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

A Joyful Return to Middle Earth

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> A Joyful Return to Middle Earth Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A Joyful Return to Middle Earth - 15/12/2012 5:26:03 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 #: 121
RE: A Joyful Return to Middle Earth - 15/12/2012 5:38:16 PM  1 votes
jcthefirst


Posts: 4424
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: Bangor
While lovely to be back in Middle Earth, I'll agree with Dev here that not that much happened. A lot of time was wasted on scenes that went nowhere and did nothing. However, I also didn't feel it dragged despite scenes that were surplus to requirements.

The 48fps didn't convince though. At times I felt like the Benny Hill music should have been playing over it. In the close ups, it was like someone hit the x1.5 fast forward. Took me right out of the moment.

But the Riddles in the Dark bit was fantastic.

_____________________________

@Jonny_C85

My Movie Blog | My Other Various Rantings Blog

(in reply to AdamChamberlain)
Post #: 122
RE: A Joyful Return to Middle Earth - 15/12/2012 7:28:59 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
For a good chunk of time Bilbo doesn't even speak.

_____________________________

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 jcthefirst)
Post #: 123
RE: A Joyful Return to Middle Earth - 15/12/2012 8:22:21 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I didn't even notice he disappeared for most of it. I was too busy being annoyed by the other bloat, feeling sad when memories of me being blown away by Fellowship of the Ring came back in some moments and wishing the Sebastian the Hedgehog came back onscreen.

I like Sebastian, he perfectly accumulated what I liked from the movie.

_____________________________

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 #: 124
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 15/12/2012 9:10:12 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1047
Joined: 30/9/2005
Not posting my thoughts on this in full until I've seen it again at the usual frame rate (did a 48fps first viewing) but my initial assessment is that Jackson has fumbled the ball quite badly at times and whilst I did enjoy it, it was somewhat of a disappointment. Not a massive disappointment, but a disappointment nonetheless.

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 15/12/2012 9:11:11 PM >


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 125
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 16/12/2012 12:14:36 AM   
sharkboy


Posts: 6286
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: Belfast

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?



They dropped them at Beorn's Carrock, the same place that they left them in the book

_____________________________

WWLD?

Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless

I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 126
The Hobbit= LOTR with a lobotomy - 16/12/2012 1:58:55 AM   
Lady_Chancer

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 16/12/2012
Now I don't usually disagree with Empire much, but this review has annoyed me, much like the film did.
The Hobbit is a muddled film, full of grand set pieces which sadly become a montage of fight scenes which lack a solid story to pull them together. My major issues (and there are many, I had to really think hard to narrow them down) are as so;
- who the hell is the film aimed at? Filled with stupid gags, especially in the half hour, I would say children. But there are some very dark and vicious scenes which cater more for adults. No real understanding of the audience as a whole.
- Why so long? I was almost crippled by the end. The 'length of movie<bladder size' rule was ignored entirely.
- Each scene seemed incredibly drawn out. The dwarves gatecrashing Bilbao's home and eating dinner scene was bordering on ridiculous.
- Why 3 movies? Seriously, apart from dollar signs misting up the film execs' eyes, can anyone give me a decent answer?

It was pretty though. When the next film is released I'll save myself some time and get a New Zealand travel brochure to read.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 127
RE: The Hobbit= LOTR with a lobotomy - 16/12/2012 2:15:33 AM   
Lady_Chancer

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 16/12/2012
Just to make a quick point, this film is not a disaster by any means. It's just that I am so angry at the thought of how good it could have been if it hadn't been so self-indulgent and ludicrously bloated.

(in reply to Lady_Chancer)
Post #: 128
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 3:52:01 AM   
Pigeon Army


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

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.



You literally called it the "ODDEST WORST LOOKING FILM I'VE EVER SEEN IN THEATRES". In caps. Now I don't know about you but I've seen some awful shit in theatres, so to call it that means you must've had the worst possible projection to go alongside the 48fps (because it honestly doesn't look so awful that the intricacies of Bag End, which is still impeccably designed, look like a Teletubbies set, and it's a bit weird to criticise shots of a countryside with picket fences and small people in them as 'looking like the Teletubbies' merely because you associate 48fps with a children's television show - that's baggage you're bringing, nothing else) or otherwise you're just being silly. Like, hate the film, be my guest. But I've seen people articulate their problems with it without resorting to calling Peter Jackson the devil or saying that it looks like "the most miserable part of the Eastern Bloc".

If you're going to be silly, at least swear properly.

_____________________________

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 Deviation)
Post #: 129
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 4:07:53 AM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2380
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner


*****VERY SMALL SPOILER******
quote:


I don't remember the story of the Oakenshield name in the book (was it explained in the LOTR appendices I never read them properly?)


