The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

That chase scene is the most terrible thing in that movie for me.

Bah. It was good. Fun. I liked it. Critics were wrong. A fine film. Martin Freeman = better casting than Elijah Wood (even though I love the guy) ever was.

  On 12/16/2012 at 6:13 PM, logakght said:

This movie caused the washington post to use the phrase "scrotal-throated" - surely a good sign.

one of the most valuable things to take from this film, at least for me was that it illustrates very clearly that a lot of 'top critics' just parrot each-other, and seem to volley off of each-others criticisms of the film. Almost every common thread in the negative reviews seems mis-placed, especially about the 'padding'. They all say that this was an obvious cash grab and it didn't need to be stretched to 3 movies. After some re-reading of how this all came to be, it's obvious now that Peter Jackson would have had 2 4 hour movies or an overly edited 2-part movie to his dissatisfaction and decided too late in the process to expand them into 3 to their detriment. It's not that this movie feels overly padded or too long with bad pacing, it's that you can tell that not as much thought was put into the 3 movie separation as there was during Lord of the Rings. The script was already pretty much finished when they decided to divide them up into 3 movies. I just wish more critics instead of falling into a herd mentality regurgitation fest would have actually analyzed it without their bias. It has problems, but completely different problems than King Kong in the pacing department. It's not surprising that so many critics were looking to pounce on Jackson, he swept the academy awards when he was an under-dog filmmaker and now following 2 semi-bombs it's all too easy to have a bias against him. It's also strange to me that the very same top critics seem to fawn over the deux-ex-machina laced Potter films, which are far inferior fantasy films in almost every area, and that they are extremely forgiving of schlocky thriller movies like Zero Dark Thirty and Hurt Locker. I still am sitting here shocked for example Iron Man pt1 was like 95% fresh on rotten tomatoes. I do find certain critics perspectives valuable, but in this case i think the overwhelming negative reviews are pretty unfair.

I loved the first two Lord of the Rings films, my gripes about the story mangling aside. I felt the tones in the world were done right, pacing was well done through out etc. You got the sense that the grit that went in to making the film, the long labored hours and close attention to detail really reflected in the mood of the movies. On the other hand, it felt like everyone who was involved in the original trilogy just got gluttonous, fat and lazy on this movie. Everything about it felt obese. That is why I am torn. It was so wildy over the top and absurd that I feel like deep down I might actually have kind of liked it (even though I really don't). Who doesn't like a greasy ass bacon cheeseburger? I really wanted to enjoy it, but walked away feeling rather ill about the whole thing. Yes, tons of money go in to these movies, but with LOTR, I felt like it was sort of worth it in a weird way. It gave the books the attention they deserved in terms of detail, set pieces and effects. I walked out of The Hobbit feeling totally the opposite. It just felt unnecessary.

I go back to my original thoughts on this a while ago, it would have been awesome to see this done in a a sort of mini-series style show. Even on the BBC, since they love to just do one or two seasons of shows and then end them. Having it drawn out over three films, chock full of slapstick comedy, overly epic slow mo shots (Thorin walking off the burning tree for example), poorly casted actors and leaving everything good from the book out of the movie just felt wrong. The fucking Rankin & Bass cartoon from the 70s outdoes this movie by a mile. SHAME SHAME SHAME, Peter Lucas/George Jackson. Ya blew it.

I loved her.

Ya blew it.

revelation update*

Maybe this is why the Gamestop manager at the viewing I went to was eating a disgusting sub stuffed with french fries. Target audience. Success.

  On 12/17/2012 at 1:09 AM, thanks robert moses said:

...poorly casted actors...

Really? Who?

did you really think Martin Freeman was that good? He has his one act down pretty well (the same character he plays in all his films, a mix of uptight and befuddled, well-intentioned but dorky...see for ref: Hitchhiker's), but he has no range. In the scene with Gollum he should be shitting himself, you should really see and feel his evolution from utter fear to thinking on his feet (re: the riddles) but he just looked the same throughout, "oh um yeah, how about some riddles". Yes he did look the part maybe better than Elijah Wood (who also has limited range), but I don't think he did a fantastic job with the part.

Danny De vito should have been casted as young Bilbo Baggis and his ugly wife should have played an orc.

