The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Magill

Soooooo good. Loved it from start to finish. Was slightly concerned with the mixed reviews before hand... But can't wait for the next one now.

InisMor

Magill wrote: »

Soooooo good. Loved it from start to finish. Was slightly concerned with the mixed reviews before hand... But can't wait for the next one now.

You should never read reviews. No-one's opinion matters but your own.

"Movie critics" are a waste of oxygen. Just a bunch misty guts who don't want a real job.

.E_C_K_S.

I'm no film critic but thought it was very good, not great however.
There just seemed to be too much happening on the screen at any one time during some of the scenes.

There really is too much use of CGI in the movie and it gives a very false impression.

Saw it in 2D and didn't have a major issue with it.Some of the early scenes in Hobbiton took a bit of time to get used alright though.

Loved the dwarves bar some of the accents and Ian McKellan was very good also.

7.5/10 if I had to rate it and very much looking forward to the next movie!:)

tunguska

I normally agree with the critics and less so with the general public, but not so with The Hobbit. I had read pretty much universally bad reviews, so I went in with low expectations. And maybe thats why I enjoyed this, expected it to be crap, but I found myself not wanting it to end. I mean if Im being critical, it seems like much a do about nothing. Story is stretched to its limits, almost as if the studio bosses included a regulation in peter jackson's contract that stipulated any tolken adaptation must be at least 2 and 1/2 hours long.
But its an enjoyable old romp, perfect crimbo film. I reckon though the best part of the trilogy will be the second installment.

minidazzler

I haven't read the book since I was 13 and specifically avoided reading it for this. I quite enjoyed it, it's not in the same class as LOTR I think, but it is not supposed to be either, it's a more light hearted book over all from what I remember.

I loved Elrond, rather than being serious gloom and doom as he was in LOTR he was very lighthearted and smiling. It was a strange thing, but absolutely needed and very welcome.

david75

Saw this in regular 2d 24 fr last night and enjoyed far more than the 3d IMAX showing. You can actually concentrate on the story and acting rather than being constantly distracted by the HFR.

Also to those speculating about the silmarillion and possible films, Tolkien never sold the rights to any of those stories and that book was released posthumously.

The only possible return to middle earth could be the tale of lost years which would presumably feature Aragorns time helping gandalf find gollum. Nothing much else happens in that time To the established characters as far as I can remember.

tok9

Happy to see a few positive reviews as I was getting very worried it'd be rubbish.

Only disappointment for me is that I probably won't see it in 48fps since its not being shown in cork.

Mr. K

I quite enjoyed this. It dragged a little in places and some of the parallels with FotR lacked subtlety, but overall it was a satisfying experience.

I've always preferred Bilbo to Frodo, he always seemed like a stronger, better developed character.

Terminator

A M A Z I N G !!!

Wow it felt great to see Middle Earth on the big screen again. It starts off a bit slow but when it gathers pace it is thrilling and disgusting!

Some scenes look a bit CGI, eg the first Warg chase but mostly everything else is top notch.

If you are seeing it in the cineworld IMAX (screen 17) I would choose as close to the middle of Row H, I or J you can get. I was bang in the middle of row H and its the best 3D experience I've ever had. Not eye popping 3D but just bright and crystal clear. I did see a few pixels in some unfocused scenes so I would go for middle of row J next time. Your mileage may vary depending on your eyesight.

Oscorp

Loved it! Thought Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo and the encounter with Gollum was the highlight.

Can't wait for The Desolation of Smaug!

WatchWolf

As a Tolkien fan, I was thoroughly disappointed by it.

WolfForager

People taking about a Silmarillion movie adaptation, as far as I know the Tolkien estate still holds the rights to it and I'm fairly certain Christopher Tolkien will not be allowing a movie of it any time soon! (Christopher Tolkien disapproves of the movies).

Son0vagun

As a Tolkien fan, I thoroughly l loved it, awesome movie experience.

Josey Wales

WatchWolf wrote: »

As a Tolkien fan, I was thoroughly disappointed by it.

Any reason in particular?

Frank Black

WatchWolf wrote: »

As a Tolkien fan, I was thoroughly disappointed by it.

Why?

If anything, the adaption was too close to the novel.

ManOnFire

for anyone who has been to see it, how noticable was the 48 fps? and what did you make of it?

Bullseye1

I rather enjoyed the regular 2D 24fps showing. Looking forward to seeing the next two. Haven't read the book so I've no idea how closely it has followed the material.

Austin1

ManOnFire wrote: »

for anyone who has been to see it, how noticable was the 48 fps? and what did you make of it?

Just back from watching the 48 fps version in Imax. It is VERY disconcerting at first - it reminded me a bit of the first time I saw a HD TV channel on a really good 1080p television.

The sharpness of the picture makes it look like a television program instead of a cinematic movie(if that makes sense!). The colours and contrast really pop. But once you get used to it, it really makes the 3D shine - this was also helped by Cineworld giving out free, larger than normal 3D glasses on the way in. But maybe that was just for Imax.

