Brace yourselves, fellow simply script members for possibly the worst film review you've ever read! ;D ;D. Seriously, I'm new to this, so bare with me.

I have to admit, I'm surprised to see that no one has posted a review on The Hobbit, yet. I'd imagine that heaps of you would be massive Tolkien nerds who would've gone out to see it at the Midnight screening. No? Oh well. As for me, I'm not a massive Tolkien fan. I appreciate his work and the things he did for English Literature, but I'm not usually one to rush out and buy all things Lord of The Rings. This film was just a nice way to sit down with my family and girlfriend and just enjoy... And enjoy it I did.

I have to admit, that after I heard that they had broken such a small book into three movies I was a little cautious. How can they possibly pull it off? Surely there will be massive gaps where nothing happens? Has Peter Jackson gotten a little greedy and just gone for the money? Think about it... The novel for the Hobbit is about a fifth the size of Lord of the Rings, yet the movies are the same length?? To me it just doesn't make sense. Having said that, the novel and it's length didn't seem to affect the film at all. It was still an action packed film full of suspense... The way it should be. Hats off to the writers who managed to pull that off without boring me.

Where the film lacks in action, it makes up for in comedy. Martin Freeman plays his role of Bilbo Baggins brilliantly. He truly is a delight to watch. If Freeman's performance wasn't enough to impress you, the actors filling the roles of the dwarves certainly will. Adam Brown, filling the role of the slightly feminine dwarf Ori is standout, IMO along with Steven Hunter as Bombur. Those two for me were the standout dwarves, but don't get me wrong... They were all fantastic. As expected, Sir Ian McKellen plays the perfect Gandalf. I honestly couldn't picture another actor taking on the challenging role.

The Crew don't waste time delivering either with Howard Shore's amazing Musical score accompanying throughout most of the film. I even found myself humming along to the familiar tunes... Shore surprises us with some tunes from the Lord of the Rings as well, while still bringing something new and equally as amazing as his music for LOTR.

Despite the drama leading up to the Production of this film, I think Peter Jackson has really pulled it off. I'm a big fan of his work. How could I not be? He's the only successful film director New Zealand has ever seen. Not liking his work is pretty much a crime ;D.

That's about all from me. I'll end off by reiterating that I haven't read the novel since I left my home country South Africa - that's about four years now. By no means can I say how true Jackson has stayed to the books. What I can say is this... From the perspective of someone who just went out for a nice quiet day... this film delivers. A must see, IMO.

Dan

Hey Dan,

Since you posted this 2 days ago, I cant believe no one has responded so thought I would add to your thread.

I don't believe Hobbit has been released in OZ and I recall the release date may be boxing day, not sure when the rest of the world gets it either.

Bought the book a few months back for my son and it is really bloody thin !!!! I could probably read it in a day or less if I had the time though 3 x 3 hour films are a hard ask from such a thin book. The screenwriter must have added a SHEEP LOAD of extras. Hee Hee.

Thanks for your review and I'm glad you enjoyed it. I will look forward to watching it when released here.

Regards Alex

I'm really perplexed by all the critics who disliked this film. Everyone seems to be complaining about how it isn't The Lord of the Rings. Well of course it's not Lord of the Rings s hitheads, it's the f ucking Hobbit!

So I went into this one with lower expectations than most (since I read the reviews already). And quite honestly, I loved it. It's better than Fellowship. Remember that movie? Boring. As. F uck. Not to say that I didnt like Fellowship but you can't bitch and moan about the Hobbit's pacing and call LOTR a masterpiece.

The direction is superb, the acting is top notch, and the story is already a classic. Now granted, there are some pacing issues. And it does feel a little stop and start at times. But I loved it all the same. Just to be back in Middle earth is a treat in and of itself. Then again, I could probably watch Smeagol butt f uck Gandalf with the ring around his pasty white d ick and I'd still finger my anus in the movie theater.

It's worth mentioning that I saw it in standard 3D. I didnt see it in the 48 fps. I had the option but heard it was utter s hit. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who saw it in 48fps.

Overall don't expect LOTR. And if you are expecting LOTR then you're an ignoramus. Its a kid's book. Jackson beefed up the story by adding some side stories from Tolkien's other novels.

Lastly, I'm curious where the story will go from here. There isn't that much content left. And several character arcs already took place. So how they're going to make two more movies out of what's left is beyond me.

I just.......  *sob*... I just haven't seen it yet.

I don't have enough gold coins to get into the theater.

I was hoping I could at least glance a little of the experience from here. I'm impressed, though. I was one of those worriers who thought it may have been over-hyped, and almost pained about its making. I might have to make an effort to set aside the time to just do it, and will, rather than wait for the blue-ray as most of my movie watching has been relegated to. I still have worries, but my curiosity is up, at least.

After much delay due to the holiodays, I finally got to see the film. I chose standard over 3D due to price point and I'm not the biggest supporter of 3D.

Overall, Hobbit was really good. Not great.
The 40FPS or whatever it was bugged the crap out of me. I got distracted by some of it. In the big battle scene in the third act it got annoying. Then there's the Troll King who really took me out of the entire movie with

Quoted Text That'll do it

>:(
>:(
>:(


Okay the younger set might get a laugh out of that, and they might laugh at the dude's flapping chin. Me? I could understand perfectly what the critics were talking about.

Is the film too long? No. I had no problem with the pacing. All the characters are fully developed. And there was a few welcome surprises. I wasn't expecting one actor from the LOTR to show up in reprising his role. But considering how the character was all but absent from Return Of The King, I think this was a nice shout out to the folks.

One thing I liked was that while "technically" this is a prequel, it'ss also something of a sequel. One scene early on is set after the events of the previous films and promised more. Also, the story is told/seen through Bilbo Baggin's perspective, so that goes a long way too )(and won't contradict bits of the prologue from Fellowship)
Gollum rules again!

Musics great, FX top form. Good villains too
But...Jackson took a risk on that high frame rate. I am now not a fan of that process.
There was one scene at the end of the first act where Bilbo and Gandalf were talking in the Shire. In the background, it isn't foggy or misty, but it appears that way, surroung the profiles of the characters, if that makes any sense. I don't know how to describe it. But I thought the lens was dirty or the projectionist screwed up and was showing a 2D audience a 3D reel. It was very distracting.

:(

If it wasn't for those few spots, Hobbit Unexpected would be stellar.
It's not terrible- but it's not up to the same par as Jackson's previous dealings with Middle Earth
.
follow up:
There was another scene which I thought was beneath Jackson & co. but it's there. It's where the main (visible) baddie in charge kills his hired hand when such assistant "fails" and brings bad reports. Do that with human characters in a modern setting? It would be a cliche. Guess what? IT STILL IS.

Finally got around to seeing this today.  I wanted to see it in IMAX 3D and was pretty sure that Hansel and Gretel would take over the vast majority of the IMAX screens tonight.  I'm glad I saw it in IMAX 3D and thought it looked glorious.

I'm very surprised at the few posts here.  Not sure exactly why so few decided to post their thoughts on a movie I bet most of us have seen.

The short review is simple - I enjoyed it very much.  The cinematography was beautiful.  The sets were gorgeous.  The action and FX work were top notch.  The story worked for me totally and I was very happy to be back in Middle Earth again.  In a nutshell, IMO, Peter Jackson nailed it once again, and the fact that it's closing in on $1 Billion WWBO is proof enough for me.

On the downside, I'd say it did feel a little long in the tooth and several scenes could have been shortened.  I thought several of the main band of dwarfs could have used some work on their wigs, as they just didn't look very real at times.  I also was not that impressed with the wolf-things the orcs rode - they just looked too "animated".

I'd say this is easily one of the top movies of 2012, though, anyway I look at it.  It has the goods for for a very wide range of ages, and that's tough to pull off.  I could definitely see numerous attempts to engage a younger crowd with humor and then the more diehard fans with action and even violence.

All the talent on display delivered.  I enjoyed seeing the return of several LOTR characters, and my favorite would probably have to be the great Christopher Lee as Saroman.

One more thing I really liked was how we started off with the dragon attacking the dwarf stronghold, but not really revealing anything about what he looked like, and then ending on a closeup of his giant eye, as he awakened. Very cool, if you ask me.

I wonder what the actual budget was for this first installment, as I am very aware of all the Pre-Production problems, as well as the massive 260+ day shoot.  I saw somewhere it was $180 Million, but I have a feeling that it's actually much higher.  Guess it doesn't matter, as $1 Billion is in sight.

IMO this is required viewing for anyone who considers themselves a movie lover.  And, it's definitely the kind of movie that needs to be seen on the big screen.

I really enjoyed this movie a ton, thought that it was an excellent start to the Hobbit franchise, and Peter Jackson was on top of everything in this movie. Martin Freeman was just outstanding as Bilbo, I think I enjoyed him as Bilbo more than Elijah Wood as Frodo IMHO. They may not be comparable to some, but they are both the protagonists.

No real complaints from me. Saw it in 2D, not 48fps and thought it still looked excellent. Definitely looking forward to the next installment this year!

I have to admit I haven't seen it, but I have read about it and I've spoken with a friend of mine who has seen it, and I can sort of explain where the rest of the movie comes from (or how they managed to get a tiny novel into three LOTR length movies). The Hobbit was the first book Tolkien did in Middle Earth, but since the whole thing was written around his self-made languages, there is a wealth of material other than the Hobbit that happens at the same time or was referenced. If you've ever actually read Lord of the Rings, you'll know that the third book isn't all the plot of Return of the King. Half of my third book is appendices about Middle Earth. The Silmarillion is more history going from long before the Hobbit right through it, between it and LOTR, and on past it. If you ever want to read The Silmarillion, be prepared for an extremely dry read of Biblical proportions.

Jackson's Hobbit series is supposed to incorporate more than just The Hobbit, but all the other stuff that happens simultaneously. For instance, the book starts with Gandalf meeting Bilbo in the Shire, not with the lonely mountain. Tolkien did a lot of telling in the book where Jackson went with a lot of showing, which takes up more time. Saruman, in addition, was not a character in The Hobbit.

Thought I'd throw that out there. I'll watch the movie at some point too, but I figured I'd at least answer where the extra material came from.

This was a major snooze fest for me - saw it a few weeks back. This film just goes to show why a book and film are not the same thing and more importantly why a film maker should never attempt a faithful page by page adaptation of a book.

An hour could easily be trimmed from this.

Add to that the way it was shot - the frame rate for the CGI just made it look terrible in 3D.

Hope the next ones are better, but they'll be a rental for me.

So, I took a gander at a BluRay of this last night.
It's a 24fps print of the film. The format doesn't support 48fps, I'm pretty sure.

The picture looked a bit off even on BluRay.
Practical sets looked hyper real and the visual effects looked... super airbrushy.
Even in 24 fps everything looked a tad artificial in the scenes I checked.

Is this true when folks saw it in 24fps in theaters.
Curious to know if others felt the same way about that presentation.

E.D.

Brett, I saw it in IMAX 3D, but I'm not sure if it was 24 or 48 fps.

The scenes were all so huge with so much going on, I guess if you want to be picky, you could say that "everything" didn't look perfect, but most did.

The wolf things looked the worst to me.

The landscapes and scenery looked great.

Quoted from Dreamscale The landscapes and scenery looked great.

Ah, that's why living in New Zealand is great. Everywhere you go reminds you of a scene from the Lord of The Rings ;D

Quoted from danbotha Ah, that's why living in New Zealand is great. Everywhere you go reminds you of a scene from the Lord of The Rings ;D

Wow...I can't even imagine.  I need to get me to AUS and NZ.

Yeah, great film. Don't understand the hate for it. Would've liked if they fully wrapped up the Orc storyline but besides that, a good watch.

The Hobbit, the book was wonderful.  However, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit was quite boring and way too drawn out.  This movie could have been quite amazing had it been edited down by an hour or so.  Visually it was stunning, I love the sound editing and score, most of the acting was good, but there was just too much stalling.  

I know this isn't The Lord of the Rings, and I didn't expect that.  What I did expect was a movie that properly honored the book and kept my attention, instead of drawing things out so we can all be suckered in to seeing the sequels.