Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (part 1 of 3)

[toadwbg]

Let's start out by ignoring the obvious- that this is 3 movies from 1 book, we have beat that horse to death already. :deadhorse1:/>/>

Now down to business: I think either reading the book "The Hobbit" or having seen the LOTR Trilogy is a must prior to watching this film. Reading the "Similarion" or other Tales is optional but can provide some depth into the sub-plots. Yes, Peter Jackson took some liberties for storytelling but its his movie, much like the other LOTR films.

The Good: Really there is soooooo much my heads exploding! Can't possibly tell or remember it all.

- Prelude/Intro that gives us the 411 on this story and how it fits into the LOTR

- Seeing the Dwarves' Lonely Mountain (Kingdom Under the Mountain) on screen- it's Gold!

- Party at Bilbo's house!

- Martin Freeman as Bilbo- great job stepping in for the now too aged Sir Ian Holm.

- Dwarves are about as much fun and varied as they can get without being Snow White's

- Return to Middle Earth/New Zealand

- Orcs, Goblins, and Trolls. In particular the Goblin King under the Misty Mountains was Grotesque in a fun, storytelling way and Azog, Thorin's arch nemesis is one bad mo-fo!

- STONE GIANTS ROCK!

- Gollum looks better than ever. In fact all his scenes with Bilbo are almost verbatim from the book probably for the better as this part is almost holy ground for Hobbit and LOTR purists

- Cameo's by Elrond, Gladriel, Saruman the White, Frodo all work well in the narrative

- Bilbo! His character is slightly modified for emotional and heroic effect and it pays-off in the film narrative

- I know understand why Thorin has an Oaken Shield, maybe this was covered in some obscure source material of Tolkien's?

- Dwarves of old fighting Orcs/Goblins- great cinematic stuff

- Eagles!

The Bad:

- CGI effects look like CGI effects. Wargs in particular.

- 48 frames per second? Didn't do anything for me over standard 24fps. In fact it might have made things a little blury on some shots or maybe it's the fault or technical limits of my theater's projection system?

- Improbable escapes and melees between Dwarves and their foes. OK, its a fantasy but it gets a little thin at times.

- LOOOOOoooooog story in the first act after the prelude/intro. Some scenes could have been half as long and told the story just as well. Your sorta waiting thinking, "Get on with it already!". This does pass and things move at a rapid rate the rest of the film.

The Ugly:

- Radagast the Brown. I know the Hobbit is a children's tale but considering the rest of the movie's tone- a silly Radagast just didn't work well. He was more-so used as a plot device to further the sub-plot of the Necromancer who will probably be featured more heavily in the next film.

- Radagast's sleigh ride pulled by bunnies...yeah this really happened.

I must admit- there was some heroic moments that absolutely made me tingle and get a little misty (Mountain) eyed! I did not expect that. It also become obvious why the story is 3 movies- because it will allow MORE awesomeness later on where it is needed and yes, there will be more awesomeness that I am eagerly looking forward too! Bilbo Kicks @ss!

Edited December 17, 2012 by toadwbg

[toadwbg]

I should mention I too my 2 older kids to the movie:

Daughter (almost 7) slept thru most the first act (she was tired before we went). The parts she did watch she said "Dad, I wasn't scared".

Son 9 LOVED it! Totally into the movie and yes, he has read the book.

[toadwbg]

So I'm discussing the film at bedtime with my son of 9 and how the ring seduces its wearer and corrupts him. This is why I tell him they were fortunate Bilbo and later Frodo, both Hobbits (gentle happy folk) came into its possession rather then men or Wizards.

We get on the subject of the Arkenstone and how both Thorin and his grandfather before him coveted it jealously to the point of madness as well. My son says, "Maybe the arkenstone is magical too, like the ring". I love it when a 9-year old teaches me something new about books I've read and known for years but never considerd. Love my son :wub:

[DutyCat]

More importantly, was there a new Star Trek trailer?

[toadwbg]

More importantly, was there a new Star Trek trailer?

Yes, I'm personally not all that jazzed about the next Trek Movie, but lets leave that discussion to a different discussion topic already started...

This thread is about the Hobbit. Stay on Target.

[DutyCat]

Yes, I'm personally not all that jazzed about the next Trek Movie, but lets leave that discussion to a different discussion topic already started... :deadhorse1:/>

This thread is about the Hobbit. Stay on Target.

Hey, it was on target! The intent was to show disrespect to the fantasy genre!:shoot:/>

[rob.w]

Saw the movie Friday night and agree with many of your comments.

I understand why Jackson added so much additional material. While we watch the movie today as a separate entity,in the future it will be clearly seen as a lead in to LOTR so much of the additional material added to the hobbit will provide the background for the second movie. Tolkien himself had considered revising The Hobbit so that it would better fit into the entire ring story but in the end chose to make only minor changes to the book.

