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

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

this is all part of the Peter Jackson recycling music and not using the new stuff thing that was talked and bashed about by some critics.

Which doesn't answer the question, does it. the poster asked why it was done, and we only have assumptions at this point.

[goeagles5039]

I just saw this tonight (regular 2d) and I thought it was great. I thought the pacing was fine, the story was fine, everything was great. I can't wait to see the 2nd part next December!

[Taipan]

Originally Posted by Beast

That's the way the book is also though. With Thorin pretty much the main character for part of the book. It just seems even more so here because of the expansion of the story and the part of the book which focuses more on Bilbo is pretty much all saved for the second film.

I need to reread this book. It's been a long while since I read it.

[L-Rouge]

My second visit. this time HFR 3d was up and running. I loved the 3d, completely natural. I took my glasses off at some points because there are times when the image is coherent, I have to say I would like to keep it at 24fps for 2d. Easier on the eyes.

[L-Rouge]

seeing this in two different auditoriums, if there is one thing I note is that sonically it has an immersive sound field with incredible panning and surround effectsbut has been particularly troubled in the bass department. The viewing today has a brand spanking new sound system, but while there is a presence in the low end, it is not driven deep or punching hard, its just there as a noise. So I can not tell if this is an inherent trait of the movie of the owners have a few tweeks to perform overall, I have yet to see another movie so can't judge..

how has the sound been for people here?.

[MCT]

I just read the review posted by this site

I agree with the overall score....but when the reviewer speaks negatively of the pace, he mentions the Necromancer subplot as basically being useless.

ummmm.....he does know who the Necromancer is....right?

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by MCT

I just read the review posted by this site

I agree with the overall score....but when the reviewer speaks negatively of the pace, he mentions the Necromancer subplot as basically being useless.

ummmm.....he does know who the Necromancer is....right?

I ll be honest, I had no idea myself at the time, I have read the book 6 years ago and enjoyed it immensely, I read the Radagast scene as a cluing in to the other person, but when we discover Necromancer, that threw me of the proverbial trail pretty quick. andf likely Saruman's spiel helped out here too. but good point.

[Petyr_Baelish]

The star tours ride at disneyland. Isn't that hfr?

[LynxFX]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

how has the sound been for people here?.

Watched in a Dolby Atmos theater, one of the best sounding movies I've ever heard. Bass was strong and tight, never just a vague rumbling that you get in most action movies.

Only negative was that I had a hard time understanding some of the dialog, especially Gollum this time.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by MCT

I just read the review posted by this site

I agree with the overall score....but when the reviewer speaks negatively of the pace, he mentions the Necromancer subplot as basically being useless.

ummmm.....he does know who the Necromancer is....right?

If you really enjoyed The Lord of the rings you will find enough in this movie to enjoy it as well. If you are just a casual fan and you saw The Lord of the rings only a few times or all you care about are the battle scenes then you might like this less. However if you are a film critic who probably only saw The Lord of the rings once or twice you are more likely to not appreciate this story at all.

[Falaskan]

Just saw it, not sure if it was the HFR or not (I assume it was) but whenever anything happened quickly on screen it looked like it was sped up a bit too much. I didn't like that. I also wish the Orcs hasn't been in cgi as much, only when needed like in LOTR. Otherwise, no complaints.

[Jonno2009]

I really enjoyed the movie. I've never read the book so i don't know what was added or not but as a book virgin and just a plain middle earth lover i really loved it!

It was not slow or boring in the least and time just flew by!

The only thing that bothered me was the 3D. Saw it 24fps 3D IMAX and besides a couple cool shots of rain and fire adding depth i didn't much care for it.

3D is pretty much only good when the camera is still and you can see all the different depths of field. but when the camera keeps zooming around everywhere for action scenes i just can't quite keep up.

I'm really curious about the 48 fps HFR and i want to see it again but it sucks it's only in 3D. If i see it again i think it'll be in 2D, where i can enjoy everything and let my eyes sink everything in.

Dunno which format i'm gonna choose for the next movies!

Oh and for some reason i didn't get the 9min Star Trek clip at my IMAX showing here in Montreal! Don't know why as i've always seen those 'special' prologues there!

The Dark Knight prologue before I Am Legend and Dark Knight Rises prologue before Mission Impossible.

BTW where's the poll?!

[DarkDune]

Fantastic!!! Peter Jackson has again succeeded in producing a telling of the Hobbit that I believe J.R.R Tolkien himself would not only cheer for, but wholeheartedly wish to see more. The pure wonderment, and awe that my wife, my 7-year-old son, and I had in watching this telling of the Hobbit was notable. It was as if the story had been pulled into being from a dream created deep in the heart of Middle Earth.

Wonderful. The audience, and we, laughed, clapped, and cheered throughout.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

[Show spoiler] the Nazqul music felt out of place in that scene to me.

I actually liked the choice. It made me sit up and take notice, asking myself "why?".

[Petra_Kalbrain]

My brief opinion...

Good film, not great by any means. I knew it would be a "setup film," but I didn't expect it to be almost COMPLETE setup. To me it really felt lacking in gravitas. It didn't do anything to make me excited to find out what happens next. Perhaps it was just missing the "Is Gandalf really dead?" factor that came with FOTR?

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.

[NYorker]

This looks like a big fail on the part of PJ...
LOTR I understand, as it is a trilogy of books. But why the heck make a single book into three films...!? it makes no sense. I suspect the studio pushed him into it, to make more money. As far as the whole 48 fps thing, I think they also messed up on this one.

[Gilmourfan]

Friday estimate: $37,525,000

[DarkDune]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

My brief opinion...

Good film, not great by any means. I knew it would be a "setup film," but I didn't expect it to be almost COMPLETE setup. To me it really felt lacking in gravitas. It didn't do anything to make me excited to find out what happens next. Perhaps it was just missing the "Is Gandalf really dead?" factor that came with FOTR?

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.

Perhaps you should have seen it in 2D

Edit: For me this telling of the HOBBIT was unusually special as we brought my 7 year old along, who had recently completed -- and absolutely LOVED -- the Lego LOTR's game. His wonderment, laughter, awe, hiding behind the theater seats, and cheering made this movie unforgettable for me

He actually had a Lego One Ring, Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam "in his pocket" during the movie!!! It was unreal LOL

[Underworld54]

It looks like an $85M opening weekend which is weak for this franchise. Estimates off of the midnight showings and Friday numbers had it tracking for $115M or so.

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by Petyr_Baelish

If you really enjoyed The Lord of the rings you will find enough in this movie to enjoy it as well. If you are just a casual fan and you saw The Lord of the rings only a few times or all you care about are the battle scenes then you might like this less. However if you are a film critic who probably only saw The Lord of the rings once or twice you are more likely to not appreciate this story at all.

I agree with your post. If someone doesn't like LOTR, they probably won't like the Hobbit. As for myself, I enjoyed it alot, but I had the realization that it is a children's book and that the first film will be more comical in order to give depth to the danger and despair in the following films. As far as the score goes, I really liked it. A few of the tracks have been reused from LOTR, but to good effect in my opinion. By the way the theme used with Azog sounds close to the Nazgul theme, but I don't think they are quite the same as I've seen LOTR dozens of times.