People, get over it. This is just a mediocre movie

Dear Fanboys and other RT commentators,

Seeing as others have taken it upon themselves to write full-fledged essays to defend this movie and bash critics, I've to write a response with some points I would like you all to consider. Here you go --

(1) There's a reason why this movie RT score is sitting in the mid-sixties, and it's not because critics are doing their job wrong or comparing it to the wrong things: it's simply because this is just a decently good movie. No more, no less. Those same critics you hate so much -- yes those -- gave the LOTR movies consistent RT scores in the 90's. It's not that they hate Fantasy or Tolkien, it's just the individual quality of this movie.

(2) On that note, stop the hate on the movie critics. Realize that they have devoted their lives to the critical assessment of movies. Appreciate that they have viewed thousands of films and have a good context to make judgments on cinema -- unlike many of you.

(3) Stop defending this movie so damn much. This point is important guys -- do you realize that the only people getting rich here are the movie production companies? Basically, by being fanboys, they are getting the message that they can release sub-par material (this movie) and still make upwards of a billion dollars in grosses. As fans, we should demand more! Why ENDORSE (not just watching the movie, but saying it's infallible) the corporate greed this movie embodies? But instead, we go along and make them even richer without expecting better.

(4) Finally, I just want to say nobody said you have to listen to the critics. Go out and make your own opinion if that suits you.

C'mon people, we can do better.

Best Wishes,

Zachary
Zach Thomas
12-14-2012 04:09 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

Jacob Braun

Jacob Braun

This movie is by no means mediocre and those who can't see that simply can't appreciate the lighter tone of the hobbit and the fact that the book the hobbit simply isn't meant to be as epic as the lord of the rings trilogy.

Aug 24 - 02:41 PM

William Knox

William Knox

The story was accurate enough. I just didn't like it cause the character progression and the setting/lighting missed the mark of the lotr movies. I feel like its only being made for the whim of a child now.

Aug 13 - 12:17 AM

Leigha Smith

Leigha Smith

I had planned on seeing this, but then they split it into 3 three hour movies, clearly, this is just a paycheck movie.

I'd rather just watch the cartoon, again.

Dec 29 - 07:29 AM

This comment has been removed.

Alex M.

Hipster Elitist Maverick

It doesn't suck as much cock as Geordie Newlands.

Dec 26 - 05:58 PM

This comment has been removed.

Alex M.

Hipster Elitist Maverick

Two reasons I can't say it to your face: 1. This is called the internet and you could be three thousand miles away from me. 2. Even if I could, I wouldn't because you're an ugly fucker.

Dec 26 - 06:05 PM

Tom S.

Tom Smith

3. What type of dumbass wears those $5 shades from walmart indoors
4. I see this troll everywhere on rotten tomatoes using all caps. this is clearly and obvious this is his only social life
5. not ugly fucker. the epitome of ugly

Dec 29 - 12:07 AM

Leigha Smith

Leigha Smith

All caps, and nonsensical violence, mommy must be proud. I think we can assume you still live with her.

Dec 29 - 07:28 AM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

thanks for this thread! :D very good points.

Dec 24 - 03:25 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

I agree man! It's fun/frustrating with those who can't use logical reasoning. haha.

Dec 24 - 11:12 AM

Kevin McClintock

Kevin McClintock

At the end of the day I can truly say anybody that rated this movie less than a 8/10 is mentally retarded.

Dec 23 - 01:15 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/

Dec 24 - 11:11 AM

Big Daddy Hates Soccer

Big Daddy Hates Soccer

Go suck a dick.

Oct 29 - 07:15 PM

Adam Flynn

Adam Flynn

While a critics consensus is useful, Its better for an individual movie goer to find one or two that they tend to agree with the most, and give more weight to those opinions. Every critic approaches a film from a different perspective. Some don't know the books (or know the books but not the appendices). Some didn't care for the first film trilogy, and others did. My point is, find a critic that you typically agree with and use that as a basis for decision making. Don't write off (or alternately, commit) to seeing a film based on critical consensus alone.

For the record, I greatly enjoyed the film. It was visually beautiful, well acted, and once the setup was out of the way, very entertaining. I did think the setup was overlong, but I do realize it's necessary for the overall trilogy.

Dec 23 - 10:57 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Totally agree. For me, that critic is Emmanuel Levy; he's able to incorporate much film history into his reviews, thus offering better context for his opinions than most other critics. Good points, Adam.

Dec 24 - 11:10 AM

Allison Summers

Allison Summers

It wasn't THAT bad...but it is overrated. It is not in the top 10 movies of the year that's for sure. It's just fun to watch but nothing to be engaged about. I know Jackson wanted to put the appendices in to stretch the length and some of it worked...but I would have enjoyed it so much better if they made this one or two movies instead of three. This particular movie was entirely setup but it setup the wrong material waaaaaay too long. I still am anticipating that next movie will be ten times better than this. At the very least I didn't fall asleep during this one as I did the Two Towers and Return of the King.

Dec 23 - 08:53 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Good opinion!

Dec 24 - 11:08 AM

Jeff Gallion

Jeff Gallion

65% even the expendables 2 got a 66% The movie did have its flaws but a 65% is just bullshit.

