Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News



It has been nine years since our last journey through Middle-earth with Peter Jackson at the helm, and, while you could fill all that time watching the LORD OF THE RINGS Trilogy via extended editions, it’s time to set off on another quest across this world filled with elves and dwarves in the director’s first of a three-leg adaptation of J.R. Tolkien’s THE HOBBIT. This time it’s Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman; the elder version is played by Ian Holm), uncle of the more familiar Frodo, who we’ll be accompanying on an adventure to reclaim the land and treasure of dwarves, overtaken by a dragon many years ago.  Bilbo is the unwilling 14th participant of this dwarf party, which is fronted by their leader Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and put together by the grey wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen). As for the other 12 dwarves, Jackson never really gives us a chance to get to know them on any level, as they serve extensively as background pieces to help drive the journey from one location to the next. Not to nitpick at any deviations from the novel, but Tolkien at least gave us a sense of some of their personalities, making them included in what was happening whereas Jackson only really seems to have them on-screen because he has to, and those feelings seem to permeate throughout THE HOBBIT, which carries far less joy and whimsy than any of the LORD OF THE RINGS films, which, by their nature, were far more serious in tone. For great spans of time, Jackson’s story seems to be fueled by obligation and not passion, and, as a result, it’s a cold, emotionless film that we get on this first offering until about ¾ of the way through, when suddenly it’s as if the light finally came on as to how THE HOBBIT should play.

THE HOBBIT is ripe with pacing problems that make the film feel a ton longer than its 2 hour and 46 minute running time, which is a departure from the novel, which is quickly paced, moving you along rather nicely with the goal of getting to the Lonely Mountain in about 270 pages. I can understand where Jackson might want to expand upon some of the book’s elements that seem rushed at times with limited pages devoted to encounters with trolls and goblins. This is the forum for Jackson to create much bigger, action-packed sequences where they feel absolutely necessary. But you have to take the good with the bad, I guess, because, in addition to those set-ups (which are exciting and visually fantastic, by the way), we get these other incredibly bloated scenes that Jackson pulls from Tolkien’s other works in order to fill out THE HOBBIT into a bigger story and one that ties in a bit more closer to the previous trilogy. However, there is absolutely no connection at all to Gandalf holding council with Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman (the returning Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee) about the existence of the Necromancer or scenes with Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy). This side-story pulls passing mentions in Tolkien’s text, but Jackson decides to expand upon them to greater degree with the moving image, and it does nothing but create a slog for THE HOBBIT. It’s not as if the film was moving along at a bang-bang pace as it was; after all, it takes 45 minutes for the film to finally exit the Hobbit-hole and get on with this adventure that will test Bilbo’s mettle. However, this isn’t the movie for it.

THE HOBBIT has always been about the examination of Bilbo Baggins – who he is, what he’s worth, what he’s capable of – and Jackson loses sight of that to great degree in AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY by focusing on Gandalf’s side-quests and Thorin’s bitching, undercutting the self-doubt of Bilbo that really makes up so much of this story. This isn’t about Thorin questioning whether an unqualified Hobbit should be along for their dangerous ride; it really should be about Bilbo Baggins questioning himself and rising up to face the challenges he’ll encounter on this long, treacherous road. Jackson really misfires in laying the foundation for Bilbo Baggins. Martin Freeman does his best to try to create something emotional meaningful for the character, but it’s just not there in this first film, which is why THE HOBBIT feels empty for much too long. This isn’t really about Middle-earth, nor should it be, until the story builds to something a little bit bigger in scope. It’s about one Hobbit, and that’s too often forgotten here.

THE HOBBIT never really kicks into full gear until the appearance of Gollum, and suddenly the film springs to life with the famous battle of riddles between Andy Serkis’ incredible motion-capture character, who looks better than ever, and Bilbo deep in the goblin caves. You can never say that Serkis is going through the motions, as he breathes more life into Gollum than some of the other cast put into their human characters. Whether it’s a roll of the eyes or a clever smirk, these little idiosyncrasies make for a unique personality that is fun as hell to watch. There is nothing dour about watching this character in action, which I can’t quite say for just about the entire troupe of dwarves, who lose their sense of fancy once their opening dinner ends. If there were a role I wish was expanded more in THE HOBBIT, it’d be that of Gollum. I’d gladly sacrifice all the extraneous material from everyone else combined to get more of Serkis’ work.

And, as that scene continues to escalate, finally the rest of the film does, too, receiving a much-needed boot to inject this chapter of the story with some thrills. The dwarves’ fight to escape from goblins’ custody invokes fond memories of Jackson’s massive battle sequences in the LOTR Trilogy. It’s not quite the same scale, but Jackson has an eye for making these sequences not only look cool but also feel exhilarating. It’s just a shame that it took nearly two hours for THE HOBBIT to get fun, and it certainly leads to suspicions that the source material is really being stretched to make up three total films, which can only lead to more pacing problems in the future.


Finally, let me get to the giant elephant in the room – the 48 fps frame rate – for those who are curious how it plays on the big screen. THE HOBBIT is by no means the definitive statement on whether the shift in frame rate can work in the long run, but it is one fascinating experiment that showcases its benefits while frustrates with its negatives.

First off, THE HOBBIT looks absolutely amazing. You already know what it’s like to see a high-resolution image via your Blu-ray player… now imagine seeing that same image quality projected on the silver screen. It’s that crisp and that clear, enabling you to see individual feathers on an eagle’s wings or the disgusting details of a troll’s face or the spray of Rivendall’s waterfalls. This is something you haven’t seen before projected in such a way, so it sure will take you a bit to get adjusted to what you’re seeing. By the time I walked out of the theatre, I felt as if my eyes had gone through a serious boot camp workout, being used in ways they had never been before. They did feel a bit strained for the extra work they were being called upon to do. But it wasn’t just the extra detail they were being called upon to pick up. That was only the bright side of this equation. The downside is that that they were also required to move a lot faster to grasp and decipher a lot of the motion and camera movements that Jackson was using throughout the film. Close-ups and medium shots appear to move quickly at rapid speed, which is absolutely jarring when you first see it and then every time after, as if you are watching them move in fast-forward. Simple tasks like the elder Bilbo putting something away in a chest look almost comical, because of how quickly they transpire in relation to things shot from a wider angle. Pans and swishes come across like something you might see in a video game cut scene, and with the added camera movement trying to put you in the action of say a battle, it almost feels as if you’re in the middle of a 3-D motion simulator ride. I think that the new frame rate can be a worthy tool for filmmakers to use periodically, but I don’t see it becoming any sort of new standard until they learn its limitations, which means changing dramatically the way certain things are captured by the camera in order to not disorient the audience when it’s finally projected.

I am hoping that THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG and THERE AND BACK AGAIN may pick up the pace of the story a bit now that the ground-laying exposition is out of the way and the foundation is set. With any luck, Jackson will take the momentum of AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY’s last hour and carry it through to the next two films, because this one was a tough watch, and that’s not the 48 fps’ fault. This is a slow film that absolutely feels like one part of a larger story, and not necessarily a stand-alone picture, and the only reason you wind up tolerating it is because you know there is good stuff on the road ahead. THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY has its moments, but, by and large, introduces disappointment to Middle-earth. 


-Billy Donnelly

"The Infamous Billy The Kidd"

Follow me on Twitter.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST

    I've been first for about a month now.

    by The_Closet_Nerd

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Was this supposed to be a stand alone film?

    by Superponte

    I've heard the same complaint several times now. I don't think anyone is expecting this to be a complete story. It is one film in 3 parts. Just as LOTR was one book in 3 volumes. I am perfectly ok with taking some time for exposition and seeing these wonderful actors do their thing.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    and then the hobbit took an arrow to the knee

    by MamboMan

    yes, it's back.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Pa Kent: See the movie twice in a row.

    by NathanGrey

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:51 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit: We all expected this after they announced a third film.

    by knowthyself


  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:51 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit: An Expected Problem with making it three films.

    by knowthyself

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:54 p.m. CST

    I'm going back for a second HFR screening on Saturday.

    by tomandshell

    Clearest 3D picture I've ever seen.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Raping Tolkien's Corpse

    by Chrisolo

    Thanks Peter for the dirty cash crap, I'd rather have one awesome 3 hour hobbit movie than having this shit stretched out till 2014, totally raping Tolkien in every way and utterly ridiculous. Just because you want a companion trilogy to LOTR doesn't mean you should do it to the Hobbit. Everyone should protest and not see this shit this weekend.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:54 p.m. CST

    A rare film where the DVD/Blu-Ray cut should be SHORTER

    by rev_skarekroe

    Maybe someone will do a Phantom Edit where they remove everything that isn't in the novel.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    It's a dirty cash grab

    by Chrisolo

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:56 p.m. CST

    The Kidd vs Movies.

    by knowthyself

    Why is he fighting movies? What an antagonistic way to approach anything.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Kong WAS a bloated mess and a major conceptual disaster

    by Raptor Jesus

    Complete with pretty awful casting. HUGE disappointment.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Dissapointment.

    by knowthyself

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST


    by TheFlyingWasp

    You're not alone in your opinion. On the contrary, you seem to share an opinion with a majority of critics who find the pacing to be the film's biggest flaw. Yet, all three films in the Ring trilogy were longer and it could have been argued that any of those films could have been trimmed of the extra fat that critics are accusing this film of having. If pace is the biggest issue, I'm not too worried then because I'm looking forward to a very long return to middle earth.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Loved Kong. Hated Lovely Bones.

    by knowthyself

    Kong was great.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Surprised at how harsh this is...

    by Flames gotta Eat

    I and many are having a great time with it. But Kidd seems to be really comparing this to the book. I get it, it's not an incredible stand alone film, but it also doesn't really feel like that either, especially with how Jackson ends this one. It feels episodic and as an episode, it's pretty damn great. I thought the LOTR films got better as they went, I hope the same for The Hobbit series. Smaug looks like he's going to be incredible so my hopes are high.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1 p.m. CST

    Fuckin' Warner Bros

    by Citizen Sane

    Jackson should've known better than to try and stretch this to three films. I'm betting it is Warner Bros attempting to milk it; especially since they are thin on decent franchises right now. If DC would get their act together, there would be no issue here.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:01 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit was more faithful to Tolkien than much of LOTR.

    by tomandshell

    Jackson didn't have to chop out and/or compress entire chapters. He has the breathing room to leisurely work his way through the first third of the book with very little omissions or changes. If you don't like the pacing, that's more a problem with the source material this time around. Jackson took less liberties and I enjoyed the slower, gentler pace. Still, the last 45 minutes of the film are as fast moving and visually impressive as anything in LOTR, in my opinion.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Loved Kong too ...

    by Judge Briggs

    Was my first flick to watch since being back from living in the middle of nowhere Africa for 2 years. I am gonna wait on the BR disc for LOTR ... seems long and boring. Now, why they can't fucking release Zero Dark Thirty earlier is beyond me. That movie couldn't come out faster FFS!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Should've been one movie shot on film

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Oh well.....

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson needs an editor.

    by Gary Makin

  • This comment makes zero sense to me. I've seen plenty of movies digitally projected in recent years, and they look better then watching a film at home on blu ray.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST

    I agree - blame WB for trying to milk this.

    by Judge Briggs

    They should have done this with the Harry Potter movies. Those actually have a ton of material that could have been fleshed out. 7 movies = B I G bucks.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST

    so only a fraction of this movie is any good =FAIL

    by nephilim138

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST

    those who can't do teach, those who can't make films review

    by Robert Hand

    What an easy job you have to sit back and critique the work of others when you have done nothing yourself. Honestly, I think Lucas said it best when he said there are two types of people in the world, those who create and those who destroy. You don't have to do much guessing to figure out what a reviewer like Kidd does. A reviewer takes a pedantic and pedestrian approach to life. First arrogantly assuming that their opinion matters and then secondly criticizing the work of others. Well, that seems like an easy enough job. Not for one second you even dream of pulling off what Jackson pulled off in The Hobbit. The difference is, he could give your review a shitty review. Fuck you.

  • Jackson doesn't really understand the source material. No true fan of the books holds these movies on a pedestal. They just aren't that good.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST

    "The Hobbit is sure to put you to sleep" - AICN

    by Quake II

    Put that quote on back of the dvd cover. You guys enjoy your CGI-filled bumbling elf movie. I'm going to see Skyfall again this weekend. Where are the GOOD movies? It's been shitty since August with a couple of exceptions. Do I have to wait until Oblivion next year to see something new in the theater?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    So more Middle Earth is now a bad thing?

    by Logan_1973

    This is the last opportunity for Jackson to bring Tolkiens work to the big screen. You wanted more, you got it.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    I've Seen 48 fps For A Month Now....

    by DeckardB26354

    ... and it makes movies look like they were shot for tv.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST

    HOBBIT does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Will be seeing this soon... and will be drinking up the running time...luxuriating in it like a hot bath... Fuck you Kidd. You can Versus any film you like if it makes you a happy critic. You buttnumbathon boys should be able to handle long movies better - in the words of Tree Beard - Dont Be Hasty.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Well I hope if they ever do get The Stand off the ground

    by Samuel Fulmer

    That it can get made into at least two movies. That book is well over 1,000 pages.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST


    by georgecauldron

  • Keep it real bro.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Now under 70% on Rotten Tomatoes

    by Beebop

    My expectations have been drastically lowered, almost to the point that I don't want to go see it in the theater. My confidence in Peter Jackson's ability to edit a movie down has also pretty much collapsed. I can understand the LOTR being very long, but Kong was ridiculous (as was TinTin, for that matter), and this? This in no, way, shape or form requires 2.45 hours, not for one movie. Two hours, max. MAYBE pushing 2.20.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    There are reports that 48fps giving people motion sickness and headaches

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I thought 48 fps was supposed to eliminate this.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:19 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    ...And please can we get a review from someone who saw it in normal frame rate??? Can we get that simple balanced reaction, because everyone who saw it in high frame rate seems to have disliked the *look* and subsequently that has to negatively affect their opinion of the movie. It has to. We need a review from someone who saw it simply in 2D at a regular frame rate - judge it on how it is as a movie not as a new format of cinematic projection.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:21 p.m. CST

    who lets this douchbag write for this site?

    by Robert Hand

    seriously? self-proclaiming himself "infamous." 100% Grade A asshole. I bet this guy wears Ed Hardy and watches UFC. FUCK.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit: Gollum Unchained

    by Quake II

    This movie is so racist that I refuse to see it. I'm tired of all the white guilt over Trolls, Hobbits and Gollum and the way they were treated. I don't feel any guilt about this shit. I've never even BEEN to Middle Earth so FUCK YOU Peter Jackson.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Save the 15 buck, Just wait until March, Willow is coming out on blu ray

    by Samuel Fulmer

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Length - for good or bad...

    by Darth Macchio

    Personally, I'm a little split on their motivations. I'm not so quick to believe that everybody is just out to make a buck. I'm pretty sure Jackson and most of the main production crew are likely very well off cash-wise and not really in need of coin for an extra yacht or maserati or whatever. The studio certainly may be pushing for extra profit avenues but wouldn't this be a risk for them? something not necessarily being an easy way to more profit? but yet it seems unwise to stretch what could be a perfect 2 part movie (yet still extended and expanded to fill two 3 hour flicks). some of you have compared LotR... yes - lord of the rings is a single book broken into 3 books. but it's also well over 1000 pages and it was divided into 3 books long before it was even past the 'lets make this into a movie' discussion phase with jackson, et al. the hobbit is, if i recall correctly, over 400 but less than 500 pages. possibly even just under 400. so, to turn a story the same length as one of the LotR stories into 3 separate movies would be equivalent of jackson turning LotR into NINE movies (3 parts for each book), not just 3. but, then again, i'm actually fine with more middle-earth even if its not driving the plot or on screen events forward specifically. when i first saw the EEs, i was shocked at how much better these films were than the theatricals. dramatically so. some scenes had only moments added, others had minutes, and whole other bits were added - and i loved and still love every second of it. so, for me, im actually good with a more 'audience as fly on the wall to the daily goings on' approach to visiting middle-earth again. jackson has created such a lush and beautiful visualization of middle-earth that just seeing pictures of hobbiton makes me smile (and, on my non-pragmatic/realistic days, makes me want to move there and live there for the rest of my life! and im not remotely hobbit sized! grr!)

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:30 p.m. CST

    and the fan-edit-one-movie will be 1.5 hours long...

    by Chris

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Jackson didn't need to make it so long for the cinema


    It baffles me why they didn't keep it about 2 hours maximum for the cinema then kept all the rest for the extended editions.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    I absolutely loved it

    by michael

    Saw the first screening in Japan at 12:30AM and got home a while ago. I'm really grateful for all the negativity I've read on the film - it really lowered my expectations. I wound up loving it - the characters, the story, the music, the singing, the HFR, the 3D - all except for one thing: too short. I could have sit in that theater another hour.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    and that is why

    by Robert Hand

    you aren't paid anything for your predictions

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Wow. Kidd hates a movie.

    by Lobanhaki2

    I go to go lie down.

  • Like the Brontosaurus stampede and insect scene where nobody gets killed even though machine guns are being fired directly at them. That said Jackson should have made Kong about 2 hours for the cinema maybe and kept the rest for the extended edition.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:35 p.m. CST

    The problem with PJ's direction

    by Andrew

    Is that rather than trimming things to move the story along, he adds stuff, dragging it out for no reason. I'd understand if he was trying to be faithful the source, but he's not even doing that. I sat through three overlong LOTR movies, so it looks like I'll be sitting this one out. Damn it, PJ, learn to edit.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:35 p.m. CST

    What a shame.

    by Christian Sylvain

    The plot that loses the most detail is the one from the actual hobbit book. Go figure.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    I refuse to forgive Jackson for the AWFUL Lovely Bones

    by Powers Boothe

    Whoever thought he could make a film worse than King Kong.

  • The length is FINE

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Just saw it...

    by FlashRogers

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST

    There again maybe it's time people altered their attention spans?


    It seems as if a lot of people just want constant action from the start. Sometimes it's nice to get lost in a slower film.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST

    The Phantom Menace ended on a high note too. Almost.

    by BuckAtoms

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Still cautiously excited to see The Hobbit.

    by BuckAtoms

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:42 p.m. CST


    by michael

    good, go in cautiously. expect shit. you'll love it.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Well, surprise surprise

    by P

    I return to AICN after a 6 month break to find the Kidd a better writer. Tell me AICN faithful: is this a freak incident or has the Kidd's writing improved some?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    It's Sylvester McCoy not Sylvester Brown *annoyed*

    by Flutchy

  • There's been many shit films that have had higher ratings. I bet the Hobbit is still better than a lot of the dross that comes out of Hollywood.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST

    What's wrong with exposition?

    by Deagol21

    I haven't seen the movie yet, but what is wrong with exposition anyway? It's called plot and character development. They need to set things up and introduce characters to audiences who may not know the story ahead of time. People need to learn some patience and allow a story to develop over time. Not everything needs to be nonstop action all the time, like every Michael Bay film ever made. Take the time to savor a return to Middle earth and enjoy it. This is our last chance, so I plan to enjoy every second of it. Think about films like Dr. Zhivago or Ghandi. Those are considered classics, but if they were made today all you cynics would be screaming about how slow and boring they are. Take a breather and learn to relax and enjoy the ride.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST


    by eROKv

    this movie can't be anywhere near as bad as all you basement dwelling assmunchers are thinking. but those of you who think it isn't a blatant cash grab are freaking morons.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by michael

    it's not SO blatant, is it? it's not like the hobbit was rushed into production or anything. it's not as though they're cutting these hobbit films - the first being nearly three hours - into a set of five or even six films, released once every six months. it could be much, much more blatant, is what i am trying to say.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:51 p.m. CST

    For those who hate the Rotten Tomatoes score

    by David Duchovny

    Go to Metacritic--it's 10 points lower. Also, I hear Ebert is about to one star this bitch.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Radagast the Brown = Sylvester Mcoy

    by kaijuturtle

    not Sylvester Brown = Radagast MCoy

  • but there's a big difference between exposition that stops a film dead in its tracks and that which is elegently interwoven into the story. Actually, something like Transformers has TONS of bad exposition- basically every time a character opens their mouth.

