Critical Reception of The Hobbit: AUJ [Non-Spoiler]

[Stranger Wings]

On one thing, at least, the verdict seems very clear:

The Frodo/Bilbo framing device (which according to some is TEN minutes long) is entirely useless padding.

As I said all along.

Peter Jackson, why don't you just listen to ME?

-SA
P.S. Oh, and it seems very few people like 48fps. What is it about people like Lucas, Jackson and Cameron that excites them about film technologies that make things look worse?

[Alatar]

Funny I just read a review which praised it highly.

[Pearly Di]

The Frodo/Bilbo framing device (which according to some is TEN minutes long) is entirely useless padding.

That's just the kind of useless padding to please me. (As opposed to trolls and yet more boring trolls. If I saw another damn troll at the Black Gates ... )

Bilbo/Frodo padding is there to please the book fans. Bring it on, I say!

I am naughty. I am critical of the first two Harry Potter films over their 'useless padding'. But when it comes to adaptations of my beloved Tolkien, I change tack.

P.S. Oh, and it seems very few people like 48fps. What is it about people like Lucas, Jackson and Cameron that excites them about film technologies that make things look worse?

I agree with the criticisms of Lucas. I find the Star Wars prequels sterile. But Cameron, no. I liked Avatar. Simplistic storytelling, sure, but a very beautiful and engaging film.

[Dave_LF]

A number of the negatives that were mentioned numerous times are actually positives in my book. For example:
-Takes too long to get out of The Shire
-Too much fan service
-Too many tangential plot threads
-Too much exposition (especially in the Bilbo/Frodo and White Council scenes)

Some of them are consequences of sticking to the book:
-Too episodic
-"Everyone gets captured, only to be improbably saved at the last minute" formula repeated too many times
-Not enough females
-Several beats are basically repeats from LotR

The ones I take seriously are:
-"Laughably bad" VFX, especially (exclusively?) in 48fps
-Over-the-top, cartoony action
-Not enough time for character development between all the action scenes

Things that were (almost) universally praised include:
-Freeman, Armitage, and McKellen
-Riddles in the Dark (many claim this is the best scene in the film)
-Gollum VFX
-New Zealand scenery

There were several critics who said the first half was muddled and boring, but the film was redeemed by the exciting second half. I suspect my final assessment will be the opposite.

[Pearly Di]

A number of the negatives that were mentioned numerous times are actually positives in my book. For example:
-Takes too long to get out of The Shire
-Too much fan service
-Too many tangential plot threads
-Too much exposition (especially in the Bilbo/Frodo and White Council scenes)

Oh, this tickles me pink. PJ turns purist. I loves ya, PJ!

Some of them are consequences of sticking to the book:
-Too episodic
-"Everyone gets captured, only to be improbably saved at the last minute" formula repeated too many times
-Not enough females
-Several beats are basically repeats from LotR

Music to my ears.

There were several critics who said the first half was muddled and boring, but the film was redeemed by the exciting second half. I suspect my final assessment will be the opposite.

Me too.

I hope my worst fears will be no worse than my disappointment with PJ's King Kong. I love the start and end of PJ's King Kong, but don't like some of the tedious chase sequences in the middle.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

P.S. Oh, and it seems very few people like 48fps. What is it about people like Lucas, Jackson and Cameron that excites them about film technologies that make things look worse?

You're picking and choosing, SA. The split that I have seen is actually somewhat leaning towards liking the 48 fps. And those who like it, REALLY like it.

[Dave_LF]

Really? I grant I haven't read every single review, but the most positive reaction I've seen to HFR is something like "this is the future, but there are still kinks to work out." The most damning criticism was the guy who said all he could think the whole time was "This is a set. Now we're on location. That piece of scenery is clearly CG. Oh; back to the set again."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Read the reviews that I posted in the spoiler thread. [Edit: Which I realize now I posted all in the wrong thread, but have now moved.]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is encouraging from Garfeimao at TORN:

There are whole chunks of dialogue lifted directly from the book, you will recognize it throughout the film, I had to restrain myself from cheering during at least one of these lines, won't say which one just yet.

