The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[fishstick]

Lol, well if you wanna break it down like that, that's all FoTR is too.

Gandalf didn`t save the day on every occasion in FOTR and 2 people died, one for real and one to be resurrected as Gandalf the Bore. Edited December 23, 2012 by fishnets

[Ezen Baklattan]

The first two thirds of the film didn't really do much for me. Some of the scenes were kind of intriguing, but it simply feels overstuffed. I knew this would be a problem with the splitting of the novel into three movies, and my suspicions weren't proven wrong. Also, Bilbo seems absent for a lot of the movie, and that kind of took me out of it. A large portion of the film is back story (Granted, a prequel technically is a back story, but you get the idea) that probably would have done more to please serious LOTR fans than general audiences. The original trilogy is absolutely fantastic, but as someone who isn't a hardcore Tolkien fan, this felt a little excessive. As for the visuals, it's a pretty gorgeous movie. The CGI does give a few things a fake feel, but it was still quite a sight for the eyes.

Having said that, I still enjoyed it to some degree, but I'm not as enthusiastic about it as I had hoped.

B-

[Ozymandias]

Lmao, I thought this was great.http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/tom-bombadil-rant.php

[bed005]

I was pretty disappointed with this. I've read the books, so I knew The Hobbit was going to be on a different scale from LotR, but I was still expecting more. With the amount of filler scenes in this, I can't see why they needed to stretch the series into 3 movies, other than to make as much money as possible. Even the action scenes weren't as enjoyable as the original trilogy. (Although the lack of blood continues to make me laugh. Decapitations are fine as long there is no blood.)

And I know this is more of a complaint from having read the books, but isn't it a bad sign that PJ needed to bring in the Azog story line (from the Appendices I'm assuming?) in order to make the pacing work. Every time things got bogged down, here comes the Orcs to rush them somewhere else.

6/10

[CloneWars]

I think I know the true reason the reviews aren't as good as they should be. 1) Backlash from ROTK's success and 11 Oscars. 2) Nostalgia and the film not meeting people's nostaglic expectations. 3) Critics expecting the most perfect film ever and when it ends up being an above average but not perfect film, critics trash it. That's all there is to it.I give it a A-/B+

[Gopher]

I don't really understand fans trying to justify why people didn't like it, resorting to trivial elements like nostalgia and backlash and high expectations. IMO, it's just not a very interesting movie. I've already forgotten about it.

[John Marston]

This movie wasn't perfect but critics were way too harsh on it. I will post full thoughts later

[fishstick]

Judgment Day has come for *I* will be seeing it in the afternoon. For free. Expect an objective review because I am objective when it comes to reviewing.

[peludo]

Judgment Day has come for *I* will be seeing it in the afternoon. For free. Expect an objective review because I am objective when it comes to reviewing.

Which format, 2D? 3D? HFR? IMAX?

[fishstick]

HFR. But it won`t distract me because I find the make-up to be fuckin awful in any format.

[peludo]

HFR. But it won`t distract me because I find the make-up to be fuckin awful in any format.

Good choice. HFR will not distract you. You can be absolutely centered in mistakes Edited December 27, 2012 by peludo

[tommycruise]

Great acting and great special effects but this could have easily had 20 minutes cut out and it would have been much better.B

[Webslinger]

I don't really understand fans trying to justify why people didn't like it, resorting to trivial elements like nostalgia and backlash and high expectations.

This exact reaction happened with The Amazing Spider-Man as well. I think it's just standard operating procedure whenever a fanboy-friendly movie disappoints a significant number of its viewers. It's never just that the dissenters didn't like the movie; there has to be some clearly explicable reason why they didn't that happens to be all on them and has nothing to do with what's on the screen.

I also don't get the reasoning that high expectations are getting in the way of some viewers enjoying the film. This is intended as a companion trilogy to one of the most beloved fantasy sagas in the history of film, and it's based on one of the few fantasy novels that appears on required school reading lists; why shouldn't our expectations be high? Even with the lighter tone of the source material, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Peter Jackson to make a movie that is exciting, swiftly-paced, and connects with human emotional concerns in an effective manner (as the films of the Lord of the Rings trilogy did). For me (and for others as well, judging by the divisive reception), the film only partially met those expectations.

Taking my expectations out of the equation (which seems disingenuous since we all go into any given movie expecting something), the movie was something that I enjoyed more often than I didn't, but it pulls off the paradoxical feat of feeling both far too long (they nearly lost me at several extended points, including the dinner at the beginning and the visit to Rivendell), yet also feeling very incomplete. I get that there are two more movies to go, but the source material isn't structured to end one-third of the way through, and the movie doesn't find a fully satisfying way to address that problem.

[John Marston]

This exact reaction happened with The Amazing Spider-Man as well. I think it's just standard operating procedure whenever a fanboy-friendly

movie disappoints a significant number of its viewers. It's never just that the dissenters didn't like the movie; there has to be some clearly explicable reason why they didn't that happens to

be all on them and has nothing to do with what's on the screen.

