Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Disappointing

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Disappointing Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Disappointing - 14/12/2012 6:00:24 PM   
Fit Kisto

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 15/8/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: intelandroid

Overlong, overblown, and overly reliant on CGI. And *****SPOILER ALERT****** every single one of the fight scenes ends with a deus ex machina. While the Gollum bits are genius


Strongly agreed. Little niggles about cgi overuse and the cartoonish set pieces, that were ignorable in the LOTR trilogy, felt so much more pronounced in this film. Just like with the excessive parts of King Kong.

And yes, Andy Serkis lifted the proceedings immensely with his return as Gollum. The riddles in the dark segment was involving, and genuinely tense on a level which the last 30 minutes of green screen chases could not hope to match.





_____________________________

There is no Swamp Ape. It was invented for people who can't find the actual world fascinating. Y'know?

(in reply to intelandroid)
Post #: 91
- 14/12/2012 6:25:38 PM   
sleepwalker

 

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/6/2006
From: Bristol
I enjoyed the film but it was too long, some scenes could have been cut and less indulgent. Martin Freeman was a wonderful as Bilbo though and it was great to see all of the old faces (except frodo, no need tbh). I saw the film in 2d however, not sure why they can use the 48FPS for long shots and 24 for up close, kind of like they do with the imax footage in the dark Knight Films.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 92
Better than expected! - 14/12/2012 6:35:55 PM   
Halfling

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 31/10/2005
Never done 3D before but after the awful 2D of Deathly Hallows (when the 3D scenes just looked so fake) I had to give in for the BIG one. Honestly? I don't know why PJ bothered. In my most humble opinion, these stories are so rich and beautiful, they don't need 3D or HFR. I didn't mind the long opening segment, though agree 20 mins could easily have been shaved from the total running time. The major cock up for me was ***SPOILER**** when Bilbo finds the ring. That should have been a carbon copy of the Fellowship prologue sequence and it just wasn't. Also ***ANOTHER SPOILER*** you can't bring a character back from the dead just to crank up tension with a main character. Azog was decapitated by Dain Ironfoot, and unless he's Michael Myers....I appreciate that unless you have trolled the LOTR appendices or know the Hobbit text like the back of your, this doesn't matter, but still, you know, it kinda does! Right, gripes over with. I actually loved it! Freeman was great, Armitage good (the charater will grow, I know that) and McKellen just fab as usual. Thought the White Council scene was slightly jarring but appreciate there will be a pay off, just as the whole Dol Guldor/Necromancer stuff. And of course, the other star of the show - New Zealand! Just breath-taking! And yes, I came out of the cinema wanting to go straight back in and watch it again. Which I will do...................in good ol' fasion 2D!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 93
Better than expected! - 14/12/2012 6:35:56 PM   
Halfling

 

Posts: 128
Joined: 31/10/2005
Never done 3D before but after the awful 2D of Deathly Hallows (when the 3D scenes just looked so fake) I had to give in for the BIG one. Honestly? I don't know why PJ bothered. In my most humble opinion, these stories are so rich and beautiful, they don't need 3D or HFR. I didn't mind the long opening segment, though agree 20 mins could easily have been shaved from the total running time. The major cock up for me was ***SPOILER**** when Bilbo finds the ring. That should have been a carbon copy of the Fellowship prologue sequence and it just wasn't. Also ***ANOTHER SPOILER*** you can't bring a character back from the dead just to crank up tension with a main character. Azog was decapitated by Dain Ironfoot, and unless he's Michael Myers....I appreciate that unless you have trolled the LOTR appendices or know the Hobbit text like the back of your, this doesn't matter, but still, you know, it kinda does! Right, gripes over with. I actually loved it! Freeman was great, Armitage good (the charater will grow, I know that) and McKellen just fab as usual. Thought the White Council scene was slightly jarring but appreciate there will be a pay off, just as the whole Dol Guldor/Necromancer stuff. And of course, the other star of the show - New Zealand! Just breath-taking! And yes, I came out of the cinema wanting to go straight back in and watch it again. Which I will do...................in good ol' fasion 2D!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 94
RE: very enjoyable - 14/12/2012 7:12:49 PM   
rick_7


Posts: 6151
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: The internet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gimli The Dwarf


quote:

ORIGINAL: rick_7

YES, absolutely. I thought that was genuinely brilliant. I loved Freeman too - not sure if it was revelatory, though, as he was so extraordinary in Sherlock. Glad you enjoyed it so much. Mrs_7 is the LotR buff in our house (she used to loiter around in that part of the boards back in the day) and she thought it was brilliant.


She should start posting again!

She did, today, without me even passing on your message!

_____________________________

*Wendy Hiller fanboy*

Blog: DJANGO! DUMBO! DESPICABLE ME 2! Plus: other stuff.

"Nothin's really been right since Sam the Lion died."