I agree that Radagast does seem to be a bit of a buffin but Jackson has said that he wanted Hobbit to be a movie filled with a little more humour then the continually dark LOTR so between the scenes in Bag End, the trolls, the relationships between the dwarves & the silliness of Radagast that has been achieved. As for the rabbit pulled sleigh, hey if reindeer can pull a sleigh why not rabbits. LOL

The thing that annoyed me about the movie was the use of 3D. While Jackson refrained from using it for too many of the obvious silly optical tricks that the technology can achieve I still found it to be distracting. First and formost you read/watch Tolkien for the story and I found the continual viewing of 3D images tiring and distracting, besides the glass were uncomfortable.

I'll see the film again, buy the DVD and patiently wait for part 2 next December.

[Steve N]

Sounds good..I'd like to see it on the big screen, but but unless I can see it in 2D I'll wait for the Blue Ray. 3D is a gimmick, and extremely unfair to those of us who already wear glasses, especially bifocals.

SN

[toadwbg]

I saw it in 2D as well. I'm NOT a fan of 3D and won't pay extra for it.

Sometihng else I thought was well done in the film is the different goblin/Orc races (is that racist?). They did well to try and differentiat them. I liked the subplot of Azog being the arch enemy of Thorin, which is somewhat unique or at least more fleshed out in the film, someoen who is a Tolkien scholar feel free to induldge me.

This Emoticon is so approprate for this film:

[toadwbg]

As is this one:

[IrishGreek]

Toad,

Good review. Didn't get to see this weekend but looking forward to it. Been waiting a long time for a 'good' movie of this book.

BTW, welcome back from China.

John

[toadwbg]

Toad,

Good review. Didn't get to see this weekend but looking forward to it. Been waiting a long time for a 'good' movie of this book.

BTW, welcome back from China.

John

Thanks, had a good trip but the jet lag was tough!

You reminded me of something else about this film version: it tells a great STORY. That is something Hollywood too often overlooks. Obviously Tolkien gets the credit for the source material but Peter Jackson likewise did and outstanding job. Even with all the FX, it's the story that stands out. Having 3 films to tell the story I think will only help.

[Darren Roberts]

My 11 year old daughter wants to see it. Just how scary is it? I've heard the orcs are pretty scary.

[toadwbg]

My 11 year old daughter wants to see it. Just how scary is it? I've heard the orcs are pretty scary

I'd say fine for an 11-year old. It's not really psychologically scary but has suspenseful moments. Goblins are more goofy, Orcs are more "serious". Gollum is slightly frightening if they've never seen LOTR perhaps but he's also balanced with humor and made to ultimately be pathetic. Bilbo's mercy of Gollum is really an important plot point and a good lesson for kids.

I should mention I too my 2 older kids to the movie:

Daughter (almost 7) slept thru most the first act (she was tired before we went). The parts she did watch she said "Dad, I wasn't scared".

Son 9 LOVED it! Totally into the movie and yes, he has read the book.

[HOLMES]

Look forward to this movie...

[Flankerman]

Interesting to read about 7, 9 & 11 year olds watching this film - in the US.

Over here in the UK it has a '12A' certificate.........

Films under this category are considered to be unsuitable for very young people. Those aged under 12 years are only admitted if accompanied by an adult, aged at least 18 years, at all times during the motion picture. However, it is generally not recommended that children under 12 years should watch the film. Films under this category can contain mature themes, discrimination, soft drugs, moderate swear words, infrequent strong language and moderate violence, sex references and nudity. Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed. Sexual violence may be implied or briefly indicated.

Maybe we have more of a 'Nanny State' here in the UK than in the US ???

I'm trying to persuade my 13 year old grandaughter that she needs to see it - so I have an excuse to go with her

(Going on my own as a 65 year old bloke feels a bit strange).

Ken

[PNW_Modeler]

I saw the movie Christmas day and absolutely hated it. Peter Jackson totally pulled a George Lucas on this one.....utterly lacking any heart and emotion like the Lord of the Rings, the film was nothing more than a giant fire works show.....a lot of "OOOOHHHHH!" and "AHHHHH!" with no substance.

So disappointed that I will not be watching the other two disast....oops...I mean films.

Give me the Rankin Bass version over PJacks high tech video game looking snore fest.

[Steve N]

Mandie and I saw it last night. Overall I we both enjoyed it. For myself, I thought the story could have been tightened up considerably..it moved a rather slowly at times, and wandered all over the place. I realize that this is just the first act, but still Jackson seemed to be trying to throw way to many different story elements at you at once. It's been decades since I read the book, but I'm assuming well over half of the movie was either from other Tolkien material or Jackson's own imagination. While it was good, I think the LOTR movies were considerably better. Like the poster above, I also just thought it lacked the heart, depth and realism of the LOTR films..the characters were just not that believable. When watching LOTR, I really feel like I'm watching real folks in Middle Earth..The Hobbit felt more like a typical fantasy movie.

