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

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Since it looks like The Hobbit series is an extension of Jackson's version of the Middle-earth saga, I rated it on the basis of all of the movies. Namely, Fellowship of the Ring would have rated a "5", and The Two Towers and Return of the King would have received a "4". I felt this movie was not quite up to the standard set by those three, despite the luxury of the extra time, money, and all of the lessons learned from the past 13 years of Jackson's involvement in Middle-earth, so on that basis, I rated it a "3". I am confident that the remaining two movies will fulfill the potential I expect from the magnitude of the production effort and source material.

I can definitely see how you arrived at that choice, but what if you compared it to some other movies that were released this year, like Battleship, Wrath of the Titans, Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance, John Carter, Snow White and the Huntsman, Red Riding Hood, etc.?

Then it would seem like a solid 5 slam dunk.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Since it looks like The Hobbit series is an extension of Jackson's version of the Middle-earth saga, I rated it on the basis of all of the movies. Namely, Fellowship of the Ring would have rated a "5", and The Two Towers and Return of the King would have received a "4". I felt this movie was not quite up to the standard set by those three, despite the luxury of the extra time, money, and all of the lessons learned from the past 13 years of Jackson's involvement in Middle-earth, so on that basis, I rated it a "3". I am confident that the remaining two movies will fulfill the potential I expect from the magnitude of the production effort and source material.

Not to nitpick,but remember you being not very impressed with the LotR trilogy...Seeing that it is the only representaion of the Tolkien universe in the forseeable future (talking decades here) besides Bakshi's lost highway so to speak,it is understandable to readjust to the visual universe being presented in the movies.They are visually spectacular.Just one question: Did you find the acting in the Hobbit better like me?That just may be me...

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I can definitely see how you arrived at that choice, but what if you compared it some other movies that were released this year, like Battleship, Wrath of the Titans, Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance, John Carter, Snow White and the Huntsman, Red Riding Hood, etc.?

Then it would seem like a solid 5 slam dunk.

You just made my day mate

That puts things into perspective

[Duffy12]

.

WOW!

This has to be THE biggest disconnect that I have ever seen critics have. I bet most of it is reflective to the mixed views of the 48-HFR. Shame it has to effect the movie's reviews.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

WOW!

This has to be THE biggest disconnect that I have ever seen critics have. I bet most of it is reflective to the mixed views of the 48-HFR. Shame it has to effect the movie's reviews.

I agree, I have saw it twice now, once in 2d and this time in 3d 48fps I enjoyed it more in 2d Bring on the Blu Ray! Hurry up

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

You just made my day mate

That puts things into perspective

Thanks Mahatma.

I picked some pretty bad ones to compare it to though.

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

WOW!

This has to be THE biggest disconnect that I have ever seen critics have. I bet most of it is reflective to the mixed views of the 48-HFR. Shame it has to effect the movie's reviews.

[Show spoiler]

If you click on Top Critics on Rotten Tomatoes, it only has a 42% - Rotten rating.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by frogmort

If you click on Top Critics on Rotten Tomatoes, it only has a 42% - Rotten rating.

WOW!

What the flying F*** is going on with them?!


Are they reviewing this by mistake instead?

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

I agree, I have saw it twice now, once in 2d and this time in 3d 48fps I enjoyed it more in 2d Bring on the Blu Ray! Hurry up

I sure can tell you one thing. When this finally hits the cable channels and is played frequently, and I stumble onto it by channel surfing, I will not be able to turn it off.

.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I sure can tell you one thing. When this finally hits the cable channels and is played frequently, and I stumble onto it by channel surfing, I will not be able to turn it off.

.

I agree, I took my little cousin today and she loved it! I asked her if she ever saw FOTR,TT, ROTK and she said no I had to fix that situation, I took her to BB and bought them for her in DVD along with the Batman DVD set No she does not have a Blu Ray player.

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

WOW!

What the flying F*** is going on with them?!


Are they reviewing this by mistake instead?

I still have to see that.

[raygendreau]

Some of you will consider this blasphemy, but I believe Guillermo del Toro would have done a better job directing The Hobbit. I wonder how much of his screen play survived the transition to Jackson and crew.

Peter Jackson collaborator Philippa Boyens says the film would have had more of a “fairy-tale” element and a different visual aesthetic.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...it-what-401909

I was going to give this a 3.5, but bumped it to 4 rather than 3 on the poll out of deference to Tolkien.

Jackson should have followed his first instinct and passed this up. That opinion may change after viewing the rest of the trilogy.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Not to nitpick,but remember you being not very impressed with the LotR trilogy...Seeing that it is the only representaion of the Tolkien universe in the forseeable future (talking decades here) besides Bakshi's lost highway so to speak,it is understandable to readjust to the visual universe being presented in the movies.They are visually spectacular.Just one question: Did you find the acting in the Hobbit better like me?That just may be me...

