The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Reviews
Eugene B
Super Reviewer
April 19, 2013
Visually a treat; remarkable and entrancing. The humor is visible and solid. But the film's duration along with its tendency to sidetrack and lose its touch brings this new franchise to a unbalanced beginning. An Unexpected Journey is adventurous and comprised of a groundbreaking scenery. Though its sluggish and at times somewhat hard to catch on, it's nonetheless a decent start for this prequel-trilogy. 3.5/5
Alexander W
Super Reviewer
April 6, 2013
The Hobbit is the top mark of high fantasy movies, we don't get enough of them as it is, and when one comes out that follows the book and more, and is shot so beautifully the only thing I worry is that when people complain. You won't see another high fantasy movie like this in the next 50 years !
UUd I
Super Reviewer
January 3, 2012
unfortunately I was watching in stink and rusty cinema
this movie explain a lot of Lord of the Ring Movie. Peter Jackson's return to Middle-earth is an earnest, visually resplendent trip, but the film's deliberate pace robs the material of some of its majesty.
unfortunately I was watching in stink and rusty cinema
Emil K
Super Reviewer
January 3, 2013
What makes The Hobbit revolutionary is the way director Peter Jackson used technology here. This is the first film i've ever seen that is shot using 48 frames per second. When you add 3D effect and crystal clear picture quality, which was captured by fantastic Red Epic cameras, you truly get an stunning visual fireworks. From the first images to the last this a spectacular looking and sounding film. While i was watching it, my jaw literally was reaching the floor because of the sights and wonders this film offered. But when i saw it second time and without the 3D effect, that is when i noticed that this is a film which actually does have a couple of flaws too many to be masterpiece it could have been.
The pacing here is not a problem for me, but the fact that Jackson actually decided to stretch the book into three parts feels just unnecessary. This is a story that could have been told easily within a one film. Now it is sadly made into franchise which only harms the original source material and it's potential.
As a filmmaker Peter Jackson has improved very much since his Lord of the Rings days. The Hobbit is actually his best work as an director to date and serves equally impressive rollercoaster ride as his King Kong did. There is flashes of genius here but there are also weaker moments here. As a pure entertainment The Hobbit is very good way to spend time with. It still does not reach the same heights which director Tim Burton did with his Alice in Wonderland or especially Sam Raimi's recent masterful Oz the Great and Powerful which is one of the greatest and richest fantasy films ever made. This might be slightly too pompous work for it's own good but what a sight it is to see.
To review The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is quite hard task. If you went to experience it in the cinema with maximum effect then we can talk about quite revolutionary filmmaking. Instead if you watch it from home screen, large or not, then the effect of this film is barely even half as stunning and that is when the flaws in the screenplay become more clear also. In my opinion this was always meant to be seen from the biggest possible screen as possible.
What makes The Hobbit revolutionary is the way director Peter Jackson used technology here. This is the first film i've ever seen that is shot using 48 frames per second. When you add 3D effect and crystal clear picture quality, which was captured by fantastic Red Epic cameras, you truly get an stunning visual fireworks. From the first images to the last this a spectacular looking and sounding film. While i was watching it, my jaw literally was reaching the floor because of the sights and wonders this film offered. But when i saw it second time and without the 3D effect, that is when i noticed that this is a film which actually does have a couple of flaws too many to be masterpiece it could have been.
The pacing here is not a problem for me, but the fact that Jackson actually decided to stretch the book into three parts feels just unnecessary. This is a story that could have been told easily within a one film. Now it is sadly made into franchise which only harms the original source material and it's potential.
As a filmmaker Peter Jackson has improved very much since his Lord of the Rings days. The Hobbit is actually his best work as an director to date and serves equally impressive rollercoaster ride as his King Kong did. There is flashes of genius here but there are also weaker moments here. As a pure entertainment The Hobbit is very good way to spend time with. It still does not reach the same heights which director Tim Burton did with his Alice in Wonderland or especially Sam Raimi's recent masterful Oz the Great and Powerful which is one of the greatest and richest fantasy films ever made. This might be slightly too pompous work for it's own good but what a sight it is to see.
Mark W
Super Reviewer
July 31, 2010
The Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor has been taken over by the fearsome dragon, Smaug and a plan is set to reclaim it and the treasures lost. Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is a Hobbit who finds himself thrust into this quest on the recommendation of the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen). Smaug is not the only thing that stands in their way, though; a malevolent presence is at work in middle-earth which could affect all of them.