Dec 19 - 03:01 PM

mike a.

mike adsetts

i agree. 65% is too high

Aug 22 - 07:23 PM

This comment has been removed.

Alistair

Garet Cahoon

Weren't you the one talking about how "real" men were going to watch Djano Unchained? And that The Hobbit was going to suck BEFORE it opened and also trashed on the original trilogy.......C'mon man, as soon as people have decided their opinion of a film before seeing it (including the fanboys that roam about), you have lost credibility...........Peter Jackson's net worth is over 500 million dollars at the moment. He'll be making movies as long as he wants so you can just kinda get used to it.

Dec 23 - 01:02 AM

Nihal Bhat

Nihal Bhat

RT 65% its not even a top 10 film critically this yr

Dec 19 - 01:38 PM

Nihal Bhat

Nihal Bhat

hi i think this wont gross $1bn. in the usa it will not top $300m total(around $280m). overseas it will earn $600m so total around $880m. primarily inflated by 3d.

Dec 19 - 01:36 PM

This comment has been removed.

Michael Joshua Morrissey

Michael Joshua Morrissey

Chiil the fuck out. youre the only pile of shit here

Dec 19 - 02:27 PM

Leon Barbero

Leon Barbero

Terrible movie, theres no structure in the screenplay, no caracther development, terrible editing, uninspired dialogue, intrusive scenes and moments ripped-off from FOTR, unecessary CGI, jerky camera movements that travel the scenario like in Prince of Persia, the game, not the movie.

Besides all those flaws, the greatest one is the inability of Jackson in storytelling. Theres not one single moment in Hobbit that provokes suspense, victories arent victorious and challenges arent challenging.

Its a enormous shame that the Prequel to the Fantastic, almost flawless original trilogy ended up like that, like S***

Dec 18 - 05:26 AM

Simo Ammar

Simo Ammar

goo read the boooooooooooooooook ! retard

Dec 18 - 02:50 PM

Leon Barbero

Leon Barbero

go learn what a MOVIE is! you are the damn retard, look at your picture and name, virgin fanboy

Dec 19 - 10:19 AM

Nihal Bhat

Nihal Bhat

dun worry he is one of the many fanboys who gave the film a 10 prior to the release over at imdb

Dec 19 - 01:37 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Please, calm down...

Dec 19 - 01:37 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Not sure I would agree with this characterization of the movie, but okay.

Dec 19 - 06:57 AM

Geovani Bennato

Geovani Bennato

"No character development"? But what about the prologue and flashback? Oh! Th dwarves... They are thirteen characters. Even in the book they not were good developed, but only differentiated by the cloak color. The work that was made in the moovie to physically differentiate the dwarves was great.
"Moments ripped-off from FOTR"? The movie ends in the sixth chapter of the book. These chapter corresponds to almost the same path as Frodo did until arrive in Rivendell and the Misty Mountains.
"Jerky camera movements that travel the scenario"? That was in al TLOTR moviers and, like in The Hobbit, it worked. You see all those beautiful landscapes that give life to Middle-earth!
The CGI work was an addition to the costumes. If you look at the video blogs of the movie, the orcs are all actors in costumes.
The movie was good. But there have been exaggerations that could have been avoided. I do not know what movie people who criticize negatively watched, but it sure was not "The Hobbit."

Dec 29 - 01:13 PM

Lee Augustus

Lee Augustus

I agree, this movie was incredibly disappointing.

Dec 17 - 04:40 PM

ThoroughlyEntertainOrDie

Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die

too bad! you've disappointed your momma!

Dec 17 - 07:59 PM

This comment has been removed.

ThoroughlyEntertainOrDie

Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die

make me

Dec 24 - 12:08 PM

Amy Vincent

Amy Vincent

Get a room, you two.

Dec 26 - 11:15 AM

Geovani Bennato

Geovani Bennato

The movie is not mediocre. Far from it. The film is simple to describe in terms of quality: it's great, but there were exaggerations that could be avoided with no problem. Characteristic of all the films that introduce a story. Consequently, there will be no such mistakes in upcoming movies (I hope) because the story matures in the course of it. It happened in the book, will happen (I hope, again) in the movies.

Dec 17 - 03:06 PM

Nate C.

Nate Carter

Zach, you literally made no argument for why you think its a mediocre movie other than just because the critics say so.

Seriously dude, thats just sad.

Dec 17 - 01:10 PM

Dingbat Charlie

Dingbat Charlie

Sorry it upset your sensitive nips fanboy

Dec 17 - 04:41 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Hi Nate! The post was more about the abstract logic fanboys seem to be employing, saying that b/c critics haven't unilaterally praised this movie, they must be discredited. Sorry you missed that buddy.

Dec 17 - 04:54 PM

almightygozar

Darrell Kay

Zach, this is an outstanding post. You hit pretty much all the same points that I want to make anytime there is a release of a mediocre (by critics' standards) movie with a large devoted fanbase.

Dec 17 - 11:08 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Thanks bro!

Dec 22 - 03:09 PM

dd9090

Don Romero

Most reviewers are closet, or self-outed "intellectuals". And they do flounder in characteristic ways when it comes to purely entertaining "non-message" movies. E.g., long periods of verbal exposition, character-building, etc. are "boring" in "action-adventure" movies, but become "essential elements" in message films.

