I deeply enjoyed this. I can’t see how anyone who isn’t deeply into Middle Earth would enjoy it. But it felt like an unrushed stay in Arda. It was long, but didn’t leave bits out, and expanded the story. In retrospect, I find the LOTR movies rushed, even the extended versions. This is a fanboy’s dream adaptation.
I too enjoyed it, but at nearly 3 hours it was far too long for the casual viewer. It felt like the Director’s Cut version. Many of the sequences could have been tightened considerably. The cleanliness of Azog was a bit jarring.
And when I saw it last night, the cinema was less than a quarter full. This does not bode well. Keep it to two films, Mr Jackson.
I saw it in ordinary 3D and I think I would have preferred it in 2D
I’ve taken the liberty of editing the thread to allow “open spoilers.” The title of the thread is “I’ve seen it!” and the boxing is becoming silly (e.g., person with boxed spoiler is quoted and boxed spoiler to respond.)
We’re going to see it this afternoon, but my fear all along has been that three x 2.5 = 7.5. Even with added source material, I can see a 6 hour total movie, but this seems ludicrous. I’m anticipating lots of padding. Even in the LotR trilogy (extended ed), I thought several of the battle scenes went on too long.
Here’s an entertaining review from Grantland. They liked some of the movie, and the flaws they cite seem to stem mostly from the decision to stretch the project into three films.
Critics don’t know jackshit. It’s easy to criticize and far more difficult to create. I’ll reserve judgement until I have seen the movie.
And then, after you’ve seen it, you’ll judge it, and thus be a critic, and not know jackshit?
I don’t understand this mindset. Sure, critics should be taken with a grain of salt, but to be so completely dismissive…?
Seeing it tonight at an IMAX (my first time at one!).
The fact that they stretched it into a trilogy is a big bloody red flag, and I’m expecting there will be a lot of nerdish eyerolling on my part, but I expect to have a good time overall.
Perhaps I was a bit too harsh. Generally I’m not a big fan of critics because they seem to have a difficult time just enjoying things. They deride things for not being intellectual enough, or not being high-brow enough, or really just not measuring up to whatever standard they have arbitrarily set in their minds.
I’ll see it, I may judge it, I may even criticize it, but I’m not exactly getting paid for my opinion am I? I wonder why you have rushed to the defense of critics! Are you a critic in real life? If so, my apologies, I didn’t mean anything personal by it.
Technical question:
The movie is being shown in theaters at a 48 FPS.
Will it be the same with the DVD?
DVD players don’t play video at 48fps. Nor do current Blu-ray players. Nor will your existing television.
The Merc gave it 2 1/2 stars today. Pretty much what I expected: visually stunning, but too long. Anyone not expecting a more light hearted movie than LOTR has no idea what the books are like. The Hobbit really does read like children’s book.
I’ll see it, but I’m in no rush. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it even if I grumble about having it split into 3 parts.
That explains why the first LOTR trilogy was a such an utter flop with critics.
I presume this is that thing called sarcasm that I’ve heard about. Did I really need to put “not in every case or all movies, just some movies, and not all critics, just some critics, some of the time”?
I’ve already bought a ticket for the matinee tomorrow. I’m looking forward to it, but turning a 300-page book into a trilogy means that it’s going to be bloated. And three hours, just for the first movie? That’s too much. Perhaps some years from now someone will recut it into one movie.
Nope. You just seemed so totally dismissive, though I suppose that was hyperbole, which is okay. And maybe it rubbed me the wrong way to hear the experts—the people who know most about a subject—rejected for being experts. As though we were discussing some medical treatment, and you had said “Doctors don’t know jackshit.” Though I realize that’s not the same thing at all.
In fairness to your point of view, critics have three strikes against them: (1) They’ve seen so many more movies than the average moviegoer that they may have less patience for things they’ve seen a hundred times before, or where they’ve seen some other movie do the same thing only much better. (2) Average moviegoers mostly go to movies that they actually want to see and expect to enjoy; critics may see a movie that they wouldn’t otherwise have gone to because it’s their job to review it. And (3) critics watch a movie knowing they’re going to have to say something intelligent and critical about it, which may make them watch the movie more analytically instead of just relaxing and letting the film work its magic.
But here is where I disagree. I don’t agree they are experts at all. Really. They are just some people. Admittedly they have watched a lot more movies than I have, so I’ll grant them experience, but that doesn’t make them experts on what is after all a subjective matter - film. Film can be great art or it can be dreck and either way it can be enjoyable to the right people and in the right frame of mind.
Doctors go to school and they get degrees. What makes a critic a critic? Where are their certifications? Who says they are grandmasters at rating movies?
Huh? I see references to HDTVs showing even higher frame rates.
I have merged the “Is the Hobbit this bad?” thread into the existing thread, since we don’t really need two separate threads from people who have seen the movie.
The chronology of the above may be a little funky, since the posts were originally made to two separate threads.
twickster, Cafe Society moderator
Completely off topic for the thread, but as someone who does get paid (a paltry amount in a paltry venue) to share my views on movies every once in a while.
Here’s my arbitrary standard: Did I enjoy it. Then I try to share why I did or did not enjoy it. Then, to a certain extent I try to place it within context of films in general.
If I only saw one movie every two years I’m sure I’d be entertained by Battleship. But if I’m only got to see one movie ever two years and I want it to be a big blockbuster action movie, wouldn’t it be better to steer them to Mission Impossible 3 instead of Battleship?
Sure, critics have biases and good ones are aware of them. I know a guy that is just creeped out by talking animals. So he avoid reviewing such movies or when he can’t is very open about the hurdle the movie would have to overcome.
So often when I’m told (and it is pretty much any time I didn’t like a financially successful movie) that “you don’t know how to just relax and enjoy a movie” it is short hand for “you didn’t like a movie that I do like and for some reason this offends me.” Strangely nobody has ever said to me “I didn’t like that movie either but then I don’t know how to just relax and enjoy a movie.”
Plus, keep in mind that finding a critic with whom you always disagree is just as useful as finding one with which you’re in permanent alignment.