I voted a 6 as I'm split down the middle on the film-which I both loved and hated and would rank as a 5-7 out of 10
[In reply to]
I watched it twice in december when it came out, but have yet to rewatch it (I bought the blu ray but can't bring myself to open it), for me it was alternatively infuriating and entertaing, on techical, storytelling and Tolkieness terms it was a flawed but very fun mess as a cinemagoer...but as a fan of The Hobbit book on its own terms It really annoyed, and surprised me. Put simply I liked elements of the film, but have yet to work out whether I was dissapointed, pleased or indifferent to the film as a whole-which in a way is a good thing becuase now I have no expectations for the next two films, so hopefully can go in with an open mind.
I thought the production design, casting (apart from Richard Armitage-too much like Aragorn for my liking) and cinemtography were outstanding, I loved the first hour and loved Riddles, and The White Council.
but the tone was uneven, the pace was lumpy, the reliance on CGI reminded me of Avatar (which I did not like at all) and the film was frankly a bit scitzophrenic. At points It felt more like a over excited fan making a LOTR prequel than an filmaker making an adaptation of The Hobbit to me (yes I know LOTR preqil was what PJ was going for-but when you bang on and on about Tolkien's spirit for months, then don't even mention in the credits that half the film was inpsired by other sources then I don't think its fair to call The film The Hobbit-The Thorin: An Uneven Rewrite would have been a better title IMO) the action scenes were both entertaining and annoying, and the frequent fan service call outs to LOTR (the nazgul music, elijah wood, Gandalf's darkening the party trick) felt very uncressary to me (which I was surprised by-LOTR trillogy introduced me to Tolkien and I've watched the films dozens of times), especially when dialogue was changed from the book for no apparent reason.
And as DanielLB will no doubt tell you, the abscence of the Talking purse was a serious flaw...
All that said I did really enjoy the film, and I'm glad it was made, but I can't really give it higher than a six or 7 becuase all my forementioned issues stick out too much in my eyes, and I don't think it was accurate to call the film The Hobbit.
Now that the dust has settled in I might rewatch it (and change my mind as I often do), but I can't help but think I may have enjoyed a 2 film Del Torro hobbit more.
A very confused reply, but I have very confused feelings on the film.
The Hobbiton parts and Riddles in the Dark were brilliant, as are the Dwarves as characters. I rather liked the Trollshaw sequence, as well, but Rivendell was disappointing, and most of the action sequences were too long and repetitive and too cartoonish.
To rate this film i felt i had to center it
[In reply to]
on a particular or two, so i chose the character development of Bilbo, and then the amount of heart exhibited throughout the film.
I grew to love Bilbo from the time he went bounding through the shire wildly carrying the map in tow. Some say that Thorin appears to take center stage, but then it seems many are drawn to the buzz of the forthright ego and not the quiet reflection of one or two others, Bilbo for one and Balin also. Look to the role of Sam in the lotr's with his depth of humility and suddenly we can see Bilbo with more depth. The 'get the job done' side of Bilbo is emerging quietly without fanfare but really shines at the end with the confrontation with the pale orc. We can see (as Thorin comes to see) that the 'styles' of personality demeanor are coming to compliment each other.
For the matter of heart, there is much to say for the members of this wild bunch and their concern for each other. In the end they are tight when things get tight where all are willing to risk everything regarding the welfare of all.
The detractions for me are the Indiana Jones and the Harry Potter elements. They work well in their own elements but detract too much in TH.
I do not know if the returning actors performances so far are redeeming enough. Something just does not feel quite right, although i love seeing all of them again.
Howard Shore's music is growing on me but did not impact me like the lotr's scores which drew me into the film like a moth to flame.
I do like the grand scale element of a film as long as the 'chemistry' of the acting is there. It is that which most deeply influences everything else in the film. If it isn't there working in real finesse and heart, nothing else will work to add the that needed substance to a film that draws the watcher in with 'a deep caring attitude' i will say. So to not delay longer i will humbly value it at a 8.5. I am sure it could change one way or the other with time, and seeing the balance of the films. That is how i come to see it presently.
Going by my reaction to AuJ as I walked out of the movies: Good, but not as good as I had expected it to be, and not as good (imo) as LotR.
As a Tolkien fanatic, I adored the detail, but movie-wise it was too slow, and lacked the tension that FotR had. On one hand, I disliked the lack of plot, but on the other, the inclusion of Azog, and his sub-plot, annoyed me intensely.
So we'll see how this changes after I see it more in the coming years.
I was pretty ambivalent about it, though I've felt that way about the Hobbit movies since they were announced. Seeing it didn't really change my preconceived opinion. Contrasted with the FOTR movie which I was a little hesitant about before seeing it, but after seeing it (in its first week of release) I fell in love with it and was fully on board for the other two.