  • Most of the new scenes were definitely cut for a reason and some of them are just...annoyingly earnest and corny.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:55 p.m. CST

    ...for the extra work they were being called upon to do.

    by digitalcos

    You mean seeing the kind of detail your eyes are required to look at in the, you know, 'real' world? Are you trying to tell me that the film's resolution is greater than reality? That is the stupidest thing I've heard all year, and this was an election year, mind you. Besides, since when did frame rate have anything to do with resolution?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST

    The Jackson Ballsucker Apologist Brigade is in full force, it seems...

    by Adam D. Kline

    NO ONE is complaining about setting tone, or character development, or taking time to tell a proper story. WE GET THAT. Shit, we WANT that. What we don't want is excessive bloat that does none of those things. I don't want to watch 2 hours of Middle Earth on screen just to watch 2 hours of Middle Earth on screen. Tell us a story economically or get the fuck out. And if you think that makes us Ritalin-addicted Michael Bay junkies, feel free to cram it sideways and go pound sand.

  • Have you actually read THE HOBBIT, Kidd? Ignorance.

  • Those natives with their eyes rolled in the back of their heads. The wreslting match between that kid and jack black...ugh. the seizure like states and then those slow motion scenes...horrible horrible horrible. it was like who is the guy making this movie? did they not watch this in the editing phase? did these slow motion scenes with the laughable super wayne's world extreme closeups of dessicated bird heads (or was it human heads?)...laughably silly. but yet that scene with frodo and sam on RotK towards the end...when sam says he can't carry the ring but he can carry his friend...every time i see it, it puts a lump in my throat and i feel like im right there with them (sean astin was phenomenal in that movie)...where did that peter jackson go? middle-earth seems a good fit for PJ - i'm eagerly awaiting seeing the hobbit flicks

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Tintin was excellent by the way

    by w4tkn

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Shouldn't expanding to three films...

    by Etienne72772

    mean that they would have streamlined it? I have no problem with the almost 3 hour length, as I am mature enough to handle slow moving plots, and understand director's motivations to do so. But I would have thought that once they made the announcement to 3 films, they would have nicely pared the movie back to a reasonablt 1:45 or 2 hours. I mean, when it was a two movie series, was each movie 5 hours long? What this boils down to is that I am reconsidering bringing my two sons, ages 9 and 10, to the show because of the length. I think the 10 year old can handle it, but my 9 year old is a young 9 (turned 9 two days ago), and I am worried about the length with him...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST


    by Adam D. Kline

    The reviewers themselves submit whether or not is overall "Fresh" or "Rotten". The site has nothing to do with that designation.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST

    so is it like pulling a bandaid excrutiatingly slow

    by cozy

  • Bullsquash, I mean. Bullsquash.

  • wrong.........

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    My Problem with the reviews is

    by EagleDelta2

    that most seem to do 1 of 2 things: Focus heavily on how they didn't like the 48 FPS version (MOST PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THAT VERSION, DIPSHITS!) or they focus on the movie compared to their childhood memories of the book, NOT if it is a good MOVIE. If you review a MOVIE, you review how good the MOVIE is, not how it is compared to the book or how you think the book should've been adapted!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Jackson = arrogant dickhole

    by bf skinner

    A casual perusal through the media outlets would tell him that pretty much everyone is saying he's made a big fat turd that looks like cheap plastic and has the emotional depth of a pancake, yet he still insists we need to "get used to" it. He lives in a bubble with his two bitches, and the rest of the human race might as well not exist. I can't wait when the third anal polyp is released in summer 2014, and GDT can finally spill the beans on what a treacherous rat fuck scumbag Jackson truly is. I'm sure whatever GDT says will send tremors through the nerdverse - how we were robbed of GDT's masterpiece interpretation by that pubic louse called Peter Hackson.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:12 p.m. CST

    2 Movies would have been better...

    by Bruno

    Visually it looks good, but this movie is for HARDCORE fans of everything Middle Earth. If a lot of casual movie goers complained about the middle of "Skyfall" dragging a bit, then I can only imagine what people will think about this movie. It looks FAR better than any LOTR film. But it's not as exciting. Ultimately in the end, I felt a little like I felt after Prometheus. It's frustrating to feel like the filmmakers are deliberately holding back good stuff for the sequel. Cloud Atlas moved quicker IMO.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Don't Want a 3 Hour Experiment

    by _Maltheus_

    I would actually like to check out the 48 fps, but I despise that soap opera look (and even did as a kid, before I was used to anything) and would rather not ruin my first expeience with it. And unfortunately, the movie sounds a little too boring to check it out a second time. It sounds like they need to reserve the higher frame rate for the landscape and perhaps some of the action scenes, but then slow it down to 24 fps for the rest. I hate the effect on my TV for most things, but it is nice for sports and cartoons. Movie directors need to learn to use it like lighting. Different rates for different moments.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:13 p.m. CST

    eagledelta2-I agree a movie is a movie, a book is a book

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Two different artforms. I guess the hate for this movie is that it does the opposite of what most book to film adaptations do in it is actually dragging out, extending/adding more to the story instead of editing things out.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Interestingly, this review reminds me of...

    by Chris Moody

    ...the average impression reported by critics after viewing FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. That gives me a nice glimmer of hope...because that was my favorite film in the LOTR series.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Remember back when this site posted good reviews?

    by hopeless

    I think I will find another site to read my reviews this site is becoming a spoiled brat that bitches about everything.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST


    by joe B

    Could not agree more. Another thing to take into consideration, is that when you are a "movie critic", such as Mr. Kidd, when you go into the cinema to watch a film, you can not help but approach that film with critical eyes. As a result of this, you aren't watching the movie proper, you are watching the movie with the intent of criticizing. There is no chance that any "movie critic" will be able to enjoy this film in the same way a fan can; it is NOT possible. Does that mean that Kidd's opinion is wrong? No. Should we take anything he says seriously? Absolutely not. See the movie for yourself, and make your own opinion.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:17 p.m. CST

    48 fps is a preaty big issue though

    by Samuel Fulmer

    If it looks like shit, we should know since this is the way cinematic shit shovelers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron want to force cinema to go to, much like Lucas helping set the ball rolling on inferior digital capture which even now with stuff like the Alexa still can't top film.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit: The Truncated Edition

    by vincentkv

    Can't wait for THAT to come out, either officially or as a fan-edit.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST


    by darthvedder81

    I'm sure his big beef will be with the frame rate. He mostly hates 3D and has only recently accepted digital. He thinks movies should look like movies and while I don't always agree with him I agree with that. I saw Fellowship and Two Towers but skipped King. I just didn't think Jackson captured the spirit of the books at all. I've always thought the Tolkien universe would work better as a mini-series anyway. The stories are just too dense to tell adequately in movie time without making them bloated and overlong which makes for not very good movies.

  • pretty interesting if true.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Ebert liked Life of Pi in 3-D

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Maybe it has more to do if a movie is bad or not, or if the 3-D is actually used for real effect.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by EagleDelta2

    I wouldn't be surprised, but as a Tolkien fan and a fan of the Hobbit book, I don't find it filmable by itself without the scenes depicted in the Apendices and Unfinished Tales - it's far too different than the rest of Tolkien's Middle-Earth Tales.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Necromancer = Sauron you dumbass

    by ManaByte

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    I 3rd or 4th the notion that The Kidd vs. Movie is a terrible idea...

    by tickled_by_elmo

    I am not one to just bash one of the reviewers here on AICN, but I really do not see how The Kidd adds anything to this site... I enjoy reading everyone's reviews here except The Kidd's because usually they sound like direct copies of the summation of most of the reviews already out there.. He doesn't add any flare or self individualization besides the tagline which seems like it is just trying too hard... and I agree that the approach seems antagonistic at best... I would have rather seen a female added into the mix (and no, Harry's feminine whining does not count) than a "character" added.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Tolkien did re-write parts

    by darthvedder81

    I believe the 2nd or 3rd edition of the Hobbit released in the 60's was tweaked slightly to match up with LOTR.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:21 p.m. CST

    So why can't we get a female reviewer added and ditch The Kidd???

    by tickled_by_elmo

  • It's not like LOTR, where the added parts where mostly from the books but couldn't be squeezed into the theater releases.. what the hell are they gonna add? it's too long as it is!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Two things...

    by jazzdownunder

    1) You absolutely CAN say that Serkis is just going through the motions. After all, that is the very basis for MOTION capture! ;) 2) Every time you see a 35mm print projected in a theatre, you have seen more detail than even blu-ray can offer. That was true even half a century ago (otherwise those movies from that era wouldn't look as good as they do on bluray now, would they? HFR is not more detailed than hi-def in a way that 24 fps is not. It's merely a higher "refresh rate". I haven't yet seen the HFR Hobbit, but I do at least know a bit about how it works and how the differences will manifest on the screen. Those are the objective criteria. Whether I like it or not, is a more subjective assessment.

  • For the record I liked Prometheus... lots. But the let down was expected as it was OVER hyped for months.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:23 p.m. CST

    48FPS is still

    by EagleDelta2

    a non-issue for most viewers. My state only has one screen in the entire state in 48FPS, so naturally that means 99% of the viewers won't even see it in anything other than 24FPS

  • Have you met jackson? Know him well do you?? Been "boys" since the high school days huh? How in any good conscience can you piss on anyone's character like it's fact when you don't have a clue what the hell you are talking about. Are you trying to impress us all with your anti-jackson rhetoric?? Get a life mate and grow up while you're at it. Every single interview, article and video blog Jackson has ever given has made him seem like the most down to earth humble director you'd ever meet. Look up the meaning of pretentious in the dictionary. I'm not hating on you. Just amazed at your over the top comment with NO BASED FACT! It's pure drivel.

  • And I question these reviewers who compare The Hobbit to FOTR: Did they really expect The Hobbit to be better?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:29 p.m. CST



  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:30 p.m. CST

    If 48 FPS Takes Time to Adjust to...

    by _Maltheus_

    ...then it's not because it looks more like reality, which we're already accustomed to, it's because it looks less. I get that our eyes can process a higher frame rate, but it's too flat and inorganic, for whatever reason. And I don't have a problem with digital or even 3D. I am no tech luddite. I wanted to like this higher frame rate look, but I never will. Flourescent lights have a greater spectrum in them than stage lights, but you don't see directors using those to make things look more real. And last time I checked, they still use make up on the actors. 48 fps just a poor artistic choice. IMO anyway. Luckily my IMAX is projecting at 24 fps. I wonder how many people will even know to request the non-IMAX to get the 48 fps. Hopefully they'll learn to use it right, before the next movie.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:30 p.m. CST

    96fps is what's in. 48fps is SO yesterday.

    by Quake II

    As usual, AICN is way behind the curve.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Hobbit - Just the Damn Book Cut

    by micbenxyy

    First thing that happens when the last movie gets up loaded...

  • Asylum films, makers of such dtv parody fodder as "Snakes On A Train," "Transmorphers: Fall of Man," and "American Warships." <BR> This also doesn't look good for the producers of "Hobbit with a Shotgun."

  • All of the things we were worried about where bloat and pacing are concerned, they're all going to end up being true and it will take a good and truly ruthless editing job to make a good movie out of this. I've no doubt Peter Jackson filmed a good movie when he made The Hobbit. I just know deep down inside that he filmed 6 hours of "packing material" to go around it and that'll have to be removed.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:34 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    As far as the LOTR extended editions go there's not one scene I would cut out... not one scene that I wouldnt miss if it were gone. Most of them are character moments - the big fx action scenes were all in the theatrical cuts. The Kidds summation *This is a slow film that absolutely feels like one part of a larger story, and not necessarily a stand-alone picture, and the only reason you wind up tolerating it is because you know there is good stuff on the road ahead. THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY has its moments, but, by and large, introduces disappointment to Middle-earth.* Well... duh! PJ made a nine hour movie and this is the first act of that movie. Admittedly we are getting a rather long intermission before the show resumes again... but fuck it go to the bar and order your interval drinks then come back a year later for the next part!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Just read that about Ebert too

    by proevad

    but my butt will still go and see it twice. I'll try to forget about pacing and just pretend I'm at home watching one of the EE of LOTR. I'm sure there is a good movie in there somewhere. Probably be 10 different edits of the thing within 5 years. This will just be the first one. Jackson is too good of a storyteller for it to be boring imho. Even the Lovely Bones and King Kong as horrible/bad movies, were watchable.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:36 p.m. CST

    My 3D 48fps experience...

    by allouttabubblegum

    ...Booked a ticket for the HFR showing and didnt get to see it because Odeon were unable to update the firmware on their projection unit. Epic fail. Got refund. Went to a 2D showing. Film was okay. Not mindblowing. Ive no desire to see it again..also no real desire to see the following films.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:40 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    d.vader, yes the praise coming from talkbackers is encouraging. This year seems to be going down as one of the most divisive in cinema... people seem to be having a love it / hate it reaction to a lot of the big films. PROMETHEUS, DARK KNIGHT RISES, SKYFALL and now THE HOBBIT. Cant the geeks all just get along?

  • Umm.... no he didn't. Aside from Thorin, Balin and Bombur he hardly gave any characterization to the others. I haven't seen this movie yet, so I can't disagree with you on your opinion on the film, but on this detail you're wrong. Jackson gives more characterization to the dwarves in their appearances in the studio photos than Tolkien gave in the book.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Where can I find The Kidd Vs Home Alone 3 review?

    by larsson

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:48 p.m. CST


    by tickled_by_elmo

    Promethus - enjoyed, put above Aliens 3 on my list.. DKR - Not my favorite of the 3, but thought it a fitting end, I guess I was just sad to see the Nolan Batman end Skyfall - loved it more than QoS, but Casino Royale continues to be not only my favorite Bond movie, but one of my favorite action-spy movies ever.. The Hobbit - will see it Christmas weekend with my kids (when they will all be together, otherwise I would see it sooner) and am looking forward to it despite the Kidd's retarded review (err, regurgitated review)

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:48 p.m. CST


    by EagleDelta2

    That's because we no longer live in a world with a middle ground - everyone either loves or hates something. If you are in the middle, you're considered an idiot.

  • That's your Hobbit experience that didn't need to happen.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Let's just save the 48fps for porn

    by HoLottaMo

    and Kong did suck - major fuck-up

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Kidd - to help cheer you up, put Twilight on.

    by larsson

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    cobra--kai-Interesting thing though is

    by Samuel Fulmer

    The Hobbit is the only one that seems to be getting a number of negative reactions from critics.

  • I hope he uses spell check this time.

  • Two posters have already obliterated this quote, but it's this type of pure dishonestly that really pisses me off. If you haven't read the book (Or don't remember it) fine. Nobody cares. But to flat out lie? As others have pointed out, beyond Thorin & Balin (and a slow, sleepy Bombur, if that even counts) none of the Dawrves have characterization. Virtually nothing to differentiate them. I've read the book 3 times since a child. The last being this previous weekend in anticipation. The Dwarves are as undeveloped as you can get.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    bantuwind-Maybe he's confusing the book with the 1977 cartoon???

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I don't know, just a guess.

  • As if to suggest that Peter Jackson has done less with the Dwarves. Here's what you know about them from the book, to add to what others have said: Kili and Fili are the youngest and always sent ahead as scouts. Oi and Gloin are the best at making fires. THAT'S ABOUT IT. So thank you for being dishonest, Kidd. Sorta throws your credibility and the rest of the review out the window.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3 p.m. CST

    @Samuel fulmer

    by tickled_by_elmo

    For many people Middle Earth movies are critic-proof.. I think I will more than likely agree with the pacing as too many people have mentioned it, but after being an avid LOTR fan like I am I will no doubt love just being back in PJ's Middle Earth, like going back home for the holidays. I have far too many fond memories of what these movies have meant to me and my family in the context that: 1. For me and my wife, our first Christmas was a broke one (no $$) and so we had enough money NOT to go see our family out of town, so instead we began a tradition of eating tacos we still observe today (tacos because it was a meal we enjoyed, and something small to make without the hassle of a big meal) and our second thing we did that Christmas was go see a movie which was Fellowship of the Ring.. 2. Our kids were raised loving LOTR, I even used it as a way to get them interested in reading, and learning to comprehend what they watch by watching the trilogy one week during one of their summer breaks where I stopped it every 20-30 mins to ask questions about what they watched.. 3. As a family we all played LOTRO together So while yeah I'm sure the movie will be my favorite I wouldn't miss it...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Kidd, digital theaters are 4 times the resolution of Blu-Ray

    by Mattman

    So saying that the image is as crisp as a Blu-Ray being projected on the bigscreen is idiotic. Blu-Ray is great for home, but on a massive screen it's not going to be that crisp.

  • much less what he says...

  • There's no middle-ground anymore. If there's a flaw, its exaggerated and used to demonize the movie as a whole. If the movie isn't perfect, its absolute shit. Talkbackers do this all the time. They're afraid to say a movie is "all right" or "pretty good despite flaws". No, the movie sucks. The movie is a failure. Its a lot like politics. No middle-ground.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Kidd didnt like AVENGERS either

    by Logan_1973

    Consider that.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:04 p.m. CST

    "Swarves"? DWARVES!

    by D.Vader


  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST


    by tickled_by_elmo

    I agree with you, I would prefer people who were not afraid to be lambasted up the ass for saying they like a movie... I believe everyone here has a movie that they like which is probably odd or something that most consider absolute shit.. For me that movie is probably Waterworld... There I said it...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Kidd loved Twilight - Consider that!?

    by larsson

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    I was never really into the LOTR movies

    by Samuel Fulmer

    They were fine (but a little too long, and overbearing...and no I can sit through long films, Barry Lyndon is my favorite Kubrick film, so it has to do more if I'm engaged in the film or not, which with these a lot of times I was just bored), I saw a couple of the extended editions on dvd, and have never really had a desire to rewatch any of them in the past 8 years. I was just never really that into them, and for me hearing that this new film seems to exhibit all the issues I had with the LOTR films. I'll check it out in some point, but to me this is purely a rental only.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Kidd compared Skyfall to Home Alone 3 - consider that!! lol..

    by larsson

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Which is sad

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Because I really do like The Hobbit book.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST


    by tickled_by_elmo

    It wasn't their first time watching it.. And I did that because waiting until the end to ask 50 questions of a movie over 2½ hours long would have been a bit much for them to answer, lol..

  • Or dialogue for that matter. Kidd's just wrong.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:12 p.m. CST

    @creepythinmanlives adamdkline struck a nerve, did he?

    by Boofalicious Washington


  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:13 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit is 285 pages long.

    by Gary Makin

    There's no getting around it - it didn't need to be turned into 3 films. Peter Jackson should've stuck to the books on LOTR too. The movies were going to be long enough without adding appendix material.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    HAH! Tickled By Elmo. I haven't seen that movie in years.

    by D.Vader

    In fact, I dunno if I ever saw it more than twice. I might have to check out that director's cut at some point. Me? I loved Prometheus. It has flaws yes, but I think that's an example of people going overboard in proclaiming their hate for it, calling it "absolute shit" or "worst of the year". Ridiculous.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:16 p.m. CST

    But hey, I guess people are afraid of being ignored

    by D.Vader

    So "shit" comments it is, then!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:17 p.m. CST

    @larsson, only did that with LOTR, lol - too afraid to show them Waterworld

    by tickled_by_elmo

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:19 p.m. CST

    I can't wait till next year,

    by ColonelFatheart

    when NuTREK 2, PACIFIC RIM, IRON MAN 3 and MAN OF STEEL are all shat upon by the very geeks who had been clamoring for these movies.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:20 p.m. CST

    tickled_by_elmo, Kidd would shit blood if he watched UFC

    by Mattman

    Especially if he watched it in the highest possible clarity of 1080p.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:21 p.m. CST

    @gmakin - 3 films

    by tickled_by_elmo

    You know the reason he did it, right? Cause he wanted to make more Silmirillion stories than Hobbit.. Unfortunately he does not have the rights so he had to combine stuff from The Hobbit and the appendices from LOTR.. So technically its not all Hobbit... The Hobbit is just a vehicle to tell more stuff he wanted to touch on to link the two stories and considering that in the background of the Hobbit these things were going on its not a stretch, just depends on how its translated onto the screen over the course of the 3 films..

