Please log in to participate in this forum.
Per Netflix 3/5 stars is 'I liked it". Did I? Yup. So I will give it 3 out of 5 stars. Could it have been better? Yup. Will the second one be better? Hopefully. Does it need a 3rd movie? No. That is milking the cash cow. Someone mentioned Avatar (I call it Avatard) and Life of Pi. I hate Avatard. NOW that is a crappy movie. I match that with Battlefield Earth and the Ghost Rider movies. Sorry that is my opinion. Pi? That was a great move.
Mar 16 - 08:40 PM
I liked Battlefield Earth...
Mar 17 - 08:56 AM
i loved watching this movie in hfr 3d... i enjoyed it... well thats my opinion... 4 stars
Mar 16 - 02:04 AM
Just watched this snooze fest on DVD....wow...what a pile of dung
Mar 15 - 10:21 PM
Just gave this another try on bluray. It's worse than I remember. Really just a crappy looking movie.mhow can one spend so much and make some that looks so cheap. It's a Bbc movie
Mar 14 - 06:35 PM
Tim de Wit
Imagine what it will look like in a couple of years...
Mar 15 - 04:03 AM
I didn't think it looked bad. Except for Azog. The overall look of it was quite pleasant.
Mar 15 - 11:54 AM
Well, the effects weren't as horrid as those of The Phantom Menace, but remember that a lot of the negativity surrounding TPM has to do with the fact that the CGI used for that film (which was about the only defence this movie had when it came out) has aged significantly and for the worse.
Azog was definitely the worst CG-creature in The Hobbit, but things like the Radagast/Wargs chase scene and the escape from Goblin Town, which also had a lot of mediocre CG effects, don't make me very hopeful for this film's future.
Mar 15 - 01:39 PM
Yeah, Azog's design wasn't very impressive, nor the Warg chase. But the goblin caves looked great, as did Rivendell, Dol Guldur, and pretty much everything else.
The Phantom Menace's effects are behind it's time. It has less to do with when it was made and more with how, George Lucas being the lazy fuck he is. Plenty of films that came out around that time have much better VFX; The Matrix, Gladiator, the LOTR trilogy, etc. In terms of effects, The Hobbit holds up pretty well in comparison to other films around its era.
And it's not like practical effects don't age badly, either. Like in Terminator, when Arnie gets badly wounded at the police station, you can clearly see that the prosthetic makeup, clay, or whatever that shit was to represent Arnie's wounds--was fake. Eventually, all movies will look like shit.
Mar 15 - 02:21 PM
Yes, I suppose you do have a point there: effects should be judged by how they were received in the day and age of their first appearance. However, what I had come to understand was that The Phantom Menace's only redeeming factor back in the day was that it had some pretty imagery. When a movie only relies on it's imagery and it's special effects, as opposed to plot, acting and dialogue, it DOES age with time because there is nothing else to support it. This, I believe, is largely what happened to The Phantom Menace.
I must disagree with you on the quality of The Hobbit in comparison with other films of this era: Life of Pi's special effects were much better than The Hobbit's was, and I believe that they will hold up much better. Hell, Hugo, a film which came out 1.5 years ago, had better special effects in my opinion. The escape from Goblin town looked cartooney, over-the-top and unrealistic, Rivendell was lighted very strangely (in my opinion) and Dol Guldur had that Witch-King like spectre which looked rather fake in my opinion.
Mar 15 - 03:27 PM
It's sort of problematic to compare The Hobbit to a movie that won an Oscar for VFX. Life of Pi is probably one of the greatest visual achievements next to Avatar, so I find the comparison a bit of a hyperbole. Take other recent fantasy films, like Alice in Wonderland, Oz TGP, and jack the Giant slayer. This is just my opinion, but I'd say TH ranks pretty well among these films.
Hugo's visual effects didn't really stand out to me that much, in all honesty. Great movie, though.
Your last statement is pretty much a matter of preference, so I won't argue. To each their own.
Mar 15 - 03:43 PM
Well the story is more problematic than the CG, but in any case the fact that the humans looked cg at times too kind of was disturbing.
Mar 16 - 03:49 PM
i agree azog was a major drawback
Mar 16 - 02:05 AM
I loved the movie. I am a little surprised with the critical response though. I would of thought a 80% would have been the low this movie would receive. Im surprised that a movie as terrible as Rango scored higher than the Hobbit. Oh well, I'm buying the extended version as soon as it comes out, whenever that may be.
