Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Harry has really seen THE HOBBIT!

And when i say that headline, I mean it.   I sat second row center at the Alamo Drafthouse theater 2 an hour into BUTT-NUMB-A-THON 14 when we started watching THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY.

Right before that, we saw the new STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS Trailer.  Goose bumps.  It's so much more than what we've seen thus far, classic teasers.   

Then THE HOBBIT began.   Now before I get into the movie itself, I want to bring up a few things that I take in with me to this NEW experience with watching 48 frames per second aka HIGH FRAME RATE or HFR & 3D.  It looks real.  Doesn't seem very film...  except sometimes, just like in a movie the background will still be out of focus from time to time.   There are still all the same kinds of shots and editing techniques...  only it looks real.   And I kinda know.   When I was on the set of Minas Tirith, my memories of watching Gandalf riding around, pulling out an umbrella on set as it lightly rained.   Except...  Instead, all the effects are done - and where I had to use my imagination, creatures absolutely fantastic come to life.   

I'd seen demos of 48 frames per second, but in every case, what I had seen, has been REAL FOOTAGE.   Cameras mounted on Blue Angels' aerobatic wings.   Grand Canyon with fisheye lens.   That sort of thing.  Now, the demos I saw were all in 2D.   Watching MIDDLE EARTH come to life is amazing.   Those Marble floors they laid.   Well, you can see that's exactly what they are.  And it's stunning.   

Watching this in full 48 3D was absolutely breathtaking for me.   Because all I did was behold the story I have most wanted to see on screen, in a crazy big awesome manner ever since I saw STAR WARS.   I'd seen Rankin Bass' animated HOBBIT - and after I saw STAR WARS I would tell just about anyone that would hold still for a second or two and answered yes to the question, "Ya like movies?"  Well, I'd tell them that George Lucas should've made HOBBIT.   Then I saw WILLOW and revised that thought.   When I saw images from Ridley Scott's LEGEND, I was positive that was the route to go.   I'd flirted with the notion of John Boorman doing THE HOBBIT.   Never wanted Spielberg to touch it.  But after that trip to New Zealand  that I went on...  I'm firmly in line for Peter's Middle Earth. 

The first thing I noticed was how sharp everything was.  I just got the Epson Powerlite Home Cinema 5010 projector with the Shutter 3D Glasses - and with my glass bead screen, 3D is amazing, but even at its best - it doesn't even compare to the HFR 3D of THE HOBBIT.   The smoothness of the motion in 3D is amazing.   Watching Gollum slink around.   The trolls around the fire.   It's just amazing.

I think one of the problems that folks are having is that the "Look" of Middle Earth was so firmly established with the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, that watching this FUTURE TECH version,  it makes some uncomfortable.   NOT ME, NOT IN THE LEAST!   I've always been an adopter of Film Tech as it continues to evolve - and I love innovation.   Doesn't mean it is there for everything, but man...  Having Middle Earth come alive like this...  it has been a life long dream.   The shire as Bilbo runs after the party is amazing.   Rivendell...  well I was on the original Rivendell set, well, the few pieces that were still up - and these scenes took me right back there.  Only this time, all of the effects were there too.

Ultimately though - I found myself doing what I do with every movie...  associating with the characters and allowing the story to be told.

As the film plays, my knowledge of the book served to get me giddy.   Point of example.  When the Dwarves & Bilbo get captured by the Goblins...  and Bilbo breaks off....  from knowing the story, I knew... RIDDLES IN THE DARK is coming - and I started geeking out.   As Thorin is being interrogated by the Goblin King...  I knew, just knew that Glamdring & Gandalf would soon appear in a blinding light - and there it was!  Like when the wargs chase the party up the pine trees...  I was sitting there praying for Pine Cones....  If ya know, ya know...  and ya know... WE GOT PINE CONES!

THE HOBBIT isn't LORD OF THE RINGS, it's a different tone.   The world isn't filled with evil quite yet.  There's far more whimsical magic.  The colors are less muted, because the world is filled with life and vitality.  It isn't dying and becoming a world for Men just yet.   PETER perfectly captures the story.   Watching Bilbo slow burn through the trauma of having his house unexpectedly overrun by Dwarves...  It's been something I've always imagined.   That the crashing plate song was done with such a great degree of wanton playfulness...  while Bilbo looks on fretting about his mother's 100 year old dishes...   Bliss.

NOW - what's the difference between me and some of the reviews you've read.   It is simple.   I want to go to Middle Earth again.   I look at THE HOBBIT and while the book is short, the adventure is HUGE.   Takes place over a longer period of time than LORD OF THE RINGS does, I believe.   It's just not as detailed or serious.   BUT a War of 5 Armies takes some time, unless it is a bullshit war with no strategies.   

It looks like the next film will take us through Mirkwood, Laketown & Erebor...  But where exactly it leaves off, we've no idea.  This film takes us to the party's first glance of Lonely Mountain.  They feel like they're almost there.   

I keep seeing people talking about how the stakes are less vital this time out, BUT why does a film have to be about the fate of an entire world.  For me, THE HOBBIT was always about the adventure that takes place by just leaving your home behind.  It's a story that I've always compared to SERGEANT YORK - the film that I placed on THE FAKE LIST in THE HOBBIT's place.   Just as with Gary Cooper in that film, our Bilbo Baggins is a simple kind of person.   Happy with his place in the world and doesn't at all feel a desire to join these Dwarves & Wizard.   The unexpected guests are noisy, they don't ask they take.   Raiding his pantry for everything that can be consumed.  Using every plate and ounce of cutlery.  Wiping mud on antiques.   And not only that, they have funeral plans for him.  

Martin Freeman's BILBO is perfection.  He is exactly a Hobbit.   The kind of HOBBIT that existed in a pre-Frodo world.   Frodo had heard about Bilbo's adventures.   Bilbo has no real big adventure stories to follow.   But Bilbo is listening to the stories.   He finds them disconcerting, exciting and obviously something for these insane folks.   

Amongst my favorite moments of the HOBBIT comes next.   Bilbo wakes up alone.   The house is empty.  There's little to no sign that any guests had ever been there...  other than the empty pantry.   Bilbo walks around.   Starts to feel the emptiness of the chamber.   Sees the contract.   You can feel him realizing that a real adventure, his only chance to see more than the Shire had left.   He gathers his supplies and runs out the door to catch up.

It isn't the huge contemplative moment of SGT YORK with Gary Cooper out on a mountain trying to find communion with God...   but Bilbo comes to a similar decision.   Not just at that moment, but as the story continues.

This film gave me several things I've never dreamt of actually seeing, like those STONE GIANTS - so much more magnificent than I ever imagined.   The scale and movement were truly awe-inspiring at a level unmatched by just about anything I've seen.   

There was no audience for me, even the vaunted BNAT audience disappeared.   I was completely and wholly present for Middle Earth.   

Radagast The Brown?   One of those characters that you would always assume would find the cutting room floor, is here...  and wonderful.   He's there to inform Gandalf of the disturbing changes that are taking place...  the initial evidence of a growing evil.   There's a Necromancer.   

Deeply in love with the film.   

Watching Thorin with his Oakenshield fighting the White Orc...   HOLY SHIT, it feels legendary.   It looks amazing.

Now my advice to you.

If you're worried about the 48fps HFR or the 3D....  See it in 2D the first time just to enjoy the story.   However, if like me, you're someone that has had ZERO problems adjusting to 3D or Blu Ray clarity...   Go whole hog and behold the HFR 3D and never ever look back.   I'm so anxious to see this as many times as possible.   I will check out the IMAX 3D just as a base of comparison... but I already know, it will look a tad antiquated.   Watching the awesome GI JOE RETALIATION 3D afterwards...  I loved the content - and they used the 3D to maximum potential...  but it seemed a tad staggered after the HFR.   

At the end of screening, it is still one helluva tale.   I can see now how the story will play over 3 films - and as a fan of the story, to see a loving and luxuriant telling...  it's exactly what I want.  The notion of spending as much time as I possibly can in Middle Earth - is equaled only by the enthusiasm I have for spending more time in a galaxy far far away.    This is why I wake up in the morning, to see things I've never seen before...  and this is one experience that I can say authoratatively...  I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING THAT COMPARES WITH THIS!   It's a brave new world, and this is our first trip!  Definitely not my last!   

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST


    by Jason

    Harry likes it I'm shocked

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Dammit! My chance to be first ruined!

    by jeremy

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST


    by BD Mahony

    ...that felt good.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:45 p.m. CST

    I've seen Hobbit now for

    by Chris Kirby

    18 minutes.

  • There are still all the same kinds of shots and editing techniques... only it looks real. And I kinda know. Uhhhhh, WHA??? I usually very forgiving of Harry and his (lack of) sentence structure. But that is just utterly confounding.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Harry is the Jackson Pollock of words

    by caruso-stalker217

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Goblin King worst CGI Character since Dobby

    by Apocalypse_Pooh

    They're going for comedy with him, and it's like watching a diseased scrotum do stand-up and impressions. Huge, huge misfire.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    did they put in a double wide hospital bed?

    by Eric

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Loved it

    by Jared

    I don't understand the negative reviews. Never felt the film dragged.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Why Epson 5010?

    by wolfman30

    Harry why didn't you get the 5020 instead? That one has a THX picture mode and it's a bit brighter when watching 3D content.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    White Council Scene is Terrible

    by Apocalypse_Pooh

    It was like watching McKellan, Weaving, Lee, and Blanchett improvising their dialog. These towering intellects are running Middle Earth? Blanchett sending messages to Gandalf via ESP like some High School girl texting a friend during a lecture?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Harry

    by Armin Vollstedt

    I am not the only crazy person who loved gazing at this world in glorious 48fps. A lot of shots were really long enough to take everything in, all the detail, the love, the work, all that went into this. Damn, I've seen it three times and I still want to see it again!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    Caruso-stalker, that's a brilliant comparison.

    by MrWug

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    Why do they use the Nazgul theme for Thorin fighting Kratos?

    by Apocalypse_Pooh

    When Thorin rouses himself to fight the Kratos Orc (Azog) they start playing the Nazgul theme from the chase in Fellowship. What were they thinking?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:03 p.m. CST

    And TDKR was sooooo terrible....

    by truedog67

    Go figure Harry would love this... I've heard quite the opposite... even from Die Hard fans. Maybe Nolan should invite Harry to set... may give him some better 'reviews'.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    this movie fucking rocked

    by Warcraft

    best to worst for me, FOTR, AUJ, ROTK, TTT. The movie brought back the magic of FOTR for me, which is something TTT and ROTK lost, which is why I don't enjoy those movies all that much. The Hobbit had great characters, scenery, CGI, and just an unequaled sense of adventure. I can't wait to see the next two. After reading a few negative reviews from jaded fucks, I was worried that PJ had lost his tough, but the dude still has it. THANK GOD.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    What? 65% on RT?!?

    by Armin Vollstedt

    Attack of the Drones has 67% and that damn thing I could only get thru by scanning Natalie Portman without blinking. WHAT THE FUCK is wrong with these critics???? Did I see a different movie? Am I a demented PJ fanboi? Honestly....

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Now THAT'S a proper Hobbit review!!

    by venvariants

    Finally!! The bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes all sound like they have an agenda. It's nice to read one by someone who actually knows the source material, and knows what to look for. Thanks, Harry!!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    But TDKR was terrible . . .

    by PeopleCallMeTheBriMan

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    "AUJ"? That's how you're identifying this?

    by Jason


  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:09 p.m. CST

    touch, rather.

    by Warcraft

    fucking no edit man...

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Harry didn't get a line in the film.

    by D.Vader


  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Re: Nazgul theme for Thorin

    by tomandshell

    That was an odd instance of musical recycling from Shore. Not sure why he used the Nazgul theme out of context.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Surrealism does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Harry has really seen THE HOBBIT! And when i say that headline, I mean it. Is this line a companion piece to *Ive watched JACK REACHER for about a month now* Harry, can you finally confess to writing the JACK REACHER review? Well I say review but it was more like a piece of surrealist literary performance art, and I think this HOBBIT review shares many of the same traits. *BUT a War of 5 Armies takes some time, unless it is a bullshit war with no strategies.* Genius. Or madness. The tightrope is being walked.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    I absolutely despise...

    by niven

    ...Harrys gutteral over excited approach to films, it ignores some of the best work while praising some of the worst, but i have to admit I totally "harry knowles'd" this film, when i watched it every criteria i put in my mind when judging and measuring a films worth, every rule that constitutes a good film and a bad film were completely ignored, and i was just taken. Not to say that approach should often be taken to films...but for some people just need to let go, and i have much love for the books and the previous films enough to have let go for this film and i just really REALLY loved this film.

  • it appears Harry liked the movie. I'm sure I'll enjoy it too; I don't go to see stuff like this expecting The Bestest Movie Like Ever, but I'm sure it will be fun. Six bucks at the matinee, that's all I'm out if it's a letdown.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:20 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit was superb. Even Harry's right once in a while.

    by Mattman

    Loved the pacing. This is old fashioned cinema... something the Bourne Identity/Transformers generation can't be bothered with.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:21 p.m. CST

    That headline needs to commit suicide

    by Mattman

    "Harry has really seen the Hobbit.'' Really, Harry? Really really?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:21 p.m. CST

    So you didn't really see TDKR?

    by Mattman

    That's what I got out of that.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by danny

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by danny

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    You liking this was a default thing

    by KevinMuller

    That said.. as a film lover, I want to see what this 48 FPS thing is all about.

  • And then watch all other videos related...and then proceed to write said review; Because right now my eyes are feeling like this article was written in 48fps and I've gone through the Ludovico Treatment in reading it.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:43 p.m. CST

    I loved the movie, but hated the HFR!!!

    by Matt Schlotman

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST

    If Harry said TDKR was terrible...

    by Hyphin

    Then I really do feel I can trust him on this. TDKR was a true disappointment, I don't understand how fans of TDK, or Nolan in general would defend it so staunchly. I'm a major PJ fan, and have been worried by some of the reviews (which, like someone said, feel like they almost have an agenda against the film). But this review DOES help. It seems like it was before FOTR. "Too Long", "Boring". Somehow, it seems, a fan has made a movie for other fans. Awesome.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    White Council scene "awful"? Facepalm.

    by D.Vader

    Yeah sure, watching the good powers of Middle-Earth debating whether or not evil is creeping back into their world is awful. Seeing Christopher Lee verbally bitch-smack those who disagree with him, awful. Yeah I'm being sarcastic.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    48 fps theory...

    by force_fed

    I rolled the dice and went whole hog HFR 48 FPS 3D for the midnight screening last night with a group of 8 friends. I never fully adjusted to the clarity, the quirky sped up motions, or the real/fake look of the sets, but a number of my friends said they didn't notice after the story left The Shire. Turns out that those of us that wear corrective lenses never adjusted, and those that have near perfect vision adjusted and loved it (I usually wear glasses, but put in contacts to allow for the 3d glasses). I know this is an extremely small focus group, but I'm curious to see if there are some people that simply won't be able to enjoy this technology due to vision problems.

  • All of the negative bullshit that we've endured these last few weeks has been almost exclusively about the new FPS standard - and that's a hugely minor issue. Only the most anal nitpickers would have an issue with something so tangential to the film that Jackson delivered. Yes, the tone of the film is slightly sillier than the original trilogy, but it absolutely fits the book. I worried a bit during the 3 troll scene and the introduction of the dwarves. But neither scene is so overwhelmingly kiddified that it detracts from the whole. I've already purchased my tickets for my second and THIRD viewings. Middle Earth is back again; and it's glorious.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    WTF? Where did my post go?

    by gruntybear

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Harry, ditch the glass beaded screen

    by mark howard

    They went out when super 8 was on its arse in the 80's - the field of view is too narrow, far better with a matt white screen with matt black tabs. Unless your home cinema room is only as wide as a sofa, in which case it's a good choice! Glad you like the film, never doubted it for a minute.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 4:56 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit was great.

    by Mostholy

    I really don't understand all the negativity. This was a faithful, impressive, and highly enjoyable adaptation of the first third of the book. And it looked great. force_fed, fwiw I'm 20-20, and I adjusted to the look by the time Dwalin knocked on Bilbo's door. Perhaps it's because I grew up watching old Dr. Who and Blake's 7, but the hyperreal look didn't affect my suspension of disbelief in the slightest. I thought it loooked amazing.

  • Yeah. Harry is hurting financially. I'll shed a tear for him.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Very good review

    by Art

    but i dont think im going to like it, not crazy about LOTR

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST

    I only have an Epson 2D Projector

    by FlyingToupee

    and want to get one that is equipped for 3D. Maybe next year.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit

    by Magnus Greel

    I saw it this afternoon, in old fashioned 2D. Those who complain about the bloat? Didn't really see it. All I know is, I want to see how this story continues. I'm not married to the text, so I don't know the level of Jackson's artistic license. Those who think The Brown Wizard is the second coming of Jar Jar Binks? Not even close. I saw a world that comes to life as only a Peter Jackson directed Rings/Hobbit film can. Anyone who really thought it should be anyone other than Jackson at the helm is crazy. You want to talk about bloat in a Jackson movie. Look at King Kong. I think there is a lot of bloat to spare in The Return of the King. Couple that with the false endings and you come to realize that it one the Best Picture Oscar was given not for that movie, but the overall achievment of the three pictures.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:14 p.m. CST

    freaking amazing

    by ghost_matt

    The Hobbit is FREAKING AMAZING!!!! I was worried because of some of the reviews but there's nothing to worry about. If you loved LOTR you'll love Hobbit. The cinematography has improved so much in 10 years, the 3D is the best I've seen since Avatar, and with all the added stuff like the White Council I think these could end up being even better than the book, depending on how the next two movies play out. As someone who hated the idea of Jackson turning this into a trilogy, now I say bring it on!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Yes azultool, it' something like that.

    by Thomas_Silane

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST

    It was probably too much to ask...

    by Magnus Greel

    That Harry would have written "I've seen The Hobbit for about a month now."

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by NV

    I am admittedly, a very big fan, not just of Peter Jackson and his 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy from a decade ago, but also of Tolkien and his work, having first read the Hobbit itself when I was 12. I consider myself extremely well-versed in the Professor's realm because of multiple, multiple readings of his most recognizable works (The Hobbit, LOTR) in addition to multiple readings of his more esoteric works (or those edited/released by his family after his passing) such as the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, the Book of Lost Tales, etc. In addition to that, I am also a very big fan of film in general, as a personal form of escapism, as high art to be appreciated and as an industry, having many friends who work in film production, behind the camera (full disclosure: I do not work for WB, New Line, Weta, MGM or any film production company. I'm just a nerdy fanboy in my own right). Because of this, I'm always instantly critical of any attempted adaptation of Tolkien's mythology or any type of literary adaptation for that matter. That is why (structural issues aside) I absolutely loved the original film trilogy and am happy to say the the first film of the Hobbit trilogy, 'An Unexpected Journey' is equally as engrossing, beautiful and powerful as it's predecessor from a decade before. I really have no MAJOR criticisms for the film itself, the only big one being the score actually, which I had hoped would have been expanded upon much more greatly than it was. But whatever, it still sounded very lovely anyway. My biggest criticism is actually for the 'professional' critics, many of whom have completely slammed this film, which I feel has been very unwarranted, especially after having seen the film myself. Was the film too long? An unequivocal 'NO'. The pacing, especially for the first hour is deliberate, necessary and not nearly as tedious as most have been led to believe by critics of, the NYtimes, the Washington Post, and their ilk (seriously, I can only assume that Dana Stevens, A.O. Scott, Claudia Puig, Richard Corliss et al suffer from some form of severe adult ADHD and require professional help). Was the film well-designed, including cinematography, special/visual effects, etc? Absolutely YES. There is no way, whatsoever that anyone can deny that. And given that this is a fantasy world, it's deliberately made to LOOK like a fantasy world. Why is this so hard to fathom for most film reviewers? Additionally, you can sense a palpable love of the source material, not just from Peter Jackson but also the production designers, prop makers, make-up artist, conceptual artists, etc., and how they've painstakingly managed to make the source material come alive in ways that I never thought possible, even in comparison to the LOTR films. Was the acting any good? My God YES. Freeman, Armitage, McKellen, etc., they were exceptionally good, have really made each of the roles their own and have managed to breathe new life into literary characters that are nearly a century old. So what's the problem with the film? NOTHING. It was exactly what I personally had been expecting, not just since the LOTR film trilogy, but also since I was that precocious, pimply 12 year old reading the Hobbit for the first time and trying to imagine in my mind's eye what this would look like played out in a visual medium. The problem again is with the film critics. Many of them would appear to not appreciate the fact that the same team who so carefully created the first film trilogy a decade ago have returned to give the world the Hobbit, and that makes me sad. Because it has nothing to do with the film, it has everything to do with a jaded, bitter, 'we've-seen-this-all-before' attitude that smacks of nothing more than deliberate, fashionably-contrarian and self-important hipster babbling that constantly believes that new heights in film art can ONLY be achieved by doing something new that has never been witnessed before...ignorantly not realizing that what is old can also be new again. The hatred against this first of three Hobbit films is baffling. The self-important rancor is laughable (especially in these fanboy forums). And please spare me the contrived and deliberate zeal by some in the fandom Universe to paint this as another 'Phantom Menace'-style debacle; THAT was lazy film-making (and this is coming from someone who used to be a HUGE Star Wars fan...operative words 'used to be'); 'the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' is a faithful and altogether quite beautiful film that doesn't need to strive for dramatic perfection in order to win awards..Peter Jackson's LOTR already did that, very successfully. VERY. The Hobbit film(s) should be seen for what it/they is/are: much simpler morality tales which ultimately show how excessive and obsessive greed can destroy a life more cruelly than any axe, sword or rock. An Unexpected Journey is a very damn good first part to this tale. Period. I'd be surprised, ridiculous criticism aside, if this film didn't receive a Best Picture nomination, because of course, "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close' or "The Blind Side" were SO deserving. Mr. Beaks and the Kidd can go scissor each other.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:27 p.m. CST


    by Magnus Greel

    You assume that Beaks and the Kidd were not already scissoring when they wrote their reviews. Or while watching the movie for that matter.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Sentinel - You're Full of Shit

    by Apocalypse_Pooh

    So what's the problem with the film? NOTHING. It was exactly what I personally had been expecting, not just since the LOTR film trilogy, but also since I was that precocious, pimply 12 year old reading the Hobbit for the first time and trying to imagine in my mind's eye what this would look like played out in a visual medium.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Oh wait, there it is

    by monorail77

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:42 p.m. CST


    by Apocalypse_Pooh

    When you were a 12 year old boy, you imagined a Goblin King that looked like a diseased scrotum turned into a muppet cracking while benig sliced open in the abdomen? STFU you fucking liar, and GTFO with your fanboy Jackson idolatry.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Cracking Jokes.

    by Apocalypse_Pooh

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    monorail77 I was.just asking the same question

    by Batmangelo

    I.just took the time to put in my sympathies and shared a story and now it's gone.......what assholes no one even wrote anything disrespectful...granted that probably would have happened but still not cool

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:45 p.m. CST

    @ monorail

    by Chris Moody

    Here you go:

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:45 p.m. CST


    by NV

    that's the best you can do, you dumb, dickless fuck??

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:49 p.m. CST

    I gotta say..

    by Jaymie69

    This review is what my brain says also.. What a film ..what a visually exiting film. Keep it up

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:52 p.m. CST

    definitely too long and boring

    by UFuckinDorks

    for someone whos never read any of the books, wasn't interested in lotr at all but came to love them, and really wasn't too psyched for this. the movie is pretty boring. I guess, when watched back to back to back as a trilogy it will seem like a normally paced introduction, but as a stand alone film, it was very disappointing. each lotr was very long and boring at times, but it was spread out and each movie stood on its own merits, this, unfortunately, does not. I saw it in 24fps 3d and thought it looked fine. the cgi looked better than lotr, but not by much. sound was a BIG improvement, thats the main thing that stood out to me for some strange reason. the first trilogy I was anxious to get the extended cuts, but for this movie I have no desire to ever see one - unless the added footage is action in the first 50+ minutes. overall, it was a good movie. unfortunately, it doesnt live up to the hype and doesnt even live up to the lotr movies. note I didn't complain about how kiddie it was and how I was shocked it wasn't rated 'g' but harrys contention that it was in a happier time before the world knew evil I guess I can live with that seeing as how I never read the book[s].

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Yes, because all "G" rated films...

    by Magnus Greel

    feature a severed head as a sight gag.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:55 p.m. CST


    by NV

    what do you have against the film? have you seen it yet? And why do you and fanboy idiots like you excel in focusing on ridiculous, irrelevant minutiae while totally missing the big picture? My point is, who the fuck cares what the Goblin King looks like? Knowing Peter "gross-out" Jackson, would you expect anything less than testicles on a chin?? God knows at least they're bigger than yours. Eat shit.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Love your enthusiasm, Harry. I psyched to see this.

    by Clio

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    I've seen Harry's review of The Hobbit:AUJ for about a decade now

    by performingmonkey

    He sucks studio cock, so what do you expect? 48fps is NOT film and never will be. Digital IS replacing film but I fucking wish it wasn't. 3D is a fad I wish would die harder than the Great Goblin. TDKR could have been a hell of a lot better but I was so pleased beyond words to see a FILM in front of my eyes. Tech aside, Peter was set up to deliver 2 brilliant, epic Hobbit movies, both of them being ultra pacey, filled to the brim with great acting and amazing action rammed in for good measure. Splitting to 3 has made AUJ feel unfinished. FOTR felt so complete, even though it was only the first part. Peter had to reshoot with that CGI orc, Azog, in order to create an ending for AUJ out of nowhere. The score has been fucked with so we're getting themes pasted from LOTR, which is unacceptable. They know they have our cash no matter what, but I'm damn disappointed in the way AUJ turned out. It DOES matter that each part stands on its own as a complete, emotionally satisfying experience. AUJ is like 'this is what you're getting for now, deal'.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Pardon.....I AM psyched to see this.

    by Clio

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by mkultra55

    It looked like a cross between a video game cinematic and a bad SyFy Fantasy movie. It reminded me of a BBC drama shot on Video. Highly disappointing. The film itself was bloated in the same way as Kong. Some moments were great but it felt like PJ was going back to the LOTR well too often. My first thought as the credits rolled at the end was I wouldn't be surprised to see Lucas' name in the credits as Director. It felt more akin to the SW prequels than it did to LOTR. Sad.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST


    by Monty Cristo

    trying to find your comment in the bowels of the site, email me

  • Something like that Harry? I'm gonna make a very low budget film. I'm gonna invite Harry and give him pwesents and hopefully I'll get an ass kissing review too. Maybe even be name dropped along the likes of Robert Rodriguez or Guellermo Del Big Robo.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:09 p.m. CST

    I had a similar (but not the same) reaction as Harry

    by Monty Cristo

    I loved seeing so many things on-screen that I loved from the book, and enjoyed the additional material from the appendices. There's a lot I liked in HFR, and parts that didn't work as well. I'm posting a review after I see it in 24fps 2D. I wrote this after seeing test HFR at CinemaCon, and still stand by all of it:

  • Harry here, For those of you who have visited my site for years you knwo that I only have one rule on this site. There has to be at least 3 degrees of seperation from every article to myself. That means that every thing that is posted has to do with me or thoughts of me or things to this type of nature. Senseless things are going to happen and they should not be glorified. Not cause they are horrible things. And that horrible thing is taking the shine away from me whether it is my friend Peter's new Hobbit film, a little indie you might have hear of, chuckle, or some great blockbuster that geeks have been waiting their whole lives to see. Besides I have so many moments in my life where I'll tell myself, this needs to become a film, and then it dids, and I'm a giddy little girl again. So in concluding total, I don't want anyone to think that Harry doesn't care about those little tykes who aren't going to be seeing the Hobbit this weekend. I do. Kids don't go to cinemas free anymore and this might hurt by buddy's opening box office. Let's just hope people can put this tragedy out of their minds for 4 hours and enjoy a little escapitism. Harry Knowles

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Glad to hear the true tolkein fans dig this!

    by frank

    Im eagerly waiting for my showing at 11 tonight. Im not sure if I made a mistake selecting the 3d version. The only other 3d movies Ive seen are mib 3 (fucking horrible, with or without 3d the whole move felt "cheap" to me) and prometheus (the maproom, the red map orbs, and the ship in flight felt like those where the only things that lended itself to 3d the rest felt kind of blurry from time to time for some reason). I have corrective vision so maybe im 3d impaired, we shall see tonight I guess!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    The first thing I noticed was how sharp everything was. "

    by Windowlicker74

    Bwahahaha that was the funniest thing i read all day:)!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Fuck HFR and Fuck this movie...

    by Wes_Reviews_

    HFR is AWFUL in this flick. Such a dopey move to release it like this. Real? Uh. No. Try FAKE. HFR will most likely catch on and I say GOOD. Harry is not a real cinema fan if he supports this. Who wants reality in a movie? Seriously. Just awful. Avoid. Jackson ruined The Hobbit with this HFR nonsense.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:45 p.m. CST

    What's the deal with the FlexJet Banner AD?

    by Drunken Busboy

    How many people who visit this site can actually afford a private jet?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Oh the ending, that GLORIOUS ending!

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:54 p.m. CST

    cinematic abortion

    by Ryalto 3.0

    posted my thoughts in the Kidd review, but holy shit this movie was awful. 48fps is a massive clusterfuck and Jackson has never seemed more hackish and unengaged. At least The Phantom Menace had a pod race and a lightsaber fight. This was just fucking brutal. Jackson somehow manages to not only shit all over the source material, but his own LOTR movies too.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:54 p.m. CST

    @drunken busboy, I lol'ed at the same thing.

    by frank

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 6:59 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry, but I do NOT see where the criticism is coming from

    by Dharma4

    Great fucking movie. Classic Jackson scope. Loved it so much. -Namaste-

  • I actually remember being a kid borrowing a buddies copies of lotr to read for the first time, and remarked after reading them. "man this would be a kick ass movie" and hime replying "no way dude, its way to fucking dense. It will never happen." Personally, just getting the books on the big screen and AAA production money fullfills my dreams. The fact its in the hands of a half decent director is just icing on the top.

  • Particularly when you slam the movie because Bilbo states his motivation after 2 hours and what's that going to mean for character development in the next two movies. First off, his motivation changed throughout the movie. That is clear. If it wasn't clear for you, sorry, but there is a reason he chose to stay with the Company after he almost left them in the mountains- he changed. Secondly, do you really think Bilbo will have nothing to do or develop into during the next two movies? Did you feel that same way about Aragorn and Frodo during LOTR? That kind of criticism is very shallow because its meaningless. You're arguing against an unknown future that already has examples we can look to for support.

  • Yeah... that's exactly how it is in the book. So you either try to balance how the book works (the Dwarves get captured by EVERY single party they come across- Trolls, Goblins, Spiders, Elves) with slight changes that make the characters likable, or you change the story entirely and have them NOT get captured by everyone. You can't have it both ways. Either you do it like it is in the book and have the Dwarves come off as buffoonish during this monumental adventure, or you try to meet somewhere in the middle.