(Martin Freeman was allright, didnt notice his acting which i think its a good thing specially for epic fantasy films)

lol danny devito, that would ave been amazing

I can appreciate an actor's ability to "go there" but really I think the only thing that gives an actor any believability is a certain look they have and/or their aptitude to commit to that. I've always thought the real talent is with the casting directors.

  On 12/17/2012 at 2:45 AM, YO303 said:

Danny De vito should have been casted as young Bilbo Baggis and his ugly wife should have played an orc.

 

 

 

(Martin Freeman was allright, didnt notice his acting which i think its a good thing specially for epic fantasy films)

LOL, and they are divorced now

the rumor is that he was a long term notorious extra fucker, the question i have is what did these girls look like that fucked danny devito?

  On 12/17/2012 at 2:29 AM, SPD² said:

  On 12/17/2012 at 1:09 AM, thanks robert moses said:

...poorly casted actors...

 

Really? Who?

Martin Freeman, for one. I don't mind him as an actor, but he was totally unconvincing in this film. I suppose the question on how convincing an actor could possibly be as character from a fantasy novel should be taken in to consideration, but even Elijah Wood, with his watery and longing stares directly in to the camera was far more convincing in his role as a hobbit.

Also, every Dwarf, particualrly Thorin. The scene that I mentioned, where he steps off of a burning tree, looked like a Creed video. The slow mo, the hair blowing in the wind. Almost puked.

loool

That Thorin/pale orc weirdly long stare down towards the end was incredible. Thorin was clearly smoldering with lust for that glossy, first pass bump mapped skin.

  On 12/17/2012 at 9:32 AM, Face Culler said:

That Thorin/pale orc weirdly long stare down towards the end was incredible. Thorin was clearly smoldering with lust for that glossy, first pass bump mapped skin.

Yeah. It gave me the chubbs, for sure.

wanted to dip my wick in to that poison.

did you all (reid, lumpenrol and face culler ) see it in 48fps? if so what do you think?

I have to say, even though I didn't like it much I'm psyched to watch the extended editions of this (if there ever is such a thing) at home. Even though it's a long film, it felt kind of rushed, and without the 3d and 48fps to pull me out of the story, maybe I'll like it more.

Yes, the things that are supposed to enhance the film experience for me act like a barrier and make me think more about the medium and presentation, instead of just letting me enjoy the story.

  On 12/17/2012 at 9:57 AM, Awepittance said:

did you all (reid, lumpenrol and face culler ) see it in 48fps? if so what do you think?

not that i'm aware of, think it was the vanilla 24 but with 3d glasses.

I'd fuck Danny DeVito

  On 12/17/2012 at 10:21 AM, BCM said:

I'd fuck Danny DeVito

  On 12/17/2012 at 10:00 AM, Gocab said:

I have to say, even though I didn't like it much I'm psyched to watch the extended editions of this (if there ever is such a thing) at home. Even though it's a long film, it felt kind of rushed, and without the 3d and 48fps to pull me out of the story, maybe I'll like it more.

 

Yes, the things that are supposed to enhance the film experience for me act like a barrier and make me think more about the medium and presentation, instead of just letting me enjoy the story.

i felt the same way, i think i'd enjoy it a lot more unhindered if the presentation was exactly the same as LOTR. and to me the movie didn't feel overly long at all, but i do agree it had pacing issues, i think they decided to make this 3 films instead of 2 literally 6 months before it hit theaters which i would argue is why it has those issues. That has to seriously fuck up the pacing, and tension of a film, and i think it shows here. Things did feel 'rushed' instead of too slow, i think the opposite of what the reviewers are saying is true.

yes, agreed. Needed more room to breathe. But I'm guessing it could have been handled more effectively in the same amount of time, too.

I don't know why people complain about length. Do we complain about the length of a season of Breaking Bad, or the first season of Twin Peaks? The problem is not overall length, it's just pacing.

Maybe I'm old but my favorite scenes were the council chat in Rivendell (it wasn't even that good but I was starved for some interpersonal drama by that point), and the riddle session with Gollum (which is the high-point of my childhood memories of the book as well). But I don't know why they didn't spend more time developing the dwarves' personalities, after such a long-winded set up (introducing each by name, the dishwashing scene, etc). I guess maybe there's not much in the book, I don't recall. But if you're going to go to the trouble to introduce 13 supporting cast members, at least give them some distinctive qualities besides appearance, please. When you think of what Time Bandits accomplished with very little exposition, the shortcomings are even more glaring...