Critics Consensus: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Is (Mostly) Worth the Trip

And "Aliens" is exactly the movie we should compare "Hobbit" to.

Dec 13 - 05:17 PM

Why not? It was a massive follow-up to a huge movie as well with a very different story set in the same world. Sci-Fi and Fantasy have a lot of crossover. It's not perfect, but it's not a horrible comparison.

Dec 13 - 05:38 PM

Yes. Yes it is a terrible comparison.

Dec 13 - 06:18 PM

Russell Ferguson

What is it with people being so against comparing different genres of movies these days? I can say Casablanca is a better movie than Jackass 3, despite the two being completely different. They're both movies. I prefer one over the other. Just because films differ in many ways doesn't mean you can't say which one is better.

Besides, Jeff was just explaining why length isn't always a good thing. He used Aliens as an example for when length IS a good thing. He wasn't even comparing it to The Hobbit, he was just talking about length in general.

Dec 13 - 06:31 PM

I could mention "Das Boot", but I won't because, as great as that 5 hour film is, it has no relevence to a fantasy film. Likewise, "Aliens" is essentially an action film with sci/fi/horror elements.

Dec 13 - 07:15 PM

See Russell's post, Janson. Jeff was just talking about length, not necessarily the genre. And I personally think he made a smart example. Heck, he could've chosen any film with a long running time and it would be a good example. You're simply just overreacting and need to calm down. It's not like Hobbit won't open at #1 this weekend or get snubbed of some big award noms just cause some critics speak their mind freely. 69% isn't horrible; it's still Fresh and I guarantee audience ratings will be higher. What'd you expect, a 96% like Two Towers?

Secondly, I kinda saw this coming, just not as bad. I thought the Tomatometer would've been around the mid 80's but hey, who knows. After all, there was all that hype for Star Wars Episode I and look how it did: huge financial success, but a big critical disappointment and a minor audience disappointment.

Dec 13 - 08:17 PM

Chris Cawthorne

Janson, you really don't know what you're talking about here at all. Their entire point is that super long movies can be amazing if they're paced well. From what I know about this movie there's a lot of filler and it's paced poorly. They could have condensed this entire book into one 3 hour epic and it probably would have been a lot better for everyone involved. Also nice dig at some random guy's name. Are you 12 years old?

Dec 13 - 10:32 PM

Jesus, Janson. Why so harsh lately? Nearly every comment you've made the past week or so has been negative. Yes, Slocum is a funny last name and I'm sure Tyler has heard the best of it on the playground but just because he made an argument against your stance doesn't mean you have to resort to that shit.

Dec 13 - 10:56 PM

Oh! Sorry. I thought I knew that you haven't seen this movie yet, so get off the critic's teet, hippie! What you "know" is what's been spoon-fed to you by metrosexuals like David Edelstein, AO Scott, and Mike LaSalle. You want to take Matt Pais' word for anything? That's your cliff to jump off. You think Dana Stevens has your best interest at heart? Fool. There's no helping some people who can't think for themselves....

Dec 13 - 10:56 PM

Oh ho ho, you are a card sir. You are actually the first person ever to make that joke! I can't imagine the immense brainpower you must have used to come up with that one. Leave him alone, Chris. I think we have a keeper here. Please, continue with your biting wit that would leave even the greatest of geniuses in bewilderment and tell us how Jeff's comment of length having an effect on the modern film pacing is complete drivel to the rather short and entirely entertaining Hobbit film that you already must have seen at least twice. After all, you must be the beacon of hope for this site!

Dec 13 - 11:00 PM

This site has been doomed ever since they started letting people post from Facebook. I've actually read most of the reviews for the Hobbit rather than be deterred by Tomatoscores and movie length. The length doesn't matter. Kieslowski's "Decalogue" is 9 1/2 hours, and it's a masterpiece. Plus, you got a bug up your ass, 'cause I'm not even really mad at you yet. Playing puns on your name is playground foreplay, trying to let you know not to take it too seriously, but if yer itchy, skin that smokewagon, if it makes you feel better. You wanna talk Tomatoscore, like we're talking football or the stock market, that's fine. Boring, but whatever. I like movies, not numbers. If you read the reviews, you can see that most of the bad reviews are written by people who don't take fantasy of Tolkien very seriously. Some do. Most don't. But - numbers. Tomatoscore. Minutes in the movie. Fascinating stuff.

