Ace of Spades HQ

December 24, 2012

Review: The Hobbit
— Ace

Very disappointing. Not recommended. I suggest you wait for the DVD.

Fanboy Bias: I should have mentioned this -- I'm a big fan of the book, The Hobbit. I like it more than LotR. And I tend to dislike movies based on properties I like. I have too strong an idea of what the thing should be to enjoy the movies.

The RedLetterMedia guy (the other one) summed it up well by calling this a "conflicted" movie. On one hand, the source material itself is a very fun, very light adventure story written for children. I think we'd mostly agree that, while pleasing to children, it actually works pretty wonderfully for adults, too. I just began rereading it; it's actually pretty funny, in that droll British way.

So that's one aspect of the movie's tone. The other aspect, however, is that the movie is made to be very similar in tone to the Lord of the Rings films. But the tone and feel of The Hobbit book was a bit different than the tone and feel of the Lord of the Rings books. The latter is self-consciously epic; the Hobbit -- the book I mean -- had the feel of a lark. The Lord of the Rings was about the fate of the planet, and whether it would fall into "Shadow;" the Hobbit was actually sort of a heist book. The dwarves intended to steal (well, steal back) a mint, largely for their own pecuniary benefit. Sure, they also want their homes back and vengeance against Smaug, but the roguish, picaresque nature of the plot is summed up by the contract they offer Bilbo for his services as a burglar -- "not exceeding one-fourteenth share of the proceeds," etc.

The Godfather films were operatic and grand; the fun heist picture The Italian Job was not. They're both solid movies, but they're completely different. The tone would be out of place in the other.

And so it is with The Hobbit. We have what should be (and which was, in literary form) a heist story, almost a sword & sorcery romp, but the filmmakers have laid over this an attempt to embiggify the story, to puff it up really, into something like the Lord of the Rings.

It doesn't work. The stakes just aren't the same.

A whole bunch of choices made in this movie seem unwise. And many of these choices seem designed to make the first Hobbit movie almost a beat-for-beat match with the first Lord of the Rings movie. For example, they've inserted a completely made-up character, an orc named Azog the Defiler, to play the same role as the Black Riders from LotR, a scary pursuer who shows up whenever the stopwatch indicates it's time for an action sequence. (Yes, I know Azog is mentioned in The Hobbit as the orc who killed Thorin's grandfather at Moria, but he isn't pursuing Thorin throughout the book.)

Azog is especially objectionable because he's an all-CGI creation, for reasons I don't understand-- the orcs in the LotR films were just people wearing fright-masks. Why they had to make a distractingly-fake CGI character, I don't know. I should also note that the orcs in this movie look nothing at all like the orcs in the LotR, and are much larger, much more muscular, and much more ferocious and bestial... rather almost exactly like the Uruk-Hai, except pale white. And also, fake-looking.

Then, at Rivendell, they make the stop there very similar to the stop featured in Fellowship of the Ring by adding in a meeting of some sort of Grand Council consisting of Elrond, Galadriel (who wasn't in the Hobbit at all), Gandalf, and Saruman (who wasn't in the Hobbit at all). This counsel talks about The Enemy and The Shadow, ideas that were only peripheral and hinted at in The Hobbit. Thus the stay at Rivendell in The Hobbit, which was quite different from the stay in Rivendell in the LotR, comes off as a copycat in the film version.

Oh: They actually add in an Artifact of Evil here, too! Radagast, you see, has discovered the Black Sword of the Witch-King of Angmar, and this means... something or other. They just substituted the Sword of Power for the Ring of Power from the last one. What the hell? The "Moghul Sword" (no idea if that's the right spelling)? What's this doing in The Hobbit?

In another painfully close swipe from Fellowship of the Ring, the film ends with Bilbo and Company looking off into the distance to see the Lonely Mountain standing alone on the horizon... precisely as Frodo and Samwise looked into the distance to see Mount Doom standing alone on the horizon in Fellowship.

Haven't I seen this all before, only better?

Other annoyances abound. I wondered if they'd include Galdalf's ventriloquism trick with the trolls. As a kid, I hadn't liked that part, as I found it all a little silly and "for kids," being, as it was, largely a comedic solution to what had been sold as a seriously dramatic threat.

Well, they take that out. But strangely, they replace Gandalf's silly comedic solution with an even sillier, more comedic solution involving Bilbo. If they were going to keep the silly comedic solution, they should have kept it as Gandalf's ventriloquism -- at least that was magic (or perhaps magically assisted), and so therefore explains a little bit how such a solution could have worked. In the movie version, it's just Bilbo doing some strained playing for time.

Peter Jackson also allows his CGI to run even more wild than he did in the LotR. The goblin sequence is ruined simply by virtue of it being so cartoonish, in both conception and actual execution (it's all CGI, all of it).

People falling 60 feet is scary, because we sense the reality of it and fear for their safety. People falling 300 feet, and surviving, is not scary. It's just silly. Peter Jackson just doesn't seem to grasp this, that more is frequently not better. Go too far and the physics fall apart and it all just seems absurd. Just because you can do it on a computer doesn't mean it will play on the screen.

The stone giant sequence -- which was pretty neat in the book -- is just ridiculous here. The book had the dwarves hiding from stone giants lobbing rocks at each other, possibly as some kind of game. Here, they're... actually clinging to rock ledges which turn out to be creases in the knees of truly immense stone giants, and it's just absurd that they could possibly hang on as the giant is jumping and running and getting knocked back on his feet.

We'll make it biggerer. That will make it even more awesomer!

Well, no.

One place they definitely don't go biggerer is on sets and outdoor locations. For a big budget movie, they seem to be on small indoor sets (with CGI background) an awful lot. They're only actually outside, in the real world, in a few shots of the Shire and some "Trek" shots (as they walk along the spine of a high hill ridge, something we've seen in LotR a lot, too).

Finally, for a movie called The Hobbit, the actual Hobbit of the title is curiously a secondary player. The book was entirely from the point of view of Bilbo, which made you identify strongly with him, as you saw the world from his eyes. This movie is constantly cutting away to Gandalf's story (Bilbo absent), to Azog, to Radagast the Brown. In the book, things happened to Bilbo (and Bilbo happened to other things, as Gollum could tell you); in the movie, things merely happen nearby him.

I just did not like this movie, at all. The action was unconvincing, everything was turned up to 11 (or, more accurately, turned up to 19), and all the charm and liveliness and fun and spirit of the book was drained out and replaced with CGI roller-coaster hijinks. Ninety minutes in and I was just waiting for it to be over. And I had an hour and a half to go.

One and half stars.

Good Things: Here are some good things: the opening stuff with Bilbo and the dwarves was pretty funny. Most of the humor ends when they leave the Shire, unfortunately, though there is some moderately funny stuff later on.

I sort of liked Radagast the Brown. Everyone else seems to not like him. I thought he had a Tom Bombadil sort of quality I liked, a powerful, and somewhat addled, nature spirit.

What I don't like about him is that he wasn't actually in The Hobbit, and it's quite strange he was jammed into this movie, which has so many other introductions, rather than the next movie, if they were determined to have him at all. Radagast's Big Thing here is simply to tell Bilbo and Company that the Greenwood has become The Mirkwood (almost overnight-- I had the sense in the books this process took years and maybe decades).

Since the Mirkwood will be in the next movie, wouldn't it have made more sense to introduce him there, when he could recall the Shadow falling over his forest soon before they enter it?

As it stands, in this movie, Radagast warns us about how dreadful Mirkwood is now... and then of course we don't make it to Mirkwood, or even hear of it again.

It's another example of making this not The Hobbit's story but the story of a whole gang of people, with The Hobbit from time to time showing up.

Posted by: Ace at 01:50 PM | Comments (184)
Post contains 1615 words, total size 9 kb.

1 Welcome back

Posted by: Sunny at December 24, 2012 01:55 PM (Xnxty)

Welcome back and Merry Christmas Ace!

Isn't this Part One of two?

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at December 24, 2012 01:57 PM (AC0lD)

3 2
Welcome back and Merry Christmas Ace!

Isn't this Part One of two?

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at December 24, 2012 05:57 PM (AC0lD)

Ace is still deciding on if his movie review will need extra editing to extend it into 3 parts.

Posted by: buzzion at December 24, 2012 01:58 PM (GULKT)

Merry Christmas Ace! Eleventy! Thanks for the review!

Posted by: Yip at December 24, 2012 01:59 PM (/jHWN)

5 I second the welcome back.

Posted by: concrete girl at December 24, 2012 02:00 PM (y2Ojs)

6 Is Beorn in the Goddamned thing or did we not get that far in the story??

Posted by: Portnoy at December 24, 2012 02:01 PM (A5Abh)

7 So this is basically LOR-IV. Whorrywood still can only do an original film about once every 10 or 15 years.

Posted by: Vic at December 24, 2012 02:01 PM (53z96)

8 At least that Castro loving commie Sean Penn wasn't in it. There's that.

Posted by: nerdygirl at December 24, 2012 02:01 PM (WfUOw)

9 No Beorn, as we haven't gotten that far yet...

Since there's two movies to go, I'm sure we'll get a 35 minute exposition into the life of Beorn and his family (all CGI) in the second film.

