The Hobbit

[Deleted]

I would watch any & every movie Peter Jackson made about the Elves. My main thought after seeing the LOTR Trilogy was "more elves, please."

[kateln]

Aug 3, 2012 12:37:09 GMT -4 @dukeofurl said:

I would watch any & every movie Peter Jackson made about the Elves. My main thought after seeing the LOTR Trilogy was "more elves, please."

That's surprisingly tame for you.

[huntergrayson]

Apparently, WB is getting cold feet about the whole '48 FPS is THE FUTURE OF CINEMA' thing and is slowing it down to a 'limited release.'

[Augustus]

New trailer has come out today.[/color] And you can choose from 5 alternative endings to the trailer.

Gollum managed to crack me up. And Richard Armitage, I've missed hearing your voice on my telly!

[Deleted]

PJ, just take all my money, NOW. Though I have to say, the singing dwarves in the earlier trailer are hard to beat. Freeman looks pitch-perfect as Bilbo.

[Augustus]

So...the general release was today in my corner of the world, and I caught a matinee.

I have rather mixed feelings about it. The 48fps is definitely noticeable, it is much smoother and crisper, but it also has a weird effect IMO. At times I had a feeling I was watching a highly stylized, very expensive made-for-TV movie. It's a bit too real, that otherworldly feel, that movie magic is kinda stripped away by the finer details we can see on screen.

Personally I thought it was a bit too long, and the pacing didn't work as well. I might see it again, but not the 48fps version. I'd give it a 7-7.5 out of 10.

[Deleted]

I saw it today. I'd say it was enjoyable but not great. There were some fantastic set-pieces, it was wonderful to see familiar characters again and Gollum is worth the price of entrance every time. I wish his part had been longer and I'm curious about the other 2 films now: I haven't read the book since I was a child, but I think that's Gollum's only scene. He's such a major selling part of these films; surely Jackson has to find a way to put him into the other 2 movies?

The downside is the source material, really. Not that The Hobbit is a bad book at all, but it's a children's adventure story and nowhere near as epic as Lord of the Rings and it was obvious to me that the movie was making rather small things seem big. Some of the humour is quite juvenile as well. The story is similar to Lord of the Rings, too, with the king trying to regain his kingdom, but Thorin was no Aragorn, really. If The Hobbit had been released first, it probably wouldn't be a thing, but it does feel like 'Lord of the Rings!...but less. But still, Lord of the Rings!'

[HarpofLorien]

Saw it in 3D/48FPS/IMAX at the 12:01 showing this morning.
#1: Richard Armitage as Thorin. DROOOLLLLL. Holy crap. Have to figure out how to get Mr. HarpofLorien to dress up like that. Also, there's a harp in Rivendell, which made me VERY happy because the book mentions that Thorin plays the harp (although we have yet to see it).
#2: I can't wait for the next one, but I will have to see this one at least a dozen more times before I am satisfied I've gotten everything.
#3: the 48FPS/3D was very interesting. Rivendell had a very CGI look to it, unfortunately, and I'm disappointed in how they portrayed the Goblin King, but otherwise LOVED it.
#5: to ronette's point about not enough Gollum: there's not much more backstory on Gollum in the appendices of the Sil, so I would also be disappointed if he didn't have more in the movie.
#6: I read a review that started off by saying you can't go home again, but if that home is Middle Earth, you CAN. And the movie felt like home. The music (thanks PJ for keeping Howard Shore) was just different enough to see new ideas, but with some of the same themes associated with various parts of ME. One point, though, using the music associated with the Nazgul for the Goblin King? No.

[Augustus]

I got to see the regular 24fps 2D version today, and I have to say, it improved my viewing greatly. I didn't get so distracted by the overload of details, and yup, some elements had a very CGI feel to them in the HFR version, which luckily isn't as noticeable in the 'regular' 24fps format. While my first viewing was a meagre 7-7.5, this viewing made me give it a solid 8 out of 10.

[Deleted]

God, it was perfect. I've seen it twice (midnight show last night, matinee today), and if I didn't have to work tomorrow I'd go see it again. I mean, I got teary-eyed at the Wingnut Films chyron, so maybe I'm not the most unbiased source, but it was everything I've been hoping for since they first announced the film however many (five?) years ago. And more.

I had zero problems with the pace; I actually felt it moved along at a better clip than FOTR. In that one, you are literally halfway through the movie before the fellowship is formed.

Galadriel is the most perfectly beautiful creature to ever exist. There were audible gasps in my theater when we first see her. But Cate isn't just gorgeous - the way she embodies Galadriel is just mesmerizing. She is so still. There's a long shot where Gandalf is speaking and she is in the background behind him, and Cate doesn't seem to move a single muscle, and there's something so unearthly and uncanny in that, the tension she adds to the frame simply by standing there...it's a remarkable piece of physical acting, very subtle, that I think is so easy to overlook when people think "acting = histrionics."

Speaking of acting, though. Andy Serkis. Dear God. He was simply brilliant. The Game of Riddles was so expertly done, on every single level, and then Serkis's performance just took it to a completely different plane. The way he can make Gollum this despicable creature and then a second later instill him with such a pathos that you want to weep, it's extraordinary. It kills me that he's never been really formally recognized for the work he has done in these films.

I could just keep going. Someone stop me. (The music! The introduction with the callbacks! The dwarves! That shot of Thranduil just going "nope" and peacing out!)