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:22 p.m. CST

    NEWS FLASH! If PJ did this exactly like the book...

    by D.Vader

    The Dwarves would just be BACKGROUND, relegated to a few moments of starting fires and then getting captured one by one by: A) Trolls B) Goblins C) Spiders D) Elves Yeah, that'd work great in one film. And oh yeah, they've hardly any dialogue too.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    roll on DJANGO!!!

    by larsson

  • but his PACIFIC RIM looks like hacky bullshit.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Old Hobbits Die Hard

    by Torben

    Will watch it but have lowered my expectations can you watch it in just 3d and not 48fps?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    I don't think he's saying he didn't LIKE it...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...I think he's saying it's bloaty. And I can understand that. RETURN OF THE KING felt like it went on forever. It just kept...ending... ...but, yeah, once must keep in mind that this is the first part of a trilogy. I'm sure it's a LOT of set up. I'm not too worried.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:31 p.m. CST

    @larsson get them into the stuff early

    by tickled_by_elmo

    I share two daughter with my 1st wife and she was against showing them action stuff or thrillers/horrors when they were young, my son though with my current wife loves all kinds of movies and has shown a knack for picking up on sound score composers, etc.. He is 10 now.. My daughters do not watch half the stuff we watch and my 13 yr old is still scared of anything with blood.. sad really...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    Absolutely loved it

    by Robert Appleton

    You say this was a tough watch? That couldn't be further from my viewing experience. The HFR made the 3D pop in a way I've never seen before--phenomenal stuff, especially in IMAX. It never dragged for me. The new scenes mostly foreshadow the darkness to come, which is crucial if you're creating a six-film saga. Balin, Bofur and Thorin are terrific. The Riddles in the Dark sequence is outstanding. Then you have the Thunder Giants, the goblin lair, all manner of chases and close scrapes, Rivendell, a brilliant prologue. It's a feast for fans, directed by the biggest fan of all. I loved every minute.

  • I've got soo much shit going on and it's soo expensive to see a movie that I NEED it to be great to make it worth my while to go see it at the theatre. This is why I wait for Blu-ray because then I can watch it in the comfort of my home after all the hype has died down. A good example is Cosmopolis. I fucking tore that a new asshole because I trailed to fucking Toronto, which took an hour from Hamilton, paid a fuckload to get into the theater, not including the insane cost of food/drinks, and stormed out in a bad mood because it wasn't mindblowing the way Fight Club or American Psycho was. But I recently watched Cosmopolis again and it was better the second time because I could settle into it and just absorb it without the need for it to be A LIFE CHANGING CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE(TM). Then there's also the FACT that I KNOW I can write better fucking stories than most of the shit that comes out these days. Of course some cunt will then say "well, why don't you?" to which I retort with the Scottish national motto "I can't be bothered!". I considered writing screenplays a few years ago but I just couldn't waste my time knowing that Hollywood isn't interested in anything crazy or original. They don't want anything that can't be compared to something else that has made money. Look at Pacific Rim. To the studio it looks like a smart bet because it's "Godzilla meets Transformers" but to me it looks like a big pile of uninteresting shit. For me, the three best movies of this year were Cabin in the Woods, Iron Sky and Cloud Atlas. That's the type of stuff that appeals to my tastes and sensibilities but look at how those movies bombed and you can see how it's discouraging to anyone who'd like to quality work like that while FUCKING TRASH like Twilight and The Hunger Games rakes it in. I'm rambling but its because I'm in a sort of serene stream of consciousness type of mood this afternoon where everything feels very still and peaceful. I am at one with the universe. In a world of blue.

  • Mine is Waterworld and probably also Robin Hood (both Kevin Costner movies) back when I thought he could act.. Now I know better, but I still have a fondness for those two and can stop what I'm doing to watch them...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    d. vader and a movie i love that others would think shit

    by Robert Hand

    spot on observation about the characterizations of the dwarves. kidd is very wrong here. also, anyone ever watch "Nothing but Trouble" I LOVE THAT MOVIE.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    I just think it's "cool" to hate on the Hobbit now...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...just like it's cool to hate on the Keaton Batman movies or the Raimi Spider-Man movies or any of the other things people actually lost their shit over when they came out.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    The movie is missing one key element!

    by Michael_Jacksons_Ghost

    Leonard Nimoy singing the Bilbo Baggins song. If the song was added into the movie, it would be holding a 100$ on RT!

  • It's not even worth his time to write, even though HE knows for a FACT(!) that he's a better writer than nearly anyone! Damn you, Hollywood! Damn you, world! Why have you crushed such a delicate and rare genius? Why have you robbed us of his masterpieces??? WHY?????

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    colonelfatheart - it's not likely I'll shit on PACIFIC RIM

    by evergreen

    GDT is an artist surrounded by other artists in an art cave. Those other movies you mention are pure commerce.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST


    by Mikey Wood

    I'm going to find you and I'm going to beat you to oblivion and THEN I'm going to carve the word "FACT" across your forehead. Okay, not really...I'm a lover, not a fighter. But good CHRIST that's annoying. Ahem. Fact.

  • on rambling, irrational screeds on AICN's talkbacks.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST

    We should all be ashamed of ourselves.

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:40 p.m. CST

    So excited to see this tomorrow.

    by frank

    Love to hear critics complaining about the long running time. Spend as much time in the Shire as you need, PJ. Put everything from the book(s!) on the screen.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:40 p.m. CST

    I agree Colonel (and yes I remember the movie drunklitigator)

    by tickled_by_elmo

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Hudson Hawk, John Carter, Last Action Hero.

    by Mostholy

    All unfairly maligned imo. To get back to The Hobbit, good on all of those who called out The Kidd for pretentiously arguing that the dwarves are well-rounded in the original book. They're most definitely not. Now Skidoo...there's a film with well-rounded characters...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Hudson Hawk unfairly maligned?

    by proevad

    I think everyone involved with making that movie should have been executed. They got off easy.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    I don't even need to click the link to know the song, creepythinman.

    by ColonelFatheart

    It's obviously Rough Boys by Pete Townshend.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST

    All I'm praying for is...

    by David Duchovny

    More gay midget pillow fights. Please sweet baby jesus, give me this christmas wish.

  • For a movie to do is to be forgettable. There's soo much shit out there that I'm simply indifferent to.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST

    You shut your DAMNED BITCH MOUTH! HUDSON HAWK is awesome.

    by Mikey Wood

    Sorry. Sorry, man...I get really fired up.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Creepythinman is actually a sensitive soul

    by David Duchovny

    Who woulda thunk it.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Nothing But Trouble- HAH! I loved that movie as a kid.

    by D.Vader

  • Love it.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:51 p.m. CST

    1941.......Not ashamed in the least, but a lot of people hate it

    by Samuel Fulmer

    And I also like Hudson Hawk.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:53 p.m. CST

    1941 is at least technically perfect

    by David Duchovny

    Spielberg shows off in that one. Too bad the story sucks and it's a comedy that forgot to bring the funny. I'm honestly perplexed by the Hudson Hawk defenders. Fuck, I hated that thing.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Another Chevy Chase gem Funny Farm

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I love that movie. It's not really hated, but kind of forgotten.

  • Tangerine Dream soundtrack is one of the best of the 80's

  • I guess it makes up for all the imaginary profit losses to evil pirates.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    i used to like short movies

    by Robert Hand

    90 min or thereabouts now, i'm inclined to want more bang for my buck. BRING ON THE 2:45 IN MIDDLE EARTH 3D. fuck the haters.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    What I don't understand

    by Keith

    Making the decision to switch from two films to three should have meant that each individual film could have been shorter and punchier. But that doesn't seem to have happened at all. What was the original plan, two four hour movies?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    "Hobbit is 285 pages long." We're still going over this?

    by Jay

    Have you even read the book? The story spans MONTHS! None of the adventures ever last more than a chapter. Gandolf leaves the group after the first act. Etc. When they visit Rivendell, for example. It may be a small chapter in the book, but the point is made that they stay their for 14 Days! The 14 days are passed over in one paragraph! The whole book is written like this. The Dwarves are in the barrels for days. Again, it's all glossed over for speed. Now granted, I actually agree 3 movies are too much. I much preferred the idea of 2. But the idiots clamoring for a 2 hour fan edit have no idea what they're talking about. A direct adaptation, much like the Rankin/Bass cartoon (which still left out plenty) leaves no breathing room whatsoever.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    overrated-Maybe the higher ticket prices will go to firmware updates

    by Samuel Fulmer

    That actually work.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST


    by The Infamous Billy The Kidd

    There is enough to actually differentiate the dwarves from each other in the novel. Here, there is not, unless your name is Thorin Oakenshield.

  • Slower pacing doesn't mean bloat. Sixteen subplots- that's bloat.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:58 p.m. CST

    I'm not against 3 films for this story...

    by Etienne72772

    I'm against 3 films that are each almost 3 hours long! Think of the children! Ah, we'll still go see it with the kids...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Airborne was a movie I have seen far too many times

    by yourebreakingthejacket

    Used to watch that all the time on cable. It is pretty mindless, but does have Jack Black as being mildly funny.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:59 p.m. CST

    The dwarf was the best character to choose in Golden Axe!!

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Anyone else with me. Yeah his magic wasn't very powerful, but who needed it when you had that big axe.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Funny Farm is hilarious

    by D.Vader

    I'll never forget bringing home the dog for the first time.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    d.vader-1941--Did you see the dvd which is the director's cut

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Or the actual theatrical cut which has never been released on dvd? The theatrical cut is much better, and is less then two hours.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    I love HOOK. But that's NOT a bad movie!

    by D.Vader

    And neither is John Carter!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Lamb fries, d.vader.

    by ColonelFatheart

    Lamb fries.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Airborne - YES!

    by Robert Hand

    a movie about roller blading never goes out of style.

  • The dwarf was badass, but I remember liking the woman when I was younger. For some reason...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    I will fight for FREDDY GOT FINGERED till the Doom befalls us.

    by ColonelFatheart

  • And he remains so cheery!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Well, I'll have to have a talk with him

    by yourebreakingthejacket

    Yes, you do that Mr. Farmer. You do that. Funny Farm is great.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    I bought you JEWELS!

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    re: Dwarves

    by Robert Hand

    please explain how the dwarves are differentiated in the book besides having different colored hoods

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Are you David Davidson?

    by ColonelFatheart

    I'm a woman! I didn't ask you that! I didn't ask you THAT!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Always thought Dirty Work was hilarious

    by yourebreakingthejacket

    Norm MacDonald's shining cinematic moment.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man

    by Samuel Fulmer

    It's better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool.

  • They say they want originality, but then they'll shoot down a script or film as being *too original* and not *relatable* enough for the magical audience demographic that only exists in their head. Then if a spec script has elements of other movies or stories mixed in, oftentimes a new and original twist or take on said concept, it is then *too much of the same* and rejected. It isn't just the official Hollywood people either, as amongst the wannabe community (like Done Deal forums or the Script Shadow blog), there is an army of bitter minions who will shoot down just about anything no matter if it is good or not. Of course someone established in the industry walks into some producer or exec's office and pitches something bland and tired and it gets green lit. Examples: - an unknown person writes Avatar, or Pacific Rim, or After Earth = no deal - a writer or director who is a known entity writes Avatar, Pacific Rim, or After Earth = $$$$ in the eyes of the Hollywood machine What am I saying here? It is all about TRUST. I don't care how good a writer or director one is, if you ain't already a rich and famous god of cinema, you probably won't ever be. It is an odd dynamic, in that they pretty much expect the next wave to hand over a sure thing. Now, yes, obviously there needs to be some turnover of talent as the people who make films get old and retire or die off... but it is a very minimal rate of change. Hollywood is so scared of anything not in line with the status quo, even though they continually say they want new and original works. This is why we have the BWAHHHH (aka: The Horns of Doom) in every fucking movie trailer save for maybe a Reese Witherspoon romantic comedy. There can only be one Nolan or Spielberg every generation. I'd say at least the 80's had some level of authorship to films. Back then, in addition to Lucas and Spielberg, you had Ridley Scott, James Cameron, John Carpenter, Paul Verhoeven, etc... and that's just talking genre. Now it is basically Nolan and lens flares that have influenced all of cinema. Even the great James Cameron's recent legacy is 3D for the most part. That makes me sad as I really liked Avatar and was glad to see Iron Jim back to working in the science fiction genre. Anyways, I'm beginning to ramble but you all get the point. Er... you'll know my name and what I stand for. I have that kind of acceleration of nerd rage... my zero to sixty is almost instantaneous!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:11 p.m. CST

    the movie with jonathan brandis and chuck norris

    by Robert Hand

    forgot the name but had the milf from Rambo II in it.

  • Raven. I think that was her name.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Weird Inconsistent Criticism?

    by Todd1700

    People bitch about the movie being too long and bloated but then also turn around and complain that each individual dwarf isn't fleshed out as a character. Really? Do you realize how long this movie would have to be in order to fully develope 13 dwarf characters? And this notion that leaving most of them underdeveloped as characters is a departure from Tolkiens book is just flat wrong. Very few of them are developed on an individual level at all in the book; three or four of them at best. I will confess that this being sub 70 at RT is concerning but I still plan to see it. The negative reviews of the 48 fps stuff doesn't concern me as I have no plan to see it in that format. And I'm hopeful that much of the criticism is due to the fact that we are basically seeing what I look at as one third of a larger overall movie. Critics tend to judge movies harshly that are not completely stand alone films as opposed to something that is more of an incomplete part one segment. But since I know this going in I doubt it will hurt my opinion of the movie.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    drunklitigator--good call on Brandis/Norris flick

    by yourebreakingthejacket

    I am too lazy to IMDb it, but agreed. To stay with the late Mr. Brandis I would throw in Ladybugs--a lesser Rodney flick, but has its moments. "All I know is----I got alotta balls"

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:14 p.m. CST


    by yourebreakingthejacket

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Blu-ray what?

    by Qwekh

    The Hobbit was shoot on Red Epic in 5K. Most 35mm digitial intermediates are scanned at 2k going up to 4k and more. Now convert it to HDTV just a tad below 2k and imagine how crisp and clear your big screen image will be. Not! Your cinema experience has been above Blu-ray since kinda forever!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Kidd, you're making it very clear you haven't read the book.

    by D.Vader

    Or you haven't read it in years. You're wrong here.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Dirty Work! Also, Men at Work! And BILLY MADISON.

    by D.Vader

    Terrible movie, but the best Adam Sandler ever did.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Yeah what happened to Raven McCoy?

    by frank

    She would’ve liked The Hobbit, I bet. That dame had real class.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Cold Creek Manor - featuring a young Kristen Stewart

    by evergreen

    overrated gives it four stars. Indisputably a classic.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Kidd, nope.

    by Mattman

    I just read the book a couple of weeks ago (you clearly haven't read it in a while). The dwarves are interchangeable background material in the book. In fact, it's a common criticism of the book.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Keith David should have received an oscar nod for Men at Work

    by yourebreakingthejacket

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    DIRTY WORK, yes.

    by ColonelFatheart

    Movie line!

  • It was a long two hours. I expected it to be an hour and a half like a typical comedy. Actually, I think it was more than two hours too!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Artie Lang's BEER LEAGUE is pretty repugnant and racist.

    by ColonelFatheart

    But fucking hilarious in its scuzzy, hey-look-it's-Ralph-Macchio way.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:19 p.m. CST

    I always picked the Dwarf in Golden Axe

    by D.Vader

    Loved hopping on the red dragon.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:20 p.m. CST

    I can't say I blame Hollywood

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I blame audiences. I can't tell you how many times that I saw a film that was good, but not only good, it also tried to do something different or didn't conform to genre or cinematic norms and talked to people that hated these movies, basically because they were different. There's screenwriters/filmmakers that are ahead of the audience, and a lot of times these films fail even if they're excellent because most people just want the same experience over and over again.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:21 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Vader the theatrical cut of 1941 is still near 120 minutes

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Yeah it's still a little long and got way too much shit going on, but to me that chaos is part of it's charm. Preaty sure the directors cut is more like 145 minutes, which is way too long. I hope some day 1941 makes it to blu ray in it's original cut, which was the first cut I saw when I watched it on VHS in the mid-90's.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Hoppin' Hobbits, get over yourselves, people.

    by MoistMuskyCamelToe

    On behalf of, and in defense of, The Kidd: Apparently you need a fucking Ph.D. in all things Tolkien to even see the movie, much less review it. OMG, the Kidd was wrong about the depth of characters in a silly fucking children's book? And he thought it had pacing problems?! Get a rope, he must be a bad person! You bunch of pansy Internet Tough Guys. Christ. Oh, and not to worry: if you didn't like Jackson's treatment of the films, then just wait for the remake. You can shelve it next to your ultra super LOTR (directed by Jackson) collector's edition on your Ikea furniture, propped up by your Magic The Gathering cards. You probably bust those out with the ladies, too. And how's your comic book -excuse me, GRAPHIC NOVEL- collection coming, eh? Smart investment, there. Bet those suckers are worth a fortune, all tucked in their little bags. You pathetic fucking hipsters ain't had pussy since pussy had you!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    I think Raven was like 16 or something.

    by ColonelFatheart

    Harry probably thought he was gonna groom her to be his next child bride.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Man Who Knew Too Little is great

    by Samuel Fulmer

    What About Bob also. That one seemed slightly popular when it came out, but like Funny Farm for Chase, that Bill Murray flick has kind of disappeared from the public consciousness.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Are we starting to tear down our movie gods?

    by kindofabigdeal

    GDT, Nolan, R. Scott, and Mr. Jackson are all starting to show that everything that they touch is not automatically gold.

  • I have been avoiding reviews, but I happened to hear the NPR guy talking about The Hobbit this morning. He thought the story was not long enough to accommodate the running time. I have no problem with them taking their time for each part of the story. Also, I think this first movie is just supposed to be a fun thrill ride, by and large. The harder hitting emotional stuff should come in the second and third acts, which I expect to be better films from a film critics perspective. I know that (imo) the second half of the novel, dealing with Smaug and the aftermath of his death, is considerably better and more mature than the first, more juvenile part. That is with the exception of Riddles in the Dark, which Tolkien had rewritten anyway.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:25 p.m. CST

    d.vader - I read the book

    by evergreen

    It's a longish child's bedtime story. There is no legitimate way to stretch it into three tentpole movies.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Speaking of Dangerfield- BACK TO SCHOOL

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Re: Dwarves

    by The Infamous Billy The Kidd

    Just finished reading the book again a few days ago. At least in the novel, they are given things to do, as minimal as their actions may be... however, when one does pop up to do something, you know which dwarf it is. Here, they get nothing to do, and when they are on-screen, you can't tell them apart from one another, as far as who might be who.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    colonelfatheart-Yep The Player is

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Too bad Robert Altman..probably one of the greatest American directors of the later part of the 20th century is kind of disolving into obscurity now since his death. I think there's like two or three out of 30-40 films he directed represented on blu ray right now.

