My Hobbit review (Spoilers)

[*kjm]

Just saw it tonight. The only thing that was wrong with is was it wasn't 5 hours long. Can't wait to see the next one! The 48 FPS was great. I didn't thing FPS mattered for this, but there is now finally a 3D movie that doesn't look like a blurry mess.

Went and saw it tonight and I agree at the end of the movie I was like.... that was quick. Radagast was also done great.

 

[LucJoe]

I'd have to say that I really enjoyed the movie, with the exception that some events defied credibility such as how the group got out of the lair of the goblins.

Question about this: Why did his sword light up? I thought that was just for orcs.

 

[*kjm]

Question about this: Why did his sword light up? I thought that was just for orcs.

Nope both
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Sting

 

[Olikan]

1) Why Aragorn was destined to be king? What is the significance of his name.
2) Why is Sauron a big bad ancient evil dude? Why is the ring really connected to him and his power. What were the true purpose of the nazguls?
3) Why did Sauron pick this time to come back?
4) Why did Saruman go insane and change from good to evil? What was the significance of the "colored" cloaks the wizard's wore?
5) Why were the elves, dwarves, and many other races in middleearth in a general state of decline?

to answer most of these questions, the studio first would need to buy the Silmarillion rights...something that the tolkein familly didn't done yet

 

[Possessed Freak]

My major gripe was the Jar Jar like character Radagast being tossed in. Okay so they wanted to mention the other parallel plot of the Necromancer and whatnot, but why did they have to make the character so comical?

My minor gripe what the Character Shields were strong in this one. In LotR, the characters ran from the enemy in Moria, fighting when needed. In the Hobbit, evidently a company of dwarves can take on a whole underground city of goblins with NO PROBLEM.

 

[stag3]

not sure what the hell people are whining about. the movie was awesome. it held close enough to the book that i wasn't upset about anything, the cg didn't bother me whatsoever because, although you could tell things were cg, they fit well into the storyline and things moved in a very lifelike manner, and the soundtrack was incredible.

you have to remember that this movie is the first of a trilogy, so there's a lot of character development and conflict development that needs to arise. that's exactly what happened. you see the beginning stages of a web that's being formed which is fully completed in rotk.

saying that there isn't enough content for three movies is ridiculous.

i absolutely loved this movie. i saw it thursday at midnight.

same, i enjoyed it, the only part where the cgi looked shitty to me was when they were in the cave area riding the bridge down like a snowboard lol. other than that everything was what i expected. was not disappointed. can't wait for part 2,3

 

[NTMBK]

My minor gripe what the Character Shields were strong in this one. In LotR, the characters ran from the enemy in Moria, fighting when needed. In the Hobbit, evidently a company of dwarves can take on a whole underground city of goblins with NO PROBLEM.

Dwarves are badasses.

 

[SandEagle]

dammit, was hoping this would rock. guess ill wait for it to hit video.

 

[Zstream]

dammit, was hoping this would rock. guess ill wait for it to hit video.

Go see it now and judge for yourself. It's the same CGI and the same class acting as in LOTR. You either like the movies or you don't. This crap about nitpicking every little thing in the movie is annoying. It is by far the best movie of the year and second to LOTR overall.

 

[Zstream]

not sure what the hell people are whining about. the movie was awesome. it held close enough to the book that i wasn't upset about anything, the cg didn't bother me whatsoever because, although you could tell things were cg, they fit well into the storyline and things moved in a very lifelike manner, and the soundtrack was incredible.

you have to remember that this movie is the first of a trilogy, so there's a lot of character development and conflict development that needs to arise. that's exactly what happened. you see the beginning stages of a web that's being formed which is fully completed in rotk.

saying that there isn't enough content for three movies is ridiculous.

i absolutely loved this movie. i saw it thursday at midnight.

Yep, same viewpoint as yours. In fact, I'm going to see it again in 2D now to see which one we like the best.

 

[Juddog]

I was seriously disappointed when I found out that this was going to be 3 movies. You're taking a book that's shorter than any of the LoTR series and extending the story 3x as long. Peter Jackson really just needed to do this in one movie.

 

[xSauronx]

My major gripe was the Jar Jar like character Radagast being tossed in. Okay so they wanted to mention the other parallel plot of the Necromancer and whatnot, but why did they have to make the character so comical?

My minor gripe what the Character Shields were strong in this one. In LotR, the characters ran from the enemy in Moria, fighting when needed. In the Hobbit, evidently a company of dwarves can take on a whole underground city of goblins with NO PROBLEM.

not as much the fault of the director as it is that of the author. tolkien didnt have a huge amount of consistency between the hobbit and LoTR for a few topics.

you'll also notice in the hobbit that gandalf uses magic quite a bit more than in the lord of the rings. lighting pipes with his fingers, lighting pine cones, blowing up rock, the white energy explosion in the caves, breaking the rock by the trolls...

 

[SandEagle]

Go see it now and judge for yourself. It's the same CGI and the same class acting as in LOTR. You either like the movies or you don't. This crap about nitpicking every little thing in the movie is annoying. It is by far the best movie of the year and second to LOTR overall.

well alright then. you changed my mind. ill catch it in imax soon

 

[BD2003]

If it seems like there's a lot of griping in here its only that the bar was set really high by the previous trilogy. And it was basically a foregone conclusion that it would be a great movie, because the same minds are behind it.

Despite how much I enjoyed it, I did leave the theater feeling there were some pretty obvious ways it could have been even better. It just doesnt come together as well as fellowship did, but given the source material, I'm not sure that it ever could have.

But it's a good time, if you're the least bit a fan of LOTR, you'll dig it. This is no phantom menace. The main thing to takeaway is that despite the fact this this is a prequel, and the hobbit was written before LOTR, the movie basically assumes you've already seen the trilogy, whereas the book doesn't.

 

[videogames101]

i never felt like the characters were in any real danger, and it turned the entire movie into an action film... sigh

that being said 48fps is awesome

 

[Markbnj]

If it seems like there's a lot of griping in here its only that the bar was set really high by the previous trilogy. And it was basically a foregone conclusion that it would be a great movie, because the same minds are behind it.

I actually didn't think the previous three movies set the bar all that high. Yes, they were great, and I own the extended edition and have watched it through twice. But then I read the books through more than ten times from 1972 onward, so I can't help it. But in general I have felt like Jackson's vision of certain parts of a story was a long way from mine. The scene at Galadriel's mirror comes to mind, or the scene at Rivendell when Bilbo sees the ring again for the first time.

My main gripe about RotK, one I still haven't gotten over, was the omission of what I felt was the single most dramatic line in the story's climaxing scene, when Gandalf proclaims the ring-bearer's success to the armies before the gates of Mordor ("The realm of Sauron is ended. The ring-bearer has fulfilled his quest.") How he could leave that out I will never understand.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm no filmmaker, but I can't think of a way to get all that backstory in without a lot of exposition (characters talking to one and other), or narrated flashbacks like the one that opened TLotR. Frankly, too much of that would really bloat and slow a film, and in fact Tolkien didn't spend tons of time on it in the main narrative of any of his books. It gets in the way of telling a good story, and properly belongs in appendices or expansions that fans can seek out if they want to know more.

A lot of that was answered in the LotR book series. Not in the same massive degree as his Similarian appendix, which is one boring ass read, but those details were there in the books. I'm the type of person when I have a story of a classic antagonist and protagonist I LIKE knowing the motives of BOTH. LotR as a movie series did nothing to give us motives. No backstory. Nothing. In fact, it's very confusing unless you've read the books or can just competely disengage your brain about the story elements that are completely devoid in the movies and just enjoy the banter/action sequences. All the characters, which admittedly there were a lot, were all 1 dimensional and shallow. The only real characters even remotely developed in the LotR movies were Frodo and Gollum. More Gollum than even Frodo the main protagonist. At least Gollum had a back flash scene for him. Although Gollum is a very simple character with a single driving motive to him which is possession of the ring and nothing else.

This is WHY I am liking the Hobbit in comparison to the LotR movies which I found so-so if only on the basis they were a good "flick" and not a great movie narrative. The Hobbit is actually developing more of the characters. We are getting more about Gandolf, and the wizard circle, more about Bilbo, and more about the dwarves. Of course not ALL the dwarves are getting as developed as the book did, but really we don't need that much development on all them.

Even in the Hobbit, only about 8 of the dwarves had any real character development to leave a lasting mark. Thorin, Bofur, Balin, Kil, Fili, Ori, Dwalin, and Bombur were the ones I mainly remembered. This even after 15 years since last reading the book. I instantly recognized them on the screen too. The rest in the book weren't that fleshed out. And so far the movie seems to be doing about the same. Thorin being fleshed out the most, as he's the dwarven prince. Balin is his main right hand man although a bit seasoned, but the brightest of them and his main counsel. Bofur is the most friendly and jovial. Ori one of the youngest and a bit on the stupid side. Kili and Gili the young mischievous brothers and the youngest. Bombur the biggest dwarf (at least in girth) of them all. Dwalin the hardiest/strongest warrior of them.

Although, as a massive spoiler, the main reason Thorin, and eventually Kili/Gili get a lot of character development attention is because they are the three that die in the big battle royal at the end of the book. All of which were in line for the throne. And since they all die, Gimli, is now the sole heir for the title of King under the Mountain.

 

[ioni]

I was seriously disappointed when I found out that this was going to be 3 movies. You're taking a book that's shorter than any of the LoTR series and extending the story 3x as long. Peter Jackson really just needed to do this in one movie.

One movie would have been complete shit. It would have been rushed to hell.

 

[sigurros81]

I enjoyed the movie. I think it was more of a kids movie than anything else, as the book was more or less a children's book. My main complaint about the movie is Radagast--why the hell is there bird shit all over the side of his head. No one has the courtesy to tell him that he has shit all over the side of his head and it's unsanitary and gross????

 

[Olikan]

A lot of that was answered in the LotR book series. Not in the same massive degree as his Similarian appendix, which is one boring ass read, but those details were there in the books. I'm the type of person when I have a story of a classic antagonist and protagonist I LIKE knowing the motives of BOTH.

funny, i found LotR books alot more painfull than Silma...Silmarillion is just hard at the beggining, then it flows very fast

while in the LotR books, every frodo-sam chapter is a pain...

 

[HumblePie]

I enjoyed the movie. I think it was more of a kids movie than anything else, as the book was more or less a children's book. My main complaint about the movie is Radagast--why the hell is there bird shit all over the side of his head. No one has the courtesy to tell him that he has shit all over the side of his head and it's unsanitary and gross????

Umm, it's to show he was a bit out of his mind. True it was a bit of movie embellishment, but still got the point across.

 

[sigurros81]

Umm, it's to show he was a bit out of his mind. True it was a bit of movie embellishment, but still got the point across.

Gandalf is a douchey friend for not telling his buddy that he's got shit all over his face. If my bromance has shit on his face, I'd tell him.

What if Lady Galadriel comes visiting?

 

[HumblePie]

funny, i found LotR books alot more painfull than Silma...Silmarillion is just hard at the beggining, then it flows very fast

while in the LotR books, every frodo-sam chapter is a pain...

I loved the hobbit, the LotR books had their massive dull parts.

But you are right on all those frodo-sam chapters.

"Mr Frodo I love you!"

"I can't go on Sam."

"But Mr. Frodo everyone is depending on you! I love you!"



And that was pretty much repeated for a very long time in different phrasings of the words for those two. But the Hobbit was none of that at all. It was all about base emotions. Greed and Revenge. Along with Courage and redemption.

 

[Saint Nick]

I just caught this last night. It was great! Lots of CGI stuff, but a very enjoyable film. Time to go read the book again.

 

[Red Storm]

I just caught this last night. It was great! Lots of CGI stuff, but a very enjoyable film. Time to go read the book again.

Yeah me too. Time to dust off the old paperback.