I wondered about that as well. I haven't read the books since I was a nipper, but I imagined it was a kind of deserving macguffin to show that the dwarves were after something more noble than loot (but then home is a major theme that would mean this isn't entirely necessary).





After seeing it again today I have to come back and apologise for my misunderstanding of this post!

Mash was talking about the Oakenshield...I was talking about the Arkenstone. We were talking at cross purposes, my mistake, sorry.

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 130
Re: The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 9:52:48 AM   
TheGodfather


Posts: 5349
Joined: 21/10/2005
From: Sin City
Watched a few days ago but haven`t had the time to write the review yet, but here it is:

The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey
After a longer stay in production hell than is good for anybody, the first film of Peter Jackson`s Hobbit trilogy is here.

The story goes back in time 60 years to when Bilbo Baggins was young. Gandalf and a group of dwarves pay him a visit and ask him to join them on an adventure: the re-capturing of Erebor, the dwarves` home wich they lost to Smaug, a big angry dragon.
He`s hesitant at first, wondering if he should go or not. He decides to go and so this unusual group goes on a travel.

Even though it`s been almost 10 years since the last Lord Of The Rings film appeared on screen, Jackson succeeded in once again creating that magical Middle-Earth atmosphere. It`s like we`ve never been away from Middle-Earth. The return of some well-known characters of course helps a lot.
The scale of the film, the landscapes, the costumes and the music: all of it feels familiar.

But not everything stayed the same. A big part of the cast is new, with Martin Freeman as the young Bilbo leading the pack. Freeman first surprisingly well in this world and really could be the younger version of Ian Holm. All the other newcomers are well cast as well.
Like in the original trilogy, the story is at first more of a constructive nature and therefor a bit lighter of tone. That is the biggest downside of the film: at times the humour is too present and it looks like Jackson wanted to make a comedy instead of a fantasy film. The film could`ve down without a lot of that.
That is the only downside to it. Other than everything is, as could be expected, very good. There`s enough action in it and the variation between that and the drama part of the story is good, the action scenes look beautiful and Howard Shore`s score is beautiful and atmospheric once again.
Not much negative points to comment on, again it`s a great fantasy story.

Thé biggest attraction of the film, and surely a reason (if you don`t do that often enough) to go visit your local multiplex is the revolutionary way Jackson shot this film and presents it to his audience. He invented a way of filming in wich he don`t get to see the regular 24 frames per second but 48. This is the way the film is shot and it shows. Right from the getgo you really see the difference with the "old fashioned" way of filming. The images moves a lot quicker than we`re used to (it looks like it`s being played in fast forward mode but with the sound going at regular speed). That takes a lot of getting used but that goes fairly quick. You`re used to it pretty soon and then you see the advantages this has compared to filming it in 24 fps: the image is much more fluent and much much sharper than we`re used to.

Especially that last point will split the audience in haters and lovers: it really is mega sharp, you see every little hair and wrinckle in the face. And in the perfect 3D excecution that we`re given here the fight scenes look more realistic,like you`re really a part of it. A wonderful experience.
But the ultra sharp image will bring a lot of resistance with it. It looks, especially in the beginning, too much like you`re on sets instead of that it looks real. And in close-ups you literally see the make-up and contact lenses on Gandalf, for instance, wich isn`t a good thing. But those are the only negative things and they don`t match up against the number of advantages that this new HFR 3D version has to offer.

Peter Jackson returns to Middle-Earth like only he can. With the film itself is not much wrong and with the HFR 3D method Jackson has, hopefully, started a revolution in the film world. Let`s hope that the other two parts of the Hobbit trilogy will be brought to the silver screen in the same way and that other directors soon follow his lead.
Sure, there are things that need working on but the first signs are more than promising.

9,0/10

< Message edited by TheGodfather -- 16/12/2012 9:55:06 AM >


_____________________________

Jules: "What" ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in What?
Brett: What?
Jules: ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 131
RE: very enjoyable - 16/12/2012 10:07:59 AM  1 votes
demoncleaner


Posts: 2380
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast

quote:

ORIGINAL: rick_7

quote:

ORIGINAL: sharkboy

Highlights for me were the Riddles in the Dark sequence (a fantastic piece of cinema)

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.



Wait a minute, Morgan Freeman was in Sherlock?!

(in reply to rick_7)
Post #: 132
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 10:20:12 AM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
Nine years ago, The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King wrapped up what is possibly the greatest movie trilogy in history in stunning style. Since then, there had been rumours of Peter Jackson returning to the realm of Middle-earth to adapt the story of Bilbo Baggins for the big screen. This seemed to be put to rest when the co-founder of New Line Cinema announced that "Peter Jackson will never direct a film for New Line again". That's that then, right?


Wrong. A few months later it was announced that Peter Jackson would be involved in the production of The Hobbit, but would not direct, and by the following year Guillermo del Toro had been brought on board to direct. After a string of false starts, delays and disappointments, which eventually led to del Toro's departure, and Peter Jackson once again sitting in the director's chair, we were left to wonder whether these movies would ever actually see the light of day.