Posted by: Coldstream at December 24, 2012 02:02 PM (qrCKL)

10 Saw it yesterday, it was great. Sure, a few flaws, and some departures (necessary because you can't just make a book into a movie), but quite enjoyable and reflective of the story and yet the kind of movie the expected audience would enjoy. You still have to please the audience to make money. I thought the goblin king and a large chunk of the escape scene were perhaps too much of a departure, a little "over-action," and as a departure Azog wasn't too bad (we'll see how that connects to the Necromancer / whatever in the next movie, how much more or less of a departure that is. I'd agree the CGI was a little too much, but there's another point to that. basically it was a lark, just not your kind of lark. Like LOTR, I consider it a departure but probably a better movie than a literalist would have made. I would definitely recommend it to people who liked the LOTR movies and/or the books, but not to those who loved the books and hated the movies.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 24, 2012 02:04 PM (bxiXv)

11 I'm gonna see this anyway. My brother liked it.

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:05 PM (NIZHJ)

12 as others have said, this is the first six chapters of a nineteen chapter book. What's in this is: The party with dwarves The trek and then the trolls the trek and then Rivendell The trek and then the stone giants the goblins in the pits under the mountain the escape from the goblins, only to be trapped again in the trees by the goblins (in the movie, they're now trapped by Azog and his Super-Orcs) The escape from that via the Eagles. That's it. One thing they're going to do is NOT have the Eagles talk. Because they broke the movies on the Eagles, they have an easy way out of that, of avoiding the Talking Eagles-- they'll just pick up the next movie after they've left the Eagles. I sort of liked the Talking Eagles, though.

Posted by: ace at December 24, 2012 02:06 PM (LCRYB)

13 It only took me four clicks on the scrollbar to reach comments. OK, what did you do with the REAL Ace?

Posted by: kbdabear at December 24, 2012 02:06 PM (wwsoB)

14 Will skip. I barely like the book.

Posted by: Y-not at December 24, 2012 02:06 PM (5H6zj)

15 The Phantom Menace was a pretty good movie.

Posted by: Truman North (D) at December 24, 2012 02:07 PM (I2LwF)

16 I rented "Trouble with the Curve" last night. Here's my review. Holey shit that was bad. I've never seen Clint Eastwood in a movie that bad since his Every What Way But Loose crap.

Posted by: lowandslow at December 24, 2012 02:07 PM (GZitp)

17 You know what would have been nice? If they made The Hobbit instead of a Hobbit Appendices Simarillion mash up. I'm going to watch The Pacific Rim trailer on loop and think of what might have been.

Posted by: alexthechick -f u autocorrect at December 24, 2012 02:07 PM (zLSZb)

18 what caliber AR should we buy, a .308 or a .223(556)? And for home defense, would ninja stars do, or should my aunt buy a crossbow?

Posted by: Yip at December 24, 2012 02:08 PM (/jHWN)

19 Your review matches my internal disappointment with the film. And now I denounce myself.

Posted by: sithkhan at December 24, 2012 02:09 PM (u9ths)

20 I was thinking of renting " Trouble wih the Curve"... damn. I was hoping it was good .

Posted by: Yip at December 24, 2012 02:09 PM (/jHWN)

21 I read somewhere that .308's have much fewer jams and double feeds.

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:11 PM (NIZHJ)

22 I also thought Sylvester McCoy was a good choice for Radagast, and it was nice to see him on film, haven't seen him in anything for a while. Doesn't seem to have aged that much. And the White Council scene, also only mentioned in the book, was a nice touch. It definitely had a different tone from the book. The book's tone was probably better-suited for a TV series than a movie. I think they were probably too eager to get away from the "children's movie" stereotype in Hollywood (and apparently New Zealand) that it's inferior (a false conceit), but I also enjoyed the movie.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 24, 2012 02:11 PM (bxiXv)

23 "Will skip. I barely like the book."

I did, but I think I was in the sixth grade. These movies do nothing for me, haven't seen one LoTR or anything like them.

Posted by: lowandslow at December 24, 2012 02:12 PM (GZitp)

24 "Like LOTR, I consider it a departure but probably a better movie than a literalist would have made."

Pfeh. Logically fallacious (read "Candide") and wrong, to boot. See The Hobbit, by Rankin/Bass. Not quite literally literal, but a kickass film that stays very true to the book.

Posted by: Dawnfire at December 24, 2012 02:12 PM (eEeH7)

25 "The stakes just aren't the same." If the Dwarves end up with all the gold in Lonely Mountain they could wreck every other race's economy thereby becoming the dominate kingdom. From everyone else's viewpoint, you could be looking at financial armageddon.

Posted by: Brass at December 24, 2012 02:12 PM (v/Ofr)

26 Well, shit. This movie is everything I worried it would be.

Posted by: Z Ryan at December 24, 2012 02:13 PM (tsC/8)

27 I don't understand. Did George Lucas direct?

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:14 PM (NIZHJ)

28 Epic! The review, I mean.

Posted by: Cricket at December 24, 2012 02:14 PM (2ArJQ)

29 When they say "you can't make a movie from the literal book" they usually mean that a novel is too long for a two hour movie, and you have to cut, cut, cut and merge some secondary characters and so on. They don't mean you need to add to it! The Hobbit was a 300 page book, and would have worked great as a two-part movie. (Actually, you could have done it in one part, if you're rushing, like Rankin-Bass did).

Posted by: ace at December 24, 2012 02:14 PM (LCRYB)

30 " For example, they've inserted a completely made-up character, an orc named Azog the Defiler, to play the same role as the Black Riders from LotR, a scary pursuer who shows up whenever the stopwatch indicates it's time for an action sequence."

More like the orc chasing the fellowship whom Aragorn fights at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring movie.

Posted by: davidt at December 24, 2012 02:15 PM (8/bPb)

The LotR movies just doen't have enough naval battles for my taste; I was hoping the Hobbit would show more. I need to watch a good Navy movie tonight..

Posted by: Yip at December 24, 2012 02:15 PM (/jHWN)

32 re: "You know what would have been nice? If they made The Hobbit instead of a Hobbit Appendices Simarillion mash up."

If they'd made a single Hobbit movie, and then a continuing-until-people-are-sick-of-it Tolkien anthology series, all the movies could be as different from each other as the stories are. Like the old Star Wars and Star Trek movies. That'd be nice.

But it seems like the idea is to exhaust the material as efficiently as possible, leaving "Tolkien" empty, so nobody but Jackson/whatever-studio-hired-him can have any.

Posted by: oblig. at December 24, 2012 02:17 PM (cePv8)

33 Logically fallacious Posted by: Dawnfire at December 24, 2012 06:12 PM (eEeH7) And thus all *possible* discussion, of people's opinions of a movie, ends.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 24, 2012 02:18 PM (bxiXv)

34 >>>More like the orc chasing the fellowship whom Aragorn fights at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring movie. yes, he's like that too. They made up that particular character for LotR, making him clearly the Captain of the Uruk-Hai, and that worked. Fellowship of the Ring wasn't intended to be a stand-alone story, and the movie-makers felt like they needed a Big Bad to die at the end of Fellowship, just to give the audience some sense of progress. It worked there. Azog just doesn't work. He is cartoonish in all ways, from being literally a cartoon, to having cartoonish scenes -- all he does is bark to his minions "Find me those dwarves!" I mean, that's all he does. A three second scene of him yelling at his CGI minions to find Thorin, then he shows up to fight Thorin.

Posted by: ace at December 24, 2012 02:19 PM (LCRYB)

35 The Hobbit needs a subplot about Bilbo's father issues, leading him to have to decide between his surrogate father figures: Gandalf and Saruman.

Posted by: Z Hollywood Screenwriter at December 24, 2012 02:19 PM (tsC/8)

36 2 Isn't this Part One of two?

----------

Part one of *three*, I believe.

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at December 24, 2012 02:20 PM (1c58W)

37 Are the movies open on Christmas Day?

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:21 PM (NIZHJ)

38 yes this is part one of three. A light novel of just 320 pages or so has been turned into an Epic Trilogy.

Posted by: ace at December 24, 2012 02:21 PM (LCRYB)

39 Great post, Ace. I needed motivation to go cook dinner.

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 24, 2012 02:21 PM (tOkJB)

40 I did read one review from some dipshit for Variety that said it seemed to him the dwarves were more interested in their own business than that of Middle Earth...

Uhh...?? I actually found the quote:

"The film hints at a looming run-in with Smaug, but makes clear that this mission serves more to win back the dwarves' lost kingdom than to protect the fate of Middle-earth. Bilbo's arc, therefore, consists of proving his value to a mission that doesn't concern him personally."

You can almost spot some one that's never read even a synopsis of the book, yet writes a review for Variety.

Posted by: Portnoy at December 24, 2012 02:21 PM (A5Abh)

41 One benefit to not going to see a movie in the Theater:

You won't get exposed to bedbugs, which thrive on theater seating.

