The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread (Spoilers)

[Yoku]

3.5/5

Movie is entertaining but i felt like the movie missed something, i can't really point out the reason.

[Show spoiler]May be FOTR has a emotional core which i did not find here or more possibly missing any real sense of danger like the bridge of khazad-dum? I know its not supposed to be part of a lighter tone of Hobbit, but the quest never felt exiting enough. For non-book readers in the cinema hall, most of the audiences became impatient in the first half due to the story slowly moving and also too many characters/references that could not be understand.
Anyway Excellent casting. Watching Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is just perfect, exactly how i imagined her from reading the books. Although Azog looked good but why this kind of creature design is placed in a Hobbit movie? he looked like a mixture of troll and the monster from '300'.

The ending was good and i expect the second movie to be better than this.

[Edword]

Originally Posted by growler

Not going to read any posts till I see the film tomorrow. I see AMC is playing it on 3 screens in a theater near me; 2D, 3D & IMAX 3D. I called to ask which was 48 fps & the girl didn't know wtf I was talking about. I has her ask the projectionist & manager & after a hold the girl came back on & said her manager says: "We didn't get that."

So, YMMV but, many theater probably do not offer 48 fps. I wonder how many people will see it in 3D & assume, incorrectly, they saw 48 fps when they actually saw 24fps?

Edit: Just found this:
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/

Apologies if it is already mentioned but, don't want any spoilers & I know some don't use spoiler tags.

For the AMC near me they list it on the website if it's the HFR or not.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Yoku

3.5/5

Movie is entertaining but i felt like the movie missed something, i can't really point out the reason.

[Show spoiler]May be FOTR has a emotional core which i did not find here or more possibly missing any real sense of danger like the bridge of khazad-dum? I know its not supposed to be part of a lighter tone of Hobbit, but the quest never felt exiting enough. For non-book readers in the cinema hall, most of the audiences became impatient in the first half due to the story slowly moving and also too many characters/references that could not be understand.
Anyway Excellent casting. Watching Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is just perfect, exactly how i imagined her from reading the books. Although Azog looked good but why this kind of creature design is placed in a Hobbit movie? he looked like a mixture of troll and the monster from '300'.

The ending was good and i expect the second movie to be better than this.

Maybe it was the fact the all of the orcs and goblins were cgi, a little too sleek looking, that's what bothered me most, in my opinion.

[Talzin78]

After years of being dissapointed by not seperating source material from their cinematic counterparts, I've finally developed a new prespective. With that in mind I thought the movie was 4/5. I just sat back and enjoyed the story, without doing some deep comparisons. My wife never having read LOTR but loved the films absolutley loved it and wants to see it again. Me I thought the LOTR intro was well done, except for the fact that Elijah Wood looks 10 years older. I think that Juxtaposition makes it fit niceley with the LOTR films making what is hopefully a six movie epic. I do fear that they will somehow find a way for more Gollum in the next two however. I did not find the pacing of the first half as bad as alot of reviewers have stated. Me and my wife were both very entertained by the history laid out.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Also, the 48fps was a very strange experience. In landscape shots and still shots the image was mind-blowingly awesome. In action sequences it was even better. And the 3D was extremely impressive in crispness and cleanliness. HOWEVER, the slow pans within medium shots really made it feel like I was suddenly watching a low-budget 80's BBC televised production of some obscure piece of live theatre. And it bounced in and out of Hollywood production quality and nostalgic low-budget BBC production quality repeatedly in this regard.

So... in summary...

#1. I hope the 2nd is made that much better than the first BECAUSE OF the first itself.

#2. Not quite sold on 48fps yet.

Yeah, that's pretty much my exact opinion on the HFR as well. If they can somehow remove the bad shots, where it feels like I am watching a reality TV show, then I think I can fully get behind HFR. But I seriously doubt that will even be possible. It is the nature of the beast. So I have given up on HFR and hope it dies the way of the dodo bird.

I am positive Jackson understood the positives and negatives of using HFR, and went with the positives. Unfortunetly, the negatives kill it for me. Glad some of you can get past it, but IMHO, it ruins the overall experience.

[raygendreau]

The movie feels thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread. But the 48 FPS 3D was great. 3/5

[ezcobar411]

I saw this with my brother yesterday. Both of us enjoyed it tremendously. The movie really didn't seem that long and it seemed to fly by for me. We saw it in 48fps and loved the presentation. Now for the long wait until next December.

[beadelf]

see it over weekend too. thought it was great!

[Duffy12]

.

