• 71 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7184 posts) -

I watched it yesterday and thought ot was grear, how about you? What did you/didn't you like about the movie? I'm interested to hear your thoughts!

#2 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7184 posts) -

It was great* Stupid ipad. -_-

#3 Posted by YoThatLimp (1938 posts) -

Saw it last night actually in 48 FPS 3D...man, it was awesome. My favorite LOTR movie. My wife who dislikes LOTRs actually loved it as well, which was unusual. Once they left The Shire I was completely used to the HFR 3D, I think it can totally work for 3D movies with a lot of action.

#4 Edited by tds418 (191 posts) -

I was very skeptical going in because I don't think there's any reason it needs to be 3 movies long, but I came away pleasantly surprised. I didn't even notice the faster framerate (saw it in 2D maybe that's why) and thought the pacing was decent. I loved the added scene with Gandolf/Elrond/Galadriel/Sarumon and the climax with Bilbo and Gollum was A+.

edit: it did drag in a few places. Could have been a half hour shorter without much lost.

#5 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2132 posts) -

Loved the movie. Weirdly enough I didn't think it dragged at all unlike some others and a couple bomb crew members stating as such and enjoyed the pacing. Then again I didn't read any of the books and am watching this movie with no knowledge of The Hobbit's story at all other than 'oh yea there's a dragon in this'. Watched it in 3D and in 48fps and was weirded out by it for some minutes even though I play plenty of PC games at 60fps constantly. Got used to it eventually.

#6 Posted by Zippedbinders (1033 posts) -

I've never really cared for Tolkien and the LOTR series in general, its long winded and self important to a fault. Tolkien himself is the progenitor of all modern fantasy, making many of the locales, species, and tropes he uses just feel generic and archaic.

However, I saw The Hobbit on a whim and a gift card (and there were no other movies around the holiday I felt like attending) so my girlfriend, my sister, and me all went to see it and had a surprisingly great time. The biggest part is that its an adventure and is clearly more light hearted and exciting than the events of the Ring trilogy. I also happen to love Martin Freeman in just about everything, so that was a fantastic plus. That riddle scene is everything its cracked up to be.

#7 Edited by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

Ot was totally grear! I liked the part where they made a ~300 page book into six hours of film!

@Zippedbinders said:

I also happen to love Martin Freeman in just about everything, so that was a fantastic plus. That riddle scene is everything its cracked up to be.

Martin Freeman was grear too.

#8 Posted by JadeDog (14 posts) -

"Watched it in 3D and in 48fps and was weirded out by it for some minutes even though I play plenty of PC games at 60fps constantly." Those two mediums aren't comparable. When you speed up a video game it doesn't make it more lifelike.

#9 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5154 posts) -

Yes, it's similar to the Lord of the Rings movies if you liked those you will also enjoy this movie.

#10 Posted by bibamatt (1090 posts) -

@tds418 said:

I didn't even notice the faster framerate (saw it in 2D maybe that's why)

Yup. the 2D version isn't shown at 48fps. It's your standard 24fps, so you definitely wouldn't have noticed it!

#11 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

It's a very fun movie. Definitely less epic and more light hearted than the LoTR movies, so take that as you will, but enjoyable all around.

I do think a few of the scenes could have been shortened, but I don't feel the need to complain about the extra story elements they added in from the other books. There's easily enough going on for them to justify turning it into 3 movies.

#12 Posted by ShiftyMagician (2132 posts) -

@JadeDog said:

"Watched it in 3D and in 48fps and was weirded out by it for some minutes even though I play plenty of PC games at 60fps constantly." Those two mediums aren't comparable. When you speed up a video game it doesn't make it more lifelike.

I just said that very loosely without sparing much thought as I prioritized on answering the OP's question with a straight up 'yes'. I know it's not really comparable hence my need to get used to the framerate increase in the movie format. Text fails me in expressing my actual feelings and the tone of it when I said (well really typed) that so apologies.

#13 Posted by Ares42 (2794 posts) -

From what I've heard this might be an unpopular opinion, but I found Martin Freeman to be a terrible casting choice. He has a few good moments, but too many scenes he comes of as a "classical actor" and not as a hobbit at all. I found the puzzle-scene to be one of the most annoying scenes in the movie. It just completely lacks any form of emotion you would expect from a hobbit, like terror from being a small creature all alone in a big dark cavern, panic from being confronted by this clearly evil and mad creature or playfulness and excitement from taking part and doing well at the game. He's just way too confident and in control of the entire situation. Seeing his take on a hobbit just made me appreciate what a spectacular job the 4 guys in LOTR did at portraying a hobbit way way more.

Other than that it was disappoining at first to discover that they basically made "Middle-Earth, The Movie" instead of The Hobbit (as it completely ruins the story-telling of the actual tale), but I came around appreciating it for what it is. I'm gonna hold off on my final judgement until I've seen the whole package though, as it really can't stand on it's own legs. I can't wait to check out the upcoming movies though, as they haven't even begun to touch the best stuff of the story.

#14 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

I loved it. Saw it in 48fps 3D.

A problem I have with 24fps is I simply cannot tell what the fuck is happening half the time. 48fps alleviated that issue for me.

I also loved the movie itself, whereas I find LOTR boring as fuck, I loved the hobbit book and the movie to no end.

I think it's my creepy dwarf fetish.

#15 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -

Loved it, Martin Freeman was great as Bilbo. Love him in Sherlock, too. 48 FPS 3D was amazing. Saw in in 24fps 2D as well, definitely enjoyed the 48/3D way more. This is the first time 3D has been amazing for me. (Though, it was pretty funny in Jackass 3D...)

#16 Posted by NiKva (128 posts) -

I haven't watched it yet.

#17 Posted by BaneFireLord (2956 posts) -

The Gollum scene was one of the best bits in the entire LOTR franchise. On the other hand, it dragged on about an hour too long and Radagast was super dumb.

#18 Posted by MikkaQ (10344 posts) -

I thought it was really long and really boring. Half the movie was just a flashback to some past event, the plot doesn't go anywhere, they make no real progress on their journey as far as the plot is concerned, and everything that happens feels like a non-sequitur. I was able to leave when a flashback started, take a piss, get a drink refill and sit back down just as it ended, my friends literally had nothing for me when I asked what I had missed.

The movie is the cinematic equivalent of the "and then" joke from Dude Where's My Car. Nothing that happens has anything to do with them going to fight a dragon or get their gold back. It's just one event after another, each having nothing to do with each other. Like how they marveled at the legends of the giant godzilla rock monsters to be true and how amazing it is and five minutes later it's like that never happened.

Also I hate being that guy but there is just too much CG in that movie, you really get the feeling that the whole movie was just shot as people running around a green screen. CG needs to be used more subtly, to enhance reality not supplement it. I feel like if they had gone ALL CG and really committed to it then I wouldn't have been bothered. But when seeing a human face that isn't CG and doesn't have all the emotional subtlety removed with prosthetic makeup, is such a rare event in the movie that it feels out of place, then you have a problem.

Basically I didn't think they could make the LOTR movie formula any worse and they totally did.

#19 Edited by DonutFever (3536 posts) -

Haven't seen the LOTR movies since I was like 10, and haven't really felt the need to rewatch them, besides wanting to see what my friends like about them so much. I'm not really the biggest fantasy fan either, so I was pretty surprised when I enjoyed the Hobbit as much as I did. I really enjoyed the flashbacks, especially when Smaug was attacking the city. Very excited to see the next two now.

Online
#20 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11378 posts) -

I really liked it.

#21 Posted by medacris (674 posts) -

Nice to see Kili rounding up Year of The Bow in the film. I know it wasn't in the book, but I like how every Dwarf had their own unique appearance and weapon in the film. I always like when games, movies, etc. do that.

The pacing actually was pretty good, film looked great (I didn't mind that it looked surreal, it's a fantasy film, after all), and the acting was amazing, especially by Martin Freeman, who I liked quite a bit in Sherlock.

#22 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

It was alright, pretty long.

#23 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (3011 posts) -

I liked it. Some of the story choices they cherry-picked from the literature were odd and pacing was off/slow, but it was great fan service and enjoyable. You can't over think it. Was it the best conceived, paced and told story...hell no. Yet it was interesting and enjoyable to watch.

#24 Posted by huser (1103 posts) -

@NekuSakuraba said:

I watched it yesterday and thought ot was grear, how about you? What did you/didn't you like about the movie? I'm interested to hear your thoughts!