Enjoy.

Posted by: TXMarko at December 24, 2012 02:22 PM (d30GS)

42 >>The LotRmovies just doen't have enough naval battles for my taste

Silmarillion has some, you may get your wish in the 2nd or 3rd movie.

Posted by: Gordon undead Ramsay at December 24, 2012 02:23 PM (9HhTH)

43 Ace movie review! *purr purr purr* Alas, I have to agree with your review - the mister and I went to see this last week and uff, we're quite happy to wait a year before the next installment. Anyway. Merry Christmas and welcome back. mac :]

Posted by: macbrooks at December 24, 2012 02:23 PM (Kcjfs)

44 Why not do an epic on the Spanish Armada?

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:24 PM (NIZHJ)

45 No one ever expects the Spanish Armada!!!

Posted by: Portnoy at December 24, 2012 02:25 PM (A5Abh)

46 38 Are the movies open on Christmas Day?

----------

Round my neck of the lack of woods, the movies are showing matinees on Christmas, then knocking off for the evening shows.

'Cause everyone wants to jump up in the morning on Christmas to go see a movie, but they've got pressing business Christmas night that would interfere with movie-going.

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at December 24, 2012 02:25 PM (1c58W)

47 RIP Jack Klugman

Posted by: CraigPoe at December 24, 2012 02:26 PM (BVkEs)

48 BooYAH!!

Posted by: Abe Vigoda at December 24, 2012 02:27 PM (A5Abh)

49 I don't want to see this movie since I read here that it was nine hours long. Jackson screwed up his King Kong remake and I had hoped he wouldn't do it for The Hobbit. Overindulgent. I hate that and CGI that distracts. Anyone see the Reacher movie? Is that one tolerable?

Posted by: LR at December 24, 2012 02:28 PM (GWlHG)

50 @47 Round my neck of the lack of woods,

Goddamn, that's gotta hurt...

Posted by: Portnoy at December 24, 2012 02:28 PM (A5Abh)

51 Farmer Giles of Ham will be four movies.

Posted by: Peter Jackson at December 24, 2012 02:29 PM (NL15p)

52 35 Azog just doesn't work. He is cartoonish in all ways, from being literally a cartoon, to having cartoonish scenes -- all he does is bark to his minions "Find me those dwarves!"

-------

One thing I'm not sure about, but am not willing to pay to see the movie again just to see if I'm right, so it can wait until the DVD:

I'm pretty certain that when Thorin lopped off Azog's arm, he did it above the elbow, only to have him show up with an elbow later on in the movie.

Kind of like when I went and saw one of the LoTR movies on this giant screen in a small theater. They have this scenic shot of Rohan: with the flags fluttering backwards and smoke going *into* the chimney. Laughed my ass off (literally; I had to get the ushers out with their flashlights to help me find it).

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at December 24, 2012 02:29 PM (1c58W)

53 RIP Jack Klugman Posted by: CraigPoe at December 24, 2012 06:26 PM (BVkEs) ------------------------------------------------------- I used to date his great grandfather. So young..... so sad.

Posted by: Helen Thomas at December 24, 2012 02:29 PM (jucos)

54 >>>Jackson screwed up his King Kong remake and I had hoped he wouldn't do it for The Hobbit. Same mistakes. Everything's jumped up, puffed up.

Posted by: ace at December 24, 2012 02:30 PM (LCRYB)

55 This mirrors what I felt about the movie, especially how much they just plain made up out of whole cloth. I'm not talking about the appendices stuff, I'm talking about them changing what actually happened in the book and adding things that never, ever happened.

What they did in LotR was at least defensible, but here it is absolutely not.

Posted by: KG at December 24, 2012 02:31 PM (IPz9m)

56 Welcome back, Ace!! [sorry about the mess]

Posted by: Peaches at December 24, 2012 02:32 PM (kpCLl)

57 I was happy to see Jackson cut back on the shakey-cam.

Posted by: davidt at December 24, 2012 02:32 PM (8/bPb)

58 You still have to please the audience to make money.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 24, 2012 06:04 PM (bxiXv)

And that means butchering the source material? I don't get why there is this notion that you cannot be faithful to the material and be successful, especially since faithful adaptations are few and far between, I don't see how you can make that argument.

Posted by: KG at December 24, 2012 02:32 PM (IPz9m)

59 just an aside: I do not recommend FLIGHT. It is one of the strangest movies Ive seen. I didnt know what to make of it...any of it.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 24, 2012 02:33 PM (E1X66)

60 That hairy little jerkoff better not mess up Smaug.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at December 24, 2012 02:34 PM (NL15p)

61 What they did in LotR was at least defensible, but here it is absolutely not.

Posted by: KG at December 24, 2012 06:31 PM (IPz9m)

Well, actually..no it wasn't.

Excusable?? Let's go with that.

Posted by: Portnoy at December 24, 2012 02:34 PM (A5Abh)

Me and wife saw Hobbit a few days ago. We liked it.

Tastes vary.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 02:35 PM (OQpzc)

63 Turning Faramir into a hipster fag was not even excusable.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at December 24, 2012 02:36 PM (NL15p)

64 64 He had a soccer ball?

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:36 PM (NIZHJ)

65 Ace, let me know when you get around to reviewing The Robbit.

The story Dildo SCOAMF and the commies of DC stealing the public treasure guarded by no one.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 24, 2012 02:37 PM (aZ6ew)

66 Although, "to be fair" (copyright Poppin Fresh), the extended edition DVD did Faramir a bit more justice.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at December 24, 2012 02:37 PM (NL15p)

67 Over reaching. No one ever read the stupid fucking Hobbit except the you didn't want to have guns. Stoners.

Posted by: Billy Bob, in Argentina at December 24, 2012 02:39 PM (JOMMN)

68 @68 Are you drunk?

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at December 24, 2012 02:40 PM (NL15p)

69 I should also note that the orcs in this movie look nothing at all like the orcs in the LotRÂ… Heh. I remember as a kid watching the Hobbit cartoon (which I liked, and still do, when I can find an unbutchered copy) and wondering how they were going to manage to depict Legolas if they ever did a Lord of the Rings version, after their Naziish depiction of the woodland Elves in the Hobbit.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at December 24, 2012 02:41 PM (CeNUw)

70 Cheers!

I respect Old Man Bush and may he recover soon!

His son - the draft-dodging drunkard Dumbya? No respect.

Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 24, 2012 02:41 PM (U4U4m)

71 And this was what I was afraid of when I heard this was going to be a THREE part movie of a 300 page book. I mean, they didn't have room to put Radagast in LOTR (where he WAS a character), or include Tom Bombadil, but they could put Radagast HERE? *facepalm*

I thought the idea of including the battle against the Necromancer worth the expansion into a two-part movie. But not three. Also, after having a material that was darker than even the source material in LOTR, was it really necessary to darker/edgier a tale that intentionally had a whimsical feel to it?

And while I'm not one insistent on being a 'literalist' to books in adapting to the screen by any means, I do think it's important to keep to the tone and tenor of the source material, as well as the basic plot.

At the end of the day, though I think Peter Jackson understands the visuals and textures of Middle Earth, I have to wonder if he understands its SOUL at all.

Posted by: Shawn at December 24, 2012 02:41 PM (/lltO)

72 I read the Hobbit. It was good though is better for the young. Somewhere after Robinson Crusoe and Treasure Island.

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:42 PM (NIZHJ)

73 >>@68 Are you drunk?

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at December 24, 2012 06:40 PM (NL15p)

AoS Hq when viewed from Argentina appears upside down apparently.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 24, 2012 02:43 PM (aZ6ew)

74 It is just a fucking movie. It is meant to be a waste of time. It was an enjoyable waste of time. I'll call that a win, in the world of meaningless wastes of time that are the movies.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 02:43 PM (OQpzc)

75 That is near Middle Earth isn't it?

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:44 PM (NIZHJ)

76 I'm used to watching movies in my living room. My tv isn't huge, but it's big enough.

I'll grab a copy of this when it hits the stores. I don't need it to be word for word perfect, just let me see the characters come to life.

This far removed from the LOTR movies, I kind of forget where they changed things. I mean, I still remember, but it doesn't really matter anymore. Aragorn too perfect, the Gondor boys too flawed... I don't mind. I remember them as they were written. Jackson's versions a lame in comparison, but I still loved the movies.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 24, 2012 02:46 PM (BeSEI)

77 That is near Middle Earth isn't it?

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 06:44 PM (NIZHJ)

Yeah, if you are coming from the south, just take the Erebor exit and continue west to Hobbiton.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 02:46 PM (OQpzc)

78 Is Brian Dennehy in it? He's epic

Posted by: Ado Annie at December 24, 2012 02:48 PM (E16uG)

79 Is Brian Dennehy in it? He's epic

Posted by: Ado Annie at December 24, 2012 06:48 PM (E16uG)

He did an awesome job in the dual role of both a storm giant and The Lonely Mountain.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 02:50 PM (OQpzc)

80 Hey, how come Ace only posted half a movie review? Is he getting lazy?

Posted by: JDTAY at December 24, 2012 02:50 PM (a0nis)

81 Brian Dennehy played Smaug, without prosthetics.

Posted by: ace at December 24, 2012 02:50 PM (LCRYB)

82 My wife, he famous mrs. north, is enthralled by the first trilogy. She has been eagerly awaiting this movie for years and years. I have not been. Nevertheless, we're going to be giving $20 to the domestic enemies of the Constitution in order to absorb this thing on Thursday night. She doesn't read movie reviews, and I think that she will love this movie, having no history with the books. Which is fine. I wasn't going to really-really enjoy it anyway, aside from the aspect of having a nice date with a hot chick half my age.

