Huh, didn't expect to randomly hear Keir Starmer's name pop up in the middle of this. I was just curious about what Mark thought of The Hobbit..

@haveanotherpinacolada

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah just rewatched this, I wouldn't have known who Keir Starmer was at the time this came out.

To quote RedLetterMedia: "Watching the Hobbit after the LOTR is alot like having your appetizer sreved to you after already eating the main course."

We uploaded the review without the clip, as Warner Brothers had blocked the original video review, which in cluded a clip, for viewers outside the UK. Hence 'International Version'.

The book is very lighthearted and aimed at younger people.

"Bilbo baggage". Also available, in large quantities, in films 2 and 3.

So they can't block this one, as it doesn't contain any of their material.

Well, yes. Especially as Warner Brothers supplied us with the clips in the first place. No reply from them yet as to why they blocked the video.

4:47 is so true. Gollum was the best part of The Hobbit by far. One of the best scenes in the entire series.

@lw3646

2 жыл бұрын

Yes just like in the second film the best bit is just the dialogue and interaction between Bilbao and Smaug. Probably closest to the original writing.

I think Jackson is just in love with filming every single scene as you see with the extended editions of the LOTR. He has decided that nothing else will do for his adaptations of Tolkien and obviously the studio is going to defer to him after grossing billions of dollars or whatever for the first three. My complaint with the movie if anyone cares is the same as the LOTR only more so, that Jackson has overemphasized the fighting scenes and turns every skirmish into an epic climactic battle

If this film wasnt directed by peter jackson, it wouldve been absolutely slated

They made 3 films to get 3 times the money.

The audience for films like the Hobbit and LoTR has a huge range from children to grownups and even elderly and old people. Everyone likes something else and has different favorite parts. For me I can say that I did like the opening scenes in the shire very much, I was not bored, but I was bored by too much fighting and too much ork-folk. Yes, the impression of the film was not so intense because I could see that most creatures were computer animated and not stuntmen in complicated suits.

Peter Jackson films are sometimes prone to pacing problems. The longer Lord of the Rings films actually feel shorter, better paced. The Frighteners is great if you watch it in two sittings. That film tries to keep a crazy, frenetic comedy with scares, feeling for way too long. First half is great. Second half is great. Watch it all at once and you feel tired, bored towards the last quarter. In King Kong, the frenetic horror sequences just kept going and going, like 15 minutes of not catching a single breath. Take that decent film and restrain it a tiny bit and you would have another masterpiece. Maybe he gets too excited about every little bit. Every scene will be good but if there is a problem it is probably that he was too into it so too much details or it lasts too long or did not need to be in the film at all...?

The overall look of the film was very beautiful, i very enjoy all the fantastical elements and seeing a new areas previously unexplored in Middle Earth, the performances of Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage etc were great, the little sojourn in Mirkwood with Radagast the Brown was also quite good. Also a central villain was welcomed rather than random orcs in Azog the Defiler and The Great Goblin. The Gollum scene was a highlight of the film for me also, really does flesh out why

I have to agree here. As much as I liked The Hobbit AUJ, the one thing I was dismayed with was the excessive use of CGI. I much preferred the use of live-action actors with make-up/prosthetics as they seemed a lot more real and frightening.

I've recently seen the extended version of the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, It was enjoyable with a few scenes expanded upon, but it was mostly the film I remember watching 11 months ago. I do agree with Mark that the film is quite long, adapted from a novel as short as the Hobbit. I do agree that a more tighter focus is needed in the theatrical releases, an extended version for DVD & Blu Ray is fine for me, I love seeing the long form versions after seeing the films for the first time.

he's such a compelling character. The ending does set up nicely for the journey to the Lonely Mountain and their showdown with Smaug the Dragon. This was not a perfect film, probably not a five star film but it's was very much enjoyable fare and can't wait for the next two films with the battle in Erebor, meeting Beorn, Tauriel and Tom Bombadil and the Battle of the Five Armies, the Hobbit's set piece, bring it on.

I suspected as much but was confused since none of the clips seem to be blocked in Sweden.

Curious inversion here in that in the first volume of LOTR, the time between Bilbo's party and Frodo leaving the Shire takes years (17 if memory serves). And yet the film took a much shorter time between the party and Frodo's departure.

I don't believe they're criticising lengthy films in general, it's just films that are 3 hours long when they don't necessarily need to be. Maybe the critics didn't think that the length of The LOTR movies or King Kong was an issue, whereas it was with The Hobbit.

