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

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think most major newspapers (which constitute the bulk of the "top critics") will run their reviews on the 14th, or close to it. So we probably have some time to wait before the bulk of them weigh in. It is up to 78% overall, although only one of three top critics rate it as "fresh".

[Stranger Wings]

Here are the main blurbs for all of the reviews (minus Empire) over at Rotten tomatoes, starting with the positive. Note how remarkably lukewarm many of the positive reviews are, with only a few exceptions. I am essentially ignoring the negative reviews, however, as those guys seem to be primarily anti-Tolkien.

Positive

The first chapter of Jackson's new trilogy is decent, if not entirely satisfying, bound to suffer from inevitable comparisons with the superior, Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings.

Not as immediately captivating as the LOTR trilogy, but it's still a return trip to Middle Earth that's well worth taking. Martin Freeman makes a perfect Bilbo, and Ian McKellen is superb (as always).

Peter Jackson's return to swords, sorcery and beards deserving of their own postcodes is fantasy how it ought to be.

This film is pure excess that's almost definitely motivated by studio greed, but it's light entertainment that will please fans, and Andy Serkis damn-near runs away with the film during his exemplary third-act appearance as Gollum.

Wild slides into caves, pell-mell chases, absurd cliffhangers and other such "thrill-rides" in 3D give the film a playfulness.

Fulfilling just a fraction of J.R.R. Tolkien's "There and Back Again" subtitle, The Hobbit alternately rewards and abuses auds' appetite for all things Middle-earth.

Where Jackson might occasionally misstep tonally, he takes the reigns from the episodic original and runs with generally fantastic results through several narrative additions, all of which give the characters more agency in their own affairs.

While Jackson hasn't delivered a hit on par with his "Lord of the Rings" movies, "The Hobbit" proves he can still do justice to the tricky blend of fantasy and action that made the earlier entries such enjoyable works of popular entertainment.

Setting aside technological considerations, The Hobbit is nothing short of a joyous homecoming.

It's not as bad as you feared, but not as good as you hoped.

Peter Jackson's fourth trip to Middle-earth can't quite recapture the greatness, emotional impact or charm of the LOTR films, but there's still much to enjoy about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

For now, 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' is a good start, but with the expectations resting on the film, is good going to be good enough?

A fresh, free-spirited form of fantasy, Jackson's latest provides a younger generation with a stepping stone to his later films while serving the adult's who want more.

Boasting an appreciably dark tone and a seemingly endless array of visual astonishments, this "Hobbit" suffers from a bit of déjà vu.

A briskly engaging adventure shrouded in superfluous detail, though also, yes, admittedly, technical virtuosity, it's an accomplished if unexciting first chapter in the preamble to his Oscar-winning film series.

For its occasional moments of excess and unhurried pace, An Unexpected Journey is proof that Jackson still has a knack for stories in this world.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is more fun than The Fellowship of the Ring, no doubt about it.

This film stands ably on its own, offering up generous piles of large scale fantasy underscored by genuine emotional heft and boundary-pushing visuals.

Negative

Tolkien's brisk story of intrepid little hobbit Bilbo Baggins is drawn out and diluted by dispensable trimmings better left for DVD extras.

There are elements in this new film that are as spectacular as much of the Rings trilogy was, but there is much that is flat-footed and tedious as well, especially in the early going.

An Unexpected Journey may as well be The Phantom Menace and God help us all if the next two movies aren't better than this one.

Unless your dreams are populated by denizens of Middle Earth, endless footage of them simply talking or walking is a lot less spectacular than Peter Jackson thinks it is.

Tolkien could invent names and languages, but he couldn't create a plot at gunpoint.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've removed a series of posts to Nan Elmoth. Let me issue this reminder that discussing the specifics of what someone says is fine. General vague attacks against them are not, and will not be tolerated.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A comically bad review that drops the RT rating down to 75%.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/carynjames/hobbitreview

This review really makes me want to like the film, just so that I can disagree with her.

[Stranger Wings]

A comically bad review that drops the RT rating down to 75%.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/carynjames/hobbitreview

This review really makes me want to like the film, just so that I can disagree with her.

Rottentomatoes should drop that person from the "legitimate reviewer" list. Awful. Bilbo's no Harry Potter? My gawd.

[halplm]

It's a fair comparison.

Tolkien's world building skills are the pinnacle of the art, but translating that to a film is no easy task.

The makers of the HP films had a much easier task of that than PJ... but then PJ has problems IMHO.

[Stranger Wings]

It's a fair comparison.

Tolkien's world building skills are the pinnacle of the art, but translating that to a film is no easy task.

The makers of the HP films had a much easier task of that than PJ... but then PJ has problems IMHO.

Honestly, I think its extraordinarily easy to adapt the Hobbit. It is a classic story, and it includes timeless archetypes, themes and story beats. The oft-repeated mythology that PJ, with LOTR, took a story that couldn't possibly appeal to a broad audience, and made it accessible, is nonsense, IMO. Both books are almost made to eventually be put on the big screen, and I won't cut PJ any slack for his serious shortcomings.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, includes talking hats, mail-carrying owls and snotty English kids in an Oxford-style magic school. Relatively speaking, THAT shouldn't work.

