I've seen "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" quite a few times now. I like it a lot. The first few times I watched it I found it hit and miss. The movie still takes a couple of dips here and there but those parts don't bother me as much as they used to. Now the only demerit I give this movie has to do with its length. It's a about twenty minutes too long. Otherwise, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a very exciting and emotional ride. It's also a great looking movie with very good music. This movie is always a welcome visit.
1,559 Reviews
This is an underrated gem that gets overshadowed by the greatness of Lord of the Rings
kevin_robbins28 September 2022
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) is a movie I originally saw in theaters, is in my DVD collection and I recently rewatched with my daughter on HBOMAX. The storyline for this picture involves our old friend, Bilbo Baggins, as a youth when Gandalf the wizard shows up at his door about an adventure. Bilbo says no but that night 12 dwarfs show up at his door and tells him a story about a dragon that stole their homeland and gold. They would like to return home, regain their kingdom and need Bilbo's help to make that happen. Bilbo will try to say no, but we all know he can't.
This movie is directed by Peter Jackson (Bad Taste) and stars Martin Freeman (Black Panther), Ian McKellen (X-Men), Andy Serkis (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), Richard Armitage (Into the Storm), Graham McTavish (Rambo) and James Nesbitt (Match Point).
The settings, cast, special effects, attire and props in this are absolutely out of this world. The introduction of the characters is hilarious and very well done. I adored how well the perception of the characters of each other is depicted and how that evolves over time. There's some war scenes in this that's awesome and every scene with the orcs riding the wolves is tremendous. The goblin king sequence in the cave is well executed and it's impossible not to love the riddle game with Gollum. The final battle at the cliff was perfect.
Overall, this is an underrated gem that gets overshadowed by the greatness of Lord of the Rings. I would score this a 9/10 and strongly recommend it.
This movie is directed by Peter Jackson (Bad Taste) and stars Martin Freeman (Black Panther), Ian McKellen (X-Men), Andy Serkis (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes), Richard Armitage (Into the Storm), Graham McTavish (Rambo) and James Nesbitt (Match Point).
The settings, cast, special effects, attire and props in this are absolutely out of this world. The introduction of the characters is hilarious and very well done. I adored how well the perception of the characters of each other is depicted and how that evolves over time. There's some war scenes in this that's awesome and every scene with the orcs riding the wolves is tremendous. The goblin king sequence in the cave is well executed and it's impossible not to love the riddle game with Gollum. The final battle at the cliff was perfect.
Overall, this is an underrated gem that gets overshadowed by the greatness of Lord of the Rings. I would score this a 9/10 and strongly recommend it.
An Unexpected Movie
G00fhunter24 August 2020
Let me start by saying that i have never watched any of the Lord of The Rings movies before.I was told to start with the hobbit. I was amazed at how cool this franchise must be as i loved every minute of it.I kinda feel ashamed for not giving this series a try earlier. 8/10 from me ,yeah that good.
A visual feast but yet I wasn't gripped by the story or characters as much as I should have been
bob the moo26 January 2013
When I heard that there was to be a film version of The Hobbit, I was quite looking forward to it as the big finish of Lord of the Rings was still in my mind and, unlike LotR, I had actually read The Hobbit several times many years ago. When I heard that it might be two films I wasn't surprised but the news that it was to be three did rather dampen my spirits as I don't know if I had the interest for this story to be concluded as 2016 rolls into town. Regardless I did of course watch the film because it is still a large blockbuster and, at a time of the year normally filled with overly earnest Oscar contenders, I did quite like the idea of returning to this world again.
With this in mind I did wonder why I watched it with a surprisingly detached air and why I wasn't able to get into it like I should have done. I had some reservations with the first film in the LotR trilogy but this seemed different because it certainly wasn't a lack of action and forward motion that gave me a problem here. Quite the opposite actually because, once the first 45 minutes or so are out of the way then the action set-pieces come thick and fast and noisy. The opening hints at the power of the dragon to come before settling down for a gentle reintroduction to the Shire and then the characters we will follow; this section I found a little longer than it should have been and I could have done with a bit less noisy banter from the Dwarfs, since the film would provide much more from them. The majority of the film is the journey (or at least that bit of it that this film covers) and it produces plenty of action with great special effects really well integrated into the live action. So visually and technically there is plenty here. Problem is that little of it felt urgent or tense and actually the delivery of the constant action does rather detract from it.
With Fellowship of the Ring, the group was smaller and the development of the plot better; additionally the action was more scaled down and comparatively simple. Here we have set-pieces where it feels like everything has been thrown at the screen and every inch of every frame has been filled with movement wherever possible. This tended to overwhelm me rather than draw me in though and in effect the noise prevented me really getting into it. Likewise by the time I had seen the characters survive impossible situations and defy gravity for the third or fourth time, the film sort of lost the ability to make me believe there was danger involved – which is a problem given I was already being pushed away by how busy and noisy it all was. Tellingly the scene that worked the best for me was with Gollum; this scene had tension, had uncertainity, had threat and did it all with small movements and dialogue; also worth noting that while Gollum is of course another special effect, you don't notice it in that scene because you are focused on the content instead of the visual.
The cast sort of fit into this approach as well. While everyone is fine and does as required, at times they do tend to become part of the noise and effects rather than being characters. Freeman is a good Bilbo and his mannerisms work well (which helps negate his limited range) while of course McKellen is always welcome. The dwarfs didn't make much of an impression on me though, even if they all looked the part and delivered a few laughs. The rest of the cast are all fine but to be honest the effects are the main stars here and technically it is very impressive even if it is a bit overdone at times.
I didn't dislike The Hobbit but at the same time I was disappointed in it. The action is noisy and busy but there isn't enough to draw me into the story or to make the action thrill me so much as it did overwhelm me. Hopefully the second film will see the characters and plots grow me on so that I am more emotionally bought into the films, but for this first one I must confess to being surprised by how much the film seemed content to have me watch from a distance rather than draw me in and engage me.
With this in mind I did wonder why I watched it with a surprisingly detached air and why I wasn't able to get into it like I should have done. I had some reservations with the first film in the LotR trilogy but this seemed different because it certainly wasn't a lack of action and forward motion that gave me a problem here. Quite the opposite actually because, once the first 45 minutes or so are out of the way then the action set-pieces come thick and fast and noisy. The opening hints at the power of the dragon to come before settling down for a gentle reintroduction to the Shire and then the characters we will follow; this section I found a little longer than it should have been and I could have done with a bit less noisy banter from the Dwarfs, since the film would provide much more from them. The majority of the film is the journey (or at least that bit of it that this film covers) and it produces plenty of action with great special effects really well integrated into the live action. So visually and technically there is plenty here. Problem is that little of it felt urgent or tense and actually the delivery of the constant action does rather detract from it.
With Fellowship of the Ring, the group was smaller and the development of the plot better; additionally the action was more scaled down and comparatively simple. Here we have set-pieces where it feels like everything has been thrown at the screen and every inch of every frame has been filled with movement wherever possible. This tended to overwhelm me rather than draw me in though and in effect the noise prevented me really getting into it. Likewise by the time I had seen the characters survive impossible situations and defy gravity for the third or fourth time, the film sort of lost the ability to make me believe there was danger involved – which is a problem given I was already being pushed away by how busy and noisy it all was. Tellingly the scene that worked the best for me was with Gollum; this scene had tension, had uncertainity, had threat and did it all with small movements and dialogue; also worth noting that while Gollum is of course another special effect, you don't notice it in that scene because you are focused on the content instead of the visual.
The cast sort of fit into this approach as well. While everyone is fine and does as required, at times they do tend to become part of the noise and effects rather than being characters. Freeman is a good Bilbo and his mannerisms work well (which helps negate his limited range) while of course McKellen is always welcome. The dwarfs didn't make much of an impression on me though, even if they all looked the part and delivered a few laughs. The rest of the cast are all fine but to be honest the effects are the main stars here and technically it is very impressive even if it is a bit overdone at times.
I didn't dislike The Hobbit but at the same time I was disappointed in it. The action is noisy and busy but there isn't enough to draw me into the story or to make the action thrill me so much as it did overwhelm me. Hopefully the second film will see the characters and plots grow me on so that I am more emotionally bought into the films, but for this first one I must confess to being surprised by how much the film seemed content to have me watch from a distance rather than draw me in and engage me.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
auuwws20 December 2020
A very good start to the series. Very sensitive for the rest of the process, even though the movie was slow for the first half hour, it didn't affect my experience that much. The story is fun and interesting. Most of the film's protagonists were fun and watching Gandalf bring back memories of The Lord of the Rings. Filming and directing dazzles you and makes you wish to live in the world of cinema, especially in the Elf area. Although the film is not at the level of The Lord of the Rings, it is still excellent.
Not groundbreaking but still a great fantasy experience!
and_mikkelsen17 October 2022
I Remember the first time i watched this movie in the cinema and i did not like it as much i thought i would! Maybe it was because my hopes were very high after LOTR and while this movie gad elements from that, it didn't reach the same level in terms of story and visuals!
Jacksons overuse of CGI sometimes pull me out of it, but its not as bad as the third movie, which almost gives me headaches!
But over the time i have learned to like the movie and look past its flaws! Compared to the first season of Rings of Power this movie is deffinetely not bad, and does a better job of conveying a story with characters you care about! When it comes to the source material this movie doesn't drag as much as the others! The scenes with gollum are "hands down" the best part of the movie!
Overall a great fantasy experience that still excists in the shadow of its predecacors but entertains none the less!
Jacksons overuse of CGI sometimes pull me out of it, but its not as bad as the third movie, which almost gives me headaches!
But over the time i have learned to like the movie and look past its flaws! Compared to the first season of Rings of Power this movie is deffinetely not bad, and does a better job of conveying a story with characters you care about! When it comes to the source material this movie doesn't drag as much as the others! The scenes with gollum are "hands down" the best part of the movie!
Overall a great fantasy experience that still excists in the shadow of its predecacors but entertains none the less!
"The world is not in your book and maps. It's out there!"
