Critical Reception of The Hobbit: AUJ [Massive SPOILERS!]

[Stranger Wings]

Um, that review calls it a masterpiece and gives it 9 out 10 stars. And it probably would have been 10 out of 10 if he hadn't seen it in 49 fps. Does he think it is perfect? Of course not. Does he think it is amazing? Yes.

Edit to add:

The acting by the core cast was astoundingly good. Martin Freeman IS Bilbo Baggins and as expected delivers an amazing performance with true emotion, humor and feeling. Ian McKellen is a less serious version of his LOTR-self and in many ways a lot more likable. His sense of humor comes across more in the performance and it is very endearing. Richard Armitage delivers a dead-on performance of Thorin. For those of us who know what the future holds for Thorin, I can clearly state the casting was perfect. Andy Serkis returns as Gollum and provides yet another amazing performance. ‘Riddles in the Dark’ will be one of your favorite scenes – guaranteed!

The dwarves were always a bit of a concern for me because I thought we’d be spending a lot of time getting to know each and dealing with lot of childish humor. This is not the case. They do all get introductions and each has their own distinct and unique contribution to the film. There is of course some ‘potty’ humor, but nothing that is overdone or inconsistent. Ken Stott as Balin delivers a stand-out performance — one that does not go unnoticed and puts him on par with the other key players.

And yet you come away discouraged? Wow! Just wow.

Perhaps you don't see the following as devastating to the success of the film:

As an adaptation and expansion on Tolkien’s 75-year-old children literature classic — emphasis on children — this film is more fantastic and at times more ‘cartoony’ than its trilogy predecessor. A quick example… while in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring we see the four Hobbits trying to escape Farmer Maggot and falling down a long slope with nothing but a broken carrot, in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey we see the Company of Thorin falling down a 1000-foot crevasse (multiple times) and simply dusting themselves off.

To me, one could at least suspend disbelief pretty easily in PJ's LOTR, because the danger felt consequential. If indeed the Hobbit bursts the fourth wall of cinema, and has multiple moments of thousand-foot drops with no consequences for the characters (and major villains uttering cheesy one-liners before they die) then the entire film is spoiled. Why? Because the secondary world will fail to be believable.

PJ essentially attacks at the very heart of what makes Tolkien's world so deep and immersive. If Calisuri's description is accurate (and I suspect it is) I may not be able to accept any of it.

Ah well. I liked some of those extended scenes, so that's something...

[Dave_LF]

Positive review in Empire:
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... p?FID=9834

Golfimbul made the cut!

[Stranger Wings]

Positive review in Empire:
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... p?FID=9834

Golfimbul made the cut!

Wait, is the author just riffing on his Tolkien knowledge there, or will we actually see Golfimbul? My impression was that the "Bilbo's Tookish heritage" backstory had been cut...

In any event, nice to see a pretty positive review from Empire (though its not a 5-star). Though as of yet, no critics I respect have given it a serious thumbs up.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Perhaps you don't see the following as devastating to the success of the film:

As an adaptation and expansion on Tolkien’s 75-year-old children literature classic — emphasis on children — this film is more fantastic and at times more ‘cartoony’ than its trilogy predecessor. A quick example… while in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring we see the four Hobbits trying to escape Farmer Maggot and falling down a long slope with nothing but a broken carrot, in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey we see the Company of Thorin falling down a 1000-foot crevasse (multiple times) and simply dusting themselves off.

Depends on what you mean by "success of the film". If you mean, as critically (and Oscarly) acclaimed as the LotR films (and possibly as commercially successful) than I agree that this will probably negatively effect its success. If you mean "success of the film" in terms of my thinking that it is a successful adaptation of Tolkien's 75-year-old children's literature classic I don't think it will be much of a factor when balanced against the good things he points out, if they are as good as he says.

That, of course, remains to be seen.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Positive review in Empire:
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... p?FID=9834

Golfimbul made the cut!

That's a great review! Definitely the best one that I have read so far. And it does in fact sound like Golfimbul is in!

[Dave_LF]

The cynic in me says that after all the exclusives WB game them, they are probably more than a little biased. But I'll still take it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm confused about how RT works. How come that review isn't listed there, since Empire is listed as one of their publications? Has it just not been listed yet?

[Stranger Wings]

I'm confused about how RT works. How come that review isn't listed there, since Empire is listed as one of their publications? Has it just not been listed yet?

They just have to be uploaded by the Rottentomatoes people. There are two or three that aren't up there yet.