I'm not a huge LOTR fan but I enjoyed the movie - Martin Freeman was brilliant. About 2hrs 40 mins long but it flew by.

Austin

Son0vagun

WatchWolf wrote: »

As a Tolkien fan, I was thoroughly disappointed by it.

I am guessing you didn't like the whole Azog arc?

Chavways

I thought it was pretty good but it was definitely stretched to it's limit length wise. Very little happens in the first hour but I suppose that's to be expected in the first film of a trilogy. Hopefully the second and third will have more action and less back story.

Overall, maybe a 6.5/10. Good but didn't live up to the hype.

FortyFour

Has anyone else seen one of the supposed 'HFR' screenings in Dundrum? Any comments? Did you notice any difference from a regular 3D movie? I'm convinced it wasn't HFR.

Son0vagun

FortyFour wrote: »

Has anyone else seen one of the supposed 'HFR' screenings in Dundrum? Any comments? Did you notice any difference from a regular 3D movie? I'm convinced it wasn't HFR.

I didn't see it in Dundrum, I did however see it in HFR and you would definately see the difference.

ronano

can anyone answer the following

1. is 48fps only in 3d or do the 2d cineworld screenings use it?
2. any way to find out what screen x film is playing in cineworld this week online?

Giblet

I just saw it in the swan centre, it looked incredible. I thought it was in fast forward at some parts, but it takes a while to realise that everything is running normally, it's just a perception thing.

The new screen in the swan cinema is crap though, tiny screen, and from even from the back, people coming in the entrance take up a good chunk of the screen with their shadows.

Outkast_IRE

After a viewing last night, and as a fan of the books and lotr films.

It was good , but it needed to be left in the hands of a good editor....... you could lose half an hour out of this movie easily and it would improve the flow of the movie massively.
Alot of the action scenes had too many shot changes too quickly and were a little too busy with what was happening. Especially the escape from the orcs under the mountain.

Overall 6.5/10 but to quote the movie " I believe the worst is behind us "

WolfForager

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

After a viewing last night, and as a fan of the books and lotr films.

It was good , but it needed to be left in the hands of a good editor....... you could lose half an hour out of this movie easily and it would improve the flow of the movie massively.
Alot of the action scenes had too many shot changes too quickly and were a little too busy with what was happening. Especially the escape from the orcs under the mountain.

Overall 6.5/10 but to quote the movie " I believe the worst is behind us "

Edited by PJ himself, who also edited LOTR.

kevohmsford

Saw it in 3D last night and was very impressed by the film. Going again this evening to see it in 2D.
Ignore all the reviews and judge the movie for yourself.

Outkast_IRE

WolfForager wrote: »

Edited by PJ himself, who also edited LOTR.

I think his Theatrical cuts of the LOTR were nice tight movies pretty good for cinema audiences.
I love the extended cuts but would often split each film into two sittings.

The hobbit felt like the extended cuts, full of moments fans would love but it brought the running time on to such an extent the flow of the movie felt a little off.

I think this will be less noticeable in the next films.

Also as an editor, king kong was bloated too in my opinion, i would love to see someone else edit the movies.

I think Peter Jackson is a good director, and is skilled at bringing the books to life, i just think they were a little bloated for what happened.

Josey Wales

kevohmsford wrote: »

Ignore all the reviews and judge the movie for yourself.

That is good advice for every movie.

johnny_ultimate

I think as Peter Jackson's resources have increased, so have self-indulgences. Many of his earlier films - Braindead, Bad Taste, Heavenly Creatures etc... - have this lovely ramshackle charm about them. The Frighteners / The Lord of the Rings were turning points, albeit largely successful ones. But since even Return of the King, all his films have been wildly extravagant, and the films have suffered because of it to varying degrees. As much as I disliked The Hobbit, it is in fairness nothing compared to the vomitous excess of The Lovely Bones.

The phrase "kill your babies" is almost a cliche when it comes to filmmaking and editing, but Peter Jackson seems wholly unaware of it (Jabez Olssen is credited as editor on this film, by the way - only the most exceptional auteurs should even consider editing their own films. That second voice is vital). There are several whole sequences that could have been cut out of The Hobbit to make it a tighter, more engaging production. But they weren't. Even individual scenes feel loose and unwieldy where they should be sharp and forceful. Many here seem willing to forgive that for what's offered elsewhere. That's fair enough, but I'd be less kind. The most irritating and disappointing thing about An Unexpected Journey is there's the makings and parts of a superior film in there. That greed and, yes, directorial indulgence has denied us that better film is IMO a real shame.

If I was to predict how it will go from here on, I'd hope Desolation of Smaug will be an improvement with more 'A Grade' material, but think There and Back Again will likely suffer from some of the same problems as the first entry.