Sign in to follow this  
joefilmone

"The Hobbit" (2012)

11 posts in this topic

It's about a half an hour too long but if you are enchanted by Tolkiens fantasy world it's worth the trip.

I saw in that new 48 per frame process and yes while the images are sharper they also look like like a tv video production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right about it being long, especially since this is only part 1. (I wonder how many people will be surprised by that, since it's not part of the advertising that it's 2 movies.) There were things I loved, especially the sled drawn by rabbits, but once again the fantasy elements gave way to extended battle sequences with bodies being hacked apart,etc. The clanging of swords gets to be a little much after ten minutes. It's really a war movie and you get suckered in by the cute creatures, just like in "Avatar", so you'll stick around for the bloodshed. Without a doubt I'll see the second part, but you have to go to these things prepared for an Orcfest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The film should have started like the book- with Gandalf arriving at Bilbos-yes the fantasy elements are very charming and it's a beautifully crafted film. The action-battle scenes seemed repetitious to me. It might have been an economic reason to turn a one book novel- into a trilogy. Yes my friend there are six more hours to go! They really need to bring back intermissions for these three hour movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to find that out. I didnt see the first trilogy, and I'll skip this one.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its odd how Hollywood is doing this. The Hobbit was a single volume and quite good...Tolkein followed it with the Lord of the Rings,which came in three parts and was truly epic. I would have made the Hobbit into a movie first and followed it with the Rings trilogy, but the powers that be decided to do Lord of the Rings first because that was the movie(movies) they were more concerned about. I suppose they thought if the Hobbit didnt do well they would never be able to produce LOTR. So the movie were made and were major hits..so NOW they want to do the Hobbit but decide it has to be done as a trilogy of films....I dont know how thats going to work. They will have to add a lot of stuff to the book for that to happen but I guess we'll have to wait and see how they all turn out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a HUGE Tolkien fan and I loved the first trilogy (even the changes that were made didn;t bother me, because they fit within the arc of the story and themes Jackson was playing with. I was a little disappointed in THE HOBBIT--it felt almost like Peter Jackson was over-indulging himself (creatively and financially) making it into 3 movies. I recognized many of the sequences as being things that happened off stage in the book (but were detailed in other places, like The History of Middle Earth books and in the appendices of LOTR--yes. I did read those, thank you LOL) and I like the fact that he is making the story much more complex and richer than the original source material. That being said, it did feel like scenes were added simply to lengthen the film--like the over-extended rabbit sled chase scene, for example--or that he was pimping for the New Zealand tourism board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the last poster. Taking a novel that was not as long as any of the three individual LOTR novels, but using the same amount of time to film it is just awkward and clunky from a story standpoint. I also didn't think it was as well directed as the prior three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it on the plane back from London a couple of weeks ago. Enjoyed it -- not as much as LOTR. It did look funny; granted it was on a airplane screen (fairly large screen as it was First Class), but my main (minor) problem with it was Bilbo's affectations, a sort of tongue-in-cheek cuteness. I didn't like the ending -- it doesn't need to tell you there's going to be two more films quite so brazenly. The ending reminded me of Voodoo Woman, a 1957 cheapo (but fun) horror film, which ends with a question mark on the screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us