(in reply to Gimli The Dwarf)
Post #: 95
RE: An Epic Journey - 14/12/2012 7:43:56 PM   
Beno


Posts: 8134
Joined: 15/2/2007
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beno

Saw this today - in IMAX 3D 48 FPS - and i dont know if it was the dissapointment of not having the first 9 minute Star Trek preview with the trailers - which were a paltry Les Mis. and the Man Of Steel teaser, so one and a half trailers - but for the first 2 hours i was partly underwhelmed. For me its only when they encounter the Goblin King and Bilbo 'stumbles' into Gollum that im truly impressed.

Lets deal with the 48 FPS debate first. Put simply it does look weird! Its a clearer picture but when a lot of stuff is flying around on the screen it almost seems strangely blurry .... no! blurry is wrong! ..... it looks weird! To be honest its hard to describe whats wrong with the way it looks but its noticably different to the point of distraction.
Perhaps this type of frame size is better for a movie not so 'fast paced'?

Unlike the LOTR Trilogy this first Hobbit movie lacks an emotional impact of any kind until it flirts with it in the final third. Based on this observation its also hard to 'care' about any of the characters too much until - again - the last 40 minutes or so.

Its a real shame i feel this way. This movie is a 3 out of 5 in my opinion. My fav. movie of all time is Fellowship which this new flick is a pale comparison of.




Another quibble i'd like to add is what i saw as an inconcistancy within the use of the CGI tool.
Whereas Gollum was flawless and as real as real gets - those eyes MWAHH! - compare him to say the 'Pale Orc' baddie who was .... well!.... pale in comparison in respect of the CGI work done on him.
For me this made him less of a visible threat.

I may come across as being too critical ..... after all its not the semi dud that Prometheus mainly was. But it does seem to be a bit of a trend now that most seem to think the final third of The Hobbit is by far the best chunk of this movie.

_____________________________

"The one about the space hairdresser and the cowboy. He's got a tinfoil pal and a pedalbin. His Father's a robot and he's fucking fucked his Sister. Lego ... They're all made of fucking Lego!!"

(in reply to Beno)
Post #: 96
RE: An Epic Journey - 14/12/2012 8:04:31 PM   
Your Funny Uncle


Posts: 11998
Joined: 14/11/2005
From: The Deepest Depths Of Joypad.....
I watched this in 3D HFR this afternoon. I must admit I was slightly worried by the negativity surrounding 48fps but I have to say I thought it was great. Really great. Yes there were a few niggles in the tight/close scenes where it seemed like the movie was in fast forward (this was probably about two or three times) but apart from that it looked absolutely fantastic and now I can see just why Peter Jackson has put it out there. The 3D is in no way gimmicky and adds real depth to the picture and is damn right outstanding in places. The colours are standout in HFR, I think maybe more so than a normal 3D version. I have to fully disagree with whoever said that the HFR mad ethe 'Riddles in the Dark' scene look like a set and take you out of the moment. I thought that scene was visually stunning and the acting absolutely superb. Probably already one of my favourite movie scenes of all time. So basically yeah, I think the HFR version was fantastic and will be seeing other movies that will be presented in this way. That's the good thing about Peter Jackson, he's left it up to us to view it in whichever way we want wether it be 2D, 3D or HFR. I wouldn't listen to the negativity about 48fps and encourage you to see for yourself before judging....

As for the movie, absolutely fantastic fun. I loved LOTR and I love this first installment of The Hobbit. I didn't find the movie overly long at all and found the time flew by, after a slow start (which wasn't a bad thing, I love the story telling) the pace really picked up and we were treated to set piece after set piece. There was always something going on and by the time we reached the end there was an emotional connection there, especially with 'the hug'. It certainly left me wanting more and not wanting to wait another year

The only slight negative I would have is that some of the CGI wasn't quite up to scratch which was quite surprising. Gollum looked exceptional but the likes of Radaghast on his sleigh didn't quite sit right at points.

Still, a welcome return to middle earth....

_____________________________

Empires Top 100 Movie Characters of All Time! - VOTE NOW by clicking HERE

(in reply to Beno)
Post #: 97
RE: very enjoyable - 14/12/2012 8:11:31 PM   
Gimli The Dwarf


Posts: 78142
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Central Park Zoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: rick_7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gimli The Dwarf


quote:

ORIGINAL: rick_7

YES, absolutely. I thought that was genuinely brilliant. I loved Freeman too - not sure if it was revelatory, though, as he was so extraordinary in Sherlock. Glad you enjoyed it so much. Mrs_7 is the LotR buff in our house (she used to loiter around in that part of the boards back in the day) and she thought it was brilliant.


She should start posting again!

She did, today, without me even passing on your message!



Just seen her posts. Hope she sticks around!

_____________________________

So, sir, we let him have it right up! And I have to report, sir, he did not like it, sir.

Fellow scientists, poindexters, geeks.

Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!

Much more better!

(in reply to rick_7)
Post #: 98
A WELCOME Return to MIDDLE EARTH!!! - 14/12/2012 9:11:04 PM   
Ramone87

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 24/12/2011
Peter Jackson delivers the fantasy goods once more with this thrilling adaption of Tolkien's The Hobbit!!


