Hobbit reviews: post them here!

[Ben]

Have you seen the new movie? Give us your report!

[afro-elf]

"Is he a great Wizard, or one like you?" Bilbo to Gandalf.

The film is decent. Now, I have not posted regularly on the 'Moot in years, so those who don't know my tastes that usually means most others would really like it. As my emotional attachment to the Hobbit is far less than that of LOTR I felt that the disappointment I felt at the LOTR I would not experience with the Hobbit. I was correct.

It is not a great film. It "suffers" from PJ's mainstream alignment. However, it in not a bad film either.

Radaghast worked out better than I feared. Not that he isn't a bit silly, but with the bird!@#$ in his hair I saw in the previews I was REALLY concerned. An analogy would be I was expecting a failing grade but passed with a below average one.

The combat also "suffered" IMO the same as some scenes in LOTR. Just cheesy. The flight from Goblin town was like video game.

The things I did like were Balin and the scenes of Dale and Erebor were quite impressive.

I think that most people will like the film even though I thought it was average.

[Rían]

Hi AE! How are you?

My oldest son saw it (he's at school back east). He said he liked it quite a bit. I was glad to hear that the "Good Morning" scene was in the movie!

I'll try to see it early next week.

[tolkienfan]

I loved it. Negative comments first:

It was too long - several of the fight scenes could have been shorted or cut entirely.

Saruman was portrayed as shady / Gandalf and Galadriel showed him no respect.

It got a bit too silly at some parts -the goblin king for example.

The company was able to outrun wargs on foot far too easily and quite often.

Positive:

The Shire scenes! Loved both songs in Bag End and that section as a whole.

Gandalf. I was afraid they would miss the side of Gandalf that Bilbo doesn't see - the manipulative Gandalf with his own agenda. However, I think we saw a well-balanced character - maybe even better than what we saw in LotR.

The scene where Galadriel and Gandalf discuss Bilbo -there may been a more subtle way to do this but overall I thought it brought in some much-needed Tolkien ideas.

The stone giants scene! Way to take an interesting snippet from the book and make it both awesome and more relevant to the story.

Gollum and Riddles in the Dark! Well done.

It's come to be expected now but can't forget the amazing music, sets, scenery, cinematography, sound, costumes, makeup, props, special effects, and all the other "behind-the-scenes" work!

Mixed Feelings comments:

I'm not sure why they changed the troll scene so much. It's a very iconic moment from the books and I don't think the changes improved it.

The "pale orc" subplot. It wasn't bad, and I liked the "oakenshield" tie-in, but it felt like filler.


Overall, probably not the best adaption imaginable but a fun movie anyway. Though it may have been a "better movie" if it was shorter / not a trilogy, I'll take what I can get and say the added length just gives me more to enjoy.

[afro-elf]

Hi AE! How are you?


Fine thank you, Rian. It has been awhile.

[gdl96]

I had no problems with the length of the movie...what's the rush? It's a little indulgent, sure, but there weren't any scenes where I thought, "this needs to get going!"

Overall I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would, given some of the early reviews. It was nice to be back in Middle Earth.

Did anybody see it in HFR? What did you think? I saw it in plain old 3D- it was nice, but I'm not sure how much the extra dimension adds to the experience.

[Niffiwan]

So, I wrote a lengthy review that got deleted accidentally when I pressed the wrong button. I'll mention a few key points from it, but first I'll just ask a question:

Is it just me, or were there a lot of scenes with orcs during the day? Seems like a pretty major departure from canon. The whole point of Saruman cross-breeding orcs with humans was so they'd be able to go out during the day. Unless it was meant to be twilight I guess, or maybe it was "cloudy enough".

Now then, onto some points from the film. Right at the beginning, I noticed that there was an homage to the unfinished 1990s Russian film adaptation (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showthread.php?t=14975) in the portrayal of Smaug's attack on Dale.

There was a lengthy "Bilbo in the future writing this story that you're about to see" scene with a totally unneeded appearance by Frodo. That was the only scene in the movie that I thought it should've done without. The pacing of the rest of the film was sometimes leisurely (except for some over-the-top action scenes, which you've got to expect from Hollywood), but then, so was the book.

A lot of the details of the adventures were changed, mostly to give Bilbo a little more to do in this first third of the story and make relations between characters clearer.

Radagast was fantastic, no question. Reminded me of the pagan priest Boyan from the 2006 Russian animated feature "Prince Vladimir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Vladimir_%28film%29)" - a lovely old coot who's simultaneously silly and wise. I really loved his rabbits, too. In the Misty Mountains, the Goblin King absolutely stole the show, and I was very sorry when his head was inevitably chopped off. I can see the potential objections to both Radagast and the Goblin King from those who'd want some more "dignified" portrayal, but really? This is The Hobbit, not LOTR. Those characters are great fun and memorable and are entirely within the spirit of the original book's tone.

(on the other hand, the pale orc chief who hunts after Thorin was a bit of a boring generic bad guy. I am not entirely sure if this character is entirely made up or based on something in the Appendices)

I saw the movie in IMAX 3D 48fps (it was in one of only 3 theatres in Canada that is showing it this way). It was pretty nice. I actually think that 60fps would probably be even better because there is still a bit of a blur sometimes on moving scenes. It's definitely true that the high frame rate allows you to see more of the defects, but so what? That's true of HD television, too. I think that the higher frame-rate was actually the most helpful for the most naturalistic scenes (the beautiful landscapes), and the CGI characters looked very good as well, but it did make it easier to tell what was a prop or makeup and what wasn't.

[Varnafindë]

(on the other hand, the pale orc chief who hunts after Thorin was a bit of a boring generic bad guy. I am not entirely sure if this character is entirely made up or based on something in the Appendices)

He is not made up. The basic idea is straight out of the Appendices, the part about the history of the Dwarves. Azog kills Thorin's grandfather, cuts his head off and brands his own name on it, to rub in the indignity of it. Thorin getting his name Oakenshield is from that story as well.

