The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers)

[davejames]

Aeronef wrote:

---

So: while the rest of you sheeple are blindly following your own tastes and inclinations, and making your own judgment calls, I'm going to take some expert advice, and see what the critics have to say.

Here here. It may not work for everybody, but generally when the majority of critics all say the same thing about a movie (in this case that it's way too long and bloated), I usually find myself agreeing.

[Kegg]

Aeronef wrote:

---

Contempt for critics is universal. Nobody listens to them. Or at the very least, nobody will admit to listening to them.

Critical opinion is extremely important to me. It helps me decide what films I'm going to watch and what I'm not going to watch.

Without it we wouldn't have a canon or a list of great directors or anything. Who'd still watch Citizen Kane without critics? And of the films that are released every year, which ones should I see and which ones should I avoid? What about films I never even hear are opening until I get the good reviews?

It's definitely one of the biggest factors in determining what films to see.

[Aeronef]

^Now, that is the post of a self-confident individual.

[Wereghost]

Saw it yesterday morning in 3D at 24 FPS.

I don't concur with the criticisms about pacing, but that's a question of personal experience. Never thought "Get on with it!", but did think that it was nearly time for it to move along.

The movie in its own right is largely a spectacular and compact rollercaster ride. As compared to FOTR it's charming, whimsical, fast-paced and possessed of an almost uniformly high standard of acting. Just like its illustrious predecessors, it asks you to bear with it - but in this case it's less about putting up with austerity and more about allowing for the story's kid-friendly origins in the form of cockney trolls et al, and its general tendency towards a more frivolous, tongue-in-cheek tone. This is high-adventure in the tradition that we've come to expect since the heyday of Star Wars and Indiana Jones, both of which franchises are lovingly referenced here.

Much was made of the eleventh-hour decision to make it a trilogy. From the evidence of this movie, it's looking very much like the right call. It packs a heck of a lot into its two hours and forty minutes and fees like it ends at just the right juncture.

Performance-wise I think it's very robust, with Freeman validating the opinions of everyone who thought he would be a natural choice for Bilbo and McKellen giving perhaps his most nuanced and likeable take on Gandalf. They are ably supported by strong performances from the (slightly Klingonesque) dwarfs, not to mention certain returning characters from the original trilogy. Kudos to Jackson, Walsh, Boyens and the returning actors for showing us intriguing new facets of familiar characters, and doing so with aplomb. The writers also seem to have fun presenting us with the somewhat eccentric but benign Radagast the Brown as played briefly by Sylvester McCoy, who in an alternate universe made a fine older Bilbo.

Planning to see it again over the weekend, this time in IMAX format. Will refrain from marking it until then, but I doubt I'll be giving it a consonant or a minus.

[Dimesdan]

Me and the other half watched it earlier in 2D at the local cinema and we both loved it.

I'll say more on the matter tomorrow as pretty tired now, but was it me or did the Dwarves feel like a Rugby team on tour?

[Set Harth]

Itisnotlogical wrote:

---

it feels somewhat inappropriate for a prequel, especially if you're a newcomer watching the movies in chronological order.

Oh, this again.

[Itisnotlogical]

Set Harth wrote:

---

Oh, this again.

Love the vague wording. That eye roll really enunciates the problem you had with my state- oh wait, I have no idea what you're on about.

Points for having not read any other part of my post, though. I've seen all the movies. I'm taking in to account the fact that, believe it or not, not everybody has seen the other LotR films and will judge this one based on its own merits. In the context of this singular film, the scenes with Frodo had absolutely no point whatsoever.

[Set Harth]

Itisnotlogical wrote:

---

Points for having not read any other part of my post, though.

Only in your imagination. You'll have to take those points back.

[Skywalker]

Wereghost wrote:

---

Much was made about the eleventh-hour decision to make it a trilogy. From the evidence of this movie, it's looking very much like the right call. It packs a heck of a lot into its two hours and forty minutes and fees like it ends at just the right juncture.

I definitely agree with this. I was initially reluctant when I learned of the split, but after actually seeing the movie I'm having a hard time thinking of what could have been cut in order to make room for

Bëorn, the spiders of Mirkwood, getting captured by the Elves, meeting Thranduil and Legolas and Tauriel, and Bilbo breaking out the Dwarves and escaping in the barrels.

That all probably would have added a good 45-60 minutes, at least, on top of what was already there.

[Kegg]

^
Well the film does have a fair bit of extra material, some of it - like Azog's grudge - invented whole cloth for the movie.

Itisnotlogical wrote:

---

the scenes with Frodo had absolutely no point whatsoever.

The scenes with Frodo just had no point, period. Of all the appearances by LOTR actors, his was the most superfluous - it mostly dragged out an introduction that really did not need any extra material.

[Blue_Trek]

It's interesting to see the spread between critics and film goers, if the spread is very great then the critics are out of touch with reality.
We may even agree with the critics.
Everybody of coarse has an opinion, but that opinion can be shaped, sometime people go see a movie when they are in a bad mood or really super tired and get dragged along by there friends to the late show. There are variables in play. But strong word of mouth at work/school usually is a very good indicator, the last movie that got that with the people around me was the Avengers, and before that The Dark Knight, the fact is, it doesn't happen that often.

As for the Hobbit I plan to see not because I am a huge fan, but I want to see the new premium way to see films 3D+48fps.

Here is an example where fans disagreed with the critics by a large margin over 50%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tran...of_the_fallen/

Some critics both professional and non-professional lean toward snobbery when it comes to cinema.

[Skywalker]

Kegg wrote:

---

^
Well the film does have a fair bit of extra material, some of it - like Azog's grudge - invented whole cloth for the movie.

I'm aware of that, but I don't think it should be cut because it only added to the movie. Without the Azog subplot the movie would basically just be a series of vignettes with no real antagonist.

[Professor Zoom]

I liked it much more than I thought I would. To be honest, I wasn't that pumped. I had just read the book--yes, I know, it's taken me sometime to get around to it. I was mostly going because I wanted to see it in 48 fps. Which I liked. It did take my brain some time to get used to it, somethings felt like they were moving faster or something... but... the sharpness... it was great. And I think as more and more directors use it, the better it will be.

For the most part, I thought things moved along well enough. Though, Radagast... he felt hamfisted into the movie. I didn't mind the character but, suddenly he was THERE and then went away, and then CAME BACK, and DID some stuff... and then... just...disappeared... what happened to him?

The best stuff is with Gollum... in 48 fps he looks AMAZING. The detail on the CGI body...

Oh, and my other final complaint, the "climatic" battle of the first movie.... was a little meh. And felt forced... and it felt like NOT the original ending, you can almost see where they made this one the new ending.

All in all, better than I thought it would be.

[Itisnotlogical]

Hanukkah Solo wrote:

---

I'm aware of that, but I don't think it should be cut because it only added to the movie. Without the Azog subplot the movie would basically just be a series of vignettes with no real antagonist.

I feel like Azog could have been a better villain though. He does some vicious things, but he's really just being an orc. I don't feel like he's especially more evil than any of the other antagonists. Maybe if they explained why he hated the line of Durin so much or gave him more scenes, he could have been stronger.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I enjoyed it but it didn't bowl me over. Jackson was in full King Kong mode here, and the action at the climax was of the keep-piling-it-on-beyond-the-point-of-ridiculous-and then-add-some-more variety.

I really couldn't care much about how they were going to get out of that damned tree because I couldn't buy for a moment that they were still alive and hanging on to it after the first few seconds.