It flys at a great pace as Bilbo Baggin's home is invaded by 13 dwarfs and a request by Gandalf to join them on and unexpected journey to find lost treasure and save the homland of the Dwarfs Erebor, mainly for king Theron played with expertise by Richard Armitage.


It's all there,..including returning character's players Sir Ian Mckellen's now legendary Gandalf, Elijah Wood's Frodo for a brief moment with an and ageing Bilbo,...Ian Holm busy scribbling away at his there and back again saga. The ever twee Shire in full 48 frames per second glory is almost just too crisp and dangerously veers the movie's look in to a BBC mini-series...


But those fears are partly put to rest once the set-pieces kick in. We have a stunning prologue of the attack on Erebor fortitude by the briefly glimpsed Smaug and King Therons legendary battle with the fiersome Orc lord Azong through to other great battle vistas now in shining 3D Glory.

But what hold's this film together is the strong performances,...mainly the revelation of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. He seem's to truly understand what makes this hobbit tick,...developing the character from sheltered home dweller to ring stealing orc battling hero in a subtle and measured performance,...just watch his encounter with the brilliant Serkis and his again now legendary Gollum. It's truly one of the film's most stand out scenes....as Bilbo steals the legendary ring from the pitifull Gollum.


The plot hold's well thoughout and the only scene which I felt dragged was the encounter with Sauron in Rivendale., where Christopher Lee who I feel was the weakest link in LOTR trilogy makes that same presence here. But as always it's great to have familiar faces return for this adaption, it just gives the film more wieght and gravitas, here also noting the ever gracefull Galadriel played with ease by Cate Blanchet and and the stern and noble Elf leader Elrond by Hugo Weaving.


The other 13 dwarfes do a grand job to seure some celliod running time, mainly Balin (Ken Stott), Bofur (James Nesbitt) hilarious as the foul-mouthed and ill tempered dwarf duo particulalry good in a confrontation with some nastly cockney trolls!!


It all builds up nicely, from some more vertigo inducing mountain top antics to battling orc armies in giant caves, there's so much to marvel at and enjoy as Peter Jackson brings glorious 3D to Middle earth...,and then we come to the end, well not quite. What's good is it leaves you wanting more, and all involoved have done a great job of tackling a quarter of a classic book!!





Go WATCH IT!!!!

















< Message edited by Ramone87 -- 14/12/2012 9:18:49 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 99
RE: A WELCOME Return to MIDDLE EARTH!!! - 14/12/2012 9:36:59 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 4039
Joined: 19/10/2005


An era of prosperity for the Dwarves who live inside the Lonely Mountain is cut short when a dragon named Smaug appears and drives King Thror and his people out of the land of Erebor, becoming the sole owner of all the treasure the Dwarves had mined including the extremely valuable Arkenstone. Sometime later, in the peaceful land of Hobbiton, a young Hobbit called Bilbo Baggins is tricked by the wizard Gandalf the Grey into hosting a party for twelve Dwarves. They intend to reclaim their kingdom from Smaug, and when Gandalf unveils a map showing a secret door in the side of the Lonely Mountain, it becomes apparent that they want Bilbo to serve as a expeditionís Ďburglarí. After much resistance, Bilbo joins them and the adventure is on, an adventure which takes Bilbo out of Hobbiton for the first time in his lifeÖÖ


I am a huge fan of Peter Jacksonís The Lord Of The Rings films; I think they are both excellent adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkienís tale and fantastic fantasy epics in their own right, simply amazing film experiences which I always look forward to viewing again. Iím not going to take up any more of this review singing their praises; I did that in the Feature that you can access here http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/2012/12/doc-goes-back-to-middle-earth-a-personal-look-back-at-the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy/ , so check it out if you think I have it Ďiní for Jackson and The Hobbit. This review is not going to be a pleasant one to write though, because The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey just isnít that good. Itís by no means a bad movie; there have been dozens of far worse films in what has been a pretty weak year for cinema, and it isnít an ordeal to sit through like, for instance, the equally hyped Prometheus. Thereís no getting away from it though; the film is a major letdown, a film that is partly misconceived, partly pointless and very awkward. Itís also majorly lacking in great moments which were a constant in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy.

Tolkien of course wrote The Hobbit before The Lord Of The Rings. My personal introduction to Middle-Earth, itís a truly charming page-turner, specifically aimed at kids but something that I think can be enjoyed by almost anyone. There has been much fuss made about the fact that Jackson and his co-writers have elected to expand this book into three films, and as far as Iím concerned, the fuss is totally justified. The Lord Of The Rings is three films. The Hobbit is one. My heart sank on the day I first heard that they were going to make three films of The Hobbit, and my fears have proved to be totally founded. It seems that Jackson, a guy Iíve always liked, whose films Iíve always enjoyed even from the days of Bad Taste, and whose last two efforts King Kong and The Lovely Bones I constantly defended from criticism, has finally capitulated to the lures of self-indulgence and money, even if he seems to be so constantly busy that I doubt he has much time to spend much of his cash. Heís turned a lively, funny romp into a bloated, forced, would-be epic. I wouldnít have thought many fans of the book will want to see its first third played out at half speed, with many sequences elongated beyond reason and most of its charm eradicated, but nor would I have thought fans of The Lord Of The Rings film trilogy would want to see the same all over again but smaller-scale, a kind of pale shadow of its fore bearer.

