Critics review 'An Unexpected Journey'

Yeah, none of the complaints should be surprising at all, even if it is disappointing. I won't pass judgement on the film until I see it myself, of course, but this isn't encouraging.

TORn is in full damage-control mode by now, though.

Someone ... someone came out and said it!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=97646

Offering very little we haven't already seen and a horrible decision to use a frame rate that makes much of it unwatchable, this is less a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's "The Hobbit" as much as Jackson trying to recapture the magic of the "Lord of the Rings" movies and failing miserably. In other words "An Unexpected Journey" may as well be "The Phantom Menace" and God help us all if the next two movies aren't better than this one.

Daaaaaaaaaayyuuum.

The Hobbit's IMBD rating is 9.2/10. I wouldn't read anything into reviews written by movie snobs more than a week away from the films global release date. Impossible to predict how popular a film will be from that.

Eldorion wrote:
TORn is in full damage-control mode by now, though.

Reading the reviews on TORn it's pretty clear they are written by people who desperately want to like The Hobbit. I do think I'll take the advice of watching it both in the most traditional format and in the most high tech format.

Hmm... I found "The Phantom Menace" quite enjoyable - Qui Gon and Darth Maul kicked ass

I'd rather see the "Hobbit" reviews were more positive, of course, but I'm with Eldo - I'll watch it myself first, before I pass any judgement

halfwise wrote:Reading the reviews on TORn it's pretty clear they are written by people who desperately want to like The Hobbit. I do think I'll take the advice of watching it both in the most traditional format and in the most high tech format.

Yeah, I agree with their reviewer who said to watch it in 24 fps first. That's my plan as well; I made sure to pre-order 2D 24fps tickets. Hopefully that will make it easier to appreciate the film for what it is without the distractions of the new technology.

I've read a couple of reviews but... nah... no more... I'll go see it and make my own mind up... Í have no expectations. I'm taking a Mrs Figgian approach and just accept (as best I can) the movie for what it is and try not to stress over if it's being a word for word adaptation or not, methinks.

Very sensible, dear Orwell. The way this movie is panning out, if one takes too Scottish an approach one may end up being escorted out of the theatre by a gang of authorities, wiping the spraying spittle off their cuffs as you laugh and swear and tussle maniacally clear down the aisle and the doors thump behind you.

I'm taking more or less that approach too. I've resigned myself to this not really being The Hobbit, in the sense of the book's story, for some time now. My biggest concern at the moment is that even when considered simply as a film it will be disappointing.

On the other hand, pretty much all the reviews agree that it is good, just not that it's great or on the level of LOTR. Unfortunately this year has had a number of other disappointing but not necessarily bad follow-ups to series that I'm a fan of. I'm still hoping that The Hobbit bucks the trend though.

The way this movie is panning out, if one takes too Scottish an approach one may end up being escorted out of the theatre by a gang of authorities, wiping the spraying spittle off their cuffs as you laugh and swear and tussle maniacally clear down the aisle and the doors thump behind you.- Halfwise

You say that as if its a bad thing Halfy?

Oh, it could make for a fine memorable night out, not denying it. But sometimes you just want to sit and quietly watch a movie while eating bon-bons.

its just entertainment, its just a film, maybe its better to have low expectations, and then be happily surprised in the cinema.

Mmmm, I'm not sure my expectations of what PJ was going to eventually produce could have been lower Mrs Figg.
But not to worry by the sounds of it Pj hasn't entirely let me down, seems he's found a way to disappoint me even more, and thats quite an achievment.

Mrs Figg wrote:its just entertainment, its just a film, maybe its better to have low expectations, and then be happily surprised in the cinema.

As above

http://twitchfilm.com/2012/12/an-unknown-journey-the-hobbit-brings-high-frame-rates-to-the-masses.html

All I'm hoping is that (forgetting all the additional material) there is enough original material for Petty to make an awesome and pretty comprehensive purist edit. So brand new scenes are ok so long as the book scenes are in and as unadulterated as possible in a PJ adaptation. Then the best of the new stuff can form a separate "film" based on the appendices. And bunnysleds will be remaining on Petty's cuttingroom floor.

halfwise wrote:Oh, it could make for a fine memorable night out, not denying it. But sometimes you just want to sit and quietly watch a movie while eating bon-bons.

Makes me think of the first time I saw FotR. The movie broke down jut as Arwen walks in to see Aragorn in the chamber with the broken sword! True story! I was offered a free ticket to see the whole movie again in the next session but I just couldn't do it. I went home. Not as exciting as watching an irate Scotshobbit being thrown out though. In fact, mine was a bloody dismal scenario all round!

I will Meiko be going to watch the first film almost solely now with an eye to see if the orgianl book story can be salvaged from the ruins.
I now know I am going to dislikle the film- even the positive reviews are highlighting just the sort of problems and PJness I particualry detested in LOtR's, so more of it is not going to sit well with me.