Dec 13 - 11:28 PM

You have no idea how out of whack you've thrown this, and I find it incredibly hilarious how your mind still cannot compute that Jeff was simply speaking in general and not fantasy only. I bet if he saw this, he'd get a bloody kick out of it too. And bub, I've seen the worst so please, proceed with your extremely childish blather to try and make yourself look all tough and great. It's people like YOU that doom this site cause you can't even let regular people make a logical opinion without bitching your heart out cause I guess you think this one movie is the Citizen fucking Kane of our time.

And to reiterate what I said earlier, the critics don't matter, though I admire the fact that they walk in with normal expectations, not pro or biased. Don't let them pick your movies for you. Hell, I still saw Red Dawn even though most critics trashed it and in the end I found it a guilty pleasure and worth the mere $5.00 at an early show though I don't plan on buying it on Blu-Ray anytime down the road. So to say I believe the critics matter is showing even more of how idiotic you're acting because I already said they didn't fucking matter. And okay, Tomatometer scores don't matter. So why did they go and create Rotten Tomatoes, genius?

Dec 14 - 12:19 AM

King Simba

Yeah, there's always some consipiracy as to why a film you're excited to see is getting bad reviews.

"If you read the reviews, you can see that most of the bad reviews are written by people who don't take fantasy of Tolkien very seriously"

Explain then why they raved about The LOTR trilogy. Oh right, that's another consipiracy.

And it's not the runtime that matters, but what you fill it with. I didn't mind the runtime for The LOTR trilogy because they had a plot that required such an epic length. On the other hand, even though I really liked King Kong, I still think it would have been even better if Peter Jackson had shortened it a bit. It kept feeling needlessly padded out. I mean you could have completely removed the character of Jimmy without having any effect on the story.

It's also kind of ironic that your criticizing people for defending critics for a film they haven't seen when you yourself haven't seen it. I can't help but be reminded of Spiderman 3 when fans threw a fit over the critics who gave the film it's early negative reviews. Nowadays they think the critics were being too soft on the film.

Personally, I'm still going to see the film. The film's reviews are still pretty positive and even the negative reviews admit it'll please fans of the book, which is all I wanted to hear. I just want to get immersed in the world Tolkien has imagined. However, it's not the critics job to review the film as fans but as....well....critics, so of course stuff that isn't going to bother fans will bother them.

Dec 14 - 12:20 AM

"Yeah, there's always some consipiracy as to why a film you're excited to see is getting bad reviews."

So it seems. :/ And I'll admit I was talking about length wrong. I meant it like King, Russell, and Jeff in that it's what you make of the runtime you have that counts.

Dec 14 - 12:37 AM

@ Tyler. I too got sucked into seeing Red Dawn and was surprised that it wasn't as bad as I thought was going to be. Its funny that you mention Red Dawn in this "running time" debate because I found Red Dawn to be way too short which lead to its faults i.e. lack of character development and too many montages to cover story development. A movie's running time is an interesting aspect to film making and it often seems that more is better for drama, fantasy, and sci fi. Not Sandler though, please LESS Sandler.

Dec 14 - 12:46 AM

I was actually using Red Dawn on the "importance of critics" area, not the runtime area. But yeah, it felt too short and rushed. The last 15 minutes felt like they went in for a speedy finish. And yes, sometimes longer can be better. But as an example for the opposite end, I don't think a 110 minute long version of Shoot 'Em Up would've been as good and tolerable as the actual 86 minute version. XD

Dec 14 - 12:48 AM

You bitches got no sense of humor - 1st of all.

Second, these "logical opinions" you're forming are only coming from a little less than a third of the critics. You're presuming that this slice of the critical body are the only ones who "speak their mind freely", assuming the others are brainwashed I guess. But then take the minority opinion and inflate it into the general consensus.

And 3rd - What conspiracy, I mean, other than the dunces, have I referred to? I simply said what's clear for anyone who cares to read. Most of the 48 critics who gave the film a rotten review have included disparaging remarks about Tolkien and his fans, and other dismissive things about "dwarves and elves", that show perfectly clearly that they don't take the material seriously.

And you sit there and act like I'm ranting or something. I'm mellow as can be. (If I wanted to get conspiratorial, there is a very real effort by PETA to demean and discourage people from seeing the film, but this is the first, and only, time I mention it)

See the film or don't. I don't care. But there haven't been a lot of valid points against the film mentioned here. Only the length and the pace, and I've already mentioned that I only care about the width, which you missed, because you have no sense of humor. Maybe if I used more winking emoticons, a four-year-old could decipher my mischief for you.