Woop!! for Gary McKinnon, maybe now they can focus on what he discovered :)

The human eye is not bound by frame rate, but yes, roll on the 60

I do agree with Mark that even accomplished directors like Tarantino or Peter Jackson do need someone who can rein in their highly enjoyable if over indulgent films. The Hobbit for me was most enjoyable, i didn't feel bored the reason why i was looking at my watch was because i was surprised at how quickly time had passed when i was watching it. I can understand why it would feel long and ponderous to some being it's nearly three hours, but i enjoy lengthy films so that didn't bother me.

As far as I understand. The original plan was to make two films but Peter Jackson felt with the footage that was left over from the two films that there's enough for a third film. I'll wait and see as if there's additional material drawn from other works of Tolkien then it'll be interesting.

The film didn't feel "long" compared to say Dark Knight Rises (which is my favourite film of last year) or indeed LotR, but it's distinctly baggy. It doesn't always hang together that neatly. On another note, if they ever start adapting bits of the Silmarilion, del Toro should be on board for those. He aced the blockbuster-meets-arthouse style on Hellboy 2, but I don't this story would've been quite right for him. The adult tone of the Silmarilion stories would suit him much better, I reckon.

I didn't find that at all with this film. I actually wanted to see more at the end. I do wonder how the other two films will fare given the sparser material of the Hobbit, despite being padded out with additional material from the ROTK appendices and the Silmarillion.

Lindsey Ellis has the best analysis of the hobbit trilogy

Call me evil, but this is my favorite movie after "Return of the King" out of the 6 movies. Why? Because you begin with a man who wishes to stay home, taken off on to someone else's story, & then the movie ends with how this is actually HIS STORY. It was beautiful.

The film’s issues are the long length & pacing, however the film’s well casted, well acted, well directed, stylish & effective. (76%) (4/5 stars) (positive)

i thought the CGI was awful used way too much

@person-du8dj

3 жыл бұрын

Lord of the rings has some unconvincing effects at times, doesn’t mean the movie’s have ‘bad’ visual effects

@lw3646

4 ай бұрын

Agree. The goblins were largely done for real in The Fellowship of the Ring, not so in the hobbit.

I didnt mind the length of Django

I quite enjoyed the film but it had the feel of a television series (albeit a very expensive one) and also felt more like a children's film than the original trilogy ever did.

The counter-argument is that what he has done is take into account all the extra stuff from the LotR appendices, to revise The Hobbit so it is seamless with the rest of the Middle Earth movies. You may say that's not faithful to the book, but actually Tolkien attempted to do the same thing with The Hobbit (hence all those extra notes, and the chapter with Gollum was re-written), but was unable to get the publishers to make a longer book.

I guess I can understand it feeling too long sitting at a cinema. That's how I felt about LOTR. Watching it on netlfix, I've found The Hobbit immensely enjoyable

I would love edit these these three films down into to one 2.5hr film. Also seems like all the great dragon action at the beginning was completely skipped. I think I will do an edit at some point.

@ColoradoStreaming

3 жыл бұрын

I read somewhere there is a fan edit like this that is pretty good.

I agree with MK....far too long.2 films would have been fine.But some of the scenes became a bit OTT (for me). The Goblin King was just not frightening enough, and the flight scene went on too long...The Spiders WERE quite frightening enough thank you very much(like Shelob in LOTR I had to watch with one eye closed and the other covered by my hand). The scene with the Elves went on too long (although it was long enough to fall madly in love with Aiden Turner as Kili...) That horrible Warg took up too much time in this 1st film. But I did enjoy this film far more than the other 2 (except for the Smaug bits...)

the opening wont feel so long when you watch all 8 or 9 hours of the hobbit trilogy on blu ray in a few years, I think this movie will work better as a third of a longer story then it does as a stand alone film

I agree with you here, why is 90 minutes the standard movie length? You can make a movie 5 hours long if you want, you can make a movie 1 hour long so long as it works and as you say, is entertaining. People say Cloud Atlas is too long - I was totally gripped throughout it!

@giddygrub7176

2 жыл бұрын

DVT?

Initially, studios wanted to make the three LOTR books into one movie. Here, they wanted to make the one Hobbit book into three movies.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of a Good Story. Glad I watched the fan edit first.

for all its faults i still loved it more than anything else i saw that year it was truly epic seeing lord of the rings back on screen

That's why I don't want to buy the Extended Blu-Ray versions. I thought the theatrical version of Return of the King was too long as it was, so I don't really feel like watching a version which is a full hour longer, lol.

