An Unexpected Journey, or the morning after

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

It might not, indeed, tell you much about objective quality. But who is the Guardian of Quality anyway? Critics certainly like to think so, but they would be wrong. Almost every lay viewer I have read the opinion of or spoken to has said they really enjoyed it. Some have reservations, some have none, but they enjoyed it. That counts above Quality in my book!

Originally Posted by davem

The new Guardian/Observer review is one of the most positive I've yet come across http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/...journey-review while the Independent seems to have gone for the 'Offensive Snob' approach http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...t-8420225.html

That second review isn't even a review, it's just some guy exercising his machismo and trying to underline to his fellow Islington intelligentsia that this sort of thing is for spotty geeks and he is above this kind of thing, sniff. All the usual anti-Tolkien insults, comedy Dwarf names etc.

The second one makes an interesting point though, and it might be a bit controversial but I agree with it:

You don't need to be a Tolkien devotee who knows their orcs from their elvish to enjoy the movie, and it's generally less irritating than the book, with none of the archness Tolkien adopts when addressing children.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Legate– in case I didn't get my meaning across before– I wasn't questioning anyone's taste or judgement here, just saying the general audience response probably doesn't tell us very much at this point.

I didn't think you were questioning anyone's taste, I more like interpreted it that you were trying to say something along the lines of "any early reviews this far are not really good for telling us anything objective, because so far they all come from hyped audience who has been drooling for the movie already for a year or more". To which I wanted to counter by saying "But here you have what I believe might give you a small hint of objectivity, the overcritical people like Legate or davem seem to have not burned the movie to ashes yet, in fact even worse, they seem to speak in relatively positive tone about it". That said, part of it comes from the fact that most of what would likely have been the most shocking stuff was already glimpseable in the trailers (rabbits), so it is probable I was more attuned to seeing the positives now, because I knew about the negatives. But generally PJ is capable of much worse. I only hope Hobbit 2 won't be the repetition of the horror that came with TT. But that's too far ahead now. I'm keeping my focus on what we have in the present...

Originally Posted by Rikae

Oh dear. That would have Bilbo playing the hero from the beginning, instead of slowly developing into one from a timid hobbit. I already thought they went too far in that direction in this film: he jumps between Thorin and Azog, for crying out loud! There's not far for him to develop from there.

Yep, that was not a good thing, though again, thinking about it, it isn't running too much far ahead of the schedule: I mean, the strongest breaking point in the book (at least from my perspective) comes in Mirkwood, when Bilbo saves all the Dwarves from the spiders (since it's the first time they are without Gandalf to save them from trouble, and Bilbo is the one who does it). And that isn't so far ahead in the future from the point when the Azog-thing happened. So I think it isn't yet such a terrible jump. However, I completely agree about the deed in particular being a bit suicidal and over the top. Bilbo is otherwise supposed to save the Dwarves by cunning as well as courage, but fighting head-on with an Orc is not exactly the way.

[Morsul the Dark]

MY wife wants to go with friends the only time they have is tonight... at 9:45 pm... I have to work at 5am but am going... If I happen to stay awake during the show I'll give my thoughts tomorrow afernoon.

[Diamond18]

The Hobbit appealed most to my sense of nostalgia. Nostalgia for 2001 when I saw Lord of the Rings and the years I spent on the Downs after that, but also nostalgia for 1999 when I first read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. I recall my mother reading in the paper that the Lord of the Rings was going to be made into an epic movie trilogy and so she went out and bought all the books for me to read but made sure I read the Hobbit first. I loved it then and I still love it now. Martin Freeman made such a perfect Bilbo.

I find myself nodding and agreeing with davem, Lalwende, Oddwen and Hookbil. I won't go very in depth as I don't have much to add. The movie was of course drawn out but instead of being as annoyed as I thought I would be, I really enjoyed it. I savored the cinematography and singing dwarves.... The ridiculous parts just made me laugh, like when Azog killed Thorin's father and elicited the most over-the-top "Nooooooooo!" I have ever witnessed. Perhaps I feel so generous because of the soft spot of nostalgia LotR and the Hobbit hold for me.

I will go see it again sometime before it leaves theaters. We'll see how the second viewing goes.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I've seen it twice now so I'll give my thoughts...

I went in expecting 'Peter Jacksons Vaguely Hobbit-based Fight Movie with Dwarves' and was pleasantly surprised. There were plenty of page-to-screen scenes that I liked and the cinematography was generally wondrous to behold. The CGI was most noticeable in Goblin Town, I think, and it would have been better with models and prosthetics, I think, rather than the over-reliance on graphics. But that may just be my personal preference for models and puppetry.

The padding was more noticeable on second viewing. A few scenes do go on a bit and as beautiful as they were, the panoramic adverts for New Zealand's scenery could have been cut down considerably.

Now, I really disliked the Azog sub-plot. It annoyed me an awful lot and felt shoe-horned in. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could effectively remove it and make no difference to the movie - I'm almost convinced that it wouldn't have been there had this been a 2-film deal and this first outing could have gone as far as the Barrels at least!
I thought the fork-for-a-hand and general fake look of Azog himself was not to my liking. As ridiculous as 'Gothmog' looked in the Return of the King movie, I think I preferred that look to this CGI silliness.

There was stuff I did like. I really enjoyed Radagast. He's always had a special place in my heart as the not-quite-a-failure and not-quite-a-success wizard. He was played pretty much as I imagined him. Also, I am a massive Doctor Who fan, so to see Sylvester McCoy (7th Doctor, my personal favourite) play him was a treat. Though I did fear he'd face the same criticism as his Doctor did. When he first started in Doctor Who he played the Doctor as a clownish buffoon and was lampooned for it. As he went on he toned it down and turned the Doctor into a powerful, manipulative and yet lovable character you could believe was a Lord of Time. That beneath the silly surface slept this immense power and intelligence that he was waiting to unveil. My hope is that in movies 2 and 3 he does the same; we did get a sense of that in this film.
I liked the scene with the hedgehog for that reason. He demonstrates that he is a powerful wizard with great potential, he simply chooses to channel it into a poor defenceless hedgehog. He also holds his own against the Witch King.
The Bunny Sleigh was perhaps a little too much, though. It seems like something that's there to entertain the slightly younger audience - if the burping and falling over Dwarves wasn't good enough. Also, it's probably there for the sake of action figures, let's face it. It was okay in the forest, but the chase with the wargs was over doing it, I felt.

A much more cheerful Elrond this time, too. I liked that. The whole White Council was a good scene for nerds. I don't know how none-nerds will receive it, though. One of my brothers who saw it with me thought they still played Saruman as too "obviously sinister". I didn't get that impression - he struck me as dismissive and unconcerned, but not sinister. I'm glad they kept his contempt for Radagast in, though. I was waiting for a 'bird tamer' line, but alas, was not to be.

The scene where the Dwarves are eating in Rivendel was a missed opportunity, I felt. The music the elves were playing could so easily have been coupled with a few lines of 'Tra-la-la-lally'. They could have made it clear the elves were trying to annoy the Dwarves (which is the impression I got in the book), and given the one Dwarf who stuffs his ear-trumpet, it would have been a hilarious scene!

Goblin Town, as I've said, needed to be toned down. The Goblins in general were a bit too obviously computer generated. There was much more of a 'real' feel to the orcs of the LotR films. Also, the chase scene was really just Peter Jackson taking liberties, I think. It's nothing I wasn't expecting from the start. In many ways, I'm amazed it wasn't more ridiculous!

Riddles in the Dark was good. Well played. I was always worried about that because it works on paper but I feared that the long pauses while Bilbo thinks would have been boring. But I think they pulled it off okay.

I'm in two minds about Bilbo's killing of the warg and his sudden bravery at the end. On the one hand, I liked the idea that the Spider was his first victim and it really took him that long to work up the courage. On the other, I think it's a nice nod to how the Ring may be having an influence on him - pushing him to rash action. Let's not forget, the Ring is trying to get back to its Master, so pushing little Bilbo into a fight with orcs and Wargs may seem to it like a good path as it probably thinks Bilbo will die or be captured.

I hope there is a conversation with the Eagles in the next film. Or some explanation about them from Gandalf - I liked in the Hobbit book how it is explained that the Eagles do not like helping people because they are often shot down by elves and men. It nicely shows why they couldn't just fly them all the way there and back again. Eagles as cowards is how I like to read it, and if not for love of Gandalf, and hared of Orcs, they wouldn't have bothered with the battle of Five Armies. But, personal pet theories aside...