Dec 14 - 12:59 AM

holy FUCK! it seems someone has blinders on. it's always amusing to see someone so devoted to something as to start throwing logic out the windows and becoming conspiracy nuts. why even bother coming to RT if you don't give 2 shits about the opinion of critics?

i second king simba's comment in that they seemed to enjoy the lotr movies quite fine. i bet you really liked their opinions then, eh?

me? the hobbit has never really interested me, but if my friend invites me to go see if with them, i won't let the 68% stop me from seeing it. it's not the be-all and end-all of ratings. it's just an average of fresh and rotten reviews.

Dec 14 - 12:59 AM

Yes, yes. I understand how Red Dawn entered the conversation.

And I used a word like "often" instead of "always" to protect myself from the "exception to the rules" factor in film making. Sometimes quick, visceral and fun makes a good movie. Evil Dead 2 is a good example. But I have found with my tastes, a slow burn feels better than a flash fry.

Dec 14 - 01:00 AM

I like reading critics, rather than looking at their thumbs and scores. It gives you a lot of perspective on where they're coming from. Obviously some of them are better than others, not based on what I agree with, but based on what makes me think a little deeper about a film. This is something many commenters don't easily grasp. It's all "like/suck" thumbing up and down. That's why it's ridiculous to talk about critics as "they" as in what "they" like or what "they" say about a movie. That's a giveaway of someone not actually reading reviews. That's what RT is good for: critical comparison, not consensus.

But it warms the cuckolds to see folks who don't really care enough to see the film weighing in so heavily. Duly noted.

Dec 14 - 01:17 AM

hmm... it seems me being an ass wasn't as warranted as i though.

the last review i've read was one for zero dark thirty. i felt the reviewed had similar tastes to mine and their review really whet my whistle, so to speak.

i read some negative reviews of wreck-it ralph and was expecting to be a bit disappointed by the movie. i ended up seeing it and really enjoyed it. their criticisms were sound and just, but what bothered them didn't bother me.

the tomatometer? merely a guideline. nothing set in stone. if most reviewers felt a film was not good but not bad, and gave it say a 5-6/10, then the movie would have a horrible tomatometer score yet looking at the average gives a better picture.

somewhere in the 'the hobbit' forum i made a thread about "Is too much emphasis being placed on the Tomatometer?". people take one look at the score and think, "awe crap... it's at 68-69%?! well, i guess it's not very good." really, if they wanted to see the film and enjoy middle-earth, from hearing what people who saw the film are saying, it's worth your time to go. the meter shouldn't hold THAT much weight.

also, that width comment was funny.

Dec 14 - 02:05 AM

Logan Locke

To be honest, the most important thing about long movies for me is, not just the material, but the pacing. There have been movies that have long run times that, while they might have great acting, directing, etc, their pacing is sluggish. Now don't get me wrong, Films like The Godfather and Citizen Kane are slow paced films that I love, but it is hard not to fault anyone for not liking them because of their pacing. It does not mean they do not like films of that nature however. Take for example me: I have seen The Godfather and The Deer Hunter. Both excellent films, as well as long. The Godfather is the better of the two in a technical sense, with better acting and directing, and a stronger script. Yet I have watched The Deer Hunter more than the Godfather, because I enjoy the film more due to it's pacing. Does that mean I have poor taste in films? That's a matter of perspective. And while this post does not cover all the arguments(such as the Tomato meter and what-not), I felt it neeeded to be said.

Dec 14 - 08:25 AM

"Does that mean I have poor taste in films?"

Not really, cause it's how you managed to still be entertained and believed its pace, whatever the runtime was, was worth your money.

And thanks for saying it without being an ass who thinks he's funny and gets his jollies off starting a pointless argument.

Dec 14 - 09:15 AM

I think its a terrible comparison to. The Shorter Cut to Aliens is far superior to the Bloated version Cameron put out as a Directors Cut. Sorry if someone else has all ready brought up this Obvious Fact.

Dec 14 - 10:25 AM

You just need to Calm Down, Slocum! Take a breath! Look who's strarting arguments over the rather simple notion of the idiocy of trying to compare the genre expectations (and the pacing requirements) between "Aliens" (a high-octane action/horror film) and "The Hobbit" (a sweet juvenile literature fantasy). I'm sure everyone cares deeply about your apathy to this film, and you're prescient Kreskin-esque ability to foretell your apathy, but the film is out today. We shall see it. You won't. Get on with your life.

Dec 14 - 12:17 PM

I am calm and getting on with my life. I just felt the need to defend one who had a valid point while at the same time giving my thoughts on this week's consensus. YOU could've just ignored my simple, kind request that you just calm yourself and could've got on with YOUR life but nope, I guess somehow your brain thought I was calling you a fucking idiot or something and you got your knickers all twisted and took a shot at me, so I felt it fair to fire back.

Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

can we end this bickering?

Dec 14 - 03:00 PM

Still, Slocum? Tissue for your tears? Such a simple, kind man. I'm sure there are films you may have a passion for, like maybe Red Dawn (I don't know, it's the only other film you've mentioned). I'm sure your time could be better spent actually appreciating the things you care about. I certainly wouldn't post paragraphs on the Red Dawn Critic Consensus page. Don't have the strength. Live and let live. So, for someone who has admitted that you don't have any interest in Hobbit or the LOTR films (by extention, Tolkien, I presume), I can't figure out why you decided (out of the f'n blue) that your disinterest was worth sharing with the world. I have no interest in Facebook. I don't post on Facebook. See how simple that is? But considering your relative absense of film opinion until now, I dunno. Seems like something is keeping you interested. Even though you're not. Apparently.

I know I'm interested. And I am passionate about Tolkien and Peter Jackson. And I don't think your condescending tone to calm down when no one other than yourself seems to be kicking much dirt up about it. Comparing Tolkien fans to the death threats of DKR is facile. Again, I'm not mad at you. I have no emotional investment in some random putz. But I am making fun of you. I imagine there's worse things to make of you.

Dec 14 - 04:18 PM

"I have no emotional investment in some random putz."

You took the words right out of my mouth. So enjoy taking shots at me cause I still know I'm the better person who at least has a shred of respect when it comes to opposing one's opinion without having to resort to child-like tactics. Perhaps you should go into politics.

Having said that, I'm ending this fickle debate to handle things that actually matter, i.e. giving some prayers for 20 children and 6 adults who lost their lives today, cause that's sure as hell more important. Just gotta remember they're only gone in body, never in mind or soul. They'll be there every day for you.

Dec 14 - 08:00 PM

Despicable. I would certainly never use dead children to assert my moral authority in an argument about "The Hobbit". Stay classy, asshole.

Dec 14 - 08:50 PM

And you stay trolling. Guess the fact that I got family who live in Danbury and one of whom works in Newtown means nothing and that I show no sympathy for those kids. Ffs, you heartless bastard HOW DARE YOU.

Dec 15 - 01:06 AM

Chum Chum

Janson is a snob. He probably has a Facebook to be ironic. What a drip

Dec 15 - 11:24 AM

From experience, Janson is not always the most welcoming member here. But at least his movie taste is pretty good by reading his reviews which are pretty good. He probably hates certain good movies but at least he likes a lot of good ones.

Dec 15 - 06:12 PM

One of the general negative critisms is that "it felt padded" but had it been shorter in running time length would those same critics would've given it a positive rating! And I too somehow knew that it wasn't going to be rated as high as TLOTR trilogy just because Jackson was in hiatus for quite awhile which was the reason why he initially wanted someone else to direct them!

Dec 14 - 01:01 PM

Mark Marquis

I've thought for a long time that it was risky for Jackson to take this on. He didn't really want to do it. The only thing, apparently, that made him excited to take over the reigns was the idea that he could make the bridge films he wanted. Maybe that was a bad choice. Maybe it won't be. We won't really know until all three movies have been released.

As for the Tomatoscore, people who are downplaying that need to remember that traditionally when any Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi film scores below 80% it creates a bitter backlash. Fair or not, a high-profile project that disappoints tends to create animosity against the film. I've seen it time and again. Does anyone remember a little movie called Prometheus?

Dec 14 - 02:45 PM

As I recall, there were only supposed to be two Hobbit movies, and then suddenly they're three!

And now that we know what's to be expected of "The Hobbit" films, the assumption I've often wondered if had producers intervened and requested shorter versions like they did on "The Lord of the Rings" triolgy would more critics liked "The Hobbit" more! Because now we'll never know!