As a general rule, the pros see "More Of The Same" in movie sequels as inherently pejorative -- lack of imagination, blah, blah -- whereas genre and franchise movie "fans" (another pejorative?) don't (necessarily).

If reviewers who are actually familiar with the original Tolkien source material and still really think "The Hobbit" is significantly (25-50%) worse effort than Jackson's LOTR effort was, then so be it.

IF they think "Hobbit" gets a panned because they don't know or like Tolkien's "Hobbit", OR that it falls far short of "Godfather II" blah blah then the pros should get re-stuffed and be ignored for the same reason plumbers shouldn't repair leaking arteries -- its outside their area of expertise.

Dec 17 - 09:41 AM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

Actually, for me a red flag is raised when the score from the critics are far different then the score the audience gave it. At this point the audience is giving it an 81% while critics have it as 65% which means the critics are getting it wrong.

Dec 17 - 05:28 AM

Christopher Kulik

Christopher Kulik

Uh, no, you're wrong. The audience already has a vested interest in watching the movie, largely because they are Tolkien/LOTR fanboys. As for me, I could give a shit less because I'm waiting for it on DVD and don't need to waste money seeing it in theater. I don't give a frog's fat ass what the frames per second or how much Jackson incorporated from other sources.

Dec 17 - 09:57 AM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

so....you're going to wait to buy the dvd? so you're essentially telling me you're going to like the movie.

Dec 17 - 07:44 PM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

you can rents dvds, genius. i've rented movies before that i ended up disliking.

Dec 24 - 03:42 AM

almightygozar

Darrell Kay

So does that mean the critics were "wrong" about the Twilight movies? Those were ALL under 50% by the critics, but generally above 75% by the audience.

Almost any "franchise movie" is going to have a pretty high audience rating because of all the fans who are so emotionally invested in it that they are going to love it (or it least like it) no matter how good or bad it is.

Dec 17 - 11:15 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Or more accurately -- audience ratings are inherently biased because people who love this movie will actually come on this website and rate it up -- those indifferent won't bother to rate it up or down.

Dec 17 - 01:02 PM

Dean Flanagan

Dean Flanagan

Actually you can say that about every movie on here, fact is the audience rating is positive, get over it :)

Dec 17 - 03:31 PM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

i've made this exact same argument before, zach. glad other people know about this bias. :) there are typically more cases where the audience rating is positively biased than there are there it's negatively biased.

Dec 24 - 03:44 AM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

Look it was just my opinion on the matter that's all. And I wouldn't say that the recent twilight movie got a "great" audience review either. And of course there is always exceptions to these kinds of things. I'm saying that I went into this with mild expectations and took the critics reviews into account and I just didn't see their complaints. Apparently a lot of other people didn't see them as well.

Dec 17 - 07:47 PM

Geovani Bennato

Geovani Bennato

Oh, please ... Do not compare "The Hobbit" with "Twilight", even the fans. The red flag is still hoisted! Both films are based on literary works with a vast difference in quality. And fans (not fanboys of "The Hobbit", Tolkien, whatever) know this because J.R.R. Tolkien lived creating languages??, writing stories and making the maintenance of a giant imaginary world (almost real) reconciling all this with the job of teacher, master and doctor in various areas of knowledge at University of Oxford and a life with wife and children. On the other hand, Stephenie Meyer has created a story as deep as a kiddie pool.
The consequence is that the story of "The Hobbit" was confusing, especially for those who do not understand (for the lay [the critics are an example], and some Tolkien fans that forget some aspects of the writings), because not only was the book that gives the name to the movie was used, but also the Appendices of "The Return of the King" and some ideas of "The Silmarillion" referring to the story of "The Hobbit" were used too. And the problem is unique: contextualization. All this negative criticism fell on only the first part of a story that was divided into three and people today are accustomed to a very shallow story, all chewed, ready to be swallowed. With the stories of Tolkien, and the ones inspired by the works of him too, that have a considerable depth, if not a huge depth, there is only three ways to contextualize and understand: 1) read the book (in the case of this film, not just "The Hobbit", but the appendices of "The Return of the King" and last chapters of "The Silmarillion.", 2) give a tiny researched on the Internet (today everything is on Wikipedia) or 3) wait for the other movies to come.
But many have the laziness of typing a question on Google! The way is to wait the two other moveis. For it is certain that many questions that were pointed because of the first movie (which caused bad criticism, not to mention the nostalgia - because I'm sure many expected a new "The Lord of the Rings", and the time [in Middle-earth and here] is different, and not only this, but other things that have changed greatly too [technology, for example]) like Azog, Radagast, etc. will be resolved.
About 48 fps, I have little to say. People are afraid of innovation. It will be the same as it was with color TV, or the internet: many will reject, but all get used and never will want something else.

Jan 1 - 01:34 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

Like it's been pointed out, that score probably does not reflect all general film viewers because it has a percentage of Hobbit or LotR film fans who feel it's their duty to vote it up and have a say against the critics. Even so, at 81% it's lower than almost any other major film currently playing.

