Hall of Fire Reviews - Post Them Here! [SPOILERS!]

[Stranger Wings]

Your post was the equivalent of saying "Yeah, you're right. Its crap". You already know that's not my opinion. You took my one negative and ignored the rest. That's what's unfair, not me calling you on it.

No, as I clarified, my post was agreeing with your last statement only. That wasn't clear, as I admitted, and so I clarified. I apologize for the confusion, but hijacking your opinion was not my intent. I am fully aware that you enjoyed the film a lot, and have absolutely no reason to misrepresent your opinion. I used a sloppy phrase. Sorry about that.

[yovargas]

1. We don't know Thorin yet, and so it is hard to care about him when introduced in flashback (it is also easy to wonder - why are we learning about this dude at the beginning of a story about a hobbit, and why is it being told by a hobbit?).

IMO, there should have been no prologue. The movie should've started with Freeman in Bag End. The party can briefly (briefly!) explain their very simple story - a dragon took our treasure-filled home - during the dinner party and we can just get on with the damn story already.


On Bilbo leaving, I understood what they were trying to do there, I just didn't find the execution convincing. After the seemingly endless dinner party, why is this crucial moment so rushed and sudden?

[Stranger Wings]

1. We don't know Thorin yet, and so it is hard to care about him when introduced in flashback (it is also easy to wonder - why are we learning about this dude at the beginning of a story about a hobbit, and why is it being told by a hobbit?).

IMO, there should have been no prologue. The movie should've started with Freeman in Bag End. The party can briefly (briefly!) explain their very simple story - a dragon took our treasure-filled home - during the dinner party and we can just get on with the damn story already.


On Bilbo leaving, I understood what they were trying to do there, I just didn't find the execution convincing. After the seemingly endless dinner party, why is this crucial moment so rushed and sudden?

I thought it was very subtle. In a way that Peter Jackson never is. Perhaps that is what makes it so hard to accept? Because it sits in a film, by a director, that never has a light touch?

I also think the film should have started with "a hole in the ground," and then given us a flashback to Erebor's destruction at the dinner table, narrated by Thorin. I wouldn't want to lose the flashback entirely, though, as flashbacks are PJ's specialty. IMO, he does them better than he does anything else.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Hmmmmm, I remember the discussions when we were trying to hammer out our own version of The Hobbit. I remember the argument that someone (me?) made that having a dwarf back story at the start would turn the narrative into one about the dwarves rather than the hobbit. I think AUJ may have proven this right. We shall see. Perhaps I should dig out that first episode to see how our efforts compare.

Please bear in mind everyone that this is just the first episode. Balance and plot development still waits upon the next two. What jars now may look appropriate later. If you look in the future I think Jackson et al may intend The Hobbit to be seen first followed by LOTR. Having Holm and Wood reprise the eve of Party helps to tie in the two narratives. It didn't offend me.
I think the main annoyance was the banality of the hands gripping the edge of the precipice/ bough/fissure and the highly artificial struggles and tumbles in the orc cave. But we know where we are with Jackson. He gives us the sublimity of the sparks flying from the chimney and he gives us overblown action or horror cliche. It is what it is.
And I enjoyed it.

[Stranger Wings]

I think the main annoyance was the banality of the hands gripping the edge of the precipice/ bough/fissure and the highly artificial struggles and tumbles in the orc cave.

That is at the heart of it, I think. But that material also takes time away from essential character interactions and dialogue, which are also woefully lacking.

Is it possible that this might be partially remedied by the extra 25-30 minutes in the Extended Edition? Perhaps. But even in that version, the CGI banality will still go on and on and on.

[yovargas]

This movie needs an UN-extended Edition, not an Extended one.


eta-it's now bothering me a lot that the prologue info-dump doesn't happen at the dinner party because it's so obvious to me that it'd be so much more interesting and impactful to hear that story with Bilbo from the dwarves, instead of from Bilbo (why him??) to nobody in particular.

[JewelSong]

Okay...here's a more complete "review" - after 24 hours of letting it "settle."

Things I loved:
Bilbo. All of him. Every scene with Bilbo was spot-on.
Gandalf. Ditto.
Loved Radagast, loved his wacky character and rabbit-sled. Loved that even though he was wacky, he was still obviously a wizard. Loved the creepy scene with the spider outside his wacked-out house.
I really liked the prologue and thought it was a brilliant framing device between the two stories.
Loved being back in the Shire.
Thought the troll scene was well-done and funny. Trolls were great.
Liked all of the dwarves. I think it was nigh-impossible to get 13 dwarves with separate personalities, but PJ mostly succeeded.
Thought the back-story was pretty well done, especially the part where the Arkenstone disappears into the vast mountain of gold.
Elf on Elk.
Eagles. Yes, the eagles. Awesome.
Riddles in the dark - well-done.
Bilbo's mercy to Gollum - also well-done.
The King Goblin was a hoot. I didn't think his voice went with the character, but it somehow worked.
Elrond. Loved seeing him again.

