Written July 29, 2014
So, I'll get this out of the way. I like 3D, and I like IMAX3D. Provided the films are actually shot stereoscopically. What I did not like was the look of 48fps IMAX 3D in the Hobbit. It looks as you might expect: like video with motion smoothing turned on. In the case of The Hobbit, it causes sets and props to appear as... well, sets and props. The CGI holds up quite well, though. It also appears that the lighting is sort of flat in this film, and Jackson chooses to shoot deep focus, and these two choices also contribute to the "video-look" of the film. It's distracting.
Perhaps the 24fps version is better? But the story itself is somewhat confused. By attempting to make the Hobbit a full fledged prequel to the LotR trilogy, the story has been expanded and the scope widened, leaving a viewer at times wondering why they're getting information that seems irrelevant to Bilbo's journey. That said, it's still a better "episode 1" than others I've seen. It's a'ight.
Written December 18, 2014
Great special effects, and cinematography. Make-up is superb, looks real on actors. Costumes are very creative, and pertinent to the time period in Middle Earth. I would guess that this movie will be up for Academy Awards in each of those four categories. Movie makers used much poetic license making this movie. I didn't remember the book being so detailed. I wonder if Tolkein would have liked this version of his book? I would recommend you see this movie! However, it is a tad long. The second movie in the trilogy is coming out this year, the third one in 2014. As far as I can tell, the main actors will be the same. What is amazing is that three separate parts of the movie had to be made to look larger and smaller. In other words, the part of Gandolf had to look bigger than the Dwarfs who needed to be smaller with the Hobbit as the smallest. As a result, the actors had to play to people wearing blue screen outfits, instead of the whole cast in real time. Looking forward to seeing more!
Written December 14, 2012
As with most people, I was delighted to hear that Jackson was given rights and to tell the story of The Hobbit. And like most, I followed the saga as studios picked up/dropped the film and directors came and went. And as with most early comments and forum posts, I questioned the need for three movies to tell the story, and worried about the inclusion of 3D and the Higher Frame Rate.
Unfortunately as I left the theater at 3:15AM, my questions were answered... the magic of LOTR has been lost and replaced with studio greed for money (i.e., more movies), arrogance (Jackson's belief that he can make a new technology seem legitimate), and questionable taste (way too many CGI characters and why does the CGI look worse than LOTR even though they had 10 years to evlove their skill).
The story is still great and the acting was good However, the pacing of the movie was far too slow and you could tell there was pressure to make the script longer in order to get a trilogy out of the story.
Written December 14, 2012
I loved the first installment. It went so quickly I could not believe three hours had expired. The 3-SD was great,but the High Frame Rate was incredible. Everything was so vivids and alive. It Was as if you were there not just watcing.
Written December 24, 2012
Not sure I'm on board with the 48 fps concept. OK - it reduced motion blur in the action sequences, which were many. It also made glaringly obvious which scenes had stunt doubles and CGI elements. If any film can be 'too crisp' surely it's a fantasy epic. It's also clear there was some stretching and LOTR foreshadowing I do not recall from my reading of The Hobbit. LOTR - 1000pp - 3 movies. The Hobbit - 250pp - 3 movies...
No regrets about seeing it in IMAX/HFR but IMO the rest of the film-making arts (editing, post-production, costumes, makeup) need to step up their game if they're going to convince an audience they're looking at characters, rather than actors in costume.