Comments on: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (2012)

By: Chris Whiting

Chris Whiting — Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:30:36 +0000

you deserve a medal for getting through that one.i lasted only 10 minutes when I tryed to watch it on a 12 hour flight.as a new zealander I was obliged to sit through the first 3 lotr films since everyone I meet only knows nz for this.oh that and sheep and flight of the conchords.whenever I meet someone and they ask where I am from, the response is always "oh how beautiful lord of the rings" so I have to pretend I like it to keep them happy.sure the scenery is great.but now when you travel through nz instead of seeing a stunning volcano called mt ngaurahoe you have to call it mount doom.and a crack in the ground is middle earth.someones paddock on the back of his farm is now loaded with tourists wanting to get a glimpse of the shire( it looks just like the million other paddocks in nz).if you don't like lotr then you are treated like a pariah. if you want a decent nz film then watch the more realistic ONCE WERE WARRIORS. a bit grim and not a family friendly movie but you wont be bored.

By: Mark Palmos

Mark Palmos — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:48:02 +0000

I found the 3D bombardment quite nauseating. Other than that, it was an extremely uninspiring, boring movie. It hammered away at the ears and eyes, and did zero to the brain and as much to the heart. Dismal film.

By: Aerynne

Aerynne — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:37:06 +0000

In reply to The Unaffiliated Critic. Oh, sorry! Did not see the "re" - no doubt my eyes are still recovering from the near 3-hour onslaught. I wish I could say that I will skip the next two films, but I know I will not. I will definitely skip the 3D next time though.

By: The Unaffiliated Critic

The Unaffiliated Critic — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:00:02 +0000

In reply to Aerynne. Right, I meant that this was his only appearance in the novel (as far as I remembered). Which means the only character I liked in this movie will NOT show up for the next two. Which is something he and I may have in common.

By: Aerynne

Aerynne — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:18:10 +0000

Gollum was always in the Hobbit, in a chapter entitled RIddles in the Dark. That chapter was edited after Tolkein wrote Lord of the Rings, to make Gollum more hostile toward Bilbo (the riddle-off had been friendlier originally), in keeping with his character in the Ring trilogy. His appearance in this film should be it for him, although I suspect you are correct that Jackson will find some way to bring him into the next two (!!) films.

By: The Unaffiliated Critic

The Unaffiliated Critic — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:26:27 +0000

In reply to Aerynne. Nice to know that it wasn't just me, and that it wasn't just the frame rate. I know what you mean about Gollum. It definitely felt as though Jackson was very aware that that was his best scene, and that Gollum is such a fan favorite: he does indeed milk it for all it's worth. If memory serves, Gollum doesn't reappear in the novel, does he? Yet why do I suspect that Jackson may find an excuse to bring him back in the next two movies?

By: Aerynne

Aerynne — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:47:06 +0000

I saw the Hobbit at the slower film rate. It didn't help.

For the record, I loved Lord of the Rings (the book) and really liked the film trilogy, but this Hobbit was nearly unwatchable. The 3-D (at the slower rate, anyway) made the whole thing look like a pop-up book.

Even the scenes with Gollum, which I grant were among the better scenes in the movie, irritated me. How long can a camera linger on the subtle facial movements of a CGI face, lovingly recording every twitch? A long, long, long, time.

One critic summed it up pretty well for me: Jackson is doing for the Lord of the Rings what Lucas did for the original Star Wars trilogy. And that ain't good.