Rise of the Guardians: 84%
Lincoln: 88%
Skyfall 88%
Life of Pi 90%
Silver Linings Playbook: 90%
Wreck it Ralph: 91%

Dec 17 - 03:23 PM

Dean Flanagan

Dean Flanagan

I doubt peeps vote up a film they dislike purely to annoy critics and if you take that to be the case then every audience score equates to being meaningless.
I used to respect this place quite a bit but reading some of the stuff posted up on here this past week and some of the trolling i do wonder sometimes.
The movie is not perfect but if you liked the LoTR trilogy you know what you are getting and it is an enjoyable movie.
Some will not like it, i remember watching the Fellowship three times when it first came out and remember on the first viewing someone walking out after ten minutes, second time round a couple walked out after half an hour, these films are not everyones cup of tea :)

Dec 17 - 05:48 PM

Dean Flanagan

Dean Flanagan

One of the ways you can see if a movie is something special these days is to see how long it stays on the big screen, quite impressed that Skyfall is still on the local cinema, i might go see it tomorrow :)

Dec 17 - 05:55 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

I didn't say it's voted up by people who don't like it. I said it's voted up by the fanboys who have decided to like it brilliant or not and have a special interest in its ratings. The critic-hate and fierce defense of this film is evidence of that. And don't get me wrong, if they like it that's their business, but it probably ups the audience score as opposed to the majority of viewers who watch it and move on. The vast movie-going public just doesn't come on to RT to rate movies after watching them, so the audience score you see here is probably not an accurate reflection of the general audience opinion.

Dec 17 - 06:10 PM

Dean Flanagan

Dean Flanagan

If the audience figure is not an accurate reflection i think you can say it might be best to remove that from the site since you can say that about every movie, then again you get differing views from critics that not everyone agrees with so RT is just like every other site like this, opinions and nothing more :)
I rarely go into this section of RT and did not realise just how much waffle is spouted and typing injuries are incurred over movies XD
Added to that my first reply was lost when IE failed on me and i'm not typing that again :(
Cant wait to see the responses to the third Evangelion movie, those guys really are rabid fans :D

Dec 17 - 06:33 PM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

dean, stop using ie! :P

Dec 24 - 03:47 AM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

Yes RT is pretty much an opinions site and nothing more! But that's exactly what most people want to see, opinions. However, they are never going to accurately reflect all opinions because only those who have some vested interest are going to take the time to rate something. Usually it's the fans or built-in audience, so it's probably going to be a little inflated. Film critic sites, product reviews, etc. all work this way. That's just the imperfect nature of the rating systems.

But even so, it may help those who are genuinely unsure whether to watch a film or buy a product. Its function doesn't serve just the fanboys who have decided to like it no matter what and don't have any interest in a fair, honest, or neutral rating for others, just that their movie or whatever rates high. They get angry when a site like RT fulfills its purpose and gives an honest, collective answer for the average Joe.

Yes its imperfect but it has some value. I tend to use it to get critics opinions for a film and they are usually spot on. Some people may find the audience consensus more in line with their tastes. But the ratings system does serve a useful function for most people.

Dec 24 - 07:02 AM

Mitchell Nash

Mitchell Nash

Starbaby, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Dec 26 - 10:08 PM

Steve Buchanan

Steve Buchanan

I give the movie a B-. There's no way this prequel can compare with LOTR but I still believe there's enough here to make a competent trilogy. Sorry Zach, certain critics who contribute to RT consistently have their heads up their asses, so when I see that being displayed, I call it as I see it.

Dec 16 - 10:07 PM

Fobos Dudo

Fobos Dudo

i would have to agree with you. however, i think that the reason for its lower is because rotten tomatoes does not really screen the reviews it includes in the rating. several of the negative reviews i saw seem to focus solely on the length and the 48ps format, and make complaints of it being overstuffed. first and last, i could agree, depending on your tastes, but the hobbit would be a far, far higher rating if we discluded all the ones who make complaints of the 48ps factors as part of their reviews. the fact remains that the movie is sitll mostly show in threaters as 24ps. criticisms of the 48ps should be discluded in the review as it only referes to one format shown. it is like giving the movie a horrible score because your local theater projector was not working properly. it should not count towards the total score.

Dec 16 - 08:14 PM

almightygozar

Darrell Kay

But those are features of the movie, and a legitimate focus of criticism. For me, the 48fps was irrelevant, but I can understand it might bother some, much in the same way that 3D can work or not work. As for the length, I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewers who complained about that. The movie (and ESPECIALLY the interminable chase scenes) was too long.

Dec 17 - 11:18 AM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

Nearly all the reviews I read that complained about the 48ps also complained about other things. That was not their only problem with this film.

Dec 17 - 03:29 PM

Sammy Trujillo

Sammy Trujillo

I think it deserved a solid 75. But oh well, I don't always agree with the critics and maybe next year's movie will be better and get better reviews.

Dec 16 - 07:25 PM

Dylan P.

Dylan P

It was a good movie and a solid 70. It just missed the mark when you make comparison. I except the next 2 will be better.

Dec 16 - 03:58 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

I feel ya man

Dec 16 - 09:24 PM

This comment has been removed.

Ken Higginbotham

Ken Higginbotham

I think your caps lock key is stuck. Might want to have that looked at.