  • Really takes away almost all the credibility of your "review". Its such an extreme bit of hyperbolic fanboy whining and crying that literally ignores the fact that this was in MANY incredibly numerous ways faithful to the book. You say something extreme like that, you're just part of the "If its not perfect, its ABSOLUTE SHIT" crowd that permeates and pollutes these talkbacks and genuine film debate and discussion.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:26 p.m. CST

    No d vader

    by Ryalto 3.0

    this was in MANY incredibly numerous ways faithful to the book.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:27 p.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    And in MANY MORE WAYS a total betray of the source material. Stop apologizing for a bad movie

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:28 p.m. CST

    I've been such a fool.

    by sweeneydave

    I read so many negative reviews. I doubted PJ. Little did I know that everyone was taking CRAZY PILLS! The Hobbit was freaking amazing. Every bit. Don't believe Rotten Tomatoes. Don't believe the haters. They delight only in hating. This flick was awesome. It never dragged. And I am seriously pumped for NEXT YEAR! Meanwhile, I will watch this a couple more time in the theater and hope to God that an extended edition comes out in time for next Christmas!!!!!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:29 p.m. CST

    d.vader, you speak truth.

    by frank

    And this is coming from somone who hated the idea of splitting this into 3 movies. Until I realised its appendices material (and if the price means a little titty twisting on the story then so be it, its a price im cool to pay). Its got radgast in for crying out loud! How cool is that?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Stop using quotation marks incorrectly

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:34 p.m. CST


    by frank

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Movie was great: fun, beautiful, exciting

    by RandySavage

    I read one early review that said it was another Phantom Menace by Edward Douglas (who thought the Jackie Chan Karate Kid deserved an Best Picture nomination - should have known from that). And I saw a lot of the reviews said "not as good as LOTR" So my expectations were in check. Quick background: FotR:EE is tied with Braveheart as my favorite all-time movie, but I'm not as fond of TTT & RotK, although I there's a lot about TTT & RotK I like, I don't really love them. I think it helps knowing one's film preferences so you know how to take their comments. One of the best things about The Hobbit Part I is that in several ways it improves the LOTR by creating a wider world and adding depth to characters from that series (e.g. Elrond, Saruman, etc.). And I appreciated the interweaving stories (with LotR) and adding a number of cool visual easter eggs like the Elven cavalry helmets or Weathertop. I never felt the movie dragged at all... I would have happily stayed for a few more hours to see the story continue. Too many good things to list, and only a handful of nitpicks. All the above is about the movie itself, which I've only seen in 48fps. I didn't really care for it, and hope it looks like "a regular movie" when I see it again in the normal frame rate. The end coda was expected, but great none-the-less. Not sure I understand the heavily critical reviews, I enjoyed this movie more than Avengers and Dark Knight Rises (both of which I also liked, but not nearly as much as this).

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:40 p.m. CST

    And just what was a "betrayal", Ryalto?

    by D.Vader

    The fact that its now Bilbo who distracts the Trolls long enough for the sun to rise and not Gandalf? The fact that the Tolkien-created character, Radagast, whom Gandalf mentions in THE HOBBIT, has screentime? The fact that Gandalf doesn't talk to Gwaihir? Is that what you consider an offense so egregious it must be labeled a "betrayal"? Come on. You're a Purist. And that's okay, I understand Purists. You want everything *exactly* as it was written. You don't want scenes and story and subplot that Tolkien himself wrote but didn't include in The Hobbit. You're a Tolkien fan, but you don't want to see someone adapt that material that would never get adapted on its own (bc who adapts only appendices?). But it also means you have absolutely no understanding of what it takes to adapt something for the screen. It means you don't understand why screenwriters cut out characters or sequences or change things around for the movie. You're like leroyspoboys, the fanboy who cries out that Tom Bombadil and the Barrow-Wights and the Scouring the Shire never made it to the screen, and thus Peter Jackson is a hack. He (and you) ignore ALL the successes and things done right, pretending that its not hard to do, and focus only on the slight changes. You ignore what's good and just scream about the bad. And thus nothing is every "good" or even "okay" in your eyes. It sucks, its terrible, its shit. And its all because it didn't look the way you *wanted* it to look.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Thank you, da da dink.

    by D.Vader

    I'm glad you enjoyed the movie despite your initial reservations. Very cool to be pleasantly surprised! You too, SweeneyDave!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:42 p.m. CST

    And sorry da da dink, I was referring to Ryalto

    by D.Vader

    Who lost whatever he typed bc he used quotation marks incorrectly, I imagine.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:43 p.m. CST

    d vader

    by Ryalto 3.0

    you speak in lies. The dwarves and hobbits are exactly NOT alternately incompetent or excellent fighters in the book. You just said yourself that they always get captured. Yes. Exactly. Do you even read what you write? Which part of goblins and wargs chasing Radagast on a bunny sled west of the Misty Mountains was faithful to the book? This is a bad movie. Bad script. Bad directing. Terrible visuals due to the 48 fps. Tonally all over the place, absolutely lacking in intelligence or subtlety. Yes, it is BAD FUCKING WRITING to have one character directly ask another character what their motivation is, let alone 2 hours into the movie. PS. The characterizations of Frodo and Aragorn in the Lord of the Rings movies are actually terrible, to be honest, but at least Jackson stretched their arcs over all three movies instead of wrapping them up in the Fellowship of the Ring. And before you ask: Frodo was portrayed with no agency, he was weak and passive the whole way through, a poor protagonist. And Aragorn was self-doubting (and kind of an asshole to Theoden and Co) and mumbly when he should have been an indomitable hero. The reason for these changes in that Jackson has a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of interest in the hobbit characters.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Good movie or not, Harry has been compromised.

    by JP

    I don't blame him. With PJ attending your BNAT how can you not view this through rose tinted specs?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:47 p.m. CST

    its cool, it was bad grammer though. :0

    by frank

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:49 p.m. CST

    What about the Greyhound Bus?

    by BD Mahony


  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Harry always goes "whole hog."

    by Fart Vader

    I am honored that my first post could be about Hobbit.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Phantom Menace reaction...

    by proevad

    except I don't want to kill myself this time because I pretty much knew it was coming. It's a bad movie with a fantastic finish. All of the sleekness, mystery, and fun from the novel have been sucked out--and backstory, exposition, and dullness have taken their places. There is so much dullness that when action or fun does occur--it's jarring. Imagine a Tron light cycle race appearing in the middle of I, Claudius. Jackson is a fine filmmaker, but he's misfired again.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Ryalto you misunderstood me

    by D.Vader

    I didn't say that in the books they get captured all the time AND are good fighters. No, they get captured ALL the time in the books. Nothing is said of their fighting ability. And yet, if you shot the film just like the books, with your main characters constantly being captured, they'd end up looking pretty limp-dicked and weak, unable to do anything properly. Yes, that's the kind of group of central characters you want to follow for a movie or two (or three). 13 ineffectual Dwarves. That's why when you adapt, you change things for the better if you can (better for the *screen*, mind you). So no, I'm not lying. Just a misunderstanding there. If you think its bad for one character to ask another character, who he doesn't respect whatsoever and has little regard for, why he's with them in the first place... well I don't know what to tell you. Thorin has had little thought for Bilbo on the trip, and after their last excursion almost cost them all their lives, I can understand Thorin being annoyed by the perpetually cheerful Hobbit who gives nothing to the Company but trouble. That's not bad writing the way you describe it. That's just something different from the book, and therefore YOU DON'T LIKE IT. So wait, now you say Frodo and Aragorn are terrible in the movies too? Even though they do have arcs throughout each film? So its a lose-lose situation with you then, isn't it? You're arguing that the characters stink bc they're different from the books, NOT in how they perform in the movies, which are entirely different things. So I stand by my assessment that you are a Purist (and again, nothing wrong by that), who would be upset by *any* change from the source material. But you really have no business debating about how adaptations work bc you're a bit too biased to understand why the changes occur in the first place.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 7:56 p.m. CST

    I love the name FART VADER

    by D.Vader

    Excellent choice, sir.

  • I admit frodo sometimes got on my nerves once in a while with the big eye look. Typing it now reminds me of zoolanders magnum stare. But other then that was pretty true to the book char, at least in my minds eye.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8 p.m. CST

    ryalto 3.0 very well said

    by bf skinner

    Jackson's LOTR is stuffed full of emo characters that bare little resemblance to the book. Emo Frodo, emo Aragorn. He made Faramir an asshole which completely negated the character, he made Gimli a clown, and Elrond an overly serious cunt with a stick up his ass. HE DOESN'T GET THE BOOKS AT ALL. The Jackson circle jerk on this site is embarrassing. And Harry really damned The Hobbit with faint praise. Like all simpletons, all he could splutter was how good it was to be back in Middle-Earth again. That's not a review, that's fanwankery purely for the sense of familiarity.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:03 p.m. CST

    d. vader - I love reading your debates.

    by sweeneydave

    You're just so civil and logical. It's refreshing compared to all the passionate bashing and name calling.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:06 p.m. CST

    The Goblin King is...

    by LordVonPS3

    ... the boss of the Naboo Gungans. Almost sounds the same too. I felt this was the worst thing about the movie. [spoilers ahead - if you can call them that] The second worst was Radagast talking to all those animals. The first thing that came into my mind was Dr.Doolittle - not Radagast the Brown... The third worst was how those stone giants could throw all that rock around and yet the goblins can all sit about nicely, undisturbed in their mountain. I guess I'm trying to make sense out of something that shouldn't though... The jolly plate throwing as weird singing didn't get to me at all, but then my ears were rumbling with the sound of crunchy popcorn at that time - so that'd be my advice to those viewers whose hairs are likely to stand on end. Many many good points besides this... I saw the Hobbit in 2D. Definitely didn't seem like 48fps to me - so I guess there is a 24fps version. Maybe that worked to my advantage? Nice high rezzy textures and definitely felt numerous overtures akin to watching the LoTR movies over again. A good film, I liked it and not sure if I want to see it again in 3D. If the home release is also in 2D at 24fps - I won't complain.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:09 p.m. CST

    Many very humble thank you's, SweeneyDave

    by D.Vader

  •|18;d|XX46GiA5jVnLBM: Merry Christmas!!!!!!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Ah, the dreaded Purist label

    by Ryalto 3.0

    I purely enjoy good films and not schlock. Unless it's Point Break. Let me slow it down for you. A) I did not care for the characterization of Frodo and Aragorn in LOTR movies. B) Those two characters, despite my misgivings, did have character arcs that stretched over three movies. C) Despite my not liking the direction Jackson took Frodo and Aragorn, they are still better than Bilbo and Thorin in The Hobbit, because they don't wrap up their dramatic arcs in the first of three movies. Bilbo's character and his relationship with Thorin have nowhere to go in parts 2 and 3 except to retrace the same character steps: Bilbo finds his courage, Thorin comes to respect Bilbo, over and over again. It's going to be pretty damn boring to watch this happen again in part 2 after the spiders and escape from the Elves, and then again in part 3 when Thorin is on his death bed. My issue is not whether or not something is word for word the same as the books. It's about execution and quality. If something is better in the book than what is on screen, and there is no reason for the source material not to have been used other than hubris by Jackson, then this is a failure of the filmmakers. If Jackson uses material from the book and executes it poorly, this is also a failure.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:14 p.m. CST

    or maybe the Goblin King is...

    by LordVonPS3

    ... one of the Vogons from the mid 2000's Hitch-hiker's guide... I can't make up my mind, but all three are disturbing in an unpleasant - not very satisfying nor good way - IMHO.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:18 p.m. CST

    @lorvonps3 Radagast as dr.doolittle, makes sense to me.

    by frank

    I havent seen this yet, 2 hours to go. I dont mind that, hes not really well described anywhere in the books so im sure everyone is going to have there own opinion on how he seemed in there eyes. The goblin king, Im cool if he looks like the gungun king dissapointed that he sounds like him though.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:19 p.m. CST

    or like the ballchinian from mib2?

    by frank

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:19 p.m. CST

    ps vader

    by Ryalto 3.0

    I can assure you that I know far more about screenwriting that you do. Jackson sycophants love to trot out the purist label to deflect all complaints. Barely anyone cares about cutting things like Bombadil. It's the adding an extra hour of wasn't-in-the-book worthless wankery to the middle of The Two Towers that drives them nuts. It's not getting to cirith ungol until 150 minutes into the Return of the King and then half-assedly rushing through the Mordor journey that makes them grind their teeth. Not just because what's onscreen is bad on its own merits, but because there's a fucking book sitting right there with better ideas in it that Jackson's supposed to be adapting from.


  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:26 p.m. CST

    @ da_dink_dink 3D or 2D? 48fps or 24fps?

    by LordVonPS3

    Doesn't matter Dr.Dolittle the Brown will still seem just as weird! Hope you enjoy it anyway. In the 2D, 24fps version I saw it definitely seemed like a proper prequel to the LoTR trilogy... I'm looking forward to the next 2 parts just so I might convince my lady to watch the LoTR trilogy. No point her starting with those movies now...! In the meantime, I have to figure out a way to get her to watch Star Wars. Sigh!

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:26 p.m. CST

    @ajit, thanks for the photo. You have a lifelong buddy in me.

    by kindofabigdeal

    Or until I get the Banhammer.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:29 p.m. CST

    @ryalto ditching bombadil wasnt a bad move to me.

    by frank

    On the other hand I would have rather had the inclusion of the barrow downs to give the guys some cool ancient weapons, rather then aragorn just giving them some. I think that could have been done to by swaping aragorn for bombadil and a little story fidlling, but thats just me. Like I said the fact we got these films is a freaking miracle for us older farts.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Anyone find that ...

    by DrMorbius

    When Radaghast the Brown, and his sled pulled by rabbits, is leading the Orcs and their Wargs(?) supposedly away from our intrepid group. The medium and long shots are horribly rendered, especially a long shot that is somewhat akin to Santa Sled and his reindeer 'galloping' across the sky! Or was it only that way in the HFR version?

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Maybe, just maybe, 24 FPS is BETTER

    by VermithraxPejorative

    For one, I never expected harry to give a fair review to the film or the new format given his professional relationship with Peter jackson. Going back to the 48fps, I am tired of people telling me that this is simply a better technology that I am not used to yet. Isn't it possible that 24fps hit the aesthetic sweet spot giving film that look we love. Why do we need film to look more like real life??? All of these people explaining that 48fps looks strange because our brains aren't use to it yet need to stop and think about that a bit more. This is an assumption, or theory at best.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Drink that Jackson kool-aid!!

    by JP

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:49 p.m. CST

    kindofbigdeal, I have a lifelong buddy in you

    by ajit maholtra

    So I better open you up and let him out before he runs out of air!!! Heheheheheheheheheheheheheh I made a funny joke.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:51 p.m. CST

    D Vader: I couldn't believe it wasn't taken

    by Fart Vader

    Also, I use the dark side of the force... To poop.

  • Then you really aren't that imaginative, and I doubt you know as much about screenwriting as you're trying to project. Nothing you've said so far has convinced me you understand the adaptation process. Don't try do use the internet as an excuse for anonymity and say you know more about it than I do. You might, you might not. Fact is, neither of us can prove it, even if we knew each other in person. But the reality here is everything you've said has been a complaint about differences from the novel. You have exaggerated greatly that this movie is NOT FAITHFUL to the book, completely ignoring everything the movie takes wholesale from what Tolkien wrote. That's it. You didn't like it, that's fine. You'd prefer some things be dropped, some things remained the same from the book, that's fine. But don't pretend that the movie isn't faithful whatsoever, because then you're just being a liar.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Is. It? Better THAN. Jack, Reacher!

    by dylan alvord

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Hell, Ryalto, if you TRULY understood screenwriting...

    by D.Vader

    And if you were TRULY a Tolkien fan, then you'd KNOW that Cirith Ungol takes place at pretty much the SAME TIME as it does in Return of the King. In the books it takes place during The Two Towers, but during the chronological timeline, it takes place during the Siege of Gondor. You would know this, and you wouldn't use it as a complaint. I suppose if your superior screenwriting prowess had its way, Frodo and Sam would have been in Cirith Ungol in The Two Towers while Helm's Deep is occurring, and then they'd spent the entirety of ROTK on the plains of Gorgoroth. That would have made for a real interesting feature-length story for those two.

  • can anyone confirm you whisper jokes like that in la if your in the entertainment biz? I heard you can get banned from upscale douchbag restaurants making jokes about them, is that true. LA really is a fucking weird place.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:21 p.m. CST

    drmorbius your sled...

    by LordVonPS3

    ... was very much like a decent blur of motion to me in 2D, 24fps. There's no getting away from the fact that they were blatantly computer graphics, but the whole scene had me smirking in a pretty good way. The sled was mostly a blur of motion and the Wargs were running at a clearly slower pace. They were never going to catch Radagast. Couldn't tell you what it looks like at 48fps but I'm starting to think maybe that's for the best.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:21 p.m. CST

    I've been frequenting AICN forever now . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    Since 1998. That's a long time, right??? Anyway. Harry, I've never, EVER, commented on your writing. There are always plenty of haters to do that for me. But now, I can't hold back. You just HAVE to be getting worse on purpose. It's the only explanation I can come up with.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:26 p.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    My superior screenwriting knowledge would have led me to put the Shelob scene in the finale of the Two Towers where it fucking belonged and was intended. Frodo is dead and Sam has to take the Ring. Goblins closing in on both sides. Only one option left: Sam puts the ring on. Boom. Credits. That's how you end a movie. Yes, there's a little more after that in the book, but we're making a movie here and this is a cliffhanger to rival ESB. Most of Jackson's plot issues arise from his intransigence on the ending of the Two Towers. He developed the scripts as two movies and was utterly committed to ending part 1 at Helm's Deep. Then he got 3 movies from New Line and instead of adjusting his story beats, he just elongated TTT with an extra hour of filler and then crammed everything into ROTK to keep his Helm's Deep finale intact. A good adaptation would have been to say who gives a shit what the timeline in the appendices says, Shelob is a story beat that we need to hit at the end of part two. A reeeeally good adaptation would have wondered why they were so committed to cross-cutting between books 3/4 and 5/6 to begin with.

  • That's exactly was Jackson is doing. Embellishing the story. I pretty much loved it. I have no idea why so many people are bitching about this flick. LOOK-- you're getting MORE Hobbit movies instead of less. Is that a bad thing really? Oh, and I thought the 48 fps looked terrific. FOTR > ROTK > Hobbit > TTT

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Point proven, Ryalto

    by D.Vader

    You're talking about ending the movie exactly as the book ends. In other words, you're talking about doing EXACTLY as the book does. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd rather TTT and ROTK have the first half devoted to just one group of characters and then have the second half devoted to the other group. Because you completely ignore what I already said: That Cirith Ungol takes place at the same time as Aragorn's timeline in ROTK. You want to screw up the timelines simply for the sake of adherence to the book's writing (not its timeline) and for a Empire Strikes Back cliffhanger. For a cliffhanger. Is THAT really what's best for the story? No. And you can try and defend it all you want and say its better for a story beat, but then guess what, you're stuck with an ENTIRE movie of Frodo and Sam just trudging along the plains of Gorgoroth. I already said as much. And if you understand screenwriting and filmmaking, then you would know that makes for a very uninteresting film, both visually and thematically. Remember all that footage of the two of them just stumbling around smokey pits and barren rocky crags? Yeah, its that for an entire movie. That's no bueno. Sorry dude, its just not a good idea.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:35 p.m. CST

    But please, let's stop pretending you and I are screenwriters

    by D.Vader

    Its getting a bit pretentious.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:39 p.m. CST

    And let's get back to the main point, and your biggest mistake.

    by D.Vader

    Namely your quote "This movie was in no way faithful to the book and you’re goddamn liar or a fool if you say so," a statement that completely, willfully, ignorantly ignores everything good and right with the movie in order to whine and cry. Its an immature thought to be sure.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Anyway I'm off to bed. Its been fun.

    by D.Vader

    Thankee, Ryalto.

  • Why do such horrifically evil things have to happen before these movies release. Before it was 9/11. This time it's a mass child massacre. For 3 hours I forgot what happened today. Then I walked out and saw kids holding their parents hand and I am so thankful for them that they are still together.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:45 p.m. CST

    A thought just came to me ...

    by filmakr1

    ... when watching John Ary's critique on The Hobbit's 48fps presentation. He kept saying that his brain kept telling him that certain sequences reminded him of video game clarity and/or reality TV. As I just posted in another thread here, I loved the film seeing it this morning, and took back all the complaints I made last night about it being presented in 3D 48fps. But I don't play video games at all, and I watch very little reality tv. (or any TV) And the Hobbit's 3D HD look and feel did not bother me at all. My 'brain' did not reject the aesthetic feel of the new presentation. But what about folks who play alot of video games? Could they be associating the look of the Hobbit with the look of the HD in a video game, and therefore are emotionally rejecting the epic 'grandness' feel of the movie? Just a thought ...

  • Caruso-stalker217 is a goddamn poet of the first order.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST

    the entire movie, dvader?

    by Ryalto 3.0

    The ring should be destroyed at no more than 1:30 in. Who gives a shit what the appendices say about when things happen? we're making a movie here. I love how you justify every hackish change that Jackson makes, but suddenly you pretend to care about keeping the timeline exact. Where in your vaunted timeline does the scene where Faramir takes the hobbits to Osgiliath happen, I wonder? Story wise, Shelob is at the end of part 2. Part 3 would have: frodo's not dead, The Ring tempts Sam, Sneaking into Cirith Ungol, Fight in the CU tower, scrounging for armor and gear, looking for water, falling in with orcs, escaping the orcs, climbing the mountain, gollum attacks, the ring is destroyed. That's plenty of material for a bunch of solid 3-5 minute scenes, and still works fine cross-cutting back to Minas Tirith. No need to add in a bunch of bullshit scenes lighting beacons or in Osgiliath, or Aragorn eating cereal in Edoras until Oh Shit it's the beacons! I should, like, do something! Of course, this presupposes a movie where the main characters are Hobbits, not Emo-Aragorn. Just because Jackson can't execute the Frodo and Sam storyline, doesn't mean it can't be done. Remember: Jackson is a hack b-movie director without an ounce of grace or subtlety. Storytelling failures on his part are expected, not proof that something won't work. And we haven't even begun to discuss the cringe-inducing snooze-fests that are the interminable cutaways to Arwen.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    'The Hobbit' earns $13 million at midnight showings

    by TheKiller7

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    there isn't anything good or right in the movie, dvader. that's what I've been trying to say, The Hobbit was awful and went out of its way to break from the source material at many points. Even when going over the same sequence from the book, Jackson rewrites it his way, and it's worse for it.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    "Breaking Dawn -- Part 2" -- $30.4 million

    by TheKiller7

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    "The Dark Knight Rises" -- $30.6 million

    by TheKiller7

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:58 p.m. CST

    "The Avengers" -- $18.7 million

    by TheKiller7

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:58 p.m. CST

    "The Hunger Games" -- $19.7 million

    by TheKiller7

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Heading to middle earth in 30 minutes, I am stoked!

    by frank

    I may even go to IHOP afterwards for a hobbit meal. : p

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Ryalto has the upper hand so far...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack I can tell. Emo-Aragorn going over the cliff and getting rescued by Brego the super-horse was a Jar-Jar sized red flag. Not to mention the fact that he turned Theoden into a cowardly retard.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST

    I think the 'game' theory kinda of makes sense for the fps...

    by Pete Susoev

    Friend of mine said it felt like Witcher 2 cut scenes without the tits at times. Was it distracting, I queried, and his response was 'not really, but only sometimes'. Asking for a further breakdown it sounded like it only reminded him of how video games look, hence forcing an unconscious comparison. His wife though, she got dizzy. She also gets dizzy when she plays first person shooters...which is common with some gamers. So I dunno if that also carries into it at all or not. And to actually watch LoTR and say Jackson is without grace already invalidates your statement. You went from having valid argument points, ryalto, to slamming him as a director and just allowing your fetishistic adherence to YOUR opinion of how a written work should be transported to the screen. I mean, if I had a basis of comparison to judge it on between your achievements and his that'd be helpful. I prefer the changes, it adds more depth. That's my opinion. I enjoyed having more than just hobbit stuff, as I myself am not a hobbit and empathize more easily with human characters. I like it when a story goes from A to B and can easily discuss it with people who haven't read the book...for their eyes begin to gloss over when I go off topic and point out where the film took a detour. I want an escape and a well crafted one at that. I will take a good interpretation that is faithful to the narrative over a direct translation from paper to film any day. You just can't cram everything from a book into a film.

  • Doubt it.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:13 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit is great!

    by frank

    Just got back from seeing it, and I loved it. Sure, a few minutes could have been cut from some of the action scenes, but other than that I really had no complaints. And the non-action scenes are paced perfectly. I loved spending time with the dwarves at bag end. And the Rivendell scene is excellent. The best scene, though, is easily Riddles in the Dark, which was done pretty much perfectly, and Gollum/Andy Serkis was in rare form, as were the animators. He was actually portrayed as a scary and threatening figure and the whole riddles sequence is very tense and suspenseful, even though I knew how it would play out. I was disappointed that they cut out some of the riddles though. But that is understandable. Overall, the movie was a very fun thrill ride and an extremely satisfying return to Middle Earth. Can’t wait to see it again.

  • I agree this time. I thought the 48fps here was amazing at is something that artistically fits with Jackson's vision for Middle Earth. The CG monsters look very real with only small exceptions, faces and animals walking in the usual uncanny valley we've grown so sadly accustomed to noticing. Scenes/environments were beautiful. I had no problem adjusting. Once in a while static environment shots where characters walked in the foreground looked like super high rez postcards, but I still feel like that was a design decision by Jackson.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:14 p.m. CST

    world teat - if only filmmakers still suckled from your wisdom

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Really it was pretty faithful to the book.

    by frank

    They even had the ‘That’s what Bilbo Baggins Hates’ song for crying out loud.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:16 p.m. CST

    I thought the plot would progress further than it did.

    by frank

    I suppose they probably changed the cut off points when changing from a two part to a three part series. I was still expecting them to get to the Mirkwood spider scene at least. But no worries, just makes me anticipate the next installment more.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST


    by Jason

    I took my young daughter to this movie (after reading the book with her) and after 3 hours she turned to me and said, "It's not over already is it?"

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:20 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit was never going to be LotR

    by frank

    nor should it have aspired to be. It is a simpler story with more emphasis on action/adventure than LotR. It also has a lighter tone, as not as much is at stake as in LotR. I think PJ nailed the tone pretty much perfectly. Sort of Indiana Jones-like. It still felt like the children’s book, but not overly silly and still very enjoyable for adults. I think it fits in with LotR without being a retread.

  • This one mostly focused on Thorin and Balin. I’d like to see some of the others get some character moments, but I understand the difficulty in doing so. It isn’t a huge deal.

  • hey Menis, was Jackson showing his grace when, instead of having Bilbo find the ring by chance, it goes flying out of Gollum's loincloth in glowing slow motion, as subtle as a jackhammer? Point me to one grace note in his entire filmography, please. One moment where he chose subtlety over beat-you-over-the-head-with-it obviousness. I'll wait.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:24 p.m. CST

    I loved the interactions of the White Council members

    by frank

    I liked how Galadriel came across as probably the wisest member. I expect major badassery from her in the battle with the Necromancer.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:26 p.m. CST

    Radagast was cool, too.

    by frank

    He could have easily been a ridiculous character, but they managed to handle him just perfectly, I think. He was wacky, but much more than just comic relief. You could see why Saruman would label him a fool, but you could also see that he actually wasn’t.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:28 p.m. CST

    also menis

    by Ryalto 3.0

    Maybe you would empathize more with the hobbit characters if they were treated less like retarded sheep-fucking hicks and more like the English landed gentry they're supposed to be (Sam excepted; he's a gardener).

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Next, I have to try 48FPS 3D.

    by frank

    I bet that it awesome, too judging by the fact that every other negative thing I have read concerning The Hobbit turned out to be pretty much completely wrong.

  • damned if you dont know how to back up what you say and smack some motards around

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I just farted...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...and the echoing thunder crashing from mountain top to valley pit was still more subtle than the most subtle scene in Peter Jackson's filmography. Point to ryalto.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:36 p.m. CST

    Bullroarer Took even got a mention!

    by frank

    How cool is that?

  • yes

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Who doesn’t like the hobbit characters?

    by frank

    Some of them are dicks, like the Sackville-Bagginses and so on, but mostly they are likable characters. They’re kind of provincial, but that’s just how they are.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Ryalto is losing by my count

    by Elwood Blues

    He's just a little too arrogant and exaggerating his views too much for the purpose of being right. Which screams douchebag if you ask me. While I don't disagree with all his points, he's going to far in exaggerating his dislikes to be a reputable debater. The Hobbit was much more faithfull beat for beat then any of the original movies. When did the art of debating lose acknowledgement of when the other person is right rather then disagree on EVERY SINGLE POINT? It's like oil and water: if one person likes something and another person dislikes something, neither can agree on anything. It's childish if you ask me. D.Vader is guilty of it to an extent too, but not to the degree as Ryalto. Come on people grow the fuck up.

  • Harry banned me long ago for some reason. Or maybe it was Father Geek. I figured this was the only place to come to talk about The Hobbit. Old times and all.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:52 p.m. CST

    And for the record I enjoyed The Hobbit.

    by Elwood Blues

    Not as much as the original movies, but i also enjoy the Lord of the Rings books more than the Hobbit as well. Just more is at stake which makes it more engrossing. I have some complaints about the hobbit but nothing that's not also represented in the original movies. It's lighter in tone and silly at times yes, but so is the book. My only big gripe is the cartoonish nature of the action in the goblin realm, it stretched beyond believability to me and was akin to the AOTC conveyer belt scene. (Well maybe not quite as bad but getting there). But I can overlook that and enjoy it as a great addition to the series overall.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:53 p.m. CST

    It was a lot more faithful to the book than I had expected

    by frank

    The added stuff was mostly from other Tolkien writings, too. There wasn’t much that PJ and friends came up with out of the blue, and what they did make up worked just fine, imo.

  • It looked great but went on a bit too long and got a little silly.* Although to compare it to the atrocity that was the AotC conveyor belt scene is out of line. I will not tolerate any comparisons between The Hobbit and anything from the Star Wars prequels. *Fortunately Riddles in the Dark was intercut with it, so the awesomeness of that scene balanced things out.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Gi joe retaliation awesome?

    by lewis maldonado

    All credibility lost

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Too bummed to see a movie tonight.

    by Deceased Fan

    I'm glad you liked it Harry, others. Love you guys. Peace.

  • It looks real. Doesn't seem very film... except sometimes, just like in a movie the background will still be out of focus from time to time. There are still all the same kinds of shots and editing techniques... only it looks real. And I kinda know. When I was on the set of Minas Tirith, my memories of watching Gandalf riding around, pulling out an umbrella on set as it lightly rained. Except... Instead, all the effects are done - and where I had to use my imagination, creatures absolutely fantastic come to life.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:02 p.m. CST

    And here is the REST of my post!

    by Monroville

    Really Harry? This is what you call... (sigh) why bother any more... At least people are talking/bitching back-and-forth about the movie.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Elwood you gave yourself away when you said...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack enjoyed The Hobbit. Should have left it at your first post bro. Dudes who suck cock never know when to quit.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Sorry you are bummed deceased.

    by frank

    For me, I was only too glad to escape into Middle Earth for a few hours. Wish I could have stayed there.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:04 p.m. CST


    by Elwood Blues

    I suppose I went overboard in comparing it to the conveyor belt scene. It wasn't at that level. But it was just cartoonish in a similar vein.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:06 p.m. CST


    by Elwood Blues

    Oh sorry. Didn't know honesty was frowned up

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:09 p.m. CST


    by Elwood Blues

    If my phone would let me finish... I didn't realize honesty was frowned upon around here. I suppose if one wants to be superior they have to hide certain things or lie. Too bad I don't care if I'm viewed as superior. I prefer to be honest. Sorry if that offends you. Continue trolling now.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:09 p.m. CST

    I see where you are coming from though, elwood.

    by frank

    The scene needed some restraint for sure. The Great Goblin’s death was probably the low point of the movie. I’m just glad that sort of thing was kept to a minimum. Really there wasn’t much stupid humor in the movie, which was my biggest fear going into it.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:12 p.m. CST

    No worries Elwood. Just saying you had me convinced until you took sides...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...and all apologies for the cock comment. That was the bourbon talking.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Ima pop painkillers now so I can comprehend this review.