If PJ botches this one, it is because he overcomplicated the story, stuffed it full of cartoony CGI action, and injected too much of his dumb humor. It won't fail because of the nature of the story Tolkien wrote.

[Stranger Wings]

To put this in perspective, Star Wars Episode III (Revenge of the Sith) received an 80% score on Rotten tomatoes.

So, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is currently losing to one of the Star Wars prequels...

[SirDennis]

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.

This is a nice summary Dave, and I agree with most of it.

Just a couple notes:

The structure (beats) similar to LOTR is not so much a consequence of sticking to the book, rather it is evidence of the effort put in to build a cohesive sextology. I see this as a positive.

Of the dwarves, Balin seems to be getting a fair bit of favourable mention, especially compared to the other dwarves. Actually I haven't read very much at all about any of the dwarves apart from Balin and Thorin. (I'm a little surprised that Kili hasn't been singled out more. Perhaps that will come during the wider release.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To put this in perspective, Star Wars Episode III (Revenge of the Sith) received an 80% score on Rotten tomatoes.

So, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is currently losing to one of the Star Wars prequels...

Or to put it in perspective, it shows that you can't necessarily trust the reviews.

[Stranger Wings]

To put this in perspective, Star Wars Episode III (Revenge of the Sith) received an 80% score on Rotten tomatoes.

So, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is currently losing to one of the Star Wars prequels...

Or to put it in perspective, it shows that you can't necessarily trust the reviews.

That's a very good p....

[Pearly Di]

Revenge of the Sith stands at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes?! You have to be KIDDING me.

Eh well, that makes me feel less inclined to take their Hobbit rating seriously. .

[Stranger Wings]

Revenge of the Sith stands at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes?! You have to be KIDDING me.

Eh well, that makes me feel less inclined to take their Hobbit rating seriously. .

Well, it's not their rating, per se. It is simply a collection of reviews, with someone making a final judgment about which are fresh and which are rotten. That is then expressed as a %.

Also, very good films that stand the test of time have tended to get very fresh rotten tomatoes ratings, so...

What worries me most is that noone seems to have been enthralled, or blown away, by the film. Even the most positive reviewers seem to simply think it was a "nice" movie, which was occasionally funny and fun.

IMO, there's a lot of very, very faint praise here, and it worries me a lot.

[Pearly Di]

Yes, you're right, of course RT just collect the reviews. In that case may I say how astonished I am that the film critics liked Revenge of the Sith that much!

A 'nice' Hobbit is better than a disaster.

[Dave_LF]

The reviewer from TheVine (just posted in the spoiler thread) does seem to have been blown away. But there are certainly fewer of that sort than last time. My hope is that a lot of that is simply because we're used to and expect a certain level of excellence from Middle Earth these days.

[halplm]

some of us don't expect much.

[kzer_za]

I really liked Revenge of the Sith the first time I saw it in theaters (I was in high school)...and then I've liked it less and less every time I've seen it since.

The oft-repeated mythology that PJ, with LOTR, took a story that couldn't possibly appeal to a broad audience, and made it accessible, is nonsense, IMO.

I don't think PJ is the only one who could have made a successful LotR, but I don't think it's necessarily an easy novel to adapt for a mass audience either. Among other things, there's a very unusual plot structure (especially the way the six books are divided) and a whole lot of backstory/exposition. And not every adaptation of a classic by a good director has been a good/successful movie. So while I'm sure there are some who could have duplicated PJ's success with LotR, I don't think just any competent director could have done it.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, includes talking hats, mail-carrying owls and snotty English kids in an Oxford-style magic school. Relatively speaking, THAT shouldn't work.

As opposed to The Hobbit, which has a talking purse, and LotR, which has a weird hippie-ish forest hermit who no one really understands? Seriously, I haven't seen any of the Harry Potter movies, but it seems like it would be easier to film than LotR not because of the subject matter and setting, but because the story is more straightforward. The Hobbit is another matter; that is a fairly simple story for the most part.

[Dave_LF]

This spoiler-free review from joblo directly addresses expectations:

One thing must be addressed- expectations. I know, from reading tweets, Facebook status updates, stories, etc., that a lot of the hardcore LOTR fans are expecting some kind of masterpiece. I liked AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY- but it's no masterpiece. It's a fun spectacle, but I doubt even the biggest Jackson fans will ever say this measures up to the LOTR trilogy. Now don't fret- this is not THE PHANTOM MENACE all over again, but it does, perhaps inevitably, fall a little short.

That does seem to be the consensus. It's not going to be quite the same thing, but it is still something good!

[halplm]

The fact that it is even thought to be compared to The Phantom Menace is frightening even to me, and I already think it's going to be terrible.

[Dave_LF]

Everyone's going to think of comparing it to Phantom Menace. There are too many (superficial) parallels not to.