Over all, it was better than I expected. It was enjoyable and full of nerdy stuff. Beautifully shot and faithful in parts. I love Sylvester (and Sebastian) and will probably see it a few more times.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I appreciate the reviews and opi nions above. It seems the first PJ
Hobbit attempot isn't as bad as I feared. I'll probably see it before
January (NOT in 3-d, tried that once for Avatar---annoying and added nothing).

Let's hope PJ movies don't deteriorate again. I rewatch FotR but the latter two have
so many errors, absurd additions, etc. they are virtually unwatchable.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I spent two hours and forty-come minutes enduring stuff like this:

Bilbo gets an elvish blade handed to him. He tries to beg off receiving it, saying that he doesn't know anything about fighting. Shortly thereafter, he finds himself in the Goblin cave separated from his dwarf companions (he simply crouches down and thousands of goblins walk away without bothering with him). A single goblin, however, somehow catches sight of him and attacks. The two of them have a short, vicious (but well choreographed) knife fight, with Bilbo handling his new weapon like a master swordsman. (this scene appeared in one of the teaser trailers). Then, both Bilbo and the goblin fall down a deep precipice -- yes, that abyss-diving thing again -- after which horrific fall Bilbo gets up uninjured (naturally) and finds himself facing Gollum. The master hobbit swordsman suddenly seems terrified of his little blade as he tries pointing it uncertainly at the strange apparition in front of him.

A really crappy, logically contradictory, and completely unconvincing sequence of scenes.

In another real howler -- one of too many to enumerate them all here -- Gandalf does his magic-exploding-staff trick -- again -- and stuns thousands of goblins just about to dismember thirteen disarmed and captive dwarves. When the lights come back on, we see everyone in the vast cavern lying on the ground, dwarves included. Gandalf then yells: "Arm yourselves! Fight!" whereupon all of them -- dwarves and goblins alike -- get up, arm themselves, and fight. No sense in our heroes just getting the hell out of their predicament while they still had a little darkness to cover their escape. Oh no. Not that. Too much like the book.

As the real Bilbo Baggins might have said, had he a real movie about himself in which to say it: "I don't dislike half this film half as much as I should; and I dislike less than half of it half as much as it deserves."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

I liked the scene with the hedgehog for that reason. He demonstrates that he is a powerful wizard with great potential, he simply chooses to channel it into a poor defenceless hedgehog. He also holds his own against the Witch King.

I thought this fitted in very well with the tone of the text to be honest, as Tolkien is not averse to dropping in a sentient animal or bird, even creatures with the ability to speak. Moments like that managed to maintain the childlike charm of the text in the film, without resorting to those didactic author's interjections that Tolkien makes. And also underlined exactly where Radagast has chosen to direct his considerable abilities. I hope we see Radagast again...

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I hope we see Radagast again...

Very likely. There's the issue of his staff and how suspiciously familiar it looks.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'll be attending with the entire family so I don't think I will reprise my Mrs. Maggot costume, who really isn't very applicable to TH-but I love your dwarf. Your beards are getting better and better.

Oh noes! Well, it wouldn't have taken a lot to turn it into a Lobelia costume. And thank you! I intend to let my beard grow by next December - and I also hope to persuade the lady who accompanied me to be my bearded brother next time around.

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Not only that, Jackson recycled many of the iconic images he created in LotR. A "fellowship"? Check. Running single file across a narrow subterranean bridge? Check. Gandalf facing a huge foe there? Check. A ring flying into the air and falling down upon a hobbit's finger? Check.

Not only that, I was disturbed by the identical structure of the films. Hobbit goes on an adventure. There's a pursuit by villains. Elrond intervenes and the company can rest a bit in Rivendell. Trouble with mountains. Caves and orc pursuit. Duel. They get out (even if with more battle than in LOTR). Another safe haven.
Now I know it doesn't stray too far from the book in that respect, but I felt Jackson made it even more similar than necessary. The absence of the orc pursuit before Rivendell would already have made a difference, but no. That combined to the recycling of iconic images and music really made me feel I was watching a remake of LOTR, only with more interesting (to my mind) yet less developed characters - so I definitely get Esty's fan fiction comparison!