  • The script readers want all kinds of wild and original stuff because their job is basically to sit and read spec scripts all day long. OF COURSE A PERSON IN THAT POSITION WANTS NEW MATERIAL TO READ AFTER READING SO MANY FUCKING SCRIPTS DAY IN AND DAY OUT! The sad truth though, and this has been admitted to by real studio script readers; is that they are often afraid to recommend to their bosses the spec scripts that are actually good and unique. The reason: scared of being fired if the script they recommend is made into a film that isn't successful. They could be blamed if the film tanked because they recommended it to their mega-producer or studio exec boss. Then you have the mega-producers and studio execs who are more interested in stuff that the can easily market to the public, which oftentimes ends up not being the most original and daring type of material. So they've got the script readers telling all the wannabe writers to send in daring and original works, which then gets rejected anyways because no one is going to take the risk on it no matter how good it is. Then you've got the flipside where the studio readers toss the spec scripts that are a bit derivative but marketable because they've read it all before and can't muster the enthusiasm to finish the whole script. It is amazing that anything gets done in Hollywood as everyone seems to be obsessed with job security, and not in actually making films. I say fuck that! If a person is in filmmaking then job security should not be at the top of their list of priorities. There are ton of other professions one can go into if they want job security and a steady paycheck. Still though, something has to slip through the cracks, which is why we once in a while get that rare gem of a film that is really good or really unique.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Sure, we know which dwarf it is, Kidd.

    by ColonelFatheart

    Because Tolkien identifies them by name.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    samuel fulmer

    by ColonelFatheart

    It's a goddamn shame. Criterion needs to do all it can and lock up the lion's share of Altman's filmography like they did with Kurosawa. So much fucking gold. Even his minor works are worth watching and discussing.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    THE PLAYER has that rare thing in film: A perfect fucking ending.

    by ColonelFatheart

    There was no other way to end it, and it's as satisfying as it is a kick in the balls.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Kidd we know which dwarf it is bc Tolkien always names them!

    by D.Vader

    But they're interchangeable! Like I said above, Oin and Gloin make fires, Kili and Fili are young. Bombur is fat. Everyone else is blended together. What else you got?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Just look at all these Old School Talkback handles!!!

    by conspiracy

    Best thing about tent pole films...all the old faces/friends/enemies come back home to roost for awhile... It's finally showing some life and feeling like home around here again. Good to see everyone...Happy Holidays all.

  • I shit you not! They don't like to read scripts or even claim they don't have the time to do so. There are probably some exceptions to this rule, the actual producers out there that are any good probably have a love of good stories and good cinema. Of course, I think it is naive to think that the majority of today's Hollywood is made up of people who genuinely love good storytelling. I mean look at it, the Ivy League Wall Street crowd now controls Hollywood. All that came about in the 1980's. I've heard it said that these days the marketing dept. at a studio is more influential than the story development dept.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by Robert Hand

    Kidd, your logic does NOT compute. Bashing Jackson for making a "bloated" film and then claiming that the dwarves are given more to do in the book. Christ, man, what did the dwarves do in the book that left such a specific characterization of them in your feeble mind? Being good at starting a fire? Being the youngest with best vision? Being fat? I think there is more characterization in the 2 minute trailer than the entire Hobbit book. Not that there is anything wrong with a lack of characterization in Tolkien's book. The story was about Bilbo and his transformation. But you can't bitch about the film being bloated and then say the dwarves aren't given anything to do.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Oh look, here comes Fili, he's about to jump!

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Overrated, I completely disagree

    by D.Vader

    The story is full of stops and starts, stops and starts. That doesn't work well for movie pacing. Now, I agree that JUST The Hobbit might not have enough for three movies. But adding in exactly what was happening at the same time- The White Council discovering and fighting the Necromancer- is a welcome addition at rounding the story out and connecting it more strongly to LOTR.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:37 p.m. CST


    by ColonelFatheart

    Happy fucking holidays!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:37 p.m. CST

    oh look, Bombur, he likes to eat!

    by Robert Hand

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:37 p.m. CST

    billythekidd - surely the hats are different

    by evergreen

    Green and yellow, yellow and green. I'm colorblind myself.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:39 p.m. CST

    There goes Gloin again!

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Characterization! Can you feel it?!

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:42 p.m. CST

    kidd, you should admit you're wrong here

    by Robert Hand

    for the legitimacy of your reviews and this site.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:42 p.m. CST

    I understand these books are universally loved

    by yourebreakingthejacket

    but why even bother comparing book to film, Kidd? Most filmed versions of books are different and everyone pretty much knows this. Why not just review the flick on its own merits/shortcomings? I never read any of the books so I dont have much vested, but it just seems to be a waste of time to compare the two.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Ha! This is becoming a talkback for the ages... It has seen the return of the legend colonelfatheart and has also returned creepythinman to his Scottish roots. Oh and despite the Kidds damage limitation attempt to plead the opposite he is still wrong about the dwarves in the book. Fact!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST


    by ColonelFatheart

    There is no higher praise than that what emanates from the Dojo. But to be declared a legend by the Dojo is some League of Shadows shit right there. No Xmas present can top that.

  • Their names do that.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:48 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    colonel, you have been away too long. Your strategies and secret recipes have been sorely missed. I love you man.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST

    re: no subject

    by Robert Hand

    I'm excited that talkbacks are getting more and more interesting. With the absurdity of Harry's Jack Reacher review ("I've seen Jack Reacher for about a month now") and the uprising against the Kidd's stupidity, it has made the site a lot more tolerable.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST

    I've been in repose.

    by ColonelFatheart

    Getting extra crispy.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Jackson should have taken a Warhol approach to The Hobbit

    by Robert Hand

    filmed the dwarves sleeping. Howz bout that for bloat?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5 p.m. CST

    I've just come back from seeing it in nu 48 hfr

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter

    I’ve just been to see The Hobbit in nu shiny 48 hfr. I just did a quick post on Facebook which turned into a mini review, so I might as well post it here too. Ok, that was, I think,think that is, totally fucking amazing!! Its not like anything Ive seen before. I can see where some of the gripes come from. At times it felt like an episode of Blake 7 or old Dr Who running around in a quarry somewhere, it was so damn clear, but mainly, it was just incredible to look at. The new frame rate is about 80% awesome, so Im going to give them the benefit of the doutb for the new medium. The 3D is surely the best Ive ever seen. It was just a visual feast that Im still reeling from. The film was probably 4.5 out of 5. A little slow, and a little “playing to the cheap seats” sometimes, but what the hell, I love Jacksons Middle Earth and could frankly spend all day there. The leaps in mo-cap technology in the past 10 years are incredible. The goblin king, the cave trolls, and espeically Gollum are just amazing technological achivements. The whole Gollum scene is actually just perfect, with Serkis and Freeman kocking it dead. All in all, Im a very happy movie go-er. I’m still realling from the 48frames stuff. My only real gripe is the 3D makes everything so dark you sometimes feel you’re watching through sunglasses. Shame, because the 3D and visuals are just fucking amazing. Very interesting thing this new frame rate. I need to see other things shot like it. It reallly was, with the 3D, an almost new way of watching film. I can’t think of another thing I watched that was so involved. And I think Jacksons Middle Earth was designed for such lush visual immersement. I wonder where a Ken Loach kitchen sinker would benefit from this medium. Interesting times ahead, I think.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:03 p.m. CST

    What an incredible shock...

    by Mad Barchetta

    The Kidd doesn't like a movie. Stop the presses, call Brian Wilson or Fox News or something. I don't even need to read this schlub's reviews anymore. He hates, or at least dislikes, everything. Glad I only bothered to read the first and last three sentences...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Kidd, you make Randal from Clerks sound like an optimist

    by Pete Susoev

    Almost every one of your fucking reviews is pandering towards hatred, like you are the kind of jerk that yells 'He's DEAD!' during the sixth sense, or screams first on articles, or updates his facebook so often because he wants to be the first person to tell everyone foxx is on fucking SNL. I get it, you are the glass is half full kind of guy. You don't review, you shred. And shit man, people applauded Jackson's extended cut, and he turns around and extends the Hobbit, and people castrate him over it. I coulda wrote the same fucking review without seeing the movie from just copying and pasting other reviews. Your insights are pedestrian, again you are like a phantom of those wannabe nerd boys that just started reading comics and praises Joss Whedon's run on X-Men but have no idea who Chris Claremont is and the proceed to mask their ignorance in conversation over their film counterparts. Your 'vs' tag is as retarded as Harry's are already setting it up to be antagonistic. I couldn't tell if this was a shitty book report or a shitty movie review, some I'm just going to go with both. You are not a reviewer, you are a seething mouth breather who is lucky to be on a site where the owner has no fucking taste.

  • I thought that in addition to making motion blurring less annoying and also showing more detail, the HFR method was supposed to help make 3D clearer and not as dark as 24fps 3D.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Yeah, the dwarves mostly work as a mass O' dwarves in the book...

    by FlickaPoo

    which I think is fine and for the best. It would be really annoying in a kid's book if it was essential to the plot to keep all 13 fucking dwarves straight at all times. I think Tolkien intentionally encouraged the interchangeability with the alliteration in the names. That's one of the things I was most worried about in a movie adaptation. In the book they all blend into a single background don't actually have to have a platoon of dwarves standing around on screen all the time.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Apparently Kidd is blind...

    by Racer Z

    and is unable to visually differentiate one dwarf from another, when they clearly all have distinctly different appearances. Arguing with him is pointless because he'll never admit that he's wrong and knows about as much about Tolkien's writing as Harry knows about physical fitness. It's OK, he doesn't have to like the movie (I've come to expect that anyway), I don't really care, but it'd be nice if he was at least honest about it.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    col. tigh-fighter - did you like Phantom Menace?

    by evergreen

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    The love is mutual, cobes.

    by ColonelFatheart

  • This one has the "right" pace I read over and over again. That's bad news! My hope is that it is not as bad as the first Deathly Hallows film. It looks like at the very least a story will be started in this film, which will automatically make it better: but neither of these stories needed more than one film.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Date Movie

    by nametaken

    that cat on the toilet will crack me up every time. pure GOLD.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    the kidd is a douche, no other way about it

    by Robert Hand

    jerry curl wearin, goatee havin, earring wearin grade A douche.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Kudos to you, The Kidd

    by VoiceOfSaruman

    I have no clue why talkbackers seem to hate on you more than any other reviewer (except Harry.) This is fine, well-written review, one that makes a lot of sense. It doesn't seem to come with any unhealthy bias or pre-judgments. What the fuck is wrong with these people? I'm going to see the movie anyway, and form my own opinion. Christ. And I'll be seeing it at 24fps, because I think 48fps is a terrible idea for this kind of content. Newer and faster and clearer is not always better. 48fps is a new context, a new medium to some extent, maybe it needs a new kind of content. A fantasy prequel to some big movies that came out ten years ago is not the right content for it in my opinion.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Yes that's what happens when you get banned, Real James T Kirk

    by D.Vader

    And there's never an explanation. You don't know why you were banned, and the rest of us don't know why you were banned, and thus NO ONE EVER LEARNS.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Everyone hating on his reviews

    by VoiceOfSaruman

    is projecting some kind of insane hate and vitriol in his reviews that is just not there, to any rational person.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:17 p.m. CST

    col. tigh-fighter is on Facebook

    by David Duchovny

    and so is misdirected_menis. Wtf is going on with the people on this site? Jesus wept. At least have the courtesy not to admit that.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Conspiracy is right, this talkback is OLD SCHOOL

    by D.Vader

    Welcome old friends and Romans!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Beat the shit out of the Hobbit as much as you like PJ

    by Pete Susoev

    'Cuz all that's left is The Silmarillion, and that thing read like an anthropology text book. It has its good parts...but that book redefined bloat in regards to nothing happening for pages on end.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:19 p.m. CST

    What a lovely sock you are, voiceofsaruman!

    by ColonelFatheart

    Lemme guess? Kidd's brother?

  • That's how The Man keeps track of you.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST

    For the record, I think The Kidd's review is fine

    by D.Vader

    I just don't appreciate his being dishonest about the book in order to criticize the film.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    misdirected_menis, nothing happens in THE SILMARILLION?

    by FlickaPoo

    Wrong. THE SILMARILLION isn't for everyone, especially you, but if anything the book is so densely packed that many pages and even single paragraphs could make movies all their own.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    The Kidd's mistake

    by David Duchovny

    He basically just told a bunch of 13 year old girls that the beautiful baby they have been expecting to see for the last 9 months is an ugly little fucker. Deal with it, retards. This thing has had stink written all over it for months now. The Kidd isn't the first to say that this thing should have been aborted.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:24 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    col.tigh - in one word, professionalism - thank you for the mini review, that read well. flickapoo - in one word, alliteration - thank you for the music the songs im singing. And for all the joy to the Misty Mountains theyre bringing... Good to see you back too Flicka!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    ======================= Peter Jackson's latest shitburger=============

    by Punisherthunder

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Crappy movies I love

    by Lao_Che_Air_Freight

    Sgt Pepper Xanadu Hudson Hawk for sure (Sprinkler system in the back, can you fucking believe it!)(Hey mister, are you gonna die?)

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Going to hold off on seeing it

    by Volstaff

    Was going to go see it on opening day- which is also my birthday- but now I think I'll hold off a week or two and catch a matinee. Looks like Skyfall is gonna be mt Birthday movie ( the 14th) this year.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:27 p.m. CST


    by Robert Hand

    Prediction: You're angry because of a small, curved penis and the fact you can only bed fat chicks with big schnozes.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Yeah I defended the Kidd on that one. Bad form, Harry.

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:28 p.m. CST


    by David Duchovny

    Nope. Queer as a 3 dollar bill. Huge dick. Thanks for playing though.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:30 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *Hey mister, are you gonna die?* that little surreal moment in HUDSON HAWK had no reason being in the movie, it should never have made it past the committee, far too odd. AND THAT'S WHY I FUCKING LOVE HUDSON HAWK!!!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:31 p.m. CST

    @ flickapoo

    by Pete Susoev

    I didn't say nothing happened, i said nothing happened for large expanses of time as it was told in an explanatory fashion. Alot happened, what I meant was it would be hard to translate to film, like Dune for instance. (and yes, I do realize this is partly because of Christopher's involvement, I'm not going to split hairs here) A good book, yes. A worthy addition to Tolkien's world, absolutely. But from a film adaption point of view, it would be much harder to work (and is disconnected more from the central characters, thus disconnecting people unfamiliar with Middle Earth outside the films). That was my point. It isn't 'fun' like the first four books, it would be more like a History Channel documentary (if they did those anymore, now its just fucking Ancient Aliens and jackasses selling shit to other jackasses). I'd want it, but it'd die at the box office. Just think of the Kidd's review: I had to wait four hours before anyone even mentioned the ring of power, whats up with that?!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:33 p.m. CST

    oh and for me Deep Star 6. Or maybe D.a.r.y.l

    by peter

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:33 p.m. CST

    not bitching about an opinion

    by Robert Hand

    bitching about FACTS being misconstrued and bad logic.

  • The lack of dwarf specifics didnt bother me. I think they did a claver job in the different looks of them, as that was easier than the names. Each one got a little beat here or there. You could never hope to feature all of them. I think a lot of AUJ is set up. I have hopes the others will run more smoothly, but these are only minor gripes. Middle Earth is back, baby! And I missed her!! I'll give it a whirl in 24fr next, just for comparison.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:34 p.m. CST

    Just saw it...

    by workshed

    ...on IMAX 48fps HFR... slow as fuck for the first hour and a half... picks up once we get to Gollum and, imo, the last half hour is worth the price of admission as it is absolutely stunning. Needs to go back to 24fps for the scenes like those in Bilbo's Hobbit-hole, maybe by extracting every other frame - you listening PJ..? if it works you owe me a pint!) Oh, and there's one noticeable Lucasian moment of green-screen mundanity, where Cate Blanchett just can't be arsed and just stares into space... very prequel. One more thing (for UK viewers)... this is a very hard 12A... no way would I let my nine-year old daughter (Marnie) watch this.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:35 p.m. CST


    by FlickaPoo

    wouldn't miss it, brother. I still hear the sound of helicopter blades, the rattle of AK-47s, and Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings whenever I see your handle in this swampy hellhole.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:35 p.m. CST

    d.vader - How was he being dishonest?

    by evergreen

    He said he read the book, and his review is mostly consistent with RT's aggregate.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:36 p.m. CST


    by David Duchovny

    Who are the extra characters Jackson added that weren't in the book or in the appendices? Might this explain part of the bloat problem? Remember reading about him adding characters months ago on here.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:38 p.m. CST

    What, New Line didn't pay enough for good AICN reviews?

    by Matt Schlotman

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:40 p.m. CST

    The Silmarillion as a film would be an EXTREME challenge

    by D.Vader

    No central characters, very little dialogue, EPIC EPIC EPIC shit happening all the time. That's tough.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Ease up on The Ladd

    by proevad

    Would you rather have had him be dishonest and just tell you how wonderful it was?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Strike that

    by proevad

    Answered my own question.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Watched all three versions in one day! IMAX, 2D and 3D 48fps

    by CeejayNightwing

    Screw any review you read, if you loved the other movies then you'll find yourself loving every second of this one too. It was light just like the book but they adapted the timeline of events around the Hobbit to dramatise a bloody awesome film. The 48fps version is not going to win a lot of people over, it's like watching a movie in 200hz on blu ray with a LED TV but for 3D it gives by far the best results, real 3D, no flat images or motion blur. At no time did I feel it dragged when watching any of the three screenings I've done today, it was pure joy and I can grant you most people who've loved the series up to now and don't know about the events or history around the events during the book will understand why they've been included into the film when they see it. Again, Gollum is a scene stealier, he's outrageously great. So is the albino Orc Azog and his conflict with Thorin Oakenshield.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:46 p.m. CST


    by Mikey Wood used that same "shitburger" comment for Del Torro over in the PACIFIC RIM thread. You have anything else or are you a one trick pony, son?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:50 p.m. CST

    misdirected_menis, if anything far far too much happens, but...

    by FlickaPoo

    yes, a single SILMARILLION movie would be an impossible trying to make a movie out of the Old Testament, or condensing all of Greek or Norse mythology into a single movie. There are countless potential movies in the SILMARILLION, Beren and Lúthien and Túrin Turambar being the most likely.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Where are all of you people seeing this movie at before it opens

    by Jon Snow

    I personally know two professional critics that haven't seen the damn thing yet. Granted they work in Texas--but still.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    flicka, im actually quite touched you remember that! Ive since gone from Elias to full Rambo in this swampy cesspit... ceeejaynightwing, I know we had some disagreements over PROMETHEUS but holy fuck dude you have gone above and beyond with three viewings of THE HOBBIT in three different formats in one day. Fuck. Me. You gain a lifetime pass to the Dojo for that my friend. Glad to hear you loved the film too! I will return with my opinion after seeing it this weekend!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Give them a moment for pity's sake!!!

    by suspect999

    Talkbackers, don't listen to this nerd elite propaganda, be a part of it and see the movie for yourself. If it's anything better than the cartoon, it's worth seeing.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:09 p.m. CST

    hey, a proper review

    by dirk123

  • Sure enough, the last line was negative. I've come to expect this from all of Kidd's reviews, who has proved again and again that he is nothing more than a juvenile kid. Harrys reviews are always dreadful, and the Kidd's come in at a close #2.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:12 p.m. CST

    re: Added Characters

    by tomandshell

    Jackson adds an intro with Old Bilbo and Frodo that was not in the book. He takes the character of Azog the Goblin, who is mentioned by Gandalf and cursed by Thorin, and actually brings him into the story. (He's sort of the "Lurtz" of the film, although in this case he was actually an existing character mentioned but not seen in the book.) He also brings in Radagast the Brown as a way of introducing the Necromancer storyline lightly touched on in the book. The White Council meeting (featuring Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman) mentioned elsewhere by Tolkien is shown. Everything that has been expanded or brought in from outside the Hobbit seemed to belong, in my opinion. In the book, Gandalf leaves the dwarves to go to Dol Guldur, and the next film will show us that instead of leaving it a mystery. There are a few scenes here to set up that storyline, but they are all pretty much taken from Tolkien. The appendices explain that Gandalf is concerned about Smaug joining forces with the enemy, and he decides to support Thorin's quest--sort of using him as a means to remove the dragon from the equation. This motivation comes from the appendices and is included in the White Council scene. I disagree that it's just padding--it sets up the plot of films two and three, as well as LOTR. Gandalf is arranging the pieces in anticipation of Sauron's rise to power. All of this comes directly from Tolkien.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Overrated, he's dishonest about the Dwarves

    by D.Vader

    "As for the other 12 dwarves, Jackson never really gives us a chance to get to know them on any level, as they serve extensively as background pieces to help drive the journey from one location to the next. Not to nitpick at any deviations from the novel, but Tolkien at least gave us a sense of some of their personalities, making them included in what was happening" That bit about Tolkien giving us a sense of their personalities is just flat out wrong. As others have stated, the Dwarves are pretty much all interchangeable in the book, and the only characterization you get is along the lines of "Kili and Fili are the young ones", "Oin and Gloin are the best at starting fires", and "Bombur sleeps a lot". He's claiming they're distinct in the book in order to slam the movie, but that's simply not true.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:12 p.m. CST

    I predict a ton of belch and fart jokes

    by Tyrus Kitt

    Dwarves love to fart--and brain dead Americans love to watch dwarves fart. It's comedy gold I tell ya! Gold!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Not hearing enough good about The Hobbit...

    by Token

    Sounds to me like this movie is more than long enough to portray the whole novel... I'll wait for the final version that edits all three parts into a single, watchable movie. I'm not really disappointed tho'...or surprised. I didn't get a good feeling about this from the first announcement of it being made. I also recall Perter Jackson's King Kong, which also went way too long and just had too darn much stuff in it {the dinosaur stampede along was long enough for a bathroom break at the theatre}. Too bad...could'a been good...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:16 p.m. CST

    The Kid's LIFE OF PI review was the most 11th grade...

    by FlickaPoo

    completely point-missing, personal neuroses projecting, juvenile peacocking thing I've read since Raven Whatsername's hilariously inept BRAVE review. Legendary, both of them.

