There are a couple of kinds of people that will not find this movie to there tastes. Firstly those that, for whatever reason, don't like the fantasy genre itself (of which there seems to be quite a few movie critics). Secondly, those with high expectations - especially Tolkien cannon obsessives - of what the movie ought to be.

This movie is really a deliberate prequel to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, rather than a straight adaptation of The Hobbit itself. It's narrative is designed in exactly the same way, relying heavily on backstory. The tone is pretty much the same while the characters largely correspond with the same archetypes - whereas Thorin is presented in the book as a slightly comical, pompous figure he's basically a 'True King' figure, like Aragorn, here. There is also a lot of visual and thematic references to Rings movies - a lot more than in the book, which reflects on the fact that The Hobbit was written way before Lord of the Rings came out, making such references pretty pointless!

The movie is long, like the original Trilogy, and ponderous in parts, although the action sequences, effects and amiability of the characters make up for it. For those wishing to explore the fuller reaches of the Middle Earth world, then this is the movie for them. New beasties, like Stone Trolls, Goblins (with a pretty good Goblin King), Spiders, Wargs (more wolf-like than before) Stone Giants and a Dragon are mixed with new characters and places. Radagast (the Brown Wizard) isn't quite as annoying as some have argued, although he is played for laughs. The visuals are a step above anything seen in the Rings movies too.

I questioned the need for a 'Trilogy' being made from such a short book, but in fact the narrative worked here, in and of itself, is as effective as what we saw in the original Trilogy. Taken as a movie in itself, without reference to anything else (hard I know), this movie is still light years ahead of any other fantasy franchise out there. As for the 3D and frame rate, I had sore eyes after nearly 3 hours of wearing glasses. Just sayin'.

I'm not a fan of gimmicks like 3d or 48fps, so I saw the standard movie.

The dwarves are certainly more heroic and less inept than they are in the book, but that's not a bad thing.

The novel was intended for a younger audience than the film which is tied more closely to the LOTR films as Trippy said.

There's no doubt about whether I will see the rest of the trilogy and will certainly be buying the DVD's when they are available.

And I have the soundtrack for my own One Ring campaign when that resumes in the new year.

I really liked this movie. There are some parts I like less than others, but for the most part I really liked it.

There is nothing wrong with 24 fps, and I hate 3D! It's only use is to try and squeeze $3-4 more out of me...and it is not working.

I will only be seeing this movie if it is showing in my town in regular 2D format.

I'll be going to see it tomorrow (standard version as well - yay!), so then I can give a first-hand opinion.
From the first previews on, major parts of the Dwarves' design really bothered me. The embarassing tiny stubbles that half of them call beards (included Thorin - king of the Longbeards!) coupled with the ridiculous headgear of some (remember the one with the flaps of his hat sticking out - and similar with Radagast - seems to be the predestined foolish sidekick; or the one with part of a weapon lodged in the head).

I'll see how it turns out in the movie, but I'm hesitant. Let's see

Cheers
Tolwen

I hope to see it tonight. I felt that the Dwarves looked silly also. However, what tempered my judgement a little was watching the long preview where they mentioned that 13 Dwarves all with long beards would have been difficult to tell apart. Though still some of the differences still look silly to me.

But then again the 13th Warrior...

I'll be going to see it tomorrow night in HFR 3D. I want to see it in the format that Peter Jackson shot it in and put all the work into. I will probably see it in regular 2D at a later date. And depending how much I really enjoy it, I will likely see it a third time in a $2 theater or something. That's what I ended up doing with The Return of the King.

The movie can only peak interest in The Hobbit and consequently The One Ring: Adventures over the Edge of the Wild. That's good news for C7 and the line.

Anything wrong with the 13th Warrior?

I will be seeing it on Sunday...in 2D. The only thing 3D has done for me is a case of eye strain and a slight migraine. Not worth the price of admission. I hope I am wrong, but I am going into this with some trepidation.

I have heard that now from several people. Hmmm. I wonder if the equipment at certain theaters is better than others.