I will say (and have said previously) that the Riddles in the Dark scene was basically perfect: that was one of the parts I was most worried about but they (the filmmakers in general) nailed it. It's almost even more frustrating though, because it proves that if they really try they can adapt the book amazingly well; I feel like they got sidetracked in much of the rest of the movie though. (Sidetracked, that is, in writing and production (sets/effects). The acting was solid throughout; I can't blame the actors for anything.)
On the other hand, even with its problems, it was still better than most of the rest of the generic fantasy-ish garbage that gets released every year now, so, uh, it could have been worse, I guess?
I voted "PJ is a genius". Much easier than picking a number...
I did like the movie enough to see it several times in theatres (4 or 5, with friends, with my sons, and on my own the last time). But I am also finding I like to watch my DVD. So it would get some pretty high number if I had to choose.
I upped my vote to a 9 from 8 in the December poll.
[In reply to]
Having seen AUJ several more times since the last poll I voted in, I've come to appreciate it more. I believe that PJ was trying to emulate the tone of book rather than his LotR trilogy, modernizing it at the same time. I've come to appreciate and enjoy the action sequences.
I came away from my first viewing absolutely gutted. This is what I said immediately after seeing the film for the first time:
I saw the movie and wished I never had. I'm rating it a 3/10 at the moment. I'm not even sure I want to see it again. Wow. I'm just completely shocked.
It took me six months before I rewatched it, but I'm glad to say that I was more able to enjoy it. There are still a great many things that bother me, though, and I don't think I can rate it higher than a 6. Things that pull the rating down for me are -
1. The Wood/Holm scene automatically knocks it down at least a point. 2. Overabundance of CGI to the point where to get a decent picture quality I had to watch it on DVD on my laptop (rather than on blu-ray on my HDTV). 3. Azog. 4. No sense of danger (i.e. falling "perfectly" for hundreds of feet without a scratch).
I'm still of the opinion that a two-film adaptation would have been more to my liking (though, of course, it wouldn't have remedied everything I find distasteful, such as the picture quality).
Some of the things that pull the rating down for me
[In reply to]
1. Radaghast's bird poop 2. Which actually should be number one, is the scene with the sneezing and the subsequent floater in the soup. I watched my Blu-ray three times now, and I'm so glad to be able to fast-forward through that. 3. The scene with the escape from Goblintown is far too long for me. 4. The unnecessary battle near the end with Azog.
I'll give it to 6.5. No higher. But I hope and expect to like the next two better.
I did enjoy it, but I do wonder what would have happened had Guillermo directed...
[In reply to]
We'd have got the two-film treatment, and it might well have been more faithful to the source material. Although he said that film two was going to be a bridge film I think it could have been very interesting. Of course it may not have had the feel of LotR, but then neither does PJ's version of TH at points.
With Del Toro, we'd have still got Sylvester as Radagast (which is good in my opinion) possibly without that god-awful bird crap down his face-as much as I admire PJ it's obvious that that was a very childish decision of his. What did Radagast, who was in LotR for a grand total of two or so pages, do to deserve that kind of disrespect?
I totally agree with you about the falling bit, and I would also say that the stone giant scene and the Goblin-Town trapdoor section were also silly bits. Like you I went into the cinema and couldn't believe what I had just seen-I thought "They've just ruined the best film franchise in the world". Fortunately I'd booked in to see it twice in two different cinemas and in the second cinema (which was much, much better quality in terms of seating, lighting, atmosphere etc) I ended up rating it 8/10! I've seen it seven times since and think it's a really good film even if it's only loosely based on the actual book, but each to his own-it definitely improves on a second viewing as you pointed out.
Yeah, I lump in the trapdoor and stone giants sequence in with the other falling parts of goblin town. Too much of it. The slide/trapdoor sequence would leave them all unconscious and broken to bits. Completely took me out of the movie (though it wasn't the first time, so whatever).
Yeah, I came out of my first viewing thinking the exact same thing. Unfortunately, I still think that. There are great moments of brilliance, but as a whole I think the film failed to live up to the greatness of LOTR.
I would love to know what GDT's two-film version would have looked like, but that will never happen, of course. Oh well, I'm sure another adaptation will be made in my lifetime, and hopefully I'll like that one more.
A 9 for me. The only drawback for me really was the CGI Azog. Would have preferred real guy in prosthetics. The story was great, Erebor and back story was spectacular. The potty humor knocked it down a bit for me (especially the belching) but other than that, I thought it was great.
7.5 (though i voted 8-- i was feeling charitable)
[In reply to]
I suppose the things i liked (the performances (especially Freeman, McKellen, Serkis and Ken Stott), Hobbiton/Bag End, the dwarves, Rivendell revisited, Gandalf's entrance in Goblintown (the single coolest moment in the film), Riddles in the Dark, the eagles) outweighed the stuff i didn't (the trolls' dialogue, the bunny sled chase, the company riding the stone giants, all the Goblintown fighting and falling, and Azog, Azog, Azog), though it was still a pretty big disappointment. But i liked it well enough to have some hope that it will get better with DoS and TaBA.
For reference, i give FotR and TTT 10s, and RotK a 9.5