Dec 14 - 02:55 PM

i agree with dave. they were originally slated as being 2 films.

Dec 14 - 03:01 PM

Christian Vogt

I'm sorry, but if you went in to a JRR Tolkien adapted film and you expected it to very relativiely length, you then are fucking retarded. This movie was an absolute masterpiece, I didn't want it to end. I wanted the adventure to continue on.

Dec 14 - 05:44 PM

For a viewer whose indifferent with anyone else's opinion by calling an unknown person a duragatory name seems to be the one whose retarded!

Dec 17 - 12:10 PM

Susan Carnahan

What is wrong with these critics?

Dec 13 - 04:58 PM

Matt Valentine

Take the critics with a grain of salt. Critics raved about 'Skyfall' and 'The Dark Knight Rises', both films that were just OK in my book. Skyfall was pretty cool, with some lame parts. If you're a fan of the Hobbit book, you'll dig this movie, without a doubt.

Dec 13 - 09:44 PM

brandon sideleau

Both Skyfall and TDKR were two of the best films of the year...so..yeah...it all comes down to opinion.

Dec 14 - 12:28 AM

"Skyfall" was my favorite of the two this year. Hands down the best Bond film on the likes of "Goldfinger", "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale".

Dec 14 - 02:33 PM

Dave Manto

I liked both movies you mentioned.. but the Hobbit is boring and long. the lines were bad and nothing epic about it. I am honestly surprised by how much people love this movie. Me and my friend watched this on separate theaters.. and we both agreed it was long and the fight scenes senseless.

Dec 14 - 05:34 PM

Christian Vogt

There sad and bitter people that have no imagination.

Dec 14 - 05:46 PM

Casey Schoch

If you think Skyfall was just "OK" then you are truly biased and blind. You probably thought Quantum of Solace was good.

Dec 15 - 03:12 PM

Susan Carnahan

how can they give this movie a 69%

Dec 13 - 04:58 PM

Bill Pyle

Have you seen the movie for yourself? People are allowed to have different opinions.

Dec 13 - 05:45 PM

because they're expressing their opinions.

Dec 14 - 12:47 AM

Jay Kennedy

There's a lot of fun in the Hobbit, but there's also a lot of dredge too. I think just shy of 70% is bang on for this feature. Not a lot of critics are going to be able to get past the 48fps offered in this...it was sure hard for me to over look the video gameness of it. And although I didn't feel it drag, I can absolutely see how others would.

Dec 14 - 04:08 AM

Danny K Cabrera

change is always hard for the close minded.

Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

Stepping Razor

You're close-minded if you think that's a waterproof argument. That's a very simplistic, narrow-minded one.

Not all changes are good; nor do we have to accept all changes. People, if they don't like certain changes, can and should voice their opinions.

Dec 14 - 03:28 PM

I agree. Watching the movie in a few hours, but I'm aquainted enough to read reviews without worrying about spoilers. I reject critics who blanket complain about the changes. Some are more thoughtful in judging the changes in the overall story arc. I'm not quite convinced yet. I am glad to see many things that were not in the original book that were only hinted at. I think theres only a couple of things that were wholly invented.

Dec 14 - 04:22 PM

Jonathan Yung

Keep in mind that 69% isn't a score on the quality of the movie, just the amount of critics that enjoyed it. There's a whole spectrum of people who liked/loved it and those who dislike/hated it.

Dec 14 - 06:28 AM

Stepping Razor

That's a very complex perspective for many mainstream moviegoers to understand.
They love to bash "all critics," just as they did with Avengers. A relatively small handful of critics disliked the movie, while more than 200 gave it a positive view.
But in the minds of the fanatical, mainstream moviegoer, "all critics" hated Avengers.
I guess they wouldn't be happy unless more than 100 percent of critics praised the movie.

Dec 14 - 03:30 PM

Chad Troxel

It's going to be Star Wars all over again. Prequels just aren't going to stand up to the "original 3".

Dec 14 - 11:00 AM

And I had high hopes for this one. Are they really going to call this the next "Phantom Menace"??

Dec 14 - 02:29 PM

Henry Eshbaugh

It could very well be that Hobbits 2 and 3 turn out to be astounding; we don't know quite yet because the movies haven't been made.

And this is already a better movie than The Phantom Menace, as well; the headline of this article is 'it's worth seeing'; which is better than the terrible reviews The Phantom Menace got.