I remember when we went to see The Three Musketeers in 3D. At the beginning of the show, things were slightly blurry, like the projector's calibration was off or something. It was hurting my head and there was no way I was going to watch the whole movie like that. So, I got up and went and complained. A couple of other people did the same thing and a few minutes later they adjusted something and it was perfect afterwards.

Otherwise, all the 3D films we have seen have been great. The best ones were Avatar and Hugo by far.

No, the point was that it is possible to have an large cast without resorting to, IMO, silly differences to tell them apart.

Right from the first scene in Radagast's house I had the desire to play TOR!

The film is decent. Radaghast worked out better than I feared and the scenes of Dale and Erebor were quite impressive.

A good point. And very true indeed.

I have just seen the film and I came out with quite mixed feelings. There are some really great scenes (the Unexpected Party, the Riddles in the Dark), but there's also quite some (much more so than in my first FotR viewing) - IMHO - substandard footage.
Without going into greater detail (which would be interesting indeed), is my very personal overall impression of watching a computer-game action flick. The calmer scenes like the ones mentioned above are a relief, but the action scenes look too computer-game like (jump-and-run comes to mind) and all too often pushed much too hard far beyond the point of a believable course of action.
Other points like the design (many of the 'new' one I found too much over the top as well) and changes from book to film are an entirely different sort of thing though. Many of the latter are necessary for the films to function within themselves (and not resorting ot the books), and so I can at least understand the reasoning behind it.

When all is said and done, my first impression is a 3 out of 5 overall (and this is deliberately not for it being only the first part out of three).

Cheers
Tolwen

Just came back home from seeing The Hobbit. Overall I thought it was great, saw it in 48fps 3D. This was the first 'true' 3D movie I've seen and it worked really well. It took my eyes and brain about 15 mins or so to get used to it but after that it looked amazing. I don't really have an issue with the glasses, including the fact that I have to wear them over my normal glasses, but I'm sure people have different reactions to the technology.

Of course the movie strayed from the book in places, but I can understand why it's done, needing relevant exposition. As well as the fact that it is played more as a prequel to the LOTR movies.

I didn't care too much for Radagast, he was played well but I wasn't expecting them to make him as much of a comical character as they did. Some of the humour was a little misplaced, or only there for the sake of trying to make a joke, or trying to reinforce some of the character stereotypes of the Dwarves.

The action and fighting scenes were pretty great, if somewhat over the top in places. The riddle game with Gollum was one of my favourite scenes in the whole movie. The exposition was handled very well, even though the scenes were created purely for that purpose and not in the book.

Of course those added scenes, including those with Radagast, do make sense when you know that the movie is going to be a trilogy. Although I believe the 3rd movie doesn't continue the story of The Hobbit, but deals with the actions of Gandalf, Radagast, and the Woodmen when fighting the Necromancer and other abridgements leading up to the War of the Ring, and of course the LOTR movies.

So a great viewing experience, if somewhat light hearted compared to LOTR, but it does the story justice and brings those characters I know to life in a good and humorous way. Will definitely be going to watch it again. And of course I can't wait until part 2, bring on the Desolation of Smaug!

Just got back from watching the movie in HFR 3D. My first reaction is that I'm definitely going to see it again in regular 2D. My family thought it looked too much like a really high definition home camera, like you were right there in the movie studio with the actors. Actually, the only way my wife could describe it was that it felt like a "BBC television production."

As far as the story development and acting goes, I thought it was a great film. The dwarves were well done. I was worried that they were going to be too silly and fake looking, but for me - they weren't. The battle sequences were really amazing, even though they were over the top. There is no way any of them should have survived half the things they went through. It kind of makes the times they were rescued by Gandalf and then by the Eagles a little less impressive.

I am confused a little about Radagast and geography. I guess maybe he crossed the Misty Mountains from Rhosgobel to find Gandalf and give him the Morgul-blade before he went to Rivendell? In the movie it seemed he got there quite fast. (Oh, yes, therefore the joke about Rhosgobel rabbits.) Also, I didn't like Radagast's hat and I thought the dried up bird crap in his hair and on his face was disgusting and unnecessary.

I thought Bilbo was fantastic. He was the best part, as well as Gollum.

