Join the Bitchfest >>

The Hobbit is the worst movie I've seen in ages

Went to a screening last night.

It is self-indulgent to say the least (2:45 running time). Boring boring boring.

The entire movie is a setup for the sequel. All exposition, no plot.

Cheesy 3D and whatever the new filming process is gives the film the look of a poorly lit, video taped 80's TV show.

I will not be seeing the sequel.

replies 117Dec 14, 2012 6:34 AM +00:00

I can't believe they are dragging an entire trilogy out of that one book. You could read it at the same pace as sitting through 3 movies.

replies 1Dec 14, 2012 6:38 AM +00:00

It's still holding its own with critics. Rotten Tomato rating is 67%, with this precis: "Peter Jackson's return to Middle-earth is visually resplendent and features strong performances from Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen, but the film's deliberate pace robs the material of some of its majesty." This is hard to square with OP's evaluation.

replies 2Dec 14, 2012 6:46 AM +00:00

r2, 67% is horrible. It's in free fall. You obviously don't understand how Rotten Tomatoes works, nor the legacy of the Tolkien films.

replies 3Dec 14, 2012 6:51 AM +00:00

In Peter Jackson's defense, I think he's single-handedly responsible for New Zealand's GDP.

replies 4Dec 14, 2012 6:59 AM +00:00

r2, would you call a 67 on an algebra test holding one's own?

It is crazy that Jackson would make a 2 3/4 hour movie of 1/2 of a relatively short, beloved, quick read of a book. Apart from sequel-readiness of course, which makes it not only dumb, but meretricious.

replies 5Dec 14, 2012 7:03 AM +00:00

This isn't going to be the next Lord of the Rings.

But by all means, Hobbit fans, please continue to be gleeful over Les Mis' paltry 76% at Rottentomatoes.

replies 6Dec 14, 2012 7:06 AM +00:00

Uh, r2, the last Rings movie was a huge critical and box office success, broke awards records and won the Oscar for Best Picture.

Explain again how "67%" is supposed to be good?

replies 7Dec 14, 2012 7:07 AM +00:00

It seems like all of these holiday releases have these bloated run times. "Django Unchained" is supposed to have a running time of 2 hours and forty-five minutes as well. And "Les Miserables" looks like it has a run time of three days.

replies 8Dec 14, 2012 7:07 AM +00:00

I have promised a friend that I will see it with them this Sunday.

replies 9Dec 14, 2012 7:08 AM +00:00

Oh, fuck off. The film is just fine. It's not going to be as good as LOTR. But it'll do great business.

The critics? Eh. While they might not be all wrong with some of their critiques, don't think a lot of the Hollywood folk don't hold a grudge against Jackson and co. for taking all the Oscars 10 years ago. The film could have been flawless and people would have still found ways to bash it.

I also think their is a hater troll around here that has serious emotional issues with these films. "The HOBBIT SUCKS! EVEN THE PUBLIC IS PANNING IT."

Uh...not so much. A lot of people like it. Again, they don't compare to LOTR, but I'm seeing a lot of positive reviews from the public. It's not getting "Panned".

But keep up with your emotional issues. Are you that afraid the Prancing ponies will turn up again or something? Or are you someone who is still bitter that Elijah and Dom haven't come out with their "great and awesome" love? The Dom and Billy pics from the London premiere must have stung...

replies 10Dec 14, 2012 7:17 AM +00:00
I can't believe they are dragging an entire trilogy out of that one book.[/quote]

They aren't. He's using the appendices and the Simillarion as well.

replies 11Dec 14, 2012 7:19 AM +00:00

I told you even the previews looked boring.

replies 12Dec 14, 2012 7:19 AM +00:00

clippity clop

replies 13Dec 14, 2012 7:21 AM +00:00

Haven't seen it, but from the commercials, it looks like "Tim" as "Bilbo." Yes?

replies 14Dec 14, 2012 7:22 AM +00:00

Well it's 66% from overall "critics" but 46% among Top Critics from top newspapers and other outlets. I suppose that doesn't matter, it's still expected to make a ton of $.

replies 15Dec 14, 2012 7:29 AM +00:00

Really, OP? The worst? You're hysterical. Typical eldergay overly dramatic response.

