Movie Review: The Hobbit

Derrel · Dec 16, 2012

Went to see The Hobbit at a late show last night. EIGHT fricking previews. Grrr. Then a 2hr 45 minute movie, which was well-done for the first 2 hrs, then devolved into a juvenile "special effects battle segment" that dragged on for 45 ridiculous minutes. Enjoyable, then...straining credulity. My willful suspension of disbelief was SHATTERED as soon as the rock giants came to life. It spiraled downward, and slammed nose-first into the ground, killing all interest I had in a flaming, burning, crash from 35,000 feet.

Out of 5 stars? 3 Stars

Out of 100 points? A solid 60 points.

Desi · Dec 16, 2012

After LOTR, which was nearly flawless, it was surprising to see some genuine miscalculations in The Hobbit. But, I loved it just the same. I'm hooked.

The stone (storm?) giants, though, were painful to see.

Derrel, not sure how you experienced it, but LOTR, when I saw it, seemed exactly as I had imagined it. The Hobbit seemed more grown up.

rexbobcat · Dec 16, 2012

The rock giant part is in the book.

My biggest issue is the bull**** cliffhanger.

I mean, really? Is this three movie for one book thing going to be a frequent Hollywood ploy from here on out?

Overread · Dec 17, 2012

Eh who says that 1 book = 1 film anyway?
Most books turned into films have masses of content cut or altered or scenes sped up so that it can fit into a single or even double showing. Description might take far longer in a book than on the screen, but events that can be covered in a few moments in a book can often require far longer in a moving picture - especially if you also want to build in visual elements which help to portray background thoughts/viewpoints of the characters.

So, in the end, I like where this is going; even though I know that masses of the Hobbit has been changed. Furthermore its not just the Hobbit - there are several major plot lines added (eg the necromancer) which have been expanded to help link the film into the LotR filmes. So its a longer book than just the Hobbit on its own.

Derrel · Dec 17, 2012

The stone giants segment absolutely strained credulity. It was just so silly and over the top. After the way the agonizing pacing and "real" and "matter-of-fact" realism of the earlier action and adventure, the stone giants segment was just ridiculous in how over-the-top it was. The battle scenes that followed...zOMG...just too,too much. And the cliffhanger ending...it drew a groan from the audience, each and every one who understood, Jackson would have them coughing up yet another $10.25 to see a Part II. After such a lengthy, drawn out series of action/adventure sequences, the cliffhanger ending felt a bit unrewarding.

I did my review and rating without having seen ANY reviews of the movie. Then today, I checked Rotten Tomatoes...wow!!! Their "Serious Critics" reviews are even more scathing than my 60 out 0f 100...averaging only in the 40's!!!! Even casual reviewers, many of whom are fans I would assume of LOTR and or Jackson, are not being too kind to this film.

rexbobcat · Dec 17, 2012

I enjoyed most of it but it didn't really feel like LoTR. It didn't have even a similar atmosphere at all.

I really hate how they just dragged out the whole movie in order to make it long but unable to capture the whole story. That way they have an excuse to make a second one.

That's what pissed me off. They didn't even say it was part one or anything. It was just like "surprise, you're going to have to wait another two years for the next one."

Overread · Dec 17, 2012

Rex - I think that is more to do with how they've cut the films. The films are cut like the Lord of the Rings book in that its not 3 separate films or books; but a single entity broken into 3 specific segments. The difference there is that a whole entity broken into 3 doesn't retain the "beginning - middle - end" style as strongly within its segmented items. Typically it will have cliffhanger "endings" of events at the end of each segment, but it typically won't have much of a beginning or introduction at the start of a new segment and often jumps right into the middle event.

It can leave the film feeling empty at the end, just like a segmented book feels empty at the end because - its not actually the end; its just a pause. I suspect this fuels some "RAGE" against the Hobbit because people know that the rest is produced and are impatient to having to wait years for the rest of the story production.

rexbobcat · Dec 17, 2012

I know that. But if I wanted to take the time to delve completely the universe I would read the book. Movies, in my opinion, serve the purpose of instant gratification, while on the contrary books are more for the people who want prolonged satisfaction through a course of time longer than a few hours.

It doesn't bother me as much that it is a cliffhanger. It bothers me that it never said it was going to be. The movie is "The Hobbit", which implies that this is THE "The Hobbit" movie, not one of the "The Hobbit" movies. If it said Part I for something at least I wouldn't go into the theater expecting a complete movie experience and only getting an empty feeling.

And I'm also confused as to why they're making this one into more than one. It's the shortest book.

This is what I suspect:

Why The Hobbit Is Going To Be Three Movies… | WeKnowMemes

Overread · Dec 17, 2012

To be fair the film was always only going to be part one right from the get go. They always said all along that it was only the first film of at least two and then three so unless you've had your head in the sand you should have known that it was only going to be part one

.

Also as for why its more its because they can. Masses of content was cut or changed in the Lord of the Rings to bring it into only 3 films. With the Hobbit whilst its a shorter book the fact that they have the budget to allow them to do more means that they can spend time going into more of the book, they have to cut less because they've more time to work with. In addition they are making it more into a prequel for the Lord of the Rings and as a result its not just The Hobbit; you've Unwritten Tales added into that as well as expansion of some background events. This increases the amount of content beyond just what was in the Hobbit book.

In the end whilst movies might be instant gratification I've no problem with long story arcs in films, indeed I wish more films would tie themselves into each other more often. It's always a bit of a sad thing for me that very few series build one film to the next with any strength and instead all stand alone (which is ok, but it can get a bit forced the longer it goes on for because the latter films reference into things that were never actually explored in earlier ones so the characters often feel like they are changing from their original selves without any clear influence.

djake · Dec 18, 2012

Overall I liked the movie, however I got the feeling that they were trying everything they could to make 140 pages of the book into a 3 hour movie, and for me it just didn't work.

12sndsgood · Dec 18, 2012

Im looking forward to seeing it. it was shot as a 3 part series from the get go. same as LOTR and they didnt make a big advertising deal with LOTR either about it being in 3 parts. I remember my wifes dad being confused when the first movie ended. I'm sure this one will have the same thing.

IByte · Dec 18, 2012

My view I'll give an 80/100. I think a lot of people are judging it the standards of LOTR. I'm for happy to see a prequel (if you want to call it that). I love the flashbacks. And one of the important key facts of the movie was the Golem vs Bilbo.

TheFantasticG · Dec 18, 2012

I'm going to wait until all 3 parts are on DVD so I can watch them in a row.

dbvirago · Dec 29, 2012

I enjoyed it, but not as much as LOTR. But since I didn't enjoy the book as much as the LOTR books, that makes sense. It was fairly true to the book, which was definitely more juvenile than LOTR (he wrote it children, and from writing it, grew the world that became LOTR). Would have been better if this was first, but like the first reading of the book, there was no import given to the ring, so that was just another scene. Knew it was part one so expected a cliff hanger. Didn't really like the scene with the stone giants, but didn't like it in the book either, just like I hated the Ents in both the books and movies. If anyone thinks this is going to be too long, go find the ridiculous hour long animated version from the 70s.

Jshel101 · Jan 4, 2013

I saw this last week and really didn't like it. We saw the iMax 3D version of it and the special effects where really good. The movie though, dragged on far too long. My wife and I just about walked out half way through. I loved the LOTR movies and had high hopes for this one. I think I will wait until the last two come out on blueray before I watch them.