The opening is unnecessarily convoluted. Bilbo narrates the set-up to the quest that will take place, with Smaug attacking the Dwarves. Obviously it was done like this because The Fellowship Of The Ring began with a lengthy preamble, but doing the opening of The Hobbit the same way only serves to emphasise how small-scale it is by comparison. Anyway, after this we cut to what could have been a deleted scene from the early part of The Fellowship Of The Ring, involving the elderly Bilbo and Frodo. Then, we shift to Bilbo on his own and go back into the Smaug story as he thinks about it. After such a clumsy beginning you would think the film can only get better but it takes a while to do that with a pretty dull first quarter. The beautifully done build-up of The Fellowship Of The Ring was justified in its length because things were still constantly happening, but itís not really the case here when all we have is a load of Dwarves being totally irritating even though we are undoubtedly supposed to find them lovable and charming.

When the adventure eventually begins the film does certainly pick up, and while it botches some of Tolkienís best scenes like the encounter with some Trolls, the incidents keep on coming and the final hour is certainly full of action. Bilboís famous encounter with Gollum is superbly done. Gollum looks even better than before, the tension is terrific and it certainly justifies the amount of time spent on it. I wouldnít say the filmís tone is that much lighter than The Lord Of The Rings though, though I might be saying that because much of the supposed humour just isnít very funny. The sweeping shots of New Zealand are as breathtaking as ever and the somewhat brighter look of this film is appropriate because this is supposedly a more innocent, innocuous story [or would be if filmed right]. The detail is often very clever; notice, for instance, the contrast between the Rivendell of this film and the more autumnal Rivendell of the earlier films, though Jacksonís habit for making supposedly dark interiors overly bright reaches absurd depths here. The special effects vary wildly in quality, including some CG rabbits which are astoundingly bad and which I couldnít believe were actually considered okay.

There is still a lot to enjoy and appreciate though, and some children may find it easier to process than The Lord Of The Rings. Unfortunately, the whole film suffers from what seems to be Jacksonís excuse for making three films of this book; his inclusion of back story virtually divorced from the main tale which he took from Tolkienís appendices. This stuff is basically material that leads into The Lord Of The Rings, but it both jars with the main story both tonally and narratively and is actually pretty pointless. The naturist Wizard Radagast, played by the worst Dr Who as hammy as can be, may be an interesting character, albeit one who tried my patience after about a minute, but the rest is pretty boring, because we all know what is basically happening and the nudge-nudge wink-wink references to things to come [ďO look , thereís Galadriel. O look, isnít that.....Ē?] are irritating. They made a serious mistake in doing The Hobbit this way. What with the more artificial look to many scenes caused by the resorting to increased CGI this time round, I couldnít help thinking certain comparisons made to The Phantom Menace were not entirely unjustified.

Martin Freeman is wonderful as Bilbo, the ultimate reluctant adventurer who leaves the peace and quiet of his life into a dangerous world he would never have even dreamed of. Sadly only three of the Dwarves are given much to say and do and after a while itís hard to tell some of them apart. Snow White would have been ashamed. Howard Shoreís music score gives mostly appropriate backing but has only one good new theme and most of the scoreís best bits reuse motifs and themes from his earlier trips to Middle-Earth. It contains one bizarrely misjudged musical passage when we hear his The Lord Of The Rings Nazgul theme as Thorin strides towards an opponent. Some songs from the book do make a welcome appearance. Now I didnít see this at 48 fps because quite simply the film wasnít showing in that format near me. In a few days time this websiteís very own David Gillespie will be offering his own views on the movie and what the 48 fps is like. I did though see the 24 fps in 3D; it was a mistake as I try to avoid The Big Con as much as possible. My verdict: what was the point? Jackson mostly goes for unobtrusiveness in the 3D, which never makes much sense to me as this devious money-making ploy is purely a gimmick that is nowhere near perfected yet, and therefore is only really justifiable as a gimmick. Considering some of his early work, you would have thought Jackson would have had some fun with the format.

This review has been more negative than positive, and yet The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is by no means all bad and is still a reasonably enjoyable way to escape from this world for 169 mins. That should explain why I have still given it an above-average rating. Unfortunately, it follows what I seriously believe is the greatest film trilogy of all time and is such a major drop in quality that I cannot help but say that Jackson has partially, if not entirely, blown it. I would like him to see sense and finish The Hobbit off in one film rather than two, but thatís not going to happen now, is it? My overall feeling about this movie can be summed up thus: when The Fellowship Of The Ring ended I wanted to see the second film there and then and the excitement became unbearable as the release date grew nearer and nearer, but as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey finished: well, Iím not going to go as far to say I couldnít care less, but Iím certainly not thrilled that itís going to continue in a yearís time, and I very much doubt Iíll be counting the days. Oh dear.