Al_The_Strange28 December 2012
Ten years ago, I laid eyes on Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, and instantly fell in love. I realized pretty quickly that it was the perfect combination of style and substance: a film so loaded with story and detail, but also had enough style and action to make the experience truly epic. This experience would only be supplanted by The Two Towers and The Return of the King, the latter of which has taken its place as my personal number-one favorite movie.
After so many years of legal battles and creative turmoil, The Hobbit is finally adapted for the big screen. If anything could displace the Lord of the Rings as my favorite film trilogy, I was certain that it would be The Hobbit; if for no other reason than I found Tolkien's The Hobbit is a far easier and funner read than LOTR, and I always knew that there would be moments that would make for excellent cinema.
Despite the underwhelming reviews and reception, I found The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey satisfying; it met my expectations perfectly. I won't deny, however, that the film overall feels like a long-labored attempt to force lightning to strike twice. Not only because of all the story padding, connections to LOTR, returning stars, and the splitting of the story into three films, but also insomuch as trying to craft new iconic characters out of Bilbo and Thorin to mirror Frodo and Aragorn respectively. I think the thing that really gets on people's nerves is the sheer audacity in taking a single book (one that was previously adapted into a humble, bite-sized 79-minute cartoon) and exploding it into a 500-minute franchise. Thus follows the common complaints that the films are too long, too padded, too big for their own good.
Personally, none of these factors really affected my enjoyment of the film. The only real drag I felt was in the opening act; the Shire scenes seemed to take a good while to wrap up. Once the party hit the road, the film explored the big plot points I remembered well from the novel's first third, complete with awesome rip-roaring action. The film's final act is pretty jam-packed with loads of orc-slaying mayhem. Above all, however, the film has a nice sprinkling of humor and character throughout, keeping things lightweight and even. I think the most memorable and satisfying of scenes, however, will be the major encounters that I remember fondly from the novel: outwitting the three trolls, for example, or the riddle scenes with Gollum, are all brought to life perfectly on the big screen.
The story for The Hobbit is as quintessential of a fantasy adventure as, well, Lord of the Rings. The film not only does a fine job of packing in loads of events, characters, and fine details from The Hobbit's original narrative and story, but it also ties in some content from The Silmarillion and the appendices of Tolkien's books. A lot of this is incorporated to make tangible ties with LOTR, allowing the film to serve as a proper prequel, while digging up additional subplots, conflicts, and details to layer onto all of Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth films. Yes, the film could have all these extra scenes cut out, making the film trimmer. Frankly, I liked it the way it is. Some of the scenes helped me understand certain nuances of The Hobbit's politics and backstories. Some helped in the nuances of established characters and events (especially in regards to chronicling Gandalf's whereabouts, who would otherwise just pop in and out randomly, like in the book, but it would have probably alienated audiences further). Some is purely invented for the film series to streamline the continuity (purists might be outraged when they see Radagast on screen). It's a bit early to tell where The Hobbit is going with all the threads it has grabbed, but it does serve a purpose in the long run. If nothing else, it'll help average audiences connect and understand the Middle Earth on a deeper level, and set things up for later events in the next two films.
As expected, the film looks splendid, with quality photography and editing. I'm especially pleased to see that the filmmakers dropped the shaky-cam effects that were dispensed in the fight scenes of LOTR; just about every shot in The Hobbit is solid and steady. Acting is pretty decent from the whole cast; aside from all the familiar faces, Martin Freeman plays Bilbo with the right amount of nuanced uptightness, while Richard Armitage plays it tough as Thorin, and every other dwarf actor does their best to make their characters stand out in their own neat ways. Writing is great; the script adapts as much as it can from the novel, while allowing the film to breathe on its own. This production is loaded with excellent sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Music is nice too.
Perhaps I'm biased, because this is another film where I see nothing really wrong with it. If anything, it feels like more of the same as LOTR, with the same construction as Fellowship of the Ring. Even if it is a blatant cash-grab, drawing out the material across three movies to maximize the franchise, it is still a fair crowd-pleaser. Given that we still have the desolation of Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies to witness on the big screen, I'm certain that An Unexpected Journey is but a small taste of greater things to come; things that may prove to be as epic, if not moreso, than LOTR! At the very least, the film does perfect justice to the original novel, while delivering a fine spectacle. I couldn't ask for a finer film.
5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Perfect | Film: Perfect)
After so many years of legal battles and creative turmoil, The Hobbit is finally adapted for the big screen. If anything could displace the Lord of the Rings as my favorite film trilogy, I was certain that it would be The Hobbit; if for no other reason than I found Tolkien's The Hobbit is a far easier and funner read than LOTR, and I always knew that there would be moments that would make for excellent cinema.
Despite the underwhelming reviews and reception, I found The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey satisfying; it met my expectations perfectly. I won't deny, however, that the film overall feels like a long-labored attempt to force lightning to strike twice. Not only because of all the story padding, connections to LOTR, returning stars, and the splitting of the story into three films, but also insomuch as trying to craft new iconic characters out of Bilbo and Thorin to mirror Frodo and Aragorn respectively. I think the thing that really gets on people's nerves is the sheer audacity in taking a single book (one that was previously adapted into a humble, bite-sized 79-minute cartoon) and exploding it into a 500-minute franchise. Thus follows the common complaints that the films are too long, too padded, too big for their own good.
Personally, none of these factors really affected my enjoyment of the film. The only real drag I felt was in the opening act; the Shire scenes seemed to take a good while to wrap up. Once the party hit the road, the film explored the big plot points I remembered well from the novel's first third, complete with awesome rip-roaring action. The film's final act is pretty jam-packed with loads of orc-slaying mayhem. Above all, however, the film has a nice sprinkling of humor and character throughout, keeping things lightweight and even. I think the most memorable and satisfying of scenes, however, will be the major encounters that I remember fondly from the novel: outwitting the three trolls, for example, or the riddle scenes with Gollum, are all brought to life perfectly on the big screen.
The story for The Hobbit is as quintessential of a fantasy adventure as, well, Lord of the Rings. The film not only does a fine job of packing in loads of events, characters, and fine details from The Hobbit's original narrative and story, but it also ties in some content from The Silmarillion and the appendices of Tolkien's books. A lot of this is incorporated to make tangible ties with LOTR, allowing the film to serve as a proper prequel, while digging up additional subplots, conflicts, and details to layer onto all of Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth films. Yes, the film could have all these extra scenes cut out, making the film trimmer. Frankly, I liked it the way it is. Some of the scenes helped me understand certain nuances of The Hobbit's politics and backstories. Some helped in the nuances of established characters and events (especially in regards to chronicling Gandalf's whereabouts, who would otherwise just pop in and out randomly, like in the book, but it would have probably alienated audiences further). Some is purely invented for the film series to streamline the continuity (purists might be outraged when they see Radagast on screen). It's a bit early to tell where The Hobbit is going with all the threads it has grabbed, but it does serve a purpose in the long run. If nothing else, it'll help average audiences connect and understand the Middle Earth on a deeper level, and set things up for later events in the next two films.
As expected, the film looks splendid, with quality photography and editing. I'm especially pleased to see that the filmmakers dropped the shaky-cam effects that were dispensed in the fight scenes of LOTR; just about every shot in The Hobbit is solid and steady. Acting is pretty decent from the whole cast; aside from all the familiar faces, Martin Freeman plays Bilbo with the right amount of nuanced uptightness, while Richard Armitage plays it tough as Thorin, and every other dwarf actor does their best to make their characters stand out in their own neat ways. Writing is great; the script adapts as much as it can from the novel, while allowing the film to breathe on its own. This production is loaded with excellent sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Music is nice too.
Perhaps I'm biased, because this is another film where I see nothing really wrong with it. If anything, it feels like more of the same as LOTR, with the same construction as Fellowship of the Ring. Even if it is a blatant cash-grab, drawing out the material across three movies to maximize the franchise, it is still a fair crowd-pleaser. Given that we still have the desolation of Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies to witness on the big screen, I'm certain that An Unexpected Journey is but a small taste of greater things to come; things that may prove to be as epic, if not moreso, than LOTR! At the very least, the film does perfect justice to the original novel, while delivering a fine spectacle. I couldn't ask for a finer film.
5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Perfect | Film: Perfect)
The Hobbit turns out to be a rather unexpected delight
BeholdTheBloodshed29 December 2012
Firstly, I have to make a statement- the LOTR movies, for me, have set an impossibly high bar both in this universe and within the movie world as a whole. Their cinematic beauty and value cannot be denied.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, however, is an entirely different movie. Sure, it's set in the world of Middle Earth, but that's really about all it holds in common with the aforementioned trilogy, alongside a few familiar faces. Many members of the audience I was in complained that the movie took a long time to get going, but it actually was paced rather well, with a suitably sized introduction with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood making way for the current storyline. The first thing you notice as a viewer is that this movie is notably funnier. Whilst the LOTR trilogy had it's lighter moments, The Hobbit revels in the lighter side of life, with lots of genuinely hilarious moments interspersing themselves with scenes of real peril.The visually stunning moments are still there, and whilst I saw this movie in 2D, some moments would have been absolutely perfect in 3D. At first, it's a little difficult to get into, especially when the light-hearted opening with the countless visiting dwarfs gets underway. However, if you can remind yourself as a viewer that The Hobbit was a book written for a much younger, impressionable audience, then you'll likely have a good time watching this. That said, it is far from childish, and although it is a lighter, more fun affair, there are still many parts within the story that an adult audience can relate to.
Martin Freeman has been a firm favourite of mine since his humble beginnings on British terrestrial television, and seeing him here on the big screen is both a welcome and bizarre experience. That said, his demeanour and technique are perfect for the role of Bilbo Baggins, as he exudes the homely, simple manner of a Hobbit very effectively. Ian McKellen is perfect as everyone's favourite wizard, and Richard Armitage (another former British television star playing his trade to the silver screen)is a brilliant Thorin (son of Thrain!), mixing a toughened heart with a tortured soul. If anything, Thorin may turn out to be the true hero of the piece. The rest of the dwarfs are also brilliant, and many of them are the highlights of the movie.
