I have a question/comment about Radagast...

Well, about the eagles, it didn't bother me in LotR and it doesn't bother me here either. I just presume that they have their own will. Gandalf can call them, but they will only come if they want to. And they'll only take you as far as they want to take you. They're not a transportation method like horses. And that position isn't too far from what it actually is like in the book.

In the book there is actually a whole ordeal with the eagles after the eagles saved the gang. So, it's not quite as simple as the eagles just doing Gandalf's bidding -- and they won't just fly them anywhere.

I really liked the movie. The depiction of Bilbo is just FANTASTIC. He is humorous and charming and just spot on. I was extremely pleased with the Bilbo -- really, really well done, and he is the title character after all! Radagast, on the other hand, I was disappointed with. He was too eccentric and the completely fabricated sled-pulled-by-rabbits felt so wrong to me.

Loved Gollum (I didn't think this character could become any more fully realized, but he evoked considerable empathy from me), loved the Gandalf/Galadriel/Lord Elrond/Saruman meeting, and overall, I loved the humour in the film that was left intact from the books. The bit with the trolls was just excellent humour.

I really want to be able to see this film in the regular frame rate, and in 2D. I'm very tired of 3D (I have been for a while), and the high frame rate took some getting used to for me. By the middle of the film I was more adjusted, but I need to see it in the regular frame rate to compare (to separate the effects of 3D, which I find kind of ruins visuals for me, and the effects of the higher frame rate).

Peace,
Mike

Really? I'd say it would have been very inappropriate in the LotR movies. But in this movie I think it's a pretty nice addition. It fits the lighter tone well.

First, high frame rate 3-D is astounding. It is the future for big-budget action/adventure cinema. I have neither patience nor respect for its critics. Put them on an ice floe and wave as they vanish into the mist as far as I am concerned. The crystal clear sense of motion coupled with the unrivaled depth and texture of the image renders this film, on a visual level, an almost religious cinematic experience. Second, this is a great deal of fun. 15 minutes too long during the first act? Perhaps, but Martin Freeman is a superb lead, the dwarfs are charming (if a tad interchangeable), the action sequences are as exciting as the best in The Lord of the Rings, and the blend of magic and David Lean caliber on-location scope which has set this franchise apart since the beginning remains intact. I will be first in line next December for part two.

A-

AWESOME!

I saw it at 48fps this afternoon.

High Frame Rate is a mixed bag; anything that's a wide shot looks absolutely incredible. Anything that's a close-up looks wretched.

Jackson fronted the idea of films using multiple framerates, and I think that's the future. The Hobbit would be one of the most visually spectacular looking films of all time if the close-ups and inserts were shown at 24fps, whereas the wide shots were 48fps.

Newer stuff is always better than older stuff, right?

Based on Rottentomatoes and some press here I went in with extremely low expectations. Nonetheless I left pleasantly surprised. Some highlights from last night:

1) I saw the movie in 2D 24fps. There were moments in the action that the movements weren't as crisp, but I was fine with that. 3D doesn't do anything for me since I tend to have bad depth perception as it is.
2) Wonderful crowd last night. Everyone clapped at the beginning, oohed and aahed during the Gollum sequence and clapped again at the end.
3) Obviously they never wanted to do a "stand-alone" Hobbit movie. This definitely fits in with the LOTR universe, especially Peter Jackson's, but includes great information from the Appendices.
4) Loved the opening sequence. Just like Fellowship OTR had an astounding opening sequence, this wone was great as well (though not as sweeping).
5) I liked the songs. The book was full of songs.
6) The pace was fine. Felt very "Fellowship-like" for me.
7) Bilbo and Thorin were great.
8) Obviously there were some liberties taken from the book/Appendices, but they were no means more eggregious than some taken in the LOTR series. And the fit in with the universe that has been created.
9) Loved the Smaug teaser at the end.

I am sure I will have more thoughts/opinions as I think more about it. A-

I thought this was pretty terrible. Was definitely not a fan of the 48 HFR 3D - it was really distracting and not only took away from the overall experience, it also highlighted how mediocre a lot of the visual effects were. The film itself was a cheesy, bloated mess - there is absolutely no reason this needed to be almost three hours long. I actually found the first hour the most interesting - the action sequences are repetitive and kind of endless (especially the last one, dear god). Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are great, and the sequence with Gollum in the cave is GREAT and easily the best part of the movie. I still plan on seeing the next installment. I wasn't a fan of Fellowship either and thought the LOTR films got progressively better (ROTK is the only GREAT one). But I really wish Peter Jackson would get out of this universe and do something else. He's a great director - his King Kong remake is one of my favorite movies of the past ten years and better than any of these films. C

Because I was a total 48fps worshipper going into the film!

To hell with critics, i thought it was fantastic.

A

Definitely didn't need to be that long but I thought it was entertaining, although not very memorable.

I thought it was highly entertaining, absolutely beautiful and with solid performances from its entire cast. I'd give it an A, but it felt like it dragged on too much in several scenes and could have been quite a bit shorter.

B+

Yeah this film is not good guys. The entire thing is just so uninteresting and at times I felt I was missing something but then came to the realization that nothing had actually happened during my time of confusion. The visuals are great though and the action somewhat decent. Its just all these dwarf characters are thrown in together but yet I didn't care for them at all or what happened to them. 48fps though was really good.

My first thoughts were kinda short, so here's more of a rundown:

- HFR slightly hurt my experience, so before settling on the final grade, I'll watch it again in 2D.

- Martin Freeman is the highlight here. He's perfect as Bilbo. Amuch much better character than Wood's Frodo.

- The cameoes of the LOTR characters felt a bit forced. Did we need TWO prologues?

- The pacing is off, I agree with Magnus there. I also agree that the pacing on FOTR is off as well. It is still my least favorite LOTR-film (though I still like it a lot)

- The only characters that are explored at all are Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin, the rest of the dwarves are interchangeable.

- It tried too hard to mix the lightheartedness of The Hobbit (as it should be!) with the gravity of LOTR. That didn't work so well

- The action in the mines was breathtaking, but the first hour of the film really dragged.

- The whole Radagast part was really silly

- Also the whole Necromancer/Sauron thing...so unnecessary to be in these films. Obviously they needed thatto stretch it to three films

- Despite it being overlong, I was never bored. However, at the end I felt like another 2.5 hours could perfectly wrap up the entire story

WHOA. How dare you diss Frodo!

Love going into a movie with low expectations, and then being very pleasantly surprised. I thought the lack of an epic good vs. evil conflict would bring The Hobbit down, but I think it holds up very well to previous three films. It's obviously not as good as the others, but it's still a respectable, well-executed adventure of a film. Bilbo totally carried this movie and played the much needed straight man to some of the ridiculous characters and situations.

The Frodo cameo at the beginning was a nice tie-in. I didn't know Elijah Wood had agreed to appear in this new triology.

Interesting note: All of my friends had no idea this was going to be more than one movie until the movie closed. I wonder if that surprise is representative of a lot of the general mass audience.

B+

Well now my expectations are heightened again, so expect a negative review from me.

It's a viscous circle.

Yeah. Not sure whether to see it in 2D, 3D or 3D HFR. Not sure how it will be playing in Hong Kong.

Saw it in HFR 3D.

Visually, it's pretty groundbreaking - Gollum never looked as REAL here and the flying sequence with the eagles in the end was brilliant. 48fps was a refreshing experience in a 3D film like this. However, it felt about a half an hour too long (slept through it at some points, though maybe I was just tired that night). The humor helped a lot in my enjoyment of the film; the non-action scenes would have been boring without it. Bilbo, Gandalf, and Gollum stood out the most but none of the dwarves were distinctly memorable.

So yeah, it doesn't come close to any LOTR film but it's still worth seeing in the theater mostly because of the technology and all.

Kind of a repeat of a lot of the reviews, but yeah, I had low expectations. Not only because of the reviews, but ever since this became three films, I've been convinced that it'll drag.

And it did, somewhat, but the second half is great. Bilbo is fantastic, as everyone has said. And while this isn't the epic story of LOTR, it's solid. I'm looking forward to the rest.

The only thing is - aren't they pretty much at the halfway point in their journey? So is Part 3 truly going to be all new material?

I saw it in 2D, btw. Interested in seeing it again in HFR, though.