PDA

View Full Version : Just watched The Hobbit and while it has some flaws the movie is still epic!


TZVETI83
Dec 14th, 2012, 06:50 PM
The critics obviously have some vendetta against Peter Jackson or him using the 48fps.

This movie was not perfect nor was it as good as the Lord of the Rings but it was still pretty epic and better than any fantasy film I have watched since the Lord of the Rings. I loved it and people stood up and applauded at the end. Critics once again prove to be pretentious, deluded and just plain wrong. Tree of life got an 85 last year and this currently has a 58, how in the hell does that work. Tree of Life was a pile of pretentious crap with no story but critics swallowed it up like ice cream in summer.

Definitely comes recommended.

Certinfy
Dec 14th, 2012, 08:24 PM
Great to hear.

The movie was always going to be slated in reviews. Fact is no matter what it does it'll always be compared to The LOTR, which is exactly the reason so many people aren't exacting raving about it I say.

Doully
Dec 14th, 2012, 08:34 PM
I'm in Spain and don't go back home to until the 22nd of Dec. It's killing me not being able to see it as I simply refuse to watch it dubbed :hysteric:

I have high hopes for it! Thanks for the positive feedback.

watchdogfish
Dec 14th, 2012, 08:37 PM
I'm seeing it next week. I'm interested to see how they've stretched a relatively short book into 3 hours, let alone 3 films :unsure:

borrowedheaven
Dec 14th, 2012, 08:41 PM
I've watched it yesterday and I don't understand at all why it's in three parts. Lots of it was dragging. I still love the way Jackson managed to make Middle-Earth come to life, and when it was good, it was really good (the scenes with gollum were the highlights) but it felt stretched out.

The Lord of the Rings are my favorite films but the Hobbit, while a good effort, doesn't come close.

Lucemferre
Dec 14th, 2012, 08:41 PM
You sound like a LOTR fanboy. The Tree of Life was beautiful and the story was clear enough. Don't pay attention to the critics if you loved the film. Your opinion counts too.

Sam L
Dec 14th, 2012, 10:39 PM
I think I will watch this but I haven't seen a movie in a long time and I'm not excited for it.

I read the novel ages ago. I can barely remember it.

Sir Stefwhit
Dec 14th, 2012, 10:59 PM
My expectations are obviously lowered after reading reviews but no matter what it's on my 'to see list'. Just the fact that I get to experience middle earth again is enough for me. And let's not forget this movie is being used to set up the next two so of the three I'm sure this one wont be as exciting.

Maybe the running time could have been cut shorter to cut down on the lagging and stretched out parts I've heard people complain about? ...I'll get around to seeing it this wknd.

Jose.
Dec 14th, 2012, 11:54 PM
I watched it already is very good, not as good as the LOTR but still very interesting and it's best parts are very good. Though there is a lot of boring parts and things who are just there so people can understand perfectly well what is happening, it's a good thing but they just made some of those parts to big.

There are some epic parts though and it works well because it's a big flashback of LOTR, even though the main idea is the same as LOTR...

Olórin
Dec 15th, 2012, 09:42 AM
It is a good film, but I feel it suffers like much art does following a great tradition, and ends up being much too self-referential and self-aware for my taste. The problem was at times it seemed intentional.

Also the run time is at least 20 mins too long. The chase out of goblin-town is like a video game and Thorin's confrontation and Bilbo's intervention against Azog at the end feels so contrived. There should have been more advancing of the plot and less hacking and slashing imo. These two scenes really detracted from the end of the movie to me. I think once I get used to them on repeat viewings I'll be able to enjoy the whole a lot more.

I'm still a bit sceptical about how they're managing to stretch it out for two more films without doing even more of the above.

GoofyDuck
Dec 15th, 2012, 10:34 AM
Can't wait to watch it, I'll know I'll enjoy it alot :cheer:

TZVETI83
Dec 15th, 2012, 10:56 AM
You sound like a LOTR fanboy. The Tree of Life was beautiful and the story was clear enough. Don't pay attention to the critics if you loved the film. Your opinion counts too.