However, they do have to be reviews from "professional critics," whatever that means. So a review from a TORN fanboy will obviously not make it.

The rottentomatoes score will likely change dramatically over the next few days, as anywhere from 20-40 more reviews go up. So, one cannot judge just yet.

However, the patterns of criticism in both the good and bad reviews suggest that the final score is likely to be much lower than it was for LOTR. All of the reviewers seem to pretty much dislike the same things. It's just how much those things spoil the film for them that determines the difference.

For me, the "totally inconsequential danger" and "cartoonish action" aspects we have heard about are absolute deal-breakers. If I don't believe in this world, PJ has failed to adapt Tolkien. Plain and simple.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I always expected the critical reviews to be less positive than for LOTR, largely for the reasons enumerated by Dave above.

Whether that translates to worse films I don't know yet. I suspect somethings will be better than the LOTR films (primarily because of Freeman). Other things will likely be worse.

[Holbytla]

Martin Freeman is someone who I adored as Dent Arthur Dent, and someone who I admire as Dr Watson. From what I have seen at this point (it isn't a whole lot) I'm not overly thrilled that Freeman is portraying Bilbo.

I'm not sure of the right way to phrase it, but it seems like this is Freeman playing Bilbo, as opposed to seeing an actor transforming himself into Bilbo.
Before seeing anything substantial, I am starting to wish for an unknown actor portraying Bilbo. I hope I am wrong.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Whereas I hated Hitchhiker, I haven't seen anything else with Freeman in it, and what I have seen from him as Bilbo is virtually straight out of my imagination.

[Holbytla]

Whereas I hated Hitchhiker, I haven't seen anything else with Freeman in it, and what I have seen from him as Bilbo is virtually straight out of my imagination.

Well of course, each to his or her own. No two people that have held Tolkien's works dear are going to envision them in the same way.

Yet I wasn't speaking about Hitchhiker, but Freeman's portrayal of Arthur Dent. I think he pulled off that character as well as could be expected.
Even though that I thought the direction of the movie lacking, Freeman, imo, still managed to capture at least some essence of Arthur Dent.

To this point, I've not seen anything from Freeman that made me think that he has transcended himself and became Bilbo, as he at least somewhat transcended himself and became Arthur Dent. The jury is still way out for me, so this is not a foregone conclusion.

From what I have seen thus far, he hasn't even achieved the level of Ian Holm, who I thought a more than realistic Bilbo.

Aside from our own interpretations of Tolkien and his works, we are all also jaundiced in some way. Some of us are more optimistic, some more pessimistic. Some realistic and some hiding behind rose colored glasses.

I certainly fall into the pessimistic realm, because I don't believe Jackson's strengths lie in bringing out the best in actors/actresses, story or original character development.

I'm not willing to sell out Tolkien or his characters or his story, however juvenile or unaccustomed his works may be in transformation to visual media, for the sake of seeing the story on the big screen. Others don't feel the same way.

It is what it is and we are who we are.

The films will be fine, fun, win some awards probably, and never really realize Tolkien's works.

Filmmakers want "epic" films. Not great adaptations.

Before I watch these films, I may watch the Southpark episode where they satire Indiana Jones in infamy.

[SirDennis]

Accompanied by avian swine, in what is surely a sign of the apocalypse, one of TORN's elite gives a very lukewarm review:

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12 ... ing-frame/

Another vaguely positive review that is apologetic and full of qualifiers. I'm pleasantly surprised that the reviewer came out hard against seeing it in HFR 3D first. Not because I want people to agree with what I predicted all along -- that it was an unnecessary gamble (experiment I think he said) -- but because I didn't think they would go there... especially after MrCere's review.

Anyway a score of 9/10 doesn't seem to match up with what he wrote at all.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think it perfectly aligns with what he wrote.

The acting by the core cast was astoundingly good. Martin Freeman IS Bilbo Baggins and as expected delivers an amazing performance with true emotion, humor and feeling. Ian McKellen is a less serious version of his LOTR-self and in many ways a lot more likable. His sense of humor comes across more in the performance and it is very endearing. Richard Armitage delivers a dead-on performance of Thorin. For those of us who know what the future holds for Thorin, I can clearly state the casting was perfect. Andy Serkis returns as Gollum and provides yet another amazing performance. ‘Riddles in the Dark’ will be one of your favorite scenes – guaranteed!

The dwarves were always a bit of a concern for me because I thought we’d be spending a lot of time getting to know each and dealing with lot of childish humor. This is not the case. They do all get introductions and each has their own distinct and unique contribution to the film. There is of course some ‘potty’ humor, but nothing that is overdone or inconsistent. Ken Stott as Balin delivers a stand-out performance — one that does not go unnoticed and puts him on par with the other key players.

