The Hobbit Reviews

MattDP wrote:

San Il Defanso wrote: My only real issue in PJ's King Kong was that a couple of characters feel like they were meant to have arcs, and then the movie stopped worrying about it. I don't mind the long lead-in to the island because it always felt like it was doing enough to build tension. I realize a lot of people disagree with me on this one, but I really would change very little about it.

Agreed. I expected to hate King Kong - I've never understood the appeal of an outsize gorilla as a monster - but I really enjoyed it. The initial encounters on Skull Island remain terrifying even when you know what's coming. And that's partly because of that slow, careful build-up.

When my wife and I first got married, we made a list of movies that we felt the other person NEEDED to watch. It eventually sputtered to a stop when we realized we have very little overlap in movie tastes, but my one success story was that she really did enjoy the 2005 King Kong. It think she expected it to just be some meat-headed story of a monkey destroying New York, but by the end she was very strongly emotionally invested and genuinely thrilled by the entire middle third of the movie. Maybe it's just 12-year-old Nate talking, but it might be my favorite pure adventure movie.

Hopefully The Hobbit can learn from King Kong and use that build-up for effect rather than padding.

Check out the AVClub's review for a detailed breakdown of exactly how The Hobbit was padded. It's less about lingering over the source material and more about cramming in non-Hobbit Tolkien material and expanding (or inventing out of whole cloth) events that were only mentioned in passing.

I plan on seeing all three movies regardless.

Jeff White wrote: Duke, are you going for 24 fps, 48fps, or 3D?

I understand that 48 fps is 'too clear' and removes some 'movie magic'.

I don't think this is the same thing, per se, but recently I was walking in the electronics department at Walmart and there was a very large TV playing something that I thought for a moment was an SNL parody of Raiders of the Lost Ark... but it turned out to actually be Raiders of the Lost Ark. It just looked ridiculously bad on whatever kind of HD TV it was. Super clear and well defined, no doubt, but it had almost like a soap opera kind of look to it, and definitely not "filmic." Yes, movie magic can be lost by things being too clear like that. At least I was happy to know that I should never feel the need to buy that kind of expensive TV.

I think that Jackson's King Kong holds up really well... That middle section on the island is intense, and as someone else said, it works better for having the contrast of the time waiting to get to it.

I wasn't a big fan of Jackson's King Kong. Too long, and too much time spent on people getting killed by giant bugs. Kong had too little screen time.

That aside, I'm a big Tolkien nerd. I love reading The Simirillion and the appendices in Return of the King. So I'm really geeked out to see stuff like Gandalf exploring the dungeons of the necromancer (ie Sauron's) in Mirkwood and watching the White Council evict the evil eye from the premises, etc.

But I don't know how that's going to affect The Hobbit's story. The Hobbit is great because it's so light and fun and accessible. My wife tried reading LOTR after the movies, but couldn't even get halfway through Fellowship. But she loves The Hobbit.

If 48fps is making people sick, I will definitely see it in 24fps whenever we get the chance to go. The wife doesn't handle 3D well after being pregnant (weird) so I doubt she'd do well on the 48.

There's a reason people usually read Hobbit BEFORE Lord of the Rings. That along with making this into three movies could give The Hobbit a chance at beating Phantom Menace as the most disappointing movie of all time. We'll see.

Maybe they'll take creative license and adapt it to today's generation. Instead of the trolls turning to stone when sunlight hits them, they sparkle.

That soap opera effect can be shut off on most TVs. And it only really applies to LCD not Plasma.

The little I've read so far in terms of reviews is that they stretched everything out too much, the film is plodding with brilliant moments. fucking megalomaniac: is there any reason this couldn't have been a really great three-hour film rather than another trilogy?? (other than money of course)

I saw it in 3d, and it was good, i haven't read any reviews but it's at least as good as the lotr films.

Frame rate / 3d
In my view the 3d adds nothing to the film and makes some of the action at the start rather blurry. Can't comment on frame rate because i'm unfamiliar with the issues history. At the start there's a lot of fast sweeping cameras over large cgi landscapes and action sequences that involve a large flying reptile (spoilers), this was rather blurry, but that may have been by design.


If you liked the Lotr films, go see it. I really liked the first lotr film, and was more mixed on the second two. For me the Hobbit out did them. The character dialogue is generally stronger. I didn't have moments where i cringed like i did in the later lotr films. I also felt that this film captured more of the 'magic' of its setting.


The film does embellish the book, but it does it well. It follows its source material probably more closely than lotr, but brings in some silmarillion back story stuff. The characters of the individual dwarves are far more developed and threaded into the story arc (this is how it will make 3 films), i didn't feel that this in anyway detracted from the experience or the source material.

I had three concerns going in; Firstly that it would simply be a prequal series to lotr and thus the plot would focus entirely on being epic and pointing to the future (ditching the stuff in the book), secondly that the dwarven comic relief would be irritating and crass and thirdly that there would be obvious signs of scraping the plot thin to get three films out of it. None of these were founded.

The tone of the film is light. Like the book, it's jolly and fun, suitable of all age groups. There is darkness but it doesn't upset the tone. Most of this comes from the characters, the dwarves and Bilbo in particular produce plenty of comic relief without being brash. Ian Holme (old bilbo) narrates the opening, and with Gandalf and one of the older dwarfs telling anecdotal tales as things progress there is a ye olde tale feel to the film.

Theres plenty of action. The main reason the writers have developed the back story and dwarven characters so is to create extra tension and up the stakes a little. There is a wiff of turning it into an epic but at least its not a clear lotr prequal set up.

Pacing is generally pretty good, there's a slow start, but its more or less unavoidable, and theres a lull in the middle where you can see the cogs turning and parts of the future plot being stitched together. These are minor criticisms however. I felt that some of the cgi designs were slightly over done. Erebor is at least as big as Moria if not bigger.

I can see how they will get three films of similar quality out of this. This film does have a rounded plot arc, tapping into the characters interrelationships, the later films will round off the main arc of the hobbit (Smaug) and goblin threat (also in the book) and Dol Guldur (Silmarillion stuff). Each of them is given some build up in this first installment and are yet unresolved.

I've probably already said to much for a teaser review. I don't know what criticisms others have leveled at it. My guess is some might have gone in expecting more lotr, which it both is and isn't. It has very similar ingredients; walking across new zealand, mutilation of orcs, ancient evil, hobitses etc, but it is also distinct.



I didn't like Jacksons King Kong. I think Jacksons an alright director but he does this thing where, when two characters are having a 'moment' it goes on for a good minute longer than it should. It happens excessively in King Kong, a few times in lotr and once or twice in the Hobbit.

DukeofChutney wrote: If you liked the Lotr films, go see it. I really liked the first lotr film, and was more mixed on the second two. For me the Hobbit out did them. The character dialogue is generally stronger. I didn't have moments where i cringed like i did in the later lotr films. I also felt that this film captured more of the 'magic' of its setting.

This helped me decide to go see The Hobbit. I enjoyed the books, but had issues with the pacing and length of the second and third movies of LotR.

Thanks for the rundown, Duke. Your review and what I read in that review linked to up the page has me pretty confident. Additions like the backstory to the members of the dwarven company are welcome.