Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  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 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


Dec 13 2012, 10:14pm

Post #1 of 76 (2378 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

Thread 11

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


Dec 13 2012, 10:46pm

Post #2 of 76 (1330 views)
Loved it, everything i was hoping for and more. [In reply to] Can't Post

I was sold in pretty much the first few seconds. I felt like i was returning to the Middle-earth i know and love.

The further the film went on the more i got absorbed by it all. The visuals, the sounds, the creature design, were all so wonderfully done. I was so awe-struck by the film i think i need to see it again to make sure i took it all in.

There were so many moments in the film that made me grin from ear to ear. The Riddles in the Dark, wow that was incredible. The Trolls, Goblin Town, Azog, all just wonderful.

Its hard to put it into words that make sense really, but to put it simply....I LOVED IT!

“I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” - J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring


Dec 13 2012, 11:07pm

Post #3 of 76 (1328 views)
After all the negativity... [In reply to] Can't Post

... on this forum I was prepared to be very disappointed.

But I thought the film was utterly fantastic. From the amazing dwarven city at the start, to the hilarious dwarves raiding Bag End, to the battle of Moria, the Riddles in the Dark, the escape from Goblin Town and onwards...

I think I actually enjoyed this film more than any of the Lord of the Rings films. It really was brilliant.

The only minor thing I had a problem with was the scene where the orcs chase after Radagast on his sled. The scene seems to last far too long as they go around and around for no apparent reason... the momentum stopped at this point and couldn't really get going again until they left Rivendell.

Also I didn't get the scene with the stick insect in Radagast's mouth. If that was supposed to be funny, no one laughed.

As for the complaints about poor CGI... I watched it at 24fps and it all looked fantastic. I had heard complaints about the wargs, that they were even worse than TTT, but they looked brilliant to me. The CGI in goblin town which had looked poor in the little clips was fantastic on a big cinema screen.

I really don't understand the negativity towards this movie. I think maybe we've let the critics colour our opinions a little bit. It's a great movie.


Dec 13 2012, 11:12pm

Post #4 of 76 (1223 views)
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post



Its hard to put it into words that make sense really, but to put it simply....I LOVED IT!

Need more viewings!


Dec 13 2012, 11:23pm

Post #5 of 76 (1401 views)
Sadly it felt like Peter Jackson's Phantom Menace [In reply to] Can't Post

The Lord of the Rings films were so special because Jackson and co did things differently to Hollywood- they showed incredible dedication to the source material and created a superbly visceral and beautiful aesthetic to bring Tolkien's epic to life. They set a new standard for fantasy filmmaking.

Sadly golden ages don't tend to last. In An Unexpected Adventure Jackson tries to turn The Hobbit into a Lord of the Rings style epic, and it fails on many levels. It fails in dramatic terms because there isn't the depth in the original children's book (especially not in the first few chapters) so they are left inventing many scenes, manufactured conflicts and character arcs, vacuous new antagonists (Azog- why???) and we have lots of poor new dialogue by the screenwriters that just can't match Tolkien and is full of strange anachronisms.

I also felt it failed in terms of visual style. Everything felt overblown for The Hobbit, so many endless battle and boss fight scenes. So little magic, poetry and character development. The few moments where it came together during Riddles in the Dark just highlighted what a film it could have been if Jackson had been brave enough to leave behind the baggage of Lord of the Rings and create a new aesthetic for The Hobbit, something resembling Tolkien's fairy tale. It needed a more impressionistic style, entering Bilbo's imagination and character development.

I'm eternally grateful for Jackson's Lord of the Rings films (especially the wonderful fellowship) but I don't think that should stop us honestly assessing this work. It's a Heavy Metal computer game version of The Hobbit, and I hope sometime in the future a different style of filmmaker will get the opportunity to bring Tolkien's fairy tale to life without the need to make it a Lord of the Rings prequel.

The Shire

Dec 13 2012, 11:30pm

Post #6 of 76 (1321 views)
What's up with some of these reviews? [In reply to] Can't Post

The latest from Rolling Stone: "As if to remind Rings fans that they're in the same territory, Jackson does things Tolkien never imagined, such as bringing in the elf city of Rivendell". Really?! These people are demonstrating their clear lack of knowledge of the source material, then using their misunderstandings as negatives in their reviews. Unfortunate!