Thought it was alright. I think it suffers from Lucasitis where tech was used to punch up scenes but took it too far. Boromir went down fighting taking on just a couple Uruk-Hai at a time yet that was one of the most dramatic fights in 10 hours of film. Only at his death without any extra attention (in fact easily overlooked) is it apparent how many bodies are around him and how badass he was beyond simply getting back up after getting shot full of arrows. Here we have a blur of dwarves we barely get to know (somehow in a 3 hour movie half the dwarves still don't have any notable personality, yes I know the book is even worse) fighting a CGI blur of enemies and I never feel engaged by the grand melee's that break out.

#25 Posted by huser (1103 posts) -

@BaneFireLord said:

The Gollum scene was one of the best bits in the entire LOTR franchise. On the other hand, it dragged on about an hour too long and Radagast was super dumb.

I'd have to agree. You have roughly 9 hours of movies (as I don't know if these will get the extended cut treatment). Why radically change things around from the stories just to include such a trivial character (that really looked terrible on his rabbit sled).

#26 Posted by OllyOxenFree (4985 posts) -

I watched it in 2D 24FPS which I kinda regret. In action scenes, it would be a bit of a blurry mess and hard to follow. Other than that, I did enjoy the film and am excited for the other 2 films.

#27 Edited by Everyones_A_Critic (6309 posts) -

The three movie format irritates me, because even though...

We see the dragon wake up at the end, we definitely won't see a battle until the third film.

...I could definitely see it working as two films, but I think part 2 is going to end up being a lot of filler. All that being said, I did enjoy it and was surprised at how little it dragged.

#28 Posted by YOU_DIED (703 posts) -

I thought it was good, if not a bit too light hearted. The white orc subplot came out of nowhere, as did Radigast. They obviously had to pull in a lot of different elements from the Tolkien fantasy in order to make it worth its running time.

My only complaint is that it feels too much like an Indiana Jones movie. It's carefree to the point where there is almost no tension, and you lose interest in what's going on. Bilbo played a much smaller role in the film than he did in the book, and this is to the film's detriment, as it doesn't have a clear focus on a main character. The protagonist and antagonist of the book are both Bilbo himself, fighting against the indifference of Middle Earth and his own fears. Sadly, the internal dialogue of the book wouldn't translate well to the screen, as is always the case with these novel to film adaptations.

#29 Edited by kerse (2118 posts) -

Loved it, they even have a few of the songs and they weren't terrible.

#30 Posted by Cartek (12 posts) -

I came in not expecting much, but for the most part I was satisfied with how it turned out. I was ready to return to Middle-Earth after such a long absence. They really nailed the characters and humor of the novel. The musical score was also great. On the other hand it was a bit too long and some of the CGI creatures with the exception of Gollum could've needed more work. Overall I enjoyed it quite a bit, but at the same time I'm a bit concerned about the pacing of the next two installments, since that was the worst element of this one.

Also; The Frodo cameo was fucking stupid and unnecessary.

#31 Posted by RPGee (763 posts) -

I loved it! I was super surprised, I thought I'd be let down, but I found it genuinely entertaining just about throughout. I'm going to claim personal bias towards Tolkien and fantasy in general, but it was fantastic, and added parts in that I found interesting and fitted, if not perfectly, then well enough to be interesting.

And 48fps in 3D is a complete non-issue. It looks smooth, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

#32 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3923 posts) -

I loved it. The only problem I had with it was it got a little too silly at points. I know the overall tone isn't going to be as grim as LotR, it's not supposed to be but some of the Radagast stuff was a bit too clowny. It was great though so happy to have these movies to look forward to again.

#33 Edited by atomic_dumpling (2482 posts) -

I said it elsewhere, but … Sort of. Kind of. I thought the tone was all over the map and I am still not sure what they were going for here -- a kid-friendly light comedy adventure or a gnarly cynical dark comedy. I saw a really peculiar mix of cheesy Disney-style hijinks and needlessly graphic dismemberment. And again, that forest sled …  like "what?". Also, the fuck was that dying hedgehog scene about?

#34 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7184 posts) -

Did you guys think i was too similar, too different than the book, or was it just right? I find it interesting how orcs replaced goblins, how Azog took a greater part in the movie, and Thorin's hate for Elves. I wonder what else will be different in the other films?

#35 Posted by benspyda (2050 posts) -

The small changes to the book were a little jarring at first but at least it's all based off other works by Tolkien. I really enjoyed the film and came away glad they split it into three.

I'm curious how the Necromancer aka Sauron stuff will play out, as the whole situation is so briefly touched upon in the book..
#36 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1888 posts) -

I liked it.

That said, it tried way too hard to be like the previous movies. Many scenes where reminiscent of scenes from the LotR trilogy. Such as the elves on horseback riding around the group in a threatening circle like the Riders of Rohan in Two Towers. Or the chase by the worgs in the plain being very similar to the same scene from LotR. Or the escape from the goblin lair being a lot like the fleeing from the Mines of Moria. I could go on.

They also tried to make the young, 'attractive' dwarf like Legolas, and the leader like Aragorn.

Then there was shoehorning in cameos from quite a few people from the LotR trilogy. This film had Frodo, Saruman, Elrond, & Galadriel. Not bad. I hear Legolas makes an appearance in another film.

Oh, and the flashbacks. The first few were fine, but pretty soon every time someone was introduced, it was time for their full backstory.

I also mouthed WTF when I figured out that there were two rock giants fighting.

* * * * * * * * *

I still liked it. And I truly hope that this movie is just bogged down with trying to set up these new films, and that the next two will be free to breathe. Because this one was heavy with setup. Right now it's my least favorite of the 4 available movies. (That doesn't mean that it's bad, over-reactionary internet types.)

#37 Posted by Subjugation (4740 posts) -

I thought it was alright. I didn't have as good of a connection with the characters because The Hobbit was the very first Tolkien book I read, and by extension the foggiest one in my memory. It was also a single book of average length (in terms of fantasy novels) as opposed to three novels for The Lord of the Rings. I enjoyed it but I did get the sense that it was a little longer than it needed to be.

Maybe someone can help me out here, but I really don't remember the Pale Orc being in The Hobbit, at least not being a major plot point. Am I crazy? I also don't remember much about Radigast either. Is Peter Jackson just digging really deep or is my memory not serving me well?

Also, I have to agree with everyone else that says the riddle scene with Bilbo and Gollum/Smeagol is just brilliant. I loved it.

#38 Posted by SSully (4315 posts) -

I really liked it. My biggest gripe was it was confused on what mood it was going for at multiple parts. My best example:

When they get to the Goblin King near the end of the cave. The King gives a typical "You will never defeat me" or some bullshit like that, only to have Gandolf slice his fat ass up, to which the King responds, "That will do!", and then keels over. Just silly.
#39 Posted by impartialgecko (1708 posts) -

I enjoyed a lot of it but in spite of how fake it all looked. It had the Star Wars prequels' problem of looking more like CGI than an actual set. There were also a lot of references to the LOTR trilogy to try and tie these movies in and I always considered the Hobbit to be somewhat detached from all that.

#40 Posted by Vonocourt (2164 posts) -

It was a fun ride to Middle Earth, but it's pretty much an empty two and a half hours.

#41 Posted by geirr (2707 posts) -

It was great fun, I'm glad they're going for 3 movies.

#42 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

I fricken loved it, 48FPS 3D blew my mind, the scenes with Gollum in that format were insane, the movements he made the definition of the CGI model of Gollum, I have never seen CGI so life like. The scenes in slow motion looked like works of art with the 48FPS, one scene in particular at end in slow motion when the camera is behind Bilbo running at the enemy with fire all around him. Will easily see the other 2 48FPS, kind of wish the Star Wars movies take on this technology now. There were defiently some glitches in the technology though, with fast camera panning but the positives heavily out weighed the negatives. Best movie I saw all year.

#43 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

I enjoyed a lot of it but in spite of how fake it all looked. It had the Star Wars prequels' problem of looking more like CGI than an actual set. There were also a lot of references to the LOTR trilogy to try and tie these movies in and I always considered the Hobbit to be somewhat detached from all that.

Fake? I just never saw that, it was easily the greatest CGI I have seen, Bilbo talking to Gollum looked great, Bilbo interacting with the Stone Trolls looked real. Did you see it in 48fps? I know alot of the scenes were CGI but alot was also shot on location.

#44 Posted by impartialgecko (1708 posts) -

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@adam1808 said:

I enjoyed a lot of it but in spite of how fake it all looked. It had the Star Wars prequels' problem of looking more like CGI than an actual set. There were also a lot of references to the LOTR trilogy to try and tie these movies in and I always considered the Hobbit to be somewhat detached from all that.

