Movie The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Dont be a lemon]

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/

 

[kosifantutti]

I found the 48 fps made it look a little cheap. The actors in the foreground were well defined but it looked like they were in a theatre with a painted backdrop.

I've never been a fan of the big blockbuster movie but this was OK. It's a loooong time since I read the book and I'm sure they have added a significant character who wasn't in the book.

 

[Caesar]

Yeah, Radagast isn't in the book.

 

[CF]

seen it in 2d...liked it but felt it lacked the heart of the LOTR and was a typical over bloated Peter Jackson movie. Most of the CGI was excellent but there were times where it looked a bit fake like the rabbit sled part. The movie seemed less about Bilbo and more about the Dwarves. The scene with Gollum was excellent. Overall it seemed to me that because Jackson was trying to stuff everything he could into making the movie an experience like a carnival ride, the story lost cohesion many times.

Hopefully as Bilbo said, "The worst is behind us!" and the remaining movies will build on what this one begun and reach the peaks we were hoping for. But we said that about the Star Wars prequels didn't we?

I liked it but wasn't blown away by it. 6/10

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Just saw it. First movie I've seen in 3D. Should have stuck with 2D.

Not as good as LOTR but pretty good. Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo. Couldn't help but think Radagast looked like a Pirates of the Caribbean character though. Will have to see again to get better verdict as I found myself being too distracted by the annoying glasses I had to wear..

Nothing will be as good as Fellowship in the middle earth universe imo. Still the best one.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Saw it in 3D and 48FPS. The 3D was fine, but the 48FPS was awful. I won't say it ruined the film, because that's just stupid. But it was far more noticeable than it should've been. At times things looked like they were moving WAY too fast. It felt like watching an American soap opera in the middle of the day. Best way I can put it. I'd read that the CGI was looking awful because of it, but I didn't really notice that. However if they want 48FPS to be the way of the future, CGI has to take several big steps forward. It's not up to that level yet. The Great Goblin (Barry Humpheries) comes too mind, it looked like CGI whereas in 24FPS they've got that downpat looking basically lifelike.

The film as a whole was all a bit meh. It felt like Jackson was trying to turn it into an epic, LOTR style film. Which The Hobbit isn't. I can only repeat words that many others have already used: Bloated, slow, overly drawn out. The scenes with old Bilbo and Frodo at the start (very start, no spoilers here) felt far longer than they needed to. The book starts with Bilbo meeting Gandalf, whereas in the film it took maybe 10-15 minutes to get there. Felt like it was trying to emulate the prologue opening of LOTR. We could've had Thorin explain it later in the film, and would've been more effective IMO. Perhaps at that first camping scene?

Martin Freeman was brilliant, Richard Armitage was really good as Thorin. Ian McKellen was...Ian McKellen. But it just didn't have that sense of fun and adventure that The Hobbit book had. All throughout the movie there was this overwhelming sense of "Shit's about to get messed up", whereas in the book it had Bilbo's attitude of "Gonna get some gold, why not?".

About a 6.5-7/10. It was okay, but so far it's the Jan Brady of the LOTR series. However, worth seeing solely for Martin Freeman.

 

[kaysee]

Anyone who has read the book seen it yet?

Haven't read the book for years, but here is my take on it...

Spoiler

Like others have said it was slow to get going... 1st 15-20 minutes felt like deleted/extended scenes to LOTR:FOTR. It wasn't really needed, but perhaps they're laying some ground work for the 3rd movie and connecting it to LOTR. The prologue I didn't mind so much, but it could have been left for a later scene. I would have preferred the 1st line in the movie to have been "In a hole in the ground..." etc.

The pre-Rivendell adventuring scenes seemed tedious, the trolls seemed to "cartoony/comical" and I didn't like their take of grumpy Saruman... it was as if they were trying to continue the trend of him being a LOTR "baddie" when he wasn't always bad. They should have left him as still maintaining his "good" white wizard attitude in the discussions surrounding the Necromancer... then they could have pushed his turning throughout the 3 movies as the Necromancer grew stronger.

Aside from that, some pacing was like a fun carnival ride.... but I liked it. The Hobbit is more of a children's book and less serious than LOTR. Everything from Rivendell onwards was great IMO, save the Goblin King... again, he seemed too cartoony (prob because Barry Humphries was voicing).

