Spiderbite

Saw it today with the wife and our 8 year old son. He loved it and my wife and I thought it was good but slower and not as thrilling as the first three. We saw it in 3D which I have to say was a complete waste of money. We would have watched it in 2D but we wanted to see the earliest showing and that was in 3D. The 3D is definitely nothing special and I can't imagine you are missing anything by seeing it in 2D.

I am a little ashamed to say but I actually drifted off during the movie and slept from the times they group was attacked in a field and then woke up during the meeting with Saruman. I stayed awake the rest of the time and hope that it was just me being tired and not the movie (though it really was slow going for awhile there).

I certainly feel that they could have scaled the movie down by a half-hour easily but then again, I probably would have loved it and then clamored for an extended cut (which this version obviously is and we didn't have to wait for it this time around). My biggest issue is that this movie just doesn't have the dramatic weighted storyline as the first trilogy did. Even though the violence and battle scenes were there, it just didn't seem to carry the hasty importance of the first trilogy. I know that is by design but...there it is.

I do have a couple of questions for the readers of the books (which I am not...I am ashamed to say that the only Tolkien book I ever tried to read was The Hobbit and I never finished it). It was such a big deal when Frodo would put on the ring in the first trilogy. It alerted the bad guys all over and you felt that it was a massive mistake anytime Frodo remotely came close to putting the ring on his finger. Why don't we have the same reaction when Bilbo puts on the ring? And why does Gandalf seem so powerful at times and then near the end he resorts to throwing pine cones at creatures? Couldn't he do a little better than that?

I do agree with a previous poster that the eagle scene was a letdown since we already saw it before in a much more dramatic way. But again, that may be the way the book is and if so, I cannot complain.

I will say that Andy Serkis is fascinating as Gollum. He brings that character to life in such an honest, passionate fashion that I instantly feel more for the CG character than any I can ever remember.

I look forward to the next installment and I do feel that they left the movie hanging in a perfect way.

My rating: ***1/2 out of *****. (it might hit 4 stars after a home viewing but I don't see myself seeing it again in the theater).

On an unrelated note, I thought the new sci-fi Tom Cruise movie looked interesting. Never heard of it but I tell you...I think the man does have the ring because he seems to age slower than the rest of us.

TheMadMonk

Throughout the Hobbit, it is just a ring of invisibility, nothing more. Tolkien had not yet created the whole "One Ruling Ring" mythology.

To make it work with the movie, though, you can just assume that Sauron had not regained much of his power yet, and the Nazgul had not yet returned, so the One Ring wouldn't have all those nasty side effects at the time of the Hobbit.

whoopdido

I hate to rip on you specifically, but I can't help myself. The golf line that you have such a problem with was right in the orginal book.

It's getting annoying reading so many negative reviews that talk about little things in the movie that came directly from the book. If you don't like that Gandalf talked about golf, take it up with Tolkien's ghost. Same with the eagles coming out of nowhere to save the day. Again, right from the book...it would have been pretty hard not to include that. Or the songs and the mountain giants and all kinds of other stuff.

I know you didn't mention anything about the eagles, songs or mountain giants but I just find myself reading all kinds of negative stuff that had absolutely nothing to do with Peter Jackson and the movie. I guess a lot of people just didn't like Tolkien's writing.

Hokeyboy

Saw it in 3D/HFR. Really enjoyed it quite a bit. Based on the early reviews I was expecting a overlong, overly padded, motionless mess, and found myself pleasantly engaged throughout. This is easily my favorite Middle Earth movie since Fellowship of the Ring. 4 / 5

Josh-da-man

Yes. And Gollum also had the Ring for a very long time before it fell into Bilbo's possession.

Another thing that should be taken into consideration is that, in Fellowship of the Ring more than seventeen years passed between Bilbo leaving the Ring to Frodo and Frodo and Sam leaving Bag End. In the film, this only seemed like a week or two, while Gandalf went off to Minas Tirith to do research, but in the book, it was a much longer time. This gives Sauron much more time to get his mojo back and gain the ability to track its user.

Solid Snake

saw it today in the HFR 3D. Looked damn good. Though and this is an issue w/ Digital. Shit moving fast and close always looks off. That's always been my issue w/ digital film.

I actually liked this film more than LOTR. It's not better than it but I enjoyed it more. The Dwarfs are more unique to me because I know nothing of them besides Gimli and whatever little bit we got in LOTR. I just enjoyed it a lot. It was a lot of fun for me.

I do feel that showing the bit w/ Old Bilbo and Frodo was kind pointless and just elongated the film. Otherwise it's pacing was fine w/ me. I really enjoyed it.

I must say..seeing that big battle w/ all those dwarfs was shit tons of exciting for me. Again they're exotic to me so I've more interest in them. Man, Hobbits, and The Elves didn't really feel unique to me cuz they're still very human. Dwarfs though do feel different. That whole world of theirs was fascinating.

I'm actually excited to see what characters were enhanced by CGI and what weren't, on the upcoming BDs. Seemed like a lot of those Goblins that were up close were CGI enhanced but at times they looked like suits as well. CGI has really come forward. On the topic of CGI, a lot of it was some of the best around. Very few bad and weakish moments. The one thing that took me out of it for a bit was when Elrond came back. They plastered a CG Weaving face on that guy, the colors were off in the skin. Otherwise damn fine effects. Those mountain giants and the way they moved seem very Del Toro, specifically the feel and movement of them. Knowing that he worked on the film, I do wonder what of his elements in design did stay.

It's a weaker film than LOTR. But I found it to be a much more enjoyable one. And that's due to the tone and the actual task at hand. This is my favorite film of that world.

Pizza

I feel they should rename the movie "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Disappointment."
The 48 fps felt like a mismatch for a fantasy film. Wish they stuck to two films instead of three. Actually, I wish it was just one movie but it is what it is.

Michael Corvin

That doesn't make it any less stupid. It pulls you out of the movie and is something that should have been excised in the translation to the screen.

Obi-Wanma

It's not. Extended cuts of all 3 films have already been announced for Blu/DVD.

whoopdido

Respectfully disagree. It's a slightly humorous line that's no big deal. Just meant to illicit a chuckle out of a few audience members. If it truly bothered you then I think you're taking The Hobbit too seriously.

Supermallet

I like the golf line. Much more than the dishwashing song.

Why So Blu?

Uh, that was Weaving. No cgi face-off going on there.

dhmac

I saw it in HFR 3D and really do not get the criticism of this technology. I thought that the movement was noticeably more fluid at 48fps and that it also enhanced the quality of the 3D. I had no sense of things being "speed up" and am not sure why anyone thinks that. Is it due to the higher clarity due to the higher frame rate having less motion blur in action scenes making their brains mistakenly think it's sped up somehow? I really don't get this criticism at all.

Solid Snake

On that shot when when they're arriving and then passing the camera and he's on the horse? Looked weird to me.

Defiant1

Oh man, I don't know if I could take an extended version of this. It was already more than long enough already but I'm hearing the extended will be about half an hour longer?!?

covenant

After reading all the reviews saying everything looks sped up, I went in expecting a Keystone Cops movie. Nothing looked too fast to me or my wife. I guess everybody sees things differently.

bcd

I saw it today and quite enjoyed it. I saw the HFR/IMAX/3d and I found the HFR to be quite a bit distracting at times. Especially during scenes that are close ups, not sure why I was having issue though. And to me it did feel like things were sped up. I might try to see it again with just the HFR and not MAX/3D if that is even a possibility to do a comparison.

Jackskeleton

Man, there's really a lot of stupid critiques all up in this thread.

Obi-Wanma

You won't find it in HFR without 3D.

Groucho

Well, you sure showed them!

cungar

at fanboys complaining that Tolkien didn't write a story that conformed to their 21st century hipster geekdom.

Dr. DVD

Ditto. I'm amazed at how many of the criticisms are coming from stuff that is in the source material and not from stuff that is way more deserving (i.e. trolls being played as the three stooges, snot jokes, needless subplots).

That said, I will stand by my assessment that this is a good movie that isn't great, and find it interesting how moviegoers seem to enjoy this a lot more than film critics.

islandclaws

Saw this last night in HFR 3D, solid 4 stars.

First off: HFR. I'm a full-on hater of motion-plus/flow/whatever your TV calls it. The "soap opera" effect isn't what you're getting here. In fact, I didn't really think it looked vastly different from 24fps, aside from the fact that it looked much cleaner, more crisp. I'd like to see it again just to be sure of myself, but my initial reaction is far from the hate most seem to have. It looked fantastic.

The 3D was good, not great. Immersive, not gimmicky. It would have been totally fine in 2D.

The movie does take a while to really get going, but I figured part of that was Jackson allowing us to slip back into this world nice & slow. Look around, familiarize yourself, remember what you've been missing. Should the film have moved at a quicker pace to get on with it? Probably, but I was genuinely pleased to be back in Middle Earth.

Aside from Thorin, and maybe Gloin, almost all of the dwarves are forgettable. There are just far too many of them to connect with.

The tone is noticeably different than any LotR film. Jackson did well to make this entry a little more whimsical and fun, while still adding in some good tension and themes that tie in to his other trilogy. Even Shore's score is less foreboding than LotR, striking a more childish, adventurous tone.

Freeman is excellent as Bilbo.

Even though LotR left you wanting more at the end of each film, you also didn't mind as much because it felt warranted. Here, by the time the credits roll you can't help but feel this film was a little half-baked. If we didn't have all the Goblin King action, there wouldn't be much here. That's one of the problems I had, which is that this feels more like a short story being spread too thin and less like Part One of a three-film arc. I hope he tightens it up with #2.

Shortcomings aside, I really enjoyed being back in ME. Jackson might never know when to end a scene, but he makes damn sure you're enthralled by all the eye candy on display.

whoopdido

I agree with this too. I recognized Dwalin, Balin, Fili, Kili and Gloin. And Thorin of course. I only recognized the first 4 throughout the movie because they were introduced. I think if Jackson had taken an extra 30 seconds to actually introduce the other dwarves then we might have been able to keep them straight throughout the rest of the movie. The only reason I could tell Gloin apart was because I knew he was Gimli's father and made a point of figuring out which one was him. Then there's the really fat one, but I can never remember if he was Bifur or Bombur. If I remember right, Bofur was the one that caught Bilbo trying to sneak away but I can't be sure. No idea which one was Oin, Dori, Nori and any of the others I didn't mention.

Again, it was very easy for me to tell the difference between Dwalin, Balin, Fili and Kili (the first 4 dwarves that came to Bilbo's) simply because they were actually introduced to the audience.

Hiro11

I haven't seen this yet, one initial question:

Is there a sense that it might be tough to truly assess these movies without being able to see all of them? If you think back to the LOTR trilogy, FOTR got some mixed reviews as (non-reader) critics couldn't see the full narrative arc that PJ was trying to build. Ebert's a good example. By the time he'd seen ROT, he said he had revised his opinion of the entire trilogy. He understood why certain scenes were included and why certain seemingly insignificant plot points were belabored. Is that potentially the case here? Or is the movie just not that good?