Hall of Fire Reviews - Post Them Here! [SPOILERS!]

Post by **Dave_LF** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:26 pm

Shelob'sAppetite wrote:First, there have been quite a few folks criticizing the way in which Bilbo departs Bag End. Here, however, I must strongly disagree.

I loved the subtlety and acting here too, and that moment of mixed (and surprising!) disappointment was just right. I just felt the reversal was too sudden and too extreme. It would have been more believable if we'd seen Bilbo sticking up for himself a bit more the night before; in response to "more like a grocer than a burglar," for example, and becoming enthused by the map, and having to remind himself that he's not actually going with, after all. As it is, it's hard for me to accept that that moment of mixed and surprising disappointment would have been enough to tip the scales. But maybe that's just because I don't have as much Took in me as Bilbo does.

What the heck happened to Bilbo and Thorin?

We see absolutely nothing of Bilbo's wonder in Rivendell (which he returns to in LOTR, due to his love of the place), and we see Thorin briefly during the moon runes scene (which was somehow botched). Otherwise, they are complete afterthoughts in Rivendell. Nobodies, really.

This film has no idea what it is supposed to be. It plays more like a "further adventures in Middle Earth" cartoon, than a film about a hobbit and a dwarf.

I think you are actually touching on one of the things I liked! I would much rather have a movie about Middle-Earth in which Bilbo and Thorin feature as major, but still supporting, characters than the reverse. This is part of what I had in mind earlier when I talked about the world feeling bigger this time, because the landscape doesn't care about Our Heroes quite so much.

The stone giants sequence provides a literal statement of this approach to the story, which allows me to overlook the rest of it.

Post by **anthriel** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:57 pm

Inanna wrote:
yovargas wrote:
Mrs.Underhill wrote:OK, I finally love the Tolkien movie and can be a happy fangirl and join the party, come here and see that the folks who loved LotR mostly don't like this one.

That I can see so far, I'm in the minority here for loving LOTR and mostly not liking this one.
With me, yov, with me. Such a tiring movie.

With me, as well. The Hobbit was okay, overall, and I do have lots of germaine and highly insightful points to make, but I just don't have time. It under no circumstances held up a weak candle to LotR, though. Not for me.

anthriel wrote:I had no idea that dwarves only came in two genetic types: buffonish cartoon characters or Totally H0tt.
A good observation, Anthy

Thank you, Inanna.

I thought only Di the Armitage Fangirl

had noticed my post!

Post by **Dave_LF** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:59 pm

There were a couple important points the film glossed over that I didn't even notice at first, because I already know the story. But less informed viewers might be wondering:

-Why did the trolls turn to stone? Did Gandalf do that? Why doesn't he pull that trick out again with the goblins?
-Why didn't the goblins chase them out of the mountain? Gandalf says something about sunlight being their only hope, but what does that have to do with anything? We've already seen other orcs chasing them outside during the day, after all.
-What the heck is going on with the ring Bilbo found? I gather it makes him invisible? That seems like a pretty big deal; why didn't it come up again afterwards?

Post by **kzer_za** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:03 pm

The trolls actually say something like "when the sun comes up, we'll turn to stone."

Post by **Alatar** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:04 pm

Elentári wrote:If you saw it in IMAX 3D, then it was still at 24 fps, I believe, and not the HFR, (48 fps) according to the Henry Ford IMAX website...

I saw it in IMAX 3D HFR 48FPS. I know because they told us at the start and because frankly, you couldn't NOT know by looking at it.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:06 pm

kzer_za wrote:The trolls actually say something like "when the sun comes up, we'll turn to stone."

Ok; I must have missed that. Sounds like an excuse to watch it again! (not that I need one

)

Post by **Alatar** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:07 pm

Yeah, I think the quote is along the lines of "Hurry up, dawns coming and I don't fancy being turned to stone". That's what makes Bilbo start playing for time.

Post by **Pearly Di** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:32 pm

Anthy and Inanna, if you find The Hobbit tiring, then surely the somewhat over-wrought RotK ought to give you both a headache.

I've fallen out of love, just a little, with the LotR films. I will always love PJ for giving me such an immersive filmic experience, and much besides, but here's the thing ... in my opinion, the changes in The Hobbit are actually less offensive than some of the changes in LotR.

Yes, I could do without the silliness. Radagast with bird poop in his hair, oh please ... But it's no more silly than the very silly stuff that could crop up in PJ's LotR, as well.

Thank you, Inanna. I thought only Di the Armitage Fangirl had noticed my post!

I'm an Armitage fangirl for a reason.

He played the darkly smouldering Thornton in one of the BBC's best costume dramas, Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South (around 2004).

I knew he'd be a great Thorin.

And he is. Different from canon Thorin, but it works.

Post by **Maria** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:37 pm

I saw it Saturday in 3D Imax HFR (at least I think I did- the theater I went to was listed as having HFR capability). I did notice that the 3D previews that were presumably not shot in HFR were harder on my eyes.

