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

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

did anyone get their posters?

[Show spoiler]

No, but I did get a T-shirt

[toddly6666]

Don't know what all the negative reviews are about. I saw The Hobbit today in regular 2D and the movie was excellent! I was skeptical about the film being split into three films but after watching the first part, there really is no way to make this film with 1 or 2 films. There is no filler - the first and second parts are just as exciting as the last part. This is a film "adaptation" so yeah, there are some additions, but this movie was amazing and also followed most of the first part of the book perfectly. This also has the same pace and flow as Fellowship too. I see no difference between the two. I don't know how someone could love Fellowship but not love this.

Just watch the film in 2D first. The look of the film is amazing and blends smoothly together. Watching it with the 3D soap opera technology does not sound like it helps the film one bit.

All the acting was perfect too. Martin Freeman is really outstanding as Bilbo. The only thing I thought was funny was how Wood shows up as Frodo, and it's sort of obvious that Elijah Wood looks older and bigger.

Azog is a very awesome addition as main villain by the way. I was trying to remember if he was even in the book so I researched online, and they say he's only mentioned briefly.
And the testicle chin Goblin King is great as well!

Can someone explain this to me:

[Show spoiler] where are they going with the Necromancer? Are they setting it up that he's actually Sauron by the end of the final Hobbit film or something?

[raygendreau]

Saw this in HFR 3D today at noon. I am sold on 48 fps. Bring on 60 for Avatar 2, Cameron. The difference is most notable in fast pans and what would have been blurred movement (birds wings, butterflies in motion)

There were two theaters in the 22 theater complex showing The Hobbit in HFR 3D as well as the IMAX in non HFR 3D.

While I don't have an issue with side effects from watching 3D, and have had a 3D TV for 3 years, I accept the premise that 48 FPS should be more acceptable to people that may experience eyestrain and/or headaches with a lower framerate.

For Penton Man, the theaters showing HFR (Regal Ontario, CA.) were equipped with 4K SXRD Sony projectors with software that allows ever higher framerates (60 and above).

Looking forward the the rest of the trilogy. Someone mentioned

[Show spoiler]the flaming pinecone

. I was looking for it and I still flinched.
This is, by far, the best 3D I have seen!

[Angel Eyes]

Very dissapointed in the film. Not even in the same ballpark as the Rings films, but maybe my expectations were too high.

[lupinskitten]

Not sure why some wouldn't like this film -- for me, it was a brilliant starter for the new trilogy, and perfectly matches the LotR films in their epic scale. It's more comical, true, but this IS based on a children's story. I thought the changes accentuated Tolkien's genius rather than detracting. All in all, it was a marvelous way to spend an afternoon... but then, I'm one of the biggest Tolkien nutters on the planet, so I come in with an unabashed bias.

[Beast]

Saw it today. First showing in HFR 3D. That's going to take a lot to get used to. Especially when on occasion when there's a lot of quick movement going on there tends to be a bit of Benny Hillesque speed-up going on. It's a bit distracting at times, but it didn't ruin the movie for me. The 3D is a bit of a waste though, and as usual in movies like this tends to make the backgrounds, especially in the wide vistas, look like poor CGI rather than real. I may catch another viewing in 2D to see if it's better. I'm not sure whether I like this more or worse than the Lord Of The Rings films. That's something to dwell on.

I enjoyed myself quite a bit. I like the tone change from Lord of the Rings quite a bit. It does remind me a lot of The Phantom Menace for exactly that reason. A lot more comical and focusing on some lighthearted charm. Some of the Dwarves antics and Radagast The Brown especially. I think it works for the movie, and I almost wish the Lord Of The Rings films would have had a bit more lighthearted moments after seeing this. But whatever.

The fight scenes on the whole were well done, and I appreciate the changes to the narrative... even though one of them seem out of a desire to not be compared to Twilight. Such as the Wargs not talking or being the main threat like they are in the book, and being reduced to mounts or hunting animals for the Orcs. The Pale Orc was a neat new character, like Lurtz from Fellowship. The Goblin King got a bit overly campy though... even including his death.

There's a lot of padding going on in the film, but I actually felt that a lot of it was fairly necessary. Such as actually seeing the flashback to Smaug's claiming of the Lonely Mountain. We get to see the power of the character, rather than having the story start off with the Dragon already having claimed the Mountain and not really showing up until Movie 2. I do appreciate that they didn't give you a good look at him though, saving that for Hobbit 2 was wise.

Fleshing out the White Council and the "Necromancer" stuff, which is just basically footnotes in the original story to get rid of Gandalf for chunks of the story was a good idea. Especially when Gandalf in this film is more of a Deus Ex Machina than he ever was in the entire Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. It doesn't help that each time it's almost the exact same way he does it. Especially since that stuff, while not as important here actually pays off more in LOTR.

[jbig31]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Don't know what all the negative reviews are about. I saw The Hobbit today in regular 2D and the movie was excellent! I was skeptical about the film being split into three films but after watching the first part, there really is no way to make this film with 1 or 2 films. There is no filler - the first and second parts are just as exciting as the last part. This is a film "adaptation" so yeah, there are some additions, but this movie was amazing and also followed most of the first part of the book perfectly. This also has the same pace and flow as Fellowship too. I see no difference between the two. I don't know how someone could love Fellowship but not love this.

Just watch the film in 2D first. The look of the film is amazing and blends smoothly together. Watching it with the 3D soap opera technology does not sound like it helps the film one bit.

All the acting was perfect too. Martin Freeman is really outstanding as Bilbo. The only thing I thought was funny was how Wood shows up as Frodo, and it's sort of obvious that Elijah Wood looks older and bigger.