Mar 6 - 01:19 PM
critics are their to criticize me as a fan still love the movie i dont care if its adapted or not its just a great movie to watch and i loved re visiting middle earth again,and so i will go to watch the next one and love it and the one after and love that and still feel the need for more,but hey thats me
Mar 4 - 12:35 AM
DAT ASSet management
Tim de Wit, I respect different opinions, but I find your most recent post to be disgusting. You share your viewpoint in the most smug, assumption-based manner, as if what you say is fact. How do you know that the people who liked this film are just "blind PJ fanboys?" I know plenty of people who weren't crazy about LOTR, and really liked the Hobbit. Please stop speaking for everyone.
Oh, and the audience's score actually does tell you something about the movie. For example: Indiana Jones 4 got a 77% from the critics, while the audience score was (deservedly) somewhere in the 50s. And I think most of us agree that Indy 4 was a piece o' shit.
On a side note, the (admittedly unsubtle) references to LOTR don't necessarily make it comparable to LOTR. These callbacks will easily fly over the heads of those who have not seen the original trilogy. Other than those references and a few of the necromancer bits (which were not even in the film that much), the tone was relatively consistent throughout. Though I will agree that the goblin town sequence was too slapstick-y.
Feb 26 - 12:33 PM
First off: I don't presume to speak for everybody, so I suggest you calm down and refrain from using these kinds of overblown phrases to describe my post, which I really do feel you are being a bit overly incensed about. Let me explain why:
I never said that every single person who liked this movie is a 'blind PJ fanboy'. A lot of people liked this movie for very legitimate reasons and a lot of people thought it was 'not great, but not bad either'. Those who thought that it was horrid are, in fact, a minority and that's fine. My personal opinions about this movie and the decline of PJ are my own personal opinions: I don't force them upon anyone and I wouldn't dare to proclaim them as indisputable facts.
However, I really do think that there is some merit in my statements about the influence of fanboys on the average audience rating on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB. Why am I so sure about this? Because I have seen with my own eyes how, especially during the first days of this movie's widespread release, fanboys were denouncing critics and sceptics as trolls and their arguments as rubbish without providing sound evidence to the contrary.
I have also seen how, especially on IMDB, thousands of people had already awarded The Hobbit a 10 out of 10 before it had even seen a widespread release. Therefore, I think it's quite reasonable for me to say that the average audience rating is skewed for this movie.
Oh, and let me define what I mean with 'fanboy', since that is where the clarity of my post seems to be lacking: in my post I refer to fans and fanboys at the same time, while they are evidently two seperate kinds of people. This is a fault on my part.
I consider a fanboy to be a person who unconditionally and fanatically loves something because it has a name attached to it or belongs to a certain franchise, regardless of its quality. People who respond to 'Why did you like The Hobbit: AUJ?'
with such answers such as 'Because it was directed by PJ', 'Because it's set in Middle-Earth' or 'because Galadriel/Thorin/Kili/whoever was hot': those are the people I am talking about when speaking of fanboys. Another characteristic of fanboys is that they can be fiercely defensive of said movie/song/celebrity and will verbally assault those who have conflicting opinions. This movie seems to have a lot of those, but it's not alone in this: I believe similar things happened during the release of the Star Wars prequels (even though they were admittedly much worse than AUJ).
People who liked this movie and provide legitimate arguments for why they like it I do not consider to be fanboys: they are fans. It is true that I often engage in discussions with fans, but that is because I am intrigued by their arguments and wish to test my own arguments against them. In short: I respect the opinions of these people. Do I respect the opinions of fanboys? Not so much.
Lastly: you may consider me 'smug' for saying this and my posts 'disgusting', but that doesn't prove me wrong.
P.S. Indiana Jones 4 wasn't much worse than Temple of Doom in my opinion. Sure, it was inferior, but I had some laughs.
P.P.S. The unsubtle references to LOTR may not take up very much screentime, but they are still there. How long does a scene have to be for it to ruin a movie? You tell me.
Feb 27 - 01:55 PM
You're a hypocrite. You claim Indiana Jones 4 deservedly got around the 50s, and 'most of us think it's a piece o' shit'. Why don't YOU stop speaking for everybody. Well apparently critics, who actually attempt to review and perceive a films pros and cons unlike the common fan-boy who come out of the theaters saying it sucked because it was crap or stupid because of ridiculous scenes(which by the way isn't uncommon AT ALL in every Indiana Jones films). Your argument is useless, because all you have to back it up is what a bunch of fans score on RT said (the same people who gave the Twilight Saga positive and the Transformers Sequels positive). Yeah, real debatable, isn't it?
Oh, and unrelated: I don't under stand why you don't type 'of' instead but rather o', beacause is this how hipster fanboys think it's cool to type?