The special effects are once again spectacular, with the eye wateringly stunning rock giant battle a particularly memorable moment. The makeup effects are up to the job, too, and the attention to detail is ridiculous, right down to the individual scratches and weathered look of the weapons the characters wield. If you enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, then Peter Jackson will have you in awe again, although The Hobbit trilogy looks set to be a much more relaxed and 'fun' adventure. At the end of the day, the only complain to be made about the movie is that it simply isn't LOTR. Those movies set such a high level that even Peter Jackson himself can't seem to top them with this effort, but that's a minor complain for what is otherwise I very well made movie.
Cinematic, adventurous, enjoyable and epic- The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey knows its audience and caters to them very well indeed.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, however, is an entirely different movie. Sure, it's set in the world of Middle Earth, but that's really about all it holds in common with the aforementioned trilogy, alongside a few familiar faces. Many members of the audience I was in complained that the movie took a long time to get going, but it actually was paced rather well, with a suitably sized introduction with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood making way for the current storyline. The first thing you notice as a viewer is that this movie is notably funnier. Whilst the LOTR trilogy had it's lighter moments, The Hobbit revels in the lighter side of life, with lots of genuinely hilarious moments interspersing themselves with scenes of real peril.The visually stunning moments are still there, and whilst I saw this movie in 2D, some moments would have been absolutely perfect in 3D. At first, it's a little difficult to get into, especially when the light-hearted opening with the countless visiting dwarfs gets underway. However, if you can remind yourself as a viewer that The Hobbit was a book written for a much younger, impressionable audience, then you'll likely have a good time watching this. That said, it is far from childish, and although it is a lighter, more fun affair, there are still many parts within the story that an adult audience can relate to.
Martin Freeman has been a firm favourite of mine since his humble beginnings on British terrestrial television, and seeing him here on the big screen is both a welcome and bizarre experience. That said, his demeanour and technique are perfect for the role of Bilbo Baggins, as he exudes the homely, simple manner of a Hobbit very effectively. Ian McKellen is perfect as everyone's favourite wizard, and Richard Armitage (another former British television star playing his trade to the silver screen)is a brilliant Thorin (son of Thrain!), mixing a toughened heart with a tortured soul. If anything, Thorin may turn out to be the true hero of the piece. The rest of the dwarfs are also brilliant, and many of them are the highlights of the movie.
The special effects are once again spectacular, with the eye wateringly stunning rock giant battle a particularly memorable moment. The makeup effects are up to the job, too, and the attention to detail is ridiculous, right down to the individual scratches and weathered look of the weapons the characters wield. If you enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, then Peter Jackson will have you in awe again, although The Hobbit trilogy looks set to be a much more relaxed and 'fun' adventure. At the end of the day, the only complain to be made about the movie is that it simply isn't LOTR. Those movies set such a high level that even Peter Jackson himself can't seem to top them with this effort, but that's a minor complain for what is otherwise I very well made movie.
Cinematic, adventurous, enjoyable and epic- The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey knows its audience and caters to them very well indeed.
An Unexpected Disappointment
gorbadoc2513 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I was convinced the (many) criticisms I read beforehand were exaggerated and wouldn't bother me. To my surprise, quite some criticisms seemed justified in the end ...
***THE SCRIPT***
ADDITIONS: On paper, the additions looked like a great way to create added value. However, while I understand why they included them, they all feel out of place.
FROM THE BOOK: The episodic structure prevents the film from having a fluid narrative and squeezes the tension out of every new dangerous situation: the events just leave you cold.
In the book, we experience everything through Bilbo's eyes, which creates a strong connection between the reader and the main part. This is missing from the movie: Bilbo even seemed to have more or less disappeared between the troll encounter and the stone giants' battle. His homesickness, his doubts, all of this isn't really developed in the script.
The emphasis on Thorin is a good thing, but also not perfect: during the enclosure by the Wargs, I didn't buy Thorin's charge towards Azog and especially Bilbo's sudden "action hero saves the day in the nick of time" intervention. The latter seemed like a very inappropriate way to illustrate Bilbo's courage.
There were actually only two great scenes: Riddles in the Dark is amazing, but ironically, it also painfully shows how mediocre the rest of the movie actually is, because this is the only moment that comes close to the level of LOTR. Also, Bilbo's speech after they've escaped Goblin Town is a very welcome, for rare touching moment.
***THE PACING***
It's quite astonishing some people complain about the pacing, because the film was over before I knew it. In fact, I think the pacing is about just right and proved it would have been really difficult to adapt the book in just one fully-fledged movie. But since I didn't like the additions, I'm doubting whether a third film is necessary after all (but I suspend my judgment until 2014).
***THE CINEMATOGRAPHY***
One of the biggest (unpleasant) surprises is the cinematographic style. I'm not talking about the bright colors or the digital images, but the (lack of physical) camera use. Whereas LOTR has stunning "real" camera movements and an extremely accomplished "handicraft" feel, AUJ often feels like a video game. The camera is flying and whirling so limitlessly that it just doesn't feel like an authentic movie anymore. This is particularly apparent during the Orc chase and above all the absurd Goblin Town escape. The CGI is perfect, but too much is just too much.
***THE MUSIC***
After my long list of complaints, I'm truly relieved to say there is at least one thing that unconditionally gets my support, which is the score. The people who unfairly label Howard Shore's work as a "re-hash of LOTR" obviously didn't pay full attention, because when you listen to the score multiple times (and I admit it also took me several spins to really appreciate it), you discover a new rich and diverse musical tapestry once again masterfully woven by Shore. OF COURSE you hear the same themes when EXACTLY THE SAME places are visited as in "The Fellowship of the Ring" ... If someone deserves credit for "The Hobbit", it's Shore: his music is in my view the only aspect of the movie on par with the level of LOTR.
***3D & 48 FPS***
***** CONCLUSION *****
I didn't expect (or want) a replica of LOTR, but while "The Hobbit" isn't a bad movie, it isn't good either. I'm still perplexed I don't feel any urge to go see it again, unlike the LOTR films. We can only hope that Jackson recovers in time to save the next two films from unnecessary additions, lack of focus on Bilbo and a video game feeling. Well, at least we have new brilliant music to listen to!
***THE SCRIPT***
ADDITIONS: On paper, the additions looked like a great way to create added value. However, while I understand why they included them, they all feel out of place.
- Opening scene: Ian Holm just looks too dissimilar from his appearance in FOTR (especially his haircut), which is really distracting. The frame story doesn't blend in naturally and the history of Erebor has too much to show in too little time.
- Radagast: He appears as suddenly as he disappears. His scene in Dol Guldur really threw me out of the movie.
- The White Council: I know the screenwriters want to underline the growing dark powers (hence the - preposterous - finding of the Morgul blade), but the empty talk about things of which we all know how they've played out in the LOTR films isn't convincing at all.
- Azog: An appallingly one-dimensional character, who feels most out of place (the fact that he looks like a creature from a cheap horror movie also doesn't help ...). His scenes have a strange "un-Tolkien" vibe, particularly the battle of Azanulbizar (the worst scene of the movie), which doesn't feel like a fierce and thrilling battle at all.
FROM THE BOOK: The episodic structure prevents the film from having a fluid narrative and squeezes the tension out of every new dangerous situation: the events just leave you cold.
In the book, we experience everything through Bilbo's eyes, which creates a strong connection between the reader and the main part. This is missing from the movie: Bilbo even seemed to have more or less disappeared between the troll encounter and the stone giants' battle. His homesickness, his doubts, all of this isn't really developed in the script.
The emphasis on Thorin is a good thing, but also not perfect: during the enclosure by the Wargs, I didn't buy Thorin's charge towards Azog and especially Bilbo's sudden "action hero saves the day in the nick of time" intervention. The latter seemed like a very inappropriate way to illustrate Bilbo's courage.
There were actually only two great scenes: Riddles in the Dark is amazing, but ironically, it also painfully shows how mediocre the rest of the movie actually is, because this is the only moment that comes close to the level of LOTR. Also, Bilbo's speech after they've escaped Goblin Town is a very welcome, for rare touching moment.
***THE PACING***
It's quite astonishing some people complain about the pacing, because the film was over before I knew it. In fact, I think the pacing is about just right and proved it would have been really difficult to adapt the book in just one fully-fledged movie. But since I didn't like the additions, I'm doubting whether a third film is necessary after all (but I suspend my judgment until 2014).
***THE CINEMATOGRAPHY***
One of the biggest (unpleasant) surprises is the cinematographic style. I'm not talking about the bright colors or the digital images, but the (lack of physical) camera use. Whereas LOTR has stunning "real" camera movements and an extremely accomplished "handicraft" feel, AUJ often feels like a video game. The camera is flying and whirling so limitlessly that it just doesn't feel like an authentic movie anymore. This is particularly apparent during the Orc chase and above all the absurd Goblin Town escape. The CGI is perfect, but too much is just too much.
***THE MUSIC***
After my long list of complaints, I'm truly relieved to say there is at least one thing that unconditionally gets my support, which is the score. The people who unfairly label Howard Shore's work as a "re-hash of LOTR" obviously didn't pay full attention, because when you listen to the score multiple times (and I admit it also took me several spins to really appreciate it), you discover a new rich and diverse musical tapestry once again masterfully woven by Shore. OF COURSE you hear the same themes when EXACTLY THE SAME places are visited as in "The Fellowship of the Ring" ... If someone deserves credit for "The Hobbit", it's Shore: his music is in my view the only aspect of the movie on par with the level of LOTR.
***3D & 48 FPS***
- The 3D was good, no complaints about that. However, although I have no problems with watching movies in 3D, I start questioning its necessity.
- I am bewildered many people claim that 48 fps creates a "TV-look" with "actors with clear make-up on a fake set". I didn't have that feeling at all, but on the other hand - and this was the most surprising - the difference with 24 fps isn't THAT spectacular. After 30 minutes, I even had to remind myself: "Oh, I'm watching 48 fps, right?". Yes, the images look very clear and it does smooth fast movements, but the latter (which is positive) only sticks out a couple of times (and no, the motion never comes across as "sped up", so I was never distracted by the higher frame rate). All in all, I consider 48 fps to be an improvement over 24 fps (without diminishing the "cinematic" look of a film), but I didn't have the feeling I had witnessed a "revolutionary new cinema experience".
