The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey reactions (SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
horacethegrey
First Post
Allow me to be the first to comment on this film.
As the first part in a trilogy, this movie is not as good as The Fellowship of the Ring. While Peter Jackson manages to conjure some fantastic visuals and get some great performances from his actors, he loads the movie with unnecessary filler that slows the films pacing to a crawl, thus making this movie feel like three hours.
But don't fret, this isn't a disaster of The Phantom Menace proportions. Jackson's is a smarter director than that, but it's still a slight disappointment over what came before it.
Let's get to the good stuff first. Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo. I've no complaints whatsoever on his performance. The same goes for Andy Serkis returning as Gollum. And would you believe it? The advances in CG and motion capture technology have made him more realistic and lifelike than ever before. The subtle change in expressions that Serkis pulls off are even more believable than they were in LOTR. Just watch how Freeman and Serkis play the Riddles in the Dark scene, which is fantastic. And then there's Mckellen as Gandalf, who somehow tops his performance in LOTR by bringing back a key element to The Grey Pilgrim that was absent before, that of being a sly manipulator. Richard Armitage also does fine as Thorin Oakenshield, bringing noble bearing and stubbornness to his portrayal. And speaking of dwarves, I never expected Jackson would be able to top the prologue from Fellowship, but the fall of Erebor does just that. It's an incredible sequence.
But now let's get into the downside here. This movie feels LONG. Where Fellowship moved at a brisk pace, this film is bogged down by fluff that could have been left at the cutting room floor. The inclusion of the subplot regarding the Necromancer don't add anything to the film, nor does the inclusion of new material that Tolkien never wrote, like Radgast. Even the cameos of LOTR regulars like Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman feel glaringly out of place, or the scene between the Elder Bilbo and Frodo in the prologue. For me, the best stuff in the movie are those that are closest to Tolkien's book. It would have been better had the movie just focused on Bilbo and the Dwarves.
So, there be my thoughts. While I still think this is solid fantasy film, it could have been so much better.
As the first part in a trilogy, this movie is not as good as The Fellowship of the Ring. While Peter Jackson manages to conjure some fantastic visuals and get some great performances from his actors, he loads the movie with unnecessary filler that slows the films pacing to a crawl, thus making this movie feel like three hours.
But don't fret, this isn't a disaster of The Phantom Menace proportions. Jackson's is a smarter director than that, but it's still a slight disappointment over what came before it.
Let's get to the good stuff first. Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo. I've no complaints whatsoever on his performance. The same goes for Andy Serkis returning as Gollum. And would you believe it? The advances in CG and motion capture technology have made him more realistic and lifelike than ever before. The subtle change in expressions that Serkis pulls off are even more believable than they were in LOTR. Just watch how Freeman and Serkis play the Riddles in the Dark scene, which is fantastic. And then there's Mckellen as Gandalf, who somehow tops his performance in LOTR by bringing back a key element to The Grey Pilgrim that was absent before, that of being a sly manipulator. Richard Armitage also does fine as Thorin Oakenshield, bringing noble bearing and stubbornness to his portrayal. And speaking of dwarves, I never expected Jackson would be able to top the prologue from Fellowship, but the fall of Erebor does just that. It's an incredible sequence.
But now let's get into the downside here. This movie feels LONG. Where Fellowship moved at a brisk pace, this film is bogged down by fluff that could have been left at the cutting room floor. The inclusion of the subplot regarding the Necromancer don't add anything to the film, nor does the inclusion of new material that Tolkien never wrote, like Radgast. Even the cameos of LOTR regulars like Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman feel glaringly out of place, or the scene between the Elder Bilbo and Frodo in the prologue. For me, the best stuff in the movie are those that are closest to Tolkien's book. It would have been better had the movie just focused on Bilbo and the Dwarves.
So, there be my thoughts. While I still think this is solid fantasy film, it could have been so much better.
Mathew_Freeman
Adventurer
Saw it this morning and really enjoyed it.
I hear what you're saying about the length of the film, but I disagree. I really enjoyed the length of the film and the depth and detail that was put into it. Jackson, to me, is trying to set the Hobbit in a wider context and tie it into the LotR films in a way the book doesn't.
The foreshadowing of the spiders, Radaghast, and the involvement of Galadriel was all good fun. True, it slowed this film down a little but I think it'll really pay off in the second or third film.
