Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News



With THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, Peter Jackson has set himself the bizarre challenge of returning to the site of his magnum opus to tell a smaller-in-scope tale via the use of cutting-edge technology (i.e. 48-frames-per-second 3D). It's a lot to reconcile. As the film sprints through its chaotic prologue, narrative coherence takes a backseat to high-definition visual wizardry; it's a bewildering barrage of footage that looks either spectacular or gallingly fake. But then Jackson's virtual camera plunges deep into the fully-digitized Lonely Mountain to reveal the discovery of the Arkenstone, and suddenly the alleged game-changing promise of AVATAR has finally been realized. What's real and what isn't? I haven't a clue, but it looks amazing. This is the future of event filmmaking, and the possibilities for a director of Jackson's talents to explode it are seemingly endless.

But there are kinks to work out. Many, many kinks. So many that I wonder if Jackson wishes he could've delayed shooting AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY another year while they figured out how to eliminate the occasional and terribly distracting undercranked effect of actors zipping around like coked-up Mack Sennett characters. Also, while the clarity can be awe-inspriring, it has a tendency to make the sets look cheap, the armor chintzy, and the makeup barely worthy of an Asylum production. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY in high-frame-rate 3D is a deep, vicious pendulum swing between transporting and flat-out unwatchable - and it's impossible to fully adjust to the format because you never know when it's suddenly going to look like a demo reel.

Would I feel differently had I viewed the film in standard 24fps 3D? Well, jarring tech hiccups aside, I'd still have to contend with the interminable first act, which left me feeling like I was watching the biggest artistic miscalculation from an elite filmmaker since SKIDOO. So probably no.

The brilliance of Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy is the degree to which he streamlined a digressive, detail-laden narrative in order to connect with mainstream audiences, who previously considered high fantasy the province of twenty-sided-die-rolling nerds. He gave Tolkien's expansive stories an earthy, tactile immediacy that stood in stark contrast to the lifeless CG environs of THE PHANTOM MENACE. Though the visual f/x now show their age (as visual f/x tend to do with depressing rapidity), Jackson's films still pulsate with the defiant charge of a director out to prove an entire industry wrong - and, while he's at it, make a cinematic epic for the ages.

AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is the work of a filmmaker who's up against nothing but his own judgment. He's the final-cut master of Middle Earth on film, so what he says goes - and what ensues is often akin to a paragraph-by-paragraph recreation of the book. The first colossal misstep is Jackson's baffling decision to film the dwarf dinner at Bag End in what feels like real time. This is the classic call-to-adventure scene in which Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen) goads Bilbo Baggins (an overly mannered Martin Freeman) into joining Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his band of twelve dwarves on a quest to take back the Lonely Mountain from the dragon Smaug. This is where it becomes painfully apparent that Jackson is stretching a 300-page story well past the snapping point; the dwarves' bits of comedic business are uninspired (tossing around valuable plates, scarfing down whole wheels of cheese, etc.), Gandalf feels like a spectator, and the solemn intoning of "Misty Mountains" stops the film cold. It could be that Jackson's trying to introduce too many characters at once, but he commits the double sin of failing to make the most important members of the crew memorable or vital to the story. Balin, Fili, Kili, Dwalin... unless you know the story well, they barely register.

Almost every incident in the first chunk of Tolkien's novel is dramatized with the same exacting detail (with a few embellishments thrown in), which means the author's penchant for anticlimax is dutifully honored (particularly in the outfit's encounter with three very hungry and stupid trolls). While Jackson was able to invigorate Tolkien's staid, travelogue storytelling in his LORD OF THE RINGS films, he really sinks the viewer into the doldrums of journeying here. It's probably worse if you know where they're going, especially when you're aware there's a load of exposition to wade through once they reach Rivendell. And while it's lovely to see Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman (god bless you, Christopher Lee) again, they're only present to provide exposition.

Fortunately, the film perks up once the party leaves Rivendell (apologies to Sylvester McCoy for failing to mention his lively, but utterly superfluous appearance as Radagast the Brown). The first true jaw-dropper of a set piece arrives when Bilbo and company find themselves caught in the middle of a boulder-chucking brawl between a few Stone Giants. Though the sequence does nothing to move the story along, it at least brings the literal sturm-und-drang that the film has been lacking. I have no idea how it plays in 24fps, but in HFR 3D, it looks like real freakin' mountains going all WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS on each other. I hesitate to say it's worth the heightened ticket price, but I'm certainly glad I saw this sequence in its intended format.

I don't know if it's a question of shaking off rust, but once Jackson plunges the party into the Misty Mountains, he roars back to life as a filmmaker. Crosscutting between Gandalf and the dwarves battling a never-ending legion of goblins (led by their grotesque, testicle-chinned king) and Bilbo matching wits with a pathetic little fella named Gollum (Andy Serkis and WETA remain the best show in town), Jackson finds a groove and stays in it for the duration. But this is also where you're reminded of the limited emotional resonance of THE HOBBIT. Aside from Bilbo sparing Gollum, there's not much here to spring the waterworks. This is all prelude to the big opera of THE LORD OF THE RINGS. It's a fine story, sure, but this is just the first act of a book that can easily be read in a couple of sittings.

And therein lies the potential problem with the next two movies. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY runs a healthy 160-plus minutes, and more than half of it is filler. Worse, I know goddamn well there's not 320-minutes worth of story left. Not even close. If I felt like Jackson was attacking this book with the all-in bravado he brought to THE LORD OF THE RINGS (and setting up more than Tolkien's book delivers), I'd forgive the bloat. But the listlessness of AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY reminds me of the slow boat to Skull Island in KING KONG. We're adrift. So please, Mr. Jackson, wrap this up, and get the hell out of Middle Earth. This is beginning to feel more like cartography than storytelling.

Faithfully submitted,

Mr. Beaks

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:06 p.m. CST


    by macheesmo3

    i expected fawning..... still gonna go see it though.......

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Can't wait.

    by Jay

  • Talk about bloat. He loses the weight and it ends up in this films. Go figure.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:09 p.m. CST


    by BeeDub

    I'll still see it, but this is troubling.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:09 p.m. CST

    I like Cartography! Suck it Beaks

    by Brian_De_Man

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Not excited at all.

    by dead youngling

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:13 p.m. CST


    by aceldama

    This sounds like the movie I expected, but didn't expect anyone to be honest about it. Thank-you.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Another AICB 'reviewer' trying to make a name for himself!

    by Matt Schlotman

    Hey beaks, fuck you too!

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:14 p.m. CST

    Gotcha Mr. Beaks, expectations lowered

    by 3D-Man

    Still pretty sure I'll dig it though

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Where were the producers on this film?

    by stoney elephant

    I knew it. I KNEW IT. THREE fucking movies for The Hobbit?!?!?! WTF Jackson.

  • Guys who look like that will be at home having sex with a lady.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST

    King Kong

    by Charlie_Allnut

    Great film, but the first hour could have been covered in 5 minutes! Would have been brilliant if the movie had just been edited down. Hell the original is only around 65 minutes!

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST

    I likes mine.....RAW!

    by vic twenty

    I'll see it just the same. The music can't beat Rankin & bass tho...

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Beaks = "Jackson's trying to introduce too many characters at once"

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    That's Tolkien, not Jackson. How else is PJ supposed to introduce 13 ... count them, THIRTEEN ... dwarves? I really don't get it. The people who complain about the changes PJ makes to Tolkien's stories are the ones complaining PJ didn't make enough changes. Make up your minds!!

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Where were the producers?

    by Charlie_Allnut

    Calculating the box office of THREE movies vs. TWO movies. See Harry Potter 7 and Breaking Dawn for examples of this.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:21 p.m. CST

    PJ = "I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, so fuck it, I'm doing."

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:22 p.m. CST

    The above's not a quote, I'm being facetious.

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:25 p.m. CST

    Jackson's Kong is a great film

    by MrD

    Unfortunately it somehow got intercut with an hour of unnecessary footage that bogs it down. He failed to learn the lesson of the spider pit. Yes, fanboys miss it, fanboys long to see it, but OBrien was probably correct to take it out because it hurt the (relentless) momentum of the narrative. That's one of the things that makes the original Kong such a thrilling adventure. Jackson needs to be a story teller, not a fan boy.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:26 p.m. CST

    So...bloated, overlong and self-indulgent, then?

    by BiggusDickus


  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:28 p.m. CST

    This review has me a little worried.

    by tomandshell

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:31 p.m. CST

    IMDB shows nine producers and one editor.

    by BiggusDickus

    There's yer problem right there, methinks...

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:36 p.m. CST

    King Kong guaranteed these Hobbit films would be bloated

    by FrodoFraggins

  • If it was a standalone film made before LOTR, I think we'd see a lot less bloat and a more simple adventure movie. But The Hobbit has to fit what PJ established with LOTR, and this may hold it back. However, I'm speculating. I haven't seen Hobbit, and I'll reserve judgement until I do. But my criticism of PJ in the past is he does a 20 course banquet, when a simple second breakfast and elevenses would do just fine.

  • So go figure. The only review that you should trust is your own review -- go see it for yourselves, folks.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:42 p.m. CST

    I just don't get the three movies thing

    by georgecauldron

    How much story are they adding from other Tolkien works?

  • or Spielbergs films sentimental. In other words: A completely thoughtless throwaway criticism.

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:50 p.m. CST

    If Ridley Scott directed The Hobbit...

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    Bilbo and the dwarves would have been at the Lonely Mountain within the first 10 minutes of the film, with none of them knowing why they're there. ;)

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:50 p.m. CST

    I'm also reading some bloated reviews.

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

  • Dec. 3, 2012, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Bring us THE WHEEL OF TIME

    by AxeEmAll

    If there's one epic that deserves screen treatment which is way too long overdue, it is Robert Jordan's books

  • Good Honest review. I mean how can you stretch ONE story, into the length of three movies, when you just made three movies out of three books. Beaks is right. The Hobbit is not a long book. Oh boy, this should be interesting. And it doesn't sound like the 48fps does much to help. Yipes!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Sorry, Beaks' review has been pulled for being *out of context*

    by The_Cellarrat

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:04 a.m. CST



    'nuff said.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:05 a.m. CST

    These talkbacks are getting angry

    by georgecauldron

    Some major shit going down.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Looks like Beaks has had it with the bullshit around here too!

    by FuckinAmateurMan

    Kidd gets unpublished this morning for a Harry fluff piece, and Beaks comes out with the ballsiest, most honest review I've ever seen, made even more impressive with what's at stake for him personally. Harry just shit his pants. AICN has reached critical mass.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Just look at that poster: movie looks awful shitty


    That TV ad with Smaug? Looked like a shitty video game. How can the CGI possibly look worse than LOTR that came out more than a decade ago?

  • ...hence the way longer than expected running time. Still, damn. Damn, damn, damn. This review has the unsettling feeling of straight-shooting honesty.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Looks like Rankin/Bass is going to be the better version

    by thelordofhell

    Three films...........THREE..........Christopher Lee and Sir Ian Mckellen could both quite possibly die before the 3rd movie comes out.............

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:23 a.m. CST

    I have been telling you fools that this was going to suck.

    by Ironhelix

    Jackson DOES NOT GET THESE STORIES. He simply fucking doesn't. This was a fucking kids book for fuck's sake. How are they making it into 3 goddamned movies? Money grab.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:26 a.m. CST

    So is Smaug in this movie or what?

    by Ironhelix

    No mention of him in the review.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:27 a.m. CST

    Didn't finish it, but had to stop and comment at the Skidoo comparison

    by mr.underwater

    Because comparing anything to Skidoo is some ultra-bold shit. Ultra-bold...

  • Yikes! I'm glad I'm seeing it in IMAX 3D! (Wait, that's not 48p, is it?)

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:29 a.m. CST

    Which one is Bret McKenzie?

    by Larry_Sanders

  • Anybody?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:35 a.m. CST

    Does this article contain enough proper context for Harry?

    by YourMomsBox3D

  • Boat to the island should have been 15 minutes tops. Kong meeting and falling for Watts- 20 minutes. Dinosaur fights- 20 minutes (split up with other scenes) before it gets tiresome. Kong escaping in NYC, climbing building, pathos, death- 30 minutes. =85 minutes. Add in another 15 minutes for minor characters and the max you can really get out of that story is 100 minutes, which is EXACTLY as long as the first version took. Yet Jackson managed to make it 187 minutes long without adding a single thing to the story, and still didn't manage to explain how that tiny boat moved that giant ape. The man needs an editor. More than that, a producer who won't let him spend the money in the first place. The studio asking him to make the hobbit into firts 2, and now 3 movies, are responsible for actually encouraging PJ to go long when what he needs is someone telling him to go shorter.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:49 a.m. CST

    billcom6, nailed it.

    by Nichole

    Good job sir.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:53 a.m. CST

    Saw the film on Sunday

    by SEVGN

    And I have to say that this review is dead on. The first half of the film is sooooo drawn out. You get the feeling that Jackson is trying to film each sentence on each page of the book. And yes, the dinner sequence is unbearably long. All of this should happen in the first 10 minutes. GO. ON. THE. ADVENTURE. I watched the film in 2d at 24 frames and without all the bells and whistles, the herky-jerky narrative really sticks out. If you make it to the second half you will be rewarded with the excellent Gollum scene. But in some ways I wanted them to stop the movie right before that and leave it for the next movie. It's a strong enough set piece that I would pay just to see that in the next movie.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:55 a.m. CST

    If the 1933 KING KONG didn't exist...

    by Chris Moody

    ...we would be hailing Jackson's KING KONG as "revolutionary cinema" that makes the 1976 film look awfully ridiculous.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:56 a.m. CST

    An unexpected review

    by JP

    Ballsy - bravo sir!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Seeing a pattern in these reviews

    by Horace Cox

    The early reviews I've read (including this one) all sound eerily similar. And there are reports of the 48fps making people sick and inducing migraines. Not very promising.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:56 a.m. CST

    The three HOBBIT films might not all be based upon...

    by Chris Moody

    ...THE HOBBIT. There is plenty of apocryphal literature written by Tolkien that could be used too.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:02 a.m. CST


    by Nichole

    Then Why call it the Hobbit? I know, what you are saying, there is loads of material, but doesn't make any sense to slam other books into the Hobbit.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Collider Review

    by Michael Thompson

    Dave Trumbore gave it a A-

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:25 a.m. CST

    As soon as three films were announced.

    by hallmitchell

    I got that sinking feeling. When i saw King Kong I knew Peter Jackson had gained a habit for bloat. This review has confirmed my worst fears.

  • and cut out large unnecessary sections from the theatrical version. I'm also not sure what to think of 48-frames-per-second 3D, maybe I'll wait for Blu rays to come out...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:29 a.m. CST

    @ phantomcreepsreturns:

    by Chris Moody

    It isn't merely called THE HOBBIT. The three films have three different titles. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG THERE AND BACK AGAIN I suspect that the second and third films will have more than just the fight against Smaug and the subsequent war. Then again, I think that it is possible that Peter Jackson could have gathered notes written by Tolkien that can provide supplement to the films. I agree that THE HOBBIT contains enough source material for a good three hour film...and little more. At the same time, I also enjoyed WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE -- even if the book only had a couple dozen words and images. Personally, I will reserve formulating my own opinion until after my second viewing. I guess that this is my usual notion with these films. I may end up loving it...hating it...or just shrugging my shoulders.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:39 a.m. CST

    160 minutes?

    by Titus05

    imagine how long the Extended Edition Blu-ray/DVD will be...3 bloated movies when 1 would have been more then enough...Jackson felt like he had to make 3 movies just because LOTR was a trilogy...since he doesn't have the rights to adapt the Silmarillion I don't see how he's going to make 3 Hobbit movies with close to a 3 hour running time for each movie

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:45 a.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssmredux, Good Reply :)

    by Nichole

    I have several Tollkien Books that have references to the Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings. Honestly, maybe shamefully, I have not read all of them, because they seem like Dungeons and Dragons compendiums. I guess, I will reiterate, that How can you Expand this story to three films, when there were three books larger that only took 3 films? Even with the other material, they don't amount to the Bulk of the Rings Trilogy.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:47 a.m. CST

    Peter - please change your mind

    by hallmitchell

    And just put out one more Hobbit film. Sometimes you can love a universe too much.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Who Did Harry Ban on His Staff ? and Why....


    Is this true or just total internet wankdom. This review does come over a little stronger in truth by AICN standards. However this site is not really read for reviews, at least by me, I used to come here for scoops, but even those have long since gone. Now I come here to soak up hate in the talkbacks. AICN technically only reposts other sites exclusives now. Shame, this site used to be the absolute hub for film news and exclusives. What on earth happened ? I know a lot of bridges were burned back in the day by the Starwars Prequels, Fantasic Four, and Eli Roth etc, but.... it really has downgraded itself these days. Bring it back to glory Harry.

  • without the decency of applying moisturizing lotion on the nipples.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:51 a.m. CST

    the_real_christopher_nolan, bwahaha

    by Mattman


  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Jackson screwed del Toro out from The Hobbit

    by bf skinner

    Del Toro had a brave vision, he had original designs and wasn't interested in frame rate gimmicks. I have no doubt that Jackson fell out with him, leaving del Toro to quit. Beneath his "shy" veneer, Jackson is an egomaniac and a bully. He wanted del Toro to be his bitch, and the superior film maker (del Toro) was having none of it. As soon as he left, I knew the Hobbit was doomed. Kudos for Beaks for his honest appraisal and for not joining on with the AICN Jackson bukkake party.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:58 a.m. CST

    Oh really, unparanoid_android? That's news to Peter Jackson and GDT.

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    GDT left because of studio interference, the push for three movies, the push for 3D, and the fact that he didn't want to spend half a decade working on a Hobbit trilogy when he has other films his heart equally set on.

  • Beaks has pissed on movies I've loved, and loved movies I've hated. The only review that matters is your own review. Go see the fucking thing, then judge for yourselves.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:04 a.m. CST

    I mean, most people think he is just lazy and fat. BUT,

    by Nichole

    The truth is that he was run-over, at a con by a Pallet, which ran over him. Add in the Spine surgery, and "Wisdom Teeth", being pulled, well.... He is not in a Wheelchair, because he is heavy! He was hurt, badly. But, that doesn't mean he isn't high as fuck, and can't run his own website.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:05 a.m. CST

    3 160-ish minute movies

    by bass

    And that's BEFORE the "Extended" cuts!!!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:10 a.m. CST

    Yahoo reviews 'The Hobbit'...

    by Titus05

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:11 a.m. CST

    Yahoo reviews 'The Hobbit'...

    by Titus05

    nice review...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:12 a.m. CST

    I'm content with this review, and here's why...

    by tensticks

    With rare exceptions, if Beaks hates something, I love it, and vice versa.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:16 a.m. CST

    Three movies was PJ's big mistake

    by Lourdes Galan

    Only for money. Sad

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Drew McWeeny review -they get some comic value out of Harry Knowles dwarf and Aragorn dwarf-

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    I really didn't think Martin Freeman was very good casting for Bilbo, and this pretty much confirms it

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:32 a.m. CST

    It is all about making money at this fuckheads

    by Punisherthunder

    $$$ is pushing a trilogy, not the books. this should have been one really long film or a 2 part film. Three parts have been made to take your fucking $$$.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:35 a.m. CST

    punisherthunder, are they going to get your money?

    by Nichole

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:36 a.m. CST

    Great review Beaks

    by Rupee88

    That is one of your better ones..sounded fair and balanced but pulling no punches either.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:42 a.m. CST

    getting nervous this will NOT be a masterpiece

    by corplhicks

    Crap, I thought all along the idea of 3 moves was absurd and the brief clips I saw didn't have the impact of LOTR. I hope it just doesn't utterly suck. The Hobbit is NOT LOTR and if he and the writers are going to turn it into something it wasn't and then totally make i tie in to LOTR much more than every before, and make the one ring really meaningful in the story for a big, then uh-oh, this will piss off very much the faithful. We shall see.......

