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

[DarthPipes]

I just got back from it. I really wanted to enjoy it but I just couldn't get into it. I gave it a C and I think it would be generous to give it anything higher.

To me, the editing/pacing of this film is what destroyed it. It's clear that Peter Jackson learned absolutely nothing from King Kong. It took 45 minutes to get to Skull Island in Kong and it took 45 minutes to get out of the Shire in The Hobbit. It was nice to see Ian Holm again but Elijah Woods had one of the most pointless cameos of all-time (although bizarrely, he actually looks younger here than he did in Lord of the Rings). His decision to turn a barely 300-page book into three, nine-hour movies was an awful decision. It was a decision made out of pure ego on Jackson's part and studio greed. This movie is filled with storyline bloat, best left for a special edition DVD. I found the first half of the movie to be boring and while it picked up in the second half, it still wasn't anything great. I also thought that the added stuff took too much away from Bilbo's story. The Hobbit isn't Lord of the Rings...it's the story of its main character Bilbo Baggins.

Then there's all the CGI. Some of it looks great. Some of it looks very fake. WETA should be absolutely embarrassed to put something as bad as the Radagast chase on-screen. Jackson has become all-CGI, all-the-time now and that contributes to more of a fake feeling in Lord of the Rings. Sorry, fanboys, but when it comes to CGI, Jackson has become the very thing that you hate. That is George Lucas.

Martin Freeman was terrific as Bilbo. I've a big fan of his from Sherlock and I'm glad to see him starring in this film. He's got great comedic timing. Ian McKellen is great fun once again as Gandalf. Richard Armitage is not bad as Thorin but his character does like more than brood personality-wise and Thorin doesn't have a shred of Aragorn's charisma. It was fun seeing most of the Lord of the Rings actors popping up again with Andy Serkis being the obvious standout. His Gollum is amazing in both look and performance. The riddle scene with Bilbo was definitely the best part of the movie and Bilbo sparing him as really well-done.

The part where the trolls were trying to cook the dwarves was very entertaining as well. I liked the various flashbacks and the Necromancer addition could be very interesting. I have to admit, I ended up liking Radagast as well. It was cool seeing another wizard and I liked that bit of backstory where Gandalf said he couldn't remember the name of the two blue wizards. Neither could Tolkein. I'm annoyed that Azog wasn't killed because I DO NOT want to see this storyline revisited.

I'm still going to go to the next two Hobbit films but my expectations are very low. Peter Jackson will not learn his lesson from this film (he didn't learn it from King Kong either) and will only make the next two movies longer and more bloated. He has absolutely no one around him to reign him in. I wonder who that sounds like...oh yeah! George Lucas! As far as I'm concerned, Peter Jackson stopped being a great filmmaker after he won his Oscars for Return of the King.

[JirinPanthosa]

I'm sorry, but this movie suuuucked.

I'm saying this as a huge fan of Lord of the Rings. The movie sucked, and was awful.

First I'll say what I liked about it. The Gollum part.

Now, what I didn't like.

-Worst cast movie of all time. All the good casting decisions are the ones made ten years ago, like Gandalf.

-Higher framerate makes the seams in the CGI and the bad acting more obvious. Some of the distance shots looked blatantly like models and in some scenes it felt like they were auditioning for the part.

-Pacing was terrible and tie-ins to Lord of the Rings were out of place, awkward and unnecessary.

-Goblin king looked super-goofy, reminded me of that sea people king from Phantom Menace.

-All the humor was slapstick. There was no Gimli/Legolas character humor, it was strictly physical humor.

-At times I felt I was watching a BBC TV series

-At no point did I feel invested in a single one of the characters.

I'm not saying this movie is as bad as Phantom Menace, but it is certainly the franchise's Phantom Meance.

*sigh* Yeah, I'm going to see the next two movies in the theater. Damn it.