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It really doesn't make sense to me. I believe it's supposed to set up the hostility between Elves and Dwarves (can't really take us all back to Thingol and Doriath). However, I don't see how it's necessary to manufacture this animosity between the two races.

Ah but it does - it just shows elves for what they are!
The animosity between the races came through clearly enough in LOTR, and I think they could've done better if they had contented with saying something about the long-lasting mutual distrust between the races... but at the same time I see the point. Elves have been portrayed as such goodies everywhere that if they hadn't shown us Thranduil was a jerk, people would complain when he captures the dwarves.

Anyway, I'll be interested in seeing how they'll do Bilbo's changing of sides. If they continue treating Thranduil as a semi-villain, Bilbo can't very well jump to the evil side. Perhaps they'll fix it by giving an even worse treatment to (most of) the dwarves. Can't wait. Yay.

Originally Posted by McCaber

I loved the Dwarven raid on the goblin mines. It reminded me of some of the D&D games I've been part of, even including the showboating villain boss.

Me too! I basically came home and told flatmate I wanted to play a Dwarf adventure.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Also, the "shadow in the box" aka Necromancer actually looked quite good, much much better than the idiotic power plant we all know from LotR.

I may not agree with you here (I take more to Rikae's sci-fi movie comment) but that's one of the best descriptions I've seen of PJ's Sauron.

Originally Posted by Leggins

- The Transformers. Seriously. The worst thing ever. I was happy to hear they put the Stone giants in. When I saw them... The Transformers. *facepalm*

That's what I thought too! :---D

Oh yeah, the dwarven song. My ears just about came.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The Dwarves often have little individual personaility to me in the text but the film really did bring them out, some in particular.

I definitely agree here. I couldn't have told who was my favourite before, but now it's easy as pie (Fili, obviously, har har, and Dwalin - and obviously Thorin too). I was also very happy with the treatment of the young dwarves. They were pleasantly roguish.

Originally Posted by Rikae

One really minor thing that that annoyed me far too much: why does Galadriel need to strike a dramatic pose at all times while having a conversation? Surely they could have come up with slightly less corny way to make her look impressive. Yes, I know she does a bit of that in LoTR, but it isn't as extreme.
I'll just stand on this ledge here with my back to you all so everyone knows I'm special.

That bothered me too. Gandalf, Elrond and Saruman were having a pleasant conversation and whenever she took part in it, it was only to say something that sounded like she had thought of it for half an hour before opening her mouth even if it was a direct comment to something that had just been said. She may have looked dramatic, but that's not very impressive - and it's certainly not Blanchett's fault because I don't know of an actress or actor who could have pulled it off convincingly. Well yeah, she's kind of a mythological creature, being the only woman in the movie, but that's no excuse for making her a mannequin. Also, what was that with vanishing into thin air?

That was one reason I wasn't entirely happy with the White Council meeting. The other was the telepathic chat between Galadriel and Gandalf behind Saruman's back - while he was talking! It's as if they were setting the stage for Saruman's treachery - as if they didn't trust him any more which certainly wasn't the case yet. It's not that they played him too obviously sinister as Hookbill's brother said - it's G&G undermining his authority by their distrust.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

On the other, I think it's a nice nod to how the Ring may be having an influence on him - pushing him to rash action. Let's not forget, the Ring is trying to get back to its Master, so pushing little Bilbo into a fight with orcs and Wargs may seem to it like a good path as it probably thinks Bilbo will die or be captured.

This is actually a very good point and one I didn't think of. But then, I'm honestly not sure if it crossed PJ's mind.

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

I'll probably see it before
January (NOT in 3-d, tried that once for Avatar---annoying and added nothing).

We saw it in 2D, and I kind of feel I should go see it again in 3D just because it's so obviously made for it. I don't know what the CGI looked in 3D, but I found it quite plastic, and especially the eagles and the wargs looked horrible.

[Aganzir]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Better or worse than LotR? Actually, it might be it just feels fresh but it's actually worse, but I'm not judging before I've seen this at least half as many times as the LotR trilogy.

That's what I'm inclined to think - I was very excited right after seeing it, but the longer time passes, the more skeptical I get. It may have looked fair, but to me it feels foul.