Rating: 6/10



_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Ramone87)
Post #: 100
RE: A WELCOME Return to MIDDLE EARTH!!! - 14/12/2012 10:43:15 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 599
Joined: 30/11/2005
Dr Lenera, thank you for your lengthy insights and honesty. When I left the cinema yesterday, my dominant emotion was one of being underwhelmed. There's a lot to like about Unexpected Journey (UJ), but it's nowhere near as good as any of the LOTR films, taken individually or considered as an entire piece. To pick up on some of your points;

- Nearly ten years on, the CGI wargs still don't look right. Radagast's rabbit sledge generally, and the chase sequence involving this and the wargs, looked appalling and unfinished.
- Three films is at least one too many, sadly. I was astonished to realise that UJ displays the most obvious fantasy cliche - endless sweeping aerial landscape shots. While New Zealand remains beautiful, this technique was used sparingly and to great effect in the LOTR films. In UJ though it just feels like these sequences were included just to pad out the running time. Ditto for action sequences, which crop up all too regularly. While superbly staged and executed, it's generally impossible to tell one dwarf from another at any given time. Also, whoever remarked on deus ex machina is entirely correct - Tolkien used this plenty of times himself (eagles, anyone?), but UJ throws in even more invented ones as well.
- Much as I admire Peter Jackson and his co-writers, I get the impression their idea of heaven is to endlessly shoot and reshoot Tolkien adaptations, gathering up as much of the old cast and crew as possible, working pretty close to home, and somehow getting American film studios to pay for it all. The harshest reality is that UJ covers 6 chapters of Tolkien's actual book, yet is a faintly ridiculous 2hrs 40mins long in theatrical form. The appendices material is actually lovely to witness, but it's tonally completely at odds with the lightness of Tolkien's 'Hobbit' story. It was a story for kids with oblique references to the wider Middle-earth legendarium, but can be read without any knowledge of this (remember that original readers of 'The Hobbit' would've been none the wiser for nearly twenty years, until LOTR was published in 1954/55). The books are tonally virtual strangers to each other, but it seems that the films are going to be infected with much portentous backstory material that really distracts from the 'ripping yarn' that the quest for Erebor actually is. But who is there who's brave enough to tell Peter Jackson to wind his neck in?! Once UJ gets going, specifically away from Bag End, it's good fun - although the action sequences are needlessly extended. However, the film could benefit from being trimmed a great deal, rather than being expanded as it will be next year - what could possibly be left on the cutting room floor - more singalongs?!
- When I left the theatre, I was confronted with the reality of having to wait for a year to find out what happens next. Many fans will feel the same way. I'm still excited at wondering what's yet to come, but last night my issue was that I spent nearly three hours watching very little happen in terms of Tolkien's actual 'Hobbit' story. In bloating a charming and short childrens book into a would-be epic, is it fair to say that Jackson and Co have slightly lost sight of their actual source material? The entire Hobbit story could easily be filmed in 2 two hour films, or tightly but reasonably faithfully in maybe 3 hours. Any fan will know where Gandalf is when he makes his oddly timed disappearances; we don't necessarily need to be shown everything! I imagine that the bulk of the third film is going to be a gigantic battle finished off with a sequence of multiple endings - a battle that,lest we forget, Bilbo actually doesn't witness because he's knocked out early on and wakes up to find everything's finished! Jackson, however, will give us a spectacular but lengthy battle, where Legolas and Kate from Lost will no doubt wipe out entire armies of orcs while surfing on shields, never breaking sweat, and communicating entirely through outrageously camp innuendos.
- I think that the writers misunderstand the character of Gandalf. Does he constantly need to be encouraged by Galadriel? I fully accept that Tolkien's Istari aren't wizards in the conventional fantasy sense, but movie Gandalf's powers and abilities do seem to come and go depending on the circumstances of any given scene.
- As for Galadriel, when did she acquire the ability to teleport? One minute she's there, the next minute she's gone!
- The vast majority of all three films are already 'in the can'. Surely they could've thrown in a teaser for what's coming next? Back To The Future 2 had a teaser for part 3 and that was possible over 20 years ago!

I'm going to stop now because to continue would be to remain horribly negative, and that's not the impression that I want to give. My personal rating for UJ would be 3*; it's enjoyable in places, but seriously overlong just for the sake of it. The high points are: sensational Erebor prologue and Thorin / Moria flashbacks; performances from Richard Armitage, Andy Serkis, Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, James Nesbitt and Ken Stott; beautiful music; stunning visuals; wonderfully faithful Gollum riddles sequence. I suspect / hope that UJ will improve when seen in context with the remaining Hobbit films. For now all we have is UJ as a very lengthy and flawed setup for the story yet to come; as a standalone film it doesn't have enough story to justify the running time. I'm sure many will disagree but many must have been as underwhelmed as I was. ROTK was released in 2003 and here we are in 2012, after years of development hell, studio politics, legal wrangling - that's a long time to wait, a long time for hopes to build. My disappointment is certainly not crushing or fatal, but my cynicism about the motivation for a trilogy of Hobbit films is very much alive. The writers are all Tolkien enthusiasts, and I don't doubt their love and sincerity at all - however the studio's desire for box office billions is what's allowed them to veer dangerously close to self-indulgence.

