The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

pixelburp

Well the film(s) were always destined to suffer from a 'fan' backlash & inevitable disappointment, given the sheer scale of hype that has built up over the last year or so. There's simply no way The Hobbit can live up to some peoples' expectations, given the mythic status the LOTR trilogy has attained.

If this film entertains me & I enjoy the majority of its ride, then I consider that Mission Accomplished. I intend judging it on its own merits, insofar as is fair.

qz

Just back from the LOTR marathon in the Lighthouse. Wonderful atmosphere and laughter for the "one does not simply", "they're taking the hobbits to Isengard", "boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew" et al.

Great day.

Basq

Am cracking out the Blu-ray set this week anyways in preparation..

EDIT: OK, tickets purchased. Although the screen may not be as good, am gonna go with the 2D methinks..

snausages

Deleted User wrote: »

Regarding some of the more negative reviews, is there anyone who seriously believes that the film is going to be so bad as to be a one star film. All the 1 and 2 star reviews I've seen appear to be a reviewer going against the grain for the sake of standing out a little. While the Hobbit may not be the 5 star experience we all hoped for I doubt it's anywhere near as bad as Alex Cross or The Watch or The Sutter.

Is it really that unbelievable though? If we really are just getting a 3 hour romp through the first 6 chapters then maybe it is just a case of too little butter spread over too much bread.

Should be interesting once the entire trilogy comes out though. Can't wait for the definitive fan-edit version.

snausages

snausages wrote: »

Is it really that unbelievable though? If we really are just getting a 3 hour romp through the first 6 chapters then maybe it is just a case of too little butter spread over too much bread.

Should be interesting once the entire trilogy comes out though. Can't wait for the definitive fan-edit version.

It is quite unbelievable as to me a 1-2 star film is one that is incompetently made, poorly acted, with a terrible script and a drab visual style. I very much doubt that The Hobbit will be a film on par with fare such as the Scary Movie franchise or Meet the Spartans.

Mickeroo

I'm not expecting it to be LOTR quality but I'm still expecting to enjoy the film. Besides, the reviews in general haven't been that negative. It still has 75% on RT, but for the quality of the LOTR trilogy I'd probably be pleased that it's doing that well.

snausages

Deleted User wrote: »

It is quite unbelievable as to me a 1-2 star film is one that is incompetently made, poorly acted, with a terrible script and a drab visual style. I very much doubt that The Hobbit will be a film on par with fare such as the Scary Movie franchise or Meet the Spartans.

I'm not a fan of this cookie-cutter approach to criticism. It's a little like video game's reviewing, where the game's worth is determined and qualified by a ticking of boxes.

The films you mentioned are the smegma of the medium. The Hobbit is unlikely to be that bad, but it does look like it will be a bit of a disappointment.

snausages

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not expecting it to be LOTR quality but I'm still expecting to enjoy the film. Besides, the reviews in general haven't been that negative. It still has 75% on RT, but for the quality of the LOTR trilogy I'd probably be pleased that it's doing that well.

Tbh, I've never found RT a great way to guage critical response. A 'meh' review can come out either as 'rotten' or 'fresh'.

Mickeroo

snausages wrote: »

Tbh, I've never found RT a great way to guage critical response. A 'meh' review can come out either as 'rotten' or 'fresh'.

That is true, though I usually find the overall rating pretty accurate myself

Linguo

I think the biggest films that have the most anticipation and expectation surrounding them often come under the most criticism as the stakes are so high (see the batman thread) but let's not pick it apart before we've even seen it, fair enough it may not be as great as the LOTR trilogy but the bar is set so high with that it would be hard for anything to top it!

I'm going in with an open mind, I don't expect it to top how amazing The Fellowship of the Ring is but I'm really excited to be stepping back into Middle Earth with a new movie and I'm going to make the most of it! Everyone should!

snausages

My biggest worry from reading the reviews is that it just doesn't sound like an enjoyable movie. It's all well and good praising the cinematography and how well realised Middle Earth is, but none of that by itself is enough to make a film truly great. I hate the suggestion as well that some of the more unkind reviewers are just contrarians.

snausages

snausages wrote: »

I'm not a fan of this cookie-cutter approach to criticism. It's a little like video game's reviewing, where the game's worth is determined and qualified by a ticking of boxes.

The films you mentioned are the smegma of the medium. The Hobbit is unlikely to be that bad, but it does look like it will be a bit of a disappointment.

Hardly cookie cutter reviewing, a 1 star film is one that fails on every level or is so offensively bad that there are no redeeming features. Its not about ticking boxes either, yes there are some terrible films that look fantastic and some terrible films with good performances but in those cases every other aspect is inept. Look at the Green Lantern, the script was abysmal, performances were woeful, the CGI was cheap looking and the final set piece was a joke but throughout the film there were a few saving graces that helped make it watchable, Marc Strongs performance and a few good set pieces. Still doesn't make the film anything more than a shoddy 2 star film. I recently watched Alex Cross and its a perfect example of how a film fails in every area. The script is a joke, the CGI is mid 90s looking, acting is nonexistent, the set pieces are dull and uninspired, the dialogue will make you laugh at his cliched it is and it all looks like a day time soap opera. In the entire 100 minutes the only redeeming aspects were two nice shots and Fox but the script was so bad he barely made an inpression. The film ticks all the "boxes" and that makes it a 1 star film. Had there been a sense of wit or even a decent inspired moment every now and again then the film could have redeemed its self somehow but sadly it does absolutely nothing right.

The Hobbit may disappoint but there's no way it's a 1-2 star film. And considering that most reviews this far are scoring it (I really hate reviews that use star systems) as a 3-4 then I'm sure that the 1 and 2 star reviews are just and attempt by the reviewer to get noticed. Somewhat like the tosser from the Sunday Times and the tear who gave Toy Story 3 its only negative review breaking its perfect 100% rating one metacritic.

snausages

Deleted User wrote: »

The Hobbit may disappoint but there's no way it's a 1-2 star film. And considering that most reviews this far are scoring it (I really hate reviews that use star systems) as a 3-4 then I'm sure that the 1 and 2 star reviews are just and attempt by the reviewer to get noticed. Somewhat like the tosser from the Sunday Times and the tear who gave Toy Story 3 its only negative review breaking its perfect 100% rating one metacritic.

I prefer a diversity in critical response. It only helps inform our own expectations of the film. Why does there need to be consensus? Why is it so impossible that The Hobbit might not be a good film?

johnny_ultimate

Just out. Very, very underwhelmed. WAY too long, insufferably paced, horrific effects. Some decent bits in the last hour just about make it worthwhile. 48 FPS... well ill write about that later.

Ill reflect more when I get home, but for now... Dare I appropriately suggest a 2/5? Several people I was with suggest thats too generous!

snausages

snausages wrote: »

I prefer a diversity in critical response. It only helps inform our own expectations of the film. Why does there need to be consensus? Why is it so impossible that The Hobbit might not be a good film?

There's diversity and theirs deliberately bring negative for the sake of it. Thud far the 1 and 2 star reviews for the Hobbit, of which there are few have came across as reviewers looking to be noticed. You seem to think that I am insisting that the Hobbit will be a great film, I'm not. I'm not expecting anything to rival the LotR films but I seriously doubt it's going to be anywhere close to as bad as say Alex Cross or The Sitter or Abduction or The Tall Man or The Watch or Storage 24 or The Babymakers or Stolen or any of the other truly terrible films released this past year. And the vast majority or reviewers seem to agree, it may be a deeply flawed film but I don't think it will be featuring many of our worst of year lists.

snausages

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to think that I am insisting that the Hobbit will be a great film, I'm not.

No, I don't think anything like that. But I don't think that it would be too far off to suggest that you're trying to say it can't be a bad movie.

How about Johnny Ultimate up above? Should we question his integrity? Attention seeker? He's always seemed to me one of the most well-informed movie buffs on the forum.

snausages

snausages wrote: »

No, I don't think anything like that. But I don't think that it would be too far off to suggest that you're trying to say it can't be a bad movie.

How about Johnny Ultimate up above? Should we question his integrity? Attention seeker? He's always seemed to me one of the most well-informed movie buffs on the forum.