Well, this week saw the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first of a new trilogy of movies (with The Desolation Of Smaug coming next year, and There And Back Again in 2014). Was it worth the rollercoaster ride of a wait? Yes. Yes it was.


Opening with Ian Holm reprising his role as Bilbo from the previous trilogy as he tells the story of the dwarf kingdom of Erebor, and how it was lost to the great dragon Smaug, we then get a brief scene between Bilbo and Elijah Wood's Frodo set directly before the start of The Lord Of The Rings (it's actually the first scene in the book), and for fans of the series it's nice to see these two familiar faces, and even better to hear the words, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit". We are then transported 60 years into the past, where Bilbo looking more like Martin Freeman gets a visit from a wizard named Gandalf who invites him on an adventure. Of course, being a respectable Baggins, he refuses, but it's not quite that easy to refuse the will of a great wizard. That night a company of 13 dwarves on a quest to reclaim Erebor arrive uninvited for dinner, and before you know it, young Bilbo is recruited as the group's burglar.


There have been criticisms of this first hour, with people saying that it takes far too long to get going, but on the contrary, I think they spent exactly as long in the Shire as they needed to to introduce the characters, explain what they are up to, and to give Bilbo a chance to decide that he rather would like to go on an adventure after all. All in all, I don't think they spend any more time in the Shire than they did at the beginning of The Fellowship Of The Ring. In any case, once they leave the Shire, things proceed at a breakneck pace for the next hour and forty minutes, as our heroes are faced with hungry trolls, a group of orcs on the backs of warg's led by the villainous Azog with a vendetta against Thorin Oakenshield - the leader of the dwarves, and rightful king of Erebor, and travel to the elf city of Rivendell where we are given glimpses of some familiar faces.


As with Lord Of The Rings, Rivendell appears here as the brief calm before a storm, as even more dangers await the group once they leave, including the Goblin City in the Misty Mountain, and a deadly game of riddles with Gollum. The latter being the 15 best minutes of the entire movie. It's nice to see Gollum again after so long, and as ever Andy Serkis' performance is brilliant. I particularly liked the inclusion of Gollum's split-personalities into the riddle game... "Ooh, we knows! We knows! SHUT UP!!" being one of my favourite lines in the film.


However, all of this is stuff from the book. That's not all that's going on in this movie, as in order to fill up the running time of three movies, Jackson and co. have delved into the Appendices of The Lord Of The Rings and some of the Unfinished Tales to incorporate a different threat into the movie... the Necromancer. It's not as people feared - they haven't just made things up, all of these things were going on during The Hobbit, but just weren't in the book. And in doing this, they have effectively given The Hobbit a direct link between the two stories beyond a few of the same characters appearing. The scenes with Radagast the Brown (on his rabbit-pulled sled) and the White Council really serve to remind you that there is more at stake in the world than the fate of Erebor.


Tonally the movie is as expected far lighter than the Lord Of The Rings, but they've thankfully toned it down a bit to bring it more into line with what we've already seen. The dwarf songs are presented here, though, which is definitely a good thing. And with the exception of the deadly serious Thorin Oakenshield, the dwarves in general seem to work as 6 pairs of Merry and Pippin's. All of them aren't given time to shine, but they have all been given distinct personalities even if you aren't given the time in this first movie to get to know all of them. This is far more than Tolkien did, who just seemed to treat most of them as background characters.


There are only really two big criticisms that I can level against the movie, one regarding the story and the other regarding the presentation. Firstly, the scene with Bilbo finding the ring isn't the same as it was in the prologue of The Fellowship Of The Ring (or the book). This wouldn't be a big deal if they weren't going to such lengths to link the two trilogies, but as they are the scenes should match up both times they are shown.


The second, is that with the exception of Gollum, the visual effects just don't measure up to The Lord Of The Rings. If ever you are faced with a dilemma between which you prefer, CGI or miniatures/prosthetics, just watch these movies back-to-back. After nearly a decade, this movie should far surpass those movies, but just prove that there's really no substitute for physical objects. I can understand using motion capture when it's needed (like for Gollum and the Na'vi in Avatar), but with the excellent prosthetic work on the original series there was no need for all of the orcs to be rendered in CGI. It made the battle scenes seem less real. I'm pretty sure the first time you see the elves on horseback, they are all CGI, too... why? Actors on horses work far better... they should know. They've done it.


Overall, though, An Unexpected Journey is a highly entertaining movie, which though quite different from its parent series still stands up to it. And I'm expecting my enjoyment of the movie to grow - as it did with Lord Of The Rings - when I'm able to watch all three of them (the Extended Editions, preferably) back-to-back (on seperate days, obviously... I like to sleep).