  • The trick is facing whatever he says squarely...then carefully turn exactly 180 degrees and proceed with confidence.

  • And that's Tauriel, a female Elf guard in Mirkwood. But that's in the 2nd movie, so it would not explain bloat here.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:32 p.m. CST

    d.vader. Thanks :-)

    by David Duchovny

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:33 p.m. CST

    It's like everybody is gay for Andy Serkis.

    by Fries Against

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Travers just dumped on it. Reasons sounded oddly familiar...

    by David Duchovny

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit is too damn long!!!!!

    by Baked

    Not because it takes three hours...but because it SHOULDN'T.

  • It's fake reality programming for LOTR fans, with almost zero risk.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:51 p.m. CST

    The desolation of SLOG


    Piss on this fucking turd.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Andy Serkis is overrated.

    by jazzdownunder

    Gollum is his one decent performance. He has nothing else. NOTHING.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Glad to see Team Good Fight is out in force.

    by Deceased Fan

    You know who you are and I love you guys. I'm hopefully going to see it tomorrow in 24fps.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:10 p.m. CST

    Dark 3D could just be the projector bulb turned down to save $

    by Mace Tofu

    Bitch to the theater manager. My local Cinemark theater brags they have the brightest 3D projectors in town.

  • what? i can't shit all over a reviewer, but they can shit all over the hard work of artists and craftspeople that have more creativity and skill in their little hairy toes than the reviewer even dreams of having? well, fuck you too.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:19 p.m. CST

    I can't wait for Abridged Edition

    by Larry_Sanders

  • go read the fucking book. It's not that long. The only way to make a proper adaptation is to have one movie that is 2 hours to 2 hours and 15 minutes long. Three fucking movies that are nearly 3 hours long from a book that isn't long and is simplistic. LOTR was a complex book, The Hobbit simplistic. Making 3 movies out of it is nonsense. Peter Jackson scrapping every Tolkein appendices to add on is fucking stupid. It also shows that Peter Jackson is on the down hill of his career. I mean really, outside of Beautiful Creatures and the LOTR trilogy, Peter Jackson doesn't have any good movies. It's been 9 years since Return of the King was released and all we have gotten from Jackson is two shitty movies. I will go see this and give it a chance, but I highly doubt a trilogy works for a book that isn't long and is simplistic.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Krinkle you are mixing up nerds with geeks

    by Jt

  • you guys did get the memo that Peter is adapting "The Hobbit" AND other storylines that were going on within that time period, right? And he's tying it into the previous 3 films? You were seriously expecting a literal "one off" kid’s books translation made into 1 movie? Really? And how much longer to we have to hear you bleat about Jackson and his bloated films? Obviously they don't float your boat, move the fuck on already.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Flynn lives….

    by Jt

    AICN scooped again.

  • Padding out The Hobbit over three fucking years on Christmas is an unseemly cash grab by a wizard who should know better.

  • those of us who genuinely love film try to say something about how every single goddamn review from The Kidd from about shitting on a film. they are even set up to be that way by calling them The Kidd VS the film. what kind of attitude is that? it's not honest. it's in denial of the fact that reviews are both subjective AND do NOT take place in a fucking vacuum. they are not 'just someone's opinion'. and it can be said that if we don't want to read reviews by The Kidd then we don't have to. well, since he's the primary reviewer on this fucking site, that means we don't read half the content on this site. and i thought the kidd was brought on to make the site better. i guess that means driving away film lovers to make room for film haters (aka 12 year olds who think hating equals discerning taste). you know, there is no street cred left to try to preserve on this site. it's gone to shit. i've been here since Titanic, before half the readers left here were even fucking born, and it's a grave yard. the only life left has been the videos. those have been amazing. primarily, because they were about geek film love. oh well, at least there are still the reviews from some of the old writers who still occasionally pop in to review a film. they love it. even though they think it could have been better, they love it. why? because they aren't trying to play film critic.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:44 p.m. CST


    by Donalbain

    On the one hand he compains about the slow pacing on the other he praises the one (perfect) scene that has only two people talking for 10 minutes. No, it's not slow. I would have enjoyed a lot more scenes with talking instead of themepark-ride action scenes. Remember Inglourious Basterds? The best scenes were long scenes with two people talking

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:45 p.m. CST

    45 minutes for basically the first chapter of the book?

    by DougMcKenzie

    Wow I hope the cheques are worth it, Petey. Not a lot of people put their artistic integrity up for sale so nakedly. I ain't sitting for 3 hours of boredom. I'll wait for this on Blu-ray. Thanks, Petey....

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:45 p.m. CST

    nerds are very smart and do great in school….

    by Jt

    but they often have poor taste when it comes to anything artistic and aren't inclined to be interested in art forms. Geeks are people who rabidly follow movies, tv shows, and comic books. Nerds don't do that. What causes people to confuse Geeks with Nerds is appearance. Then, Geeks either seem to be smart, but aren't. Or Geeks are people who are smart but were to lazy to put their smarts to work when they were in school. Geeks and Nerds are two separate types of personalities.

  • Back in my day nerds were the losers that got beat up by the jocks. Nerds liked sci-fi/fantasy, superheros, video games, etc. When I hear the term geek I think of *geek chic* as in how nowadays it is perceived as cool and trendy to be a geek.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:50 p.m. CST

    I don't care about Kidd's negativity per se.

    by DougMcKenzie

    At least he is being honest about how he feels. Much better than the constant studio blow jobs some of the others put up to get the site name on the theatre posters and into the tv spots in, order to, drive traffic here.

  • for 3 years a decade ago we got to look forward to a trip to middle earth. something we never thought we'd get, but we did, because someone had the crazy audacity to kill themselves to do it. we hoped that someday we'd get the hobbit, but expected it to only be one film. kind of like a christmas special from a favorite tv show that has ended. a reunion show. which would have been icing on the cake that was LOTR. but then we got 3 more chances to return to middle earth and MOST people feel like pinching themselves because shit like that NEVER happens. or when it does it's the Star Wars prequels or the Alien Vs Predator films. cash grab. fuck you. you don't know shit about making art and entertainment or you'd never fucking think that Peter returning to make 3 more films is a fucking cash grab. go watch the fucking BNAT video with Peter and look at him. he's exhausted. i happen to be releasing a video game i directed that took almost 3 years this holiday season and i feel like i am ready for fucking retirement. i can't begin to imagine what he's feeling having made ANOTHER fucking middle earth trilogy?! and YOU think he's just going for a cash grab? you fucking know nothing asshole. go do something creative and learn some goddman respect for artists. fucker.

  • but with the what Jackson has done since The Return of the King, and The Hobbit being stretched out over 3 movies makes me skeptical. Usually I'm not negative about stuff that I haven't seen or movies that have good trailers. I normally defend a lot of movies people hate on in here in the talk backs. But my skepticism comes from the two shitty movies Jackson has done since The Return of the King, and the fact that a short book is being stretched out over 3 movies that will be nearly 3 hours long.

  • he played Arthur Dent in one of the most underrated sci fi movies ever The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:59 p.m. CST

    antonstark - "because they aren't trying to play film critic"

    by evergreen

    It must suck being a studio hack. Those damn focus groups are so unreliable.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 7:59 p.m. CST

    antonstark -- the incessant bitching and moaning

    by lv_426

    I was just over in the talkback for the Pacific Rim trailer, and the amount of bitching and moaning over there is beyond ridiculous. A lot of the people over there seem downright offended that Del Toro made a big budget movie about kaiju and mecha duking it out. It is one thing to not like a movie or see a trailer and think that it doesn't look like your cup of tea, but these fucks are praying for the film to be such a failure that it kills the career of the screenwriter and Del Toro. What a bunch of fuckwads (besides a few exceptions like the green gargantua, for example). And I even feel, as I stated early in that talkback, that the Headgeek way way way overhyped Pacific Rim, and that is partly why the first trailer wasn't able to live up to expectations... but the attitude over in that talkback is surprising even for AICN standards.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:03 p.m. CST

    That means just about every movie is a cash grab in some way

    by lv_426

    Some more than others, sure. But people here act like Nolan and Snyder made Batman and Superman films as some noble effort for cinema and mankind, yet The Hobbit is merely a crass cash grab and nothing more.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Jackson is no Tarantino or Mamet

    by proevad

    They can keep you enthralled with dialogue scenes that last forever, because you WANT the dialogue to last forever. Listening to people drone on and on about long dead dwarven ancestors whose names you can't pronounce or spell, isn't anyone's idea of a good time--and if it is your idea of one, might I suggest some vagina?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:06 p.m. CST

    Shit movie I love -

    by JP

    The Dirt Bike Kid. That's right, I love a movie about a magic dirt bike. Fuck you!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:08 p.m. CST

    overrated - video game director

    by AntonStark

    blood and sweat and 12-16 hour days

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:09 p.m. CST


    by Glenn

    Let me understand: You're critiquing someone's critique, and telling them they're an asshole for doing it (I'll leave the fact that they're paid to do it while you're not, out of the equation). If that isn't faulty logic, I don't know what is. By the way, are you educated enough about film to know that the entire nouvelle vague started out as critics? Do you know what nouvelle vague means without googling it? You should just disagree vehemently with critics, but to say they don't have a right to exist, is practically sophistry. Oh yeah, on the bloat vs. dwarve character argument you made: in precis you basically said Kidd was a dummy because "how can you claim the film was bloated then say they spent no time filling out these characters??" Maybe that's WHY it felt bloated. If you're asking an audience to spend loads of time watching one-dimensional characters/caricatures, they'll get quickly bored, which leads to a feeling of bloated pacing -- because they're not digesting anything fresh or informative or creative. Many editors and directors have talked about this phenomenon, where you can actually trim a movie down so much that it makes the film's experience sag, whereas when they've made things longer to fill in character moments, you energize the audience's collective mind. Anyway, I read each of your comments in this talkback. I can easily say I disagree with everything you've uttered -- but I won't try to disabuse you of your right to your opinion, puerile and mal-formed as they are.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST

    lv_426 - I'm fine with Pacific Rim

    by evergreen

    antonstark is either a lunatic or a shill. Perhaps both.

  • Just so I can avoid it.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:21 p.m. CST

    RE: Rottentomatoes and geekdom

    by Logan_1973

    I usually use RT as a gauge, but it is often not on par with movie geeks. They have NARNIA at 76%, which I think is brilliant film.

  • I'll take someone with the imagination of Peter Jackson any day over the two directors you mentioned. Granted, both directors you mentioned have written great dialog, but they have made gross missteps.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:35 p.m. CST

    overrated - i don't work for the great satan or any of his minions

    by AntonStark

    i work hard at my job because i love it and because success means jobs for the other people who work with me. jobs that provide for our families and contributing to our communities don't try to deflect what i said by trying to strawman me. you are talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about. you are judging people you don't know at all.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:47 p.m. CST

    that's a fair OPINION djangos_revenge.

    by peter

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Tarantino is an "acquired taste..."

    by Chris Moody

    ...and his box office haul reviews that not too many people have "acquired" that taste.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:48 p.m. CST

    lv_426 - Chris Nolan is defending historical film formats

    by evergreen

    It's why he gathered all those directors to watch the rough cut of TDKR. It's not a cash grab when you could have done it cheaper.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST

    antonstark - Name one game you've directed

    by evergreen

    Then you can burn my strawman. Deal?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 9:06 p.m. CST

    @ overrated...

    by Chris Moody

    I seriously doubt that someone would want to divulge that much information on a public internet forum. Seriously. If you disagree, please tell me where your job title and company that you work for. :-)

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 9:24 p.m. CST

    FFS 35mm film is "higher resolution" than Blu Ray

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    FFS I say

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Is there anyone out there who WORKED on these films?

    by filmakr1

    ... who could answer a question which NO ONE seems to be asking. With all of the negative response to the 48 FPS production so far-- seemingly sped up motion (though Harry didn't seem to mind), fake looking sets and costumes, flat lighting, garish color palette, soap opera contrast, etc, why doesn't anyone ask Peter Jackson one question ... ... WHY he DID NOT SHOOT ON FILM at 48 FPS first? ... you know, like with Panavision or Arriflex camera's? Instead of the goddamn Red Epic High Definition VIDEO system!!! If we want to see authentic HFR 48fps CINEMA for the first time in movie history, why wouldn't the filmmaker choose to present this new technology on FILM first!I cannot help but wonder if all the shit that people are NOT digging about 48HFR, would not have been an issue or at least would look much more like a movie, if it was simply light passing through a celluloid strip of photochemicals. Why did Jackson not test this new tech on film ... like Trumbell has for years been experimenting with Showscan. I want to see 48fps on old fashioned grainy film first, not hi-def video! Why does NO ONE inquire about this? No ONE! Please SOMEONE ask Jackson WHY he made this decision??? So frustrating ... WHY?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 9:38 p.m. CST

    . The problem with these talkbacks...

    by Still_A_Lostie that the studios have people on the dime who follow them. Why did WB fire Routh and cancel the sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS when it made good money? Because talkbackers online gave bad feedback. If every tent pole gets shitty reviews from geeks, the studios won't feel able to sort the trolls from the truth.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST

    @filmakr1 - I suspect because it's not a difficult question to answer...

    by jazzdownunder

    The answer comes in 3 parts: Physics/mechanics, economics and chemistry Physics and mechanics dictate the maximum practical frame rate as a function of materials and engineering technology that limit the ability of film to be passed through a mechanical device without being damaged. Economics comes into it because if you double the frame rate when shooting then you also double the amount of film stock you will consume, and since a large part of the film used will simply end up being discarded, that a potentially huge cost inflation. This is also somewhat related to physics/mechanics, since engineering a film material and the camera tech robust enough to operate at 48 fps consistently and reliably (as opposed to occasional over-cranking for creative purposes) would also inflate the cost. Consider that a 1% deviation in speed is < 1/4 of a frame @ 24 fps but almost 1/2 a frame at 48 fps - increase the speed and you increase the sensitivity to speed fluctuations. Chemistry completes the picture by dictating the exposure time required for each frame as it passes through the gate to capture a usable image. Whilst some variation in frame rate may have been possible on film, the leap to double at 48 fps really required digital to make it viable. At least, that's my educated guesswork.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 9:55 p.m. CST

    I've never once seen anything on Blu-Ray

    by wintocha67

    I don't own a Blu-Ray. I don't know anyone who does.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:18 p.m. CST

    Nah Overrated, I think he meant it exactly as he said it.

    by D.Vader

    He even tried to clarify here on the talkback and ended up looking worse.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Kidd your full of shit.

    by Andy

    Terrible review. Saw this in HFR yesterday and it was mind blowing. The movie is a superb piece of work that looks incredible. Pacing was fine, the effects were sublime and the HFR 3D is a game changer. Wonderful!!!

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Hey Jazz ...

    by filmakr1

    ... You make some legitimate points, but I don't believe economics have much to do with it. The cost of film stock/processing is only a very small part of the budget for this huge, blockbuster, Hollywood (or Wetawood, that is) production. Even shooting double the amount of film at 48fps, this cost is not that signifigant compared to set costs, location shooting and caring/feeding/housing a cast/crew of some 2000 people for 266 days. On a small, independant production film stock costs are a really BIG part of the budget ... but not for this. I highly doubt it was a monetary decision, but more of a, "Hey, Red Epic is the latest and greatest tech we have, let's use it!" decision ... but was it really the best aesthetic choice for the look and FEEL of Middle Earth?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:23 p.m. CST


    by proevad

    PLANT or fanboy? This film is at 58 percent on Metacritic and dropping like a stone as more reviews almost identical to Kidd's flow in. I'm glad you really enjoyed it--but you're in the low minority.

  • X-Men:The Last Stand and Night at the Museum made more money that year. WB couldn't risk making a sequel with Singer and Routh, one of which directed a tv pilot for a Munsters remake, and the other... well, he's made nothing of note since. Let's see if WB has better luck best year with Man of Steel. I doubt it.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:26 p.m. CST


    by Johnny Wrong

    ...what a shit reviewer.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Filmkr1, the answer is obvious- 3D

    by D.Vader

    PJ shot in HFR for the 3D. Its the same reason James Cameron wants to shoot Avatar sequels at 60 frames. Its to make the motion clearer in 3D and more seamlessly integrate the cgi effects. And to do 3D properly nowadays, you HAVE to shoot digital. You can't do it on film. Also even if you could do it on 35mm, that much film would be incredibly expensive. You're talking 4 times as much as a regular movie bc each shot requires two cameras and then each camera is running through twice as much film. So yes, it's not feasible. If you want 3D, you go digital.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Plus ... as far as continuity goes ...

    by filmakr1

    ... the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy was shot on 35mm color negative FILM stock ... If Jackson was so concerned about keeping the look and feel of the two trilogies consistent, then what good reason would there be to go shoot in Hi-Def digital for the Hobbit? Again ... Why Jackson?

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Good job, Kidd

    by Justicer7

    Aintitcool has become a shadow of it's former self. I'm content to say, however, that I come for week-old movie news out of force of habit, but stay to watch The Kidd eviscerate the latest fare of cinema. Bravo, Kidd. Bravo. Never ever lower your standards.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Jackson and pacing

    by Keith

    Having rewatched the LOTR trilogy recently, the thing that is really strange about TTT and ROTK in particular is that even though the movies are long and plot-dense, Jackson makes directorial and editing decisions to make them even longer, for no apparent reason. For instance, he seems to have a love of scenes where everything proceeds at a strangely glacial pace. There are many, many scenes where Frodo and Sam talk to each other with an almost dreamlike slowness. Why? I can understand that at times you need to convey to the audience that Frodo's head is a woozy place overrun by the power of the ring. But it's overdone, and overfrequent. And we see it even after the ring is destroyed: there's the slow-motion scene where everyone gathers around Frodo's bed when he is retrieved from Mordor, and then the interminable departure scene at the Grey Havens. King Kong also pulled similar tricks at times. There is a huge difference between a long film and a slow film. Titanic and Avatar were both long films, but whatever else you can say about them, they were not slow. They did not feel like you were playing them at half speed. It sounds to me (having not yet seen it) as though Jackson is trying the audience's patience again in The Hobbit, and for reasons unknown.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:39 p.m. CST

    ccchhhrrriiisssmredux - I thought it was obvious

    by evergreen

    I'm a film reviewer. Here's an example: An action-packed JACK REACHER gives the OSCARS a REACH AROUND. Tom Cruise has never been better. Four stars. ...and so on.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 10:43 p.m. CST

    You're probably right, Dvader, but ...

    by filmakr1

    ... these films did NOT have to be shot in 3D, nor did they they have to expand a 300 page book into three movies. And we know why that decision was made-- the same reason that Potter and Twlight split their movies up. Still, a 2D 48fps movie would have been cool as hell and I believe a far better launching platform for this the new HFR tech. So, the two major creative decisions for these films (3D and 3 films) were made at the expense of the two most important aspects of cinema: proper, engaging story structure ... along with the ever familiar grain and photochecmical FEEL of a MOVIE that we have all lived with for the past 100 years ...

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Just saw it, and it was GOOD.

    by Crobran

    I don't think you even have to be a massive Tolkien geek to enjoy it. The guy sitting next to me hasn't read any Tolkien, and he enjoyed it. Sure, it's not all battle scenes and explosions. If that's what you're after, stay home and watch The Expendables. And regarding the criticism of not differentiating the dwarves enough.... 1) There are THIRTEEN of them. You can't clearly establish thirteen distinct personalities in one movie. Not if you also want to establish the story they're all participating in. Given that there are two more movies coming, I'm sure we'll learn more about each of them. 2) Sure, when they're all on screen, you sometimes can't tell who is doing what. That's because they're not running around with their names floating over their heads. In the book, you know who is doing what because they're mentioned by name - something you can't do in the movie. 3) They're not all that clearly defined in the book either, and I also am re-reading it. Thorin and Bombur are the biggest standouts in the book AND in the movie. So, that's a weak criticism.

  • ...and that was Azog. He's mentioned once in the book, and we don't learn much about him. He's actually one of the major plot threads of this movie, and I suspect he's there because in movies, it tends to work better to have one character to focus on as a representative of a group (orcs/goblins) rather than just a group. There were other things that were expansions on the WORDS of the book, but not, in my opinion, expansions on the story told by the book. In fact, my major nitpick with this movie was the fact that while they're fighting their way out of the goblin's underground city, Glamdring and Orcrist don't appear to be glowing. Other than that, I'm completely satisfied with this movie. Can't wait for the next ones.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 11:11 p.m. CST

    Saw this last night and it was awful.

    by leroyspoboys

    48fps and in 3D looked great, and it was fairly faithful right up to the troll scene. After that, Jackson might as well have taken Tolkiens work and used it as toilet paper he shit on it so much. Blatant cash grab stretching this out into three films e.g. he changed the story so that Bilbo and the Dwarves meet Radaghast...but Tom Bombadil wouldn't have worked in FOTR? Please spare me. Everyone who's actually read the Hobbit and appreciates Tolkiens work should line up and get to kick Jackson square in the ballsack.

  • I personally love the "soap opera" effect on HD televisions and wish I had purchased a television that could replicate the effect. But focusing on the aesthetic quality of this extremely limited projection format is ridiculous. Practically none of the audience will be experiencing the new "look" of the medium, so who fucking cares how jarring the overall effect might be? As I've said elsewhere, any review that spends more than a single sentence on the 48 FPS issue is just bitching to bitch, and should be ignored. What I want to know is how cartoon-ish and kiddified the dwarf scenes really play. Is it the slapstick fart-a-thon that I'm dreading and anticipating? Plus, the character design for those dwarves is just plain awful. Absolutely inexcusable for a film like this.

  • Of course it's a slow film. They took a two-part movie and stretched it to three parts. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is critic proof. Warner Bros knows this, they could care less about Kidd strapping on tights and jumping into a virtual wrestling ring with their movie. Hobbit will make it a Merry Christmas for the film department at WB.

  • Dec. 13, 2012, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Worst Review Ever

    by aceldama

    How dare you be honest with your critique of the film! Obviously you are wrong, no matter what you say. Screw you, Kidd!

  • And the talkbackers who bitched about LOTR not being faithful to the books, are now bitching about Hobbit being too faithful.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 12:03 a.m. CST

    This cat represents talkbackers, haters, and armchair critics -->

    by Hardboiled Wonderland That's YOU, fuckers. Unable to enjoy a good movie.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 12:17 a.m. CST

    overrated - Tropical Heat is the first game I've directed

    by AntonStark

    I work for a small studio that primarily makes clinical games that utilize bio feedback. The games help out kids with ADD and people with PTSD (like soldiers) or even just general stress problems. It helps them calm down and focus and breath. But we made our latest game to be played by everyone and we are releasing it on iPhone4S-5 and iPad3-4 this Saturday. We're releasing on the Mac App store early next year. We're having it ported to Android devices for this summer. I've been working in games for about 7 years now and this game is my chance to design and direct. It's a small scale game (on purpose). It's meant to play like an old school arcade game, but with modern graphics (but still working on older Macs and PCs since clinical computers tend to be a little old). It took almost 3 years to make this game. I didn't have a huge budget, but I made up for that with hard work and long hours. The game is not only meant to be played for fun but also to help people. Although, having fun already helps people, cause feeling good from having a good time makes even hard times a little better to go through. So, yes, I am defending a small independent film maker from New Zealand who worked hard and made it big, but who hasn't forgotten where he's from. The Hobbit puts half a billion dollars into Peter's local economy. You call it a cash in. Yeah, the people working their asses off to try to establish a world class film industry in New Zealand for the last 2 decades are just trying to make a quick buck. You are picking on the wrong people. Here's a link to a demo of my first game that releases this weekend. And do you know what? As big of an achievement as this is for me... I'm still more excited to return to middle earth. I'm a film geek at heart and I just hope someday I graduate from arcade racing games to doing something special like LOTR or The Hobbit.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 12:30 a.m. CST

    I just opened up my last 3 years of work to the AICN talkback crowd

    by AntonStark

    Lord have mercy on me. But I am not going to stand by and watch Peter and his team get shit on after not only putting heart and soul into a movie series that without him would NEVER have been made, but I am not going to let it happen on AICN talkback when he just proved once again that he puts friends and family first by showing up at BNAT for Harry's birthday knowing that he'd get shit on in AICN talkback. Peter deserves better than to be accused of being a cash in sellout. He could have let The Hobbit stay dead, but he worked his ass off to get it made and to get it made in New Zealand his home country. That's worth cheering not shitting on. At least it is to me.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 12:49 a.m. CST

    The fast-forward notion is such bullshit! I saw this in the UK yesterday at 48fps

    by Talkbacker with no name

    I was looking for this benny hill shit people are talking about and didn't see it at all (neither did the group of people I went with). It ran just fine and looked incredible doing it. It also doesn't look like a soap opera. That's just lazy bullshit people are saying when they have nothing to compare this radical new look to. I came out wanting to see ALL action films from now on at 48fps. It was stunning.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Well it IS only the fist third...

    by Lord Elric

    I think things should improve now that the journey is under way.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    And that 48 FPS issue. i wonder...

    by Lord Elric

    if it would be less noticeable is it were 48FPS on 35mm. Optical, rather then digital. Needs a lot of fine tuning. Maybe a variable frame rate would be best. Faster for landscapes and wide shots. Slower for tighter shots.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:05 a.m. CST

    lord elric

    by Talkbacker with no name

    The problem I think people have is misunderstood on their part. It's not 48fps digital which is a problem. It's adding 3d that makes everything look like cutouts. The image clarity and separation between the elements is confusing the fuck out of everyone and giving off the feeling of a stage play. It would play so much differently (and better I would think) at 48fps without the 3D. Also of note is that production designers will have to find new tricks to create these worlds as the old ones now show up their flaws. The format it's self is incredible.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Don't agree

    by Shia LeButt

    I don't understand all this bickering about "bloat". I loved every minute of the film. The long scenes made you feel like you were really there to experience it all. I even thought it ended too soon, was expecting to see even more. It did not at all feel like almost 3 hours. It went by in a jiffy. Also, I saw it in good old honest 2D and it looked beautiful all around, and my eyes thanked me :)

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:11 a.m. CST


    by Glenn

    People are giving you answers; you don't accept them. Sounds like you just wanted a lot of yes-men to support your "questions". Why would Jackson, who bought the very first RED cameras, turn his back suddenly just to have continuity with almost-a-decade-old series of films, especially when he himself has invested heavily in the digital future? Even Trumbull himself will tell you that the maintenance involved for shooting 48fps--let alone the Showscan 60fps--would be viewed by any financing entity as dangerous to a lengthy shoot. As for your "WHY DID HE HAVE TO SHOOT IN 3D!!!" exclamations -- how about cuz he fucking wanted to? That's his creative choice. Oh and also? Film stock and processing, even on a production like this, at more than double the rate, would be expensive. Educate yourself on budgets before you wail like a 4 year-old. I really don't get what you're harping about. So you hated the film or the technique he chose. Boo hoo. You got your answers, stop crying in your cream of wheat.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:17 a.m. CST


    by Glenn

    Very bad points you made regarding 13 distinct dwarve characters. It matters not a fuck how clear things are in the book. It's the filmmakers JOB to make a story and the people within it, clear to the audience, otherwise they screwed up. The director is responsible for the movie. The director is responsible for the movie. The director is responsible for the movie. Got it? Good. You saying that Kidd's criticism was a bad one is a laugh riot. Or ironic. Cuz you completely got it wrong.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:18 a.m. CST

    I WOULD be VERY interested in seeing 48 FPS in a flat format

    by Lord Elric

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:24 a.m. CST


    by Glenn

    Man, are you wrong. The very reason TO pay attention to the 48 issue, regardless of how many people will see it on this film in a paying form, is because more of it is coming down the pike. You NEVER ignore or deny commenting on emerging technology if you're a film fan/filmmaker. To do otherwise would be ignorant.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:31 a.m. CST

    lord elric -- what is a "flat format"?

    by Glenn

    Do you mean shoot it with spherical lenses (which is what DPs mean when they say they shot something "flat")? or not in 3D?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 1:31 a.m. CST

    lord elric, me too. Shame it's not an option at the moment.

    by Talkbacker with no name

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:01 a.m. CST

    Making one film from the The Hobbit is fucking impossible.

    by Mike

    If you think you can do it: A) You don't know how movies get made, and how they are viewed by an audience, or B) You never actually read The Hobbit. The audiobook (the fucking audiobook), just a voice reading the vague exposition in the novel, with the little dialogue there is, without characterizing any of the dwarves besides Thorin and Balin, and that whisks over much of the action 11 hours. Fucking 11 hours. That's not even a film, where everything has to be explained and shown to the audience for them to give a shit. Hence, why the 2 film deal was Del Toro's idea, NOT Jackson's. Jackson actually had to go to the studio to ask them to give him more shooting time for a 3rd movie.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:05 a.m. CST

    boogergiggle, that's a very good point well made

    by Talkbacker with no name

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:15 a.m. CST

    Just saw it. Complaints about bloat are unfounded

    by D.Vader

    Really, that all felt right to me. The time spent in The Shire, the debates in Rivendell? Not a problem with that whatsoever.

  • Please show me on what page Bilbo and the Dwarves meet Radagast. Or on what page Bilbo didn't collapse shrieking on the carpet when he got so freaked out about the thought of an 'adventure'. Or on which page Thorin showed up by himself at Bag End and not under a pile of Dwarves. Or on what page Gandalf wasn't mimicking the trolls voices from behind a tree instead of Jackson putting him on a distant ledge and pulling his 'you shall not pass' trick. Or on what page the dwarves actually fought the trolls instead of just getting nabbed by the trolls who waited for them behind trees with sacks. This film is so inaccurate it's like Phillipa Boyens based the screenplay on some retarded kids 4th grade book report. Honestly, am I the only person who has read the thing? Here, read it for once, you might like it:

  • Yes, LeroysPoBoys is that nutter who thinks Tom Bombadil should be in the film and so should the Scouring of the Shire and the Barrow-Wights...

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Yes, this is faithful to the book

    by D.Vader

  • I think you just want to complain about digital filmmaking. That's fine.

  • Some Dwarves get more attention than others in this one, but I imagine more will get their moment to shine later. But in the books? You don't get a sense of any of them really- who gets angry, who has a short temper, who loves to laugh, who is nice, who is mean. NONE of that. Here are the Dwarves who get the most attention and characterization in descending order: Thorin Balin Bofur Dwalin Kili and Fili Dori Ori Oin Gloin Bifur Nori Bombur (who doesn't have a single line, I believe)

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:55 a.m. CST

    Just got back. It was great!

    by Mostholy

    I honestly don't understand where all the haterade is coming from. It was an extremely faithful adaptation of the first third of the book, and the additional material was close to canon -- Radaghast in Dol Guldur, Elrond's mini-council -- from the various appendices. I thought it was engaging, that Martin Freeman and everyone else was very good, and that the fan service stuff was usually soft in-jokes like Figwit, rather than long, dwarf-tossing excursions. And what's all the whining about 48 FPS about? It looked amazing. By the time Dwalin showed up on Bilbo's doorstep, my brain had already made the adjustment to hyperreal, and it didn't affect suspension of disbelief in the slightest. If you don't like Tolkien and don't give a rats' ass about things like Elrond naming Orcrist and Glamdring, well this probably wasn't the film for you. But if you actually like this world? This was really good! I just don't get people sometimes.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:56 a.m. CST

    Bloat is bullshit for people who want this to be FOTR

    by D.Vader

    Well, its not. FOTR had a sense of urgency because time was of the essence. Not so here. The time spent in the Shire is to develop the Dwarves, Bilbo, and their relationships. They time spent in Rivendell is to lay the seeds for the B-story about the Necromancer. Who has a problem with that, really? It *worked*, and that's what's important.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3 a.m. CST

    I love that Gondolin and Ungoliant were mentioned!

    by D.Vader

  • For anyone who knows and loves the Hobbit, it didn't 'work'. It was a poor representation. I've seen better elementary school plays. Boyens and Jackson don't love Tolkiens work; they love making money from it and pretending to love his work. If they loved it, they would cheat on it so much. This film makes it perfectly clear. I fully understand changes need to be made for the big screen, but most in this case are just unnecessary. E.g. why was their no note saying to meet the Dwarves at the Green Dragon? Even if abbreviated that would have been a nice tie in for the LOTR films (for the people too lazy to read the books), and would have taken about 10 seconds of film time. Even if Gandalf didn't show up and point it out to Bilbo. PJ has his head up his ass. Making the film a hell of a lot more faithful would have been so easy and just as kid friendly/entertaining. He really couldn't give two shits about Tolkiens work.

  • If you think this is faithful, then you think Halloran dying, Jack wielding an axe and a hedge maze instead of hedge animals is faithful to the original Stephen King text of the Shining. It just isn't so. It's just lazy screen writing / film making and incredibly disrespectful to the original work.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Haters gonna hate

    by Hardboiled Wonderland

    That's all, folks.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Like the first two-thirds but Necromancer = Midichlorians

    by disastermag

    Did not want to see this at midnight, but I went anyway. Expected to be bored, nauseated and bloatified, but enjoyed the set-up. Actually thought the Dwarvish Liberation stuff was nice. It's a decent way to frame the thing, very simple, and provides a clear motivation for the quest. But at Rivendell the movie paused for an overlong interlude about the threat of the Necromancer, which killed the momentum for me. We all know what's coming, and we've seen the movies. Leave it alone and tell THIS story. No more "rhyming" please! Still, on the whole I was pleasantly surprised and I am looking forward to the next installment.

  • They make good movies, i won't disagree that Mamet is an amazing writer (or he was before he turned into a post 9/11 military lover) and Tarantino knows how to write great dialog. The one weakness both of them have, that Peter Jackson does not, is an unwillingness to push their own boundaries and go beyond the style of movies they feel comfortable doing. Peter Jackson has an unparalleled imagination and is consistently able to pull off some of the most beautiful special effects ever put to film. But i go back to my original argument and reiterate that the comparison is totally non sensical.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:05 a.m. CST

    saw it yesterday in HFR

    by Industrious Angel

    - It's neither stretched nor overlong. I warned my ladyfriend (whod has never read any Tolkien but likes the LotR-films) about the long running time, but when the end credits rolled she was surprised: "That NEVER were 3 hours". I was never bored and neither was my son. - 48fps look amazing. I'm very critical about 3D and I maintain that we can very well do without that 3D stuff at all, but if you want to watch it in 3D, go for 48fps. It's simply amazing. It looks "different" - i agree - but fantastic. My preferred format would be 48fps 2D. Especially the exterior shots and the action sequences are brillant, you can always grasp the situation. - The story is faithful to the book. There are far less deviations than in the LotR films. And I can see 20minutes for an extended cut that would even absolutely improve the story. - The set designs were great. The rollercoaster ride through Goblin Town as well as the quaint Bagend-set, the sacking of Dale as well as Dol Guldur, most everything looked perfect (except the exterior shots of Rivendell which I didn't like in LotR that much either, I guess they had to copy them for continuity reasons) are there letdowns? yes, not everything is perfect: - The music is too well-known, most themes are picked and taken up from LotR. I hope this gets better as the story unfold to new territory. - In their struggle to generate the most eye-friendly picture possible, they overshot something, especially in the subterran and indoor scenes which are lit far too brightly and frankly looks unrealistic. Mind you, that's neither the fault of 48fps nor 3D, that was a creative decision by PJ and Lesnie, but for me it doesn't work (same as many dark scenes in LotR - Moria or especially Shelob's Lair). - The costumes looked better in LotR.

  • let's really boil it down here Peter Jackson has made the following genres - horror comedy - puppet porn - epic fantasy - mockumentary - character driven drama - big budget epic disaster/action i think that's worth something, and not really applicable to compare him to filmmakers who've pretty much been doing the same genres the whole time with a few exceptions. QT only really broke out of his box with Kill Bill and Basterds, but imo not very skillfully. I love parts of both movies, the Barry Lyndon nods in Basterds and the martial arts work in Kill bill but the trademark QT cliches weigh them both down. Mamet has done comedy, dramas and thrillers but more often than not they are very similar tonally and tell-tale Mamet-esque dialog and one-liners. again no comparison, and whether you hate King Kong or LOTR and think Peter Jackson's early movies are 'too silly' think about who has tried to push the envelope more and who has significantly more ambition even when he fails. I don't think there is much argument there

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:25 a.m. CST

    ha leroyspoboys is such a disgruntled nerd

    by Talkbacker with no name

    It's sorta sweet in a "I want to bash his skull in with The Hobbit and all 3 Lord of Rings Books" kind of way.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:26 a.m. CST


    by T

  • Granted, I saw it in regular old 2d. Kidd, you were too harsh, and I'm starting to agree with the crows that the VS thing is antagonistic.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:33 a.m. CST

    d.vader, yep. The setup in the shire was done in just the right amount of time

    by Talkbacker with no name

    If I have one complaint, it's the rabbit sled escape from the orcs. That was a bit silly. Admittedly, I didn't think it was that bad at first, until he hit the plains and it all got a bit Looney Tunes.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:48 a.m. CST

    This talkback is hilarious

    by Mark

    Fanboys bitching about a partially negative, partially positive review of a movie they demand everyone love, or else they'll cry and bring into question the mentality of everyone who doesn't agree with them. Priceless!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:51 a.m. CST

    This movie needs more rocket punchin' Jaegers!

    by cameron

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:08 a.m. CST

    @The kidd: How dare you not like the same things i do????

    by Miss Moneypennys Pishflapsh

    How fucking dare you!!?? Granted, I haven't actually seen it yet, but I'm sure i'll love it more than my own child. You should know by now you're not allowed to have an opinion, You're supposed to second guess the narrow minded, dumb as pigshit gimps and then appease them!