***** CONCLUSION *****
I didn't expect (or want) a replica of LOTR, but while "The Hobbit" isn't a bad movie, it isn't good either. I'm still perplexed I don't feel any urge to go see it again, unlike the LOTR films. We can only hope that Jackson recovers in time to save the next two films from unnecessary additions, lack of focus on Bilbo and a video game feeling. Well, at least we have new brilliant music to listen to!
The rather numerous negative professional reviews almost made me lose hope. Turns out they were wrong. The Hobbit is a fantastic film.
Munin7513 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, let me first say that while I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, and admired the directorial and technical greatness of it, I'm no LOTR fanboy, and I also recognize its flaws. I'm saying this so that one understands that I'm not the type of person who will blindly speak greatly of any film of the Tolkien/Jackson series if I don't feel it deserves it.
This being said, I have difficulties understanding some of the negative professional reviews which said The Hobbit is a failed attempt, and not as good as LOTR. The artistic and directing style are exactly the same (so I won't comment on this more). I also wasn't expecting to like the 48 fps since I'm the kind of guy who squints even at high definition TVs, but surprisingly, I thought it looked great in The Hobbit, and I think 48 fps is the future. There are slow moments in The Hobbit, broken regularly by excitingly over the top action scenes. Again, just like LOTR - so I don't see why one would like the original trilogy and not The Hobbit.
The Hobbit is perhaps a little less dark in tone than LOTR, considering the source material which is more of a children's book, but it's clearly not a children's movie anyway, and displays many exciting and stressful moments. It also offers something more than the LOTR, that is five genuinely important villains right then and there. The dragon Smaug, in this first film, is like Sauron in the LOTR. A distant, mysterious figure who is the ultimate goal of the quest, whom we don't see much of yet, but we know it's going to be brutal. The "necromancer" is mostly alluded. Those who know the book will know who that is, and he'll surely be important in the sequels. Azog, the giant orc, is a main villain and is much more appealing than the Uruk-hai chief in Fellowship of the Ring, or any other orc villain in the LOTR series. The Goblin King also has a strong key role in the movie. And of course, Gollum, who's riddle scene with Bilbo is fantastic.
Martin Freeman as Bilbo is superb and there couldn't be a better choice. The rest of the cast is pitch perfect as well. While the 13 dwarfs are too many for us to get to know each and every one of them well enough by the end of this first movie, I didn't feel it was a downer. We got to know at least a third sufficiently - and I'm sure we'll get to learn about and appreciate the rest in the subsequent films - this allows us to still have characters to discover later on.
Anyway, great film. I think it's better than Fellowship, and I'll be seeing it again for sure and can't wait for the sequels.
This being said, I have difficulties understanding some of the negative professional reviews which said The Hobbit is a failed attempt, and not as good as LOTR. The artistic and directing style are exactly the same (so I won't comment on this more). I also wasn't expecting to like the 48 fps since I'm the kind of guy who squints even at high definition TVs, but surprisingly, I thought it looked great in The Hobbit, and I think 48 fps is the future. There are slow moments in The Hobbit, broken regularly by excitingly over the top action scenes. Again, just like LOTR - so I don't see why one would like the original trilogy and not The Hobbit.
The Hobbit is perhaps a little less dark in tone than LOTR, considering the source material which is more of a children's book, but it's clearly not a children's movie anyway, and displays many exciting and stressful moments. It also offers something more than the LOTR, that is five genuinely important villains right then and there. The dragon Smaug, in this first film, is like Sauron in the LOTR. A distant, mysterious figure who is the ultimate goal of the quest, whom we don't see much of yet, but we know it's going to be brutal. The "necromancer" is mostly alluded. Those who know the book will know who that is, and he'll surely be important in the sequels. Azog, the giant orc, is a main villain and is much more appealing than the Uruk-hai chief in Fellowship of the Ring, or any other orc villain in the LOTR series. The Goblin King also has a strong key role in the movie. And of course, Gollum, who's riddle scene with Bilbo is fantastic.
Martin Freeman as Bilbo is superb and there couldn't be a better choice. The rest of the cast is pitch perfect as well. While the 13 dwarfs are too many for us to get to know each and every one of them well enough by the end of this first movie, I didn't feel it was a downer. We got to know at least a third sufficiently - and I'm sure we'll get to learn about and appreciate the rest in the subsequent films - this allows us to still have characters to discover later on.
Anyway, great film. I think it's better than Fellowship, and I'll be seeing it again for sure and can't wait for the sequels.
The first of three long films based on a short book
Tweekums9 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As this film opens an elderly Bilbo Baggins explains how the once great Dwarfs were forced out of their mountain kingdom by the dragon Smaug. He begins to talk of a great adventure and we are transported back to shortly before the adventure began when a young Bilbo meets the wizard Gandalf the Grey. He invites Bilbo on an adventure but he declines; the next day thirteen Dwarfs turn up at Bilbo's home believing that they have been invited. They tell him of their quest but he initially refuses; he has no desire to leave home. The next morning he changes his mind and so begins a quest that will see them fighting trolls, orcs and goblins as well as meeting elves, another wizard and in Bilbo's case the somewhat crazed Smeagol who will become a lifelong enemy following the theft of a certain ring.
Before watching this the main criticism I'd heard was that breaking the story into three long films was a mistake; having seen it I'm inclined to agree. The story took too long to get started and when it did it got nowhere fast; the party had a succession of battles but there was never the sense of danger that there was in the Lord of the Rings films. Another weakness was the fact that the party was a large group of dwarfs with one hobbit and one wizard rather than the more mixed group in the earlier trilogy; only a couple of them stood out from the group; the rest were very much the same. On the plus side the film looked great with many sweeping shots though action set in a spectacular landscape and the actors did a decent enough job; I particularly enjoyed seeing Andy Serkis' return as Smeagol even though he is doing motion-capture work for a CGI character. Overall I'd say this is worth watching if you enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy even though it isn't as good as those films hopefully the next instalment will improve matters.
Before watching this the main criticism I'd heard was that breaking the story into three long films was a mistake; having seen it I'm inclined to agree. The story took too long to get started and when it did it got nowhere fast; the party had a succession of battles but there was never the sense of danger that there was in the Lord of the Rings films. Another weakness was the fact that the party was a large group of dwarfs with one hobbit and one wizard rather than the more mixed group in the earlier trilogy; only a couple of them stood out from the group; the rest were very much the same. On the plus side the film looked great with many sweeping shots though action set in a spectacular landscape and the actors did a decent enough job; I particularly enjoyed seeing Andy Serkis' return as Smeagol even though he is doing motion-capture work for a CGI character. Overall I'd say this is worth watching if you enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy even though it isn't as good as those films hopefully the next instalment will improve matters.
The best of the Hobbit films. I wish the series was has good as the 1st half of this film
CubsandCulture28 September 2022
I know people in general think the start of this film-basically everything prior to the Misty Mountains-is too slow and padded beyond what it should. I disagree. I think the first hour, hour fifteen minutes of this film is of the same quality as the LOTR. I wish the rest of the Hobbit films were as good as cinema and as thoughtful as adaptation as the first half. Instead the Hobbit series gets very action-y and very Hollywood after that point.
The central flaw of the series goes back to the texts they are working with. The Hobbit novel has two aspects of it that make a post-LOTR film awkward. First the final quarter of the novel is *exceptionally* dark and this darkness isn't really set-up in the novel. Second, the Hobbit text doesn't flow organically into the LOTR. (Tolkien himself rewrote a key chapter after LOTR was published) Jackson and company had to decide if they were going to adapt the Hobbit or try to rework the material to flow better with their wildly successful film series. They chose the later for mixed results.
The films are overextended-especially action scenes-and the Hobbit text gets mangled. But the films work well enough on their own terms and as preludes to the better LOTR that they are worth owning.
This is in large part because the formal elements of filmmaking-but in particular the design work-are all top notch. Likewise the cast-McKellen and Freeman are their characters-paper over a lot of the warts of the screenplay.
The central flaw of the series goes back to the texts they are working with. The Hobbit novel has two aspects of it that make a post-LOTR film awkward. First the final quarter of the novel is *exceptionally* dark and this darkness isn't really set-up in the novel. Second, the Hobbit text doesn't flow organically into the LOTR. (Tolkien himself rewrote a key chapter after LOTR was published) Jackson and company had to decide if they were going to adapt the Hobbit or try to rework the material to flow better with their wildly successful film series. They chose the later for mixed results.
The films are overextended-especially action scenes-and the Hobbit text gets mangled. But the films work well enough on their own terms and as preludes to the better LOTR that they are worth owning.
This is in large part because the formal elements of filmmaking-but in particular the design work-are all top notch. Likewise the cast-McKellen and Freeman are their characters-paper over a lot of the warts of the screenplay.
It can only get better....can't it?
amazon-559-1960219 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Watched the IMAX 3D HFR version.
I have been eagerly awaiting the release of this movie for the last few years ever since it started production, and my early thoughts are not brilliant.
Technically there has been a lot of discussion about the 48fps and I'm afraid to say it wasn't a comfortable viewing experience. Whereas in the LOTR trilogy you really got that sense of a grand cinematic epic, it just wasn't there in this version. I really wanted it to be something new and exciting, but it looked gimmicky and false a lot of the time, only the latter scenes with the Pale Orc and Bilibo's encounter with Gollum drew me into the movie. At times the image, crystal clear as its was, did feel like a HD home camcorder had been used and certain scenes did seem sped up. What is interesting is watching the trailer at home on a home cinema setup, it looked much more like LOTR in quality and feel then the IMAX version. This is the first ever movie using this technology so I will give it the benefit of the doubt, but eagerly await the Blu-Ray in a years time.