(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 133
RE: Re: The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 1:35:23 PM   
m_er


Posts: 3964
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Istanpool
Can't wait to see it next Sunday. All the seats are sold out in the IMAX cinema here. Gotta wait 7 more dayz :(

_____________________________

WHOA. I don't believe what I'm hearing. Check out the BALLS on this kid. Hey Spider, this is for you.

My movies
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=4044070

(in reply to TheGodfather)
Post #: 134
A stunning return to middle earth! - 16/12/2012 4:08:59 PM   
dannyfletch


Posts: 641
Joined: 25/5/2008
From: Bromley
Went to see The Hobbit yesterday and left with a big smile on my face :-) a stunning return to middle earth, Jackson's take on is meatier then the book with a few bits of his own added in to give more of an epic feel. This may not be what everyone expected and some viewers have stated they were bored in parts but I absolutely loved every minute. This is how fantasy should be in my opinion. Martin Freeman is perfect as the younger Bilbo and the
cast picked for the dwarves are spot on. Richard Armitage is excellent as Thorin, he equals Viggo Mortenson's heroic turn as Aragorn, Ian McKellan as as reliable and brilliant as ever as Gandalf and it was nice to see good old Dr Who Sylvester McCoy turn up in a small but likeable role as oddball Wizard Radagast the Brown. Lots of humour to lighten the tone and after what I thought as a nice cosy first hour of setting things up there's lots of fast paced, rollicking action that kept me gripped throughout. Bring on part two already, can't wait!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 135
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 4:29:31 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

Nine years ago, The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King wrapped up what is possibly the greatest movie trilogy in history in stunning style. Since then, there had been rumours of Peter Jackson returning to the realm of Middle-earth to adapt the story of Bilbo Baggins for the big screen. This seemed to be put to rest when the co-founder of New Line Cinema announced that "Peter Jackson will never direct a film for New Line again". That's that then, right?


Wrong. A few months later it was announced that Peter Jackson would be involved in the production of The Hobbit, but would not direct, and by the following year Guillermo del Toro had been brought on board to direct. After a string of false starts, delays and disappointments, which eventually led to del Toro's departure, and Peter Jackson once again sitting in the director's chair, we were left to wonder whether these movies would ever actually see the light of day.


Well, this week saw the release of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first of a new trilogy of movies (with The Desolation Of Smaug coming next year, and There And Back Again in 2014). Was it worth the rollercoaster ride of a wait? Yes. Yes it was.


Opening with Ian Holm reprising his role as Bilbo from the previous trilogy as he tells the story of the dwarf kingdom of Erebor, and how it was lost to the great dragon Smaug, we then get a brief scene between Bilbo and Elijah Wood's Frodo set directly before the start of The Lord Of The Rings (it's actually the first scene in the book), and for fans of the series it's nice to see these two familiar faces, and even better to hear the words, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit". We are then transported 60 years into the past, where Bilbo looking more like Martin Freeman gets a visit from a wizard named Gandalf who invites him on an adventure. Of course, being a respectable Baggins, he refuses, but it's not quite that easy to refuse the will of a great wizard. That night a company of 13 dwarves on a quest to reclaim Erebor arrive uninvited for dinner, and before you know it, young Bilbo is recruited as the group's burglar.


There have been criticisms of this first hour, with people saying that it takes far too long to get going, but on the contrary, I think they spent exactly as long in the Shire as they needed to to introduce the characters, explain what they are up to, and to give Bilbo a chance to decide that he rather would like to go on an adventure after all. All in all, I don't think they spend any more time in the Shire than they did at the beginning of The Fellowship Of The Ring. In any case, once they leave the Shire, things proceed at a breakneck pace for the next hour and forty minutes, as our heroes are faced with hungry trolls, a group of orcs on the backs of warg's led by the villainous Azog with a vendetta against Thorin Oakenshield - the leader of the dwarves, and rightful king of Erebor, and travel to the elf city of Rivendell where we are given glimpses of some familiar faces.


As with Lord Of The Rings, Rivendell appears here as the brief calm before a storm, as even more dangers await the group once they leave, including the Goblin City in the Misty Mountain, and a deadly game of riddles with Gollum. The latter being the 15 best minutes of the entire movie. It's nice to see Gollum again after so long, and as ever Andy Serkis' performance is brilliant. I particularly liked the inclusion of Gollum's split-personalities into the riddle game... "Ooh, we knows! We knows! SHUT UP!!" being one of my favourite lines in the film.


However, all of this is stuff from the book. That's not all that's going on in this movie, as in order to fill up the running time of three movies, Jackson and co. have delved into the Appendices of The Lord Of The Rings and some of the Unfinished Tales to incorporate a different threat into the movie... the Necromancer. It's not as people feared - they haven't just made things up, all of these things were going on during The Hobbit, but just weren't in the book. And in doing this, they have effectively given The Hobbit a direct link between the two stories beyond a few of the same characters appearing. The scenes with Radagast the Brown (on his rabbit-pulled sled) and the White Council really serve to remind you that there is more at stake in the world than the fate of Erebor.


Tonally the movie is as expected far lighter than the Lord Of The Rings, but they've thankfully toned it down a bit to bring it more into line with what we've already seen. The dwarf songs are presented here, though, which is definitely a good thing. And with the exception of the deadly serious Thorin Oakenshield, the dwarves in general seem to work as 6 pairs of Merry and Pippin's. All of them aren't given time to shine, but they have all been given distinct personalities even if you aren't given the time in this first movie to get to know all of them. This is far more than Tolkien did, who just seemed to treat most of them as background characters.


There are only really two big criticisms that I can level against the movie, one regarding the story and the other regarding the presentation. Firstly, the scene with Bilbo finding the ring isn't the same as it was in the prologue of The Fellowship Of The Ring (or the book). This wouldn't be a big deal if they weren't going to such lengths to link the two trilogies, but as they are the scenes should match up both times they are shown.


The second, is that with the exception of Gollum, the visual effects just don't measure up to The Lord Of The Rings. If ever you are faced with a dilemma between which you prefer, CGI or miniatures/prosthetics, just watch these movies back-to-back. After nearly a decade, this movie should far surpass those movies, but just prove that there's really no substitute for physical objects. I can understand using motion capture when it's needed (like for Gollum and the Na'vi in Avatar), but with the excellent prosthetic work on the original series there was no need for all of the orcs to be rendered in CGI. It made the battle scenes seem less real. I'm pretty sure the first time you see the elves on horseback, they are all CGI, too... why? Actors on horses work far better... they should know. They've done it.


Overall, though, An Unexpected Journey is a highly entertaining movie, which though quite different from its parent series still stands up to it. And I'm expecting my enjoyment of the movie to grow - as it did with Lord Of The Rings - when I'm able to watch all three of them (the Extended Editions, preferably) back-to-back (on seperate days, obviously... I like to sleep).


Nah, not the best.

Great movies though.


_____________________________

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 AxlReznor)
Post #: 136
RE: A Joyful Return to Middle Earth - 16/12/2012 4:31:26 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

For a good chunk of time Bilbo doesn't even speak.


Yeah I do think they should have given Bilbo more to do. Perhaps if not as bloated to nearly 3 hours and they have just made one movie of 3 hours fitting in everything, then Bilbo would be in it more, so to speak.

I do think Martin Freeman was excellent, and I'm one of those people who wasn't always on the side of Tim in The Office (thought I did cheer when Dawn came back at the end....)

_____________________________

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 Rgirvan44)
Post #: 137
RE: Better than expected! - 16/12/2012 4:37:25 PM   
Private Hudson


Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halfling

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!


I agree with this in a general way.

I love cinema and of course IMAX, 3D and everything else is good for the cinema. However nothing beats a good story. I can put up with wooden sets and dodgy FX, that is not why I watch movies.

Man, any fan of old Doctor Who or original Star Trek will back me up on that! Or indeed the original Flash Gordon (the Buster Crabbe ones - oh how I used to love that!).

I liked PJ's King Kong with its FX and CGI... however it didn't and will never compare to the 1933 original, which is just one of those cases of movie magic.

It is funny how times change as well. I remember seeing Alien for the first time on TV and was pretty scared. A colleague at work watched it recently in preparation for Prometheus and he said the Alien looked fake and the FX were rubbish! I couldn't believe what I was hearing!

I liked The Hobbit movie, but I do feel I didn't fall in love with it because I actually felt the IMAX and 3D experience in this case didn't help it. I don't know why as films like Avatar were brilliantly suited to the IMAX 3D.

But I believe The Hobbit will grow on people. Let's be honest, ok so it does have some minor flaws, but we are probably picking nits... and that is coming from a Star Wars fan!

So I will be booking my seat for Xmas 2013 to see The Hobbit 2.


_____________________________

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 Halfling)
Post #: 138
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 4:52:04 PM   
Deviation


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

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

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.



You literally called it the "ODDEST WORST LOOKING FILM I'VE EVER SEEN IN THEATRES". In caps. Now I don't know about you but I've seen some awful shit in theatres, so to call it that means you must've had the worst possible projection to go alongside the 48fps (because it honestly doesn't look so awful that the intricacies of Bag End, which is still impeccably designed, look like a Teletubbies set, and it's a bit weird to criticise shots of a countryside with picket fences and small people in them as 'looking like the Teletubbies' merely because you associate 48fps with a children's television show - that's baggage you're bringing, nothing else) or otherwise you're just being silly. Like, hate the film, be my guest. But I've seen people articulate their problems with it without resorting to calling Peter Jackson the devil or saying that it looks like "the most miserable part of the Eastern Bloc".

If you're going to be silly, at least swear properly.


But it is the oddest, worst looking film I've ever seen, it's not even conventional horrible, it's a genuinely level of horrible I've never witnessed in anything else, I've never had problems with the way people move in a film, this is literally the first, with the 3D (while subtle and working in the Goblin kingdom) occasionally living up to the criticism that was offered to post-production 3D. The CGI, which looks excellent in the trailer, does look horrid and cheap in the HFR. It does honestly look this awful, the Shire does look that horribly and poorly lit, almost stark and depressing, the set does look as fake as a cheap children's TV show (seriously, what's wrong with calling a film meant to be one of high production values looking cheap and fake and it reminds me of something that looked fake, I can't call the market in Eredor similar to that of I,Claudius, a marvellous miniseries whose look is the most dated thing about it, because it would bring baggage?) when the same set, made some 14 years ago, looked absolutely stunning on the screen. It's not being silly, it's what it is. I understand how the movement in 48fps is mostly a perception thing so it might be felt differently from people, I'm having trouble believing on how the CGI and other effects are anything but horrid and look bad and fake for such a high-profile production. LOTR looked better and the only thing consistently great in effects is still Gollum.

I had problems with Avatar's look, some of it looked blurry, other times quite artificial, but at least that moved well. This doesn't do that. This isn't even artificial, it's badly made looking effects (the fire is especially awful and poor), the animations of the avian creatures, the CGI almost looking pixilated, these are things I wouldn't call on the blandest of Hollywood blockbusters. I mean Snow White and the Huntsman is a poor film at best, but that looked real, it moved normally and everything was consistently believable. This didn't have that.

Also, it wasn't Jackson the devil but the HFR, you dolt. The film by itself is a massive disappointment because of the padding, the very slight story and some poor scripting but with a bit of positives, sometimes very good positives and moments of charm. The HFR turns it into a garish nightmare.

Oh and the fraking is from BSG, shame on you from not noticing this.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 16/12/2012 5:14:27 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 #: 139
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 6:13:37 PM   
The Puddled Duck

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 16/12/2012
Silly and boring, I could live with the first 45 shire minutes, the next 30 minutes out the shire I couldn't, any film over 2 hrs is now straight to DVD.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 140
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 6:16:12 PM   
The Puddled Duck

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 16/12/2012
Silly and boring, I could live with the first 45 shire minutes, the next 30 minutes out the shire I couldn't, any film over 2 hrs is now straight to DVD.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 141
Great - 16/12/2012 6:19:36 PM   
IamtheGoblin

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 13/12/2005
Really enjoyed it. Good action, music excellent, felt like seeing an old friend for the first time in ages.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 142
RE: Great - 16/12/2012 6:44:06 PM   
pete_traynor


Posts: 3010
Joined: 28/11/2006
From: Balboa Towers, Balboa Island, CA

Have seen a few people asking why the Stone Giants where in there. Many saying it was a pointless scene ... it's not.

The giants are the reason the company feels the need to take shelter in the cave, which leads to them into the Goblin caves. So, the giants are essentially one of the main elements that lead Bilbo to the Ring of Power. That, is the very opposite of a pointless scene. It had to be in there and in my opinion was great. Looked incredible!

I enjoyed the film but the magic was gone a little for me. The humor also fell flat in many places for me. The trolls and any time Radaghast was on screen just played out in a slightly embarrassing and far too juvenile manner for me.

Had a moire stringent approach been taking to the editing of this film, it could easily, easily have nailed it but still...

Solid 3.5 from me... always baffles me that magazines and reviewers don't use half stars



_____________________________

EXTREMELY LIMITED 1/1 FILM DIRECTOR HAND DRAWN ORIGINALS COMING SOON - http://lomierart.blogspot.co.uk/

(in reply to IamtheGoblin)
Post #: 143
RE: Great - 16/12/2012 8:18:36 PM   
Deviation


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

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor


Have seen a few people asking why the Stone Giants where in there. Many saying it was a pointless scene ... it's not.

The giants are the reason the company feels the need to take shelter in the cave, which leads to them into the Goblin caves. So, the giants are essentially one of the main elements that lead Bilbo to the Ring of Power. That, is the very opposite of a pointless scene. It had to be in there and in my opinion was great. Looked incredible!




Thing is that there is basically no build-up to it though. It's never shown that the dwarves and Bilbo weren't planning on stopping in the caves for shelter and why (just dicovered that the dwarves knew of the mountains dangerous inhabitants, no thanks to the film) or that they would be THE reason for them to hide there. It doesn't show anything new and leaves no effect. They could have ended up in the cave even just for a rest without the need of fighting stone giants and the rest could have still happened.