Gandalf didn't seem as wise or confident this time around. (And he did look older in the face, especially around the eyes.)

One last thing, there were a few departures from the book. One of those changes really bothers me and I wonder if anyone else feels the same way. It's the epic scene with the three trolls. Why was it necessary to change what led up to them turning into stone? I would really like to hear the answer. Because, I feel like the book version is so much better and memorable.

Things I loved, the interior of Bag End. The landscape the all moved aroind in (mind blowing) I really like the slow pace in the beginning. I loved that we got to see Erebor at it´s peak, and same with Dale. I like the costumes, armours, weapons and so on. Rivendell is as beautiful as ever.

Things I did not like, The beards on most of em. Fili and Kili looks like elves. The Dwarves have the wrong proportions, they look just like humans but smaller.

Dale looks a little to much like a Easterling town (what I think a easterling town would look like) And the town guards has pointy helmets.

There are to much gold in Erebor (it would make Uncle scrooge McDuck envy).


I hate that there is a axe blade sticking out of Bifurs head.
I dont like the Stone giants at all, and their scene either. Same with the battles in the goblin city, it´s to much mtv cut, cut, bang, bang, I want to see whats happens.... please slow down, guess I am getting old. But I love how they made the city... But after awhile the fighting only gets silly.

Azog was really cool, not as cool as Lutz (he´s number 1 kickass orc in PJ´s films).


Overall I really liked this film, but I wished someone dared to say to Peter: Less is more. But I guess Peter might get the same status as George Lucas....what was it power corrupts....

btw, did anyone see if the dwarven female had a beard, my mind tells me she did but did she? Guess I must see this film over and over again haha...yes I really liked this film.

I say it in 48 frames and 3D and I had no problems what so ever with it. I loved the sharpness of it!

..and yes Gollum IS a masterpiece!!!


/K

Overall, I loved the movie but there was one scene that was absolutely indefensible in my opinion: the stone giants. It made no sense and felt out of place. It was just an excuse to show off their CGI technology and I just thought it really threw off the feel of the movie.

That being said, I have no other glaring objections. I understand why they changed what they did and enjoyed the extra stuff they added in (although the bird crap running down Radagast's face was a little much). I was a bit disappointed that they conflated Azog and Bolg but I'll let it slide because it's easier and more dramatic in a film just to keep them the same person than to try to explain that connection.

I thought I saw a Dwarven female in Dale. No beard. I didn't notice any in Erebor. Will need to view again to be sure. Was suffering from visual overload ... so much to see!

I thought I saw a female Dwarf running away from Erebor. Blonde curly hair IIRC, but I don't recall a beard.

When I noticed the female Dwarves, I think the first I noticed didn't have a beard, then during the flight from Erebor it looked like there were other female Dwarves and it seemed that some had beards, or the were very feminine looking male Dwarves.

I'll watch it tomorrow (yay) and report any findings of female dwarves.

Cool! yeah I need to see it soon again lol!

Saw it today with my wife and 10-year old son. This was one of the most enjoyable cinematic experiences I've ever had. My son was constantly tugging on my arm to ask questions (is Radagast going to die? Is Gollum going to eat Bilbo?). He was utterly rapt the entire time, and so was I. As much as I love the LOTR films, there are moments in each that I don't like. After my initial viewing, I can't think of anything I didn't like in The Hobbit. The nearly 3 hour run time flew by, and I was dreading the movie ending. An absolutely joyful experience. I won't comment on what critics have said; they have their opinions and I have mine. For now, I'm absolutely euphoric.

Been to see The Hobbit this morning, I loved it. Saw the standard 2D version.

As I was looking out for them after reading to posts, I saw 3 female looking dwarves, one didn't have a beard, the other 2 appeared to have muttons (large sideburns).

I've never been much of a fan of The Hobbit book, not like Lord of the Rings books, but i really enjoyed this film as much as the LOTR films. The added background details made sense.

Could have done without the bird crap in Radagast's hair though.