Dec 14 2012, 12:11am

Post #7 of 76 (1195 views)
good review [In reply to] Can't Post

i'm with you in many points, but would have preferred if the hobbit looks more like the lord of the rings. they did not want to create a movie for children so there was no need to make it so unnaturally colorful.

riddles in the dark was a dissappointment. too bright and not scary for me.

and heavy use of cgi...why??? the goblin king, azog,...they could have looked so much better with prostethics and animatronic technology...

Tol Eressea

Dec 14 2012, 12:29am

Post #8 of 76 (1118 views)
How do you do a 10 feet tall goblin the size of a small truck with prosthetics? [In reply to] Can't Post

CGI was obviously the best way to go here. Animatronics would just have made him look incredibly stiff.


Dec 14 2012, 12:31am

Post #9 of 76 (1082 views)
well at least for the face... [In reply to] Can't Post

...they could have used a real face with real eyes, not just motion capturing.

yes, the cgi looks incredible, but it still cannot replace a real actor and maybe it never will.

Grey Havens

Dec 14 2012, 12:38am

Post #10 of 76 (1079 views)
Actor with prosthetics [In reply to] Can't Post

Filmed against a blue screen.


Dec 14 2012, 12:38am

Post #11 of 76 (1182 views)
Just watched it - it was good [In reply to] Can't Post

If i were a reviewer on RT i would give it a fresh rating. I can certainly see why it is getting a fair few rottens though.

For me it was not as good as i hoped but better than i feared.

The good:
1. Martin Freeman
2. Andy Serkis
3. Richard Armitage
4. Gandalf :P
5. Hugo Weaving
6. The shire
7. Dol Guldur look - i am interested to see how this plays out
8. Trolls
9. Better warg design
10. Prologue
11. Smaug in treasure
12. General references throughout the film to book fans
13. cant believe i am saying this but Fili and Kili

The bad:
1. Radagast design and general personality
2. unnecessary chases and hangings over cliffs.
3. Most the scenes at Rivendell, bar Elrond and perhaps white council - them eating, was just so, so, i dunno, not Tolkien i suppose.
4. Azog
5. A fair few times it had a fake look about it - bunny sled and warg chase looked terribly fake.
6. Ori
7. stone giants

The entire Riddles in the Dark scene - for me by far the best part of the film - the moment Bilbo jumped over Gollum - i have been waiting for that since i found out the movie was to be made.

Andy Serkis for me was excellent - if he doesnt get some kind of recognition then there is no justice in cinema.

Martin Freeman was the perfect Bilbo - everything i could have wanted him to be, as most of us suspected he would be when rumours of casting were going around. He was immeasurably better than Elijah was as Frodo.

RA - I think he gave a brilliant performance and i loved the battle of Azanulbizar even if i think they changed bits for the worse, oh well.

Gandalf was as good as usual - no need to say more

Elrond - much better performance than in the LOTR - i dont think this is anything to do with Hugo, but more the direction was better from PJ this time - felt much more like Elrond to me, serious but not walking around looking stupid frowning every second.

I didnt feel the beginning dragged but for me if any did it was from after the trolls to when they got to Rivendell - when they were attacked by the warg pack - just wasnt needed.

Overall it didnt feel like the hobbit - but it was never going to really as it has had so many changes and things added - i didnt like how they were hunted from the get go and Goblin town didnt look as good as i imagined (i know thats kinda unfair but might as well add it, lol). The feel was altered by those changes to me and although more light hearted, i think the book is light hearted but has serious moments where as this just didnt get the balance right. I strongly dislike that skinny dwarf - ori.

Radagast - think his design looks silly - have done from the moment he came on screen, kinda got used to it. I dont like how they kinda made him into a fool, i did like seeing him show abit of power when he went to Dol Guldur - without that he would look pathetic i think. Ultimately not needed but i dont mind him either other than parts of costume.

The wargs were a massive improvement upon the wargs from lotr which was nice to see. I felt the goblins looked good, i even liked the Great Goblin.

The troll scene was for me excellent, didnt need the snot on Bilbo but i know it made a few of the younger audience members laugh, other than that though, i felt they looked really good in CGI and it was all well choreographed.

I didnt like the stone giant part, i think that could be cut and the film wouldnt suffer one bit. Could probably trim a bit of fat off the walking scenes to.

I think i liked the prologue, beginning and riddles best, though there were no parts that i hated.

Oh i watched it in 24fps real3D - it did seem to be 3D but when i took my glasses off to check, it was barely there, i could have watched it without them almost. Overall though, things like the eagles looked great.

I went with my GF who has only seen the LOTR once for each of them. She could barely keep awake through them and as such had less than zero expectations for the film.

She came out and said it was better than them all, but had many questions which are answered in the LOTR films so i guess she didnt pay much attention - she says she wants to watch the next two films then start on the lotr though - as she thinks this will help her understand.

Overall i think i will give it a score of 6-8/10 there is a range there as i am unsure whether the general feel of the movie was off with what i read or whether its just i am not a fan of most of the dwarf humour (bilbo's is excellent). I also felt it could lose 30 mins and be no worse for it, perhaps forcing PJ to make a tighter film.

I am hopeful the next film is going to be better, not that i hated this but i do feel its not as good as any of the LOTR.

FOTR - 10/10
TTT - 8/10
ROTK - 9/10

AUJ - 6-8/10 - i am probably going to see it again as i promised my sister i would so the score may move up or down from here - with her it will be in 2D.

I was going to see it in HFR but i wont bother now, i dont think it will really add much.

One final thing - the system for threads on TORn is so silly, all these seperate threads where it could have one awesome mega thread. Ah well.

(This post was edited by imin on Dec 14 2012, 12:40am)


Dec 14 2012, 12:40am

Post #12 of 76 (1122 views)
I felt it needed a new style [In reply to] Can't Post

It didn't necessarily need to be childish and multi-coloured, I just felt it needed to be distinct from Lord of the Rings, to feel like a fairy tale not a historical epic.

More like Heavenly Creatures and Pans Labyrinth in terms of a personal internal journey, and less Transformers/Wrath of the Titans teenage boy computer game. I'm totally with you on the Animatronics.

Also they really needed a new music score as well, it just made the film feel like a weird fan fiction version of Lord of the Rings, like the greatest hits constantly blaring out the same themes.

I felt there was a lot of humbleness and dedication in the original trilogy, compared to much more vanity and disregard for the source material in An Unexpected Journey. Oh well... just makes me appreciate the original films more in a way.


Dec 14 2012, 12:47am

Post #13 of 76 (1072 views)
I agree on most points. [In reply to] Can't Post

I forgot to mention the score - i did not listen to it before the films release and i read everyones great feedback on it.

For me it was so recycled from the LOTR, also felt very chopping, like the music suddenly slams you in the face when they want to be like - here is the music for galadriel - not so subtle.

It was artificially colourful as you say to. Its a shame but it does make me very much more appreciate the effort put in and the success of the LOTR.


Dec 14 2012, 12:51am

Post #14 of 76 (1069 views)
i get your point [In reply to] Can't Post

and i'm with you.

damn, there was maybe one moment that gave me goosebumps!! only ONE! FotR gave me hundreds...


Dec 14 2012, 12:55am

Post #15 of 76 (1057 views)
What moment was that for you? [In reply to] Can't Post

It is interesting as i have had a very similar overall reaction to the film as you have, its no where near the level of FOTR in my eyes but that is one of my favourite films so, it was going to be hard.

I have read of people crying - i think i must be the tin man as there was not one second where i was even close to crying during the entire film.

Its weird, its overall a disappointment but also overall was good at the same time.


Dec 14 2012, 1:02am

Post #16 of 76 (1052 views)
i don'r remember well but... [In reply to] Can't Post

...it had something to do with the music and it maybe was the scene up in the trees when gandalf whispered something to that butterfly and there was the "ent" music playing.

but maybe it was a different scene, near the end of the film.

what i really praise is the performance of Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman. they were both extraordinary.

oh damn...i'm so sorry that i have to criticize so many things! but even the white council scene was...compared to the council in rivendell in FotR, quite pale...