I hear what you're saying about the length of the film, but I disagree. I really enjoyed the length of the film and the depth and detail that was put into it. Jackson, to me, is trying to set the Hobbit in a wider context and tie it into the LotR films in a way the book doesn't.
The foreshadowing of the spiders, Radaghast, and the involvement of Galadriel was all good fun. True, it slowed this film down a little but I think it'll really pay off in the second or third film.
Sammael
Adventurer
The only scene I felt was completely out of place was the Old Bilbo/Frodo one (before the party). It felt forced, and while I understand Jackson used it to connect LOTR to the Hobbit, I think there were other ways to accomplish that.
The White Council meeting in Rivendell was alright, but its inclusion probably resulted in the exclusion of other scenes - like Bilbo wandering around the Homestead, enchanted by the elves' music, making acquaintances and so on. I think that scene would have been pivotal to explaining the connection between Bilbo and the elves in LOTR - and I can only hope it will be included in the extended version.
I disliked Radagast's scenes because he was portrayed as... well... an idiot. The stick insect thing in particular was grating. Also, being one of the Istari, he should not have been as afraid of Dol Guldur. Still, the foreshadowing in those scenes was pretty important, and will help with establishing the mood of Mirkwood in the second part of the film.
Overall, 8/10 from me - could have used some better pacing, and some of the dwarves did not receive enough characterization, but still very enjoyable. In some ways, it was better that FOTR. In others... not so much.
Effects were great too, but I was really pissed about the endless scenery drops in Goblintown which were too "extreme" for my liking. Goblin King looked too much like Wormtongue for some reason.
And the Erebor/Moria flashback scenes were fantastic, easily on par with the FOTR intro.
The White Council meeting in Rivendell was alright, but its inclusion probably resulted in the exclusion of other scenes - like Bilbo wandering around the Homestead, enchanted by the elves' music, making acquaintances and so on. I think that scene would have been pivotal to explaining the connection between Bilbo and the elves in LOTR - and I can only hope it will be included in the extended version.
I disliked Radagast's scenes because he was portrayed as... well... an idiot. The stick insect thing in particular was grating. Also, being one of the Istari, he should not have been as afraid of Dol Guldur. Still, the foreshadowing in those scenes was pretty important, and will help with establishing the mood of Mirkwood in the second part of the film.
Overall, 8/10 from me - could have used some better pacing, and some of the dwarves did not receive enough characterization, but still very enjoyable. In some ways, it was better that FOTR. In others... not so much.
Effects were great too, but I was really pissed about the endless scenery drops in Goblintown which were too "extreme" for my liking. Goblin King looked too much like Wormtongue for some reason.
And the Erebor/Moria flashback scenes were fantastic, easily on par with the FOTR intro.
horacethegrey
First Post
That for me is the biggest problem with the film. This is Bilbo's story, the focus should be on him and his journey of discovery. But here he doesn't get much screentime as he should, and the film seems to focus rather on extraneous events and characters that could have been left out. It's a damn shame, since Martin Freeman plays him so well and could have carried the film easily.
The LOTR film trilogy at very least never took it's focus off of Frodo, despite the various subplots.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
My experience was different to that of Horacethegrey, and more like that of others who have posted thus far - I didn't find that the film 'felt' long or bogged down at any stage (in fact I rather like the few action films recently that have dared to have dialog sections rather than action -action-action all the way, even though I saw critics label them as 'long').
What I liked about the film was that it didn't feel to me as though he was inventing new plot, nor changing it as much as he changed in Fellowship of the Ring. I recognised all the essential elements from the story, but painted on a bigger canvas, or with some extra detail put in there.
I already feel that the dwarves show more characterisation than they received in the book (a pretty difficult task at any time). I liked the lighter hearted feel at the council with Elrond, as they don't have the Ring hanging over them at this time. I thought the script plus Freeman are doing an excellent job of showing the slow transformation of Bilbo from a homebody to a hero. I also think it is great that they are building up the respect between him and Thorin [sblock]which will make their eventual falling out all the more tragic[/sblock]
The only thing I mildly disliked were the rock giant scene which felt over-done, and the heavy handed musical themes to telegraph emotional content (a al LotR). Oh look, Bilbo is doing something good. Let's have the hobbit theme.
Cheers
What I liked about the film was that it didn't feel to me as though he was inventing new plot, nor changing it as much as he changed in Fellowship of the Ring. I recognised all the essential elements from the story, but painted on a bigger canvas, or with some extra detail put in there.
I already feel that the dwarves show more characterisation than they received in the book (a pretty difficult task at any time). I liked the lighter hearted feel at the council with Elrond, as they don't have the Ring hanging over them at this time. I thought the script plus Freeman are doing an excellent job of showing the slow transformation of Bilbo from a homebody to a hero. I also think it is great that they are building up the respect between him and Thorin [sblock]which will make their eventual falling out all the more tragic[/sblock]
The only thing I mildly disliked were the rock giant scene which felt over-done, and the heavy handed musical themes to telegraph emotional content (a al LotR). Oh look, Bilbo is doing something good. Let's have the hobbit theme.
Cheers
My entire family want to the midnight show. We all enjoyed it, we all agreed it was not as good as the LotR movies. There were some over the top, no way to suspend my disbelief, moments for me and my wife, but there were more good points than bad. I never felt like it dragged at all, though I can see how others would want a shorter movie.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Much as others, I saw The Hobbit today and quite enjoyed it, though it left me disappointed that we have to wait 18 months to get to the end of the story.
Pros:
- Martin Freeman great as Bilbo
- The dwarves are interesting, each with a unique character and personality
- Serkis as Gollum, again
- Great music, especially the haunting dwarves' song
- Evokes the Jackson Middle Earth feel quite well
- Some of the added material from the "Quest of Erebor" story and dwarves' backstory was well done
- Goblintown
Cons:
- Jackson needs a new editor; the movie drags a bit, particularly at the beginning, which could have been tightened up a bit. My wife about fell asleep before getting out the door; some of the front end and subsequent scenes could have been traded to get the whole series down into two long movies
- Didn't need the Bilbo-Frodo opening sequence
- Jackson needs to refrain from unnecessary embellishment. For example: the Radagast scenes,the giant sequence, and the Azog/Warg scenes prior to Rivendell are unnecessary. The Rivendell scene could have sufficed to introduce the Dol Guldur plot point, and even if we wanted to introduce the canonically-incorrect Azog (which, I'll admit, will be a nice setting for the climax of the Battle of the Five Armies), the "Out of the Frying Pan" sequence would have sufficed for the "surprise" reveal. Radagast was unwelcome comic relief, too
- Tone loses a bit of the light heart of the novel, which I'd be OK with if it was traded for drama; instead it went a little too much action blockbuster.
Acknowledging that this is the first act of a three-act sequence, which may forgive some early sins, I'd give it a B+ overall. It's very much the Hobbit, just gone a little too Hollywood to be perfect.
Pros:
- Martin Freeman great as Bilbo
- The dwarves are interesting, each with a unique character and personality
- Serkis as Gollum, again
- Great music, especially the haunting dwarves' song
- Evokes the Jackson Middle Earth feel quite well
- Some of the added material from the "Quest of Erebor" story and dwarves' backstory was well done
- Goblintown
Cons:
- Jackson needs a new editor; the movie drags a bit, particularly at the beginning, which could have been tightened up a bit. My wife about fell asleep before getting out the door; some of the front end and subsequent scenes could have been traded to get the whole series down into two long movies
- Didn't need the Bilbo-Frodo opening sequence
- Jackson needs to refrain from unnecessary embellishment. For example: the Radagast scenes,the giant sequence, and the Azog/Warg scenes prior to Rivendell are unnecessary. The Rivendell scene could have sufficed to introduce the Dol Guldur plot point, and even if we wanted to introduce the canonically-incorrect Azog (which, I'll admit, will be a nice setting for the climax of the Battle of the Five Armies), the "Out of the Frying Pan" sequence would have sufficed for the "surprise" reveal. Radagast was unwelcome comic relief, too
- Tone loses a bit of the light heart of the novel, which I'd be OK with if it was traded for drama; instead it went a little too much action blockbuster.
Acknowledging that this is the first act of a three-act sequence, which may forgive some early sins, I'd give it a B+ overall. It's very much the Hobbit, just gone a little too Hollywood to be perfect.
Similar Threads