[Galadriel55]

Here begins the quest of the 55 family to see The Hobbit. My mother said this morning that we could go and see the movie today. And, knowing the Entish beings of the 55 family, we did not leave until 15 minutes before the start of the movie, and we're not as good as Bilbo when it comes to racing after Dwarves. So the planned Dwarves left off without us, and we had to wait for the next ones.

The person who sold us the tickets told us that we can come in at four. We came in at 4:15 to hear the echoes of the credits song. We sat for about 10 minutes. Then the cleaner guy who just stood there for the past ever came over and told us to please leave the room so that they can clean up. Quite irritated at this point, the 55s went outside just to face a lengthy queue of people who have apparantly stood there for hours waiting to be admitted, and of course no one would have liked their seat taken.

Bottom line is, we were all quite fed up with going to the movies by the time it began.

I'm not sure I can at the moment try to relive the movie and discuss every scene. Instead I'm going to make a list of things that I thought good and bad.

Good
-the sac of Dale and Erebor
-not really showing Smaug fully anywhere
-Bilbo - yes!!! That hobbit is darn brilliant! Thumbs way up for Martin Freeman!
-Goblin-town
-Bilbo running across some back yards with the contract in hand - <3
-Riddles in the Dark

Bad
-Gandalf talking all the time like he doesn't know what he's saying, stuttering apologetically... very unimpressive.
-Nazgul tombs? Noooo.
-Sebastian?!
-Too many orcs, and too many battle scenes (that, btw, looks exactly the same, only with a different orc)
-The Dwarves cheering and applauding at the end as Thorin hugs Bilbo. I was always of the mind that even though you may feel elated, having people applaud behind the screen just ruins everything.

Simply unnecessary
-The LOTR references that were almost literally cut out of LOTR and pasted into TH (as if the story wasn't enough to tie the wto together):

*Gandalf hitting the stone with his staf
*Gandalf: "- you fools!"
*Gandalf talking to the butterfly that brings the Eagles (with the same music as in LOTR too!)
*Bilbo falls and the Ring flies up and lands on his finger
*Gandalf facing some big guy on a bridge
*Kiligolas. The parts where he's just being Legolas

-Thranduil cocking his head with that annoying look on his face every time they show him
-"I'm off to an adventure!" - ruins it
-Albino werewolf for an albino orc
-Thorin half-dying? And Gandalf saving him?

I am yet to process in my head the main story. I have not decided yet whether I like Thorin & co., Azog, Bolg, Elrond, and etc. Nor if I like the emphasis on the hatered between Azog and Thorin, and Thorin and Elves.


Overall, I think I'm a bit conflicted here. It was much better than I thought it would be, and included some bits of pure Hobbit spirit (and I don't mean their ale). Especially with Bilbo. It did stray, but I didn't expect it not to, and it was still enjoyable. The most conflicting part is Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire - the whole battle scene and all. I really really liked it in the context of the movie (all that built up hate, and that despair and madness that drives Thorin, and then Bilbo's burst of courage) but I'm not sure if I like that context in the first place.

For now, I give it a positive vote.


Now, to speak more of that scene, I'm thinking I do like it. It's not in the original Hobbit, and, ok, I've accepted Azog as something unavoidable, so might as well accept the mutual hate they have with Thorin. And that scene was quite beautifully done, really. I can't say that Thorin acted amazingly, but through the story - with all the lead-ups to it, and the reactions - you could feel Thorin's dread and then immense hate. And then comes the hobbit and The Hobbit - the Dwarves weep, but it is Bilbo who rescues Thorin, and then only do the Dwarves follow.

On a similar note, regarding the ultimate tragic hero. I have a feeling it won't be Thorin, or at least not only Thorin. They're building up Kili's role too. Fili as well, but not as much. And I don't really mind them, I guess. Yes, they're not Dwarves, especially Dwarves from TH, but good enough. If you take away Kili's non-Dwarvish appearance and Legolas bits, you're left with two lads who don't know what they're up for. And all those times when all the Dwarves are laughing, but they sorta zoom in on Kili's face to show how carefree he is... Thorin for sure will be a tragic hero, but Kili and possibly Kili will be made into them too, more than they are in the book. I tell you, something's gonna happen with Kili.

