Critics review 'An Unexpected Journey'

Cheers, halfy!

Here's some stuff from a number of reviews I don't think have been covered yet (WARNING TO NORC - SPOILERIFFIC):

Can't remember where I pulled this first one from...

Barely mentioned in the original novel, Jackson also gives a larger part to Radagast the Brown, played by former "Doctor Who" Sylvester McCoy, an eccentric character who communicates with animals, and this is where the movie starts to get problematic, both in terms of tone and the CG, particularly the rabbit-driven sleigh driven by Radagast. These lighter moments seem sillier as if Jackson is trying to appeal to a younger audience, which does make some sense since Tolkien's earlier book was far friendlier towards younger kids.
…
That can't be said for a character from Tolkien's books that plays a larger part in this adaptation, the large scarred orc named Azog the Desecrator (Manu Bennett), a recurring antagonist from Thorin's past who keeps showing up, building to a climactic battle later on.

Silly bunny-sled is silly. Not sure what climactic battle the Azog comment is referring to though...maybe the Battle of the Five Armies ("later on" may refer to that I guess) or perhaps he has an appearance in the Goblin King sequence? Seems there's orc involvement in the film that isn't in the book, from other reviews, so it might be in there too - not sure I'm at all happy with an ADDITIONAL battle sequence. Bah.

From a review by The Vine:

The central conflict is between the hobbit and the headstrong leader of the dwarves, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The dynamic is like a cool kid and his younger brother — Thorin is saddled with Bilbo, the only one of them capable of sneaking into the Lonely Mountain and stealing back treasure from Smaug. Thorin lets him run with the pack, but embarrasses him to show power. He also protects him from pursuing Orcs (newly added characters who hunt the group and add a necessary amount of action to the plot) when necessary.
…
Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) opens the film with a history of the Dwarven people; Gandalf name drops the kooky brown wizard Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) before the action cuts to his story thread, and early into their quest, an elder dwarf Balin (Ken Stott) tells a tale of Thorin's early adventures, fighting an Orc off with only a hunk of wood (flashbacks being another digestible way for Jackson to sprinkle action into the simple tale). Exaggerated details ("and then the mountains turned into people!") even make the film feel more like a story passed down through time than LOTR's urgent, in-the-moment quality.
…
Three enormous, starving orcs and a society of underground Goblins — ruled over by a tubby king with an enormous jowl — both feel like margin doodles come to life. Same goes for the film's main adversary, a frightening albino warrior who rarely looks out of place when placed side-by-side with his human counterparts.
…
Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo: the big-hearted homebody, who fusses over his plates and his pantry as the dwarves descend upon Bag End; later, the extremely averse adventurer who asks the company to turn back because he forgot his handkerchief!

Mention of orcs again. Not sure why they'd bother hunting the dwarves TBH - the goblins only really attacked when the dwarves used their cave and they saw some decent slave material (and nommy ponies - wonder if that's in the film!!). Thorin/Bilbo tension I'm glad to see, but the rescue bit is a bit obvious...

Second quote I've included because it covers quite a bit of detail on the prologue. From other reviews it seems we first get this and then get the Frodo/Bilbo scene. And THEN the story begins - so I can see how reviewers say it takes forever to get going...

Third part...I assume the "three starving orcs" are actually the trolls. Not sure who the "albino warrior" is - Azog? What is it about poor albinos? First Dan Brown, now PJ... (not to mention Fezzik put a wheelbarrow over one in the Princess Bride!)

Bilbo's (absent) handkerchief!

Next quote from Total Film's review:

The Japes are often rather pantomime-like, especially during a repetitive early sequence in which the dwarves invite themselves into Bilbo’s home and he just stands around incredulously. When the dwarves travel through Rivendell later on, one takes a look at the Elven food – largely consisting of greens and fresh food – and asks, “Have you got any chips?”. It’s a perilous tightrope walk between eye-rollingly daft and cheekily playful, and not one that Jackson performs all that well.

