Being a sci-fi/fantasy nerd, I try to get to every midnight movie premiere that I can. Usually, I can make it in to work later that day. Not this time.
I went to the midnight showing of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and this is my review. As I mentioned in the excerpt, there will be spoilers ahead, so if you’re going to wait to go until later in the weekend, hit the “back” button on your browser now. It should also be noted that I realize that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was not really intended to be viewed in isolation; it is the first of three theatrical releases which were meant to be one big movie.
[Disclaimer/Confession mode=on]I am not serious movie critic. I don’t understand the technical aspects of movies. Nor do I like going to “serious” movies. While I understand and appreciate a film like Saving Private Ryan or No Country for Old Men, I go to a movie theater to be entertained. I have admittedly low expectations; what I want out of a movie consists of some combination of the following: cars turning into robots, magic/sorcery/the Force, lots of stuff blowing up, cleavage falling out of metal bikinis, orbital battle-stations, dragons burning down cities, and hot women running in slow motion. Sometimes, there is a nice confluence of a well-constructed film and an entertaining movie, but I usually prefer the latter.
I am also not a hardcore Tolkien fan. It’s been many, many years since I’ve read The Hobbit and I don’t think I’ve ever read The Lord of the Rings from cover to cover.1 Still, because I thought Peter Jackson did such a great job of bringing the Lord of the Rings movies to the screen in a way that would not only satisfy the fanboys/girls but also be accessible to the non-Tolkienite public, I have been looking forward to The Hobbit movies2 and how they would come to the screen.
So I’m going to break down The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey here in the good, the bad and the ugly style. I am not going to walk through the movie or recap the plot. I figure anyone going to a blog about an MMO based on Tolkien’s works probably knows how it’s supposed to go and how it ends.[/Disclaimer/Confession Mode]
I went to the non-3-D showing and I was disappointed no one was dressed up in costume.3
The Good
The star of the show is Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. His portrayal as the titular character is perfect. Freeman gives Bilbo the right combination of strength and vulnerability. He plays Bilbo as serious when he needs to be and can add a touch of levity to a scene when called to. I’m not saying he’s going to win Best Actor or anything, but after you see him as Bilbo, you’ll never think anyone could play the part as well as he.
Since Jackson is using the same production company and people who made the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the production values are as high as expected. The Hobbit captures the essential feel of Middle-Earth established by LOTR, which is to say that everything looks and acts consistently. There are also many (maybe too many) panoramic shots of the New Zealand countryside and mountains that reminded me of “The Lighting of the Beacons”, which is one of my favourite sequences from the LOTR movies.
Richard Armitage is also exceptionally good as Thorin, although he’s not as short and stocky as I think of drwarves.4 He spends a lot of time scowling, but has the right mix of rage, obstinance and hidden compassion of a dwarf.
The Bad
Where LOTR had an ensemble cast, with each of the members of the Fellowship of the Ring having their own plot line and character development, the Company of Thorin Oakenshield essentially has three characters: Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf. The other 11 dwarves exist either as brawn, plot exposition or comic relief. You’d think that in three hours, someone besides Balin could talk about something other than food or killing something.
There is a nice mix of live action and CGI, and the blending of the two is well-done. While some sequences are obviously all computer-generated (the fight/chase through Goblin-Town, for example), it doesn’t look cartoony or like it was done on the cheap.
The interaction between Bilbo and Gollum was handled better than I expected, and it’s a tribute to the performance of Andy Serkis and the technical proficiency of WETA that once your suspend your disbelief, you can actually believe that they’re together in the cave sharing riddles.
A Quick Public Service Announcement
Right before the movie started, three boys came in and took the seats directly in front of me. They appeared to be about 17 years-old5, and based on their post-movie conversation during the end credits, they were stereotypical (in the negative way) nerds.
Two words for you and others like you: Soap. Deodorant.
If you ever want girls to talk to you other than when they need something off the top shelf, when they need to lift something heavy or when they are looking for a lab partner, get to know those two things. Learn them. Live them. Love them.
That is all.