Posted by: Truman North (D) at December 24, 2012 02:51 PM (I2LwF)

83 Though as director the final calls are Jackson's, I suspect most of the changes to the stories are by screenwriters Walsh and Boyens.

Posted by: davidt at December 24, 2012 02:54 PM (8/bPb)

84 Welcome back, Ace. I hope you still have sand in your fur.

Posted by: Somebody out there at December 24, 2012 02:54 PM (ZBXhE)

85 >>Brian Dennehy played Smaug, without prosthetics.

Why does every thread have to devolve into bickering over religious beliefs?

Posted by: ontherocks at December 24, 2012 02:55 PM (aZ6ew)

86 King Kong remake kind of sums up what I don't like about Jackson. Original with one t-rex shaking those poor boogers off the log was terrifying. Jackson jacks it up to 3 t-rexes, but it isn't more terrifying. It's just--more.

Posted by: Cricket at December 24, 2012 02:55 PM (2ArJQ)

87 Also, a Zeppelin soundtrack would be nice

Posted by: Ado Annie at December 24, 2012 02:55 PM (E16uG)

88 @86 Because God wills it so.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 24, 2012 02:56 PM (a0nis)

89 OT: The answers to each of the entire Lanza family Question: "Guess that/what Party Affeliation?" What a corrupt (or at worst, lame) media CN has. Why dont we know how they all voted yet? ...or remorsed...

Posted by: MoJoTee at December 24, 2012 02:56 PM (e1kfW)

90 Who said something about religion?

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 02:57 PM (NIZHJ)

91 I wasn't going to really-really enjoy it anyway, aside from the aspect of having a nice date with a hot chick half my age.

Posted by: Truman North (D) at December 24, 2012 06:51 PM (I2LwF)

Have her give you a knobber during the Rivendale scenes. Those are meaning less filler anyway. Nice mat paintings, but I hate the fact that the imagining of elf chicks in this series goes for chicks that are on the verge of being total hotties and plain. They should have gone whole hog on chicks that look like the Fiat babe. With leather hip boots, corsets and an evil smile.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 02:57 PM (OQpzc)

92 God Wills It!

Posted by: The Spanish Tercio, as it charges Dol Guldor at December 24, 2012 02:57 PM (NL15p)

93 90: Admittedly, I may not like the answers to my questions.

Posted by: MoJoTee at December 24, 2012 02:58 PM (e1kfW)

94 >>Because God wills it so.

Posted by: JDTAY at December 24, 2012 06:56 PM (a0nis)

God is immortal and therefore has little use for a will.

.....or friggin' attorneys

Victory

Again

Posted by: ontherocks at December 24, 2012 02:58 PM (aZ6ew)

95 I agree with most of what you said about the Hobbit. The Radagast character bothered me because he had a large amount of bird poop in his hair. I know it was supposed to be funny, but it just became gross and distracting to the story. I totally agree with you about the CGI, the over-the top action sequences and the mountains battling each other in the storm sequence. It took away from the story and became more like a Transformers movie. Another big mistake was Peter Jackson filmed the Hobbit in 48 Frames Per Second High Def video. I watched the Hobbit with my kids on the regular 3d, then went back to see it with my husband at a theater showing the film in the 48 fps. Could not watch it. I had to leave the theater. It looked absolutely horrible. My husband is a cinematographer and he said on the cinematography forums people complained that the Hobbit, as viewed in the 48fps, looks like a soap opera. I have to agree, it looks like you are watching actors on a stage. The movie loses all the magical film quality that allows your mind to be transported to the movie world. I wish Peter Jackson would follow Christopher Nolan's lead and shoot his films in Imax. They are very expensive and cumbersome cameras, but the results are magical on screen. I suspect Peter Jackson thought he was doing the new, cool thing. But it just doesn't work. I suspect he may be going the George Lucas route, and has become so successful that he will in the future be impervious to criticism.

Posted by: stephie at December 24, 2012 02:58 PM (tXnJi)

96 Of course the movies are parallel.

It's like poetry, they rhyme.

Posted by: George Lucas at December 24, 2012 02:59 PM (Tt6ky)

97 Who said something about religion? Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 06:57 PM (NIZHJ) --------------------------------------------------------- He was talking about those damn dirty Prosthetics.

Posted by: Helen Thomas at December 24, 2012 03:00 PM (jucos)

98 The prosthetics were played by David Rappaport. Masterful job. Congratulations. Well done. Jolly good.

Posted by: Robin Hood at December 24, 2012 03:02 PM (EYx1k)

99 God Wills It!

Posted by: The Spanish Tercio, as it charges Dol Guldor at December 24, 2012 06:57 PM (NL15p)

God favors the side with the biggest tercios.

Stuff Luther said: Vol. 1.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 03:03 PM (OQpzc)

100 Rappaport..... Rappaport. Jooooooo right?

Posted by: Helen Thomas at December 24, 2012 03:03 PM (jucos)

101 Ado Annie...You guys crack me up.

Posted by: concrete girl at December 24, 2012 03:03 PM (y2Ojs)

102 I liked the movie but I might have a bias. How many other people wear a gold plated tungsten carbide ring with odd writing on it? It says something about , "0ne ring to rule them all...." I judge a movie by how many times I look at my watch. With "the Hobbit" I was surprised and disappointed when they began to roll the credits at the end.

Posted by: Youpper at December 24, 2012 03:04 PM (zOXoY)

103 Now I know who has the precious.

Posted by: James Carville at December 24, 2012 03:05 PM (NIZHJ)

104 How many other people wear a gold plated tungsten carbide ring with odd writing on it? It says something about , "0ne ring to rule them all...."

That is infringement. You shall be hearing from my attorneys.

Good day, sir!

Posted by: Sauron, The Dark Lord of Middle Earth, Destroyer of Nations, Opressor of peoples, etc etc etc at December 24, 2012 03:07 PM (NL15p)

105 A CGI-laden prequel by a fanboy-favorite director whose greatest work was a labor of love and hardship and who now has all the budget and freedom he wants? What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: AmishDude at December 24, 2012 03:07 PM (huD71)

106 >>>My husband is a cinematographer and he said on the cinematography forums people complained that the Hobbit, as viewed in the 48fps, looks like a soap opera. I have to agree, it looks like you are watching actors on a stage. The movie loses all the magical film quality that allows your mind to be transported to the movie world. yeah that's another disaster. I think I saw it in the normal 24 frames per second version, but I think there were artifacts with that or problems with the conversion, because some things looked very strange. Like camera pans-- they gave me a vertigo-like feeling. Just an experiment gone wrong. How could they not have seen this coming? Everyone hates the 48 fps. Everyone says it looks like TV video, flat, and not like a movie in the theater.

Posted by: ace at December 24, 2012 03:08 PM (LCRYB)

107

It is just a fuckin movie. You'd spend ten times that on a hooker and you'll feel less guilt.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 03:17 PM (OQpzc)

108 *Nerd*

Actually Azog wasn't made up. He was just added in to the plot. Jackson went nuts adding stuff from the appendices, lost tales, etc. that was happening at the same time as Hobbit but was only quickly referenced or not mentioned at all in the book.

*/Nerd*

I enjoyed it, but also went in knowing that. Still think he should've kept the additions to just Gandalf throwing the necromancer out of Mirkwood, which would've made a solid 2 films.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at December 24, 2012 03:18 PM (G99e4)

109 I saw it with my kid Pretty violent, kind of stupid but somewhat entertaining Why does this rate a 5000 word essay? It's a fucking kids movie

Posted by: TexasJew at December 24, 2012 03:20 PM (lD8ju)

110 I stand in opposition. Loved the movie. Kept me entertained. And this is coming from a major tolkiennerd who has read the silmarrillion multiple times. Go see it.

Posted by: Rich at December 24, 2012 03:22 PM (mB/vB)

111 Bottom line...it..as well as the next two...will make at least 4 Go-zillion dollars...

Hell, I'm ready to be disappointed...and Imma goan go see it anyways.....it's gotta be at the very least pretty to look at and mildly entertaining...

..right??