Poor Petty, think his crabbit-meter might break...

And one final quote (also from Total Film)...

Tolkein nerds are unlikely to be swayed by any negative publicity…

Reviewer clearly hasn't met Petty. And can't spell Tolkien either

What seems to be consensus across all reviews is that the scene between Gollum and Bilbo is brilliant - I'm hoping it is very close to the book dialogue - that scene really MAKES the first half of the book, and one of my favourite Hobbit scenes, so I'm hoping it's also brilliant from a purist perspective. I'm also hearing lots of good stuff about Martin Freeman, but then I really was delighted when he was cast. So hopefully he in combination with Andy Serkis (who I want to kidnap and keep as a pet to do various impressions for my entertainment) will steal the show.

I'm confident that the Riddles in the Dark scene will be great. I haven't seen a reviewer yet who disliked it.

I'm a bit worried about Azog (who is the albino orc in question). Hearing him described as the first film's chief antagonist is a bit perturbing. I assume he is in charge of the orcs chasing the dwarves in the clips we've seen so far. I wonder if he'll make it out of the film alive or if he is destined for a Lurtzian role as in FOTR.

*sigh* there are so many antagonists/barriers in the book, I just don't get adding a whole new plot complication. I mean, in the first six chapters you have:

- the trolls
- the inclement weather
- the goblins
- Gollum
- the goblins again (Bilbo escaping the cave)
- the wargs
- the goblins yet again

And over this you have the whole threat of Smaug, PLUS you have the internal conflict that Bilbo goes through, and the external tension caused by Thorin and some of the other dwarves' lack of warmth toward Bilbo (sometimes bordering on hostile contempt). And with the additional WC storyline you also have the Necromancer. No wonder the bloody thing is going to be a 9hr journey in total!

It definitely doesn't seem like it's the stuff from the appendices which plumped it out to a third movie. It's all the made up crap.

Eldorion wrote:I look forward to people pretending that this was always "common knowledge" rather than something that had never crossed anyone's mind before PJ brought it up as a justification.

Should be fun to hear from newcomers to the forum down the road.

Tolkien-ignorant reviewer gives it 2-star in the Mirror: http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/going-out/film/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-adventure-review-amazing-1477569

Weirdly, this review makes me more hopeful. "Extended" riddle scene and the quote from Bilbo at least gives me hope that Petty will at least have something to work with.

ETA: And another giving me hope - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/9732258/Film-review-The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-Certificate-12A.html. Like the description of the Riddle scene in particular - Gollum did like/hate the chatting with Bilbo and the reminders of his childhood and I'm glad that'll be reflected.

Fran Walsh always did a good job writing for Gollum - I don't think there was ever any need to worry on that score. Even among Tolkien purists (with the notable exception of Petty) nobody faulted the extra dialogue she wrote for Gollum.

From what I've read and heard it seems like the critics and reviewers didn't get the LotR prequel they were hoping for, which in turn gives me hope The only problem is, all the 2D screenings are mid-day here, and I can't make those times

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/12/09/66920-the-long-expected-movie-another-torn-staffer-hobbit-review/

The consensus seems to be the improved clarity 48fps provides is nauseating to some and distracting in close-ups. Though it's great for distance shots.

I am trying to avoid the 48fps/3D and go for the traditional simple version the first time I see it.

The Telegraph has posted another review and for once it's from who seems to actually know his Tolkien.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/9730525/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-movie-review.html

This film is so stuffed with extraneous faff and flummery that it often barely feels like Tolkien at all – more a dire, fan-written internet tribute. The book begins with the unimprovable ten-word opening sentence: “In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit.” Jackson, by contrast, starts with an interminable narrative detour about a mining operation run by a team of dwarves, involving magic crystals, orc armies and details of dwarf family trees that are of interest, at this early stage in what is supposed to be a family film, to almost nobody.