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:44 a.m. CST

    I have a bad feeling about this.......

    by LLcruize2

    Starting with that Muppet poster that leads us into this review. There is nothing fantasy about that poster, damn what a piece of shit. OK, seeing a very distinct pattern, even in the good reviews that have been culled at Rotten Tomatoes thus far. The fresh reviews come off as being a pass for what Jackson accomplished with the previous trilogy and the hope that he can deliver the goods in the next two Hobbit films and for the balls to push the new technology. Story wise, not seeing much in the way of love. Bloat, even in the positive reviews, is a consistent theme. I will be seeing this no matter the reviews, but I am not going in all fan boy glossy eyed. As has been mentioned many times here and previously, he took a 100 minute story tops with Kong and turned it into a 3hr snore fest. I see the same happening here. I hope the first act of this film he got the bloat off his chest. If not, this is going to be one ugly marathon of endurance for fans to get through.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:52 a.m. CST

    Was LOTR a fluke?

    by MustGoFaster

    I haven't seen his low budget horror films, but I have seen Heavenly Creatures, Frighteners, KK and Lovely Bones. I thought they all sucked to varying degrees. I'm starting to think he lucked out with LOTR and actually he's not all that he's been hyped up to be. Time will tell.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m. CST

    shouldn't Harry 'unpublish' this one too?

    by Windowlicker74

    because it maybe didn't provide the context that he felt the story needed? Like spiderman it wasn't AMAZING, AMAZING I LOVE EMMA STONE SHE 'S LIKE MY ..GRMBL..CHILDHOOD DREAM...AARGH.. PFF...LOVE JUST LOVE THIS MOVEI...AAHH GEEKASM GEEKASMMMMM OOOHAHHH

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:55 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:59 a.m. CST

    "the dwarves' bits of comedic business are uninspired"

    by D.Vader

    I guess its been awhile since Beaks read that passage.

  • Still. Does. Not. Get it. I bet you even by the end of the second movie Beaks will understand why this was made into three films. This movie is all set up. The second movie is all dragon. The third is all battle. And a HUGE battle it is.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:16 a.m. CST

    What´s wrong with Asylum's makeup work?

    by Ditko

    You pull that one right off your ass.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:18 a.m. CST

    Slow build over 3 films

    by orcrist

    This reviewer has forgotten the context of the movie - that it sits within a trilogy. Surely you're not going to give detailed character backgrounds for 13 dwarves in film one? You've got three movies to do it in. I've read the books many times and apart from Thorin the only dwarves you really remember in terms of varied personalities are Balin (the wise one) and Bombur (the fat comic relief one). I'm a little worried about these early reviews, but in saying that my first impression of FOTR was tainted by my love of the books. Needless to say I ended up loving it. I'm hoping this will be the same.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:18 a.m. CST

    Review on NZ TV

    by Antz

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:22 a.m. CST

    To be fair, this is similar to early impressions of FotR

    by Dreamfasting

    FotR had many similar criticisms leveled at it about a few sub-par effects, the pacing, etc. But despite the quibbles, the memory grew fonder over time. This review has a similar vibe ... that sort of "not quite what I had imagined" start, but showing growing respect over the course of the review. I'm not a fan of all of PJ's films as I think he does sometimes get a little lost in the toybox, but this review doesn't frighten me.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:31 a.m. CST


    by Windowlicker74

    "This reviewer has forgotten the context of the movie - that it sits within a trilogy." actualy, that is the problem: that they they made a trilogy to collect more money

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:35 a.m. CST

    Looks horrible

    by elsachmo

    It looks absolutely horrible from the footage I've been able to view. I am a Jackson fan, but the 48fps makes it look like a cheap soap opera camera shot the film and is extremely odd and distracting. I remember reading that almost all the early reviews from those allowed to see footage were basically 100% negative in this regards as well. They can tell us that we just don't get it and that it's the future of filmmaking, but it still looks like crap and hopefully that's not the future of modern filmmaking.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:37 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit was fantastic. Although my screening was in 24fps.

    by applescruff

    I get the distinct feeling from other reviews that the 48fps does indeed ruin the viewing experience. I'm so fucking glad I saw it at a standard frame rate first. My advice is save the extra money and bypass the high frame rate. You'll probably have a much better first experience with the movie. I feel sorry for guys like Beaks and Moriarty. I fucking loved it.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:40 a.m. CST

    A month to go and you have a spoiler filled review??????

    by bohdi71

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:56 a.m. CST

    Beaks can you please write in english.

    by Ian Holm's milky ass sweat

    I can't understand shit. Seriously what are these words?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:57 a.m. CST

    Drew McWeeney said it best...

    by Titus05

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:59 a.m. CST

    Drew McWeeney said it best...

    by Titus05

    My hope is that the three films taken together will work better than this one does on its own

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:22 a.m. CST

    That's what I thought

    by richievanderlow

    I was worried he was trying to make too many movies out of the material... After this review, it's hard to see two films coming that can live up to the LOTR trilogy. I hope I'm wrong.

  • Lets not forget Harry's review of that fake Prometheus script written by an IMDB member, that was one of the biggest and most infuriating and incredible blunders I have ever witnessed here. Apart of course from that guy getting fired from his job because Harry ran an unedited Fantastic Four 2 review. I don't know man, what between this site no longer carrying any exclusive scoops and the fact that every single piece of news put up is (via) another source of said exclusive news, and that more time has been put into a sub par show run on Nerdist (which I believe will not be getting a second run). I think this site is pretty much run out of steam, all the people that made this place flow, have long since gone. Which explains pretty much all of the above. Red Letter Media is the future of movie sites.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:31 a.m. CST

    KONG 2005 short fanedit exists

    by TheManBehindTheMask

    They are in Skull Island in about 15 minutes. Kong fights only one "V-Rex", plus many other changes. Two minutes of deleted scenes are back in the movie. The whole movie is now 108 minutes. The fanedit is called KONG. Only in DVD quality though.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Making two movies into a trilogy

    by Colonel_Blimp

    After principal photography is completed is the very definition of having no artistic integrity.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:44 a.m. CST

    Three movies was completely absurd

    by bf skinner

    Assuming the second film will end with Smaug being killed by Bard, the third film is going to be 2.5+ hrs of ONE battle??! Can you imagine the amount of padding and needless subplots that will entail? I'm betting there will be a scene of Saruman in Orthanc plotting to find the One Ring. We'll see Sauron building his fortress in Mordor. We'll probably see Gollum leaving the Misty Mountains. God forbid, we might even see baby Frodo and baby Samwise playing in the yard, with Gandalf saying "Those two will be best friends for life" with a knowing wink at the camera. This is going to be a fucking disaster to rival the star wars prequels.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:33 a.m. CST

    I'll probably wait for the Blu Ray


    If its already filled out so much what the hell is the Extend Edition going to be like? And if so many people thought the first hour of King Kong was far too long how was it released that way? Is PJ so powerful that he is surrounded by YES men? Couldn't they justify scrapping so much footage? As many others have said, the boat sequence should have been about 10 minutes long at the most.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:44 a.m. CST

    Wheel of Time?

    by Franklancer

    If Peter Jackson shot that series we'd be looking at 30 individual 4 hour movies.. and then extended Blu-ray editions.

  • ...its going to be a blockbuster nonetheless. Just saw two other reviews which gave it 4 and 4.5 stars. I LOVE the LOTR trilogy but the first one is the one I rarely rewatch. Similar vibe to what I'm hearing here.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Well considering Beaks ranks Bring It On higher than The Dark Knight...

    by Redhead_Redemption

    I've never taken one of his reviews seriously

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:02 a.m. CST


    by prime666

    We all know that the necromancer is Sauron so im thinking they might expand on him and the story of the map, how Gandalf got it from Thorin's dad in the Necromancers dungeons

  • And when you do that you are left with how things actually looked on the set, rather than the traditional smoke and mirrors act that a good film director and cinematographer/camera op can achieve through the magic of traditional film-making. On 48fps all those little tricks and workarounds and shortcuts and prop and costume fakery tend to look as fake as they do if examined in real life, which completely spoils your traditional filmic least until new tricks and shortcuts and fakery that works for this new medium can be worked out.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:21 a.m. CST

    I can understand the financial benefits of 3 films

    by Liam Brazier

    but expected, nay WANTED 3 perfectly structured 90 minute ones. It can't be the studios pushing for 3 long-ass films - that's all Jackson. Unless the plan is to reverse the LOTR release system of shorter ones followed by extended cuts. If the blu-ray ends up being a shorter, better, cut I'll fork out cash for it. But I'm just weighing in - haven't seen the thing yet. Opinions may differ.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:33 a.m. CST

    Just as I've predicted

    by brobdingnag

    this is Jackson's star wars prequels. Not surprised at all.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:47 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    I refuse to believe it just yet. I choose to blame the 48fps and 3D for marring the experience. From the very beginning I said I wouldn't see it in 48fps, and I'm doubly committed to avoiding it now. Prometheus was the last movie I'll ever see in 3D. So, it's regular-ass 2D 24fps for me -- the ONLY way to watch movies. Still, this review is troubling. I can't get the image of a resurgent Star Wars reclaiming the throne of movie awesomeness from Middle-earth -- Star Wars igniting its lightsaber and saying *When I left you, I was but the learner. Now I am the master!* NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Some of us love cartography.

    by elsewhere

    Just sayin.

  • I mean come on, I freaking loved The Hobbit as a kid, but couldn't for the life of me see how they were doing 3 movies. I felt like 2 was stretching it enough. But to go for the cash grab by making it a triology was insulting in and of itself. Instead of showing a truly epic masterpiece that The Hobbit deserves to go with The Lord of The Rings. Jackson has to give us this, and I'm really sick of 3D please go back to hell where you came from.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Not only will the third film be 2.5+ hrs of ONE battle

    by rev_skarekroe

    It will 2.5+ hours of ONE battle in which the hero is unconscious for almost the entire time.

  • Which is it, shitbird?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:28 a.m. CST

    Length does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Seriously the talkbackers of aicn... you are letting yourselves down! Call yourselves film fans? Do you love movies? Why then whine and moan if it is long - do you not know - longer movies is longer glory! This is like going to a restaurant and complaining like an anorexic bitch that they have put too much food on your plate. ON YOUR FEET SOLDIER - now go and fucking see this LONG movie, and when it finishes shout out for MORE!! Now drop and give me ten, then dont come back until you have watched THE ABYSS EXTENDED EDITION, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE ORGINAL STAR WARS TRILOGY in one sitting, and of course all three EXTENDED EDITIONS OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:29 a.m. CST

    Jackson is shit unless its low budget horror

    by Kakii

    He shouldve done the book within reason then used the remaining 2 hours to show the bits the books didnt like Gandolf giving the hobbits a good bumming, bumming them into the middle of next week with the help of Elton John with Gollums finger stuck firmly in his ring. Then both of them going "Gandolf Style"!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:31 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *what ensues is often akin to a paragraph-by-paragraph recreation of the book. The first colossal misstep is Jackson's baffling decision to film the dwarf dinner at Bag End in what feels like real time. * This a colossal misstep?! - BEAKS you fucking lily livered wankstain call yourself a film lover! You might not be able to handle it but this is what the fans want! THIS IS WHAT I WANT! More Middle Earth for me please!!!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Quantize, please tell us how you'd do this in one movie

    by D.Vader

    The Hobbit is a very serialized adventure as would require massive cuts to fit everything into one film.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:40 a.m. CST

    Oh the overreactions here are hilarious

    by D.Vader

    A disaster on par with the prequels? HELLOOOOOOO HYPERBOLE!

  • Ugh. I'm so sick of this shit. Hate the movie all you want but at least try to be fucking accurate about your hate. Most of The Phantom Menace was shot on location or used detailed sets. It also had a lot of miniature work.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Rankin-Bass did it in 90 minutes

    by rev_skarekroe

    And the only bits they cut were Beorn, the Arkenstone, and the river of forgetfulness. Now, they're design choices ranged from puzzling to hideous, but in a narrative sense they did alright.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Astonishingly candid review Beaks. Kudos.

    by J.B.M.A.

    However, you lost me when you bemoaned Tolkien's 'staid travelogue'. I'm sure his writing doesn't please everyone, but the extent of his phenomenal descriptions of the places that the Fellowship pass through and the extraordinary history of Middle Earth is what gives the stories such depth above all other tedious swords n' sorcery drivel.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:50 a.m. CST


    by MrWug

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:51 a.m. CST

    It's typically the second films that feel a little slow.

    by knowthyself

    Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug is going to have to do a lot of work to stay afloat to keep this trilogy moving along briskly.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Dear lord what will the extended cuts of The Hobbit feel like?

    by knowthyself

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:54 a.m. CST

    71% on RT with 14 reviews in

    by Jared

    Most of the negatives point to Act 1 as the major issue.

  • The worst parts of the Rings films are those bits that Jackson either made up himself or 'extrapolated' from a single explanatory paragraph in Tolkien's appendices or within the main text. And frankly he simply doesn't have the writing chops to make any of this good. Half of these Hobbit films will be PJ extending a throwaway sentence into 20 minutes dialogue and action. I dread to think what the results will be.

  • I highly reccomend everyone read it.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8 a.m. CST

    Rankin-Bass cut a LOT

    by D.Vader

    Like the entire Battle of Five Armies. It's not just Beorn, that's gone, it's details, it's pacing. Do you get to know ANY of the Dwarves in that animated film? Do you get to know anyone than Bilbo, Thorin, and Gandalf for that matter? Look, I love the Rankin-Bass animated movie, but you simply cannot use that as an example of how this story can be done in one film. If it were live-action, it'd be laughable and forgotten.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8 a.m. CST

    not enough rape then beaks?

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:08 a.m. CST

    on a more serious note

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    am absolutely shocked Harry has allowed this review surely its coming close to Hobbit BNAT

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:10 a.m. CST

    Sounds cool to me...

    by Sandy

    ...but then I'm not a cynical, smart-ass prick like most of the "writers" here these days. I wish there were MORE films that took their time and allowed me as the viewer to enjoy and relish each moment...traveling along with the characters instead of being rushed through a badly edited, rapid cut, rollercoaster ride that requires several aspirin afterwards.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:12 a.m. CST

    I've seen this in 24fps

    by lookylookymoontard

    I couldn't disagree with this review more,Jackson following the book to closely ? That's the exact opposite he got panned for for LOTR,make up your fucking minds! This film was the set up,what's so hard to understand about that? Go see,make up your own minds lemmings

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    ITT: Oh they mad

    by dr sauch

    Thanks Beaks. I'm REALLY excited to see 48 fps, but I'm not surprised that Jackson is blowing this. One book as three movies? Not going to work.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:20 a.m. CST

    They didn't really cut the Battle of Five Armies in the cartoon

    by rev_skarekroe

    It happens almost entirely off screen (well, between chapters) in the book, too.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:21 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    lookylookymoontard or anyone else thats seen THE HOBBIT - is Smaug shown clearly in this film? If so is he red or greeny brown color?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:23 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    the_moseph, I agree - since when was taking a leisurely pace to tell a story such a bad thing. Would Beaks have savaged ALIEN back in 78 because of the ten minutes at the start when the Nostromo slowly warms up?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:24 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    He'd have hated THE GODFATHER too for the 30 minute wedding sequence at the start before the plot proper begins...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Nice work, Cobra-Kai

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:27 a.m. CST

    My biggest worry was unnecessary bloat

    by Beebop

    And damned if it doesn't look like that worry was justified. Even the positive reviews mention how boring the first half is. These movies didn't need 3 hours. They didn't need 3 movies. 2 movies at just over 2 hours each would've been perfect. Instead, the King of Excess, Peter Jackson, has to thrown in EVERYTHING. I'm still looking forward to the movie, but my expectations are way down.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:28 a.m. CST

    Quantize, until you see the films...

    by D.Vader

    You can't call it "franchise gluttony". If I'm a pathetic apologist, then you're just being an ignorant, inexperienced asshole.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:29 a.m. CST

    cobra & vader

    by DocPazuzu

    ...but didn't you guys defend the rushed setup of Prometheus? ;) I keed, I keed...

  • After the LOTR, seeing a Battle of FIVE Armies take place offscreen would probably drive the audience into a murderous rage.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:32 a.m. CST

    so when does the CONDENSED VERSION DVD get released?

    by TheBaxter

    sounds like that's the version i'd want to see.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:41 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    docpaz, yes but im also the one who dearly wants an extended cut of PROMETHEUS with all the deleted scenes back in. In fact i've never seen an extended cut that I didnt prefer over the theatrical. If a film is immersive and entertaining then I want to spend LONGER in that world. Too many modern movies actually seem a bit incoherent because they rush through the plot so much, and often they even go ADD and rush through the action sequences too! Its like fast food film making. This leisurely paced long-running time of THE HOBBIT suits me just fine.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:41 a.m. CST

    75% on RT after only 12 reviews??

    by bf skinner

    It might finish in the mid-sixties at this rate. I'm not saying RT is the be-all-and-end-all, but experience tells me that a film that isn't in the 90% range after only a dozen reviews is usually an utter turd.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:04 a.m. CST

    quantize-No dude, actually co watch the PM extras

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Most of it was shot on real sets or real locations. It was Attack of the Clones and Sith that were mostly shot circa green screen. Probably had to do with the fact that Phantom Menace was shot on film, not digital like the next two films. Other then the actual pod race, the space battle, and the light saber 3-way moments where they're hopping around on the platforms at the end, it was mostly done with real sets/locations.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:05 a.m. CST

    As someone who felt the rings movies were terribly bloated

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I can't imagine what it will be like watching the Hobbit films that aren't being condensed, but actually expanded to rediculous levels.

  • Many of the reviews point out that Hobbit is no LOTR, that the front-end of the film feels padded, and that the overall effort isn't as interesting. Beaks isn't trying to cut against the grain for "cred," but seems to be giving an honest opinion of the film. One of the reviewers compared it to The Phantom Menace, which might just be apt. The Phantom Menace tried, unsuccessfully, to bank upon the goodwill from the first trilogy. But TPM was an inferior product, no matter how much the fans wanted it to be otherwise. It's very possible that The Hobbit, while not a bad film by any means, is simply not in the same league as LOTR. (And frankly, the books aren't in the same league, either.)

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:15 a.m. CST

    I think the whole concept of these films is a little sad

    by I am_NOTREAL

    desperate clinging to bygone glory. You can lay the blame for 3 films on the studio all you'd like, but it's not as if Jackson refused to do it. I could see one film as a belated victory lap...even that feels a little desperate and clingy a decade plus on...but it wouldn't be completely unseemly. This 3 movie business just feels tacky and I'm boycotting it altogether.

