Post Punk Kitchen Forum

i'm just gonna watch the old animated version again and hope i have some more nightmares about gollum. #childhoodterror (THAT'S RIGHT HASHTAG YOU NAYSAYERS)

I saw it and really enjoyed it. Smeagol breaks my effing heart, though.

I love Tolkien but I just know if I go to see this movie I'm going to be looking at the horses and wondering which of them died...

I didn't like Tom Bombadil either.

I did really wish Old Man Willow would have just eaten Pippin though.

<3 Tom Bombadil! Tom Bombadil should have his own movie!

I did wish it would be shorter and more like the lighter hearted kids book that it is. I was sort of hoping for the departure from the previous movies in that respect. The ending seemed so abrupt too. But I'll see it. and I do like the inclusion of more backstory- when I heard it was being stretched out like that I figured that must be the case.

And yes, Radagast! I want to have tea with Radagast and his hedgehogs.

I loved it. It exceeded my expectations and then some. I wasn't bothered by the fact that it was a little more serious in tone than the book, and I thought Martin Freeman provided a lot of levity, anyway. But I don't hold the novel as dear as a lot of people do - I read it and enjoyed it, but it's not one of my favorites or anything.

So, it was way darker than the book, but if you think about who the director is, and watch his first movie, you will realize that in fact, its quite tame. Beautiful Creatures, you make my stomach turn with ick.

(Heavenly Creatures. Beautiful Creatures was a different one.)

We went to see it yesterday and I liked it well enough, but mostly for the performances; all the CGI gets boring really fast. Martin Freeman is well cast as Bilbo, and has good chemistry with Ian McKellen, and most of the others are fine, although I must have missed the memo when dwarves started being all leading man handsome. (Look for Thorin Oakenshield on the cover of next month's Tiger Beat!) My objections are the same ones I had about the LotR films: too long, too many tedious, interminable battle scenes (if you've seen one CGI orc tossed into a bottomless pit, you've pretty much seen them all) that take up space better spent on developing/advancing the characters and the story. To say nothing of tiresome action movie tropes like manly one-liners, trash talk, etc., which are not only hackneyed and predictable but completely out of place in this narrative.

So at the end of the day there were things I enjoyed, and I'll shell out for the follow-ups, but my gut feeling remains that it's absurd to turn this slim, charming book into three ginormous blockbuster action films, if for no other reason than the simplest truth: neither The Hobbit nor The Lard of the Rings were conceived as the stuff of "action" movies. Tolkien's text devotes relatively little space to fight scenes (the whole lengthy troll battle really annoyed me; in the book they're just stupid yobs who argue until daybreak turns them to stone), and dispenses with them using standard epic phrases like "so and so fought with the strength of ten dwarves" or whatever. By turning it into all CGI axe-swinging, all the time, the enormous charm of the book is largely lost. And thanks to Peter Jackson, generations of children are going to have to work a bit harder (i.e., actually read the books - if they're even aware there are books - and push back against the cinematic representation with their own imaginations) to find that charm. Then again, my own kids have done it, so I'm hopeful that other peoples' will, too.

Basically, everything that Desdemona said. The CGI was definitely tiresome. At times, I felt like I was watching myself play Fable, especially with a lot of the one-liners from the trolls and the goblins. Battle scenes were far too long.

Martin Freeman is delightful, though, and of course everything was beautiful.

That was the feeling Mike and I had - they wouldn't have needed to stretch it to 3 movies if they'd cut some of the gratuitous fight scenes. It just felt like every time they were getting somewhere, they had another battle.

But I did love James Nesbitt as a dwarf. I can't remember the character's name, but he was the Irishy one with the handlebar mustache (for those not familiar with James Nesbitt). I don't know why*, I just love James Nesbitt. And apparently Cumberbatch** was the Necromancer.

I'm really glad we saw it in 2D, though. I forking hate 3D, and I can't even imagine seeing it in 3D HFR - I read an article about it and it sounded like a nightmare.

*OK, Jekyll is why.
**I'd never really liked him until I saw him as Khan in the previews for the new Star Trek movie. And suddenly he's hot.

3D gives me a headache. Also, I can't think of any particular scene that would have been made better by making it 3D...it's not one of those movies where things jump out at the screen, you know?

I just saw it today and I agree, 3D wasn't necessary, and way too long and too many battle scenes. I don't remember much of the book, and overall I liked the movie. Just tired of Tolkien now as I've watched the three LOTR one after the other on the flight three days ago, this was the overkill.

How could anyone forget Bad Taste and Brain Dead.


I didn't enjoy The Hobbit so much, I had barely any suspension of disbelief and it felt like it had been made for TV. The increased usage of CGI in place of actors removed a big element of believability from it. My biggest highlight was Sebastian the hedgehog.

SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
this is my synopsis:

omg orcs/ugly things are chasing us!
fight them for like 15 minutes!
win!
rest for a minute or so
omg orcs/ugly things are chasing us!

repeat for 3 hours

I finally saw it. I wasn't sure if I wanted to, because The Hobbit was such a huge part of my childhood. And even now I re-read it once a year. I have soooo much sentimental attachment to the book, and the previews made me sick (I have a lot of issues with how some of the dwarves look, that I won't go into).

After seeing it, my biggest complaint is that the movie didn't focus enough on Bilbo. The book is mostly about HIS adventure-- his personal journey of growth, and his discovery of how brave he is. In the book there is this scene where he climbs a tree to assess how much further the forest stretches, and at the top he just sees miles and miles and miles of trees, and it breaks his heart. And he thought about his hobbit hole and warm fire and thinks something like "I wondered if I'd ever see my cozy hobbit hole again. I wondered if I even wanted to." That passage is SO TELLING about his journey, and his realization that he had changed so much, and found this new part of him, that he didn't know if he ever could (or wanted to) return to his old life. I feel like that scene-- or something like it-- is so crucial to the story, and that whole part of the book (and a pretty major part) was mostly replaced by action scenes.

As a random movie I thought it was good. But I have a hard time accepting it as The Hobbit, since the whole feel of it was different. This movie should have been called Thorin's Adventure or The Dwarf or something. It was SO Thorin-centric.

I haven't read the book, but what you're describing sounds much better and more thoughtful than the movie I watched!
I am now incredibly interested in the dwarf appearance issue.

I just thought that most of the dwarves didn't look dirty or rugged enough. I thought Gimli in LOTR was done so well, and wanted them to look like that. I understand (though begrudgingly) why Thorin was kind of handsome, because he's a main character, and Hollywood wants handsome main characters, generally. But in general I thought the dwarves looked too clean and well-kept. A few of them even looked human, not dwarf-like at all.

(And I totally get that I'm overthinking it because the book is such a cornerstone of my childhood.)

Exactly!Me, too!!!! Apparently; he was only onscreen for about a minute, and I didn't recognize him.

And THIS. Times a million!

Having never heard the term "Necromancer" before, every time someone in the movie said it I kept thinking "Neck Romancer" in my head and envisioning something completely different. I could not help it.

Ah, I see. I was wondering if they were somehow politically incorrect or offensive in some way. Just their cleanliness was offensive. ;)

Yes! This particular scene is one I remember fondly from reading the book growing up and I was disappointed that it was not included in the movie. I agree that the movie is far too dwarf-centric and doesn't focus nearly enough on the nature of Hobbits (though I do understand that they went into that quite a bit at the beginning of the first LOTR movie, so maybe they didn't want to repeat stuff).

I was a little bit confused. How many bilbos were there, thirteen? Fourteen? I didn't like the skinny goblin, I think his name was Roland? He was scary and they were trying to make us feel bad for him but HELLO he is a bad guy! He wanted to eat the main bilbo! The grand elf was pretty cool but he didn't really look like an elf, more like a wizard? I really liked Ragglefarts, he was so funny when he crossed his eyes but it would have been funnier if like an elk had kicked him in the balls. I don't understand why the trolls talked like that. They should have been like "LOL teh bilbos get in my belly!" That is how real trolls talk. They should have done more research before writing this movie.

I want you to have a movie review blog.

<3

Also, your review reminds me a little bit of Bored of the Rings.