Dec 16 - 08:01 PM

Alfalfa Schweitzer

Alfalfa Schweitzer

COOL STORY BRO

Dec 17 - 04:47 AM

ThoroughlyEntertainOrDie

Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die

you haven't seen it geordie, and you never will, so stop talking shit about it, k!?

Dec 17 - 11:19 AM

Joel McCoy

Joel McCoy

Saw it yesterday and loved it. I'm not sure what movie the critics were watching. I thought the pacing was fine - I could have sat there for another hour.

Dec 16 - 05:36 AM

Plagued Satire

Plagued Satire

The critics were paid by the Tolkien Estate to give low reviews so that people who read reviews before watching a movie don't go, thus, incurring a weak gross for The Hobbit and consequently a near-to flop so that the sequels don't come. The Tolkien Estate hated LOTR so I'm sure they're doing everything in thier power to make The Hobbit fail. Rest assured I'll believe what I just said. The movie was excellent and the soundtrack was as good as any LOTR movies.

Dec 16 - 01:09 AM

Mary Cieslak

Mary Cieslak

you're right, the soundtrack was amazing! Who doesn't love the strum of an ELECTRIC GUITAR as you waltz out of Hobbiton?

Dec 16 - 01:13 AM

Rory Hughes

Rory Hughes

The problem is that The Hobbit is entirely consistent with the quality of the Lord of the Rings movies, and certainly better than the King Kong movie. Yet the critics have criticised The Hobbit in precisely the same the same areas of weakness as those movies (primarily: the length of it), while having the other films at higher ratings. The critics are being hypocritical.

Dec 16 - 12:07 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Here's a radical idea: maybe those movies were just better overall than Hobbit, thus leading to higher scores. Ever thought of that?

Dec 16 - 11:27 AM

Rory Hughes

Rory Hughes

Your making a subjective rating into an objective thing - which is ludicrous in itself. The point I am making is that The Hobbit is entirely consistent with the style, tone and quality of the Lord of the Rings movies. If you like them, then it bears analysis that you ought to like more of the same.

Dec 16 - 11:50 PM

Leon Barbero

Leon Barbero

There is a enormous difference between LOTR and Hobbit, the second is incredibly worst.

Dec 17 - 12:10 PM

Rory Hughes

Rory Hughes

I disagree. I've seen them both. They are both exactly the same in tone, narrative content and style.

Dec 18 - 03:12 AM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

uh, what? how are they being hypocrites if they're basing their opinions on these movies subjectively and the consensus form them is that those other movies have higher tomato-meter scores?

you yourself just made a subjective rating into something objective by stating that the hobbit and lotr are entirely consistent in terms of 'quality'.

Dec 24 - 03:41 AM

Joshua Rennirt

Joshua Rennirt

it was a good movie. i didnt even notice the 2h and 50 mins. seemed like 1 45 at most.

Dec 15 - 11:23 PM

Apoorv Burke

Apoorv Burke

True, I watched it and there was actually quite a whole of action and it was so much more fun than the Fellowship, disguising the length and 3d scenes were beautiful

Dec 16 - 04:18 AM

Herson Cruz

Herson Cruz

This movie wasn't mediocre. 81% of the people here enjoyed it with a 4.2/5 rating and it got a Cinescore of an A. How's that mediocre?

Dec 15 - 10:49 PM

Cole Jaeger

Cole Jaeger

Audience opinions suck. They should only matter to people who don't agree with critics. Dumb people can see this movie and love it and contribute to the cinescore and audience ratings.

Dec 17 - 09:32 PM

Jordan Taylor

Jordan Taylor

I would venture to guess, that most who enjoyed this film tremendously (as did I) are also the ones who will only watch Lotr in their extended editions. That being said, I think the arguement over pacing is irrelevant. This movie was not made to appeal to as broad an audience as lotr. It is a movie for fantasy nerds who listened to power-metal all the way home from the midnight premier before taking off their elf ears and going to bed. It is a gloriously indulgent, fun, silly, somewhat cheesy, ale-drinking, fart ridden, bearded adventure of awesomeness. Take it or leave it. I loved it and I don't care if anyone else does.

Dec 15 - 09:40 PM

Dean Flanagan

Dean Flanagan

Quite enjoyed this movie, much better than i thought after seeing what the critics had written and how can the movie be called mediocre and then to say the movie was not terrible by any stretch?

Dec 15 - 06:56 PM

Joel Miller

Joel Miller

Nothing about this movie is "mediocre". That is to say that the movie is exceptional in just about everyway it can be. Now for some critics that may not be a good thing, but I enjoyed it.

Dec 15 - 05:54 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Why would a critic not like something that is completely exceptional? I think you mean to say that some elements that turned off the critics, like the pace, may have appealed to your sensibilities.

Dec 15 - 06:37 PM

Fobos Dudo

Fobos Dudo

there is a major flaw in a lot of those negative reviews. they take in the 48ps frame rate as part of their scoring. only 400 of the thousands of theaters show that. taking in that as part of their complaints when not even half the theaters in the country are using that format. its pretyt much the equivalent of saying a movie was bad because the projector of your favorite theather was not working properly.
a critic does nto focus on the negative solely, not a good one at least. there are plenty of exceptional pieces in the movie. yet the cirtic ignore these things and focus on the negatives.
pretyt much there is heart and soul in this movie the critic are ignoring. you really can't do that when you review something.