Bob:

[Show spoiler]You mentioned the infeasibility of the elvis arriving in time to see the sack of Erebor, but I am surprised that you did not mention Radagast's magic sled that teleports him over the hindering Misty Mountains which is a very major barrier. If Jackson is going to go to the pains of showing us the map of Middle-earth several times in his films, you would think that he would at least study them sometime.

Thats one that really bothered me.

.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

Bob:

[Show spoiler]You mentioned the infeasibility of the elvis arriving in time to see the sack of Erebor, but I am surprised that you did not mention Radagast's magic sled that teleports him over the hindering Misty Mountians which is a very major barrier. If Jackson is going to go to the pains of showing us the map of Middle-earth several times in his films, you would think that he would at least study them sometime.

Thats one that really bothered me.

.

I didn't even catch that.

[Show spoiler]In the novel, Gandalf met with Radagast after they got out of the Misty Mountains, right? It's been a while since I read it.

I didn't mind the Elves going through the trouble to assemble their army and traveling all the way to Erebor just to look at Thorin in his time of need and turn their backs on him, because Bilbo was telling a story and stories are embellished.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

and stories are embellished.

Yep, just like the finding of the ring in the prologue of FotR.

.

[DetroitSportsFan]

I'm probably going to see this today.

How should I see it - standard 3D or HFR 3D?

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

Bob:

[Show spoiler]You mentioned the infeasibility of the elvis arriving in time to see the sack of Erebor, but I am surprised that you did not mention Radagast's magic sled that teleports him over the hindering Misty Mountians which is a very major barrier. If Jackson is going to go to the pains of showing us the map of Middle-earth several times in his films, you would think that he would at least study them sometime.

Thats one that really bothered me.

.

Not the silly rabbits?

Got back from the movie,and it wasn't as bad as I suspected from the reviews.Mostly good,but many of the battlescenes seemed like a copy of LotR.A good thing was that it dealt with an important theme for a change:

[Show spoiler]materialism,and living in a guilded cage

.Really liked the scene where

[Show spoiler] the dwarfs,Gandalf and Bilbo was trapped in the trees

.Nicely executed.Also a nice moment between Thorin and Bilbo at the end

I'll suprise the lot of yeh,and give it a 4/5 Bring on part 2!

[Jbug]

I would suggest 3D, HFR w/Dolby Atmost. That's how my wife and I viewed it and I can't say enough about how pleased I was with everthing. Once during the movie my wife leaned over and said she felt like she was in a boat but after she adjusted everything was ok. Me, I did not have to adjust and was up and running from the git, go. The movie did not seem long at all to me nor was the build up too slow.

[Diesel]

Poll is up...but will remain locked until Josh wishes to open it

[Starmartyr]

Originally Posted by Talzin78

After years of being dissapointed by not seperating source material from their cinematic counterparts, I've finally developed a new prespective. With that in mind I thought the movie was 4/5. I just sat back and enjoyed the story, without doing some deep comparisons. My wife never having read LOTR but loved the films absolutley loved it and wants to see it again. Me I thought the LOTR intro was well done, except for the fact that Elijah Wood looks 10 years older. I think that Juxtaposition makes it fit niceley with the LOTR films making what is hopefully a six movie epic. I do fear that they will somehow find a way for more Gollum in the next two however. I did not find the pacing of the first half as bad as alot of reviewers have stated. Me and my wife were both very entertained by the history laid out.

We saw it yesterday in HFR 3D and really in terms of the movie itself, this^ is almost exactly how my wife and I felt!

I don't like to pick things apart either; that being said there were a couple things that I kind of wish were done differently.

[Show spoiler]Just for example as someone else here had mentioned about how brightly lit the 'Riddles in the Dark' scene was, (which is very ironic) I can sort-of understand that for movie-making reasons - but really it just serves to kill the tension.

Overall though I was entertained and have come to terms with the fact that this is someone else’s interpretation of the source material and even if each and every person got the chance to bring their own vision of these books to the screen, there would be areas where others would disagree with those choices, so there really is no way to please everyone.

Originally Posted by tilallr1

Yeah, that's pretty much my exact opinion on the HFR as well. If they can somehow remove the bad shots, where it feels like I am watching a reality TV show, then I think I can fully get behind HFR. But I seriously doubt that will even be possible. It is the nature of the beast. So I have given up on HFR and hope it dies the way of the dodo bird.

I am positive Jackson understood the positives and negatives of using HFR, and went with the positives. Unfortunetly, the negatives kill it for me. Glad some of you can get past it, but IMHO, it ruins the overall experience.

