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

[Klaus]

Well even when my eyes aren't freaking out, I still don't think 3D adds that much... and I've seen articles about how the 3D process creates eyestrain by its very nature. And last I knew the % of the gross made by major 3D pictures has been steadily dropping... This one may dodge that trend owing to the HFR novelty, but to say 3D is the wave of the future is far from proven.

[Captain Craig]

Saw this in the past few days, in 2D

Grade: A

I found the movie to be quite enjoyable. I've read some found the first hour slow. The gathering of the dwarves(whom I'm not going to try and name) at Bilbo's house and them trying to get him along on the quest. Since I'm not overly familiar with those characters I was fine with that part.

It does pick up considerably in action and drama once they leave the Shire though.
I liked the interlude at Rivendale(sp) and the round table conference the "adult" had about this quest. I'm wondering if the Necromancer is tied to Sauron's(sp) eventually fall? I don't recall him being in the book but it's been forever since I read it, I'm likely wrong.

I found the structure to be similar to FotR but the resolution of the film feels like a solid stopping point much better than FotR did I think.

[JeffreyAbrams]

Santa Klaus wrote:

---

Well even when my eyes aren't freaking out, I still don't think 3D adds that much... and I've seen articles about how the 3D process creates eyestrain by its very nature. And last I knew the % of the gross made by major 3D pictures has been steadily dropping... This one may dodge that trend owing to the HFR novelty, but to say 3D is the wave of the future is far from proven.

That's because of the quality of recent 3D and converted to 3D films. Most of them also suck in 2D.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Santa Klaus wrote:

---

to say 3D is the wave of the future is far from proven.

To be fair, proving things that may happen in the future is not easy.

[stj]

I understand the complaints by some about 3D, because it does task the eyes. And the glasses also strain people unaccustomed to the weight. So if some viewers complain of headache, this is entirely believable.

But I must admit I don't understand the complaints about the 48 fps. The old silent film era movies often seemed speeded up and jerky. But that's because the modern frame rate was faster than the rate those movies were photographed. The only way to make the 48 fps movie seem similarly speeded up and jerky is to play the 48 fps movie at an even higher rate. When both the old silent movies and The Hobbit are played at the same rate they were filmed at, the motion is natural and smooth.

So complaints about the 48 fps seem to be complaining that a clearer image during motion is less realistic, or even unpleasant. This is hard to understand. People's preconceptions have an incredible ability to modify their perceptions. But this seems like a really powerful example.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I found the structure to be similar to FotR but the resolution of the film feels like a solid stopping point much better than FotR did I think.

Uhhh. I don't understand this at all. I mean, this film ends with them getting rescued - if I hadn't been familiar with the book, it would have felt like Deus Ex Machina with the eagles. Even knowing the book, it felt like that.

But look at the way Fellowship ended. A man who no one could fully trust because of his fixation on the Ring and his own needs dies a heroic death trying to save the hobbits. Aragorn earns his respect, and with a simple look, he realizes that he must become a leader of Men. The film ends with the breaking of the Fellowship, but, after some cajoling, Frodo realizes that Sam's presence is essential.

Overall, it feels like a lot actually happened in the film...

I can't say the same about AUJ

[The Mirrorball Man]

stj wrote:

---

So complaints about the 48 fps seem to be complaining that a clearer image during motion is less realistic, or even unpleasant. This is hard to understand.

I have no horses in this race but the usual complaint about the 48fps is that it makes the movie look like actors on a movie set instead of characters in a fictional universe.

[Set Harth]

Yeah, it's allegedly like the soap opera effect.

Captain Craig wrote:

---

I'm wondering if the Necromancer is tied to Sauron's(sp) eventually fall?

The Necromancer is Sauron, so...

If there's a scene in this film most strongly tied to Sauron's eventual fall, it's Riddles in the Dark.

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

But look at the way Fellowship ended. A man who no one could fully trust because of his fixation on the Ring and his own needs dies a heroic death trying to save the hobbits. Aragorn earns his respect, and with a simple look, he realizes that he must become a leader of Men. The film ends with the breaking of the Fellowship, but, after some cajoling, Frodo realizes that Sam's presence is essential.

Look at the way AUJ ended. Because Bilbo demonstrated his heroism he earned Thorin's respect and was finally accepted as a legitimate member of the company. This dynamic is not dissimilar.

[Servo]

Finally saw this tonight. Absolutely loved it. Definitely giving it an A. Had no issue at all with the frame rate. No headaches and the film looked stunning.

Slightly off topic, but related to a conversation earlier in the thread; I find it unbelievable that people are still paid to be film critics, let alone that anyone actually allows a critic to tell them what films are worth watching.

[Klaus]

...I use film reviews for general impressions, not a specific up/down vote. If virtually every review of a film says the same good or bad things about it then I give that some weight. I've also looked to find critics who generally have similar taste in movies to me, though I don't have one of those right now.

[flavaflav]

B

Saw it on an Imax 3D screen, which was a first. The 3d was cool, but more of a novelty. The glasses are horrible. Didn't really notice the high frame rate. Picture looked slightly better here and there, but meh. I don't know what the fuss is about.

The movie itself was good. I loved Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I like him way more as a protagonist than Frodo. Frodo I wanted dead, Bilbo I root for. The rest of the characters were enjoyable. The film itself is beautiful. Effects are great. Music is enjoyable. Nothing else really stands out. It's a fun movie though.

For the dislikes, the big thing is the running time. Way too long. Unnecessary scenes. Such as the Frodo cameo which was utterly pointless. The entire stone giants sequence should have been removed as it added nothing. Too many panoramic shots. A good half hour really needed to be cut from the film. For an extended edition, this would be fine, but not for something in a theatre wearing uncomfortable glasses. The other issue I have is that while the film is a fun movie, it's very ho hum. I ended up being very bored by hour 2. It just dragged when it didn't need to.

All in all a good movie. Great by no means, but a good popcorn flick.

[Captain Craig]

Set Harth wrote:

---

The Necromancer is Sauron, so...

If there's a scene in this film most strongly tied to Sauron's eventual fall, it's Riddles in the Dark.

That helps, thanks. I'm clearly not a vested Tolkien-ite so thanks.

[Servo]

Klaus wrote:

---

...I use film reviews for general impressions, not a specific up/down vote. If virtually every review of a film says the same good or bad things about it then I give that some weight. I've also looked to find critics who generally have similar taste in movies to me, though I don't have one of those right now.

I'd rather just watch the film and decide for myself. I've been known to read critic reviews after I've watched a film, for the same reason I read threads like this - to see what other people thought - but I've never based my decision to watch a film or not on someone else's opinion, critic or otherwise.

I also find the notion postulated earlier in this thread, that people who don't listen to critics are somehow loyal only to one genre of film and blinkered to any poor quality entries to that genre, utterly moronic.

[JD]

I use critics' and non-professional reviews to get an idea of the general reaction to the movie. I don't always let that decide if I'm going to see it or not though. If it was something I didn't want to see, I still won't see it even if it gets really good reviews from everybody. On the other hand, if I movie I really want to see gets horrible reviews from everybody then I probably won't see it.

[Servo]

JD wrote:

---

If it was something I didn't want to see, I still won't see it even if it gets really good reviews from everybody.

I agree with that. There are a multitude of films that people rave about that I have never seen, simply because the subject matter doesn't interest me. I've no doubt that those films are well written, well acted, and well directed, but I'm not going to sit through a film that I know won't hold my interest storywise just to admire those attributes. I had to do that enough times when I was a film student.

On the other hand, if I movie I really want to see gets horrible reviews from everybody then I probably won't see it.

That's where I differ. If a film peaks my interest, I'll watch it no matter what anyone else has to say about it.