The Hobbit movie. What did you think?

[ckissick]

I watched it last night. One movie reviewer described it as "awful". I think that was a pretty accurate assessment. What a disappointment. It was almost all Orc fighting with little plot development or character development. The dwarves were a little likable, but not much.

I have to think that the next movie will be better after Jackson sees the reception for this one.

[vash]

i think the lines were too long!!

i skipped it. i do however remember the book. i was short..maybe a 100 pages? the story is simple, i love to see how they stretch it out.

[DonDavis]

Originally Posted by vash

i do however remember the book. it was short..

Is that a jab at a Hobbit's height?

[vash]

Originally Posted by DonDavis

Is that a jab at a Hobbit's height?

hahhaha. that is funny. it is now!

[romad]

really more hobbit movies

[jyl]

I liked it, the kids loved it. He's got a successful one here.

[GDNF2ET]

1st hour was slooow...Good story......Surprisingly, they didn't finish their quest in three hours

[MRM]

The book was between 300 and 350 pages. It was a long and relatively complex book for what boils down to a simple adventure tale/buddy road trip story - bunch of guys get together to accomplish a goal a long ways away, gathering the group is a challenge because some are specialists, some are misfits, getting there is hard because there is danger and rough terrain between here and there, and the final goal seems impossible when they get there, only for the group to triumph against long odds. Cue credits, run the theme song from the Seven Samuri, the Magnificent Seven, the Dirty Dozen, The Guns of Navarone, Beverly Hills Cop and pretty much any serial cowboy movie.

The book would have justified an unusually long movie on Titanic or Dances With Wolves scale, but really didn't justify a two movie split like Harry Potter Deathly Hallows. A three movie series to bring to the big screen every trudge of the march to Smaug seems more than overkill.

[LeeH]

I enjoyed it, but was distracted by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Been watching Sherlock lately and saw many of the same expressions and mannerisms. Not the movies fault... just me. I do think they could have made it an hour shorter and presented the same story.

[id10t]

Had a private showing Friday am wtih my daughters reading class from her middle school. Nice, hate the fact they drug it out to 3 hours for *half* of it, should've been able to do a great job in 3 hours for the whole tale... came home, watched the 1977 animated version

[Nostril Cheese]

more walking...

[MRM]

It wasn't three hours for half of the book - it was three hours for a third of the book!

[DanielDudley]

I just got back from seeing it. I thought it was quite a bit better than awful. It certainly wasn't Monty Python filming a tree for three hours and saying ''The Larch.''.\

If you are a Hobbit head, you will probably like it. If you are feeling restless, don't go. Worth seeing in 3D.

[stomachmonkey]

Saw it to day in high frame rate 3D.

Was irritated with the wife as I tend to not enjoy 3D, I wear glasses so the glasses over the glasses is too distracting.

Something about the high frame rate and 3D combo made the in tight scenes look like soap opera quality.

It started out weird for me and some of the characters were overdone.

It felt stretched, pacing could have been quicker and more focused.

[rattlsnak]

My in laws and kids ( 15 & 19 ) went to see it and walked out at @ 2hrs. Couldnt take it anymore. Said it was beyond awful..

[Laneco]

We coughed up the big bugs for the IMAX experience (hey - it was DATE night!).

Pretty underwhelmed...

First, the IMAX was ridiculously over rated. Other than so ridiculously loud that I had to stuff napkins into my ears and STILL put my hands over them a few times, it really didn't offer any better viewing effects than a standard screen. The 3D was well done and didn't give me a headache which they normally do.

My take? Good enough to see on the big screen, but not worth the high end IMAX tickets, etc. Not bad by any means, but really not as good as the Lord of the Rings movies.

Favorite character - the Dwarf King.

angela

[techweenie]

Good film. Probably a 7.5 out of 10. Not sure it would stand on its own without the trilogy out there (though it's a prequel). CGI has come a long way, and the 48 fps make nuances of Gollum's expressions and details of eagle feathers pretty spectacular.

Having said all that, if you can't connect to your inner child, skip it.

[5String43]

It's a triumph of special effects over story.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by 5String43

It's a triumph of special effects over story.

Nah. I disagree. But then, I saw Battleship. That one truly meets your definition.