What did you think of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey?

News Den Of Geek 13 Dec 2012 - 15:53

Peter Jackson's first Hobbit movie is finally here. Share your thoughts - with spoilers! - right here...

Finally beginning its roll out into cinemas worldwide is Peter Jackson’s long awaited movie of The Hobbit. Well, the first of them anyway, as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is finally released.

You can read Nick’s review here, but we also wanted to open a forum for you to talk about it, where spoilers are allowed. It’s a film that’s divided us at Den Of Geek, and we’re interested in seeing what your views on it are.

So, if you’ve not seen The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, it’s best to look away. If you have? Leave your thoughts on the film in the comments below..!

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

I really enjoyed it, I thought it dragged on a bit though, it felt like the extended edition, god knows how long that will be when its released next year. Thought James Nesbitt was brilliant and so was Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman. Haven't actually read the book though so not sure what will happen next, one of the best uses in 3D for a while as well

I really enjoyed it. It was lighter than the LOTR as a whole, more fast-paced and action-oriented than Fellowship, and significantly funnier than I expected. Given that Hobbit is a children's book, this was a more energetic, perkier movie that seemed to have more of Peter Jackson's sense of fun imbued into it (the decapitation of the goblin by Gandalf, the troll attack, etc.) I loved it; it ended up on my best of 2012 list.

It was so full of bullshit I couldn't believe it. You've said in your review how Tolkien fans will love it but not fans who wanted to see something resembling The Hobbit! New characters, new bad guys, characters where they don't belong doing things they didn't do, extended flashbacks to things that never happened... And so much drama! I wasted way too much of my time watching people look concerned. I was so excited at the beginning because it seemed like they got the tone right, they weren't screwing up... But then they had these bouts of seriousness and made up shite. On the other hand I loved the 48fps combined with 3D and it was *almost* worth the price of admission to see the wonderful visuals, especially Erebor and Goblin Town. But I will very happily never watch it again, every new piece of junk stuffed into Tolkien's story to fill time or to blatantly spell out themes that were subtly woven into the novel made me put my head in my hands.

I haven't read the book so I have no idea how it is going to turn out but it seemed very much like Fellowship of the Ring to me, not much actually happens, the extended setup with the uninvited guests, the visit to the Elves, a major villain having his hand chopped off, flashbacks and thought there was going to be the death of one of the major characters at the end. There where some breathtaking sights, the first sight of the Dwarfs mountain, the town outside and Rivendell.

The action sequences was excellent but the best scene for me was Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown desperately trying to save the life of the hedgehog, brilliant acting, I am hoping that is not the last we have seen him. I gather that he is barely mentioned in the book but has a bigger role in the film(s).

It's a strong slowly-building beginning that starts growing into a great adventure story that, for me at least, is made even better because of nostalgic riffs that recall the Rings trilogy. Ear to ear smiles as Gollum does his thing; chills down my spine at the sight of a band of travellers crossing Middle Earth's mountain ranges in single file; sappy geek teary-eye moments at the start as we find ourselves back in Bag End and the immersive world I love so much...

Solid but unexceptional. Plenty of fantastic visuals, and the Riddles in the Dark scene was brilliant, but it left me slightly cold and unengaged for large swathes.

Most of the dwarves haven't got characters yet, unless you count 'Being Fat' as a character. As much as it pains me to say it, perhaps Sylvester McCoy didn't need to be in it for as long, as Radagast gets more backstory than most of the dwarves.

Also, I got distracted by the fact that one of the mountains in the background appears to have its snowfall arranged into a big smiley face in one scene.

*minor spoilers ahoy*

Love the book, loved previous Peter Jackson films. Found the 48 frames disconcerting (daughter said it made her feel uncomfortable). Spent a lot of the film trying to stitch the real story together against what I was seeing. From the perspective of the first film found the whole Radagast sequence superfluous and just really odd. Totally took me out of the main story tbh, especially his amazing cgi sled. Wizard swordy bits looked sped up a la Monty Python's The Quest for the Holy Grail. Bit with Gollumn was super cool though.

I was very worried that the relatively thin book "The Hobbit" wouldnt make a good trilogy. & of course it wouldnt. But Peter Jackson has incorporated a lot of LOTR history into the film, stuff that I never ever thought I would get to see. As a Middle Earth fan I simply went "sqeee". The variety of the dwarf characters was also good to see, as they are pretty faceless in the actual book. Gandalf, awesome as usual & Radagast was a pleasent surprise. Jackson might end up doing what he feared, relagating his LOTR trilogy to second best.

I thought it was fantastic, fun, fast-paced and lovingly detailed. I watched it on 48 fps IMAX 3D- the whole bundle and it was well worth my money. The 48 fps can be distracting at first but then the action absorbed me right in. I'm glad Jackson has the cujones to go with this format and to prove how far technology can reach nowadays.

I'm definitely going to check it out again.

I enjoyed it a lot; didn't see it in 48fps but still think it was absolutely gorgeous, with effective 3d. Mckellen and Freeman were perfect, and also Armitage did a credible job with a difficult character. Riddles was an incredible scene, with Gollum taken to another level. Very happy all told!

Loved it. I'm a Tolkien fanboy, so LOVED all the backstory and flashbacks, little asides (the invention of golf!), and nods to the original trilogy. Tonally it's spot on - within 5 minutes you are back in that same wonderful world all over again. McKellan is wonderful as always, Armitage is also great, and Martin Freeman knocks it out of the park. The Riddles in the Dark scene is just sensational - shame that's the last we will see of Andy Serkis' Gollum. Or is it? I can see the final film ending with Gollum leaving his lair and searching for the thief Baggins. Enough material for three films? Absolutely. Nothing felt stretched or forced, it was more a case of Peter Jackson giving the story and characters room to breathe. Can't wait to see it again.

I absolutely loved it. I'm a Tolkienite and I was expecting something not-quite-as-superb as LOTR, but I couldn't have been happier with The Hobbit. Funnier and warmer yet the same Middle-Earth, as it should be. Martin Freeman gets a special mention; he's simply marvelous as Bilbo. (I saw it in 3D 24 FPS as I'm not interested in the 48.)

This seems to be the common consensus; it's an enjoyable but clearly overlong film that could have greatly benefited from either being cut by a good thirty minutes or being made into a a single three-and-a-half hour film... and personally I go with the latter option!

The way that Peter Jackson and team condensed and distilled the seriously weighty tome that was 'The Lord of the Rings' into three relatively tight, highly accessible, and downright visionary films was nothing short of extraordinary, the very same approach could and should have been taken with 'The Hobbit'; get to the meat of the story, adapt/expand/revise/streamline as and when necessary, drop everything not essential to it's greater narrative, and keep it moving along at a brisk pace... with that in mind and put into practice, there's no way 'The Hobbit' story in it's entirety should have lasted more than 210 minutes (at absolute most) in it's theatrical cut, with material that broadens and deepens but not absolutely essential added for the inevitable extended edition later.

I would rather have the story told in a single (albeit epic) sitting rather than have to wait eighteen months to see it unnecessarily padded out with material that has no REAL bearing on the central story of taking back Erebor... sometimes less can be so much more!

I walked out thinking that whatever people have accused George Lucas of, it's nothing compared to what I had just seen Peter Jackson do to Tolkien.

There is only one redeeming scene: Riddles in the Dark (or not so dark in this case) the acting is absolutely brilliant.

I saw it last night on IMAX. I had been worried that there was not going to be enough material to last 3 films, but now I'm worried they won't fit everything in. :)

All the expanded story happening rather than it just being the vague hints of much larger things happening that the book has was amazing. Erebor looks incredible and the little teases of Smaug hint at something great to come in the next film.

I was thinking early on that it was more of a kids film than LOTR, which seemed fine as the book was more aimed at younger readers. I was thinking this just as the heads started to get lopped off. Mind you, I did see Fellowship when there was a group of young kids in the audience and they loved the bit at the end where the Uruk-hai gets his head cut off by Aragorn.

I didn't think the time dragged at all, in fact I was surprised when it ended as I didn't feel that the 2 hours 50 minute run time was even half way done.

Overall, I loved it and can't wait for next year and part 2

Watched it last night at the IMAX, I thought it was incredible! Absolutely loved it. Even thought it doesn't follow the story, I enjoyed all the add-ons and extra action. Jackson has got the tone spot on with a lighter feel to everything from the elves to the goblins. The acting was great, but I'd love to see the individual dwarves develop more as characters, which I'm sure will happen in the next 2 films. The 48fps and the 3D were great visually and really enhanced the world of Middle Earth. I did however feel a little dizzy after a couple of scenes. All in all a great film and I can't wait for December 2014!

The problem with that is nobody will sit for a 3.5 hour movie, 4 if you give folks an intermission as they did in the old days, and the longer a film is, the less it can be screened in a day. Theaters hate movies longer than 2 hours because it chops off a showing.

I know this is incredibly lazy, but 'what James said'. I knew I was in trouble when I nearly burst into tears at the New Line logo and I never lost that thrill and emotional attachment throughout. Thorin was by substitute Boromir, so all was well. Plus Howard Shore did such an amazing job.

I absolutely loved it. I thought, not a lot can happen,judging by the book,but i was sooooo wrong. Some scenes are mind blowing,some are simply gorgeous,but my favorite lord of the rings movies,have been expanded,i will have six now,YESSSS.

It was a complete seamless transition from the previous three films. It comes across as an absolute labour of love from Jackson's perspective. He's done nothing fancy for the sake of it (well, that is if you discount 3D and the FPS speed). In no way are these films going to be the Phantom Menace. I saw it in old skool 2D and it worked for me as I could sit and simply enjoy it without the gimmicks. The pacing was spot on and the hours flew by. Great to see Aiden Turner in big screen role as well.

Right thought! I kept sitting there going WRONG, WRONG!!! But the acting and cast were great

right on, that movie was entertaining, but not the hobbit, I went in so excited and left so frustrated.

I really enjoyed it, maybe the 48FPS wasnt the best choice, it wasn't terrible just different... not to sure if thats good or bad yet think i may go see it again in 24FPS. The cgi i was very disapointed with, the orcs and urak hai in LOTR was scarily realistic and the gundabad orcs i was expecting to be just as ferocious. The main 2 villains and the trolls just looked kind of horrible unfortunately. The 3D was great (although i actually prefer to watch 2D films).

I know i shouldn't compare them but at the end of the day i feel compelled to as LOTR has set the bar. I loved the humour i thought that was a great touch, i also loved the songs too very very nice touch, the fact it was more action packed then the fellowship was good too but on the other hand the amount of different evil creatures (More villains then i can care to mention) was abit like "woah whos this guy, oh and then this guy, oh and this one too?"

When i think as a whole how much i enjoyed it and how much i liked the story i cant say it was bad i thoroughly enjoyed it and cannot wait for next december!


Absolutely loved it. Peter Jackson just gets Tolkien. Not sure I liked the 48 frames. Going to see it again tomorrow in regular 3D. So nice to visit Middle Earth again!

It was good, it wasn't a disappointment, and if you compare it to LOTR Fellowship, it was a slightly gentler experience as befits the story. Slight problems with visual adjustment in 48fps 3D but will re-see it in 24 for comparison. Most of the posts below have very high geek and wind values :)

Okay a lot of people have been saying similar things as you and I don't get it at all so instead of asking everyone maybe you can help me understand :P You say that you're a Middle Earth fan, and that they incorporated LOTR history. But almost all of the 'history' in The Hobbit was made up and inconsistent with what Tolkien wrote both in The Hobbit and his other works! I cannot understand all these people saying how they are Tolkien fans who love the history when this *isn't* Tolkien's history. Have you not read the books too many times, do people mean the movies when they say they are Tolkien fans? Or do people really just somehow love Tolkien's work but not care when it all gets changed? How can you call it history if you've actually read the book and should know it isn't what happened at all? I think it's perfectly fine to enjoy the movies and not the books but I want to understand how so many people claim to love Tolkien but don't mind seeing his story ripped apart and filled in with Jackson's very different vision. Paul Fillery, Jenn or skykat could all answer this too.