Posted by: Portnoy at December 24, 2012 03:25 PM (A5Abh)

112 I get all of Ace's complaints and it occurs to me he's dead on about Radagast essentially being Tom Bombadil (Don't forget Radagast is only ever *mentioned* and never seen in the books). A lot of Ace's issues were mine as well. Beat for beat, shot for shot, PJ was essentially doing Lord Of The Rings all over again which is why I concluded that PJ should have stayed away. BUT, on the issue of CGI, it all looked fine and blended quite well (though the trolls were the cartooniest, I suppose). A lot of the "bigatures" used in LOTR, after going through post-production corrections, all look pretty damned CGI to me anyway so I was surprised to find out they were all actually handmade models. Here the CGI holds up quite well. Natural landscapes were used much less but that didn't bother me in the slightest. I posted my review on the Thursday night ONT if you care to look back for it. Overall I gave the movie 3.5/5 stars and, as opposed to Ace, I actually do recommend seeing it on the big screen. Now maybe casual fans of the movies might like it less but if you happen to be a giant fan of the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy I think you'll still really enjoy it.

Posted by: Robert at December 24, 2012 03:32 PM (LUnTP)

113 See I'm totally the opposite, ace. I'm also a huge Tolkien fan, but I'm not bothered by a film that departs from source material so long as I feel the departures don't totally change the story. I enjoyed the addition of things, like the white council, that took place at the same time but were not mentioned in the hobbit. It was more a movie about that point in time in the tolkien universe than a hobbit adaptation

Posted by: Rich at December 24, 2012 03:32 PM (mB/vB)

114 Not enough show tunes for the critics.

Posted by: Butters at December 24, 2012 03:34 PM (NIZHJ)

115 Felt pretty much the same about this. To add - The screenwriters had the luxury of plenty of narrative source material with dialogue for LotR, but not so with The Hobbit. When trying to get that "epic" feel that Jackson was misguidedly going for, you need dialogue to match. Walsh and Boyens simply cribbed other characters' dialogue written by Tolkien in other places in the LotR and didn't have that luxury here. The Radagast scene just brought the movie to a screeching halt. He should have been included in a recall scene, not directly involved. And a rabbit sled? Some of the emotional appeals were really cheap too. And for the love of fuck, why, WHY the fucking literal cliffhangers? After the cartoonish goblin sequence, the scene at the trees was just tiresome.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 24, 2012 03:34 PM (bf+1U)

116 I thought it was just amazing that you could kill and injure hundreds of goblins and orcs without a single gun.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at December 24, 2012 03:35 PM (e8kgV)

117 Here it is... I originally posted this for friends on an email list before posting it on the ONT. Here it is for you day and evening walkers. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Where Robert is critical of the season's biggest movie. So I'm going to be largely negative which is why I need to preface this whole review with two things. 1. I liked the movie. 2. Fellowship Of The Ring didn't wow me at first, either. In that case I wasn't won over until watching the extended edition. OKAY! So here we go! The Hobbit needed someone other than Peter Jackson directing. No shit. Here's the thing, the movie really is good. I really did like it. I loved going back to Middle-Earth, revisiting Hobbiton and Bag End. That was a joy. But Peter Jackson didn't need to be the one to take me there. But why, I hear you ask. In a word? Rehash. Huh? Let me explain. The problems with the movie lay, not with cast or story but the fact that Peter Jackson keeps doing shit that directly or indirectly evokes Lord Of The Rings and it fucking takes me out of the movie EVERY TIME! And I don't (just) mean the Return Of The King Appendix stuff, I mean...shots, action sequences, that kind of thing. But first the Appendix stuff. Okay, I never objected to it. I thought it would be...kinda cool. In execution? Bad idea. Bad, bad idea. Every time that shit comes up it threatens to derail the story. It's problematic and it makes The Hobbit seem less like a stand-alone fantasy adventure story and more like an all important direct lead-in. It's not, nor should it have treated thus. Jackson further complicates matters by basically reusing his own visuals. Remember the shot in Fellowship when the Ring slips onto Frodo's finger for the first time? Or the Moira escape? Or when Gandalf speaks to a moth to summon eagles? Oh, yes, he goes there. Again, recognizing these shots threatens to take me out of the movie EVERY TIME! Either he got lazy and decided to just use shit that worked before to save time on creating new ideas or he honestly believes this is a way to visually connect this new trilogy with the first one. The problem for me is it takes this film down a few notches in my estimation because none of it comes across as creative or fresh. Film makers should never *ever* remind viewers of other, possibly better, movies. Sequels, prequels and spin-offs need to be able to stand on their own, live and die on their own merits. If an inferior prequel is made, let that be for the fans to hash out. What about the semi-original stuff added in? Hey, Radagast The Brown! He's cool, right? Well...look, Tolkien never bothered with the other wizards of Middle-Earth because they were sort of...unnecessary. Radagast and "The Blues" were never important. So unimportant the Blues didn't have names. I don't even know why Tolkien allowed for three more wizards for that fact. But there's Radagast in all his brown glory. And...uh...okay! I guess? Sure, why not? I mean he...uh...geez. Okay, he's not a bad character, he serves his purpose for PJ's The Hobbit. And that's what's important to remember, right? This is *PJ'S HOBBIT*. But it seems to me adding in a character like Radagast is just a bit self-indulgent that adds nothing to the proceedings. And there's the Orc character that fills the purpose served by the Uruk-Hai character from Fellowship (and looks kinda like Kratos from the God Of War video game series). And all the other little story beats that Jackson recycles from Lord Of The Rings. It's these fucking little things that make me super critical of the whole damn show. I did say I liked it, right? Just to be sure we're clear on that. It is a good movie. It's cast well, it looks great, the Howard Shore score is wonderful, and the movie does basically hit all the right notes. But it hits some wrong ones, too. And not subtely, mind you, they're very obvious. And that...sucks. Sorry, PJ, but you needed to walk away from this one. The Hobbit, unfortunately, just needed someone else at the helm to bring fresh ideas to the mix. If anyone else pulled this stuff it would have been homage. PJ pulls this stuff, it's merely rehash. Would Guillermo Del Toro (who gets a writing credit for working on a draft of the script) have done a better job? Dunno. Is there anyone else who could have done it? Hell, I *really* don't know. So, overall...and this is kind of hard...3.5/5 stars. *Sigh* I would have liked to have liked it more than I did. As I said earlier Fellowship left me a little cold, too, but I came around after the extended edition of the film landed on DVD and is now my favorite of the three Lord Of The Rings movies. Yes, there will be an extended edition of The Hobbit out on home video by Thanksgiving next year (assuming the fiery Mayan Apocalypse doesn't consume us all) and I'm totally looking forward to that. I think they plan on adding fifteen minutes of new and extended scenes? Fifteen or twenty though they cheat and add a shit ton of shit to the credits thanking all the fan club members. But there's also all the making of shit that is so in depth that you come away practically knowing everything you need to know to make your own $200 million dollar film. One more thing, I will be seeing it again. I saw The Hobbit today in 2D. Wasn't in the mood for 3D. And no, not in 48 frames per second. The nearest theater showing the 48FPS version is an hour away and I'm not pissing away so much gas just so I can watch a movie that looks like a soap opera. But I really do want to see it again. I have no expectation that the 3D will actually add that third dimension but it does bring a stunning sharpness to the image and that there is fine with me especially with such a georgeous looking movie.

Posted by: Robert at December 24, 2012 03:42 PM (LUnTP)

118 ACE! Shoot, almost forgot to ask. Which version of the film did you see? 2D? 3D? And 24 or 48 frames per second? And if you saw it in 48 FPS what did you think of the film quality? And if you saw it 48FPS 3D do you think the 3D was helped at all by the higher frame rate?

Posted by: Robert at December 24, 2012 03:46 PM (LUnTP)

119 If we'd spend all the gray matter on, say, curing cancer that we spend on analyzing Star Wars, Star Trek, LoTR and all this other dumb puerile shit, we'd have it cured by now.

Posted by: TexasJew at December 24, 2012 03:49 PM (lD8ju)

120 The Hobbit is the second worst book ever written. Number 1: Watership Down

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at December 24, 2012 03:51 PM (FpBe1)

121 If we'd spend all the gray matter on, say, curing cancer that we spend on analyzing Star Wars, Star Trek, LoTR and all this other dumb puerile shit, we'd have it cured by now. Posted by: TexasJew at December 24, 2012 07:49 PM (lD8ju) Bazinga?

Posted by: Robert at December 24, 2012 03:54 PM (LUnTP)

122 analyzing Star Wars, Star Trek, LoTR and all this other dumb puerile shit, we'd have it cured by now.

Posted by: TexasJew at December 24, 2012 07:49 PM (lD8ju)

Heh. If we spent one tenth of the effort on medicine as we do on getting laid, we'd have defeated dying of old age. Pussy is that powerful.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 03:54 PM (OQpzc)

123 who doesn't like singing hobbits and jolly elves? oh yeah, me

Posted by: eggs benedict at December 24, 2012 03:55 PM (FpBe1)

124 16 I rented "Trouble with the Curve" last night. Here's my review. Holey shit that was bad. I've never seen Clint Eastwood in a movie that bad since his Every What Way But Loose crap. So I'm guessing you missed Blood Work

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at December 24, 2012 03:59 PM (dvRYt)

125 Thats true Fretting over Star Wars, Star Trek LoTR And all that other shit is antithetical to getting laid So, what is it fretting over worthless crappy kids movies or curing cancer AND getting laid ? The choice is yours..