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:16 p.m. CST


    by Elwood Blues

    Yeah I was afraid more stupid humor would be in it, but it really wasn't much worse then the LOTR movies, thankfully. And Hemmingway it's cool. I am gay so it's accurate! I just like to give full disclaimers, I'm honest to a fault. Just wish the rest of the world was too, we'd have a lot less issues...

  • Not sure how the plot is going to be split up, but the subsequent events in Mirkwood and with Smaug and the Battle of Five Armies should make for some fantastic cinema.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    I hope Ian Holm will narrate the opening to each movie.

    by frank

    I think it is really cool that they are framing the story like that.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Thanks frank.

    by Deceased Fan

    I thought about that. Maybe tomorrow. I went to see The Dark Knight Rises right after Aurora and it helped to get lost in Gotham for awhile. This hit closer to home having two elementary aged children. They're at their mom's tonight, so missing them. I can't fathom what the families in Connecticut are going through, but my heart aches for them. Goodnight fellas.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:24 p.m. CST

    Thoughts from 3D imax midnight show at 24fps w small spoilers

    by carlotta_valdes

    Posting my early afternoon observations from Capones' thread here as well: Many things to love (if you're a fan). Thorin's development, Radagast, White Council, Riddles in the Dark and of course Mckellen's Gandalf and Martin Freeman's Bilbo. A necessary evil in small doses...but I didn't care for the large amount of LOTR's referencing that goes on through dialogue and music. Just reminded me of special moments from the trilogy that I was missing here. One in particular felt completely out of context. In Thorin's end hero moment, who made the decision to use the Ringwraith's theme? Just felt wrong. The only new Howard Shore music that really registered for me was obviously the Dwarves theme, along with Radagast's theme. All others felt like revamps. Some great action set pieces like the goblin kingdom, but felt no true threat of danger for the characters as I did for the Fellowship. When Gandalf falls in Moria you FEEL you do with Boromir at the end. There are sadly no moments equal to those here, but what you do get is a light hearted return to middle earth that sets the stage for hopefully much darker and weightier proceedings in the next two films.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:31 p.m. CST

    That is reasonable, Carlotta.

    by frank

    I agree that I would have liked to have heard more original music, although the dwarves theme is great. Also I caught the balrog scene from Fellowship on TV after getting home from Hobbit today, and yeah, we don’t get anything quite like Gandalf’s or Boromir’s death scenes in The Hobbit. However, I don’t think it is quite fair to expect those since the book doesn’t really offer anything of that emotional magnitude. I would also submit that the Riddles in the Dark scene rivals anything we got from the LotR trilogy. Also, I do think the next films will be weightier, as you suggest.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:32 p.m. CST

    Elwood, you are a man

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    Even though we might disagree, I like the way you carry yourself. I will not, however, engage in gay sex with you.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:41 p.m. CST

    DVD column?

    by thefreshestthing

    Your app literally came out one week ago and you can't even ... nevermind, I give up. I've gotten less for $2 I suppose.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:42 p.m. CST

    Gandalf the Grey was one of the best things about FOTR

    by RandySavage

    SPOILERS And its great to see him front & center here, particularly some nice action sequences (orc decapitation and the excellent white flash/silhouette moment when he returns to the Goblin town). I liked the WitchKing appearance, too.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:42 p.m. CST


    by Elwood Blues

    Thanks that means a lot. When we can disagree on trifling things like whether a movie is good or not yet respect each other as people, gives me hope for us all. As for no gay sex with you, I shall have to endure. As enticing as it may be with someone who calls himself Hemingway's Thundering Crack... I'll have to accept it will never happen.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Gandalf the Grey is the fucking man.

    by frank

    It was cool that they sort of mentioned Pallando and Alatar, too. Kind of glossed over the fact that they moved east and started evil cults, though.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:47 p.m. CST

    Elwood, so The Hobbit pulls your trigger...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...but gay sex with a thundering crack resets the game? Damn. Now you have me rethinking the game.

  • Was he supposed to be entombed in Dol Guldur and had been revived by Sauron? I guess one of the biggest changes from the book is that it looks like the Necromancer had just set up shop in Greenwood the Great, which was just turning into Mirkwood, instead of being that way for many years already.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:53 p.m. CST

    If I drink and snort and smoke myself to death...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...I want it on record that it was because of my attempt to comprehend this review.

  • Dec. 14, 2012, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Hemingway, I have that effect...

    by Elwood Blues

    Actually I don't. The gay community is even more shallow then uppity film nerds. I'm not unattractive at all, but the gay community only believes 20-something perfect abs guys are hot. Well the ones with braincells only in their cocks believe so at least. I digress though, and I blame the wine.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, midnight CST


    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack just gotta say FUCK THAT and get all Darth Vader on that shit. "Bring my shuttle."

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Harry utilizes an avant garde form of writing.

    by frank

    His reviews are actually high art, in addition to being movie reviews.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:03 a.m. CST

    Saw it in HFR and Dolby Atmos

    by DinoBass

    And loved it. I love the look of film and I'm very picky about picture quality when I watch movies at home or in theaters. Sure, 48 FPS doesn't look like film, but it still looks amazing; it's simply a different experience. The sets and makeup themselves don't look any less real (in fact, the craft on display is breathtaking), but the smoothness of motion and the clarity of the picture give everything a more video-like quality. Narrow fields of focus don't work as well, either. Still, I'm planning on seeing it again a few times in that format. One last note on 48FPS: I have no idea what people are referring to when they talk about motion looking "sped-up"; I didn't see anything close to that. As for the film, I thought it was great, and as a Tolkien nut I never found myself drawn out of the film by any addition/change from the book like I was in each of the LOTR films at some point. Really enjoyed the experience!

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:04 a.m. CST


    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    So you are claiming Harry is is autistic?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:08 a.m. CST

    Just give the fuck up, Harry.

    by Banned-ki-moon

    You're a colossal idiot of the highest order. Your writings are nothing more than the incoherent ramblings of an increasingly-stupid painpill addict. Reading your gibberish lowers the IQ. Just...stop. You are embarrassing yourself with every slurred, badly-written sentence you fail to complete. We all know you don't give a shit about anything other than collecting money, which you blow on food and toys for yourself instead of having a sense of respect and fixing this shitty site. No one gives a fuck what you've seen or where you've parked your massive ass in the theaters. People are laughing at you. They read these "reviews" for the same reasons they watch videos of retards -- because it's comedy gold.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Oh my nerd credentials do get me laid...

    by Elwood Blues

    Or at least my honest and unashamed personality does. And nerds are hot, at least to guys that matter. Now do I get your number?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Grace falls upon how it is percieved.

    by Pete Susoev

    Frankly, I found a vast majority of the scenes in LoTR to be graceful and well executed. That is my opinion, it was how I as an audience member perceived it. Jackson makes changes that may or may not be accessible to all who view the film, and that's fine, but I'm not going to tear apart every fucking scene like Billy the Kidd just to sound like Randal from fucking Clerks. To me, the hobbits appeared similar to how I imagined when I read the books as a kid. Again, that's how I took it. I didn't mind Jackson's interpretation of them, I never took any of LoTR or Hobbit as a super serious read (unlike say, Silmarillion). There are so many sequences which invoke grace and glory in the way they are framed with the score. That's kind of a weak argument. I mean, people fucking bitched about how Gollum found the ring in the first place, and how similar would that 'chance finding' be to a common audience goer. Oh, the fucking ring just magically shows up where ever for a plot vehicle. Are hobbits and river folk naturally attracted to it? How the hell did it manage to stay on Bilbo's mantle for so long without someone being 'called' towards it blah blah blah. Its an interpretation, plain and simple. Luckily the ancient Greeks aren't still around, think how'd they react to Jason and the Argonauts or even Troy. Sometimes I wonder what your basis of comparison is. Its a goddamn movie meant to entertain. You want the WHOLE story, read the fucking book. I can take a few deviations from source if the experience overall is a good one.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:11 a.m. CST

    Wait everyone. Did PJ have a cameo in The Hobbit? If so I missed it.

    by Elwood Blues

    I caught all his bits in LOTR...

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:11 a.m. CST

    Maybe he is a savant.

    by frank

    Was he vaccinated as a kid? That could explain it.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:13 a.m. CST

    PJ did have a cameo, supposedly.

    by frank

    But I didn’t catch it either. Maybe he was an orc or goblin. Next time around I will keep a closer eye out for it.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Did anyone get an official count

    by ShoreGrey

    Of how many times Harry says "I" or "me" in this review? I know I counted "I" nine times by the end of the first full paragraph

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:16 a.m. CST

    Elwood, your nerd credentials are legit...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...and if it weren't for my wife I'd give you my number right here on this goddamn talkback. And I hate gay sex. Honestly.

  • and that they just called them goblins in The Hobbit and orcs in LotR.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:17 a.m. CST

    I hate gay sex like Harry hates studio influence and painkillers...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Franks I heard there is an orc with testicles on his chin...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack


  • I’m just trying to pad my resume.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Yeah, Elwood, PJ appeared in hemingway's thundering crack

    by FeralAngel

    Pity you missed it. Hell of a cameo. Too bad it wound up in the toilet. Jesus christ, can you two luvbirds take it elsewhere?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST

    yeah the goblin king has a testicle chin

    by frank

    not sure what they were thinking there, honestly.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:22 a.m. CST

    Harry makes some good points...

    by Titus05

  • I am scared, and confused.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:23 a.m. CST

    feralangel, your place, right?

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:24 a.m. CST

    Harry makes some good points...

    by Titus05

    I think one of the problems that folks are having with 48 FPS is that the "Look" of Middle Earth was so firmly established with the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, that watching this FUTURE TECH version, it makes some uncomfortable

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:24 a.m. CST

    Saruman is a real narc.

    by frank

    He got on Gandalf’s case in Fellowship for smoking too much halfling’s leaf and then in AUJ accuses Radagast of partaking of mushrooms too often.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:24 a.m. CST

    franks you are quite frank but...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...but I'm afraid the fee legally implicates you.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:24 a.m. CST

    Harry makes some good points...

    by Titus05

    I think one of the problems that folks are having with 48 FPS is that the "Look" of Middle Earth was so firmly established with the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, that watching this FUTURE TECH version, it makes some uncomfortable

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:25 a.m. CST


    by Elwood Blues

    That gave me the deepest laugh I've had all day.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Harry makes some good points...

    by Titus05

    I think one of the problems that folks are having with 48 FPS is that the "Look" of Middle Earth was so firmly established with the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, that watching this FUTURE TECH version, it makes some uncomfortable If you're worried about the 48fps HFR or the 3D.... See it in 2D the first time just to enjoy the story I agree with both

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Harry makes some good points...

    by frank

    FUTURE TECH is the wave of the FUTURE.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:28 a.m. CST

    Isn't anybody who says "Harry makes some good points" just a target?

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:33 a.m. CST

    The special effects in AUJ are pretty astounding.

    by frank

    Gollum especially. And Cate Blanchett actually looks younger than in LotR. Celeborn pretty much hit the jackpot. Why he would have stayed behind when she left Middle Earth is beyond me. Maybe it is just hard being married for thousands of years, even to Galadriel.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Where is Quint’s review?

    by frank

    Since he got to visit the production and all. Or is he recusing himself from reviewing the film because of that?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:39 a.m. CST

    AUJ? Really? We're there?

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    And yes, marriage is hard. 10 years. 10,000 years. But that's still no excuse for judging a movie based on its special effects (no matter how long it's been since the wifey blew you).

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:39 a.m. CST

    hobbit was boring as hell

    by muri71

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:40 a.m. CST

    they sing, fall and fall all the time and no one dies...

    by muri71

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:41 a.m. CST

    it was like crystall skull and phantom menace all over again...

    by muri71

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:41 a.m. CST

    no wonder why ahrry loved it

    by muri71

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:41 a.m. CST

    Because we aren’t idiots muri.

    by frank

    Because we aren’t idiots, is why we haven’t said AUJ is PJ’s Phantom Menace.

  • Just saying. AUJ.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:44 a.m. CST

    muri71 had it until he said "ahrry loved it"

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    the god of small things bro.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:45 a.m. CST

    they sing, fall and fall all the time and no one dies

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    poetry though

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:45 a.m. CST

    He also said ‘no wonder why.'

    by frank

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:45 a.m. CST

    And what’s wrong with singing?

    by frank

    That’s what Bilbo Baggins hates!

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:50 a.m. CST


    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...bilbo faggins loves singing.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:51 a.m. CST

    Ryalto, ending The Two Towers with Frodo dead...

    by NativeGaijin

    ...and Sam holding the Ring (implying Sam would be the hero in The Return of the King) would only have worked for people who already read the books or knew the story. For anyone else, the reveal in ROTK that Frodo was still alive would have been viewed as a cop-out akin to Dallas' "It was only a dream" debacle. At best, it would have been viewed by non-Tolkien fans as pandering. If you really do have screenwriting training and experience (or writing experience of any kind), then surely you know that the rules of structure that apply to a standalone story do not always apply to a serial, especially when they are spread a year apart. That separation gives the audience time to accept the fact that Frodo is indeed dead, which makes the reveal that he's still alive even more jarring and difficult to accept. When Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, he intended the three stories to be released in a single volume, so he didn't have to consider this dilemma. I would also like to make a suggestion regarding your strategy in making your arguments. One of the first things I learned in high school debate was, "Never state absolutes." Doing so always does more harm to your stance than it does to your opponent's, as it makes you seem unyielding and irrational. When you say something like, "there isn't anything good or right in the movie, dvader. that's what I've been trying to say." sane people interpret it as "I'm a nut who thinks that Peter Jackson, who made one of the most critically-acclaimed and successful movie trilogies of all time, got EVERYTHING wrong this time time out." What are the odds of anyone actually believing that?

  • So I'll do it for you: the scene in Moria when Gandalf gives his "Many that are dead deserve life, can you give it to them?" monologue is excellent (as it should be, it's pure Tolkien). McKellen nails it. But even this scene is marred by the absurdly nonchalant reveal of: "what's that down there?" "Oh, that's Gollum. He's following us. whatevs." Jackson would not, I don't think, make a good poker player. Poor Cate Blanchett, Oscar-winning actress, is denied her great monologue moment in favor of some insane CGI monstrosity with vocals under tons of effects. BTW, Menis, no one and I mean no one has ever complained about how Smeagol/Deagol found the ring. Though they might have bitched about how awful and over the top the scene at the beginning of ROTK is. I mean fucking hell, enough with the retarded mugging. These guys probably fish every day to survive. They should not be so over the moon about getting a nibble on the line.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:54 a.m. CST


    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    ...way too much way too late bro. Pay attention.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Is it just me, or does ryalto 3.0 own this TB?

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    Thus thunders the Crack

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Wonder if Gollum will appear at all in the next two films?

    by frank

    I’d like to see him set out on his search for the ring, although I guess there isn’t much actually story there that would have occurred during the time frame of The Hobbit. Maybe just a little something towards the end of movie 3 would be nice.

  • The things he complains about are far from ruining the movies.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:01 a.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    I go back and forth all the time over whether its better to reveal that Frodo is still alive in TTT. Pros and Cons. In the book, you find out he's still alive, but that scene goes on too long for a movie. The best bet would probably be to hint that he's still alive, but nothing too overt. And I do not frankly care if people think I'm crazy for not washing the balls of Peter Jackson. I think they're quite crazy for doing so. I am literally baffled by the fact that ROTK won Oscars. It has some of the most shoddy, half-assed filmmaking I've ever seen in a big-budget movie. It won for editing even. Inconceivable!

  • We had some fun, geeky conversations back then.

  • Yes, ROTK's Oscars were entirely for the first film. Oscar loves bloat.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:09 a.m. CST

    My question is

    by frank

    has Harry really seen THE HOBBIT?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:10 a.m. CST


    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack had some fun nerdy hobbit sex back then? That makes the new movie good?

  • Jackson has had a better 'screenplay' on his bookshelf since he was a kid than Walsh and Boyens wrote 75 years later. And he basically ignored the majority of it for no logical reason. Appendices? Sure, you can make that shit up for the big screen because it's all just cliff notes anyway. But as far as the main text, why fuck with superior source material and choose what your wife wrote instead? Is she really that good in the sack? People that think this film was anywhere near faithful to the book baffle me.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:18 a.m. CST

    So do you guys want more musical numbers or fewer?

    by frank

    Are we complaining about not being faithful enough to the source or being too faithful? I think they struck pretty much just the right balance, personally.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:23 a.m. CST

    So franks...

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack are saying that we should accept the Peter Jackson hobbit jism blast on our collective faces because you had so much fun back in the day?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson's Hobbit Jism Blast

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:36 a.m. CST

    That’s essentially what I am saying hemingway.

    by frank

    That and The Hobbit is a good movie. And the jism thing.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:52 a.m. CST


    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

    but is it the jism or the movie? we need to know.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:53 a.m. CST

    is it still on your face?

    by Hemingways_Thundering_Crack

  • As you know from the other TB, I loved the film and am eagerly anticipating further installments. First off, in Quint's BNAT write-up he excused himself from writing a formal review since he was too close to the production but did seem to have enjoyed the film. Secondly, it does look like PJ's turning Greenwood to Mirkwood over the course of this new trilogy. Don't know what to think about that, but it will probably have some sort of repercussions with Thranduil and his people. Wouldn't be surprised if Gollum does make a return, but it would likely be anti-climactic if he did, plus based on the production videos Andy's only shooting days were for that first week in the studio with Martin. Re-shoots are a definite possibility, but would Gollum really contribute to the story? There are enough antagonists as it is. Also, Saruman may be a narc but he's also a hypocrite. Motherfucker had barrels of longbottom leaf imported for his smoking pleasure. He's probably just scared of shrooms from a bad trip he had with the Blue Wizards.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:56 a.m. CST

    I really enjoyed 48fps...

    by Finn

    It had its problems with speed at some points (close ups), but i think if they can fix those issues I prefer 48fps even over the 3D boom. It is a preference, or maybe its old eyes that don't like change-- but I honestly think it's the future.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:58 a.m. CST

    It looks like the type of film I thought LOTR would have been

    by chien_sale

    More fantasy and magical and so forth. come me in, this is how fantasy should be.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:26 a.m. CST

    And I kinda know. When I was on the set....

    by DrFever

    Stopped reading. Review voided.

  • And apply your same level of nitpicks to whatever movie(s) you list. Methinks the movies you give will be quite obviously not scrutinized in the same way. Btw, some criticism of The Hobbit might be defensible ... until the next sentence says how much ROTK sucked. The vast majority of people who say things like that are either extreme purists or fanboys of another franchise.

  • The use of so much LOTR scoring was at some points so distracting that I had to concentrate way too much just to ignore it. The crowning offender was when they reused the specific music right when the One Ring melts into the lava. Yes, ... THAT music. I forget what scene it was dubbed over, but no matter which one, it didn't justify using that particular music. Other than that dwarven song in its few forms (and sung in the credits), I am hard pressed to recall any Hobbit-indigenous music. I can understand the Shire theme playing in ... well, The Shire. Maybe a few others. But a lot of scoring was shared in places which had no connection really to why the music was used in LOTR in the first place. If the whole point of Shore's scoring for LOTR was, as he had said bhfore, to give motifs to each race, culture, major arc or character - then the last thing I expected was to hear those carefully-assigned tunes playing just because they sound good. I honestly thought this is the sort of thing one does as a placeholder when you haven't scored the finished movie yet, sort of like teaser trailers sometimes do. Seriously, was Shore sick and couldn't finish his unique-for-The-Hobbit score? Didn't anyone else notice this?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:51 a.m. CST

    Harry was right about 1 thing, 1 thing only.

    by HerbSewell

    Harry’s right about one thing, John Boorman should have made The Hobbit. That would have been epic. As it is, the Hobbit we get here is bland, and inconsistent with what we see in the LOTR. I wished they’d kept the orcs practical instead of all CGI, at least for continuity. And it seems from the glimpses of Smaug he’ll be more like Dragonheart and less like Dragonslayer. Ah well. Jackson’s movies always leave me feeling empty, something is just “too clean” about them. Steralized.

  • Yes, the fact that you still cannot acknowledge that there are scenes and dialogue in this film that are straight from Tolkien's pen (which means "faithful", that word you apparently have a hard time grasping the concept of) means you're still adhering to this childish standard of absolutes. And when you do that, it unravels your argument. If you could just admit that yes, there are huge sections that are *very* faithful to the books, there wouldn't be an issue. But as of now, you're just like a politician, demonizing the other side, spewing lies and half-truths to defend yourself.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:31 a.m. CST

    I find it hard to accept Harry really read the book

    by Mike J

    Nobody who writes as badly as he does could seriously have coped with Tolkein's book. Harry is, what, 41 years old now? And he writes like an 8 year old. Sorry, but I just don't accept he read the source novel - or indeed any actual literature - when he was younger, or ever. I'm willing to bet Harry's (supposed) familiarity with The Hobbit is actually due to having seen the Rankin Bass animated version - which as I recall, came out around the same time Star Wars did which might explain why Harry thought Lucas should direct a version.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:42 a.m. CST

    Diseased Giant Goblins are So Funny

    by Apocalypse_Pooh

    ...expecially when you cut them open and they continue to crack jokes.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:43 a.m. CST

    @d.vader re: faithful

    by leroyspoboys

    How faithful is having Radagast meeting Bilbo and the Dwarves? I have dozens of examples of these completely unnecessary changes that didn't help the film at all and could have been handled much better. We can go through each one in detail if you like. And don't get me wrong, if I knew nothing about the source material, it would have been a pretty good film. But change just for 'change's sake' is egotistical film making and insulting to excellent source material.


  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:49 a.m. CST

    How's that DVD Picks and Peeks app working out?

    by YourMomsBox3D

    I'll bet that was money well spent.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:52 a.m. CST


    by theplant


  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Saw it last night

    by Tyrus Kitt

    Wanted to say something original--but I can't. I agree with almost everything The Kidd said in his review. Really enjoyed the riddles in the dark segment--but that was about it. I'm hoping when all 3 movies are done--and when blu ray extra scenes are released--that this great big mess can be edited into something grand.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    @ redgiant : faithful films to original source

    by leroyspoboys

    Try most everything written by John Irving that's been adapted as a feature film (except for A Prayer for Owen Meany / Simon Birch which was rubbish). Cider House Rules / Garp / Hotel New Hampshire are all pretty much spot on. Not all 'great' films, but very respectful to the original material. None were anywhere near verbatim to the original text [impossible just like LOTR]. But no major plot points were altered or original characters added or left out at the whim of the director or Jackson has done with these films. If ROTK was Oscar worthy, so was the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, another unfaithful film of abortion like proportions.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:30 a.m. CST

    re: the music

    by ghost_matt

    For anyone wishing there had been more new themes, the special edition original soundtrack DOES have more new music which for some reason wasn't used or was cut down. The Erebor theme is awesome (on par with the Edoras theme from LOTR) but I didn't hear it once during the movie, unless they're saving it for the next two movies? In the original soundtrack the Nazgul theme does NOT play over the scene where Thorin fights Azog at the end. When Radagast goes to Dol Goldur there's this really good music that got cut.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    The Hobbit has huge fans who must apologize for this shitty film

    by Atticus Finch

    Saw this piece of bloat last night. The last half hour or so was pretty good. The first two hours were mind-numbingly awful. Those two hours could have been condensed to about fifteen-thirty minutes and it would have made it a hell of a lot better. It's funny to read all the apologist reviews saying that it didn't matter how long the movie was, it just felt good to be back in the universe again. From everything I'm seeing, this debacle is turning into The Phantom Hobbit.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:42 a.m. CST


    by Micah fendley

    oohhh i am really late

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Ever notice that every review Harry does.....

    by hopeless

    He always brags about being on other movie sets. I never seen someone brag about themselves as much as harry does!

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    It was cool that Ungoliant got a mention as well.

    by frank

    I love the Silmarillion references that they throw in here and there.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:17 a.m. CST


    by Mike J

    Agreed. It is an inferiority complex. Knowles knows he is pretty much a failure who just got lucky with a website and then managed to fuck even that up so any chance he has to brag about himself is a way of trying to disguise his many, many failings. That is the same reason he lies so much about his supposed sexual exploits, past girlfriends etc. He lives in a Walther Mitty world of his own creation.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Collective insanity

    by vermicelliknid

    It's baffling that The Hobbit is getting negative reviews, and even vitriol, to the extent indicated by even this talkback. The film is likely the best of its kind. Joyously good, well made, thoughtful fun, for children, and the not-bonkers.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:21 a.m. CST

    I love you, Harry, but..

    by MikeTheSpike

    someone needs to fire all your English teachers if any of them are still working.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    ooooh, so you can afford a $2k home one gives a fuck.

    by nephilim138

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    100% Agree!

    by Evil Chicken

    "The Hobbit" was/is Jaw Droppingly AMAZING. Mr. Jackson knows the magic of storytelling and the world (both this one & Middle Earth) are better for it. The only thing that upsets me is having to wait until NEXT YEAR for Part II & Smaug. See it. It's good to have wonder back onto the big screen.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 11:13 a.m. CST

    Ask the current Generation to sit through Ben Hur

    by donkey_lasher

    And you will probably get the same negative reaction from the spoon fed dumbed down viewers of today.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Faith restored in harry

    by sengoksa

    After that er slightly eccentric Jack Reacher review...... great review harry...

  • I didn't mind the antics of the Dwarves, etc. either. Also PJ snuck in action here and there along the way, so it never seemed as tedious as I had imagined it was going to be.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    That was a good review!


    Enjoyed reading Harrys thoughts on Bilbo and co. Hope I enjoy it as much when I see it.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Seriously, what the fuck do you want?

    by Pete Susoev

    An adaptation or a translation to film? You have to pull punches, these are made for not JUST fans but the general audience as well. You have to make things accessible to both, and if you as a fan scrutinize every change is just fanboy fetishism. Ryalto especially, your logic makes no damn sense. That's your opinion though, and I'm not going to slight you for it, but me thinks doth protest too loudly. Who would you rather make a film adaptation of Tolkien's work? Yer fucking lucky it wasn't Anderson or someone like Abrams who will shitcan anything and everything for the sake of a 'cool scene'. If its accessible to the general audience and faithful to the narrative in spirit, then expect changes. For me, I want the spirit and I want to feel like I'm wandering through a Zeppelin song while I'm watching it. Citing linear and simple books as examples just furthers my point, its EASY to do that. Take something like Dune and get Dune. I'm not saying its flawless, and I'm not saying its perfect. I'm basing it on an entertainment factor. Are the basic elements there, are the traditional tropes in place, and was it an enjoyable ride. Its an ADAPTATION, a perspective by Jackson. You can like it or not. I want to know if the movie was good, plain and simple. That's what alot of people want, especially the masses that haven't read any of the books. Does it reach a broader audience and keep the spirit of the books faithful while doing so? The points about paralleling it to Phantom Menace are more valid. You can tell they didn't read the books when they bring up how often the dwarves get captured...and ya, that's a decent opinion if you don't like it based purely on the plot. You can say the same shit about the Mormon values infesting Twilight, or any other movie for that matter. You don't like part of the story, hence why you don't like the flick. Makes sense, that's logical. Bitching over changes that won't be remedied until if/when this ever gets redone does nothing but conjure images of you rubbing your precious on the verge of vomiting in anger. Some of us just want a good movie. (Now if you say it sucks, I'll take that over scrutinizing every little change. That's your opinion. Fuck, Ice Pirates is one of my secret shames, but fuck if it isn't a good flick whilst blasted)

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Jackson's movies "too clean" and "steralized".......W.T.F. herbsewell?


    Jacksons films might be flawed at times (there again what film makers films aren't) but the very last thing they are is too clean or steralized. L.O.T.R. for instance had a real soul to it unlike some other Hollywood directors. He made the world looked lived in too. The grass was grown on the top of the Hobbit homes for a year or so before filming and the Hobbits and other characters looked grimy and muddy at times. Details other film makers would have ignored. No way does Jackson make sterile films.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Bloody Loved It

    by horvak

    I don't know where all the hate comes from, it is an awesome film and more emotional than the LOTR trilogy! well done Peter Jackson

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    ''Am I a demented PJ Fanboi?'' Yes.

    by Baked

  • With second acts generally being as long as the first and last act combined, you literally said the only good part of the movie was the last act. Is this working on some people? Make the movie longer, that way people can trick you by saying, "Oh, but the last 45 minutes are REALLY good" and maybe, just maybe, people forget that that's only 1/4th of the movie... Even the people saying the first hour is tedious are admitting that the movie is boring as hell until the around the end of the third sequence...

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Saw it, loved it. 48fps was great. 3D was bright and amazing.

    by Frisco

    I did notice that "old" Bilbo's movements seemed unnaturally fast--just a smidgeon--but I don't know whether to attribute that to my not being used to the 48fps or just the way Holm moved. I want to watch it again to see. It might be advisable for future movies to devote the first few minutes of a 3D HFR movie to more calm, long distant shots, I don't know. But in any case I did not see bad-looking props and sets, shoddy costumes, or the other things people have called out. Frodo's pants look a bit threadbare in the opening, but I dunno, maybe that was intentional? Meanwhile some details look AMAZING, such as the light glinting from King Thror's (sp?) jewelry in the prologue, or pretty much everything about that creepy fucker Gollum. Anyway, enough about the tech. Pacing was fine. Everyone complained about the multiple endings to Return of the King, but didn't seem to remember the multiple beginnings to Fellowship of the Ring. Same goes here, I think: multiple beginnings, so be ready for more than one ending to the third movie and get your moping out of he way now. There was more character development on Bilbo--more of a character arc, I mean--than I expected from the first part of the story. And certainly more than what we get from many genre movies. Which brings me to the people who compare this movie to the Star Wars prequels. What the FUCK are you smoking? Take the scene where Bilbo is getting ready to sneak off and go back to Rivendell, and has a bit of a heart-to-heart with the dwarf who's on guard duty. There is more character and genuinely earned emotion in that scene than in all of the Star Wars prequels combined. I'm super excited about the next two movies and can't wait to see this one again.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:07 p.m. CST

    I didn’t think the beginning dragged at all.

    by frank

    The non-action scenes were personally my favorite parts of the film. Everything in the Shire, Rivendell, Riddles in the Dark: those were all awesome. If anything dragged on too long, I think it would be the Goblin-realm action sequence. Everything else was paced nicely, in my opinion.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:09 p.m. CST

    I don't know how anybody who loves movies

    by TheMcflyFarm

    approves of this bastardization of film motion. If you don't see how everything looks sped up and completely UNnatural, you are retarded.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:10 p.m. CST

    I agree with frisco.

    by frank

    Comparisons to the Star Wars prequels are outrageous.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:13 p.m. CST

    I can't stop thinking about the movie

    by ghost_matt

    Since seeing it yesterday, I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. It's exactly like after seeing the LOTR movies 9 years ago, where afterwards I couldn't watch anything else for days afterward because it would pale in comparison. Love that.