Then PJ changes things. In the books, Azog is really killed later, and his son Bolg (who is probably just as eager for revenge as Thorin is) leads the Goblins in the Battle of Five Armies.
(That's of course why Thorin thinks that Azog is dead - that's what Tolkien told him ;) ).

Why PJ decided not to have Bolg going for Thorin rather than Azog, is difficult to know - I'm sure that would have worked just as well, and might have irked the purists less. But I'm at least happy that he did use the Appendix story, even though he changed it (and changed the chronology / order of events, too). I'm pleased that he used the Appendices for something other than The story of Arwen and Aragorn (which I'm not sure will be used at all).

I saw the movie in IMAX 3D 48fps (it was in one of only 3 theatres in Canada that is showing it this way). It was pretty nice. I actually think that 60fps would probably be even better because there is still a bit of a blur sometimes on moving scenes. It's definitely true that the high frame rate allows you to see more of the defects, but so what? That's true of HD television, too.

I saw it in 2D 48fps, and I had watched it for several minutes before I thought, Shouldn't there be problems with watching this?

It didn't bother me at all. I guess it must be the combination of 3D and 48fps that causes problems. I haven't watched that yet, but I will - I'm definitely going to watch this again. I want to see Martin Freeman's acting, which is better than most of the acting we saw in LotR - also because I think he was given more time to do his acting.

And I want to see Andy Serkis. Riddles in the Dark was just great. Incredible that this was the very first scene to be filmed. I don't know how many takes they had, but they did the whole scene - 12 minutes - straight through, as on the stage, rather than splitting it in little sequences. It sure worked.

(And when the EE DVD comes out, I want to see one of those takes before they do the CGI - I want to see Andy Serkis as he's acting. Is there anything of that in the previews or blog spots that have been shown?)

There are things in the movie that might have been done differently, but nothing that was painfully cringeworthy - in general, I loved it, and I hope to see it again as soon as possible!

(I also want to watch that Russian film clip you mention - this computer, or my current internet connection, can't handle it, so I'll watch it somewhere else, later.)

[Midge]

First off, I thought there were a few things that PJ got perfect.

The casting is excellent. Of course, we saw a few familiar faces, but Martin Freeman makes an excellent 60-years-younger Bilbo. And I never thought I would think Dwarves handsome, but most of them were. Even Balin with his bulbous nose. Although I myself might have chosen different hairstyles for a couple of them, choosing to forgo the Pippi-Longstocking or the Flock-of-Seagulls-ish looks. ;)

The frame story idea was a really good one. To tie the Lord of the Rings movies back to the Hobbit, we got to see Bilbo and Frodo right before the Party, right before the beginning of the first film, right before the arrival of Gandalf to the Shire. It gave a perfect excuse to tell the story of the Lonely Mountain and Smaug in a straightforward way, because as much as we needed to know that information, Frodo would also need to know it.

The interior of Erebor was beautiful. I understood exactly why the dwarves wished to return to their dungeons deep and caverns old. I loved how they retained the way the Dwarven "culture" felt - it was majestic and even a little mysterious. The throne of Thror, for instance, had a huge stalactite sticking out of the top of it, suggesting they literally carved the throne out of the mountain rock itself.

The DISHES SONG! It cracked me up and they were chucking the dishes around, freaking Bilbo out, and yet not a single one was harmed in the making of that song (or so I choose to believe). I loved it, and that part probably made my Top-Five-List of Favorite Moments in the film.

The troll cave. Not necessarily the troll scene, but when those dwarves and Bilbo walked into that cave, I could SMELL the stench in a way the book never conveyed.

The scenery in general. I've heard some people talk about how it's less serious of a movie than LOTR, but the Hobbit is supposed to be a children's book. I think they did a good job of making the forest areas look realistically whimsical.

When Bilbo decided not to kill Gollum. I was amazed at how Bilbo and Gollum seemed to be having this deep and touching conversation using only their quivering lips to communicate. And Bilbo was invisible, too. The whole affair had me near tears. Also I was quite impressed that Bilbo was able to hold Sting less than an inch away from Gollum's face and manage not to brush him with it.

They did a lot of things well, I will give them that. The things they got right were really right. It's such a good feeling... as if the director of a film read your mind while you were reading the book.

[Midge]

Unfortunately, there were a couple of things I thought Peter Jackson did... well, horribly wrong.

They focused way too much on this whole Pale Orc revenge story. Varna pointed out that Azog's son was actually at the Battle of Five Armies in the book, and if the moviemakers had had the grace to simply draw our attention to the connection, I would have applauded them, even if they'd still chosen to use Azog instead of Bolg.

However, it seems like PJ prefers to always have a scheming head-Orc somewhere in these movies, and this one apparently is no exception. Instead of drawing our attention to this connection, they just steamrolled us with it, leaving even ME (who used to draw up Lord of the Rings trivia questions for fun) just completely confused.

Possibly the biggest thing that was just terrible for me was the addition of Radagast and the Necromancer.

Tell me, did anyone else think Radagast was another dwarf who made it through "Let's make up obscure characters and have them be main characters" auditions? Maybe like a Dopey who'd gotten lost from Snow-White land or something?

Because Radagast's story is really the most ridiculous of all. Basically he discovers that all of a sudden, just one day out of the blue, his plants and animals are dying and the cause is this evil witchcraft. Then Radagast rides all the way to the "evil fortress", (which seems a LOT closer to the Dwarves' path than in the book). He then goes INTO the evil fortress and sees the Slenderman and steals, what, a real-life copy of the Witch-King of Angmar's Morgul-Blade... then he manages to get on his super-fast amazing light-speed rabbit sled and meet up with Gandalf and the Dwarves from the other side of the Misty Mountains.