Fake? I just never saw that, it was easily the greatest CGI I have seen, Bilbo talking to Gollum looked great, Bilbo interacting with the Stone Trolls looked real. Did you see it in 48fps? I know alot of the scenes were CGI but alot was also shot on location.

I'm not saying some of the CGI wasn't incredible, the Gollum scene certainly was, but virtually every shot was full of unnatural orange lighting and I didn't like the switch from dudes in makeup for the close-ups of the orcs to CGI.

I saw it in 24fps, the 48 fps version was only in 3D and I can't watch 3D without getting a headache.

#45 Edited by Quarters (1852 posts) -

I extremely disliked it. Fazed out of consciousness for some micro-naps(just for a minute or two) about seven different times throughout, and had to fight the rest of the time to stay awake. Every single scene lasted longer than it should, and it was all just horridly paced. Didn't give a crap about any of the characters, but, then again, that's just par for the course for LOTR. However, it was exaggerated here because of the countless dwarves that were nearly impossible to tell apart, in no small part thanks to Tolkien's always awful naming schemes. I'm not the biggest LOTR fan, but even Fellowship was better than Hobbit. Bleh.

#46 Posted by Hector (3378 posts) -

I loved it. Went to see it in 3D 48FPS and was amazed. Can't wait to see the other two.

#47 Posted by Toxin066 (3326 posts) -

I enjoyed most of it. The scene with Ronaldozigg the Brown or whetever giving CPR to the hedgehog was dumb.

#48 Posted by BisonHero (7017 posts) -

I saw it in 2D. The movie was fine, and I'll probably see the next two because my friends will all be seeing it, but I'm not excited for them. Like, at all.

I guess I just really feel like the studios are gouging people for money, because this REALLY could've been told in 2 movies, or 1 if they told just the story in The Hobbit. They could've at least had the decency to make it into three 90-minute movies or something. But no. By the looks of it, we're going to get three 3-hour movies. How you turn a 200-page children's book and some sidestory appendices from LotR into 9 hours of cinema (don't even want to think about the extended DVD version) is beyond me. Some scenes just feel really padded out, and while the movie was well made, I did find myself getting bored more easily than in any of the Lord of the Rings movies, because some scenes just drag on and almost nothing is happening. The biggest advantage The Hobbit had over LotR has always been that it's a nice, simple tale that moves much more quickly than LotR, yet they completely squandered that one advantage by A) generally trying to make it more serious and epic by having them fight all the time and make it seem like this quest for vengeance against Smaug, and B) pretending The Hobbit has any need to be just as long as the LotR trilogy.

And to nitpick random things, the dwarves all seem like incredibly skilled warriors, instead of the kind of bumbling oafs most of them were in the book. I guess they had to do that, since the movie REALLY exaggerates a lot of fights that were pretty one-sided in the book, or they straight up invent fights. Like how in the book the trolls just immediately capture the dwarves and tie them up because they are laughably stronger than them, while in the movie the dwarves actually put up a pretty good fight for a while. The movie also has the same weakness as the books, in that there are so many damn dwarves in the party that none of them are very memorable aside from Thorin, but I didn't exactly expect the movie to somehow fix that one.

I did enjoy that Gandalf seemed stoned out of his mind in most scenes and kinda didn't give a fuck and always had that wry little grin on his face. I've always preferred Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White.

#49 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

@adam1808 said:

I enjoyed a lot of it but in spite of how fake it all looked. It had the Star Wars prequels' problem of looking more like CGI than an actual set. There were also a lot of references to the LOTR trilogy to try and tie these movies in and I always considered the Hobbit to be somewhat detached from all that.

Fake? I just never saw that, it was easily the greatest CGI I have seen, Bilbo talking to Gollum looked great, Bilbo interacting with the Stone Trolls looked real. Did you see it in 48fps? I know alot of the scenes were CGI but alot was also shot on location.

I'm not saying some of the CGI wasn't incredible, the Gollum scene certainly was, but virtually every shot was full of unnatural orange lighting and I didn't like the switch from dudes in makeup for the close-ups of the orcs to CGI.

I saw it in 24fps, the 48 fps version was only in 3D and I can't watch 3D without getting a headache.

I saw it with someone that couldn't watch a 3D movie for 30 minutes without getting a headache, she watched the whole thing without taking the glasses off so I think this new technology helps that.

#50 Edited by hidys (1029 posts) -

It wasn't as good as the LOTR trilogy but it was still fantastic.

Also

Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold...