Hobbit reviews: post them here!

[azalea]

Hi, all! I saw it the other day, and loved it, of course. I have some criticisms, too, though.

Good points...

Casting: LOVE Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Love the dwarves, I think they all look great.

Scenery: As always, so much attention is given to details that brings the places to life.

Riddles in the Dark: So well done, including Bilbo's escape.

Music: I love the song of the Lonely Mtn.

Filling in: I really liked most of what was added to bridge The Hobbit and LOTR. I enjoyed seeing dramatized what was only mentioned in the book.

Cut off point: I would have ended it right where he did.

Bad points...

I wanted to see Gandalf push Bilbo out the door, not have Bilbo decide to go. This is a problem throughout the movie. At this point (meaning the entire first movie), Bilbo should still be a grudging participant, on the one hand, enjoying seeing the outside world, but at the same time, constantly wondering "How did I end up here?" They have played their cards too early, and I think it would have worked just fine to wait until Mirkwood to have Bilbo start being brave.

This is evident during the troll scene, which I think could have been played more closely to the book and worked well. It is also evident in the fighting scenes, including the end when Bilbo saves Thorin's life. Just too early, IMO.

I really liked seeing Radagast, but it was a little too much that wasn't really needed. I liked his look and manner, but he was used little too comedically for me.

I really didn't like the subplot of the orcs chasing the company, especially the scene right before Rivendell. As I said, I really enjoyed seeing the back story playing out, but I felt like the movie went a little too far in focusing on the history over Bilbo.

That's my take on it. Overall, I give it a B, for the changes that were just a little too much. Of course, I'll be buying the soundtrack, dvd, and extended edition just like I did for LotR anyway! The good outweighs the negatives.

[Serenoli]

My review: its quite the right length for a Tolkien fan but entirely too long for the general public. And the sad thing is, all the things Peter Jackson put in (which IMO were there simply to entice the general public) like Azog, extra orc chases etc. really took away from the movie's emotional feel and added nothing to the momentum.

I liked that there is a solid dose of humour and silly, even the over-the-top Radagast - it set the right mood for the Hobbit.

My favourite part of the movie - the scene with Gollum.

[Lotesse]

Gollum - well, Serkis - is a genius, hands down.

All these reviews posted are fantastic & I find myself in agreement with just about everyone, re. Hobbit's pros as well as its cons. But, SOOOOOoooo many pros. Because of my painful back disability, I just don't go sit in cinemas to watch movies unless I'm extremely into the film, for whatever reason: story/author/director, a few of my favourite actors, extreme anticipation, etc. but this I'm gonna go see again this evening, I think. If I can get my Percocets for the almost 3-hr sit (which flies by, by the way, with fans like us. I mean, I was bummed it was too SHORT.)

[The Gaffer]

8.5/10 is the view from the taters.

I saw it a couple of days ago and I also agree that the editor could have been usefully employed. If you are going to turn The Hobbit into three films you have no excuse.

However, as an enthusiast I didn't really care. Big pluses for me were Martin Freeman, all of the dwarves, especially James Nesbitt (Bofur?), Andy Serkis, and the back story. Even the wee glimpses of Smaug were tantalising. Using Radagast was a good idea, nicely foreshadowing was is to come in Mirkwood next time around.

Let's be honest, Tolkien was never one for characterisation much, so the dwarves needed something doing to them to make them more interesting. I thought they got it pretty much right. Using great actors like Ken Stott in these "minor" roles was a tremendous investment and I hope we see more of them in the later films.

JRRT also was less than convincing about the whole rationale of sending a hobbit and a baker's dozen of dwarves off to topple Smaug. The film made this more believable, mainly by bringing the characters to life.

Only a couple of real abominations. The fight with the goblins was great until they decided to forget the laws of physics. And there was one too many battle scenes generally. By choosing to end the film where they did, they needed to lose something earlier on, perhaps a bit of the Azog stuff.

Minor quibbles:

Not enough Bilbo: after he picked up with the dwarves he didn't seem to get much screen time, some of which was out of character.

Needed more lulz. However, I suspect we are going to get fewer, as the trilogy gets more bombastic. This first instalment seemed to be pulled in two directions and didn't really make up its mind which. Jackson should have watched Time Bandits to see how to make comedy and drama work together in the same film. Or maybe recruit a proper comedy writer instead of just tossing in little jokes here and there like the vegetarian provender in Rivendell.

Did anyone see the "review" on IMDB that accused Tolkien of plagiarising JK Rowling? :lol:

http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/201...-harry-potter/

PS - Hey Lotsy, sorry to hear you are still suffering from the back problems. Best wishes.

[Jon S.]

Another guy returning for his first new post in a very long time! I actually really liked the movie. I especially liked what so many of the professional critics hated: the slow initial pace and the amount of time spent in Bilbo's home at the outset. A dozen dwarves are a lot to try to keep track of but the leisurely-paced first 30-45 minutes or so of the film helped alot. I didn't find it too long per se but I did find the fighting with the Orcs overdone. I loved the 48 frames 3D. Looking forward to the next film!

P.S. If you liked the 3D version of this movie, check out the Dolby 3D U2 concert at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Un-f-believable. You don't just wear glasses, they're almost like goggles and you feel like you're really right there. Think of the difference between old TV and high-def TV. Think of the Hobbit movie as old 3D and imagine what it might look like if it were high def. That's the Dolby 3D they had at the Rock Hall. In 3-5 years, we'll have this at home and you won't believe your eyes.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, totally agree about the introduction of the dwarves, it didn't feel like it took too long at all. Although I can understand why some people were a bit baffled by all the shifts in time frame.

Saw it in old-time 2D, no idea how many frames. It looked great though.

[rohirrim TR]

I saw it 3 times and I really liked it overall, cast, music quite fantastic.

The tone was a bit confusing, didn't really like the rabbits, or the cartoony goblins, but on a second viewing I felt like the narrative was meant to be coming from and old slightly crazy Bilbo who is telling us a story that may be a little jumbled in his brain and in that context I can accept a lot of crazy shenanigans that don't hold up to realism.

[Midge]

Check out the HISHE (How it should have ended) for the Hobbit.

I love these... and The Hobbit is just as funny as the previous LOTR one and all the superhero ones.

[Mark of Cenla]

Originally Posted by Midge

Check out the HISHE (How it should have ended) for the Hobbit.

I love these... and The Hobbit is just as funny as the previous LOTR one and all the superhero ones.

Now that was funny! Peace and goodwill.

[GrayMouser]

Finally saw it and was pleasantly surprised.

I had been afraid that this was going to be a totally modified version with lots of extra subplots to fill up the extra time, but the only really added part was the White Council meeting, which was done- mostly - well.

I was apprehensive about PJ's style overwhelming the rather gentle feel of [I]The Hobbit[I] but I found his cartoonish and juvenile sensibility actually more suitable than it was to the LOTR movies. I noticed this especially with the flight through the Goblin city, compared to the flight through Moria.

Could have done without the troll gobbing and farting scenes though.

Nits:

- Dwarvish song: started okay, but should have picked up to give it a more blood-stirring feel, to rouse Bilbo's Tookish blood.

-Troll scene- Original was better.

-Agree that Bilbo became an adventurer too soon,but maybe they were afraid the non-fan audience wouldn't identify with a hero who spent half the movie whining and grumbling.

-Rhadagast should have had the whimsy knob turned down from 11; though not as bad as I feared- except for the totally ridiculous Orc chase scene. Saruman's grumbling about mushrooms was also silly.

-Goblin King was a little over the top.

-Still can't do convincing CGI for Eagles, though the Wargs were much better than LOTR's wart-hogs-on-meth.


Thorin originally struck me as too young and handsome; not Dwarvish enough, though I got used to it. Martin freeman was excellent.

I thought Galadriel and Elrond were better than in LOTR, their characters were more subdued.

Still, a big thumbs up.

[Earniel]

I finally managed to see it. (Don't judge, schedule was impossible.) I have to say, it was far better than I feared, but didn't manage to lift me as high as seeing FoTR did. I think it is mostly because they didn't raise the stakes high enough. Sure, in LoTR you have the urgency to save the whole of Middle-earth, whereas the goal of The Hobbit is to defeat one dragon, yet terrible enough on its own. But the theme they actually used in the movie was not 'defeat a dangerous dragon against all odds' (which would have raised the stakes high enough, I would think) rather: 'make a long journey to get some guys a place they can call home'. That's it, just get these Dwarves a home. They've could have done much more to instill tension and all the necessary elements were available in my opinion, just not utilised properly. Real shame.

I assume that's why they added the Azog story line, to create more tension. Story-wise or movie-wise I like the addition but I don't see why they couldn't just go with Bolg. My guess is that they needed Azog to kill him dramatically at the end of the second movie, so Bolg can be used for the same purpose in the third. I'm not liking that hypothesis, though, so I hope they'll use Azog more wisely. There really are enough things available from the book to end the second movie dramatically. Azog needn't be involved. He looks fabulously creepy, though. Love the makeup job on him!

Loved the sceneries, costumes and casting. All of them still top-notch. Didn't recognise Stott or Nesbitt until I heard them. They make good Dwarves. Nice to see Elrond without the annoying frown and 'men are weak' attitude, looks so much better on him. I am a tiny bit disappointed in the soundtrack though. It's nice to hear LoTR great tunes again, (I quite liked the reworking of -I think- the Ents at Isengard theme for the closing battle.) but I was hoping for more new and equally great material. So not considering buying the soundtrack this time. I'm spoilt, I know.

I do think they managed to stay relatively close to the mood and feel of The Hobbit, which was a pleasant surprise. I had feared for that.

There were a few things I disliked, but they were far more minor compared to the changes I disliked in LoTR. I daresay the Hobbit script was reworked far more sensibly and in tune with the Middle-earth Tolkien wrote. There were still scenes where they deviated from the book for no apparent good reason, i.o.w. those book-scenes would still have worked well with the other bits they added or changed, but the deviated scenes didn't clash as much as they did in LoTR. But I do think those things - while the movie is still a good watchable movie- kept it from being truly great.

I liked the addition of Radagast. I didn't mind the silly antics all that much since it fits better with Saruman's view of Radagast. You can see why the wizard's deemed useless. But why the bird-poo?Why? Whyyyyyyy? I found it was unnatural, gross, unnecessary, distracting and totally, utterly stupid. (And as pointless as the Denethor eating noises scene, but I can see they come from the same stock.) Now, I'm absolutely no expert in birds, even less in New-Zealandian species. But apart from swallows and birds of prey I know no bird that poops on its nest since that attracks predators and parasites. Some birds even go to great lenghts to remove the waste of their offspring which they dump far from the nest. Radagast poo-tattoo was therefore totally ridiculous. I liked the Rhosgobel rabbits on the other hand. You can still see they're CGI but only just. Nice job on those.

The spider attack and their retreat made little sense but maybe more will be explained about that later. It's interesting to see they made their appearance and the transformation of Greenwood into Mirkwood more recent. Not a bad call, overall.

I wasn't a fan of the LoTR's wargs look of hyenas on steroids, so I'm happy they redesigned them, but I'm not entirely convinced by the new look either. Still look too much like monsters than animals. But I liked the eagles, although they're also still very visibly CGI, but I did like to see them enter the fight instead of just plucking Dwarves out of trees. At least here I couldn't help but think that by all counts they at least ought to be totally awesome in the Battle of the Five Armies. I was actually looking forward to seeing it.

Since I'm talking about CGI, the new improved Gollum didn't really do it for me. He's still too unreal, despite Serkis' great preformance. In the scene where Bilbo is contemplating whether to kill Gollum, you can't really tell whether Gollum sees him or and I assume Serkis was going for a soul-rending look of desperation there, but the CGI Gollum ended up with a distraught puppy-eyed-look that seemed out of place.

Disliked much of the fighting scenes. Too choppy and unclear, same complaint as before in LoTR. And sometimes really too long. I disliked them especially when reality and physics went out of the window. I know the stone giant scene may have looked cool but no one ought to have come out of that one alive. No one. There should be no surviving that. Same as with the fighting in the orc stronghold. Which is another crying shame really, because this could have been prevented relatively easily.

I agree with Azalea that Bilbo's transformation came too suddenly. They should have kept it more for the second movie. It's all quite exciting to have him tackle that orc that is about to kill Thorin, but to dispatch it so easily seems out of character still.

But will I watch again, oh hell yeah. Already bought the DVD.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Ben

Have you seen the new movie? Give us your report!

I just saw the movie. (I guess I am a bit late to the party. )

I am just giving my opinions of the movie as a stand alone film. (I am pretending the book does not exist.)

Music, costumes and scenery are excellent.

The dwarfs were good in general although I think they unnecessarily continued the (cheap) comic gags from LOTR.

My biggest complaints with the film are Radagast the Brown and the Stone Giants.

The Stone Giants do not make any sense to me. It seems that several if not all of the party should be dead or fallen down the side of the mountain into the ravine.

Radagst reminds me too much of some character from Monty Python. (Tim the Enchanter comes to mind). Some of the dwarfs remind me of Monty Python.

When Radagast is to lead the orcs/goblins away from the party, it appears to me that he is going around in circles. (since it seems for several minutes of film that the party needs to duck to avoid being spotted by the orcs chasing Radagast.)

The movie makes several nods to LOTR film, which I think will work well with those familiar with the film. One nod that is difficult for me to like (I do not like it.) was the ring falling onto Bilbo's finger in the caves.

The fight at the end of the film was overly dramatic, but PJ tends to be overly dramatic with many battle/fight scenes.

At times the film displayed some fancy work that while visually interesting was not needed and detracts from the film. (The manner that the Eagles saved the party and cleaning of dinner at Bilbo's are two that stood out in my opinion.)

Saruman comes off as a real busy body. Thinks Gandalf smokes too much in LOTR and now thinks that Radagast is weird (well he might have a point here. ) and consumes too many mushrooms.

The film in general flows well and does a good job providing background information for the story. Nice hints at LOTR in the film. It seems that Mirkwood (Greenwood) and the Necromancer will be the focus on movie 2 and Smaug left for movie 3. through Very few films can pull off a flashback within a flashback. The flashbacks were not distracting and I think It worked well in this film. The part of trolls turning to stone with sunlight seemed odd, since I seem to remember trolls in LOTR out in the sunlight. I will need to watch LOTR to see if this was commented in the film.

As a film: 8.5 out of 10. Very good

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

I just saw the movie. (I guess I am a bit late to the party. )

:
:

... The part of trolls turning to stone with sunlight seemed odd, since I seem to remember trolls in LOTR out in the sunlight. I will need to watch LOTR to see if this was commented in the film.

:

Trolls DO turn to stone in sunlight - established as fact in both The Hobbit and LOTR texts by JRRT. Remember - the trolls turned to stone in the book too, when the sun rose. Yes - late in LOTR there are Trolls that survive in the sunlight/daytime. This is somewhat explained by a mention in the Appendices of the appearance of trolls who could endure the sunlight.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Trolls DO turn to stone in sunlight - established as fact in both The Hobbit and LOTR texts by JRRT. Remember - the trolls turned to stone in the book too, when the sun rose. Yes - late in LOTR there are Trolls that survive in the sunlight/daytime. This is somewhat explained by a mention in the Appendices of the appearance of trolls who could endure the sunlight.

Thanks valandil!

I remember the part of the trolls turning to stone in the hobbit, but I did not remember what they did in the LOTR movies. I was trying to keep my review solely based as a stand alone film w/out reference to the text.

I will need to watch again if I plan to see how well the movie is as an adaptation of the Hobbit. My initial impression is good, but I would need to think more on some of the differences found in the movie.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

It seems that Mirkwood (Greenwood) and the Necromancer will be the focus on movie 2 and Smaug left for movie 3.

Interesting prediction. There's something to say for that.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Ben

Have you seen the new movie? Give us your report!

Positives:

• Movie kept the general feel of the Hobbit
  
• Costumes, scenery and music well done
  
• Martin Freeman well chosen as Bilbo
  
• Elrond much better in this film than LOTR.
  
• Demonstrating Smaug's destruction and take over of lonely mountain did a good job to set the movie in motion.
  
• Although not from the Hobbit, the pale orc was a nice touch. I thought the wooden hand was odd.
  
• The pacing overall was good. I did not get the impression that things were being rushed. Some of the battles were overly long and overblown, but that is PJs style. Hopefully the additions to the films will not detract from the Hobbit.

Negatives:

• Elves were portrayed to not provide any assistance against Smaug, which I assume was done to play up the animosity between Elves and Dwarves.
  
  Although close by ME standards the wood elves were still about a 3-5 days march from their home in Mirkwood to the Lonely mountain. If Smaug's attack was as sudden and devastating as the Hobbit indicates then it would not be practical to expect the wood elves to be on hand to fight/repel the dragon.
  
  While the wood Elves might be a force to reckon with in their woodland home, is it realistic to expect them to be able to assist the dwarves with military might against a dragon?
  
  While it may be good to play up the animosity between Elves and Dwarves I think it was awkwardly done in the film. I would have preferred to just let them say at some point in the film that there was some animosity between the two groups and not go into the reasons why.
  
• It was not necessary to portray the Dwarves as slobs at the dinner table. I thought it bad enough (though minor) that several of the Dwarves were being used for cheap gags as members from a Monty Python sketch.
  
• I agree with GrayMouser -- the original Troll scene was better in the Hobbit
  
• The Dwarves dislike of food at Elrond's house was annoying. Are elves vegetarian? Do dwarves really not eat fruits and vegetables? It was a poor attempt at humor.
  
• Radagast reminded me too much of Tim the Enchanter. I think they portrayed him too comically. I did not like the rabbits much. However, since so little is written about Radagast this would be complaining about things added that were not mentioned in the story.
  
• From the battle in Goblin town it appears that the laws of physics do not apply.
  
• Funny how Bilbo escaped notice with Goblins surrounding him. While it does add to the bit about Hobbits able to be unnoticed and quiet, this was difficult to believe (even in a fantasy film).
  
• Battle scenes in general were overblown and longer than needed. Although I now expect this from PJ&co.
  
• Although minor, I agree with azalea -- It would have been nicer to see Gandalf push him out in time for meeting with the Dwarves at the Green Dragon Inn.
  
• Although minor, the portrayal of some of the dwarves as fools from a Monty Python sketch was annoying. (Especially since they were not portrayed that way in The Hobbit)

Overall, it is a good adaptation of The Hobbit. I give 8 of 10 stars.
As others stated, the film could have trimmed about 30-45 minutes off the film to make a tighter less bloated film. I did not mind the length, but I can see how som people would consider the film to be too long.

Areas I would consider for trimming:
Orc attack before Rivendell
Length of battles in general
The Orc scene on weathertop (I am assuming it is weathertop) after the failed orc attack before rivendell.
The stone giants.

[Alec]

The company was able to outrun wargs on foot far too easily and quite often.

I'm not sure why they changed the troll scene so much. It's a very iconic moment from the books and I don't think the changes improved it.

[Alec]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Funny how Bilbo escaped notice with Goblins surrounding him. While it does add to the bit about Hobbits able to be unnoticed and quiet, this was difficult to believe (even in a fantasy film).

I think that that was terrible. They should of made it more realistic.