Did they write this part while they were asleep and then forget to re-read it?

The Necromancer features literally not at all in the book, save for a passing remark or two from Gandalf, which Tolkien used to lay the foundation for Sauron's return in LOTR. I understand if the filmmakers wished to explain why Sauron isn't around to terrorize Middle-Earth yet, but... Oh, wait, they didn't. They just added this mysterious Necromancer and the only people who will know that the Necromancer is Sauron are the ones who've read the book... (which admittedly is probably a large portion of their audience).

I'd like to point out that there are two types of changes when turning a book into a movie. There are the changes which are necessary to explain backstory, or to voice an important plot point to make sure even the simplest-minded viewer can keep up. I get that. But then there are other changes which just confusticate and bebother everyone, and I felt that there were too many of these in The Hobbit.

I could easily nit-pick (like how the Dwarves were running in circles to avoid Wargs before they went to Rivendell or how the geography and chronology from the book simply doesn't add up when it comes to the movie...), but I won't. The things I felt were the most disappointing were, of course, the two main extra plot points that for some reason didn't make it into the book.

There was, however, one last thing I feel I must mention. For some reason, PJ and his crew decided to copy a few of their old famous LOTR shots into this movie. Most notably, when Bilbo slipped and managed to catch the Ring on his finger in almost exactly the same manner as Frodo did in the Prancing Pony or how Gandalf sure loves to whisper to those moths and then let them fly out of his hand toward the camera. It just seemed like overkill.

It turns out that we know that this is a prequel to those movies. You've got the same actors, the same music, even a few of the same sets... We don't need the actual same movie all over again. The difference is that you can watch the Fellowship of the Ring all by itself and the ending feels complete. The Hobbit just leaves quite a few strings dangling, which we can only hope they pick up and move in a good direction for the OTHER TWO FILMS being made from this one children's book.

When the credits began showing in our theater, some guy literally shouted "WHAT?" at the screen. He voiced my concerns exactly.

All in all, it was a fairly good movie. However, for a lot of it, I had feelings reminiscent of when I watched the recent Chronicles of Narnia films. I think the common thread is that both books/series would have been VERY simple to turn straight to film, and yet the filmmakers felt it was their duty to "improve" on it. The end result is that the movie, while being a good show for those who've never read the books, ends up leaving us who love the books just a little bit empty.

Oh, yes, and P.S. Orcrist and Glamdring NEVER turned blue. Which in turn made me blue.

[Niffiwan]

Hey Midge. Concerning Radagast, I interpreted it slightly differently - it wasn't just that his animals/plants were dying, but it was some sort of subtle magical attack on Radagast himself through something seemingly very simple. I think we were only seeing part of what was going on. Note that Radagast was attacked in his own home - there was clearly some sort of connection between the hedgehog that he was trying to save and the giant spiders that almost managed to break into his house, but then slunk away once he managed to heal his patient. Naturally, he would then try to find out who had attacked him. And naturally, the Necromancer would have plenty of motive for trying out a sneak attack on Radagast to get him out of the way if he was trying to get established in Mirkwood. The Necromancer has an important role in The Hobbit even if he's not talked about much - he's the main reason that Gandalf was away. Peter Jackson obviously plans to use the Appendices to show that part of the story.

As for finding the Morgul blade, I don't know. I also don't know about how Radagast could've moved fast enough to get from Mirkwood to where Gandalf was, even with his rabbit sled. I'm not sure that the movie actually says how long it took him, it's entirely possible that the first scene with Radagast (and the scene where he was attacked) is a flashback taking place at some point in the past, weeks or months ago.

However, it is definitely true that the movie seems to compress the timeline of events. In Tolkien's version, Gandalf hands over map and key to Thorin after visiting the Necromancer's lair many years ago and meeting his now-insane father among the prisoners there. So Dol Guldur had already been the Necromancer's lair for quite a while, and at least Gandalf if not the White Council was aware of it. In the movie, by contrast, Gandalf gets the map and key from Thorin's father at *some other place* that's not mentioned, while Dol Guldur is just beginning to be a menace, and Mirkwood is apparently only beginning to be a dangerous place.

...so, does anyone else have any thoughts about the orcs seemingly being out in daylight? Maybe I missed something, but if I didn't, that bothers me more than anything else.

EDIT: Here's what the book has to say about it.

A quote from "The Hobbit" at the end of chapter 5, just after Bilbo escapes from the goblins of the Misty Mountains:

Of course they soon came down after him, hooting and hallooing, and hunting among the trees. But they don't like the sun: it makes their legs wobble and their heads giddy. They could not find Bilbo with the ring on, slipping in and out of the shadow of the trees, running quick and quiet, and keeping out of the sun; so soon they went back grumbling and cursing to guard the door.

Later in Chapter 6:

But the wizard called them to their senses. 'We must be getting on at once, now we are a little rested,' he said. 'They will be out after us in hundreds when night comes on; and already shadows are lengthening. They can smell our footprints for hours and hours after we have passed. We must be miles on before dusk. There will be a bit of moon, if it keeps fine, and that is lucky. Not that they mind the moon much, but it will give us a little light to steer by.'

[Willow Oran]

I really, really loved it. It's shiny, it's fun, and it's a solid piece of storytelling that did an excellent job of maintaining continuity with LotR while setting up the conflicts for the next two films.