I didn't have any trouble with the movie itself, except for some of the really fast action sequences being hard to follow. We got there early and got prime seats, so that may have helped. This was my first 3D movie, and I didn't get a headache or anything.

On the whole I loved the movie. The only continually jarring thing for me was the actor who played Kili. Having seen the first season of "Being Human" where he plays a vampire, I had trouble adjusting to him in the role of Kili. He just didn't get enough lines to make him "Kili" in my mind. So, every time I saw his face, it was a muted sort of

reaction on my part, and his role as Mitchell would come to mind.

I didn't have that problem with Martin Freeman at all. I loved him in Sherlock, but he instantly turned into Bilbo for me after just a few minutes.

As usual, I couldn't see the reason for some of the changes from the book- they didn't seem to be time savers and thus.... what's the point? When the book was quoted word for word, though, I just sat there grinning.

I liked it.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:43 pm

Pearly Di wrote:But it's no more silly than the very silly stuff that could crop up in PJ's LotR, as well.

I could argue that point...but more importantly is that LotR balanced the "silly" stuff with moments of stunning beauty and grace and awe and emotion. AUJ does not manage such heights while still managing many similar lows. IMO!

Post by **kzer_za** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:45 pm

Anthy and Inanna, if you find The Hobbit tiring, then surely the somewhat over-wrought RotK ought to give you both a headache.

I don't think so. RotK is unwieldy at times, but the subplots all go somewhere and contribute to the story (even the Arwen plot at least has a payoff at the end). And the action scenes all have a solid purpose in relation to the story - there's nothing like the stupid pre-Rivendell warg chase.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:46 pm

Which storylines lacked a clear resolution? And how can that be predicted when there are still 2 films to go?

Post by **kzer_za** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:49 pm

The White Council and Radagast basically go nowhere (and I mostly liked Radagast besides a few jokes). I'm sure there will be a payoff later, but in the context of this single movie they just bloat it up.

Post by **Alatar** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:51 pm

kzer_za wrote: there's nothing like the stupid pre-Rivendell warg chase.

There is in Towers though. And it serves less purpose than the one in the Hobbit.

Post by **kzer_za** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:53 pm

I'm not really a fan of the one in TTT (setting canon aside, the execution feels rather perfunctory compared to most other LotR action scenes), but from a film standpoint I feel like it works better to raise the stakes than the Hobbit warg battle does to force them into Rivendell. And it ties better with the Isengard/Rohan storyline, while at this point the warg battle is barely connected to Erebor or even the Necromancer.

At least The Hobbit has better wargs though.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:57 pm

Well; when you're telling a story in several parts, you sometimes have to "bloat" an early segment in order to set up things that happen later, otherwise they just come out of the blue. The story is increasingly going to shift to the Necromancer with the next two parts, and they needed to hint at that now. I'm actually surprised they managed to do little more than hint (though I strongly suspect there was quite a bit more Radagst material that was cut).

As for the warg hunt, in addition to forcing them to go to Rivendell, it also established that Azog was still out there and after them. They needed that setup for the payoff at the end.

Post by **yovargas** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:57 pm

And even if the TTT warg scene were just unnecessary action filler, which LOTR certainly had - it was actually a pretty entertaining action piece, as are most of LOTR's action set pieces. AUJ's action almost all felt flat and forgettable, IMO. And what wasn't forgettable was not memorable for good reasons ("OMG this is sooo ridiculous!

")

Post by **Pearly Di** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:59 pm

yovargas wrote:I could argue that point...but more importantly is that LotR balanced the "silly" stuff with moments of stunning beauty and grace and awe and emotion. AUJ does not manage such heights while still managing many similar lows. IMO!

We will have to agree to disagree.

Not that LotR doesn't have those moments, there are many beautiful moments in PJ's LotR that I treasure, but at the same time PJ can really over-do it. Like the Grey Havens. The sequence is covered in a golden syrup of sentimentality. I'm far from hating it, but I get slightly irritated with it.

The restrained emotion of the BBC radio LotR is just as moving, if not more so.

The Thorin/Bilbo hug was a definite high note for me, and it was lovely.

The Hobbit is a lighter story, and the film's tone reflects that. It doesn't have the highs of LotR, sure, but the lows in The Hobbit are no more offensive than any of the lows in LotR. IMO.

Post by **kzer_za** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:02 pm

Here's the problem with Azog: the main motivation for the journey is supposed to be reclaiming Erebor. Peter Jackson has also decided to add the Necromancer as a secondary plotline. Azog has only indirect connections to both of these things, so he's almost a third storyline. And he's not an interesting character at all.

Post by **Alatar** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:02 pm

Honestly Yov, I think you might just not have been in the right mood for it? Not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, just that the films are really very similar in their action scenes and for you to not enjoy ANY of this one when you enjoyed MOST of the other three makes me this you just need to take a break and go watch it with fresh eyes.

Just a suggestion, no criticism implied.