After a brief introduction to the plight of the dwarves and a devastating introduction to the dragon Smaug, we are taken straight back to the Shire where the whole story of the Hobbit adventures originated. It's here that we're reminded of the twee environment in which these little halfling's reside and with Jackson calling the shots, you know straight away that you are in comfortable hands. Gandalf and Bilbo's first meeting is addressed and the rest of the main characters are rounded up before the film begins it's "unexpected journey". When I say this, though, it sounds like the film gets straight down to business and gets the formalities out the way. It doesn't. Jackson takes his time in establishing the set-up and he chooses to flesh out every detail. As a result, it becomes apparent that the film isn't flowing as easily as it could do. Things do pick up, though, and it's very difficult not to get swept up in the sheer visual masterclass that's delivered before your eyes. It's absolutely breathtaking to observe and none more so, than when Jackson begins to deliver his highly impressive, action set-pieces. From a confrontation with campfire Trolls to battling Rock monsters and giant sweeping eagles, they're all absolutely astounding and thrillingly executed. However, despite the excitement, what these moments lack is the ability to feel like the characters are in any real danger. Maybe this is because I had read the book beforehand or maybe it's because the set-pieces only served to instil some excitement before taking a break and doing it all over again. There is a feeling of repetition to the film and, dare I say it, a feeling of tediousness. Jackson's decision to flesh out this short children's novel into a trilogy of films - that will no doubt run between two and three hours each - seems wholly unnecessary but I suppose time will tell on that. As it is, though, this film is certainly overlong and it, simply, didn't need to be. Some scenes are laborious and you can't help but get the feeling that Jackson should just move it along. On the other hand, I found it hard to deny how much fun I was having. Much like "The Lord of the Rings", it's aided by very strong performances; McKellen is his usual reliable self as Gandalf and although I wasn't convinced with the choice of Martin Freeman as Bilbo, I have to admit that he slotted in very well indeed. As for the dwarves, well, out of the whole thirteen of them, only a handful actually stand out. The one that really rises to the surface is that of Thorin Oakenshield and Richard Armitage plays him to perfection - channeling an Aragorn/Viggo Mortensen charismatic presence. He's so commanding that it's hard to accept that he's only a dwarf. Another highlight from the performances is seeing Andy Serkis reprise his role of Gollum. Once again, the go-to guy for motion capture brings this complex little character to life.
The ingredients are all here and it certainly looks like there's more mileage in these characters yet. I just hope that Jackson knows when to trim the edges next time round.
A little less plodding and bit more urgency will be required for the second instalment, if this trilogy is to truly find it's feet. That being said, it finishes strongly and if Jackson can keep that momentum going then this could still turn out to be a successful return to middle earth.
When news of an adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's "The Hobbit" arrived, I have to admit that I was very eager to see it move along briskly. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Production was so slow that original director Guillermo del Toro had to leave due to other commitments. Although this was disappointing news, all was not lost as "The Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson returned to the helm to assume control of this prequel. Expectations were high and it left the overhanging question as to whether he could emulate his past successes. Well, it's certainly not without it's flaws but again Jackson has delivered another indulgent cinematic experience from the treasured quill of Tolkien's world.
The Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor has been taken over by the fearsome dragon, Smaug and a plan is set to reclaim it and the treasures lost. Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is a Hobbit who finds himself thrust into this quest on the recommendation of the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen). Smaug is not the only thing that stands in their way, though; a malevolent presence is at work in middle-earth which could affect all of them.
After a brief introduction to the plight of the dwarves and a devastating introduction to the dragon Smaug, we are taken straight back to the Shire where the whole story of the Hobbit adventures originated. It's here that we're reminded of the twee environment in which these little halfling's reside and with Jackson calling the shots, you know straight away that you are in comfortable hands. Gandalf and Bilbo's first meeting is addressed and the rest of the main characters are rounded up before the film begins it's "unexpected journey". When I say this, though, it sounds like the film gets straight down to business and gets the formalities out the way. It doesn't. Jackson takes his time in establishing the set-up and he chooses to flesh out every detail. As a result, it becomes apparent that the film isn't flowing as easily as it could do. Things do pick up, though, and it's very difficult not to get swept up in the sheer visual masterclass that's delivered before your eyes. It's absolutely breathtaking to observe and none more so, than when Jackson begins to deliver his highly impressive, action set-pieces. From a confrontation with campfire Trolls to battling Rock monsters and giant sweeping eagles, they're all absolutely astounding and thrillingly executed. However, despite the excitement, what these moments lack is the ability to feel like the characters are in any real danger. Maybe this is because I had read the book beforehand or maybe it's because the set-pieces only served to instil some excitement before taking a break and doing it all over again. There is a feeling of repetition to the film and, dare I say it, a feeling of tediousness. Jackson's decision to flesh out this short children's novel into a trilogy of films - that will no doubt run between two and three hours each - seems wholly unnecessary but I suppose time will tell on that. As it is, though, this film is certainly overlong and it, simply, didn't need to be. Some scenes are laborious and you can't help but get the feeling that Jackson should just move it along. On the other hand, I found it hard to deny how much fun I was having. Much like "The Lord of the Rings", it's aided by very strong performances; McKellen is his usual reliable self as Gandalf and although I wasn't convinced with the choice of Martin Freeman as Bilbo, I have to admit that he slotted in very well indeed. As for the dwarves, well, out of the whole thirteen of them, only a handful actually stand out. The one that really rises to the surface is that of Thorin Oakenshield and Richard Armitage plays him to perfection - channeling an Aragorn/Viggo Mortensen charismatic presence. He's so commanding that it's hard to accept that he's only a dwarf. Another highlight from the performances is seeing Andy Serkis reprise his role of Gollum. Once again, the go-to guy for motion capture brings this complex little character to life.
