Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Please post all Hobbit reviews within this thread. (Links to previous review threads within.)
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Superuser / Moderator

Dec 13 2012, 4:01pm

Post #1 of 30 (2064 views)
Please post all Hobbit reviews within this thread. (Links to previous review threads within.) Can't Post

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

Thread 4

Thread 5

Thread 6

Thread 7

Thread 8

Thread 9

Thread 10

Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.

"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase

Welsh hero

Dec 13 2012, 4:04pm

Post #2 of 30 (1101 views)
73% on RT// [In reply to] Can't Post



Twitter: @IrfonPennant
middle earth timeline FB: https://www.facebook.com/MiddleEarth1


Dec 13 2012, 4:35pm

Post #3 of 30 (1121 views)
NEVER TRUST AN...CRITIC!! [In reply to] Can't Post

just got back ffrom seeing the hobbit

i cannot believe what a bunch of farts all the naysayers and reviewers who have said this film is average or a bit long winded..

i thought it was a MASTERPIECE yes it was long, but it didnt feel like it was streched , saw in 3d 48fps, brilliant, future films will accept this new technology, and i even thought at some of the faster shots you could have done with a few more frames to smooth them out! riddles in the dark scene made me weep, perfect!!! thats all i need to say.

this is never gonna be a high brow movie but it will, in time be up there with the lotr trilogy as one of the greatest movie franchises.

some of the shots were just so extraordinarily beautiful an the acting was brilliant! im amazed i loved it so much!!!!!!!

"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro


Dec 13 2012, 4:38pm

Post #4 of 30 (1168 views)
Just saw it [In reply to] Can't Post

I can say this it's big. great Wink

Martin baggins rules all, Gandalf is awesome as before. love Bofur Balin Kili and ofcourse Thorin. flashback of erebor and azanubizar led the movie to LOTR par. Dont worry about the action sequence PJ and crew know what they best with.Sly

and you will never forget riddle in the dark scene.

there is some bad things I have to complain.

- Necromancer subplot is insipid. That worried me in the next 2 films. You all know that DoS will be surely Smaug's story after that I dont see how PJ could has enough material for TABA (This theory based on Smaug died in DoS).That would be happend If the necromancer plot cant get the spotlight enough.

- Radagast (see above because his roles depended on necromancer plot).

- Goblin King especially VS gandalf scene.

I give AUJ 7.5 score Wink

Crunchable Birdses

Dec 13 2012, 4:49pm

Post #5 of 30 (1151 views)
Just saw it. Amazing. THE CRITICS ARE FULL OF S*** [In reply to] Can't Post

  I've just seen it, so here are my thoughts.

HOLY BALLS THAT WAS GOOD. Right now I'm trying to fathom what the hell sort of planet the haters are on. This film does not feel long, or slow, or padded. I wished it would go on for another hour to be honest. I loved the Dwarves in Bag End stuff, and it did not drag at all. I was expecting that bit to go on and on, but it didn't, and I was just left thinking "what the hell is the deal with the critics here? This is all great".

There appears to be some sort of bizarre, coordinated backlash amongst all the critics, for them all to be complaining about the length. I wonder if it's somehow tied into the 48fps thing (48fps = more intense, makes the film seem longer?? Damned if I know).

This is easily up there with the LotR films. Let's just get that out of the way right now.

That said, having old Bilbo and Frodo in the opening was very "meh". I can see why they did it, but really it would have been better without it. This is my only real complaint of the film.

Acting was brilliant all round, the Dwarves were great and not cringeworthy at all (apart from maybe in that one single burp scene).

I loved the Appendices stuff, but there wasn't actually enough of it for my liking; there was a quick flashback of the Battle of Azanulbizar and some fairly brief Dol Guldur stuff. The brief shot of the Necromancer was creepy and actually looked more than a little bit like Slenderman . Based on this, if people have a problem with the Appendices stuff being included, then they really should not be wasting their time seeing films about Tolkien's stories. It was all good and done well.