I saw this Friday morning in HFR3D. I have to agree with JRB's wife. Every time that something moved quickly, I felt like I was watching something shot in PAL. It was instinctual, really. Also, in the beginning, my friends and I all agree on this, Bilbo seemed to be moving to quickly. Liked his speed was cranked up. This went away after a while. So I wonder if it just took my brain some time to catch up. I am planning on seeing it again tonight in non-HFR to compare. Imax actually just for the giant's scene. I can see why people would not like it (I thought it was a little ridiculous how the dwarves survived a certain fall later in the film), but I thought that scene was AWESOME. That will never translate as well onto the tv.

Oh, and that wasn't bird droppings on Radagast, it was tree moss. Lichen.

But yeah. Loved it. Worth everybody seeing. If for the riddle scene if for nothing else.

My group played One Ring.

Good Job, C7.

I am going to disagree with the prevailing opinion based on two things:

1) Gandalf was constantly flustered. This may seem small, but in LOTR, Gandalf was the man with a plan. Even when things went astray, he always had a real sense of purpose, a real solidarity about what was to come next. This is what I really loved about his character, and is why he had some of the best scenes in the film.

2) There were not enough "tingle down your spine" moments. This is somewhat related to 1, in that Gandalf's solidarity contributed to a lot of those moments ("Bilbo was meant to find the ring", "It doesn't end here"). The main point, though, is that LOTR was chock full of these wonderful moments of pure monologue acting goodness. They were speeches given just at the breaking point that allowed people to go on. In my life, they've helped me with my breaking point. I can't think of how many times I've thought of Sam in Osgiliath. The Hobbit, from my perspective, only had 2: The song, and Gandalf and Galadrial (It is because I am afraid), and the second one only barely. The language, to me, just didn't have that lofty, high feel that seemed to be spoken by gods, which was always my favorite thing about LOTR.

First, I need to say that I have not been able to get into the Hobbit book to any extent. However, from the info I have gathered over the years from other sources the movie rang pretty true with the book. As mentioned above not sure what the whole stone giant thing was about. The only problem i had was with the 48 fps...by the end of the movie the clarity was starting to bother my eyes somewhat, I am really glad now i saw it in 2D. And I called the final scene almost to a tee.

Overall I give it a 7/10. I wasn't overwhelmed by anything I saw, but neither was I underwhelmed. An enjoyable nights entertainment.

Gorgonshead - In order to maintain true to the story presented in the Hobbit, Gandalf had to be presented that way. While in broad strokes the Hobbit is not that hard to transplant to the Middle Earth of the LotR and the rest of Tolkien's work, the specifics really are something of a challenge to reconcile. The movie stayed true to the feel of the book for the most part, and so people expecting LotR were disappointed because they got the Hobbit - a very different book in tone, scope, and characterization.

Having seen the HFR 3d version twice now, I can say that it unfortunately requires at least 2 viewings to be able to really enjoy. After the first showing, I was very put off by it, finding it to be very jarring. It was enough that I might not have gone again to that format if I hadn't already had tickets to see it with family later. After the second viewing, while there were still a few (1/2 dozen or so) shots where it was a little jarring, on the whole my mind had adapted and it provided an amazing improvement to the 3d experience. The fast movement of Bilbo and flickering flames was gone, the stark contrasts created a sense of depth rather than separation.

On the whole, I thought it was an excellent movie, the only major change I would make is reducing or maybe even eliminating the scene with Frodo -it felt drawn out and unnecessary.

lucyfersam- I'm really going to have to disagree with you on that one. I am a great fan of the Hobbit (I think it was Tolkien's best book), and Gandalf is still as enigmatic as ever with its covers. "Gandalf! If you had heard only a quarter of what I have heard about him, and I have only heard very little of all there is to hear, you would be prepared for any sort of remarkable tale". That is my favorite line in the book. In the Hobbit, Gandalf does not have to answer to anyone, except for Beorn a little and Elrond. He is above normal folk. But the dwarves are constantly exasperating him and questioning his judgement. That is not the Gandalf I first met outside of the Hill.

As for tone, it really got it in some places. But it never, ever really rang with me. I never felt the infinite charm, the cleverness of the original very palpably. For the most part. I loved the song, OMG I LOVED THE SONG!!! I wanted to "go and see the great mountains, and hear the pine trees and the waterfalls, and explore the caves, and wear a sword instead of a walking stick". That was a tingly moment.