Registered User

Dec 14 2012, 1:14am

Post #17 of 76 (1085 views)
Well, I thought it was great [In reply to] Can't Post

I loved it. For me it did feel like The Hobbit - to a large part thanks to Martin Freeman and Sir Ian McKellen, they were just perfect as Bilbo and Gandalf imo. But also some things, like the Good Morning dialogue, are just so typically Hobbit, they pulled me right in. On top of that, loved the looks of Erebor and Goblin town, and the few glimpses of Smaug. And some scenes were just perfect - Riddles in the Dark, of course, but also the dwarves singing with Bilbo listening in bed, then him waking up and trying to be relieved they're gone, and finally running after them. Just great.

Admittedly, I did not care for the Azog plot at all, I thought some actions scenes were too much, and that the Thorin/Bilbo scene at the end was cheesy and predictable. But you can't like everything.

Also, I saw it in 3D HFR - the faces looked a little weird at first, but other than that I thought it looked great. I don't really see why people made that big a deal out of it either way, though, I doubt my opinion on the movie would be that much different had I seen it in any other format....

The Shire

Dec 14 2012, 1:15am

Post #18 of 76 (1099 views)
The perfect example of an ignorant dumb*** who needs to think before the speak and embarrass themselves [In reply to] Can't Post

Couldnt agree with you more tho, some of these reviews are just dumb


Dec 14 2012, 1:15am

Post #19 of 76 (1072 views)
Watch it again! [In reply to] Can't Post

I felt the same way as you did, after my first viewing.
Second time around I was amazed by it, I couldn't believe it was the same movie, as I had just seen two days earlier.

Go see it again in 24 fps 2D.

*Baruk khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!*


Dec 14 2012, 1:28am

Post #20 of 76 (1028 views)
Well... [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that 48fps 3d really didn't help the film. But seeing 2d 24fps is not going to change what I felt was a poor script, bad dialogue and just tonally the wrong approach for the whole adaptation.

Guess I'm just a Hobbit purist, and the Jackson franchise doesn't feel connected to Tolkien anymore


Dec 14 2012, 1:32am

Post #21 of 76 (1015 views)
Doesnt make you a purist [In reply to] Can't Post

Not that, that is a bad thing (though it is used as a negative on this forum).

it just means you would have preferred a different type of adaptation, so would i really. As you say tonally it just felt not right.

Lacrimae Rerum
Grey Havens

Dec 14 2012, 1:32am

Post #22 of 76 (1032 views)
I think this is possible but would be an extraordinarily difficult move [In reply to] Can't Post

To sever the tone and style of the adaptation from LOTR. A little like watching series two of The Wire and discovering it is now a musical.



Dec 14 2012, 1:38am

Post #23 of 76 (1002 views)
Would be a very risky move i think to [In reply to] Can't Post

Though one i would have probably enjoyed a lil more.

Oh i read your review on the previous review thread - i thought it was one of the best from peeps on here so far, balanced and fair, though some areas i didnt quite agree with i can see where you are coming from on those points.


Dec 14 2012, 1:42am

Post #24 of 76 (977 views)
I agree [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think you could sever the influence from the LotR trilogy unless you were willing to completely go a different way. Different looks for the Shire, Rivendell, etc., different actors for Gandalf and Elrond and different appearance for the Elves. I don't that you can be partially faithful to what has come before without being faithful and I am not saying things necessarily be replicated or reused but it either has to feel the same or everything should be different.

(This post was edited by BeornBerserker on Dec 14 2012, 1:43am)


Dec 14 2012, 1:45am

Post #25 of 76 (978 views)
Yes [In reply to] Can't Post

Well maximising the financial success of the franchise does seem to have driven all aspects of this adaptation and the decision to make three films. In that respect changing tone would have been challenging.

But that doesn't alter the degree to which stretching the Hobbit into an epic feels like a dramatic and artistic failure

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 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.