< Message edited by BelfastBoy -- 14/12/2012 10:51:27 PM >

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 101
RE: A WELCOME Return to MIDDLE EARTH!!! - 14/12/2012 11:31:16 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
It was ok. Should have been more light and fun and not be 9 hours long! Also feels disjointed.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 102
RE: A WELCOME Return to MIDDLE EARTH!!! - 15/12/2012 12:59:47 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Went to see it on 48fps and...

DEAR FRAKING GOD PETER JACKSON,

How did you manage to make the Shire look like the most miserable part of the Eastern Bloc filmed on the set of the Teletubbies?
How did you think that the movement in 48fps that would look any less then an extended Benny Hill sketch is a good decision and the way forward?
What relevance did Frodo, endless pointless banter, stone giants and other nonsense did to the plot?
Why did you make this film 160 minutes long instead of 90 which is what should have been?
What was the point of this? The only thing gained was A- there's a big bad dragon. B- There's a Necromancer. C- Everybody loves Bilbo at the end?
How did you think that CGI that would look embarassing on the PS3 would look good on the screen?
How do you strip Rivendale out of its ethereal beauty?
Why does this film feel longer then Satantango and feel even more plodding?
How do the prosthetics of LOTR TWELVE YEARS AGO look much better then the ones here?
How did you manage to make a 200 million costing movie and make it look as if it was a low-budget TV film made for the BBC? IT'S THE ODDEST WORST LOOKING FILM I'VE EVER SEEN IN THEATRES. I mean it, ever. Truly ever.

Yours thankfully,
somebody who will never get those 9 Euros back.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 15/12/2012 1:03:50 AM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 103
RE: A WELCOME Return to MIDDLE EARTH!!! - 15/12/2012 2:12:00 AM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005
Saw it tonight, not yet convinced by the 48fps. It looked terrific in the wide shots where you wouldn't expect a great deal of motion blur, but in close up shots with any sort of action going on I thought it looked bizarre. It had a higher clarity perhaps than 24fps, but was by no means more realistic. Just... different.

It did make the 3D stand out a lot clearer than most 3D films I've seen though.

A good fun film, but not sure it'll eventually sustain 9 hours. Nice to see Middle Earth back on our screens this time of year though.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 104
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 4:50:55 AM   
Zatoichi


Posts: 2525
Joined: 30/9/2005
*SPOILERS*

I haven't read The Hobbit since high school. I hadn't even read The Lord of the Rings until Fellowship glued me to a seat a decade ago. I was gripped by that trilogy's mix of epic fantasy and affecting emotional drama, so I've very much looked forward to The Hobbit. It's hard to know what to say as An Unexpected Journey seemed to go by so fast. I thought it was hitting the two hour mark when Peter Jackson's name suddenly appeared after 169 minutes. That, to me, is the sign of a good film, and a good film it was, a very good one, but it wasn't stunning. I expected it to be lighter than LotR. After an opening that rivals Fellowship's for sheer scale, featuring effects that are the best in the series so far, the comedy element starts to come into play. Bilbo Baggins is introduced to the dwarves as they ransack his humble hobbit hole, their number too great to establish each character successfully, only Richard Armitage's Thorin and Ken Stott's Balin getting much worthwhile screen time. Armitage makes a strong impression, his character providing the emotional centre of the first half, while Stott fits the world of Middle-earth like a glove, his Balin proving to be one of the most endearing characters. Some have accused the set up of being too slow. I thought it was paced perfectly, much like the film itself, which felt leisurely but never dragged, picking up when it was right and never feeling like an endless string of set pieces.

Martin Freeman is a great choice for Bilbo. Unfortunately, like Frodo and Sam in The Two Towers, his side of the story is pushed into the background for a large chunk of the film. Effective scenes, such as the dwarves singing a solemn hymn at Bag End, build up the intensity, but it's harder to feel for a band of rather amusing dwarves than a hobbit on his way to Mount Doom or a man in exile who could be king. You feel disconnected from Bilbo. When he is separated from his companions and encounters Gollum, Freeman finally gets a chance to really shine, as does Andy Serkis, who returns as Gollum for one of the film's best sequences. A game of riddles with life or death as its outcome? It makes for a tense, eerie, but amusing scene, ending in a touching display of pity, sandwiched between a larger event involving the King of Goblins. In scenes such as these, the comedy threatens to overshadow the danger, but there is never a lack of fun. The group's encounter with three trolls plays out in a delightful fashion and the sight of stone giants emerging from a storm-drenched mountain IS stunning. The effects guys definitely raised their game for this. Nothing hits you like the Mines of Moria or Gandalf's stand against the Balrog, but the action scenes are tighter I think, more convincing in the way they play out, even if your heart isn't in your mouth.