Dec 14 - 06:46 PM

Thank God for that. Peter Jackson already knows better than to sell himself out the way Lucas did.

Dec 15 - 07:02 AM

Casey Schoch

Except Star Wars 1, 2 and 3 were conceived after the original 3. The Hobbit was published in 1937, almost 20 years before LOTR

Dec 15 - 03:14 PM

Sanchayan Sarkar

if anyone says hobbit is a prequel he is a jackass .. LOTR is a sequel to it not the other way around

Dec 16 - 10:46 AM

Sanchayan Sarkar

if anyone says hobbit is a prequel he is a jackass .. LOTR is a sequel to it not the other way around

Dec 16 - 10:46 AM

The general critism about "The Hobbit" is that it felt padded. I mean when the critics were comparing it to the LOTR trilogy, were they comparing to the long versions or the initial shorter theatrical versions!

Dec 14 - 12:44 PM

Christian Vogt

Because there are a lot of pathetic people in this world. I have no respect for some one that did not like this movie.

Dec 14 - 05:47 PM

Jack Treese

Because they're movie critics and they're paid to say however they feel about movies? Deal with it, just because it's based on an established franchise doesn't mean critics are supposed to blindly give it amazing scores. With that being said I plan on seeing Hobbit later and I hope that the critics are somewhat wrong.

Dec 16 - 03:42 AM

Lot's of RT peeps have seen me complain about how a 3 hour part 1 of a 200 page book is an awful idea but even in my Cynicism I am blown away that a Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings film has received below an 80%

Dec 13 - 04:59 PM

John Erickson

It's not a LOTH film

Dec 13 - 07:46 PM

Chris Cawthorne

Yeah you're right. It's a Peter Jackson/Tolkien movie with a ton of the same characters in the same settings. Nothing to do with LOTR right? C'mon. Use your brain.

Dec 13 - 10:35 PM

Jay Kennedy

There's certainly a lot of parts that were created specifically for the film, other parts taken from the lotr appendices & two new story lines added to create a more "prequel" feel to it. It's certainly more than The Hobbit story we all know.

Dec 14 - 04:26 AM

Chad Troxel

It's the Hobbit. Not LotR. You would see how different they were if Jackson actually decided to stay true to the book instead of shoehorning characters in there that do not belong so movie only fans don't feel like they only recognize a few characters.

Dec 14 - 11:02 AM

Stepping Razor

But, Cat, the problem is that Jackson didn't stick to the Hobbit.
Regardless of what the movie's title is, Jackson is going out of his way to tie it to his LOTR trilogy.

Dec 14 - 03:32 PM

All Critics appear to be praising Andy Serkis, so thats a plus. GOLLUM GOLLUM!

Dec 14 - 03:55 PM

Adam Jones

I'm a disappointed and a little shocked, but ultimately not surprised at the RT rating that an Unexpected Journey has. I remember reading the book in High School for an assignment and it's not that long as far as novels go. The decision to make the film a trilogy rather than just one film is obviously a ploy to make more money. At least Deathly Hallows was a long novel and it made some since to split the movies for it, and it was only two movies!

I hope the next two films are better than this one but I can't really them getting close to the 92% that Fellowship of the Ring (the lowest rated film of the Lord of the Rings trilogy) because you are streaching out so much material. The troubled development and apparently lower budget can't help things either.

I will be watching this film but not until next Thursday, I promised a friend I would take her to see it as a early Christmas present but she isn't available until that day.

Dec 13 - 05:01 PM

Casey Schoch

I'll let you know from a die hard LOTR fan and a filmmaker, that it is most certainly good. It's being judged from a point of view that arent LOTR fans. Plus, this is basically like an "extended edition". It feels long but it feels good to a true fan. And it holds up like Fellowship, it's just getting the real story started. It's actually very much like Fellowship in that sense. The people judging it low are people judging it as its own movie. When all 3 are out and we can watch them back to back it's gonna be amazing, just like LOTR. The only real reason people are rating it low is because theyre grading it as a stand-alone, when it's just the start of a (now) 3 movie plot. Trust me, it's good :]

Dec 15 - 03:18 PM

Very well put.

Dec 16 - 04:47 PM

Kara Hafvenstein

Thank you! Finally somebody who understands how these movies should be rated. I'm glad they're turning it into 3 movies.
There is so much information within the book that if they
were to make it into one movie it would be way to much information.

