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

[Hyperspace05]

I saw the film and enjoyed it quite a bit (A-), but it is still not even close to the LOTR films.

I did see it in HFR/48fps - surprisingly our theater in our small town had the MAJORITY of screenings in HFR. It did not bother me at all - except in Ian Holm's 1st scene where he did look sped up - but after that it was flawless. Such an incredibly clear and detailed picture, just wow. I'll definitely look forward to seeing more films in HFR.

As for the film itself, I suppose I'm advantaged since I have not read the Hobbit. But I could certainly guess at which stuff was added.

Some positive standouts:
+ all the dwarves, loved all the characters, and good job of making them unique
+ Erebor, love seeing dwarf culture (plus dwarf girls) :-)
+ Martin freeman as bilbo
+ riddles scene, best in the film

Less than great standouts:
- the goblin king, too well spoken
- the cartoonish violence and physics when the dwarves are escaping the goblins
- the warg design (I prefer the Hyena wargs of LOTR)
- I was hoping for more from the score, other than the dwarf theme it all sounded too familiar for my liking

I will definitely try to catch this again in theaters.

[sidious618]

I didn't think this would impress me much but I was quickly won over. Adored it. Two quick questions:

1) Was the Necromancer Sauron or just an agent of him?
2) Was the Witch King that Radagast fought the leader of the Ringwraiths?

[Gep Malakai]

sidious618 wrote:

---

1) Was the Necromancer Sauron or just an agent of him?

The Necromancer is Sauron, in his weakened form. Originally he was just an evil wizard but when Tolkien expanded on Middle-Earth for the Lord of the Rings, he retconned them into being one and the same. I imagine that's one of the discrepancies he would have fixed if he'd ever done the full rewrite on the Hobbit that he'd wanted.

sidious618 wrote:

---

2) Was the Witch King that Radagast fought the leader of the Ringwraiths?

I can't recall for sure, but I think he was mentioned as the Witch-King of Angmar, so that would make him the leader of the Ring-Wraiths, yes.

[sidious618]

Thank you!

[Skywalker]

An Unexpected Journey sets a new December record with an $84.7 million opening weekend. Overseas it earned an additional $138.2 million over the weekend.

[Mach5]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

The action is preposterous; by the third act everyone is Wile E. Coyote, repeatedly enduring impossible falls and violence while not appearing to suffer so much as a broken finger.

That's my single biggest complaint regarding The Hobbit. It felt like watching a cartoon at times, and funnily enough, Road Runner came to my mind as well.

One thing I always loved about LOTR was the way action was handled. Sure, some of Legolas' acrobatics felt over the top, but overall it was very engaging and suspending disbelief was no problem at all.

BTW, I absolutely hated the vargs chasing Radagast scene. I could almost hear the Benny Hill music in my head while watching it. Very lame.

Gep Malakai wrote:

---

imagine that's one of the discrepancies he would have fixed if he'd ever done the full rewrite on the Hobbit that he'd wanted.

So Tolkien was Lucas before even Lucas was Lucas?

Hanukkah Solo wrote:

---

An Unexpected Journey sets a new December record with an $84.7 million opening weekend. Overseas it earned an additional $138.2 million over the weekend.

Strong numbers, but nothing sensational. Now lets see if this movie has legs. My prediction: $400M domestic total, and $1.2B worldwide.

[JarodRussell]

Prancer the Sith wrote:

---

So Tolkien was Lucas before even Lucas was Lucas?

Yet neither Tolkien or Lucas invented rewrites of previously published works.

[backstept]

Complaining that a fantasy movie doesn't look real enough is like . . . umm . . . dammit, can't finish the simile. Need coffee.

[Mach5]

backstept wrote:

---

Complaining that a fantasy movie doesn't look real enough

and complaining about the suspension of disbelief (or lack thereof) are two completely different things.

[Ian Keldon]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

At least a BBS is a discussion board. And there's conversations and stuff. So... really....nothing like posting on a BBS.

Riiiiiggghhht....we're supposed to take your bashing of the reviewer seriously because they're an "internet reviewer", but YOU are a BBS poster...

[Admiral Buzzkill]

backstept wrote:

---

Complaining that a fantasy movie doesn't look real enough is like . . . umm . . . dammit, can't finish the simile.

Wouldn't matter, because your premise was way off the mark to begin with.

[Robert Maxwell]

I saw this Friday night in 48fps IMAX 3D (supposedly with Dolby Atmos sound, but the film didn't seem to take advantage of it at all.)

Based on what reviews I saw beforehand, I expected the film to feel longer than it did. It didn't feel like almost three hours, but it was definitely erratically paced. It was much lighter than the LOTR films, which I think everybody has pointed out. Some of the action scenes went on too long, and the bit that probably irked me the most was when Bilbo fell down the cracks in the mountain, and apparently only suffered a few scrapes and bruises. Completely absurd. Or, for that matter, when Thorin was picked up in the warg's mouth, yet survived (with a little help from Gandalf.) Hello, puncture wounds? Even if Gandalf revived him (which seems to be the implication), unless he also healed the wounds, Thorin can look forward to dying of sepsis in short order. There's fantasy violence and then there's complete nonsense.

That said, I did enjoy it, and it was nice to return to Middle-Earth. It certainly wasn't on the level of the LOTR films, but I didn't really expect it to be, either.

As for the 48fps, most of the time I didn't notice it. However, a lot of the movements of the actors appeared really fast, and that was quite noticeable. It took some getting used to, but I suspect if I see another film or two in this format, I won't really notice it anymore.

I think all the criticism of the 48fps format is silly, though.

I will say that the 3D didn't add much. The higher frame rate (and IMAX projection) made a lot more difference, for my money.

[Professor Zoom]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

Riiiiiggghhht....we're supposed to take your bashing of the reviewer seriously because they're an "internet reviewer", but YOU are a BBS poster...

OT. But, I don't care if YOU take my "bashing" of an internet reviewer seriously or not. (Seriously, who is this "we," YOU're the only one who has commented negatively.... is this personal for you?) You can't see the difference between posting on a DISCUSSION board and watching some internet twit posting his rant about a movie.

So....

[marillion]

My son was VERY disappointed we didn't get to see it this weekend, but at 3+ hours (considering time waiting in line and the trailers/commercials, we just didn't have the time...

I'm trying to avoid reviews as much as I can, but I know it's a mixed bag, mostly favoring the positive, so I'm looking forward to it...

One quesiton though, is there a good Trek trailer on the standard version of the film? We don't have IMAX here in Albuquerque, so I know we're not getting the 9 minute version.. sigh...

[JarodRussell]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Or, for that matter, when Thorin was picked up in the warg's mouth, yet survived (with a little help from Gandalf.) Hello, puncture wounds? Even if Gandalf revived him (which seems to be the implication), unless he also healed the wounds, Thorin can look forward to dying of sepsis in short order. There's fantasy violence and then there's complete nonsense.

Do dwarfs catch sepsis? Did Gandalf use an anti sepsis spell? Does warg saliva have an antiseptic effect?