Posted by: TexasJew at December 24, 2012 04:00 PM (lD8ju)

126 I liked the Hobbit. The Avengers sucked hairy balls. Some of you people's tastes also suck big hairy, stinky, unwashed, zombie balls.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 04:01 PM (OQpzc)

127 Here's an idea - Watch the Ralph Bakshi animated version - It takes us through the first half of the movie ... then drop acid and watch the second half of the movie. (1) _ 1. Bakshi's Hobbit project was abandoned after the first half was done. The Kingston Trio, I think, did the theme song "The Greatest Adventure". _

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 24, 2012 04:05 PM (RuUvx)

128 "embiggify"?

Ace, You are making up words.

Posted by: Al at December 24, 2012 04:06 PM (V70Uh)

129 Ace: "We have what should be (and which was, in literary form) a heist story, almost a sword & sorcery romp, but the filmmakers have laid over this an attempt to embiggify the story, to puff it up really, into something like the Lord of the Rings."

What a cromulent assertion.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 24, 2012 04:13 PM (eHIJJ)

130 for God's sake I've read better books by Patterson The Hobbit sucked smelly wrinkly Joy Behar balls

Posted by: eggs benedict at December 24, 2012 04:15 PM (FpBe1)

131 Damn straight. _

Posted by: Patterson at December 24, 2012 04:17 PM (RuUvx)

132 Holy crap. The spirit of George Lucas has taken possession of Peter Jackson.

Posted by: Al at December 24, 2012 04:17 PM (V70Uh)

133 even I'm better than The Hobbit

Posted by: Eat, Pray, Love at December 24, 2012 04:19 PM (FpBe1)

134

I can't wait for Ace's review of "The Giving Tree - Part Four."

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at December 24, 2012 04:30 PM (AC0lD)

135 I'm not a sci fi person, so my favorite Jackson film is Heavenly Creatures. Great, great film!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110005/

Posted by: PJ at December 24, 2012 04:34 PM (ZWaLo)

136 All sword and sorcery epics fall short.

Posted by: Barbarian Queen at December 24, 2012 04:35 PM (dvRYt)

137 Azog is especially objectionable because he's an all-CGI creation, ~~for reasons I don't understand~~in order to stroke James Cameron's George Lucas-sized dickish ego about being a "pioneer" in the future of film-making techniques.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 24, 2012 04:36 PM (Y5I9o)

138 FIFY

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 24, 2012 04:36 PM (Y5I9o)

139 Liked the movie overall. PJ could have not added in the goblin fight before river dell and kept the eagle nest in. Second movie should be Beorn, Milkwood and escaping from the forest elves. End at the Laketown feast. Could add kicking the necromancer out of Milkwood. Last movie is trip to the mountain stealing the cup, dragon getting killed at Laketown and the battle of the five armies. Trip home.

Posted by: Fredlike at December 24, 2012 04:43 PM (ztMxN)

140 Bilbo never really wanted to go on an adventure.

Posted by: Tagg Baggins at December 24, 2012 04:48 PM (Y5I9o)

141 Bilbo never really wanted to go on an adventure.

Posted by: Tagg Baggins at December 24, 2012 08:48 PM (Y5I9o)

George Washinton never really wanted to go on campaign.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 04:52 PM (OQpzc)

142

Yes the physics fall apart....but we're talking about f*cking dwarves and elves and sh*t!! EVERYTHING IN IT IS FAR FETCHED. For crying out loud, don't listen to a review from a fanboy. They seem to forget what the whole thing is about - being entertained!

Yes, some of it is definitely a replay of LotR. A lot of it isn't. It wasn't bad and I will see the other half too. The only real gripe I have is the enemies they fight. Almost none of them have ANY fighting ability. Arrows fired by the enemy are incapable of finding their mark. They must have killed about 200 goblins despite being outnumbered 300 to 1. It is the the one major weak point.

Posted by: Hard Right at December 24, 2012 04:54 PM (GQPBy)

143 Slightly OT. My problem with 3D movies: they don't work. Background in 2D movies is often blurred because uniform sharp focus, like that of a photograph, would be distracting. In 3D, the blurred background is kept, (and kept mostly "flat") while the subject of the scene jumps out. This is especially distracting and annoying during head shots. 2D filming techniques do not always carry over well to 3D. 2D filming has developed, in a sense, to replicate what our eyes do naturally: object being looked at is in sharp focus, other things, not so much. Given the fact that the screen is a set distance away, our eyes do not have to accommodate and adjust. 3D movies, in my experience, screw this up somehow. For whatever reason, blurred backgrounds look jarring, and whatever the focus of the 3D is looks like Han Solo in carbonite. The thing that should be used VERY sparingly is the "real image" 3D where the object jumps out from the screen. In Avengers 3D, they used this for EVERY SINGLE HEADSHOT. The overall effect at the bottom of the screen was that of decapitation. Samuel Jackson's neck and head were popping out of the screen but looked like they were sitting on an invisible giant shelf at the bottom of the screen. 3D should focus on using a "virtual image" where the screen is like a window into the 3D world, and the 3D objects are behind that window, not jumping out at us, clumsily breaking the 4th wall. I don't think 3D is a lost cause, but we need some of those "visionary" directors we always hear about to properly develop the medium.

Posted by: taft at December 24, 2012 04:58 PM (d2FFC)

144 oops, make that peter jackon, not james cameron. as if it matters....

Posted by: Tagg Baggins at December 24, 2012 05:01 PM (Y5I9o)

145 This is already on my short list of movies I'm planning not to see. This, from what I've read, is the Phantom Menace of LOTR. Eliminate everything that gives the story's characters depth....things that make them real...and replace with amplified pratfalls, corny dialogue, cheesy and obvious CGI effects, and a needlessly loud soundtrack to distract from how horribly bad the film is.

Also....Ace, you're off your game. You call this a movie review? Pfft....I've seen longer, and more in depth reviews of dish soap commercials from you.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at December 24, 2012 05:04 PM (L7hol)

146 All sword and sorcery epics fall short.

Posted by: Barbarian Queen at December 24, 2012 08:35 PM (dvRYt)

I see what you did there.

Posted by: Not Drinking Nearly Enough at December 24, 2012 05:11 PM (2rucj)

147 Great review. Greak book. But the movie sucks donkey dicks.

Posted by: Che Pizza at December 24, 2012 05:16 PM (oT0em)

148 143 It wasn't bad and I will see the other ~~half~~ two thirds too. --------- Fixt. You have no idea of the magnitude of this thing.

Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at December 24, 2012 05:16 PM (1c58W)

149
The Hobbit sucked smelly wrinkly Joy Behar balls

You're being far too kind. It sucked smelly wrinkly Joy Behar balls after she'd gone hiking for 3 weeks, without a shower, and just dropped her panties for the first time. The piquant tang of smegma, sweat, and vinegar...with just a hint of menses and urinary residue better describes that book.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at December 24, 2012 05:17 PM (L7hol)

150 If you think they take liberties with the hobbit, could you imagine the sorts of liberties that would be taken with Thomas convenant the unbeliever. The first thing that would be out is the lepracy and rape.

Posted by: General Woundwort at December 24, 2012 05:19 PM (zOP5o)

151 The first thing that would be out is the lepracy and rape.

Posted by: General Woundwort at December 24, 2012 09:19 PM (zOP5o)

I read White Gold Weilder. It sucked bigger balls than the R party. I've never understood anyone liking that long, shitty drek other than some people just like diving into a shit pile. It sucked. People who like it suck. White gold sucks because of it. Ther was nothing redeeming about it other than it finally came to a shitty, sucky, asshole end.

I did not like it.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 05:25 PM (OQpzc)

152 Just saw the Hobbit with 5 others. We all LOVED it. Can't wait for the next two.

Posted by: jj at December 24, 2012 05:26 PM (gWO5X)

153 White gold wielder is the last book of the 2nd chronicle. Did you not read the 1st three books. Lord Fouls Bane, The illearth wars and the power that preserves were incredible. I guess there's no accounting for taste?

Posted by: General Woundwort at December 24, 2012 05:31 PM (zOP5o)

154 I guess there's no accounting for taste?

Posted by: General Woundwort at December 24, 2012 09:31 PM (zOP5o)

All I wanted Thomas Covenant to do was die of ass cancer. The books sucked. There was nothing good about them.