  • I like how they gave gollum the mirror eye effect like a cheetah at times when he was in stealth kill mode. The intro was great for tolkeinites, not only did we get some great was about 10-15 minutes of lore and backstory. Heh, I saw some dwarf women, I think I cought about 2-3. They where wearing dresses, I was hoping they would have beards, lol.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    frisco, sorry.

    by frank

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry: Avatar midnight gross - $3.5 million

    by Mattman

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Unlike summer, December box office is all about longevity

    by Mattman

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST

    I've been reading this talkback for about a month now...

    by Torben

    And I'm looking forward to watching The Hobbit when the queues die down but not looking forward to the wait for the second and third I will try the 48fps 3d version. It seems the jury is split on this.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    @skyrat; I would, I was skeptical on 3D.

    by frank

    Do it, I was impressed. I dont think any 3D movie has ever looked as good, and I was more on the negative side after seeing mib3 and prometheus. Never saw avatar 3D so maybe I was jaded by not great use of it. Visually its a step above anything ive seen in a good while. Did it have its flaws, sure. It was worth it though in my book, for the money. As far as 48fps, you know I really didnt even notice to be honest. It seemed nice and fluid, it certainly didnt look like a home movie. The only part that looked funny was radagast flying around on the sled. That could have been bad animation, 3D, 48FPS, or all the above, but by and large it was epic.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST


    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    I like it, and I'll see it... But it's like this. The winds in Hollywood are so rank right now with overblown spectacle, that my money is my vote. So I'll see it at a second run theater and make sure I see it objectively, a couple of times before I weigh in on it. I love your reviews, Harry, but I find it curious on how much this review lingers on details without mentioning Martin Freeman's performance, for example. With all the crane shots I just want to make sure our Hobbit is noble and bumbling and true without lapsing into the character mannerisms one would be afraid of from an actor like Martin Freeman.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:32 p.m. CST

    @sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch; Martin Freeman was great

    by frank

    I think he nailed bilbo pretty good. He was bumbling (but not stupid, just not very worldly) at shut in that could brave when the time came. I saw no problems with his performance, he was the bilbo in my minds eye or pretty well matched.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:37 p.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    Yes, Menis, some of us do want a good movie. This wasn't it. It's a fake-looking snooze fest. I love the attitudes of you Jackson fanboys. It's like, all you whiny purists should just be happy that they made a movie, any movie, and you can just take what you get and like it. Well, no, sorry, but when we have superior source material that the director ignores due to his own hubris and lack of interest in some main characters, you're going to hear some complaining. I can't fucking wait for this whole enterprise to get rebooted by someone who actually gives a shit about the Hobbits. These movies aren't a goddamn Led Zeppelin song. Nobody is arguing that movies should be exactly the same as books. Hell, you can make a strong argument that Beorn should be cut from the next Hobbit movie. The point is that Jackson has done or poor job of adaptation because he values his own ideas more than Tolkien's. There are plenty of fine adaptations, Cloud Atlas most recently, but also off the top of my head, Fight Club, Atonement and the Fincher Girl With the Dragon Tattoo to name a few. And dvader, I'm sorry you're so distraught that I don't think The Hobbit was just the most faithful adaptation of all time. Yes, there are scenes in the movie that are also in the book, but that does not a faithful adaptation make. The movie is very different in both tone and content despite including some of Tolkien's actual material. There are no points for trying here. Jackson failed.

  • We can all be civil, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Ive never read fight club, but Ive heard people say the complete opposite. Its all in the eye of the beholder, now finchers dune on the other hand, shat on the orginal work...even though I loved the artistic look of the film.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 2:50 p.m. CST

    I saw it in 48fps HFR & Dolby Atmos... ON ACID!!!

    by workshed

    Top that..! Only joking, of course, but for three hours I was immersed in Middle Earth. An awesome movie which sets a technical benchmark, and one that I think will be a word-of-mouth hit. Dec 2013/14 can't come soon enough imo. In fact, I wish it was every six months. Ken Stott was f'ing brilliant btw.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST

    The Phantom Hobbit

    by Atticus Finch

    Comparisons to the SW prequels are spot on. Most of what is in those films aren't very good, although there are flashes of the old magic, just like The Hobbit. Most of the opinions I've read for The Hobbit claim that they are just excited to be back in that universe again, just like the SW prequels. When that excitement wears off, the few apologist reviewers praising the film now will realize that, while it was cool to see another film set in that world, most of it just ain't very good, just like the prequels.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    This is NOT The Phantom Menace. The acting alone sets it apart.

    by Mattman

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Don't be a twit.

    by wcolbert

    No, comparisons to the prequels are far from accurate. This is not george lucas raping the corpse of a once beloved franchise. This is a return to the exact method of filmmaking which worke so very well for the LOTR films. And unlike Star Wars, this is based on pre-existing material - Lucas made the fucking prequels up as he went along, Jackson is bound by words Tolkien put to paper in 1937. But yeah, TOOOTALLY alike. Jackson is bringing Tolkien's works to film as faithfully as ANYONE can. Don't EVEN give me that shit. People just LOVE to throw shit at any subsequent film after the first one - they LOVE it. They LIVE for tearing down sequels, prequels, etc. Get a life. What, was your butt hurt because Sarumon didn't whip out a lightsaber and turn into count dooku? It's THE HOBBIT - on film. I dont know what more you blithering idiots WANT. Tolkien HIMSELF could come back from the dead, fuck Jackson in the ass, create his own hobbit film, and ride off into the sunset on the back of a fucking Balrog, and you'd STILL bitch and moan about how it doesnt live up to the first ones. Jesus. Examine your lives. Seriously.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 3:16 p.m. CST


    by Johnny Wrong

    ...someone who considers Bourne Identity and Transformers to be comparible DOES NOT understand cinema. Not even in the slightest.

  • Getting kind of fed up of seeing articles disappear into the ether too. By no means an attack on Harry, but yeah, he doesn't seem so objective these days.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:09 p.m. CST

    The Star Wars prequels

    by David Duchovny

    are actually much better made films than the original trilogy--the acting, directing, scripts, cinematography, and overall quality of those films is far superior than anything in the older ones. Same goes for The Hobbit. It's a spectacular film that really leaves the LOTR in it's dust. The haters just aren't seeing the masterpiece I saw today for whatever reason. This film will sit on the shelf next to The Lovely Bones and King Kong as Mr. Jackson's masterpieces. Any real fan with a knowledge of movie making will have to admit that any film that SEEMS disjointed, over-long, badly edited, stiltedly acted, and a colossal disappointment--isn't actually these things at all. Films like the Star Wars prequels and The Hobbit are out of the intellectual and artistic range of the hating audience.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Leroyspoboys, thank you

    by D.Vader

    Thank you for proving my point: You said "don't get me wrong, if I knew nothing about the source material, it would have been a pretty good film." Thank you for being able to admit that your problems with the movies stem solely from the fact that there are changes and omissions from the source material. I give you great credit for being able to do this. Thus far, Ryalto has proven unable to find the strength to do that.

  • Yes, insult and call the rest of us liars when we say the movie was faithful when Gandalf meets Bilbo for the first time, or when Gandalf recounts how the game of golf was invented, or when the Dwarves arrive. Insult us for saying the movie was faithful when they burst into song (twice), for including the stone giants, for the Riddles in the Dark with Gollum, for escaping from Wargs and using flaming pinecones to fight back, for every detail from the books that ended up in the film. These *are* faithful moments. You can stamp your feet all you want and complain and shake your head and refuse to admit it, but that's the truth. There are scenes from the appendices. There are scenes invented for the movie. And then there are scenes faithful from the novel. And thanks for backing up my point with your argument that Cirith Ungol should take place in the Two Towers film. Way to completely undercut your points about being faithful to the text. You're willing to screw up the timeline for the sake of a cliffhanger, but you'll slam Peter Jackson for giving lines to a different character or for adding in extra action? So its okay to adapt a story in one way, but not the other? Now you're just contradicting yourself.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST

    More Ryalto contradictions

    by D.Vader

    You can't say: "Nobody is arguing that movies should be exactly the same as books," ... and then also say: "This movie was in no way faithful to the book and you’re goddamn liar or a fool if you say so" Contradiction loses. Game over.

  • Next some fuckhead will chime in and say "the human eye can only see 30fps".

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Jack Reacher premiere postponed because of Connecticut shooting!

    by Bobo_Vision

    What? You want a link? I don't have one. Go away. Go.

  • a damn good bbc video with hellacious high end effects

  • What a fun and charming movie. It's the best way to describe The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. It was magical! Martin Freeman got me right from the start and I an Mckellen as Gandalf. What can I say, he was born to play Gandalf. He hasn't missed a beat and he's as amazing as ever. I loved the Dwarves. Especially Thorin. The ending with him and Bilbo was especially emotional. I also loved Erebor! I could have watched just a movie about the Dwarves in Erebor. I couldn't get enough! I thought the special effects were fantastical and Andy Sekis as Goblin. What a treat to see him again. The only bad part was that it ended. I wanted to keep watching. I really don't know how anyone can dislike this film. If you do you never really liked Peter Jackson's LOTR or Middle-Earth. For me it was like being back home and I enjoyed every second of it! I can't wait to see it again!

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:57 p.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    I'm sorry you can't appreciate nuance. It makes sense, after all, you worship Peter Jackson. You pretend to care about the Timeline, despite the countless times that PJ diverts from it. When did Aragorn riding a warg off a cliff happen in the timeline? NEVER, that's when. Putting the shelob scene at the end of the two towers would not change the story's timeline in any way, as Frodo and Sam are completely removed from the rest of the characters. I understand why you can't grasp this, as you are wholly incapable of accepting anything other than Peter Jackson's version. I get that your feelings are deeply hurt that anyone would dare to point out flaws in Peter Jackson's work. That you think that just because Jackson uses some material from the book, he is free to rewrite, invent and cut whatever else he wants and still be called faithful. A faithful *moment* now, is that what we're down to? You attempt to put words in my mouth, saying I insulted you for your claims about specific scenes. You are being very disingenuous. You know exactly what the fuck people are talking about when they say the adaptation was not faithful to the book. And above all, it is a BAD MOVIE. And it is entirely to be expected, as this is what happens when you stretch material for what should be one movie into three. Peter Jackson could probably take a shit in your mouth and you would claim that it was a faithful reference to something in the appendices.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Fucking awesome film! 8-10

    by pax256

    I dont get the hate *at all*. I saw it in non hfr 3d but the sharp picture imo completely keeps its film feel. And the exposition at the start feels short. Its the action that is a bit overwhelming at the latter half. Heres hoping the ext eds will have more exposition. I dont feel any need for more action scenes...

  • In Moria for example. The Goblins coming up out of the ground coming down the columns. The Bridge of khazad dum. The Fellowship are CG doubles. The Trolls. Balrog. The Oliphants. Whenever you saw a massive battle. I could keep going. All CGI! Anytime they did a massive tall character like a Troll in LOTR it was CG. So why be surprised the Goblin King was CG?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Ryalto, don't tell me what I can and can't appreciate

    by D.Vader

    Don't put words in my mouth, don't make assumptions about me. I've stated numerous times what the issue here is: You say the movie is in no way faithful. I say it is. You call me a liar and a fool for saying so. You contradict yourself and say no one is saying the movie should be just like the book (well that's a 180 from what you've been preaching). I said nothing of LOTR except for Cirith Ungol's placement in ROTK (bc of proper timeline), so don't pretend to change the argument away from the main point. I don't care about anything you wrote up above, bc you ignore my points and put words in my mouth. Just don't insult me when I say that yes, this movie is in many ways FAITHFUL to the book. End of argument.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST

    So, for the audience at home, once again...

    by D.Vader

    Ryalto - "Nobody is arguing that movies should be exactly the same as books." Ryalto- "This movie was in no way faithful to the book and you’re goddamn liar or a fool if you say so." The End.

  • Comparing the horribly written story and wooden acting of TPM to The Hobbit. Really? I'd watch Ian Mckellen talking as Gandalf for 10hrs before watching The Phantom Garbage again. You always get these asshole haters on the Internet. They start a trend where it's cool to hate a movie by an old director who used too much CG. The SW prequels, Indy 4. You always get that asshole in a comment thread that says, i want the Indy collection on bluray, but you can keep Indy 4. See how I'm against it. Shia swung on a vine. I hate that CG shit! You're not gonna do it to the Hobbit film. Fuck you with that shit! It's an awesome film and if you didn't like it. Sucks to be you!!!

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Interesting take, Kobes

    by D.Vader

    These varied reactions to 48 fps are interesting to say the least. I wonder if its just proof of how differently wired our brains are.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    speaking of hubris ryalto

    by Pete Susoev

    You are a pretty fine example of it. You don't like the film, fine. Using 'fanboy' in a derogatory manner whilst acting in the same fashion to defend your arguments is actually amusing. I'm busting your balls, sure, but I'm not the one nitpicking every little thing about the film in comparison to the source material. In fact, in every one of my posts, I did exactly the opposite. You're too focused on the little things, man. As an audience, we take what we want from a film and base if we enjoyed it or not on that. As I said, I just want a good film, a good adaptation that's respectful to the source narrative. Not line by line mind you, adaptation. You constantly name linear book adaptations, and as I said, something that goes from A to B with its central plot is easier to adapt then something 'like' The Hobbit or as I used as an example Herbert's Dune. There is a huge difference between books, novels and written works considered literature. All your argument is supporting is the scope of Tolkien's work is harder to adapt then a two hundred page novel about a guy who gets in fights with a figment of his imagination. Thing is, being faithful to source does not mean directly translating it. Its about the tropes and the spirit of the work. Some people dig it, some don't. Not everyone is going to agree with you, especially when you can't form a cohesive argument outside of nitpicking. Enjoy the medium for what it is, the books are left unscathed if you don't like the Jackson's version, or the Finnish version, or the cartoon library. And fuck you if you don't like Zep. Playing records and watching Fellowship on mute is actually kind of fun.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson, and his crew are movie gods.

    by Bulvai

    I just saw it in 48fps, Real 3D, with Atmos Suround. At first it was a little jarring, but soon I understood why it was filmed this way. You are sucked in, like no other movie has done, not even Avatar. 3D to me has always been at best a novelty. Not here. It's bright, and crisp, and doesn't make your eyes work to enjoy what you're seeing. Peter Jackson, and his crew are movie gods.

  • but it aint a knock on the quality of the movie and im no pj fan as you well know but i enjoyed going back into middle earth and i love the book and he was faithful enough - the filler material and scene padding aint exactly to my liking. they should have kept it at two movies cause no way in fuck will three be made without a whole lot more filler, but i dd not mind the tying it into his lotr movies

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:20 p.m. CST

    Im doin the same as ultratron..pipe weed and mushrooms

    by rob clemenza

    If you dont like the movie, go try and make the hobbit yourself with your own $$ then we can sit back and talk about how much you suck at making films.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Totally on board

    by Mr_Rosewater

    Imagine that Tolkien re-wrote The Hobbit in the same tone and scope as LOTR. That's how I saw this movie. Creates a wonderful consistency with the other films. GREAT STUFF!

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Wondering about filler....

    by Pete Susoev

    Just curiosity driven now...and had a nice back and forth in another TB with a few others about The Silmarillion. I'm starting to wonder, in relation to the scope of The Hobbit and bridging factors to LoTR as films (going at this from a general audience point of view, not from that of a reader of the works) if PJ is going to throw in anymore backstory of the ring from Of the Rings of Power portion of the book. I mean, there's a lot there you could theoretically shoe horn in to give the audience more background. Its not like he hasn't and isn't doing it already. Just a thought, would actually be kind of cool to lessen the ambiguous nature of the ring...depends how 'far' he gets in the second flick I guess, and I don't see him doing an entire film about the war in the third.

  • that I just want to take the opposite of whatever his opinion is.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Indeed, Kobe

    by D.Vader

    I think this can be stretched to three movies with each movie topping the previous in terms of sheer scale. I wondered how it would work, but I have no doubt the next movie's big action sequence will be the Desolation of Smaug, and of course the third movie's BIG event will be the Battle of Five Armies, which I believe will take place over a few days, giving each army time to strategize and attack, form allegiances and alliances as new enemies arrive, and give lots of attention to the battle too. And oh yeah, the White Council taking on Dol Guldur and the Necromancer too. I think there's plenty left for them to do.

  • Because the One Ring is to remain secret for the rest of The Hobbit, and if anyone else discovers it (Gandalf, for example), not much will come of it because *no one* knows its the One Ring until the events of FOTR. Also, just to be clear, there is *nothing* from The Silmarillion in this movie. All the new stuff is from the Appendices (the White Council, the Battle of Azanulbizar). Okay, the mention of Ungoliant, that was straight from The Silmarillion.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:52 p.m. CST

    I've lost my Dwarves, my Wizard, and my way...

    by Franklancer

    Sadly, that line is NOT in the movie.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Just got back from The Hobbit and...

    by Hockey Mask was damn good. I was certain I wasn't going to like coming off all the poor reviews but I really enjoyed it. I thought the LOTR movies had a tendency to bog down and creep along so when the reviews came in saying The Hobbit was slow I prepared for the worst. To my surprise I thought it moved along quite nicely. I think most of the complaints are those that may be VERY familiar with the book and want to just get on to the next chapter. This comes across as LOTR Jr. and adds some much needed humor to the series. Well done, PJ.

  • 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, 6:59 p.m. CST


    by Pete Susoev

    OMG YOU TOTALLY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF! I jest man. I was just thinking of flashbacks and stuff for audience benefit, nothing directly related to the actual plot affecting the main characters. I'm just trying to figure out how two movies is going to come out of what's left in the book. Gonna have to agree in what you said in your post back to kobe, but maybe some references to Sauron to elaborate on his character a bit more? Considering general audiences here, I mean they see him pretty much as just the Eye in LotR.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 7:07 p.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    You seem to be obsessed with those two quotes of mine, lacking the critical faculties to comprehend that they are both capable of being correct and consistent with the argument I have put forth. You are exactly what I claimed your type to be earlier: a liar and a goddamned fool. Holy shit you're stupid. If you are insulted by the truth then you have only yourself to blame. menis: I don't know what the hell a linear adaptation is, but I believe you have invented that term to describe adapting a story with a linear narrative (which the Hobbit has, btw). Either that or you are stating that adaptations that do not present the source material in direct correlation with plot points following the source are not linear. Not that either of those excuses poor writing, and Fight Club and Clout Atlas would certainly qualify under both. Or perhaps you simply mean that The Hobbit is hard to adapt to screen. I would agree, as PJ and his harem were clearly not up to the effort. However, I would put forth that making a movie out of Fight Club required much more skill and talent than making a movie out of The Hobbit, which mostly just requires a good effects team and a director with a light touch. You kids seem to operate under circular logic wherein: they're making three movies they have to use material from the appendices to pad out the narrative of the book Using this extra material means it can't all be fit into one movie, therefore... they're making three movies you also seem to think PJ is your friend or something. Like we should excuse his poor filmmaking because he worked super hard on it. As if effort means fuckall to a movie's quality. It sort of reminds me of the behind the scenes stuff for the LOTR movies, where everyone involved seemed to be operating under the impression that no one had ever made a movie before, and that these brave souls were inventing the art of filmmaking. As to the 48fps fans. I'm honestly baffled. Is there something wrong with your eyes? Maybe I'm just more likely to notice because I work in Post. To me you're like the character from the Labyrinth who insists that the air in the bogs is sweet and fragrant.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    So you continue to stoop to insults, Ryalto? Forget it.

    by D.Vader

    I don't care. I read a few lines of your last post and just moved on. I've got better things to do. *** Oh wait, you work in Post? So *that's* why you think you think you're superior to others when it comes to... screenwriting. Makes total sense now.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Menis, re: The One Ring

    by D.Vader

    I don't think we'll get any more flashbacks to anything regarding The Ring simply bc we got enough in LOTR: How it was created, how it changed hands, how it was used for evil... ... I think if anything, we'll get some scenes of Bilbo becoming increasingly dependent on the Ring. Maybe he fingers it a bit too much and almost risks pulling it out in front of others*. But I doubt we'll see much else. Unless he puts on the Ring at some stage, say while Gandalf is facing the Necromancer, and we see the Necromancer react, sensing it... But I don't think that works. Sauron shouldn't really sense the Ring until FOTR when Frodo puts it on for the first time. *Not intended for perversion, you perverts.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 7:34 p.m. CST

    5 good. 5 bad.

    by iamdavebowers

    What was good? 1) The music. Very catchy. 2) Martin Freeman. I believed he was Bilbo 3)Most of the fx. 4) Everything in bag end. 5) Riddles in the dark. What was bad? 1)The pointless intro. Cheap storytelling. 2) Radagast, the necromancer, the meeting of the great minds, and rock giants, Pointless filler. 3) The needless and awful looking nemisis. 4)The dwarves, tonally very different from the source and mostly interchangeable. 5)Some needless changes from the source material that don't save time, add character, or benefit the story (e.g. aforementioned rock giants).

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Nice review, cobra_kai

    by frank

    I pretty much agree with all of that.

  • If someone is trying to argue that the film is bad because the tone is all wrong, I disagree. I think it is very much in tone with the prior films, both visually and thematically. I love the scene where Bilbo states his reasoning for helping the dwarves and says it's because he has his home and he wants them to have theirs. I guess it depends when discussing tone. I can see what you're saying about evil not quite being in the world yet, but this was still Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. I thought the 48 FPS was spectacular. For the first time 3D was more about depth rather than pop-up book effects. I just went in, based on what I'd heard, expecting the 48 FPS to be a bad gimmick and the costumes to look fake. People said it made the effects look bad. I've seen the documentaries on the extended edition and I should have known the movie wouldnt look fake. I loved the movie so much. I really hope the 48 FPS 3D catches on. Look, I'd prefer everything to be shot on 35mm but if there are going to be 3D movies, I'd prefer the smooth depth of 48 FPS over the current 3D that looks more like that depth perception test the eye doctor gives you where you have to grab at the fly's wings.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Indeed Cobes. Good work from the Dojo, as always.

    by D.Vader

  • And I couldn't agree more about the idea that the story doesn't have to be about the fate of the world. The stakes are as high as the story makes them. In this case, the personal history between Oakenshield and the white orc. It was epic. The acting was great and the script let the actors do their thing. It didn't rely on dialogue for the necessary and large amount of exposition. Sometimes a look between Thorin and Gandalf said more then any words could. The acting and script were great.

  • It's just cool that this trilogy is going to exist. It doesn't have to "top" the other trilogy, its telling a different story. But I'm with you, this was a great trip to middle earth and it didn't have the corny dialogue some have suggested. The script was consistent with the other films.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST

    saw it in 2D....thought it was great

    by smokie

    I hate 3d but may check out a 48fos b4 it leaves theaters.i didn't find the pacing any more disruptive then it was in LOTR. there where some really hammy acting and corny lines at times though......everything looked great. cant wait for pt 2

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:13 p.m. CST

    and Christopher Lee was awesome

    by smokie

    Saruman was perfectly played and written

  • I think that would be their point. The two books are VERY different in tone. While the Hobbit movie shifts tonally slightly towards the book, it's not really close.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    oh and the goblin king was horrible

    by smokie

    that was the worst concieved character in any of the films thus far. just badly done, cartoony and a wtf poor casting of the voice and the testicle chin was disturbing

  • With LotR, Tolkien had already done the splitting (really into 6 parts) so the movies just had to follow that same basic structure to work (somewhat) as standalone films. I think with The Hobbit, this isn’t as much the case, which probably explains why I am so anxious to see the rest of this trilogy. I think only when all three movies are in place will we be able to get the full effect of the story arc. I think this effect is even more pronounced for The Hobbit trilogy than it was for LotR. also hockeymask - I like your LotR Jr. characterization.

  • If you think those two statement by Ryalto are inconsistent then you need to do comprehension 101.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST


    by Splinter76

    Why do I keep reading Harry's reviews? Stupid, gushing drivel.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST


    by D.Vader

    You've just got a chip on your shoulder. I'm letting it slide.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST


    by Deceased Fan

    Against my better judgment I decided to go with the HFR 3D. Only 3 theaters are advertising HFR in my area. RED FLAG #1 The closest two of the three happen to be the oldest shit ass Carmike theaters in town. I thought well maybe they've upgraded. RED FLAG #2 I pull into a nearly empty parking lot for a 6:30 show. No line, no wait. RED FLAG #3 Less than 20 people in the theater. RED FLAG #4 The left curtain is crooked when retracted. RED FLAG #5 Previews are blurry. The 3D Previews are worse. I fear I've made a mistake. The movie starts. Shit. Not only is it blurry, but there is no way in hell is it 48fps. It looks like regular dim 3D only worse. I give it a minute, thinking maybe it's me. Opening scene is distorted...hrmmph. Close up of Bilbo looks like VHS dub recorded in EP mode. Fuck this. I get up and ask for a manager and refund. The manager/projectionist already knew my problem before asking. He said he was trying fix it, but it was the best he could do * know you can't really do nuttin' once the movie done start* Riiight. Ok thanks. I'll take that $12 refund now. Fuck. That's a long ride just to see the Star Trek trailer. Well shit. The bright spot is that my 3rd option is not a busted ass Carmike, but a newer theater in Durham (a few more clicks on the odometer). At least I know the manager takes pride in his theater. They're showing multiple versions, so hopefully I'll be visiting Middle Earth tomorrow.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:48 p.m. CST

    That sucks, Deceased

    by D.Vader

    Didn't want to trek to the IMAX in Raleigh?

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Re: iamdavebowers Exactly! Some people want ROTK. Idiots!

    by Orionsangels

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:54 p.m. CST

    d.vader. Yep.

    by Deceased Fan

    I passed by it on the way home. Fuckers! I don't think it's HFR, but I could be wrong.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 8:57 p.m. CST

    Face it, the Hobbit is Jackson's Star Wars prequels.

    by brobdingnag

    You surround yourself with the same people for a decade telling your shit doesn't stink and you stop being able to tell when you've shit yourself. 65% on RT is all you need to know PERIOD.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:23 p.m. CST

    cobra--kai. You wear socks?

    by Deceased Fan

    Great review. It reaffirms my desire for regular ass 24fps. However my brother has kind of talked me into HFR because it's new and shiny. IDK coin toss mañana.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Deceased, go for the HFR

    by Frisco

    It's amazing. I don't know whether or not it is partially responsible for the 3D's being so much brighter than I'm used to from a 3D movie, but it definitely makes the images pop. It's not that the image is higher resolution, but it does sort of seem that way. I think it's because when a character or the camera is in motion we still see small details sharply, whereas with normal film they tend to blur out just enough to blend into the scene. And by details I mean thinks like which way a character's eyes are pointing, the glint of light from a weapon, the ridges along a hurled pine cone, or a gazillion gold coins cascading down the side of a dragon's head. It's still the same resolution, it's just SHARPER. Anyway, it might not be for you. Obviously some people hate it. But it's definitely worth checking out.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Thx frisco.

    by Deceased Fan

    I'm willing to take a chance and will reserve judgment until I see it.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST

    I'm sure its the movie I deserve, but not the one I need right now

    by Steve Lamarre

    Just not feeling it. Don't want to deal with an ultra-long movie unless I'm on my couch. And then looking ahead to those other two movies. It just feels daunting. I'll see ya on blu ray, Hobbit.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:24 p.m. CST

    57 percent on Metacritic

    by David Duchovny

    The LOTR films scored in the 90 range. Who are the deluded assholes on this board? Not the ones who thinks it's a blah/bad movie--that's for sure. Reminds me so strongly of those Phantom Menace threads. People desperately trying to talk themselves into liking something that they will admit is dogshit 6 months later.

  • You really won't brook and criticism of Jackson, will you? It's kind of sad.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 10:32 p.m. CST

    spoiled by better movies, perhaps?

    by Ryalto 3.0

    it's more of this 'you'll get what PJ deigns to give you and like it!' attitude. Like we should be so grateful that the production ever happened that we're not allowed to be critical of it. I also find it very amusing that the partisans are vociferously defending Peter Jackson for doing all the things that led people to vilify Lucas. And they get so mad when you say The Phantom Hobbit.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 11:07 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit had something most movies don't have today... PACING!

    by Orionsangels

    Remember that? Today's younger generation have the attention span of a squirrel.

  • Dec. 15, 2012, 11:48 p.m. CST


    by leroyspoboys

    I don't mind minor changes to source material for the sake of film. Without them most books (in fact probably all books) would never see the big screen. However Jackson hacked this film (and the LOTR) so much that some of it is completely unrecognisable. It doesn't mean they're bad films (hell I own all of the LOTR extended versions and will probably buy the Hobbit). It just means, once again, they're not faithful to the source material. Because he's made literally hundreds of completely unnecessary changes that added nothing to the films. Which is piss-poor film making and insanely disrespectful to a classic piece of work, as well as the hundreds of millions of pre-existing fans. This means Jackson is a money grubbing hack who is pissing on Tolkiens grave. Simple as that. Read John Irving's Cider House Rules and then watch the film. That's faithful to source material. Then read the Shining by King and watch Kubricks film. Then watch the Shining TV mini series with Rebecca DeMornay and that annoying little kid. Tell me which one is faithful to the book and which isn't. Jackson should be taken behind his local movie theatre and beat about the head and neck with a hardcover copy of the Hobbit until he apologizes.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Of pace and structure

    by Dreamfasting

    I loved the nice leasurely pace of the first hour didn't bother me in the slightest - it's all building and reinforcing character. It felt right and managed to build up Bilbo's momentum towards joining the company. I have some quibbles about Azog's revenge story and Bilbo's waffling about going home ... those feel a little too cliche. But all in all, a few hours of well-invested time with friends.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 12:33 a.m. CST

    I've seen it 4 times now, and....

    by darthbauer

    The 48 fps 3D is by far the perfect way to view this film. DO NOT SEE IT IN 2D WHATEVER YOU DO!!!! It is horrible. I saw it opening night in 3D 24 fps and that was fine and I digested the story. Then saw it in 2D 24fps and it was so choppy and the effects sucked and my friend thought it sucked. The transfer stepping down from 48 fps 3D to 2D just plain sucked. I was so disappointed with the 2D version. Then today I went to the 48 fps 3D and the difference is stunning. No longer does the Pale Orc look horrible CGI as he did in the 2D, he's perfection. In fact I've looked everywhere in the film that I could feast my eyes on in the 2 48 fps 3D that I saw, and couldn't find any bad special effects. Obviously the Wargs look like special effects, and that's about it-but everything that looked horrible in 2D was now perfect as Jackson envisioned. The point of the story: Screw everyone that is whining about the 48 fps....go see it in 24 fps 2D then come back and talk to me, because you will see what I mean. 48 3D is the absolute way Jackson envisioned and filmed it and every other version if not at all what he envisioned it. I'll put it to you this way: the difference from the 2D to the 48 fps 3D is like looking at a small low resolution JPEG on the internet of a Rembrandt painting, then going to the museum and beholding the actual painting Rembrandt made himself. It's that much different. So yeah 48 3D is totally different than you've ever seen. It takes a while to adjust. There were a few times that the action seemed sped up and I noticed it in both 48 3D viewings-so there may be a few glitches, but it's 99% perfect and stunning. As for the story after 4's's generally faithful to the book...this is a linear story that goes chapter by chapter. Heroes run into this bad guy, then this is how they get out of it. Again and again...that's just the way Tolkien wrote the Hobbit and that's the way Jackson filmed it. Not a lot of room for more embellishment than they did already with the Necromancer, which was done just fine being true to the Appendices. So being a huge fan of the LOTR trilogy, being the author and teacher of a LOTR class (, I can say that the Hobbit is much more a child's story, that its filmed much brighter, that it's generally true to the source material and that it plain out works for what it is. Is it a complete movie? can't stand alone. It's not meant to. It ends abruptly. The score is lazy at times and recycled. The pacing is choppy because that's the way the chapters in the book are. The 48 takes some time to get used to but is brilliant. The acting is perfect. There is no cringe worthy acting moment in the movie. None. I saw The Phantom Menace 10x the first week it came out and there were so many poorly written poorly acted cringe worthy scenes in that movie, but they do not exist in this movie. This is not the LOTR of 10 years ago. It's a simple story about a Hobbit stepping outside his door and helping a band of crazy dwarfs along with a wizard take back their stolen home. It works-just step back from it and understand what it is. It will settle in with the 6 films and will be beloved over time. Trust me I'm a purist who knows the material, loves the LOTR trilogy, teaches on the subject, and I dig this Hobbit Movie. Overall: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars. Acting: 10/10 Directing: 9/10 Editing: 7/10 24fps 2D: 2/10 24fps 3D: 7/10 48fps 3D: 9/10 Score: 5/10 (dwarf song redeems this though) Cringe Factor: 1/10 Pacing: 5/10 Cinematography: 10/10 Complete movie wholeness: 2/10

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 1:17 a.m. CST


    by Mephisto the Great

    Perhaps it was the low expectations after reading a lot of these reviews. Yes it was far too long and yes, it was ridiculously overwrought in many parts, but for the first time I saw where Jackson was going on most of his additions, unlike filler in LOTR or King Kong that felt invented. Most everything that was added had some connection to Tolkien's work - unlike convoluted crap like Aragon being presumed dead in a river. Anyway, I dig it, and look forward to the rest. I WILL, however, bring more snacks and pee before I go.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Teabaggerharry - Avatar $4 million.

    by slappy jones

    December midnight openings never come close to summer. Stupid comparison. The Hobbit has the biggest December midnight opening of all time at it looks like it will have the biggest December opening weekend of all time come Monday. Plus estimates have it at 200 million worldwide by Monday. Which for December is Amazing. Whether it has legs is another story. I think it will. Just search hobbit on twitter and the reactions of regular movie goers is WAY more positive than the critical response. I really don't understand the reviews being so negative. It feels like a weird pile on. The film is no way near as bad as they are making out and I really do believe it has much more to do with their hatred of 48fps than anything else. I have seen several critics on twitter say they saw it a second time in 24fps and enjoyed a lot more second time around.

  • Saw the Hobbit with my 10 year old niece, 13 yr cousin. They absolutely loved it, both said it was the best film ever (to them) and they both enraptured by the experience. The family next to me were clapping, laughing, enjoying the film. Everyone leaving the cinema, were saying it was as good as LOTR, some even liked it more. I read about all the reviewers calling it slow, boring, to long, etc. The film flew by (for me) and others at the end mentioned how wrong the local critic was. I am scratching my head, trying to figure out how the masses and critics can be at such odds. This film will easily make PJ another billion, maybe thats what peeves the critics. They are tired of these big juggernauts making all the money, while most of the darling little films they love get pushed under the rug or forgotten. Maybe they are tired of all the almost 3 hr movies being released. Perhaps they are tired of changes (formats) revising their beloved 24fps, etc. Perhaps they are drawing a line at taking a small book and bloating what should be a 3 hr film to 8-9 hrs ($$$). Perhaps it is a little bit of everything. Either way, I loved it, and give it 4.5/5 stars, fuck the critics and snobs, go see it. PS: I watched it in 24fps 3D.

  • It's unwatchable.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:22 a.m. CST

    People who point to rotten tomatoes and meta critic

    by slappy jones

    And act as if that proves their must be weird to have only ever liked something critics have praised. Fuck if I had to go by critics I would have to burn 75% of my record collection.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:14 a.m. CST


    by slappy jones

    If this doesn't make sense i apologise in advance...i am very tired..... It depends on your definition of bad. If something entertains me and makes me feel good then it can't be bad....well...within reason!!! Lets keep it within the boundaries of the law! But in terms of your own personal reaction to something if you pay for it and you come out after a couple of hours (or 2 and a half in this case) and you enjoyed it then, to me, it isn't bad. I have never believed in the idea of a guilty pleasure. Fuck feeling guilty about enjoying something ( again...within the boundaries of the law ;)) I like some stuff that most People consider the worst shit ever made...especially some of my musical tastes....but fuck that. I like it. Me. If a critic wants to tell me I am wrong and and it is actually bad then they can go and fuck themselves. The only critic that matters is you. You're the one paying for it. And I am not an anti critic guy. I know this sounds a little Kevin smith-ish but I have a lot of favourite film writers and i like to read what guys with more knowledge of film history than i have think and I don't always agree with them but I HATE this idea that any films worth comes down whether it gets a drawing of a little red tomato or a green splotch. And I fucking LOVE Terence Hill and Bud Spencer films.

  • While us peons starve and suck with our Plasmas?

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 5:04 a.m. CST

    Harry's seen The Hobbit for a month now

    by Genius

    That's 126144000fps.

  • Fellowship: hobbiton, encounter with bad guys, council in elfland, fail to cross mountains, fight goblins in mines of moria, escape to fight with orcs. The end. The Hobbit part 1: hobbiton, encounter bad guys, council in elfland, fail to cross mountains, fight goblin in mines, fight with orcs. The end. This is the problem with ending the movie where they did.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 6:19 a.m. CST

    We loved it

    by Industrious Angel

    I was also a bit concerned after the reviews but neither running time nor HFR were any problem, in fact we (me+family) would have been happy if this thing would have gone on for another hour and so were most of the audience on our way out. And HFR is simply the best 3D you've seen to date in a theater - not that I like 3D, in fact my preferred format would be 2D HFR I think. The action and camera pans are so much smoother it's really a new experience.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 6:37 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    knuckleface, thats quite insightful and very true - you could also add 'narrated prologue' to the comparisons. For my part I absolutely loved FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (and I think for many it is held as the best act of the LOTR trilogy) - so drawing comparisons to that movie is a very good thing not a negative. In truth if THE HOBBIT didnt draw comparison to FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING I think thats when we should worry! I mentioned it already in this thread but I think the way THE HOBBIT dovetails with LOTR is quite incredible and brilliantly done - I think when all parts are released viewers really will be able to sit back and watch the six films sequentially as one almighty epic.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 7:48 a.m. CST

    franks_television - Saruman

    by HornOrSilk

    You know, that's how Tolkien dealt with Saruman and Gandalf? Saruman would scold Gandalf about the pipeweed, but eventually tried it himself, got hooked, but didn't want Gandalf to know.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    Congrats Harry

    by vezner2007

    This is one of the first reviews I've read of yours that I actually agreed with. Usually you're so far out in left field that you make no sense when you talk. ;)

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    The biggest problem with this movie - RUSHED

    by SK229

    Watch all those bts things edited together on youtube (it's like 90 minutes!) and you'll see what I mean. The way PJ makes movies on this scale at the speed he does causes quality to suffer. THAT'S the real problem. I don't like 48fps, but I'd wager fewer people would complain if he'd just spend an additional 6 months on VFX or not push his people so hard to delivery so many shots in so little time. The quality suffers. And he and his team seem to wear this as a badge of honor. I work in television and the same shit happens in post-production where, when we actually get an episode out on time, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and goes, "See, we did it! When you guys work 16-20 hour days for a few weeks, we can hit these deadlines!" And I'm like, yeah, but I could have done a much better job and not had so many bad music edits, poor cut-aways, etc., if you had just done it on a normal schedule and not created this fucking insane atmosphere of chaos, which some people seem to thrive in or they NEED to feel like they're under the gun. And we're all exhausted and I KNOW, from my own inner experience, that I'm not doing work at the same level cause I'm exhausted and just trying to get it done. Anyway, all that stuff in the BTS docs about the vfx people sleeping at work isn't something to be proud of, imho. It's clear the VFX suffer and could be better if he'd either A) Focus on quality shots instead of quantity (something Spielberg is AMAZING at) or B) Give them more time to get it done and not come up with 500 new vfx shots at the last second to see if they'll actually get it done. Because they will... they have to... but it doesn't mean the stuff will LOOK good.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:22 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    sk229, Gollum disagrees with you! No, its a funny one regarding the FX. Why does Gollum look so good and convincing but the wargs look so fake (the wargs didnt look great in TWO TOWERS either)? I am certain everyone who has worked on any movie would always like more time - and it could be that the fx for the next two installments will not have the pressure on them quite so much. It does make one worry a little about the freshly announced STAR WARS EPISODE VII, already deadlined in for 2015 and really not much more than a glint in Lucas' eye. Thats going to be some long ass hours for the fx boys trying to meet deadline on that one I can tell you.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:31 a.m. CST

    If people say this reminds them of FOTR

    by The Fuck

    Then this will definitely be right up my alley! Fellowship is the most rewatchable charming part of the bunch. Can't waaaiitttt

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Theaters see HFR as another chance to overcharge customers

    by Eyegore

    Check your listings. They're tacking on extra cost for 3D, extra for a HFR, and extra extra for 3DHFR. Fucking greedy assholes ruining shit before it can even get started.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:51 a.m. CST

    What really tok me out of the movie: subtitles.

    by Cosmik

    In my mind the use of subtitles in LOTR was limited to one scene of Aragorn and Arwen in Rivendel. In the Hobbit, there seems to be a lot of them used. And especially with them popping off the screen in 3D, I was jolted out of the immersion in the story and reminded this is a movie.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Re: cobra kai

    by SK229

    That's what I thought about The Two Towers and the ROTK in terms of there being less pressure... FOTR actually is still the best of all these movies and I suspect it will remain so. In retrospect, it had so few effects to get right relative to the other films. I remember being stunned at the Balrog effect, but not so much with the cave troll (although that owes more to the way he uses a camera in such scenes, than the effect itself). Maybe it's just a matter of taste (like I mentioned with the cave troll), but my favorite image still remains Gandalf 'riding' the Balrog and that wide shot of them slowly plummeting together into that vast underground expanse. That whole sequence is breathtaking, but that image is what I'd have liked more of in general, but PJ's 'signature' remains those crazy ass swooping, dutch angled camera moves. Anyway, in the BTS stuff for ROTK, he just kept adding more... and more... and more... and more... so I think the quality still suffered even though they had more time. I don't think it's a problem of time, I think it's a problem of excessive workload and Jackson adding tons of additional shots at the last minute. And to be fair, his people pull off miracles under such pressure, where other places know a year in advance their exact work load and can't even seem to pull that off in a realistic manner. He seems to know just how far to push and still get it done, I'll give him that.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Also, regarding theaters charging more...

    by SK229

    We can get amazing, reference theater quality at home now, so it would seem the lesson to learn would be - more at the movie theater for the same amount of money. Charge us the same, but give us a better experience. No, the lesson THEY take away is, give us more AND charge us more. Fucking asshats.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:51 a.m. CST

    to lordofflight

    by HerbSewell

    Compare it to something like Excalibur…that movie you can ‘feel’ the scenery, it’s alive, it’s real, its tactile, it’s rich and murky, it’s smoky and ethereal and that's without CGI. Then compare it to the shots of the characters crossing virgin NZ landscapes, things that don’t feel lived in, lack soul. No farming is there, no old houses, no paths or well-worn roads. The battles with thousands and CGI blood, but lacking the smoke, fire, and pain of a real battlefield, even dead bodies, cgi or otherwise are not noticeable. Forests are CGI inserted in rolling hills, or cities with 0 farming or industry around them to justify their existence (think Minas Terith). Even lacking water supply. They look spectacular at first but then your mind realizes they are STERILE. OR the army of the dead that could be bad ass, but flooding out of the ships on a cgi river not even deep enough to support ships, and sweeping over the battlefield in about 10 seconds, boom wars over. Sterile. No soul. But there are examples where he gets it right, Hobiton is ok, but still a bit too “set –like “ for me, in the Hobbit they were fishing in a water hole that was clearly made for the movie, about ½ meter deep, but OK. Others I liked included the marching orc army and the first instance of the Witch King. Frodo and Sam in the swamp evading the Nazgul. The LOTR prologue that showed the elf/man/orc battle with Sauron. The Balrog scene. Saruman vs. Gandolf. In the Hobbit I felt the prologue was also quite good at tone and substance. But overall, something is lacking. I’m glad the movies were made and I’m a fan but I believe Borman could do it better, and so could G. D. T.


  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Loved it.

    by Logan_1973

    Remarkable to look at and def re-captured that Middle-Earth magic, although I think it speaks more to true LOTR fans than it does outsiders.

  • he is considering removing the subtitles for the hobbit blue ray and just letting the dialogue be as is. This will of course force you to learn the languages of middle earth so that you can decipher the movie. Cameron was going to do this with avatar but I persuaded him to use subtitles. I regret the decision now because in retrospect I think forcing the audience to learn Navi would have been a much more intelligent decision when attempting to convey the dialogue in the movie to the audience.

  • Considering the running time, i'de go as far as to say it's better paced, as not once during the movie did i start to wonder how far into the movie we were or look at my watch wondering the time. Fantastic. Think Harry missed a trick by not mentioning Richard Armitage, he's every bit as good as Martin Freeman is in his role.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Jackson doesn't have the rights to the Silmarillion.

    by Baked

    So...good luck with those last two films. I hear they finally fight Smaug in the third.

  • Just because you've occasionally disagreed with most critics on the qualities of movies YOU HAVE SEEN, does not mean you would disagree with most critics if you watched most of the movies THEY SUGGEST. It's like Wolfgang Puck telling you that Creme Broule, Gouda, Filet Mignon, and Caviar are fucking delicious and you should stop eating so many chicken nuggets but you say, "Fuck you, caviar's too salty and chicken nuggets are tits, so everything else you have to say is a lie!" Except in this case the chicken nuggets cost 5 dollars more than the Filet Mignon. All you're doing is hurting yourself. And maybe the entire industry by giving money to shit like Battleship and Transformers on opening day in IMAX. It is a disturbingly American thing, this idea of excess being bestest. And we'll gratefully indulge as Peter Jackson disguises spectacle and pablum as fine art simply by dressing it in someone else's suit and borrowing an old pair of shoes. We are a fascinatingly commercial culture to the point that we more than seemingly anyone else can be easily manipulated into trading our sense of good taste for a shitty rehash of something familiar we already own three versions of on Blu-Ray.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 1:04 p.m. CST

    ^ It's not an American thing.

    by RandySavage

    For example, international audiences helped critically-panned movies like Battleship & Ice Age 4 become money-makers in 2012, while those movies had disappointing domestic takes.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST


    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    Thanks, dude. Someone says it. Pow. America might not have made it, but you can bet that America rings the cash box the loudest. Anyone who reads Peter Biskind knows that this was what happened when the execs began to swirl around the fortunes of blockbuster films like JAWS and STAR WARS, when it seemed like the fortunes of independent studios and monoliths of the industry were working in harmony, only to be brought down by huge expectations, big budgets, and now, the digital effects monopoly. Jackson and WETA would be well served if they stopped worrying about how many people they had to employ and got back to making smaller pictures like Heavenly Creatures and Master and Commander. (Smaller meaning nuance and intent, not scale.) Anyone else who feels this way and wants to lend their voice to the din is welcome to join my Facebook group RIGHTS FOR CARTOONS

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:13 p.m. CST on

    by corplhicks

    I saw it last night. 24 fps 3-D, standard size screen. Cinematography is great, you get a good feel for Hobbiton and Rivendale. The problem is the dialogue, the script. I know The Hobbit is a more childish/juvenile story than LOTR. But the lines spoken sometimes are very poorly written and silly. almost all the dwarves look like dwarves except two, Oakenshield guy and the one that looks like a GQ model-- he barely looks made up to look dwarvish at all. These dwarves look just too different than the numerous dwarves we have seen before-- start of LOTR and counsel of Elrond. Despite that the dialogue just isn't great. The dish washing song could and should have been eliminated. Completely. It was embarrassing. Making them gluttonous beyond belief and dumb in one scene and then strong smart coordinated fighters in another doesn't make sense. The goofy wizard who has bird crap on his face fortunately shows himself to be a strong fighter against that Nazgul/ghost guy. And him seeing Sauron as the Necromancer was good. But for goodness sake, clean your face, dude. The goblin king was ridiculously rendered and that skin hanging off his chin was absurd-- he was too goofy looking and stupid. The 3 trolls was the most embarrassing scene of all. They were like the 3 stooges and I know the book may have made them goofy, but seriously we are wanting to see a mature Hobbit-- scripts can be written to minimize the stupid and this was not done enough here. Tricking them about spices may work in a book but not on screen. The gollum scenes were good, however, the riddles were almost impossible to understand and frankly the 3 people I was with during the movie could simply NOT understand the words spoken. I loved that it opened hours before the birthday party the first day of LOTR-- cool. and seeing Frodo run off to see Gandalf was equally fun. How I miss LOTR. I sincerely hope that the next installment of this drawn out trilogy is more mature with better writing. Out of 5 stars I would give it 2.5 stars.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    It's really had for me to think that people didn't like this film.

    by Orionsangels

    If you liked Fellowship of the Ring then surely you liked The Unexpected Journey. I guess we love Middle-Earth in different ways?

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:19 p.m. CST

    hard not had. I'm not from Boston.

    by Orionsangels

  • You're the type of person who liked Fellowship of the Ring the least and loved ROTK the most because it had huge battles. You probably liked Legolas snowboarding with a shield or coming down an Oliphant's truck. That's not what LOTR is about. You're doing it wrong.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:34 p.m. CST

    I couldn't agree more

    by Jackson

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:38 p.m. CST


    by krylite

    Very good post. Hit the point exactly. All these critics have some kind counter reaction to Peter Jackson because most of the movies since LOTR showed what lousy cinema we had in the 90's and critics gave too many good reviews, like those sacharrine fake-sugary Ron Howard movies. I suspect it's because LOTR really showed the SW prequels what a lazy piece of yes-men-MaCallum deluded crap Lucas wrote the story for in one week. Also moronic audiences have increasingly been financially rewarding crap movies like the Transformers and Twilight movies and even storyless Avatar (or Dances with Smurfs). The critics think they are safe on the bandwagon and can safely lump AUJ with TDKR and Prometheus as the year of the 2012 disappointments. Most of the "bloat" perceived is based on Tolkien materiel. People were complaining about TTT and ROKT not like the exploring adventure of the first half of FOTR. Now we get to see all the details we wanted to see more of Hobbiton and too many forget to appreciate it.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:42 p.m. CST

    I quite liked it myself...

    by Monroville

    Though I do feel it was a bit long. Peter still needs to work on his editing. While I do not consider it nearly as long-winded as KING KONG, the 3D eyestrain was starting to get to me after the 2 hour to 2 and 1/2 hour mark. I think I agree with quite a few here: Radagast was a bit silly (especially with the bird dungfall on the side of his head), but I think that was the point, though I was surprised that Jackson never touched on his gross side by having Radagast pick and eat on it. I concur that the riddles were hard to hear, especially when Gollum was speaking and answering (what was the answer to the box with no keyhole?). Even so, I think the beginning could have been edited MUCH better and been delivered in a quicker way, but once they got onto the journey it seemed alright pace-wise.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:48 p.m. CST


    by krylite

    Don't mean to be criticizing or anything, but it sounds like from your review you've never read the book itself. Those trolls were really goofy for dwarves and their design was made to fit their petrified forms in FOTR. Not saying you should read the book now. It's fun to watch the next two movies to see it fresh then read the book after. When LOTR came out, I purposefully didn't reread the books because I wanted it to be fresh. I don't plan to ever read the Harry Potter books. They are not good for children's souls while Tolkien's work has a distinct Christian bent. It may take a month or so but you'll find you actualy loved AUJ. Just like a lot of us were disoriented by FOTR at first then realized what first class act and effort it was just like AUJ is again.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:50 p.m. CST


    by leroyspoboys

    Put the bong down kid. Nothing Jackson has done has been respectful to Tolkien or Middle Earth. Being a fan of Jackson and/or a fan of Tolkien are not mutually exclusive choices.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    Rimshot to orionsangels..that Boston line made me spit out my coffee

    by Pete Susoev

    Thanks I needed that. Some people dig the film, some don't. I for one am in the camp of wanting to revisit a place that was a very big part of my childhood growing up. Others scrutinize or outright slam it, and y'know they have that right...I just can't stomach people routing it and calling others wrong because we don't agree. The comparisons to SW are a little rough...I mean Lucas only directed four of those flicks. I'm on my phone, or I'd be checking, but I can't think of another director that carried a property all the way through from start to finish. Even that should be considered some measure of a head nod, even by naysayers. Dude is doing what he loves doing with stories he adores. And side note, even the hatefilled reviews and backlashes are more worthy of a review byline. Seriously, fuck man, there's better reviews in the damn talkbacks than on the actual site's page, both good and bad. The negatives support their points better than the farking Kidd, and the positives allow me to understand why you dig a flick based on your personal opinion and experience. Harry, you lucky turd. If you didn't jump the gun you'd be wallowing in these posts getting your ass kicked verbally daily.

  • Creepy.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:05 p.m. CST

    He is exactly a Hobbit.

    by TheMachinist

    I can't...I don't even...

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Re: leroyspoboys

    by Orionsangels

    My point was that most Tolkien and Middle Earth fans loved PJ's LOTR. So if they did chances are they loved this Hobbit film. I feel the same way Harry does about this film. It was exactly what I wanted and it's what I got. I couldn't be happier. If you didn't like it, but you liked the LOTR films. You were liking PJ's Middle-Earth for all the wrong reasons. Now where did I leave that bong?

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Saw it, loved it

    by Mr Underhill

    Had some trepidation after the negative reviews, but PJ has done a good job. Off to see it in 48fps.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:19 p.m. CST


    by corplhicks

    for 3 hours for a non-animated book, given the liberties taken with LOTR and the hobbit too, it's not unreasonable to think they could have toned down the childish retarded 3-stoogies stuff, just tone it down. Harry Potter not good for souls? really? They are movies too. Not getting into the crazy Christian anti-Potter movement--there's magic, witchcraft and religion in LOTR too, but whatever. I wanted better dialogue and words coming out of mouths. Dwarves were inconsistent-- one minute goofballs, the next solid fighters.

  • It's an absurd comparison! George Lucas wrote the terrible prequels. Tolkien wrote these classic beloved stories. Strike One against Lucas. Wooden acting vs. Ian Mckellen and Martin Freeman and the rest of the cast. Strike Two against Lucas. No annoying child actors or Jar Jar Binks in The Hobbit. Strike Three! You're out Lucas! Puh-lease. Comparing The Phantom Garbage to this film. You better wake up from a dream and apologize for saying that shit.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Harry, this is the first time in a while...

    by Last_of_the_Emurites

    This is the first time in a while I actually smiled and appreciated your review, and agreed with you on just about everything. Who said it perfectly when you stated that the difference between your review and other reviews we read before the film was released was that you WANTED to return and be engrossed by Middle-earth. As did I. And another huge problem that a lot of people are encountering with their "logic" in claiming that an under 300-page book should be "one movie" is that Tolkien skimmed through so much detail that much of it NEEDS to be embellished to allow for a more epic, UN-RUSHED feel. My advice to anyone who hasn't yet seen the film is to just sit back, relax, and stop criticizing the film as you're watching it. Watch it to ENJOY IT. It's a critics job sometimes to go into a film looking for problems - that's a terrible tactic in my opinion and has never been a choice when reviewing films myself, but some of them just have it in their minds that it's their DUTY to look for trouble. They are bullies to the movies, and it's because of assholes like this that affect future choices of producers. Enjoy the film, pay your money, and let Middle-earth soak back into your skin before Sauron fucks it all up again.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Meant to say "you said", not "Who said" on the second line.

    by Last_of_the_Emurites

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 3:51 p.m. CST

    LOTR and Christian themes.

    by krylite

    Went off on a tangent here. It's quite interesting how PJ recognized that the "magic" was seen as more "holy" or "unholy". Tolkien was far more subtle in the Christian themes than CS. Lewies in Narnia, but it's all there , and also in the movies. That's why the magic seems more like miracles, exorcisms, and blessings vs. curses and paganistic spells and PJ did a good job showing that. Another hidden layer recognized in the classic LOTR movies. If you want to read into it further, suggested Book of Lost Tales, Silmarillion and Tolkien's comments about Gandalf. (A book out there called "finding God in LOTR" ) to summarize, the 4th age of man by provident decree was not to have any more magic and the elves leaving etc.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    addendum to LOTR music

    by krylite

    if you look up the music in LOTR especially FOTR. BIG hints in the music in select scenes. Like when Gandalf is fighting Saruman in Isengard. That chorus is literally the "angelic" orders of Middle-earth singing! They do know what's going on. Rivendell has all those statues very much like catholic saints. Lothlorien where Legolas is saying he can not bear to say, when asked by Sam "what are they singing?"; reference to the book, they are referring to Mithrandir, Gandalf's real name and identity. etc. By that time only a few had seen the light of the west like Galadriel so she very much knows Gandalf from the 1st age and a different place far removed from the physical middle-earth. its just detail after detail PJ and crew piled on as best as they could (and also through Shore's music) if one looks for it.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:06 p.m. CST


    by Mark

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:06 p.m. CST


    by Mark

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Can't seriously compare AUJ with TPM

    by krylite

    Instead compare AUJ with "Willow". Lucas wanted to do LOTR very much. So after he made big money, he tried to make his own Hobbit with "Willow" and see how that turned out. Even had an Aragorn like guy with Val Kilmer. So much that many many ideas were borrowed from LOTR for SW. C3PO, R2D2= elf, and hobbit. Chewbacca = Beonor, Uncle Owen's underlevel abode = Bag End, Obi-Wan = Gandalf, Darth Vader = Nazgul/ Necromancer/ Ringwraith complete with dark flowing cloak. Vader's Tie fighter Advanced = Nazgul steed. Inside Death star, bottomloss pits and tall walls equal mountains of Mordor and winding trails. Death Star exhaust port = crack of doom to throw the Ring / proton torpedoes which blows everything up. Yavin forest = Middle-earth forest with ruins of Arnor lying around. Dagobah = Dead Marshes from TTT. Yoda = more of the hobbit idea. Rings of power ( I kid you not) in the original scripts of Star Wars/ look it up. Cloud city = Minas Tirith or Osgiliath. Then Lucas gave up ripping off ideas from Middle-Earth and went to cash in for the kiddie toys and muppet tie-in's with ROTJ ewoks/care bears, and later TPM. Is AUJ seriously on the same dungheap level with Willow? Of course not!

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Goblin King worst CGI character? Jar Jar Binks

    by krylite

    Remember Jar Jar? ( or don't even try). Even Dobby the elf had a better death scene than Jar Jar , the last we saw of him was dancing around the top of that Naboo DOM in ROTJ special edition addon celebration CGI scene. He was alive with Lucas channeling his flip-off finger to the fans through JarJar! Even though JArJar made it to the screen first. PJ schooled the SW prequels overwhelmingly with Gollum. (which TTT won the oscar for best sfx). Now PJ schools Avatar this time with better 3D efx use. Avatar2 going to make a trillion dollars in a few years? Hopefully it never comes and Cameron decides to wise up and do Terminator 5 with Arnold to wrap it up right. Glad that McG sandwich guy never came back.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Bash TPM all you want. But Willow is bloody awesome...

    by Jay

    Off the bandwagon already. It's not even remotely as hated as people make it out to be.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    Goblin King-- horrible

    by corplhicks

    Jar Jar + Boss Nass = Goblin King = WTF where they thinking? Didn't anyone tell Jackson he looks embarrassingly absurd and speaks just as such.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 4:48 p.m. CST

    I love the guys who take movie criticism personally. Pure entertainment

    by Larry_Sanders

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    AUJ, TDOS, and TABA is going to be a great trilogy!

    by krylite

    corplhicks, I concede goblin king is probably the most ill conceived cgi character of PJ's franchise so far. Maybe it was a tribute to Lucas. It was reported they had become friends back during AOTC and PJ always had to struggle to rein in his silly side in movies. At least the goblin king is killed off and not extended and Azog is decent. (And as far as ROTJ special edition, Jar Jar is still ALIVE and twirling around that Naboo dome!) They couldn't keep using the same badass-walking styled uruk-hai orc big guy stunt actor from FOTR. (that was the point of Saruman making improved ultra-warrior orcs) Aragorn falling off the cliff and drifting in the water was Boyen's invented "heartthrob" scene. The worst filler of the whole trilogy for me. (Fran Walsh was the real Tolkien expert/aficionado of the three and helped keep PJ in line with the books). I hope Beonor and Smaug are a lot better. Ok, Val Kilmer was decent in Willow. Maybe he would have been better as Aragorn or even Heath Ledger than Viggo doing the same shifting-weight-step pose and showing off his hair for the 20th time.

  • The Goblin King is on screen maybe a total of 4 minutes? I thought he looked fine. I of course saw it at 24fps. So I didn't let some new gimmicky technology skew my view of the film like 80% of the haters have. It's funny how 10 years has made the haters forget that the LOTR trilogy had a crazy amount of CG effects.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 5:30 p.m. CST

    LOTR CG efx, orionsangels

    by krylite

    That's very true. If one watches the documentary videos, you get blown away how much CGI was used in combination with live models and backgrounds and so much that wasn't noticed but like a great magician immediately accepted and taken for granted. They didn't use CG for CG's sake. It was primarily a tool to get the best scene to life. And also if they could they could substitute the CG with a physical prop or animatronix,(within budget) they did. Example, when Bilbo's eyes' bug out when he suddenly grabs out for the ring. A puppet head was used with the bulging eyes, then CGI selectively fixed and embellished to Ian Holm's scene take. I remember people gasping in the audience! That was so fun a surprise efx. I recall in a ROTK docu while PJ was not around for the CGI animators doing a few seconds shot of an Oliphaunt falling. PJ got pissed because the elephant fell at the wrong angle when he had told them which angle from which depth he wanted earlier. They had to redo the shot and another day's work. Perfectionist dedication.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 5:42 p.m. CST

    goblin king etc.

    by krylite

    correction. I said "ill conceived", I just meant the weakest. Remember these are goblins, the lowest forms of the orcs. And isolated degenerated hick goblins in their own mountain at that. Not part of the Mordor "high" society. Yes, maybe overly big. But in the end it may strike a good contrast in the overall two trilogies. We get the real rustic wondrous view of Middle-earth humor and all when we think it's almost innocent and safe to take hike around freely. But it's just 60 years before Sauron gets back into power and whips his orcs back into line and the whole world goes to crisis.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 6:47 p.m. CST


    by Orionsangels

    Not everything was CG in The Hobbit. There were Orcs in make up for the closeup on Warg riders for example. To be fair there weren't too many orcs in this movie walking around. They were mostly riding on Wargs. Will see in the next Hobbit films.

  • They were a different breed of Goblin all together. I guess I would have been more upset if they had tried to replicate the exact Goblins from Moria in CG. Which is why clone troopers in the SW prequels look so bad and are so insulting, because you can't help but compare them to real men in costumes for the stormtroopers. Where these CG Goblins I couldn't compare them to any other Goblins I'd seen in PJ's Middle Earth.

  • The half dead one that falls down the hole with Bilbo and Gollum drags? I could have swore at one point for a closeup it looked very real, like makeup. Could be wrong.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 6:55 p.m. CST

    monroville ........eggses (eggs).

    by DrMorbius

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Saw it today in ordinary 24fps. God it's so damned bad

    by Smartacus

    I just can't believe how bad that turned out. The changes are just pure rubbish. They accomplish nothing but to screw up the narrative. Radagast is disgusting and ridiculous and his "expanded part" serves little to no purpose other than to give the film another action sequence it didn't need to begin with. That and he runs around freaking out over dead animals while eventually providing chimps with exposition they wouldn't need if Jackson hadn't gotten off track of the story to begin with. Very few characters behave consistently with how they were written. Thorin goes from distrusting Elves to hating them intensely (for something they didn't even do in the book, Jackson just made some shit up again) and Galadriel has apparently gone and become a House Elf because she can vanish in the blink of an eye. Fuck this version. It's so fucked up now that even a fan-edit will have trouble saving it. As happy as I was with LoTR I'm stunned to be this let down by The Hobbit. It's been turned into some kind of bullshit fan-fiction version of the story. Someone kill Peter Jackson before he decides to film the Silmarillion "Trilogy".

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 7:35 p.m. CST

    aintitcool and talkbacks

    by Robert Hand

    ruin the spirit of films. everyone would be better off shutting the fuck up.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8 p.m. CST

    Holy Shit.

    by micturatingbenjamin

    I agree with Harry. It's not just making excuses for shit -- it's really what I thought watching it -- of course shit's all colorful, Sauron's not shitting on two-thirds of the continent with his orcs and spiders and shit. Great flick. LONG. If you didn't like LOTR, skip it. I've seen it in 2D and IMAX 3D -- liked it better in 2D -- will be seeing it in HFR ASAP. MB

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:01 p.m. CST

    Saw it today in IMAX

    by mastermold

    Awesome. Simply awesome. Loved every minute of it. Have no idea why some were saying it felt too long. The movie took its time and didn't rush.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:18 p.m. CST

    The critics and cynics are wrong, THE HOBBIT is a great movie

    by FlyingToupee

    On a par with the LOTR trilogy as far as I'm concerned. And the comparisions with the prequels is preposterous. They had wooden acting and poor dialogue. The acting in THE HOBBIT is on par with the LOTR trilogy. A moving morality tale that I hope finds an audience, this world needs this message right now.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:27 p.m. CST

    The ending of this movie copies John Woo's RED CLIFF PART I.

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    With the camera following a bird as it flies into enemy a visual substitute for "TO BE CONTINUED". <BR><BR> I liked the movie. My only issue was that, like an episode of G.I. Joe, the good guys seemed indestructible. You see armies of generic bad guys getting owned, but none of the good guys ever get hit. That takes away the tension, sense of danger...there came a point in the movie where I pretty much settled on the fact that nothing was ever going to happen to the good guys...they were indestructible. They were Mario with the yellow star.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:53 p.m. CST

    Really smartacus?

    by NV

    You want to kill Peter Jackson? What is wrong with these people?? Holy crap on a cracker..

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 8:56 p.m. CST

    sentinel78, the world has gone nuts

    by FlyingToupee

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:02 p.m. CST

    It's just a fucking movie

    by NV

    A very good one mind you. But for the life of me i can't understand what people want? If anyone can provide a cogent, meaningful explanation of what AUJ should have been, I am all ears(eyes). The vitriol is so disturbing.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Just got back. It's better than any of the LotR movies.

    by Ironhelix


  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:19 p.m. CST

    except MAYBE the Fellowship.

    by Ironhelix

    ...was what I meant to say before this piece of shit message board decided to post prematurely.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 9:21 p.m. CST

    And I kinda know.

    by CountOrlok

    Because nobody else has ever seen anything real, right?

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST

    I caught it Friday afternoon

    by FuckinAmateurMan

    I really liked it. I think it stands next to the Rings movies just fine. The only minor gripes I had were Radagast being a little over the top and the dishes song didn't really do it for me. Overall though I thought it was pretty great.

  • Haters act like it's a million times different than the LOTR Trilogy. Haha!

  • I'm not a mean spirited person.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 10:22 p.m. CST

    I don't get why people didn't like this either

    by TheDarkPassenger

    It took a little too long to get going but once it did...good god did it get going. I was entranced. It had some of the most stunning visuals I have ever seen in a film. It was cast perfectly. The music was great. The fight scenes were great. It of course has a notably more playful, lighter tone than LOTR but at the same time you can feel something dark and menacing lurking in the shadows, ready to emerge in the next two movies. I loved it. I wish PJ could make movies about Middle Earth forever.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 10:28 p.m. CST

    All the critics say first half is too slow, but....

    by Friendoh

    ... I thought it was very enjoyable. It's the second half that falls apart. Trolls/goblins are too cartoonish, action sequences go WAY, WAY over the top (like Jackson did with Kong), wooden acting in Rivendale, CGI looks rushed with the wargs, rabbit sled and goblins. Dramatically uneven. Riddles in the dark was the only exception. Excellent sequence in every respect. Big LOTR trilogy fan, but disappointed with this film.

  • I'm open to the naunces of approach to the story style but it's not going to be my primary watch first up. I already know it's going to be a great fantasy film production of Middle Earth & i'm going to watch that, the depth that i get into the rest of stuff & conventions will depend on what they are but i'm not worried either way, i know my primary watch will be enough to keep my interest. TPM is alot greater now it is part of a completed whole. The Star Wars saga is a masterwork of fantasy/sci-fi & Empire is second best tier entry of the series, along with New there! AOTC & ROTS are the first tier best entries. Somethings increase in significance when seen in a completed whole, for TPM, an aspect of this was one of it's thematic devices & it's place against others that 'inflect' as the series goes on, the one i refering to for TPM being: CODE:FEELINGS:ACTIONS Such can be fantasy/sci-fi Genre story action trip, so anyhow, for different reasons, first up, i reckon it's a safe bet to enjoy the fantasy film production of this version of the Hobbit & see what else gives along the way :)

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 10:43 p.m. CST

    Odd mixed bag

    by jeffrey mckeage

    I went in expecting to hate it, but had a very good time. But I love some very bad movies. As a Tolkien purist, it is horrific. Breaking it down into discrete screenwriting/directing/production decisions, none rise above mediocrity. Serkis' acting alone carries the Riddles scene, which is poorly paced and lit. Freeman and Armitage are way beyond their depths. In an expanded Razzies, it would deserve nominations for: Worst CGI character Worst Make-up Worst Adapted screenplay And it will probably get one for worst Ensemble. Pray that no-one lets PJ remake "Dam Busters"

  • Saw it in good ol 24 fps and thought it was great. I am guessing the new format is what's ruining the film for the critics. I was also against this whole 3 movie stretch of a 300 page kid's book but shit, PJ is actually performing a rare feat: making a movie that is more exciting than the original book. I have to admit I groaned when I saw Frodo in the beginning. I had no idea he was in it. I was expecting him to walk by, wink at the camera and disappear.

  • It's is an entertaining film, with some horrible moments...that's it. This isn't fucking Lawrence of Arabia, nor is it the Twilight is something on the good side of the middle. I enjoyed it was "Mostly" faithful to the source material, I enjoyed most of the dialog, even liked most of the action. It was a fine film for what it will do just fine at the box office, and though I doubt many of the Fanboys here have a vest interest in this can stop self mutilating and you need not worry Peter won't be able to but Nutella for his toast...they'll all be fine and running in the black. What sucked in my opinion?... Minimum of 10 minutes of fat at the beginning. Though the Back story of the film HAD to be told, there was simply too much time given to Dwarf could have been tightened up a bit. Unnecessary Addition of some big White one armed Orc Fuck from Tolkiens appendages that never appeared in the story,because he was already fucking dead...(and Okenshields back story explained him fine without the need for him to live on), and a resulting subplot that didn't need to be. This I think is how Jackson managed to stretch these to 3 films instead of 2...pulling shit out of his ass and the appendages to flesh it out. Good business move is better than 2 for the bottom line. Unnecessary Cameos by the always Professional Christopher Lee and the always lickable Cate Blanchette. That entire scene/s could have been conveyed to the audience in a few sentences between Elrond and Gandolf...or at the very least it could have been sped up. I'm glad these fine actors got a payday...but it wasn't needed, and we don't really need to leave the theater pondering whether Galadriel stepped out on her hubby and let that Grimy, Grey Wandering octogenarian defile her milky smooth, nay perfect, thigh flesh as his enchanted Conjurer Staff slithered its way towards her moist, Elven Penis Pouch. Really...that was a kinda creepy moment, I felt like Galadriel was going to rape the poor old soul with her little mind fuck and flirty, hinting hand hold. The Goblin King. I am Fine with the way he looks..I'm fine with most of the silly songs, because it is in the book. But, there ARE some Lucas-ian moments there....His demise, while correct in whom dealt it, was just fucking could have Fun AND bad ass....but it just ended up being God Damned Lame. "Yeah...That'll do it... I think he said,yeah...a Big FUCK YOU to whoever wrote that line. Also...there was some pretty shoddy special effects throughout this thing...and I don't think it matters what the damned frame rate is..I'm looking at you first Radagast Rabbits. Maybe the animators, integrators were rushing to meet a deadline? Maybe they are just unfamiliar with the new filming techniques....but places just look bad. I heard that from people in the I'm not the only one. I saw this in 2D 24fps...and fuck you and your mom, we should not have to pay a $3-5 premium to see it otherwise. Some of us HATE 3D, I wear glasses, 3D glasses on top of them suck...and that's beside the point, 3D is a adds nothing to the story. And no...I am not 12..I don't need to see the "Neto" effects or feel Immersed...just tell me the damned story. sounds like I'm bitching, and I am about these points....but overall I had fun with this film....but please calm the fuck down, it isn't THAT good..and it isn't THAT bad.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Remember when it was just nice to be back in star wars land?

    by knowthyself

    Few months later we all woke up and rewalized how awful phantom menace was.

  • Dec. 16, 2012, 11:43 p.m. CST

    They shoulda killed a dwarf or two.

    by knowthyself

    Gandalf's and Boromir's death in fellowship addes weight to the events. Nothing like this in fellowship.

  • This is extremely amusing.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 12:15 a.m. CST

    TPM had WOODEN ACTING!!! It was Monotone acting at it's finest.

    by Orionsangels

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Liam Neeson put me to sleep during TPM. I was snoring in the theater

    by Orionsangels

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 1:25 a.m. CST

    Bilbo > Frodo

    by krabklaw

    I thought this was a really FUN adventure movie. What I appreciate most is how Jackson was able to make this movie it's own thing even though it exists in the same world as LOTR. It was much funnier and even the action was so over-the-top that it was more slapstick than bad-ass. Thorin is just as cool as Viggo was, and Bilbo is instantly more likable than Elijah Wood (who has a cameo). Just as good as the LOTR movies, but different. Saw it in 24fps because I didn't want the new tech to color my opinion of the movie.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Harry thinks the Alamo Drafthouse is The Shire. Holy Jumping Moses.

    by Darth_Kong

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 1:45 a.m. CST

    A movie that is actually better than the book.

    by versatol

    This declaration is one worth repeating. I was talking so much shit about PJ and New Line for turning this little kid's book into 3 long movies. However, I did not expect the scenes to be given more context that actually made them BETTER than they were in the book. This made a mere kid's tale seem truly epic. Freeman was great and the effects were top notch (except for the goblin king; he looked like that fat diner guywho meets with Obi Wan in Attack of the Clones). I am really looking forward the next two. Good shit, PJ

  • Good effing movie overall

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 2:21 a.m. CST

    Saw it 3D 48fps

    by Bedhead7

    When the camera is moving slow, 48 fps works. When anyone or the camera is moving fast, 48 fps looks horrible. The lack of motion blur in 48 fps is more disturbing than any downside of 24 fps 3D motion blur. Took me out of the movie any time fast movement was on the screen.

  • Saw it in 2D. Looked stunning. No side-effects from the downgraded 48fps. Have no interest in seeing it in 3D a HFR. 2D at 24fps is how I fell in love with PJs middle earth. But the movie itself? I'm not going to argue with the whiners. What's the point? They made up their minds before the movie even came out (Just read the TBs for when the trailers came out) And they already blew their wad calling Prometheus the new Phantom Menace. So calling Hobbit the same thing is already a pathetic cliche. Not that it matters because you'd have be one delusional troll to even compare the quality of the two films. Anyways... Remember how you felt the first time you saw The Neverending Story or The Dark Crystal as a kid on HBO? Well, thank you Peter Jackson. You just brought back that feeling for 2 hours and 45 minutes. I cannot believe how much I loved the film. Jackson went all-out with the high fantasy. The history of Erebor and Thorin was truly magical to watch. This isn't the same tone as LOTR, though there's moments throughout. The keyword here is "fun". I was so thrilled they kept the adventurous & wonderous tone of the book. I was truly starting to worry a bit after listening to the whine-fest that's been going on here. Hell, there was some truth to it when it was regarding Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises. Two movies which I enjoyed, but found quite problematic in certain areas that kept me from loving the films. The Hobbit? I honestly can't think of a single thing I truly disliked. That doesn't mean I loved everything about it. I just wasn't bothered by anything to the point of crying about it. More so than ever am I looking forward to part 2 & 3 (And the extended editions) And I just can't for the life of me believe that anyone who loved LOTR or the high fantasy genre could really hate this. And spare the "you're just a delusional fanboy" crap. No one fucking pretended that Phantom Menace was a misunderstood masterpiece. Everyone re-writes history to fit their opinion. Between this, Skyfall, and Cloud Atlas, it's great to know these big budgeted "blockbusters" (for lack of a better term) are still being made by great filmmakers.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 3:39 a.m. CST

    AICN, Peter Jackson and corruption

    by Jeespox

    Is there really anyone left who thinks AICN can publish anything Hobbit related that isn't completely biased? I mean come on, one of the writers got payed by Jacksons producers to spend two months(!) in New Zealand watching them shoot. A self respecting media would've declined based on neutrality but not a fan site, like which AICN seems to be, still after 15+ years in the biz. Harry, your eagerness to please your idols makes the work you guys do unreliable and naive.

  • what fucking planet do you live on? planet stick up your ass? get a fucking life!

  • jesus christ it's like listening to win tasters rambling on about the integrity of grapes or some shit reserve your righteous indignation for causes that warrant them and movies are not one of them

  • the sad part is how many of these people are no longer children but still thinking like they are. i guess it can't be too surprising among geeks, but it's still jarring to witness an adult throw a verbal temper tantrum over a movie not making them feel like they just got a blow job.

  • It's effecting how you feel about the film. Obviously, I mean if HFR is taking you out of the movie and the actors look like cosplayers. I probably wouldn't like it either. See it in 24fps!

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 5:20 a.m. CST

    Haha! Yep. @antonstark

    by Orionsangels

  • That is a GROSS misrepresentation. The Goblin King speaks in REGULAR ENGLISH, not in the pidgin-way of Boss Nass and Jar Jar.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 7:30 a.m. CST

    Knowthyself, that's a complaint against the source material

    by D.Vader

    Not the movie. You want death, you'll get it. I just won't say where.

  • People in the audience sitting in the back row though. What's the point of missing out on all the detail and immersion by sitting in the back row? I sat to where it was holodeck. Holodeck seating is the only reason to leave your house. The movie is sensational any way you see it I'm sure. It's just that if you don't see it at least 48p 3D you're missing the way it was intended. It's so good I'm surprised at the complaints. Must be the same people that see 3D movies in shit theaters too dark and all that. Go to a real theater owned by Disney or universal or someone competent. Trust me. If seen properly this movie has no rival visually.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 8:34 a.m. CST

    I don't understand the hate this is getting at all.

    by skycrapper

    Enjoyed every minute of it.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 8:35 a.m. CST

    My expectations were unecessarily lowered...

    by Sparhawk38

    I am not sure I saw it in hfr, but the print was fantastic. 3d worked well. There are always things you imagined differently. The clean up at Bilbo's house was too cgi'd for me. Little things like that, but the overall effect of the movie is great! Martin Freeman is very good and Gollum has never been better. I am a big Spiderman fan and enjoyed the reboot when I saw it in the theater. Tried to watch it again the other night and couldn't get through it. I can't wait to see the Hobbit again, by contrast. I was not enthusiastic about seeing this turned into 3 movies. While I am still not sure that was the best decision, I am much more optimistic I am going to have a great time with each installment. Well done.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Well said, Harry

    by Halloween68

    You and I don't always see eye to eye, but I have to say you really nailed it this time. Felt the exact same way. Absolutely loved THE HOBBIT. Was a little worried going in with all the negative criticism coming from the national critics. Not sure what film they were watching or what they were expecting, but THE HOBBIT was every bit as good as at least the first two LORD OF THE RINGS films. I mean, the film was a lot brighter, colorful and livelier than RINGS, but that's as it's supposed to be. Sauron's not in Mordor yet. Darkness is not yet spread across Middle Earth as of yet. This is a simple adventure tale that escalates into something bigger. But prior to weighty, heaviness that comes with RINGS. Now, THE HOBBIT isn't perfect. I had similar issues with THE HOBBIT that I did with RINGS. Still don't like any of the scenes that happen in Rivendell. They all feel forced, and planned out. Removed from the rest of the story. You never actually see any elves in Rivendell. In the books, the Rivendell elves are playfull, and they tease the dwarves and Bilbo as they approach. It just might be Jackson's treatment of Middle Earth elves are different than I imagined. Either way, I always feel a little disappointed in Rivendell. (Spoiler alert) There's a meeting between Gandalf, Saruman, Elrond and Galadriel in Rivendell. I would have rather seen a White Council meeting. With all the wizards in attendance. Speaking of wizards, I was okay with most of Radagast's parts, but I did not like the scene where he runs into the dwarf party with his sleigh and rabbit drivers. Thought that all went rather cheesily. The fx on that chase scene that followed were awful. Still don't like that two of the dwarves look normal, no makeup where the rest of them are all bloated up and wearing mounds of prosthetics. The could have made all the dwarves a little squatter and a little stouter. All of them though should have used just the right amount of dwarvish makeup. I liked the makeup they did with Gimli in RINGS, but less stiff. Also, it still bothers me that Glamdring and Orcrist don't glow when orcs are around like Sting does. And as I'm saying this I realize how picky this sounds. I was really surprised how much I loved this film. Looking forward to seeing the extended cut of the film. Hoping there's more to the scene with the Eagles. Maybe more of the Goblin village. Can't wait for next December now. I saw this movie in IMAX 3D. Have not seen it in HFR 3D. Plan on doing so over the next week just to check it out. Though I won't mind seeing the film again. Cheers.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 9:26 a.m. CST

    halloween68...Good Call on the inconsistant Glowing Swords

    by conspiracy I said, some of the CGI feels incomplete or Radagasts Rabbit Race, that was SO bad I wonder how it made it through post. Lots of floating characters too (scenes where characters look like they are not attached to the when running and they are not touching the ground) Someone said that some of the CG looked like bad Video Game cut scenes...I agree. Liked the film, will see it again...but it isn't perfect by far...and given the time and money spent, it should have been.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 10 a.m. CST

    HaRRy Kan not writerz in good ENglsih?

    by IKilledSuperman

    No? Yes? Ai loock ett ARTiCAL and speak "NO"

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST

    hate to mention this BUT

    by Robert Hand

    American right-wing populist conspiracy theorists, especially those who joined the militia movement in the United States, speculate that the New World Order will be implemented through a dramatic coup d'état by a "secret team", using black helicopters, in the U.S. and other nation-states to bring about a totalitarian world government controlled by the United Nations and enforced by troops of foreign U.N. peacekeepers. Following the Rex 84 and Operation Garden Plot plans, this military coup would involve the suspension of the Constitution, the imposition of martial law, and the appointment of military commanders to head state and local governments and to detain dissidents.[69] These conspiracy theorists, who are all strong believers in a right to keep and bear arms, are extremely fearful that the passing of any gun control legislation will be later followed by the abolishment of personal gun ownership and a campaign of gun confiscation, and that the refugee camps of emergency management agencies such as F.E.M.A. will be used for the internment of suspected subversives, making little effort to distinguish true threats to the New World Order from pacifist dissidents.[20] Before year 2000 some survivalists wrongly believed this process would be set in motion by the predicted Y2K problem causing societal collapse.[70] Since many left-wing and right-wing conspiracy theorists believe that the September 11 attacks were a false flag operation carried out by the United States intelligence community, as part of a strategy of tension to justify political repression at home and preemptive war abroad, they have become convinced that a more catastrophic terrorist incident will be responsible for triggering Executive Directive 51 in order to complete the transition to a police state.[71] Skeptics argue that unfounded fears about an imminent or eventual gun ban, military coup, internment, or U.N. invasion and occupation are rooted in the siege mentality of the American militia movement but also an apocalyptic millenarianism which provides a basic narrative within the political right in the U.S., claiming that the idealized society (i.e., constitutional republic, Jeffersonian democracy, "Christian nation", "white nation") is thwarted by subversive conspiracies of liberal secular humanists who want "Big Government" and globalists who plot on behalf of the New World Order.[12]

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Regarding glowing Glamdring

    by RandySavage

    I was at first disappointed it didn't glow as well, but it could reasonably be explained that it was to keep consistency with LotR (where it never glowed).

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    HFR is negatively affecting the reviews, I suspect

    by Plathismo

    I saw the film in 24 fps Saturday, and quite enjoyed it. It's not 'The Fellowship of the Ring' (my all-time favorite film), but I wasn't expecting it to be. Some of the critiques seem out-of-whack with the film I just saw, and I suspect 48fps is skewing notices into the negative. Most of the critics screenings seem to be in 48fps, and it seems most film critics hate the look. A friend of mine is a film critic (and fan of LOTR, Kong and PJ in general) and he didn't like the movie. And he all but confessed to me that HFR was the main reason he "couldn't wait for it to be over."

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 10:35 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    conspiracy, I think youre being a little bit harsh. The final line from the Goblin King got a good laugh at the showing I was in. After all, it is traditional for a comedy quip when a big baddie gets killed - thought it was quite fun that this time the quip came from the baddie himself!

  • Holy cow!

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    @ plathismo: Good points!

    by Chris Moody

    I think that this film should have received TWO reviews -- one for the film itself (in 2D) and one for the 48 FPS.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    You people bitching about 48fps...

    by DoctorWho?

    I don't know what the hell you're on about. It looked fantastic. Crisp and clean... and the 3D was incredible. THAT is the way 3D should be done. I will not see any film in 3D again unless it is HFR. I never once thought about it as 3D but a depth and clarity that truly did make you feel like you could reach into the screen. Nothing "popped out" at you...rather, you felt you were "looking into" a world.<p> I was also prepared to see this "sped up" look I hear everyone complaining about... it was about half way through the movie I realized I hadn't even thought about it.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 12:06 p.m. CST


    by mcfencer27

    I would really love to read to read this review...really, I would. But, after 2 minutes of trying to decipher Harry's prose, I almost had an anuerysm. What the hell is wrong with Harry? Why can't he put words together in a way that makes sense to the average human? Reading one of his reviews is like trying to read the derranged ramblings of a stroke victim. C'mon, Harry! You run this site, don't you? Learn to write in a coherent manner. Jesus H. Christ!

  • I enjoyed the film very much, but there's an awful lot of runtime taken up with nods and winks to fans that are totally superfluous in this film. The intro with Frodo, the "remember this guy?" parade at Rivendell, and the inflating of the necromancer - which in the book is just a throwaway plot point to get Gandalf out of the picture for a few chapters. Radagast could have easily gone the way of Tom Bombadil and the film wouldn't have suffered in the least. I did have fun with it, and I'm looking forward to the sequels, but this could have had a 2 hour runtime or less, easy. Stretching the story across 3 films is a cash grab, there's really no debating that. As a Tolkien fan I appreciate the added filler, but as a film fan I recognize that it detracts from the movie itself.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST

    You're absolutely correct Conspiracy

    by DoctorWho?

    About Azog "...and a resulting subplot that didn't need to be" And the White Council being a "... scene/s could have been conveyed to the audience in a few sentences between Elrond and Gandalf...or at the very least it could have been sped up". Totally agree.<p> That being said, I still enjoyed it. Peter would have to do far more than that to make me dislike his take on Tolkien. I understand why those choices are being made...but I felt like I could have edited this movie a little better.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 1:38 p.m. CST

    loved the movie -beyond expectations

    by mysterygirlx11

    I took my 7 year old daughter to see The Hobbit on Saturday --3D regular frame -- when she bounced out of the theatre almost 3 hours later .. she had a LOVE of all things Middle Earth in a way i can only compare to myself in 1977 after seeing Star Wars!! We had to go eat at Dennys afterwards and enjoy their Hobbit menu and get some cool trading cards

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 2:12 p.m. CST

    knowthyself: Change your name to fuckthyself.

    by tom

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST

    I see an awful lot of what I expected on this site.......

    by david starling

    .......Defence of the movie leading to slagging-off others - forgive me, I keep reading it. Ah, we're back eleven years again, and not in a good way.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Saw the movie Saturday in 2D 24FPS. It was simply amazing.

    by BilboRing

    The Hobbit was just an amazing movie. Everything was perfect. I can't imagine any hate in the least. Okay, the goblin king's voice was odd in that is was very clear and educated sounding. But it wasn't bad. Just not what I would have expected. A beautiful movie. A well acted movie. A well paced movie. I think I really enjoyed it more than the other LOTR movies, which I love as well. This might be my favorite one so far. I found myself with a huge smile the entire time. I laughed out loud a few times and I got very sad for Gollum too. Amazing movie. The other sad part was seeing how aged Christopher Lee has gotten. And Gandalf's voice was weaker sounding now that Ian McKellan is 9 years older too. Both men are legends!! It was all amazing. Peter Jackson is a hobbit!!!!

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Never read the book. Liked the Hobbit more than Towers and King.

    by David Cloverfield

    That's something I never liked about the trilogy: it's an amazing fantasy world filled with interesting cultures and creatures... and we spend most of our time in fucking medieval human kingdoms. This one had Dwarves (amazing work on their city), some elves, Orcs with actual personalities (hell, I take one, who has a name), wizards, some actual mystery. It's a little long, but that's the only trouble with it.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 3:09 p.m. CST


    by krull rules

    Merry Fucking Christmas!!! The Hobbit kicked major ass, and I can't wait for Smaug and part 2...

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Rotten Tomatoes score is tainted by the HFR effect

    by Darth_Inedible

    I'm not sayin' it's an A+level film but most of the negative reviews whine about how cheesy HFR makes the film look, which obviously effected the reviewers enjoyment. I'd guess HFR is costing it 10 points or so. Personally I saw the film at a beautiful HFR theater which was cool, but the effect is just SO unique that it makes it difficult to watch because all the typical filmic language and techniques your used to in 24f suddenly stand out as "technique" if that makes sense.. I peeked into a 24f theater afterwards and it was much easier to watch.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST

    Orcs on wargs

    by krylite

    Right. For closeups of orcs I can see they used stunt actors just like in FOTR once the orcs in Moria surrounded them they were live actors. Like the closeups in the Last Alliance battle. TTT was the most filler scened with the wargs pulled from the Hobbit. And Aragorn cliff falling drama. The bomb lighting, beserker-jason horror masked suicide orc who couldn't be stopped by legolas (haha). And most of the audiences who never read the books didn't care or noticed. Now all these negative critics are complaining about bloat!

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 5 p.m. CST

    I really need to see this again.

    by frank

    Planning to go to an HFR showing on Wednesday. Then I will be able to judge the quality better. I know I really liked the movie, but as for the specifics of how well certain parts worked I think I really need a second screening. The fact that I want to see it again though is a pretty good indicator that the movie is very good overall.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 7:04 p.m. CST

    HFR (some spoilers, but honestly, do you care?)

    by NV

    So I saw this again today in the HFR 3D presentation. I was actually pretty hesitant because of all of the criticism surrounding that, but honestly I think it actually looked good. To be fair, the first scene of Bilbo at his desk during the FOTR flash-forward, that was a little jarring because it felt as though it was sped up slightly, almost as if things were moving at 1.5x speed. Surprisingly, that dissipated pretty quickly and the motion appeared to steady its pace, or more accurately(?) my vision became accustomed to it (perhaps similar to a form of velocitation? I dunno). I was wary because of what many referred to as 'the BBC 80s video adaptation' effect, which I can understand why given the clarity of everything on the screen. However, I felt that was severely lessened by lighting effects, whether natural or man-made so to me it wasn't nearly as bad as I had feared. Effects-wise, so much of the CGI looked far superior in a HFR presentation than in the standard 24fps film (forget about 24fps 3D, it gave me a headache; not a concern at all with 48fps thankfully). Even elements like Azog, the battle in front of the Moria gate, the Trolls (my God so gross) and yes, even the goblins and their disgusting king; the smooth flow of the imagery at 48fps was very different and much more realistic. Gollum in 48fps: wow. The facial movements, the way his body slithered, you could even notice these tiny little hairs on his ears. It was ridiculously realistic. Weta deserves a fair amount of praise for how far they've taken this on a visual level. The scene with Radagast distracting the wargriders was weird still but not as corny as the the 24fps 3D. The intro of Dale and the history of Erebor was very beautiful. Overall, I still really liked the film. Pacing was again not a problem; it didn't stall, it didn't make me bored. Even if they had cut the scene with Radagast and with Azog on the company's tail, that would have amounted to maybe 5-8 less which frankly would have made this final product less interesting. I still have an issue with a lot of the LOTR trilogy leitmotifs being used to re-introduce characters, settings. That was my biggest beef for both viewings; I really wish they had introduced new music, stuff that was probably on the actual soundtrack but for whatever reason wasn't included in the final film. I honestly believe the score was one of the biggest reasons folks had issue with the film; sound is just as critical as the visual presentation in a film like this, and if slightly more attention had been paid to providing a more original score instead of reintroducing previously heard elements, perhaps the reception would have been more positive. All in all, for me this is still maybe 8.4 out of 10 and I would definitely pay to see the HFR 3D again. As a matinee.

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 8:01 p.m. CST


    by NV

    5-8 MINUTES less

  • 48fps is just an experiment playing in a very limited amount of theaters. The problem also is PJ hyped it up and now critic's think it's the ideal way to watch the movie. Because PJ said so. So all the focus is on 48fps. I really wish PJ hadn't gone with this gimmick and just released it at just 24fps. It would have boosted positive reviews by at least 20%

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Well said bilboring

    by Orionsangels

    Yeah I noticed Ian Mckellen's cheeks are more wrinkled than FOTR. Which wouldn't make sense if it was 60 years ago, but regardless. As soon as Gandalf appears at Bilbo's doorstop and greets Bilbo. He's as charming as ever. It's good ol' Gandalf the Grey!

  • Dec. 17, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Hey got chuckles in my theater as well...

    by conspiracy

    but I went at a 10pm showing full of Thugs, Teens and Babymamas's with neck tattoo's with 5yr olds. I understand the Goblin King is a Fool as well as a Menace...and I'm sure that schtick appealed to most....but it just struck me as something that could have been handled much better.