[Dave_LF]

Ok, you're right, some people did like HFR unreservedly. I still feel like the balance of opinion is against it, but I'm not going to argue based on a feeling, and I'm not going to compile a spreadsheet either. But I have decided not to make any special effort to see it in 48fps the first time (though I still hope to eventually), which is a relief since it would have been difficult logistically.

ETA: I liked hearing that about the dialog too. I'm hoping the section that made him cheer is the same one you're hoping it is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm still going back and forth about whether to make my first viewing in 48 fps or not. I don't want the first experience to be ruined by something that is distracting. On the other hand, I want to make my first viewing be as much the experience that the filmmaker has designed as possible. As I don't know. I might wait to hear what others here have to say, since my first viewing won't be until long after most everyone else's (I'm thinking I don't need to get Christmas Day tickets too far in advance).

[Elentári]

Just found out my local Cineworld I'm already booked at has upgraded to HFR so I'm chuffed - though I wouldn't have minded seeinng it at 24fps, and then had the choice of viewing it again at the higher rate if I decided it was worth it...

[Stranger Wings]

P.S. Oh, and it seems very few people like 48fps. What is it about people like Lucas, Jackson and Cameron that excites them about film technologies that make things look worse?

Your picking and choosing, SA. The split that I have seen is actually somewhat leaning towards liking the 48 fps. And those who like it, REALLY like it.

I think you're missing most of the veviews, V. Take a look at rottonetomatoes.com

Most people dislike the HFR.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Look at my latest comment in response to Teremia in the general thread.

[Stranger Wings]

The Frodo/Bilbo framing device (which according to some is TEN minutes long) is entirely useless padding.

That's just the kind of useless padding to please me. (As opposed to trolls and yet more boring trolls. If I saw another damn troll at the Black Gates ... )

Bilbo/Frodo padding is there to please the book fans. Bring it on, I say!

I am naughty. I am critical of the first two Harry Potter films over their 'useless padding'. But when it comes to adaptations of my beloved Tolkien, I change tack.

P.S. Oh, and it seems very few people like 48fps. What is it about people like Lucas, Jackson and Cameron that excites them about film technologies that make things look worse?

I agree with the criticisms of Lucas. I find the Star Wars prequels sterile. But Cameron, no. I liked Avatar. Simplistic storytelling, sure, but a very beautiful and engaging film.

Since Frodo is not in the book, how is his inclusion meant to please the book fans?

It's more meant to please the movie fans, IMO.

And, also IMO, pleasing fans is a terrible justification for anything while making a movie. Just make a great movie, while respecting the spirit of the story you are adapting, and get on with it. Chances are that the fans will ultimately love you more for that.

I mean, how many original trilogy Star Wars lovers were delighted by the inclusion of so many awfully-contrived references in the prequels? Precious few, methinks.

[Holbytla]

I haven't read any reviews and I doubt that I will beyond the blurbs I can't seem to avoid here and there.

I'm not expecting anything that PJ isn't capable of.
I'm not expecting anything less than PJ is capable of.

I doubt I will be disap.........I won't be surprised.
PJ is great at visuals, but he, imo, is a huge story hack.

I'm happy that people can find pleasure in his portrayal of Tolkien, and I am sure these films will be fun , of a quality and entertaining films.

I am also sure they will hack Tolkien to pieces. He won't miss the point. He will look at the point and toss it in the trash in lieu of what he feels is a cinematic seller.

But I promise to walk into the theater with an open mind.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Up to 77% at RT. Still no Empire review, though. I'm beginning to think that for some reason that one won't be included.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this one is non-spoilerish enough to go here:

http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema ... ed-journey

Five stars from Total Film's Matthew Leland, who hated Lovely Bones. He makes the specific comparison between MF's Bilbo and EW's Frodo, and singles out Ken Stott's Balin for praise. He even likes the 48 FPS.

[Pearly Di]

Voronwë, that Total Film review is encouraging.

Since Frodo is not in the book, how is his inclusion meant to please the book fans?

Because some book fans, like myself, approve of the wider mythos being referred to. I also love hobbits. To have a framing device of Bilbo telling Frodo about his 'there and back again' journey can be justified canonically.

Not that I think that was PJ's motivation.

Still ... I'll take a PJ prequel over a George Lucas prequel any day.

[Stranger Wings]

By the way, I wonder why only three of the "top critics" at Rottentomatoes registered their reviews?