Posted by: Invictus at December 24, 2012 05:33 PM (OQpzc)

155 I liked The Hobbit, and recommend it to others. Had The Hobbit movie been much more faithful to the book, the movie would have failed. Given that the LoTR was produced first, how could the Gandalf character be, well, "dumbed down", to the juvenile level as displayed in the book, and still agree with the character in the LoTR? Alternatively, if The Hobbit movie had been produced first, "growing" Gandalf would've been tough. The Hobbit (the book) really is written for children, and the various plot side-issues, as written, are a bit ... patronizing. Recall, in both the book and the movie, Gandalfs's line about Bandobras Took chopping a goblin and simultaneously inventing the game of Golf: it works in the book, as it fits the style/genre/whatever, but in the movie, Bilbo is forced to react ... as an adult. The Rankin-Bass animation was reasonably faithful to the book, and was not particularly successful. Edit the current movie footage to fit the Rankin-Bass animation soundtrack and sequence ... it gets painful. Getting quality actors to star in such a production would be tough; they do expect some quality screen time. Given (at least in my opinion) the need to make The Hobbit less of a children's movie, I found most of the additional material, like The White Council scene, and the introduction and reworking of the Azog character (that A. had been hunting Thorin, to some small degree, seems a reasonable assumption and addition) to be a welcome change. These things make the movie appeal to a much wider audience, and tells many more parts of the LoTR tale, and answers some motivational questions: the dwarves desire to recover their lost kingdom and gold, and whack the dragon that took them makes sense, but why would a Wizard decide to help them? The dragon has been asleep for many years, and seems unlikely to wake, or wake just long enough for a dwarf-snack. In any event, the dragon has what it covets, why get involved? The non-Hobbit-book material explains why, and explains that it is, as per the original author, important plot material. Some things, like the way Radagast is written and played (truly unfortunate, R. may be simple compared to Saruman & Gandalf, but playing him as an ex-D&D character, with super rabbits ... why?????), ... and the extended action scenes (too long, and yes, a 300' Mario Bros. fall is just that, and looks that way, no matter how well the effects) ... ... were annoying. I found myself waiting for the scenes to be over. The Morgul sword really should have been a knife. Such a knife is a plot device from LoTR, and would have fit the Hobbit scene very much better. But the dwarves eating at Bag End, and later trying to stomach elf-food (trying to barbecue extra-green & leafy bok choi, twigs, ground bark & dirt at Riv 'n Dell), while serenaded by a comely Elf-lass playing the elf-flute, are red-meat scenes of note.

Posted by: Arbalest at December 24, 2012 05:49 PM (IJUaQ)

156 Just repurposing my Facebook comment. Sorry for the lame laziness: Even if you loved your first encounter with The Hobbit in Jr. High (I did) or cherish your memories of reading it aloud to the boys when they were of the age where they would be still and listen to bedtime stories read to them (I do) or thought the the Lord of the Rings trilogy of movies were decent adaptations and fairly good movies in their own right (I did), the current first installment of the Hobbit movie just sucks. It's really not good on any level at all. Arthur Dent is decent as Bilbo, but he's basically just a meat puppet lost in a sea of CGI Orcs and dwarves whose names you don't even get to know and 3D that makes the ViewMasters of our childhood seem sophisticated.

Posted by: a guy who sometimes posts as Prufrock at December 24, 2012 05:55 PM (u18HN)

157 I read LOR first and The Hobbit much later. Had I read The Hobbit first I would never have read the LOR. Two totally different styles. The Hobbit was a children's story, plain and simple. LOR was much more sophisticated and far above a child's reading level. I read this back in the 70's, and it's the only book I've read at least three times. I loved the movie LOR as much as the books, another first for me. I will probably take Ace's advice and wait for the DVD. Merry Christmas all.

Posted by: fused at December 24, 2012 06:19 PM (PnNAy)

158 I wonder if they'll actually go and split the third Hobbit movie into two parts, a la Harry Potter and Twilight.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at December 24, 2012 06:20 PM (xjpRj)

159 I agree with everything. However, I thought the riddle scene made up for a lot of the bullshit.

Posted by: trey at December 24, 2012 06:23 PM (nr+W6)

160 I'm going to see it because Richard Armitage, even in dwarf drag, is one hot main.

Posted by: whobewut at December 24, 2012 06:36 PM (W5c4e)

161 Besides, some of you have watched the drollest pornos, and I don't see how you can say this is any worse. You're just sad there are no naked women.

Posted by: whobewut at December 24, 2012 06:38 PM (W5c4e)

162 Number 161 should've said "man", not main. Gah, I'm really tired, and I've still got 100 presents to wrap.

Posted by: whobewut at December 24, 2012 06:39 PM (W5c4e)

163

The meeting between Gandalf, Sauron, Elrond, and Galadriel "sort of" happened in The Hobbit.
It was a meeting of the White Council, which was the standard council of super-powerful individuals deciding the fate of the whole world trope, discussing whether to further investigate Dol Goldur and the Necromancer, and being put off by Saruman. Eventually though they would investigate, and launch a major attack to expel the Necromancer, who was of course Sauron, and who was in Dol Goldur because it was his closest ancient stronghold to where the One Ring disappeared.
This is all explained in one of the appendices in The Lord of the Rings, which also explains that it was Gandalf and not Radagast who investigated Dol Goldur. Further, it was during these investigations that Gandalf found Thrain, and got the map and key that he gave to Thorin. (Thrain's Dwarven Ring of Power had been taken from him, which is another minor element that is mentioned in those appendices.)

As for the Witch King of Angmar and the Morgul Sword, the Witch King is another identity of the Lord of the Nazgul - the one who confronted Gandalf at Gondor before getting his ACL cut by Merry and his face space prodded by Eowyn, as well as the one who stabbed Frodo with . . . a Morgul Blade in The Fellowship of the Rings.
Of course all of that means it would have been rather impossible for the White Council to have imprisoned in some inescapable crypt, which they didn't do. Instead he just wandered away from Angmar after destroying the last remnants of the Kingdom of Anor, which of course we know is why Aragorn was just a wandering ranger and chieftain instead of a crowned king at the start of the LOTR.

So all of this quaint triv- I mean, highly developed and intricate background was discarded by the Kiwi Twit during his redaction sessions in favor of "dramatic fights" to spur "character development" (and justify the CGI budget).

Posted by: Sam at December 24, 2012 07:01 PM (wZIgv)

164 Radagast was straight out of frakking Harry Potter. I hated him and his bird poop hair.

Posted by: Bhoddisatva at December 24, 2012 07:02 PM (wH62G)

165 "It was a meeting of the White Council" -- You wingers and your racist code words!

Posted by: Chris Matthews at December 24, 2012 08:08 PM (Y5I9o)

166 Oh Lord, just go and see the movie and stop analizing it to death. It is fun, fast and enjoyable bit of of escapism.

Posted by: LYNNDH at December 24, 2012 08:24 PM (mr9Ns)

167 Eh, I disagree Ace... The Radagast introduction might have been bearable if (a) he didn't have a sleigh carried by rabbits (ugh) and (b) he showed up to the Council, being that he is, you know, a wizard. Someone will do a "phantom edit" someday that makes his scenes just go away, and the film will be better for it. The Azog thing personalizes the Dwarf-Goblin history. Makes us buy in at a personal level... In the book, the Goblin army kind of comes out of nowhere for reasons that are not clear and only serve as a cheap way out of the Men/Elves/Dwarves stalemate. Let's hope Jackson makes this work. They have to do something re the Council and the Necromancer because Gandalf vanishes for a good chunk of the book for unclear reasons. It's really a weakness of the book. Even at the end of the book you can envision Bilbo is thinking "Really Gandalf? You couldn't just have put that off for a few months? Or have us wait til you were done before we went off on this quest? No... you're going to just abandon me at the edge of a gigantic pitch-black forest with no water or food and full of man-eating spiders for something that wasn't really a priority... Dick." Frankly, that's the same thing with Bombadil in LOTR: "Oh! Here's this guy who has infinite power and is completely unaffected by the ring... Let's leave him back in his river hut!" Movie-going crowds would have been confused at best. I think Jackson is doing a pretty damned good job (minus Radagast).

Posted by: Kozaburo at December 24, 2012 08:25 PM (q66W2)

168 Did someone say this movie removed material from the books that gave the characters depth? This cant be someone who actually read the book bcuz the book gave the characters ZERO depth. Gandalf was a goof. Thorin was just the party leader, but u knew nothing else about him. The rest of the dwarves just had names. In fact, its exactly the opposite. The movie attempts to give these characters depth by adding subplots and more involving dialogue. Notice that this is the basic complaint ace has. They tried to take the very simple, child like story, and make it more serious. I for one think it works just fine.

Posted by: Rich at December 24, 2012 08:40 PM (L5yyj)

169 We saw it on Saturday, and here's my 2 cents (if anyone cares):

1) The CGI orcs...LAME! It would have been much better with the close up orcs portrayed by real people. The orcs (in the book, they were goblins, a SMALLER version of the orcs) in this film were just CGIey, too computerized, too empty of being any terror at all.
2) Azog as a major character...LAME! This was a waste of footage better spent on developing the many dwarves.
3) Azog says to his buddies, "The dwarves are taking the pass" (or something like that), then shows up ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAINS with his minions at just the right time...DOUBLE LAME!!!
4) Why did Peter Jackson have to change who tricked the stinkin' trolls! TRIPLE LAME with a twist of imbecilic!
5) No talking eagles?! Man, I LOVED the talking eagles. That would have been better than poop-faced Radagast the Brown.
6) "Dwarf Scum" was used so often in this movie, that we were making jokes about it while watching it! At least they could have thrown in a few "filthy maggots" in there now and again.
7) The Wargs (the evil wolves in the film) were actually better than in LOTR (yes, that's a compliment).