The ingredients are all here and it certainly looks like there's more mileage in these characters yet. I just hope that Jackson knows when to trim the edges next time round.
A little less plodding and bit more urgency will be required for the second instalment, if this trilogy is to truly find it's feet. That being said, it finishes strongly and if Jackson can keep that momentum going then this could still turn out to be a successful return to middle earth.
Stuart B
Super Reviewer
October 6, 2009
It's ok I guess, just expected more and all I got was a load of boring Dwarfs, a couple of laughs and of course wonderful SFX. Not a patch on the Lord of the Rings trilogy
Mr Awesome
Super Reviewer
February 1, 2013
The world the hobbit inhabits is quite beautiful to look at, and the creatures (mostly computer generated) are all interesting and devious in their own ways. This prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy attempts to show us how certain characters from those movies came to be, and gives us a better understanding of what they once were. It's a fun, light-hearted (well, as light-hearted as one of these Peter Jackson extravaganzas can be) adventure, but at three-plus hours (and this is just the first of three, no less) even the best can start to get a little tiring. And the Hobbit is definitely one of the best.
In the J.R.R. Tolkien world of orcs and wizards and rings, "The Hobbit" might be considered lighter fare, more comedic and adventurous, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The hobbit in question is Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), a homebody who is quite content to live his life in peace and solitude until Gandalf the wizard organizes a dwarf party in his little hobbit home. The dwarves are returning home to reclaim their kingdom from the dragon Smaug, and Bilbo has been reluctantly chosen to be the party's "burglar". The crew subsequently sets off on a journey fraught with orcs and trolls and goblins, and a mysterious ring as well.
The world the hobbit inhabits is quite beautiful to look at, and the creatures (mostly computer generated) are all interesting and devious in their own ways. This prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy attempts to show us how certain characters from those movies came to be, and gives us a better understanding of what they once were. It's a fun, light-hearted (well, as light-hearted as one of these Peter Jackson extravaganzas can be) adventure, but at three-plus hours (and this is just the first of three, no less) even the best can start to get a little tiring. And the Hobbit is definitely one of the best.
Bill D 2007
Super Reviewer
January 29, 2013
Peter Jackson seems to be going on auto-pilot with this Tolkien obsession of his. It reminds me of the last film in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. Enough already.
I didn't hate "The Hobbit," but I was pretty bored by it. It was moderately engaging. It's a reasonably pleasant way to pass one's time, but my heart didn't race once. I never really cared about any character or the silly adventures they were on.
Peter Jackson seems to be going on auto-pilot with this Tolkien obsession of his. It reminds me of the last film in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. Enough already.
Luke B
Super Reviewer
January 29, 2013
I must admit to being a bit skeptical before journeying back into Middle Earth. I adored seeing The Lord Of The Rings come to life on the big screen, and the extended editions on DVD. Even though I prefer The Hobbit as a book, when I found out they were extended it to 3 3 hour films I couldn't believe it. Needless to say there is a lot of filler here, and you often lose track of what the motive behind the actions is. But it also feels very familiar in a warm and comforting kind of way. I have revisited LOTR so many times that nothing seemed new here, and so the wonder was slightly gone. I still perked up at some of the musical cues and this will probably work better for future generations who watch this before LOTR. I did love all of the perofrmances, especially Sylvestor McCoy as the Brown wizard and his sled pulled by rabbits. It's that kind of imagination that I found lacking in otehr places. Had it been trimmed down a bit, maybe just two hours, then I would have been a lot more enthralled.
Nadira I
Super Reviewer
November 27, 2012
Go see it in HFR 3D. Other than that, I don't really see the point. It's better to have just 1 film for the Hobbit. The film becomes long and boring.
Josh L
Super Reviewer
September 30, 2008
Despite not living up to expectations that he was probably no match for at this point, Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth is a visual powerhouse and a wonderfully entertaining adventure, despite a few issues. First and foremost is the length and pacing, which is a little overlong and slow. Because they are making a 270 page book into three movies, there was going to be some obvious padding. This movie only covers the first 100 pages and is 3 hours long! At times it feels like events are happening just so people don't get bored as they have little to no bearing on the plot, but these events and moments are still fun and engaging so it isn't all that bad. Other than those few problems, I have no other complaints. Now onto the good stuff, which there is plenty. The visuals are up there with the best in the industry up to this point and the 48 frames per second controversy I don't quite understand. I thought it made this movie look even better, rather than being a detriment like others have critiqued. The cast is also marvelous, from the returners like Ian Mckellan and Hugo Weaving, to the newbies like Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage (who get the most screen time and character development). They won't be winning Oscars obviously, but some impressive performances nonetheless. The journey itself is filled with some magical effects and shots that make Middle Earth come to life like never before. There's plenty of action too, although not as bloody and gritty as the Lord of the Rings. This is a more light-hearted adventure after all, and one injected with plenty of humor and charm that Lord of the Rings only hinted at sometimes. The Hobbit won't blow your socks off like The Lord of the Rings did 10 years ago when it turned the industry on its head, but The Hobbit is a fun and welcome new adventure to the Middle Earth saga and I am very much looking forward to the sequels.