SN

Edited December 31, 2012 by Steve N

[FM-Whip]

I must admit- there was some heroic moments that absolutely made me tingle and get a little misty (Mountain) eyed! I did not expect that. It also become obvious why the story is 3 movies- because it will allow MORE awesomeness later on where it is needed and yes, there will be more awesomeness that I am eagerly looking forward too! Bilbo Kicks @ss!

Saw it yesterday in the standard 2-D/low-frame rate format with my two teenage sons. They liked it. I found it to be interminably long. The story sagged in places, despite the unending battles in which none of the heroes gets anything but a minor scratch. The best looking parts of the film are the New Zealand landscapes which are blended with CGI landscapes, and Bilbo's house. I'm a CGI/special effects buff so that's what I looking at.

I had to re-suspend my already suspended dis-belief to a much deeper level when the brown tree-hugging wizard with the rabbit-towed sled showed up - that was just a bit too much for me. Same with the battling rock giants...

Overall impression: a very, very busy film, especially in the second half, but ultimately leaving me with an empty, unsatisfied feeling. Sort of like light beer...

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

[mlicari]

I saw it with my wife and son last week. They enjoyed it. I thought it was bad.

Like Steve and John, I found it to be long, sloppy, and shallow. Some elements seemed to be completely divorced from the story/plot and thus random and pointless, while other times the action and dialog was so bluntly moving the plot that it had the subtlety of a flying mallet.

The battles/fights with the orcs and goblins were so unbelievable that I found myself exclaiming "oh, come on!" more than once in the theater. That's not too helpful when trying to suspend disbelief in a fantasy movie!

In short, I won't be seeing the following two films.

1 star out of 5. I'll give it one star for the scenes with Gollum, which were really good...and it would have been two stars if Cate Blanchette had been on screen more! :)

Mike

[Horrido]

When I finally saw it, my feeling was that they were trying to over-hype the scenes: excessive CGI, overly-dramatic music and action when the scene really didn't emote, and ended up just being over-the-top. I never did feel the connection or involvement as with Lord of the Rings. The parts I enjoyed: The singing, the table clearing at Bilbo's, and the telepathic chat between Galadriel and Gandolf for the communicative facial expressions. I like to see acting, interaction, a performance, and the parts where those were done well, I enjoyed.

[MikeC]

MrsC and I went to see it a couple of days ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. The only problem was that having got to the cinema relatively late - a quarter of an hour before "curtain-up" - we were obliged to sit only a couple of rows from the front, which meant that it was difficult o follow the camera-work in places.

But it was a great film, we liked it. The Kingdon under the Mountain was superb, far richer than I'd ever conceived it when I read the book. The Troll scene was spot-on - they had exactly the accents I'd imagined from the book. I even liked Radagast. As for the prosthetic arm ...

As for the Dwarves - excellent set of characters.

Looking forward to the next one.

[TomcatFanatic123]

Saw the movie tonight. Considering I have the attention span of a drunk gnat, I wasn't looking forward to sitting through an almost three hour movie, but it actually wasn't too bad. Honestly, I really enjoyed it. Yes, it was a bit too long, and I do think that the editors definitely could have 86'ed some of the parts that seemed to drag on and on, and it wouldn't have affected the story at all.

Edited December 31, 2012 by TomcatFanatic123

[Aaronw]

I liked it, even Radigast and his bunny sled.

I did find some of the other additions distracting though. As much as I dislike how helpless the dwarf party is in the 70s cartoon, this movie goes way too far the other way making them all great warriors, and taking away from the dangers of crossing a wild land. Would have prefered something more in the middle.

Despite providing some action I found the the one armed orc story unneccessary and actually damaging. It added plot device where none was needed (they already have a reason to travel) and it ruined the Giant Eagles scene for me. Unfortunately it is fairly obvious that it will continue to be a major subplot throughout the whole series of films.

Same goes for the rock giants which were only mentioned in a whimsical way in the book. It is sort of like describing a storm as raining cats and dogs, you don't expect a film director to actually put cats and dogs into the film. While kind of a neat sequence to watch, it was out of place.

[toadwbg]

Saw it in IMAX 3D 48fps glory.

IT WAS cinematically better, but not because of 3D, which I found to be distracting. The combination of iMAX screen, sound, and resolution paid off I think. some of the stuff that looked wonky seeing it in standard format looked better in 48fps. IMAX by itself is just plain fun.

Still got a chill even in my second showing when Thorin Oakenshield walks down from the burning tree to face Azok towards the movie's end. Great cinematic stuff.