Feb 28 - 12:07 AM
Of course it didn't! I will tell you a movie that sucks though; The Hobbit animated from the 70's. Ough!
Feb 14 - 08:33 AM
It does freaking suck, I'm sorry. The animated version, for all its faults, does a better job of telling the story of The Hobbit as it was written. It also got better reviews than this train wreck.
Feb 16 - 07:12 AM
I think the live action film and the animated film were both great. But the live action film is better, hands down.
Feb 16 - 10:32 AM
The animated version had horrible songs and song renditions, silly designs and had some pretty extensive cuts to the story, but overall I agree with Starbaby: it does a better job at portraying The Hobbit as it should be than Jackon's version does.
Imagine the story from this version (fleshed out a bit, without the removal of Beorn and with some more characterisation for the dwarves) and the design from PJ's Middle-Earth (minus the screw-ups, such as the Stone Giants, the Great Goblin, Kili the beardless dwarf and so forth): you would have had a great premise for a nice duology.
Feb 16 - 02:23 PM
Did you seriously just call the stone giants, perhaps the greatest single visual effect ever put on film in my opinion, a screw-up? Dude, I appreciate your passion, but... MY GOD!!!!!
Feb 18 - 07:38 AM
Are you being quite serious, or is this intended as sarcasm? The stone giants were absolutely ridiculous and they rank among the biggest failures this film had to offer.
In the book, the stone giants are off in the distance, hurling rocks about and causing the storm. In this movie, Thorin & Company were ON the leg of one of the stone giants, who was engaged in a boxing match, without falling off! This scene reminded me of something from a Transformers-movie: and I do NOT want to be reminded of Transformers while watching a Middle-Earth film. It was completely over-the-top, and the CGI wasn't all that spectacular, to be honest.
As for the design they went with: I really do think they took the word 'stone' giant a bit too literal. The book indirectly suggests that they were made of flesh and bone (even though a full description is never given).
Haha, I thought most people, even the fans, agree that the stone giants scene should have been handled differently.
Feb 18 - 08:51 AM
No, I am not in the SLIGHTEST BIT being sarcastic. The scene with the stone giants was AMAZING, even if it was kind of over-the-top. And the CGI was breathtakingly awesome, one of the best uses of CGI I have ever seen in a movie.
Feb 19 - 10:56 AM
Well... If you really do feel that way, who am I to try to convince you otherwise? After all, it's a matter of opinion, and if your opinion differs from mine, that's fine.
Feb 19 - 11:17 AM
The scene certainly was over-the-top and strange, but it was so damn cool...
Feb 19 - 08:54 PM
Yes, unfortunately this movie did SUCK. The 1977 Rankin-Bass cartoon film for television was far superior to this train wreck - mostly because it was far more faithful to the book as Tolkien had written it. This "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie was an utter disappointment to me, and I am a lifelong Tolkien fan. It was unenthusiastic and often phony, having fallen prey to the "technology monster." But the worst thing about it is its failure to tell the story as Tolkien wrote it. The 1977 Rankin-Bass cartoon (which I happen to like very strongly) tells the story more or less like it is. Considering it is only 77 minutes long, it really gives the viewer a good oversight of the novel and encourages people of all ages to pick up the novel and read it. The only real criticisms one can level at the 1977 cartoon regarding plot alterations are the omission of the Beorn sub-plot and the omission of the Arkenstone. Those who would complain about the Elvenking's feast and the dwarve's starvation are hinted at. Gandalf only hints to Bilbo of the one ring in a very subtle but tasteful way - just enough to get people interested in reading "The Lord of the Rings." There are so many problems with this 2012 release that, frankly, Peter Jackson should be embarrassed. It's as if he is deliberately trying to improve Tolkien's masterpiece by changing it to the way he wants it while trying to turn it into a cash cow. I am surprised that the Tolkien estate allowed this movie to be released. I remember reading that Ian McKellen was very unhappy with the way The Hobbit was being made. I'm sure that whatever gripes he had while this catastrophic excuse for this cinmatic version of "The Hobbit" were perfectly valid. This film was an utter failure. If Peter Jackson had been smart, he would have stuck to the original book faithfully. What a pity that he didn't.
Feb 16 - 09:28 PM
McKellen was unhappy with The Hobbit, you say? The general impression I had was that he was quite supportive of Peter Jackson and his decisions.
Do you, perhaps, have a link to back up your statement about McKellen being disgruntled?
