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

[axordil]

Well, Smaug is dead two thirds of the way through in the source, and having a random orc no one cares about show up as a bad guy at the BO5A isn't exactly a compelling plot point in the book.

[Stranger Wings]

Mrs. Underhill,

By the way, Shelob's Appetite - Thorin IS a one-note character in the book as well, because of this pressure.

I'm not really talking about Thorin's character in the book. I am talking about Armitage's interpretation of that character, and the depth and emotional range in his acting.

Ian McKellen takes a very simply drawn character, and some very basic dialogue, and infuses it with bristling energy, depth and emotional range. There is a LOT going on in his face and eyes. Ken Stott takes his tiny amount of screen time, and turns it into acting gold. He's wonderful. He's a dwarf I would follow.

Armitage, on the other hand, glowers with the exact same facial expression throughout the entire film. And that monotonous growling tone, in every scene, just gets awfully tiresome.

I think he's an intelligent and humble man, but either his good stuff was cut by PJ, or he was miscast. An older and more experienced actor would have done a lot more with it, I think. All IMO.

[Stranger Wings]

Well, Smaug is dead two thirds of the way through in the source, and having a random orc no one cares about show up as a bad guy at the BO5A isn't exactly a compelling plot point in the book.

I agree that it is a good idea to flesh out Bolg, so that when he arrives at BOFA, it doesn't seem so very random. However, the way this has been handled thus far (with Azog), is so amazingly uninspired, that I would rather it simply not have been attempted. I'll take random orc showing up over precious minutes of screentime eaten up by medicore CGI nonsense, anyday.

[Mrs.Underhill]

I'm not really talking about Thorin's character in the book. I am talking about Armitage's interpretation of that character, and the depth and emotional range in his acting.

I'm really sorry Armitage hasn't worked for you - because the movie was basically about him and if you don't get into the main character, that's it, the movie doesn't work.

I've been there with LotR movies as I don't like Wood's portrayal of Frodo, and don't like the writing of Sam's character (while Sean Astin was about OK). As both of them are my main and favorite characters I couldn't get into LotR movies and truly enjoy them.

If only they could have gotten Frodo right, could give him same depth at least as Ian Holm's Bilbo (funny how Bilbo remains the best written hobbit in both movies played by the best actor - IMHO of course), I'd be such a happy fangirl...

So yeah, I think with "Hobbit" movie it'll be the same deal breaker - if you love Armitage's Thorin you'll love the movies, otherwise it'll be just boring and too long and pointless.
As I think practically everyone would love Martin's Bilbo.

I'm fortunate this time with Armitage hitting the spot, but how weird it is to be out of sync again.

I was feeling a bit out of the LotR party but now thought - OK, I finally love the Tolkien movie and can be a happy fangirl and join the party, come here and see that the folks who loved LotR mostly don't like this one.

[yovargas]

OK, I finally love the Tolkien movie and can be a happy fangirl and join the party, come here and see that the folks who loved LotR mostly don't like this one.

That I can see so far, I'm in the minority here for loving LOTR and mostly not liking this one.

[Inanna]

OK, I finally love the Tolkien movie and can be a happy fangirl and join the party, come here and see that the folks who loved LotR mostly don't like this one.

That I can see so far, I'm in the minority here for loving LOTR and mostly not liking this one.

With me, yov, with me. Such a tiring movie.

I had no idea that dwarves only came in two genetic types: buffonish cartoon characters or Totally H0tt.

A good observation, Anthy

[axordil]

I'm not really talking about Thorin's character in the book. I am talking about Armitage's interpretation of that character, and the depth and emotional range in his acting.

I'm really sorry Armitage hasn't worked for you - because the movie was basically about him and if you don't get into the main character, that's it, the movie doesn't work.

I've been there with LotR movies as I don't like Wood's portrayal of Frodo, and don't like the writing of Sam's character (while Sean Astin was about OK). As both of them are my main and favorite characters I couldn't get into LotR movies and truly enjoy them.

If only they could have gotten Frodo right, could give him same depth at least as Ian Holm's Bilbo (funny how Bilbo remains the best written hobbit in both movies played by the best actor - IMHO of course), I'd be such a happy fangirl...

So yeah, I think with "Hobbit" movie it'll be the same deal breaker - if you love Armitage's Thorin you'll love the movies, otherwise it'll be just boring and too long and pointless.
As I think practically everyone would love Martin's Bilbo.

I'm fortunate this time with Armitage hitting the spot, but how weird it is to be out of sync again.

I was feeling a bit out of the LotR party but now thought - OK, I finally love the Tolkien movie and can be a happy fangirl and join the party, come here and see that the folks who loved LotR mostly don't like this one.

Hey, I'm relatively consistent.

[Stranger Wings]

I'm not really talking about Thorin's character in the book. I am talking about Armitage's interpretation of that character, and the depth and emotional range in his acting.

I'm really sorry Armitage hasn't worked for you - because the movie was basically about him and if you don't get into the main character, that's it, the movie doesn't work.

I've been there with LotR movies as I don't like Wood's portrayal of Frodo, and don't like the writing of Sam's character (while Sean Astin was about OK). As both of them are my main and favorite characters I couldn't get into LotR movies and truly enjoy them.

If only they could have gotten Frodo right, could give him same depth at least as Ian Holm's Bilbo (funny how Bilbo remains the best written hobbit in both movies played by the best actor - IMHO of course), I'd be such a happy fangirl...

So yeah, I think with "Hobbit" movie it'll be the same deal breaker - if you love Armitage's Thorin you'll love the movies, otherwise it'll be just boring and too long and pointless.
As I think practically everyone would love Martin's Bilbo.

I'm fortunate this time with Armitage hitting the spot, but how weird it is to be out of sync again.

I was feeling a bit out of the LotR party but now thought - OK, I finally love the Tolkien movie and can be a happy fangirl and join the party, come here and see that the folks who loved LotR mostly don't like this one.

I also feel the same about Wood's Frodo and Astin's Sam. I think they are painful to watch (Wood, for example, is stripped of his dry wit and intelligence in favor of a simpering cipher), and so I find it very difficult to enjoy their portions of the story. In general, I also disliked the lOTR films immensely. But there seemed to be some degree of "competence" about them. Unexpected Journey just seems like a film directed by an utterly incompetent person, IMO.

[Stranger Wings]

OK, I finally love the Tolkien movie and can be a happy fangirl and join the party, come here and see that the folks who loved LotR mostly don't like this one.

That I can see so far, I'm in the minority here for loving LOTR and mostly not liking this one.

Ok, so you're not more miserable than I am, as I dislike both LOTR and AUJ! I might as well start flogging myself.

[yovargas]

Ah, yes, can't join you in that one! We'd need halplm around to join you in that party but I suspect he's not gonna bother with AUJ.

[Stranger Wings]

One other problem I had, though it may not be the most major one.

I think it was a mistake to overly personalize the Erebor prologue for two reasons.

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?). The prologue should have focused more generally on the loss of Erebor and Dale as kingdoms, and perhaps ended with a focus on Thorin Oakenshield and his wandering people. The FOTR prologue was more powerful because it hinted at (and showed) an ancient world that was broad and deep. It didn't dwell on, for example, Aragorn or Frodo. It did dwell on Aragorn's ancestors, however, and so I don't see why the focus of the prologue couldn't have been Thorin's ancestors - namely Thror and Thrain, and the broader sweep of their relams. Thorin should have been left as the young and uninvolved person he was, with the prologue concluding with a hint of his burning desire to return.

2. It dramatically shrinks the world. A character-based prologue, focused on one place and one person, just felt made-for-TVish. If this kind of Thorin backstory needed to happen, it should have happened in Bag End - after we meet and spend some time with him. In fact, I think the film would have been dramatically improved if the Erebor material happened in Bag End.

However, comparatively-speaking, the Erebor flashback is a gem, so I can't complain too loudly about it.

[Stranger Wings]

A couple things.

First, there have been quite a few folks criticizing the way in which Bilbo departs Bag End. Here, however, I must strongly disagree.

IMO, it was an improvement over the book. The short scene of his realization that the dwarves had left without him was the most truly human moment of the film. Most of us know what that sort of disappointment feels like. At some point in our lives, it is likely that we have let a chance to do something new, or exciting, slip through our fingers. Or we have seized that chance after much soul-searching, and never regretted it. Either way, that feeling of either a missed opportunity, or a potentially missed opportunity, is very common, and the film does an excellent and subtle job of making that point.

That was Peter Jackson and Martin Freeman at their best. If only there could have been more truth like that in this film.

Second, a lot of the clips that I didn't care for in the film, are okay scenes in isolation. For example, when I first watched the White Council clip before the film was released, I like it a lot. But in context, it was a distracting and plodding mess. And by the end of it, I couldn't help thinking:

What the heck happened to Bilbo and Thorin?

We see absolutely nothing of Bilbo's wonder in Rivendell (which he returns to in LOTR, due to his love of the place), and we see Thorin briefly during the moon runes scene (which was somehow botched). Otherwise, they are complete afterthoughts in Rivendell. Nobodies, really.

This film has no idea what it is supposed to be. It plays more like a "further adventures in Middle Earth" cartoon, than a film about a hobbit and a dwarf.

[axordil]

I think the film would have been dramatically improved if the Erebor material happened in Bag End.

I wouldn't have minded that at all. A reduced frame with Bilbo segues from Ian Holm to Martin Freeman, and work in the fall of Dale and Erebor during the post-party conference...putting the flames of Smaug cheek by jowl with Bilbo's reaction to them.

And I agree about the departure as well. Gave Freeman a chance to shine.

[Alatar]

Have just seen it a second time with my kids who pronounced it to be better than Star Wars but not as good as Avengers. They also reckoned it was a better first movie than Fellowship. Mrs Alatar loved it.

This time we saw it in standard 3D and honestly, there is just no comparison. HFR 3D is 100% better. I'm not sure if it will replace 24fps for standard theatrical stuff, but for 3D the future is here, and its HFR.

My own thoughts on a second viewing. Most of the stuff I loved first time round I loved even more. Blunt the knives started to get on my nerves though. Overall though, I enjoyed it, but I don't think it will bear multiple repeat viewings the way Fellowship did. We shall see.

[Stranger Wings]

Have just seen it a second time with my kids who pronounced it to be better than Star Wars but not as good as Avengers. They also reckoned it was a better first movie than Fellowship. Mrs Alatar loved it.

This time we saw it in standard 3D and honestly, there is just no comparison. HFR 3D is 100% better. I'm not sure if it will replace 24fps for standard theatrical stuff, but for 3D the future is here, and its HFR.

My own thoughts on a second viewing. Most of the stuff I loved first time round I loved even more. Blunt the knives started to get on my nerves though. Overall though, I enjoyed it, but I don't think it will bear multiple repeat viewings the way Fellowship did. We shall see.

I certainly agree with your final assessment. I actually cannot even fathom seeing it twice. There was so little there there, that I don't feel I missed anything at all.

[Alatar]

SA, please don't claim to be agreeing with me when you're manifestly not. You are entitled to your own opinion, don't try to hijack mine.

[Stranger Wings]

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.

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. Perhaps we will see a remake by the time I retire...

[Stranger Wings]

SA, please don't claim to be agreeing with me when you're manifestly not. You are entitled to your own opinion, don't try to hijack mine.

By your "final assessment" I meant the last statement you made, which was:

Overall though, I enjoyed it, but I don't think it will bear multiple repeat viewings the way Fellowship did. We shall see.

That is what I agree with. I think it will not bear repeat viewings. My view is more extreme, as I cannot even bear a 2nd viewing, but I agree with your assessment of its limited appeal for repeat viewings.

Sorry for any confusion, but I am certainly not "hijacking" your opinion. That accusation seems a tad hyperbolic, and certainly unfair.

[Stranger Wings]

And lastly, I believe the film was at its worst when it was trying to be LOTR-lite. Azog and the wargs, Dol Guldur, the White Council, the Moria-esque Goblin Town (barring the Great Goblin, who I felt was a breath of fresh - and foul - air), Thorin's Boromir-lite last stand against Azog, etc. Had PJ played this one straight, I think it would have been far more successful.

[Alatar]

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.