I enjoyed the tone it set for the movie, making it more of a lighthearted adventure story like it was in the book. The touches of comedy for the most part were very good with the exception of a couple parts like the Radagast sleigh chasing and the goblin king saying, "that'll do it" when Gandalf kills him. They were a bit too out there and kind of broke the mood. However, these didn't taint the experience, they were more of an "ehh oh well" type moment for me. The beginning of the movie did have me doubting for a bit, because it did explain stuff then kind of jump to a scene with frodo, and then back again, basically kind of jumpy. I think having the dwarves explain everything wouldve been better, and they shouldve left out the parts with frodo. However, once it was done jumping around and dove into the story, it took off and I was hooked. I just love the story and there were some great parts, trolls, the flashbacks to thorin's battle, gollum, etc. Yeah a lot of plots were introduced, but they have 2 more 3 hour movies to tie things together so it should be fine if they can manage to do that. IMO I honestly think it was on par with Fellowship (I guess for people who didn't enjoy LOTR it was like an 8.5/10), I think it has mixed reviews because people go in with the LOTR mindset on when they should be going in with more of the giddy adventurous Hobbit mindset, its a much more playful story
In case anyone one was wondering I saw it in regular realD 3d, no imax HFR. I have also read the hobbit and the first two LOTR books, never picked up the third one which i should do some time
terrible grammar/punctuation and etc. can be accredited to the fact that it is 4:25 in the morning, I went from school, to work, to the hobbit, and I am still hyped up from the massive monster energy i smuggled into the theater (my fingers are shaking really bad).
I liked first installment of LoTR trilogy quite a lot. It was more about adventure and less about boring action, it set up the mood properly and was pretty good adaptation of the books. Two later installments were progressively worse with too many action scenes and too little actual action/story. They were still pretty good movies though.
Hobbit on the other hand is poor adaptation of the book and I am strongly contemplating not to see the other ones: + Show Spoiler +
Too much nonsensical crap that completely kills immersion in the story. Like the mentioned sled. But the worst part is the Azog. Completely does not fit into The Hobbit. Why did they feel the need to introduce a villain from Bruce Willis action movies. His scenes are set up like some villain from a cartoon, he is as cliche as possible and completely killed the movie for me. Also too much emotional sugary nonsense and building of Thorin as some cartoon-ish hero. The movie feels like a cross between some teenage angst movie, crappy romantic comedy, action movie from the nineties and Spiderman
This movie was really awesome. It seemed like more people that were not as into LOTR were more into this installment. The story was very funny and well done. OBVIOUSLY it is not exactly like the books and in order for it to do well they need to mix things up and make it hollywood friendly and also set up 2 more movies. You can't have it all but I seemed to get a great amount of enjoyment from the movie. I would highly recommend it.
Just got back from the midnight release. It was good!
It's been a long while since I've read the book, so my opinion is going to be based solely on how I received the film independently, and not based off of how it compared to the book.
It definitely had the lord of the rings feel, but it employed a much lighter tone than the lotr trilogy. Humor abounds, and the action feels a lot more goofy and less focused on meeting realistic expectations. The sooner you accept the fact that the action sequences are going to be ridiculous, the sooner you can enjoy the fighting for what it is: a fun ride.
The CGI was delicious, and the visuals were great. You get your fair dose of earthporn as well. NZ is a beautiful country.
The acting was solid enough. Martin Freeman did a great job playing Bilbo. It was the most well acted role in my opinion. Thorin's character was least convincing. But I don't think that's necessarily the actor, as much as it was the scenes and script they made for him.
The pacing was good, and the story arc, considering it was the first part of a three part book, worked fine. The climax felt a little dragged out though.
They had some cool throwbacks( or throwforwards) to the lotr trilogy as well. At least, most were pretty cool. A couple felt too stale though.
Overall 8 /10 Very enjoyable, fun experience with a few minor blemishes.
I enjoyed the movie for the most part. Biggest exception was Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo (who I had thought would be amazing). He just seemed like regular Martin Freeman in Middle Earth. I'm tempted to say they should have just made Ian Holm look younger and used him. He captured Bilbo almost perfectly for the short amount of time he appeared in The Lord of the Rings. Guy-who-played-Thorin was also pretty disappointing. On the superficial level I thought his appearance was not so Dwarf-life, and his actual character was blah.
The intro with Bilbo and Frodo was kinda shit. Like a few people have said, they should have just launched into it and had the Dwarves explain everything when they arrived. I thought the goblin chase through the mountains was a bit much too. I understand that the movie is supposed to be more light hearted and all that, but it was just too unbelievable.
I'm surprised there are so many really negative reactions though. Having been a skeptic about the 3 movie split, I was pleasantly surprised with how it flowed and I actually enjoyed the length since they were able to flesh each chapter out quite well. Also, points have to be given to the sheer beauty of the film. Every single shot looks fucking awesome.
What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10
On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10
I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D.
the scene where bilbo is running across the shire and yells to his neighbor "I'm going on an adventure" was my favorite scene from any of the lotr franchise movies
I did not think the movie was too long because I went into it wanting to enjoy a long movie. The amount of effort put into realizing the world of middle-earth was amazing. Honestly, it made me wish they had made the original trilogy much longer. Felt like returning home to middle earth
On December 14 2012 20:32 lightrise wrote: This movie was really awesome. It seemed like more people that were not as into LOTR were more into this installment. The story was very funny and well done. OBVIOUSLY it is not exactly like the books and in order for it to do well they need to mix things up and make it hollywood friendly and also set up 2 more movies. You can't have it all but I seemed to get a great amount of enjoyment from the movie. I would highly recommend it.
I do not dislike departures from the book per se, but what I dislike is this strange notion that movie is not "hollywood friendly" if it does not conform to the most base cliches of Hollywood production. I really doubt that people lost ability to appreciate well done adventure as opposed to one big action battle scene with few comedic relief and "heartwarming" sugary scenes in between.
On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10
I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D.
You know, usually I'd say exactly the same. Only movies I've enjoyed in 3D were this one and Tron Legacy.. but that was probably because I was in a really good mode~~
On December 14 2012 20:19 mcc wrote: I liked first installment of LoTR trilogy quite a lot. It was more about adventure and less about boring action, it set up the mood properly and was pretty good adaptation of the books. Two later installments were progressively worse with too many action scenes and too little actual action/story. They were still pretty good movies though.
Hobbit on the other hand is poor adaptation of the book and I am strongly contemplating not to see the other ones: + Show Spoiler +
Too much nonsensical crap that completely kills immersion in the story. Like the mentioned sled. But the worst part is the Azog. Completely does not fit into The Hobbit. Why did they feel the need to introduce a villain from Bruce Willis action movies. His scenes are set up like some villain from a cartoon, he is as cliche as possible and completely killed the movie for me. Also too much emotional sugary nonsense and building of Thorin as some cartoon-ish hero. The movie feels like a cross between some teenage angst movie, crappy romantic comedy, action movie from the nineties and Spiderman
Azog is actually supposed to have been killed by Thorin's uncle, Dain, when they try to retake Moria way back in the day. It's almost like they just flipped through some pages and were like "oh, that's a short evil sounding name"...
I really just wish they focused more on the story and adventure rather than feeling like they had to keep an ADHD audience captivated by bullshit action/drama between orcs that are pursuing them. I could go on, but I guess it really doesn't matter much.
However, what the fuck is up with Kili?? Is he the new Legolas or something? Is it in the new Hollywood formula for Tolkien fantasy movies that you have to have some deadeye archer or your movie is shit or something? Every they showed him shooting a warg, I thought it was a cut and paste scene from The Two Towers that they just pasted him in over Legolas....okay I'm done.
I enjoyed the movie, unsure still how I would rank it. It has been so long since I last read the book that all I can remember is general scenes and some ordering of events. Reading some of you guys' complaints is reminding me of how much I forgot. I probably should read it again sometime, but I may wait to do that. (I have read the book at least 5 times but I think the last time I read it was over 6 years ago)
On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10
I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D.
Uh okay, thanks. I don't know why you'd say that, but thanks.
For anyone who's wondering, the 3D in the movie was more of the subtle kind, not very intrusive, and they didn't use many scenes to specifically highlight 3D + Show Spoiler +
(the burning fir cones and the warg chase were the most memorable ones for me)
, I think it added rather nicely to the viewing experience. It's also filmed with true stereoscopic cameras, not the more common 3D rendering, so the headache danger should be somewhat less for people susceptible to this.
EPT