Overall, a 7 (I originally gave it an 8 before my initial excitement wore off..and after being away from the movie for a couple of days, a 7 might be too generous). That's pretty bad when you have the opportunity to present one of the great children's stories to the world in your back pocket, and you BLOW IT! There's the definite stench of Hollywood in the air surrounding this monstrosity.

Posted by: Mr_Write at December 24, 2012 09:28 PM (CLkAH)

170 Great review! One thing to consider when thinking on how cartoonish the Hobbit may be in comparison to LotR... One thing I always read/saw/heard was that the reason things in the Hobbit were so childish and exaggerated is because Bilbo was an ignorant/innocent hobbit with a completely narrow frame of reference. Things that were outlandish to him may have been pedestrian to seasoned adventurers. Hence why everything in The Hobbit is a Goblin where as in LotR we have Orcs, Trolls, etc etc. Hope that helps you "swallow" some of the cartoonish nature of the CGI work. May not. I haven't seen it yet but that's what I'm gonna tell myself going in.

Posted by: palooka at December 24, 2012 09:38 PM (EuoL1)

171 And again, Gollum, stole the scenes. He is a remarkable actor. Less comic than in LOTR and so believable. The rest was a long yawn BTDT. Nice landscapes though

Posted by: Chris at December 25, 2012 02:57 AM (ma3QC)

172 Who would have thought that the commercialization of a classic would not be great? I'm surprised, once again.

Posted by: David at December 25, 2012 03:46 AM (J9mCu)

173 Don't be surprised if they give a lot of backstory and added scenes to Beorn (the original manbearpig) too, since the book has him showing up randomly at the end and killing the goblin general/king/whatever. I hear that they've changed the ending too, adding a scene where Beorn is subdued by John McEnroe at the US Open.

Posted by: Kozaburo at December 25, 2012 05:19 AM (q66W2)

174

I wanted to see talking Eagles, dammit. And more music -- the Hobbit was practically a musical. Even the goblins sang and danced.

Problem was, they made the LOTR first, so we already know that Bilbo's finding of the Ring is a BFD, Gandalf is an Istari and not some second-rate magician, the Necromancer is he-who-must-not-be-named and the Elves are serious players. Tough to stay true to the levity of The Hobbit after that.

All that being known, the Rivendell Summit was a neat bridge between the two cycles, with an ulterior motive to the quest to prevent HWMNBM from recruiting Smaug (in The Silmarillion Morgoth used fire drakes against the Elves). And I did like the time spent on the Dwarf company, which did retain some of the levity in the book while also conveying Thorin's and the older dwarves' dead-seriousness (and foreshadowing of their greed) about recovering their birthright.

Posted by: furious_a at December 25, 2012 06:00 AM (8lw4l)

175 back to Thomas Covenant - The first trilogy was outstanding. The second trilogy was beyond bad. Bannor of the Bloodguard is an all-time character. Figure Jason Statham in the role. Saltheart Foamfollower is a close second. Have the guy who played Xerxes in 300 play him. Thomas Covenant, if played by ... Hugh Jackman ... would be okay.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at December 25, 2012 07:57 AM (RuUvx)

176 Gollum is less silly? Glad to read that. I loved him in the animated movie and thought he was Jar Jar'd for the LotR movies

Posted by: palooka at December 25, 2012 07:59 AM (nYfID)

177

I agree with all this bad stuff, and thought the strongest scene by far was Riddles in the Dark, which was not coincidently the truest to the book. They did a dumbfounding job on Gollum, who they appeared to put so much effort into he seems to be the most real thing in the film.

One thing nobody's mentioned yet: There are several uses of "Noooooooooo!" which was especially egregious because it was so often in cases where there really was no dramatic tension because if what was alleged to have happened actually did happen then the movie would be over instantly, and not even a 4 year old is fooled by that gambit. But the bottom line is, don't use internet memes in films. "Nooooooooo!" is simply lost as a filmmaker's tool now, thanks to George Lucas' abomination. The characters could have shouted "Khaaaaaaan" with as much real dramatic effect, i.e. none at all.

Posted by: arminius at December 25, 2012 08:04 AM (cDnhR)

178 "The other aspect, however, is that the movie is made to be very similar in tone to the Lord of the Rings films. But the tone and feel of The Hobbit book was a bit different than the tone and feel of the Lord of the Rings books."

I'm not going to read through all 178 comments to see if it this already said, but it makes sense for Jackson to make "The Hobbit" consistent with "LOTR," just to make them appear as if they happened in the same universe. I'm sure a standalone "Hobbit" movie more true to the book would be great. I'd love to see that one, too. But for Peter Jackson, it makes sense to make the two consistent.

The Star Wars saga had that inconsistency problem when it didn't even need to, and in some ways even got the whole thing backwards. The original Star Wars trilogy was aimed at teenagers, with kids being able to enjoy it as well as adults. It was a Saturday afternoon matinee-type movie. The prequel trilogy, meanwhile, was more like a Saturday morning cartoon. Lucas's mistake was not keeping the atmosphere consistent. And if he wanted to be *inconsistent*, he got it backwards. The prequel trilogy is about the fall of Annakin and the Republic. It's necessarily dark material. The original trilogy is darker than the prequels, though it's actually the happy half of the story.

Posted by: Bilbo's Dumb Twin at December 25, 2012 12:52 PM (VHfD4)

179

I disagree: Saw it tonight with my 6 year old son, he slept through the first hour, but loved the rest. Gollum scared the crap out of him, more than anything else, and I was amazed how a scene, so light-hearted and amusing in prior versions and the book, could become so tense and frightening in this version.

The cinematography was outstanding. This is the first 3D movie I've seen that justified the upcharge. Ten time better than "Dances With Blue People."

Plus, the extra stuff thrown in there that I don't remember from the book (though it's been at least 25 years since I read it, and yes, I loved it, too: It was my introduction to D&D and completed the fall into geekdom that Star Wars began for me a decade earlier.) adds a depth to the world that would otherwise be missing, while tying in nicely with the later movies.

I give it 5 of 5 stars.

Take that!!!!

Posted by: arik at December 25, 2012 04:03 PM (hgwbU)

180 "You know what would have been nice? If they made The Hobbit instead of a Hobbit Appendices Simarillion mash up."

Agreed. It looks like Jackson has succumbed totally to what I call the "three tyrannosaurs" syndrome - after the episode in his remake of "King Kong" when he replaced Kong's fight with a tyrannosaur with a fight with *three* tyrannosaurs. One tyrannosaur is exciting; three is overwhelming, confusing, and, ultimately, dull.

I think I'll wait for it to come out on Netflix, and watch it with the Rifftrax commentary. I'm sure Mike, Kevin, and co. will have great fun with this bloated mess of a film.

Posted by: Brown Line at December 25, 2012 06:12 PM (6d08e)

181 TLDR

Posted by: Guy at December 25, 2012 06:24 PM (ZZPs4)

182 I really liked them throwing around plates like ninjas. Oh, and in the memory scene they showed Dwalin with a MOHAWK! Like a slayer from Warhammer! Yeah the movie was mostly dumb, but it had all the major moving parts. Elves ride stags and won't help you when you need it, Goblin kings have goiter, and dwarves really want to throw away elven artifact swords. The 300 foot falls onto rocks were a bit much though. Oh, and Trolls don't wear vests.

Posted by: brando at December 25, 2012 08:38 PM (qQEcv)

183 The parts of he movie that are faithful to the book, like the "Riddles in the dark" sequence are very well done and not a disappointment. Other sequences like the battle in the mines, are comedic. A friend of mine pointed out, however, that this battle in Moria made the previous battle in Moria and escape across the bridge from LotR seem that much more believable in context. As I watched "Azog the Pale" appear and reappear in the movie, all I could think of was that he was "Moby Dick" to Thorin's "Ahab". Adding sequences from the appendices that add context and back story are fine. Heck, even Tolkein edited the Hobbit after LotR to add context for LotR. In my opinion, what will cause this fantasy epic will fail, is where they add unnecessary subplot just to add interest to the many dwarf characters. I would have much preferred a single episode of "the Hobbit" and then beginning to mine the rich ore of the Silmarillion for more stand alone epics. Of course, I don't have a business plan to make a billion dollars on these films like PJ and the studios do either.

Posted by: Michael K. at December 26, 2012 03:30 AM (Gx+Vn)

184 I have NEVER read a review so completely backwards wrong on every single point as this one. I just got back from the movie. Having seen the review first, I was worried. Now, I'm pissed. At the review-writer, for making me worried, and for so totally missing so much of how the movie derived nearly everything directly on a point-by-point basis from the book. Stop writing movie reviews.

Posted by: Rollory at December 29, 2012 03:45 PM (UuZuE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

182kb generated in CPU 0.0916, elapsed 0.3548 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3121 seconds, 312 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.