You seem to think that a bad movie and a 1 star film are the same they are not. Plenty of bad movies are entertaining as hell and a few of the truly inept ones become cult classics. An audience embraces them and they take on a life of their own. I doubt that the Hobbit is so inept that audience will embrace it for its shortcoming as they have with Troll 2 and Birdemic. I also doubt that its a truly dreadful film that ranks up there with something like Alex Cross which is just do bad it's bad.

Johnny may be quite correct with his 2/5 but till I read his indepth thoughts on the film I'm not assuming that the film is dreadful. A good friend of mine who has in the past year has championed films such as The White Ribbon and Once Upon a Time in Anatolia felt that the Master ranks as this years worst film. According to him the Master is a 1 star film that fails in every way possible whereas I found it to be captivating and one of the years best

He just text me as did a number if others who saw the Hobbit today to say that it was decent if underwhelming and the very definition of an average film. He went on to say that it's not a bad film it's just lacks the magic of the previous trips to Middle Earth.

JohnnyRyan99

From reading Johnny U's previous posts building up to this film I never expected anything more than a 2/5 review from him.

snausages

I think you and me have a different idea of 'bad'. When I say the Hobbit might be a bad film, I have in mind the kind of competent mess that Lucas curled out for the Phantom Menace. Troll 2 is an exceptionally awful film, which is part of the reason that it's so watchable. It's rare that one film gets so much wrong. But a film does not have to approach the same level of ineptness as Troll 2 or even some of the other horrible movies you keep invoking for it be a bad movie.

And yes, I do think that 1 star=bad, but I don't ever pay a great deal of attention to the stars a film gets when reading a review. The thing that caught my eye about the Telegraph review wasn't the 2 stars it got but the points brought up in the review itself. The Hobbit sounds like a slog.

snausages

snausages wrote: »

I think you and me have a different idea of 'bad'. When I say the Hobbit might be a bad film, I have in mind the kind of competent mess that Lucas curled out for the Phantom Menace. Troll 2 is an exceptionally awful film, which is part of the reason that it's so watchable. It's rare that one film gets so much wrong. But a film does not have to approach the same level of ineptness as Troll 2 or even some of the other horrible movies you keep invoking for it be a bad movie.

And yes, I do think that 1 star=bad, but I don't ever pay a great deal of attention to the stars a film gets when reading a review.

I never look at the star ratings and find them to be lazy. I made the comparison between the types of truly bad films, Troll 2 is terrible beyond belief but so watchable because of it where as Alex Cross is just so terrible it's terrible. Phantom Menace was bad on the levels of Alex Cross, it was just a mess with a terrible script, drab visuals, terrible performances and it's only redeeming aspect was two short set pieces that lasted all of 3 minutes. It's also important to remember that the Hobbit is pretty much the set up for next years entry so it may well be a film that drastically improves when viewed alongside parts 2 and 3 much like Quantum of Solace is a very average standalone film but a rather damn good one when watched back to back with Casino Royale.

snausages

I don't think that An Unexpected Journey's status as the introduction to the trilogy should do anything to lessen the shortcomings it might have. Hell, one of the biggest problems people seem to have with the first two Star Wars prequels is how unnecessary they are. The events of I and II could easily have been conflated into a single film. So even if Hobbit Pt.1 achieves a greater significance when viewed alongside The Desolation of Smaug and the other one, in my view it's not a good enough reason for a re-evaluation of the film. Unless some enterprising group of fans come together and splice the whole trilogy into a neat and enjoyable adventure film. Whether that will be possible with a 10 hour trilogy though is another matter altogether.

krudler

Gas that people are arguing about reviews before they've even seen the film, right now I'm expecting a nice looking but overlong movie and have no big expectations, it could be a disappointment it could not be, still gonna go see it.

Mickeroo

snausages wrote: »

I don't think that An Unexpected Journey's status as the introduction to the trilogy should do anything to lessen the shortcomings it might have. Hell, one of the biggest problems people seem to have with the first two Star Wars prequels is how unnecessary they are. The events of I and II could easily have been conflated into a single film. So even if Hobbit Pt.1 achieves a greater significance when viewed alongside The Desolation of Smaug and the other one, in my view it's not a good enough reason for a re-evaluation of the film. Unless some enterprising group of fans come together and splice the whole trilogy into a neat and enjoyable adventure film. Whether that will be possible with a 10 hour trilogy though is another matter altogether.

Well that's just not true, of course the film can be re-evaluated when the other 2 films have been brought into the equation. It's the first act of a 3 film long story at the end of the day. Sure we can only judge it on its own merits as a stand alone this year, that doesn't mean it won't play better within the context of the entire trilogy.

Take Kill Bill for example (only going by my own opinion here of course), apart the two films are entetaining and still pretty good, but when viewed as one story then I think they stand up much better. Same with the last 2 harry potter films and Casino Royale & Qos as Darko mentioned. Pretty much any film that only tells a fraction of the story I can think of improves when taken within the context of it's entire story arc.

snausages

krudler wrote: »

Gas that people are arguing about reviews before they've even seen the film, right now I'm expecting a nice looking but overlong movie and have no big expectations, it could be a disappointment it could not be, still gonna go see it.

Sometimes it's not a bad idea to temper your expectations going in. That's why I read reviews and that's what I did for Prometheus. Certainly wasn't the film that I waited for for years but I still enjoyed it.

I'm expecting the same thing from The Hobbit, but I'm still unsure about 48fps. It's one of the things that has me most interested but I'd hate to sit through 3 hours of it if the effect is as bad as some are saying.

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

Gas that people are arguing about reviews before they've even seen the film, right now I'm expecting a nice looking but overlong movie and have no big expectations, it could be a disappointment it could not be, still gonna go see it.

Funnily enough the look of the film is my biggest problem with it, and probably the single most disappointing thing about it It looks full on awful on the LIMAX screen. Genuinely shocked how poorly graded it was.

snausages

Mickeroo wrote: »

Well that's just not true, of course the film can be re-evaluated when the other 2 films have been brought into the equation. It's the first act of a 3 film long story at the end of the day. Sure we can only judge it on its own merits as a stand alone this year, that doesn't mean it won't play better within the context of the entire trilogy.

I have no doubt that Journey will play better within the context of the entire trilogy. But would you, for example, make the same argument for Godfather part 3? It certainly works well if you look at is as an epilogue to he story of Michael Corleone. But the film itself just is not good.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Funnily enough the look of the film is my biggest problem with it, and probably the single most disappointing thing about it It looks full on awful on the LIMAX screen. Genuinely shocked how poorly graded it was.

You reckon was that because of the HFR and all that? Was your screening 3D? Any chance it might look better on a plain old 2D screen?

Mickeroo

snausages wrote: »

I have no doubt that Journey will play better within the context of the entire trilogy. But would you, for example, make the same argument for Godfather part 3? It certainly works well if you look at is as an epilogue to he story of Michael Corleone. But the film itself just is not good.

I agree with you on the Godfather 3, but I think thats slightly different as each Godfather movie stands on its own as seperate stories if you get what I mean. The films I mentioned all tell one continuos narrative (the Bond movies to a lesser extent), its an off shoot of this money grabbing "lets split the book into 2/3 films" mentality hollywood seems to be taking on of late.

snausages

Mickeroo wrote: »

The films I mentioned all tell one continuos narrative

Each film in the LOTR trilogy is a part of a whole, but each part has its own over-arcing plot structure and they all work on an individual basis, even if you do kind of need to see the previous ones first. You have your rising action, your climax, falling action etc. Even TTT with its distinct sense of middle-itis is like this. But the Hobbit is a relatively short children's book cut into three long films. Will it still be possible and as easy to give each of these films the same tight focus and sense of purpose that Fellowship, Towers and Return had?

Mickeroo

snausages wrote: »

Each film in the LOTR trilogy is a part of a whole, but each part has its own over-arcing plot structure and they all work on an individual basis, even if you do kind of need to see the previous ones first. You have your rising action, your climax, falling action etc. Even TTT with its distinct sense of middle-itis is like this. But the Hobbit is a relatively short children's book cut into three long films. Will it still be possible and as easy to give each of these films the same tight focus and sense of purpose that Fellowship, Towers and Return had?

No it won't, that's exactly my point. LOTR had the advantage of being based on three seperate books which made it a lot easier to make three distinct movies in their own right. The Hobbit is more a case of one really long film split into three parts which is why I'm not surprised at the criticisms I've been seeing so far. If they made LOTR now I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up getting 6 movies rather than three