Tomatometer Watch: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Charles Austin Miller

The frame rate, as I understand it, is more of a distraction than anything. The more important failing of The Hobbit is that Jackson is trying to make a trilogy with too little source material. The Hobbit itself would make a very good three-hour movie, if Jackson simply stuck to Tolkein's material, but not THREE three-hour movies. Jackson resorts to "filler material," like adding far too much breadcrumb to a skimpy meatloaf. The result? An underwhelming and watered-down telling of The Hobbit, which could've been a charming prequel to Lord of the Rings if Jackson had simply told the story in ONE three-hour film.

Dec 8 - 11:33 PM

Halvard Jansen

Radagast is a legit character though.

Dec 9 - 04:21 AM

Gerald Horgan

Part of a trilogy ? Yawn

Dec 9 - 07:00 AM

David Miller

I'll wait until all three films make their bow on DVD in their extended versions. Then I'll watch them back-to-back and savor every minute of it.

Dec 9 - 08:52 AM

Joyce Tullock

Unswayed.

Dec 9 - 10:25 AM

Marissa Evans

Ugh, quite honestly, many of these reviews are not worth so much attention if you've got your own expectations. I saw the film at a Toronto screening on Monday, and I fell in love with it, mostly because I knew what to expect.

Here are the three things I've noticed people complain about:

1. 48fps
Yeah, this one's obviously getting the biggest backlash. But the great thing about it is, guess what? you don't have to see it in this format (though I recommend people do). Even with the couple of problems I had with it at times, I still have absolutely no regrets about seeing it at the HFR. There are some INCREDIBLY breathtaking scenes, including the aerial shots, Gollum, Rivendell, the rock giant fight (why does nobody bring this up? I loved that scene!)... These and many other scenes make it absolutely worth while. Furthermore, yeah there were moments where it didn't really enhance it as much as it did make it difficult to make out what's going on (mostly in the opening sequence with a flashback to how Smaug took over Erebor - but to be fair people are still trying to adjust to it so I don't give it crap for that), but it's the first film they're trying this with. It's the experimental phase in a sense. Many filmmakers at one point decided to try something new, and look at where we are now with movies! Technology's constantly progressing, and of course it's not going to be perfect in its beginning stages. Surely people remember moments in LotR where the CG looked off - I always think of CG Legolas standing atop the cave troll in Fellowship. That one moment I noticed an imperfection doesn't stop us from enjoying the rest of it!
* It goes back to the idea of conventional film-goers who aren't open to change. This is why the Academy still won't give Andy Serkis acknowledgement, and it's why 3-D got off to a shaky start. It takes these guys FOREVER to see the potential in these advancements. They follow that motto "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" when if we all followed that, we would still be in the Stone Age.
* A side note about the 48fps, I've heard people say the 48fps makes it look TOO real, and like they're looking onto a film set. This is the most frustrating complaint to me because that's like looking onto a stage play and seeing actors in costumes. It depends on how much you allow yourself to be immersed in the story. Not many people looked at Gollum and saw computer graphics; most of us saw Gollum. I looked into Bilbo's house and I saw Bilbo's house, not props. It's a silly thing to complain about.

2. Lighter tone in comparison to Lord of the Rings
To these people I ask this: Did you READ the Hobbit? It's not the Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson warned us of this SO many times, and still these critics are comparing it to the LotR trilogy. If anything, he still surprisingly went out of his way to actually bring elements of Lord of the Rings into the Hobbit - which quite frankly, he didn't have to. I wanted to shake his hand in gratitude when I noticed the slight tweaks (all of them fitting before you freak out; the change he made to the story in the climax was absolutely perfect to close out the first of the trilogy, in my opinion) he made to the story to remind us of the Middle Earth we're used to. If you go in expecting LotR, of course you're going to be surprised by the sudden lighter atmosphere.
* Actually, I doubt this will be a major complaint with the sequels since the book, about midway through, shifts in tone to become more like LotR. In fact I think Peter himself said this would be the case. :) NOT to disparage the lighter tone of this one of course! I liked this different side to Middle Earth I had long forgotten. And there was a younger boy in the seat in front of us who was CRACKING up (particularly when the trolls came on). :) See folks? THERE's your target audience. Heh, though I do admit I was joining him a lot of the time.

3. The idea of a trilogy making first film tedious
Okay, so this is where I can't say much because we're all biased. I loved the characters so much, I WANTED to spend more time with them. (In fact I was very sad when it ended - I could have sat in that theatre for several more hours if it meant more of their adventure.) People complained about Radagast whereas I thought he was one of the greatest joys of the movie. People thought the first half was dragged out when, to be honest, it's so true to the book! It's an opinion thing. But I honestly believe that the fans of the Hobbit book itself will understand why he made the decision to split these movies, especially once they've seen this one. It cuts off at the absolute PERFECT moment, completing a couple of major story arcs much better than Fellowship of the Ring did [<--in my opinion! I'm in no way putting down Fellowship]
* In continuation of this, I was thinking about something: Imagine Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings even longer than it is. Imagine he included EVERY event in the b

Dec 9 - 02:43 PM

Marissa Evans

Sorry, it cut off! Continued from previous post...

* In continuation of this, I was thinking about something: Imagine Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings even longer than it is. Imagine he included EVERY event in the books (since obviously quite a bit had to be left out). Wouldn't critics react the same way? Wouldn't they consider it tedious? I see them whining about it dragging on the same way they're whining about The Hobbit dragging on. He's including most if not all the events of the book into these movies as far as I've seen so far, so of course people who are impartial to the book aren't going to like it.

So there's my two-cents. Don't be thrown off by reviews (and keep in mind that the mid-70s area is still pretty darn good, especially for a children's story). Also keep in mind that times are changing, therefore so are audiences. One of my favourite movies of 2011 was 'The Adventures of Tintin', a film based on a children's comic book series from the early 20th century. This film, in a way, sort of followed that same trend 'The Hobbit' did in that despite the books' MUCH more light-hearted tone, it managed to add a little bit more heart into it than the books have. Still critics complained about it not being heartfelt enough, while the purists thought it was TOO heartfelt and veered away from the books. Who are you supposed to please?

It goes to show: You can make some people happy some of the time, but you can never make everybody happy all of the time. The fact that this was based on a nearly-century-old children's story should make you EXPECT many people to be unhappy with the product since we've changed so much - I mean, look at old animated films like 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarves' and compare them to today's 'Up'. Huge difference, right? (Note I didn't say improvement, just difference.)

I say just go in with an open mind and just watch it through the creative story-teller's imagination that Tolkien so belovedly possessed, as does Peter Jackson. I don't think those who go in this way will be disappointed in the slightest. :) I listened to what Jackson and the other filmmakers had to say, I read the book and knew what the story and tone was like, and ultimately I went in keeping all that in mind and enjoyed the hell out of it. I'm seeing it again opening night (admittedly in 24fps, but I still very much recommend the 48fps).

Phew! There we go, got it all out.

Dec 9 - 02:45 PM

George vulcoun

First of all, The Hobbit probably should have been 2 movies. 3, 3 hour long god damn films? The book is a vacation pamphlet compared with LOTR. How can you possibly elongate that? You do exactly what Jackson did. Make the morons walk around and talk a lot for half the stupid movie. It deserves low scores.

Dec 9 - 03:06 PM

George vulcoun

The book, The Hobbit, is a vacation pamphlet compared with LOTR. Making it into 3, 3 hour films or whatever is way overkill. How do you elongate it? You do what Jackson did. Make the characters walk around and talk a lot. This movie deserves it's low scores. It deserves lower.

Dec 9 - 03:28 PM

Michael Lena

Yeah, the Frame Rate is often amain complaint... seems so absurd it should be considered if its an optional/ downright RARE feature of the film....

Dec 9 - 06:36 PM

Brady Gorman

Of course it's not going to be as "dramatically engaging" as LOTR! Was anyone expecting otherwise? The story of a hobbit who goes on a perilous journey of mere self-fulfillment in a relatively peaceful time for the fantasy world is, naturally, not going to be as emotional as a small person on a journey with the fate of an entire world depending solely on him, as he learns that his own well-being is worth sacrificing for the greater good. Seeing as this will, one day, be seen as the first installment in a six-film saga, I think this relatively lighthearted approach will work perfectly as it progresses to a much darker and desperate state.

Dec 10 - 07:42 AM

Matthew Reimer

I can't wait to see The Hobbit!

Dec 10 - 03:01 PM

Tony Tatro

Ignore reviews, a movie is only as good as YOU think it is. If you think it is the most epic film you have ever seen, then who has the right to tell you it isn't. I hate the Twilight movies, I think they are god awful, but who am I to tell someone who loves them that they suck.

Dec 10 - 04:15 PM

Lea Jones

The story was, from the beginning, linear and altogether less interesting than LOTR. A two-film package seemed to me a ludicrous concept from the beginning. Can't wait to see all three, of course, but not expecting much beyond good music, spectacular effects and cinematography, and loads of nostalgia.

Dec 11 - 06:26 AM

Emilio Davila Jovel

You know what I really don't care that it got mediocre reviews. I have been waiting for this movie since it was announced in 2006! Plus the Hobbit is my favourite of the Tolkien Books. And oooooh the first movie isn't a masterpiece! there's still two more movies and they could be a lot better especially when the plot picks up. Finally if all three movies where mediocre I would be so happy! I rather have a mediocre trilogy then Peter Jackson defiling Middle Earth like George Lucas defiled Star wars with his prequel trilogy.

Dec 11 - 11:23 AM