I thought it was bad. It's about an hour too long and it's mired in silliness/campiness that just doesn't work at all. Takes everything that's great about the trilogy and does not do any of it.
|
|
I thought it was bad. It's about an hour too long and it's mired in silliness/campiness that just doesn't work at all. Takes everything that's great about the trilogy and does not do any of it.
I cant wait to see this on my 3d tv
I take it you didn't read the book.....Originally Posted by POBR25
I thought he movie was fantastic. I can definitely see why he has decided to go with three films instead of two...it is important to do the full story justice.
On the HFR edition:
I was not at all disappointed in the high frame rate presentation, alas it is only available at the faster frame rate in 3D. This is problematic, because the technology simply isn't good enough yet to give a full three dimensional image. While the mountains look distant, they appear flat as does the other scenery in front...kind of like looking at a diorama made up of pictures. A few times, I took off my glasses and was incredibly impressed with the product as it moved on the screen.
Peter Jackson...please give us a 40 fps 2D version next time.
Go see it on a large screen, but not in 3D.
I did not. From what I understand about the book, my gripes may be with the source material. However, there was no justification whatsoever for this film to be 2 hours and 46 minutes long. There were many wasteful/pointless scenes.
saw it twice yesterday. I thought it was fun. I liked the guy playing Bilbo. He was good. It's my 13 yr old daughter's favorite childhood book. We went early Saturday morning, then went Christmas shopping, ran errands, did stuff around the house. As we were settling in for some Christmas movies they all said they wanted to see it again, so we loaded up the family truckster and caught a late movie as well.
The following users like this post: SpankyNek
Martin Freeman is really good...I like him as Watson in Sherlock as well.
The following users like this post: Wailer
It was tooooooo long.
Was the picture quality supposed to be different? It looked like any other 3D movie?
I loved it. Didn't seem long at all. In fact, I was surprised when the movie was over. I loved seeing live-action versions of familiar scenes from the animated version.
First 45 minutes to an hour seemed to drag, but after that it was really good.
Saw it. Really enjoyed it. Its been a few years since I've read the book so I might go back and re-read it to jog my memory on some areas. I saw it in 3D and will go back to watch it in 2D at some point. Some of the effects were distracting and blurry... but overall, I thought it was great.
Movie was a flying ****-box, do not see.
I might wait till the extended edition comes out on Blu-Ray.
The movie was not too long.
If you can't sit still for that long, take your ADHD meds and maybe a hemorrhoid pad.
It was a really good movie if you like that sort of movie.
On the internet, you find Mom's basement tough guys that hate everything.
The following users like this post: Wailer
I liked the movie...watched all 3 LotR the next 2 days to clarify some things in my head.
The music, however, was not good. C+ on what I imagine was a pretty high budget film.
I didn't think they were ever going to leave Bilbo Baggins house.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The following users like this post: Stinger_1066
It does start out a tad slow. But I thought it was pretty decent for a movie that - by the end - doesn't seem to have accomplished much. Would have probably been better films if they had made two instead of three.
The following users like this post: Turk
Read the book in 1975. The movie was slow and leaves you hanging, but I'll watch every darn one of them
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The following users like this post: Turk
I watched the old animated show last night. Hell, 30 minutes in they make it to lonely mountain. Lol
Fvckin it live via tapatalk dos
I marathonned the extended trilogy this weekend. Just clarifes how different The Hobbit is to the trilogy. There's some cool nods throughout the Trilogy that connect with The Hobbit. I thought it was kinda neat. Watching the trilogy makes me want to give The Hobbit another try. I'll definitely watch it again when it's released on Blu-Ray. Maybe lower expectations will allow me to enjoy it more.
I loved the LoTR trilogy, but can't decide if I'm up for a 2.5 hour movie or not.
Saw it last night. Could've done without the Roc em, Soc em Robots scene. Thought it was good, not great, but I felt the same way about the LOTR trilogy, so I expect they'll progressively get better.
I've never read any of the books, so I hope this is the last time we see Smeagal in this trilogy. How was it he acquired the ring again?
Saw it last Thursday in 3D. Too slow to get going, and too long overall. And there are still two more to go.
He murders his best friend Deagol and takes it from him after Deagol finds it at the bottom of a lake. It's the opening scene of The Return of the King.
Smeagol was with another Hobbit who found it in a river. They fought over it and he killed the other Hobbit. The slowly turned into the creature Gollum.
The roc'em, soc'em robot scene was probably the one scene I thought should have been cut completely.
Regarding Smeagol finding the ring, others have answered but the ring came to be in the river when Isildur was hunted and killed by a pack of orcs. From the Silmarillion:
Isildur himself escaped by means of the Ring, for when he wore it he was invisible to all eyes; but the Orcs hunted him by scent and slot, until he came to the River and plunged in. There the Ring betrayed him and avenged its maker, for it slipped from his finger as he swam, and it was lost in the water. Then the Orcs saw him as he laboured in the stream, and they shot him with many arrows, and that was his end.
Thanks for the answers. Obviously I'm very rusty on this. Was Smeagal once a hobbit himself?
At the first of one of the trilogy (I think the third) they show this happen. He was one of the 'river people.' He was similar to a hobbit but not actually one.
He was a Stoor-Hobbit. One of several races of hobbits.
I agree. While the giants fighting (or throwing rocks at each other) is mentioned briefly in the book, this scene severely stretched the suspension of disbelief. Reminded me of the Tyrannosaurus fight in King Kong. Probably would have cut the Radagast scenes as well (although they may be going somewhere with that so I'll withhold judgement), and overall, every fight/flight scene could be pared down by a few minutes each. Pretty much everything in the movie is taken from The Hobbit, but stretched out. The tone is lighter, like the book, but also has parts that are more violent and dark, like the LOTR movies.
That said, I enjoyed the movie and loved returning to Middle-earth. Riddles in the Dark is a fantastic scene. I thought the opening was good, as well as the introduction of the Dwarves. Gandalf, Bilbo, and most of the Dwarves are portrayed well. There is much to like in the movie, but it's not perfect, and ranks below the LOTR series a little.
What was the consensus here? Y/N?
Depends if you're a die hard Hobbit fan. It is slow, but the scenery is gorgeous. I took a date and got a mouth-hug afterwards.
So, no. Okay, thanks.
I'd wait till the extended edition comes out. If you are going to sit in one place for 3 hours you might was well sit for the extended edition.
The following users like this post: McRib
Haven't watched and won't watch until it comes out on video. It's running time is 2:50...and that's part f'n 1. I've loved The Hobbitt since I was a kid. First real book read and I was so excited to hear it was coming out. I never imagined it would have been made into 3 3 hour flicks tho.
Thanks to you both, that helpsIll wait.
The concensus is this movie sucks.
The issue with length is that they are adding material from other sources in order to better connect the Hobbit with the other movies in order to give significance to their actions and provide back story on events in the other movies. I could see maybe splitting up the source material into 2 movies but 3 is really pushing it. The only thing that would happen in 2 will be finishing the journey to the lonely mountain and Smaug I guess, and the last one will have to be the battle of the 5 armies and conclusion each will have to be supplemented with outside material if they want to keep each movie at this length. That will draw the same criticism for those movies.
While they strayed from the book some I liked the movie. I still wish someone other than Peter Jackson was doing it because all he knows is dark and horror.
Sent from my so called smart phone using Tapatalk.
Leaves you hanging? It's the first part to a trilogy, so isn't it supposed to?
Guillermo del Toro was originally going to direct it and he's even more dark and horror than Peter Jackson.
Somewhat dissapointing.
I thought it was great. I reread the books recently and I can easily see how the material can be stretched into 3 movies. There was almost no detail on the battle with the Necromancer and the Battle of the 5 Armies. That's a total of 2-3 pages in the book that could easily be an entire movie. Once you add context and detail to The Hobbit, the story grows considerably.
Any book can...there's a reason they aren't. We have short attention spans.
Its absolutely too long, and I like long movies. The neverending scene with the dwarves at Bilbo's house, could have been much shorter. The mountain giant fight, only point I can think of is to make it longer and show off CGI. It could have been 2 hours and felt about right if they cut out all the pointless stuff.
The following users like this post: OUrage
I liked the movie a lot and agree with both of these points.
While certain scenes could have been truncated, the movie never felt "too long" while watching it.
Can't say the same for he first LOTR movie.
I just wish that they would do an intermission, and then there wouldn't be as much ****ing.
Gettysburg had one, and it was perfect.
for the record, I wasn't ****ing, but the rock fight seemed superfluous and the kitchen scene could have been shorter.
Yeah, I wasn't directing my comment at anyone in particular...it seems that overall length has been harped about as a general theme (not just here).
Agreed on the rock fight, and I didn't care as much about the Bilbo's house scene...it just added anticipation (for me).
Spoiler:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