I saw the film in IMAX 3D in Sheffield, UK last night - and I thought it was an incredible cinematic experience.
My thoughts on 48FPS are all positive. I didn't notice the prosthetics, and I thought Hobbiton looked stunning at the start, as did all the sweeping landscape shots. The clarity of the large battle scenes could only have been emphasised by the faster frame rate. You could follow one of hundreds of characters on screen and still maintain a clarity of vision.
In terms of the story, I disagree with those saying that the Appendices should have been ignored. The Gandalf/Radagast/Necromancer backstory (which becomes the main story of LOTR remember) was happening at the same time as the Quest of Erebor. The very reason Gandalf helps is that he believes Smaug would be an ally with Sauron once he rose back to power, so surely this part of the story is relevant?
The only slight negative for me was the wackiness of Radagast. I thought sometimes the silliness went a bit far, but then there's the fine line between telling a story of Middle-earth and/or sticking to the Hobbit's original values - a children's story.
Overall, I think it was a welcome return to Middle-Earth, and one which can only grow in strength in the next two films. The strongest scene was Riddles in the Dark.
I urge you to see it in IMAX 3D - it was a full cinematic experience, not just a screening.

I liked it. The HFR makes it look cheap and nasty though! See it normally 3D or 2D I should imagine it will be pretty good either way. I have read one Tolkien book and that was Fellowship of the ring. I started The Two Towers and found it dull, I got about 4 chapters in. To each their own I say I love the films but find the books hard work. My Dad loves both! Horses for courses it would appear. Whether PJ has changed things or extended them for commercial or artistic reasons I think its clear he loves the material.
I for one am more than happy to join him twice more for a trek around Middle Earth. See you next year!

the imax version is not in 48 frames per second (apart from in Manchester and London Swiss Cottage, the only uk cinemas to do it in imax 48fps) so what you saw wasn't 48 fps, was just regualr imax 3d in 24 fps :)

I really enjoyed it. The characters were fun. There were some great links back to the LOTR trilogy in the look and feel of certain scenes. Thorin was a great character too, and the scene with Gollum was both enjoyable and menacing.
Was disappointed that there was no Man of Steel trailer though. Boo Vue Cinemas. Shame on you. No Star Trek Into Darkness trailer either.
Also, the film itself still had its flaws. Some of the falls down mountain sides or the fall towards the end (where the Goblin King then lands on them) and no one gets so much as a scratch.
Still, looking forward to repeat viewings.

Saw it today in HFR and 3D and it looked absolutely stunning, never have I seen such clarity with a 3D film and some of the sequences are just amazing. I for one hope HFR is here to stay.

@bristolmatt - whilst not many imax cinemas are showing 48fps, I watched it in 48fps at my local cineworld today and many other cinemas are showing the HFR version. I highly recommend it, it was amazing. The clarity was truly stunning and at times I felt as though I was watching middle earth through a window.

I haven't seen the movie yet - going next weekend.

However, I just want to say that I'm very thankful for this page on DoG - the very mixed critical reactions (as seen on Rotten tomatos) had me a bit worried. However, after reading some general feedback on IMBD, and more over the comments on here (which has been generally glowing) my mind has really been put at rest - I know that my opinion is much more likely to match you guys than the critics (who I think were always going to take a bit of a pop at the movie). I love the LotR extended versions with all the extra details, and it seems that I'll enjoy the Hobbit for the same reason :-)

Now - 24fps or 48fps, 3D or 2D; when did going to the cinema get so hard!

Nobody will sit for a 3.5 hour movie, you say? How about 'The Return of the King' - 3 hrs 21 mins - or how about 'Titanic' - 3 hrs 12 mins - both of them billion-dollar grosses worldwide and neither had intermissions.

