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

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Quite pleased to see that Bob Mondello of NPR liked it (since he is the only critic that I ever pay attention to):

A 'Hobbit,' Off On His Unhurried Journey

[Primula Baggins]

Elf city? I've never thought of it as a city.

[Stranger Wings]

This is rich, from a luke-warm review by Peter Travers in Rolling Stone:

As if to remind Rings fans that they're in the same territory, Jackson does things Tolkien never imagined, such as bringing in the elf city of Rivendell

Really? Tolkien would never bring the elf city of Rivendell into the story of The Hobbit? Who knew?

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/revi ... z2EymWrngF

Travers is the worst of the "top critics," IMO.

[Inanna]

Here is Lane's review: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/c ... inema_lane

Quite a nice read, although I hope I disagree with him about Radagast.

I've always disliked the rabbit sled idea....maybe Lane has similar objections to it and Radagast, himself, is acceptable.

[SirDennis]

Something's Rotten in Denmark Tomatoes percentages are converging. Last I checked just a while ago (to be precise), "all critics" was at 69% and "top critics" was at 49%

[Stranger Wings]

Quite pleased to see that Bob Mondello of NPR liked it (since he is the only critic that I ever pay attention to):

A 'Hobbit,' Off On His Unhurried Journey

Its very encouraging to see Mondello's generally positive review, though he does say the film's depth is "technological" and not "story."

In any event, his taste often aligns with mine, so I'm pleased.

Though I usually trust Salon, and their reviewer wasn't won over...

Honestly, I have little to no idea how good this film is. I think there is a 49% chance that I will hate it, a 49% chance that I will like it, and a 2% chance that I will love it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I still think that you will love some of it, and hate some of it. The real question is what the percentage is, and which side outbalances the other. We'll see. Personally, I think spoiling is a good thing, because it lowers the shock value. We have a pretty good idea of what we are in for.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Major spoilers in this review in one of American's most revered publications:

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

[Elentári]

Major spoilers in this review in one of American's most revered publications:

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

That's just brilliant!

And here's an eqully brilliant article on HFR as utilized in The Hobbit, from Russ Fisher of Slashfilm, who gives a lucid and helpful explanation of just what viewers are seeing at 48fps and why Jackson should be applauded...

High Frame Rate and ‘The Hobbit:’ The Allure of Middle-Earth is Crystal Clear at 48fps

[kzer_za]

I still think that you will love some of it, and hate some of it. The real question is what the percentage is, and which side outbalances the other. We'll see. Personally, I think spoiling is a good thing, because it lowers the shock value. We have a pretty good idea of what we are in for.

I'm pretty certain I'll enjoy the movie, but it could range from "I loved it" to "It was good despite PJ's best efforts to ruin it." It's hard to say - lots of reviewers and fans are saying opposite things, not just their overall opinions but about specific aspects (is it too slow or too actiony?) I am relatively unspoiled, having watched very little footage since the second trailer.

I do wonder how much HFR is affecting reviewers' perceptions of the rest of the movie. Would reviewers be focusing on the technology and special effects (whether they praise it or criticize it) less if the format weren't a technological showpiece? It may have been a mistake to show it to everyone in 48FPS. Regardless, I'm going low-tech 24FPS 2D.

[axordil]

I like the discussion after the article too, which touches on the philosophical and aesthetic questions surrounding HFR. The biggie for me in this area is one of the invisibility of craft, which is not quite the same thing as immersion. Is the slight blur and thus forgiving nature of 24 FPS an integral part of the modern film experience, on just a holdover from the transition to sound, 80 years ago?

Really, the best analogy I can come up with is someone who has seen nothing but proscenium-based theater plunking down into their seat and discovering the production of Henry V they're watching is half-staged in the audience, including the swordfights. It's going to be disconcerting. A lot of people will be very nervous. You have to use different makeup and costume and blocking techniques...and be very careful with props.

But it could also be *very* cool. I'll let you know what I think later today over in the HOF review thread, and then revisit it after the second viewing tomorrow.

[Dave_LF]

When you come down to it, a lot of what happens in movies is ridiculous. We've learned that movies have different rules than real life, but 48fps makes things look like real life. I kind of wonder whether that confuses the brain a bit and suddenly the typical ridiculous movie stuff actually looks ridiculous. This would explain the reaction from Gloin_The_Dark, for example, who found the music overwrought and overemotional until he rewatched at 24fps.

[Dave_LF]

Major spoilers in this review in one of American's most revered publications:

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

And he still forgot his pocket handkerchief? There's no excuse I will accept.

[Inanna]

Major spoilers in this review in one of American's most revered publications:

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

And he still forgot his pocket handkerchief? There's no excuse I will accept.

[kzer_za]

Two more negative reviews, both of which have similar points and are pretty well-written. Both are unhappy with overcaffeinated action and PJ's use of the appendices. They have some complaints about Bilbo too, though I'm not sure if their appraisal of book Bilbo is accurate:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/goodletter ... -steroids/
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sd ... e-hobbit-1

Down to 64% on Rotten Tomatoes!

[Dave_LF]

And here is a review from someone who loved the 48fps, but hated the movie:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/cult ... picks=true

The best way to watch this footage is at a rate of precisely zero frames per second.

(I'm sorry, but that's funny)

I think all combinations have been covered now.

[Lalaith]

Major spoilers in this review in one of American's most revered publications:

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

[ArathornJax]

A local review here in Utah from KSL by Travis Poppleton on "5 Reasons The Hobbit shouldn't be 3 movies." Basically, it should be one movie and then lists some of his favorite parts stating the Riddle Games is the best part of the movie.

Here is the link

[SirDennis]

Tomatoes well past their best before date round-up: All 66% Top 43% Fan 81%

So All and Top are no longer converging, they are both falling. However, Fan is a respectable score, though perhaps not as high as we might have expected. I fully expect the fan score to rise with repeat viewings, not so much because the negatives will be diluted as more ratings are added, but because the people who likely saw this thing in the first 24 hours of its release are the uber fans... and geeks seem to be harder on the objects of our affection than the general population is. In other words, I'm guessing people will like it better the second time around (and some have already said as much).

[axordil]

I think there should be a site for rating critics. I guarantee few are fresh. I don't mind when people disagree with my opinion (I believe everyone is entitled to be wrong about something ) but I do mind when vapid, lazy, meme-ridden meanderings are passed off as actual criticism.

I was just looking over at Ebert's site, and caught this about Skyfall:

"Skyfall" is a theatrical film in the same way that its director, Sam Mendes, is a theatrical filmmaker. That is, its approach to organizing space for an audience (the camera lens) is noticeably stagey. I mean that in a "value-neutral" way. I just mean the frame is frequently used as a proscenium and the images are action-tableaux deployed for a crowd -- whether it's the designated audience surrogates in the movie (bystanders or designated dramatis personae), or the viewers in the seats with the cup-holders. That's not to say it's uncinematic (it's photographed by the great Roger Deakins!), but many of the set-pieces in "Skyfall" are conceived and presented as staged performance pieces.

It goes on in that vein, with appropriate but not excessive snark, for a while. It's an essay about the movie, written by someone who has seen thousands, and understands the possibilities.

Now, pick a random no-name critic or three from RT's "top" list. They pay big money for that designation, by the way. They sort them selves into the real and the poser in little time.

But even some of the real ones are missing the HFR boat. I said before there were echoes of the vinyl/CD (or more generally, analog/digital) shift in it, but really it's more like the reaction to the first "talkies." It's circling the wagons against an existential threat to a particular approach to an art form that has reached its technological twilight, and it's both sad and predictable.