Written December 15, 2012
But I made two just like this in the bathroom this morning.
In short, the IMAX is awesome, the 3D is need and the HFR was interesting. I'm not sure of it was the combination of some of those, but most of the movie seemed too bright and without the regular camera filters (kind of like daytime soaps); so, it was kind of like watching a bunch of guys doing LARP with someone following them around with a video camera.
Many of the scenes are way too long and drawn out (to turn this single book into a three part movie) and the included songs are alarming -- the scoring and choreography of the musical performances gives the actors the appearance of being more suited for Broadway than the big screen.
The scare/edge factor is considerably less than LOTR and I hate what's going on the goblins speaking in a fairly normal human voice.
All in all, I was very disappointed. That being said, will I watch the rest? Yeah, because it's The Hobbit.
Written December 15, 2012
I actually enjoyed the 48fps high frame rate. The 48fps benefits 65% of the film. Scenes with moving shots, sweeping shots of landscapes and environments are truly amazing and gorgeous. The incredible detail from the 48 fps and lack of blur make certain scenes look incredible. The trolls, the orc caverns, and there was one more scene where the 48fps showcased amazing detail and feel. These definitely benefited from the 48fps. The 3D is the most realistic its ever been, and it made me feel like I was in the movie. If only the screen curved around the viewer it would fully immerse the viewer. About 5% of the film made me slightly dizzy from the HFR and camera movements. Even with 48fps, some scenes have really fast camera movements that still cause a slight blur.So, is 48fps the greatest thing? No. Does it ruin the movie by removing the cinematic blur of 24fps? No. Was the 3D planned for and done well? YES. It is definitely worth experiencing once.
Written January 06, 2013
Seeing The Hobbit in IMAX 3D at the high frame rate was AMAZING! I'm so glad I went for the full meal deal. I can't count the number of times I felt like I was "in" a scene. While I'm still puzzled and a bit pissed about Peter Jackson stretching this little novel into 3 films, what he's doing to advance film making is brilliant. Also, Martin Freeman is absolutely terrific as Bilbo. Perfect casting.
Written August 28, 2014
Its only fitting that Peter Jackson finishes out the Tolkien mainstay books as film. That being said, there were a few things I could have done without, some of the dwarfs were over cgi'd in my opinion, Thorin and several others looked fine, but others not quite so, it was at times distracting for me. Though I enjoyed the show immensely I cannot help but think it seemed not quite as well done as The Lord of the Rings trilogy was, which is perplexing since most of the same folks were involved. That's been something that's sorta nagged at the back of my mind ever since seeing it, though honestly I cannot point to any one thing that left me with that feeling. (Other than the dwarfs I suppose.)
All that aside I feel it is well worth seeing on the big screen, the vistas are just as stunning as they were in the trilogy, due to New Zealand's remarkable natural beauty, the returning actors are a delight to see again, and Richard Armitage does a great job as Thorin as does Ken Stott as Balin.
Written December 27, 2012
It was a visually beautiful movie and the cast seemed well-suited for their roles.
I was expecting more from the music and it was pretty long, but there were some funny moments.