Things I didn't like so much:
Too much orc/goblin. Too much "dwarf-scum" talk.
Thorin was a bit "Aragorn-like" (I agree with yov on this!) Even down to dialog - when he see the Pale Orc, he comments "It cannot be" in almost EXACTLY the same way Aragorn does when Gandalf the White returns.
Too many special effects in the battles. Too many battles, for that matter.

Things that confused me and made me go "Huh?"
The White Council scene. Just...what? What for? Why?
Galadriel's disappearing act.
Many of the orc scenes felt like needless filler.

So...I think I liked it better than I thought I did. I think I will be seeing it again - probably a couple more times.

And I think it's a pretty good movie. It's Middle Earth again. And once I let go of the "But it's not in the book" and relaxed because it's just a movie based on the book I was able to really enjoy it.

[Inanna]

Saw the movie yesterday.

My feelings in one word after watching it: "Tiring".

The movie was tiring. So tiring. I kept glancing at my watch after 2 hrs or so, thinking "oh lord, there's *still* time for the eagles scene". And then Azog comes again. To be fair, having my nephew ask questions all the time added to the "tiring" bit and the fact that I was not able to immerse myself in middle-earth added to my dissatisfaction. But, still. I've seen other movies with my nephews and thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Bilbo was fantastic - absolutely fantastic. Such acting from Martin Freeman, such understanding of the character of Bilbo; ah, those expressions.So wonderful to see Gollum again. RA was great as Thorin; Fili and Kili were also good. Gandalf the Grey, Elrond - great to be with them again.

So, no Faramir-like character assassination... but if there was no "I hate this", there was not too much to love either. Except the "Riddles" scene, the prologue and the end.

Overall, the movie did not seem fit for children (too violent in parts; I don't think I should have taken my younger nephew to it), and not adult-enough, either (that's, maybe, not PJ's fault; it is The Hobbit). However, overall, PJ did a fantastic job with LOTR (cutting out Tom Bombadil and having a few less endings was a good move); I think he has bungled up The Hobbit - I.

And I hated Azog. I think he was included to provide some continuity to an episodic movie, but I hate him. It seems that the main creature to be vanquished is Azog, not Smaug; and that has distorted the movie. The White council scene was.... annoying in parts. Seemed like Gandalf had a crush on Galadriel (gaaah, puke), and I did not like her "vanishing act".

I did not mind the 48 fps, the 3D effects were very-very good (although it did give me a slight headache). It was the content that was the problem for me.

You said it much better than I could. I felt tired and empty at the end of it. An awful feeling, really. I would much rather have been angry about a product that was too bold or daring, than feel so hollow about it all. It was like a shell of a movie.

And I thought your review said it much better than I did.

I will see it again - sometime at home, when I am over the annoyance I am feeling right now. I might like it then, maybe.

Ax, you are right - Smaug does die 2/3rds of the book and having Azog gives some background to Bo5A.

JS, I didn't have problems with "NOT the book" (the way I did with TTT), but as a *movie*, it didn't gel for me. I will be surprised if folks not like Tolkien's world will like the movie at all.

[Holbytla]

We just saw it again for the 2nd time. This time in 3D, but not HFR.
There were two screens showing it in 2D and two screens showing it in 3D (none with HFR). It was 4 o'clock on a rainy Sunday afternoon and there were 17 people in the theater. Pretty much the same amount as the noon showing yesterday. I guess the movie is doing well at the box office, but you wouldn't know it from my experience.

Surprisingly, I liked the 3D. I have never been a fan of any 3D movie, but I found this very well done, not intrusive and incredibly restrained. I commend Jackson for a great visual nuance to the film. I want to see the HFR, to see what it is all about, and now that I know I like the 3D, I will be interested in seeing how it differs.

As for the film itself, well I liked it better yesterday.
Today I missed the story. I missed the whimsy, I missed the toil in the wet weather despite the homage. I missed the attitudes of the dwarves. I missed the dwarves.

I kind of liked Thorin and I liked RA, but he wasn't a dwarf. In an effort to differentiate 13 dwarves, I think PJ went too far. Thorin should be regal, but he should still be a dwarf. Not the burping, farting slobs, but a dwarf. Which is something I don't think PJ ever got right.

What I didn't miss was the seemingly endless falls from on high through rubble, getting chased by seven zillion orcs, goblins, wargs and whatnot. Lots and lots of PJ visual excess. There was less of a story to work with here, but he seems to have added so much bloat, that the story gets lost or confused.

Dent Arthur Dent I liked a lot. Even if I thought it was Martin Freeman playing Bilbo, rather than seeing an actor bring Bilbo to life. I still prefer Ian Holm, but I have no qualms with Freeman.

I liked all of the other returnees from the LOTR, excepting Elrond and Hugo Weaving. Jackson never even remotely got Elrond and subsequently neither did Weaving.

I liked the whole Radagast thing less today than yesterday. There was a point that I missed yesterday where one of the rabbits was doing his Thumper impersonation. Just terrible.

Goblintown was overdone, but I didn't hate the Goblin King. Excepting his scrotum.

Azog? That portion of the plot overshadowed the main plot and I didn't particularly like the CGI there.

Like the Fellowship, I think Bag End was the best part of the movie. It was a bit stretched, but I was okay with that. I loved the two songs, and wished there were more.

The trolls were pretty decent. Could have been a bit better, but not bad.

Didn't like Thorin being so resentful of elves and going to Rivendell.

I still liked the movie, but it will be difficult watching it again in HFR.

[Primula Baggins]

It's all the more painful because we could have gotten a much more interesting film from Del Toro, and it certainly would have featured fewer mind-numbing minutes of endless CGI pixels fighting and falling.

You must not have seen HELLBOY II.

At least, I got the same CGI overload/action exhaustion from many long sequences in that film. I was very disappointed, because I'd really enjoyed the more character-oriented, close-up bizarreness of HELLBOY.

ETA: Holby, I think I'm glad I've already seen the HFR. I will see the film again, because it's a lot to absorb and because I think some of my difficulties with it may have been because I was still getting over being sick for a long time. And I've learned that scenes that seem to go on FOREVER often shrink to a more reasonable size once I know when they're going to end.

But I may not bother with the HFR (if indeed it's still showing by the time I feel ready to see the film again; there really weren't many people in the theater).

[Beutlin]

This is my first post on this forum, although some of you might know me from “TheOneRing.net”.

Prologue

I am part of the generation that grew up with the “Lord of the Rings” films, having watched “The Fellowship of the Ring” for the first time at the age of eleven. This first viewing of the film has remained the most powerful cinema-experience of my life. My uncle had given me the “Fellowship of the Ring” for Christmas (2001), but I had only read about a hundred pages of the book, before I saw the film a week later. Therefore it is only fair to say, that I was introduced to Middle-Earth by Peter Jackson. I immediately read the “Two Towers” and the “Return of the King” after said cinema-experience and I greatly enjoyed doing so. Curiously I did not read Tolkien’s opus magnum for nearly a decade after that. This summer I read it again, and my opinion has somewhat shifted. I have to give Tolkien credit for his unsurpassed ability to create a believable mythological word (which is no small feat considering the blatant absence of anything that remotely involves sex). I also greatly admire Tolkien’s portrayal of his most magnificent character, Gollum. On the other hand I dreaded quite a large amount of the prose, as I found many chapters and characters unbearably boring. I have now come to the conclusion that “The Lord of the Rings” is a grand, magnificent and long-forgotten document that was written long ago by several different people. Some of them were great writers, and others were just bookish archivists. The “Lord of the Rings” still remains one of my favourite books and I am greatly looking forward to reading it again in a couple of years. I have read “The Hobbit” thrice and I found the prose highly entertaining. It is a funny little children’s book, although one can find several more adult themes and motifs underneath. But ultimately it remains what it is, and it never moved me on the same level as the “Lord of the Rings” did.

Technology

Yesterday I watched the first chapter of Peter Jackson’s new trilogy, again with my father and my little brother like I had done eleven years ago. I watched it in IMAX 3D 48fps, and I must say it only took me a minute to adjust my eyes to the new experience. Normally I am very sensitive to the “soap-opera-effect” which is generated by certain modern televisions, but I had no issue with the 48fps.

Positive

• The Prologue: One of my favourite parts of the film was the prologue, which (in my opinion) had a “Guillermo Del Toro” vibe to it. The grand design of the dwarven kingdom of Erebor and Thranduil’s stag delivered said impression, but I could be wrong of course. Ultimately the story of the dwarven diaspora was a powerful intro to the new trilogy.
• An Unexpected Party: A funny (albeit overly long) scene that introduced us to the main characters and fulfilled what it had to do: show the vast difference between Bilbo and the dwarves in a light-hearted manner
• Riddles in the Dark was the film’s best part, there is no doubt whatsoever. I especially liked the way Serkis and Freeman acted when they were thinking about an answer to one of the riddles.
• The eagles-scene
• Radagast’s encounter with the Necromancer: I liked the Necromancer’s simplistic design. The bunny-sled was not as bad as I had anticipated (it’s a kids’ movie after all!) and I curiously enjoyed Radagast’s reaction to Gandalf’s roofer/pipe. Nevertheless, I would say that every single scene with the brown wizard could have been included in the EE too.
• Bilbo’s first scene on the road.
• The Goblin King: I even liked his interpretation of Gandalf’s song.
• Bofur’s dialogue with Bilbo in the cave: Yes, Bilbo’s plan to return to Rivendell reminded me of one of my least favourite “LOTR” scenes but this time it was not completely irrational and I liked their respective lines.
• The Arkenstone

Negative

• The Battle of Azanulbizar: Curiously, I think that this scene should have been longer. The scene immediately starts with Azog fighting Thror, and I greatly missed the Balrog and an on-screen explanation for Thror’s decision to take back Moria. This scene should have been included in the prologue or cut altogether.
• Thorin’s slow-motion-walk towards Azog.
• The inclusion of Frodo and Ian Holm’s Bilbo felt a little bit unnecessary to me, although the visible progression of said actors’ ages did not bother me at all.
• To be pedantic too for once – I disliked the high-voice of one of the trolls.
• The stone-giants – great design, but the scene did not deliver what it should do above all: a sense of danger.

Verdict:
In the end I very much enjoyed this film. It had great acting, awe-inspiring landscape-vistas, good music and a couple of great scenes. Did it evoke the same feelings that the “The Fellowship of the Ring” did a decade ago? Only twice did it do so, namely the prologue and the riddles-scene. However, I was fully aware of that before I entered the cinema. The first 130 pages of “The Hobbit” are just too childish (and I do not necessarily mean that in a bad way) to achieve that more often. Even my dad, who is hardly a fan of fantasy and children stories in general, enjoyed it – which he hardly anticipated, when I told him the story includes more than a dozen bearded dwarves.

PS: In the end, it would have probably been better if this story had been turned into two films. The first third of the book is the weakest one in my opinion, so I truly believe that the next two instalments will turn out better (and fair better with the critics too.). On the other hand sometimes it is necessary to split a story to elevate its latter part. Just look at the last instalment of the Harry Potter series: The first part received less-than excellent reviews, whereas part 2 was nearly unanimously praised. There is hope left for those of you who disliked “An Unexpected Journey” (although for you Shelob’s Appetite, alas, I fear the ship has sailed .

PPS: Curiously the film’s reception in the German-speaking world was better this time around than in the Anglo-sphere. There were some raving reviews in “Der SPIEGEL” or “Süddeutsche”, both prominent newspapers in this part of the world.

[Stranger Wings]

This movie needs an UN-extended Edition, not an Extended one.


eta-it's now bothering me a lot that the prologue info-dump doesn't happen at the dinner party because it's so obvious to me that it'd be so much more interesting and impactful to hear that story with Bilbo from the dwarves, instead of from Bilbo (why him??) to nobody in particular.

Well, I think it needs far more character interaction added to it. So I look forward to any scenes of that sort (for example, we see virtually nothing of Bilbo, and just a bit of Thorin, in Rivendell. Just imagine if in FOTR, the Rivendell scenes were focused on some other story unrelated to the Ring!). However, I would also love it if PJ released a version that trimmed his action scenes down to size, and perhaps improved some of the CG (such as in Goblin Town). Moving the prologue material to Bag End might also help... Can't wait for the fan edits. I usually find them uninspiring, but this time they could possibly improve the film considerably.

[SirDennis]

PSA:

If being a fan of the Twilight films has taught me anything, it's that I shouldn't feel people are attacking me or questioning my intelligence when they say they don't like the films. It's okay for me to like things others do not like, and it's even more okay for me to treat them they way I would like to be treated.

[axordil]

I've been looking at the extremely odd reactions some people have to HFR and have come to the conclusion that either a lot of projectors are malfunctioning, or some people simply are not neurologically wired to view it. The accounts of randomly out-of-sync, sped-up action cannot be reconciled with what I've now seen twice.

It's one thing to try to compare it to something it may or may not resemble for everyone (and it looked even less like old BBC video this time than it did the first); that's a matter of perception and interpretation. This is different people watching what's supposed to be the same movie and seeing different images.

[Holbytla]

At no time during our viewing did Rebecca see anything in 3D.
That is just how she is wired. I suspect there are people having issues seeing this film in 48fps, because it is just too fast for their brains to recognize. My issue may be associating the film with video.
We'll see.

[Stranger Wings]

And what happened to the scenes of Bilbo's self-doubt and longing for the comforts of Bag End? If this really was a story about him, then we should have had at least a couple scenes of him muttering to himself, perhaps dreaming of Bag End, and generally being a bit miserable. This would have made his "transformation" into a hobbit of quick wit, wisdom, and ultimately in the film, heroism, much more meaningful. Instead, Bilbo was just kind of there enjoying the ride, and then he faces Gollum, and rises to the occasion. The LOTR tie in, and "Thorin doesn't like me" stuff got in the way of any sort of meaningful development for Bilbo, IMO.

[Holbytla]

There was a section of the film that had Bilbo regretting the loss of Bag End, but it was kind of glossed over and it played third fiddle at best.

[yovargas]

I am fascinated with the whole HFR thing and why it has such a major impact on how things feel. While I didn't hate it, I can't really say I liked it either and for me (and the friend I saw it with) it mostly has the very odd and inexplicable effect of making some moments look "fake", even when shooting stuff that is very clearly not fake (like fields and trees). It's a very weird phenomenon; somehow making the film closer to reality makes our brains (or some brains) interpret the images as less real. It makes no sense.

[Stranger Wings]

We just saw it again for the 2nd time. This time in 3D, but not HFR.
There were two screens showing it in 2D and two screens showing it in 3D (none with HFR). It was 4 o'clock on a rainy Sunday afternoon and there were 17 people in the theater. Pretty much the same amount as the noon showing yesterday. I guess the movie is doing well at the box office, but you wouldn't know it from my experience.

Surprisingly, I liked the 3D. I have never been a fan of any 3D movie, but I found this very well done, not intrusive and incredibly restrained. I commend Jackson for a great visual nuance to the film. I want to see the HFR, to see what it is all about, and now that I know I like the 3D, I will be interested in seeing how it differs.

As for the film itself, well I liked it better yesterday.
Today I missed the story. I missed the whimsy, I missed the toil in the wet weather despite the homage. I missed the attitudes of the dwarves. I missed the dwarves.

I kind of liked Thorin and I liked RA, but he wasn't a dwarf. In an effort to differentiate 13 dwarves, I think PJ went too far. Thorin should be regal, but he should still be a dwarf. Not the burping, farting slobs, but a dwarf. Which is something I don't think PJ ever got right.

What I didn't miss was the seemingly endless falls from on high through rubble, getting chased by seven zillion orcs, goblins, wargs and whatnot. Lots and lots of PJ visual excess. There was less of a story to work with here, but he seems to have added so much bloat, that the story gets lost or confused.

Dent Arthur Dent I liked a lot. Even if I thought it was Martin Freeman playing Bilbo, rather than seeing an actor bring Bilbo to life. I still prefer Ian Holm, but I have no qualms with Freeman.

I liked all of the other returnees from the LOTR, excepting Elrond and Hugo Weaving. Jackson never even remotely got Elrond and subsequently neither did Weaving.

I liked the whole Radagast thing less today than yesterday. There was a point that I missed yesterday where one of the rabbits was doing his Thumper impersonation. Just terrible.

Goblintown was overdone, but I didn't hate the Goblin King. Excepting his scrotum.

Azog? That portion of the plot overshadowed the main plot and I didn't particularly like the CGI there.

Like the Fellowship, I think Bag End was the best part of the movie. It was a bit stretched, but I was okay with that. I loved the two songs, and wished there were more.

The trolls were pretty decent. Could have been a bit better, but not bad.

Didn't like Thorin being so resentful of elves and going to Rivendell.

I still liked the movie, but it will be difficult watching it again in HFR.

The amazing thing is, I also found myself wishing for more songs! I hope we get scenes in TDOS and TABA where the dwarves, on the road, in prison, in Laketown, or in the mountain, sing the other verses of the Misty Mountains song. It was the most evocative and Tolkienian scene in the entire film, and one of my favorite bits of cinema. Ever.

[yovargas]

The amazing thing is, I also found myself wishing for more songs!