  • Dec. 18, 2012, 12:26 a.m. CST

    Watched this on Sunday

    by KGersen

    3D, normal fps. As I loved the LOTR films, I was very happy to be back in Middle Earth, enjoyed the film thoroughly. Yes some minor gripes but looking forward to the next installment. My only major gripe is how Radagast is depicted. He's one of the 5 Istari for fucks sake, does he really need to have bird shit on his head? Seems just a silly decision to me. Looking forward to how The Necromancer plays out, they made the scene at Dol Guldur genuinely spooky. The end glimpse of Smaug, great stuff, he's going to be monumental

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Sentinel I had the opposite reaction to HFR

    by Darth_Inedible

    I guess because I saw it first in HFR. Yes the clarity of 3D in 4K HFR is beautiful and yes the GOOD CG(Gollum, Erebor intro etc) looked AMAZING in HFR... But I found the clarity and reality came at the price of making all the filmmaking look more self-conscious, ie: oh here's Jackson doing his undercrank trick, here's his trademark sweeping pan etc. The fact that it looks like we're standing on the set with the actors being filmed makes it hard to suspend belief for these cliched film techniques that we've learned to accept at 24fps. It also makes so-so CG that works ok in the 24p version like Radagast's chase look truly bad.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 2:53 a.m. CST

    Best Middle Earth Film - the most Fantasy Adventure in style

    by even9

    The more tongue in cheekish approach really suits the story telling style established by LoTRs. Definitely the best adaption to me. The story telling is alot more involving now as all the parts seem better balanced. The more 'adult' LoTR's could get cliche too often where as this isn't, & the cliche is now funner. Radagast, you could have a whole fantasy adventure with him alone in his wood, the bit with the porcupines was humourous, & because it(the adaption) wasn't overly laden with heavy duty overtones, totally bought him and his rabbits on the sled racing around where as in LoTRs things kind of got in the way of each other abit. Best sequence to me was the flash back of OAckenshield fighting the White Orc near end of first act, that had real drama value about and was less of the hi-jinx, cliff hanger stuff for the sake of an high velocity entertaining segment - which are good fun but lose abit of the beat of the adventure while being fun enough in themselves. The end of the Orc barbeque via Gandalf is the best Gandalf save the day of all the films so far. I like Bilbo choice, he's a really well played character & him and the Dwarfs are just more easy going Fantasy avatars to go adventuring around Middle Earth with rather than the more neighbours next door type character styles from LoTRs thrust into Middle Earth. Finger's crossed this isn't the trilogies FoTR ( the best of first three) to be followed by TTT...

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 3:37 a.m. CST

    So the Hobbit is a smash hit.

    by Volllllume3

    Another EPIC fail for the haters.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 5:53 a.m. CST

    Ahh! I shouldn't have listened to the soundtrack first!

    by Larry_Sanders

    I liked it better than the movie!

  • I thought the movie accomplished showing that in a funny way.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 8:02 a.m. CST

    volllllume3 - Of course it was a smash hit

    by evergreen

    As was Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. It's shrewd property management, not a creative triumph.

  • Of course no one wants to literally kill Peter Jackson and even if someone did want that the time to do it would have been before he did King Kong. It's far too late to whack him now. The damage is done, The Hobbit is forever tainted with his changes.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Loved It - 48FPS

    by DefyThis

    Saw it with two friends and we all loved it, during the film I could hear my one friend let out an "it's so real" comment and she's a stage actor and movie geek. Looked amazing in 3D at 48 fps and I hate most 3D movies however - it was lit right so there was no issue with dark scenes (unlike for example potc - On Stranger Tides which had scenes so dark they were unwatchable in 3D). All the things people are having issue with I loved. I enjoyed the slow build. It brought back the innocence of the Shire. The Goblin King I loved; seriously revolting to behold with his chin dangling like a malformed tumor - exactly what a great fat goblin king should be. It ended as it should and with no Hobbit Bromance this time avoided the one issue I had with the original LOTR which was too many overly sappy scenes between Sam and Frodo. PJ knocked this out of the park. This is probably one of Harry's more accurate reviews. I smiled like a kid at Christmas the entire time. The most fun I've had at the theatre in -ages-.

  • Don't know brother...the line sounded totally out of place, and in my view the scene could have been handled better. Then again...films are a subjective to each his/her own.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 9:56 a.m. CST


    by NV

    Tainted by what? A willingness to provide a film adaptation for a book once considered un-filmable? Because the Rankin Bass animated version was so superior? Because you have nostalgia for the 1985 Soviet production with only four actors in the entire film? Because you're not nearly as enchanted by PJ's film as by the 60s radio broadcast? What the fuck is your beef man? Hey, I agree that AUJ is no masterpiece, but it's still a damned good film and light-years better than MIB3, The expendables 2, Prometheus (which made no FUCKING SENSE), John Carter, Wrath of the Titans, Total Recall, The Twilight bullshit, even more so than the Avengers (THAT is literally two hours of drawn-out, unnecessary build-up and ridiculous hackneyed Downey Jr. one-liners). And unless you or people like you can really provide a solid reason why this movie sucks, please stop talking; your argument (or lack of one) only magnifies your ignorance.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Re : larry_sanders ( Haters )

    by Real Deal

    Well up until now 99 % of the time there's haters about something on this site they're wrong. Why should this be any different?

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Hobbit verse LotR's verse Star Wars (new trilogy)

    by Tom_Bombadil

    Saw Hobbit this last weekend... Read some of the comments here about the movie. Sounds like a new verse old trilogy (Star Wars) battle to me... Some people will like the new movie and some won't. Some will just be entertained with what is given us. My opinion about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey? C+. I'm glad they finally made it. It should of been a two hour movie though. I also wonder what the extended edition will add it too (you know they will add more to the blu ray/dvd's, right?).

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 12:52 p.m. CST

    I'd seen demos of 48 frames per second for about a month now

    by thound3

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST


    by Smartacus

    Tainted by a myriad of small changes that accomplished nothing but to differentiate the movie from the story it's based on. Thorin's company being chased by Azog is utter rubbish. Like this would not be a compelling story without an Albino Orc chasing them to Rivendell. Said Azog spouting ridiculous twirling moustache villain "KILL THEM ALL" and "BRING THEM TO ME" type dialogue all the time. Jesus people it's like watching Van Helsing or some shit! Watching Radagast run around with bird shit running down his face and driving a sleigh pulled by rabbits. WTF? That looks only slightly more ridiculous than it sounds and that his "Rabbit Sleigh" could outrun a warg is just idiotic. His behavior, his look, the enhanced part he plays in events, it's all just terribly wrong. Thorin going all "Khazad-Dum Burning" on Elves (He fucking hates them with a passion because they were there when Smaug drove the dwarves out of Erebor but wouldn't help them so now he's some kind of Dwarf bigot. This isn't the mistrust that Dwarves and Elves have for one another from Tolkiens books, it's just tone-wrong and it doesn't go away. Thorin's attitude toward Bilbo is even worse. He should doubt him but not to the point where Bilbo has to climb out his burning tree and save Thorin's life before Thorin will accept him. That entire scene and how it was changed is a perfect example of why I never want to see Peter Jackson touch any story I care about again. I don't care about HFR or any of that shit. I care that he made changes to the story, details that were perfect just the way they were and he did it for no reason. I understood most of the changes in LoTR and supported them. I saw how they were needed to make the books translate well to the screen in most cases and only took issue with a few of them. The Hobbit should be much easier to film and it needed none of this "tweaking" but he's done more of it here than in all three LoTR movies combined. Fuck Peter Jackson.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed the film, but had these nits to pick about it:

    by kevred

    Overall I enjoyed the film, enjoyed being back in this world, and left feeling a gentle pleasure at the thought of more to look forward to. But interestingly, I'm left feeling more aware of the things I didn't love about it, because to me there wasn't much that was distinctively new about it to particularly love. That's problem #1 - the whole thing felt like a love letter to the earlier three films. I understand it's the same world, but there were so many things that were either taken right from the earlier films or that echoed them strongly that it felt like it was just repeating itself at times. Gandalf standing up with that dark energy at the Hobbit dinner - been there, seen that done the exact same way. Half the younger dwarves seem to have been doing a Sean Bean Boromir impression through the whole film. So much of the pacing and presentation of the elf moments. Those aren't plot critiques, but film critiques. Problem #2 is that I felt like the overall look of the film was too artificial. It felt like virtually every scene in the film had a very obviously fake CG background, and the lighting was strangely, noticeably wrong in so many scenes. There was way too much obvious processing going on, as though every frame was overworked and post-processed to a grotesque point. One of the great things about the original films was the naturalistic look of so much of it - how they really made use of the wonderful New Zealand environment, and many sequences of the film felt fully *in* the settings they were in. In this film, the few moments where they were obviously in a real outdoor setting were delightful, but too few and too fleeting. Even Gandalf's first chat with Bilbo at his mailbox looked so unreal - Gandalf looked like he was pasted in front of the sky behind them. The first film made wonderful use of natural-looking lighting - this one all seems to have been shortcuts left to fix in the editing room. I know it's a fantasy film, but far too much of the film looked like a video game. There was already some hints of rushed-ness creeping in to ROTK - the leads' hair and makeup started to look more fake, way too much color processing and overreaching on digital settings - but i was sad to see it get a lot worse here. Problem #3 was a sort of ham-fisted, melodramatic approach to a lot of moments. A good drinking game would be "take a drink every time a character melodramatically turns around or looks up to face the camera - you'd think that in every pivotal moment, the lead characters were looking at their feet, in the wrong direction, only to suddenly remember the thing they were supposed to be looking at. Thorin even did it multiple times when facing the pale orc - two cuts in a row, he dramatically raises his eyes to his foe - was he checking his zipper in between? Most of the "noble" characters do it repeatedly - dramatically turning to face the camera. Gandalf, Galadriel, Thorin. It's just one example, but the forced melodrama of framing, line delivery, and staging was too obvious at too many points. These three things together gave me an overall impression of a film that was rushed, somewhat by the numbers, and done much more thoughtlessly than the original films. There were things I liked about it. Thought Freeman was a terrific Bilbo - had a little mischief and guile to him, emphasizing what made Bilbo right for this mission (and a contrast to what made Frodo just right for the later one). Hugo Weaving had a nice lightness about his movement and voice that turned back time from the more brooding LOTR version of Elrond. Ken Stott ran away with the best dwarf performance (honorable mention to James Nesbitt). He evoked Jon Pertwee (now wouldn't he have made a magnificent dwarf!). Nice look for Azog and his white Warg (though all the massive CG characters still have that squishy Stretch Armstrong look). In summary: fun film, looking forward to the rest, but so far there's nothing much about this new adventure that is distinctively special or all its own. Visuals and production quality are a noticeable drop from the prior films. Glad to have this world back, but not as moved by the results.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Oh, and one other thing I enjoyed was Radagast.

    by kevred

    Seems that a lot of people didn't like him, but I enjoyed it. I liked the druid-like severe naturalism about him, to the point where his own body was starting to blend with the forest (I saw the white stuff on him as the white fungus/mushrooms you see growing on trees, not bird poop.) I even liked the rabbits, and I say this as someone who cringed at the monkeys in Indy 4. (And of course they could outrun the wargs, because they're magic, or magically enhanced). I liked that, for a moment, they so prominently featured a character that connected to nature, who demonstrated some real power but was not a warrior, and whose main concern was compassion and concern for all things natural - it gave a conscience to the "good side" and made their position more than just "let's get our gold and mountain back".

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 5:52 p.m. CST

    by Orionsangels

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 8:10 p.m. CST

    Should of been directed by Gilliam with Tom Waits as Gandalf

    by Don_Drapers_Acid_Trip

    Otherwise who gives a shit. Tolkien was one dull ass writer, though The Hobbit was way better than Lord of the Rings at least.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Whatup Conspiracy? You fine gent...

    by D.Vader

    I can totally see why someone wouldn't like that line. I know a couple of people that didn't. I myself? It made me laugh. Ah well. As they misspell, Say La Vee!

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Remember that charming little book you read in primary school?

    by Bloodhound

    Well, do yourself a favour and forget it. Because this film is a malignant, overgrown pustule of just one third of that story. If only Jackson would stop screwing around with other people's source material as if it were his own. That said, people are going to love it, anyway.

  • Dec. 18, 2012, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Remember that charming little book you read in primary school?

    by D.Vader

    Well, do yourself a favor, and REMEMBER it, because ALL the best parts, and all your favorite scenes are there, and that's just one third of the story! Now there are stronger connections to the later LOTR films bc Jackson dug around and found Tolkien's appendices which explain the greater events that happened at the same time as the source material! There are a few new scenes that aren't in either writings, but that said, people are going to love it anyway. Fits right in with LOTR! *I've had a few beers, forgive me.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 4:56 a.m. CST

    Variable frame rate

    by Maximus_dad

    First off I loved AUJ, it was great to be back in Middle-Earth, if you don't love it, I feel bad for you because you wont be as excited as me come next December for the second installment. HFR was exceptional for the action scenes and CG heavy scenes, but I did find it jarring in some of the early dialogue scenes in Hobbiton. why not a new technology 'variable frame rate' where the director as control over the frame rate of certain scenes to find the best suited solution. Just a thought.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 6:01 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I hope the ale was fine. I didn't read The Hobbit in high school because in Portugal it's not a regular read for english language students. We read Steinbeck's The Pearl and F. Scott Fritzgerald's The Great Gatsby instead. I read The Hobbit on my own volition. And i did it after The Lord Of The Rings, so watching the movie The Hobbit after LOTR is quite reminiscent of how i first got hold of the Tolkien's epics back in my yough in the late 1980s. Back when it was not cool to like LOTR. Anyway, yes, there's many of the old book in the movie, but there's also so much more. And there's stuff in it that's not in the book too. Like the over-extended action scenes, which are entirely the creation of Peter Jackon and his compadres and comadres. I liked the movie. It was a fun time at the movies. But the acusations of it being needlessly overstretched are fair. To quote from LOTR, it's too little butter spreaded on too much bread. Still, i'll be there come the next two movies.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST


    by Mr Cranky

    "only it looks real. And I kinda know. When I was on the set of Minas Tirith, my memories of watching Gandalf riding around, pulling out an umbrella on set as it lightly rained. Except... Instead, all the effects are done - and where I had to use my imagination, creatures absolutely fantastic come to life." What. The. Fuck. Just WHAT THE FUCK?! How the fuck does someone who cannot formulate a coherant sentence to save his life make a living both WRITING and overseeing OTHER WRITERS?! I shit you not, it's like reading some kind of awful freeform, experimental english language performance art. PERIODS. COMMAS. COMPLETE THOUGHTS. This stuff isn't hard. Jeesus, it's like it's been written by a toddler. I couldn't even get past the first...paragraph(?) before I gave up on this unintelligible mess. Comments as usual were more entertaining - I especially enjoy the desperate defenders of this movie trying to claim that all the reviews that didn't jizz all over the film (and let's be honest, no one has said it's BAD exactly, just not brilliant) are fixated on the HFR. While it is a common element in a number of reviews, the encapsulated reviews all seem to say the same thing - pacing is poor (not length per se), CGI is overused and weak (aside from Gollum), PJ does a poor job of managing an enormous cast of completely bland, interchangeable dwarves, and due to the three-film structure it ends without any decent resolution (as a reminder, trilogies don't HAVE to wrap up everything in one film, but they DO have to present a narratively satisfying conclusion each film). Oh, and let's address the elephant in the room - HFR is distracting. Out of AAAAALLLLLL of those recuring points people so bizzarely desperate for this COMMERCIAL film product to be a LIFE-CHANGIN EVENT(c) are fixating on the HFR complaints, despite them being only tangenital to the overall reviews, because they can't cope with the other points. It's this desperate NEED some of you have for this film to be TEH BESTEST THING EVAH more than anything that is sad and a little scary.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Finally seen it

    by LarkStew

    Watched it in HFR IMAX 3D. I agree that the start is very slow. Could easily have edited that down. Once they got going it was still a bit low key. They did try and put some drama into it with Azog and some sinister moments with the Necromancer. Hopefully this is the innocent start and the next two will have more tension and drama in them. I enjoyed the HFR, incredibly smooth and realistic. At one point a guy walked past in front of me and I almost told him to sit down. Then he turned around and I realised it was Thorin! Things people have been saying, about the super fast movement and nausea. I noticed a few little places that did seem fast but I think they were genuinely sped up to make it more frantic, like when the dwarves are throwing plates around. Also I did feel a tiny bit of motion sickness in a couple of places early on. The screen tells your eyes you're moving but your body says you're stationary so your brain gets confused. And it actually made my eyes ache a bit which I've never had before. It certainly didn't look cheap. Overall I enjoyed it, 7/10 would be a fair score I think. It was a bit long and stretched though. I'll see the others in the same format.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST

    HFR 3D worked for just fine, Almost : )

    by Mace Tofu

    Went last night to a 48FPS realD 3D screening of the HOBBIT and Loved it! It was nice and smooth without any of the Keystone cops effect to the action. As to the "Video" look of the film well it was SHOT on video. Now they did have to restart the movie as the Hobbit was stuck at the start playing back at one frame every 5 seconds so we all started joking this was the 48 hour long version of the Hobbit. Those frames were so crystal clear it was freaky : ). Took about 5 minutes to re-boot the drive so I was wondering if some of the problems people were seeing in theaters may be harddrive playback issues and not the film itself as I didn't notice any problems other that the "VIDEO LOOK" in some shots.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Kevred, that white stuff is bird poop

    by Mace Tofu

    Radagast has a birdnest under the hat, in one shot you can see the poop trail from the nest down the side of his face as he lets a bird in under the hat.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST


    by DrMorbius

    What does tangenital mean? Did your wiener get sunburned?

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Seen it twice

    by gregmeister

    Saw it the first time in Imax 48f3d saw it again in 24 3d, Gonna see it again in 48 Imax, well worth it to me.

  • Between this and the goblin king and a few other things, Jackson did seem to hit the "icky factor" more than in the previous films.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 5:07 p.m. CST

    You're still fat and gross.

    by Fries Against

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 6 p.m. CST

    Should have been directed by David Lynch with Al Pacino as Gandalf

    by Darth_Inedible

    A great opportunity to bring Tolkien's musty trilogy up to date. Bilbo could have been morbidly obese homeless man living in a cement culvert. The Dwarves would be an unemployed landscaping crew looking for their lost wages.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 7:47 p.m. CST

    The Hobbit was good, not great - 3.5/5

    by eveelcapitalist

    Anyone else think PJ was just rehashing his own work a lot in the film? Seriously, it's like he took one short cut after another. At first I thought he was mirroring The Hobbit with Lord Of The Rings to connect them on a visual level but he did it so frequently, and sometimes so half-assed, I came to the conclusion he was just taking short cuts. For example, the way the ring falls onto Bilbo's finger the same way it fell onto Frodo's. Now in Fellowship that shot came across...pretty damn well. Could have been corny shit, but Elijah Wood sold it. Martin Freeman seems to have a moment where he can't decide which finger it should fall on. Really, he seems to switch fingers! "This one? No, this one!" And the escape from the orc hordes is shot EXACTLY like the escape from the Mines of Moria. There are so many more examples of this kind of thing and it was supremely frustrating. I left the movie thinking maybe PJ shouldn't have come back to direct it. Just so I'm clear, I enjoyed the movie. Really, it was very fun revisiting Middle-Earth and Hobbiton and Bag End. But PJ was reusing so many ideas that I was taken out of it.

  • Dec. 19, 2012, 8:49 p.m. CST

    I love all 6 Star Wars movies

    by JackSlater4

    If you loved The Hobbit, and can't understand why these spoiled, whiny pricks are nit picking the shit out of it, and saying it sucks when it is consistent with the first 3 Lord of The Rings movies on every level, welcome to my world.

  • Parallels are one thing, but so many of the key moments in the film were lifted, visually and stylistically, from the previous films, it started getting ridiculous after a while. This is what I was afraid of when I heard that PJ was taking it back, and why I wanted to see a Del Toro version. The style that PJ created on the first trilogy was superb, but there's absolutely no ground being broken here. It goes beyond "consistency" to a sort of desperate lack of new ideas. It was a fun film. I will absolutely be seeing the next two. But this is the first PJ Tolkien film where I felt like I'd been there and done that already. So many lifts from the prior films, and the different bits (say, stone giants in battle) felt so random and arbitrary that they had no real weight. Like I said in my longer comments above: some great individual bits in the film (Freeman and Stott, most of all), otherwise a big step back in both freshness and production values.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 3:09 a.m. CST


    by eveelcapitalist

    I didn't read the comments before posting mine but finding yours, yes, I think we're in basic agreement on the film's shortcomings. Actually, you put it better than me. Heh, my writing skills are only a step above Harry's. It's a solid movie, but I left the movie thinking that maybe PJ shouldn't have come back as director. And that kinda sucks for me to say.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 2:38 p.m. CST

    No, Ali Kerim Bey. No, not at all. Everyone laughed on time.

    by D.Vader

    In my 48 fps screening. Sounds like a lot of bad propaganda being spread.

  • For the most part PJ hit the perfect tone of adventurous fun, but then that boring Orc leader would show up, strike a pose like Zoolander and stop the movie dead. And what was up with the giant nutsack on the Goblin King's chin?

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Excellent film!

    by Prometheus_VaJayJay_snake

    I will never understand why people are criticizing this film. It does not bill itself as a serious, Zero Dark Thirty type of film--it's fantasy entertainment. If you even slightly enjoyed LOTR you will vastly enjoy returning to Middle Earth with this amazing film. This film is better than any of the LOTR trilogy, quite frankly. Interesting characters, backstory, better action, and an amazing cast of creatures! The white orc is more menacing than anything we've seen, and we have a friggin' dragon to look forward to. And all the negative criticism of the first 45 minutes being fluffy exposition? EFFING GARBAGE. The movie moves along just fine. The negative criticisms are coming from people with an axe to grind--the axe being the fact that The Hobbit will encompass three movies. Enjoy the movie for what it is, entertainment.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 7:19 p.m. CST

    surprised at the defense of this train wreck of a film

    by edmanger

    Ok, there were a few good moments, and it has to be hands town the most tumbliest of movies I've ever seen. Everyones tumbling all over the place! And in 48 fps it looks very swish and tumbly. But did someone forget how to pace a movie here? The whole first hour was a slow over scripted and awkward mess. Felt like the first run through of the actors reading direct from the pages of the book. The whole Azog thing was completely needless, cheesy and felt like it was aimed at 13 year old boys. The film would have been a million times better with Azog cut completely. Also, only hinting at the necromancer storyline without concluding it makes the film feel like a pilot in a hbo miniseries. I have to wait a year for the rest of that!? I liked the silliness of radagast but then instead of more of that we had stupid Azog and his 'grrr down with the dwarves' patheticness. At least the goblin king was a whimsical bit of sillyness, flappy testicle chin and everything. No where near enough bilbo either considering it is meant to be his story. AND the scene with saruman and galadriel was completely ridiculous in a 'oooooh, look we have everyone back' way, to the point that it was embarrasing. you could even tell it was filmed away from everything else in the peach coloured set. OK theres fun stuff here but jeez you could have cut an hour at least out of it. 3 films is a JOKE and anyone defending it will be changing their opinion pretty soon. I remember seeing the matrix reloaded and loving it at the cinema. didnt take long for reality to kick in though. sorry if im rambling im a bit drunk but there you go.

  • Dec. 20, 2012, 7:27 p.m. CST

    and for the record, I loved LOTR

    by edmanger

    Ive marathoned the extended editions a few times, but TUJ just failed to cut it. I liked Freeman, Mckellen and Thorins acting and I think theres promise here, but yeah, everything else I previously said. To be clear, a lot of the stuff people complain about, i.e. radagast, goblin king, plate song etc etc were actually my favourite parts of the film because they were whimsical and silly. HOWEVER, people who say 'oh the whole movie is a whimsical fantasy adventure and you should stop judging it next to LOTR' are completely wrong because the movie takes itself ridiculously seriously at times, i.e. the whole thorin vs azog and the council stuff, plus the whole tone feeling exactly like LOTR. Again sorry for rambling and I don't mind if you liked it cause I liked it but it's nowhere near the second coming like Harry says, it's a bloated dissapointment with some good bits.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 12:54 a.m. CST

    short guide to the five wizards, the Istari , pt1

    by krylite

    For those of you who've never read the books but are curious about the 5 wizards since Hobbit takes place in the same history of Middle Earth like LOTR. The following is a summary guide to the wizards with sources. The five wizards arrived in Middle Earth in Third Era 1000, 1941 years before Third Era 2941, the time of "Hobbit"(AUJ). And 1000 years after Sauron lost his form and Isildir cut ring from his finger. The five were Saruman (patron Vala Aule, smith/crafts) , Gandalf (Manwe - air), Alatar (Orome - hunter), Pallando (Mandos -earth ), Ragadast (Yavanna - nature). "The Goal of the Wizards' Embassy - The five Istari chosen for the embassy to Middle-earth had one goal: to combat Sauron and his Shadow. In assigning these Maiar to intervene, the Valar relied on their rarely -exercised right to correct imbalances in Endor (Middle-Earth world, yes another eample of Lucas ripoff) that had been brought on by acts of those who were not indigenous to that continent. Since Sauron was a Maia, then the Valar felt justified in contesting his might. They instructed the Wizards to work as subtly as possible. The Istari's goal was to unite and work with the Free Peoples, not to dominate them. Overt enchantments and unbridled actions, no matter how well-meaning, were forbidden. Such a rule was in keeping with the Holy One's belief that the Ainur(angelic spirts of Middle Earth, i.e. Valar and Maiar) should remain physically apart form the Middle Land. "

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 1:08 a.m. CST

    short guide to the five wizards, the Istari, pt 2

    by krylite

    The Guises of the Emisasaries - The wizards adopted forms consistent with their purpose. Trust and persuasion were to be thier methods of influence not dictates and coercion. (i.e. like the "light" side of the Force). The guises they chose, then reflected their goals. As slightly worn old Men they projected a gentle, unassuming image which had nothing to do with force or terror. The forms promoted feelings of peace and a belief that they were both experienced and wise. As the Wizards were cloaked as old men, aging only slowly or not at all, Men , Dwarves and Eleves were confused about them. Only wise and gifted Men, Dwarves, and Elves understood the help offered.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 1:20 a.m. CST

    short guide to the five wizards, the Istari, pt 2

    by krylite

    Cirdan (who got it from Gil-Galad) gave Gandalf "Narya" the fire ring around 1050 T.A., 1 or the 3 elven rings. also called the "flame of Anor" as mentioned by Gandalf in the movie in the Balrog scene. Galadriel received Vilya, the air ring, which can be seen in her hand in the extended scene of FOTR as the fellowship are leaving Lothlorien. Elrond received "Nenya" the water ring shortly before Gil-Galad died at the Last Alliance of Elves and Men battle shown at the beginning of FOTR. Elrond used the ring to help control the waters around Rivendell which crashed the Nazgul in the form of horses formed from the river. The movie shows it like Liv Tyler (casting meh) summoned the water when it was actually Elrond's power. Saruman like Sauron who was the former servant of Aule got corrupted by Sauron through the Palantir. Radagast got lost with nature and the animals. And Alatar and Pallando were forgotten in the East. (southeastern Middle-Earth) Only Gandalf succeeded in his Istari mission and returned to Aman in the West. sources: "Silmarillion" 1977, "Unfinished Tales" 1980, "Lords of Middle Earth" , 1986 Tolkien Enterprises.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 7:51 a.m. CST

    Concerning 48 fps...

    by edmanger

    I think it's a good thing as a whole, it looks sharp as a sharp thing and the action sequences are incredible. That being said, it does cheapen certain shots, making things look a bit setty and less ethereal which is problematic for a film like the hobbit. If they could somehow transition between the two frame rates.... that would be interesting.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 8:11 a.m. CST

    Krylite, Lucas didn't rip off "Endor" from Tolkien

    by D.Vader

    Endor is also mentioned in the Bible.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    Edmanger, your criticism is laughable

    by D.Vader

    Particularly "Also, only hinting at the necromancer storyline without concluding it makes the film feel like a pilot in a hbo miniseries. I have to wait a year for the rest of that!? " Man, I'd hate to see your reaction to FOTR and realizing you have to wait a year or two for the conclusion to the Gollum subplot. Egregious!

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 9:12 a.m. CST


    by edmanger

    Actually the FOTR is my favourite out of all the Jackson Middle Earth films. I didn't mind the gollum bit because they specifically stated that 'he has some part to play' hinting that he wasnt important yet. Also the film was paced well with a general story arc and proper character development. Is all my criticism laughable really? I know i was wording it a bit funnily but really? Being stuck in bag end for an hour? The shire didnt even feel like it was there, just bag end (the set that was left) and a few fields with hobbit holes. Not the nice water wheel or tree or green dragon or anything else. (I've read the book so I understand the attempt to be 'faithful' but the tone of the film is anything but). And then Azog? Surely it wasnt just me who thought it was a needless addition to all the dwarves worries throughout the film. He was pretty cliche. All the half assed acting at the white council? and the lack of any sense of gravitas? It felt like the actors first run through. I know some of this is opinionated but I don't believe all my points are invalid. Despite some brilliant scenes like the goblin cave and gollum the film just feels stretched, like butter over too much bread.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 9:24 a.m. CST


    by edmanger

    I may have been harsh in calling it a 'train wreck', and i guess I'm picking a fight with a line like that. Thats were the alcohol comes in. Theres plenty of worse stuff out there, but for me the dissapointment after LOTR is palpable.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 10 a.m. CST

    movie vs. book

    by hollygirl

    it's been a while since I read the book so there must be a reason....although people who didn't read the books are going to ask wtf? It's really irksome when the eagles came and they dropped them off on a peak, not only an inconvenient peak but apparently miles and miles from Erebor as evidenced by the longing look of the company across the seems stupid that the eagles wouldn't just take them there! But then, there would no story and no 2nd film! Secondly, when that platform drops at the end of the goblin chase all i could think of was...indiana jones and no way could all 13 dwarves plus gandalf survive that. fantasy is fantasy but come on.....

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 10:09 a.m. CST

    Should have specified, that one criticism was laughable

    by D.Vader

    Your argument is the same someone would use against Gollum. Its clear the Necromancer has some part to play, and criticizing The Hobbit bc the Necromancer subplot is introduced feels hypocritical if you don't also complain about Gollum in FOTR. You wanted to see more of The Shire, I get that. It doesn't exist in the books, but fine. People can't decide if they want to bitch about what wasn't in the books or bitch that they didn't get more of what was included. Know that you'll get more of The Shire in the Extended Edition (like Quint selling Bilbo that fish Dwalin took for dinner). Azog? I actually think he's a great addition to add some much needed danger on the road. There didn't seem to be much of a pressing need in the book. It just felt like a lazy sort of serialized adventure. Putting the Dwarves on the run from Azog but also a race against time works for me. It gives Thorin an added personal touch here, an adversary with shared history. I have no problem with that. Half-assed acting at the White Council? Well, there's no accounting for taste. We can't argue that other than to say I think you're wrong.

  • Thanks for the history lesson on the Istari, btw.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Hollygirl, actually...

    by D.Vader

    Dwarves are made of stronger stuff than Elves or humans. They're made from the earth and the mountains themselves and are supposed to take beatings and hardships better on their bodies than other species. And also, Gandalf wasn't there, remember?

