That's the thing. The entire time I was watcjing it, I had a feeling that it does, quite hard too.

Because it does try to be LOTR and the result is LOTR 'light'. It's a very entertaining movie but nowhere close to the greatness of LOTR.

It was never going to be close to Lord of the Rings, the book itself isn't. It's a cute little adventure where the stakes are nowhere near as high as in LOTR.

My one biggest complaint with this film would be the portrayal of the orcs (especially Azog), they came across as kind of childish and not nearly as menacing as the ones in Lord of the Rings, maybe it was having them speak in their own tongue or too much CGI but it didn't really work.

...which is a point that seems to be lost on the filmmakers to some extent. While the tone is certainly lighter than it was in Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson and company aim for a similarly huge scope, and it feels out of step with how the novel itself was written. "Cute little adventure" doesn't seem like a fitting descriptor for a trilogy that is ultimately going to clock in at 8.5-9 hours.

I thought it was a good, solidly entertaining movie, but it's too long and sometimes gets too swept up in trying to be as grand as the trilogy that preceded it.

I second every single word of this.

Just saw it and...better than I had anticipated. Much better. Nice to be pleasantly surprised sometimes

I liked the Extended Edition. It smoothed over some of my issues (in the theatrical cut the film basically forgets about Bilbo in Rivendell; now you can really see why he wants to stay there) and though the running time went up by 13 minutes, the added breathing time helps the pacing. Just getting Bilbo out of Bag End for a couple minutes early on really helps.

It won't completely change anyone's mind, and I'm sure some changes will annoy people (most of the material is very much THE HOBBIT and not LORD OF THE RINGS; we're talking the Goblin King getting something akin to a rock song and naked Dwarves in Rivendell freaking Elrond out), but I had a lot of fun.

If the theatrical version is a B, the extended cut is a B+.

Just to recap - - that was 94 rotten reviews - - Algren has a lot of fucking ahead of him.

Oh, you witty so-and-so.

Watched it again and will stick with my A-. The beginning is still way too slow. We shouldn't still be in Bag End forty minutes into the movie. After Rivendell the movie really picks up though and almost hits LOTR heights. I still they could have done this whole story in a single movie, and that movie would be a classic.

Re-watched it a couple times on HBO this past month and still really, really enjoy it.

I've held off on buying the DVD anticipating an extended edition later on, so I can't wait to get it in a couple weeks.

Then some scenes would have felt rushed, or the movie would have been 4 hours long.

Well it's an adaptation of the book. No one said it had to be exactly like the book in every single aspect. Like Romeo and Juliet in 1996... that was an adaptation, set in a modern world. Or like every single Harry Potter movie, they differ from the books in several aspects.

Maybe in 15 years someone will make a 90-minute Hobbit movie that is clearly aimed at kids, and you'll like it better.

Radical!

No shit it's an adaptation. My problem with the film - which I did enjoy - is not that the filmmakers made so many changes (in this case, additions and extensions) to the text. Rather, it's that the scope of the films is mismatched with that of the source material. Each of the Lord of the Rings films earned their three-hour running times; this one, on the other hand, could have stood to be much shorter. I felt it drag at numerous points, which was not a complaint I had of the previous trilogy. And the "cute little adventure" part of my post was a quote taken directly from another poster.



Yes, clearly as a big fan of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, a 90-minute Hobbit for kids was exactly what I was hoping to get from Peter Jackson.

But then again, lest we forget, The Hobbit did begin as a children's story...

The movie is too long (ok I saw the extended) and lacks the epicness of the LOTR movies.
Ok that was clear and ist dumb to make three movies for money reason.

Otherwise ist still a good adventure movie and the production value is of course top notch.

8.5 /10

I finally saw this and I actually liked it more than any of the original LOTRs! It's just a great blockbuster - has the personality anchored by Bilbo and Gandalf, surprisingly entertainingly paced and clean, plus they found a way to make the plot engrossing. Also not only was it way more fun from an action scene perspective than I thought, but it didn't feel overly forced

Everything with Gollum is AHMAZING. Easily my favorite sequence from either LOTR/Hobbit