The Ugly
This movie is long. There is no other way to put it. In our theater, the lights went down at 11:57 and after the obligatory previews/promotions/subliminal messages to go buy overpriced popcorn, the actual movie started at 12:20. The end credits finished rolling at 3:00 AM on the dot.6
Why The Hobbit needed to be 2 hours, 40 minutes is inexplicable. There is lots of lovely plot exposition about Erebor in the form of wonderful CGI battle scenes between dwarves and Smaug (whom we never see in his entirety), as well as a battle featuring Thorin and Azog, that could have been shorn down to about a quarter of the time. The Fellowship of the Ring, which encompasses the first book of the LOTR trilogy as well as part of The Two Towers (the book) fit nicely into three hours. And now they’re making The Hobbit, which I believe is shorter than the three LOTR books is going to be 3 movies?
There are two prevailing theories on this, both of which ring of truth. The first is that Peter Jackson got tired of being ripped apart on message boards for “You left out Tom Bombadil!!!!!” and such, so he said, “Take this nerds; here’s EVERYTHING from The Hobbit . . . plus some stuff that’s not even in the book!”
Radagast having a sled that’s pulled by rabbits!?!?!?! Really? Other things just feel forced, like Galadriel and Saruman together with Elrond and Gandalf. Or the 10 minute sequence at the beginning that seems to exist only to get Elijah Wood into the movie.
The other theory is that TPTB who financed the film said, “People loved Lord of the Rings, multiple-part movies are all the rage, let’s make two . . . no, three . . . movies out of this Toll-keen guy’s book and rake in the dough!”7
Put those two together and you get a three hour movie out of the first 100 pages of The Hobbit.
I read a joke on one of the movie review posts at CNN which said, “By the time all three Hobbit movies are released, they will be a total of 9 or 10 hours long. Middle school kids will read the book because it will be shorter.”8
Does it hurt the film? Yes and no. The purists will decry that the movie doesn’t follow the book (how many of them do?). But I also heard people leaving the theater excited to come back and see it again. Or wailing that they have to wait a year to see the second movie.
As a movie-goer, I will say that the length of the film makes it drag in parts. A lot of parts, in fact.
In Summary
Look, if you’re reading this, you’ve either already seen it, or you’re going this weekend. I’ll probably be going again on Saturday because Mrs. Vraeden (who is a much bigger fan of Tolkien than I) doesn’t do midnight movies. Personally, I give The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as 7 out of 10,with high marks for the strong performances from Freeman and Armitage, as well as excellent production values, and downgrades for long, lumbering stretches that seem indulgent and make the movie drag.9
Once you’ve seen the movie, please let me know what you thought of it in the comments below.
- The reasons for this are varied and probably best left to be the subject for a later article at a later time. ↩
- Despite how a commenter here at CSTM attempted to portray me. ↩
- I only go in costume to Star Wars events, although I did have on my White Hand LOTRO t-shirt and The One Ring, which I got off eBay. ↩
- Too much D&D for me, probably. ↩
- What were they doing out on a school night? ↩
- By the way, there is no Marvel-style post-credits bonus scene. ↩
- This is what’s called a “money grab” for those of you keeping score at home. ↩
- I have no shame in stealing someone else’s joke. I don’t have a reference citation, but it’s not my joke. ↩
- As a point of reference, for me, a 1 means I will get up in the middle and leave, 5 is a perfectly acceptable movie that I don’t feel is a waste of my time, and a 10 says that I hid out in the theater to catch the next showing, or I’d pay full price to see it again after the ushers throw me out of the Cineplex. ↩
December 14, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Yep it was long but I loved every second of it, was smiling the whole way through. Yep some of the dwarves didn’t get much in the way of lines but they got more than they do in the book. I didn’t mind Radagast and his strange hedgehog related story and bunny sled. I like all the extras that Peter Jackson has added to give more depth to Middle-Earth, and I liked Azog and all the wargs (which are much more warglike than the ones from The Two Towers).
I went all the way to New Zealand from the UK to go to the premier of the Hobbit in Wellinton and so was so excited to finally see the movie and wasn’t in any way dissapointed. Going to see it again in a couple of days.