I am actually a female.
No offense to each his own but I found Tree of Life to be the most boring, pretentious, pile of dung, there was virtually no story and what they were trying to say could have been explained in 5 minutes. Dreadful film and precisely what critics love to drool over. :o

The Hobbit is flawed in parts, for example it does drag towards the beginning in some parts but than again its just following the book, the Hobbit while being an epic book is not as good as Lord of the Rings and people need to except that. These two films should not be compared. As I said before I found the introduction to the dwarfs dragging a bit and I also found the 3d to be a bit blurry at times but overall after the first 30 minutes the movie really picks up and finishes on a really high note. Its beautifully filmed, acting is sublime, apart from the beginning I believe its well paced and well written, almost always staying faithful to the book. All in all this is a very good film, fan reaction has been really positive, on IMDB, metacritic, fans are eating it up and there seems to be a great divide between critics and fans but I guess its to be expected.

I would give the film an 8.5 out of 10. Go see it.

pierce85
Dec 15th, 2012, 12:40 PM
The movie was epic and for me better than the Fellowship of the Ring, I don't understand all the negative comments

Certinfy
Dec 15th, 2012, 12:54 PM
I'm seeing it next week. I'm interested to see how they've stretched a relatively short book into 3 hours, let alone 3 films :unsure:
If Jackson has any sense he'll significantly shorten the next 2, or at least I hope so. Been hearing the same thing over and over again about how this movie is dragged out. :(

Helen Lawson
Dec 15th, 2012, 01:57 PM
Was Kate any good?

fantic
Dec 16th, 2012, 04:50 PM
Hobbit in 3 :eek:

Silmarillion in 7 then :lol:

I want to see Fingolfin vs Morgoth :drool:

Sammo
Dec 16th, 2012, 05:06 PM
Was Evangeline good? Cause I'm in love with her :hearts:

Olórin
Dec 16th, 2012, 05:50 PM
Hobbit in 3 :eek:

Silmarillion in 7 then :lol:

I want to see Fingolfin vs Morgoth :drool:

The way Marvel, Disney and Star Wars (now all commercialised by the same entity :sobbing: ) are going with making a potentially infinite number of films in those franchises I would be surprised if they don't try to make the Silmarillion into a film trilogy. I think the Tolkien estate still have these rights? They are protective of Tolkien's work but also eager for some dollar, so I would be surprised if it didn't happen at some point.

Jose.
Dec 16th, 2012, 06:09 PM
Was Evangeline good? Cause I'm in love with her :hearts:

She didn't enter on this one...

Sammo
Dec 16th, 2012, 06:30 PM
She didn't enter on this one...

Maybe you missed her, from what I've read (5 mins ago) her role was very short

jameshazza
Dec 16th, 2012, 06:46 PM
Was Kate any good?

If you're talking about Blanchett it's a silly question.
She's always spot on. :inlove:

The Dawntreader
Dec 16th, 2012, 06:50 PM
It is a good film, but I feel it suffers like much art does following a great tradition, and ends up being much too self-referential and self-aware for my taste. The problem was at times it seemed intentional.

Also the run time is at least 20 mins too long. The chase out of goblin-town is like a video game and Thorin's confrontation and Bilbo's intervention against Azog at the end feels so contrived. There should have been more advancing of the plot and less hacking and slashing imo. These two scenes really detracted from the end of the movie to me. I think once I get used to them on repeat viewings I'll be able to enjoy the whole a lot more.

I'm still a bit sceptical about how they're managing to stretch it out for two more films without doing even more of the above.

Excellent post. I even felt like the characterisation got a bit lost, especially between the main protagonists. Ian Mckellen was superb as expected, but Radagast's character was so cartoonish. I felt it undermined the character development that unfolded so brilliant in the LOTR trilogy. Maybe it will happen in the next two films, but there seemed to be a lot of tedious 'slash and giggle' moments.

Overall though, I really did enjoy it, if only for the swell of nostalgia. And Galadriel>>>>>>>>>>>

jameshazza
Dec 16th, 2012, 06:59 PM
It's been a long time since I've read the book but from what I've read on the trilogy, the next film is to focus solely on Gandalf apparently. It's about what he does when he's absent from the book. I don't know if Tolkien's wrote much about what happened there even in appendixes so I really don't know how they can even make a film about that, let alone a 2.5 hour one (which it most definitely will be).