Dec 16 - 08:23 PM

Dingbat Charlie

Dingbat Charlie

Cry moar

Dec 15 - 07:24 PM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

"...the movie is exceptional in just about everyway it can be. Now for some critics that may not be a good thing..."

lol! are you serious? what a stupid statement.

Dec 24 - 03:36 AM

Michael Joshua Morrissey

Michael Joshua Morrissey

This movie was great and the critics are clearly looking for a reason to dislike it, regardless of how weak or non-existent it may be. Obviously, the previous trilogy was a major success and it is not fun to write another success story for them. So waht to do they do? they try to find ANYTHING to give them a reason to label is as poor movie. I mean, "the dwarf song at the beginning was too long,it looks too real, there's too much attention to detail," really? are you fucking joking? If you dont like faithfulness to the story, true character development, and vivd beauty on the screen, then go fuck yourself and watch Red Dawn or something, like seriously.

Dec 15 - 05:18 PM

Dingbat Charlie

Dingbat Charlie

Yeah because they really did that with the LOTR trilogy.

You fanboys with your fanboners

Dec 15 - 07:24 PM

Fobos Dudo

Fobos Dudo

no need to troll dude, rather imature. the fact the previous movies exist is the problem. the critic are picking it apart for the flaws they ignored from he original trilogy. and they take in irrevelant factors, such as the 48ps frame rater that does not even appear in a tenth of the theaters in the country, into account. it is unfair and actually rather idiotic to include what is shown in only a few theaters as general. it i basically idncutive reasoning. it looked bad in the theaters they watched it in, so it looks bad in all the other theaters.

Dec 16 - 08:27 PM

Alex M.

Hipster Elitist Maverick

Makes sense.

Dec 15 - 07:34 PM

James Heywood

James Heywood

Well I don't really know how faithful it was to the book, but sure.

Dec 15 - 07:41 PM

Bill Edmunds

Bill Edmunds

I can't admit it was a mediocre film, because I loved the hell out of it. I will agree that the tomatometer score is mediocre. Is that good enough?

Dec 15 - 01:09 PM

Matthew Rich

Matthew Rich

It's ok that you have bad taste Bill, just don't pin it on others.

Nothing about this movie was good, and compared to the book, is truly an abortion.

Dec 15 - 04:02 PM

Bill Edmunds

Bill Edmunds

I wasn't aware I was trying to pin my opinion on anyone. If you and Zach didn't like it, that's fine by me. I was under the impression this was a place to discuss opinions.

Dec 15 - 05:07 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Bro, you're fine. I never said the movie was terrible by any stretch -- I was just mad at those totally discrediting the meaning of this site.

Dec 15 - 06:32 PM

Cody H.

Cody Halpert

Did you say that the movie is an "abortion"? Do you know what that means?

Dec 17 - 01:29 PM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

I've seen the movie twice now (in both 24fps and 48fps) and while I'm a fan of the franchise I'm not a fanboy. However, after seeing the film I just can't see why the critics disliked it so much. I read the reviews and they are wrong. The movie moves at a good pace, the framerate doesn't take long to adjust to (a minute for me), the acting was great. The story was faithful to the book and they added more to it by adding content from the appendix that Tolkien wrote. So I have to politely disagree with the critics. While the movie is not perfect it at least deserves mid to high 80's not the mid 60's they're giving it.

Dec 15 - 01:00 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

I don't disagree -- the RT score was probably a bit lower than what I would have expected after viewing the film.

The only parts where the frame rate bothered me was in the beginning when quickly panning over the large scenes -- in made it hard to see what was happening. Also, the special effects at times reminded me of a videogame (read: the design of the head orc), but I digress.

Dec 15 - 06:35 PM

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

I would say if I gave it a score it would be in the B range (maybe A- if I'm really pushing it).

Dec 17 - 05:32 AM

Patrick Thompson

Patrick Thompson

I dont understand how you can say the story is faithful to the book.

Dec 23 - 04:53 AM

Chris Zulakis

Chris Zulakis

from what I heard, it is, aside from the extra goodies scattered throughout from the Silmarillion

Dec 23 - 01:45 PM

Djordje Cerovic

Djordje Cerovic

The thing is, this movie is not bad. Its actually a very good movie, and you can see Jackson went all out with it, even if the pacing isn't to the liking of everyone. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and will watch it at least once again in the cinema.

Dec 15 - 11:04 AM

David Bailey

David Bailey

Whatever.

Dec 15 - 10:40 AM

Vincent Shaw-Morton

Vincent Shaw-Morton

Don't even think about taking on board the critics comments. The film is well paced, not slow, and The Hobbit is just part of a wider look at the overall Middle Earth myth. I would almost say that it is better than Lord of the Rings. Superb!

Dec 15 - 09:09 AM

IndieFilmJunkie .

IndieFilmJunkie .