December 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Thought the movie was great. Standout performances were Andy Serkis, Armitage and Freeman. I was sceptical about Armitage as Thorin, but he played the part perfectly. One downfall was that the 3D version can put huge strain causing headaches, but the pain is worth it.
Looking forward to next year.
December 14, 2012 at 5:21 pm
I’ve also heard that the 48 frames per second (24 FPS is standard) of the 3D version makes it look funny. There are almost no 3D movies out that I think 3D has made better, so I save myself the $3 and just go to the regular “flat” screening.
December 20, 2012 at 12:17 am
The 3D was fantastic. After watching Jackson’s series of production videos, I needed to watch it no other way. The 48 FPS has been built up for the movie but they never mentioned that Jackson also filmed the movie with 3D cameras much akin to the ones Cameron used for Avatar. The Hobbit was made for 3D and IMAX in mind. And if you haven’t seen the production videos (on YouTube), I suggest you do.
The only problem with the 3D is like Suiauthon said and that is it relies on the glasses. I am hoping they come up with a better way of viewing 3D soon. However, in this case, the IMAX experience was worth the price.
December 14, 2012 at 5:55 pm
I broadly agree with Vraeden’s sentiments about the film. Mr Jackson has simply done to The Hobbit what he did with his treatment of TLOTR and “adapted” it for a wider audience.
Fanboys and girls will squee, purists will pucker up, critics will analyse and general viewers will be broadly entertained.
December 14, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Great review, but you (and the movie) missed a few things.
1) In the very beginning of the movie, they call Smaug a “fire-drake from the north”. Smaug is not a drake, he is a dragon. Get it right, Jackson.
2) They completely (unless I am mistaken, and this part comes a bit after the Eagles) left out Beorn. Also, to me, there seems to be no way to get him in considering how much of the book is left.
3) There were no spiders, and no wood elves, and no forests in between the company and the Lonely Mountain. Now, they haven’t been to Dale yet, so it may still come up in the next movie, but it seems like they have a straight shot over what looks like the Fields of Fornost to get to the mountain.
December 14, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I think all you mention in points 2 and 3 are going to show up in the second movie. The company was left on top of the rock formation (“Hey, Eagles! Couldn’t you drop us off a little closer?”) in sight of the Lonely Mountain, not on top of it, so they still have a ways to go.
Also, according to The Hobbit’s Wikipedia page, Mikael Persbrandt has been cast as Beorn, so he’ll be in the next six hours of Hobbit movie.
December 15, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Regarding 1) It’s actually Bilbo who calls Smaug a ‘fire-drake from the north’. Moments earlier, Thorin calls Smaug a “Dragon”.
December 16, 2012 at 9:49 am
A little look at a Hobbit map of Middle Earth with a timeline might help you out here. Fields of Fornost are quite a ways west of the journey to the Lonely Mountain. Dragon, Drake, potato, po-tah-to…
December 16, 2012 at 8:27 pm
In regards to Beorn, he does enter the story after the Eagles. The rock you saw them drop Thorin and company on was The Carrock. ( Kinda like Beorn’s rock hangout spot). Not really sure why your having a hard time getting where they would fit Beorn into the story seeing as it seems very likely he will be one of the first things we will see in part 2.
December 14, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Martin Freeman was amazing. Every scene that focused on him was a gem. Richard Armitage was excellent as well.
I hated the idiot they reduced Radagast to, the bunny sled was too much for me, and the battle scenes could have been half as long, but in general I enjoyed it. I didn’t leave the theater with that awed excitement of the first trilogy, but I would see it again, if only to admire Elrond’s armor and Thorin’s cool cape.
Be warned, Cumberbatch fans. Not even a growl of voice acting from the Necromancer/Smaug. Well ok, one growl, but who knows who did that one.
December 14, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I consider myself a purist (I did pucker…a lot…over many of the things Jackson & Co. did to LOTR), but I enjoyed the Hobbit and had very few complaints.
Yeah, they took liberties with the plot, but they mostly worked for me. My biggest complaint with LOTR was how they messed up the characters (movie Aragorn is a chump, period), but the characters who matter in the Hobbit, I thought were dealt with pretty faithfully and respectfully. And the rest were “wrong” only mildly so that I could just ignore them if I didn’t like them.
You’re totally right, though, that 3 hours for the first installment is a bit much. I still can’t fathom what he thinks is going to go in the other two.
December 20, 2012 at 12:28 am
In Jackson’s video production diaries he mentioned bringing in more external story. The Hobbit is written by Bilbo and he often mentions Gandalf disappearing for extended periods of time. Jackson, wanted to show you what Gandalf was doing during that time so he took from the Similarion and some other Tolkien works to tell the story of Gandalf and the White Council (the scene with Galadriel, Saruman, Elrond, and Gandalf) and how they fought the Necromancer while Bilbo and party were reclaiming Erebor. Fans will get to see Gandalf and his story about defeating the necromancer and most likely (hinted in the movie) how the Necromancer was working with Sauron to bring back the Wraith Lords in preparation for Sauron’s return.
I never read the Similarion, but this is what I took from the movie and Jackson’ production vids.
December 21, 2012 at 1:46 am
The Necromancer and Sauron are one and the same.
December 23, 2012 at 1:22 am
So…Benedict Cumberbatch is really SAURON!
December 23, 2012 at 2:21 am
Does that mean Sauron is really Khan/Gary Mitchell/Other unnamed villain from the new Star Trek movie?
December 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm
I was lucky enough to get into a screening of this last week. I didn’t feel the movie itself was too long, but what sort of jarred me the most was the re-writing of Dwarven history. Call me a female nerd,(I do use soap and deoderant) but if you’ve read the books you know what really happened.
As for Radagast, he was so amusing I acutally laughed, and I didn’t mind the bunny-sled at all. I’m not sure, however, about the Nazgul appearing out of the statue with a morgul blade. How does that happen?
The opening history of Erebor was done very well. All technical aspects of filming, costume and sets were superb.
Loved the eagles.
December 14, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Upfront, I really enjoyed the movie from an entertainment perspective. I like the way P.J. put the story in the context of the LOTR, and the greater context of M.E. history. However, he did ‘rewrite’ some of it, but I chalk that up to necessary accommodations for film.
I HATED the stone giant scene in the Misty Mountains. It was just too much and could have been done so much better. It came across as a gratuitous CG action/suspense scene.
I wish Radagast wasn’t portrayed quite so much as a bumbler. Yes, there was some comedic relief, but it was overboard. That said, I think how he and his story fit into the film was acceptably done (although it was not even close the true history surrounding those events).
I would agree with others that the battle scenes were always about 2x longer than they needed to be. Especially the escape from Goblin Town.
I really liked the scene where Biblo steps up to defend Thorin. Again, this was not per the book. But I think it was a creative and powerful way to show Biblo’s development, and in that way, fits well with how his character developed in the book. Much of what the book is about is how this thoroughly Bagginish hobbit changes, and sees himself in a new, more Tookish way. I think this scene depicts that journey very well.
December 14, 2012 at 9:31 pm
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, originally I was taken a bit of by some of the differences between the book and the movie, but once you get to Radagast, IMHO, the movie explodes with fun, sure a rabbit sled might be a bit much, but I honestly wouldn’t have put it past Radagast. Had he been like either Gandalf or Sarumon, like our lotro Radagast, then it would have been dull, but the escentricity of the roll is what I enjoyed.
December 15, 2012 at 12:53 am
Sadly I have to wait to see it on Blue ray as when I went to try and see the movie all the theaters in town had a technical difficulty where the digital key that was to come with the movie had not be sent so we couldn’t watch. Thankfully got our money back for the tickets, but sad that I have to wait… oh well (and yes I didn’t read the post I just jumped down to the leave a reply part to leave my tale.)
December 15, 2012 at 11:12 am
What a great movie! I have to go see it again!
December 15, 2012 at 11:29 am
Saw the film last night and I agree with several of youf points. I thought the battles (particularly the escape from Goblintown and the battle with Azog) were too long. And the Goblintown chase was geared specifically for the 3D audience, of which I am not one. Hate the whole 3D thing. Most of the action was the old throwing things at the screen. Very tedious when not watching in 3D.
I loved the background with Erebor and the destruction of Dale. I was so glad that was included. I thought Bibo, Gollum and Thorin were portrayed well and I always love Gandalf and Elrond.
I wish PJ had stuck with actors in costume for goblins to interact with the dwarves. I felt it lost something having everything CGs and I really was disappointed with the Goblin King. I felt he was too overdone and too comedic.
Overall the film felt like it couldn’t decide on its audience. At points it stuck to its roots being a lighter hearted affair from the Hobbit, which is great for kids, then would turn quickly to battle scenes appropriate for adults.
We had small children in the audience who had had the book read to them and they were excited to see the film. Several of them ended up in tears and having to leave the theater.
Overall, it was a fun film but it did not grab me like FotR. I do not have that excited energy making me want to run out and see it again. I will go again as my mom wants to see it and she doesn’t go to the movies alone but I do not think the Hobbit will rake up the number of views the LotR trilogy did for me.
December 15, 2012 at 12:40 pm
First off, if you read anything prior to the movies coming out you would have read that the movie did not follow the book exactly. PJ took alot of information from the appendicies and added it to the movie. He also made it to be a more action adventure story. Let’s face it, the dwarves in the book version were kinda whimpy. Who would want to see that in a movie?!?
For those that took small children to this movie, you should have realize that a PG13 rating would be too much for little children. The ratings are put there for a reason.
Lastly, If you are a purist you probably dont want to see this movie.
December 15, 2012 at 7:52 pm
I liked the way Radagast was portrayed in the movie better than the way he is portrayed in the game. But the bird poop is a bit much.
December 15, 2012 at 8:11 pm
After re-reading The Hobbit..I have to say that I completely am appalled at what PJ did with this movie. It doesn’t follow the book at all. Thorin’s anger with the elves isn’t in the book neither is the the stone rock giants scene. They aren’t chased by Wargs into the mountain pass to reach Rivendell in the book. Bilbo in the book accepts the mission and is happy about it, he doesn’t reject the offer. Thorin’s anger with Bilbo isn’t in the book neither is Azog’s presence. Also Azog’s battle with Thorin on the tree isn’t in the book and Bilbo’s rescue isn’t in the book. Radagast the brown isn’t in the book neither is Dol Goldur or the Necromancer. This has to be one of the most horrible adaptations I’ve ever seen. I LOVED LOTR but The Hobbit WOW..and I actually liked the movie after I saw it but then going back to the book I was seriously shocked and appalled. Seriously go back and read the first 7 chapters you’ll be amazed at what the added just to make it more “action” esque. Complete garbage and trash. Screw this trilogy! a F PT
December 17, 2012 at 1:34 am
The reason you have scenes like wargs chasing the dwarves into the mountian pass to reach Rivendell in this movie is because PJ is incapable at creating true drama or tension so he has to rely on the cheap and overly played parlor trick known as melodrama. His characterization is equally weak as he employs broad stereotypes instead of taking the time to delve into the actual meaning and motivations of his characters. You see it in all his films. People proclaim him as a visionary director but, to me, his works are the worst kind of popcorn shlock which I can tolerate if it entertains me. Sadly, he does not…and I’ve given the man many chances over the long years. Before you write off my comments as those of an unbending Tolkein purist, please understand that I don’t hold Tolkein’s works as being written in stone, unchangeable and immutable. However, if you’re going to create a series of films based off the popular works of an artist you owe it to said artist and your audience to be as faithful as possible to what they have labored so hard to bring into being. Certainly, not everything in a book can translate to the screen but for pity’s sake if you’re going to change the text, characters and events at least have it make sense and employ a talented writer to make it happen. Otherwise it’s obvious and rather glaring when you veer of course from the author’s written work.