The only thing that really bugged me was Gandalf leading them into Rivendell within sight of a bunch of orcs, and then letting a couple of those orcs get away. It was a good scene in terms of dramatic tension, but it had implications I felt were not thought through. Other than that detail, I liked that Azog was hunting them through Eriador.
It lent urgency to a section of the story that lacks it, led us into much needed back-story for Thorin, and acts as a lovely set up for the Battle of the Five Armies later on. In the book Bolg is gathering his goblins out of sight, out of mind and the Battle just sort of happens out of the blue. In the aftermath of a dragon, it's kind of forgettable.
Now that's all set-up, so even if we don't see Azog at all in the second film, he's still going to be lurking in the background, the moment when the armies gather in front of the mountain becomes a payoff better suited to an epic finale.

As for using Azog instead of Bolg, that also make storytelling sense in that it gives all three villains a common theme of being old enemies returning after being thought/hoped dead, which especially works when the worst of the three is the Necromancer.

I am a little iffy still on the Dol Guldur plotline, but we also haven't gotten a lot of it yet, so I'm reserving judgement on that for later.

Rabbit sled just made me happy. It may be silly and suspiciously fast, I don't care, it's a wizard zooming around on a sled drawn by super-bunnies. If we can't have the tra-la-lally song making the entrance into Rivendell ridiculous, at least we have Rabbit sled.:p

Finally, the sequences with the Storm Giants and the escape from the goblins did remind me of a video game, but it'd be one I'd play.

Definitely going to see it again.:D

[Butterbeer]

Wow, lots of old mooters coming out of the woodwork :)

Also, it's nice you can actually browse entmoot again
without having to log in! Not been by in an Age or three
So not sure when that Tom-tookish foolishness was stopped.

Anyway. Not yet seen the Film yet ( had the Flu) but looking
Forward to it : many mixed reviews: and Espcially about
48 fps (Hfr) etc...

Trying to decide betwixt std 2d, std 3d, IMAX 3d or Hfr 3d
I'd have to travel for my preferred voice:
IMAX Hfr 48 3D ...

And with Christmas a coming' and da Goose be gettin fat..
Etc, l fear IMAX 48 3D will have to wait till early January

Welcome any advice on which format to-view it
first though :)

I'm currently leaning towards taking the plunge with
Getting to grips with the Hfr 48 3D version :

Pre-warned ref the likely required time to adjust to
The change of emphasis ref cinematography look and feel

anyways, nice to be back on here, and see some familiar
Names and avatars from christmas's past ...

Hope you all have a very Merry Christmas !

( off topic I know: but I'm sure Valandil will overlook
It just this once! :D ~ but do we have a Christmas tree contest
This year? )

Well, Will add my review when I've finally seen it ( always best to see it first ) I feel! ;)


Best, BB :)

[Rían]

Hey BB, nice to see you!

We were inundated by spammers from Mordor a little while back, so we had to close things up a bit for awhile, but it's better now :) Poor Earniel got the brunt of it - she was slaying spammers by the hundreds :eek: That's all that the browsing/login thing was - to try to discourage them.

No Christmas tree competition yet - it didn't get much activity last year. Things just slowing down, ya know? But hopefully the Hobbit movie will get things going a bit more.

My oldest son saw the movie and loved it (he used to post here as Meriadoc for awhile). I haven't had a chance yet, but am hoping to see it next week, or possibly a last-minute trip to the theater if I get an opening at the end of this week. From what I've heard here and other places, it sounds pretty much like the LOTR movies in that it's great if you can just ignore the bad bits.

Merry Christmas!

[HOBBIT]

I enjoyed it, though I think it was waayyyyy too long. The friend I went with isn't sure if he would even be interested in seeing the next one - that's not good if that reflects the thoughts of the general public. It hasn't gotten that great reviews from critics either (see rotten tomatoes)

Another nearly 3 hour installment a year for the next two years? The thought exhausts me. Of course I'll see them all. And this has inspired me to re-read the book - been quite a long while since I've read it.

[Valandil]

Saw it last night - and LOVED it! It was neither too long, nor too detailed for me. Most of the "adds" were to "The Hobbit" proper, but were either background information we can glean from the Appendices, or slight variations on them. Among those: some have already mentioned the use of Azog in place of both Azog and Bolg - which I think works fine. In addition - the timeframe and duration of 'The Watchful Peace' were modified, and there was non-canoncial information about the burial of the King of Angmar - but at least 'Watchful Peace' and 'Angmar' were acknowledged! As for the burial - maybe there was a fake one - to later give credence to the Necromancer's powers - and of course, the true identities of both the Necromancer and the Witch King of Angmar were unknown - so the cover of a 'fake burial' might make sense.

Anyway - a LOT I liked. MUCH more of the text, including dialog - were included. Historical data given elsewhere (notably LOTR Appendices & Prolog) was worked into the dialog - and in a believable, logical, realistic way.

Two thumbs up from me. Four, if I had them! ;)

[Valandil]

Oh - and GREAT special effects. I really liked the portrayal of the Dwarf Kingdom at Erebor. And I liked the "oaken-shield".

had a hard time keeping most of the Dwarves straight. Maybe I'll try to memorize from photos in advance. Thorin is easy - and I got Fili, Kili and Bombur right away - along with Dwalin & Balin. I picked up on Bofur and Gloin later. There were a couple others with a reasonable amount of lines where I was always asking myself 'now which one is that...???' including Bofur, at first.

Not sure if Balin seems like the type to lead a troop off to Moria in the future. But hey, people change - and I guess Dwarves do too.

[Mark of Cenla]

I loved it! I went with my wife and nineteen-year-old son. The Hobbit is one of the few books we have all read. To me the time flew by. There are a couple of things I could fuss about, but I would rather think about if I will go to see it again. Peace and goodwill.