Similar to what we're seeing with the latest movie, in the previous three movies I was disappointed with Jackson's twisting of key parts of the storylines, while on the other hand omitting some important points. The vast majority of people, including most Blu-ray forum members, understandably didn't have a problem with that. But taken solely on the basis of being movies, I was incredibly impressed, and they are still among my favorites; Fellowship is one of my three favorite movies. I think most people would agree that the visual and action aspects of The Hobbit movie are astonishing, some of the acting and characterizations are better, and it DOES include a lot of material from the book. But considering the number of people and the amount of money invested into this film, it should be astonishing. Compared to the previous three movies, which were unparalleled spectacles, maybe Jackson felt he had to up kick the stakes even higher. As just one example, instead of the scene in Fellowship, where a mild reference to getting stoned is made when Saruman tells Gandalf, "Your love of the Halflings' leaf has clearly slowed your mind", we are presented with the "better", even more hilarious scene where

[Show spoiler] Radagast (whose role here is reduced to that of a slapstick clown) tokes on Gandalf's pipe and euphorically rolls his eyes up in his head. The 15-year-old kid who is a big fan of "Grandma's Boy" will undoubtedly enjoy this, but does that scene actually fit this material?

On top of that, there are filmed parts of the book that don't "feel" like the book (I will try to get to that eventually in the "movie vs. book thread), and other issues that have been discussed in other posts. I believe Treebeard's quote, "a wizard ought to know better", is applicable if changed to "a director and screenwriting team who are self-admitted Tolkien fans should know better." And given an extensive learning curve from the prior three movies, a half-billion dollars, a production crew of hundreds and hundreds (thousands?) of people, not to mention millions of devoted fans and the backing of an entire country (and a "pretty good story" as a script basis), how could one expect any less?

But, two films remain...

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

scene where

[Show spoiler] Radagast (whose role here is reduced to that of a slapstick clown) tokes on Gandalf's pipe and euphorically rolls his eyes up in his head. The 15-year-old kid who is a big fan of "Grandma's Boy" will undoubtedly enjoy this, but does that scene actually fit this material?

Yikes!

I remember that scene but did not catch that Cheech & Chong reference(I was most likely looking at all the pretty 3D scenery instead). lol

Now how the heck can I un-see that?!

.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by frogmort

If you click on Top Critics on Rotten Tomatoes, it only has a 42% - Rotten rating.

The reason why Peter Jackson didnt want to direct the movies. He didnt want to compete with himself. These "top critics" are likely comparing the movie to the trilogy, maybe even subconsciously

[Beast]

No matter who directed it people were going to compare the two trilogys.

As for Radagast, the best part of that is the fact the smoke comes out his ears also. Was hilarious.

I still want a Radagast w/ Bunny Sled action figure if they ever get around to making him. Best character in the movie.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Beast

No matter who directed it people were going to compare the two trilogys.

As for Radagast, the best part of that is the fact the smoke comes out his ears also. Was hilarious.

I still want a Radagast w/ Bunny Sled action figure if they ever get around to making him. Best character in the movie.

I liked that little scribe that the Great Goblin had. Now THAT was the best character in the movie.

A malformed and miniscule Goblin, the Goblin Scribe sits perched above the throne of The Goblin King and keeps record of all the malicious happenings within the court below.

If I had to pick a dwarf I would go with Bofur.

.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Yikes!

I remember that scene but did not catch that Cheech & Chong reference(I was most likely looking at all the pretty 3D scenery instead). lol

Now how the heck can I un-see that?!

.

.

Yes, and that simple example illustrates the dilemma. At face-value, that might be a funny scene for an ordinary film. But to a person with an understanding of what the Wizards represent in context to the story, that is more of something you would expect from an Uwe Boll script, not a Peter Jackson, Oscar-winning director and Tolkien-fan script.

Possible plot element (?) for second movie:

Gandalf comes to Rhosgobel (Radagast's home), and knocks on front door.

Radagast (inside, stoned): Who is it?
Gandalf: It's me, Gandalf.
Radagast: WHO?
Gandalf: Gandalf!
Radagast: Gandalf's not here.
Gandalf (becoming impatient): NO, I'M GANDALF!
Radagast: Gandalf's not here.
Etc.

Third movie possible scene - Gandalf and Radagast at the drive-in (Gandalf: Hey, it's raining out here, man...)

[Beast]

Yes. But the Wizards when in their weakened mortal forms have weaknesses and flaws.

All of them showcase them in the films. I think Radagast fits the limited information in the texts about him.

Plus we know Gandalf's pipe's filled with some pretty good stuff, considering Saruman chastizes him for it in FotR.

"Your love of the halflings' leaf has clearly slowed your mind." - Saruman

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I can definitely see how you arrived at that choice, but what if you compared it to some other movies that were released this year, like Battleship, Wrath of the Titans, Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance, John Carter, Snow White and the Huntsman, Red Riding Hood, etc.?

Then it would seem like a solid 5 slam dunk.

Agreed! (Battleship! )

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Beast

Yes. But the Wizards when in their weakened mortal forms have weaknesses and flaws.

All of them showcase them in the films. I think Radagast fits the limited information in the texts about him.

Plus we know Gandalf's pipe's filled with some pretty good stuff, considering Saruman chastizes him for it in FotR.

Weaknesses and flaws, yes, in a political sense, they were subject to the same temptations as Men. Radagast may have been eccentric, but we may probably (correctly) assume, as a timeless immortal being (Maia) sent to Middle-earth to counter the evil of Sauron - directly by God - that he was not a buffoon. If Jackson was intent on including slapstick humor, he had THIRTEEN dwarves to work with, including

[Show spoiler] one with an axe in his head

.