The Hobbit

[350X]

The Hobbit



I dunno as good as it was, some of the charters had that 80s movie cheesy obvious fake charter faces, beard, hair nose, the rings movies they did much better on the dwarfs.

And of course its just another movie where they walk the whole time and spoiler alert, just like the rings, the eagles come to save them, but lets them off short of their journey[good 1000mi], so there is another walking movie coming to finish the story as they didn't make it to the mountain, yet again. [ < diff one]

I smell another 3-4 part movie

 

[NYCHitman1]

I slept through the first hour and change of the movie. Never been much of a fan of the LOTR flicks, but I was dragged to see this. In any event, they do intend to make this a trilogy. From what I understand, they added tons of content to the movie that was not present in the book.

 

[Italo]

I finally saw The Hobbit the other day. I'm a pretty big LotR fan, and while The Hobbit certainly wasn't as good, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. I always loved the set design of the Shire from the LotR, so I really liked getting to see a lot more of that in this film.

I saw it in 2D (pretty sure it was normal frame rate and not 48fps). The creatures (orcs, trolls, etc.) looked pretty good for being CG, but still not up to par with the LotR's. I wish they had just stuck with actors in costume and makeup. I can imagine that the effects look much worse in 48fps.

Overall I liked it, and would see it again. There was definitely some stuff added as padding, but the movie still does a good making Middle Earth feel like a living, breathing world, and does a nice job explaining some of the lore. I thought the dwarfs looked good, it's hard to keep up their names though. But I had the same issue with the book because there's so many of them and they have similar names.

 

[thicks56]

I went to see the hobbit before Christmas and thought it was a brilliant movie,

I went to see it in 3D and the HFR,
I must admit the 3D was outstandingly clear but the HFR was abit weird, at first it looked like whenever someone moved that they were moving on fast forward. and it took quite a while for me to get used to.
Also in my opinion the HFR really made some of the CGI look abit basic, to me it even made some of the sets that i knew where real life (like hobbiton) look like model sets, although that was probably partially due to my eyes still adjusting.

As for the story of the film I thought it was really good,
I was never expecting it to be quite as good as the LOTR's but after i watched it I thought it was almost there.
I even enjoyed the Dwarfs singing!
From what i remember in the book the story gets better as it goes along as well so the next films should be even better!

Also just on a side note I watched the full extended LOTR's trilogy over christmas and Martin Freeman does a much better job of acting a hobbit than any of the actors that played them in the first three films!

 

[argedion]

Saw it in 3d with the wife and we thoroughly enjoyed it. I can't wait for the next one. I honestly will have to splurge again to watch it.

 

[gazbo]

I thought it was really well made and entertaining. Have to agree with the comment ref Martin Freeman, he played his part fantastically well.
Saw it in 3d 48fps and took me about 10 mins to get used to it, after that every now and again I had the fast forward effect, but other than that it was totally immersive and like you were actually there with them in some scenes.

 

[AndroJar]

I haven't seen this movie yet but I am a big LOTR fan and I am very exited to watch this movie after reading the positive reviews. Thanks

 

[mrBlackCat]

I've seen this in 3D and bly me the one ring looks real.