The ice between myself and the film began to melt towards the end, as Bilbo's choice to go home or carry on comes to the fore. His fractured relationship with Thorin is particularly compelling and has a satisfying pay off which declares the emotional ark of Jackson's first Hobbit. Much was added to form what there is now. As I hadn't read the book in years, I was never sure what was Tolkien and what was new. Everything seemed to fit. The references to Mordor and the presence of Saruman treating Gandalf like a mischievous school pupil might stray from the mission at hand, might be simply there to connect the two trilogies, but I think they were right to broaden the scope, even if it resulted in an occasional lack of focus. Radagast the Brown was a stretch too far for me, but his appearance is brief and it leads to a thrilling chase scene, one that uses the Wargs more successfully than in The Two Towers, which itself featured much invention. I'm not sure what I think of the finale. Thorin and Bilbo get stuck in for a rousing confrontation with the dwarf king's nemesis, though it is cut short where Borormir's drawn-out death proved to be an emotional highlight, leaving you exhausted, while An Uexpected Journey feels like only a glimpse of what's to come.

It's a very good glimpse though. Sometimes, you just want a film to be fun. This one is.

8/10

_____________________________

"You're so consumed by your personal vengeance against life, whether it be its inherent cruelties or its mysteries, that everything takes on a warped significance to fit your meglo-maniacal cosmology."
"Scully, are you coming on to me?"

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 105
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 5:40:31 AM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner
Gloin


I remembered him because he was the ginger.


...and I forgot about the big lanky one...I forget his name...oh yeah, Gandalf!

But yes, how could we forget Gloin...he is Gimli's da after all. PA didn't forget the ginger. Maybe we're getting an insight into PA's soul. I'll come right out and say it, PA, are you ginger?


I thought this was common knowledge.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Went to see it on 48fps and...

DEAR FRAKING GOD PETER JACKSON,

How did you manage to make the Shire look like the most miserable part of the Eastern Bloc filmed on the set of the Teletubbies?
How did you think that the movement in 48fps that would look any less then an extended Benny Hill sketch is a good decision and the way forward?
What relevance did Frodo, endless pointless banter, stone giants and other nonsense did to the plot?
Why did you make this film 160 minutes long instead of 90 which is what should have been?
What was the point of this? The only thing gained was A- there's a big bad dragon. B- There's a Necromancer. C- Everybody loves Bilbo at the end?
How did you think that CGI that would look embarassing on the PS3 would look good on the screen?
How do you strip Rivendale out of its ethereal beauty?
Why does this film feel longer then Satantango and feel even more plodding?
How do the prosthetics of LOTR TWELVE YEARS AGO look much better then the ones here?
How did you manage to make a 200 million costing movie and make it look as if it was a low-budget TV film made for the BBC? IT'S THE ODDEST WORST LOOKING FILM I'VE EVER SEEN IN THEATRES. I mean it, ever. Truly ever.

Yours thankfully,
somebody who will never get those 9 Euros back.


Jesus, if you're going to be absurdly hyperbolic to the point where nobody can take your criticism seriously, at least have the balls to swear properly.

< Message edited by Pigeon Army -- 15/12/2012 6:10:28 AM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 106
An Extended Journery - 15/12/2012 7:18:39 AM   
Fallen Giant

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 19/4/2012
From: New Zealand
Well, PJ has accomplished the seeming impossible a GOOD prequel. It has everything you could want from a LOTR prequel from a much smaller and unepic source novel. It isn't as grand as Return of the King or as dark but has just enough to satisfiy. Maybe his best strength is also his weakness in his devotion to the fans and love of the source material in that he brings in soo much extra material and sub plot that he bloats a more streamlined novel and that's not even the Extended cut. So yes it was a little slow at first and it was a shame they used less sets and more animation in this one but still it has everything you could want and is undoubtably a triumph! Plus it's the frist film that really NEEDS to be seen in 3D. Well done.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 107
Riddles in the Dark - 15/12/2012 7:20:13 AM   
Fallen Giant

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 19/4/2012
From: New Zealand
And Gollum/smeagol was amazing. The animation/mo-cap and Serkis has out done itself!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 108
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 15/12/2012 9:45:50 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Don't want to be "that" guy - but why didn't the eagles take them to the front gates of the city?


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Fallen Giant)
Post #: 109
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 15/12/2012 9:52:04 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54677
Joined: 1/10/2005
I'm not sure if they'll do anything even in the extended version. I'd guess it's a balance between the sensible decision not to go with talking eagles and the book explanation that the eagles won't go over the lands where men live because they'll be shot. 

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 110
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 15/12/2012 9:52:24 AM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Don't want to be "that" guy - but why didn't the eagles take them to the front gates of the city?


Made me think of the BMX Bandit & The Angel Summoner from Mitchell & Webb

http://youtu.be/sbzUfV3_JIA

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 111
joyful! - 15/12/2012 10:21:45 AM   
sephiroth7

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 14/10/2009
Went in worried, came out elated. Stunning cinema. Can't wait to go again.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 112
Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 11:02:31 AM   
ajm1991

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 3/11/2012
Its way too long & dragging that towards the end even those splendid visual effects are felt boring. My Detailed Review on the Hobbit can

be posted here thank you - no links directing off-site. If you'd like feel free to put your personal site in your sig - but don't signpost it. 

