Tell us what you thought of 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'
Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth opens today
Martin Freeman in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey."
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
Peter Jackson's franchise-christening "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" arrives under no small amount of pressure: not only does the shadow of the impressively executed "Lord of the Rings" trilogy loom large over it, but the new film faces widespread cynicism over Jackson's decision to stretch J.R.R. Tolkien's slender children's yarn into three gargantuan films.
Sad to say, I'm not the only one to think it buckles rather catastrophically. Unexpected or otherwise, this is one dourly overextended journey, sorely missing the jaunty dramatic propulsion of the source material -- and that's before I factor in my concerns about the deadening, daytime-drama effect of the sleek but texture-draining 48fps technology. Still, the film has some ardent advocates, and not necessarily among the Tolkienite crowd, while our colleague Drew McWeeny deemed it a qualified success. So I'm very curious to know what you make of it -- in any frame rate. Do share your thoughts in the comments.
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
A series of talking points and a full annotated transcript hit the netSaturday, May 25, 2013
-
Jim Jarmusch is on typically deadpan form in mildly amusing vampire filmSaturday, May 25, 2013
-
Audiences revisit Celine and Jesse this weekendFriday, May 24, 2013
-
Marion Cotillard and Joaquin Phoenix play out a bad romance in 1920s-set dramaFriday, May 24, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupAndrej
December 15, 2012 at 12:08AM EST Reply to CommentI didn't see it in 48 fps (or 3D, for that matter), so I can't talk about that. But as for the movie itself, I thought it was Peter Jackson-standard long. So, so very long. It's fun and cheerful in small doses, but as a whole it turns tiresome by the half point, after they've established on padding every other scene with needless jokes and slapstick.
Also, I believe this movie might as well have been animated. It's so cartoony it kinda reaches self-awareness, and it would have been far shorter, too.
And as for its Oscar prospects... I wouldn't consider it for best visual effects. They were very obvious CGI-looking, like in a badly unblended kind of way.
Hannah Sauceda
December 15, 2012 at 1:02AM EST Reply to CommentFrom the view of a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings films, it will be hard for me to see all the negative so many critics and audience memebers saw in The Hobbit. It really frustrates me because I honestly did not see anything about the film that was concerning. First of all, we can't just compare this film to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. As they are masterpeices(11 Oscars), The Hobbit is a story all its own. Secondly, just as a new story is, it has to have new characters/faces. My brother and I love all the dwarves. We were also very pleased with the actors that came to reprise their characters, most notably the very underated Andy Serkis who played Gollum and was the second unit director of The Hobbit by the way. Third, whether audiences accept it or not, the effects of this film were simply breath taking; such as stone giants coming alive in an epic battle before my eyes. Lastly, on a more personal note the films Peter Jackson has made of Middle Earth have touched me in ways no other films have. As I am a LOTR fan, I am also a movie buff. I believe the beauty and purpose of film is when it transports us to another world, such as Middle Earth when we can forget our own for a couple of hours. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, as well as The Hobbit did this for me. I hope you see it and it does the same for you. But most importantly, I was truly happy to be on yet another and new adventure.
tengo
December 15, 2012 at 1:56AM EST Reply to CommentWell, personally I loved it. Granted I'm a LOTR fanboy, so I still enjoyed what might have seemed "overextended" to many others. The whole film looked beautiful, of course, and it was all very fun and entertaining. The scene between Bilbo and Gollum was stellar.
Was a little disappointed with some of the supporting cast. Despite the long runtime I didn't think a lot of the Dwarves were well developed, certainly not as much as the 9 fellowship members. But overall I was very, very happy and can't wait for the next 2 films.
Kyle Fuller I completely agree about the supporting cast. There is no real sense of comradery due to poor development. Even Thorin Oakenshield (?) felt underwritten. This film really makes you appreciate the magnetism of Viggo Mortensen and the heart of Astin in Fellowship of the Ring.
December 15, 2012 at 4:25AM ESTAmericanRequiem
December 15, 2012 at 2:53AM EST Reply to Commentthought it was a joy, not as good but also not the LOTR films so no need to compare
December 15, 2012 at 7:04PM ESTGuy Lodge "especially since the LoTR trilogy is going to be in almost anyone's list of best films ever made..."
December 16, 2012 at 8:34AM ESTWhile I don't dislike the films, I know very few people who would rank them among the greatest ever made. Maybe this is a generational thing?
Vargha
December 15, 2012 at 3:22AM EST Reply to CommentDear Guy, sorry for my irrelevant comment; but we still look forward to viewing your opinions and your reviews about films like 'Lincoln', 'Zero Dark Thirty', 'Django Unchained', and 'Les Miserables'. I mean your comments about both their quality and their Oscar chances.
Thanks a lot
Guy Lodge Reviews of the last three are all on their way before release, though I don't believe in discussing Oscar prospects in a review.
December 15, 2012 at 7:50AM ESTKyle Fuller
December 15, 2012 at 4:16AM EST Reply to CommentJust saw it in 48 fp/s. It took at least 45 minutes to settle into the high frame rate. Initially, it was extremely bothersome that everything in the foreground seemed to move in fast forward. During the Hobbiton sequence, simple actions like characters grabbing an item, or turning their head, take on an uncanny quality that keeps you from complete identification within the film. However, about halfway through I realized I hadn't thought about it for awhile, and once the immense set pieces begin, the 48 fps became rather breathtaking. During the final hour, it produced more "WOW" moments than distractions. It almost feels like watching 3D without glasses. The final shot of the film had me wanting to reach my hand out, the image quality was so spectacular. So there were some things I liked about it, and things I did not. If they can fix the fast forward feel, I'd be an HFR advocate.
As for the film itself, the first 1h 30 drags and feels quite repetitive. But, once in Rivendale, that magical LOTR feeling takes over and I found myself completely engaged. The biggest problem is that the characters just aren't as interesting and lovable as in Fellowship and it's sequels. Bilbo is almost cypher like, a surrogate for the audience without much substance. The Dwarves have little to no distinguishable personalities, with only 2 or 3 really serving a purpose other than bland comic relief. The film really falls on McKellen's shoulders, and he carries it well. His scene with Blanchett, Weaving and Lee is by far the most highlight, hinting at a complexity I hope shows itself in the second and third chapters.
The action of the final hour is truly great. Overall, as someone who hasn't read the book, I'm excited to see where the second film takes us.
Kyle Fuller I apologize for my appalling grammar in the above post. Reread it and I'm slightly mortified. Although it IS 3:30am when writing this.
December 15, 2012 at 4:20AM ESTCosmo Topper
December 15, 2012 at 6:41AM EST Reply to CommentIt was better than my wife and I expected. Peter Jackson really needs to get a strong editor who insists that he edit things down to a reasonable length. He does brilliant things visually but he often takes so much time that he loses the momentum. I thought the film is visually quite lovely. There are some sequences that are too reminiscent of LOTR's Trilogy, but that also is sometimes comforting. We saw it in 3-D and it is one of the rare films that is worth seeing in 3-D. We were glad we made that choice although it mainly because the time of the film's showing made that for us. As people have said, the main problem is that the characters are not well developed. LOTR worked for three films because we cared so much about the characters of Elijah Wood, Sean Astin and Viggo Mortenson. Although the actors are well cast and could have this type of connection to the audience, the sparsity of the script's character development keeps us from this. I thought it could have ended one battle earlier to keep us interested to the next version. All in all, I think Drew McWeeny got it right by calling it a "qualified success."
David
December 15, 2012 at 7:00AM EST Reply to CommentI think bofur and dori were well written and acted. They were all good, but those two definitely stood out for me. I think the problem for most people is that they don't have anyone's backstory on screen. And unless you know the story, or looked them up beforehand it was probably hard to remember each of them as opposed to the felowship which had more distinct differences between them (and less members all together) Maybe with two other movies they'll spend some more time on the dwarves, It seemed like bilbo didn't even get a chance to learn their names before they all left. But maybe that was the intention, and i dont think it really hurt the film. He didn't go for them at first. I don't feel like it was too long either, or that it took that long to get going. too many critics watched LOTR again before screening the hobbit and it probably makes it harder to view as its own story and obviously, different toned piece.
Shane
December 15, 2012 at 9:48AM EST Reply to CommentOk, can't say anyting bad about it. Just watched it with my 19 year old son, 15 year old son 9 year old son and his 9 year old friend. They loved the movie and thought it was amazing. The visual artwork and cinematics was superb. I don't like the three movie thing but if that is the only problem, well then there really isn't a problem is there. AWESOME MOVIE, and looking forward to the next.
forg
December 15, 2012 at 9:50AM EST Reply to CommentHighlights for me were the stone giants sequence and Bilbo and Gollum's riddles face off. The first part was dull and the dinner scene in the beginning was too long and boring.