I'll still go see the film but I'm still feeling that Jackson will severely dent his reputation by the end of this.

Jose.
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:38 PM
Maybe you missed her, from what I've read (5 mins ago) her role was very short

I'm 99% sure she didn't appear, she is not credited in IMDB for example, she will appear on the next 2 movies ;)

The Dawntreader
Dec 16th, 2012, 07:49 PM
I'm 99% sure she didn't appear, she is not credited in IMDB for example, she will appear on the next 2 movies ;)

She wasn't in An Unexpected Journey, but will most definitely be in the next two.

iPatty
Dec 16th, 2012, 08:00 PM
The movie has an epic scope but it's far from epic. Too many cringeworthy moments.

hablo
Dec 16th, 2012, 08:04 PM
I think it's better for me to wait until it comes out on video. :o

I already thought the LOFR movies were too long. Sounds like this one follows in the same path... :help:

Sammo
Dec 16th, 2012, 08:09 PM
With or without her, I'll still watch the movie ;) BTW Evangeline was in the premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

http://uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20121028/reg_634.EvangelineLilly.jlc.112712.jpeg

What have you done to your hair? :sobbing:

Helen Lawson
Dec 16th, 2012, 09:08 PM
If you're talking about Blanchett it's a silly question.
She's always spot on. :inlove:

No, I was talking about Kate from Lost. After she escaped the island the second time, I guess she got into acting.

Helen Lawson
Dec 16th, 2012, 09:09 PM
With or without her, I'll still watch the movie ;) BTW Evangeline was in the premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

http://uk.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20121028/reg_634.EvangelineLilly.jlc.112712.jpeg

What have you done to your hair? :sobbing:

She has shampoo now and a blow-dryer.

The Daviator
Dec 16th, 2012, 09:13 PM
Saw this today and it was great. If it makes any sense, one of the reasons why I wasn't totally crazy about it is because it made me so nostalgic for LOTR and made me wish I was watching that all over again for the first time, especially seeing Elijah Wood and Christopher Lee.

The escape from Goblin City was ludicrous, but I loved the prologue and of course Gollum. Serkis and McKellen were just outstanding, as always.

jameshazza
Dec 16th, 2012, 09:17 PM
No, I was talking about Kate from Lost. After she escaped the island the second time, I guess she got into acting.

I didn't even know she was in it. :eek:
#flopfan

I'm actually amazed she in particular, and everyone from Lost didn't have more work after it. The range of situations made most actors showcase all of their acting skills IMO, and Evangeline was always fabulous.

debopero
Dec 16th, 2012, 11:04 PM
To be fair, critics loved the three Lord of the Rings films. Maybe not everyone has the same opinion as you :shrug: .

(Although I agree, Tree of Life sucked.)

watchdogfish
Dec 17th, 2012, 11:14 PM
I saw it tonight and it was entertaining. It could've done with a bit of pruning in places and I thought the special effects and CGI were a lot better in the LOTR trilogy which is strange since they were made 10 years ago. I know this sounds stupid but The Hobbit did really feel like a fantasy film, whereas LOTR had sort of a sense of realism.

I did enjoy The Hobbit though, the Gollum scenes were especially good :yeah:

Helen Lawson
Dec 17th, 2012, 11:15 PM
I didn't even know she was in it. :eek:
#flopfan

I'm actually amazed she in particular, and everyone from Lost didn't have more work after it. The range of situations made most actors showcase all of their acting skills IMO, and Evangeline was always fabulous.

Me, too. She's hot and was good in it, I thought she'd get the most work.

Sean.
Dec 19th, 2012, 09:40 PM
Just watched it. Have to say, I'm disappointed! It's hard to explain why, but I'll give it a go. I guess I found it a bit "cartoonish" - people falling down ravines and getting thrown around by trolls without getting hurt - and at times it felt like I was playing a video game. I also don't think the story or "journey telling" was great, it lacked suspense and the sense of a passage of time. It also seemed a bit rushed, with fabricated actions scenes taking the place of the plot and character development that LOTR did so well! You'd never guess that LOTR and this were both directed by the same person. The Hobbit lost the sense of 'reality' that LOTR had, it's more cheap thrills and commercial than epic.

Having said that some bits were great, I really like the say they've developed the necromancer story line!

Sean.
Dec 19th, 2012, 09:53 PM
It is a good film, but I feel it suffers like much art does following a great tradition, and ends up being much too self-referential and self-aware for my taste. The problem was at times it seemed intentional.

Also the run time is at least 20 mins too long. The chase out of goblin-town is like a video game and Thorin's confrontation and Bilbo's intervention against Azog at the end feels so contrived. There should have been more advancing of the plot and less hacking and slashing imo. These two scenes really detracted from the end of the movie to me. I think once I get used to them on repeat viewings I'll be able to enjoy the whole a lot more.

I'm still a bit sceptical about how they're managing to stretch it out for two more films without doing even more of the above.

Excellent post. I even felt like the characterisation got a bit lost, especially between the main protagonists. Ian Mckellen was superb as expected, but Radagast's character was so cartoonish. I felt it undermined the character development that unfolded so brilliant in the LOTR trilogy. Maybe it will happen in the next two films, but there seemed to be a lot of tedious 'slash and giggle' moments.

Overall though, I really did enjoy it, if only for the swell of nostalgia. And Galadriel>>>>>>>>>>>

I saw it tonight and it was entertaining. It could've done with a bit of pruning in places and I thought the special effects and CGI were a lot better in the LOTR trilogy which is strange since they were made 10 years ago. I know this sounds stupid but The Hobbit did really feel like a fantasy film, whereas LOTR had sort of a sense of realism.

I did enjoy The Hobbit though, the Gollum scenes were especially good :yeah:

^^ Should have read the thread first. Perfectly put! :worship:

Agreed, McKellen, Blanchett and Serkis were standout! :inlove:

Halardfan
Dec 20th, 2012, 12:43 AM
I've booked my ticket, I'm very fond of the original trilogy, though Im a little wary about the length of these 3 movies.

That said for me, the Fellowship of the ring was the weakest of the original movies for me, with its job if setting the scene. I expect the next two movies to be better, even this one does turn out to gave its faults.


Btw, anyone know what percentage of cinemas can actually show 48fps? Most critics nay be seeing it in a format many of us won't be seeing.

Sir Stefwhit
Dec 20th, 2012, 04:52 AM
Definitely NOT epic by any stretch, but a solid an overall entertaining movie!

I guess I'm in the minority because to me there weren't any sluggish or boring parts. The pacing felt good and it peaked when it needed- I don't have a single complaint about the running time.

I do agree Witt the poster who said it felt cartoonish. It's an adventure movie and I did feel like I was setting sail for a mighty adventure but a few cuts and blood would have done a lot to enhance the realism. It's an adventure movie and knowing that its going to be three movies I think they did a good job of setting things up in the long run.

Grade: B

Julian.
Dec 21st, 2012, 12:07 AM
Just went to see it in the cinema with my boyfriend today. It was hilarious at times :spit: Boring in some parts too, fell asleep in some parts :speakles:

But overall it was great I guess. The visual effects and pictures are breathtaking! :worship:

hablo
Dec 21st, 2012, 12:50 AM
Just went to see it in the cinema with my boyfriend today. It was hilarious at times :spit: Boring in some parts too, fell asleep in some parts :speakles:

But overall it was great I guess. The visual effects and pictures are breathtaking! :worship:

How can it be great overall if you feel asleep in some parts? :p

Julian.
Dec 21st, 2012, 02:51 AM
How can it be great overall if you feel asleep in some parts? :p

Because I still enjoyed this movie :rolls:

Beat
Dec 23rd, 2012, 01:58 PM
The movie has an epic scope but it's far from epic. Too many cringeworthy moments.

well said. too long, boring and with some shockingly bad CGI :eek: it also manifests peter jackson's status as one of the most overrated directors ever.

Sammo
Dec 31st, 2012, 09:55 PM
Critics should fuck off really, it's one of the most visually stunning movies I've ever seen. I also saw the House Of The Flying Daggers and it's argument was the biggest piece of boring shit ever, but it also was visually stunning so most critics gave good reviews to it. The same logic applies here, and The Hobbit is actually entertaining.