I aggre with Kermode that movie tries too hard mimic the darker tone of LOTR movies. But the lighter adventure parts like the whole chase scene through goblin caves reminded me of good old adventure movies like Indiana Jones. The Orc antagonist was so cliched and forced into movie. But the goblin caves and the riddles in the dark were awesome.

and the point that the film is different to conventional films is a valid point, but it is seen as a negative thing and thats simply false. like music genres, media styles are and will eventually all merge and again, the film is not "too long", it is simply a different style and is not anything negative as i feel that a cinema expirience is never "too long", going to the cinema is an act that takes time and regaurdless how long it takes, i feel it usually feels the same

I fail to understand how this is an "INTERNATIONAL VERSION" of the review. As far as I can see it is mostly identical to the previous video, with just a minute cut off from the beginning. Neither of them is blocked for non-UK viewers; both can be watched in Sweden, at least. I'm sorry if I come off as a bit whiny -- I'm just a tad bit confused.

"Do we want this to be 'Lord of the Rings' or do we want to this be 'The Hobbit?' And that, for me, was an unresolved tension." "Sonuvabitch, he stole my line."

Enjoyed the movie but agree 48fps will take some getting use to. 48fps really does make it look like HD T.V and to me, Removes the impression that you are watching a movie.

@lw3646

4 ай бұрын

The switch from film to digital doesn't bother me too much but the 23 frames a second is something I'm really attached to.

I wouldn't have been too upset by the length if they had more content in it and be 2, 2 hour films. Surprised that you never said anything about it having too much cgi though, one of the parts that made Lord of the Rings a masterpiece was that it used cgi only when it was appropriate. Everything else was big-atures enhanced by cgi.

I also feel the movie is too long, but it should be noted they also derive quite a bit of the film from another Tolkien work, the Quest for Erebor.

Never mind it would probably drag anyways, even clips of Jacksons work would be improved with 30% of its content being cut

Ironically the CGI actually made the movie older than the first Lord of the Rings Movie

I have to say not only in terms of the effects, but the pacing and performance during the Gollum scenes brought us THE moment where the film exceeded the richness of the book. They kept the script the same, but piled on the duplicity of Jackson's schizophrenic interpretation of Smeagol and the scene just blossomed where it could otherwise have struggled. I'm hardly sure that pre-War JRR conceived Smeagol as someone with multiple personality disorder... here it added extra comedy and menace.

I disagree with it being too long. I enjoyed The Hobbit thoroughly. It was a breath of fresh air to go back to Middle Earth again. I loved every second of the film.

I agree with Mark. Watched it again on blu ray recently, and it is indeed way too long.

"The Hobbit is too long", ironically.

I love long movies. I haven't seen the hobbit yet but I get annoyed with people complaining movies that are about 2 hours 20 mins long are "too long." Like Seriously?

I generally like his reviews but I have to disagree here very strongly. I loved this movie. I didn't think it was too long at all. When you sit in a theater for nearly 3 hours and are disappointed when the film ends...that's not a sign that it's too long.

It was long, but it didn't drag like some of the Aragorn/Arwen/Elrond scenes did in LOTR.

I couldnt agree more with what Mark has said here. I guess the problem I had going in to The Hobbit was expecting a similar artistic experience as The Lord Of The Rings. It isnt. Instead, its full of horrid and lazy CGI.

I loved this film and I loved the 48fps. My friends hated it, but I suspect that's because they didn't know that the book was a bedtime story for kids.

The film is fine but no way near as to the point perfect as the initial of TLotR films. Everything stretching from the cast to the cgi effects and the pacing are a bit less smooth and slightly misfitting. It is thus a good movie but it clearly suffers from the cinematic integrity of its predecessors.

kermode, either the length of the film is the fault of tolkien (in the case the hobbit it obviously isn't), or it's the fault of peter jackson, stick to one or the other

Yeah, that dinner party at the beginning lasted way too long

Really wish Guillermo had a go.

Length of the film in hours and minutes has nothing to do with the film being too long. It's to do with pacing. The Hobbit has pacing issues which make it to long. Shorter film than The Hobbit can seem longer because they have bad pacing. Some of the the films that have felt were too long have been only 90 to 100 minutes.

@0ooTheMAXXoo0

4 жыл бұрын

Yes! I thought the longer versions of the Lord of the Rings films felt better paced, seemed shorter. For example. Frighteners is great if you take a break in the middle somewhere because it never takes a break for too long of a time... Brain Dead or Dead Alive also starts to feel long with it's crazy comedy pace that goes on too long...

these are exactly my thoughts i had. felt like one of the LOTR director cuts which were much lesser films to view than the theatrical releases.

perhaps you were too critical for their egos to handle :o

A masterpiece, really?

