12 replies to this topic 2 votes

[+Chicane-UK]

Kind of surprised that I'm the first person to post this thread?

I had fairly moderate expectations for the film. Whilst not a huge fan of the source books (I've read them all once, years ago) I did enjoy Lord of the Rings purely for the scale of the films and how ambitious they were - and of course how well executed they were.

I was less positive about The Hobbit because of reading some negative reviews, and also because I felt with such a small book, I couldn't understand why the film was being turned into three movies when two would probably have been ample. I also felt concerned reading various op-ed pieces about this whole 48fps thing, and was doubtful that Martin Freeman would work in the lead role as Bilbo Baggins.

So I went into the film (IMAX 3D presentation) with modest expectations. However I'm pleased to say they quickly all fell aside as the movie began to get going. Firstly I have to say something about both the utterly magical visual effects, and the cinematography of the film. They are utterly spectacular. The massive vistas (both real and computer generated) are fantastic, and the way in which the visual effects are combined together in battle scenes and so forth are simply breathtaking. Even if you hate fantasy films, you couldn't fail to be impressed by how this film looks.

I found the story ambled along at a pretty respectable pace taking time to explain things well for the generally clueless folks, and helping set things up. It never really felt like it dragged and, as a rarity for me, I didn't really check my watch at any point to see how long the film had been going - it engrossed me sufficiently.

There was a boat-load of action, with some really good / gripping scenes. I'd say at this point there were quite a few scenario's which even for a fantasy film were a bit far fetched (a scene with the heroes riding a collapsed bridge to the bottom of a chasm.. without it disintegrating into a thousand pieces was a bit of a stretch for me!) but overall there was plenty of hacking and slashing, and magic, and cool things going on.

The cast seemed pretty spot on really. They all worked, you did eventually get to know / remember all of the dwarves, and I think Martin Freeman took the role of Bilbo really well...

So all in all - I walked out of the cinema very surprised and very pleased. I thought the film was excellent - some good comedy, some real darkness and dark imagery, and a great adventure backed up stunning visuals. Kudos to Peter Jackson.

9/10!

[+warwagon]

Once again the question has to be asked.  Why don't the damn birds just fly them to the end of the movie! 

[Shadrack]

I thought Journey was excellent. I enjoyed Journey more than I enjoyed Fellowship. I thought that the reviews were too critical, honestly.

The review I read on The Verge was especially over the top critical of the film. They complain that the pace of the film is too slow and there is too much over explaining that is done, and then complain about not spending enough time describing the Shire.

The Hobbit, as a movie series, is clearly a prequel. As a prequel, the movie expects the audience to be familiar with the three LoTR movies. There is no need to cover ground already covered in the original 3 movies again in a prequel.

[+Chicane-UK]

warwagon, on 19 December 2012 - 18:18, said:

Once again the question has to be asked.  Why don't the damn birds just fly them to the end of the movie! 

That is a pretty fair question

[+jamesyfx]

I've just been to see it, and I was pleasantly surprised by it. After reading opinion and critic reviews I entered the cinema with not much hope for it. But yeah, I enjoyed it. 8/10.

I would say make no assumptions and just give it a watch if you're unsure.

[Growled]

I liked it but my only problem is that just like LOTR it is too darn long. I was worn out before it was over.

[mattmatik]

Saw it twice, once on midnight release and yesterday @ IMAX 3D. I really enjoyed it but I would like to see what PJ has in store for the extended version. I loved Fellowship but even moreso once the EE came out.

As for the eagle question, in the book   they were fortunate to get help from the eagles in the first place. This is one of the things that hopefully gets explained in the EE (and I'm rather sure it will). 

Shadrack, on 19 December 2012 - 18:26, said:

I thought Journey was excellent. I enjoyed Journey more than I enjoyed Fellowship. I thought that the reviews were too critical, honestly.

The review I read on The Verge was especially over the top critical of the film. They complain that the pace of the film is too slow and there is too much over explaining that is done, and then complain about not spending enough time describing the Shire.

The Hobbit, as a movie series, is clearly a prequel. As a prequel, the movie expects the audience to be familiar with the three LoTR movies. There is no need to cover ground already covered in the original 3 movies again in a prequel.

I also read that review and felt similarly. I thought there could have been more explaining actually!

[ManMountain]

Went with an open mind to see it earlier this evening (3D iSense HFR), an easy 8/10

[greenwizard88]

I didn't like it at all. I'd give it a 7/10 on a good day. It was like Michael Bay shat all over Peter Jackson's camera and the result was "The Hobbit". I'll admit, they lost me at the very beginning: Why start with Frodo? The shire wasn't done well, and it pretty much went downhill. The effects were too much, and the story - perhaps the panicle D&D quest line - was too explained. Who cares why there's orcs or goblins attacking, they're orcs! they're goblins! that's what they do!

And it was long, too long. I wouldn't have minded seeing "The Hobbit" in 2 movies, but this 1) wasn't the hobbit, it was Michael Bay's The Hobbit, and 2) it added too much back story to really be considered the hobbit anymore.

However, if you're asking me how I liked Michael Bay's The Hobbit, it was alright. But it wasn't anything like the LotR movies.

[sundayx]

Actually to me it felt just like a LotR movie. It felt like the opening of a 3 part movie, it felt somewhat too-long (just like LotR), you visit new and old characters, more importantly, it was an adventure. I gave it an 8/10.

Some would argue it tried to make too much connections to LotR which I think is fair enough.

[Dashel]

Loved every minute (IMAX). The 3D and visual quality was stunning. The Rivendell scene alone was jaw dropping. The added bits fit nicely for me as well, the Hobbit was always my favorite. Thorin and Bilbo were fantastic. The intro/outro of Smaug, the jackrabbit sleds, there are just too many good parts for me to think of that apart from some miraculous falls and minor source quibbles, they nailed it.

The soundtrack isn't bad either, the Misty Mountain/Lonely Mountain bookends sounded wonderful.

[jrolson]

warwagon, on 19 December 2012 - 18:18, said:

Once again the question has to be asked.  Why don't the damn birds just fly them to the end of the movie! 

 The eagles didn't fly them directy to the mountain because they are not sure if the dragon is gone or not and the dragon could of killed the eagles...

It's safer for the eagles if they stay away from the dragon.

The same could be said about the Lord of the Rings, the eagles could of been killed by any nazgul riding on those dragon like creatures if they flew directly to the volcano. 

[soumyasch]

The pacing of the movie was too slow. Things did start out nicely, and lot of things did happen. But they did not do much to push the story forward, making it kind of boring to sit through the two and a half hours It was kind of like the effects team was showing off, rather than telling an enjoyable story. But Gollum stole the show. That sequence in  the cave was brilliant , though.