December 17, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Some of the things you mention are things that are happening during the events of the hobbit but “off screen” as in, Gandalf will come and tell the group about them after they happen (example, he chats with Radagast about the necromancer and then tells the group about it after but you never actually read the convo taking place with him and Radagast). The stone giants are definitely in the hobbit (LotR wiki says ch. 4), although that was not how i envisioned them I thought it was an interesting take on the idea of stone giants. And I remember the dwarves being annoying with Bilbo and not pleased with his performance as a “burglar” but not necessarily mad at him for coming with them.
Disclaimer though, this is my recollection, I haven’t read the Hobbit again since about a year ago.
December 20, 2012 at 12:44 am
The Stone Giants actually is referred to in a single sentence when Bilbo (who is writing the book) is talking about their journey along the mountain path. Remember, the Hobbit is actually “There and Back Again” written by Bilbo Baggins, not written by Tokien. When you go back and re-read it, if you do, then go with the mentality that it is Bilbo writing this tale, because it is, 60 years later right before FotR takes place (hence the beginning scene in the film). So, as a reader, you must try to find out which parts are truth and which are embellished, as a hobbit may do when recalling story.
Jackson decided to include the Stone Giants in the movie for cinematic reasons and so made Bilbo’s possible embellishment into a reality, hence the Dwarf yelling, “The legends are REAL!”
As for the necromancer, he is mentioned in the book a couple of times. Jackson decided to expand the story of Gandalf and the White Council fighting the necromancer and place it into this trilogy. The Necromancer and what happened is referenced in other Tolkien works. So, I don’t see how PJ veered from anything other than to include MORE work and expand the time period.
The dwarves in the book were pretty useless. They did make them much more badass and I liked that because I was disappointed in how ineffective they were in the book.
If you guys take the time to watch the Production videos you will see why they made the choices they did. Besides, a majority of people find the books to be completely boring, and who wants to go watch a boring movie where the dwarves are easily captured in bags by the trolls, where Thorin barely does anything useful at all, and Bilbo takes all the credit?
December 16, 2012 at 9:44 am
I’ll never get the “too long” criticisms of movies. Reminds me of the uninformed jokes and criticisms of the “too many endings” in RotK. I mean what? You expected this massive epic trilogy to end with all these lose ends unresolved and given closure? You got somewhere to be in a hurry or what? If it’s a crappy movie, yes, but the more time in Middle Earth the merrier as far as I’m concerned. No “purist” here, that smacks of a little too much elitism and self importance for me. If I want the book version, I have the book. I’ll accept the movies for what they are. eeh movies didn’t change the books as far as I know.
December 16, 2012 at 12:40 pm
I have no problems with long movies, with the caveat that what happens in the movie advances either the plot or the characters. The Fellowship of the Ring, for instance, ran 178 minutes in its theatrical release, which is about 10 minutes longer than the official running time of The Hobbit (and that included the 15 or so minutes of Galadriel recapping the Rings of Power, Isildur and how Bilbo came to possess the One Ring). However, I never felt like a lot of what went on in FOTR was indulgence on the part of the filmmaker, and I did feel that way about The Hobbit.
As an example, having Elijah Wood and Ian Holm in the beginning was nice, but it didn’t appreciably do anything for the movie other than extend it by 10 minutes.
I also didn’t mind the creative licence that Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro took with the plot and elements that were not in the book. It just seemed like the movie dragged in parts unnecessarily.
Also, I kind of liked the gazillion “endings” in Return of the King. There were, after all, a lot of loose ends to wrap up. In fact, I would have like to have seen one more ending where Legolas and Gimli sail across the sea to the Undying Lands.
December 20, 2012 at 1:06 am
The opening scene was made to:
1) make a connection between The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy. Frodo is running off to sit under the tree where Gandalf finds him in FotR.
2) and two, to show the movie audience that Bilbo is writing the Hobbit. We are following and watching along as he pens his book. However, when confronted on whether to do a trilogy or a two movie adaptation, PJ decided to add in extra content from other Tolkien works and appendices.