[Tinman]

Spoilers:
I found the movie to be bloated... like... somewhere on that reel is a wonderful movie that was buried by excess. I have trouble getting past nit-picky stuff... but I'll explain:

I don't mind the introduction of certain pieces, to get viewers up to date with what is going on with the movie and how it relates to the the other films. No problem with the introduction with the older bilbo and frodo, no problem with the introduction of the appendices/unfinished tales stuff either. What gets me is the changes to characters and plot that weren't in any of tolkiens writings. For example

1. Balin trying to talk Thorin out of the quest, telling him the dwarves were content with the new life thorin had made them. This felt really wrong for me, because it makes Balin's desire to go reclaim moria seem very out of character. The line itself would have been fine for any other character, but balin has that longing in his heart too, and the scene did not sit right for me.

2. Azog. What the heck? I hate the subplot to introduce him, but I would have been fine with it if they just said it was Bolg. Why resurrect a dead villain when you have one readily available who actually is in the book? They clearly added Azog in to spice up the plot and create more tension, but if that was their goal, why not just up it further by introducing Bolg's desire for revenge on his fallen father?

3. Radagast. I actually love the representation we get here, though I think the introduction of him was unneeded. I would have been fine if they left it at his home being attacked by spiders, but introducing him to the dwarves was silly. What bothers me the most is that they had him enter dol guldor, which makes no sense, because if he is the one who entered dol goldor, where the heck did gandalf find the map and key? blah.

4. bifur. Why make him the youngest dwarf? The book says kili and fili are the youngest. I see no point in doing this. It didn't further the plot, it didn't do anything except spit on cannon. I don't understand changes like these. It does nothing for the story. Its like PJ makes a change just because he can. I find it disrespectful to the story. These are the changes I hate the most, because there is absolutely no justification for them, where as other changes can be used to claim that they are improving the plot.

5. So much action. We're all overstimulated with modern action movies, so they keep making action scenes more over the top and longer ,trying to awe the viewer. I get bored. Give me a short fight with real substance over an hour long battle anyday. Gandalf assassinating the Great Goblin in the book took 2 seconds, but was more shocking than the 30 minute goblin chase scene the movies give us. I feel like a good director can find ways to use combat to further the plot and develop the characters, rather than shovel violence down our throats. The original star was movies are a good example of how to do combat right.

6. Celeborn? Where the heck is he? We know he was on the white council. I felt like he was left off so that the movie could imply a romantic relationship between gandalf and gladriel... everyone i know who saw the movie but hadn't read the books thought those two had a love connection after seeing this film. I think it was PJ sneaking romance into a romance-less film... because in this day and age, producers don't believe a movie can stand without it. I find the notion insulting, especially to women, who are the major target for cramming such garbage into films where it doesn't actually belong. If rumor has it right, there will be another elf introduced and kili or fili falls for her in the next film?

Basically, I feel like they could have made an 1:40 long movie instead of a 2:40, and I wouldn't miss anything, and the result would have been an actually decent film, good representation of the hobbit, appendices, and unfished tales, and it would have been fantastic. Its like he didn't even bother to edit the film. Just used every scene they recorded back-to-back and mailed it out the door.

[Ben]

I agree with a lot of what has been written here already.

I liked the movie and it was great to be back in Middle-earth. The scene with Gollum was great. But someone really needs to send Peter Jackson an editor. I was reminded of the endless endings of Return of the King -- too much of a good thing takes away from the impact. I also think Jackson was trying too hard to make The Hobbit an epic, but the stakes in this story just aren't as high as in Lord of the Rings.

[azalea]

Hi, all! I saw it the other day, and loved it, of course. I have some criticisms, too, though.

Good points...

Casting: LOVE Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Love the dwarves, I think they all look great.

Scenery: As always, so much attention is given to details that brings the places to life.

Riddles in the Dark: So well done, including Bilbo's escape.

Music: I love the song of the Lonely Mtn.

Filling in: I really liked most of what was added to bridge The Hobbit and LOTR. I enjoyed seeing dramatized what was only mentioned in the book.

Cut off point: I would have ended it right where he did.

Bad points...

I wanted to see Gandalf push Bilbo out the door, not have Bilbo decide to go. This is a problem throughout the movie. At this point (meaning the entire first movie), Bilbo should still be a grudging participant, on the one hand, enjoying seeing the outside world, but at the same time, constantly wondering "How did I end up here?" They have played their cards too early, and I think it would have worked just fine to wait until Mirkwood to have Bilbo start being brave.

This is evident during the troll scene, which I think could have been played more closely to the book and worked well. It is also evident in the fighting scenes, including the end when Bilbo saves Thorin's life. Just too early, IMO.

I really liked seeing Radagast, but it was a little too much that wasn't really needed. I liked his look and manner, but he was used little too comedically for me.

I really didn't like the subplot of the orcs chasing the company, especially the scene right before Rivendell. As I said, I really enjoyed seeing the back story playing out, but I felt like the movie went a little too far in focusing on the history over Bilbo.

That's my take on it. Overall, I give it a B, for the changes that were just a little too much. Of course, I'll be buying the soundtrack, dvd, and extended edition just like I did for LotR anyway! :D The good outweighs the negatives.

[Serenoli]

My review: its quite the right length for a Tolkien fan but entirely too long for the general public. And the sad thing is, all the things Peter Jackson put in (which IMO were there simply to entice the general public) like Azog, extra orc chases etc. really took away from the movie's emotional feel and added nothing to the momentum.

I liked that there is a solid dose of humour and silly, even the over-the-top Radagast - it set the right mood for the Hobbit.

My favourite part of the movie - the scene with Gollum.

[Lotesse]

Gollum - well, Serkis - is a genius, hands down.

All these reviews posted are fantastic & I find myself in agreement with just about everyone, re. Hobbit's pros as well as its cons. But, SOOOOOoooo many pros. Because of my painful back disability, I just don't go sit in cinemas to watch movies unless I'm extremely into the film, for whatever reason: story/author/director, a few of my favourite actors, extreme anticipation, etc. but this I'm gonna go see again this evening, I think. If I can get my Percocets for the almost 3-hr sit (which flies by, by the way, with fans like us. I mean, I was bummed it was too SHORT.)

[The Gaffer]

8.5/10 is the view from the taters.

I saw it a couple of days ago and I also agree that the editor could have been usefully employed. If you are going to turn The Hobbit into three films you have no excuse.

However, as an enthusiast I didn't really care. Big pluses for me were Martin Freeman, all of the dwarves, especially James Nesbitt (Bofur?), Andy Serkis, and the back story. Even the wee glimpses of Smaug were tantalising. Using Radagast was a good idea, nicely foreshadowing was is to come in Mirkwood next time around.

Let's be honest, Tolkien was never one for characterisation much, so the dwarves needed something doing to them to make them more interesting. I thought they got it pretty much right. Using great actors like Ken Stott in these "minor" roles was a tremendous investment and I hope we see more of them in the later films.

JRRT also was less than convincing about the whole rationale of sending a hobbit and a baker's dozen of dwarves off to topple Smaug. The film made this more believable, mainly by bringing the characters to life.

Only a couple of real abominations. The fight with the goblins was great until they decided to forget the laws of physics. And there was one too many battle scenes generally. By choosing to end the film where they did, they needed to lose something earlier on, perhaps a bit of the Azog stuff.

Minor quibbles:

Not enough Bilbo: after he picked up with the dwarves he didn't seem to get much screen time, some of which was out of character.

Needed more lulz. However, I suspect we are going to get fewer, as the trilogy gets more bombastic. This first instalment seemed to be pulled in two directions and didn't really make up its mind which. Jackson should have watched Time Bandits to see how to make comedy and drama work together in the same film. Or maybe recruit a proper comedy writer instead of just tossing in little jokes here and there like the vegetarian provender in Rivendell.

Did anyone see the "review" on IMDB that accused Tolkien of plagiarising JK Rowling? :lol:

http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2012/06/imdb-user-believes-lord-of-the-rings-ripped-off-harry-potter/

PS - Hey Lotsy, sorry to hear you are still suffering from the back problems. Best wishes.

[Jon S.]

Another guy returning for his first new post in a very long time! I actually really liked the movie. I especially liked what so many of the professional critics hated: the slow initial pace and the amount of time spent in Bilbo's home at the outset. A dozen dwarves are a lot to try to keep track of but the leisurely-paced first 30-45 minutes or so of the film helped alot. I didn't find it too long per se but I did find the fighting with the Orcs overdone. I loved the 48 frames 3D. Looking forward to the next film!

P.S. If you liked the 3D version of this movie, check out the Dolby 3D U2 concert at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Un-f-believable. You don't just wear glasses, they're almost like goggles and you feel like you're really right there. Think of the difference between old TV and high-def TV. Think of the Hobbit movie as old 3D and imagine what it might look like if it were high def. That's the Dolby 3D they had at the Rock Hall. In 3-5 years, we'll have this at home and you won't believe your eyes.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, totally agree about the introduction of the dwarves, it didn't feel like it took too long at all. Although I can understand why some people were a bit baffled by all the shifts in time frame.

Saw it in old-time 2D, no idea how many frames. It looked great though.

[rohirrim TR]

I saw it 3 times and I really liked it overall, cast, music quite fantastic.

The tone was a bit confusing, didn't really like the rabbits, or the cartoony goblins, but on a second viewing I felt like the narrative was meant to be coming from and old slightly crazy Bilbo who is telling us a story that may be a little jumbled in his brain and in that context I can accept a lot of crazy shenanigans that don't hold up to realism.

[Midge]

Check out the HISHE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrKXH1CeXck) (How it should have ended) for the Hobbit.

I love these... and The Hobbit is just as funny as the previous LOTR one and all the superhero ones. :D

[Mark of Cenla]

Check out the HISHE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrKXH1CeXck) (How it should have ended) for the Hobbit.

I love these... and The Hobbit is just as funny as the previous LOTR one and all the superhero ones. :D

Now that was funny! Peace and goodwill.

[GrayMouser]

Finally saw it and was pleasantly surprised.

I had been afraid that this was going to be a totally modified version with lots of extra subplots to fill up the extra time, but the only really added part was the White Council meeting, which was done- mostly - well.

I was apprehensive about PJ's style overwhelming the rather gentle feel of [I]The Hobbit[I] but I found his cartoonish and juvenile sensibility actually more suitable than it was to the LOTR movies. I noticed this especially with the flight through the Goblin city, compared to the flight through Moria.

Could have done without the troll gobbing and farting scenes though.

Nits:

- Dwarvish song: started okay, but should have picked up to give it a more blood-stirring feel, to rouse Bilbo's Tookish blood.

-Troll scene- Original was better.

-Agree that Bilbo became an adventurer too soon,but maybe they were afraid the non-fan audience wouldn't identify with a hero who spent half the movie whining and grumbling.

-Rhadagast should have had the whimsy knob turned down from 11; though not as bad as I feared- except for the totally ridiculous Orc chase scene. Saruman's grumbling about mushrooms was also silly.

-Goblin King was a little over the top.

-Still can't do convincing CGI for Eagles, though the Wargs were much better than LOTR's wart-hogs-on-meth.


Thorin originally struck me as too young and handsome; not Dwarvish enough, though I got used to it. Martin freeman was excellent.

I thought Galadriel and Elrond were better than in LOTR, their characters were more subdued.