Yes, it felt 3 hours long, and I enjoyed every minute. could have sat in that cinema and watched the next two episodes, back to back.

I dont see why people are saying that it got boring or too long i found it to be perfect

I have seen the film twice now in high frame-rate (HFR) 3D and found the film spell-binding. The fantastical beauty of Middle Earth has been taken to another level in The Hobbit and I think that the HFR had played a great part in this. The human eye can discern up to around 60 frames per second, so HFR makes movement look far more realistic as it results in less motion blur. I hope that HFR becomes the norm' in future, but why chose 48 FPS, lets just go for 60 straight off the bat please!

Surely a clip or two is allowed under fair use in a bloody REVIEW of the movie!? A pathetic and petty move by WB if you ask me. To shun the voices of those who have seen your film, no matter the opinion, shows nothing but a lack of conviction in your own product.

Well, no. The notion of anything being 'too' anything, means it is...too much.

He's dead right about Gollum lifting the film as soon as he appears. That character is visually and emotionally rich in both LOTR and the Hobbit.

It's interesting nearly a year later, Mark has somewhat changed his opinion about the trilogy being made from the novel, and it being too long for three films. In a recent Kermode Uncut, the good Doctor calculated how much letters, words and pages would it take to make the three films, and it turned there is sufficient time to justify the Hobbit films. So while the films are still in danger of being overly long and ponderous, I do believe that Peter Jackson will make them exciting and contain good dramatic economy, I look forward to them.

My view is that critics have overstated issues with the length of the movie. It's shorter than any of the LotR movies and King Kong too. If you were going to criticise anything, then it should have been King Kong which is literally twice as long as the original. But critics at the time didn't do that. Why criticise The Hobbit alone? Moreover, plenty of people have since seen the movie and reported a satisfying experience - the film has a sound story arc, and sets itself up well for more.

Oh, lazy writing? I'd love to read your wonderfully crafted books, Mister Hicks. I'd love to immerse myself in the world you have created. Also, Gandalf merely appears as a wizard. It is an "Istari," or "Wise One" - tasked with watching over Middle Earth. Gandalf has to reel it in, so to speak. Saruman didn't and went terribly.

I fell asleep half way through the movie. its boring and they know it, Petty Protectionism by WB.

the Hobbit flew by. Beautifully paced and really good fun

I hate to say this but making this three movies is such a cynical cash grab. It could have been one movie but making a short book nine hours is just cringe-worthy. The 48 FPS made it look over-lit, plastic, fake, annoying and like a BBC production from the early '70s. The chase scene with Ratagast looked terrible like they took it from a Gamecube game from 2002.

I think The Hobbit's greatest problem is in the inconsistancy. it felt disjointed, like someone snapped together two diffrent movies and forgot to cover up the seams

It's a terribly messy, baggy, poorly paced flick. Exciting and infuriating and all over the place. Far too much attention placed on the minute details and songs and poems and blah blah blah. In that respect it's a completely faithful adaptation of Tolkien's writing.

Don't think i'll listen to a guy telling me a movie is "too long" when they happen to struggle with reading books.

And this is why the Lord of the Rings extended editions are a downgrade.

Im Sure Peter Jackson Knows what hes doing :L

I think the term you are searching for Mark is "Shameless ripoff". No pop song should be longer that 3 minutes (Jon Peel). No film should be longer than ___ (fill in the blank).

this review actively angered me. this guy does not understand what hes talking about. the film is made in the same manner as the book is written, long and thouroughly explained and the fact is that errybody who loves tolkein likes him because; he is tolkein and people enjoy his style. there were no problems with the frames as they were watchable and enjoyable the "gear system" that he reffers to is nonsence as all films have a variety of "gears" and the lower "gears" add intensity to the fast on

The Hobbit movies were an abomination. And Mark - you said 'Lord of the Rings BOOKS'. It is just ONE book that is sometimes divided due to size.

who the hell are you ?

Mark komode overstepping here, leaving the reviewers chair putting himself in the directors chair. Your job is to report on your experience of the film and if you felt the first third dragged that's fine but don't repeat yourself 20 times and start going into what the director should be doing. An don't start critiquing movies that don't even exist yet. You barely spoke about the films many positives cos your more interested in showing off the size of your brain and being a smartarse. I give your review 2 thumbs down 👎