 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not starting out promising.
"...at the end of three hours, we're barely 100 pages in, with mere sentences on the page having been inflated into entire sequences on screen."
"...the result is a journey whose most unexpected element is just how little ground it covers."
http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-12-12/film/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-film-review/
Not that any amount of criticism will stop the Tolkein-ites from queueing up 'round the block.
I'm wondering if it will be worth it, especially if it is going to be at premium ticket prices (wasn't this supposed to be in 3-D or Hobbit-vision or something?). Maybe I'll just wait until they all come out and then take a day off work to see the whole blessed Hobbit Cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the sped up action due to lack of motion blur made some scenes look like Benny Hill.
Interesting. Maybe these are reasons (among others) why higher film rates never caught on as a new standard.
Well, even if I don't see it in a cinema, I'll be squirming outside one (metaphorically) dying to see what all the criticism is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
the 48 fps is terrible. that just makes it look like live tv.
100% agreed! It reminds me some taped episodes from a tv show. Awful. And the movie ? A 2h40 boring experience. Except for Martin Freeman -- who is great -- the other main characters are puppets : nothing to do with the former lively and exciting characters from the LOTR trilogy. A huge, huge disappointment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hearing mixed reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 15, 2012 - 10:42 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sirusjr
(Member)
|
Some may find the approach Peter Jackson took with The Hobbit to be a bit excessive. While a simple adaptation of the book could have been finished in a single movie, he chose to include a number of additional stories from other sources, giving us an entire Hobbit trilogy. "The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey" is the first in the trilogy and, bolstered by the additional lore, gives a hearty taste of the story to come. Though some may find it overlong, I think it hit a perfect balance. At first glance, the cynical viewer may assume this is another cash-grab from Hollywood after the last Harry Potter and Twilight films were each split into two, but based on the first film, it was a good decision.
Though I read The Hobbit many years ago, before Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" was released in theaters, I can still notice the various stories that are new to this longer film version. Every bit of lore added to this first film is interesting and worthwhile, providing much needed back-story to the epic quest. The characters do take their time progressing on their quest, though it never feels like they meander aimlessly.
Though I am not one to listen to Howard Shore's music outside the films, I find that it gives them a magical feeling whenever used. Because it takes place before "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy," many of the musical ideas used will be familiar to anyone who watched the original trilogy. The familiar Hobbit theme is used wonderfully, and brings with it the whimsical feeling of Hobbits taking it easy. The new theme for the dwarves is powerful and inspiring. It is used to great effect in major action sequences. Other familiar themes show up at just the right moments. Put together, Howard Shore's score is a powerful part of the film that supports it beautifully.
Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo is spectacular. He captures the audience's attention in every scene. Andy Serkis returns as Gollum and when he is on screen is as creepy as ever. "The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey" delivers a powerful foundation to the story with plenty of humor and action along the way. The numerous dwarves are interesting characters and a few stand out as particularly likable. Fans of the world of Middle Earth will find a lot of little nuggets to enjoy, just enough to keep them satisfied until the next installment is released.
9/10
NOTE: Though the film was released in 3D and a high frame rate version, I opted for the regular 2D viewing. I can't comment on whether these features are worth the extra cash.
Read more of my reviews at marvelmvs.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't comment on this myself, not having been able to listen to the album version of this score yet, however I've seen a great deal of negative comments about how tracks from the album have been edited and/or dropped entirely, replaced with tracked music from all three LOTR installments (which I did notice; I just didn't know that the album cues had been messed with in favour of them). More on the details can be found here:
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?guest=59424366&do%3Dpost_view_flat%3Bsb%3Dpost_time%3Bso%3DDESC%3Bpost%3D539879=View+Flat+Mode#540042
On the film itself, I enjoyed it. I re-read The Hobbit this summer in preparation for the film, and even though I knew they were going to be adding to it in order to better connect it to the LOTR films and draw it out to 3 movies instead of 2, I was still pretty surprised at how much extra story they stuffed in there. I think the fact that I, a longtime fan of the book, actually enjoyed it was a testament to the fact it was done pretty well. I've read the sections of the LOTR appendix that much of this stuff came out of, so I had a good idea of what was going to be added; but it was really interesting seeing it visualized on film.
I'd seen the trailers, so I knew Cate Blanchett had come back to play Galadriel in a role that didn't exist in the book; but since I didn't look up a cast list prior to seeing it, I was shocked when Christopher Lee showed up as Saruman for an impromptu council.
Loved the riddles in the dark scene, as well as the moment when Bilbo chooses to spare Gollum's life.
I saw it this time around in IMAX 3-D @ 24fps. I'll be going back to see an UltraAVX 3-D high framerate show, in order to see how 48fps impacts the stereoscopic effect. Personally, I found that many scenes lacked appreciable depth in the 24fps IMAX version; but I've seen a lot of people who were at 48fps shows raving about the 3-D. Motion blur also seemed pretty excessive on the 24fps version, whereas motion blur has never bothered me before while watching action scenes in a movie. I'm wondering if the 48fps shooting and subsequent downsampling to 24fps exacerbated the motion blur somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could "prodding" be meant to read "plodding" by any chance?
"Prodding" actually sounds like it could be an irritating new 3-D effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love "The Hobbit", but still I think it is a bit thick around the middle.
I felt the same about Jackson's "King Kong".
I'd love to have the opportunity to make some cuts. With "The Hobbit", my cuts would be very small ones. One second here, two there. There are many scenes that in my opinion would benefit from a nip and a tuck.
Back when I was making films, editing was my very favorite part of the process, and it's impossible for me to watch any film without the editor in me coming out.
Peter Jackson knows how to put amazing images up there on the screen. My opinion is that he falls so in love with those images that he lets them all go on just a bit too long.
Back in 1933, the images in the original "King Kong" were amazing. Groundbreaking for their time. What's even more amazing about that film is how tightly focused and tightly paced it is. Jackson's remake, while technologically superior, would have benefitted greatly by being just as tightly paced as the original.
However, in spite of it all, "The Hobbit" is wonderful. I look forward to the next two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quit prodding me in 3D! 