I also don't get the reasoning that high expectations are getting in the way of some viewers enjoying the film. This is intended as a companion trilogy to one of the most beloved

fantasy sagas in the history of film, and it's based on one of the few fantasy novels that appears on required school reading lists; why shouldn't our

expectations be high? Even with the lighter tone of the source material, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Peter Jackson to make a

movie that is exciting, swiftly-paced, and connects with human emotional concerns in an effective manner (as the films of the Lord of the Rings

trilogy did). For me (and for others as well, judging by the divisive reception), the film only partially met those expectations.

Taking my expectations out of the equation (which seems disingenuous since we all go into any given movie expecting something), the movie was something that I enjoyed more often than I didn't, but it pulls off the paradoxical feat of feeling both far too long (they nearly lost me at

several extended points, including the dinner at the beginning and the visit to Rivendell), yet also feeling very incomplete. I get that there are two more movies to go, but the source material isn't

structured to end one-third of the way through, and the movie doesn't find a fully satisfying way to address that problem.

Or you could honestly just feel the critics were being too harsh on it

[Gopher]

RT score is 65%, MC score is 58. Seems like most critics didn't think it was a bad movie, just a problematic one. I would totally agree, and I wasn't expecting much at all from The Hobbit.

[Ozymandias]

RT score is 65%, MC score is 58. Seems like most critics didn't think it was a bad movie, just a problematic one. I would totally agree, and I wasn't expecting much at all from The Hobbit.

Well, with top critics its rotten at 43%. That is really low for a film like this. I don't often put too much weight on RT for the quality of a film, but I do have to agree with them on this one. Its a severely flawed film that couldn't even get the basic fundementals of filmmaking right needed to engage and hook a viewer which is quite shocking given how extroardinary Peter Jackson was with the LotR movies. I think the story of The Hobbit is fine, its just the execution of it was terrible. I expected the story to be underwhelming for some people given how much different it was from the LotR movies which is subjective... not on technical problems like pacing, structure, and so on which is not. Edited December 27, 2012 by Shpongle

[Webslinger]

Or you could honestly just feel the critics were being too harsh on it

But why were they being "too harsh" on it? Are they somehow not allowed to judge the movie as they saw it?The problem that I have with the "critics are being too harsh" argument isn't the fact that it goes against the opinion of a collective group. Rather, it's the fact that it fallaciously writes off the opinion of that group by saying that they didn't think the way they should have. It doesn't encourage discussion; it stifles it. (And that's to say nothing of the fact that a critical "consensus" isn't always a real consensus. Just look at Cloud Atlas, which had some very passionate supporters, some equally passionate detractors, and some reviewers who fell somewhere between the two extremes; there wasn't a consensus so much as a variety of stances mashed together. It's an example like that one that makes aggregate scores like the ones on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc. look considerably less valuable.)The argument, as it stands, also doesn't really say anything about the movie itself. If someone explains why the critics are being too harsh by using specific examples from the movie, then at least there's something in the argument about the movie that can be discussed.

[Dementeleus]

I liked the movie more than you, Webslinger, but I agree with your general points and criticism.

[fishstick]

Brace yourselves, I have seen it.OK, I adore HFR. All movies, 2D, 3D,4D doesn`t matter must be made in this. I love the clarity. This is the first time that I did not have a slight migraine and an eye pain from watching a movie. And let me tell you a little secret. These movies look fake in any fps - video game fake in 24 fps and sound stage fake in 48 fps. I`d take sound stage fakeness any day. It didn`t distract me because I loved the fact that there was no blur which is what causes headache and eye pain. So listen to Jim Cameorn, people. This is the future and may he film Avatars in HFR because Gollum looked fantastic in it and Neytiri,etc will look even better. Avatar is perfect for this. Perfect. HFR`s gorgeous. I love it. Me and Wells stand alone against the world of HFR haters. Fuck you all.Now the movie. It`s an A+ if you are EE affictionado and want to see every irrelevant detail. Like to watch grass grow? You get that. Wanna see a paint dry? It`s there too. The movie wasn`t a slog I expected but it wasn`t engaging either due to:a) uninteresting content - nothing really happens plotwise unless by something happens you consider people running into different kinds of danger that are too easily overcome, workman-like direction - PJ knows this universe and can direct in his sleep and this feels exactly like he fell asleep and turned on an autopilot,c) dull or annoying characters - the main lead was dull as a dishwasher since he looked perpetually bored while trying to look brooding and deep thinker or whatever that emo schtick was supposed to be, the 30something prankster "teenagers" were fuckin irritating overactors and the beardless one`s Jedi baseball was really stupid, other dwarves save one didn`t register at all, Team Bombur was pushed into the background, not even a comic relief (kidding)d) most of all completely botched focus. Which brings me to another rating.As a book adaptation this is pure garbage. Z-. Sorry folks but you can love this only if you don`t give a shit about the book. This thing was not The Hobbit. This is The Emo Dwarf. I honestly expected a lot of shit here but that they would turn Thorin into protagonist and sideline Bilbo, that I didn`t think they`d dare. Holy Molly am I pissed. This is made for "I wanna see Hunt for Gollum, ________(insert other uninspiring event from fuckin overrated Appendices) crowd, not for TH fans. So, you know, typical Jacksonites. This is a huge transgression. Huge. Bilbo is the heart and soul of the story, not Thorin who is Bilbo`s antagonist. By changing the POV form Bilbo to Thorin, who is made defacto lead here, they changed the dynamics for worse hence why the movie isn`t engaging.I fuckin can`t believe it! I want to scream and scratch PJ`s face and leave huge deep blood marks!OK, phew, I`m calm now. The reason why this change does not work is that Thorin is simply a boring character. Looking bored (aka brooding but lets face it, this ain`t a high calibre actor so he wouldn`t know the difference) bores. And he looked bored all the time. And emo. This is bad because emo people don`t make relationships and don`t bond. This fucker was just sulking away from everyone instead of interacting with his people aside Balin . Speaking of, why isn`t Balin getting more love around here? He was terrific and should have been more present.So we got more Thorin and gandalf who ha dno chemistry whatsoever since Thorin is terrible dullard and Gandalf is awesome instead of more Gandalf and Bilbo. Or more BIlbo for the matter because THIS IS BILBO STORY DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Bilbo`s great. I don`t think that Freeman`s the only one who could play him but he did the job. he was suitably goofy at first and suitably smart and cunning and brave as the movie progressed. Riddles was aces. I especially liked his acting when he proposes to Gollum to play the game. I liked the confidence and the "I see you`re a loon so I`m gonna play with you a little" thinking going on. Great. I think that was Freeman`s take on character rather than PJ`s who was more directing him into "ooooh, I don`t know what to do,uuuum, ok, I think I know" fish out of water. Spekaing of, since Thorin has become the center around which all planets orbit, it`s only natural that Bilbo wishes nothing more but to gain his approval. Cue a stupid scene where invisible Bilbo is hiding behind a tree eavesdropping. :rolleyes:Oh, speaking of, I think that repetition of instances where someone overhears something rivaled those when someone (cough Gandalfcough) saves everyone at the last moment from a super mortal danger that they`d survive anyway. Except when the plot requires it, less mortal situation had the Emo Dwarf knocked unconsious so that Bilbo could win his approval. Jesus and Mary! Bilbo`s a 40 years old educated man. His goal in life isn`t to win some petulant king`s trust. He doesn`t give a shit what people think. he`s mature,OK? Oh God. I really fuckin hate this bored and boring emo bitch. Because of him, we didn`t get to experience the flight on eagle`s back through Bilbo`s eyes. No grand moment of first flight like Harry and Buckbeak or Jake and his ikran. No. The focus is freakin Thorin. Because he`s uncoscious eevryone worries about him, no one experiences the flight. And I want Bilbo. I don`t care about Thorin. Fuck Thorin. They put him in the elad because Aragorn was the most popular character in LOTR and they figured if they Aragornize Thorin the movie would be a bigger success than with Bilbo in the lead. Well, fuckers, IT ISN`T! Nobody cares for him. he doesn`t carry emotional weight even though PJ&co tried really hard to make us weep for him and his kingdom. ZZZZZZZZZ. Been there, done that with a more compeling character who was made reluctant and whiny but never seemed bored and uninterested in people around him but made friendships and was warm and noble and not some petulant bitch who lashes at Bilbo. That`s what antagonist does, not a protagonst, not in this particular story anyway. because Thorin was antagonist originally and that`s why he doesn`t make a compelling protagonist. His stupid behavior at Elrond`s shows that he would be a shit king. Aragorn was always fair so it was easy to feel for such character and see that he would be a good king. But this fucker...Liked Blanchitto, surprisingly. She has such a sweet smile so I don`t know why she insists to play Galadriel like she`s an android. Those 2 times when she smiled where like a sunshine. Much more in character.Radagast was Radaghastly. Just awful. WTF were you thinking PJ? Too much mushrooms? really? Geez.Azog and Goblin King were terrible. Again, I don`t care about anyone`s beef with Thorin. I don`t care. Stop putting the spotlight on him at the expense of Bilbo.They fashioned Thorin to look exactly like Lucian the Lycan in Underworld:Rise of the Lycnas but with classically handsome features for ladies,duh. I guess they thought nobody saw it but sorry bitches I bloody own it on DVD and your Thorin is such a vanilla Lucian without any intensity. You would`ve done yourselves a favor by just cutting and pasting the character. Great charisma, true badassness and his NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO was far better too.I`m so pissed.Adored Stone Giants! Great Great idea execution and SFX.They should have let some dwarves die. Seriously, someone had to die because cartoonishness was beyond ridiculous.As a movie itself, not rated from EE fanboy POV nor from pissed-off book fan Bilbo fangirl one, I`d give it a C+.

Edited December 28, 2012 by fishnets

[Heretic]

So, in other words, you hated it. Shocker.