I could have done without some of Radagast's goofiness, but that's a minor complaint.

I saw it in 2D and at 24fps. Strangely, I actually spent some time wishing I was seeing it in 48fps, because there were a couple of panning shots that looked really messed up, like more so than normal. (there was a panning shot during the flashback to pre-Smaug Erebor where the panning looked so bad I thought the projector must have crapped out or something, but thankfully that was the worst of it, although some of the long shots of Wargs chasing on the plains looked very jangly. I don't remember this being an issue on LotR, so maybe it has something to do with the down-conversion from 48fps, making 24fps look not quite as good as good old 24fps film, but I'm not sure. It's probably just my imagination, now that I'm looking out for it more.

The orcs were really visually awesome and menacing - more so than their LotR counterparts, especially the new orc antagonist, Azog, whose role is beefed up significantly from the book. I loved the Goblin King as well, because they take him in a totally different direction personality-wise to any of the other orcs we've seen in LotR - I mean he really has a personality and it's fun to watch.

I can go on and on but it would be me just saying how flippin' ace everything was over and over again, so I'll spare you any more.

* crunch *


Dec 13 2012, 5:02pm

Post #6 of 30 (1078 views)
I won't give a rating [In reply to] Can't Post

because ratings are pointless.

I'm just going to say that I feel the movie captured the tone of the book and had great character moments. I can't wait to see Desolation of Smaug.
The best scenes were the riddles game and pretty much the whole last half hour. Utterly loved Thorin and Bilbo.
I sort of wish they would make the Goblin King the main baddie and not Azog because he was kind of grossly adorable in way.

The Tolkien nerd in me is satisfied.

(I also think the movie will be a joy to re-watch on DVD)


Dec 13 2012, 5:02pm

Post #7 of 30 (1077 views)
overall its a big thumbs up [In reply to] Can't Post

I have know idea where all the moaning about padding comes from,for me it way too fast!,not once did it drag.
The performances were brilliant all round,especially Freeman who before seeing the film I was not convinced by him at all,so that was a big bonus for me.
Radagast was at times a bit silly but nothing to ridiculous, I loved the scene when he draws the warts away from the company,it was good fun.
And that is probably the best way I can sum up AUJ,very good fun!,they got the humour just right for me with out going overboard, it perhaps missed some of lotr quieter more emotional moments,when we did get them they seemed rushed almost.
The score I'll have to hear again because the stuff I recognized kind of pushed the new stuff aside if you get my meaning,good stuff though.
AUJ definitely left me wanting more,luckily my wish will be granted :)

If I had to score it I'd give it 7.5/10

The Shire

Dec 13 2012, 5:02pm

Post #8 of 30 (1097 views)
The "Moria" flashback [In reply to] Can't Post

Does Balin say anything about the Balrog? If not, what explanation - if any - is given for the "not-retaking" of Moria by the dwarves?


Dec 13 2012, 5:04pm

Post #9 of 30 (1031 views)
agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

i think critics have got it so wrong! yes the opening bag end bit was a bit meh, but its nice seeing it all tie together with the lotr.

and when the eagles arrived i was ready for another 3 hours, and then it ended!


"You Tolkien to me?!" - Hobbit de Niro


Dec 13 2012, 5:05pm

Post #10 of 30 (1050 views)
No mention of the Balrog [In reply to] Can't Post

Azog is taken back inside through the Gate - I assume that's the reason ...even though Thorin thinks he is dead.

Doesn't make much sense...

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!


Dec 13 2012, 5:58pm

Post #11 of 30 (1040 views)
A good example - Richard Roeper gave it a C+ due to what he considers [In reply to] Can't Post

the story being stretched ....but at the same time he said the technical aspects, acting and visuals were terrific. This is the perfect difference between fans and non-fans.
We love, for the most part, the time being spent and seeing the other things going on in Middle Earth. What they fail to consider is that this is merely the opening segue into a three part film. Taken as a whole, I am confident it will all make sense (well for some critics it never will) to those naysayers of today.