< Message edited by elab49 -- 15/12/2012 1:04:25 PM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 113
RE: Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 1:49:59 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1842
Joined: 30/9/2005
I enjoyed it, though it was a bit too long but I don't think it dragged. I saw it in IMAX 3D on a massive screen, but some bits were very blurry. I actually look forward not to seeing it on a smaller screen.

Tim from the Office was brilliant - a lot better than he was in Hitchiker's (I think he was miscast as Arthur Dent) and indeed I think he was so good I wonder whether Peter Jackson will revisit LOTR and insert Martin Freeman as Bilbo in the bits when we had Ian Holm as old Bilbo thinking back to his days as young Bilbo? That would be a nice touch.

Also good to see Gandalf actually doing something rather than talking as well. I haven't read the book since I was a lad, but I am sure the bit with the three trolls was a bit different? Will need to check.

The bit with Gollum was good, but am I alone in finding him irritating and actually you want someone to turn up and kick his head in? (A bit harsh, sorry).

Many bits were like deja vu but I think that was okay in a weird way.

I do agree that the way the major battles are resolved as someone else said by Deus ex machina which is really cheating the audience a bit.

Also I did think the CGI looked a bit shaky when we had that eccentric wizard (is there any other kind) on his sleigh.

Overall a solid 3 stars and a film I can't wait to see again on TV without the gimmicks of IMAX and 3D - which is something I usually look forward to, but I do feel it somehow detracted a bit from my enjoyment of a charming movie.

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to ajm1991)
Post #: 114
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 15/12/2012 2:02:20 PM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Don't want to be "that" guy - but why didn't the eagles take them to the front gates of the city?



Fuck man haven't you played War in the North? Eagle feathers are hard to come by and have time limits on them for their use, not even possible. God, play more vidjagaems bro

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 115
RE: Faint praise? - 15/12/2012 2:31:46 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1842
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Ten years ago this thread will already have been at ten pages.

Truly we are in a lesser age.


Did this forum even exist 10 years ago?


At least since 1997... the original fourm with Wolfgang, Lounge Lady, Film Fan and myself. Now those were the days.

I wonder if dear old Wolfie ever got locked up? Did Lounge Lady find a partner? Did Film Fan take a job on Time Out magazine?

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 116
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 2:38:29 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

Jesus, if you're going to be absurdly hyperbolic to the point where nobody can take your criticism seriously, at least have the balls to swear properly.


Really? Excessively hyperbolic? Please show me how the speed movement of the characters was in any way natural, the effects were in any way close to being good and not looking like an inferior big-budet PS3 game (actually I go to my original thought, some of the effects do look embarassing on the PS3, something about the wolves running on the plains just look weird), the script was in any way close to great and didn't feel disjointed and episodic with long strecthes of no point (seriously, what is the point of the stone giants?), that the whole idea of making the first part so long was a good idea and not a recipe of an excessively long film where at the end I know very little of about 15 new characters, how the locations of the Shire and Rivendell retained their beauty of LOTR, please tell me how any of this film, outside the acting, Radagast and Goblin King, is anywhere close to being called pretty, good or fun?

Because right now I'm hugely disappointed by what I saw (and I went to see this with low expectations, how do you come out disappointed out of a film you had low expectations for) and I really feel that money was wasted on one of the most horrid-looking experiences I've ever seen. It is really that horrible a film in 48fps. The film by itself is mediocre with some fun to be had in some patches, with 48fps it becomes much worse, turgid and distracting to watch.

EDIT: I forgot Sebastian the Hedgehog. I loved Sebastian and he won my heart. More him and Radagast and less Bilbo.


< Message edited by Deviation -- 15/12/2012 2:58:05 PM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 117
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 3:10:33 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Oh and I don't think 3D is to blame here. Prometheus looks as stunning in 3D as it does on 2D. My blame goes for 48fps.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 118
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 4:30:58 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1842
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Oh and I don't think 3D is to blame here. Prometheus looks as stunning in 3D as it does on 2D. My blame goes for 48fps.


Yeah Prometheus was great, but I did find The Hobbit IMAX 3D a bit disorientating.

_____________________________

Watch my spoof movie of FULL METAL JACKET here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCGRWVvM-Zo&feature=plcp&context=C31ca298UDOEgsToPDskJ4_UorjolrWTaxEGMj5GO0

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 119
A Joyful Return to Middle Earth - 15/12/2012 5:23:37 PM   
AdamChamberlain

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 22/11/2010
A joyful return to the world of Middle Earth. A different proposition than The Lord of the Rings but wonderfully realised, with just the right level of whimsy that the book dictates countered by the foreboding of what we know lies ahead. Some fine performances stand out: McKellen's Gandalf, of course, and Freeman's Bilbo as widely applauded, but I feel I must also give a shout-out to Sylvester McCoy's turn as Radagast and, above all, Richard Armitage who is just superb as Thorin. These perfect casting choices are not to be under-estimated in their individual contributions to a great movie.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Disappointing Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109