The Hobbit

[matthew]

Was brilliant in 3D!

Got some very bad reviews for reasons i do not know, other than it started off quite slow.

However if you don't like LOTR you most probably won't like The Hobbit

 

[southstandandy]

It was ok but too long IMO - my partner likened it to a kiddie version of LOTR which I have to say I agree with. I still enjoyed it but why draw the story out over 3 movies. The book is pretty short.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Was brilliant in 3D!

Got some very bad reviews for reasons i do not know, other than it started off quite slow.

However if you don't like LOTR you most probably won't like The Hobbit

As a fan of the books I can imagine the poor reviews may have been partly due to the slow beginning and also perhaps due to the fact that it departed quite severely from the actual story as written by Tolkien. I was very disappointed in it.

 

[Notters]

I only just discovered its going to be three films rather than one. For this reason, I'm out.

 

[shaolinpunk]

The only reason I'd want to see it is to see how a 48fps film compares to a 24fps one. I'm cool like that.

 

[sydney]

is he any good in the air...??

 

[KZNSeagull]

You could read the book in 8 hours, easily. Will go and see it though just to see how they have stretched it out.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I love LOTRO/Hobbit so will see it but why spread out such a short book over 3 movies- there must be so much filler. I'm all for fan service but that's taking the mick just to get as much money from fans as possible- blame Barbar?

 

[JBizzle]

My wife and I really enjoyed it actually. Its more of a kids movie than LOTR but so is the book. I thought Martin Freeman was excellent, as was most of the cast. My only misgiving was that some of the CGI (especially on the white orc) looked very fake indeed. I kinda expected better on that part.

Overall though, it was much better than its reviews suggest.

 

[Bold Seagull]

is he any good in the air...??

He's got 2 great feet.

 

[Vatican Citys No.2 Keeper]

According to a friend who's a bit of a Hobit/LOTR know-it-all, it's not just the story in the book that's covered in the three films but also the story regarding the Necromancer, which is referenced in the book as something Gandalf was fighting off when he wasn't travelling with the dwarves, but it's never covered in any real detail in the book itself. It is however covered in parts of the appendicies from the LOTR books, and has therefore been added into this to fill it out more I imagine.

 

[LE19]

The only reason I'd want to see it is to see how a 48fps film compares to a 24fps one.

Yeah, I'm curious about that, after some of the negative reviews.

My only misgiving was that some of the CGI (especially on the white orc) looked very fake indeed. I kinda expected better on that part.

Is this a consequence of the frame rate, do you know?

BTW, I believe some cinemas are only showing the 48fps version for a short while.

 

[Lawson]

I thought the film was really good. Far more going on than the book and arguably far more interesting. The book lacks any real detail or immersion because there isn't much dialogue and only thorin, bilbo and gandalf have any depth or real conversations. The orc storyline really added something interesting and the areas not covered in the book allow for a different view and approach to middle earth. Many of the criticisms of the film could be levelled at the book, after all it is a children's story and although an interesting plot has hardly any flesh to it, and it is important to remember this film is not meant to have the same tone or sense of urgency as the lotr trilogy.

 

[Acker79]

I saw it on thursday. I liked it, but felt like it was too long, several action set pieces felt unnecessary (including half the dwarfs), and the escape from the goblin mine felt like a computer game. It also suffers from the story being split over several films. There were a few things that were included to set up things for later films, so felt unsatisfying.


I saw it in 48 frames 3D, apparently, but didn't notice any difference.


If you want to check out 48 frames, cineworld have listed the showings that are in the high rate format (for this week): http://www.cineworldnet.com/hobbit-info.pdf

 

[brighton_tom]

The review on Film 2012 said this 48fps malarky actually made the look of the film seem cheap and just made the use of CGI more obvious in a computer game style, instead of CGI trying to look realistic.

Saying that.. i'll still go and watch it.

 

[Acker79]

The review on Film 2012 said this 48fps malarky actually made the look of the film seem cheap and just made the use of CGI more obvious in a computer game style, instead of CGI trying to look realistic.

Saying that.. i'll still go and watch it.

On the kermode and mayo show they said it made the early scenes in Hobbiton (well, in Bilbo's house) look like a set, but that it improved the sprawling vista scenes. Like I said in my last post, I didn't notice a difference.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I'm staying out of this trilogy. 8 or 9 hours of the Hobbit is just too much and Jackson at the helm again just doesn't excite. Del Toro might have brought something different to the table, but this moneymaking surefire hit just fails to thrill. On tv in a couple of years i am sure i will, but for now interests lay almost anywhere else.

 

[Deleted member 18477]

3 films instead of 1?? Oh f***ing hell. Think I'll just watch it on sky movies next year whilst being able to pause it for a piss and a quick snack.

 

[LE19]

Anyone been to an IMAX version?!

 

[Nibble]

I would like to see it because Ilike The Shire and want to live there a bit. It looks shit though and that 48fps thing makes it look like a computer game.