Still, a big thumbs up.:thumb:

[Earniel]

I finally managed to see it. (Don't judge, schedule was impossible.) I have to say, it was far better than I feared, but didn't manage to lift me as high as seeing FoTR did. I think it is mostly because they didn't raise the stakes high enough. Sure, in LoTR you have the urgency to save the whole of Middle-earth, whereas the goal of The Hobbit is to defeat one dragon, yet terrible enough on its own. But the theme they actually used in the movie was not 'defeat a dangerous dragon against all odds' (which would have raised the stakes high enough, I would think) rather: 'make a long journey to get some guys a place they can call home'. That's it, just get these Dwarves a home. They've could have done much more to instill tension and all the necessary elements were available in my opinion, just not utilised properly. Real shame.

I assume that's why they added the Azog story line, to create more tension. Story-wise or movie-wise I like the addition but I don't see why they couldn't just go with Bolg. My guess is that they needed Azog to kill him dramatically at the end of the second movie, so Bolg can be used for the same purpose in the third. I'm not liking that hypothesis, though, so I hope they'll use Azog more wisely. There really are enough things available from the book to end the second movie dramatically. Azog needn't be involved. He looks fabulously creepy, though. Love the makeup job on him!

Loved the sceneries, costumes and casting. All of them still top-notch. Didn't recognise Stott or Nesbitt until I heard them. They make good Dwarves. Nice to see Elrond without the annoying frown and 'men are weak' attitude, looks so much better on him. I am a tiny bit disappointed in the soundtrack though. It's nice to hear LoTR great tunes again, (I quite liked the reworking of -I think- the Ents at Isengard theme for the closing battle.) but I was hoping for more new and equally great material. So not considering buying the soundtrack this time. I'm spoilt, I know.

I do think they managed to stay relatively close to the mood and feel of The Hobbit, which was a pleasant surprise. I had feared for that.

There were a few things I disliked, but they were far more minor compared to the changes I disliked in LoTR. I daresay the Hobbit script was reworked far more sensibly and in tune with the Middle-earth Tolkien wrote. There were still scenes where they deviated from the book for no apparent good reason, i.o.w. those book-scenes would still have worked well with the other bits they added or changed, but the deviated scenes didn't clash as much as they did in LoTR. But I do think those things - while the movie is still a good watchable movie- kept it from being truly great.

I liked the addition of Radagast. I didn't mind the silly antics all that much since it fits better with Saruman's view of Radagast. You can see why the wizard's deemed useless. But why the bird-poo?Why? Whyyyyyyy? I found it was unnatural, gross, unnecessary, distracting and totally, utterly stupid. (And as pointless as the Denethor eating noises scene, but I can see they come from the same stock.) Now, I'm absolutely no expert in birds, even less in New-Zealandian species. But apart from swallows and birds of prey I know no bird that poops on its nest since that attracks predators and parasites. Some birds even go to great lenghts to remove the waste of their offspring which they dump far from the nest. Radagast poo-tattoo was therefore totally ridiculous. I liked the Rhosgobel rabbits on the other hand. You can still see they're CGI but only just. Nice job on those.

The spider attack and their retreat made little sense but maybe more will be explained about that later. It's interesting to see they made their appearance and the transformation of Greenwood into Mirkwood more recent. Not a bad call, overall.

I wasn't a fan of the LoTR's wargs look of hyenas on steroids, so I'm happy they redesigned them, but I'm not entirely convinced by the new look either. Still look too much like monsters than animals. But I liked the eagles, although they're also still very visibly CGI, but I did like to see them enter the fight instead of just plucking Dwarves out of trees. At least here I couldn't help but think that by all counts they at least ought to be totally awesome in the Battle of the Five Armies. I was actually looking forward to seeing it.

Since I'm talking about CGI, the new improved Gollum didn't really do it for me. He's still too unreal, despite Serkis' great preformance. In the scene where Bilbo is contemplating whether to kill Gollum, you can't really tell whether Gollum sees him or and I assume Serkis was going for a soul-rending look of desperation there, but the CGI Gollum ended up with a distraught puppy-eyed-look that seemed out of place.

Disliked much of the fighting scenes. Too choppy and unclear, same complaint as before in LoTR. And sometimes really too long. I disliked them especially when reality and physics went out of the window. I know the stone giant scene may have looked cool but no one ought to have come out of that one alive. No one. There should be no surviving that. Same as with the fighting in the orc stronghold. Which is another crying shame really, because this could have been prevented relatively easily.

I agree with Azalea that Bilbo's transformation came too suddenly. They should have kept it more for the second movie. It's all quite exciting to have him tackle that orc that is about to kill Thorin, but to dispatch it so easily seems out of character still.

But will I watch again, oh hell yeah. Already bought the DVD.

[mithrand1r]

Have you seen the new movie? Give us your report!

I just saw the movie. (I guess I am a bit late to the party. ;) )

I am just giving my opinions of the movie as a stand alone film. (I am pretending the book does not exist.)

Music, costumes and scenery are excellent.

The dwarfs were good in general although I think they unnecessarily continued the (cheap) comic gags from LOTR.

My biggest complaints with the film are Radagast the Brown and the Stone Giants.

The Stone Giants do not make any sense to me. It seems that several if not all of the party should be dead or fallen down the side of the mountain into the ravine.

Radagst reminds me too much of some character from Monty Python. (Tim the Enchanter comes to mind). Some of the dwarfs remind me of Monty Python.

When Radagast is to lead the orcs/goblins away from the party, it appears to me that he is going around in circles. (since it seems for several minutes of film that the party needs to duck to avoid being spotted by the orcs chasing Radagast.)

The movie makes several nods to LOTR film, which I think will work well with those familiar with the film. One nod that is difficult for me to like (I do not like it.) was the ring falling onto Bilbo's finger in the caves.

The fight at the end of the film was overly dramatic, but PJ tends to be overly dramatic with many battle/fight scenes.

At times the film displayed some fancy work that while visually interesting was not needed and detracts from the film. (The manner that the Eagles saved the party and cleaning of dinner at Bilbo's are two that stood out in my opinion.)

Saruman comes off as a real busy body. Thinks Gandalf smokes too much in LOTR and now thinks that Radagast is weird (well he might have a point here. ;) ) and consumes too many mushrooms.

The film in general flows well and does a good job providing background information for the story. Nice hints at LOTR in the film. It seems that Mirkwood (Greenwood) and the Necromancer will be the focus on movie 2 and Smaug left for movie 3. through Very few films can pull off a flashback within a flashback. The flashbacks were not distracting and I think It worked well in this film. The part of trolls turning to stone with sunlight seemed odd, since I seem to remember trolls in LOTR out in the sunlight. I will need to watch LOTR to see if this was commented in the film.

As a film: 8.5 out of 10. Very good

[Valandil]

I just saw the movie. (I guess I am a bit late to the party. ;) )

:
:

... The part of trolls turning to stone with sunlight seemed odd, since I seem to remember trolls in LOTR out in the sunlight. I will need to watch LOTR to see if this was commented in the film.

:

Trolls DO turn to stone in sunlight - established as fact in both The Hobbit and LOTR texts by JRRT. :) Remember - the trolls turned to stone in the book too, when the sun rose. Yes - late in LOTR there are Trolls that survive in the sunlight/daytime. This is somewhat explained by a mention in the Appendices of the appearance of trolls who could endure the sunlight.

[mithrand1r]

Trolls DO turn to stone in sunlight - established as fact in both The Hobbit and LOTR texts by JRRT. :) Remember - the trolls turned to stone in the book too, when the sun rose. Yes - late in LOTR there are Trolls that survive in the sunlight/daytime. This is somewhat explained by a mention in the Appendices of the appearance of trolls who could endure the sunlight.

Thanks valandil!

I remember the part of the trolls turning to stone in the hobbit, but I did not remember what they did in the LOTR movies. I was trying to keep my review solely based as a stand alone film w/out reference to the text.

I will need to watch again if I plan to see how well the movie is as an adaptation of the Hobbit. My initial impression is good, but I would need to think more on some of the differences found in the movie.

[Earniel]

It seems that Mirkwood (Greenwood) and the Necromancer will be the focus on movie 2 and Smaug left for movie 3.
Interesting prediction. There's something to say for that.

[mithrand1r]

Have you seen the new movie? Give us your report!

Positives:

Movie kept the general feel of the Hobbit

Costumes, scenery and music well done

Martin Freeman well chosen as Bilbo

Elrond much better in this film than LOTR.

Demonstrating Smaug's destruction and take over of lonely mountain did a good job to set the movie in motion.

Although not from the Hobbit, the pale orc was a nice touch. I thought the wooden hand was odd.

The pacing overall was good. I did not get the impression that things were being rushed. Some of the battles were overly long and overblown, but that is PJs style. Hopefully the additions to the films will not detract from the Hobbit.

Negatives:

Elves were portrayed to not provide any assistance against Smaug, which I assume was done to play up the animosity between Elves and Dwarves.

Although close by ME standards the wood elves were still about a 3-5 days march from their home in Mirkwood to the Lonely mountain. If Smaug's attack was as sudden and devastating as the Hobbit indicates then it would not be practical to expect the wood elves to be on hand to fight/repel the dragon.

While the wood Elves might be a force to reckon with in their woodland home, is it realistic to expect them to be able to assist the dwarves with military might against a dragon?

While it may be good to play up the animosity between Elves and Dwarves I think it was awkwardly done in the film. I would have preferred to just let them say at some point in the film that there was some animosity between the two groups and not go into the reasons why.

It was not necessary to portray the Dwarves as slobs at the dinner table. I thought it bad enough (though minor) that several of the Dwarves were being used for cheap gags as members from a Monty Python sketch.

I agree with GrayMouser -- the original Troll scene was better in the Hobbit

The Dwarves dislike of food at Elrond's house was annoying. Are elves vegetarian? Do dwarves really not eat fruits and vegetables? It was a poor attempt at humor.

Radagast reminded me too much of Tim the Enchanter (http://z4.ifrm.com/12419/103/0/p1039168/knowledge_tim_the_enchanter_monty_python_demotivat ional_posters_1292343711.jpg). I think they portrayed him too comically. I did not like the rabbits much. However, since so little is written about Radagast this would be complaining about things added that were not mentioned in the story.

From the battle in Goblin town it appears that the laws of physics do not apply.

Funny how Bilbo escaped notice with Goblins surrounding him. While it does add to the bit about Hobbits able to be unnoticed and quiet, this was difficult to believe (even in a fantasy film).

Battle scenes in general were overblown and longer than needed. Although I now expect this from PJ&co.

Although minor, I agree with azalea -- It would have been nicer to see Gandalf push him out in time for meeting with the Dwarves at the Green Dragon Inn.

Although minor, the portrayal of some of the dwarves as fools from a Monty Python sketch was annoying. (Especially since they were not portrayed that way in The Hobbit)


Overall, it is a good adaptation of The Hobbit. I give 8 of 10 stars.
As others stated, the film could have trimmed about 30-45 minutes off the film to make a tighter less bloated film. I did not mind the length, but I can see how som people would consider the film to be too long.

Areas I would consider for trimming:
Orc attack before Rivendell
Length of battles in general
The Orc scene on weathertop (I am assuming it is weathertop) after the failed orc attack before rivendell.
The stone giants.

[Alec]

The company was able to outrun wargs on foot far too easily and quite often.

I'm not sure why they changed the troll scene so much. It's a very iconic moment from the books and I don't think the changes improved it.

[Alec]

Funny how Bilbo escaped notice with Goblins surrounding him. While it does add to the bit about Hobbits able to be unnoticed and quiet, this was difficult to believe (even in a fantasy film).


I think that that was terrible. They should of made it more realistic.