The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

2012

Action / Adventure / Family / Fantasy

152
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 64%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 83%
IMDb Rating 7.9 10 701721

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 1,037,298 times
March 01, 2013 at 02:07 AM

Director

Cast

Benedict Cumberbatch as Necromancer
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel
Lee Pace as Thranduil
3D.BLU 720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
2.60 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 49 min
P/S 4 / 11
1.30 GB
1280*720
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 49 min
P/S 27 / 151
2.50 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
23.976 fps
2hr 49 min
P/S 82 / 390

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by renoriders 2 / 10

I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I just cant!

I was about 8 years old when I was first introduced to the Hobbit from the animated 1 hour movie. The movie was a yearly event. As a child, it freaked me out. But, my Dad loved Glenn Yarbrough and the music, so, I was made to sit through it.

Since that time, I eventually appreciated the storyline of that silly cartoon and the characters from it. And, when I grew up, I read the book, and then the LOTR series and fell in love with them.

I think that you have to look at this movie from 2 points of view. From 1. Viewers like myself who fell in love with the books and original characters and are looking for some semblance of that universe in a movie. 2. Viewers, like my kids, who have never read the books and are fascinated by animated computer novels, games, and the unrealistic expectations of immortality in virtual super humans.

If you are type 1. You will hate this movie. It fell short of all of my expectations. The Hobbit is not an epic story. In other words, this story was short, a 300 page book. It was, however, an epic adventure seen through the eyes of a single character, a character who had a realistic perspective of his small contribution to the world around him. His character never wavered from that perspective as he watched events unfold and did what little he could to contribute and help. He never became the grandiose, cocky, tempered tough guy that this movie seems to try to portray him as.

"The Hobbit" was a story that sets up the universe that these characters lived in. Elves, Goblins, Orcs, Hobbits and Humans and other creatures defined their roles in this world and their conflicts. Then, the story moves on to show how a band of characters, plus the Hobbit, interacts in this world and the story unfolds giving a lesson and a way to perceive our own world and how we, as individuals, interact with it. It's a simple message, yet, the book finds a way to make this message profound giving the characters depth and meaning and focusing on the hobbit as one individual, insignificant in his eyes, in an amazing world. This most basic message which encompasses the entirety of the book is completely, 100% lost in the movie. The one line in the movie, by Gandalf, which was never spoken in the book, but, was the most significant and meaningful in this movie was, "All good stories need to be embellished a little..." That was an understatement.

If you are type 2, you might enjoy this movie. Tons of action, crazy cgi, most of the film is animated, and it attempts to tie into and be a prequel for the LOTR trilogy. Lot's of battles and fighting, immortal death defying falls (just like any computer game) that serves no purpose to define our mortality (since no one dies or even gets injured), last second cliff hanger rescues, gross ugly characters that sound goofy and look like Jar Jar Binks on steroids, pretty scenery, loud noises, explosions, more bad guys killed per second that you can shake a stick at and pretty much any other Hollywood formula that draws in money. And, that was just one movie in a trilogy that has no purpose other than to make lots and lots of money.

I took the Kids to watch this and spared no expense. IMax screen, popcorn, Icees, candy and some snacks. $100 down the toilet. The kids fell asleep during the first hour and I wanted to leave after the 2nd.

Reviewed by dlpburke 1 / 10

Yeahhhh! Graphics! Action scenes! AWESOOOME!

Let's kick off with the score I've given it. 5/10. That's for the reasonable job with the comedy, design, and things not related to story and pacing (with the exception of Gollum and the cave scene). I am tired of saying "The graphics are great, but..." I have rated it 1 here to reduce the average in order to reflect reality and not the fanboy love-in.

I am not going to sugar-coat this film or give it a good review just because people tell me I should. I am sick to death of sheep. I don't care if this is Tolkien or Jackson or how much money it took to make the film. If it's bad, it's bad.

Graphics count for nothing. The reason I watch a film is primarily for a great story and well written characters (I have to CARE about what is going on). I don't get dazzled by graphics anymore (if I ever did at all), and 3D action films do not make a film good. So right there is the problem with The Hobbit. The story is shallow and pretentious and cardboard. Let's run through why the film had me rolling my eyes throughout:

  • The introduction is way too long.


-The pacing is dire (and scenes that weren't in the book have been added).

-One brainless action scene after another for no other reason than to eat screen time (because the book is 300 pages and they are trying to maximise profits by having 3 films at 3 hours each). Watching 2 rock monsters fight for minutes is not captivating or cool, it's boring.

-Implausibility factor 10. I understand this is a fantasy. I understand that if everything was ultra realistic it would end up boring, but for heaven sake, that does not mean you can get away with what happens in this film. EVERY single scene shows something that would ordinarily kill someone. Fall down multiple ravines, battle 100's goblins with just a few men, rocks the size of cars flying at you... and no scratches, no deaths. It just doesn't work.

-Lazy writing. You know you are witnessing a lazy-ass story when your heroes are saved at the last minute EVERY time in multiple scenes. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with all main characters intact and no dramatic tension. Every scene you see a massive rock crush a character you know they aren't dead. Every time you see them perilously close to the edge of a cliff, you know that even if they fall, they will be saved and/or survive. Further to this point, smaller problems exist such as Bilbo never handling a sword to suddenly taking on killer beasts like he has been to He-Man training school.