< Message edited by Deviation -- 16/12/2012 9:36:11 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 pete_traynor)
Post #: 144
RE: Great - 16/12/2012 9:20:51 PM   
film man aidy

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 8/3/2007
Just back form a 24fps 3-D showing. First thoughts - didn't need the 3-D on any level whatsoever. Seriously guys, DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on it. I would have plumped for the 2-D, but my better half treated us to Directors Screening seats(a 3-D showing only) - pretty essential for a near 3 hour sitting.
Yes, Peter Jackson could have been a bit more ruthless with the editing, but if any film can get away with it, it's Tolkien based material. Unlike many, I was happy with the 'slow' start. I thought the Bag End stuff with the dwarves was fantastic. Big thumbs up to Martin Freeman' performance, and Andy Serkis's was (again) superb as Gollum. His appearance actually gave me goosebumps. The Scenery was (again) breathtaking and Howard Shore (again) did a brilliant job of the soundtrack.
Next Xmas seems a long way off...

****1/2

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 145
Absolutely Wonderful! - 16/12/2012 9:40:59 PM   
fiercehairdo

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/10/2005
Well, I thought it was absolutely joyous! Loved every minute of it and didn't feel it dragged at all! Jackson has crafted such a wonderfully immersive world that I feel I could spend hours and hours there. Admittedly I am a bit of a sucker for all things Middle-Earth since the LOTR trilogy and I can perfectly see how those not fully sold on this stuff might find it less engaging but I absolutely was grinning from ear to ear as I left the cinema. I saw it in 3D @ 48FPS. The 48FPS took some adjusting too but was actually an enhancement that suited the story... Although I did feel the cinematography felt somewhat overexposed and over saturated at times with dark caves appearing to be very brightly lit... But these were niggles... The story is lighter in tone for sure, but we expected that didn't we? This is a smaller story with less of an 'end-of-days' vibe than LOTR and presumably the sense of peril and weight will grow throughout the trilogy... Freeman made an excellent Bilbo and the rest of the cast were perfectly pitched. Quite surprised at all the griping on here given the gullible acceptance on these forums of blockbuster trash that can't hold a candle to this (TDK & TDKR for example)...

< Message edited by fiercehairdo -- 16/12/2012 9:43:14 PM >

(in reply to film man aidy)
Post #: 146
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 10:32:58 PM   
Pigeon Army


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

But it is the oddest, worst looking film I've ever seen, it's not even conventional horrible, it's a genuinely level of horrible I've never witnessed in anything else,


You need to see more films.

quote:


It does honestly look this awful, the Shire does look that horribly and poorly lit, almost stark and depressing, the set does look as fake as a cheap children's TV show (seriously, what's wrong with calling a film meant to be one of high production values looking cheap and fake and it reminds me of something that looked fake, I can't call the market in Eredor similar to that of I,Claudius, a marvellous miniseries whose look is the most dated thing about it, because it would bring baggage?) when the same set, made some 14 years ago, looked absolutely stunning on the screen.


My specific point about Teletubbies is that if you can call a 48fps scene of the countryside with some doors and picket fences 'like Teletubbies', then you can call any shot of the countryside shot in 48fps 'like Teletubbies'. It's not something distinct to The Hobbit or even the 48fps - it's a poor comparison, especially when Teletubbies actually looks nothing like The Shire and it takes a hell of a stretch to suggest it.


quote:

It's not being silly, it's what it is. I understand how the movement in 48fps is mostly a perception thing so it might be felt differently from people, I'm having trouble believing on how the CGI and other effects are anything but horrid and look bad and fake for such a high-profile production. LOTR looked better and the only thing consistently great in effects is still Gollum.


Honestly? Aside from a couple of shots, the trolls looked fine, the eagles looked great, and while the Goblin King was obviously artificial, I was having too much damn fun with the character to care. There's some shoddy CGI in it, sure, but verisimilitude isn't the be-all and end-all and CGI can still work without being perfect. I get your position, don't get me wrong, but I feel you're being a bit over-the-top because I don't think anyone could legitimately point to the CGI as "almost looking pixelated", for example - the CGI may be executed poorly, but I'd struggle to point to any instance where it was that bad. And this is the thing - I know you're given to hyperbole, but sometimes it just plain doesn't make sense. And this is one of those times.

quote:


Oh and the fraking is from BSG, shame on you from not noticing this.


Oh, I noticed it. I just think we're adults and so don't need to take our cuss words from sci-fi shows.

_____________________________

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 Deviation)
Post #: 147
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 16/12/2012 11:48:59 PM   
blackduck


Posts: 1604
Joined: 1/10/2005
Good movie but wayyy too long. Problem is the story doesn't justify the leanght. LOTR was an epic story the future of midle earth was at stake, the were fighting the ultimate evil. This time it's a bunch of blokes out to kil a dragon. It could have been a great stand alone movie. Small story could have done with a smaller movie.

The one armed or was the big bad, but in LOtR he'd only be an interesting foot soilder, not a patch on the wratihs.


_____________________________

I am but an egg.

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 148
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 17/12/2012 12:34:30 AM   
Deviation


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

You need to see more films.


One which even bothered me by the way the people moved? Even Film Socialisme which I found turgid and hideous on other levels did that well.

quote:

My specific point about Teletubbies is that if you can call a 48fps scene of the countryside with some doors and picket fences 'like Teletubbies', then you can call any shot of the countryside shot in 48fps 'like Teletubbies'. It's not something distinct to The Hobbit or even the 48fps - it's a poor comparison, especially when Teletubbies actually looks nothing like The Shire and it takes a hell of a stretch to suggest it.


But do those countrysides portrayed look like a set and a cheap one and one similar to that look which is as real as a cheap television show aimed at kids? Especially when compared to the Shire in Lord of the Rings. In every 48fps film, does the countryside supposed to be based on the Midlands look like that? If so, then yes, then they do look like that of a cheap children's tv show (oh and the house is similar to the hobbit dwellings though there is less detial in the surroundings, I'm embarassed I remembered this) and the comparison is apt, because I cannot think of any recent film (War Horse is a poor film but that countryside looked amazing) where it has looked liked this.

quote:

Honestly? Aside from a couple of shots, the trolls looked fine, the eagles looked great, and while the Goblin King was obviously artificial, I was having too much damn fun with the character to care. There's some shoddy CGI in it, sure, but verisimilitude isn't the be-all and end-all and CGI can still work without being perfect. I get your position, don't get me wrong, but I feel you're being a bit over-the-top because I don't think anyone could legitimately point to the CGI as "almost looking pixelated", for example - the CGI may be executed poorly, but I'd struggle to point to any instance where it was that bad. And this is the thing - I know you're given to hyperbole, but sometimes it just plain doesn't make sense. And this is one of those times.


The cave trolls looked ok, they didn't look in any way terrible (cockney accents were too boringly obvious a choice though), the eagles flying were absolutely wierd and a bit too clean with the final bird carrying the chestnut to the castle being the wierdest one, the Goblin King and the goblins looked very artificial and they are the ones that looked the rather pixilated (especially the tired under-eyes of the Goblin King and the face of one of his minions when it was given a close-up, from the medium shots I did not notice any problems) but Goblin King was one of the things I liked, nay loved, from The Hobbit so I couldn't care a lot about that one and the fur on the wolves looked woeful. Gollum was still the biggest success. I don't think it comes from the film looking inherintly terrible but the clarity offered by 48fps. It does make it look that ugly and fake. I am hyperbolic sometimes but this is really not one of the times. On 24fps it could look even more beautiful then Return of the King, but I don't know that, what I saw was 48fps.

quote:

Oh, I noticed it. I just think we're adults and so don't need to take our cuss words from sci-fi shows.


I don't know, fucking followed by a rant did seem excessive.

Also, you know what I wanted, a full scene with the Goblin King singing. I would have liked that more then the stone giants.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 17/12/2012 2:22:41 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 Pigeon Army)
Post #: 149
What the fuck is is up with all these critics? - 17/12/2012 1:04:27 AM   
retranimator

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 20/2/2009

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey has been one of those films that I have be desperate to see all year but over the last few weeks before it's release the normal promise of another Peter Jackson masterpiece has been showered with a quite bit of negative press with reviews ranging from excellent to terrible and with the wait final over, with a bizarrely low 65% fresh score on rotten tomatoes. I stepped into my IMAX screen slightly worried I was going to be very disappointed...

OMG! What the fuck is is up with all these critics? THIS FILM IS EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!
A lot has been said about the fact the film drags on a bit and that a good half hour could have been cut out! Well I sat back and wished the film went on for a another couple of hours as this film never gets boring and I cant wait for the extended cuts on bluray!!

If the Lord of the Rings Trilogy had never been mad and this was just the first in a massive new film franchise then no one would have anything bad to say about this film.
A lot of bother has spreed regarding the new HFR 48fps technology, it has to be said that I did not see it in 48fps but having friends at the cinema I did get to watch a few minutes of another screening and now cant wait to see it again in that format ASAP.
I cant fault this film, it's flows perfectly, the new characters are fantastic, Martin Freeman shines as Bilbo and Richard Armitage is excellent as Dwarf warrior Thorin Oakenshield. The effects as always are gob smacking and the early glimpses of the dragon Smaug left my mouth watering for the next film!!!

If I had to pick at one or two things, a lot of good detail has gone in to linking The Hobbit with what happens in the LOTR with identical locations and visuals but they never duplicated the same way Bilbo found the ring in the beginning of FOTR (with young Bilbo still played by an aged down Ian Holm) which for me was a bit disappointing.
That and even though the 3D did work well for the film, for a movie shot in

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> A Joyful Return to Middle Earth Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.094