The Shire

Dec 13 2012, 6:25pm

Post #12 of 30 (960 views)
I've been thinking about this lately... [In reply to] Can't Post

It goes without saying that any individual movie needs to be able to stand on its own, complete with a narrative arc, beginning, middle and end, etc. But if you think about these Hobbit movies, I wonder if Jackson and team designed them more as part 1, 2 and 3 of one idea. LOTR is a long story told in 3 separate books whereas The Hobbit is a long story told in 1 book. What I'm getting at is that maybe the Hobbit movies will benefit more that LOTR movies did by viewing them as one giant 3-part movie. Thoughts?

Grey Havens

Dec 13 2012, 7:23pm

Post #13 of 30 (888 views)
Down to 69% on RT [In reply to] Can't Post

with an average rating of 6.6

Crunchable Birdses

Dec 13 2012, 7:23pm

Post #14 of 30 (937 views)
Tomatometer has plunged into the 60s [In reply to] Can't Post

People seem to be jumping onto the hate wagon rapidly, as if this is the new Phantom Menace.

* crunch *

The Shire

Dec 13 2012, 7:28pm

Post #15 of 30 (935 views)
Salon.com [In reply to] Can't Post

has a particularly bad review. And some other newer ones listed at RT are written with a clear bias against the story and the genre. Hard to take seriously, but of course they are all considered "top reviewers".


Dec 13 2012, 7:35pm

Post #16 of 30 (857 views)
I initially predicted 62% [In reply to] Can't Post

And it looks like I'm going to be damn close :(

On Saturday I'll find out if the critics are right.


Dec 13 2012, 7:39pm

Post #17 of 30 (853 views)
69% on RT lowest i remember [In reply to] Can't Post

can't wait to watch it tomorrow


Dec 13 2012, 7:46pm

Post #18 of 30 (874 views)
this seems to be going in waves [In reply to] Can't Post

critics like, basically, reacting to each other. first wave of reviews was mostly positive but with that decent-sized contingent of people complaining about the length (you know they would have been complaining about that whether the The Hobbit had stayed two movies or even one three-hour movie because they would have pointed at the length of one of the LotR movies and how long one of those books is vs. The Hobbit) and about HFR (like that somehow affects the basic quality of the movie for people who can choose not to watch it that way), then another wave of reviews came out where critics were saying that it was wrong not to recognize how well-made and good the film actually is just because of length or whatever, and then here's the next wave of critics, once again, with nary a new thought to share other than they insist that the film's too long and that's cause enough along with whichever of their own minor quibbles to give it a negative review whilst giving some other mediocre blockbuster without the same level of hype or expectation a passing grade.

just like with everything, you have to sort the wheat from the chaff with critics. some of the negative reviews have genuinely good insights to share about what they didn't like and why, but far too many of them are just being reactive or towing the party line (and some of the positive reviews do that, too, though i think the passion of some of the really positive reviews like the Forbes review has turned their reaction into something that is more insightful than the average review of this movie has been).


Dec 13 2012, 7:47pm

Post #19 of 30 (970 views)
How ridiculous! It's a fantastic film. [In reply to] Can't Post

I wasn't disappointed at all. The Phantom Menace is dreadful.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!


Dec 13 2012, 7:57pm

Post #20 of 30 (810 views)
I agree, but I also think the same applied to LOTR. [In reply to] Can't Post

Both are actually one book. LOTR was just published in 3 portions.

My local newspaper critic gave it 3 stars / 4. He regurgitated alot of the same meme - padding etc. but thought the Bilbo - Gollum scene saves the film.

The Shire

Dec 13 2012, 8:16pm

Post #21 of 30 (810 views)
Back when ... [In reply to] Can't Post

The Fellowship of the Ring came out, fantasy films weren't a successful model. Few thought this thing would take off, and when some initial impressions were blown away, it was the "cool" thing to give the (relatively) upstart director and his crazy ambition a good review. Nothing like it had been seen before. Now, though, 10 years, 15+ Academy Awards, and several billion dollars later, PJ and his team aren't the underdog anymore. They are the standard when it comes to epic film making, and this film has had more hype, drama, and expectation attached to it than any other film of the past few years. Now, it is "cool" for reviewers to come down harder. Frankly, no one would pay attention to a lot of these critics if they gave ratings similar to what the Lotr films received; that is what would be expected, so they have to go against expectations to be noticed.

It's too long? I don't buy it. It is shorter than all three of the Lord of the Rings movies, shorter than The Dark Knight Rises, and a mere 7 minutes longer than The Dark Knight. It is ever so slightly longer than the last two Harry Potter films, which were the best received by critics (and worst, in my opinion), and going back a bit, is shorter than the very well-received Gladiator, Titanic, and Braveheart. If you take away the reviews that take petty shots at the length, AUJ would have almost completely positive reviews.

2.5+ hour long movies have been with us for a very long time, guys. If you think a film of that length is bad because it is too long (when it excels in virtually every other metric there is) then you simply should be in the film criticism business. Sorry.

Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Dec 13 2012, 8:34pm

Post #22 of 30 (869 views)
The critics are right, and a bit a wrong. [In reply to] Can't Post

In my view this is a good film, but not a truly great one. I enjoyed all of the bits but the whole lacked a narrative thrust. This is really what is at the heart of the comments about padding, as far as I can see.

Because there isn't a "bad" hour in this film to cut out, there isn't a "bad" 15 minutes. The scenes are not over-extended, as I was somewhat expecting from comments to date (in particular I was stunned to discover the much-discussed giants scene was only a two minute job!)

The discussion of padding, instead is a proxy for a discussion for lack of development, on the assumption that had we ended further down the road we would also be, somehow, further on. However, we wouldn't be (especially at the barrels, for example). We would feel exactly the same - it's just that we would have done some more "stuff" along the way.

Jackson makes some game attempts at creating a bit of narrative progress and character movement, but it remains, overall, just what it is in the text - an episodic, adventure travelogue. And it's good, but I can see and agree that it leaves one wanting something more.

The bits were all very enjoyable - Radagast and Azog included (in fact I can't quite understand what anyone's issue with Azog is!)

The 48fps was fascinating but very unusual and clearly altered the way I was processing visual information (extraordinary). It gave a good deal of the film a feel of being almost theatrical, which leant some interesting overtones. I will be interested to see it in HFR again and in 24fps to compare.

The challenge here was always to achieve a balance or compromise between a film which is utterly severed from the world of LOTR or giving the punters the epic tale that they really want (and so be far more daring in stepping away from a literal adaptation of the TH). With AUJ he lands somewhere between these stools.

This is however the furthest point from LOTR and the distance decreases as we move through the next two films, so this is a solid foundation to build on, and an enjoyable 3 hours to tide us over until he gets there.



Dec 13 2012, 8:44pm

Post #23 of 30 (761 views)
nice review! [In reply to] Can't Post

this strikes me as a very fair and balanced assessment. there are intrinsic shortcomings to adapting only the first third of a slim story, and i long ago came to terms with that, so hopefully i will be able to just enjoy this movie for what it is.


Dec 13 2012, 9:06pm

Post #24 of 30 (736 views)
something to not forget [In reply to] Can't Post

About the critics...i really think that a person who really love, respect the passion and the work behind a movie like this outpass a critic who just didnt like it and not hated it as so! If a critic hate is as strong as the love of a fan...this critic most be totally evil! Tongue

The Shire

Dec 13 2012, 9:31pm

Post #25 of 30 (663 views)
Ouch ... [In reply to] Can't Post

... I meant SHOULDN'T be in the film criticism business. Hehe.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.