--

On the subject of critics, I think the people who really hate them are the people who devote themselves to one genre and love anything from that genre regardless of its quality. I disagree with them a lot, and given a choice between a critic and a friend whose taste I trust I go with the friend. But give me one movie with a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes and one with a 10%, I'd lay heavy odds on preferring the former.

[Mach5]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Jackson was in full King Kong mode here,

EXACTLY the thing I was afraid of. King Kong would have been an amazing movie, were it not for the piss poor editing. As Richard Roeper said, every scene was too long and in need of trimming.

Jackson is a good director, but studios should stop letting him produce his movies. This guy needs his Gary Kurtz.

[Cutter John]

Why is everyone giving Jackson crap about this being a trilogy when that was entirely a studio decision?

[Mach5]

Cutter John wrote:

---

Why is everyone giving Jackson crap about this being a trilogy when that was entirely a studio decision?

Stretching it into three movies was all WB, sure. Too much extra money to be made.

But why did all three movies need to be nearly three hours long? Two-hour format would have worked as well.

[Samuel Walters]

Cutter John wrote:

---

Why is everyone giving Jackson crap about this being a trilogy when that was entirely a studio decision?

Because, to hear Jackson tell it, he decided to speak to WB about three movies after seeing the material he had on hand while cutting AUJ. It was a decision, Jackson says, that was entirely artistic in nature (for him). WB, of course, saw the $$$ and heartily agreed. Personally, I thought, for the most part, the film worked very well as a story about how Bilbo's personal journey fit into a larger tapestry of events on Middle Earth. To that end, I think the complaints about how long it takes to get out of The Shire are bunk. The film follows the beats of the book very closely early on (Ian-Holm-based scenes and Azog-flashbacks notwithstanding). You need that time to establish the dwarves, their story, their motivations - not to mention Bilbo, too. I don't see any of scenes inside Bag End as unnecessary. And in the book, there's no action until the roast mutton scene anyway.

There were some superfluous-feeling moments in the film, though. Azog serves as a foil for both Thorin and Bilbo, but was unremarkable in that role. The White Council felt awkward - mostly because it seemed obvious that Christopher Lee was filmed in isolation from the other performers. But they both serve a purpose with respect to the story Jackson is telling. And otherwise, I thought the movie was a lot of fun and, outside the backstory sequences for Azog, well-paced. Jackson has created an interestingly hybrid movie - one that is more serious than The Hobbit book, but more cartoonish and light-hearted than LOTR - fitting, considering his stated intent for these movies. Personally, I loved this film, can't wait to see it again, and am excited for the next two.

And as a side note, I saw this in 2D 24fps. I'll be going to the 3D 48fps presentation this weekend. My biggest complaint? How the ADR synced with the actors' lips. It seemed really off.

[billcosby]

Wow, the criticism is nearly unanimous. Does this mean Jackson would re-tool and combine the final two? Or are those sorts of things too late to stop?

To the people that saw this: what if it was trimmed down to 2 hours? Still way too long?

Forbes has a review that gushes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...p-of-the-ring/

[Professor Zoom]

HolidayHuxtable wrote:

---

Wow, the criticism is nearly unanimous. Does this mean Jackson would re-tool and combine the final two? Or are those sorts of things too late to stop?

To the people that saw this: what if it was trimmed down to 2 hours? Still way too long?

Forbes has a review that gushes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...p-of-the-ring/

Why on Middle Earth would he retool and combine the next two? Regardless of the criticisms, it's making gobs if money. Many of the people in this thread who hated it, thought it sucked admitted they are STILL. Going to see the next two. Why would anyone change course?

[DarthPipes]

That's fandom for you. The anticipated movie can disappoint but we'll all be back to see it.

I would think Peter Jackson didn't have to do three movies if he didn't want to. But when someone like him is offered three movies, it's like giving a heorin addict another hit. If he was going to commit to three movies, he should have cut the films to two hours each. That decision would make more sense monetarily as well, as it would allow for more showings at movie theaters. But Jackson is pretending this is an artistic decision instead of an egotistical and money-grabbing one.

He won't learn from his creative failings here just like he didn't learn from King Kong. The next two films will be longer and more bloated. That's simply all you expect from Peter Jackson nowadays.

If Jackson could have shown all 13 dwarves wiping their ass one at a time after eating at Bilbo's, he would have in a heartbeat.

[Blue_Trek]

DarthPipes wrote:

---

That's fandom for you. The anticipated movie can disappoint but we'll all be back to see it.

If Jackson could have shown all 13 dwarves wiping their ass one at a time after eating at Bilbo's, he would have in a heartbeat.

Yeah if you are going to make three movies that were going to be one, they absolutely need to be no longer than 2 hours, bloated indeed.

It is possible he may trim the next two when he see's the reaction, they will make just as much money even if they are 2 hours and maybe more people will see them.

[Samuel Walters]

HolidayHuxtable wrote:

---

To the people that saw this: what if it was trimmed down to 2 hours? Still way too long?

In truth, the film only needs some minor editing and two hours would have been too short. First, Ian-Holm-Bilbo's monologue is a bit dusty, particularly with Frodo's cameo. I happen to like it, I enjoy the complete immersion, but it could have been left for an EE. And the tie-in with Azog was clumisily handled. Other than that, though, the film is fine. You could argue, I suppose, that they spend a lot of time at Bag End - but it's all in good fun, and necessary to boot. And Radagast, despite his awkward performance, is brief and instrumental.

On the flipside of that, consider the one scene getting the most praise: Riddles In The Dark. Jackson just lets that scene run. It takes several minutes of screen time. It's barely edited. And it's brilliant. So there's an argument in favor of letting the book material have enough room to breathe on screen.

[JarodRussell]

Nothing prevents the Extended Edition from having more scenes and also being trimmed here and there. Would be a first, but it's possible, if Jackson reacts to the criticism.

[DarthPipes]

Samuel Walters wrote:

---

In truth, the film only needs some minor editing and two hours would have been too short. First, Ian-Holm-Bilbo's monologue is a bit dusty, particularly with Frodo's cameo. I happen to like it, I enjoy the complete immersion, but it could have been left for an EE. And the tie-in with Azog was clumisily handled. Other than that, though, the film is fine. You could argue, I suppose, that they spend a lot of time at Bag End - but it's all in good fun, and necessary to boot. And Radagast, despite his awkward performance, is brief and instrumental.

On the flipside of that, consider the one scene getting the most praise: Riddles In The Dark. Jackson just lets that scene run. It takes several minutes of screen time. It's barely edited. And it's brilliant. So there's an argument in favor of letting the book material have enough room to breathe on screen.

I could have watched even more of the riddle scene. It is brilliant, I completely agree.

I think having Ian Holm return as Bilbo to "introduce" the Hobbit was a good idea but that takes too long and so do the scenes in The Shire. That would have helped.

Another problem is this film just doesn't have the emotion of the Lord of the Rings. It's not supposed to. The Hobbit is a children's book, a fun adventure. Lord of the Rings is an epic and a more emotional book. There was more to work with. I still think one of the best decisions Jackson made with LOTR's was moving Boromir's death scene to the end of Fellowship. If he had shown it at the beginning of The Two Towers, it would have lost all its emotional momentum.

[The Evil Dead]

I refuse to pay money to see this film and support their dumb decision to make it three movies. I'm very curious about the 48fps though.

[Professor Zoom]

The Evil Dead wrote:

---

I refuse to pay money to see this film and support their dumb decision to make it three movies. I'm very curious about the 48fps though.

I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron decides to use it. So, if you liked Avatar, there's always 2 and 3.

I understand the criticisms of 48, there were some funky moments, but I think it's beautiful and like all tools will get better as the filmmakers learn to use it better.