Agreed.

Its been that way since the three films were announced. Sure its unneccessary to have more than 2 films but since then people have been predisposed to not like the film.

I couldnt care less if the 48hps looks bad - I'll just watch it in 2D. I admit the length is a bit of a concern but would rather watch it first and decide.

If the other 2 parts work as well as this one then I'm all for it.

I'm actually starting to feel a little sorry for Peter Jackson now - - this thing's turning into a train wreck...










...and even the positive reviewers are choking on the HFR3D...

so if you don't like the 48fps format, that means the film itself sucks?

How did in the world did you take that from the relevant part of my previous post?

He didn't need to reference the previous post, he knows your agenda is to criticise the film, not the format.

I'm not even readig your posts lol
To me thats what all the comments about the 48fps sounds like.

my favorite film critic, walter chaw from filmfreakcentral.net, gave this a very scathing review, with perhaps the worst grade so far (½*/****). here's a few criticisms from his review:



"Shot at a vaunted 48 frames-per-second to better approximate the television soap opera its mammoth length suggests, Peter Jackson's vainglorious trainwreck The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (hereafter "Hobbit 1") looks for all intents and purposes like its own porn knock-off"

"The irony of all that being, of course, that while the image indeed doesn't stutter or blur as much in 3-D, what we're forced to look at is overlit, obviously artificial, and reminded me more than once of the jarringly amateurish "Star Wars Holiday Special"

"The most curious thing about the whole benighted farrago may be the way that 48fps makes Ian McKellen's tender, magisterial Gandalf look like the community theatre's best actor captured on home video"

"A pity that Hobbit 1 will ultimately be most remembered as yet another doomed project that robbed Guillermo Del Toro of a couple years of prime productivity. And after Jackson's disastrous, pandering The Lovely Bones, comparisons of Hobbit 1 to Episode I and of Jackson to George Lucas land uncomfortably close to the bone"

"There's a scene where the dwarves clean up their dinner by throwing the crockery and washing dishes to the consternation of stick-up-me-bum Bilbo, for God's sake, followed by a real-time post-consumption pipe-smoking and song-singing, causing me to briefly hope that some Led Zeppelin lyrics ("Misty Mountain Hop"?) would make an appearance just to provide a moment's respite from all the opulent, self-satisfied self-indulgence"

"There's a Proust quote that goes something like, "Trying to understand eroticism by looking at a naked woman is like trying to understand time by taking apart a watch." The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is clockwork guts, copper and springs. It's a disaster"

http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/201 ... .html#more


this guy gave the lotr movies 3,5 , 3 and 2,5 stars btw.

Del Toro could be shooting Pacific Rim 2: Tech Dragon Xtreme right now if the stupid Hobbit had not wasted so much of his time.

yup. He should ask for 2 years of his life back

The bad reviews are now almost coming in too fast to handle...

its at 69% on rotten tomatoes - the big question is now: does the hobbit have what it takes to drop below 60% and become officially "rotten"?

Nah, even Spider-Man 3 is Fresh on RT.

I can't keep up!

For now, I'll just post an excerpt from one of the latest Fresh reviews:

The reviews seem not to match up to the rating

3/5 is negative; 2.5/5 is positive

They used to have a FAQ on how they determine fresh/rotten, but I can't seem to find it at the moment - - since they were bought by Fiixster (itself owned by Warner Bros.), they must have buried it deep in their website somewhere.

It's clearly skewed towards giving fresh ratings to films since it has really just become a part of the whole movie marketing machine.



(FTR, The Hobbit is currently at 59% on Metacritic.)

So, RT is owned by Warner Bros?

I expect WB movies to be reviewed well.

Somebody please remind me not to give a shit about RT scores in the future..... According to RT....Avengers is a masterpiece, while TDKR is just "very good" and Hobbit is average? Right....

so far, so good. liking it a lot

Did you care about RT scores before?

Yes. However it seems that I disagree with most critics...

Most people do.

I am interested, but not invested in critics. If a film I am excited for due to its cast, director, subject, etc. receives positive reviews, then yay. But I would never not see a film I am interested in for a concrete reason due to reviews.

I'm not even interested in what they have to say. Only after I've seen the movie, and if I happen to read a review, am I interested, and that's only to see if they agree with me. If I start reading a review of a film that I like and it's getting negative, I just stop reading. I just go and see what ever films I like, so trailers, posters, story, stars, topic etc. are really important for me. Mainly it's the star that gets me interested in a movie. I will see anything with Mel Gibson in it, for example. Even when everyone hated him, I stuck with him and saw all of his movie at the cinema - I was the only one in the cinema when I saw How I Spent My Summer Vacation this year, but I didn't care, I had a great time. I saw Edge of Darkness at the cinema too, and caught The Beaver on DVD. Yeah, star power is important to me. But it also works negatively too. If a film has Channing Tatum in it, I'm not going to be the first one in line, put it that way.

CNN "Hobbit a sluggish misadventure"
USA Today "Hobbit is short on excitement"

These are the titles of a couple articles. These people are wack! Sorry, but I don't know what film these folks watched but those titles don't match the film I saw tonight. Not in the least.