See it in

Good Movie

By robinrains
Written December 28, 2012
I really liked that it stayed true to the theme of LOTR and it was a good movie. My only complaint was that there were really no good-looking leading men like Viggo Mortensen and Orlando Bloom as in the original LOTR trilogy to hold my interest. It also was slow to get moving, but I think that the second movie will be much better now that the group is well on their quest and the action is beginning.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Did you?

The Hobbit, great and disappointing

By rossmon3
Written May 04, 2016
This story could have been told in one three hour movie. Ok, maybe two for those of us who love Tolkien and have read the books many times like me. The story didn't need to be bloated out with extra stuff to make it better. The Hobbit was already great. The following is a text I sent to my son soon after we saw it. Elrond had 6 paragraphs in the Hobbit. He described the 2 swords and read the map in 2. No meeting with Sauramon or Galadriel. No speculation that the dragon might join with the evil (necromancer) that would become Sauron. No Morghul blade or talk of the witch king of Angmar (future leader of the Nasgul) 2 things that were only part of The Lord of the Rings. No attack by the Elves on the Orc's. I think all this was added to make the tale darker, and more exciting for adults as it was written for Tolkien's kids as a fairy tale. Or because Peter Jackson didn't think Tolkien had tied the hobbit to lord of the rings well enough. I still enjoyed the movie!
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Did you?

Expectation exceeded

By artsupplyz
Written December 16, 2012
I am an avid fan of Tolkien and this movie has something for everyone. I saw the 3D version and was not disappointed. Peter Jackson has done an end to end great job while staying true to the story.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Did you?

The Hobbitt

By Gwendolyn-1
Written December 16, 2012
What a pity Jackson forgot the very things that made the three films of the Ring Cycle awesome: A complex tale told in many many simple layers. If he had, then The Hobbit would have been the mirror reflection of the same: a simple tale told simply. Instead, the movie I saw tonight was gimmicky, with gratuitous and very silly battles going on all the time. No attempt at sense. 40,000 Orcs aganst 13 hero dwarves --and the dwarves won. How? Because Gandalf bounced a light flash in the enemy's eyes and shouted RUN! By the end, he had shouted RUN!! more times than I could count. Things have to get pretty awful to make Ian McKellan look like a bad actor. But Jackson did it! If it were only a silly movie, I might not have been so appalled. But it was worst than silly. It ruined a great story. Jackson could have done otherwise--as he showed in the few quiet, elegant moments of this three hour Rivendale, in the first Bilbo/Gollum encounter, the flash forward to Frodo. BAD BAD MOVIE
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Did you?

I Thought We'd Come to See "The Hobbit"...

By Jeremiah_Cornelius
Written December 16, 2012
Not "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" or "The Transformers". What a piece of garbage. Charmless and brash. This is the McDonald's version of Tolkien. Eat it up! This adaptation should have been billed as "inspired by an idea by J.R.R. Tolkein. "The Hobbit" is a simple, straightforward tale, written more for the sensibility of children. The implications for "Lord of the Rings" should be just that. Implications - not effects-laden back-story and narrative train-wreck. This affair is not improved by the fact that Jackson couldn't direct a wet paper bag. Instead of getting anything from his actors, he leans on the volume of the soundtrack - pumping romantic orchestration as a cue. Hitchcock could manipulate with music. Mr Jackson is no Hitchcock - and his orchestral dreck was composed by no Bernard Herrmann. If the arts and culture mean anything in the cosmic sense, then there's a place in hell, to welcome Mr. Jackson.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Did you?