  • Bilbo at the Shards of Narsil, seen in the trailers. Definitely not something that will pop up in the other two installments.

  • I mean that can't be true? I mean I knew Jackson was going to add loads of filler to stretch this thing to 3 movies. But I mean seriously dude 45 min to leave the Shire?

  • Good luck out there.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:53 a.m. CST

    45 minutes until they leave The Shire- AND IT WORKS

    by D.Vader

    Don't judge it till you see it. How long did FOTR spend in the Shire, again?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Did we watch the same movie?

    by Ryalto 3.0

    It must have been hard for the lot of you to catch more than bits and pieces, what with Peter Jackson’s balls in your mouth. What an epic clusterfuck of a film. Terrible terrible terrible. So dreadfully awful that it actually makes the LOTR movies look Oscar-worthy in comparison. The 48 fps is a total disaster. The whole movie looked like a goddamn Xena episode, or one of those old BBC Narnia movies. And the “soap opera effect” calls attention to all of Jackson’s weaknesses as a director (blocking, amateurish shot composition, stilted dialog etc.) If I did effects work on this movie, I would be so fucking pissed at the way the high frame-rate shits all over it and makes everything look like a crappy video game cut-scene. This movie was in no way faithful to the book and you’re goddamn liar or a fool if you say so, but forget even that, just as a movie on it’s own it’s horrible. There’s no momentum to the plot, things just happen randomly with never a sense of danger. Bilbo and the dwarves are alternately incompetent or excellent fighters as the script demands. The story comes to a screeching halt for the Moria, White Council and Radagast scenes. …Radagast…. what the fuck. might as well have put Bombadil in. The humor was incredibly juvenile without being kid-friendly. Pot and shroom jokes in a Hobbit movie? Disgraceful. Jackson wouldn’t know a grace note if his life depended on it. Why have Bilbo find the Ring on the ground by chance when it can fucking fly into the air, glowing golden of its own light, in slow fucking motion? We’re over 2 hours in when Thorin literally ask Bilbo what his motivation is, and then Bilbo explains his motivation to the audience. What the fuck are they going to do for character development in parts 2 and 3? They’ve already resolved the arcs for both Thorin and Bilbo, so now they’ll have to backtrack and make those characters redo their entire arcs all over again. The action was soulless and cartoonish, no sense realism at all, and it feels like PJ is moving the cameras so fast in those scenes so that we won’t be able to focus on how artificial everything looks. The audience in my theater was sitting in stunned disbelief after a half hour, people whispering to each other that the movie looked to fast, or sighing at the terrible “jokes.” It can’t be stated enough, the 48 fps absolutely ruins any potential quality this movie might have. It rips the suture immediately. BTW, the Frodo and Bilbo scene at the beginning is worthless and overlong, should have been cut completely. It’s also rather strange that Jackson is OK using a narrator during the opening, but not during the rest of the film, when it would surely be useful. I was not a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, had many many problems with the decisions Jackson made, but at least you could say he executed a passable big-budget Hollywood film. This movie looks like it should be shown on one of those fucking Fathom Events specials. The biggest fear before LOTR was that audiences would see all the fantasy elements (which had never played particularly well before) and just say "bullshit" and never engage in the story. And for all of his fuckups, at least PJ got that right. And he did it by treating the material seriously and making the movies feel very organic. The Hobbit is the exact opposite. Everything feels fake and goofy. If this movie had come out in 2001, audiences would have said “bullshit” and the whole thing would have went over like a Led Zeppelin. Lucky for him, he can coast on you apologists a while yet. This is not The Phantom Menace. It’s worse.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:18 a.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    Jackson does this very bizarre thing where he takes a sequence from the book and portrays it in exacting, often over-long fashion, only instead of using the dialog and action from the book, he re-writes it almost completely with his own material. So you have a shell of a sequence for, say, the Trolls, but filled in with all of Jackson’s own hackish material, instead of the original stuff which would have worked just fine. I mean, it’s not like you can say he’s cutting or re-writing to trim the length here. He could have filmed scenes from the book verbatim using the novel’s superior dialog and story beats, but instead he goes this weird fanfic route. He seems to genuinely believe that his ideas are better than Tolkien’s.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:23 a.m. CST

    How is The Kidd a "shit reviewer?"

    by LaneMyersClassic

    He's probably the best writer on the site. He backs up his opinions with comparisons and descriptive reasons why he likes/dislikes something. He provides useful synopsis without giving away too much, or being overly winded. The fact that you disagree with his opinion is not relevent towards his ability to communicate his opinion.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:23 a.m. CST

    I dont get the hate, and I dont want to. I loved it.

    by steve

    They could pad it out all day with random Tolkien folklore and i'd eat it all up. You guys are spoiled and nitpick anything.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Mr Kidd, you sir, are a flacid penis.

    by Dubster32

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:50 a.m. CST

    You guys are so full of shit

    by Logan_1973

    Monday:Del Toro should have directed THE HOBBIT! Tuesday: PACIFIC RIM will suck! Wednesday: HOBBIT runs 2:40? Hack! Thursday: DJANGO. runs 2:40? Genius! Consider yourselves exposed. Harry was so dead-on with his Boiler personification.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:51 a.m. CST

    @Rumourd: Weak argument

    by Crobran

    You're not taking into account the fact that the screen is a completely different kind of media than the page. You can do things in one form that will not work for the other. But you're completely overlooking the main point regarding the dwarves, which is that in the movie, they are just as clear and differentiated as they are in the book. Kidd wanted to see distinct stories and personalities for each one, well defined, but the book doesn't give us these very clear distinctions. I have read it many times, and it just doesn't.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Martin's bland, soft face will take me out of this.

    by buggerbugger

    What a fucking one-note cunt.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8 a.m. CST

    Martin? Freeman, you pessimistic old fucker.

    by buggerbugger

    ^Correction to self.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8 a.m. CST

    Kidd does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    To lanemyersclassic and the rest of Kidds Facebook friends who have decided to join us... Hitler could communicate his opinion, doesnt mean he was right. Kidds writing seems pedestrian at best with no wit or literary flourishes to engage the readers intellect / imaginations and draw smiles. As many have said his *vs* gimmick seems instantly antagonistic. A film hater rather than a film lover? This seems backed up by a disproportionately high number of negative reviews. I dont think anyone wants him to lie and say he likes something which he hasnt - but his modus operandi appears to be biased towards hate and nitpicking. And in this particular review he made a real and genuine error by declaring the Dwarves are more fleshed out in the book than in the film. He was called on it and instead of holding up his hands and admitting the mistake he dug his heels in and looked even more the fool. So, I wouldnt go as far to say hes a shit reviewer but hes definitely poor.

  • i liked the dwarves a lot more than the kidd but the film is a mess. i don't care how long it is.. the plot has no momentum. their is no driving force to the action, only thorin's mad quest to recapture his home which only really seems to matter to him. liked the beginning a lot, up until rivendell.. then, during the saraman scene, when the camera keeps slowly going to that wide shot looking at them through archways... it became apparent Jackson has no clue what story he's telling and why. the film never recovered and never gives bilbo the material he deserves.

  • I have to agree, although I didn't think the setup was bad. Most of the "serious" dialogue in LOTR was horrible. That's why I found myself more or less enjoying an hour of dwarf banter in this movie. I actually felt a kind of relief in that first hour or so, that we weren't going to be drug back into the melodramatic bilge of the Two Towers. But then the movie goes to Rivendell. After the Wizard Council, I was looking at my watch. The scene with the giant rock people is a good example of how random the action was. We see boulders thrown around, dwarves and hobbits cowering, rain falling and I am wondering, what the hell is going on? Thankfully, a dwarf shouts "THE LEGENDS ARE TRUE!" to let us know that this has nothing to do with the plot.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:19 a.m. CST

    D Vader

    by Batmanster

    I always dig your optimism and general positivity regarding filmmakers who deserve the benefit of the doubt...but this really wasn't very good. The only scene in the film with any of lotrs former magic was the scene with Gollum and the stuff with the Eagles. I have a feeling the Dragon is going to be cool...but its almost more depressing because anything good that comes after was still preceeded by this. I have no problem with any of the story elements that were on the screen...but the execution was sloppy. Way too much CG. Way too overlit. Comparatively poor music... in that the only thing new about it was the dwarf theme, with most of the other good moments swiped from the previous trilogy. And I get this is a lighter film but the only thing that keeps a movie interesting is the dramatic tension of anticipation. This at times really was like a theme park ride version of the hobbit. "ok now they are with the trolls".."ok now they are seeing the stone giants". When Frodo needed to get to Bree before the black riders caught him...that was a compelling narrative element. I know these movies are different...but something like that is required. Wargs that are easily outrun by a preposterous sleigh pulled by rabbits is not the answer. I feared no warg. All in all it doesn't really matter what parts I nit pick...I can tell Jackson wasn't hungry when he made this. This movie was directed by a man doing a job, not a fanatic who hasn't slept in 2 years who's life and career hangs in the balance. I love Jackson as much as anybody...but there is not much magic here. Also i'm praying some of the close up issues with 48fps 3d are shutter angle issues, because 48 really is nice for 3d...the motion just undoes the good stuff at times. I feel like i'm writing like harry...which is worse than anything I can say about the movie haha...little hung overr...but anyway I felt like disagreeing i guess. Not just because i want to disagree but because I am disappointed. I still love pete jackson. this is water_shit btw

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Kidd is out of his mind

    by Terry

    This movie was fantastic.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:36 a.m. CST


    by scrapplejoe

    Get away from the kids or the wife for 4 hours... Go see an epic!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Well, right off the bat I'm nervous for this movie.

    by TheMachinist

    See, somewhere near the opening of the book they pretty explicitly state that they wouldn't mention Gandalf's business. What does Jackson do to justify a trilogy? Adding Gandalf's business.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:44 a.m. CST

    And Rotten says........

    by LLcruize2

    Looks like it will end up with a low 70% "Fresh" rating. Not bad at all, but for a Jackson film based on Tolkien, a definitely disappointment. The Top Critics are none too pleased with it, if the rating were based on their input alone, would rate below 50%. What "Kidd" says here is echoed in most negative reviews. I think your enjoyment of this film is going to be very much dependent on how much you loved the EE's of the LOtR movies. If those are your cup of tea, this is going to be your kind of film. If you use the EE's to take a nap to, you may well steer clear of this until it comes out on disk. Personally, I love the EE's, so I am definitely anxious to see the film. I am going to see it 24fps first though, I don't want the technology to get in the way of the film. I will use my Regal bonus points to see it again in 48fps and see what all the talk is about.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Watershit!!! Cheers, long lost Pebrew!

    by Stabby

    How are things across the pond? Too bad about The Hobbit. I kind of had a strong suspicion it wasn't going to be so hot. Going to see it anyway, in HFR 3D the way it was meant to be seen, regardless of how bad it looks.

  • Peter Jackson and mIddle Earth is not for you.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:53 a.m. CST

    An unedited journey.

    by Smerdyakov

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:05 a.m. CST


    by Deceased Fan

    How was the 48fps?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:06 a.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    Man, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as I did. I didnt have the same problems you did, but I did find the music disappointing (sometimes it felt too in your face), I can agree on that point. Sorry to keep this short, but I'm on set and this page is getting hard to load on my iPhone.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Let's BAMF this debate over to Capone's newly posted review.

    by ColonelFatheart

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Not so much a cash-grab as a relevancy-grab

    by TheLastCleric

    Jackson was the hottest director on the planet when the LOTR trilogy hit but his subsequent efforts have yielded diminishing results and it seems clear he’s hoping to get some of that sizzle back by returning to a franchise that made him a marquee director. He and the studio are hoping to capture that same fervor and success that accompanied the original trilogy but unfortunately they appear to be doing so at the expense of the source material, which clearly would have made a singular and incredible three-hour film but instead is being unnecessarily expanded into a three part series. From a logical perspective this makes no sense: the Hobbit is getting a three-film treatment when each of the LOTR novels is a far more complex work and yet each was only granted a single film. That doesn’t mean this movie is automatic shit and I’m personally looking forward to returning to this universe but people need to stop pretending that this move was anything but a business decision on both the part of the director and the studio. Personally, I think they are making a mistake because by dragging this out they may very well wear out their welcome by the time the third (or even second) film comes around.

  • days because your brain has to get used to seeing twice the frames it normally does. It's stunning though. You can turn it off and see 24p is actually flickery and you've just been used to it your whole life. The visio does such a perfect job that i'm down with 48p for everything. It even makes the original king kong look like a stage play through a window. That's a good way to describe the reality effect. Oh and the final selling point that will have you never wanting to see video or 24p again is of course hd porn. That's all you have to look at to be sold on this tech.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    Rumourd-Yes, "Flat" as in non 3d. And The KIDD

    by Lord Elric

    Is fine. He gives honest reviews of how HE feels about something with no hint of kissing the arse. If some of you got issues THAT deep, I mean really do some of you kids actually READ before you hit the post the button? JFCOAGS. Then you know what? Give it a shot. Start submitting your own writings. And let us all know how it works out for YOU.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Hey Stabs! and Col and D.Vader!

    by Batmanster

    Nice to see you guys! I'm doing alright, hope all is well with you. Stabby don't let me get you down on the movie, maybe it was just me being distracted by the hfr stuff. I'm going to give the movie another shot in 24fps and see how I like it. And I do wish I could agree with you more D.Vader. Maybe I'm more disappointed about how bad some of the 48fps stuff looked than the story itself. I was looking forward to being a filmmaker that could use that someday in the far off future, but its not quite what I hoped. I read a Douglas Trumbell article though about ramping the fps up and down based on how far away the camera is from the actors and perhaps eliminating the overly interlaced look that some of the close ups can have.

  • It's a shame.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Only 45 minutes of non-suck?

    by Dan

    UGH. I don't get the hobbit, dwarf, elf crap. Pussy is what it screams, and not the good kind.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Only took 9 post to get to Raping Tolkien. ..

    by Bob

    New record on that I think. Saw this at 48fps, loved the movie, will NEVER watch another movie like that again. Distracting and unrealistic looking 3D garbage. Yeah it was clearer than traditional 3D, but it takes you so far out of the movie, you spend half the time trying to focus on the movie, while constantly being distracted my the technology instead. Going to see this in 2D again so I can enjoy the hell out it without the crap.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    sorry for the shit, The Kidd

    by AntonStark

    you come on here day after day wearing a target and everyday no matter what you say you get shit thrown at you i personally don't get the point of film critique, especially from people who don't make films. i get saying why you don't like a movie, but i have a hard time with declarations that a movie IS bad as if it's something objective. i get really defensive for a movie that i think was made from the heart, but is talked about in a clinical way. films are supposed to make you feel and think and talking about them as if they are utilities just pisses me off. but you don't deserve to be called a fucker just because i came here looking for a moment with fellow film geeks to share in excitement for this movie and you spoiled it. if you want to review then you will review. obviously, some people like that. so, sorry for the shit. it was wrong of me. and talking about my job here made me realize that this is your job and i'd be pissed if you shit on my job to my face where i work. i hope you have a better time with the hobbit on further viewings.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    I've seen The Kidd's review for about a month now

    by Nicoflex

    I like him

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    You come across as an idiot with these "Vs." headlines. Please stop.

    by Cotton_Mcknight

    "Vs." or "Versus" implies that you are comparing yourself to the movie, or that you are in some kind of competition with it. You are doing neither. Please stop. You look as stupid as Biff saying "make like a tree and get out of here".

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:10 p.m. CST

    I really enjoyed it.

    by Imagikafan

    Well. The theater couldn't get the 48fps print to work, so I watched the 24fps 3D version for free. I really enjoyed it, and the picture was crystal clear. I've noticed several reviewers are complaining about the length of the movie. It flew by for me, and I wanted to stay for more. It's a great setup for the next two movies.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Loved it


    ALL of it. Back to middle earth...awesome. Also loved King Kong. Theres soooo many bad movies out there, lets not pick apart Jackson's stuff because you think it's hip, its not.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:59 p.m. CST

    A whole lot of people flailing to explain away the reviews.

    by Baked

    Most of the critics bashing the Hobbit at 3 hours were in love with Fellowship at 3 hours. Maybe it's not the critics but the movie? Maybe cramming 1000 pages into 9 hours of film was a better idea than spreading 300 pages as thinly as you can over just as much screentime? The Client is a well-received movie that is an almost literal interpretation of the book. The book runs 300 pages, the movie runs 2 hours. So ask yourself...what the fuck did Peter Jackson expect people to say when he added 7 hours of shit that has nothing to do with the movie?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:12 p.m. CST

    This guy hates every movie he reviews...

    by Stephen

    Every time i read "Billy the Kidd's" reviews I have not read one positive one. Get rid of this guy. I don't like any of the LOTR flicks, but I've seen them. And I will not be paying a dime to see this. But every time I read his reviews he hates all of them. Some I agree with, most not. I will say I would personally hate this too though.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    Don’t worry guys, The Hobbit is really good.

    by frank

    Just saw it and can’t wait to see it again.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:40 p.m. CST


    by Glenn

    No he doesn't. I've read some reviews of movies he liked. Frankly he reviews movies from an informed angle, of how good movies are capable of being as opposed to most of today's films. If you heard how me and my friends review movies, you'd probably be appalled -- and these are people making known films now. Then again, these people care about how well constructed the storytelling is, how precise the filmmaking is, etc. They're not drooling over the film's milieu or its legacy with the literary world.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:45 p.m. CST


    by Glenn

    @Rumourd: Weak argument "You're not taking into account the fact that the screen is a completely different kind of media than the page. You can do things in one form that will not work for the other. But you're completely overlooking the main point regarding the dwarves, which is that in the movie, they are just as clear and differentiated as they are in the book. Kidd wanted to see distinct stories and personalities for each one, well defined, but the book doesn't give us these very clear distinctions. I have read it many times, and it just doesn't." I don't even understand your argument -- If the original source/book does this poorly, you don't replicate the flaw in the film/screenplay; you IMPROVE it. You think Kubrick would just throw his hands in the air and say "Well, The Shining blows up the hotel at the end, how cliche...guess we gotta copy it!"...? No, he reworked the given material so it works within the text of the film. No, you either reconceive the basic idea or delete it altogether. Jesus, talk about a self-evident argument.

  • That’s a tough one. My hope is that they let some of the other dwarves come to the forefront in the next movies.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, midnight CST

    The Kidd, sounds like you're just looking for attention

    by elvenblade

    Honestly, I don't think I've read such a smarmy, self-important review on this site since Nordling's early days. I saw the film at a midnight screening in 3D, 24fps. Absolutely loved it. The CGI looked fine to me, I thought both Azog and the Goblin King came out rather nicely. On the other hand, my friend who saw it simultaneously in 48fps and 3D was extremely disappointed, and I really think the look of the film was what turned him off of it, because he kept arguing that everything looked fake and sped-up, and his eyes never got used to it. We're both filmmakers with strong opinions, but we've never disagreed so steadfastly on anything before. I urged him to see it in 24fps, and I am going to go see it again in IMAX. As for the bloat, sure the film takes its time in getting to its destination, but it also has the burden of having to introduce a whole new generation of viewers to a fuckton of characters and locations. If you're arguing for less of Tolkien's material onscreen and more of PJ's storytelling shortcuts (he basically cut out half of Return of the King including its most essential chapter), you should just turn in your geek card and call it a day. The man is finally trying to be true to his source material. There's no fucking pleasing some people. Neither of the "Rings" films exist in a vacuum, and neither were meant to. Tolkien wrote the entire trilogy at once, and even campaigned to have The Silmarillion included in its publication. This first "Hobbit" film, then, is merely the initial act of a much larger production, and I hope it will be remembered as such.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Can't wait...

    by erniedouglas

    until all three of these are released and someone edits all 9 hours of these film into one2 1/2 hour movie. That will be a great film.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:50 a.m. CST

    Or maybe just watch the trailers ernie.

    by frank

    That would really save you some time.

  • As for the bloat, sure the film takes its time in getting to its destination, but it also has the burden of having to introduce a whole new generation of viewers to a fuckton of characters and locations.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:55 a.m. CST

    Er...that was a quote.

    by Baked

    --And with 45 minutes of dialogue in one location with zero character development, this is a bad sign of things to come...

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:26 a.m. CST

    baked, almost all the heavy lifting has been done

    by elvenblade

    All the big bads are now in play. Smaug, Thranduil, Azog and the Necromancer have all been established. They've built up to Dol Guldur well enough, and who knows how different things will be in Mirkwood to the book? Beorn, Thranduil, Bard and Lake-town will likely all feature prominently in the next film, which should make for a much faster-paced excursion. If PJ is smart, he'll do some additional shots with Mr. Freeman to put Bilbo back in center stage now that Thorin's backstory is dealt with. My hope is that film three will all be buildup to the Battle of the Five Armies while Galadriel will be retconned into kicking some unholy ass.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Wow, HD quality on the SILVER SCREEN

    by chadhart

    ...Now imagine seeing that same image quality projected on the silver screen. It’s that crisp and that clear.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:57 a.m. CST

    Saw it, liked it, but...

    by Chief Joseph

    ... the image didn't seem all that clear. Kind of blurry, actually. Maybe it was just my theater. (Lakewood Stadium 15 & RPX) The framerate thing was not a problem at all, though. I barely even noticed it.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:03 a.m. CST

    @mponte10006: Not standalone, but still...

    by Bernie Margolis

    I wasn't expecting a standalone movie, but this review's critiques are spot-on. I was hoping to introduce my 10-year-old daughter, who has not read The Hobbit before, to Tolkien's world via this movie, and it completely failed. She came away confused and angry because that movie "felt like 3 hours" and was "boring" and "confusing." WARNING: From this point on I'm going to include spoilers. Honestly, this book has been out since right before WWII, so I'm not convinced a spoiler warning is even warranted but just to be safe... As a long-time fan of the series I couldn't help but agree. While watching the first half of the movie I felt like its title should have been The Adventures of Bilbo Baggins and Radagast the Brown. PJ dedicated far too much time to Radagast, a character who was never even mentioned in the Hobbit. As a matter of fact, his character was so far from compelling that he had been cut out of The Lord of the Rings movies despite actually having played a key role in those books. I don't know who thought it would be idea to cram crap that was trimmed from the LotR movies into The Hobbit, but I'm afraid that they've inadvertently sabotaged this "trilogy." An additional plot line that wasn't in the book was also crammed into the movie because apparently orcs and goblins need more of a reason to hunt dwarves than their mere presence in their stomping grounds. The frustrating thing is that the parts of the movie that were relevant to the book's plot were great, even when there were slight deviations. For example, I had no problem with Bilbo being the one to delay the trolls until dawn even though Gandalf was the one who did so in the book. Like The Kidd said, however, all the side stories create a "slog" that turns a potentially great movie into a mediocre one. I'm still frustrated that PJ skipped The Scouring of the Shire, my favorite part of LotR. I'm really confused as to how that could be cut while Radagast is forcibly crammed into The Hobbit. I don't know if I'll ever reconcile the two decisions. I almost hope they do the opposite of LotR and release an abbreviated edition for DVD/Blueray.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:20 a.m. CST

    @elvenblade: I respectfully disagree

    by Bernie Margolis

    If you're arguing for less of Tolkien's material onscreen and more of PJ's storytelling shortcuts (he basically cut out half of Return of the King including its most essential chapter), you should just turn in your geek card and call it a day.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:26 a.m. CST

    This forum can be screwy

    by Bernie Margolis

    My last post had a quote followed by my rebuttal, but it cut off my rebuttal and left the quote. Just as well, because my rebuttal was probably too long. Here's the gist of it. I'm just as steamed about how The Scouring of the Shire was left even out of the extended version of LotR, but that doesn't mean I want 45 minutes of Radagast in my Hobbit movie. If PJ decides to do a direct-to-Blueray movie about The Silmarillion and/or the appendices from LotR I'm all for that, but putting it into The Hobbit isn't doing anyone any favors. Imagine someone handing you half a glass of your favorite drink and filling the rest of it with your next favorite drink. That's pretty much how this movie felt to me. The delightful flavors were there, but they didn't mesh well.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:30 a.m. CST

    @baked: Exactly

    by Bernie Margolis

    It already has the burden of introducing a fuckton of characters and locations, so why add to the burden by including extra crap that was hardly even mentioned in The Hobbit if it was mentioned at all?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:23 a.m. CST

    The problem with the film, imo...

    by HornOrSilk

    Like the rest of the films, the stuff PJ invented. The opening sequence with Frodo: unnecessary. Should not be there. The whole side-plot with Sauron: while it is happening alongside the story, it is not The Hobbit. It should not be there. If all those secondary elements were not there, and a few things trimmed, people would not have had the pacing problems they have. I expect, when the series is done, someone will make a fan-edit which just has whatever was in the Hobbit, and only the Hobbit. That I think will be a better movie. (There might be some things which can't be cut due to how PJ included the new material, but a lot can be excised). I do think the opening, while a bit "slow" needs to stay and had to be more or less like that. The songs are NECESSARY. It wouldn't be the Hobbit without them.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:31 a.m. CST

    Bad Blu-ray analogy.

    by Jonesy

    You already know what it’s like to see a high-resolution image via your Blu-ray player… now imagine seeing that same image quality projected on the silver screen.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:32 a.m. CST

    I am sorry are wrong

    by Joespat

    This movie was a great first act. It sets up sympathy for the dwarfs. I loved the whole damn picture. Its a great first act. Is it slow to start, yes, if by slow you mean there is no action or killing. The movies first half introduces all the characters. Its sets up the major conflicts to come. I cannot see how it could have been done better. Then the second half of the movie we start our adventure. It is a load of fun. The ending made me feel very satisfied and hyped for the next films. I feel like I saw a whole new part of the map of middle earth. The land breaths. Its by far an amazing ride. Any comparisons to the Phantom menace are laughable to me. I watch movies every day, I art direct movies, I am very hard on many of the movies I see. I can honestly say that you or any other critic negative review missed the boat on this one and have put a terrible observation out there for all to read. You are not always wrong about films, but you are this time.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Bad Blu-ray analogy. Part 2 & 3

    by Jonesy

    Over extending a comment that should only be in one part ;) I meant to add: The silver screen already has the highest definition whether analog photographic or digital. Blu-ray is only a method to try to get nearer to that quality. It still isn't the same.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST

    100% agree joespat


  • That's usually when you've already been struggling, fighting, and suffering for about half of the movie already. Jackson's first mistake was probably not spending the first 20-25 minutes on a straight-up dwarven/wizard action-drama instead of withholding them and then playing them for lazy laughs like he did Gimli in Lord of the Ring. It looks like there's a lot of potential to make them compelling if someone else takes over the film. ... Which won't happen.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:28 p.m. CST

    I loved it

    by Jackson

    I don't think it felt like just an introduction at all.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:43 p.m. CST

    joespat: all of the major characters and then some

    by Bernie Margolis

    I'm sure that this movie was an artistic triumph of cinematography, but as someone who has read The Hobbit multiple times, I found too much unnecessary crap shoved into it. There was no conflict with Sauruman in The Hobbit. All of the conflict with Sauruman took place in LotR and they cut most of it out of there. Why are they putting it here where it never belonged in the first place? Radagast may have been mentioned in The Hobbit, but he never actually made an appearance. What's he doing in the movie? I agree that there was lots of goodness in the movie, but it was watered down by excessive fan service. In my opinion The Kidd called this one correctly.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:47 p.m. CST


    by Johnny Wrong

    Close-ups and medium shots appear to move quickly at rapid speed, which is absolutely jarring when you first see it and then every time after, as if you are watching them move in fast-forward. Simple tasks like the elder Bilbo putting something away in a chest look almost comical, because of how quickly they transpire in relation to things shot from a wider angle.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    EXCELLENT review, ryalto 3.0!

    by Sonderbar

    You reflected and expanded my thoughts well on the shortcomings of this Jackson's blatant prison soap trick on Tolkien. To sum it all up, the movie's got very little left of Tolkien's Middle-earth - it's mostly made up of Jackson's body fluid rollercoaster, perhaps aimed at some modern Final Fantasy nerds, ADD goofballs and pony-loving fangirls? Well, to me it's like he's saying "hey, I don't REALLY believe in some dusty fairytales, or in bothering to set up some kind of mythological atmosphere... but HEY look at this AWESOME GRAPHIC STUNT! OOH YEAHH! MRAWRR!". . . . . And just as Pirates of the Caribbean sequels rather idiotically recycled the previous "popular" dialogue bits in exchange for teenagers' wallets, The Hobbit #1 managed somehow to recycle all of Jackson's familiar (unfitting and annoying) Tolkien rewrite formulas together with Howard Shore's old tunes - for the same reason, probably. I for one will not be paying up to see the upcoming "boned wars" episodes - I don't want any more of this incoherent and hollow farce dancing around in my head. ... Even George Lucas had the decency to change the names when he lifted from Tolkien and deliberately wrenched it into his own thing (Willow).

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:02 p.m. CST


    by Johnny Wrong

    ...only publish what I put in quotation marks, ignor the rest of what I type. FUCKING SMART. Not. Sort it out, you fat ginger cunt.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Review does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    THE HOBBIT 5 stars out of 5 from The Dojo. In short - loved it! What an absolutely superb movie, made with craftsmanship, dedication and a good amount of kiwi affection - a particular magic that perhaps Peter Jackson doesnt get credited with enough. I dont know what a Guillermo del toro, or a Ridley Scott, or a James Cameron HOBBIT would have looked like - but I know they wouldnt have *felt* like this. Peter Jacksons amiable personality and the obvious fellowship of the cast and crew have once again produced a movie with great warmth and loveability. Forget those moaning about the long running time, its a pathetic criticism. I am already looking forward to an extra 20 minutes of footage the EXTENDED EDITION. I figure that perhaps those aicn reviewers who saw this during the arduous marathon of Buttnumbathon or those talkbackers who sat through 3 hours of movie at a midnight show might have prejudiced themselves by being tired going into the viewing. Me - my show started at 8pm and I left the cinema at 11.30pm with a massive grin on my face - elated and energized. I might also add I saw it in the regular old framerate so didnt have any of those HFR viewing issues to consider - visually it looked cinematic and a perfect tonal match for the previous LOTR trilogy. SPOILERS The opening with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, set literally 5 minutes before the opening of FELLOWSHIP - wow! What a cool choice, and the backflash of Erebor is breathtaking. Lovely to see both those actors reprise their roles and it sets up young Bilbo Martin Freeman perfectly. Absolutely perfect segue. I dont think you could dovetail the two trilogies together any better than the opening of THE HOBBBIT does. And Martin Freeman is fantastic - the absolutely right blend of heroism and homeliness. He's also funny, and THE HOBBIT perhaps has more little laughs in it than the whole of LOTR trilogy combined. The Dwarves.... whoever said (I think it was The Kidd) that there was no differentiation - what a fucking joke. They are absolutely differentiated and I could identify each and every one, and rattle off character traits for them too. In some of the big CG heavy setpieces they do seem a bit invulnerable perhaps, but I guess thats just cos theyre dwarves, and tough little fuckers! Also brilliant to see Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett reprise their roles - and whether this was digital trickery - but none of them look older than their previous appearances. Expertly done. And of course there is Gollum. Wow. Riddles In The Dark is without a doubt the standout sequence. Better even than the book. In the book it was a scene played out between two protagonists Bilbo and Gollum. But in the movie, it is played out between three protagonists - the schizophrenia of Gollum / Smeagol as played by Andy Serkis is just IN-FUCKING-CREDIBLE to behold. Probably my fave scene in the whole LOTR saga so far. What doesnt work so well? The wargs and Azog the orc, theyre uncanny valley and not quite there for me. Small criticism in a film that mostly blew my socks off and proudly stands alongside FOTR, TT and ROTK. Bravo PJ!

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 7:10 p.m. CST

    When Gollum showed up


    I had a HUGE grin on my face.....awesome, and as mentioned he looks better than ever.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Reading the comments I remember now why I barely come to AICN

    by Orionsangels

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 12:49 a.m. CST

    with all very due respect to berniem and Baked

    by Joespat

    Hey Guys it sounds like you both are knowledgeable about the two most contentious bits of this film. One story structure and act structure...inciting indecent that plunges our hero on his journey the other has a strong knowledge of the source material and its breaches, please allow me to address these sepperatly just based on what I know about film making and storytelling. In regards to the slow beginning I feel as though there was action or conflict. Granted they came mostly in the form of flashbacks, but the major conflict was inner conflict with Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin. In many ways that action was there but it was more introspective. The characters fighting with themselves. To many that's boring. That was what the Master's whole action/dram focus was centered around. Not what people lined up for when they think they will see LOTR part 2. But its stiil valid film making and what it comes down to is you asking yourself can you allow for act one's drama take a different form than act 2, and 3s drama, in which conflict is overcome by survival and killing. I rather enjoyed the conflict coming from within then going to opening up into survival skills in the journey, and fighting skills towards the end. By that point I felt we had a well developed fellowship. in regards to berniem outlook on the story aspects of the film. You are 100% right to say they characters were not in the Hobbit. But the goal of what Jackson seems to have set out for is to give you a rich telling of the lord of the rings back story. Much drawn from the Appendix as we all know by now. These movies seem to be not so much focused on telling the Hobbit as written by Tolkien, but the world of Middle earth as understood by Tolkien. I believe when all is said and done we will have a new appreciation for what the LOTR was all about. Minor characters will seem much more fully developed. We will see Sauron as more than an evil eyeball tower. We will see this whole tale as on tale, and a tale worth telling. You both are smart dudes. Peter is pretty smart to and is not nearly as pretentious as Lucas was with star wars. I would just say ride it out. I saw the knots left untied that make for a very big epic to come. Lets see if we like it. Till then folks, have a happy holidays.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 10:14 a.m. CST

    48 fps is fucking irrelevant

    by Wyrdy the Gerbil

    because 80% of all showings will be in 24fps not 48fps ...frankly im fucking sick to death with all these smug assed reviewers carping on about how its to sharp a picture and takes getting used to.. fuck you all .. i saw it in 24fps today there was no problem with either the length or the pacing imo and all the reviewers who are telling us there is are talking bullshit

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Wow Kidd, lay off the leaf.

    by sewiz

    Dwarves less developed than in the book? You really need to go back and look at the book again...none of the dwarves are described as individuals except for that Bombur is fat and Kili and Fili are young...and Thorin is Very important...other than that they are all interchangable.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Wrong does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Kidd, now that ive actually seen the movie I really do have to say how wrong you are about this film - either youve got really bad taste or you let your dissatisfaction with the HFR cloud your opinion. This line *as a result, it’s a cold, emotionless film that we get on this first offering* couldnt be further from the truth. I thought it was absolutely charming and full of genuine warmth and love of the material the whole way through. You really did seem to see a different movie to the rest of us?! Ive heard of seeing life through rose tinted glasses, its like you look at life through shit tinted glasses.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Saw it today and I have to say...

    by Mikey Wood

    ...I couldn't disagree with this review any more. It wasn't slow. In fact, it breezed by to the point of my being surprised when it was over. It wasn't in need of trimming down. The added stuff was great. Did we NEED to see Frodo in the beginning? Not at all. But it was nice to. The Dwarves get plenty of things to do. Many have great lines and little moments. We still have three films. The CG was great. The Goblin King looked incredible. I saw it in 2D so I can't say anything about the 48fps thing. Great movie. Wonderful addition to the series.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 7:30 p.m. CST

    couldn't agree more

    by Robert Hand

    the kidd is wrong here. i'm a lukewarm fan of the books and i thought it was great. aintitcool and these talkbacks really ruin the spirit of films.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Ignore these idiots. Go see the movie, it was GREAT!

    by fenroth

    I don't know what movie some of you saw, but the movie I saw was unbelievable. I live and breathe Tolkien and was impressed with the pacing of the movie. Perfect balance of action and character development. I would have prefered the book version where Azog through Thror's head outside the gates of Moria with his name etched in the forehead, which caused the great battle shown, but you can't be too picky. The Dwarves brought an element of action lacking in the LOTR movies and I loved that a lot of time was devoted to the meeting in the beginning which introduced you to all the Dwarves who afterwards, had little screen time or character development individually. If you didn't like this movie, either your a cynical lowlife who is pleased by nothing, or an idiot. One last thing, the ending between Thorin and Bilbo did remind me of the ending of Dumb and Dumber. LOL.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 1:10 a.m. CST


    by Glenn

    Hey -- moron -- people who call people idiots, simply because they don't like what you like, is childish. That's gonna happen A LOT in your life. Get used to it. Some of us miss the days of, you know, actual real life being portrayed in movies, alongside fantasy etc.

  • It took me about 20 minutes to adjust on the first viewing but the next two times it was automatic. The Kidd couldn't Adjustt. The only issue I had with the film is the "Rock Giants!" line. Yeah, Peter Jackson, you know which one I mean. :D

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Here, here...

    by Sparhawk38

    I could not agree more. My expectations were lowered for this chapter and they should not have been. I was worried about the shift to 3 movies, but after seeing this chapter I am fired up for the next 2. The trouble with movies based on literature that is so loved, we all have such strong images of what certain moments from the book or characters should look like. It is an impossible needle to thread, but Peter Jackson and his team of actors and filmmakers hit the mark so often. I can't wait to see the Hobbit again.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Grow up, Kidd

    by Citizen Sane

    I thought the movie was outstanding. I think Jackson was true to the book as well as himself. Relatively speaking, it is EVERY bit as good as LOTR. Admittedly there were a few minor seams from both the HFR as well as the need to weave the supplemental material into the Hobbit narrative. But there here hardly noticeable and did not effect the flow of the film in the least. Furthermore, I think Jackson has the correct approach in his initial pacing and tone in opening the middle earth tale at a pace equivalent to match the story tone an intensity; and then building from there. Welcome back Hobbitses!!!

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Typo in fenroth's subject line

    by omarthesnake

    That should be "ignore these idiots WHO go see this movie AND STILL think it was great." It's a bloated carcass with one hour of goodness surrounded by what felt like five hours of tedium shot in a medium only fit for fucking keystone kops movies. Tell me you didnt hear the benny hill theme when the action scenes went speedy. That said, gollum rocks. Him and the dinner party, only good sequences in the entire ordeal.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Way off

    by Lummox JR

    This review missed the mark by a mile. The pacing was just fine, no better or worse than the Lord of the Rings movies. Focusing on Thorin's doubts about Bilbo was a natural story choice here; the idea that the dwarves would accept him as useful right off the bat just doesn't work in film, and really barely worked in the book. I was plenty impressed by the first movie and I'll be right there to see the next two.

  • Just saying I've read writing from middle school kids that kicks your ass. Maybe you grew up in the south or the big city; somewhere that allowed you to slip through the cracks. It's a shame when someone so abysmal at the Word can write on one of my favorite webpages. Are there no standards here?

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 10:19 a.m. CST


    by TheMachinist

    Read the Jack Reacher review, then tell me if there's any standards.

  • The movie was slow? Really? I don't see that at all. It was amazing. I actually enjoyed it more than the LOTR movies and I truly loved those as well. I saw it in 2D 24PFS and loved every minute of it. There was so much aciton that the "slower" moments were wonderful to get to know the characters more. All of the dwarves rocked.