Feb 17 - 06:07 AM
Look, if he had stayed too faithful to the materiel, it would have been too watered down. I mean, not that I dislike the book, in fact it's one of my favorite books of all time, but it wasn't as gritty and violent as LOTR (I didn't read those books, but I did watch the movies). I think the additions this film made were great, making it darker while still staying fairly faithful to the tone of the book. Oh, and PS, Doug Walker (aka Nostalgia Critic; he is my icon) said this was his favorite LOTR.
Feb 18 - 07:46 AM
I know who Doug Walker is: I really enjoy his reviews and I definitely respect his opinion on movies. However, this doesn't mean that disagreeing with him is a mortal sin. In this case, I agree with Rob Walker, his brother, who considered this film a disappointment.
Feb 18 - 08:34 AM
People need to realize that this movie wasn't supposed to be like The Lord of the Rings, but just a fun and entertaining tale made for all viewers. Its not about the fate of Middle-Earth like Lord of the Rings, but a fun Middle-Earth tale to keep you going. :)
Feb 11 - 03:42 PM
Amen to that.
Feb 12 - 05:14 PM
I can assure you that we do realise that.
Feb 13 - 02:52 AM
I think in order to appreciate this, you should drop all comparisons with LOTR and the Hobbit book.
Feb 16 - 10:30 AM
Impossible. The movie claims to be the definitive adaptation of The Hobbit book, AND it constantly reminds us of the LOTR-trilogy with the unsubtle references to it.
Feb 16 - 02:26 PM
You'd figure that with all these negative comments, the movie wouldn't have an audience rating of 84%.
Feb 25 - 07:19 PM
Audience ratings often are much higher than the critical acclaim and sometimes they aren't. What we need to consider here is the strength in numbers and fanaticism of many PJ fans, who cannot see PJ making any mistakes because of his triumph with LOTR.
To be sure, before I saw this film I was one of them: I couldn't imagine PJ screwing this up. After seeing AUJ, though, I have come to believe that PJ has chosen the path of George Lucas and is no longer the man he was 10 years ago. Many fans, however, haven't reached this conclusion and are flooding the rating sites with biased rave reviews.
Rotten Tomatoes is nothing, though: for some examples of the fanaticism of these fanboys, you should look up the IMDB page for this movie. There's an average rating of 8.3 there, which is a complete and utter insult for dozens of better movies with better quality, but a lesser fanbase. It had a 9,7 even before it's widespread release. It's even in IMDB's 250 best movies of all time list, which is absolutely ludicrous. The discussion forum is crowded with fanatics, who denounce all criticism as 'trolling' without providing reasonable arguments to the contrary. Honestly, Rotten Tomatoes is a blessed realm compared to IMDB, which is literallally being ruled by a mob of fanboys.
Feb 26 - 06:50 AM
Feb 26 - 06:53 AM
My problem isn't a different tone but inconsistent tones as just overall very, very boring.
Feb 14 - 08:40 PM
Feb 15 - 07:41 AM
That's really it for me. At one point it's broad comedy with the dwarves being goofs, then it suddenly becomes SUPER SERIOUS.
Feb 18 - 05:31 PM
It was sort of like that in "Hancock". It goes right from comedy to regular superhero.
Feb 26 - 02:34 PM
The problem is it's not very fun or entertaining.
Feb 16 - 07:14 AM
Feb 16 - 10:37 AM
Doubtlessly there are plenty movies that are much worse than The Hobbit. However, given the potential that this premise had, this movie was an enormous disappointment. Disloyalty to the source material, an uneasy mixture of serious and comedic tones, potty-humour, one-liners, lack of character development with most of the dwarves, unimpressing designs for the villains, an over-reliance on CGI and unsubtle references to the original trilogy are but a few of the flaws that can be pointed out in this movie.
Many people liked this movie, and I cannot blame them for it: it isn't horrible. However, I expected more from Peter Jackson, who did so well with the original trilogy: this movie's greatest crime is that it is average while it could have been majestic.
Feb 8 - 07:50 AM
WHAT HE SAID
Feb 8 - 11:44 AM
"Unimpressive design for the villains"? Really? I thought the new wargs looked great, and the pale orc was FREAKING AWESOME. It's my favorite LOTR.
Feb 10 - 07:19 AM
I'll give you the wargs, but Azog looked like something out of 300 or God of War, not Middle-Earth. Also, the fact that he was CGI didn't help.
Feb 10 - 08:20 AM
Why is it bad if he looks like something out of 300 or God of War? Those were good, weren't they?
Feb 12 - 04:56 PM
In their own right, they were. Those were completely different franchises, though.
Feb 13 - 03:01 AM
I guess they were just trying to make him look like something we hadn't seen in the other LOTR films. I thought it worked.
