Film The Hobbit

[L2R]

can't wait. ... i hear there are a few cinnies in sydney showing the 48fps3d :D:D:D

 

[DrinksWithEvil]

That's how I saw it . Personally I wish I seen it not 3d

 

[P A]

^Same. Although the double frame rate was a little hard to get used to, I thoroughly enjoyed the ultra-high-def New Zealand landscape shots. A few jarring visual glitches notwithstanding, this was a surprisingly satisfying followup to the previous trilogy. I eagerly await the sequel.

Poll, anyone?

 

[Belisarius]

It was good, but not great.

What I liked: Seeing familiar faces again. Gollum was a show-stealer, even more so than in the LOTR films. The cinematography.

NSFW:

The stone giants

. The lighter tone, in keeping with the lighter tone of The Hobbit.

What I didn't like: The film felt ridiculously padded and overlong. There were parts that reminded me too much of the Star Wars prequels, where there's nothing but expository backstory and verbal plotting. Shaving an hour off the runtime would have improved the film immensely.

 

[motherofearth]

The film had two introductions, which I thought was an unnecessary 20 minutes of screen time.

And while the Hobbit had a lighter presentation in the book, it came across often as asinine in the movie.

NSFW:

Like the Brown Wizard and his rabbits - seriously?

 

[Belisarius]

^
Ditto. When it came to

NSFW:

Radagast, all I could focus on was the HD bird shit on the side of his head.

There was so much of this film that was better left implied, as in the original novel.

 

[P A]

^Yeah, I guess I always imagined

Spoiler: HOBBITSES

Radagast being a shorter, stumpier, more fearsome version of Gandalf. Like, forest-dwelling survivalist-loner eccentric, maybe, but not real-def birdshit-in-face eccentric. My friend (with whom I was watching the movie) commented that it felt more like Loony Toons than anything else. But then again, Tolkien's books weren't that far off...

But, you know, whatever. It didn't bother me enough to warrant inclusion in my post. Any little thing that I disliked about the film was more than compensated by the actors, cinematography, sensational battle sequences, New Zealand landscape shots, &c., which are all on par with the previous three movies (and then some).

 

[MrGrunge]

But, you know, whatever. It didn't bother me enough to warrant inclusion in my post. Any little thing that I disliked about the film was more than compensated by the actors, cinematography, sensational battle sequences, New Zealand landscape shots, &c., which are all on par with the previous three movies (and then some).

I agree - any complaints I had about the movie were minor enough to not affect my enjoyment.

I also saw it in 48fps 3D, and frankly, I thought it was gorgeous. I had heard that the increased frame rate made the action scenes blurry, but I didn't get that - everything looked crystal clear to me, and when combined with the 3D it gave the shots a lot of depth. As far as I'm concerned, Jackson's use of 48fps is completely artistically defensible and didn't feel gimmicky at all.

 

[sconnie420]

So I have yet to see it.. Was it worth going to the theatre to see or just wait for dvd? I wanted to go to imax 3d but.. If its only mediocre, I.can definitely wait..

Opinions?

 

[Belisarius]

Yes, the fast-moving scenes were indeed blurry to me. However, the increase in detail was almost too good; the critics weren't kidding when they said you can see every hair and pit in the actors' faces.

 

[DrinksWithEvil]

i also felt it was alittle to kiddy at times......esp the trolls

 

[MrGrunge]

^ The Hobbit (the book) is much more light-hearted in tone than the LOTR trilogy.

 

[DrinksWithEvil]

ya i know but ><......

 

[MrGrunge]

So I have yet to see it.. Was it worth going to the theatre to see or just wait for dvd? I wanted to go to imax 3d but.. If its only mediocre, I.can definitely wait..

Opinions?

I'm definitely happy that I saw it in the theater: the visuals in the film really 'pop' on the big screen. I don't know that I would have enjoyed it quite as much if my first viewing was on my home television.

 

[sconnie420]

Did you see it in 3D?

 

[MrGrunge]

Yes.

Coincidentally, it was the first movie I had ever seen in 3D. My main reluctance with the whole 3D craze that's taken over, is that a lot of movies seem to use it as a gimmick (like, "WOOOOAH! LOOK AT THIS THING COMING AT YOU!") rather than a tool for improving cinematography. The Hobbit, I felt, used it's 3D very tastefully, and complimented the epic, sweeping scenery very nicely.

 

[Volundr]

Seen it twice now, and now my complaints have dwindled down from a few to two primary ones:

A) Radagast.. A horrible interpretation of what to me, was always a mysterious and intriguing character and;

B) O.T.T. Action scenes.. I mean do they really need to fall 100m every 5 minutes and end up completely unscathed.. do the goblin realms wooding structures really need to crash and self-destruct in such a manner.. Does the fighting really need to be so ridiculous? I guess they have a cinematic license, but I don't think it needed such Bay-esque scenes.

And the annoyances that dropped from my list on the second time of viewing:

A) The whole Azog the Defiler side-story. At first it really irritated me that such a non-canon (yes I know the character names are real, and yes some aspects of the story aren't entirely made up) story had to take place in the film, much like the elves at helms deep in The Two Towers but upon second view, I can accept it as a means to give part 1 of a trilogy a running theme and an ending. Obviously the hobbit isn't a trilogy so it doesn't need such a story, but because these films are, it gives the film a better composition I guess.. I can deal with it.

B) Sudden biome changes in the Warg/Radagast/On the way to Rivendell scene.. Deciduous forest, to baron rocky shrubland, to pine-based shrubland, each without eachother visible even on the horizon with about 30 seconds of eachother. All while being chased by some wargs that started off about 50m away.. what the fuck was going on.. But alas, it is not a major problem and it lets me see some nice scenery so I can't complain too much.

C) Balin's stupid beard. What's going on with this dwarvish-amish look.. It is not a real complaint, but the character just happened to be nothing like my imagination had created and I hope I won't be tainted by it next time I re-read The Hobbit. It doesn't effect the film at all, it was just a petty annoyance.


All in all, I did enjoy the film, and I thought Gollum was absolutely perfect, Andy Serkis has truly mastered the role. I also thought Gandalf was superbly acted, again.. I think a lot of it is in Ian McKellen's facial expressions and particularly those eyes.. The characters he can create can be truly mesmerising.


I look forward to next year!

 

[MrGrunge]

B) O.T.T. Action scenes.. I mean do they really need to fall 100m every 5 minutes and end up completely unscathed.. do the goblin realms wooding structures really need to crash and self-destruct in such a manner.. Does the fighting really need to be so ridiculous? I guess they have a cinematic license, but I don't think it needed such Bay-esque scenes.

This was a problem for me as well until I decided that a "Fantasy Epic" should be "Fantastically Epic", so I wasn't too concerned with how realistically portrayed some of the scenes were (they should all have died horribly during the Stone Giant scene, but it was fun to watch regardless). Also, the action scenes were shot and choreographed beautifully (imo) which is a far cry from the lazy, explosion-ridden Bay films.

 

[L2R]

I disagree with all the complaints. I loved every minute of the story and the 48fps3d is the most amazing thing I ever saw in a sinny.
Out-fucking-standing!

 

[yucatanboy2]

I enjoyed it, and i am a hardcore JRT fan (read the books multiple times). I knew that they were going to take a lot of "artistic license" with the story, and I thought they did a good job making a fun and exciting movie. I didn't want it to end .