Phil H
Super Reviewer
January 18, 2013
'Far over the misty mountains cold, to dungeons deep and caverns old'
Yep this gorgeous line pretty much gives you the perfect clue to what to expect in this adventure, many caves and many caverns, dwarf country. From the off we are back in 'the Shire' and on very familiar ground as old friends are soon in the fold and we get another very useful eye catching prologue. The visuals straight away are much like an old pair of shoes, it all just slips back into place, you can see its a Jackson film, only sweeter this time.
Plot? errr its kinda simple, bit like 'LOTR', 'Bilbo' 'Gandalf' and a bunch of dwarves march off across Middle Earth (yep we're doing that again) to 'Lonely Mountain', the old home of the dwarves. There they will kick out the nasty dragon 'Smaug' (dragons have personal names? aren't they just creatures?) who took over the mountain dwelling from the dwarves in a really quite violent and unfriendly way. Why? beats the heck outta me, cos the dwarves had tonnes of loot inside the mountain and 'Smaug' wanted it all. Why would a dragon need tonnes of gold and jewels? is he going to buy himself a nice car? in fact why does 'Gandalf' care? on with the review!.
On the whole the entire film is pretty much as before with wonderful bold colours and imagination bursting from the screen in some sequences, and with dark shady doom and gloom in others. The detail again is superb with every last item you can see, location work is stunning (tourism on the up again) whilst makeup, sets and props are lavishly rustic and genuine. Weaponry stands out in this film as we see many nice swords displayed which do make you wanna own one yourself. But overall its most definitely a much much crisper, tighter, sharper affair all round, looking much better than the 'LOTR' trilogy as you would expect with time. Really I don't need to talk much about the visuals as its business as usual to be honest...but I will.
The only downside as usual with all these films is certain sequences involving the dreaded CGI monster. Yes skies, sunsets, landscapes, 'Rivendell', the 'Lonely Mountain' and hordes of orcs all look good in this format, but some things never change. The sequences involving the 'Warg' riding orcs still looked pretty rough and clearly fake just like the last time we saw them. These sequences really do look hokey to me I can't deny, like something outta 'Underworld', the same could be said for the sequences within the Goblin caves and the awful looking Goblin King.
I don't want to moan too much about this film as it was a solid entry but you can't help but find small issues. The whole Goblin caves section was pretty much another 'Moria' sequence really, it felt too much like deja vu. Plus the escape from the caves was really totally over the top with some quite ridiculous action sequences, very much like a videogame at times. Remember the elephant surfing 'Legolas' in 'ROTK'? yikes!. Did I mention how bad the Goblin King looked? oh yeah...what the hell was THAT about!? like an early concept for 'Jabba the Hut'...really!.
Didn't really like the whole tree climbing escape sequence towards the end either, that felt as though they had written themselves into a corner. Unsure how accurate this film is to the books seeing as I've never read 'The Hobbit' but that part really seemed kinda dumb. I'll just pop in that 'Azog' the orc chieftain looks more like a vampire outta 'Underworld' also, yes...I'm using 'Underworld' as a reference again.
To be brutally honest there are other elements that just seemed...pointless?. The character of 'Radagast the Brown' wasn't really explored much with no real reason to be there. A minor quibble as I reckon he'll be back with a chance for more explanations. The stone giants sequence seemed a bit irrelevant, unsure if its in the book but it felt like they needed something to fill that gap and add a touch of excitement. Oh and we have eagles saving the day again, boy those eagles are bloody handy to have around huh.
On the plus side apart from the visuals the dwarf company is handled well, cast well and perform well. I liked the variation on the characters even though 'Willow' crept into my mind. Was surprised to find out Graham McTavish was a dwarf seeing as the guy is about 6ft! his character was one of few that was a hardass, the others tended to be a bit dweebish, looked a bit goofy. What is it with the Scottish accents though? why are most dwarves Scottish? am I missing something on dwarf legend here?. Its just amusing that in these fantasy films its always Scottish or cockney accents hehe no problems, just an observation. I liked the dwarf names too, nice, very...dwarfish, but there should of been a mohawk dwarf in the company.
'dwarf scum'...'rebel scum' heh.
'Gollum' is back unfortunately, but hurra! he finally looks realistic apart from his 'Disney' eyes medical problem, man that decision really mucks up his supposedly creepy looks. Some great facial expressions going on this time, really was impressed with the advancement there, but he's still annoying as hell with that fudging voice.