Azog is a very awesome addition as main villain by the way. I was trying to remember if he was even in the book so I researched online, and they say he's only mentioned briefly.
And the testicle chin Goblin King is great as well!

Can someone explain this to me:

[Show spoiler] where are they going with the Necromancer? Are they setting it up that he's actually Sauron by the end of the final Hobbit film or something?

[Show spoiler]The Necromancer/Sauron will be driven out by the combined power of the White Council. It is not dealt with directly in The Hobbit storyline, but it is inferred to happen in one of Gandalf's "absences" in the book.

[assydingo]

I loved it. As a fan of the LOTR movies it was exciting to see so much more of Middle Earth.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by jbig31

[Show spoiler]The Necromancer/Sauron will be driven out by the combined power of the White Council. It is not dealt with directly in The Hobbit storyline, but it is inferred to happen in one of Gandalf's "absences" in the book.

[Show spoiler] wow the two are connected?, gotta read the book again. Extended Edition has got to have more detail with him, he was voiced by Benedict Cumberbach, but I don't recall any dialogue from the being, waste of talent otherwise

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

[Show spoiler] wow the two are connected?, gotta read the book again. Extended Edition has got to have more detail with him, he was voiced by Benedict Cumberbach, but I don't recall any dialogue from the being, waste of talent otherwise

he DID get mentioned in the end credits there.

[cynatnite]

I was blown away by the quality and beauty of the film. It was stunning in 3D.

It took a little getting used to at first. The fast moving scenes were a bit odd to me, but after a while I became accustomed to the 48 fps.

I thought it went slow at times, but I also felt like the gorgeous scenes detracted from the story at times.

It was great to see some of the characters returning from the original LOTR. I thought I was going to miss having humans, but I enjoyed the new characters that were introduced. The actor portraying Bilbo is first rate.

Overall, I did love the film and I thought it was a good start for the prequel trilogy. I really can't wait for the rest.

Peter Jackson did not disappoint, IMO.

[Show spoiler]I don't understand the necromancer (sp?) stuff.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by cynatnite

[Show spoiler]I don't understand the necromancer (sp?) stuff.

You will in parts II and III.

You just gotta wait a bit.

.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by cynatnite

I was blown away by the quality and beauty of the film. It was stunning in 3D.

It took a little getting used to at first. The fast moving scenes were a bit odd to me, but after a while I became accustomed to the 48 fps.

I thought it went slow at times, but I also felt like the gorgeous scenes detracted from the story at times.

It was great to see some of the characters returning from the original LOTR. I thought I was going to miss having humans, but I enjoyed the new characters that were introduced. The actor portraying Bilbo is first rate.

Overall, I did love the film and I thought it was a good start for the prequel trilogy. I really can't wait for the rest.

Peter Jackson did not disappoint, IMO.

[Show spoiler]I don't understand the necromancer (sp?) stuff.

in regard to your spoiler - just wiki

[Show spoiler]Sauron

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

That's a very good point.

But as I was sitting there laughing at it,

[Show spoiler]I kept wondering why the heck they all of a sudden just came alive out of the side of the mountain and starting coming to blows with one another.

I mean, what the hell were they fighting for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W7-ngmO_p8

Cuz they're just evil. Remember the orcs in ROTK? The ones that were gonna eat Frodo, and kill each other in the process?

It's just the way evil folk are in Tolkien. It makes no sense that they could have any form of organization, especially as large as Mordor, but I like it. It's a contrast to the realistic villains we see these days, who sometimes have such a strong motive it could drive any of us insane. Tolkien's baddies are just bad, and can't get along with anyone, even themselves.

Bit over a week before this is out in Australia. I've got two kids films lined up for the next 2 or 3 weeks of cinema going, and then I'll catch The Hobbit a week or two after than. I'm sure this will have a long run in theatres and I don't need to rush out for it.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Cuz they're just evil. Remember the orcs in ROTK? The ones that were gonna eat Frodo, and kill each other in the process?

It's just the way evil folk are in Tolkien. It makes no sense that they could have any form of organization, especially as large as Mordor, but I like it. It's a contrast to the realistic villains we see these days, who sometimes have such a strong motive it could drive any of us insane. Tolkien's baddies are just bad, and can't get along with anyone, even themselves.

It's not the same version that Tolkien's was.

When you see it you will understand what I am referring to.

.

[Steven Ribs]

I'm seeing this in AVX HFR 3D will this be much different than the IMAX HFR? Not sure how big a difference the quality of IMAX or AVX HFR will be when I go on Tuesday, but I'm looking forward to it.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

It's not the same version that Tolkien's was.

When you see it you will understand what I am referring to.

.

I'll keep my mouth shut for a few weeks!

This is probably the only movie I'm anticipating that I'm trolling through the conversations of, clicking spoiler tags like a madman, all because I've read the book. But I have read a couple things I shouldn't have... and now I'm even trying to add to the conversation?

Pretentious, ain't I?

I was mainly looking for 3D quality. 2 1/2 hours of Transformers, coupled with junk food, made my boy throw up. 3 hours for what some say is "weak", others say is the "best ever"... I dunno what to do. There is no 48fps in my part of the world, so I'm thinking 2D, and watching 3D with the wife when it hits Blu (should have a new PJ by then)...

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

he DID get mentioned in the end credits there.

[Show spoiler]Yea, I made sure who he voiced when I saw his name. I just don't recall Necromancer speaking. Which makes me certain he has dialogue saved for the EE

[Snicket]

Did anybody see a PJ cameo?

[bam777]

My review.

[Show spoiler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HObZQD6n0yI