If you’ve read any of my post-movie writings, you know I do not do reviews: I do recommendations. And, The Hobbit? I went to see it this afternoon (after finishing my Christmas shopping). Was it good?
4 1/2 stars out of 5.
There’s a second rating I give, which is “matinee or primetime?” I’d pay to see The Hobbit during primetime. It was very, very good.
I saw the 2D version (didn’t feel like waiting til 430 for the 3D version), and really was fantastic. Peter Jackson used the same types of wide shots which provided breathtaking scenery. For the most part, he stayed with the actual story while adding in extra scenes, some of which come from the extras contained within The Lord Of The Rings and other J.R.R. Tolkien writings. Some others seemed to come out of nowhere, and, while not filler per se, weren’t really necessary. But, hey, if one is trying to string out a book which is only a bit more than 300 pages into 3 movies of damned near 3 hours each (169 minutes for the 1st one), things have to be added.
Martin Freeman does a fantastic job as Bilbo Baggins, a great pick for the part.
On the down side, Ian McKellen (Gandalf) seemed a bit, well, old. In many scenes it seemed as if he was having a tough time breathing. Also, the character of Gandalf appears A LOT. In the book he was, as he says in LOTR, “barely involved”.
Many of the bad guys, such as goblins and orcs, didn’t bear much resemblence to those in LOTR. Gollum was dead on, and more of the nasty creature he was meant to be, not the somewhat comical LOTR version.
The Goblin King was definitely cool. And disgusting.
Overall, a fantastic presentation, beautifully filmed, dialogue that brings you along for the ride.
Now, on to Mirkwood Forest!
My main concern is that The Hobbit is the shortest of the Hobit / LOTR trilogy.
To make 3 movies out of the shortest book seems a bit off to me. If you liked it, that is great, but I am having the shortest book being made into a longer trilogy of films.
Seriously though, glad you liked it.
meh.. I’d rather they make long movies out of books than to shrink good stories in to a 1.3 hours so the story is entirely absent.
For me, as long as the story and the grandiose scenery is there, and I am wow’d by it like in LOTR trilogy, I’m happy.
Teach, Did you get an movement sense from the higher frame rate like they say? Or, is that only from the 3D version?
I was more excited to see it before I learned it had become its own trilogy. Thanks for the recommendation!
They could have done it in one long movie, but, I did appreciate the fillers and extras. But, really, the movie ends about halfway through the book. Don’t know how they stretch it to 3.
The higher frame rate is only in the 3D and IMAX, so, don’t know.
Why is the Goblin King not a goblin?
Why do the laws of physics seem not to apply in Middle-Earth?
The mountain giants weren’t actually supposed to be mountains.
Bilbo was not a hero in the book.
It’s a decent adventure movie, but it’s not The Hobbit. Jackson really botched it for Tolkien purists.
Bilbo was not a hero?? WTH? R U Serious?
I think it is interesting that Jackson saw fit to at least make his giants appear large and ominous.
And, sorry, but all.. ALL movies fail to live up to book purists. Get over it.