December 16, 2012 at 11:04 am
I absolutely loved it, I watched it in 3D and although it took a while to get used to the fact there was a Higher frame Rate as I (and i’m sure many others) have never viewed a HFR movie before, definitely one to watch again!
December 16, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I agree that this movie was very long. Normally I wouldn’t sit through a movie of this length (*cough* Avatar *cough*), but it was a Tolkien-legendarium-based movie, and that made all the difference.
I delight in appendices and extra information. I also absolutely love it when a villain makes me want to jump out of my seat, pull out an imaginary sword and slash the movie screen right where said villain’s head is being projected.
I am happy when unnecessary, nerd-only information is added, especially IN MOVIES where the general public is the audience of focus.
I love well-composed, epic music.
Azog made me want to kill him. Radagast saying “Rhosgobel rabbits” instead of “my rabbits” made me scream with joy inside. And I love Martin Freeman’s solemn/deadpan-humour acting, as well as how awesomely Richard Armitage portrayed Thorin’s b****iness.
December 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Oh, yes, to the people complaining about unnecessary parts …
If there weren’t unnecessary parts, and the entire book was cut down to a two-and-a-half hour movie, you’d probably be complaining about how the movie was boring, had no antagonist, no backstory, no explanation to the almost non-existent backstory, how Legolas (OMGORLANDOBL00M) wasn’t in it, how Frodo wasn’t in it, how almost all the characters in it were male (actually, I think all of them except for mentions of Belladonna Took), etc., etc.
December 16, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Don’t presume to tell me what I may or may not complain about based on pure conjecture.
My opinions are based on what was presented, not “what might have been.”
Like a lot of properties with a following which can border on fanatic (Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly/Serenity, etc.), there should probably be two reviews: one for the fanboys/girls and one for the general viewing public.
My review falls into the latter category.
December 16, 2012 at 2:32 pm
I just got back from seeing the movie. I enjoyed it and didn’t think it was too long at all. It’s a movie for the Tolkien fans. Having said that the only thing that was a little crazy was Radagast riding around on a sleigh pulled by rabbits. The bird crap on his head was nasty as well. lol. Other than that minor complaint, I can’t wait to see the rest
December 16, 2012 at 8:42 pm
I was shocked and surprised that Part 1 was 3 hours long. Oh wait, no I was not. Then again I’m not surprised to see the sun come up in the morning either. Or snow feeling cold. Or fire being hot. Thats just me though. Kinda know what I’m getting and don’t pretend and criticize what never was gonna be.
December 17, 2012 at 3:48 am
I saw it in 3D IMAX HFR. A mouthful but boy was it nice, although it took me a while to get used to it. Every little detail is visible so it looks weird. But around the time Bilbo leaves in a hurry to join the company it became less noticeable. I agree that the film is a little too long, especiallly with no breaks in between. This is one I definitely am going to buy in it’s even more extended edition, so I can watch with a full fridge, a toilet, an ashtray and a PAUSEBUTTON nearby
Am going to see it again though, there’s only so many uber-equipped theaters in the Netherlands. First time was for the sheer buzz and excitement, second time will be in 2D, to fully appreciate the work that has gone into this film.
December 17, 2012 at 1:26 pm
I had explicitly chosen 2D digital tickets when I preordered them. Upon getting in line for the movie we discover we’re seeing a 3D IMAX instead.
Outside of the theater screwing something up and my unwillingness to wait to see it in the preferred 2D, we had a great time.
Enjoyed the movie a lot. Will see it at least once more in the theaters…
The thing that bothers me the most about it is the lack of character of most of the Dwarves. Outside of Thorin, Balin and Bombur, I have a really hard time remembering which is which. They just weren’t built enough, and mostly very silent. If the movie didn’t have the source material that it does, I’d be questioning their (Bifur, Bofur, Fili, Kili, Oin, Gloin, etc., etc.) existence in the story line.
December 17, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Absolutely hated it. Oh, how I hated it.
