More praise for Freeman's Bilbo in the Upcoming review:
For all of the incredible CGI in the film, the most striking visual is Freeman choking back tears. Freeman imbues his performance with a warmth and humanity that’s otherwise lacking in all the talk of ancient birthrights, wizards and goblins, and his scenes with Ian McKellen and Armitage leave a lump in the throat. Although he occasionally feels like a supporting character in his own film, Freeman’s Bilbo is the emotional foundation upon which all else rests, and without him the audience would struggle to care about which side emerged victorious from the corpse-strewn battlefield.
But what is this about:
After watching a magical stag behead four orcs, it becomes clear that Jackson hasn’t quite left the splatter-horror of Braindead behind him.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised by something else. Or maybe not.
RT is currently at 75% for both all critics and top critics.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
The reviews seem to be the best of all three films. My spirits were taken to new heights by the VARIETY review.
Thanks to V and Elen for posting these with links.
This is going to be a long two weeks.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I was pretty sure that it was Thranduil riding the stag that behead the orcs. Is he appropriately bad-ass?
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Courtesy of Arannir who reckons Slashfilms and Screencrush will be negative
Reviewers Tweets:
The last Hobbit fails by serving its purpose perfectly. It’s a 140 min act 3 with little to say on its own. Action, closure, not much else.
Ugh. I'm so bummed right now. I keep thinking of the feeling I had after seeing Return of the King at BNAT. Now, this. Ugh.
Wouldn't even care about that (CGI) if the film itself had any kind of arc. There's no real structure. It's a 2 hour third act in 1 film
They're (AUJ and DoS) both better than this
I actively hated it.
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
While I don't think that's a plausible reason to hate the film (I recall HP 7.2 had similar criticisms - didn't hinder their enjoyment apparently), I do think he might have a valid point given the plot that's left to tell.
PS: It can't surely be worse than AUJ, by all accounts.
I thought I posted this before (along with some of my own thoughts), but it didn't go through apparently, so I'll post it again (without my own thoughts):
ETA: Here are some of the thoughts that I meant to post earlier: Arannir the review-meister is pretty pessimistic about the film's likely final rating, thinking it will be lower than DoS. I think he probably is right, though it really is too early to say for sure. But I do think that he is right that most of the ones that have been negative before will continue to be.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Positive one from Gamona, saying that it is the best of the three and shows how great this could have been as a two-parter. But even as part three it brings the story to a deserving and rousing finish:
"The final Hobbit film is a great piece of filmmaking, massive fun and probably, when it comes down to it, the best of the 3. But the overarching flaws of the trilogy prevent them from being anything close to the wonder of Jackson's Lord of the Rings. In summation, they are, pretty much undeniably really good, but problematic, and by no means the best that a screen adaptation of The Hobbit could've been."
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
I was surprised to see that Metacritic already has 13 reviews listed, only 2 less than RT. The Metacritic score is 62, with seven reviews listed as positive and six as mixed. In comparison, DoS finished with a 76 from 44 reviews, 29 positive, 13 mixed, and 2 negative. That is probably a better indication of where the film will end up than the current RT score of 80 (both for all critics and top critics).
ETA: AUJ's final metacritic score was 58, on 40 critics, 20 positive, 18 mixed and two negative.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Saying it is definitely not as good as DoS and marginally better than AUJ with some rousing stuff but not enough story to ultimately justify the trilogy decision.
I am a bit disappointed by their score, its probably the biggest German movie website. Though I differ very much in their view as I didn't think AUJ was weaker than DoS .
There is definitely a pattern in all the reviews. US and international alike: great battle, not that much substance to the story .
The thriller comes at a price.
There is magic in long-distance friendships. They let you relate to other human beings in a way that goes beyond being physically together and is often more profound.
~Diana Cortes
It's interesting to see people say it's not as good (and with less story) than DOS, because IMO it's actually better in both areas. Yes, in terms of plot narrative, less ground is covered, but more time is spent with characters, their motivations, and even arcs than in DOS (and even, really, in AUJ, a few moments aside).
Well, arguably there is a difference between story and character development, and from what you and others say the focus is more on the latter than the former. Which is all to the good as far as I am concerned, but apparently not for professional critics.
Of course, I think DoS was higher than that at one point early on, so no need to get excited.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
At this point, it seems pretty redundant criticism, though. As soon as you split books into multiple movies, you start running into the "incomplete story" issue. It's almost inevitable and unavoidable, and of course, it happens to any franchise that takes this approach. It's not invalid to criticize -- but after a couple movies in I don't really see why it's more of an issue this time around. It's part-and-parcel with how they chose to do the adaptation. It's fair to point out that BOFTA doesn't have a beginning and is basically the conclusion to a bunch of narrative threads and situations introduced in a previous movie, yet DOS doesn't have a beginning *or* end, and there's essentially zero character growth throughout it.
I get why someone might be frustrated with this approach entirely, and criticize all the movies for it... I don't get why someone would accept it as fine for some of them but not others.
In this case, it is even more true since the Hobbit films are design to be the 3 earlier chapters in the now 6-film series, as well as a stand-alone trilogy. Plus, I think critics just like to say negative things.
RT is down to 76% with a very obnoxiously negative review from a reviewer for some place called the Nerd Report, although the reviewer previously negatively reviewed the past two Hobbit films for "Crave Online". I don't mind someone expressing a genuine negative opinion, but I really dislike this type of writing: http://www.nerdreport.com/2014/12/01/th ... es-review/
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
