detailed but it's a very mixed bag at best which confirms the current reactions and criticisms. While it's entertaining in parts (Serkis is a scene-stealer yet again), it is as anticipated- overlong, too sentimental, and extremely juvenile. The humour in LOTR worked because it was used sparingly and was -actually- funny. This entire movie was one big fart joke. I think the main offensive scene has to be Gandalf slicing the Goblin King's stomach who then falls to his knees, goes "Yup, that'll do it! *cue laughter*", and dies. What was the meeting like with Jackson and the producers? "The last movies were too serious, TH needs to be lighter and more family friendly! I know- snot jokes, bird poop, Spiderman zingers, and blatant drug references! Awesome!!" The CGI here was also over the top and fake looking, I'm not sure how they managed to devolve in quality since 10 years ago, but they did. LOTR looks like a gritty docudrama compared to this Disney production. Lastly, the movie lacks passion. Bilbo gives thrity monologues explaining how he misses his armchair and books, but wants the Dwarves to find a home, yet it projects nothing to the audience. Why should I care? The cartoon violence and constant toilet humor gives me no reason to worry for these guys. Don't get me wrong, this is Middle Earth, so of course it retains some entertainment value and keeps you interested, but at what cost. It feels basterdized and more on the level of a Chamber of Secrets than Fellowship of the Ring.C-

[Noctis]

Chamber of Secrets? Yuck.

[rockNrollaDIM]

Chamber of Secrets? Yuck.

I know, not a very fair comparison. The Hobbit has far more snot jokes.