Comments on: Film review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

By: CrustyB

CrustyB — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:58:29 +0000

First act: Dwarves show up.
Second act: Fight orcs and trolls, chew countryside.
Third act: “Hey, look! I can see the dwarf city!”

By: Russ808

Russ808 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:13:52 +0000

I saw the movie. I wasn’t sure how it would turn out since it is the first of three, but I found I liked it. I could see where the storyline was changed, in particular the encounter with the trolls (though not the outcome), and the goblins, among perhaps other places, but the movie was entertaining just the same. I decided that I would gladly see the next movie. If it kept being as entertaining as the first then I would gladly see the last one.

I admit that I was kind of hoping to hear, “Is that it”? from somewhere in the audience. That happened at the end of first movie of the LOTR. No such luck. :)

By: acasilaco

acasilaco — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:41:12 +0000

I’ve read the complete trilogy more than 40 times, and The Hobbit probably 15.

The trilogy trailers assured that I would never waste time or money seeing any of The Lord Of The Rings films.

This trailer assures that I will accord The Hobbit the same level of interest.

Siddhartha Vicious on February 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Wait… Are you saying that it is never a waste of time or money to see the LOTR films — i.e., no matter how many times you see them, it is time well-spent? Or are you saying that it would be a waste of your time and money to see the films — i.e., even seeing them once would be a waste of time and money?

I suspect you mean the latter, but I am not certain.

If so, while I respect your view, I disagree. (I think the movies are good, although obviously not as great as the books.) But I have only read the books a few times.

By: johnnybgood

johnnybgood — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:42:29 +0000

My family and I waited and waited for this movie and we were not disappointed. It was fun – which was the whole point. The Hobbit was written for children. It’s not “highbrow literature” – it’s a roller-coaster ride. A kind of fairy tale for an 11 year old. Yes, the rabbit sled was a bad idea and I honestly didn’t like the goblin battle sequence much but it was wonderful to revisit Middle Earth. The cartoonish feel – on purpose – it’s fantasy with a touch of whimsy. So far it has earned $949 million worldwide. I guess if you didn’t like it a bunch of other people did.

By: notalemon

notalemon — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:42:31 +0000

*were

By: notalemon

notalemon — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:41:35 +0000

As others have mentioned, the “Bunny Sled”, Radigast in general, and “That will do it..” scenes were revoltingly silly and cartoonish. Seems like there was some hollywood executive additions so that the kiddie demographic wouldn’t get scared.

By: notalemon

notalemon — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:25:59 +0000

For those of you complaining, when has any movie been as good as the source book?

trigon on February 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Blade Runner, No question.

By: datripp

datripp — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 01:20:30 +0000

I thought it was ghastly – and not because I have an overdeveloped sense of loyalty to the original material, either. The first act was repellently treacly; the whole happy dwarf mealtime mayhem scene was enough to give you cavities. And the score! It’s like being buttonholed by a loudmouthed drunk. It just doesn’t stop underlining every precious moment of cute. Hate, hate, hate. Too many flashbacks, too much empty backstory, too much cuteness altogether.

By: rrpjr

rrpjr — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:40:01 +0000

For those of you complaining, when has any movie been as good as the source book?

trigon on February 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

The novel is the steer in the pasture. The movie is the steak on the plate. A lot of butchery involved. Results are rarely good. Coppola’s “The Godfather” was best I’ve seen at translating mood and character of the novel into an equally “page-turning” movie. B-grade and genre novels usually make best adaptations. Turning epics and great literary works to film can go wrong in too many ways.

By: Daemonocracy

Daemonocracy — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:30:04 +0000

My career is creating digital art and some of that is digital characters and animation, but I’m really sick of the overuse of CG characters and absurd action in movies recently. The goblin battle, the troll fight, the thunder giants, the ridiculous action in these scenes dosen’t help the story, it makes the audience’s mind turn off.

warden on February 3, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Yeah this really dragged down the movie for me. I liked it, but Jackson needs to restrain himself and I am now less enthusiastic about the next two movies.

By: Ed Morrissey

Ed Morrissey — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:23:21 +0000

For those of you complaining, when has any movie been as good as the source book?

trigon on February 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

It’s rare, but I’d also say LA Confidential. Ellroy’s novel is terrific on mood and style, but the plot is a mess. The movie is much more coherent.

By: rrpjr

rrpjr — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:31:21 +0000

Siddhartha Vicious on February 3, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I’m with you. But I made the mistake of watching the first LOTR film. I’ve finally been able to expunge the images from my mind.

By: Cleombrotus

Cleombrotus — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:22:44 +0000

For those of you complaining, when has any movie been as good as the source book?

trigon on February 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Ben-Hur.

The screenplay, the story line, and the characters are actually better.

By: Cleombrotus

Cleombrotus — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:20:40 +0000

I watched ‘Casablanca’ last night… and part of ‘The Maltese Falcon’…

REAL movies…

Khun Joe on February 3, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Those days are gone, aren’t they?

By: Kevin K.

Kevin K. — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:42:55 +0000

For those of you complaining, when has any movie been as good as the source book?

trigon on February 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM

I actually knew one. “Taps” (1981) was better than the book is was based on as the latter had a lot of psycho-babble in addition to the main story which the move kept. But you are right about 98% of the time.

(“Grapes of Wrath” is excellent in both forms. I prefer the movie’s order of the camps because I like the feeling of hope, but when I read the book, I could not put it down until every page had been read [about 5:30 in the morning].)

By: Slade73

Slade73 — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:40:14 +0000

REAL movies? You mean like Demolition Man? The best of all time

By: Khun Joe

Khun Joe — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:36:47 +0000

I watched ‘Casablanca’ last night… and part of ‘The Maltese Falcon’…

REAL movies…

By: Slade73

Slade73 — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:29:40 +0000

Tolkien is great. Thats the only diff.

tommy71 on February 3, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Tolkien is great if you enjoy singing elves and dancing hobbits. I don’t.

You being such a ha-uuuuuuuge fan :) explain Tolkien’s over exuberant style – i.e. his singular love of the exclamation

By: Siddhartha Vicious

Siddhartha Vicious — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:18:36 +0000

I’ve read the complete trilogy more than 40 times, and The Hobbit probably 15.

The trilogy trailers assured that I would never waste time or money seeing any of The Lord Of The Rings films.

This trailer assures that I will accord The Hobbit the same level of interest.

By: Blacklake

Blacklake — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:04:12 +0000

My greatest critique of this film is meta: It makes me wish that, if the desire is now so great to milk the franchise for box office revenue, that “The Two Towers” and “Return of the King,” both of which struck me as manic to the extent that both drama and character were sacrificed for brevity’s sake, had been expanded to at least two films each. (“The Fellowship of the Ring,” oddly enough, still feels about right to me…but then I was never a fan of Bombadil.)

By: rrpjr

rrpjr — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:59:49 +0000

jhffmn on February 3, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Excellent points, well stated.

By: IdrilofGondolin

IdrilofGondolin — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:38:25 +0000

I am surprised at the negative reaction to the The Stone Giant sequence. I thought it brilliant, especially since it is the first time in the film Fil and Kili are separated and the anguish on Kili’s face when he realizes it is worth the price of admission. Fore-shadows all kinds of things. And for those you think The HObbit is lighter in tone just remember that 3 main characters die at the end of the book. For the most part in LOTR everyone gets to go home and live happily ever after until the end of his days.

The big issue for Jackson in this scene is that The Hobbit has all kinds of creatures that LOTR does not — stone giants, talking animals and the like. In order to maintain the LOTR tone all that has to either be eliminated or be done carefully. Jackson gave us the giants as elementals — parts of the mountain roused by the thunder — and it works. It will be interesting to see what Jackson does with Beorn’s talking animals and the talking spiders in Mirkwood.

As the Tolkien fans on this sight know, Tolkien tried to re-write The Hobbit in a darker tone to weave it more fully into the History of the Third Age but couldn’t make it work. He eventually gave up trying.

By: gh

gh — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:37:23 +0000

Since I trashed (not really) ed here I feel obliged to comment. The review is better than I expected but the older review by jazz is better IMO. I agree with most of the other comments here, save the h8ters. What you get out of a movie based on a widely read classic book really depends on your expectations going in. I read a few other reviews before seeing it. One of them (NRO, iirc) was spot-on. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, though I would prefer to see a story like this in a single film. I have no idea why the bunny sled of doom was in it. I have read that del Toro had a fair amount of input but had to leave because of delays and other commitments.

By: jhffmn

jhffmn — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:58:04 +0000

I was a huge fan of Tolkien as a child and to me the hobbit had a stand alone feel. The pacing and tone of the story was different. The Lotr trilogy was more of a grim war epic designed to showcase western concepts of morality and good/evil. Imho Lotr is the American epic comparable to paradise lost or the illiad. The trilogy explores the major conflicts facing us at beginning of the 20th century such as war, fascism, an industrialization. As in the book, we were also at an end of an age and the book is a giant allegory for that loss. Anyway I better quit before some resident literature major tells me how wrong I am and how terrible his writing is.

The hobbit was a child’s fantasy book so I find it unfortunate to see Peter Jackson return to give this movie the same feel with many of the same actors. The Gandalf of Lotr is not the same Gandalf in the hobbit.

By: PappyD61

PappyD61 — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 18:38:49 +0000

6 thumbs up from *Possum Holler. *America's version of the Shire.