Dec 16 - 05:06 PM

Come on though, you can't expect people to grade it on the potential of future films. Fellowship stood on it's own more so than any of the other films and the other two fit in perfectly as what they were a transition film and a finale. I agree the 65% seems a little harsh, but it's certainly not the movie Fellowship or any of the other LOTR's movies were. For me it seemed like it got caught betwixt and between being The Hobbit and being a LOTR's movie prequel. It got by as a good to very good movie based on Jackson's skill at shooting Middle Earth/New Zealand, but at the same time felt too familiar (Many similar beats to Fellowship) and didn't offer up enough that was new and quality. Radagast and the hints at the Necromancer/Smaug storylines excluded. I loved the bits where he stuck to the Hobbit story and filled in gaps hinted at in that book. Where he seemed to go out of his way to link it LOTR's and neglected character development on the new characters was where the movie kind of floundered to me.

Dec 16 - 06:07 PM

The similar beats between "Hobbit" and "Fellowship" are evident in the books, as Bilbo and Frodo are really contrasts in characters. I think this film is only short of "Fellowship" in the sense of familiarity, which is unfortunate as it should have been the introduction.

Dec 16 - 06:22 PM

Understand that completely, but the goblin tunnels also felt a lot like The Mines of Moria and the visit to Rivendell which seemed almost wholly unnecessary except to get Elrond and Galadriel screen time. Even the final battle at the end.

Dec 16 - 06:31 PM

They were similar but just lesser in their execution is really my chief complaint. If you're going to do scenes so similar they at least have to surpass what's already been seen. Had no issue with the radagast new scene's, the dwarves fighting for Moria, Gollum, the hints at Smaug and the taking of the Dwarf kingdom or even the introduction which a lot of people don't seem to have liked. Those parts were new, fresh or exceedingly well done. The other parts just felt like retreads that didn't live up to the original. I agree it's unfortunate The Hobbit couldn't have been the first movie.

Dec 16 - 06:35 PM

Alberto Zeeky

I haven't been nearly as interested in the hobbit as I was with the LOTR series. I had a feeling would be like Deathly Hallows Part 1 with the critics. I think the biggest issue I have with hobbit compared to LOTR was that each LOTR felt like a stand alone film, Hobbit seems exactly like what it is, a part. Not sure if ill see it, maybe the critics are wrong, maybe they aren't... usually doesn't stop me, but that interest level isn't high.

On a side note: Pacific Rim trailer looks unreal! The visuals in that film are as interesting as Avatar, hopefully the story is a lot better though. It may now be my most anticipated movie for 2013 now... when can I expect Hellboy 3 though Del Torro?

Dec 13 - 05:01 PM

Kind of disappointing but still not half had. I still have faith that I will enjoy it when I see it.

Dec 13 - 05:20 PM

Anthony Stokes

I had a problem with the pacing of the LOTR trilogy so for this one to have that major complaint I know to skip it unfortunately these movies are gorgeous and epic, but sooooooo boring

Dec 13 - 05:24 PM

Joe Majerus

The pacing was as good as it was going to get compared to the source material. By the way I thought the movies were fantastic.

Dec 13 - 11:50 PM

Anthony Stokes

And I can see why you could love it and at the same time I can't get into them because of the pacing lol maybe if I watched it at 1.5 speed i'd love it

Dec 14 - 09:01 PM

I'm still determinedly Tookish. Note how many of the critics that admit to being Tolkien fans, either explicitly (like James Rocchi slamming Tolkien's plotting ability) or implicitly (any talk of "casul moviegoers", "non-believers" or "everyone else" who aren't fans of the book), and be sure to note those critics who know nothing about the source (such as the one who complains about the lack of "visceral combat") and take it all in stride. These bastards never really liked the LOTR in the first place, they just paid lip-service to a popular franchise. Now the knives are out. Comparisons to "Phantom Menace" are apt in that aspect (if in no other).

And "Stand Up Guys" can't be that bad. Definitely worth a rental.

Dec 13 - 05:28 PM

Avi Patel

the more middle-earth, the better. after john carter, reviewers can suck it

Dec 13 - 06:46 PM

Chris Cawthorne

But John Carter was atrocious.

Dec 13 - 10:36 PM

I never saw "John Carter" yet. That's one thing I want to do before the new year!

Dec 14 - 02:31 PM

daniel metzger

Don't want to overreact and spread exaggerated panic....but I will:
Hobbit trilogy = Star Wars prequels!!!!!!!

Dec 13 - 07:37 PM

Joe Majerus

Star wars prequels are extremely underrated...they really weren't that bad. I'm sure the Hobbit won't be that bad either.

Dec 13 - 11:53 PM

you being serious?...

Dec 14 - 12:49 AM

Christopher Kulik

Joe needs to bake some pizza rolls and watch the Plinkett reviews.

Dec 14 - 05:25 AM

bahaha! exactly!

Dec 14 - 01:16 PM

Chum Chum

This made my day so far

Dec 15 - 11:26 AM

Christopher Kulik

I bet Rick Berman ruined the Hobbit too: fuck you Rick Berman!

Dec 17 - 12:29 PM

I will say I can not Watch Attack of the Clones, it is so painful how ever if Phantom Menace is on tv I wouldn't change the channel and any time my kid or Father in law want to watch Revenge of the Sith that's fine. It's a great fun Action movie. What could of been will always haunt those prequels but they are no where near as toxic as everyone claims.

Dec 14 - 10:50 AM

Chad Troxel

If they just took Jar Jar out it wouldn't have been the butt of as many jokes as Micheal Jackson.

Dec 14 - 11:04 AM

I just had to say "EXACTLY!" To this statement. Thank you.

Dec 15 - 01:36 PM

Duly noted, Joe.

Dec 14 - 02:30 PM

Revenge of the Sith makes up for how weak the prequel trilogy starts out. I wonder if Attack of the Clones will stay ripe when the 3D re-release of it comes out.

Dec 15 - 07:21 AM

However, "The Hobbit" will have much better continuity than the Star Wars prequels. The attention to detail is rigorous.

Dec 14 - 02:37 PM

David E-Brock

you=dumbass

Dec 15 - 12:21 PM

David Bailey

Does anybody get the sense that not even the critics know what the heck they want from this movie. I just want to sit back and enjoy the journey to Middle Earth this weekend. I am a Forty some year old college student finishing up my finals this week and I could care less how the movie looks, how long it is, or whatever the critics think. Take me back, Mr. Jackson. And go suck an egg, all you lame critics. Probably all PETA employees trying to bad mouth the movie.

Dec 13 - 07:40 PM

Brandon Kim

At least Unexpected Journey isn't rotten.

Dec 13 - 07:56 PM

Amen to that!

Dec 14 - 02:37 PM

Agreed. Although Attack of the Clones and Spider-Man 3 isn't either. Probably why people treat 60% range as negative.

Dec 15 - 07:26 AM

I think you guys need to take it down a little. It's not like this film will not be a success. It's a film from a very critically acclaimed director who I appreciate (King Kong was BRILLIANT) and I'm sure that the LOTR fanbase is so large that there's no way this is walking away with less than $750 mil worldwide and at least an Oscar for Best Visual Effects.
This is kind of like all the people who jumped on Marshall Fine when he gave Dark Knight Rises a Rotten review. I'll admit that I was one of those people who went at him, but after I saw the movie in a sold out theater and was utterly satisfied with the film, I realized critics don't matter as long as the fans welcome it with open arms and more importantly, I find it was worth the money. The critics have a right to their own opinions and you all have a right to disagree, but I think you might still wanna show a little respect instead of acting like a bunch of 5-year-olds. It's not like these guys are gonna make the movie tank or something. And if crap like this keeps happening, the site must just cut off commenting too like with DKR. Count to ten, breath calmly, and get on with your life.
On a side note, I want to let it be known that I show no interest in The Hobbit, its upcoming sequels or any of the LOTR films, but as a sign of respect I still wish it the best.

Dec 13 - 08:49 PM

Matt Valentine

I saw the Hobbit a few weeks ago. I loved it. I've read all the books. Don't worry, if you're on this sight commenting, trust me, you'll love it too. It's a little bloated, but great. Lot's of flashback scenes mentioned in LOTR books included in the Hobbit. What's amazing is how seamless all six movies (Hobbit plus LOTR) will be. The theatrical version of the Hobbit is more like the Directors cut of LOTR. Martin Freeman is amazing. Andy Serkis Gollum scene amazing. All of you will dig it, don't worry. Just see it in 24 fps and in 3D and you will be amazed! (I promise I don't work for WB either)

Dec 13 - 09:40 PM