The story itself suffers from the feeling of being padded out at every opportunity, I have no idea why we had to see cameo's of Frodo and Galadriel, I believe even Legolas will make an appearance in a future episode. The Hobbit is a very different story, which can be read in an afternoon, it does not need to be a 9 hour epic like it's predecessors.
The dwarfs comedy seemed over hammed, feeling very corny at times, the troll scene was nowhere near as good as the books, and why omit Gandalf's voice throwing?
I'm not even going anywhere near the mess that a certain Brown wizard brought to the film.
As a lifelong fan of Tolkien's work, and Mr Jackson's LOTR trilogy I left very disappointed.
Here's hoping the second installment is an "Empire Strikes Back" and redeems PJ's credibility
I have been eagerly awaiting the release of this movie for the last few years ever since it started production, and my early thoughts are not brilliant.
Technically there has been a lot of discussion about the 48fps and I'm afraid to say it wasn't a comfortable viewing experience. Whereas in the LOTR trilogy you really got that sense of a grand cinematic epic, it just wasn't there in this version. I really wanted it to be something new and exciting, but it looked gimmicky and false a lot of the time, only the latter scenes with the Pale Orc and Bilibo's encounter with Gollum drew me into the movie. At times the image, crystal clear as its was, did feel like a HD home camcorder had been used and certain scenes did seem sped up. What is interesting is watching the trailer at home on a home cinema setup, it looked much more like LOTR in quality and feel then the IMAX version. This is the first ever movie using this technology so I will give it the benefit of the doubt, but eagerly await the Blu-Ray in a years time.
The story itself suffers from the feeling of being padded out at every opportunity, I have no idea why we had to see cameo's of Frodo and Galadriel, I believe even Legolas will make an appearance in a future episode. The Hobbit is a very different story, which can be read in an afternoon, it does not need to be a 9 hour epic like it's predecessors.
The dwarfs comedy seemed over hammed, feeling very corny at times, the troll scene was nowhere near as good as the books, and why omit Gandalf's voice throwing?
I'm not even going anywhere near the mess that a certain Brown wizard brought to the film.
As a lifelong fan of Tolkien's work, and Mr Jackson's LOTR trilogy I left very disappointed.
Here's hoping the second installment is an "Empire Strikes Back" and redeems PJ's credibility
Yeahhhh! Graphics! Action scenes! AWESOOOME!
dlpburke16 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Let's kick off with the score I've given it. 5/10. That's for the reasonable job with the comedy, design, and things not related to story and pacing (with the exception of Gollum and the cave scene). I am tired of saying "The graphics are great, but..." I have rated it 1 here to reduce the average in order to reflect reality and not the fanboy love-in.
I am not going to sugar-coat this film or give it a good review just because people tell me I should. I am sick to death of sheep. I don't care if this is Tolkien or Jackson or how much money it took to make the film. If it's bad, it's bad.
Graphics count for nothing. The reason I watch a film is primarily for a great story and well written characters (I have to CARE about what is going on). I don't get dazzled by graphics anymore (if I ever did at all), and 3D action films do not make a film good. So right there is the problem with The Hobbit. The story is shallow and pretentious and cardboard. Let's run through why the film had me rolling my eyes throughout:
-The pacing is dire (and scenes that weren't in the book have been added).
-One brainless action scene after another for no other reason than to eat screen time (because the book is 300 pages and they are trying to maximise profits by having 3 films at 3 hours each). Watching 2 rock monsters fight for minutes is not captivating or cool, it's boring.
-Implausibility factor 10. I understand this is a fantasy. I understand that if everything was ultra realistic it would end up boring, but for heaven sake, that does not mean you can get away with what happens in this film. EVERY single scene shows something that would ordinarily kill someone. Fall down multiple ravines, battle 100's goblins with just a few men, rocks the size of cars flying at you... and no scratches, no deaths. It just doesn't work.
-Lazy writing. You know you are witnessing a lazy-ass story when your heroes are saved at the last minute EVERY time in multiple scenes. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with all main characters intact and no dramatic tension. Every scene you see a massive rock crush a character you know they aren't dead. Every time you see them perilously close to the edge of a cliff, you know that even if they fall, they will be saved and/or survive. Further to this point, smaller problems exist such as Bilbo never handling a sword to suddenly taking on killer beasts like he has been to He-Man training school.
-Cliché crap. The way Bilbo goes from being an outcast to being accepted is contrived and rushed and totally obvious. It just smacks of lazy cliché writing. The acting that goes with it is not good either. Kind of like "I once said... you weren't one of us... OH how wrong I was!" *Roll eyes time*. Then you have the White Orc that Thorin said he had slain, and you just KNEW it was coming back at the end for some sort of showdown, didn't you? Talk about obvious. I blame the film for this because the scenes involved in the exposition were way too see-through... might as well have had Thorin wink at the camera! That brings me onto the whole "Thorin dislikes Elves" angle, where you know the Elves are suddenly going to become important allies just so we can have a totally obvious and expected reversal. Wow, Thorin, you got Bilbo wrong and you got the Elves wrong too! DRAMA.
-Lack of character development (Think Final Fantasy XII if you are a gamer). This was the stake through the heart of this film... Most of the dwarfs are completely redundant and I could not identify or even accept Bilbo. This was due partly to the lack of character development, partly to the script and partly to the actor. Same goes for Thorin except the scenes he is in feel more like a bad soap opera than they do a "blockbuster" film.
It is just dull and lifeless and stupid. You shouldn't do things just because you can. The LOTR trilogy for the most part had decent pacing, and it didn't do things too fast, too soon, or for the sake of it. The original trilogy suffers from some the complaints above AT TIMES, but nothing like The Hobbit does... The Hobbit is in a league of its own. I went to watch an engaging movie and I got a cartoon.
The use of CGI is also glaringly obvious and fake; like with the prequels of Star Wars, when the movie cuts between humans and CGI blobs, your brain is onto it. Stop relying on CGI for everything. It's getting annoying, not to mention OLD. At least Jackson makes real sets so it isn't a total wash out.
There is some real potential in this film and it is squandered; whether that's because Tolkien wrote a flawed book, whether it is because he wrote a book that doesn't take well to a feature length movie or whether it is because Jackson messed it up, that's what we ended up with.
The Hobbit should have been 2 films, and making it 3 has been the final nail in the coffin.
So, I am sat here mightily annoyed that once again graphics and self indulgent, completely pointless action scenes have trumped good storytelling and pacing.
Of course, the film is still entertaining at times and the 3D visuals are fun, but for me it is a massive disappointment.
Visuals can not MAKE a film, but when used like in The Hobbit, they sure as hell can break it.
I am not going to sugar-coat this film or give it a good review just because people tell me I should. I am sick to death of sheep. I don't care if this is Tolkien or Jackson or how much money it took to make the film. If it's bad, it's bad.
Graphics count for nothing. The reason I watch a film is primarily for a great story and well written characters (I have to CARE about what is going on). I don't get dazzled by graphics anymore (if I ever did at all), and 3D action films do not make a film good. So right there is the problem with The Hobbit. The story is shallow and pretentious and cardboard. Let's run through why the film had me rolling my eyes throughout:
- The introduction is way too long.
-The pacing is dire (and scenes that weren't in the book have been added).
-One brainless action scene after another for no other reason than to eat screen time (because the book is 300 pages and they are trying to maximise profits by having 3 films at 3 hours each). Watching 2 rock monsters fight for minutes is not captivating or cool, it's boring.
-Implausibility factor 10. I understand this is a fantasy. I understand that if everything was ultra realistic it would end up boring, but for heaven sake, that does not mean you can get away with what happens in this film. EVERY single scene shows something that would ordinarily kill someone. Fall down multiple ravines, battle 100's goblins with just a few men, rocks the size of cars flying at you... and no scratches, no deaths. It just doesn't work.
-Lazy writing. You know you are witnessing a lazy-ass story when your heroes are saved at the last minute EVERY time in multiple scenes. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with all main characters intact and no dramatic tension. Every scene you see a massive rock crush a character you know they aren't dead. Every time you see them perilously close to the edge of a cliff, you know that even if they fall, they will be saved and/or survive. Further to this point, smaller problems exist such as Bilbo never handling a sword to suddenly taking on killer beasts like he has been to He-Man training school.
-Cliché crap. The way Bilbo goes from being an outcast to being accepted is contrived and rushed and totally obvious. It just smacks of lazy cliché writing. The acting that goes with it is not good either. Kind of like "I once said... you weren't one of us... OH how wrong I was!" *Roll eyes time*. Then you have the White Orc that Thorin said he had slain, and you just KNEW it was coming back at the end for some sort of showdown, didn't you? Talk about obvious. I blame the film for this because the scenes involved in the exposition were way too see-through... might as well have had Thorin wink at the camera! That brings me onto the whole "Thorin dislikes Elves" angle, where you know the Elves are suddenly going to become important allies just so we can have a totally obvious and expected reversal. Wow, Thorin, you got Bilbo wrong and you got the Elves wrong too! DRAMA.
-Lack of character development (Think Final Fantasy XII if you are a gamer). This was the stake through the heart of this film... Most of the dwarfs are completely redundant and I could not identify or even accept Bilbo. This was due partly to the lack of character development, partly to the script and partly to the actor. Same goes for Thorin except the scenes he is in feel more like a bad soap opera than they do a "blockbuster" film.
It is just dull and lifeless and stupid. You shouldn't do things just because you can. The LOTR trilogy for the most part had decent pacing, and it didn't do things too fast, too soon, or for the sake of it. The original trilogy suffers from some the complaints above AT TIMES, but nothing like The Hobbit does... The Hobbit is in a league of its own. I went to watch an engaging movie and I got a cartoon.
The use of CGI is also glaringly obvious and fake; like with the prequels of Star Wars, when the movie cuts between humans and CGI blobs, your brain is onto it. Stop relying on CGI for everything. It's getting annoying, not to mention OLD. At least Jackson makes real sets so it isn't a total wash out.
There is some real potential in this film and it is squandered; whether that's because Tolkien wrote a flawed book, whether it is because he wrote a book that doesn't take well to a feature length movie or whether it is because Jackson messed it up, that's what we ended up with.
The Hobbit should have been 2 films, and making it 3 has been the final nail in the coffin.
So, I am sat here mightily annoyed that once again graphics and self indulgent, completely pointless action scenes have trumped good storytelling and pacing.
Of course, the film is still entertaining at times and the 3D visuals are fun, but for me it is a massive disappointment.
Visuals can not MAKE a film, but when used like in The Hobbit, they sure as hell can break it.
The Hobbit
0U14 February 2020
It's definitely no LOTR...But it's still a pretty cool movie. Sure, it took it's time to try to tell the story and dragged on for a little too long, but other than that, the special effects were great, and it was entertaining as hell. It's a good introduction to The Hobbit franchise.
The Ring: Beginning
kosmasp5 July 2013
I never came around to read the LotR books before watching the movies and I actually haven't done that until now (so maybe shame on me), but I did read 30-40 pages of the Hobbit. And it seems, like almost everyone of those pages turns out to be in the movie. It's a big scene and it feels like Peter Jackson put almost everything in it. He apparently also put other Tolkien related stuff in it.
Which he must have done, because how could you make 3 movies/parts out of one book? That is smaller in size than the original Rings trilogy that is. But what about the movie? It feels fun and it looks good (once you get used to the HD framing, which makes a few props look very plastic). Also the very HD 3D (or should I say the extra FPS) we got served made the movie feel like it was on fast forward. I think your eyes have to get used to that (in comparison to normal frames per Second that every other movie uses).
Apart from the technical point of view, this is a well made movie, but it never completely touched me. It is well played and it has the beginning of a great adventure, but it feels a bit over bloated. I will obviously watch the other parts too and I'm pretty sure they will up the ante
Edit: rewatching it a decade later, I realize I may have been a bit too harsh on the rating. I guess I do that with big budget movies. I can attest that I reckon I got used to the Higher Frame Rate the movie uses. Not that many movies have adapted that style (I reckon Avatar 2 will), but it is what it is. Technically you can fault the movie and the extended version was quite nice to see (so I guess it wasn't a literal rewatch - no pun intended).
Which he must have done, because how could you make 3 movies/parts out of one book? That is smaller in size than the original Rings trilogy that is. But what about the movie? It feels fun and it looks good (once you get used to the HD framing, which makes a few props look very plastic). Also the very HD 3D (or should I say the extra FPS) we got served made the movie feel like it was on fast forward. I think your eyes have to get used to that (in comparison to normal frames per Second that every other movie uses).
Apart from the technical point of view, this is a well made movie, but it never completely touched me. It is well played and it has the beginning of a great adventure, but it feels a bit over bloated. I will obviously watch the other parts too and I'm pretty sure they will up the ante
Edit: rewatching it a decade later, I realize I may have been a bit too harsh on the rating. I guess I do that with big budget movies. I can attest that I reckon I got used to the Higher Frame Rate the movie uses. Not that many movies have adapted that style (I reckon Avatar 2 will), but it is what it is. Technically you can fault the movie and the extended version was quite nice to see (so I guess it wasn't a literal rewatch - no pun intended).
I feel both love and respect towards this story!
love_for_nails13 January 2013
Beautiful cinematography, beautiful design, make-up, special effects. Everything is perfect. The cast is a joy to watch. Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo Baggins, Ian Mackellen can't be described in words, he is perfect as Gandalf as always. I actually thought he was even better here than in "The Lord of the Rings". He captured the atmosphere more. I loved that Elijah Wood reprized his role as Frodo even for a short period of time. He broke my heart in "Return of the King" with his powerful performance. He nails the character and I hope he will make an appearance in the next two movies as well. Oh, and the famous Gollum! How could I have missed him from my review? It's great to have Andy Serkis back.
Please people don't listen to the critics, they are the ones who influence the public, but they are not always right. It has the same magic. Maybe in a less darker tone than the previous movies had been, but in a way, that's why I really liked it. It's like a deep breath from all the stressful situation the hobbits had been in "The Lord of the Rings". It's been a though year with a lot of good movies, but in the end, this still is among the best ones.
Worth watching!
10/10
Please people don't listen to the critics, they are the ones who influence the public, but they are not always right. It has the same magic. Maybe in a less darker tone than the previous movies had been, but in a way, that's why I really liked it. It's like a deep breath from all the stressful situation the hobbits had been in "The Lord of the Rings". It's been a though year with a lot of good movies, but in the end, this still is among the best ones.
Worth watching!
10/10
Let the Magic Begin...
JohnWelles2 January 2013
"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" simultaneously takes director Peter Jackson in two different directions. While at first glance it may seem that he is travelling over familiar ground, again tackling the fantastical world of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth after his vast and Academy Award wining "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy (2001 – 2003), he is actually experimenting with cinema itself.
Of all the art forms of the world, film is the one most invested in technology; created by scientists, not artists at the end of the nineteenth century. It was only at the dawn of the last century that people like Georges Méliès realised the potential of this medium. So it is appropriate that Jackson is here breaking new ground with the very way we watch films. Instead of shooting at the normal speeds of twenty four frames per second, he has doubled it to forty eight frames a second so when viewed you have an astonishing clarity of detail as well as smoothness in camera movement with no motion stutter or blurry jerkiness when shown in 3D.
However, this raises a problem for the filmmaker. For a film set in a mythical fantasy land, any poor special effects or sub-standard computer generated imagery will stand out glaringly. So the effects work from Weta Digital is all the more impressive and astounding; from skin textures to the manifold buildings of Rivendell, it's sometimes hard to believe it's not all real.
The acting, from Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen to Christopher Lee as Saruman and Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the dwarfs, are all very good, inhabiting their roles with conviction and passion. Stand out though is Andy Serkis as Gollum, the famous riddle scene from the novel imported virtually word for word, and is all the better for it. Serkis has an uncanny ability to play these none too human characters with an enormous amount of vicissitude, a feat he pulls of here again with aplomb.
This is primarily a visual motion picture, but the characters are not ignored and the extensive opening sequence set in Bilbo's house serves as an introduction of sorts to not just the people but the themes as well.
Jackson directs with huge scope and a true feeling for the vast land he is creating, shot on location in New Zealand. The sweeping cinematography from Andrew Lesnie is suitably epic, making the landscape another character in the film.
The film does have its flaws, mainly due to the fact that this is an introduction to a trilogy and not a self-contained movie; people might also find Radagast the Brown, a wizard, as played by Sylvester McCoy, to fall on perhaps the wrong side of immaturity. Still, this is a fantastic piece of entertainment and it's hard to imagine a better Christmas film.
Of all the art forms of the world, film is the one most invested in technology; created by scientists, not artists at the end of the nineteenth century. It was only at the dawn of the last century that people like Georges Méliès realised the potential of this medium. So it is appropriate that Jackson is here breaking new ground with the very way we watch films. Instead of shooting at the normal speeds of twenty four frames per second, he has doubled it to forty eight frames a second so when viewed you have an astonishing clarity of detail as well as smoothness in camera movement with no motion stutter or blurry jerkiness when shown in 3D.
However, this raises a problem for the filmmaker. For a film set in a mythical fantasy land, any poor special effects or sub-standard computer generated imagery will stand out glaringly. So the effects work from Weta Digital is all the more impressive and astounding; from skin textures to the manifold buildings of Rivendell, it's sometimes hard to believe it's not all real.
The acting, from Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen to Christopher Lee as Saruman and Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the dwarfs, are all very good, inhabiting their roles with conviction and passion. Stand out though is Andy Serkis as Gollum, the famous riddle scene from the novel imported virtually word for word, and is all the better for it. Serkis has an uncanny ability to play these none too human characters with an enormous amount of vicissitude, a feat he pulls of here again with aplomb.
This is primarily a visual motion picture, but the characters are not ignored and the extensive opening sequence set in Bilbo's house serves as an introduction of sorts to not just the people but the themes as well.
Jackson directs with huge scope and a true feeling for the vast land he is creating, shot on location in New Zealand. The sweeping cinematography from Andrew Lesnie is suitably epic, making the landscape another character in the film.
The film does have its flaws, mainly due to the fact that this is an introduction to a trilogy and not a self-contained movie; people might also find Radagast the Brown, a wizard, as played by Sylvester McCoy, to fall on perhaps the wrong side of immaturity. Still, this is a fantastic piece of entertainment and it's hard to imagine a better Christmas film.
A Tremendous Introduction
billygoat107114 December 2012
The Lord of the Rings has been a timeless epic classic that is hard for other fantasy, Tolkien wannabe movies to capture its magic and so far, director Peter Jackson is probably the only one who can capture it. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first part of a split trilogy of its prequel. Though, J.R.R. Tolkien's book is not really that long for a split and the film is even a lot longer as the story's introduction. The result of the movie is it's rather too long and a bit slow but the experience is still worth it. With its spectacular visuals and grand scale, it's all pretty exciting. Despite of its stretch, the film's genuinely unique enjoyment made this easily one of the best blockbusters of the year.
As it is said, it's too long for an introduction of the shortest Lord of the Rings story, but no matter what you think about the runtime you'll still get to enjoy it. The magic of the last series is still there. The only difference is the pacing and it has a lot of flashbacks but there's no denying that every scene of the film is entertaining. The film has some goofy moments with the dwarfs that are quite delightful and amusing. When it comes to the action, it's has the thrills and excitement that we don't usually get in most blockbusters these days. The performances are remarkable as always. Martin Freeman makes a charming young Bilbo Baggins. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and still got it. Richard Armitage is filled with vulnerability and gravity as Thorin. Ken Stott and James Nesbitt gave their characters some wonderful personalities.
Peter Jackson returns giving this the same epic tone and heart of the original trilogy. It's best when there's a genuine fortitude in the large suspenseful sequences. The visuals just got more stunning and eye candy. The CGI effects are exceptionally gorgeous. Same goes to the cinematography that made every landscape in Middle Earth look so magnificent. It's always been like that but with higher quality(and High Frame Rate) it's never been this marvelous. The music score is quite excellent, seems like it's going to be a new classic theme music.
The ending of the film would definitely excite many for the next part. The film's scale made this such a satisfying cinematic experience. Fans of the series will definitely love it if they didn't bother about the runtime. Even newcomers might get fascinated. The trilogy split is still unnecessary. Ending up making this introduction pretty humongous, but that's what's awesome about this film. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey may be too long but it's still worth it by its amazing filmmaking and fun adventures.
As it is said, it's too long for an introduction of the shortest Lord of the Rings story, but no matter what you think about the runtime you'll still get to enjoy it. The magic of the last series is still there. The only difference is the pacing and it has a lot of flashbacks but there's no denying that every scene of the film is entertaining. The film has some goofy moments with the dwarfs that are quite delightful and amusing. When it comes to the action, it's has the thrills and excitement that we don't usually get in most blockbusters these days. The performances are remarkable as always. Martin Freeman makes a charming young Bilbo Baggins. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and still got it. Richard Armitage is filled with vulnerability and gravity as Thorin. Ken Stott and James Nesbitt gave their characters some wonderful personalities.
Peter Jackson returns giving this the same epic tone and heart of the original trilogy. It's best when there's a genuine fortitude in the large suspenseful sequences. The visuals just got more stunning and eye candy. The CGI effects are exceptionally gorgeous. Same goes to the cinematography that made every landscape in Middle Earth look so magnificent. It's always been like that but with higher quality(and High Frame Rate) it's never been this marvelous. The music score is quite excellent, seems like it's going to be a new classic theme music.
The ending of the film would definitely excite many for the next part. The film's scale made this such a satisfying cinematic experience. Fans of the series will definitely love it if they didn't bother about the runtime. Even newcomers might get fascinated. The trilogy split is still unnecessary. Ending up making this introduction pretty humongous, but that's what's awesome about this film. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey may be too long but it's still worth it by its amazing filmmaking and fun adventures.
Expectations weren't high ENOUGH
haris_manda8 December 2012
I was a mere child when I watched LOTR franchise and I still liked it. Ever since, year by year, I grew fonder and fonder of the movies and they remain, and probably forever will, one of my favorite movies of all time. I've read all the books countless times (including Hobit) and when I saw that Hobbit was coming into the cinema, my mind was entirely wiped away from its existence due to excitement that entered me.
Now, movie review.
As expected from Peter - almost flawless masterpiece. Given that he had a lot of material to work with, I imagine it was quite hard to put everything together for the scenery - yet he did it, once more. He captured the feeling of the book and transcended it onto a screen; of course, it was not solely his credit, to not be mistaken. The acting was amazing - perfectly fitting into fantasy style. The chemistry between actors was more than just the obvious - you could actually feel their interactions and live the story. Yes, it was that good.
I have no need to begin writing about camera work and all that comes with it; locations were beautiful, effects and colors were mixed perfect, a soundtrack that followed through pattered with what was going on perfectly ... it is really one of those moments when you simply can't say enough because you know, regardless of how many words you put in, you still won't be able to describe things the way you felt them. I have only one thing to say: congratulations Mr. Jackson and rest of the cast.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will become classic without any doubt; I am just glad that I got to be a part of the generation that witnessed the never-dying franchise of Mr. Tolkien's work.
Now, movie review.
As expected from Peter - almost flawless masterpiece. Given that he had a lot of material to work with, I imagine it was quite hard to put everything together for the scenery - yet he did it, once more. He captured the feeling of the book and transcended it onto a screen; of course, it was not solely his credit, to not be mistaken. The acting was amazing - perfectly fitting into fantasy style. The chemistry between actors was more than just the obvious - you could actually feel their interactions and live the story. Yes, it was that good.
I have no need to begin writing about camera work and all that comes with it; locations were beautiful, effects and colors were mixed perfect, a soundtrack that followed through pattered with what was going on perfectly ... it is really one of those moments when you simply can't say enough because you know, regardless of how many words you put in, you still won't be able to describe things the way you felt them. I have only one thing to say: congratulations Mr. Jackson and rest of the cast.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will become classic without any doubt; I am just glad that I got to be a part of the generation that witnessed the never-dying franchise of Mr. Tolkien's work.
Great start to a new Trilogy!
elmeeksio7 January 2013
First off I have never read The Hobbit, but from what I gather the book isn't all that long, so the fact that this film is the first of three, suggests they may be milking it a little. That being said however I was very excited to return to Middle Earth for a new story..and I wasn't disappointed in the slightest.
This is the Prequel story to LOTR following the adventures of Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's Uncle played by Ian Holm previously) and how he came to be in possession on the ring.
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. .is quite simply a BEAUTIFUL film! I saw the movie in 3D and at the 48fps that Jackson intended and I was blown away by how it looked. It's a stunning film that left me with the same 'WOW' factor that the original trilogy did a decade ago. Set 60 years earlier than Lord of The Rings, We are introduced to a much younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman). He is a content Hobbit, not concerned with adventure of any sort. Until Gandalf (Ian McKellan) suddenly appears, along with a group of unruly Dwarfs and offers Bilbo the chance to be part of a great adventure. The dwarfs wish to reclaim their homeland, which has been taken over by a huge dragon named Smaug, It's a simple concept and one that probably shouldn't be stretched over 3 movies but as with any 'first in a trilogy' film, it sets the stage perfectly. The movie has some great scenes.. meeting the Dwarfs in Bilbo's house, the run in with fighting stone giants and the escape from deep within the goblins' mountain are particular highlights. I loved the scene in which Bilbo runs into a familiar face (for LOTR fans) in the caves: Gollum (who looks amazing with todays MOCAP technology). Much of the movie, is the journey of the troupe back to the mountain, but also the journey of Bilbo himself.. mild and timid at the start of the film, our hero finds his courage, several times over, through the course of this film.
Overall I loved this film, I thought it looked fantastic and the care of attention not just aesthetically but also in terms of continuity were obvious. These are Peter Jacksons films, no doubt. Much like he did with the previous trilogy, bringing us into a world full of heroes and villains, orcs and wizards this film literally (thanks to the 3D and FPS rate) literally transports you into Middle Earth.
I am already excited to see the next instalment but to keep me satisfied until then..i may go and watch my LOTR boxset again . And them maybe this film again!
Great stuff!!
This is the Prequel story to LOTR following the adventures of Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's Uncle played by Ian Holm previously) and how he came to be in possession on the ring.
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. .is quite simply a BEAUTIFUL film! I saw the movie in 3D and at the 48fps that Jackson intended and I was blown away by how it looked. It's a stunning film that left me with the same 'WOW' factor that the original trilogy did a decade ago. Set 60 years earlier than Lord of The Rings, We are introduced to a much younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman). He is a content Hobbit, not concerned with adventure of any sort. Until Gandalf (Ian McKellan) suddenly appears, along with a group of unruly Dwarfs and offers Bilbo the chance to be part of a great adventure. The dwarfs wish to reclaim their homeland, which has been taken over by a huge dragon named Smaug, It's a simple concept and one that probably shouldn't be stretched over 3 movies but as with any 'first in a trilogy' film, it sets the stage perfectly. The movie has some great scenes.. meeting the Dwarfs in Bilbo's house, the run in with fighting stone giants and the escape from deep within the goblins' mountain are particular highlights. I loved the scene in which Bilbo runs into a familiar face (for LOTR fans) in the caves: Gollum (who looks amazing with todays MOCAP technology). Much of the movie, is the journey of the troupe back to the mountain, but also the journey of Bilbo himself.. mild and timid at the start of the film, our hero finds his courage, several times over, through the course of this film.
Overall I loved this film, I thought it looked fantastic and the care of attention not just aesthetically but also in terms of continuity were obvious. These are Peter Jacksons films, no doubt. Much like he did with the previous trilogy, bringing us into a world full of heroes and villains, orcs and wizards this film literally (thanks to the 3D and FPS rate) literally transports you into Middle Earth.
I am already excited to see the next instalment but to keep me satisfied until then..i may go and watch my LOTR boxset again . And them maybe this film again!
Great stuff!!
The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey: Like Lord Of The Rings, if Lord Of The Rings was written by grade schoolers
Platypuschow29 November 2017
Now don't get me wrong from the summary, I did enjoy The Hobbit. I enjoyed it in fact more than I expected to especially since I delayed watching them because of certain fears and frustrations I had regarding it.
The Hobbit was the very first book I read back in the mid 80's and I adored it. I simply couldn't figure out how it could be turned into a trilogy! I feared it was being done so to milk the franchise and let's be honest that's exactly why it was done.
The Hobbit has most of the charm of LOTR and all of its beauty. Top that off with a stellar cast and it was destined to do well at the box office (Which it did) However something was different, something was.....off.
Though the film contains the same level of violence as LOTR its overflowing with comedy and goofiness. I expected some, but not to this extent. At one point it felt like I was watching Labyrinth (1986) again, not like that's a bad thing but I didn't expect it here.
It looks great, its scored near perfectly and as mentioned the cast do a great performance and it was nice to see the likes of James Nesbitt and Sylvester McCoy up on the big screen.
Inevitably there was going to be comparison with LOTR, that was inescapable and the comparison just doesn't help it at all. It pales in comparison and with all the silliness I found myself underwhelmed.
The Hobbit is a passable effort but is more like the Mythica series than Lord Of The Rings.
The Good:
Beautiful
Excellent score
Brilliant cast
The Bad:
Some parts go beyond comedic into the realms of silly
Martin Freeman just isn't leading man material
Goblin town song, really?
Stock scream was totally unnecessary
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Someone should never use the term "Mothers glory box" again
The distance Bilbo's sword needs to detect orcs/goblins changes between scenes, any particular reason?
The Hobbit was the very first book I read back in the mid 80's and I adored it. I simply couldn't figure out how it could be turned into a trilogy! I feared it was being done so to milk the franchise and let's be honest that's exactly why it was done.
The Hobbit has most of the charm of LOTR and all of its beauty. Top that off with a stellar cast and it was destined to do well at the box office (Which it did) However something was different, something was.....off.