Thank heavens for Andy Serkis, whose riddling return as Gollum steals the entire film. It is the only time the digital effects and smoother visuals underline, rather than undermine, the mythical drama of Bilbo’s adventure. As a lover of cinema, Jackson’s film bored me rigid; as a lover of Tolkien, it broke my heart.

More at the link.

Just gave that review a read Edlo- first Ive seen from a UK newspaper, and the Telgraph is very much a middle class paper, so they probably like their Tolkien.

I foud this line interesting, both becuase its the only seeming complaint about Freeman I have heard and becuase its left mysteriously unexplained in the review-

'Eventually we are introduced to Bag End, and Bilbo Baggins as Martin Freeman, who makes exactly one-third of a good job of portraying the character.'

This made me laugh-

'Gandalf has an interminable conversation with Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving), which gets so boring that Bilbo and the dwarves leave without them.'

But does that mean Gandalf is not with them when they cross the mountains? Or does he just jog along behind till he catches up?

Mrs Figg wrote:I am trying to avoid the 48fps/3D and go for the traditional simple version the first time I see it.

yupp, me too, though they don't show 48fps here, but I am seeing the 3D the weekend after

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Just gave that review a read Edlo- first Ive seen from a UK newspaper, and the Telgraph is very much a middle class paper, so they probably like their Tolkien.

I foud this line interesting, both becuase its the only seeming complaint about Freeman I have heard and becuase its left mysteriously unexplained in the review-

'Eventually we are introduced to Bag End, and Bilbo Baggins as Martin Freeman, who makes exactly one-third of a good job of portraying the character.'

This made me laugh-

'Gandalf has an interminable conversation with Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving), which gets so boring that Bilbo and the dwarves leave without them.'

But does that mean Gandalf is not with them when they cross the mountains? Or does he just jog along behind till he catches up?

Regarding the "one-third" comment - that might be referring to the fact that this is one-third of the Hobbit. So MF fills the role, in the reviewer's opinion?

Bilbo and the dwarves leaving - now I'm not sure whether that should be taken as leaving Rivendell or leaving the scene/council/conversation and going to find some grub.

The Hobbit has been fluctuating in the 70s range on Rotten Tomatoes and is currently at 73%, with an average rating of 7/10. That's a little bit higher than it was after a day of reviews. RT has finally posted a consensus of the reviews so far.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

Peter Jackson's return to Middle-earth is visually resplendent and features strong performances from Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen, but the film's deliberate pace robs the material of some of its majesty.

Seems like a decent summary of the reviews so far, though definitely more positively-termed than the more negative reviews. It also dodges the 48fps issue, though that's probably fair.

Meanwhile, The Hobbit's score on Metacritic has dipped to 59/100 with 16 reviews. That's a little bit lower than it was after one day of reviews. It also changes the film's classification from "generally favorable reviews" to "mixed or average reviews".

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

Well lets see- critics fawned over LotR's and gave it awards- it gave me severe crabbit and a pain that will never go away.
So if critics dont like it does that mean I will? Or that its going to be so bad I will combust right there in the cinema?
I'm so confused.

Better sit next to a fire extinguisher Petty ! or book a paramedic just in case !

http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/awesome-hobbit-film-wows-fans-5282771

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-movie-review-48-fps/

Wow, the worst review I've seen yet. Maybe seeing too much technology helped to spoil it, and we should see it in traditional format like Norc did.

http://news.yahoo.com/hobbit-one-bad-video-game-173813922.html

yepp, don't take any chances of being distracted, watch it in normal 24fps.

Im still in two minds about whether to see it in 3d 48fps or not- it is PJ's preferred way of seeing it and if it is deserving of my crabbit Id like to know!

no, see it normally, then perhaps go and try the 3D and 48fps. I didn't want to take any risks of headache or whatever, i wanted to enjoy the movie. If I could I would see it in 48fps too, but not the first time. maybe 3D, but not 48fps. The normal way was just as good. I'll let you know about 3D as soon as I've seen that too

I'll be seeing it normal sometime next week, then in full geeked out glory during the holidays. has there been a reviewer who's seen both versions?