That goes to the heart of the film. The complaints that he made where on the edges. I would give 9 out of 10 stars under those circumstances.

I've got to agree with Alatar, Sir D. My impression (and I emphasize, this is my impression, is that you (and SA) seem to be so intent upon focusing on nitpicking criticisms that you can't see genuine praise.

[SirDennis]

I saw the praise that you highlighted. But on balance the review seemed vaguely positive (not lukewarm though) which to me would be 7 out of 10. I suppose it matters how much weight one gives to the technological aspect.

His advice comes down to this: don't ruin the movie your first time out by seeing it in HFR 3D. If the frame was taking him out of the movie every 10 minutes, I should think that would ruin the whole experience... for those such as myself who can't afford to see this thing more than once -- especially if I take the family -- being able to see it in one format, then the other is little consolation.

That aside, I thought Al's appraisal (actually my preconceived notions are that the films would be good, and that I would enjoy them if I saw them) was inappropriately personal. That is until I was called a nitpicker!?!



Around here the mood is light, thank goodness.

[Stranger Wings]

I think it perfectly aligns with what he wrote.

The acting by the core cast was astoundingly good. Martin Freeman IS Bilbo Baggins and as expected delivers an amazing performance with true emotion, humor and feeling. Ian McKellen is a less serious version of his LOTR-self and in many ways a lot more likable. His sense of humor comes across more in the performance and it is very endearing. Richard Armitage delivers a dead-on performance of Thorin. For those of us who know what the future holds for Thorin, I can clearly state the casting was perfect. Andy Serkis returns as Gollum and provides yet another amazing performance. ‘Riddles in the Dark’ will be one of your favorite scenes – guaranteed!

The dwarves were always a bit of a concern for me because I thought we’d be spending a lot of time getting to know each and dealing with lot of childish humor. This is not the case. They do all get introductions and each has their own distinct and unique contribution to the film. There is of course some ‘potty’ humor, but nothing that is overdone or inconsistent. Ken Stott as Balin delivers a stand-out performance — one that does not go unnoticed and puts him on par with the other key players.

That goes to the heart of the film. The complaints that he made where on the edges. I would give 9 out of 10 stars under those circumstances.

I've got to agree with Alatar, Sir D. My impression (and I emphasize, this is my impression, is that you (and SA) seem to be so intent upon focusing on nitpicking criticisms that you can't see genuine praise.

Voronwë, here's an experiment. Read all the Hobbit reviews, positive and negative, and then read all the FOTR, TTT and ROTK reviews (easily found on Rottentomatoes), positive and negative (light reading on the latter).

There's an ocean of difference.

That's all I'm saying.

Believe me, I want to love these films. Possibly more than anyone, given my massive disappointment with the LOTR films. But I don't want to delude myself into pretending that these are great reviews.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

SA, I've read those reviews before. Find me the one that says "The acting by the core cast was astoundingly good. Elijah Wood IS Frodo Baggins and as expected delivers an amazing performance with true emotion, humor and feeling" or something equivalent.

Edited to add: I'm sorry to say it, but you are not going to love these films. There is too much that you will dislike for you to do so, and you are not a transcendentalist. I would like nothing better than for you to be able to enjoy them the way that I hope to, but I just don't expect it. I don't mean that as an insult. Maybe it is just a sign of my lower standards. I don't expect Verlyn Flieger to like them, either!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A thoughtful, lukewarm review by Richard Corliss in Time:

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/12/0 ... ack-again/

As to the burning subject at hand, he says this:

And so faithful to the book is the movie that Middle Earth geeks will be flummoxed by the few changes (replacing Tolkien’s songs for the elves and goblins with other airs) and deletions (of, for example, Biblo’s dismissive line to Gandalf — “But please come to tea… Come tomorrow! Good bye!” — that sets the whole quest in motion).

Does that mean that the rest of the Good Morning sequence is in? Or it is really that the wholly sequence is deleted and he is only using that line as an example.

Enquiring minds want to know!

[Elentári]

Who knows...but he seems to be saying that the key line of Bilbo actually inviting Gandalf back to his home has been omitted for some bizarre reason...to somehow make the Dwarves turning up even more unexpected??? One really does wonder how the scriptwriters come to their decisions, sometimes...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That is born out by the clip we have seen, in which Bilbo is surprised to see Gandalf after the Dwarves arrive.