When you distill Tolkien's novel to actual incidental narrative beats (events actually happening rather than describing of locations and characters), that's a single epic movie that moves at a very brisk pace throughout; from the Shire to the Battle of Five Armies is not a whopping great saga by any stretch, and besides, whatever material might be cut for timing reasons to get it to an even 200 minutes (or thereabouts) could be easily restored for the inevitable extended edition, bringing the total running time to four hours or more...are you telling me a 300 + page book can't be turned into a four-hour movie?

And before you mention the appendices, screw the appendices, they're not the novel and Tolkien never intended them to be part of the novel's story, Peter Jackson should have adapted the novel and the novel alone...

That is a tiny bit of an exaggeration: The History is re-written, yes, but most of it has some basis in Tolkien. The Dwarf history is mostly consistent with the appendices (the key difference being Azog living and holding a grudge against Thorin) and the White Council stuff, apart from the Morgul blade, is pretty close to what we are told (the difference being that in the book they have this type of meeting years before The Hobbit...although it makes sense to show the meeting at this point as we know from the book that the White Council will be attacking Dol Goldur after Gandalf leaves the Dwarves)...We already know from LOTR that Jackson is only going to be faithful to the book when it serves his purpose (rather than simply following the book word for word) so the appeal comes from seeing a version of Tolkien on screen (rather than a literal adaptation.)
From a fan perspective it is nice to see someone Radagast included in the films, even if he was only mentioned briefly in the book in an exchange between Beorn and Gandalf.

I went into this film a little concerned because of
the mixed reviews, but it turned out perfectly for me. I thought it was
gorgeous in every way a film could be. Brilliant acting, beautiful score,
wonderful design.... While I'm still feeling a bit dubious about the decision
to make a trilogy, I didn't find that the film suffered from the split. It was
expanded into something that not only adapted the first third of The Hobbit,
but also served as a great lead-in to LOTR as well as working as its own film.
The use of Azog as a central villain really helps the film maintain some
stand-alone quality while also remaining part of a larger whole. Yes, there
were faults and I could see where some negative reviews got their ideas from. I
don't agree with some of them. I didn't see anything wrong with the length of
the Bag End scenes. I loved the humour and the subtlety. The goblins'
appearance was questionable with the CGI, though. Especially as I thought the
Orcs (particularly Azog) were beautifully horrific. The lack of women was also
a big pity, but it's questionable how much Jackson would have had to change to
balance out the gender issues, especially adapting a Tolkien book, what with
Tolkien seeming not too keen on women in his stories. I saw it in 3D 24fps and
the 3D didn't add as much as I expected. So, while it wasn't flawless, this was
damn-near perfect cinema for me. I'll probably see it a good few more times
over Christmas. Wonderful!

Saw the Hobbit in 48FPS 3D and well, I was totally blown away by it. It felt immersive, inclusive and crisp, there was no eye strain, no blur, nothing to get in the way of the storytelling, it was beautiful. The movie, the Hobbit, was a cracker, fun, paced well, intriguing and beguiling. The beauty of middle earth is back with us and we should embrace it. If you ever wanted to visit Middle Earth, then you have your chance... JUST SEE IT IN HFR!

Cineworld Sheffield have confirmed that they are showing it at 48fps in their IMAX screen. We also went to see it on Friday in Sheffield and you could really tell the difference! Except possibly for the first scene with Ian Holm which did have a slight airbrushed texture, the rest of the movie was jaw droppingly sharp and smooth.

The clarity of the image was astounding, and especially impressive when the camera was in motion (which was frequently!) and during the many action scenes. The three hours was over before we even knew it.

Oh and slightly off topic, but the Star Trek preview was also phenomenal!

It took a very very very very long time to get going, but was pretty good once it did. Could have easily cut out 30 mins though.

I thought it was a brilliant film. It's been a number of years now since I last read the book and I have little idea of what is in the LOTR appendices so I wasn't overly concerned with what was pulled from the book and what was added by Jackson. I was more concerned going in that the pacing of the story would be drawn out too much making this a trilogy but I was happy to be proven wrong. It definitely felt like Middle Earth to me and just like LOTR was simply beautiful. I really enjoyed seeing what was added in, like Radaghast and the council. It didn't feel like superfluous additions to me. I remember reading the book I always wished we could have been told more about what the dwarves were up to while Bilbo was playing riddles so I was glad to get to see inside the mountain and how the dwarves get free. Gandolf is such a badass. I saw the 2d, normal frame rate and was very satisfied. Enough that I think I'll find a 48 fps showing so I can compare them.

I noticed the big smiley face too! Glad i'm not the only one...

I back this point up, saw the film today at Vue expecting Man of Steel and Star Trek trailers... what i got was some film about singing with Maggie Grace and Michael Gambon called Quartet. Nice one.

Saw it today in plain old fashioned 2D and thought it really really... average. Let me be absolutely clear here (as there's some harsh stuff coming up), it's worth seeing and isn't in any way a bad movie. The acting is good across the board, New Zealand still looks fantastic standing in for Middle Earth, some of the CGI is superb (Gollum being the standout though the glimpse of Erebor in its prime was close behind) and there's some really fun stuff here. Oh and Radagast is great, yes he's a bit silly but McCoy brought a nice hint of power bubbling beneath that. The problem is it's balanced out by a whole slew of issues too, the pacing is a bit slow, there's not much time to develop most of the dwarves, some of the CGI work isn't exactly top drawer (Goblin King and the Wargs being the main offenders) and it's surprisingly violent considering the source material (certainly more than Fellowship).
And there's the big problem for me, this movie basically IS Fellowship all over again. The story beats are almost exactly the same and the big set piece in Goblin Town really did feel like the Mines of Moria all over again, only without the satisfying ending. I don't want to say too much here, even if spoilers are allowed, but once you've seen it compare the order of major scenes to Fellowship and you'll see what I mean.
I know it sounds like I'm down on this series but the stupid thing is I actually have a lot of hope for parts 2 and 3. The story problems here are as a result of splitting the story up the way they have, it means that 90% of the new (to Middle Earth on film anyway) stuff isn't in this movie. Coming up we have Mirkwood, Laketown, Smaug and of course all the stuff with the Necromancer to look forward to. It's just that this film is saddled with taking us down a path to get them that we've already travelled and is cut short just as it's about to deliver something more interesting.
So worth seeing but go in with tempered expectations and think of it very much as setup for the next two films.

Absolutely Loved it, the time just flew by, Martin Freeman was born to be Bilbo Baggins

Just magic!

I loved the book, for me, it was "the one". The first time I've read it, I was young, and it was also my first HF's book.

The movie it's a mix of the book, the appendice and something else... I cannot describe it very well. But the child spirit is here. It's really awesome. 3 hours? Kidding me.. The time had spend so fast... I can't wait the extended cut, I will probably great!

Gorgeous movie. I was amazed by how easily I took to the 48 fps after all the criticisms I'd heard about it - it actually made the 3D bearable! There were so many stunning scenes, and the CGI was (with a few notable exceptions) good enough to fool me. I was also pleased to see a higher degree of faithfulness to Tolkien's story (if not its tone) than I remember from the LOTR films. Most importantly for me, the acting was fantastic - Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Andy Serkis and Sylvester McCoy were all on top form, and more than compensated for the occasionally weak script (poor Sylvester McCoy in particular had some horrible material thrown at him - that stick insect line, ugh...). The scene in Gollum's cave was sublime, even if it was a little overlit for my tastes. I could gladly have watched the next installment straight after this one.

I have now seen this 3 times, and still no Man of Steel trailer. There was a Pacific Rim trailer though...

Yeah, but the Appendices provide the background information behind the quest and its place it the history of Middle Earth. Plus, the Hobbit movies were made to tie into the LOTR trilogy, so using the appendices is necessary. You have to give context to the audience (who are mainly made up of people who haven't read the book) in order to ease them into the Middle Earth setting.

The movie was fine. God you purists are so full of yourselves. Basically, what I took away from the movie is if who enjoyed the LOTR film trilogy you are going to like The Hobbit. People who didn't like the LOTR trilogy will not. Period.
P.S. See The Hobbit in 2D rather than 3D.