Tennisation
Dec 31st, 2012, 10:10 PM
The CGI is terrible in this movie...10 years after the original trilogy. It felt like a 3 hour video game with no real storyline.

wild.river
Dec 31st, 2012, 10:26 PM
some of the humour was so cheesy i cringed. "that'll do it" as thorin slashed the fat goblin's tummy, etc.

but i still loved it. i didn't read the book or know any background to the film so i had no idea they were splitting it into 3 parts :o i was rather surprised when the movie ended on a cliffhanger.

Kon.
Dec 31st, 2012, 10:44 PM
I found it very entertaining throughout, despite the running time I didn't feel bored at any part.
It's not an epic but it's a good movie.

Sammo
Dec 31st, 2012, 11:28 PM
I found it very entertaining throughout, despite the running time I didn't feel bored at any part.
It's not an epic but it's a good movie.

Exactly, there are many parts in all 3 LOTR movies that are a total bore.

Beat
Jan 1st, 2013, 10:27 AM
It felt like a 3 hour video game with no real storyline.

perfectly summed up.
i was also very much bothered by the 48 frames per second. after all i read about this topic, i realize that it is pereceived very individually, but the reviewer who wrote that watching "the hobbit" was like "being on the set of the movie instead of having a bigger than life experience" described my feelings very well. it might look "more crisp and real", as jackson describes it, but that is really not an advantage.

Monica_Rules
Jan 1st, 2013, 11:03 AM
Saw it about a week ago.

I thought it was OK. As many have said it felt too long and lots of scenes just didn't need to be there. The whole Frodo/Old Bilbo scene was pointless. The ' rock giants' fight was crap and un-neccassary .

I'm not saying the film was bad, it just didn't blow me away

Gandalf
Jan 1st, 2013, 05:16 PM
I saw it last week, and it was much better than I expected. In fact some of the parts I liked the least were due to the book (I think the story would have been better with less than 13 dwarfes, and SPOILER if they didn't always got all saved at the last minute- it kills the suspense after a while). But I liked the direction of Peter Jackson and enjoyed the 48 frames per second.

Looking forward to the next part, a pity that we have to wait for a whole year. And I hope Evangeline gets screen time in that one.

Olórin
Jan 1st, 2013, 05:27 PM
I saw it last week, and it was much better than I expected. In fact some of the parts I liked the least were due to the book (I think the story would have been better with less than 13 dwarfes, and SPOILER if they didn't always got all saved at the last minute- it kills the suspense after a while). But I liked the direction of Peter Jackson and enjoyed the 48 frames per second.

Looking forward to the next part, a pity that we have to wait for a whole year. And I hope Evangeline gets screen time in that one.

Really? I find that an interesting comment because moments like the Gandalf-Bilbo conversation, Riddles Game make the movie for me, but Jackson's "direction" during scenes such as the chase from Goblin town and the rock giants are hardly what I would call necessary aspects of cinematic adaption and license. Spoiler Also re: the 13 Dwarves surely the suspenseful aspect of having 13 Dwarves is "will any die" as it is the ones we have been groomed to love most are the ones that die at the end.

In any event touches like having all 13 dwarves, the same goofy and absurd trolls, Gandalf wearing a silver scarf as described in the book all make up for the less smooth elements of the adaption that inevitably come with cinematic audience requirements.

Halardfan
Jan 16th, 2013, 01:42 AM
Really enjoyed it, and I preferred it to its equivalent in the LOTR saga, Fellowship of the Ring. It had notably more action, and was overall a far more resounding success than I had heard. It was really great to see all the familiar faces again as well as get to know the new ones.

Nicolás89
Jan 16th, 2013, 02:23 AM
I had no love for the bits that weren't part of the book, I still enjoyed though.

tennismaster8820
Jan 25th, 2013, 03:56 PM
Movie was not great obviously but I really didn't feel like it lasted that long, time passed by pretty fast.
It's true some parts seem like video game and it all looks more like one big fairytale.
Still it's ok movie, I enjoyed it.