Though the film contains the same level of violence as LOTR its overflowing with comedy and goofiness. I expected some, but not to this extent. At one point it felt like I was watching Labyrinth (1986) again, not like that's a bad thing but I didn't expect it here.
It looks great, its scored near perfectly and as mentioned the cast do a great performance and it was nice to see the likes of James Nesbitt and Sylvester McCoy up on the big screen.
Inevitably there was going to be comparison with LOTR, that was inescapable and the comparison just doesn't help it at all. It pales in comparison and with all the silliness I found myself underwhelmed.
The Hobbit is a passable effort but is more like the Mythica series than Lord Of The Rings.
The Good:
Beautiful
Excellent score
Brilliant cast
The Bad:
Some parts go beyond comedic into the realms of silly
Martin Freeman just isn't leading man material
Goblin town song, really?
Stock scream was totally unnecessary
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Someone should never use the term "Mothers glory box" again
The distance Bilbo's sword needs to detect orcs/goblins changes between scenes, any particular reason?
One of the best movies (of any kind) I've ever seen
sbalkam3 December 2012
The movie is amazing. It is unlike anything I've ever experienced in a cinema. The vividness of the colors and light and movement is something to behold. And then the 3D takes it all to another level. It was a little unnerving at times. Almost as if I was watching a hybrid of a movie and a live action performance.
The scenery is, of course, gorgeous. The acting is light, fun, playful while also managing to stay true to the original story. There is a little too much of the side stores for my liking. And it could well have been cut by a half hour or so and still not lost any of it impact and appeal.
Martin Freeman is a revelation. Knowing him from The Office (I lived in the UK for a while) it hardly seemed plausible that he could carry off such a role, but he is very believable. The merry band of dwarfs are well played and you somehow get to know each of them by the end of the film. The special effects are, well, special. We were ducking as rocks and boulders came flying out at us and I swear there was a bird floating over our heads at one point. The surround sound was rich and evocative of the caves and the music is lush and emotional.
As for the main story, well, apart from doing a prelude that reprises the role of Frodo and older Bilbo Baggins, it pretty much stays true to the text - with some audience members anticipating what the characters were going to say next.
A word of warning - some of the battle scenes are very intense, made more so by the 3D and high definition used along with the sound effects. You may want to think long and hard about taking young kids to it.
But for everyone else, particularly the young at heart, this first installment of The Hobbit is a gem.
(note: I was very fortunate to see The Hobbit in Wellington last week. I was there on business and through a friend of a friend I landed a ticket. I was in in Cinema 1 of the Reading Cinemas - one of the two cinemas that premiered the film last Wednesday.)
The scenery is, of course, gorgeous. The acting is light, fun, playful while also managing to stay true to the original story. There is a little too much of the side stores for my liking. And it could well have been cut by a half hour or so and still not lost any of it impact and appeal.
Martin Freeman is a revelation. Knowing him from The Office (I lived in the UK for a while) it hardly seemed plausible that he could carry off such a role, but he is very believable. The merry band of dwarfs are well played and you somehow get to know each of them by the end of the film. The special effects are, well, special. We were ducking as rocks and boulders came flying out at us and I swear there was a bird floating over our heads at one point. The surround sound was rich and evocative of the caves and the music is lush and emotional.
As for the main story, well, apart from doing a prelude that reprises the role of Frodo and older Bilbo Baggins, it pretty much stays true to the text - with some audience members anticipating what the characters were going to say next.
A word of warning - some of the battle scenes are very intense, made more so by the 3D and high definition used along with the sound effects. You may want to think long and hard about taking young kids to it.
But for everyone else, particularly the young at heart, this first installment of The Hobbit is a gem.
(note: I was very fortunate to see The Hobbit in Wellington last week. I was there on business and through a friend of a friend I landed a ticket. I was in in Cinema 1 of the Reading Cinemas - one of the two cinemas that premiered the film last Wednesday.)
A very relaxed start to the trilogy.
masoncheek20 August 2020
Why Does it Fail?
Reviewer74618 October 2022
With nearly the same creative team behind the masterfully made Lord of the Rings trilogy, why did The Hobbit trilogy fall so flat for most viewers? Was it merely that the bar had been set too high by LOTR? Here are the most plausible reasons I can come up with.
1) They Tried to Remake LOTR
This is the single biggest problem with The Hobbit movies, the kernel of their woes. If not for this, they might have let del Toro remain as director. If not for this, they might have had good original score instead of derivative music with not a single memorable track. If not for this, they might have kept it as one or maybe two movies instead of stretching it into a trilogy. The money people wanted another generation-defining hit and, in their greed, they ruined any hope for The Hobbit to be good. The tone of the films does not at all match the tone of the source material. They used the source material as a plot guide while overlaying the tone and epic scale of LOTR - it just doesn't work. The Hobbit was a wonky children's story but the investors wanted another mature, adventure fantasy epic. The whole adaptation process was confused by this contradictory creative impulse.
2) Poor Source Material
The Hobbit is an inherently challenging book to adapt to the screen. For one thing, there are too many Dwarves in Thorin's company. I consider myself a hard-core Tolkien fan but I can hardly remember more than half of their names. I certainly can't connect names to the faces of actors and it doesn't help that, unlike the Fellowship, their names all sound alike, all derived in some form from the Poetic Edda. The Dwarves in the company don't really do anything in the story either. They're just sort of there because 13 is an auspicious number. The only real characters in the company are Thorin, Bilbo, and Gandalf (Balin's role in the expedition to reclaim Moria having been retconned later on). The Battle of Five Armies isn't the climax of the story either, it's more like a dessert, a bit of action for the kiddies. It's described in all of like two pages but in the movie they tried to portray it like the Battle of Minas Tirith. The Hobbit simply does not exist in the same universe as LOTR or the Silmarillion or etc. - the lore links were penciled in later by Tolkien for those other works. The episode with Galadriel, Saruman, and the Necromancer doesn't even show up in The Hobbit.
3) Over-Reliance on CGI
The LOTR trilogy was already suffering from this before it was through. In Viggo's words, The Hobbit was at least 10x worse. Characters feel weightless, their movements lacking the subtle imperfections of real people. The CG orcs look too clean, too crisp and the fact that there is not a single practical effects orc in the trilogy subconciously tells us there is no real antagonist - our heroes are just fighting a render (or worse, a dude in a suit with little balls all over it). There is no synchronization between action and audio. Weta Workshop's concepts are still just as good as the first trilogy, maybe a little high-fantasy by comparison, but their realization mostly or exclusively in CGI is extremely disappointing.
4) Creative Exhaustion with the Source Material
They should have let del Toro direct. We would have gotten an original take on Tolkien's work which is exactly what was needed because, as previously mentioned, The Hobbit and LOTR don't exist in the same universe. PJ poured his soul into the original trilogy and he didn't have any gas left in the tank for The Hobbit - the money people brought him in because they thought it would make the investment safer. As it turns out, lightning doesn't strike twice even when you reassemble the same cast and crew. I think this is probably the least important of the reasons why The Hobbit failed, the financial pressures of the studios and the political situation in New Zealand might even have been more important factors, but I won't get into that.
1) They Tried to Remake LOTR
This is the single biggest problem with The Hobbit movies, the kernel of their woes. If not for this, they might have let del Toro remain as director. If not for this, they might have had good original score instead of derivative music with not a single memorable track. If not for this, they might have kept it as one or maybe two movies instead of stretching it into a trilogy. The money people wanted another generation-defining hit and, in their greed, they ruined any hope for The Hobbit to be good. The tone of the films does not at all match the tone of the source material. They used the source material as a plot guide while overlaying the tone and epic scale of LOTR - it just doesn't work. The Hobbit was a wonky children's story but the investors wanted another mature, adventure fantasy epic. The whole adaptation process was confused by this contradictory creative impulse.
2) Poor Source Material
The Hobbit is an inherently challenging book to adapt to the screen. For one thing, there are too many Dwarves in Thorin's company. I consider myself a hard-core Tolkien fan but I can hardly remember more than half of their names. I certainly can't connect names to the faces of actors and it doesn't help that, unlike the Fellowship, their names all sound alike, all derived in some form from the Poetic Edda. The Dwarves in the company don't really do anything in the story either. They're just sort of there because 13 is an auspicious number. The only real characters in the company are Thorin, Bilbo, and Gandalf (Balin's role in the expedition to reclaim Moria having been retconned later on). The Battle of Five Armies isn't the climax of the story either, it's more like a dessert, a bit of action for the kiddies. It's described in all of like two pages but in the movie they tried to portray it like the Battle of Minas Tirith. The Hobbit simply does not exist in the same universe as LOTR or the Silmarillion or etc. - the lore links were penciled in later by Tolkien for those other works. The episode with Galadriel, Saruman, and the Necromancer doesn't even show up in The Hobbit.
3) Over-Reliance on CGI
The LOTR trilogy was already suffering from this before it was through. In Viggo's words, The Hobbit was at least 10x worse. Characters feel weightless, their movements lacking the subtle imperfections of real people. The CG orcs look too clean, too crisp and the fact that there is not a single practical effects orc in the trilogy subconciously tells us there is no real antagonist - our heroes are just fighting a render (or worse, a dude in a suit with little balls all over it). There is no synchronization between action and audio. Weta Workshop's concepts are still just as good as the first trilogy, maybe a little high-fantasy by comparison, but their realization mostly or exclusively in CGI is extremely disappointing.
4) Creative Exhaustion with the Source Material
They should have let del Toro direct. We would have gotten an original take on Tolkien's work which is exactly what was needed because, as previously mentioned, The Hobbit and LOTR don't exist in the same universe. PJ poured his soul into the original trilogy and he didn't have any gas left in the tank for The Hobbit - the money people brought him in because they thought it would make the investment safer. As it turns out, lightning doesn't strike twice even when you reassemble the same cast and crew. I think this is probably the least important of the reasons why The Hobbit failed, the financial pressures of the studios and the political situation in New Zealand might even have been more important factors, but I won't get into that.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