I have noticed, mainly because of the bloated feel reported, that a few reviewers seem to say this is because its a purist film, with every line included- now given 99% of the footage we have seen so far contains almost no Tolkien original dialogue at all, I find this hard to believe- I suspect much more likely is PJ has made up a lot of his own dialogue that is being assumed by those who have not done their research to be from the book.

So whilst some elsewhere seem to be clutching at straws in the hope the critics dont like it because its too much like the book, I think they may be disappointed.

Those straws had better be BIG ! Some ones gonna need a life raft !

JoBlo.com offers their review. It's overall pretty positive, though their reviewer makes it clear that he doesn't think the film is on the level of LOTR. He also "loathed" the 48 fps format.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-the-hobbit--an-unexpected-journey-embargoed

One thing must be addressed- expectations. I know, from reading tweets, Facebook status updates, stories, etc., that a lot of the hardcore LOTR fans are expecting some kind of masterpiece. I liked AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY- but it's no masterpiece. It's a fun spectacle, but I doubt even the biggest Jackson fans will ever say this measures up to the LOTR trilogy. Now don't fret- this is not THE PHANTOM MENACE all over again, but it does, perhaps inevitably, fall a little short.

That aside, I really enjoyed going back to Middle Earth with Jackson and co. Being that it’s THE HOBBIT and not LORD OF THE RINGS, don’t expect the same ultra-epic battle of good versus evil, as this is a far more lighthearted romp. Still- it’s a ton of fun, and I’m certainly looking forward to the next two installments.

There are also a few much more positive reviews coming out now that seem to disagree with the early consensus regarding the film.

Twitchfilm:

http://twitchfilm.com/2012/12/review-the-hobbit---an-unexpected-journey-exceeds-expectations.html

The film also does a pretty remarkable job at offering strong characterization for the many dwarves - sure, some are played as mere background characters, but we do genuinely care about their quest in a way that isn't always the case in tellings of this story. Richard Armitage as Thorin is as regal as Aragorn proved to be, a character of sufficient complexity as to make him interesting.

The three hour running time sounds gratuitous, but it ran by extremely quickly, and there were very few moments where the film even approached dragging. The decision to split into three instead of two seems a wise one, as we're given many detours (including with Radagast the Brown, sure to be a favourite character for a younger audience) that add to the epic nature of the whole, and surely would be the first bits excised to try and trim the project down.

I find this review interesting because both of the quotes above disagree wildly with most of the early reviews. Obviously, opinions are what they are, but I find this curious. Unfortunately, they also blindly regurgitate Jackson's BS revisionism of the textual history.

The main way that Jackson and co. expanded the work was to take elements from the appendices in the LOTR novels, backstories and hints of canonical mythology that, it's said, Tolkien had always planned on incorporating into a re-written version of the Hobbit book. Jackson's vision is very much a Hobbit redux, liberally taking characters from the "main" trilogy and sprinkling them throughout the early book's narrative.

Total Film also offers a positive (5/5 stars) review that makes similar points.

http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

In terms of key incidents, AUJ doesn’t burrow too far into Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings-predating novel. Yet it rarely feels like Jackson has had the rolling pin out, overstretching the material.

Nudging three hours, it moves at an even clip – and that’s with the plot delayed by two prologues.

The main way that Jackson and co. expanded the work was to take elements from the appendices in the LOTR novels, backstories and hints of canonical mythology that, it's said, Tolkien had always planned on incorporating into a re-written version of the Hobbit book. Jackson's vision is very much a Hobbit redux, liberally taking characters from the "main" trilogy and sprinkling them throughout the early book's narrative.

As Eldorion already highlighted.

I'll just add: yeah, 'it's said' by Jackson or his crew anway... or at least implied. I guess this little tidbit will now be wriggling its way in.

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.

Found this interesting tidbit:

It's also overstuffed with, well, stuff. Prologues and sidestepping backstory. Long, boring councils among dwarves, wizards and elves. A shallow blood feud extrapolated from sketchy appendices to J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" to give the film a bad guy.

Star Tribune review

Blood feud? Possibly dwarves vs. elves as a set up for the Mirkwood scenes? Or something else? Trying to remember what other "blood feud" could possibly have been in the appendices... If that were the case, not sure who the "bad guy" would be in Unexpected Journey (assuming stupidly that they've stuck to the book for the Rivendell sequence) - Elrond is pretty damn helpful and the elves are teasing but friendly enough.

Regarding 48fps and the debate going on around that...I will be avoiding the format just as I avoid 3D. For starters I'm a tightarse and don't like spending more when I could spend less, but also I'm short-sighted and I don't have any specs at the moment (keep sitting on them) so it would be completely wasted on me...

From other sources, i think it was an Armitage interview, the blood feud refers to that between Thorin and Azog.