Three Times The Hobbit?

[Bêthberry]

A review from TORn about the regular film (24 fps) screening without the technical gewgaws.

Warning, spoilers!

Happy with Hobbit

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

A review from TORn about the regular film (24 fps) screening without the technical gewgaws.

Warning, spoilers!

Happy with Hobbit

Hmmm...it's not so much a review as it is a divine recapitulation.

But aside from the flattering characterization of the movie (I, myself, was almost moved to tears ), one does pick up that it takes a damn long time for Bilbo and the Dwarves to get going on their adventure, which is consistent with many reviews I've read that state the movie doesn't really pick up speed until Bilbo meets Gollum.

And even with superfluous subplots, the first movie ends at the Carrock on the verge of Mirkwood; so one can easily see that two more movies would not be necessary in telling the remainder of the story. Which presupposes, of course, that the final two movies will center on the original plot of The Hobbit at all.

This leads me to believe that Guillermo del Toro's original scripting of a two-movie version of The Hobbit would have eliminated much of the extraneous flab that hangs like jowls off the head of a hog, and would be best served as additional fodder on an extended edition blu-ray.

[SonofUgluk]

New review in from The Telegraph , and it's not good , I will however make up my own mind in a week or so

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-review.html

[Kuruharan]

Like butter that has been scraped over too much bread” was how JRR Tolkien described the supernatural world-weariness of Bilbo Baggins in the opening chapter of The Lord of the Rings.

What a great opening line for the review, especially the way it was used.

The stuffing is required because Jackson and Warner Bros have divided Tolkien’s fairly short story into three incredibly long films, which will mean vastly inflated box office revenues at the small cost of artistic worth and entertainment.

Way to go for the jugular! I don't think there is any better way to sum up this mess.

Here, Gandalf has an interminable conversation with Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving), which gets so boring that Bilbo and the dwarves leave without them.

Ah ha ha ha ha!

I have decided I like this critic!

Thus spake Kuruharan.

[Inziladun]

This is to me the most interesting:

This film is so stuffed with extraneous faff and flummery that it often barely feels like Tolkien at all – more a dire, fan-written internet tribute. The book begins with the unimprovable ten-word opening sentence: “In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.” Jackson, by contrast, starts with an interminable narrative detour about a mining operation run by a team of dwarfs, involving magic crystals, orc armies and details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody.

The first sentence could well apply to Jackson's previous efforts at Tolkien.

As for the rest, it's pretty much what we "unjust" critics here have been ruminating about for some time.
At any rate, I may end up seeing it despite my misgivings. I am matched against a power too great for me (my wife), who has said she wants to go.

[davem]

Guardian bit more positive http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review

So Tolkien's gentle tale is going to be a triple box-office bonanza, occupying the same amount of space as the mighty Rings epic, an effect achieved by pumping up the confrontations, opening out the backstory and amplifying the ambient details, like zooming in on a Google Middle Earth.

They also have five-odd minutes of clips http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video...ix-clips-video which, for me, show the problem with the movie - it starts out nicely, apparently quite faithful to the book, but by the final couple of clips - the Warg attack & particularly the fight in the mines, it seems to have lost the plot completely & to be letting the technology lead & to just be putting stuff in there because they can. Oh, it looks exciting enough, but its all been done before (principally by Jackson himself in LotR) so it looks familiar as well.

Its odd that they justify extending the story over three films by claiming that there was too much material for just two films, when all the extra material is stuff they've just (unnecessarily) made up. Its like a cook serving up a 15 course banquet when you only asked for a nice 3 course meal & justifying it by claiming that he had LOADS of food there which would have gone to waste otherwise, & your first thought is 'Well, why did you make so much then? Nobody asked you to.' You get the feeling that Jackson & his writers are incapable of any kind of discrimination when it comes to their ideas - if they think of something they just film it & stick it in there. Got the same feeling about their King Kong.

Interestingly I just finished listening to Nicol Williamson's reading of TH on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggm7XM-3dF8 & while its an abridged version it is an absolutely beautiful & faithful re-telling, which comes in around the same length as this first movie.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Han Solo doesn't think much of PJ's Hobbit:

"I've got a bad feeling about this."
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lytZ7fYOlgU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

At any rate, I may end up seeing it despite my misgivings. I am matched against a power too great for me (my wife), who has said she wants to go.

Same boat I'm in...except its a bit worse for me as my wife's vessel the good ship Drag Kuru into going to The Hobbit has as its First Mate my Mom and the engineer is my Dad.

Oh well.

I found this line from the Guardian review utterly hilarious...

a seraphic and almost immobile Cate Blanchett

[davem]

Metro a bit noncommittal http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/10/the-ho...rings-3310069/

* my favourite line from the movie so far - I hope the reviewer isn't joking about it being in the film. I want it on a tshirt.

[Kuruharan]

This is one of the most scathing reviews I have seen yet. The critic pulls no punches and is direct and blunt, even though I completely disagree with his assessment that the LOTR film trilogy was a marvel of cinematic triumph.

[edit] Its...uhh...actually the Atlantic Wire...and I am hoist yet again by the inability to edit headings

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Atlantic Wire

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is such a sullenly, basely commercial and junky affair, a movie that feels not crafted with Jackson's seemingly divine inspiration...

Melkor perhaps?

[davem]

Guardian reckons its too long http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmb...obbit-too-long

I'm being 'taken' to see it & one thing I'm not looking forward to is the three hour running time. I'd be less bothered by it being made into three movies if they were three 90 minute movies. I'm old enough to remember when most films were 90 minutes (apart from the odd Gone With the Wind/Laurence of Arabia) & most books were around the 200 page mark, & I enjoyed them much more. Seems like the advent of the word processor did for reasonable sized novels & computer graphics & video did for reasonable length films.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not looking forward to is the three hour running time. I'd be less bothered by it being made into three movies if they were three 90 minute movies. I'm old enough to remember when most films were 90 minutes (apart from the odd Gone With the Wind/Laurence of Arabia) & most books were around the 200 page mark, & I enjoyed them much more. Seems like the advent of the word processor did for reasonable sized novels & computer graphics & video did for reasonable length films.

Three hours? Seriously? All other critiques aside, I honestly don't know if I can handle that. I'm absolutely riddled with ADD, and it especially rears its head when I'm faced with a task I don't enjoy.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm being 'taken' to see it

Sorry; can't help seeing visions of a trussed and gagged davem in the theater.

Two hours and fifty minutes. In the past they'd have an intermission with long films. I suspect its about getting you to go twice to see the bit you missed when your bladder gave out during the first viewing.

I remember similar discussions for LotR run times. Movies with longer run times can generate less revenue as they can be shown fewer times during the day.

Surely the industry knows this and has somehow compensated (bigger theaters, more showings, some other plan).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

[edit] Its...uhh...actually the Atlantic Wire...and I am hoist yet again by the inability to edit headings

Kuru, if you go to "Advanced Edit" you can change the title.

Originally Posted by alatar

Hoot! Maybe this is PJ's plan to make us all much fonder of LotR.

I do like eternal optimists.

Originally Posted by davem

I'm being 'taken' to see it

Do remember you can vent here if not domestically.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Kuru, if you go to "Advanced Edit" you can change the title.

Huh...I didn't know that.

I'll leave it as it is now since everyone has seen it.

[TheLostPilgrim]

I've seen a lot of comparisons with The Phantom Menace...

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

I've seen a lot of comparisons with The Phantom Menace...

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Who gets to be Jar Jar? My money's on Bombur.

[TheLostPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Who gets to be Jar Jar? My money's on Bombur.

Actually, people have compared Radagast to Jar Jar. Apparently, PJ has Radagast driving a sled pulled by bunnies and has his hair and beard literally covered in birdsh*t. No lie. Radagast literally has a bird's nest in his hair. I am not joking.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

Actually, people have compared Radagast to Jar Jar. Apparently, PJ has Radagast driving a sled pulled by bunnies and has his hair and beard literally covered in birdsh*t. No lie. Radagast literally has a bird's nest in his hair. I am not joking.

While in the books "Radagast the Simple" did indeed seem to be of a less lofty mold than the other Istari we see, I hate to think of him reduced to that level. What is this? A parody?