I liked it enough but I wish the run time is shorter
velocityknown
December 15, 2012 at 10:28AM EST Reply to CommentI went in ready to see the pacing problems everyone had talked about, but I think I may have underestimated my love for Middle-Earth because I loved it and felt thoroughly entertained for all three hours.
I feel like it's definitely not going to win over any new fans, but if you'll sit around and watch the extended versions of the LOTR trilogy, then you'll definitely love this film for all of the same reasons.
A
December 15, 2012 at 12:50PM EST Reply to CommentThe most telling thing in the write-up above are the words "widespread cynicism". And pre-emptive cynicism at that.
In any case, the Hobbit hardly deserves a D+. The 48 fps technology (and beyond) clearly has promise as well.
A "slender children's yarn"
December 15, 2012 at 1:11PM ESTThe Hobbit has plenty of scope and takes its time with establishing the setting and characters.
I don't suppose the fact that this new trilogy incorporates material from Silmarillion is important enough to mention, either.
I also resent the patronizing use of "childrens". And even if it was a film aimed at children, what's wrong with that? How often do they get something done on this much scale?
Sure, some of it may seem slow - for others it may seem pleasing and comfortable.
Guy Lodge I don't see how calling The Hobbit a children's book is patronising -- that's what it is, and a wonderful one at that. Doesn't mean many adults can't read and adore it too.
December 15, 2012 at 2:31PM ESTGuy Lodge And my problem with the film isn't that it's aimed at children -- I don't think it's *sufficiently* aimed at children, playing down the novel's playfulness.
December 15, 2012 at 2:34PM EST
December 15, 2012 at 7:05PM ESTMatthew Starr I think this is why Guillermo Del Toro was originally selected to adapt this story. He is excellent at fantasy children's stories. I don't think there is anyone better really.
December 16, 2012 at 5:29PM ESTPeter Jackson while often comedic in tone was much better suited for the more serious and dramatic LOTR trilogy.
tdotdog
December 15, 2012 at 2:13PM EST Reply to CommentHaven't seen it yet. Too scared to. Love the book with all my heart. A bloated trilogy is not what I had in mind when thinking of a perfect live action adaptation of the beloved classic. Will be seeing it after the opening weekend rush, in 48fps, to satisfy the curiosity of my inner cinephile. :)
Jones
December 15, 2012 at 4:23PM EST Reply to CommentA friend of a friend offered me an extra ticket for the opening night of The Hobbit in 3D IMAX. I went into the theatre bracing myself for a 3 hour catastrophe —where my experience of the LOTR could be tarnished— based on the critical reviews I had read. To my surprise, I highly enjoyed the film! It did feel a bit long by the end (but, then again, I think I looked at my watch just two minutes before the movie would end), and some scenes could've been edited shorter. But the magic of Middle Earth was there for me. I didn't notice anything terrible in the visuals. If anything, my only visual complain would be the scene where they introduced the dragon (it was hard to make out what was happening with so many fast movements). And perhaps, the dwarves were not as developed character-wise but I don't think this affected my enjoyment of the film. Yes, it's not the Fellowship, but it doesn't have to be. This is a much light-hearted movie than LOTR and there is still a lot of enthralling adventure; I appreciated this. I was sad that I had to go back to a mundane world when all finished. I wanted to go back to Middle Earth. Personally, when this happens, it means the film is a qualified success. The scene where Bilbo meets Gollum and go onto a riddle match is outstanding! And I was very intrigued by the Necromancer subplot. I give it an A- in my books, I was totally surprised by it and I like those kind of cinematic experiences (although, I must say this surprise was probably caused by reading the bad reviews which lowered my expectations.)
whiterok
December 15, 2012 at 4:36PM EST Reply to CommentFirst, I have to say I have been following the making of these films for years and have tremendous respect for the wonderful artists who worked so hard on this film. I saw it in 48fps, which I think was a mistake. Folks who have pointed out that it looked like BBC shows are absolutely spot on. Big action scenes looked like video games and everything generally looked CGI. If this was the only format available I would say they might as well have filmed it ALL on green screen. The beautiful NZ wilderness didn't even look real. I will probably see it 2D 24fps. I didn't feel the length at all though. It was real breezy, and the tone felt right.