  • He was almost laughable in his evil posturing and not frightening in the least. Even my g.f. mentioned that she didn't find him scary in the least and that Gollum was way more threatening. SPOILERAGE Inexplicably, we don't even get the payoff of having the demise of Azoglives in this film. So, now I have to endure his Zoolander-esque posing in the next one. Lame. Where I part ways with edmanger, is that I found the beginning of the film superb and I loved the dinner scene in Bag's End. From the homage to SWatSD to the solemn hym that ends the sequence. Loved it.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    fair points vader

    by edmanger

    Looks like the EEs might add a bit more variety to the opening quarter of the film. Again regarding the gollum/necromancer comparison, I understand how you view it as a contradiction, but personally for me as I watched the hobbit, my interest peaked when we saw the shadow version of Sauron. To me that was the most interesting and freakiest scene in the film and I got the impression that it would be more elaborated on within the first movie (more so than the discussion at the white council). Maybe its because I understood the plotline to FOTR and so I was prepared to get only a glimpse of Gollum, but because Jackson is manipulating the hobbit story with Appenix material, I've no idea how he's going to pace these subplots. To me it comes across as part one of a very good and passionate fan service than a singular standalone 'movie', which I still view FOTR as, but that is just my opinion.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Weird, I thought Azog was the most imposing Orc we've ever seen

    by D.Vader

    And that's appropriate.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 10:55 a.m. CST

    and unfortunatley that's a very back handed compliment to Jackson!

    by edmanger

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    If you disagree, you mean.

    by D.Vader

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST


    by SergeantStedenko

    Considering that Azog isn't even from the book and he and his orcs take up a good quarter of the movie, I would have rather have done without the addition and had the Goblins be more developed instead of just being cartoon Minions and had a tighter film altogether. Azog seemed way over the top and it was jarring the way the action would stop dead mid-battle just so Azog could strike a pose and roar like King Kong. All that was missing was Azog pounding his chest.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Azog does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    As I mentioned in my review I didnt particularly enjoy Azog either. As a CG character he wasnt quite there for me like that Elephant Man Orc in ROTK was, and he didnt look half as realistic or convincing as Gollum either. He probably should have died at the end to give it a stronger conclusion but maybe he... still has a part to play (and could improve). But he wasnt awful or a reason to declare the film a trainwreck, simply not quite as good as he could have been.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:38 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *How can fire undo stone?* vader, the most imposing orc has to be that suicide runner who causes the explosion of the wall at Helms Deep, that bezerk nutter makes Azog look like an 'armless pussy!

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:39 a.m. CST

    my last comment there was meant as a footnote to my previous post

    by edmanger

    for some reason it got posted late

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:43 a.m. CST

    weird, my post times on this site are getting messed up

    by edmanger

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    edmanger, youre being a bit pedantic - none of the LOTR trilogy are standalone films and none of the HOBBIT trilogy will be either. In both cases they were completed as one very long shoot. Some 11 hours of footage, divided up into three installments. I for one think the resolution moment at the end of AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY is great, or at least as good as it could be under the circumstances.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    ed, this site doesnt like it if use speech marks or apostrophes!

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Rotten Tomatoes

    by Henri Blanche

    The same critics who rate this movie at 65% rated the three Lord of the Ring movies at 92%, 95% and 94%. That seems about right. I did like The Hobbit; but it really did feel bloated and at times downright boring. I was impressed with how the other movies exceeded the original source material. In this case I would rather read the novel. Oh and 2001 A Space Odyssey is my all-time favorite movie so I am obviously not bothered by slow pacing.

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    i want a LOTR reboot/reenvisioning

    by Robert Hand

    lets get Andrew Garfield in as Frodo.

  • 1. The recruitment of PCs for the adventure party. 2. The planning of the adventure and the looking at the map. 3. The side adventure to find someone who can read the invisible runes on the map. 4. The Random Encounter while camping out for the night. (The trolls.) 5. The dividing up of the loot and magic weapons. 6. The healing of a wounded PC after battle. 7. The entering of of a dungeon or underground complex. 8. The easy slaying of Low Level monsters. (The goblins.)

  • Dec. 21, 2012, 10:38 p.m. CST


    by Darth Busey

  • So a good fantasy film like the Hobbit, as long as marketing right for the Genre, should just start hitting it's straps now.

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 8:29 p.m. CST

    seargentstedenko, vader

    by krylite

    Vader, I've vaguely remembered "Endor" mentioned possibly in some biblical text, but it well known in making of Star Wars info that Lucas researched LOTR heavily. It's also true, LOTR and Middle-Earth itself was highly influenced by Tolkien's Catholicism as he wrote the Silmarillion very much like a biblical text with a strong theme and message of faith and adherence to Eru's("God") dictates. Overall there is just too much of LOTR in SW. Lucas certainly wanted to do a LOTR movie. Glad he never got his hands on it post ROTJ. Of course SW and ESB are great movies on their own and their use of Tolkien and Kurosawa's ideas were differentiated enough into sci-fi material as to seem fresh. Sargentstedenko. there's no mention of a romance between Gandalf as Mithrandir in the first age and Galadriel. Galadriel was the grandaughter of the first 3 elven kings who made the trip to Aman(Valinor) in the first age. However the Valar and Maiar(which includes Gandalf and the wizards, Sauron, the balrogs before they became fire demons etc. ) were made by Eru and they helped "sing" the world into being 7000 years ago. (again very similar biblically) The early first age is similar to the Bible with the "pantheon" similar to archangels and their servants the Maiar. Sauron was originally the high servant of Aule the smith "god". Then Saruman took that mantle.) were created before the beginning of time on Arda (the world). Galadriel was born in Aman (probably 6000 years before LOTR/hobbit) so she was one of few elves born in the holy lands. So Gandalf as Olorin/Mithrandir probably was around when she was born and they probably knew each other before he became an human old wizard. It remains to be seen if the Tolkien estate will ever release the Silmarillion materials and rights to be made into movies and if PJ will attempt it. Would be a lot of problems. The Valar and Maiar literally had goldlike powers. For example Morgoth raised the Misty Mountains. We would see the big granddady of the eagles fighting the biggest black dragon of them all with Elrond's father Earendil in the middle of it all. Not to mention the early humans who were like triple as powerful as the Gondorians. Legolas fighting the Mumakil and dancing around in ROTJ was PJ's way of approximating the duel of Morgoth(the rebel Valar and Sauron's master) and Fingolfin. Aragorn mentioning Beren and Luthien in the extended FOTR scene. i.e. great great grandparents of Elrond and Elros (who is practically Aragorn's earliest Numenorean ancestor 4000 years ago) . But then we already have those trashy "greek gods" action-movies "Clash of the titans/wrath of the gods/immortals" etc. Anyways, enough Tolkienite mumbling from me for now. PJ absolutely did his homework not to mention Fran Walsh is a true Tolkien reader/fan. They've covered hundreds of details subtly in their Middle-Earth movies most of the audience is still not aware of except maybe subconsciously.

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Amazing film , wonderful.

    by krylite

    Finally saw it. The tears were flowing. I couldn't help it. PJ brought the magic back. I remember watching Fellowship for the first time and when they first showed Barad-Dur in that overhead shot, I knew it was best genre movie since when I first saw Empire Strikes Back. The haters and negative revieweres can't let go of the fact the LOTR movies trashcanned the Matrix movies and the SW prequels thoroughly. The goblin king was far far better than Boss Nass and JarJar. Disgusting and sly in the right way. Thorin and Bilbo was great. The dishes flying around, exploring Bilbo's home was just like the book and Middle-Earth brought to life again. May PJ live long and prosper! (hopefully one day we get the Silmarillion and Book of Lost Tales/Unfinshed Tales made into 7 more movies too!)

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Awesome, krylite.

    by frank

    Glad to hear you enjoyed the film. I am planning to go for my third trip either on Christmas or the 26th. Next time it will be IMAX 3D 48FPS. This was a film made for the fans, and I appreciate it. I thought there were a few missteps, but the same was true for LotR. Overall, great high adventure filmmaking.

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 9:43 p.m. CST

    I would hope to see Silmarillion films some day but

    by frank

    I think it would be a long, long way off and PJ would not be likely to be involved. I think there is great potential there, though.

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 9:51 p.m. CST

    My take on this

    by DarthJedi

    Pros - Visuals. The HFR 3D is just amazing in it's clarity. Basically like Bluray on the big screen. The only thing I can think of that was distracting was that it was TOO clear at times which kind of 'brings you out of the movie' when it happens. The actual look of Middle Earth is just as amazing as it was in LOTR. PJ hasn't lost his touch at all when it comes to that. The history of Erebor and the coming of Smaug was spot on. The look of The Shire, Rivendell, the boulder throwing rock giants all looked amazing, the look of the goblin lair front door and the lair itself were great. Everything LOOKED amazing as usual. Martin Freeman as Bilbo - great performance of the character in my eyes. A younger inexperienced version of Ian Holm's bilbo. He has the mannerisms and feel for the chartacter down pat IMO. Riddles in the Dark was pretty spot on from him and Mr. Serkis a Gollum. Best casting of the whole new cast. Ian McKellan as Gandalf - NOONE could have replaced him. "Nuff said. The initial meeting of Bilbo and the Dwarves. Different than the book, but very well executed in that he kept the FEEL of the encounter. Loved the 'That's what Bilbo Baggins hates' song and the Misty Mountain dirge. Cons - Story Jeez where do I even start with this? Really just too many changes to mention but these blatantly come to mind for me... Thorin's white orc nemesis - Added for dramatic effect in the Thorin story arc - not in the books and not needed. TERRIBLE addition and all that came from it. The whole necromancer appendice story and all the characters/situations that come from it - Really PJ? A fucking rabbit sled? Where the hell was THAT in the apendices? If you're going to use them, do them justice, man. Just don't make shit up. The Trolls chapter - Completely unnecessary change to something that could have been shot EXACTLY the way it was written. The whole half ass 'tribute' to Rankin Bass's Goblin King. That was some of the crappiest CGI design I have ever seen from WETA and the diolouge with him was just cringe worthy (Facing Gandalf on the bridge - "What are you going to do NOW wizard?" "THIS!" as he eviscerates him (with no blood mind you). "Uh, that'll do it."). Just ridiculously terrible. The whole finale scene after they escape the goblin lair. Really PJ? Thorin doesn't almost die from a revenge fight with a white orc only to be saved by Bilbo charging to his rescue. I literally face palmed after watching that sequence as I pictured Professor Tolkien turning over in his grave. The character of Thorin in general - just not what I envisioned for that character. I kept expecting him to shout out 'KaPla!'during a fight scene. The dwarves in general - could not picture them as dwarves as they looked more like small humans throughout the flick. Too pretty at times for a race that had been exiled for 60 years. Forced perspective just reinforced that feeling too. There are more, but you get the idea.

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 10:15 p.m. CST

    Somehow, it seems, a fan has made a movie for other fans. Awesome.

    by a movie fan

    That's it. I love the movie! Those who have not seen it, just ignore the critics

  • Dec. 22, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    I like this review.

    by a movie fan


  • Dec. 23, 2012, 12:29 p.m. CST

    This Hobbit movie is UTTERLY FANTASTIC!

    by Darren

    I saw the film in 3D HFR and to all the naysayers out there: Fuck y'all, y'all! I'm as big- and mature- a movie fan as any other and i think the Hobbit is the PEAK of modern day film making...I'm absolutely delighted with it! Accusations of bloatation are ridiculous- it is what it is and the more the merrier! Can't wait for part 2 and Mirkwood!!!!

  • Dec. 23, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    ...and fuck the Tolkien purists too...

    by Darren

    This all fantasy anyway. We live in the modern world, nor WWII !!

  • Dec. 23, 2012, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Some of the "missteps" in AUJ

    by krylite

    Thanks franks_television. I saw it first in 48fps imax. I did see some of the motion "blurriness" but was already totally engrossed by the movie that it was a minor annoyance. Like someone getting new prescription eyeglasses or glasses for the first time. The audiences already put up with 3d glasses for Avatar by the Cameron-force exposing their vulnerable "eyeballs", what's another new effect to accommodate especially it looked awesome overall. Before , we had full digital film Lucas force-fed us for AOTC. Thorin getting knocked out. yeah that reminded me of Aragorn falling off the cliff and floating unconscious in TT for the female audience to squeal if he was going to die or not. Faramir a jerk. It may be mostly Boyens again in that dept. Azog is already dead in the literature. If anyone, it should be Bolg his son that should be chasing Thorin&Company. They tried to have a badass muscled orc chasing them like Lurtz in FOTR. Too much talking by Azog dilutes the mystery, but I appreciated the revisiting of Weathertop(Amon Sul). Darthjedi, spot on about the Rankin Bass nods. Gandalf even says .. "Gandalf means... me!" Like it was an inside joke of the cartoon. Like why does Gandalf say it like that in the cartoon, and in a kind of menacing way? (Gandalf in Westron (i.e. English) means "elf of the wand", where the free peoples thought he was an elf at first. ) ; PJ did approximate the Ralph Bakshi scene of the wraith sniffing for Frodo and the others under the tree in FOTR. Probably was ok with Saul Zaentz by that time. Radagast zipping around on his rabbit sled. What I think here is PJ is trying to do with scenes like these is filling in more Middle Earth as an insurance since it's uncertain he can't get to the Silmarillion and he had skipped Tom Bombadill. Think about it. Radagast zipping around on those hills is what the Tom Bombadill purists wanted to see in FOTR basically Tom zipping to the rescue of Frodo and the others from the Barrow Wights. Instead Aragorn just plopped them their swords. Legolas dancing around on the elephant is reminiscent of Fingolfin vs. Morgoth where he avoided the giant blows like a cricket. Or possibly the scenes may be future tie-ins with the Silmarillion if he actually gets to do it in the future. Then we'll see Weathertop pre-ruins and Fornost and the Palantir that was there and the battles there from Witch King etc.

  • Dec. 23, 2012, 5:49 p.m. CST

    orcs talking

    by krylite

    Part of the great magic of FOTR was that the orcs rarely if never talked. The nazgul could only slowly rasp slowly "SShhhiree, BAGginnsss!" You had subtle menace and mystery with the monsters. Even Lurtz while full grown was a newborn-blank in mind, and he just seemed to only growl "SA-ru-MAnnn!" ; True the Hobbit had the golbin king and trolls as full characters with their Cockney accents. So I guess they pretty much gave up on being subtle about it and had Azog talk and meander about chasing and killing them like the rest of them. An analogy would be the original "Incredible Journey" of the 50's where the pets, 2 dogs and a cat never talked. Then now all animal and pet movies have talking animals voiced by overblown vehicle actors. You get tired of "Butch" dog with the bull face being voiced by some movie star flavor of the year. Where the intrinsic differences of canines and felines from human and how they communicated is lost with the anthropomorphizing. Jackson kept the monsters monsters and the creatures creatures for the most part in FOTR. We weren't annoyed by an overtalking Dobby the elf. I'm sure they were aware for this effect and made some kind of tradeoff in promoting Azog as more of a character since he had history with Thor and Thrain at Moria's gates. The TTT extended scenes had the orcs talk more about the conflict between Saruman's high orcs vs. the Mordor orcs in bringing Merry and Pippen to Orthanc or back to Sauron. Then we had the orc general in ROTK but they kept his lines limited. Now with Azog posing and howling the obvious and offing his lieutenants like Darth Vader unfortunately made AUJ more mainstream like other copycat movies.

  • Dec. 23, 2012, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Great eagles at the end

    by krylite

    I was waiting to see what Jackson would do with the eagles. Would they talk? Satisfied that they didn't and just kind of flew off. While the scene was trying to focus more on Thorin with an added purpose to dismiss audience questions about the eagles. Well done scene, but of course readers know Thorin was never knocked out. Talking eagles doesn't help a PJ Middle-Earth movie. You see more of that in the Narnia and Golden Compass movies. Too much explaining to do about the eagles PJ and crew may never cover in the movies. Like how do they communicate, or why they only help them at certain times and why they didn't fly them all the way to Erebor, or in LOTR to Mordor, etc. Those questions are answered in the books.

  • Dec. 23, 2012, 7:36 p.m. CST

    Just saw it

    by Teddy Artery

    and loved it! I can't for the life of me understand what all the hue and cry was over the HFR 3-D version. I'd love it if every 3-D movie used HFR. The sense of realism is improved, the 'crossed eyes' issue disappears and it really enables one to immerse oneself in the movie. There was only one filmed item that caught my attention and one technical issue. The on-screen issue was I did immediately notice Gandalf's contact lenses thanks to the increased image resolution. The technical issue had to do with the theater. More than a dozen times my theater suffered from image judder that knocked me right out of the movie. The image froze (anywhere from a fraction of a second, up to one second) and the audio sounded like a muted jackhammer in sync with the frozen/quivering image... Almost like the higher frame rate was giving the projector fits. Saw the movie at an AMC theater in Southern California.

  • Dec. 23, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Forgot to mention

    by Teddy Artery

    I was going to complain to the manager of the theater about the issue, but had to leave right away at the end. I doubt the issue will disappear on its own.

  • I think at it's core what upsets most people in talkback are the way people give opinions on movies. They usually say things like, well it's official. This movie sucked. So and so tainted the story. Then you have those that love the film and proclaim it the greatest movie ever. All this upsets the haters and the lovers. How dare they say that as if it's what everyone thinks. I'm going to tell them different.

  • Dec. 23, 2012, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Just saw it...

    by P. David

    Thought it was better than LOTR. It was more imaginative and fantastical, with better pacing. As for the HFR, I think that a mountain has been made out of a molehill. The big plus is that it makes the 3D effect easier on the eyes, but I honestly thought that the detail was only a little better than any film shown digitally. On the other hand, there were several moments when The Hobbit looked like digital video, but I wasn't particularly distracted. As this new technology is developed it will get smoother, and I imagine it will add to the moviegoing experience in a positive way. But I don't see it as the breakthrough that Peter Jackson touted.

  • Dec. 24, 2012, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Enjoyed the druggie references

    by That Guy

    Saruman commenting on how Radagast had gone daft from eating too many mushrooms ... Gandalf offering Radagast a toke from his pipe to calm his nerves, seemed to work a little too well if you ask me ... lulz

  • Dec. 24, 2012, 1 a.m. CST

    I had the opposite reaction of most

    by King_Midas

    I loved the HFR 3D - it was crystal clear, beautiful, and I adjusted quickly with only a few odd moments early on. I never thought it made the sets, makeup, or special-effects stand out as unrealistic. The technology was great . . . it was the rest of it that I didn't care much for. I saw each of the LOTR movies numerous times in the theater and loved every minute of it but I don't think I could sit through this a second time. <P> It was just very disappointing. I know they were going for a lighter tone and more humor, I just didn't find any of the humor funny. I hate that goofy, cheesy, campy crap that puts me in mind of nearly every fantasy movie made before LOTR that had to wink at the audience because after all it's fantasy and therefore you need to acknowledge the silliness of it all. LOTR never did that once - he treated it like actual history and it was better for it. I know some of this was directly from the book (like the nearly unwatchable Radagast) but there are things that work on the page that just come across as stupid on the screen. The Hobbit is the perfect example of why PJ was a genius to not film any Tom Bombadil scenes.

  • Dec. 24, 2012, 1:45 a.m. CST

    Saw it in HFR 3D - really good

    by Ninja Nerd

    I love HFR 3D. The brightness, contrast, and clarity were amazing. No ill effects for me although my girlfriend had a slight headache. As for the movie, I was grinning like an idiot most of the time. In some ways, I like this more than LOTR. It's got the comfortable feel of old friends coupled with a great and thrilling adventure. Surprisingly, I agree with Harry and give The Hobbit my "Well, fuck me silly!" award.

  • A lot of the criticisms puzzle me. For example, the film is NOT slower paced than LOTR, the pacing is actually faster. A marvelous film all around.

  • And that makes for a most significant event for me! As much as Fellowship of the Ring even- i thought that THE cinema event of my lifetime at the time! (i'm 45yrs old) Having read LOTR several times and loving Peter Jackson's previous movies from the beginning, his directorial style...

  • Dec. 24, 2012, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Being a creative splatter fan as a youth...

    by Darren

    PJ is a legend! THE only guy to handle LOTR! Thank the stars...

  • Dec. 24, 2012, 9 p.m. CST

    Druggy references...

    by Dp

    Too bad Tolkien hated thar sort of shit.

  • Dec. 24, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST

    A movie made for other fans

    by Dp

    In other words, giving people exactly what they want, not what they had no idea they might like. Fuck, so much crap is made "for the fans." And people complain about the lak of originality...

  • Dec. 24, 2012, 9:17 p.m. CST

    I take back what I said about HFR

    by Pipple

    Just saw it at my local theater where I work. Surprisingly they had it in HFR because well, I figure "black neighborhood, we ain't gettin the good shit." But we did, thank God... I'll say this... it turned me back into a Kid again. Ya know, when you're a kid everything's big and amazing. All the dickheads online saying HFR kills the illusion of cinema are full of shit. I'm getting old... 26. I'm not impressed by ordinary movies anymore like I used to be. with the internet and all this behinds the scenes shit, movies have lost their magic. But this movie, WELL FUCK ME!!! I was totally drawn in. Only nagging thoughts of what the internet was babbling about it being this or that, bothered me during the viewing. But if I was my old self before getting into this internet bullshit, I'd have been completely immersed in the movie magic on display. I've waited a long time for this. The day when movies would no longer have that moment in them when you can tell, "oh that's fake." and you're just watching it and thinking "this is real" I mean the only thing that's holding it back is that this is the wrong story to be doing in HFR. Fantasy story like this shouldn't really look hyper real, but it's cool to experiment and see how awesome things will look if done this way, I understand. It just wowed me so much that its going to be hard to go back to regular movies. I've seen the future of film and it was breathtaking... I'm glad I lived long enough to see it. Godddamn. I feel like I just saw jurrasic Park for the first time. Can't FUCKING wait for the next movies.

  • George Lucas once said that a special effect without a story is a very boring thing, and he was right. Before watching The Hobbit, I had to sit through a slew of trailers for other big sci-fi movies, and I guarantee that the ONLY true blockbuster of the bunch will be Star Trek Into Darkness. Jack the Giant Slayer? Oblivion? After Earth? Despite the benefits of the best conceptual artists and special-effects technicians that ever lived, these movies will all be huge disappointments, because all the talent in the world cannot make up for sub-par material. This focus on 3D and higher frame rates is a distraction. Just concentrate on making The Hobbit, Mr. Jackson. It's a story that enchants people. The HFR is just a tool, don't let it replace the story in importance.

  • Dec. 25, 2012, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Star Wars & AUJ

    by krylite

    Star Wars was trying to be more like LOTR. After Lucas felt he could do no wrong after ESB then he went muppet mania with ROTJ. And went for the kiddie stuff in Willow and later TPM. SW had that 70's cool vibe, especially the Mos Eisley scenes. Stuff had history. Even the jawas were believable and functional as greedy scavengers. Of course they were like small goblins and their hoods were like the hoods of dwarves mentioned in the Hobbit. And the eyes glowed like ringwraiths. There is just too much of LOTR and Hobbit in SW but it was done in a original and pioneering sci-fi way. Dkystra and ILM paid attention to "historical" detail. By the time of ROTJ, most of that is lost. The last classic SW creature of substance was Admiral Ackbar. The rest was muppet nonsense. The racially stereotyped Sullustan (early Neimodian) still grates my nerves. Would have rather seen Bothans and their ferocious yet sly feline quality. Would have made a good contrast to Chewbacca's dogman features. Wookies smashing the "elite" troopers on "Endor" would have made more sense. Instead we get Chewbacca in a corny Tarzan swing complete with Tarzan's howl. Based on that awful 10 seconds we got the made for TV "Ewok Adventures" miniseries nonsense. To summarzie PJ did not drop the ball with AUJ. He tried to add extra details of Middle Earth as far as he could get away with without violating the Tolkien Estate rights of the Silmarillion. Some of it was cutting close. If HFR was the extent of the PJ "sellout", it's really nothing compared to the sellout with the prequel series (and half of ROTJ). "SW is for kids" excuse after the TPM backlash is totally refuted by the tone of SW and ESB. At best young adult stories. They should have included the scene with Fixer and Biggs. But the hot girl in that scene would have outshone Leia. The prequel series were made for kids is more the truth. It's ironic most prequel defenders would probably not complain if Disney decided remake the prequels.

  • Dec. 25, 2012, 11:28 a.m. CST

    PT vs. AUJ

    by P. David

    The Hobbit doesn’t feel like Jackson has been away from Middle Earth for almost a decade. The film is more whimsical than LOTR, but it feels like a continuation of the same series. The PT is different. The PT is an unusual, quirky, experimental work that turns the OT on its head. Lucas confounded all expectations. He didn’t sell out; he took a major artistic risk. The PT is better than the OT in most ways. The visual imagination is superior. The action scenes, including the lightsaber duels, are more entertaining. And the Prequels have a much more interesting storyline. Yes, the romantic dialogue is terrible, and most of the performances lack enthusiasm. But, as much as I adore Star Wars, the OT is not Shakespeare. It is filled with corny dialogue, bad acting, and fake rubber alien masks that look REALLY bad. If Vader had said “Noooo!” at the end of Jedi back in 1983, no one would have thought about it twice.

  • Dec. 25, 2012, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Prequel trilogys & Originals

    by even9

    my take: THe Hobbit prequels have the potential to make the LOTR's or set them up in a similar way of the SW prequels. Foe example, in Empire, if you really get the thematic devices at play, the most powerful moment in Empire is now when Yoda lifts the x-wing out of the swamp. For the viewer who has viewed the prequels, with their thematic devices and how they have played out, Yoda's x-wing lift is now a hugley triumphant and moving moment for Yoda, & the Jedi thematic. The thematic device of Episode 2 for Anakin is in play for Luke, along with one of it's outcomes, Vader, using it althoughly alot more confrontationally than the way Palpatine had done so for Anakin. Without breakin the thematic device down, Anakin is essentially a dark jedi for most of episode 2. TPM has alot of great shots, and an epic sweep of the galactic republic on the brink of it's downfall. But it's a third tier Star Wars movie, behind Hope & Empire, simply because sometimes it's ambition is greater than it's reach. Same thing with ROTJ, has many things going for it that are better than Hope & Empire but not all realized at same level. THe PT's were less instant gratification in what their stories were, & there are, not so much plot holes but one or two big plot assumptions which have to take place in them, along with some cool characterization opportunities of themes not as rounded out as they could have been particuarly Anakin ( am not meaning the acting either). Anyhow, if the next two Hobbit sequels are as good as the first episode, & then their is FOTR straight after that ( a pretty spectacular run of 4 Middle Earth fantasy movies to compliment the books on all levels); then TTT's becomes alot more decent.....:) & TROTK which was pretty good to start with, becomes even better too. I would rate it up there with the Star Wars series, as that also has it's imperfections. At the moment i don't but i think it's possible. Everyone is abit different of course.

  • Dec. 25, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Loved it.


    I COMPLETELY AGREE with Harry that this is a fantastic film and that all of the negative reviews are filled with bullshit. I am a fantasy fan, and this movie ruled, from start to finish. I have some gripes about some of the cartoony action scenes but other than that it was great. The pine-cone scene wasn't well executed either. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with Harry on the HFR issue. I went into the Imax HFR 3d theater hoping that I would end up in the pro-HFR camp. But it sucks. At the beginning of the movie I was completely distracted by it. It's almost like watching a theater play. It doesn't look like a movie. In other ways it doesn't look real at all. It's very strange looking, especially in 3d. As people walk around it looks as if the movie is playing in fast-forward.

  • Go figure.

  • Dec. 26, 2012, 8:44 a.m. CST

    I'd call the Hobbit competent, at best

    by Beebop

    I saw it yesterday in regular 2D, no HFR, so I can't comment on that. But the other complaints were all relevant. I was bored for much of it, wishing it would get on with its story, stop being so start/stop/start/stop, stop being so cartoony.... I don't hate it, but I don't love it or even particularly like it. It was passable entertainment that had a few really good moments, but for the most part barely held my attention. It wasn't nearly as engrossing or grand as Lord of the Rings. It was nearly as gripping and intense. Plus, the anachronisms annoyed me (how "golf" was invented, "where are the chips," that kind of stuff bugged me). I just hope that with the exposition out of the way, Jackson can craft the next two into more taut, engrossing movies.

  • Dec. 26, 2012, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Great film

    by Damien

    I just created my account so I could comment on this. I saw this film in HFR 3D and IMAX 3D (at the biggest screen in the UK). The film is superb and jaded critics have been really unfair in their reviews, showing a lack of respect for the incredible achievements of Peter Jackson and his team in putting this epic story up on the big screen in such a thrilling manner. The opening scenes at Bilbo's house might be boring if you have the attention span of a goldfish, but I chuckled throughout and then got blown away by the action scenes that followed - especially towards the end. I found HFR really bizarre. The thing is that our brains are used to viewing films at 24FPS, and it's really jarring to see such a smooth image. Your brain keeps telling you it's speeded up, but it's not. It works superbly in complex action scenes and when the camera pans, but it really freaked me out in the ordinary close-up scenes. So, much as I wanted to love HFR, I preferred the 24FPS IMAX 3D version. It was brilliant to be back in Middle Earth, the performances were top notch, the special effects were jaw-dropping and this left me thrilled and excited about the next instalment. I'm a Brit living in London, by the way.

  • Dec. 27, 2012, 4:48 a.m. CST

    Sydney IMAX 24FPS - absolutely adored it!

    by veteran_of_mu

    The 3D looked murky so I'd love to see the HFR version. But to me the film itself was the best middle earth from PJ to date. My adolescent son placed it just behind LOTR 2, and his best mate, who hasn't seen any of the films or read the books yet, was completely blown away. The riddle game stole the whole show. So don't believe a word the haters spout - this is as close to a perfect movie as you're likely to see in the next year.

  • Dec. 27, 2012, 10:39 a.m. CST


    by Robert Hand

    the golf reference was a nod to Tolkien and is a direct quote from the book.

  • ...the HFR is superfluous. Nothing can signifigantly improve on the clarity of what I am watching right now on a television in my own home. The marginal improvement lent by the HFR is not worth the digital-video look. I loved AUJ, it was a movie I've been waiting for since I was in the third grade, but I sincerely believe that the HFR experiment is a misstep.

  • That was one of the more depressing, desensitizing experiences I've ever spent in the theater. I don't what is up with the moody purple lighting all the time, the computer pepto sunsets, the flat humor Why when Frodo hangs up the simple Party Sign outside the hobbit hole is it written in perfect Celtic Movie Font, like Lord of the Rings TM Font why in this sweet little story about the Hobbit, is not one damn thing SIMPLE, or UNDERSTATED, or ever suggesting the mechanisms of real flesh and blood characters... I remember the band of travelers fleeing to a circle of trees to get away from the wolves, but was it on a SuperDramatic lone tree with its roots clinging to the side of a mountain?? Why the fuck is Gandalf so cute and jolly? He even has a sparkly lavender scarf as though he moonlights as a cabaret singer JESUS IF KIDS ONLY KNEW ABOUT JOHN HUSTON AS GANDALF, or the fact that these films are elbowing out a voice for any new classic Disney/ cartoons/ practical effects driven fastasy.... DEAR GOD PLEASE BRING BACK REAL FUCKING EFFECTS AND REAL FANTASY AGAIN. These movies are taking the Rings mythology and turning it into a very suburban very cute little Brand. It's no wonder Christopher Tolkien is pissed off. You people are fucking idiots.