1. Martin Freeman was stiff, unemotional, and pranced around like a sissy.
2. The who Azog the Goblin storyline was stupid.
3. Too much CGI. It was not nearly as beautifully and realistically rendered as the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
4. Orcs with facial hair? Stupid looking.
5. The trolls. I hated the liberties taken with that scene. Tolkien’s version was better.
6. The goblins. Again, too many liberties taken with the sequence of events. Too much written in, and too much left out. Why do screenwriters think they tell better stories than the original authors. And the bit with the rescue??? Seems of Gandalf had to resort to the moth trick again, rather than allowing the great birds a bit of screen time. I was particularly upset this was left out–Gwaihir the Wind-Lord is one of the characters I was most excited to see on screen.
But I loved Guillermo Del Toro as the goblin king. I’m glad he got so much screen time. And he was perfectly cast, too, and didn’t need much make-up. (Although I think he lost a little weight for the role!)
7. It seems the only thing that Gandalf’s staff is good for is breaking stone.
8. Riddles in the dark. Pff.
9. Ian McKellen’s lines were rushed and he seemed out of breath quite a bit.
Galadriel wasn’t nearly as ethereally beautiful as she was in the other films. She wasn’t glowing. Christopher Lee seemed bored. Elrond seemed bored and/or pissed off.
10. Radagast. Face covered with bird shit and a sledge/bobsled thing pulled by rabbits. So not Tolkien. That reeks of Del Toro’s influence. I know he was only credited as a screenwriter, but i can see his hack writing a mile off in a movie. And a comically nitwitted wizard and goofy dwarves are just his kind of gag.
11. In JRR TOlkien’s book, which this moved was reportedly based on, the Dwarves of Thorin’s company wee welcomed by the elves and were quite glad to be in Rivendell. There was absolutely not any ill-will between Thorin and those who dwelt in Imladris.
I could go on for ages and ages, but I’ll stop. I am actually very upset, I feel slightly betrayed by Jackson, betrayed by all of those collaborators, none of whom had the balls to stand up and put a stop to the disgusting wreck he was making of that lovely book.
I will not be seeing the sequels. I have sent the soundtrack back to Amazon, unopened for a refund.
And I am done with Peter Jackson’s films.
December 17, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Not sure if epic Troll, or epic Fail…..
December 18, 2012 at 3:49 pm
I am a book-fan of Tolkien, who found his LotR adaptation disappointing. I also spent the last third of Return of the King trying not to fall asleep. So, that said by way of disclaimer, I enjoyed TH: AUJ a great deal.
Radagast was a little kookier than I might have written him, but his compassion for the creatures of the wood played as genuine and moving to me. And I don’t mind the rabbit-drawn sleigh – that could have been cribbed directly from north European folklore. The Norse goddess Freja had a chariot drawn by cats.
As a fan-of-the-books, I did note each break with chronology and lore, but found all of these acceptable as necessary for exposition and condensing the story. I was happy to handwave all of that with a “it’s a movie” in a way I found impossible to excuse in PJ’s butchering of the end of LotR, which missed the entire point of the story. These changes were at least thematically on point.
I want to expressly defend Saruman and Galadriel’s appearance here, as in fact it is established that the White Council was meeting at the time of Thorin’s venture to debate the matter of the Necromancer in Mirkwood. They may not have been at Rivendell when Bilbo was, but they certainly did meet some time around then, and discussed the kinds of things they discuss. It’s only alluded to in the books. Actually seeing it play out is the kind of thing I am happy to see the films expanded to include.
And finally, one feat of movie magic that I would not believe could be done on film had I not seen it with my own eyes – PJ gives us a dwarf who’s HAWT. In fact, I will risk the flames of the lonelyhearted elf-lovers by saying that, for me, Kili is 100% sexier than Legolas because of that beard stubble. Androgyny is kinda pretty, I guess, but for hawt give me someone who is unmistakably male.
Yeah, I went there.
Signing off.
December 19, 2012 at 5:51 pm
Well, Tinnabin, I will admit that I would absolutely agree with you on the dwarf hotness, but we won’t be fighting over the little dwarf boy Kili. I am going to breach a cask of Green Dragon ale, turn down the lamps, and invite Thorin in for a nightcap.
But dwarf hunks aside, the movie sucked.