I liked the HFR more than I thought I would for the most part, but in some instances it truly was distracting and difficult to come to terms with. I think it has potential but really needs a lot of work in the areas where movement seems strangely sped-up. Maybe they can slow down the actor's movements or something, or possibly do something in post to alleviate that soap-opera syndrome. It doesn't look natural - we have a bit of blur in our vision naturally of course, so not seeing any blur at all looks very strange. Also fast camera movements seem to be a huge no-no in HFR - it looks awful. This is also only about the second or third film I’ve seen in 3D and it still does nothing for me - it is distracting and gimmicky, so I think I can say I will personally be avoiding it hereon out.

I do wish P.J. hadn't decided to 'experiment' with such a beloved saga... I found the digital cleanliness of the video to detract from the world in which we came to love in LOTR - one which used film grain to great effect and everything had a distinctive dreamy-look. On the other hand, there were some truly beautiful scenes in the Hobbit, and it is a departure from what came before: a different saga, a different look, so I can appreciate that too.

Now I need to go see it again in 24fps 2D. My wife wants to see it again, which is a great sign since she knows nothing about Tolkien – but not right away for her.. she wants time to forget the details. I seriously want to go again next week!


Edit - just to be clear, as I'm not sure how positive my thoughts sounded: I did think overall it was a wonderful vision of the world J.R.R Tolkien so vividly painted in his texts. I love spending more time there even if it doesn't always match my imagination of it - but it often comes very close. I've loved these books since I was a kid and would never miss the chance to visit there whenever possible. I am looking forward to more!

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Yep, just like the finding of the ring in the prologue of FotR.

.

Yup. I didn't mind that so much, but I prefer how he found the ring in FOTR because that's how it happens in the book.

[stvn1974]

For those who complain about the movie being silly in places I wonder if they would have liked it more if

[Show spoiler]Gandalf had to push the vertebrae of all of the dwarfs back in their backs once the bridges fell on top of all of them?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

Bob:

[Show spoiler]You mentioned the infeasibility of the elvis arriving in time to see the sack of Erebor, but I am surprised that you did not mention Radagast's magic sled that teleports him over the hindering Misty Mountians which is a very major barrier. If Jackson is going to go to the pains of showing us the map of Middle-earth several times in his films, you would think that he would at least study them sometime.

Thats one that really bothered me.

There were many inconsistencies including that one I didn't mention, because I thought the point had been made and I didn't want to sound overly negative. Speaking of which, inconsistency is the thing that baffles me about this and the last two LotR movies. I can't think of any movie that has the support these movies enjoy, from the fans and the devoted production crew. The set pieces, special effects, props, costumes, art, etc. are second to none. The films are based on the most popular literature in history, aside from the Bible and religious texts, and therefore are practically guaranteed to be successful. The most knowledgable experts were available to consult, years to prepare, and from I heard, the largest movie budget of all time. This should have been a no-brainer, spectacular, out-of-this-universe production.

And the movie WAS good. So why the let-down?

Because it was ONLY good. The 70 percent (or whatever it is) rotten tomatoes score and the less-than-ecstatic comments on this (and other) forums are not aberrations. IMO the obvious reason is the script. In just about every instance, the screenwriters' invented material is the weak link, along with the predisposition to over-dramatize, when the creed of many entertainers is to "give them just enough to leave them wanting more". We can be thankful that the source material in this book does not open the door for excessive crying, and that the screenwriters finally got "at this point actor falls down" out of their system, and the other trivial "nuisance" items that have been frequently pointed out. I think that what The Hobbit could have used is a "fresh vision" - and to keep the movie from becoming ridiculous - by using people (and for this movie there would have been many) who actually know the story. Jackson may be a great director, and certainly deserved the Oscar, but these scripts (do I dare say it?) are lacking.

So we are off to an "OK" start, and we know that in the next movie we will witness the most incredible

[Show spoiler] dragon

ever filmed, but will the story be as impressive, or will it just be "OK"? Either way, I will go to see it (and buy all of the movie books and versions of the BD's), but I hate coming out of the theater wondering, "if only..."

[joe_b]

Originally Posted by growler

I wonder how many people will see it in 3D & assume, incorrectly, they saw 48 fps when they actually saw 24fps?

If it was truly 48 fps, they should immediately be able to spot the difference. The dramatic switch in visual quality from the trailers to the main feature would be a dead giveaway. My local theater was showing it in both regular 3D and HFR 3D. They didn't specify the difference at the box office, but the HFR showtimes were listed on their website.

I'll probably see it again in 2D when it makes it to the discount theaters. I'm curious to compare the presentations.