PS - hung around for all the credits.. no bonus scenes or Hobbit 2 trailers

EDIT: the only other thing that annoyed me (and happens in other films) is consistency. In this case consistency with the powers or Gandalf (and Thorin to a lesser degree). We've seen in LOTR and even in parts of the Hobbit Gandalf show-casing some butt-whiping powers and fighting skills. Remember him charging onto the fields outside Gondor, shining a bright light to ward off the Nazgul (?) and save Farimir?? Of even late in the Hobbit he knocks a horde of goblins with magic before he leads the exodus hacking his way past more etc. Or take Thorin... early in the Hobbit they show him leading his army in a battle for Moria and he eventually dismembers the mighty Pale Orc... ok... so where is the inconsistency.

About 1/3 the way through the party face a small hunting group of orcs/wargs (not many... maybe about 10-15) and yet these mighty and powerful warriors flee in fear of their lives. I can understand them fleeing a horde of orcs/goblins, but not a small party

 

[yakka man]

Seeing it tomorrow.

 

[Kyptastic]

Just came back. I had a massive smile on my face the whole time. Pretty much everything was fantastic.

The only thing I thought a little weird was the changing of the some of the past history of the Dwarves. That said, it wasn't changed too much and I have to wait and see what happens around it in the remaining films to truly judge how I feel about it.

Can't wait until next year.

 

[Lockyer24]

2D'd it. Smeagle continues to steal the show, doesn't he precious.
Good starting point to the trilogy but the scene in Bilbo's hut dragged a bit. So many little things put a smile on your face throughout...
It's so good to see amazing special effects used well in movies like this though, unlike two bit no plot action films.

 

[Caesar]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-hobbit-to-feature-53minutelong-scene-of-bilbo,30727/

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Saw it today, was actually pleasantly surprised.

In terms of the negatives, the onion article nails it- this is an insanely self indulgent movie in terms of it length- the whole story could probably be done as a very tight 3 and a bit hour film, or two comfortably paced 2.5 hour films, no way did it need this length.

There is no reason to have Radagast (did lol hard when he and Gandalf share a stealthy toke to settle their nerves), no reason for the 20 minute montage at the start, no reason for the insanely lengthy sequence at bilbo's house, no reason for the inserted fight scene at the end, or the unnecessary Azog out for revenge subplot, just trimming all that plus tighter editing would compress the contents of this movie into about an hour and a half.

In terms of the positives, a lot of the movie is visually beautiful, Martin Freeman is a wonderfully unassuming hero (How brilliant would Lord of the Rings have been if he had been cast as either Frodo or Sam?) Ian McKellen still owns Gandalf, and there are some scenes which just are wet your pants great. I felt like I had been waiting to see the Gollum and Bilbo scene since I first read the hobbit as a primary school kid, and it was perfect in every way- Andy Serkis is simply a genius, and the whole finding the ring-escaping the mountain sequence was good.
Although the film tries hard for laughs, I did crack up when Gandalf poked the great goblin in his eye with the blunt end of his staff- just seemed like such a shit thing to do to someone.

Overall, based on the reviews I was expecting this to be ghastly, so I was presently surprised and a little relieved. Its a very enjoyable, albeit long winded experience, which casual cinemagoers will like, and tolkien fans will fap themselves senseless over. I am a bit worried how the second one will play out- surely this could be wrapped up in another 3 hours?! wtf are they going to spend the second film doing?!

Peter Jackson really is an interesting cat- about 1/3rd of what he does is genius, but you have to wade through a lot of unnecessary stuff to find the good bits. I reckon he is a Paul McCartney badly in need of a John Lennon to pull him into line when he is getting self indulgent.

 

[kaysee]

2D'd it. Smeagle continues to steal the show, doesn't he precious.
Good starting point to the trilogy but the scene in Bilbo's hut dragged a bit. So many little things put a smile on your face throughout...
It's so good to see amazing special effects used well in movies like this though, unlike two bit no plot action films.

"In a hole in the ground..."

 

[Gasometer]

Will a 9yr old kid sit through this with no prior knowledge or are we best seeing 'Parental Guidance'?

Is it over 3 hours? How long?

 

[SuperCats9]

Saw it last night in 2D, not as good as LOTR (but nothing is better than that trilogy IMO, best movies ever). Anyway, i really enjoyed The Hobbit, i thought it was a well made movie but a couple of things i didn't like about it was the fact that it wasn't as serious and dark as LOTR, there were a lot more funny moments in The Hobbit, which is not bad but sometimes they went to far, especially with the scene with the Great Goblin who says to Gandalf, "What are you going to do now, Wizard?", then Gandalf just slices his gut open and the Goblin says, "That'll do it", was poor and didn't look good.
And Radagast was not needed, just didn't work into the story and what was going on and just doesn't suit it at all.

