The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Review and Trailer Comments

  • View Profile for NoelNoel

    I would like to know where you saw this in its 48fps incarnation. And where can I see that version in Limerick?

    Posted 06:15 | Wed 12th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Rory CashinRory Cashin

    It was playing in Cineworld in Dublin. Anywhere that has the HPS version is the 48fps version.

    Posted 14:13 | Wed 12th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for paddypaddy

    sdfghjkl

    Posted 14:32 | Thu 13th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for FilmBuff76FilmBuff76

    I think the jury will be out on the usage of HFR. It looks like a cross between film and an on-set production video. Sometimes it looks awkward, as if the projectionist accidently hit the fast forward button. Other times it looks stunning and incredibly immersive in 3D, as if you could reach out and touch the characters and landscapes. An interesting experience nonetheless, but there's a lot to be said for the standard rate of 24 fps.

    Posted 08:27 | Fri 14th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for The ViewerThe Viewer

    Oh Gawd! We have an ever ending recession, a budget to take the shirt from our backs and just when Im thinking it couldnt get any worse this idiocy is inflicted on us. I read the book Lord of the Rings and if I ever regret wasting precious hours in this life it was reading that book devoid of humour, dept, character, plot and any analogy or interesting to say on life. Then the trilogy of movies bring it to a point I fear humanity has lost all reason and discernment. Now in true mercenary style Jackson goes and milks it for what its worth by doing prequels. Id be no more dragged into watching this codswallop than hearing someone equally talentless like Westlife sing Amhrn na bhFiann backwards in Sanskrit. Actually I think Ill stand outside my local multiplex and beg/threaten/persuade people not to see it!

    Posted 21:40 | Fri 14th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Felicia Solomon TharpeFelicia Solomon Tharpe

    I think you might want to read the books again. There was humor particularly in the banter between the Dwarf the fellowship, especially the Dwarf. And there were classic themes of good versus evil; everyone being able to make a difference regardless of size, position; love conquering all...etc., etc. Of course you have every right to your opinion:) I look forward to the Hobbit. Hope it is great. I miss the movies.

    Posted 22:14 | Fri 14th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Benjamin GoulartBenjamin Goulart

    GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS. Soap operas have NEVER been shot at high frame rates. EVER. The soap opera effect has nothing to do with higher frame rates. In fact, 24p is more likely to produce motion artifacts if the available exposure length (which can be longer at lower fps) is overly utilized on the camera. The issues you might not like about video and how certain scenes may have been shot CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIGHER FRAME RATES. 3D can make CGI polygons and texture borders more apparent if theyre not done well. And video capture (the cameras) can have issues with not looking like film due to their smaller sensor size, sensor light sensitivity, dynamic range, and then issues with depth of field, lenses, etc. But it has nothing to do with high frame rates. 100% impossible. Soap operas used to be shot in 30i and 25i, and now are shot in either 24p/25p or 30p. Most of what people hated were long exposures (the blur) and fake weird looking contrast range (particularly the shoulders and feet of the curve). And the worst culprit had nothing to do with the cameras at all, but was PAL to NTSC conversion of foreign material converted for US TVs. If you need evidence of what I'm talking about, go watch Public Enemies. That was not shot at high frame rates. Want to dis video or how Jackson used it? Fine. But bashing HFR from a perspective of ignorance is making you guys look like fools.

    Posted 05:32 | Sat 15th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for FilmBuff76FilmBuff76

    I'm not dissing HFR. I found it quite immersive and remarkable at times (e.g. the eagles) but it's hard to get used to. I found that it took me out of the film and I got distracted by it as a result. I've had that effect too with other films that don't look like normal films - Miami Vice, Public Enemies, 28 Days Later. I think HFR is definitely worth a one-off viewing, but I can safely say that I'll be watching The Desolation Of Smaug and There And Back Again at standard 24 fps.

    Posted 12:49 | Sat 15th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for maighread2008maighread2008

    **************SPOILERS************************************************ I saw it last night in the standard 2D format as I just wanted to see it for itself first before being distracted by technology. I enjoyed it overall. I think it is too long and could have done with some editing. Really liked Martin Freeman in the role of Bilbo and as your reviewer said he is a lot more palatable than the Frodo character. Ian McKellan is just a joy to watch and his presence is pivotal I think in anchoring the film. I'm also delighted to see Richard Armitage get his big break. He's a fantastic actor I've followed for about 8 years and while I'm not sure this film gives him that much room to show that I'm sure it will open doors for him. The Gollum scene is just brilliant and Andy Serkis manages to show every facet of the character in such a short space of time. My biggest issue I think was with the script. It just lacked subtlety for me. There's no need for Bilbo to give the big "I'm not a hero speech". I think the audience gets that. Also, that scene where Thorin hugs Bilbo was just too explicit. I would have preferred a grudging slow development of mutual respect than a big k** bye ah moment at the end.

    Posted 13:00 | Sat 15th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for glenfglenf

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a movie I was very curious to see, I thoroughly enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies, but came to this with a hint of trepidation, after some mixed reviews, the fact that quite a short book had been extended to 3 movies, and also on hearing the 48 frame per second speed is too crisp for backdrops, sets and make-up to live up to. The movie is set just before the beginning of the first Lord Of The Rings movie; The Fellowship of the Ring. We see Ian Holm as an aged Bilbo Baggins writing his memories to his nephew, Frodo. We are told the history of the story, of a majestic dwarf city under a mountain which has been claimed by a dragon and the city lost to the dwarves. We're then pulled back into the adventure 60 years into the past of Middle Earth; a younger Bilbo, played by Martin Freeman is interrupted during a leisurely pipe smoke by Ian McKellan's Gandalf the Grey, who is seeking someone to 'go on an adventure.' Bilbo initially declining the invitation despite his curiosity is, that evening, without his knowledge host to feed and entertain 13 dwarves. This scene has been slated by some critics, but I found the whole fun and warmth of the gathering rather enjoyable. The mood changes when Thorin, the leader of the party arrives, and after some singing and pipe smoking we discover Thorin is intending to lead the group to reclaim the city. Gandalf has nominated Bilbo to be a member of the party, as they need a "burglar" something Bilbo is not. All set off on their quest and we proceed to follow them as they encounter trolls, orcs, elves, living mountains in battle, goblins and a creature named Gollum. It is obvious that Jackson has added to the book, as for the length of the book alone cannot justify 3 movies. But most goers to this movie will already know that information. It's been about 5 years since I read the book, and found none of Jackson's additions to the story offensive. He does take liberties, but the story is, like his previous Tolkein adaptions, so well directed and shot that it, for me, was forgiven. There are some fantastic visuals, the city in the mountain is stunning for example and the battle between the orcs and dwarves I found well choreographed. There has been a lot of discussion about the speed-per-frame the movie is shot being so clear, that it highlights the obvious make-up, costumes and CGI. In some places this is true. There are some moments where backgrounds and people are obvious CGI, but I was enjoying the movie enough that these irritations were noted but forgiven. Again, it didn't deter me from the story-telling that was involved. My wife didn't like the fact that the main antagonist in this movie, an albino orc Azog, was CGI while the rest of the orcs were real actors with make-up, which was again, a point. There's also silly moments in the movie, more so than in any of the previous Rings movies, in particular for me, the brown wizards sleigh being pulled by hares. The cast are strong across the board. Martin Freeman plays, well, Martin Freeman. The same Martin Freeman in The Office and the same one as Watson in Sherlock, but he plays the bumbling everyman so well, that he shines in the part. You wouldn't want anyone else for the role. The best scene by far in movie is Gollum's riddles with Bilbo. Gollum is scary, the hairs were standing on my neck, and yet, invokes sympathy, and makes you laugh. At this stage Andy Serkis has perfected his interpretation of the character, making me wonder why he didn't walk away with a deserved oscar already. The length of the movie didn't bother me either, the momentum of the storytelling and set-pieces strong enough to keep me invested throughout. If you enjoyed the previous movies, which for me, have flaws that are forgivable due to the pure enjoyment of watching them, I can't imagine for the life of me why you wouldn't enjoy The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey. To say it's the Phantom Menace of the Lord of the Rings is, in my opinion, extremely harsh. The strength of the story, how it's told and the strong directing left me A) wanting to buy a bucket of popcorn and sit down and watch the movie again and B) frustrating me that I have to wait to next Christmas to find out what happens next.

    Posted 18:05 | Sat 15th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for jack brownjack brown

    It was an okay movie, some scenes were dragged out too long and boring at parts , The story telling or movie not up to standard of harry potter ... etc , 3 stars from me only

    Posted 01:03 | Sun 16th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for tfs7tfs7

    anyone that gives this more then 3 stars u need to go c a doctor and get your eyes check or your mind check that just me , nothing really new just a few different bad guys but the same from lotr.Ps only giving it 3 stars only paid 5 dollars to c it

    Posted 06:02 | Sun 16th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Caitlin J WilsonCaitlin J Wilson

    I think it's better than the Lord of the Rings, mind you, I've always thought that. I did love how she talks about some of the tension being gone because it's a prequel. Which is just daft - I mean first of all they are books, anyone who read the books knew what was going on in the LOTRs and knows what's going on in the Hobbit. So essentially duh, some of the tension is gone that's not why anyone is watching it. Also it's not strictly speaking a prequel, the book the Hobbit came out first. As to no one wanting it exactly where do you get off saying that? Literally everyone I know has been hoping and waiting for this for years. Oh also was actually the same with Star Wars, the fans did want more Star Wars. I'm not saying the result was perfect, but they did want it. I suppose this article is a perfect example of why I dispise reviewers, most of you seem to be nitpicky dullards full of some sort of need to make sweeping generalizations, and attempt to ruin even things you like. It's pathetic.

    Posted 21:39 | Sun 16th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Brand CaseyBrand Casey

    Awful. Really enjoyed the book and the LOTR movies.. this is tedious and cringingly childish. It breaks into a strictly-come-dining musical for a bit. the dwarves were irritating while the villains and gollum were the only engaging characters in the effort. Save your time and . Avoid.

    Posted 10:43 | Wed 19th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Brand CaseyBrand Casey

    Awful. Really enjoyed the book and the LOTR movies.. this is tedious and cringingly childish. It breaks into a strictly-come-dining musical for a bit. the dwarves were irritating while the villains and gollum were the only engaging characters in the effort. Save your time and . Avoid.

    Posted 10:44 | Wed 19th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for NoelNoel

    While I wouldn't say it's pathetic, I agree with Caitlin above; the only real value to the sort of "criticism" bandied about here, is that it signposts certain types as "People Whose Opinion Isn't Worth Taking Seriously If You Are Serious About Your Cinema". I saw the HFR version of "The Hobbit" and came away thinking, hmm, better than the last two LOTR films (good God, if I saw one more scene in "The Return of the King" involving snivelly-faced, blubbing-like-a-baby - should that be blubbing-loike-a-baby, given the Middle earth accents? - "Mr Frodo"-impeaching Sean Astin as Sam, I would have screamed like one of those dragony things that carry those Nazgul!), and musing that the whole thing was great fun and the hints as to what "The Desolation of Smaug" might look like left me wanting it RIGHT NOW. The film itself, of course, is getting all the knee-jerk negative criticism that is par-for-the-course when ground-breaking technology is unleashed for the first time. The introduction of colour was judged to be a mistake by some big names in the business - as was the widescreen process in the early 1950s; the point being: the same thing is going on here. Now, don't drag yourself away from your coool basement hangout and jump on your box just yet... HFR is probably unsuitable for any other genre bar the fantasy/sf one. But that particular genre is EXTREMELY popular. I look forward to what James Cameron and Ridley Scott do with the technology.

    Posted 11:29 | Thu 20th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for tigeru38tigeru38

    I tought this movie was briiliant!

    Posted 18:21 | Thu 20th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for tigeru38tigeru38

    I tought this movie was briiliant!

    Posted 18:22 | Thu 20th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for tigeru38tigeru38

    I tought this movie was briiliant!

    Posted 18:26 | Thu 20th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for jimjim

    i went to see it yesterday in the afternoon, we had a mixed audience age group of 10 to 55 yearolds, as i watched the movie i found that it lagged a bit in parts.The action scenes looked a bit cgi at times but i found as it was in 3d i enjoyed it a lot more and made me duck the flying birds twice. Talking to people who saw the film at the same time as me overall we enjoyed it immensely but is it strong enough for 3 movies maybe watching the 2 movie will tell us.

    Posted 20:26 | Thu 20th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for BelladonnahBelladonnah

    I watched this movie last night in 3D I was not impressed by the 48fps. It felt as though I was looking through an old view finder toy from the 60's. I will wait until they are all on DVD to watch the second and third parts. The movie was not worth the $43.00 I paid for my two children and myself to see it. I almost walked out at the very beginning, but I stayed to see if the picture quality would improve, it did not. My recomendation is for others interested in this movie is: save your money, and wait for the DVD.

    Posted 18:33 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for BelladonnahBelladonnah

    I watched this movie last night in 3D I was not impressed by the 48fps. It felt as though I was looking through an old view finder toy from the 60's. I will wait until they are all on DVD to watch the second and third parts. The movie was not worth the $43.00 I paid for my two children and myself to see it. I almost walked out at the very beginning, but I stayed to see if the picture quality would improve, it did not. My recomendation is for others interested in this movie is: save your money, and wait for the DVD.

    Posted 18:35 | Thu 27th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for frito2frito2

    It takes a lot now to overcome the visions long ago implanted while reading "Bored of the Rings" ( written by Henry Beard and Douglas Kennedy in pre-Harvard Lampoon days.). It is, admittedly, a parody of LOTR, not the Hobbit. LOTR films did not succumb to the parody, but the Hobbit played to close to its obscure cousin. Having read "Bored" much increased my enjoyment of "The Hobbit".

    Posted 02:10 | Sat 29th Dec 2012
  • View Profile for Ethylene GlycolEthylene Glycol

    Don't you be dissing Elijah Wood. He was swell as Frodo. Although I do love Martin Freeman. And Bilbo Baggins is the Greatest Little Hobbit of Them All.

    Posted 13:05 | Wed 2nd Jan 2013
  • View Profile for CiaraCiara

    Meh, went to see it at the weekend and while i enjoyed it I left feeling a little underwhelmed. It's not the fault of the Hobbit but after nearly 10 hours of LOTR i feel like we've seen it all before. Martin Freeman was great, cast in general were very good but there was an excess of battle scenes and some (even for a fantasy adventure) ridiculous moments - the bridge falling down the ravine in the goblin kingdom. Overall i'd give 3/3.5 out of 5.

    Posted 09:57 | Mon 14th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Teanna ByertsTeanna Byerts

    "Already knowing the fate of the characters deflates some of the tension"...wha'??? The book was published in 1937, we've all read it, like, 48 times. We know the three hot Dwarves die terribly in Chapter XVIII ...gimme a break. Would you say this about one of the latest incarnations of Snow White? No, we go to see these films because we want to see the characters fleshed out, to live and breathe, we want to see their expressions, hear their voices and (even though we know they survive it) cling to the edge of that cliff with them. As for the style of the film, it is not and never was Lord of the Rings. Hobbit was written in a style reflecting ancient oral tradition, it was meant to be read aloud. Like classic faerie tales, it lacks detail and moves at a fast pace. The film captures its quirky humor, but adds the necessary detail... which is why three films. There's a lot going on in that thin book. I always preferred the epic detail of book LOTR to book Hobbit, the film brings us that. It may be the first film I've liked better than the book. Martin Freeman is, indeed, now my favorite Hobbit, but the supporting cast is fantastic (and appealing...they've already got their own fan bases, even the goofy ones). The actors survived Dwarven Boot Camp, hours of makeup and hair, heavy costumes and oversized boots to bring to life awesome characters. I've always loved the Elves, but after riding with these guys on their adventure, I may have to turn in my membership to the Woodelf party Club. As for formats, 48fps, or HFR, may take some getting used to for some of the audience (anything different does). After watching an HFR version back to back with an Imax 3D, I'll go with the HFR. So much clearer, so much easier to follow action (even in more bucolic scenes like the Shire)... by contrast the Imax was horribly blurry and rock concert TOOLOUD (where the bleep are my bleeping earplugs).

    Posted 17:40 | Sun 20th Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Condo BobCondo Bob

    Good Practical Advice NEEDED. We don't often go out to see the new movies much any more so I need some good practical advice from a technical movie goer. I would like to take my wife to see the HOBBIT tomorrow but I am not sure which type of screen showing to go see. We both LOVED the Lord of the Rings Triology but that triology was a few years back.Please let me explain: My wife recently lost an eye in an accident (she has a glass eye that is un-noticable) and she hasn't visited a movie showing outside of our home since the accident. She want to see this movie more then I do I think and I don't want her to be uncomfortable. I am not sure if the IMAX is to large of a screen and it's my understanding that to correctly see and experience a 3D properly, the human brain needs both eyes.

    Posted 11:07 | Mon 21st Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Paul CorriganPaul Corrigan

    What a let-down this film was, a 2 1/2 hour let down at that. If you've seen The Trilogy then you've basically seen anything this has to offer. The 20 long minute Gollum/Bilbo riddle scene was the most boring 20 minutes of my life. We've seen Gollum before, as we've seen most of the CGI, set, special effects etc etc...all impressive but nothing new. As for the dwarves singing in Snow White type musical?? Hi Ho anyone! Gandalf was again his wise old self handing out life changing one liners to the hapless Bilbo. I could go on but I've wasted enough time at this movie already, I absolutely won't be going back for the second part, which, let me guess will have Dwarves getting up to all sorts of not so hilarious anics, Gollum, Gandalf saving the day again, baddies (the white orc was good though), more Gollum. You can't draw blood from a stone...not unless you're Mr Jackson

    Posted 10:35 | Wed 23rd Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Paul CorriganPaul Corrigan

    What a let-down this film was, a 2 1/2 hour let down at that. If you've seen The Trilogy then you've basically seen anything this has to offer. The 20 long minute Gollum/Bilbo riddle scene was the most boring 20 minutes of my life. We've seen Gollum before, as we've seen most of the CGI, set, special effects etc etc...all impressive but nothing new. As for the dwarves singing in Snow White type musical?? Hi Ho anyone! Gandalf was again his wise old self handing out life changing one liners to the hapless Bilbo. I could go on but I've wasted enough time at this movie already, I absolutely won't be going back for the second part, which, let me guess will have Dwarves getting up to all sorts of not so hilarious anics, Gollum, Gandalf saving the day again, baddies (the white orc was good though), more Gollum. You can't draw blood from a stone...not unless you're Mr Jackson

    Posted 10:38 | Wed 23rd Jan 2013
  • View Profile for Lisa Wilkins ShapiroLisa Wilkins Shapiro

    I loved the movie, and didn't feel it was too long - to me the time passed quickly. And, to "The Viewer": if you don't like it, that's your right, but there are millions (and millions, and millions) of us around the world, and across nearly 100 years who love it. You not liking it is not the same as it being bad, it just wasn't your thing. OK, fine, everybody's different. Please leave those of us who do like it alone to enjoy.

    Posted 04:25 | Thu 24th Jan 2013

Log in to leave a comment

Entertainment.ie login Facebook login

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in the comments section are those of the viewer and do not reflect those of Entertainment.ie. Entertainment.ie accepts no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy of viewer comments. Please contact us to report abusive comments

More Trailer