I must admit I feared the worst, I was reading the film is dull and stretched but I didn't feel it. I actually enjoyed this film more than a lot of the original trilogy. I guess it felt more adventurous as I had no clue what happens, never seen anything of it visually despite knowing how it would look after 'LOTR'. Its not quite as dark as 'LOTR', feels a wee bit more for the kids, hated the fact no dwarfs bite the dust (some must do eventually!!) but the fact technology has progressed is evident and makes most of the film truly memorable. Kinda makes you wanna whip out your 'Games Workshop' miniatures and play, or 'Dungeons & Dragons', which ever way you role.
Still, the thought does spring to mind how on earth they will stretch it out over two more films. The first was gonna be sufficiently packed but I fear the second may well be reeeeally stretched seeing as the company is close to 'Lonely Mountain' as it is!. Lets remember this is only about walking to the dwarves old home and fighting a dragon, some films do that kinda thing in a standard 1hour 30mins. We will see, yesss we will see.
Well here we go again with another overly long grandiose epic based on some small unknown tale courtesy of a fat Kiwi. The much anticipated prequel trilogy (yes trilogy, don't get me started) to another somewhat well known literacy tale by some bloke called Token?.
'Far over the misty mountains cold, to dungeons deep and caverns old'
Yep this gorgeous line pretty much gives you the perfect clue to what to expect in this adventure, many caves and many caverns, dwarf country. From the off we are back in 'the Shire' and on very familiar ground as old friends are soon in the fold and we get another very useful eye catching prologue. The visuals straight away are much like an old pair of shoes, it all just slips back into place, you can see its a Jackson film, only sweeter this time.
Plot? errr its kinda simple, bit like 'LOTR', 'Bilbo' 'Gandalf' and a bunch of dwarves march off across Middle Earth (yep we're doing that again) to 'Lonely Mountain', the old home of the dwarves. There they will kick out the nasty dragon 'Smaug' (dragons have personal names? aren't they just creatures?) who took over the mountain dwelling from the dwarves in a really quite violent and unfriendly way. Why? beats the heck outta me, cos the dwarves had tonnes of loot inside the mountain and 'Smaug' wanted it all. Why would a dragon need tonnes of gold and jewels? is he going to buy himself a nice car? in fact why does 'Gandalf' care? on with the review!.
On the whole the entire film is pretty much as before with wonderful bold colours and imagination bursting from the screen in some sequences, and with dark shady doom and gloom in others. The detail again is superb with every last item you can see, location work is stunning (tourism on the up again) whilst makeup, sets and props are lavishly rustic and genuine. Weaponry stands out in this film as we see many nice swords displayed which do make you wanna own one yourself. But overall its most definitely a much much crisper, tighter, sharper affair all round, looking much better than the 'LOTR' trilogy as you would expect with time. Really I don't need to talk much about the visuals as its business as usual to be honest...but I will.
The only downside as usual with all these films is certain sequences involving the dreaded CGI monster. Yes skies, sunsets, landscapes, 'Rivendell', the 'Lonely Mountain' and hordes of orcs all look good in this format, but some things never change. The sequences involving the 'Warg' riding orcs still looked pretty rough and clearly fake just like the last time we saw them. These sequences really do look hokey to me I can't deny, like something outta 'Underworld', the same could be said for the sequences within the Goblin caves and the awful looking Goblin King.
I don't want to moan too much about this film as it was a solid entry but you can't help but find small issues. The whole Goblin caves section was pretty much another 'Moria' sequence really, it felt too much like deja vu. Plus the escape from the caves was really totally over the top with some quite ridiculous action sequences, very much like a videogame at times. Remember the elephant surfing 'Legolas' in 'ROTK'? yikes!. Did I mention how bad the Goblin King looked? oh yeah...what the hell was THAT about!? like an early concept for 'Jabba the Hut'...really!.
Didn't really like the whole tree climbing escape sequence towards the end either, that felt as though they had written themselves into a corner. Unsure how accurate this film is to the books seeing as I've never read 'The Hobbit' but that part really seemed kinda dumb. I'll just pop in that 'Azog' the orc chieftain looks more like a vampire outta 'Underworld' also, yes...I'm using 'Underworld' as a reference again.
To be brutally honest there are other elements that just seemed...pointless?. The character of 'Radagast the Brown' wasn't really explored much with no real reason to be there. A minor quibble as I reckon he'll be back with a chance for more explanations. The stone giants sequence seemed a bit irrelevant, unsure if its in the book but it felt like they needed something to fill that gap and add a touch of excitement. Oh and we have eagles saving the day again, boy those eagles are bloody handy to have around huh.
On the plus side apart from the visuals the dwarf company is handled well, cast well and perform well. I liked the variation on the characters even though 'Willow' crept into my mind. Was surprised to find out Graham McTavish was a dwarf seeing as the guy is about 6ft! his character was one of few that was a hardass, the others tended to be a bit dweebish, looked a bit goofy. What is it with the Scottish accents though? why are most dwarves Scottish? am I missing something on dwarf legend here?. Its just amusing that in these fantasy films its always Scottish or cockney accents hehe no problems, just an observation. I liked the dwarf names too, nice, very...dwarfish, but there should of been a mohawk dwarf in the company.
'dwarf scum'...'rebel scum' heh.
'Gollum' is back unfortunately, but hurra! he finally looks realistic apart from his 'Disney' eyes medical problem, man that decision really mucks up his supposedly creepy looks. Some great facial expressions going on this time, really was impressed with the advancement there, but he's still annoying as hell with that fudging voice.
I must admit I feared the worst, I was reading the film is dull and stretched but I didn't feel it. I actually enjoyed this film more than a lot of the original trilogy. I guess it felt more adventurous as I had no clue what happens, never seen anything of it visually despite knowing how it would look after 'LOTR'. Its not quite as dark as 'LOTR', feels a wee bit more for the kids, hated the fact no dwarfs bite the dust (some must do eventually!!) but the fact technology has progressed is evident and makes most of the film truly memorable. Kinda makes you wanna whip out your 'Games Workshop' miniatures and play, or 'Dungeons & Dragons', which ever way you role.
Still, the thought does spring to mind how on earth they will stretch it out over two more films. The first was gonna be sufficiently packed but I fear the second may well be reeeeally stretched seeing as the company is close to 'Lonely Mountain' as it is!. Lets remember this is only about walking to the dwarves old home and fighting a dragon, some films do that kinda thing in a standard 1hour 30mins. We will see, yesss we will see.
Al S
Super Reviewer
December 30, 2012
Director, Peter Jackson brings back the magic and joy of The Lord of The Rings to this great and wonderful adventure that`s filled with incredible special effects, glorious humor and amazing action sequences. A breathtaking and unforgettable first chapter to this new trilogy that will promise to deliver nothing but the goods. A masterpiece. A real classic. A thrilling, exciting, warmhearted, funny and action-packed adventure that you will not help but love. It`s gorgeously shot, incredibly well-crafted and superbly performed by its truly amazing and extraordinary all-star cast who all give astonishing and enjoyable performances. Ian McKellen is brilliant once again as the the wizard, Gandalf. Martin Freeman is truly magnificent. Richard Armitage is outstanding. Also having welcome returns of Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett. A spectacular film that's big, fun, thrilling and exhilarating all the way through and has lots of heart in it as well. One of the best pictures of 2012.
Carlos M
Super Reviewer
January 3, 2013
The commercial purpose is obvious when such a short and light book is split into three films in a clear attempt to recreate the epic greatness of LOTR. So, the tone seems a bit irregular (with nothing really urgent) but the story manages to be fluid and entertaining.
axadntpron
Super Reviewer
January 11, 2013
First off, the special effects are absolutely stunning. I actually found myself thinking quite frequently, "I cannot believe that they are pulling off such an absolutely outlandish and sensational tale." There are goblins riding wolves for goodness sake, and never once did I stop to think about the absurdity of it all. Sure, you can point to the fact that if you pay the price of admission to a fantasy film, then you are less likely to be critical of the film's realism. Yet, I have seen many films in which poor special effects took me out of the film and had me stopping to think about the absurdity of it all. (The Twilight films are a recent example of which I speak.) Gollum's scene in particular left me with my jaw agape. It is clear that much care went into making this creature come to life and had I not previously known that he was a product of CGI, I might have believed that he was just as real as Martin Freeman.
Speaking of Freeman, he makes an excellent Bilbo Baggins. His innocence and latent lust for adventure shine through in every facial expression. Also, what I thought were going to be mostly throw away characters, the hobbits, were in the hands of some much-esteemed actors. For instance, it was great to see James Nesbitt away from films such as "Bloody Sunday" and having a little fun with Bofur.
However, although Jackson crafts an extraordinary visual presentation and assembled a cast of quality actors who bring their parts to life, he stumbles where most people would have guessed that he would stumble: walking the fine line of making it accessible to newcomers while simultaneously pleasing Tolkien aficionados.
The songs for instance, are an example of an element that might make or break one's experience. Having not one, not two, but three songs from the original text will delight fans of the novel, but feel like overkill for those who aren't familiar with it. This reviewer is rather torn on the issue. Because as much as the songs were fun to see, the cinephile in me felt that they were merely added minutes to an already long film. And while entertaining, will surely grind down the patience of the armchair fan as they do nothing to really augment the overall narrative. This is just one of many examples of things that while exciting for fans, don't make for a cogent & taut adventure film.
Bloated as it may be, I still very much enjoyed the film. Should Jackson learn from the reviews and find a way to trim the fanboy gristle from the second film and relegate those touches to the special features section of the collector's edition Blu-Ray, then we will surely have another excellent trilogy on our hands.
Peter Jackson's first installment of The Hobbit trilogy is distended, flamboyant, and loads of fun if you love everything Middle Earth. As a new voyager to the Tolkien literary world, I was thrilled to see that the material was again in such capable hands. Yet, even though I was throwing down handfuls of popcorn, completely immersed in the film, I couldn't help but notice how even as a fan, it was sometimes hard to swallow all that Jackson was throwing at me.