-Cliché crap. The way Bilbo goes from being an outcast to being accepted is contrived and rushed and totally obvious. It just smacks of lazy cliché writing. The acting that goes with it is not good either. Kind of like "I once said... you weren't one of us... OH how wrong I was!" *Roll eyes time*. Then you have the White Orc that Thorin said he had slain, and you just KNEW it was coming back at the end for some sort of showdown, didn't you? Talk about obvious. I blame the film for this because the scenes involved in the exposition were way too see-through... might as well have had Thorin wink at the camera! That brings me onto the whole "Thorin dislikes Elves" angle, where you know the Elves are suddenly going to become important allies just so we can have a totally obvious and expected reversal. Wow, Thorin, you got Bilbo wrong and you got the Elves wrong too! DRAMA.

-Lack of character development (Think Final Fantasy XII if you are a gamer). This was the stake through the heart of this film... Most of the dwarfs are completely redundant and I could not identify or even accept Bilbo. This was due partly to the lack of character development, partly to the script and partly to the actor. Same goes for Thorin except the scenes he is in feel more like a bad soap opera than they do a "blockbuster" film.

It is just dull and lifeless and stupid. You shouldn't do things just because you can. The LOTR trilogy for the most part had decent pacing, and it didn't do things too fast, too soon, or for the sake of it. The original trilogy suffers from some the complaints above AT TIMES, but nothing like The Hobbit does... The Hobbit is in a league of its own. I went to watch an engaging movie and I got a cartoon.

The use of CGI is also glaringly obvious and fake; like with the prequels of Star Wars, when the movie cuts between humans and CGI blobs, your brain is onto it. Stop relying on CGI for everything. It's getting annoying, not to mention OLD. At least Jackson makes real sets so it isn't a total wash out.

There is some real potential in this film and it is squandered; whether that's because Tolkien wrote a flawed book, whether it is because he wrote a book that doesn't take well to a feature length movie or whether it is because Jackson messed it up, that's what we ended up with.

The Hobbit should have been 2 films, and making it 3 has been the final nail in the coffin.

So, I am sat here mightily annoyed that once again graphics and self indulgent, completely pointless action scenes have trumped good storytelling and pacing.

Of course, the film is still entertaining at times and the 3D visuals are fun, but for me it is a massive disappointment.

Visuals can not MAKE a film, but when used like in The Hobbit, they sure as hell can break it.

Reviewed by SlyGuy21 8 / 10

The Tolkien Edit

The biggest problem I had with "The Hobbit" trilogy was it's length. Taking a book with a little over 250 pages, and stretching that to three movies that clock in at over 7 hours is a bit too much. So I decided to track down something I've never thought of before: a fan edit. There is a version of this trilogy, that is 4 and a half hours long, removes a lot of the subplots, and tries it's best to tell Tokien's original story. That version is "The Tolkien Edit". In this version, Barad-dûr is all but removed (say for only a couple lines of dialogue), the love triangle is completely removed, action scenes that I felt went on for too long are shortened, the Lake Town scenes are shortened, a lot of foreshadowing to "The Lord of the Rings" is removed, and even cameos like Legolas, Elrond, and Saruman are shortened, if not completely cut in some cases. It feels more true to Tolkien's work, hence the name, but it still has problems. Several major ones, the movie is still 4 and a half hours long, now this wouldn't be a problem, if it didn't feel that long. "The Lord of the Rings" worked for being 3 hours per film. It felt grand and epic, never dragging it's feet, this just feels overly long. A lot of key scenes from the book are there, like the "Riddles in the Dark" section, and the first encounter with Smaug, but it still drags on. Another problem is the CGI, in some cases it works, like with Smaug and Gollum, but otherwise it looks really noticeable. The Battle of the Five Armies scene looks more like a video game than a movie to me, it doesn't have the same thrill as The Mines of Moria, Helms Deep, Minas Tirith, or Pelennor Fields. Strange how the CGI in "The Lord of the Rings" was made over 15 years ago, and it's effects look better than this.

There are positives to this trilogy though, one is Martin Freeman, I think he does a great job as Bilbo in this. It feels like he was made for the character, getting all the little mannerisms down and the dialogue between him and the other characters works. The second is the "Riddles in the Dark" scene, it's taken almost word for word from the book and it's awesome, serious kudos to Andy Serkis for reprising his role here. Another plus is a lot of the sequences being shorter for the first two films in general, it felt less bloated, but the third act did drag on for a bit because of just how long I had been watching. Smaug is probably the single greatest highlight from the movie, his encounter with Bilbo is phenomenal. Again taken almost word for word from the book, and the effects on him look absolutely great, more props to Benedict Cumberbatch for doing a fantastic job. There are a few other good moments, the humor works for the most part, and it is nice to see Middle-earth again, the dwarves also do a good job, if admittedly some of them could've been cut from the film entirely.

At the end of the day, the single greatest flaw with "The Hobbit" trilogy is that it feels like it was made 15 years later than it should've. It lacks a lot of the magic that Peter Jackson was able to capture the first time around, and feels stretched to a trilogy for the sole purpose of trying to make another great trilogy, but the trilogy as a whole isn't worth 4 and a half hours. You don't need to see "The Hobbit" to love "The Lord of the Rings", and while I did enjoy this fan edit a lot more than the theatrical cuts of the films, I wouldn't see this again. In fact, you really don't need to see "The Hobbit" trilogy anyway, because the opening exposition in "The Fellowship of the Ring" sums up the whole trilogy, that had yet to be made, in about 6 minutes. Would you rather watch an 8 hour trilogy, a 4 and a half hour long fan edit, or a 6 minute recap from another movie? Well gee, when you put it like that, it seems fairly obvious which one I'd pick. If you like this trilogy, and think it adds a lot to "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, than that's fine, more power to ya. As for me, this is a one and done, I'll just stick with "The Lord of the Rings".

Read more IMDb reviews

27 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment