[Epic Movie] The Hobbit: Part 1 (coming December 2012)

Nice movie. Saw in 48fps.

I hate 3D movies though, but the 48fps does add something and is noticeable.

Would watch again, in 2D, to avoid the headache I got when leaving the cinema.

 

Saw it Friday and rather enjoyed it, more so than The Fellowship of the Ring. A few issues and it was kind of a 3 character show for the most part but still very enjoyable.

 

People must have had lowered expectations for this movie because almost every review I've read lately has been very positive, but almost like the reviewer was surprised they liked it as much as they did. I don't know if that was because of early reviews or for the fact that the source material for the Hobbit is generally weaker than LOTR.

I was also thinking about how spoiled we've become. The 48 FPS and 3D on this thing are technically and visually stunning, but people like to nitpick it because it doesn't feel like a "film" in some parts.

 

Reviews overall are more positive than negative, but the consensus among critics is that the film overstuffs a slender novel and that the 48 fps is a distraction and looks cheesy.

I honestly wonder if I saw the same film. I thought the visuals were stunning. I always mention my wife in movie reviews: she thought it was one of the best movies she's seen this year, and the best use of 3D (I might give that nod to Life of Pi, but agree the 3D is very good here) and she's far more interested in smaller, more personal stories (well, she's like many women in that regard).

Peter Jackson is, let's admit, very prone to the more-is-better school of filmmaking. Indulgent. For example, the original "King Kong" was half the length of his version, 70 years between them notwithstanding. And I didn't always love his changes. But I think purists will have more small gripes than your general audience.

(Del Toro would have been perfect as director. You could see his touches in the scenes involving the goblins. But woulda coulda shoulda.)

I hope this movie reaches a large audience. So far the audience has given a Cinescore of A.

 

I loved LOTR like most, but had lower expectations for the Hobbit. Like you said, the Hobbit novel was not meant to be as epic as LOTR. There was just no way The Hobbit movie could be better than LOTR and it's hard to get THAT excited about a prequel anyways.

I would review The Hobbit similar to how I reviewed The Amazing Spiderman. If their "predecessors" didn't exist, they would be very good stand alone movies. That being said, I still really enjoyed The Hobbit and like what Jackson added from the novel.

 

This was like one of the greatest movie going experience ever... The music was dope, tons of action, comedy, great visual effects which almost reminds me of how Bewoulf looked the last time I saw it...

 

Really liked the movie. Didn't LOVE it like I did the original trilogy, but that had nothing to do with the movie but rather the source material. It just isn't as good a story.

Which is not to say its not a good story...just hard to live up to LOTR.

If I had to make any negative comment, I would say they could have trimmed 20-30 minutes off of it and it wouldn't have affected it. However, this did not deter from my enjoyment of the movie.

Looking forward to part 2 and part 3.

 

Never watched LOTR...

I went to go see the Hobbit.. and It was ight.

 

if you see this on an imax sized screen does it have to be in 3d?

 

Safe to say, best movie of 2012???

 

I don't know that I would say it's the best movie, but it's the one I anticipated the most. I've already seen it twice, and if the world doesn't end tomorrow, I'll be seeing it again soon. Martin Freeman was a brilliant choice for Bilbo!

 

Martin Freeman was amazing.. This guy fo real, every ounce of screen time he gets, I was just in awe of his performance... That once scene Baggins had with Gollum, pure awesomeness!!!!!

 

Easily the best scene in the film!

 

I agree. That scene was awesome.

 

Zero Dark Thirty, Looper, Dark Knight Rises, Avengers, Skyfall, & Argo. All were better movies imo.


This movie seemed to lost it's magic compared to LOTR.

 

^This sums up a lot for me.

After reading Peter Jackson's interview with Rolling Stone, I can see that he's simply another of these "excess" directors. More is better, so to speak. Like King Kong: I love long movies if they're done right, but way, waaaaaaay too much buildup; he could've cut 15/20 minutes from the first hour, easy.

The Hobbit could've been 2 hrs 30 minutes rather than 2 hrs 50 minutes and fewer critics would have jumped on his head.

I feel like I'm quibbling, because it's a good story, and only pales next to LOTR because it doesn't have the same epic tale. Which is partly why Peter Jackson jacked with it so much.

As far as "best film of the year"? My wife thought so (that and "Beasts of the Southern Wild"). I'd say it was the most visually stunning (that and "Life of Pi") and far better than the critics allow.

 

I've not seen 0 DT,Skyfall or Argo but it's safe to say it won't be better than the hobbit... That won't stop me from seeing it though cause I liked the hurt locker/ love the james bond films and really dug The Town...

 

I don't know. I didn't care much for LOR. The formula of that series was too much like Lethal weapon. As Joel Silver described LW they're movies of 15 min actions scenes with 3 mins of character development in-between like commercials.

The tone of the trailer doesn't look like it's going to carry the humor and playful language of the book. It's not really The Hobbit story without it I reckon.

It's also not a good idea to emulate Lee Marvin's singing.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xnbiRDNaDeo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

That's what SHE asked!

 

Okay, I saw it. It was all beautifully done and whatever.

I'm not one to insist on fidelity to the book. Just like Snow White has changed over centuries with re-tellings, artists in the movie-biz should have the lattitude to provide their own interpretation of a story without slavish obedience to their predecessors. I think my problem with the changes Jackson made is that I don't like his version.

One, similarities to the LOTR in pacing and action and even story-telling devices show him to be a bit of a one-trick pony. Tolkien's 2 books are markedly different, but the movies look the same.

Two, he took out the one thing that I really like about The Hobbit, an innocent, care-free adventure. Instead, Jackson loads it down with a bunch of apocalyptic crap to make the whole thing look more significant. He's taking a story that's not an epic and turning it into one. Having done LOTR first might be part of the problem, causing some sequel pressure to always give the audience more.

Three, the story elements he added were just kinda lame and annoying.