First off, the special effects are absolutely stunning. I actually found myself thinking quite frequently, "I cannot believe that they are pulling off such an absolutely outlandish and sensational tale." There are goblins riding wolves for goodness sake, and never once did I stop to think about the absurdity of it all. Sure, you can point to the fact that if you pay the price of admission to a fantasy film, then you are less likely to be critical of the film's realism. Yet, I have seen many films in which poor special effects took me out of the film and had me stopping to think about the absurdity of it all. (The Twilight films are a recent example of which I speak.) Gollum's scene in particular left me with my jaw agape. It is clear that much care went into making this creature come to life and had I not previously known that he was a product of CGI, I might have believed that he was just as real as Martin Freeman.
Speaking of Freeman, he makes an excellent Bilbo Baggins. His innocence and latent lust for adventure shine through in every facial expression. Also, what I thought were going to be mostly throw away characters, the hobbits, were in the hands of some much-esteemed actors. For instance, it was great to see James Nesbitt away from films such as "Bloody Sunday" and having a little fun with Bofur.
However, although Jackson crafts an extraordinary visual presentation and assembled a cast of quality actors who bring their parts to life, he stumbles where most people would have guessed that he would stumble: walking the fine line of making it accessible to newcomers while simultaneously pleasing Tolkien aficionados.
The songs for instance, are an example of an element that might make or break one's experience. Having not one, not two, but three songs from the original text will delight fans of the novel, but feel like overkill for those who aren't familiar with it. This reviewer is rather torn on the issue. Because as much as the songs were fun to see, the cinephile in me felt that they were merely added minutes to an already long film. And while entertaining, will surely grind down the patience of the armchair fan as they do nothing to really augment the overall narrative. This is just one of many examples of things that while exciting for fans, don't make for a cogent & taut adventure film.
Bloated as it may be, I still very much enjoyed the film. Should Jackson learn from the reviews and find a way to trim the fanboy gristle from the second film and relegate those touches to the special features section of the collector's edition Blu-Ray, then we will surely have another excellent trilogy on our hands.
Letitia L
Super Reviewer
January 11, 2013
At times a visual feast (or miniature musical feast), with gorgeous landscapes and elvish people. Dragged out wayy too long though, and I would never watch it again.
FiLmCrAzY
Super Reviewer
April 10, 2009
Waiting nearly 3hrs for the movie actually to go somewhere was slow, boring and accomplished nothing in 3hrs, at least with Lord of the Rings it accomplished something before the end of the movie! Disappointing.
Well what a rather disappointing continuation to the amazing Lord of the Rings trilogy!
Waiting nearly 3hrs for the movie actually to go somewhere was slow, boring and accomplished nothing in 3hrs, at least with Lord of the Rings it accomplished something before the end of the movie! Disappointing.
Ross C
Super Reviewer
December 23, 2008
I only made the effort to watch this in the cinema to experience the new HFR technology. However, this was a surprisingly hard goal to achieve with only a few cinemas screening it and then only at select times, which were not clearly indicated. If they can screen HFR films, then why not always screen the HFR version? The HFR is not obvious, it just aids the 3D to make it subtly more realistic - the characters in the movie seem more lifelike as if they are really in the room with you. As for the movie, well, more of the same from Middle Earth as expected. A perfectly pleasant cinema experience, perhaps slightly better suited to a younger audience, but nothing exceptional in terms of the story - only the special effects. Great to see Sylvester McCoy again - he made a perfect Radagast.
Market Man
Super Reviewer
July 29, 2012
The bizarre, unfunny, slapstick humor is painful. This involves snot jokes, burping, poop hair, and lame one-liners. Don't give me the "it's based on a children's book" crap. Sure, the source material was written for children but I'm talking about the movie. Adding all this stupid humor really messes with the tone; it doesn't feel like it belongs in the LOTR universe which "The Hobbit" is trying so hard replicate. The film will go from trying to be epic to pathetic gags. It doesn't work. I don't mind a little humor occasionally but this is just overdone and it makes the film feel very unbalanced.
Now to the pacing. Many say the beginning is slow but they're wrong. The entire film is slow! Radagast's involvement is pointless and his bunny sled is ridiculous. We also get to see Saruman and Galadriel in a boring scene that has absolutely no relevance to the main narrative. Wait, what exactly is "The Hobbit" about again? Apparently Jackson is trying to make connections with LOTR, but "Fellowship of the Ring" already explains past events pretty well. Seriously, all the LOTR fanboy pleasing scenes could have been left out (including Frodo). But no, we need them in order to have enough material for the trilogy. Not good.
And I understand that Jackson is taking material from the appendices of LOTR. I wouldn't have a problem with this if all these extra scenes actually advanced the plot. But the White Council just talks and they never decide to act on anything. Also, that scene has NOTHING to do with the dwarves reclaiming their homeland. At least in "Fellowship" the plot makes major advancements but in "The Hobbit" the story hardly goes anywhere.