To be fair the book takes a while as well to get the adventure going. But now that the slow stuff is mostly out of the way the more dramatic parts are coming.

I've seen it today and thought it was epic and very entertaining. HOWEVER, at the same time it felt like a betrayal; not in the events shown and shaped up by extra material, but in tone. I am surprised to see so many reviewers saying that Jackson perfectly capture the spirit of the book. This tale as I remember it was a FAIRY tale, much more candid in tone, and I certainly don't remember much evisceration and decapitations in Tolkien writing of the Hobbit. So while I tremendously enjoyed as a geek, the kid in me was indeed disappointed that it wasn't more candid and childish like I remembered the Hobbit to be. It's a shame really that I can't bring my 5 year old nephew to see the Hobbit, considering he the book would be very appropriate for his age. I have the feeling that Jackson retro-fitted the Hobbit world to match exactly his vision of Lord of the RIngs, rather than letting it be the fairy tale it should be.
That nitpick apart I was also surprised to hear Howard Shore reusing so many of his themes - doing as Jackson, retro-fitting rather a different musical tapestry- and indeed this opus rely too much on CGI. The first vision of Rivendell for example screamed CGI while the "megatures" used on the previous trilogy were more convincing.
But it's still a great movie!

I agree entirely. It wasn't slow or overly long at all - in fact, I felt like it should have gone on longer. The parts that weren't in the book just made it more enjoyable, and as for 48fps - I forgot all about it. Really amazing film, great acting, and I think...well, I think I actually liked it better than the book.

I agree, but it looked at bit blurry in the big sweeping shots. Not sure if this was 48fps or just me :)

I got Star Trek (my friends and I were squealing like little two years olds hearing Benedict's voice) but no Man of Steel. Anyway, I thought this was about The Hobbit film, not the trailers!

Glad someone else thought this way. For the first 15 minutes or so, it was unsettling, but then I grew to love it. The lack of motion blur was wonderful.

Loved it! Martin Freeman was Bilbo, John and Arthur Dent all at once but that was quite perfect. Not enough of Benedict Cumberbatch to be honest. The only thing that really irked me was how good looking the fili gili kili silly twins were. it was funnier than the LOTR films, and even though the beginning (cutting off the pale orc's hand) was rather similar to the first LOTR film, I still enjoyed it thoroughly. Radagast was cute, and I'm glad Jackson was able to include material from the LOTR books.

I third that- I could have happily have sat there for hours: in fact the Hobbit is the first film I've seen twice at the cinema. There was nothing I felt should really have been cut (barring the occasional moment in Bag End, but there was nothing annoying) and I would definatly place it on my best of 2012 list.

And I really don't get this whole 48fps fuss. I saw it once at 24fps, and once at 48fps and in 3D, and I really thought the second one was amazing.
Plus, it provided me with one of my most amusing moments of the year. A 3D affect was used on the smoke of Bifurs pipe, genuinly looking like the screen was smoking, when a woman in front of me said in genuine panic "I think the screens on fire!"

I think that it was amazing, yes it was light hearted yes some stuff wasnt in the book, but everything they had technically happened like the council gandalf was in. its all based on notes that Tolkien had. Lotr is still my favorite though and i still have not watched them all extended edition in a marathon. but i think ill wait for the hobbit series to be done, so i can get those on dvd then have my marathon.

Bit late to this, but it's just come out on DVD so I watched it last night.

It was awful. Cliched and predictable, and really dull! By the time we were 2 hours in we were all sorts of fidgety, ready to turn it off. Epic adventure is not defined by high action pieces, it is defined by the story and the journey of the characters. I was expecting it to feel more light than LOTR - but it wasn't, it was just Loooooooooooooong.

I wanted to like this - I enjoyed LOTR and the Hobbit is my favourite book. So not only was it a bad film - it also utterly tore apart and violently abused the actual story. All the magic was removed.

I think that's the end of my faith in humanity.

Sponsored Links