It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
gooberking: I liked the movie, but that' about the limit of what I can say for it. It definitely had a lighter feel to it than the LOTR movies, which probably helped with my biggest beef with it. If it had tried to be more serious then I don't think I would have been able to get past the absurd number of overly sensationalized life or death moments, the heroes kept miraculously escaping from.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: Thing is, it's not really a movie at all. It feels and looks like, and pretty much serves the purpose of, an amusement park ride. Or more precisely, these "4D cinema" things, were you watch something crashing down a mountain or whatever, and the seats move accordingly. Only less cool, but much longer.

Judge it as a movie, and it's unimaginably ugly, plastic and crude, judge it as an "experience", with hordes of hideous 3D beasts jumping at you and careering tracking shots, and it's fine.

The Trilogy was ugly and, yes, cheesy in places (impressive in others), but ultimately those were still very much movies.

But yeah, who cares? Blanchett is achingly beautiful as Galadriel and pierces the ridiculous sausage festival going on around her like a beam of golden light breaking through dark clouds...

*cough*
Obviously you have no soul.
avatar
Leroux: Ha ha, alright, I can agree to that (with the exception of the cheesy scene in LOTR, where she spoke with a funny voice ;) ). I'd even go further and admit that I didn't mind Liv Tyler being in the LOTR movies either; for all I care she could have gotten even more extra scenes. Those two were certainly more convincing Tolkien elves than Leonardo Bloom. :D
See, I like Tolkien, but I have absolutely no problem with a director changing the material for a movie. Different art forms, and demanding that Jackson should stick to the books as much as possibly strikes me as an anti-intellectual point of view. I too liked what he did with Arwen.

But yeah, the elves. I'd have preferred they'd given us more of them and less Orc butchering.
avatar
jefequeso: Obviously you have no soul.
But I do! It's just black and twisted.
Post edited January 02, 2013 by Ivory&Gold
avatar
Leroux: Ha ha, alright, I can agree to that (with the exception of the cheesy scene in LOTR, where she spoke with a funny voice ;) ). I'd even go further and admit that I didn't mind Liv Tyler being in the LOTR movies either; for all I care she could have gotten even more extra scenes. Those two were certainly more convincing Tolkien elves than Leonardo Bloom. :D
avatar
Ivory&Gold: See, I like Tolkien, but I have absolutely no problem with a director changing the material for a movie. Different art forms, and demanding that Jackson should stick to the books as much as possibly strikes me as an anti-intellectual point of view. I too liked what he did with Arwen.

But yeah, the elves. I'd have preferred they'd given us more of them and less Orc butchering.
avatar
jefequeso: Obviously you have no soul.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: But I do! It's just black and twisted.
Except when it comes to Cate Blanchett. I agree, she's beautiful.
avatar
FAButzke: NOW I know why I never liked you. Everything has a reason.
hehehe =D
avatar
StingingVelvet: Insert a long tracking shot across mountains and valleys which eventually settles on my face and a slight pout.
And it was the most fun I had with a movie since... well... can't even remember one. :P
This "long tracking shot across mountains" were one of many things that made me feel like I was watching something epic.
I liked it for the most part.

Actually my only real complaints were how bad some of the zoomed out scenes looked. It was particularly bad in Goblintown, I actually felt like i could pick up a controller and start playing. I expect the visuals to be better done in a movie.

But really, that's about the worst thing I can say about it. Bring on the next two, I can't wait to be able to watch all six movies back to back.
Interestingly enough, some of the major complaints I'm reading here are faults from the book.
Saw the Hobbit last week and it was well done, although in my eyes it falls short of LOTR. LOTR is just much more epic. For example comparing the wild escape of Aragorn and the Hobbits on horses to the Elves while comparing the escape of Gandalf, Bilbo and the dwarfs in the Hobbit I see inferior quality. The fight in the orc cave is a bit silly also. Three movies with about 2.5 hours each just might be too much. A shorter version with maybe only two parts might have been better. Golum is as good as ever. 4/5 stars
Post edited January 04, 2013 by Trilarion
avatar
Trilarion: Saw the Hobbit last week and it was well done, although in my eyes it falls short of LOTR. LOTR is just much more epic. For example comparing the wild escape of Aragorn and the Hobbits on horses to the Elves while comparing the escape of Gandalf, Bilbo and the dwarfs in the Hobbit I see inferior quality. The fight in the orc cave is a bit silly also. Three movies with about 2.5 hours each just might be too much. A shorter version with maybe only two parts might have been better. Golum is as good as ever. 4/5 stars
It will be too little, I already see this. After spending almost 3 hours in a theatre I felt like I could sit at least 2 hours more. For each movie.

Middle Earth is just so amazing, so detailed, you could make a dozen movies from this. When I hear the third movie will be a bridge between the Hobbit and LOTR, I am horny as Gandalf's stallion. This is gonna be amazing.
avatar
SimonG: Interestingly enough, some of the major complaints I'm reading here are faults from the book.
That depends on what you consider "major" complaints. Care to enlighten us which ones you're referring to?
avatar
SimonG: Interestingly enough, some of the major complaints I'm reading here are faults from the book.
avatar
Leroux: That depends on what you consider "major" complaints. Care to enlighten us which ones you're referring to?
The lighthearted atmosphere, the "deus ex machina" saves literally all the time, the too fast pacing to name a few.
And "less epicness" I hear all the time from my friends...
Great movie. I enjoyed the lighter tone because if I remember correctly (it's been a few years) the book is like that as well. The new additions to the soundtrack were awesome; I am addicted to Misty Mountain Cold. The thing I am apprehensive about is the fact that Peter Jackson is drawing this out over three movies. Yes, I understand he is pulling material from other Tolkien works (Silmarillon, et al) but I hope he doesn't destroy the integrity of the material in order to make mucho dinero $$$$$
avatar
Leroux: That depends on what you consider "major" complaints. Care to enlighten us which ones you're referring to?
avatar
SimonG: The lighthearted atmosphere, the "deus ex machina" saves literally all the time, the too fast pacing to name a few.
I don't see these as the major complaints here though. From what I've read in this thread, a much greater and more valid complaint is about the way the movie tries to combine the lighthearted atmosphere with the dead serious epic tone of the LOTR. Complaining about a lighthearted tone in an adaptation of The Hobbit and calling it a "fault" would be quite silly, IMO, and most likely to come from those who hated the book in the first place. And the complaints about too fast pacing I must have overlooked, I only noticed those about too long and cheesy action scenes.

Regarding the "deus ex machina" argument, while it is true that The Hobbit has its share of "deus ex machina" solutions, my complaint with the movie is, that it makes them all the more evident by even adding more of their kind. The book has Gandalf turning up out of nowhere and saving the day twice or so, plus the eagles. The movie has that too, but it also has the party making a wondrous escape from each and every dramatical action scene LOTR-style, both heroes and enemies constantly falling over the edge just to make a surprising return, a small hobbit without combat training pushing over a huge muscled orc warrior four times as big as him etc. etc. Lots of cheap action tricks that threaten the suspension of disbelief.

The movie could have made an effort to smooth away the story-telling 'flaws' of the book instead of amplyfying them. How about trying to explain why Gandalf happens to be in the right place at the right time, for example, seeing that the movie already made him one of the main characters with his very own scenes? The moth was only a half-hearted attempt IMO, since neither the moth nor Gandalf's relation to Gwaihir were introduced beforehand, so it doesn't do anything to change the fact that it's a deus ex machina solution.
Post edited January 04, 2013 by Leroux
This is now my favorite movie ever :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl7w2Z0vGpA
avatar
Telika: This is now my favorite movie ever :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl7w2Z0vGpA
... What did I just watch?