JJ1
December 15, 2012 at 4:46PM EST Reply to CommentOk, just saw it in good ole regular 2D and I was floored by it.
Can't speak for the 48fps because I knew better than to waste money on that atrocity.
Instead, I saw it in 2d regular with 2 friends and I couldn't have been happier to be transported back to Middle Earth again. I found many of the sequences to been incredible. And aside from a slow-going first act (meeting the dwarves) , I was completely hooked and transported away on these adventures. 8.5/10
Kinda bummed by the mixed reviews; I know the movie is needlessly lengthy, but id like to think that most of the criticism comes with the 48 fps.
Mojo CoCo
December 15, 2012 at 7:02PM EST Reply to CommentAbsolutely amazing. Exactly what the Hobbit should be; A family friendly, toned down introduction to middle earth and all of its wonders. It's as if Jackson filmed it through the eyes of a preteen being introduced to fantasy for the first time.
James
December 16, 2012 at 8:08AM EST Reply to CommentIt's been nearly a decade since filmmaker Peter Jackson last ventured into Middle Earth, and since the concluding of his billion dollar epic franchise The Lord of the Rings, and the bounty of Academy Awards earned for its conclusion, The Return of the King (which won eleven- every category in which it was up for), the cinematic universe for the famously rotund (now svelte) Kiwi has been decidedly earthbound. Following the grand Tolkien trilogy with King Kong (2005), which many accused of being heavily bloated and self serious, one with a running time that was nearly twice as that of the original film, and further so with his adaptation of The Lovely Bones (2009), there was a aura of perhaps the director, who began his career his low budget horror and the enchantingly morbid Heavenly Creatures had lost his touch. For The Lord of the Rings was a majestic and mighty piece of entertainment, presented with such lush visuals that it felt like a child running loose in a candy store of adventure and possibility, high on the adrenaline of movie magic. The great feat of his three films were that they could appeal, not just to the Tolkien fan club, or the cinephile who could rejoice movie-making wizardry, but nearly everyone who could embrace high order cinema of fun and splendor. Could something of the like ever be replicated, and even so, should it?
Jackson tries to answer that prickly question with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the prequel chapter to The Lord of the Rings' dense and mythic trilogy. While Lord of the Rings handles a rich and ever expansive universe, The Hobbit, as a source, is a fairly light one with a straight-forward tale told nearly with the swiftness of a prologue of what Tolkien would conjure. The film has made more than a few headlines in the fan boy culture in the realm of the controversial. First, with the decision of expanding The Hobbit into three parts-- a tall order considering the volume of the text itself. Second, with the divisive visual unveiling of The Hobbit's novelty in being presented in 48 frames per second, double that what movies are typically presented in meaning in laments terms that the audience is getting twice the information per frame, which has presented issues in it's own right from early reports of nausea, to the less than thrilling spectacle view of Middle Earth. The richest pre-screening caveat may have been when Jackson usurped the directorial reins from Guillermo Del Toro (who still retains a screenplay credit), returning to the franchise helm that made him king.
To be fair, Jackson has retained the sheen and glow of Middle Earth, recapturing the magnitude and awe-inspiring visual effects that made The Lord of the Rings the David Lean gold standard in fantasy storytelling. The beauty and wonder and the pure wizardry of the magicians of Weta Digital Effects remains firmly intact. The problem lies, as most of them do, with the difficulties and rigors of the business of sequels and prequels to past marvels. The relevancy and unexpected charm seems missing, and Jackson incorporates a more business-minded method to the very expected journey of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. What's more the film, clocking in at nearly three hour, has the reek and feel of over-bloated indulgence versus the brisk, nearly click pace set by the similarly timed first ventures of the franchise. And while The Lord of the Rings set a lofty mantle for the wow-inspiring, jaw-dropping set pieces when it first was unveiled, there's a sad thought of been there-done that, that prevents the magic from every really taking flight.
Set sixty years before The Fellowship of the Ring, The Hobbit introduces us to a young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), a tightly wound ninny of a hobbit who enjoys simple Shire-time solitude, that is until Gandalf (Ian McKellen), the impish wizard, sparks and awakens a sense of adventure and quest opportunity for the nervous little man. The Hobbit opens with a prologue, and continues to prologuize for quite some time. Firstly as general backstory to the quest that awakes, and secondly as way to reintroduce the older Bilbo, played once again by Ian Holm, as he begins to tell our tale proper. One of the best bits of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey play up the nostalgia factor as familiar faces from the past pop by to drop off blessings. Elvish royalty Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and the ethereal Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) are always welcome back. As ia McKellen, who serves as our delectable Middle Earth tour guide, charting the great English tradition of elegantly vamping franchise material. He serves as The Hobbit's most invaluable player. The quest offered to young, dallying Bilbo is a part of a mission to join a dwarf army to reclaim their once prosperous land that was robbed of them. It's easy enough to follow, and certainly not required in a three-film by three-hour course plan. But there's obvious padding along the way that the filmmakers (as well as the nervy studio execs in search of harvesting ever more dollars) will mask for story. Nearly a hour encompasses that of a dwarf party which consists of not one, but two musical numbers, for instance.
Even as the quest in underway, our adventurers are swept in battle after battle with orcs, trolls, goblins and mountainy shape shifters-- there's a current that while the tale is lined with a visual finesse and refinement, there's little by way of story. The dwarfs themselves are fairly indistinguishable, save for the tragic once-king, Thorin (Richard Armitrage), that that great sense of character so readily defined in The Lord of the Rings is taken a back seat to spectacle; Freeman, however, is a charmingly befuddled presence as the reluctant hero.
Throughout the nearly three hours of the first chapter, there's startlingly little story to cling to, except for one bravura sequence where Jackson the storyteller comes back and Jackson, the accountant, retires. It's one that's heavily steeped, further more, into the lure and nostalgia of the first set of films, but a triumphant aside that sharpens the divide of art versus commerce. A trapped Bilbo encounters Gollum (once again majestically and eerily played with a potent mixture of state of arts craftsmanship and pathos-inspired mania by Andy Serkis), and consists mainly of clever wordplay and delightful exchanges as the deranged and demented hobbit, still in awe and under the scope of the ring that will prove more compromising in later chapters. It's the easiest and most unexpected portion of The Hobbit to grab onto, and a late in the day deal breaker for the road that lies ahead.
Otherwise, we, as expected audience members must shake ourselves from a film, one that's certainly in no ways bad, or bad for us, with the slight discomfort from jetting around our movie theater seat after three hours, with the unsettling reaction that, honestly, nothing really happened.
Hannah Lee
December 16, 2012 at 12:25PM EST Reply to CommentSaw it in IMAX 3-D and really enjoyed it. It took a few minutes to get used to the visual style, but once I settled in it was very impressive visually.
I felt pulled along by Bilbo’s experience, and really felt that character came to life for me. I’ve not read the book for years, but remember Bilbo as being a bit of a cipher to me in the books, I remember having trouble getting into his head. Here, Bilbo really came to life for me. Martin Freeman did a wonderful job showing the character’s quirkiness, heart and wonder at the world around him.
The other performances were well done too. I do agree with those who felt the dwarves could have been better developed…I feel like they put a lot of time and effort into making them visually different, but should have given us more to develop who they were as characters.
Pacing wise, it did run a bit long, but I enjoyed most of the sequences…the only thing I would have done without was the sequence with the Goblins…the taunting and threats by a grotesque non-human species was a bit repetitive after the fight with the trolls, and the many, many daring close calls across the wooden goblin bridges and chasms were a bit much. Though I seem to remember having a similar response to some scenes in the book, so not all of that is on Jackson. Plus, the dwarves’ capture by the Goblins is what set up the wonderful scenes of Bilbo and Gollum.
I will probably see it again in the theater, and I’m looking forward to the next installment. B+ seems about right for a rating, D+ is way too harsh (perhaps expectations or the 48fps technology got in the way of the viewing experience for the reviewer)
Danny
December 16, 2012 at 10:48PM EST Reply to CommentRegarding the 42fps, I've seen many people comment that it doesn't look good in early scenes but they loved it in later scenes. I think that is a function of the eyes/brain needing to adjust to a new viewing experience. I wasn't sure I liked it during the first 30 minutes either, my eyes felt a little weird, then I forgot about it and then later I was finding myself leaning towards the screen enthralled.
Regarding the movie as a whole, even if it doesn't and probably never could match Fellowship's experience of discovery, wonder and emotional depth, it is still ultimately damn fine to be back in Middle Earth. Martin Freeman is excellent and I look forward to following him through many more adventures. First viewing (in 2d) I was quibbling with this and that. Second viewing (in 42fps 3D) I finally just got totally sucked in and cried when (spoiler) Thorin embraced Bilbo in the end.