Feb 13 - 12:17 PM
I suppose... I wasnt so much bothered by the fact that he was white (he came from the Far North), but it did bother me that he was this generic muscular brute (without armour) with this Captain Hook-esque attachment to his arm. In my eyes, it was a horrible interpretation of this character (in the book, Azog was decribed as possibly the smartest orc that ever lived: imagine the interesting dialogue and design they could have given this guy). It's painful to watch him, when the villain they should have had (Bolg, who did make an appearance in The Hobbit) has such a cool design: http://celluloidandcigaretteburns.blogspot.nl/2012/11/another-look-at-orc-chieftain-bolg-from.html .
It's obvious that Azog was added at the last moment, when it was decided that The Hobbit should be made into a trilogy. Even his CG was sub-par, which is unforgivable for a movie that has Gollum.
Feb 13 - 02:36 PM
Oh man. Golem was the reason I was not impressed with the movie. There were other modern visual tropes like when nobody got even scraped during the storm giants scene. That felt like one of those reels they make you watch in line leading up to a roller coaster. Also, I have to say that I only liked the first LOTR movie. It was sooo good. The next two seemed more like LARPing than film making. So I expected the first Hobbit movie to be the best too. Maybe that's my fault but nonetheless the finale of this first movie is the "Riddles in the Dark" chapter and is one of the best chapters in literature so I was a little worked up when it was just the exact same golem that I have already had an impacted bowel full of. He got too "funny" in LOTR and I got really tired of that. I expected that he would be very similar and I do think Andy Serkis is genius but we are being REintroduced to him as a slimy clammy sliding wretched powerful monster. Instead of all of that we got a Golem that looks and acts like he did in Return of the King. There was nothing clever about what they did with one of the most important chapters in modern story telling.
Feb 14 - 11:35 AM
Funny, in the book Azog was a goblin...
Orcs and goblins are the same species in Tolkien's world, if that's what you meant.
Feb 26 - 02:17 AM
Well, that's stupid. Were there any orcs in the book at all?
Feb 26 - 02:36 PM
Orcs = Goblins. They're just two words for the same species.
Feb 27 - 04:15 AM
Won't that confuse readers?
Feb 28 - 01:07 PM
This comment has been removed.
Oh please, Zachary. I respect differing opinions, but to say that there is no potty-humour in AUJ is just plain wrong. There may not have been any actual farting, but there was plenty of burping (at Bag End), snot-jokes (Troll-scene) and butt-scratching (again the Troll-scene). There were also plenty of idiotic lines, such as 'If you've got the balls for it'.
This, I consider to be potty-humour, and it undermines the dignity of the characters in this movie.
Feb 11 - 12:49 PM
So you do in fact admit that there is potty humour in The Hobbit? Good. Then let me admit that there could be some over-the-top humour in LOTR too. Gimli could indeed be somewhat prone to this kind of humour from time to time, but he had plenty serious moments too. He wasn't as ridiculously goofy as, say, Radagast: none of the LOTR-characters were. Merry and Pippin had serious moments too, even in FOTR.
I honestly don't remember Pippin almost falling into a pile of poop. As for the lembas bread-scene (in which he didn't fart, by the way: his stomach just growled because of over-eating), that was far more subtle than the in-your-face belching that went on in Bag End. Also, the frequency of these jokes is drastically less than in The Hobbit: the overall tone of the movie wasn't affected by it. Yes, I know the tone of the book isn't as serious as LOTR, but the humour in it was clever, and did not consist of potty-humour and slapstick.
Lastly, I don't hate The Hobbit because it exists. I hate The Hobbit because it could have been so much more better than what we got.
Feb 11 - 02:26 PM
There's more problems than just the obnoxious humor of the dwarves. The film is basically half comedy and half seriousness which completely messes with the tone. Is the film trying to be an epic like LOTR or a comedy? Mixing the two doesn't work. LOTR is mostly serious with a few funny comic moments. Hobbit is half and half except most of the humor is painfully unfunny.
Feb 11 - 05:30 PM
I'll be! You're right about the manure. However, I repeat: those kinds of moments were far more subtle than the in-your-face humour of The Hobbit. Hell, I didn't even remember that one.
Also, Eric Shankle brings up a very good point: in LOTR we're talking about a few comedic moments that don't affect the general story. In The Hobbit, half the movie consists out of these jokes, and the other half is DEADLY serious. It's unbalanced to say the least.
Now, I have seen you commenting about how much the critics sucked before this movie had a widespread release, but I was willing to overlook that. That last immature response to Mr. Shankle, however, has seriously undermined your credibility in my eyes.