On the plus side, the blue wizards joke was hilarious. I was on the floor, while the rest of the theater was wondering what was wrong, which of course made it more hilarious.

I've seen it twice now - once at the IMAX 3d w/ 48 fps and once on standard 2d. The former was better.

I hear what you're saying here; but will defend it to the point that The Hobbit (book) was a different feel - not as epic and more of a 'fun' often 'goofy' story being told as a bed time story not as dire or dialogue based - more about narration and story-telling. Where as LOTR is way more epic and brink of Armageddon feeling.

That all being said there were other moments in The Hobbit that made my spine tingle w/ dialogue/actions (outside those you already mentioned):


SPOILERS.


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Gandalf to Bilbo about the sword: About Courage being needed not when using it - but deciding on "who to spare" Which obviously leads to Bilbo's hesitation at killing Gollum

Which brings up the next spine-tingly - when Bilbo looks into the eyes of Gollum and sees some hint of emotion....some sign of humanity in that monster.


Bilbo telling the dwarves that he has a nice comfortable home - but that the dwarves do not and had theirs taken from them - and he intends to help them get it back.

Thorin admitting he was wrong to doubt Bilbo at the end - got me a bit emotional.

I can see the humanity bit. And the "take back your home". The others, not so much. Either way, none of them have the nobility or charm I've come to expect. On one end of the scale, there's no "It's like in the stories, Mr. Frodo". On the other, I don't see a ton of wit and charm, especially in the dialogue.

Now, to be fair, they still have 2 movies. It could be that I'm just jumping the gun a little, and when it comes down to the Battle of 5 Armies, it will have been a wonderful, epic ride that thrills the soul and sparkles with humor and good feeling. I'm just a little low on hope points right now.

The language was very modern really. I didn't like that.

Overall i liked the movie.
Things i didn't like were the modern language about the contract between Bilbo and the Dwarfs. Also the look of Dale for example-the soldiers in Dale looked not like Northmen but more like Easterlings.

Hey you know I will grant you that.

Sam - the ever loyal and protective friend was always my favorite hobbit when I read the books and the movie even moreso - Sean Austin was wonderful in that role - and that speech at Osgiliath gets me every time and is by far the most powerful spine-tingly as you put it.

Right above Gandolf's "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that has been given to us."



But once again - the flavor of the two books/stories are different; The Hobbit wasn't an epic end of the world feel. And I have a feeling there will be more spine tingly as the battle of five armies looms, and the threat of the necromancer is harder to ignore.

And Sam's dialogue you mentioned happened at the end of the second movie (IIRC) - a good 7+ hours into the epic storyline.

Yes I'll agree the language sometimes had a few anachronisms in there - like the reference to golf and the contracts, and there was another I can't quite remember that I thought was too modern sounding.

Things I thought were a bit off were: the voice of the Goblin-King sounded too refined; not nasty enough. The three trolls sounding too much like a rendition of the Three Stooges. The one that blew it's nose definitely sounded like Curly being punked by Moe. Bifur hat was ridiculous looking. That and Bombur looking like a cartoon. Kili looked too modern-day hip-rocker suave dude than a dwarf. But at least the various looks separated them apart.


That all being said - most of the movie was amazingly awesome and I do give it a A+ two thumbs up.

Gollum was superb!

The golf part is in the book though

Yah, golf and the contract were!

Which brings up a good point. The Hobbit doesn't have to be LOTR. They could have gone that route, but they didn't. However, they also didn't go the less serious route as well, instead trying to stay somewhere in the middle, which is where all of the extra Necromancer stuff meets the original Hobbit. So, in this case, we have a conglomeration of two very different storytelling styles (young Tolkien fairy tale and old Tolkien epic writer), and they don't mesh well.

I think the story within a story setup actually helps explain the tonal difference between the films, since in the Hobbit is as told by Bilbo. He may not be entirely reliable as a narrator, and could be embellishing (as he accuses Gandalf of with the golf story).