Just saw the movie yesterday. I really liked that the movie managed to maintain the essence of the book, while also tie in some aspects of the LOTR trilogy. This has been said before, but the pacing is really a problem with this movie. It feels like they took scenes that were originally for the extended edition and put them in the theatrical release. At first, I liked the idea of three hobbit movies--now, not so much. For the most part, the visuals in this movie look really good, such as the wargs, the trolls, and gollum. However, I do not like what they did with the character design of Azog the orc king, who looks like something out a video game...This is kinda a shame because he's an awesome character and the relationship between him and Thorin is really interesting. They did a good job handling the lightheartedness in the movie, while also treating us with epic battle sequences. Overall, despite my complaints I enjoyed this movie, and I'm excited (and also worried) for the next entry.

Dec 15 - 05:17 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Yeah, as Richard Roeper put it -- they're really trying to expand on what's not a terribly long or complex tale, leading to the slower pace.

Agreed on the videogame feel, and yes, I'll probably go out and see the next one as well. This wasn't a terrible movie by any means.

Dec 15 - 06:42 PM

This comment has been removed.

Anthony Pearson

Anthony Pearson

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Dec 15 - 04:29 AM

Krishna Chaitanya

Krishna Chaitanya

zzzzzzzzzz x 2

Dec 15 - 07:31 AM

This comment has been removed.

Leo Phillips

Leo Phillips

GEORDIE, WHY ARE YOU IN EVERY HOBBIT THREAT BEING AN ASS TO PEOPLE? And I think your caps lock is stuck. Haha, knickers..

Dec 15 - 01:36 AM

This comment has been removed.

Anthony Pearson

Anthony Pearson

Jog on Geordie and take those cheap ass sun glasses off indoors! Get something better to do, go talk about some films you like or something.

Dec 15 - 03:36 AM

Krishna Chaitanya

Krishna Chaitanya

Geordie, u need a life brah!!

Dec 15 - 07:32 AM

William J.

William Johnsten

Find the Caps key and press on it you dumb ass

Dec 15 - 11:16 AM

Retardo M.

Retardo Montalban

I loved it. Far from mediocre.

Dec 14 - 07:41 PM

This comment has been removed.

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Haha, hey man. I've been on this site for a couple years now, so I'm not sure I'm the impersonator here... ;)

Dec 15 - 09:31 AM

This comment has been removed.

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Yeah, same here. haha.

Dec 19 - 06:56 AM

Justin Buell

Justin Buell

I just disagree.

It's a wonderful movie.

It only has a low score due to being compared to LOTR.

Were it not for that, it would likely be about 82-87%.

Dec 14 - 05:46 PM

Starbaby

Starbaby Miniverse

It's also possible that the critics' faith in Jackson as an "infallible" director and their warm, fuzzy memories of the LotR films are giving this film a higher score that it might otherwise have gotten. Just a thought!

Dec 14 - 06:56 PM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

shhh! this is contrary to the theory! stop making sense!

Dec 24 - 03:27 AM

Jesse Compton

Jesse Compton

What Starbaby said. If it wasn't for Jackson and The Lord of The Rings, it might actually be lower than a 65%.

Dec 15 - 11:28 AM

Dingbat Charlie

Dingbat Charlie

Nope, it's just your fanboner clouding your judgement.

Dec 15 - 07:26 PM

Lucas Berghaus

Lucas Berghaus

It's not just the scores that are the problem. The very things the critics complain about are reasons I enjoy the movie. I don't know what world you inhabit, but I view subpar material far differently than you.

Dec 14 - 05:32 PM

Cody H.

Cody Halpert

I just saw The Hobbit and I really liked it, but I don't blame the critics for having their opinions. The only opinion that matters to me is my own, and I loved this movie.

Dec 14 - 05:20 PM

Jenny Brown

Jenny Brown

To a point I agree with you. The point where I part ways with your assessment is that this decently good movie is being compared as lower than other movies being found to be more "decently good" that are not good at all or barely fall into the category of "ok". Rise of the Guardians is a decently good movie, but not better than this one. Killing Them Softly wasn't decent at all, and is rated better than this movie. It's not the score itself but the comparison factor that detracts from the critics' credibility here.

Dec 14 - 05:10 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Haha, I agree - I would hope Hobbit is a bit better experience than RotG

Dec 15 - 09:29 AM

Christopher Kulik

Christopher Kulik

Uh, KILLING THEM SOFTLY is an entirely different type of movie and it was obviously too complex for you which is why you prefer the safe, uncomplicated stuff like HOBBIT.

Dec 17 - 10:02 AM

rrh5112

Renee Hyde

I've seen both RotG and Hobbit and thought Hobbit was much better movie. I had no problem with the pacing or length of movie whereas Lincoln, while wonderful, seemed to go on and on....

Dec 23 - 08:29 AM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

using your personal opinions to try to discredit the rating of the hobbit based on two other movies that aren't really in the same genre (a christmas themed, avengers style, 3d animated childrens movie such as 'rise' and ESPECIALLY a darkly comic, visceral thriller for adults are rather poor comparisons to the hobbit) is pretty weak sauce.

you're trying to use your personal opinion to invalidate the consensus of personal opinions on this movie? that detracts from your credibility to make logical arguments.

Dec 24 - 03:34 AM

William J.