Feb 12 - 02:15 AM
Oh, and you're constantly saying 'THEY ARE DWARVES.' What if I were to tell you that them being dwarves doesn't mean that they should be uncivilised and rowdy? Tolkien didn't write them that way. In the book, the dwarves were courteous to Bilbo, because they were guests in his house.
Feb 12 - 02:22 AM
Is CITW bad? I haven't seen it yet, but critics loved it.
Feb 12 - 05:02 PM
I myself can't really judge CITW since I haven't seen it. From what I've heard, however, the reviews do seem a bit excessive.
About The Hobbit's relation towards Hollywood-movies: strip AUJ of every fondness that you might have because of the association with LOTR, Peter Jackson and Tolkien. What do you get?
A fantasy film with one-liners, an excess of obnoxious comedy (I want to make one thing clear, though, I don't mind comedy in a fantasy movie, if it's subtle and well-placed), cartoony characters (Radagast), laughable side-villains (trolls + goblin king) but an intimidating and generic main villain (Azog), CGI and last but not least, a 'heartthrob dwarf' for all the teen girls in the audience with a forced inserted love interest (who will make her appearance in DOS). When I look at this movie in this light, I am forced to conclude that, because of these elements, it does kind of resemble your typical Hollywood-movie. And need we forget: it was sponsored by MGM.
Feb 13 - 03:43 AM
If they give Thorin a love interest, I'm going to put an axe through my face.
Feb 13 - 12:19 PM
Not Thorin, I believe, but Kili the beardless dwarf. It is rumoured that he will have a one-way crush on Tauriel (the female Mirkwood elf they invented for DOS and TABA). Aidan Turner has confirmed something along the line of this, so I'm not very hopeful.
Feb 13 - 01:48 PM
I guess it's not quite as bad as long as it's not Throin, but still, what's the point?
Feb 16 - 10:34 AM
Let me tell you my four interpretations of PJ and crew's motivations for adding this:
1. They wanted to add yet another reference to the LOTR-trilogy by trying to replicate Gimli's crush on Galadriel.
2. They are trying to keep The Hobbit from being a 'sausage fest' due to the lack of women characters, by adding a prominent female character to it.
3. They want to appeal to the teen-girl demographic by adding a romantic element to a story that isn't about romance.
4. It's another stupid, unsubtle way to get some laughs out of the audience, which the ludicrous concept of an Elf-Dwarf romance is bound to achieve.
Feb 16 - 02:34 PM
That... is... disgusting. If you're right about this, I am going to have to be hospitalized. Please just tell me you're lying. Please. Spare me the pain.
Feb 18 - 07:50 AM
On the other hand, Peter Jackson is a bit talented in portraying romantic relationships, but still.
Feb 25 - 07:21 PM
Eh, what happened to Zachary? It looks as though I am speaking to myself now.
Mar 13 - 02:57 AM
What you said is spot on. Couldn't stand the obnoxious humor: dwarves burping, trolls sneezing, Radagast, so on. Not funny at all and not in the source material. I agree with all you said about the CGI, references to LOTR, lack of character development, and awful villain design. Azog is just terrible.
Feb 11 - 12:05 PM
Alright, I'll give you this: the dwarves did lack in character development, and it did vary from the source material in places. Well, here's the thing: If the dwarves were all given gigantic roles, the movie would be so much longer. Hell, the movie actually gives the dwarves more character than they had in the book; in the book, Thorin was the only dwarf that had any character whatsoever. In the movie, the significant dwarves were Thorin, Balin, Bofur, and (arguably) Dwalin. That's still not much, but it's enough. As for the differences from the book, Jackson was adding extra stuff in to make it more detailed. One could argue that that is a deliberate money-grabbing technique, but I thought the first film worked out really well; in fact, it's my favorite LOTR. Here's my only problem: As for the next movie, I can see them making an entire movie up to when Smaug is killed. But after that, the only thing left to film is the battle of the five armies. Making an entire movie out of that seems absurd. But I loved AUJ, so I'll have to see how they turn out.
Feb 12 - 05:13 PM
I appreciate the different personalities that were given to the dwarves, but a good screenwriter could have made each and every one of them memorable. I'm not saying that every dwarf should have a monologue of ten minutes, I'm just saying that they should have fleshed them out a bit more.
The material from the book which Jackson added has been changed beyond recognition: the Witch-King was buried in a tomd, The White Council only just discovers Sauron, Greenwood is only just darkening and last but not least, Azog survives. These changes compromise the lore of Tolkien, and even what has been established in LOTR: where did the prophecy about the Witch-King not falling by the hand of man come from if he was (apparently) slain and buried in a tomb?
Lastly, I share your worries about the third movie. I fear that this really shouldn't have been a trilogy...
Feb 13 - 02:59 AM
I think adding extra stuff makes the plot more intriguing; Azog surviving was a really cool twist in my opinion, and the tie-in references to the other movies was nice. I also thought the brief subplot where Bilbo considers leaving was nice formula for the plot. But to each his own. How many stars out of 5 would you give it?
Feb 13 - 12:16 PM
You are right: to each his own. It isn't a bad thing that other people, such as yourself, did like this movie.
I would give this movie 3 stars out of 5 (which isn't atrocious and would still be considered 'fresh' by this site), if it were your run-of-the-mill no-expectations fantasy movie. However, as an adaptation of The Hobbit, which I and many others have awaited for such a long time, I give it a 2.5. It's a massive let-down, and it deserves a lower rating for this.
Please bear in mind that my ratings are usually quite stern: a privileged few score a 5 out of 5 with me. All three movies of the LOTR-trilogy are amongst these, though. Truly horrible films such as The Reaper would score half a star with me. :-)
Feb 13 - 02:00 PM
Any movies that you would give zero stars?
Feb 25 - 07:22 PM
That would be reserved for movies that are so bad that I feel personally insulted by their existence. An example of this would be Meet the Spartans.
Feb 26 - 02:15 AM
The only movie I would give zero stars is Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2. It was so puzzlingly misguided, and it was too grim to be unintentionally funny. It was especially bad considering the fact that it is a sequel to (in my opinion) one of the greatest films ever made. This should have won the 2000 Worst Picture razzie, not Battlefield Earth (which I actually thought was very good).
Feb 26 - 03:03 PM
Haha, that was indeed a stinker. The Blair Witch Project was a very good film, and to have The Book of Shadows as a sequel (why did Blair Witch HAVE to have sequel anyway?) was indeed a travesty.
I thought Battlefield Earth was pretty bad, but it was unintentionally funny, so it was still pretty amusing as a movie.
Feb 27 - 04:18 AM
I thought Battlefield Earth was a spot-on sci-fi action flick. John Travolta was certainly hammy, but that was the design of the character. I also thought Barry Pepper was a solid lead protagonist. The action was also fun, and there were some brilliant sets, camera techniques, stunts, and pirotechnics. I found no unintentional humor. (Jesus, my comments are running too long!)
Feb 27 - 04:56 PM
Alright, now I'm curious: what did you think of the Nostalgia Critic's review of Battlefield Earth?
Feb 28 - 02:11 PM
BATTLEFIELD EARTH!?!? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!? I'll agree with you in that The Hobbit is a solid film--but...how can you possibly give Battlefield Earth...the absolute worst movie...of...oh my god I I I don't understand it oh psshfffjesuswemjvbqw3jm vjme
Feb 28 - 05:31 PM
Just out of curiosity: what is your opinion on Troll 2?
Feb 28 - 05:38 PM
I personally think Troll 2 falls into the 'Plan 9 from outer space'-category: it's hilariously bad and thus deserves its place in movie history. Another film for this category would be The Room.
Mar 1 - 01:06 AM
@Tim de Witt: I certainly did not agree with Nostalgia Critic's opinion of the film, but his review was pretty funny. You know, in his commentary of the review, he at least gave praise to the movie's set design.
@Bob Fantiasco: Honestly, I did expect critics to dislike Battlefield Earth, but this much hatred seems FREAKISHLY weird to me. In fact, I hate to say it, but I'm kind of a die-hard fan. I own the Special Edition DVD, a "movie edition" copy of the book from which the movie is based, the movie soundtrack on CD, a movie t-shirt, and a 27 x 40 theatrical poster. Yes, 27 x 40. I'm that die-hard. I mean, it's not an entirely perfect, completely flawless movie, but I still really enjoyed it. Just to prove it, I will make a list of the things that critics hated about it, and I will make a follow-up comment as to why that's NOT A FLAW. Here I go:
EVERY SHOT IS AT AN ANGLE: I suppose they used that just a few too many times, but it actually looked pretty cool in some scenes. Movies like The Matrix, Planet of the Apes, and the King Kong remake used this technique, and no one had a problem.
THE COLOR PALETTES ARE DARKLY TINTED: What's wrong with that? It was a creative artistic choice that distinguished the greens, browns, and yellows of the human regions from the blues and purples of the Psychlo region. I especially like the scene where the Psychlo chases down Jonnie and his friends in an abandoned supermarket, and the tints were completely green.