  • make more fucking cartoons.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:32 a.m. CST

    48 fps R.I.P. (thank God)

    by Lourdes Galan

    48 fps are simply repulsive, distracting and absolutely awful. Long live 24 fps!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Thank you for saying the fuckong truth!!

    by MainMan2001

    I knew what this movie was gonna be like from the first fucking trailer and apparently it's exactly that! At what point Peter Jackson became a brilliant filmmaker still baffles me. The guy can't tell a simple story. The lord of the rings movies are seriously awful. The battle scenes are good but even get repetitive. Why do people like to see elves and wizards stand around a green screen and talk about complete hogwash?!?! Are your lives that dull? At what point are people excepting subpar video games are movies?! I guess now! I hope this movie fucking tanks for no other reason so I don't have to see a million more awful fantasy trailers. And 48 fps!!!!! Yikes. So, everything cg isn't enough let's put in a higher frame rate to make everything completely fake and unwatchable. Thanks Guys. Filmmaking is for kids in the streets. Enough with you bloated rich asshole directors who might has started off with a passion for filmmaking but stopped a long long time a ago.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Beaks, the only AICN reviewer worth reading.

    by Dan Halen


  • the only problem is that most obsessive Tolkien fanboys don't hold The Hobbit in such high regards.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Mainman, that was laughable

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:09 a.m. CST

    enjoyed the honest, but not the pitch

    by MurderMostFowl

    I appreciate the honesty on the review of the movie, but I could have done without the drooling over 48FPS. Yes, there's a technical component to the enjoyment of a film, but it is fleeting. ...not to mention that 48FPS is controversial. I'm sure it will have its place ( like Beaks said, perhaps not the way he meant it I see this being very effective in event films... that is live events ) But just like 3D, and special effects... eventually it will lose its luster and story, acting and photography will be what's remembered.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Thank you for your honesty

    by David Duchovny

    A lot of people even a year ago were predicting this. Casting all 12 dwarves was going to be a huge mistake. No way he could develop them all. Then he made the 2nd mistake of having them look ridiculous. 3rd mistake? Freeman is horribly miscast in my opinion, even in the trailer his performance is eye rolling. If I'm piling on, The FX in the trailer look fake as hell and not much above Twilight and certainly look less convincing than the Potter films. Been saying this thing looks turd like ever since that body blow of a first trailer. Sad to read this review, but anyone who has been honest with themselves could have seen this coming from many miles away.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST

    keep nerding hard!

    by Pau

    why does it look like some critics are eager to pan the work of some filmmakers only based on their previous success? are you expecting Peter Jackson to do LOTR over and over again? get a life and get laid more often, you'll live longer.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST

    I cant understand that review...

    by MetalBeasttim

    ...for the first time of maybe 8 Years im on this site a cant understand this review. It has so many english words i never heard of...weird! And i was looking so forward to read something about this movie :-))) Well i have to wait for Harrys Review :-))) Greetz from germany:-))

  • Since Return of the King he directed a King Kong remake that was mildly commercially successful, and a book adaptation (Lovely Bones) that was a critical and commercial flop. Goes back to Middle Earth for easy money. Sad the guy never progressed as a film maker. Maybe if he actually had something to say with this material (like when Scorsese goes back to Gangster films) then it would be meaningful. This is nothing more then a lost "great" filmmaker trying to make a quick buck.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Prequels are never a good idea.

    by knowthyself

    You already know where the story is headed. Certain characters MUST live because you know they're in LOTR. Prequels are never a good idea.

  • What 48fps does is that is sends more information to you eye rapidly so that the details stick more in your brain. Throw in clean digital images as opposed to film with organic grain and viola you have the soap opera effect the critics are complaining about.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Movies about DRAGONS always suck.

    by knowthyself

    Except for How to Train your Dragon.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Gandalf's tits

    by N. Hobbit

    Does Gandalf get her tits out in this one? That chick is HOT!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Except Vermithrax

    by Lourdes Galan

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    How many Oscar noms will it garner?

    by bf skinner

    Sound editing? Make up? After ROTK swept the board, this is going to be a fucking embarrassment. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets zilch awards.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    I'm not even surprised

    by James

    The ending of Return of the King froze my shit ice cold. I was so fucking mad, I kept on getting up, then sitting down, getting up, then sitting down... That dwarf dinner scene sounds just as fucking TEDIOUS and RAGE INDUCING! I like Martin Freeman, though, and I wanna see the Bilbo/Gollum showdown so this has my kroner.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    thanks for speaking truth to power

    by Anthony Torchia

    or truth to fanboys or truth to Jackson or whatever the hell you did I'll see it with low expectations and enjoy it for what it is

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:19 a.m. CST

    News reports today about people seeing the film

    by elsachmo

    The news reports today are saying that an unusual amount of people are getting sick from watching the film in 48fps 3D. So, there's another problem besides that it looks like crap.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:20 a.m. CST

    I'm looking forward to this but...

    by FlyingToupee so far are mixed. The Hollywood Reporter and Variety reviews aren't exactly raves.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Man I'm worried about this now

    by bilbo

    PJ's not been hitting the mark recently. Hoped this wouldn't be the same. Think I might watch it in 24fps, see if it's any good, then see the 48fps version. And thanks to the mystery talkbacker who recommended the Rispin Quill dragon tongue book. Really enjoyed it. Reminded me of early Terry Prattchet, Douglas Adams HHGTTG and Monty Python. I could see Terry Gilliam directing it when I was reading. My mind has better funding than Gilliam though.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Taking a leisurely pace to tell a story is fine, when it suits the story. Jackson bloats things to the point where story is now tedium. The Hobbit, IIRC, moves rather briskly from point to point. Dragging that out simply because he can is fucking tedium. His over-use of slow-mo in the LOTR films was painful. His insistence of taking a mile from an inch was just as painful. The subject matter is dramatic enough without Jackson injecting the "smell the fart" into it. The Hobbit is a small tale surrounded by big events. The little ripples created within the Hobbit become tidal waves in LOTR. There is no need to take one book into 3 films outside of Jackson not knowing how to constrain himself.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Ill wait for Netflix.

    by shane peterson

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *The Hobbit is a small tale surrounded by big events. The little ripples created within the Hobbit become tidal waves in LOTR. There is no need to take one book into 3 films outside of Jackson not knowing how to constrain himself. * THE HOBBIT is a small tale surrounded by big events... I disagree on that but you do also realize that PJ is using some of those surrounding *big events* and putting them on screen for these 3 movies right? You also need to understand that Jackson has shot this trilogy back-to-back - in fact he shot the whole caboodle as one shoot. He has effectively made one 10 hour movie, and the fact that by these accounts it *takes a long time to get started* has to reflect that!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:39 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Look, ill be seeing THE HOBBIT opening weekend and if Jackson has screwed up and made a weak film I will be the first to say. But Mr Beaks taste in movies is so far removed from mine that I cannot accept his review. He posted up his top 100 films of the decade list and they really were a bag of shit, with snuff rape movie IRREVERSIBLE his fave of the whole decade. I want to hear a HOBBIT review from a guy who says that the LOTR trilogy are his fave movies - because that is an opinion which will probably be closer to my own.

  • Especially since it seems so many here are blaming the large number of main characters on PJ, saying there's no way he could develop them all.

  • My assumptions will always trump your actual experience!! Grr.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    I would firmly state that the one event in THE HOBBIT is a small event in comparison to the big picture presented in LOTR. Getting a Dragon away from a mountain is nothing compared to the end of the world as they know it. I also understand what he's adding to the tale, elements that were spoken of in the book (or appendices or untold tales etc.) but not detailed. That doesn't mean a simple act should be stretched to it's limit of acceptance compared to the larger narrative. I'm talking about the slo-mo elements, I'm talking about injecting drama where an injection was not needed. I'm not panning this film before seeing it, I'm simply concerned about the very real shortcomings that Jackson has as a filmmaker. Shortcomings that get in the way of what he's trying to accomplish. Kong could have been fucking incredible. Instead, Jackson's inability to edit himself and his wants fucked much of that movie into the ground. LOTR, for all it's greatness, also suffers at times when it didn't have to.

  • just the fact that some of the people talking shit about it loved John Carter guarantee that it'll be a great experience.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:55 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    nightarrows, yes I agree that Kong was too long in its theatrical incarnation. Its also true that people have a lower tolerance for long films at the cinema. Wasn't it Hitchcock who said *the length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder*. However that said, the last time I watched the LOTR EE films I did so in installments. Half a movie at a time, as if they were an HBO series like Game Of Thrones. I would rather have more movie than less. If Jackson has filmed everything that was on the page in the dinner at Bag End scene as Beaks says then thats great. It may feel a little long at the cinema but it will likely play even better on blu ray at home.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:56 a.m. CST



    Be careful what you wish for, kids.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson's masturbation.

    by MuadDibuhhh

    I said this when I watched King Kong. It's PJ using the huge budget he's been given on good faith from LoTR to gratify any boyhood fantasy he always wanted to see on screen, with no real consideration of what the audience might want or the story needs. Then he blows his load on the screen, and some people are impressed by it, but for the most part, you're left saying, "okay, now what?" <p> I love the extended versions of LoTR. I haven't seen the theatrical versions since I saw the EE's, and I think they really add a lot to the story. However, The Hobbit is going to need the opposite of an EE. It will need (and I guarantee someone will do a fan-edit of this) a "book cut," which only contains the story contained in the novel, and it will be The Hobbit movie everyone always wanted.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    That definitely was an unexpected journey!!!

    by DrMorbius

    Beaks' revew, that is ... It's amazing that unparanoid_android still finds the time, between his knob-gobblings of del Toro, to spam every Hobbit thread with his disdain for Jackson. What a trooper, Troll on!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:05 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    Good Luck with the Sisyphean task you have undertaken here pally.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:06 p.m. CST

    It's a shame they didn't make a single, perfect Hobbit film

    by jimmy_009

    Instead of drawing it out for the $$$

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:06 p.m. CST

    He lost my money after The Lovely Bones

    by brad negrotto

    PJ is good at making cheesy films. From the Lord of the Rings and on, he has presented us with overly melodramatic movies, and they have progressively worst. He should return to low budget horror.

  • and the bit with the bugs etc.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    prequel comparison's are just fucking ridiculous

    by lookylookymoontard

    Any review comparing this to the phantom menace is really saying fuck all,I've seen both and the only comparison (at a stretch) is the high use of CGI,which was always going to happen in this day and age. TPM had awful dialogue and acting,awful pacing,none of which can be remotely aimed at AUJ,just read the reviews,not one I've read lays any of these criticisms at this movies door,the few that say the pacing is slow really aren't seeing the bigger picture IMO. Those using the "this is a prequel so it was doomed to fail" line of thought really are the only thing failing here. This is no masterpiece, but its a few million light years away from TPM,bottom line if you like lotr,you'll like AUJ,its a lot of fun with great performances all round..go see!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Don't get me wrong, I think long movies are fine, as long as they don't seem it, and if the material warrants it. Again, don't take a mile from an inch. I think the LOTR EE cuts are fantastic, but much of what he had to do an EE for could have been left in had he not been so over-indulgent in his editing process, or lack thereof. I'm very curious, and rather excited to see what he's made of the wizards battle with the Necromancer...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    Possibly when Harry 'unpublished' an article by the Kidd, and inserted one of his own in it's stead.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Good job Beaks!

    by Michael Tyree

    Balanced write-up and appears to be honest. At least you've gotten over your abject hatred of all things Tolkien (yeah, I was around during the LotR years at AICN) and you seem to have picked up a modicum of objectivity along the way. I'm solidly with the 24fps, non-3D crowd. Dats right, dey calls me Mr. Luddite, yow!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Too much Jackson - that's the problem

    by Mephisto the Great

    The only issues I had with LOTR was when Jackson & Co added subplots and made big changes for no reason other than manipulating the story to create gravitas. The story didn't need it. King Kong is a perfect example. Look to the original for its pacing and level of storytelling. There is zero need to add more filler. Look at The Lovely Bones. Unwatchable. The Hobbit would have been amazing as a single film - but greed has led to massive bloat. Trust me. I recently had Thanksgiving, and I know what massive bloat feels like.

  • Looks like he's turned what should've been a 3 hour film into an overlong miniseries.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST


    by bf skinner

    Del Toro's film would have been a breath of fresh air, and not a lame retread of what has gone before. Over the coming weeks, you're going to see a lot of "Damn, if only GDT had made it instead", so get used to it. Trouper.

  • Get an edit function, AICN.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Beaks visual FX don't show their age any more than they used too.


  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:26 p.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    The brontosaurus scene was absolutely dumb-fuck stupid. A horrendous scene that tore me right out of the film. The Triceratops scene in the "director's" cut was just as offensive. Men getting fucking TUNED by a running Triceratops only to get back up. The bug scene was INCREDIBLE, the resolution to the bug scene was fucking terrible. Billy with his uncanny ability to fire a machine gun blindly and strike every target. Fucking awful.

  • I hate this rose tinted view that special effects were better in the good old days and didn't date so much. If the Hobbit had been made pre cgi it would date a hell of a lot quicker. We'd have had stop motion dragons and stiff animatronic giants.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:29 p.m. CST

    SIX CLIPS and a review

    by HornOrSilk That's right. SIX CLIPS

  • So the fx haven't so much dated but looked a bit off in the first place.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST

    I'm not worried in the least.

    by Anthrax

    AICN's resident hipster, Mr. Beaks, made it known a long time ago how little regard he has for the work of Professor Tolkien. Why he even wasted the time it took to type this review is beyond me.

  • It would definitely be a gyp if they didn't include it. My point is, the cartoon wasn't deleting anything by not including it - if anything, what they did is TRUER to the source material.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:53 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    Men getting fucking TUNED by a running Triceratops only to get back up. TUNED= ?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 12:59 p.m. CST

    good review

    by Cruizer Dave

    Kind of confirms my fears about the movie. There just isn't three movies of material in the Hobbit. Too bad, because I always liked it more than LOTR, because as novels, LOTR was bloated. It's kinda ironic that commercial interests have resulted in LOTR being the streamlined movies, and the Hobbit now being the bloated ones.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    Thanks for sharing.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Let the reactionary fanboy hysteria begin

    by the flashlight

    Anyone who suggests Hobbit: AUJ is PJ's "Phantom Menace" is an idiot of the lowest order and should be lowered into a vat of Prometheus black slime. As for the criticism that the film has a lot of "filler" - so what? It's pretty expensive these days to take your family to the movies, so I want as much movie for the ticket price that I can get. Two hours & 40 mins? That isn't as long as Titanic, and I sat through that. What, you geeks have somewhere else to be? Call of Duty too important to set aside for a few hours? Any time spent away from mom's basement is definitely a good thing. The first act is too slow? Big deal. Fellowship took a good long while to get going as well. If you're invested in the film and the world it's depicting, then a few extra minutes to establish the goings-on and the characters isn't a bad thing. Hobbit shouldn't have been stretched to 3 movies? Maybe....but I'll reserve judgement on that until the end of the second film at the earliest. Jar Jar Dwarves doing dumb things and acting like medieval versions of TNG-era Klingons? Now this criticism I'll grant you - it got old with Gimli, I predict it'll get old with these new dwarves. Overall, you silly nerds need to chill. As beloved as they now are, none of the LOTR films were perfect. There are stretches of TTT & ROTK that make me want to scratch my eyes out at this point. But the sum of the parts outweighed the relative merits of the individual pieces. I predict the same will be true for this new trilogy.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST

    I liked King Kong until...

    by John Brown

    ...the ape and the chick went ice skating in Central Park. I checked out at that point and not even a kick-ass final battle scene could have brought me back. Did it have a kick-ass final battle scene? 'Cause I was still shaking my head at the ice skating bullshit, so I don't remember.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:13 p.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Tuned = Hit incredibly hard I guess it stems from "Tuned like a piano" or some such thing...

  • I mean, I'm pretty much with anyone else that the Hobbit really makes sense as one amazing three hour film with incredible pacing. But making it 3 films that run 3 hours is insane, you would have to write one of the best screenplays ever. Del Toro might have done a better job at keeping the pace better, making 2 films more around 150 minutes. I guess we will never know, and I'm still excited to see this because I love middle earth and all. However, I will admit that I hated Jackson's last 2 films, KK and LB are both horrible films from a storytelling POV.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST


    by lookylookymoontard

    Thanks for that,some sanity at last!,a very level headed view on things.certainly a rare thing in the talk backs

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Ugh, Beaks is a terrible writer.

    by Mostholy

    I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, so I can't speak to the content. I'm dismayed that King Kong's bloat has apparently infected the film, but it's not surprising given the three-film decision. Fingers crossed I enjoy it better that Beaks did. But, form-wise, good god. Beaks' writing style is almost as terrible as Harry's. Too many adverbs and adjectives, endless namedropping, thick, unwieldy sentences, and all delivered, every time, as "check out the big brain on me." Beaks, please edit yourself once in awhile. Alexandra Du Pont used to write great, smart, concise reviews here. Vern and The Kidd's are intelligently written, even if you disagree with their conclusions. But Beaks every time is "indubitably this celluloid drips with intimations of Tarkovsky and CAR WASH, begetting allusions of stark rapiditude and the earnest sang-froid of a young Michael Caine" GOOD GOD MAN WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY GET TO THE POINT.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:21 p.m. CST


    by lookylookymoontard

    GDT helped write AUJ,check the credits

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Jackson isnt the only bloated issue..

    by allouttabubblegum

    Honey,If you dont add this scene..then no boom boom in bed!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    ^ I add (because this site is weird and cuts out sections)

    by allouttabubblegum

    Boyens and Walsh are also the issue.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:38 p.m. CST

    I wonder if Bilbo and or Gollum will survive

    by animas

    oh wait, we already know they do = no tension. no prequel has ever been good.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:44 p.m. CST


    by MrWug

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST

    macrion and mrwug...

    by Righteous Brother

    I applaud you sirs!!!

  • Now this thread is complete.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 1:51 p.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Umm, there were no surprises in the LOTR films for the millions who read those novels either. So that point is rather moot.

  • says more about the piss-poor lives of the readers than any reviewer. Negativity and truth are not synonymous. And I also like how, as usual, black and white it is. If it's not the best, it's the worst. "it's the Phantom Menace!" "Nice review beaks. I knew it would SUCK!" and my favorite "PJ is a hack!" Can you guys be any more predictable?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST

    The first chapter of the book is long and dull too

    by glenn_the_frog

    Its 13 dwarves getting together for a dinner party. The first chapter is always the hardest part of the Hobbit, why does anyone expect the movie version to be any different?

  • Just a taste...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:13 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    animas, I bet you enjoyed watching PASSION OF THE CHRIST? Must have been a real TWIST SHOCK for you when the hero died at the end!!! You dick.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    suntzu, i'll see your neg review and counter with a positive one: *As epic, grandiose, and emotionally appealing as the previous pictures, The Hobbit doesn't stray far from the mold, but it's a thrilling ride that's one of the most enjoyable, exciting and engaging tentpoles of the year. * We can play this game all night! But the cool thing about big genre movies like THE HOBBIT is that all the talkbackers generally do end up seeing them so we can have a proper verbal battle about the merits or lack of in a few weeks!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Gonna go for three reasons...The Hobbit and...

    by thot

    ...the Man of Steel and Star Trek trailers! The trailers alone will, no doubt, be worth the price of admission. The LOTR movies were ALL bloated and got worse as they progressed but were nonetheless fun and very creative. If we get 3D and 48fps here I may dare to dive in.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:48 p.m. CST

    It's funny...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...people seemed to fucking loathe Beaks before he wrote this review. Why is everyone now sucking his dick?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Docpazuzu, why are you jealous of Beaks getting his dick sucked?

    by uberfreak

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:55 p.m. CST

    ^ sorry, testicle-chinned goblin king

    by lv_426

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:55 p.m. CST

    docpazuzu, you didn't know?

    by Robert Evans

    Whenever Beaks faithfully submits one of his brave, bold, articulate screeds the loyal shit suckers of the Faraci-Beaks Coterie of Condescension come out to play. And aren't their socks lovely? I mean, is not the dropping a SKIDOO reference in a HOBBIT review a symbol, a BADGE, of discerning, daring, dedicated cinematic and aesthetic jurisprudence?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 2:56 p.m. CST

    troll-chin testacles is something every man wishes he had.

    by uberfreak

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST

    Oh and 10-minute, static, single shot rape scenes aren't filler?

    by Robert Evans

    They sure are, and in more ways than one ...

  • Star Trek: Nemesis should shortened and lengthened. Etc.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    they made a Hobbit movie?

    by WhySoSerious

    well hot damn

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    When are you guys going to accept that Beaks is our better?

    by Robert Evans

    Fools we are for loving Tolkien's staid, travelogue storytelling!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Geeks 15 years ago: WHY DON'T THEY MAKE MORE GEEK MOVIES?

    by Robert Evans


  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:09 p.m. CST

    As for 48fps, it seems people are having bad reactions to it

    by lv_426

    Not in terms of mere opinion, but actually getting ill from the HFR footage. ** The Sunday Times reported one 'avid Middle Earth fan', who had flown to New Zealand from Australia for the premiere, said: 'My eyes cannot take everything in, it's dizzying, now I have a migraine.' Another fan tweeted: 'It works for the big snowy mountains, but in close-ups the pictures strobes. I left loving the movie but feeling sick.' The Sunday Times said one fan described having motion sickness similar to being on a rollercoaster. They said: 'You have to hold your stomach down and let your eyes pop at first to adjust. This is not for wimps.' ** Also, just as Beaks stated that the main advantages to the 48fps imagery seems to be landscapes, other reviewers are saying the same thing. From an early review on Collider (who gave it an A- rating): ** A note on 48fps: I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48fps and 3D in a Warner Bros. studio screening room, so my review can only speak to that experience as a reference. (I’d like to see the film in 2D at 24fps and 48fps to see how it compares, but we’ll see.) Here’s my take on 48fps: Pros: Incredible clarity and sharpness of detail. Characters and objects in the background are nearly as clear and defined as those in the foreground of a shot. It makes for absolutely gorgeous establishing shots and exploration of new settings (Erebor, the Dwarven Kingdom before Smaug’s attack, is amazing. I’d love to see a film just about the Dwarves and their lives under the mountain). It’s great when steady or slow-moving camera work is applied. Beautiful for scenery or landscape shots; would make for excellent documentary applications. Cons: Definite 'motion sickness' potential during scenes of chaotic action or fast-movement; the increased clarity often feels as if you’re standing on set with the actors/characters, so when they take a crazy tumble down a rabbit hole, for example, you feel just as disoriented…which might not be too pleasant for some. There is a bit of an adjustment period for 48fps; I was jarred by it at the start but warmed up to 95% of its usage over time. 48fps means you cannot hide mistakes…period; there were some poorly-rendered VFX sequences that were unintentionally comical and resembled the old-school tactic of filming a stationary actor in front of a moving background. These effects were bad, bad, bad; there’s no way around it. ** I'm gonna wager that this 48fps HFR stuff is going to be an epic disaster. Films aren't about pretty landscapes, they're about characters. It seems to me that the fact that the extra detail of 48fps jars the viewer when watching actors, composited shots, and when seeing sets... means it will not become the cinematic staple that 3D has in the past few years. Who in their right mind would want to sacrifice being able to watch the characters and plot of a movie unfold via strobing and crappy looking sets just to get a few more bits of detail out of some landscape or establishing shots?

  • And they can be damned good, too. But I get you in reference to THE HOBBIT, which is about the characters.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:13 p.m. CST

    chin-testicles ... is Peter Griffin in the Hobbit?

    by DrMorbius

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Oh agree.....that machine gun bit was terrible nightarrows


    He fires a machine gun directly at people and no fucker gets hurt apart from the bugs. What the hell was Jackson thinking!

  • Lawrence of Arabia springs to mind. Alien even, when Dallas, Kane, and Lambert are trekking to the derelict ship. Blade Runner had the dark and distopic Los Angeles of 2019 acting as a sort of character, or at least an oppressive force over the proceedings. Obviously something like Baraka and the recent Samsara, although those two aren't your typical narrative/character driven films. The character in Baraka is pretty much time and space and the cycle of life and death. Perhaps Ron Fricke could make great use of the HFR stuff for a future non-narrative film along those lines? I guess the whole 48fps HFR thing just really puzzles me. I thought when it was initially announced it was supposed to be so that moving and panning shots were more clear for big screen 3D films, but now it seems people are complaining about strobing and getting ill from it. Wasn't the higher frame rate supposed to cut down on strobing? I'm seriously wondering what is going on here. Now on one hand, I'm curious to see what 48fps looks like, on the other hand I don't want to spew my popcorn and Junior Mints all over the back of some poor sap's head who just happens to be unlucky enough to be sitting in front of me if I do in fact become ill from this HFR business.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    All aboard!

    by DocPazuzu

    It's rather disconcerting to watch a hate train of this magnitude build itself up. Before long (if not already), this is going to be the consensus among talkbackers regarding the film for years to come, even if it turns out to be excellent.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:25 p.m. CST

    This has been an outstanding year for movie franchises, hasn't it?

    by Larry_Sanders

    If by 'outstanding' you mean 'fucking awful'.

  • It seems The Hobbit could possibly be a bit too bloated even by Jackson standards. Not hating it though, as I haven't seen it yet. I reserve my hate for shit like that World War Z trailer and it's tidal waves of zombie tsunamis and the army asking Brad Pitt to help them save the world from the undead. Either way, just as with WWZ, I've still got The Walking Dead on TV and in comic book form to give me my zombie fix. If The Hobbit truly does teabag the old goblin chin-gonads then I will cleanse my epic fantasy flick pallet with a viewing of Legend followed by Game of Thrones.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    To bloat or not to bloat

    by lv_426

    It seems The Hobbit could possibly be a bit too bloated even by Jackson standards. Not hating it though, as I haven't seen it yet. I reserve my hate for shit like that World War Z trailer and it's tidal waves of zombie tsunamis and the army asking Brad Pitt to help them save the world from the undead. Either way, just as with WWZ, I've still got The Walking Dead on TV and in comic book form to give me my zombie fix. If The Hobbit truly does teabag the old goblin chin-gonads then I will cleanse my epic fantasy flick pallet with a viewing of Legend followed by Game of Thrones.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Where have I seen this poster before?

    by Jason


  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    That 95-hour Adaptation of The Silmarillion is still on, right?

    by animatronicmojo

    It was the understated, lyrical moments of the LOTR trilogy that I liked best. Jackson seems to have lost it "directing" all these CG battles, which just got hokier and hokier - the green ghost army cloud doing a control-alt-delete screen-wipe on the Orcs was just embarrassingly bad. I'd need ten hours just to list all the hokey moments in his Kong. Forgotten Silver is still my favorite Peter Jackson movie.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST

    6 reviews out on Metacritic already

    by David Duchovny

    and only 2 are in the green. This thing has turd written all over it. The major critics haven't weighed in yet, but no film that gets shit on by lesser critics and bloggers at the beginning ever bounces back into the 60-100 percentile range. T U R D

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Copy that Rev Skarekroe

    by D.Vader

    It would be a total waste if we didn't get to see the Battle and all the different strategies by the different armies. It should be completely different from Helm's Deep, the Pelennor Fields, and the Black Gate. I'm excited to see how it all plays out, the push and pull as different armies arrive, the false victories and apparent losses, the attempts at diplomacy, the arrival of evil, shaky alliances held and old ones reformed against a common enemy. Should be suitably epic.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Don't forget this is based on a kids book....unlike L.O.T.R.


    which wasn't written for kids so I doubt it will be anywhere near as good as L.O.T.R. anyway. 3 films is fnuckin stretching it a bit by the sounds of it though.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Well, this is certainly...interesting.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I'm not sure what's more overwrought: Jackson's tendency to indulge or Beaks' review. Ha! Regardless, those are some pretty harsh statements there at the end. Yet, for some reason, I'm not terribly surprised. And to find that Devin Faraci's review was more positive and even-tempered... ...da fuck is going on, man?!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    no prequel has ever been good

    by Stegman84

    Temple of Doom, The Godfather part 2, The Good The Bad & The Ugly, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Infernal Affairs 2, Zulu Dawn, X-Men First Class, and Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me all just called to say fuck you.

  • Because I've read the book numerous times since i was in my early teens. This shit in no way is source material for a 3 film bloat. and you know it

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Anyone else notice the uptick in new AICN screen-names all the sudden?

    by Mr. Nice Gaius


  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Jacksons L.O.T.R wasn't too long.


    It's a big book so they could have shoved a lot more in there if they wanted too.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Turning that book into 3 very long movies is a fucking joke

    by BigTuna

    What a cash grab it is.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry Quantize?

    by D.Vader

    You insulted me without real cause. I'm not sure what you expect me to do here.

  • The god here is named Mr. Contrary. Go ahead, disagree, bitch.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Just fighting against the tide, Dr.Morbs

    by D.Vader

  • Also, he left the project before they announced the 3 film thing. So what his original vision was could be way different from what we got, we have no idea at this point. I think Del Toro directing 2 Hobbit films was an exciting idea, I'm upset it didn't happen.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *It's rather disconcerting to watch a hate train of this magnitude build itself up. Before long (if not already), this is going to be the consensus among talkbackers regarding the film for years to come, even if it turns out to be excellent. * docpazuzu sums it up correctly. I always thought the LOTR trilogy was well loved but for some reason the knives seem to be out for THE HOBBIT on aicn. You boys who are all ready to stick the knife in without having seen the film I have only one thing to say... et tu brute? (benefits of a classical education)

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Props to Choppah.

    by Mostholy

    The Skidoo-Badge comment gets at exactly what I was talking about, re: Beaks' writing style.

  • Jackson may have coveted it, it certainly seems so with this dumb idea of 1 book to 3 movies...but the reactions could not be more fitting for me. HA HA and HA! Star Wars is back on top.... that's a little bit of awesome...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    stegman84 - is wrong

    by Dan

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:56 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    It's quite simple. This is how all the hateful, cellar dwelling know-it-alls get their perceived just rewards. Nothing says, "I've been vindicated and validated!!!" more than an internet review that mirrors your own pre-judgment. So, the knives come out, the new names start to appear, and the train gathers steam...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Still, you need to decide for yourselves...

    by Dan

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    True, dat, MNG.

    by DocPazuzu

    And if the film really is great, all they have to do is quietly fade away and come back with a new name to avoid the fallout. Kudos, then, actually, to true knuckleheads like ringwearer9 who would NEVER back down from anything, no matter how wrongheaded it was or how much resistance he met.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:16 p.m. CST

    I was afraid of this... Jackson has no sense of pacing

    by locater16

    Absolutely none. He used to, The Fellowship is brilliant. But as the movies went on, especially with the extended editions the pacing went more and more laggard. The ultimate rendition of this seems to be The Hobbit. A case where one of the most excellently paced adventure novels ever written gets to go slower in the movie than it actually did in the book, which is simply amazing when you think about it. Movies are supposed to be faster as a rule damn it! How do you make a movie go slower than a book? By dragging it out into 3 epic length movies as Jackson managed. He is a terrible at cutting and should have been forcibly removed from the room. I write movies scripts, I measured The Hobbit out as 4 hour movie, every scene included. Even with the extensions to what Gandalf gets up to MIGHT have made a 5 hour 2 part movie. But noooo. Jackson can't cut a damned thing to save his life. Every damned scene filmed has to be in, the entire length. If someone had had the courage to stand up to the man, to say "we aren't spending half a billion to give you control of something you can't do at all anymore" then I've no doubt The Hobbit could have been a brilliant 2 part film on par with the LOTR. Too bad we don't live in THAT world.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Regarding HFR

    by LarkStew

    Obviously I haven't seen the movie yet, got my tickets booked for HFR IMAX 3D... But I imagine it'll look both completely real and utterly fake at the same time. Real in that you'll really feel like you're not sat in a cinema but in a real location. Fake in that the location will be a movie set with the fake costumes and wigs. So... I'm approaching it not as a trip to the cinema, but more like a trip the theatre. Like it's a stage play all being acted out live. Y'know?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:37 p.m. CST

    DocPaz - Agreed.

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    And we'd love Ringy all the more for it. Err...

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Kidd vs. The Hobbit vs. Del Toro vs. Peter Jackson

    by Itchypanda tables, ladders and chairs match. Take the Kidd out, Del Toro!

  • The Hobbit films are bloat-wear at their best with Jackson and Warners trying desperately to match the same boxoffice as Potter and Twilight. Ain't going to happen. If you want fantasy on par with LOTR, watch Game of Thrones.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 5:50 p.m. CST

    I have seen The Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very vague spoilers.

    by slappy jones

    I am gonna get flamed as a fanboy but I loved the film. The beginning is slow. It takes its time but I imagine if they didn't allow that time to set up the characters and story we would be hearing about how much it is all empty spectacle. Maybe if I went in not knowing it was going to be long I would have felt the length but I was prepared for a long film and it did not bother me at all. There is a lot going on here. When it really kicks into gear in The second half it is fucking awesome.I can see why 48fps isn't for everyone. It didn't bother me but when I go to see it again I will go in 24 to get the comparison. Eyes take a while to get used to it and I think it works best in battle scenes. There is a flashback to a battle early in the film and that is where it really clicked and I actually said to myself "thats looks fucking awesome" But I think 48fps has been covered enough now that you can all make up your minds about what format you will enjoy. They have done a great job at blending the more serious tone of LOTR and the more whimsical tone of The Hobbit so that this film definitely feels like returning to the same world as the original trilogy. Its lighter but hints at more darker things ahead. Freeman nails it, Riddle in the dark is PERFECT and I think these"bad" reviews are probably a good thing to keep peoples over the top expectations in line. I have seen good reviews being spun into bad just because its a good review and not a complete rave.It is facing a very high bar following LOTR and thats fair enough but if you can stow away some of that weighty baggage it stands on its own as great adventure film and I can't wait to see it again.

  • I am not afraid of The Hobbit, though with all of the negativity I'm probably just going to seek it out in old 24FPS, non-3D format (so that it really does feel like the LOTR trilogy's successor.) But I have to wonder if it really will be Iron Jim Cameron that introduces the real High Frame Rate revolution when he introduces Avatar II at 60FPS. From what I've read, 48FPS is in that no-mans land of "almost there, but still too weird" whereas 60FPS is considered "the real deal." I'll never, ever bet against James Cameron's grasp of technology and his ability to understand audiences. IMHO, James Cameron is to cinema what Steve Jobs was to personal technology devices.

  • As Star Wars slowly ups it's nerd "cred" in the next few years, Lucas will be fondly remembered as the father of Star Wars. No more, no less. Just as Gene Roddenberry is remembered as the father of Star Trek. So who's left? In the fantasy mind of a nerd, It has to be someone they can proclaim "fell to the dark side". Someone who they think turned on them. And Peter Jackson fits that perfectly. Just look at this pathetic TB so far. People cannot wait to jump on the hate wagon. They actually WANT it to be bad so they can feel justified in shitting on their latest father figure. It happened to Cameron/Avatar for fucks sake. People just love to perceive their heroes as failures.

  • I am worried from the reviews, and I've used that consensus to support Beaks's review, but I am going to see the film and judge for myself. I have been worried, though, that they really did stretch the material way, way too much to fit three movies. The cynic in me feels this is either a blatant money grab or that Jackson just enjoys the Tolkienverse so much he hates to leave it behind. (C'mon, I guarantee his years making the LOTR trilogy are probably the best in his life and he wants badly to re-create that feeling...ANYONE would.) I'm hoping, though, that the films are a success, that geeks enjoy it, and that we see loads and loads of video of people, dressed as hobbits, queuing up to see the film. That's fun! :)

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:29 p.m. CST

    So it's more like Del Toro got the f***k outta dodge?

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    shame, really.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit: The Expected Sequels: The Hack Is Back I, II and III

    by Bloodhound

    Or really: The Hack I - VI.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:53 p.m. CST

    This is a real shame

    by Kain_Bloodstone

    Greed? Arrogance? It doesn't matter, Jackson and co screwed the pooch on what should have been a home run. A simple 300 page book with a straightforward linear narrative should never, ever, ever been elongated into three movies. Those comparing this with Harry Potter are clueless. The final HP novel was a lengthy tome, and even then it was only split into two films, not three. Ideally, The Hobbit would have made a single 3.5 hour or, at a maximum, two 2.0 hour films. In the latter scenario, film 1 would have ended with the Company escaping Mirkwood and reaching Lake Town, and film 2 would cover Smaug and the battle of 5 armies. It wasn't rocket science. Now they have needlessly over-complicated the narrative, most reviews are saying it is unnecessarily bloated. The actions of the film makers are really indefensible. Shame on all the TB'ers here who are defending this shambles. Shame on you. You have handed your souls over to the corporate machine and you have no business calling yourselves TRUE genre fans. Shame on you.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Calling for PJ's head?

    by darth_miyamoto

    Look, if you think that the decision to make this into three films was Peter Jackson's alone, you have no idea how this industry works. Now, I'm not saying that he didn't play a role. It's entirely possible that he may have. But my guess is that this decision came from those that hired him, and any "enthusiasm" he's given the press regarding the new trilogy of films is him towing the company line and keeping good relationships. If you're going to call for his head, you must call out those that hold the pursestrings, because they are at LEAST as guilty (and probably more so).

  • .......2 and a half hours X 3 fucking movies that will have shit tons?? of extras which will make it as long as the entire LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy which if anyone read the fucking books would know that the LOTR books were way better than the HOBBIT.....

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:02 p.m. CST


    by wannabedirector

  • Not sure why I thought you were one of the good ones on here. Oh well, no skin off my back.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Whoa Creepy! That's an absolutely *rushed* script

    by D.Vader

    Act I ends with Gollum? That would never ever work. Unless everything was sped up onscreen I mean. Like, fast-forwarded.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    There's this part of AICN..

    by micturatingbenjamin

    That loves self-fulfilling prophecies. Mr. Beaks and Harry both made proclamations about the new high framerate 3D (not cheery ones) in fact Harry went so far as to say that first reviews of movies that trek into that territory will be bad -- citing all the things above. That the technology will cause people to jar loose from the product. Still going -- still will be fun -- still will wish this could have been two movies instead of three. Won't call anything about it listless. MB

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:26 p.m. CST

    I'll pass

    by Dkev00

    I don't think I can handle another tedious movie from Peter "the king of filler" Jackson.

  • Should have been all about forward momentum with Smaug dealt with half way through and climaxing with the final battle.

  • Short memories geeks have.

  • A fucking soap opera or a 1980's television news broadcast! What do I mean by "unreality"? It's that it creates disatnce between the viewer and what they're looking at onscreen. It makes things easier to buy visually. Creates and internal cosistency with the image. I like clear picture quality but I don't want my movies to look "real" because I KNOW they aren't. The 24fps helps sell the fantasy to my brain where as 48 fps feels too real to the minds eye. I'm going to eat some fucking waffles!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 7:58 p.m. CST

    haven't seen it but this review makes too much sense.

    by nametaken

    how could it not be right.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:02 p.m. CST

    hardboiled wonderland

    by nametaken

    thats the problem with making something good, you want more. its not until you eat too much that it becomes awful.

  • Yeah yeah I know... War and Peace is a massive book and The Hobbit isn't. And yet most of the complaints I'm seeing about "bloat" are because the movie stayed too true to the book. This is seriously reminding me of those idiots complaining about the ending of ROTK being too long, apparently without any grasp of the fact that it was not just the ending of a single film but of a 12 hour epic, and that it was actually cut down tremendously from the book's ending where the ring was destroyed halfway through the third book. I'll wait until I can watch the whole Hobbit trilogy together (maybe even followed by LOTR) before I judge the pacing, thank you.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:14 p.m. CST

    So, splitting it into 3 movies HAS fucked up the pacing...

    by performingmonkey

    Who woulda thunk???????????? My guess is that plenty of this stuff would have found itself in the Extended Edition. The Goblin Town clip looks like something from a videogame. It's one of those 'on rails' action sequences that LOTR did not do until parts of the huge ROTK battles. Everything prior to that felt real, even the collapsing stone stairways etc. Here things look too bright and digital double-heavy.

  • TWO films would have been too much. I had hoped that PJ would acknowledge the difference between the Hobbit and LOTR. The Hobbit is a lighthearted, whimsical fairy tale originally written for children. And up until today, I had no serious complaint with PJ. His version of King Kong was awesome and I loved every second of it—and the original from the 1930's is one of my favorite movies. Lucas took a chance on his Prequels. They turned his Original Trilogy on its head. With The Hobbit, PJ seems to have capitulated to the studio's money men. I could be wrong though. I hope I'm wrong. I'll know in a week and a half.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:18 p.m. CST

    All of us must agree that splitting 1 book into 3

    by JP

    3 hour movies is overkill. I like Jackson, but like life, you can never go home again

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST

    48fps naysayers

    by Ninja Nerd

    I'm usually senior here....being damned old and all. House Of Wax, 1953, was shot 60 years ago (by a director with one eye, ironically) and was part of about 50 films in 3D during that time. Same song, different verse; Hollywood trying to stave off increasing competition from other media (color television, in this case). Flash forward to 'modern' 3D, IMAX, and now, 48fps. Oh, and LG is shipping their 84" 4K television, for a cool $17K. Kids, it's leapfrog. Always has been. I saw House Of Wax, in 3D, in a theatre when I was NOT damned old. Saw Avatar and Avengers more recently. The difference is quality, immersive experience, and just plain enjoyment was much higher. Just took 50 years (not really, but you get the point) The Hobbit, 24 or 48fps, may suck rocks as a film, but the promise for the future of film should not dismissed after a single movie. I'll see it in HFR 3D and have my own opinions about the movie and the technology following. I just think it is ignorant to act like cavemen seeing their first eclipse until you see it for yourself. Don't be a fucking lemming, OK?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:39 p.m. CST

    So Creepy, you're fine with 2 movies but not with 3?

    by D.Vader

  • There are too many disagreements about how best to make this movie. It should be one film, it should be two, it can be great as 3. No, if its 3 its automatically trash. If its two, its bad. If the Dwarves all look like Gimli its great. But they need to be easily identifiable and have separate personalities too. But there's too many main characters that would never get clearly defined! And Tolkien's story is too serialized! It should be more light-hearted and childish! But no, it should be more in line with the LOTR films! Well, AICN Talkbackers.... WHICH IS IT?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 8:56 p.m. CST

    I want to love this movie with all my heart...

    by P. David

    I've been waiting for The Hobbit to be made into a movie since I read it as a kid. But PJ seems to be trying to turn it into another LOTR Trilogy, and the Hobbit is not LOTR. I would not presume to tell PJ how to do his job; he makes films for a living, and I do not. Most of his films are popular, and a few are insanely successful. He knows what he is doing. But The Hobbit is a short children's book, and PJ has turned it into nine hours of film, and it is perfectly natural to be a skeptic. At the same time I like Middle Earth, I like spending time there, it transports me out of my troubles, and I'm sure I will enjoy all three chapters of PJ's Hobbit—even if they are padded out.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 9:28 p.m. CST

    the hobbit logic DOES NOT COMPUTE

    by Robert Hand

    Lotr = 3 books, and 3 movies Hobbit = 1 Children's book that can be read in an afternoon, and 3 movies. Hell, just look at the material side by side. THE LOGIC DOES NOT COMPUTE. There was NO reason to have this be 3 films. Other than (price of admission X 3.)

  • Thank you, must be right since this is the only review I've read so far. I'm going to go bludgeon myself to death with my 47 deluxe copies of the Silmarillion out of sheer disappointment.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:07 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Full of people wanting to hate and to be *justified* of that hate (without having seen the object of their hate).

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Except for Prometheus, d.vader. ;)

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

  • Not that surprised, though. I don't like The Kidd's writing, but what a dick move. Very megalomaniacal, as was the answer for why.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:18 p.m. CST

    Hrrm, what Hardboiled?

    by D.Vader

    Which of my comments are you referencing? The "wanting to hate" bit?

  • There are a number of reviews out now, and only about 1 in 4 are actually negative. And yet, apparently Beaks' review is the be all, end all of them? And lets be honest, it isn't even THAT negative to begin with. Half the criticisms are aimed at the 48FPS. So just see it in 2D! I simply don't understand the herd-like mentality here. It's like everyone wants to be first to say "I told you it would..." with no regards to the real world. I'm probably in agreement with Beaks in regards to 48FPS, too. I'm personally opting for basic 2D when I see this film. And from reading other reviews, the 2D version is supposed to look good/normal as any other movie. As for the "bloated" comments. Again, it's a throwaway criticism. Like criticizing a Nolan film for taking itself too seriously. Peter Jackson makes long & big films. As a fan of the LOTR trilogy, and I would expect nothing less from his Hobbit.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Batuwind, go to the HarryOsborn-back

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Talkbackers don't even like Beaks

    by D.Vader

    But I guess many of them want their preconceived notions justified. "I can't wait to hate this movie along with Beaks!"

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Can you say he was "determined" to "milk this" Creepy?

    by D.Vader

    Especially when it was always said it'd be two movies until a few months before the 1st movie's release? Doesn't seem that way to me. I don't see it as overkill in my mind. But will my mind line up with PJ's? Maybe not. But I hope so. Bc I see it as a good decision for us Tolkien-movie fans.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:47 p.m. CST


    by MCVamp

    This film would be livened up by the addition of "Misty Mountain Hop." And what film wouldn't? "Listen to those lyrics, man. It's all about love and longing!… Yes…. and hobbits too."

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Can I also add anyone comparing this to Phantom Menace

    by slappy jones

    Needs to go and watch Phantom Menace again. It's not even close. There is no way this film is as bad as Phantom Menace. It's an easy lazy way of shitting on the film and any critic who used it planned to use it before they saw the film.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:54 p.m. CST

    hardboiled wonderland

    by Dkev00

    Actually I don't. I was 9 fucking years old. STFU and sit down.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 10:57 p.m. CST

    You haven't aged much then, dkev00

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

  • Next you'll be telling me that Maleficent doesn't change into Smaug until the third movie.

  • There's so much to The Hobbit in context of LOTR. As a standalone film, ignoring LOTR... sure, simple 2 hour adventure movie. in context of LOTR, Tolkien's revision notes (he planned a massive rewrite of Hobbit), the appendices and footnotes and sidestories and hints... easily a trilogy.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Anyone who can answer why...

    by MCVamp

    10 dwarfs look like cartoon retards, two look like grizzled old warriors, and one looks like a male model?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:06 p.m. CST

    People keep talking about how simple THE HOBBIT is...

    by D.Vader

    ... and refusing to admit its a children's story with almost ZERO characterization for anyone other than the main trio of characters. And they won't admit that makes for a bad movie as its written, but that's what they keep clamoring for.

  • Jackson was able to to take the equivilant of each book at approx. 370 pages and craft a single movie while correctly exercising elements (Tom Bombadil) that would have slowed the pacing down. I for one FUCKING HATE the "Special Editions" of the trilogy as I consider Fellowship and Towers theatrical editions to be masterpiece's while King was the sloppiest of the three and needed some cutting. How many fucking times do we need to see Frodo fall down?!? Did we really need to see how Gollum got the ring?!? But, hey, let's cut Saruman from the theatrical edition because, as we all know, he wasn't really all that important in the first two movies. No. Jackson is a Director that's fallen in love with everything he shoots and can't objectively look at his own work to determine if the pacing needs tightened up. Now, I'm not talking about racing towards the action but you just know when something feels off and is dragging. Look at Cronenberg's Cosmopolis. I admit to FUCKING HATING that movie when I saw it but having seen it again I can say that I enjoy it much more HOWEVER the last 20 minutes with Robert Pattinson and Paul Giamatti are a real fucking drag despite the fact that the whole movie is a series of conversations. You can just feel when something is going nowhere. But getting back to The Hobbit; it's only 310 pages and Jackson was able to take each of the Ring books and whittle them down while butt fucking King because he REFUSED TO CUT. Brevity is the soul of wit, doncha know? This is why it's torturous to read any of Knowles posts because he dribbles on about shit that no one cares about while I have similarly digressed from my original point! PARADOX!!!

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:09 p.m. CST

    ... And they refuse to admit its not as simple as they think

    by D.Vader

    As I've stated before, The Hobbit is a serialized adventure story in the vein of The Odyssey. As there ever been an Odyssey as a feature film? No. As a tv film? Yes. Why? Bc TV has a pacing that lends itself to this kind of story- lots of set pieces and rest stops and cliffhangers and then more houses of healing. Its a SERIAL. It can't be easily condensed, and to have this story fit into one film means cutting a lot of elements out- action beats, character development, relaxed reflection, etc...

  • I just won't be drinking a supersize coke during the trailers. ;)

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:12 p.m. CST

    Creepy - "Did we really need to see how Gollum got the ring?"

    by D.Vader

    Yes. I think it brings a lot of insight into who Gollum is as a character. It brings much needed sympathy to a character who was spared and gives us a reason to understand why Bilbo spared him. Not only that, but it provides a possible future for Frodo as we watch the films, seeing him walk alongside a creature he could become, the embodiment of corruption by the Ring. So yes, we DID need to see how Gollum got the Ring, to understand where he came from and to see where Frodo could yet go if he fails.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:13 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    Possibly when Harry 'unpublished' an article by the Kidd, and inserted one of his own in it's stead.

  • And not acknowledge his excision of the Scouring of the Shire, which MANY Tolkien fans lament?* *Again, another example of how talkbackers and Tolkien fans have no idea of what would make a good Tolkien movie and how Peter Jackson was doomed from the start.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:14 p.m. CST

    I get everyone's not a big Tolkien fan/reader...

    by Jay

    But whether it's 2 or 3 films, what Jackson is doing with the source is fantastic. As if it's been said enough, Tolkien was planning on re-writing the Hobbit (He had already revised minor aspects of it in later printings) But obviously he was never able to completely re-do it prior to his death. But thankfully his notes, or appendices, were intact. Part of me does say "give me a break..." when I'm reminded that it's now 3 films. But the Tolkien fan in me says otherwise. As a 3 film story, it will be a beautiful "what if?" to the Hobbit book we never read.

  • 2.46 hours for fuck sakes!!! Yeah, yeah, yeah and don't give me that fucking bullshit "BUT BUT BUT JACKSON TOOK MATERIAL FROM THE APPENDICES AND STUFF FROM LOTR BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!" because it still doesn't excuse the FACT that we're getting a trilogy of nearly three hour long movies each derived from 100 pages of a single book. Like I said, if he was doing two 2 1/2 hour long movies then I wouldn't be too chuffed but there is simply NO FUCKING NEED for a goddamn trilogy, especially when we know Jackson has just up outright made up new characters, like the one Evangaline Lillly is playing (speaking of which did you fucking see her at the premiere!?! the bloom is definately off that fucking rose!!! chugging too much midget spunk methinks) while Radagast the Brown should have went the way of Tom Bombadil.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:23 p.m. CST

    I enjoy films a whole lot more when I don't care what other people think of it.

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    I really do believe talkbacks have killed the magic of being able to just see a movie and take it for what it is.

  • It's smacks of trying too hard to shoehorn in a "strong female role model" for young girls who see the movie. But like I said in a previous post, most Hobbit fans I know are women, proving them wrong that women do enjoy a good story about a bunch of very hairy men!

  • Can anyone concede that point? That whether or not it should be one movie or two movies or can be made into three, its a touch story to do complete justice to while also including all the elements of the original story? And, in the context of the LOTR films, fits well into that continuity as well? Is anyone willing to admit that?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:32 p.m. CST

    Creepy, do you think LOTR movie fans would be happy with that?

    by D.Vader

    Content with a "sequel" of sorts that was very light-hearted and didn't really remind them of the LOTR they love? I am *completely* fine with PJ including the appendices and Gandalf's side-story to the Hobbit bigscreen adventure as it melds the two stories together in a more cohesive way.

  • And I must say, that's a HIGHLIGHT of the story for me, and I'd think it'd be the same for most Tolkien fans. But I guess that's not good enough. Better take some flaws from the film and shit on the product entire because of them, ignoring the good stuff.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:37 p.m. CST

    In defense of Tauriel...

    by D.Vader

    I understand completely why they added a female character to the story as the original has ZERO females in it... And, uhh... do you guys really want to defend that in a much-anticipated blockbuster film? Do you really think The Hobbit could get away with that in this day and age?

  • The fact that we see him conspire against Frodo and Sam while trying to lead them to their death. It's not like we had an hour of Smeagol as a family man and showed how the ring turned him. We got three movies of that with Frodo and his final turning. Two Towers gave Gollum a bit more characterization to show us the possibility that he could change but but the end he was back to being a murderous bastard and that's all he was throughout King. So it was pointless to show him killing someone to get the ring. It's kinda like how I fell about Kill Bill part 2, another movie fucked because of bloat. The scene in the church between Bill and The Bride was completely pointless because WE KNOW Bill is a fucking cunt and what he does to her. We KNOW he shoots her in the fucking head after having his flunkies beat the shit out of her. What's there to learn? That Bill is a fucker who pretends to be nice? It's not shocking nor is it interesting because we ALREADY KNOW what he's capable of. Same thing with Gollum by the end of Towers which is why we didn't need to see him kill for the ring which is why the opening scene was pointless.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:46 p.m. CST

    I mean, to hate on a female character...

    by D.Vader

    Just sort of smacks of sexism. And I hate when people toss that accusation around, I really do. But who cares if a girl is added to the story in a small scene? So what if its a girl Elf that captures the Dwarves and we never see her again until the Battle of Five Armies? Does it really change the story so much?

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Well, Creepy, I've only seen Kill Bill 2 once...

    by D.Vader

    I've seen Kill Bill 1 multiple times. I'll let that speak for itself. But I'd disagree that the church scene is without tension (which is what I discern is your point). I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that just bc you know how the story ends, it makes the journey there pointless and moot. Again, like I said earlier, seeing Gollum get the Ring ties him and Frodo together in a more coherent way (a visual way needed for moviegoers). In the TT, yeah, we know that Gollum used to be a Hobbit, but so what. We don't *see* that character, we don't really *get* it as a general audience. But in ROTK, we see Gollum as we see Frodo and Sam- innocent and susceptible to corruption. In TTT, we do NOT see Gollum in that way. We know Frodo can turn in that direction, but there's nothing to visually tie Smeagol to Frodo until that flashback. It doesn't matter that we know how Gollum's story ends. What's important here is how it began, because that relates to *all* of us. And if you didn't know, Creepy, that flashback was originally intended for The Two Towers.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:53 p.m. CST

    But Creepy, I'm glad you agree the SCOURING needed to be cut

    by D.Vader

    There aren't many here that understand that.

  • Dec. 4, 2012, 11:57 p.m. CST

    And Creepy, I'm afraid I may have no been clear enough...

    by D.Vader

    Its not that the Smeagol flashbacks define Gollum, its that they define FRODO. That's why they are important.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:05 a.m. CST

    Quantize, I haven't said anything about Kong. Try again.

    by D.Vader

    You have to do better about this.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:09 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Well to be fair, a black character wouldn't make much sense in this ancient England fantasy-land. But a female fighter in an Elvish society that's supposed to be more enlightened than mankind? That makes sense. And again, the story is totally devoid of females. And when you're making a film that's supposed to hit every quadrant, you should have a girl in there somewhere. And if you disagree, don't blame Peter Jackson, but blame the studio system and the movie-going public in general for that one.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:09 a.m. CST

    And Hardboiled I do see what you did there

    by D.Vader


  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:17 a.m. CST

    Its implied, yes Creepy

    by D.Vader

    You missed my point that the general audience often needs more than *implication* (like we do)- they need definition. WE infer that Frodo could become Gollum. But the *general audience*- and many intelligent audience members that haven't read the books- might not necessarily understand that Gollum used to look like Frodo. They might look on him as an already pathetic figure that got the Ring and became even more wretched than before. Its one thing to *say* Gollum was like a Hobbit. Its another thing to really make the audience understand what you mean. For the movies, its vitally important that visual relationships are established, and if you can tie Gollum to Frodo in an image- say, Frodo looking like Gollum (in one deleted scene from TTT) or Gollum looking like Frodo (as established in the opening to ROTK)- than you have accomplished your mission in the simplest of terms. And that's why I say Smeagol's transformation is important. Because not only does Frodo work as a stand-in for the audience, but Smeagol works as a stand-in for us. And if Lincoln taught us anything, its that if two things are equal to the same thing, than they are equal to each other.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:21 a.m. CST

    I just want to say that I pretty much agree with d.vader entirely.

    by Mystery Roach

  • Church scene opens the first film and the credits roll after the Deadly Vipers go in the door and start shooting. That would work better because it would have added suspense to the scene between The Bride and Bill because, at that point, we don't know what he's capable of. Putting it later does NOTHING as we know she gets shot so there is no suspense. Kinda like how DePalma screwed Carlito's Way by showing Pacino getting shot. You DON'T DO THAT in suspense/thrillers. It would be like seeing the end of Chinatown at the beginning. It dissipates suspense which is what you SHOULD want to create. But people do this because, hey, Orson Wells showed us the death of CFK in Citizen Kane, except that movie was a CHARACTER STUDY! We know he dies but it's the details of his life that were important. You want to create tension in a suspense/thriller and showing shit out of chronological order does nothing. No, I would have opened with the church scene in Kill Bill 1 and ended the movie with Bill asking Sofie "does she know her daughter is still alive" before cutting to the Bride laying on the floor and saying "Bill, it's your baby" BOOM, HEADSHOT!!! Cue credits.... Much more effective IMHO. Of course Kill Bill could have been a masterpiece instead of one NEAR MASTERPIECE (part 1) and a lot of useless shit with some great stuff in it (part 2).

  • It was his idea. He even went on to talk about how making a single film from The Hobbit would be impossible. You just can't have a film with 13 dwarves (!) and not develop any of them throughout the film without critics and audiences calling foul. Not only that, but the people who think The Hobbit would've have worked as one film apparently don't remember how much shit actually happens in that book. It's just that for so much of it, there is no dialogue. It just is one episodic piece of the story after another.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Morgan Freeman cast as mysterious 'Black Wizard Morglithlo"...?

    by Darth_Inedible

    He'll probably be the Lando Calrissian of the second film the Dwarves get to Dale and find the town taken over by a shady black wizard who runs a giant casino. It's a shame Del Toro's stink is all over these films, especially the production design. PJ is bad enough by himself when he's unrestrained. When you add DT you get ridiculous shit like the starfruit hairdoo Dwarf.