To be honest, the characters we already know made the film, i didn't connect with any of the new ones except maybe young Bilbo. With LOTR, after the first film i loved all the characters, especially Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam etc, none of the Dwarves did it for me, and once Gollum came into it, it really went up a notch.

I give it a solid 8.5/10, worth watching and i can't wait for the next 2 movies as i'm sure they'll get better and better.

 

[Smackrobiotic]

Will a 9yr old kid sit through this with no prior knowledge or are we best seeing 'Parental Guidance'?

Is it over 3 hours? How long?

I'd imagine a younger child would be pretty bored by the first 45 minutes or so. The beginning of the movie is PAINFULLY slow and there's simply too much unnessecary dialogue. The problem this movie has is when it starts to get interesting with some brief action sequences you get sucked back into long expositions and pointless conversations.

Absolutely loved the book. This is simply a movie that is trying to hard to be something that it's not. It's not a crap movie, but it's not one that I'd really give a second viewing, at least until next year before the sequel is released.

I have to admit, I did get pretty happy seeing Brett from Flight of the Conchords in it.

 

[Gasometer]

I'd imagine a younger child would be pretty bored by the first 45 minutes or so. The beginning of the movie is PAINFULLY slow and there's simply too much unnessecary dialogue. The problem this movie has is when it starts to get interesting with some brief action sequences you get sucked back into long expositions and pointless conversations.

Absolutely loved the book. This is simply a movie that is trying to hard to be something that it's not. It's not a crap movie, but it's not one that I'd really give a second viewing, at least until next year before the sequel is released.

Ok, a miss.

^^ Reminds me of what I recall of the first LOTR.

 

[Smackrobiotic]

Ok, a miss.

^^ Reminds me of what I recall of the first LOTR.

Yeah. There's some pretty cool action sequences that are really enjoyable, but I don't think they'd have the patience to sit through the dialogue.

 

[Mint Condition]

Saw it today in regular 2D. I liked it a lot. The only thing that I thought was unnecessary were the scenes with Frodo at the beginning. But I guess it will tie in with the end so will reserve judgement. All the stuff at Bag End with the dwarves arriving etc is pretty true to the book. And I didn't think it was too long winded. I'm glad they included a couple of songs.

Loved the choice to add all the stuff about the necromancer and radagast etc. And I think Thorin is a better character in the movie than in the book.

 

[SuperCats9]

Yeah i enjoyed the start too, don't know why people think it isn't needed, Bilbo is telling a story, so it's good to know what's going on.

 

[Kyptastic]

Loved the choice to add all the stuff about the necromancer and radagast etc.

I think it's important that this stuff is included. After all, there's a huge chunk of the Hobbit where Gandalf just disappears. If he just vanished halfway through a movie, people would want to know what he's doing. The bits with Radagast, Dol Guldur and the White Council are all set up for what we'll likely see in the Desolation of Smaug.

 

[yakka man]

Just saw it in HFR 3D. Loved it just as I knew I would. Martin Freeman as Bilbo was a perfect choice for the role and he played it brilliantly. It's definitely worth seeing in 3D and some of the 3D shots were amazing. I still look forward to seeing it in normal 2D on DVD.

 

[Thrawn]

I didn't like the 3D version, a lot of the background was a little blurry. I did love how they expanded on the Dwarves - so to the person who said that the montages were unnecessary, pfft. I loved the Dwarven city and how they showed more of their culture.

 

[jod23]

Loved it. But im a huge LOTR fan so I knew I would. Yeah it was slow and talky in parts but so was the original LOTR movies, particularly the extended versions (but thats obvious considering they are extended versions) I though the action scenes were terrific. The only thing I could say I didnt like was the lack of character development for each dwarf. You dont really get to know each one so therefore you dont really care about them. There is a lot of them so obviously it would be difficult to flesh them all out on screen. In the original LOTR trilogy, every character was so well written that you cared about them and got to know them.

Still I really enjoyed it. Want to see it again and cant wait for the sequel.

Oh and the scene where Bilbo finds the ring and is deep within the mountain with Gollum steal the film. Serkis is genius and that whole scene was terrific.

 

[jod23]

Oh and the visuals were stunning. The way they showed the Dwarf city in the mountain was immense. As was the Goblin city and the giants.