As for the matter of Radagast... *sigh* The rabbits and that fussing over a hedgehog, as well as that general scattered way of going about things, is not very complimentary. I know this might be weird, but Radagast's first appearance was similar to what I imagined Bombadil's appearance to be. Not the actual look, of course, but the entrance. Slightly slower. Less erratic and more to the beat of some tune. But quite similar.


I have not read the previous comments yet but I will so now that I have seen the movie. Perhaps that will help me form my mind on that subject.


PS: you are a lovely Dwarf, Aganzir. I saw your picture a few days ago and I thought you look more Dwarf than most of the movie Dwarves do.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Legate

I didn't think you were questioning anyone's taste, I more like interpreted it that you were trying to say something along the lines of "any early reviews this far are not really good for telling us anything objective, because so far they all come from hyped audience who has been drooling for the movie already for a year or more". To which I wanted to counter by saying "But here you have what I believe might give you a small hint of objectivity, the overcritical people like Legate or davem seem to have not burned the movie to ashes yet, in fact even worse, they seem to speak in relatively positive tone about it".

That's my point in a way: I just meant you can't, at this stage, really use the audience responses to back up your own opinion, that's all.

[MCRmyGirl4eva]

Anything I have to say at this point would simply be redundant. I quite enjoyed the movie, even though it strayed quite a bit from the book. I do think the fighting scenes were too far streched, so they lost some interest.

I did end up annoying my boyfriend, though. He's never read it, so he was upset when I told him that horin, Kili, and Fili all die, and I kept telling him spoilers. Even so, pretty much every three second, he wispered "Was this in the book?"

One last thing, when one of the dwarves asked andalf where he was taking them, I whispered "To Rivendell, Master Gamgee, to the house of Elrond."

[Boromir88]

I was not as annoyed by Radagast as I was expecting after first hearing about his character. (The bunny sled and nesting birds deficating on his hair and beard...I still shake my head, but I was anticipating a disaster).

I started imagining an insane, trippy on shrooms, bird freak, and as careless/spaced-out as Tom Bombadil. However, I think the movie captured his "worthiness" as a wizard as Gandalf describes:

Radagast is, of course, a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friends.~The Council of Elrond

And then being able to get Saruman's perspective on Radagast plays nicely. I think in the books, Saruman's snobbish disregard for Radagast is based on having no respect for the fellow wizard's line of work. Remember, Saruman's a high-minded wizard, who mocks Gandalf's affection for Hobbits. I think therefor Saruman sees Radagast's "lore of herbs and beasts" as a study that is below his own standing. Ring-lore is work worthy of Saruman, not Hobbits nor plants and animals.

The trouble for Saruman, is he can't see (unlike Gandalf) Radagast's worth as a wizard, and therefor can't comprehend the means in which Radagast actually foils his plans of capturing, and holding Gandalf indefinitely. This might be hard to portray on screen if Jackson didn't make Radagast a little "wierd."...that is a bit a loof, and too fond of his animal friends to pay much care to other matters.

I think they took it too far with the birds nesting in his hair, but they also show his worth (and proper Radagast characteristics) as well. Overall, I just wish Jackson showed some type of restraint. I mean Radagast was cut from LOTR, so why does he need to be in The Hobbit? Who knows...I was actually watching a documentary that Jackson was incapable of cutting even in LOTR, someone else working on the films said each one would have been 6 hours had Jackson got his way. But he was of course had to be overruled.

[Ulvenok]

I watched it some weeks ago and has since downloaded it because there is no way I'm buying that on dvd. I watched it once in the cinema and once at home, the only scene I have watched several times is the Gollum scene which is both hilarious and frightening at the same time. My two favorite scenes in the movie or let's make that three are.

-Gollum
-Gandalf/Galadriel chat on Bilbo
-Gandalf surrounded by happy dwarves and an upset hobbit at bag end

Everything is grey to me, it's just not interesting to watch. One can sum up this movie with few words:

CGI fest, New Zealand vacation commerical and RUN you fools! RUN! RUN! RUN! All they do is run with that theme playing in the background for almost 3 hours...a very bad movie, at least the fellowship of the ring didn't look plastic or fake like the hobbit does.