William Johnsten

The Hobbit isn't great, but the fact you have to complain about other people's opinions is pointless. If people think The Hobbit is the best thing ever, who the f*ck cares? Stop complaining about it. If people think it's mediocre, it's THEIR opnion, and it doesn't make your opinion right (or relevant as I could see in this pointless article). I'd say you're just as pompous as any Lord of the Rings fanboy here.

Dec 14 - 04:29 PM

D P.

D P

I don't know if I'll like the movie or not. But what I find obnoxious are the attempts to "explain" the critics' opinions.

Dec 15 - 07:02 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

I care because these fanboys are discrediting the value of this website.

And yes, I would agree with that personal assessment of me, thanks.

Dec 15 - 09:28 AM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

you're complaining about someone complaining about other people complaining?

holy hypocrisy, batman!

Dec 24 - 03:28 AM

Micah Lefevre

Micah Lefevre

Compare the audience score to the critics.
I think the big thing is people are tired of hearing critics talk as though they know so much more than anyone else. No, we don't have to listen to the critics, but we don't need to hear their opinions about a movie before anyone else has seen it. People will either see the movie or not, critics are really not helping anyone trying to rush out their reviews to try and get lots of hits.
In my opinion you give critics way too much credit. If I listened to critics and took their advice for which movies I liked or watched, I would be quite much worse off.
The movie was incredible; not mediocre by any means. You think it is and that is fine. People are not getting over it. This film has a lower score than MIB3. This alone should be evidence to even you that something is wrong here.
Very wrong.

Dec 14 - 04:23 PM

Mike McGranaghan

Mike McGranaghan

If you don't want to hear the opinion of critics before everyone else has seen it, WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT CRITICS' REVIEWS ON A WEBSITE DEVOTED TO FILM CRITICS?

Dec 14 - 04:34 PM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

stop making sense.

Dec 14 - 04:57 PM

ThoroughlyEntertainOrDie

Thoroughly Entertain Me Or Die

STOP ASKING COMPLETELY LOGICAL QUESTIONS.

Dec 17 - 11:20 AM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

nice weak analysis.

might i point out that the difference between the critics and the audience is only 15% currently.

Dec 14 - 04:57 PM

TheXman

Joshua Anderson

There's a lot of truth in what you say Micah. A critic has a different agenda when they watch a movie than a regular person, they aren't watching it for its entertainment value, their job is to critique a movie, as the name critic implies. As a result, they are just waiting and looking for something to complain about when a "Blockbuster" movie comes out. If they can find a "problem" that goes against the mainstream, they get more attention and a higher profile. The opposite is true for lower-budget or lesser-known films. If they can early-on find a gem of a movie very few others are talking about, they can brag how they discovered it first. I personally find reviewers almost completely useless. I can almost always tell from a movie's trailer whether I'm going to like it or not, but the critics are almost always divided. I think there's an added hurdle here for the first Hobbit movie in that it's only 1/3 of the story, yet it's easy for the critics to compare this 1/3 of the Hobbit to the LOTR movies as a whole, especially after a decade has passed. I think that if an unbiased "virgin" critic who hadn't seen any of the LOTR movies saw "Fellowship of the Ring" followed by "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey", they'd probably have to say that first installment of "The Hobbit" was better. The backstory is easier to follow, Hobbiton was way more lifelike than in LOTR, HFR made everything look clearer, smoother, and more real (I immediately thought the HFR was far superior to 24 fps, no dizziness or adjustment period for me). CGI was better and more intricate, and they still had lots of sweeping vista scenes of New Zealand which were now in HFR and 3D to give them more depth and definition. Apparently, the main complaints are that the beginning is too slow to develop and the movie too long, but you have to develop the story line. This isn't a mindless shoot-em-up or typical RomCom with a one or two-dimensional story line. "Fellowship", in my mind, followed a similar structure, was similarly long, and also didn't finish the story, I think the critics just forgot, and are trying to be the critic that finds fault with a popular movie.

Dec 14 - 08:10 PM

D P.

D P

Breaking Dawn Part 2 has a difference between audience and critic scores of 31 points. The critics must have been REALLY wrong about that one!

One of the flaws of this site is that it makes people think that taste is quantifiable and measurable. It's not. However, I have a lot of respect for critics, even when I disagree with them, because they see a TON of movies. They don't have a choice of skipping movies that look bad.

Having to sit through Jack And Jill or Playing For Keeps is reason enough for me to respect critics.

Dec 15 - 07:08 AM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Troo dat bro

Dec 15 - 09:27 AM

Thom Stone

Thom Stone

d p , i enjoy your comments on here. :)

Dec 24 - 03:26 AM

Abel Iraola

Abel Iraola

I mean, your opinion would be right on point if this was a mediocre movie. But it wasn't. It was a very well-adapted version of the book that brings in Tolkien material from outside of The Hobbit, it was fast-paced and I never felt bored. So there's nothing really for us to get over. Maybe you should get over caring what other people think so much that you spent a good few minutes writing up three paragraphs on the internet that so far no one has paid any attention to.

Dec 14 - 04:21 PM

This comment has been removed.

Luke Handler

Luke Handler

Grow up child.

Dec 15 - 01:24 PM

Zach Thomas

Zach Idiculla

Except for you, apparently. Haha ;)

Dec 15 - 09:26 AM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile