by     Posted 1 year, 121 days ago


Director Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the most successful and beloved franchises of all time, so we knew that his three-film adaptation of The Hobbit would come with a certain level of anticipation.  After years of waiting, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey final hits theaters this weekend, and we’ve already shared two reviews here at Collider: one from Matt Goldberg (right here) and one from Dave Trumbore (right here).  Unsurprisingly, both reviews elicited a rather vocal response from our readers in the comments section.

Given the high profile nature of An Unexpected Journey and its passionate reception from fans, we thought it would be nice to hear from you, dear readers, about what you thought of the film.  Hit the jump to share your thoughts on all things Hobbit and/or 48 frames-per-second.

A quick note on comments, if I may:  please try to keep things civilized.  Derogatory, racist, or homophobic statements do nothing to further the conversation, and those who cross the line will be banned.  At the end of the day we’re all here for one reason: we love movies.  The great thing about film is that two people can come out of the same movie with two wildly different opinions, and I look forward to reading your sure-to-be varied and hopefully insightful thoughts on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.


Please Like Collider on Facebook


FB Comments

  • monk

    Absolutely loved it, Peter Jackson proved once again that he is the only man that can rule Middle-earth. Martin Freeman is perfectly cast amd I think this film sets up a great trilogy. I know that some were sceptical, but please remember that most of us think about the LOTR trilogy as one movie, one journey. So in my opinion we will have to wait till the end and see how the story works out as a whole

  • Dan

    It was amazing. Maybe a little heavy on the CG, but it’s not a problem when it comes to how incredible the story and the performances of Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, and Andy Serkis was.

    • Jack

      Why were the orcs speaking Orcish? And why were they all CGI instead of actors in make-up like we’re used to in LotR? I need an answer!!!!!

      • Matt

        To answer the CGI question, in one of the video blogs I believe Peter Jackson said they chose to use actors in costume BUT with those dots on their faces so they could have more facial animation since the prosthetics used in LOTR limited facial movement. As far as Orcs speaking orcish, I believe they did in the book, but also why would they speak English when they’re in their own company? It would just be like why were the Nazis in Indiana Jones 1 & 3 speaking English, it was probably done so it would be authentic.

  • seth.iamfilms

    On the whole I really enjoyed my return to the lands of Middle Earth, It takes some digesting to accept the new flow of the story with the Appendices material, and some of the childlike dialogue/kid friendly moments, but that being said it was fantastic. Truly great to see so many things that were just mentioned in passing in the book, fleshed out as a they could have been. When the tonal notes finally land in the scale of the LOTR trilogy’s palet, thats when its at its finest.. Ahem. GOLLUM GOLLUM. Martin Freeman did a wonderful job, and I for one am ready to continue the adventure.

  • Twice

    The film had a lot in common with Fellowship, but, when compared to Fellowship, it failed as a movie. Fellowship had an amazing climax and a great plot about the fellowship forming and breaking. Unexpected Journey had a terribly cheap climax. I felt that the end of the movie left me void of emotion. Too CGI for my taste. It was impossible to suspend disbelief during the action scenes. That said, it had a lot of great scenes that filled me with joy and had me very excited. I really enjoyed it over all, and I can’t wait for the next installments that are sure to be improvements. I give it a 7/10.

  • axis

    Really good. I see it last night 00:00 premiere and leave the theater satisfied. There is so wonderfully amazing as ‘LOTR’ but still very good. Taking the footers that Tolkien left in the book the film stretches. Photography is amazing.

  • axis

    *Doesn’t wonderfully amazing as \\\’LOTR\\\’ but still very good.

  • Anon

    A trilogy?? What the F**k Jackson?
    I was a fan of Tolkien for many years and this twat(!) ruined the whole thing with these shit movies – getting worse and worse as time goes on.

    No mention of a Trilogy, until today, well I never heard it was to be a Trilogy until today, I’m fuming after hearing this… once again we see another farce of a commercial agenda.

    Jackson go F**k yourself you greedy b*st*rd!!!

    I’m not assisting you to make a fortune in a world recession, where jobs are rediculously hard to find these days, and you piss millions up the wall on shit productions… your best movies were you budgeted early productions.

    You expect people to go and pay to see this? Anyone can make a good movie with millions to play with, movies are an art, like music and anything else you consider to be… if you do it, you do it for the love of doing the work, not for money!!!!

    Screw copyright laws! Screw artists who campaign againt downloading and screw you Jackson!!!

    • orbital


    • Mofohead

      Agreed….STFU ya crybaby twunt!

      • Anon


        Hey free opinion allowed! Looks like you two muppets directed comments at me there….


      • chris h

        Hey why the F*** isn’t this Anaon blocked you APE how dae you say that to Jackon go F*** your self yopu C***

      • Anon


    • Nerdgasm

      A movie like this takes a lot of planning and a lot of skilled people to work on it. This is not something i would call a cash cow whats so over. a HUGE MISSTEP yes but just because you dissagree with what he wanted to do with it and the amount of material he’s pulling from doesn’t mean it’s not art or that it wasn’t worked hard on. I am sure even with you when giving money would fail at making a movie even half to what The Hobbit came out as. I was let down by it yes…but this seems to be more of a Fluid Trilogy and will make more sense as a WHOLE kinda like Tower to King. where Fellowship definitely had a separate feel and agenda to it. Get off the high horse seriously. is that everyone’s argument these days when they disagree. point fingers and call it a cash cow? I bet your a jaded Star Wars fanboy…These movies aren’t for us they are for the director. that’s what art is. art isn’t for the people its for an artist to share vision….no cares buddy Anon. Anon should be banned for calling people muppets…just saying.

    • Random

      Where have you been? The news of the trilogy has been around for months Flathead. Go back to your rock. Opinions, everyone has got one.

      • chad vaughn

        Yeah its old news, but stop pretending he’s wrong about it being a blatant cash-grab.

      • Nerdgasm

        How is something that was planned from the start a cash grab? why would you do an elaborate movie just for cash? You are pretty ignorant. Just because it was a movie that is high on everyones list and performed poorly doesnt mean it was a cash grab. grow up.

      • Anon

        Really Nerd?

        “How is something that was planned from the start a cash grab? why would you do an elaborate movie just for cash? ”


    • Anthony

      If you dislike the movie so much as you say, so I guess that we won’t read anymore comments from you when the sequels will be released? Good news.

      • anon


  • Anon


    Hey free opinion allowed! Simply an opinion.
    Looks like you two muppets directed comments at me there….


    • Mofohead

      Opinions from most….sure. From twunts…douchebaggery.
      Do you ever think to yourself I’m a huge f**king f**got and chug sperm like it contains the formula for immortality and super strength?

      • Anon

        No actually I dont!!! haha

        But looks like your thinking bout me that way!!!
        You finished beating yourself off to this!!!


      • Nick

        Wow…this guys A D-Bag with nothing constructive to say.

      • Anon

        Explain to me whats constructive here? from anyone?

        You think the production teams gona come on this forum and take these criticisms and re-do the movie? No chance… Constructive! Lol


  • Scuba

    I thought the Hobbit was a really good movie, but not a great one. The pacing is slow in the first halfreallypicks upwell in the second half. I’m not against a movie having a slower pace but considering Fellowship and the tone of this movie, it didn’t match up well. The timing in the dialog dragged on as well. The Bilbo/Gandalf introduction is set up to be great but feels awkward. Which s true for many of Bilbo’s scenes though I feel it is more of an editing issue. For the lighter tone and all the silliness, the movie had only a few really funny parts. But all that I’m picking apart is just me as a movie fan and Tolkien fan coming to terms with my unrealistic expectations and reality. As a Hobbit fan, they definitely did the material justice. The tone was lighter as with the book. The changes they made to the narrative only added more depth, giving more motivation to the characters. The Riddles in the Dark scene was incredible. Bilbo felt like a non-character for much of the middle but really came on strong toward the end. I really liked Balin’s character as well. A lot if depth to him that will really make the moment we learn his fate in Moria mean something. I want more Gloin though. Gimli’s father doesn’t speak much in this one. I agree with some other comments I read that the ending wasn’t completely satisfying but had a great set up for the next part. I’ll sure it a few more times I’m sure. I’ll try taking Dramamine before seeing it at 48 FPS. Just like with the LOTR movies, it’ll take me a few viewings to appreciate the film for what it is and not what I wanted it be.

  • Pocketses

    It was, simply put, the most satisfying movie-going experience I’ve had since I last left Middle-Earth with Return of the King. I split no hairs and make no effort to hide it, I’m a fanboy. I watched each part in the trilogy 10 times a piece in theaters, own now 4 copies of each film on DVD and Bluray, as well as copies of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings novels.

    And yet, I still viewed this film with a bit of trepidation. Inevitably, the negative press surrounding it in some circles left me with some serious fears and doubts about what the return to Middle Earth would be like. Some reviews were easy to laugh off. Too quick to make the easy comparison to not only the original trilogy, but the oft-criticized Star Wars prequel trilogy. When words like “Jar Jar” and “this is the Phantom Menace, and god help us if it doesn’t improve” get thrown around, it’s easy to dismiss. It’s media overreaction and click-bait at it’s worst.

    Personally, this movie was exactly what I was praying for it to be. It had a lighter tone, yet similar scope to the Rings trilogy, while standing on it’s own. It did a great job of tying it’s events to those of the originals in a way that a simple faithful adaptation would not have done. The appendices information including the Necromancer and Radagast the Brown were a welcome bit of suspense and underlying plot that raised the stakes and reminded us of what’s to come.

    Effects wise, I don’t see what people were complaining about. There were some issues with the beginning of the film when they tried to cram 13 dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf all into the same small set, while they were obviously filmed at differing times. A bit of a green-screen recognition set in, but once the adventure took off, the effects were top-notch. The Wargs looked much better than they did in Two Towers, I personally liked the look of the Goblins and their king (could have used without the one-liner) the trolls were great and humorous, and the Riddles in the Dark showed that Gollum looks better than ever, and ranks currently as my favorite moment in all four films.

    I couldn’t be more satisfied and look forward to another viewing. Personally, I can often understand people just not liking a movie, but if you liked the Lord of the Rings, I have no idea what you could have been expecting from The Hobbit that didn’t end up delivering.

  • Jack

    Why were the orcs speaking Orcish? And why were they all CGI instead of actors in make-up like we\’re used to in LotR? I need an answer!!!!!

  • Fan of the movies

    It’s a wonder that Jackson was able to make even one legible film from the piss-poorly written inept garbage that is Tolkien’s writing.

    • anon

      Like your point Fan!

      But Jackson dosen’t make good movies either…
      never did since he had a budhet to work with!

      • Nick

        Dude…your a bigger troll than the one in the movies.

      • Anon

        Ouch!! lol… That all you got!
        I should take that as a compliment; the movie’s balls!!!

        This page is boring me now.


  • Average Joe

    The books – stupid. The movies- very stupid. What else can be said?

    • tarek

      What else can be said?

      Average Joe – stupider

    • dogg

      Who let the Twilight fan in?

  • eh??


    I have no problem with art…. its not about an artist sharing their vision… I can make the exact same argument about expressing my opinion…

    art is an expression of talent. Good talent…

    People don’t know what art is anymore… Well some people. Even some artists.

    I never liked starwars!!! Don\’t assume!!
    Cash cow – of course it is!!!

    Banned? What for? Muppets hardly an offensive word!
    Thanks for your wise and wonderful comments Nerdgasm / Random… brings me off my high horse… as if!

    Oh dare not say anything that everyone else dosen’t agree with – look through these comments and everyone says the exact same things!!! Nonsense..

    You make your comments before you saw the movie random… ???
    I don’t read up on the movies beforehand… no point. And there is no need for this to be a trilogy!!!

    Its destroyed!!!!
    Well done Jackson! Bravo!!!

    Adios Nerds!

    • Nerdgasm

      you make no sense pal. wanna act as if you are preaching to a choir. Everyone agrees? really? most of the comments on this page are exactly the opposite. Did i enjoy the movie? Not whole lot. But it doesn’t mean its a cash cow. I believe the people that were involved were passionate about what they were doing and The Hobbit cannot be denied its cinematography or how amazing it looks on screen. the story and the dialogue and SOME of the effects were lacking yes… but still doesnt make it a cash cow. I like hwo there cant be any missteps when it comes to things you are disappointing in but Nolan gets a free pass for Dark Knight Rises? That movie was disappointing. can call I that cash cow?

      • eh?

        Listen your falling to the realm of using American movies as a point everytime you wanna tell me something…
        I don’t watch American movies – they are S**t.
        All of them!!
        Nothing original come out of there in years.

      • ScaredForMovies

        Last time I checked, New Zealand wasn’t in America smart guy. You don’t watch any American movies. You must be so cultured. Enjoy your cheese and wine douche.

      • eh?

        Read the sequence of comments dumb*ss!!!
        Why do I have to explain everything to you guys!!!

  • chad vaughn

    Yeah its old news, but stop pretending he\’s wrong about it being a blatant cash-grab.

  • Derek

    I thought it was awesome. The 48 fps was an excellent experience and all the effects were top notch. Fully worth the price of admission.

  • Gonzo

    For me the HFR made movements seem sped up and was very jarring in places. Really interested in seeing it in 24fps for comparison.
    As to the film itself… I have no problem with making it into 3 films but do they have to be sooo long? This movie could have been 2 hours long and finished at the same point and been so much better.

  • Jody Buston

    I think it was a fantastic movie, forget the cgi that people keep talking about. Jackson was able to show the great personalities of the characters and the relationships that are formed by them. I think it was an excellent movie and in no way can people compare it to other movies, otherwise you will always find faults or short comings some where. Jackson had a plan as to where he wanted Bilbo and Thorin to arrive at emotionally at the end in the first movie and he most definetely achieved that and i for one can not wait for the next instalement.

  • Afilmguy

    I think it’s strange to ask how the film was considering it’s a “part 1″ film. All judgments and such will be temporary until we really get a full grasp of its role in the trilogy when the next two films are released. An Unexpected Journey can surely be judged solely as a film, but there are intentions behind its structure that rely on the trilogy, so it seems as though we may have to wait for any final points. But, to respond to Collider I will gladly reiterate the experience.
    I read Goldberg’s review of the film and although he is indeed quite pretentious at times, he makes some great points about technology. AUJ was CGI-ridden from head to toe with plenty of wide shots to accompany it. It is very good CGI, well-crafted and designed to a masterful level, but there is just so much of it in one frame after another, also taking in the effects of 3-D and 48fps, that it may be hard to process at times and organize exactly what images I’m looking at. It was in a dangerous point where the film could have become a studio film with bloated CGI and that ‘show-off’ feel. But, it isn’t because it’s backed up by some of the best concept design and artwork provided by Alan Lee and John Howe.
    It does bring in to question the image itself, though, when we have so much post-production, computer touch-ups on the frames that we blur the line between Earthly realism and digital creation but clarifies the depiction of a fiction land. Though, it’s odd because AUJ doesn’t really recreate or re-establish its setting so much as it does revisit it, relying on the fans’ familiarity and already-developed comfort zone. For some, FOTR will have the better setting because there wasn’t as much digitizing and reworking its image.
    In FOTR, we came to connect to and recognize very different characters – the four hobbits, two men, and elf, dwarf, and a wizard. While it was pretty easy visually to make the distinction, there was still something developed about each character that was uniquely different than the other characters; they were identifiable because of those traits. AUJ does have a harder job in doing it with one hobbit, a wizard, and thirteen dwarves, so it is crucial that their personalities are different enough but also iconic to themselves. It does, however, stumble a little. Bilbo and Gandalf are obviously (and expertly) given much attention and performance work. Aside from them, amongst the dwarves, there is Thorin and Balin who are given the most screen-time and development; Dwalin, Kili, and Bofur in second with considerable screentime and distinguishable skills and traits; and the rest were given minimal screen time, little to no dialogue, and some were just used for comedy’s sake. But, like I said, there are still two other films, and that leaves plenty of room for more character time.
    The pacing of the film is a little jumpy but is always packed with action and motion, keeping audiences excited (for the most part) throughout most of its scenes. What was great about Jackson’s LOTR trilogy is that he would provide these breaks between big action scenes where there was hardly any music (or quiet music), a wide shot that was moving slowly, and nothing too squished in the frame. These breaks provided us some time to really appreciate the story a little.
    In all, it was a great experience. It may be overbearing for some but in all it was a lot of fun. It is a children’s story that was given a lot of attention. It can’t be watched the same as FOTR because of that. Still, it was fun for the family and provides enough ambition and anticipation for the next films.

  • Max

    Thought it was incredible. One of the year’s best films for me easy

  • D. McHugh

    LOVED it. The big challenge for Jackson was making a children’s book appealing to adults, too. He succeeded quite well in bringing in more darkness to the story. It’s not as ominous an atmosphere at “We’ve got to keep the world from ending” in LOTR, but he raised the stakes quite well. His other challenge was making this film “new”. All the complainers don’t realize that The Hobbit doesn’t really have anything new to add to the Tolkein lore. LOTR was awe-inspiring because we’d never SEEN Rivendell, Orcs, Elves or any of Tolkein’s world before on screen. So, everything was breathtaking. Now…Middle Earth is a known quantity. You can’t un-ring a bell. What The Hobbit is, is a fantastic adventure a kin to going back to a place you love and seeing old friends you haven’t seen for years. That’s how it works best and wonderfully well.
    All the returning actors are fantastic, as usual. Richard Armitage as Thorin is just a worth a heroic stand-in as Aragorn. I couldn’t take my eyes off him in all of his scenes. Freeman as Bilbo is quite good, too. Radagast is excellent, too. I hope to see more of him.
    The only drawback is that it’s very slow to start and get off with the dwarfs on the journey. The opening scenes with the mythological backstory lore a la, Fellowship is great, but Bilbo’s early scenes with Gandalf and meeting the dwarfs could have been shorter. Even so, that’s a small drawback to an otherwise excellent film. I plan on seeing it again. A-


    E.P.I.C. ,though not as grand as ‘The Fellowship’. Still brought tears in my eyes when I heard the music and saw Gandalf,orcs,goblins,trolls and most important of all GOLLUM , I wish to see more of him (Andy Serkis),and beg Mr Jackson to do the same.

    P.S : weirdly i went with my friend whose name is Jackson

  • The Hobbit

    I loved the Hobbit.
    Easily one of the greatest films of the year – not the smartest, but the most entertaining.
    Yes, it’s not as good as LOTR, but as Empire said, “There is Treasure here!”

    I totally agree. The best will come, I feel, in the Desolation of Smaug.

    P.S. Why the mixed to positive score on Rotten Tomatoes? Do critics know anything?

    Peter Jackson, live long and prosper, and make many movies!
    I salaute you, fellow Kiwi!!

  • Weeks

    Didn’t like the changes to the scene with the three trolls. That was one of the best parts of the book.

  • Chikamatsu’s 10 Puppets

    Here’s the thing, and warning, as spoilers from the book and movie will follow.

    So I saw The Hobbit last night, and I thought it was pretty good. If we’re comparing trilogies, I’d pick this movie over Fellowship any day of the week. A lot of people don’t agree, though. It’s at 65% on rottentomatoes right now. Critics are saying that it was slow and dull and the story barely advanced at all, that everything that happened was just set-up for something coming later on.
    I disagree with this completely. It seems to me that if people are saying the story barely moved forward at all, then they don’t really understand what the story is. Here’s the thing, The Hobbit is called The Hobbit for a reason. It’s not the story of a determined group of dwarves heading for the Lonely Mountain to fight a dragon who just happen to have a hobbit along. If it was it would be called Gandalf Grey and the 13 Dwarves.
    And let’s not forget, for those of us who know the book, that when they finally get to the mountain Smaug flies out and gets killed by Bard (a person who was barely mentioned before that) and the dwarves hang around inside wondering if/when Smaug will come back. If the movies stick to that, then I’m sure a bunch of people will be upset and start crying foul, that the entire point that the films have been building to was suddenly subverted, and they’ll be just as wrong then as they are now. Because the story isn’t about dwarves or dragons or wizards. It’s about Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit. It’s about how much he changes from the first page of the book to the last (and let’s be honest, he’s about the only character in the book who changes at all, unless you could dying as changing).
    When you look at it that way, that the point of the story is Bilbo’s evolution as a person (hobbit, whatever), then it’s amazing how much ground this movie covered, how quickly the story moved. Bilbo is a hobbit that is, to all appearances, extremely comfortable and happy with his life. Then these people come to take him on an adventure. He fights it. He fights it as hard as he can. Then when they’re gone he looks at his life and realizes that all of a sudden, maybe he’s not satisfied any more. He joins them, though still very hesitant, especially when it comes to his position within the company, as the burglar, and we quickly see him thrown into his first real test (the trolls), which he manages to cock up very efficiently, though while lending some definite credit to Gandalf’s claim that hobbits can move stealthily when they want to.
    After this near disaster he gets a taste of the peaceful life in Rivendell and then when the danger starts again, he gives in to his desire to turn back and get his old life back, only to get tossed into a situation where hobbit stealth serves him well enough to escape goblin captivity (though the scene was, I’ll admit, rather ludicrous). Then he gets a taste of personal success in a life-threatening adventure, finds a little self-confidence in the face of the extreme self-doubt he’s been dealing with the entire film, and in the end not only commits to continuing forward (with genuine enthusiasm for the first time), but has grown so bold that he’s the only one of the party brave or crazy enough to run out and tackle the orc that’s about to kill Thorin, saving Thorin and gaining his respect and an equal standing with everyone else in the eyes of the party to end the film.
    That’s the story of this film, a little hobbit from the shire with no experience and no confidence becomes an equal member of the party he joined so hesitantly, not only in the eyes of the rough, tough, world-savvy dwarves, but, more importantly, in his own eyes as well, and it’s quite the well-told story at that. Now, sure, there’s some other crap going on, stuff with the Necromancer (Sauron, duh), but whenever that stuff comes up, it’s actually subtly in service to the main story. Radagast finding what he does and showing up to tell Gandalf about it, allows for him to distract the orcs briefly, which allows Gandalf to trick Thorin into heading to Rivendell against his will, and the conference with the white wizard and the two elf lords about the whole situation is largely Gandalf’s smokescreen to allow the party to get back out of Rivendell unmolested. And really, all of it is in place to explain what will happen next, when Gandalf leaves the party as they arrive at Mirkwood to go and deal with this stuff. If it wasn’t all there, he’d seem like kind of a dick to run out on them at that point, after being the force that’s kept them going until now. And, of course, Gandalf leaving is necessary to allow Bilbo to come into his own as the party’s savior later on.
    Anyway, the point is, the only way I can comprehend so many people complaining that the story wasn’t moving forward is that they don’t understand what story they’re watching. Did they not read the title before coming into the theater?

    • Critical critic

      You make many good points. The more I think about this particulary adaptation the more I´m convinced it will be considered a text book example of how to adapt a novel in the future. A lot of fans said it will be impossible to show any good character development for Bilbo if they end the movie after the warg attack. After I saw it today for the second time I went out with a smile on my face, thinking about how much Bilbo has grown since we first saw him sitting in front of his hobbit hole. That alone was worth to me more than anything else. It was such a natural transition and so beautifully acted by Martin Freeman. He killed a warg, that was by accident, but then he killed an orc hunter to save Thorins life and that was nothing but heroic. Before that he somehow escaped beeing noticed by the goblins and escaped and then survived the encounter with Gollum. The scene at the end was Jackson and his co-writers addition to make Bilbo more heroic and it worked perfectly. The gollum scene was from the book. With TH Jackson has proven again he can adapt material that exists but also add new material and make it work in the context of the film. That to me is a perfect adaptation.

  • Critical critic

    As some have said the biggest triumph of The Hobbit was how Jackson managed to make a book for children interesting for both children and adults. There were moments like Radagast and his bunny sled that children will love and then there were moments like the White Council that was aimed at adults. Brilliant balance between the serious and the comedic. Another thing that I loved was Jacksons restraint and control over the story. I was worried he would give us another King Kong and the first reviews made me think there was going to be too much fat in TH. I´m glad they were all wrong. The hobiton scenes were pure perfection. Not too long and not too short. Same can be said about all other locations. The company spent just enough time before moving on to the next place. I was surprised that the stone giant sequence was so short, which was a good thing that it didn´t drag like some of the action scenes in King Kong. Great work Jackson. Bring on the next part of the Hobbit!

  • Fiz

    I just saw it, and if we’re grading I give it a B.

    There have been complaints about the slow pacing in the first half, but I didn’t mind this so much at the start. Though it’s long, I enjoyed the introduction of the dwarves and setting the stage of the journey in Bag End. It’s what followed that I wasn’t into as much.

    I felt that many of the scenes involving Radagast, the Necromancer, and the orcs could have been truncated or eliminated, though I have a feeling much of that serves a purpose in setting up the third movie (I admittedly don’t remember what material from the appendices will make up that film, so this is conjecture on my part).

    Have to agree that it was overly-reliant on CGI. I felt the monsters (orcs and goblins) appeared more heavily digitized, and as a result looked much worse than in LOTR. The goblin king was better-rendered than most, but as a character he was impossible to take seriously. Comparing the white orc villain to the main Uruk-hai warrior in Fellowship, it’s no contest. The Uruk-hai was much more realistic, and as a result, more intimidating. I think del Toro’s fantasy style was apparent in the design of this character especially, and unfortunately I’m not a fan of that style… so I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it doesn’t affect Smaug’s look (the small peek we got gives me hope).

    Highlights: Bag End (and being back in the world), getting background on the conflict between dwarves and elves, Freeman, Armitage, the entire sequence with Gollum.

    Lowlights: Any trolls, orcs and goblins done in CGI, the “dumbing down” of the troll and goblin king characters for kids, having to wait a year to see the dragon.

    I do want to see it in 48FPS just for the experience of doing so on the big screen, though I don’t believe I’ll like it more than the “cinematic” 24fps we’re used to.

  • D. McHugh

    Just saw it in 48fps and have to say….I liked it BETTER the second time in 48. Yes, it was a bit different, but I was really surprised at how quickly I acclimated to it…only in a few minutes. I loved the clarity and I don’t get what people are referring to as motion sickness. There were only two time when the camera whipped around too fast and things got a bit dizzy, but on the whole: I prefer it. It amazes me that everyone seems to be running to get TV’s with more and more and more definition and clarity…even with Blu-Ray DVD’s, but when it comes to seeing a film in the theater…the still want the muddy image. It makes no sense. The Hobbit will always be known for blazing the 48fps trail and it’s only going to get better and better. Watch what James Cameron takes it. As far the The Hobbit: It’s terrific. It may not be on scale or scope as good as Fellowship of the Ring, but that’s because the story isn’t as dark or serious a la “we’ve got to save the world from ending”. It would put it easily on par with The Two Towers. Terrific start to a new trilogy. A-

  • Adrian Beqiri

    I was surprised how much I enjoyed it, after skimming over all the critic’s reviews. It kept me so engaged that it didn’t feel like almost 3 hours. ‘ t was a fantastic movie.

  • Toby Buckets

    I think a fan will make a fantastic 110 min cut of this film once it’s released on BlueRay. Sequences like the flash-forward to Elijah Wood and Ian Holm were patronizing and not needed.

  • fitzchiv

    just seen the movie, thought it was a good show! feel much the same as i did after i watched the fellowship of the ring way back when, disappointed by some parts, amazed by others! i’m definitely looking forward to the next installment!

  • Anon

    That’s it then looks like everyone agrees it’s the biggest pile of
    Horse Sh*t
    this decade.

    See you next year for the sequel guys!!!!


    My wife and I just saw the movie..Loved every minute of it..Cannot wait for the next one…We love evrything about the story, always have and always will:)

  • Pingback: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY – What Did You Think … | The Hobbit (movie)

Copyright ©2005 - 2014. All Rights Reserved. Built by topLingo

Click Here