Let's discuss the action. It's like watching a video game. The main orc villain, Azog, looks fake. Everything is CGI overload; there's no tension. Characters survive unbelievable situations. Compare the ending orc scene in this film to the one in "Fellowship." Huge difference. Unfortunately everything in "The Hobbit" is cartoonish. Not to mention most of the action has no impact on the story whatsoever.
Now to the characters. Gandalf is great but that is to be expected. Martin Freeman does fine as Bilbo but his transition from weakling to hero happens a little too quickly and feels unrealistic. Thorin is your typical warrior like character; I didn't care for him too much. Bifur is probably my favorite of all the dwarves (hold on, I just Googled his name and realized I got the wrong one, his name is BOFUR, my bad). All the other dwarves are just there and if you were to ask me to name them and describe something about their character, I couldn't do it. And I'm sure you couldn't either.
But the film does have some good. We get to see Smeagol and Bilbo interact in an iconic scene. The finding of the Ring is also significant and is really the only scene that should have any connection with LOTR unlike Galadriel, Frodo, etc. And that's about it. Honestly, nothing really happens. While watching "The Hobbit" you kind of forget about the main adventure because of all the padding. Then at the end you're like, "Oh yeah, there's a dragon." Maybe the second film will improve.
It's such a shame that "The Hobbit" ended up being a drawn-out, bloated, boring mess that lacks compelling characters and an engaging story. I really wanted to love it but it's hard not to ignore the many problems. I couldn't wait to return to Middle-earth but now I'm not sure if I want to go back to this new cartoon version. Hopefully improvements will be made in the sequels but after witnessing this my hopes aren't too high. All these years of anticipation and this is what we get...
Peter Jackson's return to the world of Tolkien is rather weak. At first I was against the idea of such a small book being made into a trilogy. I still am. Many say not to compare this film to the far superior "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Well, it's hard not to considering Jackson has tried so hard to recreate the style of the original films because that's what the audience wants. But he fails big time.
The bizarre, unfunny, slapstick humor is painful. This involves snot jokes, burping, poop hair, and lame one-liners. Don't give me the "it's based on a children's book" crap. Sure, the source material was written for children but I'm talking about the movie. Adding all this stupid humor really messes with the tone; it doesn't feel like it belongs in the LOTR universe which "The Hobbit" is trying so hard replicate. The film will go from trying to be epic to pathetic gags. It doesn't work. I don't mind a little humor occasionally but this is just overdone and it makes the film feel very unbalanced.
Now to the pacing. Many say the beginning is slow but they're wrong. The entire film is slow! Radagast's involvement is pointless and his bunny sled is ridiculous. We also get to see Saruman and Galadriel in a boring scene that has absolutely no relevance to the main narrative. Wait, what exactly is "The Hobbit" about again? Apparently Jackson is trying to make connections with LOTR, but "Fellowship of the Ring" already explains past events pretty well. Seriously, all the LOTR fanboy pleasing scenes could have been left out (including Frodo). But no, we need them in order to have enough material for the trilogy. Not good.
And I understand that Jackson is taking material from the appendices of LOTR. I wouldn't have a problem with this if all these extra scenes actually advanced the plot. But the White Council just talks and they never decide to act on anything. Also, that scene has NOTHING to do with the dwarves reclaiming their homeland. At least in "Fellowship" the plot makes major advancements but in "The Hobbit" the story hardly goes anywhere.
Let's discuss the action. It's like watching a video game. The main orc villain, Azog, looks fake. Everything is CGI overload; there's no tension. Characters survive unbelievable situations. Compare the ending orc scene in this film to the one in "Fellowship." Huge difference. Unfortunately everything in "The Hobbit" is cartoonish. Not to mention most of the action has no impact on the story whatsoever.
Now to the characters. Gandalf is great but that is to be expected. Martin Freeman does fine as Bilbo but his transition from weakling to hero happens a little too quickly and feels unrealistic. Thorin is your typical warrior like character; I didn't care for him too much. Bifur is probably my favorite of all the dwarves (hold on, I just Googled his name and realized I got the wrong one, his name is BOFUR, my bad). All the other dwarves are just there and if you were to ask me to name them and describe something about their character, I couldn't do it. And I'm sure you couldn't either.
But the film does have some good. We get to see Smeagol and Bilbo interact in an iconic scene. The finding of the Ring is also significant and is really the only scene that should have any connection with LOTR unlike Galadriel, Frodo, etc. And that's about it. Honestly, nothing really happens. While watching "The Hobbit" you kind of forget about the main adventure because of all the padding. Then at the end you're like, "Oh yeah, there's a dragon." Maybe the second film will improve.
It's such a shame that "The Hobbit" ended up being a drawn-out, bloated, boring mess that lacks compelling characters and an engaging story. I really wanted to love it but it's hard not to ignore the many problems. I couldn't wait to return to Middle-earth but now I'm not sure if I want to go back to this new cartoon version. Hopefully improvements will be made in the sequels but after witnessing this my hopes aren't too high. All these years of anticipation and this is what we get...
