The Hobbit. Did ya see it? Like? Hate? indifferent?

[Glorfindel]

Being a huge Tolkien fan I've been chomping on the bit for a decade for this to come to light. Finally....I thank the Gods as I tip wine in their honor. I went to a Sunday matinee and liked it despite the nearly three hour running time. I found Radagast too quirky and childish for my taste, but Serkis' Gollum was another gem of cinema magic. Andy spits out Gollum as easy as most people breathe, just incredible. Frame rate is only noticeable in the panoramic shots, too crisp, but doesn't play with your eyes. It gives the feel of incredible depth on screen though it's crispness is likened to a video game. I liked it very much even though some scenes dragged out a wee bit. My criticisms are minor. Radagast, the look of the Pale Orc and the wargs (wargs looked like childbook wolves) and the voice of the Goblin King. Needed to be sterner and was a bit over sized in my opinion. All this said and I can't wait for the next installment.

 

[letsgobrowns82]

I am definitely going to see this. The book was awesome and the Lord of the Rings movies were great I thought.

 

[the Baron]

I saw it Friday night. Like you guys, I was excitedly anticipating the movie. I was disappointed as I watched it, though, and then Saturday I re-read the book, and I'm even more disappointed. I don't want to give anything away for anyone who hasn't yet seen it, but if you're expecting the book, you will probably be disappointed. Jackson has added a lot of content that is not included in the book, but comes from the "Shadows of the Past" chapter of "Fellowship of the Ring". And a particular piece of historical background, that was only a footnote in "The Hobbit", has been changed to provide a backstory for Thorin (as if Tolkien's wasn't good enough!). Because of these changes, Bilbo disappears from the story for stretches of time. I think Jackson could have told the story in a single film, if he hadn't made his changes, and still brought it in under 2 hours 46 minutes.

I think Thorin is miscast, or at least, mis-portrayed, he's not Dwarvish enough, but looks like a rock star compared to the others. And the Dwarves are portrayed as pigs and buffoons, which is not how they are portrayed in the book.

If you've never read the book, though, and you're a fan of fantasy/adventure films, it's an enjoyable enough movie.

I did like Freeman as Bilbo, it was interesting to see him play that role, after seeing him in "The Office" and "Hardware" (enjoyed him as Tim and as Mike, too), and Ian McKellen is Gandalf.

So, I'm disappointed. I'll go see the other two installments, when they come out, but I don't plan on buying the DVDs--haven't bought TLOR, either--I'll stick with the books.

 

[adampolo13]

I have to say I enjoyed the movie. I have not read the books which may be why I liked the movie. My experience has always been I don't like movies after I read the books.

 

[Cave_Dweller]

I enjoyed the movie. Attempted to read the book years ago, and found it entirely unreadable and never finished it. It's like nonsensical children's tales and bad songs. Sorry if you're a hardcore Tolkien fan, but this is not an easy to read or well-written book. However, the overall story is good and this movie seemed to capture the essence of it.

The movie felt like an amusement park ride, optimized for 3D, and left you hanging terribly at the end. It was also less severe and serious than LOTR, and more family-friendly. Had some good laughs. It's gonna be a big trilogy deal, so I kind of like that. Something I'll buy when it all comes out as a box set on DVD.

Some of the effects looked kind of weird. I dunno if it was a FPS thing or what, but the motion looked...wrong. This symptom was in LOTR as well.

Not sure if they were using miniatures for this or all CG. Some scenes and characters were obviously pure CG, but the goblin mines looked like it may have been a hybrid miniature-CG scene. I like that. Very cool if model makers somewhere in the world are getting work doing this for the big screen.

Overall, a good holiday movie.

 

[smokeriderdon]

I love the books, all of them. I did not find them a difficult read in high school or when I re read them years later. Will likely read them again sometime soon.

The movie was awesome. I have absolutely no issue with the melding of the info from the other books. It's not as if it was just made up and having nothing to do with the original story line. ie, not like the second Star Wars trilogy abortions. Putting it all in sequence together actually makes more sense to me.

The dwarves. OK, perhaps the portrayal isn't dead on balls accurate (thats an industry term...name the movie reference), but it wasn't so bad that I was upset with it.

I would give it 4 1/2 stars. Well worth the money and the time.

 

[amateurmodeler]

I think Jackson could have told the story in a single film, if he hadn't made his changes, and still brought it in under 2 hours 46 minutes.

Well if would have done that he wouldn't have been able to continue milking it! I was very suprised to hear that this was going to be done in two or three movies.

I haven't seen it yet but from those that have it's mostly good reviews. I think if I go watch it open minded like I did with Abrams Star Trek I will enjoy it.

 

[the Baron]

I think Jackson could have told the story in a single film, if he hadn't made his changes, and still brought it in under 2 hours 46 minutes.

Well if would have done that he wouldn't have been able to continue milking it! I was very suprised to hear that this was going to be done in two or three movies.

Understood. That's a question of whether to favor artistic integrity over profit.

 

[smokeriderdon]

If he had brought the movie in under 2:45, I think it would have been a hack job. Two movies to cover it works. If they drag it to 3, that would be a bit much I think.