JOHN TRAVOLTA WAS HAMMY: Yes, he was pretty hammy as Terl. But, after reading the book, I realized that that was actually the design of the character: a melodramatic crybaby who won't stop saying "crap". So he got the character right.
THE SLOW MOTION: Like the camera angles, I admit that they may have gone too far with the slo-mo, but it looked pretty cool in some scenes.
UGLY SETS AND ART DESIGN: Are you kidding me? You're going to criticize this movie for having "ugly" sets and art design? I'm... I'm freaking SPEECHLESS!! Dude, the sets and art design were ugly because they were meant to belong to ALIENS, for Christ's sake! An alien spaceship is going to look UGLY! An alien gun is going to look UGLY! Alien nostril tubes are going to look UGLY! Alien fingernails are going to look UGLY! Alien faces are going to look UGLY! Alien computers are going to look UGLY! Alien buildings are going to look UGLY! It's going to be UGLY if it's a film about ALIENS!! USE YOUR HEAD!!!
PLOTHOLES: I don't know, am I the only one who didn't see that many plotholes? The only real hole I could see was how it's possible that fighter jets are still working after 1,000 years in storage. But other than that, nothing.
So, personally, I don't know why the anus shit people hate this movie so freaking much. It's not as good as The Hobbit, but it's still good. Me and my best friend are the only two people on the planet who like this movie, and we both have Aspergers syndrome and ADHD. Is that saying something? I don't know. But, whatever, to each his own (I guess). Follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuNLvGti35M. It is a two-person movie debate about Battlefield Earth, and the person to the right has almost the exact same opinion as me. In regards to what I thought of Troll 2, I haven't seen it yet, but the goblins in the trailer looked pretty freaky.
P.S. Am I the only person who thinks Manos: The Hands of Fate looks kind of cool? I haven't seen it yet, but the concept sounds okay, and I hear a lot of hype about the twist ending. Your thoughts?
Mar 1 - 09:36 PM
What about Bilbo? His transition from weakling to sword-wielding hero makes no sense. In the book he proved himself when he saved the dwarves from the spiders and the elves by using the power of the Ring. That's how he becomes accepted. Not by saving Thorin from a giant orc. I agree with Tim, there's no need for Azog, Radagast, The White Council, or any of that. All the extra material distracts from the main narrative of the dwarves reclaiming their homeland. For the third film I imagine it will be the worst.
And did anyone else have a problem with the Great Goblin? That dude acted and looked ridiculous. I always imagined him to be much scarier.
Feb 13 - 12:26 PM
Indeed, Bilbo's development was botched the moment he faced that goblin in the caves and completely dismembered when he killed that Warg and several orcs during the 'Out of the frying pan'-scene.
As for the Great Goblin: his disgraceful portrayal was one of the main reasons I truly started to hate this film. I imagined him to be something along the lines of this: http://www.theonering.com/galleries/professional-artists/the-hobbit/the-great-goblin-john-howe .
Feb 13 - 02:10 PM
Wow, they should have went with that art design or something similar to it. He actually looks more like a goblin, is scarier, and doesn't have the chin flab. The next step would be for him not to act like a goofball. Oh well, it's too late for any changes to be made, we have to deal with what we got... thanks for showing me that pic though.
Feb 13 - 02:42 PM
I think if they went for that design, it would have looked too much like the Balrog or the trolls.
Feb 18 - 07:51 AM
What, you mean he didn't look like a troll in this movie? He was at least troll-sized.
Feb 18 - 08:30 AM
He was troll-sized, but he still looked different.
Feb 19 - 10:58 AM
Sure he looked different (in fact, like Azog he didn't look like anything that belongs in Middle-Earth), but to me he did kind of resemble a troll because of his size. No goblin, even the Great Goblin, should be that large. John Howe's artwork of the Great Goblin at least looks like a proper goblin to me.
However, like with the stone giants, it's a matter of opinion.
Feb 19 - 11:15 AM
The Great Goblin looked like a troll more than anything. He was also a little too cartoony for my taste.
Feb 19 - 07:54 PM
He was cartoony, but he was still cool.
Feb 25 - 07:20 PM
I don't necessarily agree that Bilbo's character development is unrealistic. Sure, killing that orc was a bit far, but motivation is key. Bilbo wanted to help his friend Thorin, and in the process disprove that he was a lil' pussy.
Definitely agree about the Great Goblin, though. I'm not talking about the design, but UGGH his dialogue was so over the top, no thanks to Barry Humphries' voice.
Mar 1 - 03:02 AM