The Hobbit an unexpected journey

[cub1061]

Has anyone seen this yet?

I think this is up there with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Can't wait for the second installment.

Go and watch it. NOW

[Million]

Yes I have. I thought it was good, but not amazing. I don't see the need (other than financial greed) to eke it out into three films. Two, maybe, but not three!

[melon]

I refuse to see it !

It can go join that other sellout Ridely Scotts disaster piece in Purgatory.

m

[wasabi]

i liked the 3 LOTR films but got really bored by this. The pacing is just way to slow and full of whimsical backstory and padding. Won't be going to see the next two. A bit like the JarJar Binks edition of Star Wars, it has ruined my good memories of LOTR.

[=assassin=]

Looking at the comments it sounds as though it should have been called An Unexceptional Journey

[steve threlfall]

i liked the 3 LOTR films but got really bored by this. The pacing is just way to slow and full of whimsical backstory and padding. Won't be going to see the next two. A bit like the JarJar Binks edition of Star Wars, it has ruined my good memories of LOTR.

This.

Also, they have added in a colossal amount of their own story to bulk it out. And guess what, these are the worst parts of the film. Now, it has been a few years since I last read the Hobbit, but it is only about a third the length of LOTR iirc, and therefore there surely should have been only one film. The made up parts are utter dross. Desecration of the truly cherished source material tbh

Oh well, three less blu rays that I need to fork out for I suppose.

People are going to think that the Hobbit (the book) is rubbish .

[cub1061]

I read the book when i was a kid so can't remember it much but for the film, yes it is long and may not match the book but for pure family entertainment i think its brill.

[mepbowles]

Me and my girlfriend decided to read the book back in November in anticipation for the film along with the Cloud Atlas book. (Helps with long distance to have something common to talk about ).

When we saw it she didn't seem to mind but she hasn't seen many films and has only seen LOTR once through. I found it shocking, especially as I'd read the book so recently. Firstly, the film doesn't start as the book starts but has a lengthy intro about the Dwarves depicting them as greedy people (which is very clearly a poor attempt to make later things tie in). Then there's a tie in to LOTR which is uneccessary but okay. The actual introduction itself seems very rushed or adapted from the book for seemingly no reason. This is the case for many of the key scenes, they have been changed in order to accommodate clumsy and forced character development. And don't even get me started on the at least 30 min extra just to cover some white orc sub plot. perhaps they thought it'd give more opportunities for battle and suspense but its justannoying. Oh and the goblins and the poor cgi boulder.

The musical score wasn't noticeably changed (although I'm sure they'll release it separately). And I'm really starting to dislike the Andy Serkis gollum as they've given him lots of "cinema jokes"/"trailer punchlines" and they're something I hate more than anything else.

Basically they've added bits they didn't need either in order for later scenes in the other movies to make a little bit more sense or for character development;
The bits theyve kept aren't very true to the source and as others have said the tone is all over the place.
Alot of actors seem to have made cameos or been cast just to boost familiarity and sales.

My one main compliment is that the choice of Martin Freeman works well forthe movie (because the tone is all over the place).

Before I watched the multimillion pound one I watched the cheap animated version and they managed to do it all in an hour and a half, although they did rush things a little. They were alot truer to the book and it is a better film because of it. Here's a trailer made with the modern films audio.

[Dingo]

Looking at the comments it sounds as though it should have been called An Unexceptional Journey

I think the film maker's and backers have looked upon it more as "an exceptional opportunity to make a pile of cash" whilst judging by most film goer's comments it should have been called "an exceptional opportunity to make a pile of trash" !!

[zergrinch]

I recently watched the movie and I must admit it's certainly no LOTR. It's certainly not as good as I had hoped and the fact that they decided to make a trilogy out of a single book is ridiculous.

[xpronic]

Wow, some negative reviews here. It can't be that bad, can it? I've not read the books, so it should be an OK film, unless the pacing is really as slow as some of you have mentioned.

[scaryjim]

... It can't be that bad, can it? ...

As a film, it's not that bad. I know others have complained about the pacing, but I thought it was OK. If you haven't read the book, and have no childhood memories to get trashed, them you'll probably quite enjoy it (although there are some nice touches that you'd only really pick up if you had read the book).

But it's not The Hobbit. It really, massively, isn't The Hobbit. For one thing, they've made a DEAD footnote character into a recurring villain. That adds nothing to the actual story. He has his own side plot, but it basically only rarely crosses the main story. They've hugely changed all sorts of stuff just to make it more "cinematic" when a creative director could actually have found plenty of cinematic opportunities in the original text without having to randomly add stuff. Some of the characterisation is plain wrong. And they've definitely padded - I reckon they could easily have made three films of 90 minutes - 2 hours out of it and been much more in keeping with the children's narrative of the source material, but they're clearly going for LOTR-scale epic - bad choice, IMNSHO.

It's not all bad though, even for fans of The Hobbit. There are parts where it does nod to the source, and does it very nicely. And Martin Freeman is very well cast as young Bilbo - shame he had such a shambolic script to work with, really.

So is it that bad? Probably not, if you take it for a fantasy romp film with some sappy character work thrown on top. But is it The Hobbit? Hells no.

[HalloweenJack]

Chris tolkien wants nothing to do with the films ; he is that angry with peter Jackson , he has stated in his own will that silmarillion will never be sold for movie rights.

he has given 1 interview in something like 40 years?

http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-s...ings/c3s10299/

have a read. that's Christopher Tolkien , JRR Tolkien`s son

[xpronic]

...So is it that bad? Probably not, if you take it for a fantasy romp film with some sappy character work thrown on top. But is it The Hobbit? Hells no.

Good to hear its still a good fantasy film.

[Sunvsmoon]

I didn't enjoy it when I went to the cinema, watched it in Imax 3D and the 3D effects were really poor, you could tell everything was CGI and the were on sets. I couldn't get into the film because of this. I was a shame because I really enjoyed all the LOTR films

[flearider]

how sad can they be to try and make 3 films out of one book .. thats smaller then one of lotr ...
come on it's just money making ****e ... read the book decide for yourself ...