See it in

The Hobbit is Great, HFR is greater

By RandallStevens
Written July 25, 2016
Yes, the HFR 48 frames per second takes a bit to get used to... because this is the first major movie EVER. it is different than every major film EVER that has come before it. As such, ten minutes of adjustment time isn't too much to ask, is it? The HFR makes the film seem like you are watching live action, as opposed to a recorded 35mm film. It has no film stock grain or grittiness. It has no motion blur. It has the feel of actual real people and characters doing mundane things in a mundane manner... the way that real live people do. The HFR has left the movie standing without the legendary, set-in-stone, epic patina that every film you've ever seen has held in its DNA. Peter Jackson called truer to real immersion in the world and I have to agree. Added benefits: 1) no eye strain after a very long 3D movie. 2) everything in the shot is in focus. 3) no motion blur, which is particularly helpful to those who typically cannot enjoy 3D films due to motion sickness.
59 out of 102 found this helpful. Did you?


By Dr_787
Written September 27, 2016
If you love the LOTR trilogy you'll love The Hobbit! The 48 fps take getting used to but its definitely the future of movies. It was like watching blu-ray for the first time, it was weird at first, but now I can't go back to standard definition.
48 out of 78 found this helpful. Did you?

Has Peter Jackson actually read the hobbit???

By justinlawyer
Written June 23, 2017
Ugh! Jackson is milking us with the first 3 hour installment of 3 movies for a book that should be told in a single sitting! Where is the story telling? It's all lost in the computer graphics! Do yourself a favor and find yourself a copy of the original 1977 cartoon The Hobbit. My top 5 reasons I like the cartoon better: (1) It captures the voice and emotion of the book perfectly. The scenes match the charm of Tolkein's words! (2) It is kid friendly, just like the book. The movie has more of the feel of the Lord of the Rings instead (dark and more dragging) (3) It doesn't try to explain things, but instead lets us discover them, just as Bilbo did (4) It doesn't change scenes just to try to force certain conflicts between characters. (5) It gets Golum, Bilbo, and the Dwarves. The movie doesn't! Though Ian McKellen rocks as Gandalf. Thank goodness Jackson got that right!
45 out of 79 found this helpful. Did you?

So very cool

By seapplegate
Written August 25, 2016
I loved it! While I don't think the 3D was necessary and I can't wait to see it again without 3D...they did an awesome job. It's not LOTR but it's not supposed to be. So don't go in thinking you're going to see another LOTR. Definitely one to see multiple times, then buy.
42 out of 68 found this helpful. Did you?

Another masterpiece from Peter Jackson

By canarius
Written October 01, 2016
This was the 1st time I went to a movie at midnight opening. I saw it in HFR 3D and it was amazing. The visuals were spectacular, even better than Avatar. I don't understand the hate on HFR because it makes it very realistic, it feels like you are in the movie. The acting was great. My favorite one is Andy Serkis as Gollum. Sir Ian McKellan was great as always which is no surprise. Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage were great too. Thorin was bad***.The first 45 minutes might be boring for casual moviegoers as they take their time before the journey but it won't be a problem for Middle Earth fans. Some parts could be left for extended editions. The movie is not as dark as LOTR but that's because the book was written for kids so don't go in expecting something as dark and serious as LOTR. Though the next two movies will be darker as in the book. Even if you don't like fantasy movies, you should see this for the amazing visuals. This is another masterpiece from Peter Jackson.
38 out of 65 found this helpful. Did you?