  • Seeing Anakin turned is not the same as seeing Gollum turned except at a *surface* level. Anakin turning to the Dark Side is the crux of the Prequels, a 3-movie-act structure. Smeagol turning to the Dark Side is NOT the crux of the LOTR, but an example of what can happen on a personal level if the heroes fail. Its completely different. (and Creepy, may I add I haven't responded to your Kill Bill ideas yet bc A) I haven't seen the films enough to feel comfortable debating them in the way I do LOTR, and B) when QT tells the story out of order from the very beginning, I think its just a bit, I dunno, foolish to say our order is better. In my opinion, its good to see what Bill is capable of in the beginning of KB:Volume II bc A) It reminds us of the danger ______ is in. B) It provides a nice juxtaposition from the "nice guy" we meet later in the film C) It give us a sense of the *real* sweet and sour that exists in life, that someone so charismatic and warm could at the same time be so hateful and murderous. Its the whole reason why QT has this scene exist during a wedding: Bill walks the Bride down the aisle in a traditional manner, but the subtext tells us that Bill is ____'s "daddy' in more than just the teacher/leadership sense. Oh shit, in my explanation for why I haven't addressed Kill Bill (which really comes down to the fact that I got up at 3:15 this AM and I'm exhausted and drunk after a drink or two), I ended up explaining a lot of it. Please forgive me for providing you with ammo, Creepy.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Wait what?

    by D.Vader

    Creepy I just spent 10 minutes writing a response, using Anakin and Gollum and Kirk as examples. I'm afraid it may have just been lost. If that's the case, I can't recreate it. As I'm now very close to drunk. My apologies.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 1:04 a.m. CST

    Never mind... Damn AICN, fucking up posts!

    by D.Vader

    IT happened AGAIN!

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 1:10 a.m. CST

    enough tolkien after 9 hrs of walking to volcano

    by Hugh Gustavus

    the lotr could have been edited into 2 movies, or 3 90 minute movies without all the gay midget crap, and had a more cynical sense of humour. thats why i like willow alot more, doesnt have stuffy british humour

  • Ironically since the original Star Wars in a way was the birth of modern day geek culture (Star Trek TOS was the conception). No matter how good or bad Star Wars ep7 is, it might very well send shockwaves through nerdom and Star Wars fans. I wouldn't be surprised if there end up being mass hysteria and suicides over the next Star Wars film.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Hey, this is the Hobbit!

    by Darren

    As a book it's short and for children. Jackson has beefed it up for adult viewing too...If- as well as providing much, much more- he's following the book to the letter then all the better for true Tolkien fans. My initial fears (Radaghast= Binks) have dissipated, my expectations lowered somewhat- i can now look forward to a grand spectacle over 3 expensive movies in glorious PJ fashion in the fictional land of Middle Earth...Great!

  • Women need very hairy men for role models anyway.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:18 a.m. CST

    Jackson made Azog the big bad

    by bf skinner

    How many lines does Azog get in the book? Four or five? Imagine if Saruman only featured in two paragraphs in FOTR, and Jackson extrapolated that to make him the chief antagonist. Can you imagine the response that would get? Well, Hackson has done just that. Azog and Radagast are only mentioned in passing and Hackson has made them into what he thinks are integral characters. Wake up, nerds! This is FAN FICTION. No wonder the Tolkien estate are losing their shit. There's going to be a whole generation of children who will see this FAN FICTION movie, then read the book and wonder where the fuck are Azog, Radagast and Tauriel. Not to mention Galadriel and Saruman. Hackson has royally fucked this up.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4 a.m. CST

    Most Tolkien fans are excited that Jackson is giving Radagast more screentime

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    As a Tolkien fan myself, it's one thing I was really hoping Jackson would do, give Radagast more screen time. I'll be equally happy if the Beornings get equal treatment.

  • The did a fine job at getting rid of the 'bloat' of RotK. In fact, the six-part retelling of LotR was fabulous and is my go-to cut.

  • With three movies, Jackson's giving us that chance.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4:55 a.m. CST

    Something I would do if I wrote the script

    by HornOrSilk

    I would have Bilbo lying to Gandalf at the end, lying about the ring and how he got it. Why? To deal with the changes Tolkien himself did with Riddles in the Dark, changes which he said reflected the ring's influence on Bilbo!

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4:56 a.m. CST


    by KGersen

    Fighting a valiant battle here against the hordes of idiocy but I fear to no avail. I will wait to see the film before reading any reviews.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4:59 a.m. CST

    I do think Jackson, when he adds things of his own making, fails

    by HornOrSilk

    The worst is with Faramir and Frodo. The Hobbit should have been two films, not three. And it should have been more like the book and how it differs from The Lord of the Rings, to express the different voice of Bilbo from Frodo. The progression from the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings could go with the progression of the ring's influence, darkening those near to the ring. This could be/should be shown by a subtle change in style in the movie so by the end it is not as "silly" as the beginning, and Bilbo is shown lying to Gandalf. Oh well. I expect it will be ok, just not as good as it could have been.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 6:10 a.m. CST

    Nothing wrong with a slow build up

    by Dazzler69

    Sheesh people are so A.D.D these days to not enjoy a story build. We need death and blood every 5 mins? Just relax and enjoy, if not interested don't see it and go rewatch "Saw" or something.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 7:52 a.m. CST

    I saw it yesterday

    by MrDexter

    liked the 48fps

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 8 a.m. CST

    I'll probably like it a lot

    by ghost_matt

    Bilbo doesn't set out on his adventure until 40 minutes into the movie? Guess how long it took Frodo? So what? It's called introducing the characters a little bit plus the whole history of the dwarves. Sounds fine with me. In the Rankin/Bass cartoon, they were already captured by the trolls literally 10 minutes into the movie. THAT is some bad pacing.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    My problem with a slow build up is...


    I have to watch a lot of this type of stuff with my son, at least the first time. He's just turned 9 so he obviously loves big movies, but heavy dialogue makes him fidget and ask questions. Especially when strong accents are used or they are using words he doesn't know like they probably will in The Hobbit. I'll probably give it a miss until the Blu Ray I think. Or maybe go see it without him knowing.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 9:09 a.m. CST

    hardboiled wonderland...

    by P. David

    When I first read the book as a kid, I was heartbroken when it was over, too. You have the right attitude.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 9:13 a.m. CST

    zodlovesmaude, no, Stegman84 is dead right.

    by Childs

    He pretty much pointed out exactly why anyone who says that there has never been a good prequel is a fucking moron. A good prequel may be rare, and a truly great one extremely fucking rare, but they do exist, and thus can be made. I might not agree with all of his examples, but most of them could only be denied by the blatantly ignorant and the willfully stupid. And so anyone making such a hyperbolic statement like 'there has never been a good prequel.' is clearly, as I already said, a complete fucking moron. Undoubtedly. Unquestionably. Undeniably. End of fucking line.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 9:16 a.m. CST

    As for The Hobbit

    by Childs

    I'll see it, but much like with Fellowship back in the day, I don't expect to fully enjoy it until I can watch all three films back to back and get the whole story. I will be interested to see if they do extended versions of these films though, and if they do, if that makes them flow better and feel more satisfying (and thus be easier to watch) in the same way that the extended versions of the LOTR trilogy did. Or did for me at least.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil needs his own 220 minute film

    by I_Snake_Plissken

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 10:09 a.m. CST

    Yeah, but why does Peter Jackso light his films like he's Thomas Kinkade, painter of light?

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    Or an Enya video. Say what you want about the Rankin and Bass cartoon, it had atmosphere, mystery, and muted tones. The best Gollum ever put on film.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 10:11 a.m. CST

    That one little Hobbit cartoon is more Led Zeppelin than six Peter Jackson films

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    you don't achieve mysticism with 2 dozen computers and the star of the BBC's The Office.

  • That's a shame. Was looking forward to this.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    That was fun, Creepy.

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 10:34 a.m. CST

    But what about SMAUG?

    by DrMorbius

    Numerous posters here claim to have seen the Hobbit already, yet no one has commented on Smaugs appearance. Could it be possible that the 1/2 second grey/black blur we've seen in the released footage is the extent we get in the first flick?

  • I'm hoping not.

  • Also, bummed that I won't be able to see the 9 mins of Star Trek if I don't go to the IMAX/3D screenings. Oh well, I still think it's worth the sacrifice not to wear those damn glasses.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Have a lot of you been asleep since July?

    by Michael Tyree

    That's when the third movie was announced and the reasons for it. You can link to any of the many articles so I won't go into the reasons. I will say, as a very long time Tolkien fan, that I am delighted with three movies. Jackson is perfectly justified in making HIS adaptation of the Hobbit dovetail into his existing LotR movie. In fact, he has done no different from Tolkien himself. Yes, Tolkien had re-written the Hobbit to fall in line with the later work. It was never publised so we'll never know how close PJ came to hitting the same mark. So fan carping about the additions is entirely misplaced. Let me remind some of you: This is Peter Jackson' adaptation of the Hobbit...not a literal re-telling of the book. I mean, what did any of you expect him to do...un-make the existing movie? PJ locked himself into this adaptation by NOT doing the Hobbit first. I wish it had been the other way around and we would have gotten a more faithful rendering of the Hobbit. I also wish I was good looking and swung a fourteen inch...well, never mind that! My concerns do carry over from LotR and the writers needless and sometimes baffling inventions (chick hubris?). Again, I wish he had only one but it's three movies folks and there's no going back. All the backstory (war of the Goblins and the Dwarves...Azog, Bolg, Dain Ironfoot, etc.) is worthy of inclusion and I, for one, cannot wait to see the Battle of Azanilbizur told/shown in flashback. It will also touch on one of the very necessary explanations of why there is so much enmity between Legolas and Gimli at the Council of Elrond. I agree with those who criticize fans for wanting more (longer) movies then bitch about all the additional Hobbity goodness we are about to receive. So, relax Tolkienites...we still have our books and let's just wait and see how PJ does with the entire tale before we hang him for the firrst.

  • Most reviews are pointing out the same 'Kong' syndrome of The Hobbit - a bloated script, Jackson things all movies should be 3 + hours long, but blame the studio too for wanting more money from 3 overlong movies instead of two tighter paced. It'll make squillions regardless though.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:04 p.m. CST

    When are we going to see an adaption of The Sword of Shinola?

    by Gary Makin

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Bwah ha ha! That poster is awesomely bad!

    by Quake II

    This movie looked like a snoozefest from the first trailer and this review confirms it. I liked Fellowship Of The Ring and most of Return Of The King but have ZERO interest in seeing The Hobbit. Not at the theater, on dvd, Netflix, HBO or CBS. This is less exciting to me than the next Julia Roberts rom-com. But kudos to Harry for getting front and center on the poster!

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Nausea suggests these new 48 fps setups just need debugging

    by BrandLoyalist

    I simply don't buy that the faster framerate itself is inducing nausea. If you've seen someone playing a game on a PC recently, you've seen video at 60 FPS or better. These brand-new digital 48 fps projectors need to be carefully analyzed for any kind of strobing, or even timing fluctuations. Supposing there's a low-frequency signal hiding somewhere? So the video is at 48 fps... do the projectors themselves refresh their output at exactly 48 fps? What if the projector was doing 60 fps, and vertical sync was used? In 1 second, 36 frames would get be traced by the projector once, while 12 would be traced twice. Every third frame hangs around for an extra trace. That's a persistent 16 hz throb in the timing of the frames... I'm feeling a little nauseous just thinking about it. If the projector did 120 hz you'd have half the frames getting 2 traces, half getting 3 traces. 24 hz wiggle in the frame timing... probably not as bad. Just speculating -- I don't know anything about the projectors. I would hope they refresh at a multiple of 24/48 fps.

  • Can't wait to see Gollum's dingleberries.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    The Dagger of Shit needs to be released first.

  • Love the LOTR movies and was very excited at the initial prospect of the Hobbit. GDT? Two movies? Awesome! No GDT and Jackson's in? Sweet! New 3D technique involving 48fps? Interesting, gimmicky but interesting. No longer two movies but three? Hmmmm...ok, maybe they'll be under two hours, three hours? Whoa, that's going to be stretching it real thin with a light read like the Hobbit... Then the completely underwhelming images and trailers started showing up. This is no longer must see in my book. Each LOTR movie was must see and an event. This whole endeavor has been very misguided unless you count making money your guidance, passion be damned. Jackson made the LOTR trilogy as a hungry filmmaker, his life depending on it. Not so much this time around. I will see it eventually, of course, but the enthusiasm is not there and expectations are very low.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 1 p.m. CST


    by BrandLoyalist

    12 frames out of 48 traced twice would be a 12 hz pulse not 16 you knob. That's even worse *retch*

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Those asking about Smaug *SPOILER*

    by lookylookymoontard

    You see his eye open a rt the very end....end credits,sounds lame but it was pretty cool actually

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 1:58 p.m. CST

    My expectations are tempered, but mainly because of...

    by DoctorWho? uncertainty about Freeman as Bilbo. From what I've seen so far, he seems a bit dry. but I will reserve judgement until I see it all in context.<p> That being said, I watched a 45 second clip of the dwarves in the goblins mountain running along wooden ramps and bridges battling goblins all the way and it was great! Superbly choreographed action!

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    great review - what I expected it would be

    by HoLottaMo

    just read the Hobbit again and can't believe they're actually making 3 movies - 9 hrs! I read it in less time!

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 2:34 p.m. CST

    geez that was bad--"took the time up front to..."

    by batmancw

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:16 p.m. CST

    ma chères, these slow paced movie...

    by spud lee

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:17 p.m. CST

    Bill Murray signs up for Ghostbusters 3

    by LiquidHotMagma

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:21 p.m. CST

    is like making love.

    by spud lee

    An hour of foreplay before things heat up... Oooolala

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST


    by spud lee

    phone home

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Does Cumberbatch use the method?

    by David Duchovny

    I wonder if rolled around in Euros naked to prepare for the roll.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    I agree with batmancw. Bring the bloat!

    by frank

    I say make each movie four hours long and put in everything from Tolkien that they can. The only thing that I might complain about would be if they put in too much non-Tolkien, invented material. Even that would be OK if they did a good job with it, though that would be doubtful. I wish there was some way to get a super-extended edition of LotR with Tom Bombadil, barrow wights, scouring of the Shire etc. (Though I fully understand why these scenes were excised from the theatrical cuts of the trilogy.)

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters III to start shooting in 2014?!! FFFFUUUUUUUU

    by hank henshaw

    Nothing good can come out from something like that :(

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    And you have my bloat!

    by Michael Tyree

    I'm with you and batmancw franks_TV...throw in a backstory moment with Elrond as he's eyeing Sting that shows the complete Fall of Gondolin. I want full detail on Smaug's lineage tracing all the way back to Glaurung. Necromancer? Say, wasn't he that Werewolf of Tol-in-Gaurhoth Maiar? May as well launch into the Tale of Beren and Luthien. And then... Gimme bloat...gimme bloat!

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    My perfect review in 7 words: No black people. Peter Jackson is a racist.

    by Cotton_Mcknight

    Think about it.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    Ok.. maybe 8 words. Still, it tells you all you need to know!

    by Cotton_Mcknight

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST

    48fps IMAX 3D--I'll see for myself and be the judge.

    by Simpsonian

    I mean really how often do film makers try to do something different? I'll give it a chance.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 5:21 p.m. CST

    As I feared?

    by Bernie Margolis

    The Hobbit was not a "serious" book like LotR. It was always a comedy targeted at children. It's not going to attack a huge emotional punch, especially at the beginning. LotR is about a power-hungry megalomaniac that has reawakened and is attempting to consolidate power. The Hobbit is about some dispossessed dwarfs attempting to reclaim their legacy with minimal effort. The seriousness of the situation isn't fully realized until the dwarfs are finally brought to task. At that point they realize the tolls that were taken on everyone around them. When I heard that this movie was being stretched out to three I had misgivings. This movie is based on a single light book. LotR was based on three dense books, and I can't even watch the expanded editions without falling asleep three quarters of the way in (I still question Jackson's decision to leave out the Scouring of the Shire out of the expanded version; it's arguably the best chapter in the trilogy). It sounds like I was right to be worried. I hope that Jackson leaves the fan service to The Silmarillion and focuses on making The Hobbit as the light-hearted fairy tale that was originally intended, but this review suggests that my hope is in vain.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Tough to adapt?

    by Bernie Margolis

    @d.vader: "Will anyone agree with me that The Hobbit is a tough story to adapt?" No, because it's not. It's much easier to adapt than LotR because it's a comedy with brief elements of drama here and there. Audiences love comedies, so if they film the movie that way they should be golden. If they try to turn it into The Silmarillion then yes, it will be tough to adapt because no one goes to the movies to was a historical documentary about a world that's fictional to begin with.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 5:30 p.m. CST


    by Bernie Margolis

    I meant to say, "no one goes to the movies to WATCH a historical documentary about a world that's fictional to begin with." Sorry about that.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 5:45 p.m. CST

    If Jackson is able to turn a 300 page book into a 9 hour movie

    by Hawaiian Organ Donor

    Imagine what he'll do when he makes The Book of Mormon.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 5:47 p.m. CST

    I fucking loved King Kong.

    by Scruff

    My wife said it was too long! DAMMIT, IT'S A MOVIE, NOT A SERMON!!!!

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 5:49 p.m. CST

    I'll enjoy these movies, for sure, but that star fish hair, and Jekyll's

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    bomber/sherpa hat still bug the shit out of me.

  • So go ahead, if you want to see this movie that will undoubtedly pull out every fruity lavender scarf from its magic hat of CGI, and occasionally have scenes that are lit like collectible unicorn plates on late night television... Then go ahead. GIVE these people their money so they can cast more British sitcom people to play sarcastic Hobbits. Oh the lines and the photoshops that will happily parade across Facebook walls... It's just so cute!!! It's like tossing a dwarf gaily into a field of blushing peonies!! We will just agree to collectively FORGET the era when films were smaller and handmade, and we had things to rent Again and Again, Again... life-altering starbursts of pure cinema like DRAGONSLAYER, THE SECRET OF NIMH, and THE HOBBIT. Peter Jackson has fallen so far from the same director that made renegade, visionary works like Heavenly Creatures that its disgusting. For a guy who espouses such a love of Harryhausen and Willis O'Brien to make films that are the bloated antithesis of -guy tinkering away in a workshop movies- is just saddening, and a mark of the times. Someday people will get sick of these movies, and those magic old sawdust and woodshed films will come BACK.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Sasquatch, you are quite good at overreacting here

    by D.Vader

    Yes, seeing the Hobbit means we all collectively forsake the past.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 6:12 p.m. CST

    people so fixated on the negative.....

    by slappy jones

    Ignoring that it has received more good reviews than bad. even some of the bad ones say its still fun just too long. And its amazing how many of you apparently agree with all the critics who have given it bad review. I am sure you always agree with them on every film yeah? It is fairly obvious how many of you have made up your minds before seeing the film.

  • I just don't give them my money. So I'm not part of the problem. I'd rather educate people on the years of celluloid history and PRACTICAL EFFECTS MAGIC that is being paved over in favor of this stuff. It's called integrity, rather than eating cake after cake full of sawdust.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Creeper dwarf

    by David Duchovny

    What is his name? Just wondering.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Ah, So It's A Disaster, Then.

    by Lesbianna_Winterlude

    And right after Cloud Atlas, too. Hollywood may never take another risk again.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Nobody in Hollywood understands MAGIC anymore

    by FeralAngel

    Or charm, or whimsy, or the kind of world-building that makes a fantasy film relatable to ALL audiences. Look at the original Wizard of Oz movie...Oz was as outlandish and off-kilter a place as Tolkein's Middle-Earth, yet generation after generation of families have wished it were real and wanted to visit there. Or look at Walt's Snow White and Pinocchio...both of the fantasy worlds in those films were exotic yet inviting. By contrast, NONE of the fantasy worlds presented by modern-day film-makers are the least bit appealing. Whether it's Burton's Wonderland or Jim Henson's pitiable worlds of Dark Crystal/Labryinth, none of the worlds that were supposed to inspire escapist longings for the alternative to the everyday succeeded in their tasks. This "Hobbit" looks like a overlong bloated episode of "The Storyteller". And I say to hell with it.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 7:04 p.m. CST

    That's what I figured

    by mascan42

    This just became a rental at best.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 7:10 p.m. CST

    If this were only two films...

    by Phimseto

    ...I would be alright with it, but this third film nonsense, especially with them trying to craft this thing on the fly, feels like disaster. The Hobbit is definitely not three films worth of story. If they resolve the Hobbit and have some kind of weird third connecting film, *that* might work, but if they really do try to stretch out The Hobbit...for shame.

  • Like an Andy Kaufman performance. I love the race-obsessed, lack of self awareness you bring to the character. That low-intelligence and tribal thinking, tinged with paranoia. It works to evoke simultaneously, pity and contempt from the reader. A fine character sketch in exploring the self-projection of the conspiratorial thinker. You should have a one man show. May I ask, are you in the arts?<p> /

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 7:20 p.m. CST

    What's this need to rush?

    by GeorgieBoy

    People complained about the end of Return of the King having too many endings. Now the complaints start about The Hobbit taking too long to get started. What's wrong with taking your time to enjoy this world, particularly The Shire? I mean, is there anyone who wouldn't want to live there? Take some time, look around, and enjoy it. Ferris Bueller would.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 7:20 p.m. CST

    "flat-out unwatchable" - Aint it Cool News

    by quadrupletree

    I wonder if they'll put that on the back of the DVD...

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 7:42 p.m. CST

    We have to be rushed

    by David Duchovny

    We can't spend an hour in the Shire. Too busy buying Ipad covers that match our sunglasses, getting abortions, watching porn on our phones, and arguing over which crook should be in the white house. Onward to the Misty Mountains you foolish fucking filmmaker. I got shit to do.

  • Zzzzzzz. Bring on Iron Man 3 already! THAT'S a movie that won't bore you to tears for 3 hours.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 9:09 p.m. CST


    by Crobran

    Right on, man. Preach it.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 9:18 p.m. CST

    cotton, was that a haiku?

    by frank

    No, I guess not. You should write a 'Peter Jackson is racist' haiku. I will be expecting it shortly.

  • Dec. 5, 2012, 10:26 p.m. CST

    @feralangel I would say Legend > LOTR as far as inviting

    by chien_sale

    I didn't say it was a better movie but as far fantasy World, there's elements in Legend where you want to be there, especially in that sort of naive innocent Universe and how the people react with one another. Contrary to the LOTR were it's a bleak World and it lacks that wimsical magical feel.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Three Movies = $$$

    by ShoreGrey

    First you get the theatrical release...then the DVD release of it. Then we get the three movie boxset. Then we get individual releases of the "Special Edition" Then we get the boxset of that. Then we get individual releases of the "Sooper dooper untral mega ugli super kitty fantastico verion with 80 minutes of deleted scenes of people going to the bathroom. Then we get the boxset of those. Then we get the Ultimate platinum mega woolymammoth dindong the witch is dead would you like fries with that Boxset that has an extra documentary or two. MONEY. GRAB. I doubt it was PJ's idea to do three movies. I feel like even he was shoehorned into doing three movies by the studios.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Fuck the naysayers, this is gonna be grand...

    by Darren

    Lookin forward to sittin back in the cinema and lettin this huge and ambitious adaptation of one of my favorite fantasy authors just flow over me in all in it's fine, fantastically eye popping detail....Bring it ON...

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 2:41 a.m. CST


    by David Duchovny

    My friend saw it. He says to bring a lot of caffeine and a bottle to piss in. Too damn long according to him and he's read the Hobbit 10 times. I'm less psyched every day.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 3:46 a.m. CST

    @feralangel I went to a screening of Labyrinth for

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    SIFF here in Seattle, attended by Toby Froud and Karen Prell. It was meant to be a quote-along, with a few quotes subtitled on the screen, not very often. The audience was mostly way younger than I (I'm 39, and was an early teen when Labyrinth first debuted). The audience didn't just quote along; they quoted THE ENTIRE MOVIE. They had memorized ALL of the dialogue, and song lyrics. I've seen it a bajillion times, but even I couldn't do that.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Tired of the Practical VS CGI argument

    by LarkStew

    They're both special effects, neither of them are real, it's arguing about the wrong thing. A previous post was more on the mark... it's about the lack of magic in the images. And by magic, it's the way the images make you feel. In the past special effects were used sparingly to make you feel awe and wonder. Now they're used to splash as much techno porn on the screen as they can possibly manage to distract you from the shitty stories. The original version of King Kong used its SFX carefully to create the feeling of a mysterious, exotic jungle. You could sense the danger and imagine the vicious creatures and peril lurking in there. The new version just wants to bash you over the head with how many individually rendered leaves the SFX artists managed to make. It's the emphasis on spectacle rather than emotion which is ruining movies today.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 4:10 a.m. CST


    by Darren

    Don't drink too much liquid beforehand- just a coffee or two maybe- and a bar of chocolate for the halfway point, that's my prescription...LOTR EE are my all time favorite movies. Aside from a few minor irritations, some of the artisic indulgences that don't sit well, the positives outweigh the negatives, so i'm lookin forward to every little bit of the Hobbit......

  • I think when that spectacle is manipulative- its creating the opposite of that emotional response that you're talking about. It creates cynicism. Distrust. Overuse of effects is a cheap way to fill seats, to be sure, but one could say that we are living in the Opposite of Amblin, where films today rely so much less on mystery and wonderment then they do on digital wankery and the glee of fat nerds gazing up at planetarium ceilings. I know my synapses get a lot more excited, more EMOTIONAL by something if the texture is right.

  • I agree. Also, another fantasy film from that rough and tumble early 80's period... Excalibur. Which is weird as I remember early reports on The Fellowship of the Ring film being described as resembling Boorman's Excalibur. Oh, and one can't forget to mention ZardoZ in relation to John Boorman and Excalibur.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 8:44 a.m. CST

    What a gay poster

    by gridlockd

    Wow. Nothing cool about that.

  • I honestly love this site and the minds of many of the people who write criticism here... But to simultaneously celebrate the rich cinematic history on display here without lamenting its loss, and ACTIVELY FIGHTING the Eragons and the Kung Fu Panda 3s... Is a big mistake.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 9:17 a.m. CST

    *out of WORK

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    Used to be that if a kid grew up and wanted to work for Disney, like in the mid-90's... Well you basically had to go to Australia, because Disney didn't have a fully functioning studio here anymore. Now that's not even an option. Learn to use a computer, kid. To act like texture, marionette eyes, seeing the honest workings and BREATH of a creation, ISN'T a valid reason a film might fail.... Is just so ridiculous. Someone on here remarked that Master and Commander -was the best non-Trek Trek film ever made. So much of that had to do with subtle character work, design, and the miniature work of WETA studios to make real, tangible models. And I hear that mostly The Hobbit is NOT using sets and model-work?? It's like, remember the first time an adult made a puppet and slipped it down over their hand. The wonderment of that. Now it's like, here! Watch Kim Jon Nguyen Jr dazzle you with his computer!! It might take a few days and be lit like a fucking Lavitra commercial, but... oh well.

  • Jackson's LotR trilogy was a blend of live sets, actors, costume, makeup and cgi. If you want to rant about Zemekis' life-less mo-cap shitfests, that's one thing, but I think you unfairly malign PJ by lumping all digital effects movies together. And digital effects are an artistic tool in filmmaking just like practical effects and stop motion animation. You may not like it, but it is an artform and it is here to stay, like it or not. It's a shame that you seem incapable of enjoying it even when it is well-done, because of your bias.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 10:05 a.m. CST

    So this whole movie is basically just a tech demo then?

    by nephilim138

    Fuck that. Worry about the story and pacing, not the fucking frame rates because if the movie sucks it won't matter.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Ridiculous Sasquatch

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    i fucking told you it would be a ten minute closeup of bread crumbs in filis beard

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    Ill still see it for myself cause afterall it is a beaks review. But pj sucks lately

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Squatch is coming off the rails, here.

    by Anthrax

    I admire the conviction; but you seem exclusively focused on simply the craftsmanship of practical Vs. digital effects, as opposed to the actual affect the fx has on the film and story therein.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    "Nobody in Hollywood understands MAGIC anymore...

    by Michael Tyree

    ...Or charm, or whimsy,..." Yeah, cuz a wooden sleigh drawn by giant rabbits with a figure that has bird poop in his hair isn't whimsical at all. Thirteen partying Dwarves in a Hobbit hole isn't whimsical either, I guess. I'm sure there will be more examples of whimsy. Bert, Tom and William...THE most serious mutha-fuckin' trolls anyone ever saw! Honestly, why can't you dolts just wait and see the movie before you make these absurd statements. Here's a clue...don't care for the genre/Jackson/Tolkien at all? Then why the fuck do you waste our time? Nobody, and I mean nobody gives two bunny asses that you WON'T be going to see it. Oh, and of course, all that expanded tourism to New Zealand has NOTHING to do with the setting of LotR. Who would want to visit that boring place? Yuk...all those tall, snow-capped mountains and pristine river, I'd rather go look at some industrial park or cesspool. Lotsa magic there...

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Fuck off McKnight.

    by Michael Tyree

    What you mean is that Jackson cast no actors of African descent. Becuase Maori, for example, don't count, right? Nope, they must not be black enough for your racist ass. How many different races are portrayed in the Hobbit or LotR? That's right, you don't have a clue becuase you probably have never watched either one! Here are five letters for you: T-R-O-L-L

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Yeah Sasquatch has gone nuts

    by D.Vader

    Suggesting characters made from the computer- and not plastic or rubber- is dishonest and without emotion. He's gone off the deep end with his bias.

  • But it's gonna have to wait. I need to watch Zardoz and eat pizza. After hearing this film talked about in cult circles for YEARS, I'm gonna finally have to sit down and watch it for myself. For now I leave you with this- And this, which someone posted to my anti-CGI Facebook group Rights For Cartoons this morning. It's from a RARELY SEEN pre- Rankin/Bass animated short based on The Hobbit. Impressionistic, as opposed to grabbing your lapels to exhale a great pixel cloud into your face. IMPRESSIONISTIC. (that means art to haunt the senses rather than to tickle the nerd balls with ooey blooey Science.)

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 12:59 p.m. CST

    sasquatch does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    sasquatch, LV mentioned EXCALIBUR and ZARDOZ. Of the two I would definitely recommend EXCALIBUR - amazing movie. ZARDOZ on the other interesting but kinda awful. Also after reading your rant about movies with practical fx, texture, tangible sets, etc - you should watch PROMETHEUS and also the making of docu. Ridley Scott is one film maker who is still doing practical on the very biggest of canvases.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 1:01 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    sasquatch, youd probably like VALHALLA RISING too. It has the mythic, gritty, realism thing down well also. I dont think there's any CG in it at all.

  • You should probably watch the movie before demonizing it. Plus, I don’t see how it would be possible to be drawn into a fantasy world more than I was to Jackson’s Middle Earth, so obviously everything you are saying is just your opinion and not any kind of objective fact. I would move to the Shire or Rivendell in a second if I had the chance. And did I see you denouncing The Dark Crystal earlier? Talk about an engrossing fantasy world.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 3:04 p.m. CST


    by LarkStew

    I agree with you fella... The Star Wars prequels and Lord Of The Rings are the typical examples. Both filled with practical AND digital effects. LOTR had heart, emotion, it wanted to make you feel things and knew how to use every technique in the book to do it. The prequels had the same goals, but didn't know how to do it properly and became, for the most part, a disappointing experiment in FX. And so many other movies nowadays have ambitions to move you but fail completely to do so. Yoda in the OT was just rubber and fabric but Frank Oz and the puppeteers knew exactly how to give him heart. And Gollum was all digital but Andy Serkis gave him a soul. It's not the method you use, it's the performance you create. And I'm not judging The Hobbit yet, how could I when I haven't seen it? I've got my tickets booked to see it in HFR IMAX 3D, and I'm hoping it'll have the same heart as LOTR. If it has even half the heart, I'll enjoy it.

  • That said, I do believe that is the only cgi in the movie.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 6:04 p.m. CST

    ...anti-CGI Facebook group?????!!!

    by DoctorWho?

    Surely you jest.<p> That, or my sarcasm detector is on the fritz!

  • I love Edoras too. But we would stink of horse.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 6:26 p.m. CST

    I've seen JACK REACHER for about a month now

    by Adam D. Kline

    Man what happened to this place? AICN used to be something, man...

  • ...a fine artist, a comic strip guy, and plenty of Moms, uncles and fed up parents who are sick to death of farting dolphin musicals starring Paul Reiser. Are we all just gonna sit here and act like something like texture isn't of tantamount importance in the art of Motion Pictures?? It is a TEXTURAL art. People carp on character, character, all day long, and while that can't be ignored, film- especially fantasy film- is a visual medium, and we see these things to tickle imperceptible parts of our senses. A movie where the pages of a book open at the beginning, the deep toned voice of some British narrator... These things don't go out of style. Before the advent of cinema, they had things like the zoetrope, where a series of windows on a spinning wheel showed glimpses of a cantering horse. Before people became adults so they could spend 15 bucks on hip IMAX movies... and then stride out of the theater to instantly upload smug reviews on the Twittersphere, we had things that we held up to the light called VIEW-MASTERS. Ray Harryhausen, when he was asked about digital versus his antique clockmaker's brand of effects, said -With our effects we asked you to believe. And with these new movies... they do everything for you. You're taking away that beautiful interactivity... The art of asking the audience to instill some of that beautiful childlike faith in something- Where's the goddamn photographic chance, where's the faith in a smaller budget, a tinier crew, a mistake in lighting that leads to a shot of purple-amber cinematography GOLD? What about movies like HALLOWEEN, where they had NO money for effects, so they had to throw a bucket of leaves of screen in front of the camera lens to make Southern California look like Illinois? Accidents and limitations are the wiggle room that allow for that magic to creep in... As opposed to this from a review I read of the recent 2D cartoon, A CAT IN PARIS -...Nowadays we create almost everything that we animate using the magic of math and computers. For example, if you need a light, you simply open up your tool bar, select the brightness, opacity, and size of the light source and drop it into place. This was not the case with A CAT IN PARIS. Every light, every time the light changes, every time the light drops off an object, it needs to be drawn.-

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 8:26 p.m. CST

    PS I LIKE mo-cap. I like SOME computer animated movies.

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    I had dinner with Neil Gaiman a month before Beowulf came out. True story. Say what you want about the movie, and that medium, but that film singlehandedly finally gave the 80's Dragonslayer and Frazetta fans what they had been longing for. I'd prefer a new Fire and Ice. But Beowulf... That was something. It managed to be both- glossy magazine for adults- AND a fulfillment of Heavenly Creatures-era Peter Jackson. That movie didn't pander to lonely fat girls who collect celtic glasswear, and it didn't stoop to dwarf- tossing jokes... the kind of shit that is inevitably going to end up appearing in some painfully unfunny photoshops after The Hobbit is released. I do like selected mo-cap and CGI animation. Very much so. Sadly, it doesn't see into my brain like some magical... thing... though. Not like paint-on-cels. Not like THE WITCHES. THE JUNGLE BOOK. THE NEVERENDING STORY. What fantasy movie has the patina of Great Fantasy Literature, post-Jurassic Park? Anything? Anything at ALL? Name me one CG character's who has even APPROACHED the lasting adoration of E.T. I'm really curious to see what people say.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 8:53 p.m. CST

    The remaining movies are not "The Hobbit"

    by Jack Parsons

    The two movies to come are filled out with the backstories outlined in Tolkien's appendices to the Lord of the Rings. An enormous number of events happened off-page in the Hobbit, including a war against Sauron (disguised as the Necromancer) in Mirkwood. Remember how Gandalf kept disappearing from the 13 for no reason? Well, there was reason.

  • I can totally see him hating CGI categorically. But when he did it it would be cool rather than annoying. Sorry for misrepresenting your views on Dark Crystal. The rest of my comment stands.

  • Either Rivendell or the Shire for me. If it meant I would get to be an elf and live forever I would choose Rivendell, obviously. Minas Tirith would kind of suck. Ithilien sounds like it would be nice.

  • "All this technology making modern music can still be open hearted. Not so coldly charted it's really just a question of your honesty."<p> "Yeah, your honesty."<p> You're bitching about the process and not the result. It's not the tools being used that is the problem. Though sometimes the coincide.<p> Ed Wood made Plan 9 with NO money for effects either. We all no what a masterpiece THAT is.

  • Cause if so, I thought they looked really good.

  • Dec. 6, 2012, 11:32 p.m. CST

    UNBELIEVABLE 13 Minutes Video!!

    by Lusi

    At 1080p!! Gorgeous! Erebor, dale, dwarves, smaugs attack, bilbo! The best promo for this movie yet! Suck it haters! Wnna see you hate this baby! Middle earth for ever!

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:04 a.m. CST

    Tom Bombadil needs his own 220 minute film

    by Jaka

    I laughed!

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:08 a.m. CST

    I'm torn by this review

    by Jaka

    Because I love the extended versions of the LOTR films, which I clearly too long. I love that they're slow and immersed in the 'cartography' detail of Middle-Earth. But I also thought it always looked good, if not great. I also love the story that PJ and his cohorts told. I'm always interested the characters on the screen and what they're doing, what's motivating them. So, while the slowness of the Hobbit movies doesn't scare me off even a little bit, bad storytelling and wonky effects might.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:08 a.m. CST


    by Jaka

    ARE clearly too long.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:12 a.m. CST

    Oh, and I'd buy a nice condo in Lothlorien FOR SURE!

    by Jaka

    The endless, ancient knowledge you could absorb on a daily basis would be enough for me, even if Rivendell and the Shire might be a bit more peaceful and (for some people) beautiful.

  • When clearly, despite the deafening silence out there of of a populace who have mostly stopped crying for new a Henson, a Chaplin, or a Richard Williams to take the stage.... there are, actually on this planet, other countries and independent artists striving to keep subtlety and handmade folk art alive, instead of craving The Big Gulp cinema- bigger than a bazooka-firing, wisecracking-Redbox machine from Space. If you live in France, and say for example, you're a film student who gives two shits about art, America must look like a country that releases a new Nicholas Cage movie twice a year, and a new singing penguin cartoon every other month. In a just world 1982, and the era when adult thinking humans being actually made daring REAL sci-fi and fantasy like Heavy Metal and Time Bandits successful, might have actually held ON- and we wouldn't have seen that sophistication whittled down into Twitter conversations about Lady Gaga and which-do-you-like better Twilight or Harry Potter. You want to know what happened after The Rise of The Geek in American culture? They cancelled Firefly, put Nathan Fillion on a show your Mom watches, and The Big Bang theory is on TV five nights a week check your local listings. You wanna tell me that fucking JAZZ is irrelevant, you asshole?? Now that Dave Brubeck is dead, Larry Hagman is dead, and smart people from MY generation- who don't just put their history into binders to squee at on YouTube videos at night- understand what that means?? This fucking site never even did an obit on Sylvia Kristel or Larry Hagman!! The top story on the page is about the wrestling show on Spike hosted by Hulk Hogan's daughter. I turned on the TV and watched it. I'd rather see David Hasselhoff get blown by ALF than sit through that shit again. I watched Harry put up a Sex and the City 2 story on here and PROMPTLY FUCKING remove it, because I said -Harry, I love you, you are a genius and a fucking inspiration, but don't give this sell-out commercial tripe the ink. Please.- In a just world, retired Disney animators and Creature Shop people wouldn't be living on retirement pensions, CGI would have a better role than as Benicio Del Toro's Werewolf makeup and Gerard Butler's abs... And we'd have a fucking 1 and one half hour Hobbit movie with even a TENTH of the emotional and design plausibility of an episode of Game of Thrones. These movies look like Cher's jewelry box when she opens it up in the morning and Enya starts playing, tiny Bruce Villanch's strumming harps. I know it's middle earth, but I've never understood why middle earth had to mean -cliched renaissance faire look-. I don't want to see three hours full of swirly celtic patterns, soft lighting and horsetail braidwork anymore than I want to sit through Lion King:The Broadway Musical with your niece and all of her texting friends from Swim Club.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Thank God there's a new Mad Max movie coming.

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    because if I want Thomas Kinkade Painter of Light, I'll jerk off to the unicorn plate in my Mom's china cabinet.

  • THIS SOUNDS AWESOME! I can't wait to see it.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:28 a.m. CST

    If LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was released today...

    by Razorback

    Would people bitch about the 90 minutes of talking and riding and walking?

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:36 a.m. CST

    Sasquatch... nicely put. But.

    by workshed

    Duh... it's the USA! They're all thick. Even the 'smart' ones. I studied as an exchange student at CSU and couldn't believe how much the emphasis was on the 'technical' and 'recouping' rather than the 'aesthetic' or anything with an intellectual bent... I thought I was going to gain something by going to LA, and I did - a sun tan.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 7:06 a.m. CST

    @Quantize agree totally.

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    Not to beat a dead horse here, but shouldn't a sweet little adventure tale written in the late 30's have SOMETHING left of it's fireside radio play origins? I've heard barbed snark hurled my way here to imply that I'm only talking about the tech... But in terms of effects, a proper moss-covered atmosphere of lurking mystery... and lush pomp- not to mention that lighting that looks like a Very Barbie Easter? Modern event movies, and this one is guilty here as well, are receding farther and farther from the master principles of Hitchcock, when it comes to the MacGuffin, and Disney, when it comes to eliciting simple magical realism out of life/ as opposed to the Epic Sell of today's popcorn juggernauts. Those stone giants look like shit. I watched that 13 min. promotional vid, and the only impression I got was I was being sold a giant replica sword, piece by piece, on the installment plan. Without the impression of simple, grubby Hobbit toil on screen, it feels like -cute BBC sitcom star makes 500 million dollar fan film. Put these glasses over your face and star at the pretty digital postcards of Middle Earth. So topheavy with its sweaty rush of technical innovations... 24 wanks per second? How many is it, again? I want to be able to sound smart about this on messageboards. Peter Jackson has no blessed clue how to rein in his 12 year old frenetic camera ADD, God bless him, and neither does Harry or most of the people viewing these films and creaming Green Giant sauce into the tops of the Mirkwood trees. Whoever mentioned Valhalla Rising? I tried to watch that once under a haze of pot soaked Netflix ADD and couldn't make it far. But it looked cool so I'm gonna give it another shot. Oh, and another thing. I LOVE digital bloodspray. When it works, like on Walking Dead, or Punisher: Dirty Laundry. Has an effect of de-emphasizing the gore to manageable levels, and I dig the brick color... Sort of like -Hammer Red- at this point, or whatever it was called, from the '70s.

  • It's called impressionism. Fetishizing tiny design details, or simply grooving on the landscape, disappearing into the light glinting off of Shadowfax's mane. But a movie built almost entirely, in post, from computers, lit almost glaringly artificially, with mustard, burgundy and cranberry, like Winston Churchill's Christmas afterchunk on a hot mantel, can hardly be called Impressionistic. But I effing love long-ass slow movies. Like Westerns. I love a film that doesn't bother giving answers, instead it gives reins... Lures you in with ambiguity and expression. Like a Malick movie, where you know that he looked out at the Sun from underneath the brim of his hat and SHOT THAT, simply Because It Was. I'll leave you with this quote from Peter Hyams, which I've been thinking about a lot lately- -There's a really wretched invention called a zoom lens, which is the most abused, single abused, thing in filmmaking. It's more abused by young filmmakers than anybody. It's just a vile piece of equipment. As for tricky scene transitions, I know directors who sit down and literally look for those things as ways to get from scene to scene. I mean, what is the point of starting on a blade of grass with a blur behind you and racking focus then to the lady? I mean, what is so critical about that? I mean, why are you doing that? And then, the zoom lens thing does something that I don't think people understand. When you zoom in to something, you are not bringing the audience to the subject. You are bringing the subject to the audience. Major emotional difference. People do not realize that. You zoom back, you are not moving away from that subject. You are pushing the subject away from the audience. It's a tremendous difference.- (That last point could just as easily be applied to the Big Pushy sell of effects driven CG.) BIG PANTS ON FILM. DAVID SPADE IN BIG PANTS. DAVID SPADE PLAYING MEDAEVAL SQUIRELL IN BIG PANTS. MUST SEE MOVIE. MUST TAKE KIDS. MUST WEAR SPECIAL SCIENCE GOGGLE TO FULLY APPRECIATE DEPTH AND SCOPE OF PANTS. PANTS AM LARGER THAN EVER SEEN BEFORE.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Peter Hyams

    by LarkStew

    He seem to use candles to light his sets. Talk about dark. Is he trying to save electricity or something?

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Hyams makes really flawed but fascinating pictures

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    I have to respect a guy who sticks to his guns aesthetically to the point where its undoubtedly cost him work. Case in point, the rift between him and Fred Dekker, whose career he helped jumpstart.... Hyam's directs the opening scene in -The Monster Squad-, and its a fascinating thing to see, and then tonally, once Dekker was like -Dammit, gimme my movie back- it shifts COMPLETELY from Todd Browning-type lighting over to a more typical 80's Amblin. He was a jazz drummer before picking up a camera. To work in films and art appreciated by so FEW for such a long & storied career gets MAD respect from me, mixed- end- results notwithstanding.

  • Like the jazz purist who hates everything recorded after 1956. Wanting to keep their own personal, subjective definition of what constitutes "creative" or "genuine"... in a frozen, static, unchanging state. Art, technology...LIFE is not still for ONE moment. <p>

  • I haven't seen it. it may be great. It may be shit. <p> You mention the film as winning an award simply by virtue of being it a silent picture. That's dogmatic thinking. <p> ALL art tests the limits of the technology available to further enhance the expression of ideas, emotions etc. There has NEVER been a time this has not been the case. From cave painters up to Chaplin, Henson, Lucas etc .

  • I mean, shouldn't you at least SEE the movie before denigrating it? It is entirely possible that Jackson has made a film that both captures the wild, thrilling spectacle of the story, while still retaining much of the, "fireside radio play" charm from the book.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Saw this two days ago - story's great, action's great, not down with 48 fps


    It makes it look like a cheap soap opera. Doesn't have the warmth of standard film. It looks as if it's been over lit and videotaped.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Jackson is one of the most overrated director's alive?

    by Ben George

    Apparently the Academy doesn't share your opinion.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Who gives a shit what the Academy thinks?

    by Anthrax

    This is the same Academy that completely snubbed possibly the greatest documentary ever made. Unforgivable.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Jackson is a great director. But I still think The Hobbit...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...needed a fresh set of eyes taking it on, which was why I thought del Toro's initial attachment was great news. I would even have loved to see Michael Mann play in this universe. Would have been extremely interesting at the very least, and he can do sweeping epics with aplomb (see: Last of the Mohicans).

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:34 p.m. CST

    I don't know why, but I like how that 48 FPS effect looks

    by Dranem

    I know people like the classic look of film vs digital, or the standard 24 fps at the movies but I really like how crisp and hyperrealstic it looks. And if it really exposes bad effects, it might help push directors to be more careful how they use CG since it will not be as easily masked. I know when I see the TruMotion effect or whatever is on HDTVs, I must admit I like how it looks even though most don't. At least they offer it in other formats and aren't pushing it down our throats, but I can't wait to see it like that.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Like the Academy Awards are some kind of exellence barometer ...

    by DrMorbius

    Especially when considering *members* votes are often bought, which is why that not completely silent movie *won*.

  • The Dark Knight Rises has an 87% on RT. Mark Webb's Amazing Spider-man was in the low 70% range like the Hobbit is right now on RT. I enjoyed both movies. 72% is a lot closer to 87% than 30% like a proper box office bomb. I think I'll enjoy it even if it is slow.

  • And worse than that, you're a nerd who thinks literature can be held to some kind of statistical data the same way that football can. To put it bluntly, you're not a geek, you're a nerd. You probably look at plot holes in Duck Tales cartoons, (like some reviewers on this site, EXHAUSTING) and think Christopher Nolan should direct the Ice Pirates remake with Tom Hardy as a cyborg hitman, music by Howard Shore, hooray. Subjective fanboy wankery does nothing to further the discussion and is way fucking out of hand on here. Everyone knows opinion is subjective. Rotten Tomatoes. Everyone knows the Academy looks at cultural winds, or the, "imaginary PBS documentary of tomorrow", that's why they want a silent movie, or a retard, or Richard Dreyfuss playing a silent retard. I was using the example of the Oscars as... sort of cultural earmark for the middle-of-the-road tastes of America, and where they intersect at the box office. The Oscars are a rigged game, but its easy under scrutiny to see precisely what the game is under the jiggered roulette wheel. What I'm saying is, there are still DRIVE INS. There are CB Radio enthusiasts out there, there are comic shops who sell Aurora model kits... there are people like Joe Bob Briggs and Quentin Tarantino who have taken critical analysis of tabloid filmic slop and turned it into intellectual gold. We're not talking about the fucking giant robotic bazooka from Wild West, where... oooh how fabulous is the world of science! each generation ads a new firing pin or a higher frame rate, Ain't Science Neat. Lead Follow Or Get Out of the Way, You Hapless Animator!! We're talking about fucking America, where if THIS isn't cool, it sits ignored in the junk shop, and THIS, the new Tupperware of Tomorrow, gets a website and a sticker and a musical revue directed by a singing zebra fish played by Nathan Lane. This is a cultural landscape where Jimi Hendrix had to go to England to sell ONE record, a genius like Jerry Lewis fails to get his critical due until he's nearly cripple, and where Sylvain Chomet's The Illusionist gets shut out so we can give an award to a Brave Little Toaster rip-off made by 300 nerds on Macs. Maybe the Hobbit to you is epic histrionics and splashy CGI, but its fucking not to me.

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 7:20 a.m. CST

    The Hobbledtit: To The Fridge and Back Again

    by NeonFrisbee

    Obese middle aged virgins. The Eternal Mother's Basement of the Soul. The epic journey; hobbling to the fridge for another bucket of fried fat balls and a 2liter of diabetes and back to the couch again. YOU SHALL NOT PASS THIS KIDNEY STONE! Also: roll a d20 for a saving throw against bed sores. Enjoy your bloated mess! You've earned it!

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 11:39 a.m. CST


    by BaronMunchies

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    #2 BBC Radio Hobbit and LOTR

    by BaronMunchies

    Am i the only dork who spent hours and hours listening to those detailed (bloated?) performances, all the while wishing they had been filmed? A line-by-line retelling of the hobbit sounds great to me, as it is short enough to do so in a theatrical run. i cant think of any part of it that feels overlong or superfluous in the book, so why would i want a faithful movie adaptation to be executed differently? im not expecting a perfect movie, but im now looking forward to more detail and immersion than i had previously anticipated. that said, i have a feeling my girlfriend (who has only a passing affection for the LOTR movies) will probably veto the 48fps. guess ill have to make that second viewing solo, should the film warrant it.

  • Please pinpoint the exact moment when science and technology ruined film making. The advent of color? Was it rotoscoping maybe? Blue screen technology? I await your answer.

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Tom Cruise should've played Bilbo Baggins, not Jack Reacher.

    by Gary Makin

    Says a 5.7 TBer.

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 8:29 p.m. CST

    Spoiler alert - For the Hobbit?!? Seriously

    by Hesiod2k7

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 8:42 p.m. CST

    neonfrisbee = golden

    by Dan

  • That's the only thing Bay has gotten right in this series.

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 6:35 a.m. CST

    And I thought the sets in LOTR looked cheesy without 48 FPS...

    by ratpack223

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 9:44 a.m. CST


    by krylite

    The haters are now trying to retroactively label LOTR with the effects as subpar. Back then they were astounding just like the original SW efx were. There were those supposed tolkienites who lamented the lack of Bombadill and barrow wights. If they "bloated" that back then they would find an excuse to hate it too. It's all about hating for some other ulterior reason probably for vengeance for Lucas' prequels' blunder which was totally violating. Yet seeing the new reviews, in no way shape or form are is this first Hobbit movie comes close to any of the SW prequels' suck-pool. Everyone forgets the helms deep battle was only like two pages. And in the movie it went on for an hour. I suspect the dinner party in Bag End is similar in that respect. It looks like those who don't really love Middle Earth don't want to enjoy the Bag End party. People bemoaned the fact that we didn't enjoy enough of Hobbiton and the hobbit culture. Now we get all of it as a full course and they still complain. Not Jackson's fault it took so long to get Hobbit filmed. Remember the three or more studios finagling all these years to get it moving. It'll end up like Fellowship, originally lamented by haters and opportunist critical reviews , but ending up the real highlight of the whole disappointing turd films and not yet again another "comic book" movie.

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Hopefully this movie will tank. It deserves it.

    by The Comrade

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 4:51 p.m. CST


    by allouttabubblegum

    Best thing ive read on a talkback. Too many just cant enjoy a film nowadays. I bet all the haters and naysayers still go and see it irregardless just so they can nitpick. Its not like PJ is forcing people by gunpoint to see the film.

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Don't ruin their fun, krylite...

    by Jay

    What else are they going to to do on a Friday/Saturday night?

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 10:33 p.m. CST

    I had that problem with PJ's King Kong. It's too overdone.

    by Orionsangels

    You could cut at least 45 minutes from PJ's King Kong and tell a more tighter and fast paced story. We don't need to see every little thing on the boat and Skull Island. I was afraid PJ would do this with the Hobbit. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm reserving my judgement till I do.

  • Dec. 10, 2012, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Half the running time will be generic swooping demi-CG crane shots

    by melonman

    Jackson's sleep-at-the-tiller stock filler when he can't think of any other shot (like Spielberg with his dolly in to head shots he filled half the 80s with). I actually don't think I can face this…

  • Dec. 10, 2012, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Wait, where is Snow White?

    by Boober

    And the Evil Queen? I'm confused...Oh wait is this the movie with the flying monkeys and witches? Only Smaug will save this franchise. And it will be hard to beat the Balrog scene, no matter how they play it.

  • Dec. 11, 2012, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Down to 60 on Metacritic

    by David Duchovny

  • Dec. 11, 2012, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Technical question

    by David Duchovny

    When I go to see this Friday (no Imax where I live) Can I see it in 24 fps in 3d? Or are all the 3d showings in 48fps? Can I see it 48 fps in 2d? Or can I watch it in plain old 2d at 24fps? I'm fucking confused.

  • Dec. 12, 2012, 1:17 a.m. CST

    pretentious rr

    by allouttabubblegum

    48fps is for 3D only. The extra framerate helps reduce the blur you have from the 3D projection. 2D will be 24fps only there will be 3d 24fps (for those who dont want to try 48fps) So three formats 2D 24fps 3D 24fps 3D 48fps

  • Dec. 12, 2012, 5:38 a.m. CST

    Thank you very much

    by David Duchovny

  • Dec. 12, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Well I saw it last night and thought it great!

    by Flames gotta Eat

    I think some critics like Beaks are being a bit harsh on it. The scenes and exposition they thought slow and dreadful I thought just fine to interesting. Do we remember LOTR? There were TONS of long talking breaks in those flicks! If you can swing with those you can definitely swing with The Hobbit, a simpler more linear story. Honestly it propels fwd pretty damn well and all exposition is there to move this initial story or set up things to come in the next 2 films. They do set up 3 villains plus that mysterious last wizard in the wizard order or whatever. And I must say, Smaug (sp?) is gonna kick ass!! The small glimpse we get looks amazing. And the mountain stone giants are phenomenal. One of the best/coolest effects I've ever seen and one of the best sequences in all of LOTR films. Harryhausen would have been proud. These giants duke it out like drunken brawlers and it's breathtaking in 3D 48fps.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    It's wonderful

    by Phil Black

    Just got back from a 3D showing (the HFD one was too early): it's great I saw 2 terrible, Sinbad-era stop motion effects and an unforgiveable (as ever) Wilhelm Scream but otherwise it was a majestic effort.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Unwatchable? That's nonsense. It was amazing.

    by michael

    high-frame-rate 3D is a deep, vicious pendulum swing between transporting and flat-out unwatchable

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST


    by michael

    high-frame-rate 3D is a deep, vicious pendulum swing between transporting and flat-out unwatchable

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:13 p.m. CST


    by michael

    the film looked stunning HFR 3D

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Saw it in 3D with Dolby Atmos

    by cylack

    Great movie. Went down to the AMC Disney 24, where it was showing in 3D and with Dolby Atmos. The Dolby Atmos sound gives a true 365 degree immersive experience. Highly recommend. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and can't wait to see part two.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:43 p.m. CST

    I bet Jackson learns about editing in 2 & 3

    by MurderMostFowl

    I saw it last night and really enjoyed it. The only thing that was disappointing was the runtime. Hidden in this 3 hour mediocre film is a 2 hour amazing film. Ironically it was the fights that went on too long. The chase with the goblins was to the point of boredom. Contrast that scene with the extremely similar scene in LOTR. LOTR scene is better by far. It was able to keep the momentum because it was shorter. I think the cameo's in the beginning should have been cut ( except for what we see in the trailer ... " I may not have told you everything" scene ) It's just gratuitous and people don't realize where it fits into the timeline. The rest of the exposition scenes play great. I don't want to nitpick much more because most of what's left to pick on has spoilers in it. I think this series would have made 2 GREAT 3 hour movies.

  • I loved Beowulf, probably one of the people i know who did and was very excited when it came out. I thought Tin-tin was a step up on the technology and made for a very entertaining film. It didn't look as photo-real as the former, but certain shots in it, especially the village chase scene were some of the most beautiful looking 3d animation I've ever seen. And not to split hairs here but a lot of the same criticisms you're leveling at Peter Jackson's filmmaking style can be used against your famous writer friends writing style in the past decade. They both peaked imo when they were sort of under-dogs, now that they are basically kings within the genres they work in their work has suffered and has becoming repetitive.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 3:18 a.m. CST

    oh wait, didn't realize Sasquatch hadn't seen the film!

    by awepittance

    and not to further bash your buddy Neil Gaiman but CGI is not as evil as you make it out to be. However there are extreme misfires when the technology is used improperly or under budget like the Gaiman penned film Mirrormask. Great ideas, great concept but the film looked already dated by the time it came out because of it's reliance on cgi similar to Gilliam's last film. Even the 'greats' get sucked in by the curse of modern production techniques.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Read all the bad revioews of Hobbit before going to see it.

    by Hesiod2k7

    That way, you'll have lowered expectations and actually enjoy the movie enormously, like I did. I did NOT think the Hobbiton sequence was too long. I think Jackson paced it well.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 7:16 p.m. CST

    My only objection to the movie was...

    by Hesiod2k7

    ..the whole thing with the Eagles at the end. Are the Eagles like a municipal bus service or something, and lonely mountain is not on their route? Bringing them in actually messes up the whole story because they could just fly everyone there in like an hour or two and the whole Mirkwood sequence would be unnecessary.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 10:29 a.m. CST

    This movie is just well....PONDEROUS!

    by Drew

    It is just a lot of walking and talking and it never gets anywhere. The best part of the movie was Bilbo and Gollum riddle game and the Goblin king. It does look really it is sort of like a bad date with a super model. It is pretty to look at, is overall dull without much to say and you will never get anywhere.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 8:24 a.m. CST

    As someone who didn't care for the Lord of the Rings films...

    by Wakkadude21

    I am really looking forward to seeing this. I just started reading the book, and it's really fun.