What the fuck is wrong with Peter Jackson? Nine hours to tell The Hobbit? Is his ego really that out of control? That's just painfully long, and if this were just one film I'd be excited but no way am I spending 3 hours to watch 1/3 of a movie based on a book that's 200 some odd pages.

replies 16Dec 14, 2012 7:29 AM +00:00

The people claiming that 67% is awful do realize that it's not one critic giving that score, right?

You need to drill down and look at specific reviews.

There are reviewers that I go to and trust that give this film an absolute rave.

replies 17Dec 14, 2012 7:38 AM +00:00

r17 = LMFAO!!!!

replies 18Dec 14, 2012 7:41 AM +00:00

The Hobbit is a short story compared to the mammoth Lord of the Rings, which took me months to read. To make 3 movies out of it smacks of desperation to recreate another LOTR franchise which the likes of McKellen have gleefully jumped upon, so they can make shedloads of money all over again.

Nobody much wanted to see Jackson's Lovely Bones, ergo he is back in business with another fantasy trilogy with a pre-sold fanbase ... actors would kill to get into franchises like this (as I saw from watching James Nesbitt being interviewed).

replies 19Dec 14, 2012 7:42 AM +00:00

I know it is a short story. I'm not a geek, so I really don't care what he has to do to make it interesting--add, make shit up--just make it interesting.

So far, it just doesn't look interesting.

replies 20Dec 14, 2012 7:46 AM +00:00

R10 knows plenty about having issues.

replies 21Dec 14, 2012 7:55 AM +00:00

I'm one of the very few that won't see it.

replies 22Dec 14, 2012 7:56 AM +00:00

Uh...good comback [R-21]

replies 23Dec 14, 2012 8:00 AM +00:00

I don't expect anything else from Hollywood than milking that cash cow dry. After that they probably will do a Tolkien bio movie with Tolkien interacting with his fictional characters played by the same actors as in the LOTR movies.

replies 24Dec 14, 2012 8:01 AM +00:00

My teenage girls will drag me to it, and then they'll complain the whole way home. Yay!

replies 25Dec 14, 2012 8:05 AM +00:00

r25 sounds old.


replies 26Dec 14, 2012 8:09 AM +00:00

R26 sounds stupid.


replies 27Dec 14, 2012 8:12 AM +00:00

R5 is right, it's getting a D+, the Rotten Tomatoes ratings system is exactly translatable to A,B,C,D grades. Below 60% is rotten, F.

replies 28Dec 14, 2012 8:14 AM +00:00
The entire movie is a setup for the sequel. All exposition, no plot.

You were expecting the story to be wrapped up and concluded in the first movie?

Did you not see The Fellowship of the Ring which ended right in the middle of Frodo's and Sam's walk to Mordor?

--wood worshipping elf
replies 29Dec 14, 2012 8:16 AM +00:00

One consistent opinion I keep seeing is that the new high speed filming process was a disaster. Says it looks like a brightly lit video game.

replies 30Dec 14, 2012 8:29 AM +00:00

R10/R23, you sound crazy.

replies 31Dec 14, 2012 8:38 AM +00:00

What I hear is along those lines as well. My niece saw it and said the enhanced visuals revaled all the flaws in the props.

replies 32Dec 14, 2012 8:45 AM +00:00

I found the first hour to be unwatchable. After that I did start to get into the film enough to start enjoying it.

The high speed filming made it look realistic in a bad way. I felt like I was transported to the studio instead of MidEarth. It felt like the making of The Hobbit and not the actual film.

The detail was so good I felt like sometimes I could see the actors makeup.

The light was harsh and artificial looking. No golden sunlight or warm firelight. Just harsh reality.

replies 33Dec 14, 2012 8:49 AM +00:00

These are the early versions. Wait until they release the enhanced version in Glorious Smell-o-vision!

replies 34Dec 14, 2012 8:51 AM +00:00
And "Les Miserables" looks like it has a run time of three days.

Unlike the Hobbit, Les Mis is based on a 1,000+ page novel. Also, 60 million people have already sat through the 3 hour stage show. It's no surprise that Les Mis is a long movie.

The Hobbit is NOT based on a 1,000+ page novel. And why Django Unchained is so long is anyone's guess.

Peter Jackson, you got greedy.

replies 35Dec 14, 2012 8:53 AM +00:00

Guns belong in museums.

replies 36Dec 14, 2012 8:53 AM +00:00
The high speed filming made it look realistic in a bad way. I felt like I was transported to the studio instead of MidEarth. It felt like the making of The Hobbit and not the actual film.

I have to admit that sounds interesting though, something I'd like to see for myself. And as far as I know, it can only be experienced in the theater. I wouldn't necessarily stay for the whole movie though.

replies 37Dec 14, 2012 8:54 AM +00:00

The ratings are being pushed up by the British press who are cumming all over it due to the large amount of British cast members.

Personally it looks so boring, like it's a chore to sit through the entire thing.

replies 38Dec 14, 2012 8:56 AM +00:00
Wait until they release the enhanced version in Glorious Smell-o-vision!

Why bother. Apparently it stinks enough without it.

I have to admit that sounds interesting though, something I'd like to see for myself. And as far as I know, it can only be experienced in the theater. I wouldn't necessarily stay for the whole movie though.

Me too. I'll see it out of curiosity

replies 39Dec 14, 2012 8:59 AM +00:00

Total idiot when it comes to HD technology. Will the DVD / Blu Ray release have the same frame resolution (speed?) or is that one just for movie theatres?

replies 40Dec 14, 2012 9:24 AM +00:00
He's using the appendices and the Simillarion as well.

Actually, Jackson doesn't have rights to the Silmarillion, so was not permitted to use any of that material.

replies 41Dec 14, 2012 9:39 AM +00:00

I thought the Lovely Bones was really good.

replies 42Dec 14, 2012 10:18 AM +00:00

Just theaters, and only select theaters at that.

replies 43Dec 14, 2012 11:55 AM +00:00

People will react negatively to 48fps because it is so clear. The detail is startling. It is the soap opera effect. I noticed it on my HD TV. For a while I noticed the soap opera effect. Now I don't see it at all. Give me clarity and detail. Time to move on. Remember, talkies were hated by throngs of people.

replies 44Dec 14, 2012 12:32 PM +00:00

What did people dislike The Lovely Bones? I mean it was an OK movie, but Jackson got trashed for it. Did he ignore the book?

replies 45Dec 14, 2012 12:46 PM +00:00

OP clearly doesn't see many movies.

The movie is fine. It's not LOTR, but then what is. It was fun and exciting and moving. Yes, it's indulgent and many scenes were definitely over-the-top. But it also showed some master craftsmanship, and had some very good moments to counteract some of the cheese.

I didn't see it in the 3D HFR projection though. I purposely chose the 2D version.

I'll probably see it again just to see the 3D HFR technology and see what it's like. If the movie sucked, I wouldn't bother.

replies 46Dec 14, 2012 12:50 PM +00:00

The Hobbit is just porn for asexuals.

replies 47Dec 14, 2012 12:54 PM +00:00

I'm seeing it tonight with a very cute geeky lady friend. Will report back.

replies 48Dec 14, 2012 1:08 PM +00:00

On the movie or how far you get with the geek, R48?

replies 49Dec 14, 2012 1:36 PM +00:00
The Hobbit is the worst movie I've seen in ages

Then, go see your Transformers movie!

replies 50Dec 14, 2012 2:03 PM +00:00

I didn't think much of the 48 FPS thing. Not great, not awful, easily ignored except for some moments that seemed sped up. But not distracting.

I genuinely thought there'd be no getting into see it today (in 48 FPS, anyway). I saw a three o'clock matinee in Times Square and there were maybe fifty people in the theatre, tops. Not sure it's going to be as popular as some people think.

replies 51Dec 14, 2012 2:06 PM +00:00

Average film. It's just Warner Bros milking the cash cow dry. Instead go and see : "Any day now" with Alan Cumming, in theaters this weekend.

replies 52Dec 15, 2012 9:07 PM +00:00

It's a total bore. Peter Jackson masturbating. He should have pout the whole thing in a 1 hour, 45 minute movie.

His rep takes a hit with this piece of garbage.

replies 53Dec 15, 2012 10:04 PM +00:00

They're just squeezing every possible drop out of that cash cow.

replies 54Dec 15, 2012 10:21 PM +00:00

Just pop in your VHS copy of The Harvey Girls, OP.

replies 55Dec 15, 2012 10:40 PM +00:00

It was SUPER boring...

replies 56Dec 15, 2012 11:21 PM +00:00

One of the criticisms with The Lovely Bones was that the afterlife looked like a cross between an Enya video and a screensaver.

I thought it was ok for what it was. Sebold's book is equally as overwrought. It starts welll but once she jumps into someone's body to have her first kiss it gets a bit too sci fi. Jackson should have at least entertained the idea that it was a dream or a projection.

replies 57Dec 15, 2012 11:38 PM +00:00

I haven't felt this awful since we saw that Ronald Reagan film.

replies 58Dec 16, 2012 4:06 AM +00:00

The Lovely Bones the novel was creepy horseshit.

replies 59Dec 16, 2012 4:09 AM +00:00

Why is the resolution being described as the soap opera effect?

replies 60Dec 16, 2012 4:14 AM +00:00

Saw it last night - I so wanted to like it, but no...just no.

replies 61Dec 16, 2012 4:23 AM +00:00

People keep blaming PJ for the three part cash grab but it's more likely that studio executives pushed him to do this. More $ for them.

replies 62Dec 16, 2012 4:34 AM +00:00

R60 Soap operas are shot on tape of very brightly lit soundstages so the look of them is very sharp and clear.

replies 63Dec 16, 2012 4:46 AM +00:00

R62 I agree with you.

replies 64Dec 16, 2012 5:00 AM +00:00

i wouldent go so far as to say this is the worst movie ive seen in ages...but there is no doubt that this is another of Peter Jackson's ham fisted, self indulged butchering of great source more great book turned into some twisted form of its former great self.

replies 65Dec 20, 2012 6:00 AM +00:00
One of the criticisms with The Lovely Bones was that the afterlife looked like a cross between an Enya video and a screensaver.


Too bad Lynne Ramsay never got to do it, because the bastards in Hollywood wanted a proven hack for it. Well, they got their mediocre film, didn't they?

replies 66Dec 20, 2012 6:04 AM +00:00

Worst movie you've ever seen? Too long? Bloated? Ham fisted? Butchering of source material?

Sorry. Can't hear you over the sound of all the money I'm making.

--P. Jackson. Oscar winning Director.
replies 67Dec 20, 2012 7:18 AM +00:00

Just saw this and I thought it was great! Maybe a little long, but still--great plot, beautiful scenery and settings. And I am critical of movies--(I walked out of The Raven). Anyway, go see it!

replies 68Dec 20, 2012 7:26 AM +00:00

OP clearly never saw Prometheus.

replies 69Dec 20, 2012 8:28 PM +00:00

Absolute crap from start to finish. Appalling acting and the scipt dire . Quotes " He over indulges in mushrooms " makes me say i will never go to the sequals Anyone could have been a big star from this and picked from the street. Absolute garbish

--harry brown
replies 70Dec 23, 2012 11:06 AM +00:00

I'm a big LOTR fan. I saw The Hobbit last week and I was underwhelmed. Incredibly not excited for the remaining parts of the movie. HATED the 48 frame look.

replies 71Dec 23, 2012 11:20 AM +00:00

R70 I totally agree with you.

replies 72Dec 23, 2012 8:14 PM +00:00

Offers R-70 an ice pack for the impending nose bleed.

replies 73Dec 23, 2012 8:54 PM +00:00

Boring as hell. I want my money back.

replies 74Dec 30, 2012 7:47 PM +00:00

I trust your review of this movie, OP. Saved me time and money.

replies 75Dec 30, 2012 7:51 PM +00:00

R70 is an idiot.

So is the OP.

Neither obviously get out much.

replies 76Dec 30, 2012 8:30 PM +00:00

R70 is right. Worst film of the year.I'm so disappointed with Peter Jackson, what a sold out.

replies 77Dec 30, 2012 8:37 PM +00:00

R77 didn't see Prometheus.

The Hobbit is no where near the worst film of the year.

replies 78Dec 30, 2012 8:45 PM +00:00

IMHO, yes. the worst and the most expensive. Cash grab definetely.

replies 79Dec 30, 2012 11:35 PM +00:00

I saw it and liked it.

replies 80Dec 30, 2012 11:42 PM +00:00

Forgot to say that the worst thing, IMO, was the recycled soundtrack. WTF?

replies 81Jan 2, 2013 12:08 AM +00:00

It was ok. I caught up on a little sleep in the theatre.

Bad: too many dwarves who were mostly indistinguishable from one another and boring; Gandalph boring too.

Good: Gollem (as usual) and final scenes. The Legolas dwarf is pretty cute but doesn't do much apart from shoot bad guys.

Ok: Bilbo

replies 82Jan 2, 2013 12:37 AM +00:00

I was surprised how much I hated this movie. It seemed endless, and nothing more than another heavily CGed comic book movie. I can't imagine what hell the other two installments will be.

And I like the original Lord of the Rings movies--I think Jackson very successfully made a great piece of serious entertainment with those, some quibbles aside. But The Hobbit was just dismal. He can't pay Andy Serkis enough, given the fact that he almost single-handedly kept the entire thing from being a total loss.

replies 83Jan 2, 2013 4:52 AM +00:00

I think you're grossly overstating things, R83. Seriously.

replies 84Jan 2, 2013 4:56 AM +00:00

Loved this movie. You are all fakes. Legolas was not in this movie.

replies 85Jan 2, 2013 4:57 AM +00:00
I think you're grossly overstating things, [R83]. Seriously.

You're entitled to think so, r84. I'd counter by saying you're cutting Jackson entirely too much slack for a film that is, scene by scene, even worse than King Kong.

replies 86Jan 2, 2013 4:59 AM +00:00

But King Kong was fun too.

The only crimes here are a little over-indulgence, and a few ridiculously over-the-top scenes that could/should have been edited down a bit.

It was a fun movie. I'm not sure what you were expecting, really.

replies 87Jan 2, 2013 5:02 AM +00:00

Peter Jackson to Direct Epic 10-Part Film Series Based on Children’s Classic “Goodnight Moon”

(LOS ANGELES) Peter Jackson may still be in post-production on the final installment of his three-part, nine-hour film version of the 250 page children’s clas
Citizen Schwartz
replies 88Jan 2, 2013 5:08 AM +00:00

I was expecting a modicum of filmmaking acumen. Instead I got terrible pacing, endless repetitive chase scenes, bloated special effects, indifferent acting, and quite awful dialogue. The LOTR films were remarkably free of this sort of nonsense (again, some quibbles aside), and I was expecting the same filmmaker to work to his own level in material he routinely professes a great affinity for. From the look of the theme park ride I attended yesterday, he either disdains the material or simply hasn't read it. (Admittedly, The Hobbit isn't much in the way of literature.)

I have to say I'm always mystified by the "I don't know what you were expecting" argument. Is it routine to go into any movie with a bar lowered to a point where it admits of no criticism, and simply passes as "fun"? I'm serious. It seems like three wasted hours if all I can do is say it threw pretty colors in front of my face.

replies 89Jan 2, 2013 5:12 AM +00:00

R89 I agree with you. Total dismal. I think people were "hypnotized" by the huge, intensive, worldwide publicity.

replies 90Jan 2, 2013 5:20 AM +00:00

R89, I agree with most of what you said, but as a huge fan of Tolkien's work I feel I should point out that "The Hobbit" isn't meant to be "literature"--it's a children's book, through and through.

The tone in "The Hobbit" is unlike that of any of Tolkien's other Middle Earth writings (the rest of which ARE "literature"); he even has the book directly address the young reader. As example:

"This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected. He may have lost his neighbor's respect, but he gained--well, you will see whether he gained anything in the end."

Jackson and Co. more or less got it right in their "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. They didn't in "The Hobbit."

replies 91Jan 2, 2013 5:36 AM +00:00

R10 is posting from the "cafe" in WalMart.

replies 92Jan 2, 2013 5:43 AM +00:00

R85 also loves the Honey Boo Boo show.

replies 93Jan 2, 2013 5:44 AM +00:00

Bitch bitch bitch.....

Meanwhile the film rakes in the cash, and most moviegoers love it.

Same with Les Mis. What a bad time for haters.

replies 94Jan 2, 2013 5:45 AM +00:00

I enjoyed the movie.

Maybe because I wasn't expecting much.

replies 95Jan 2, 2013 5:49 AM +00:00

It is enjoyable. It never wanders so far from the original book that you notice. The added stuff is all Tolkien cannon except for the bunny sled, which I sort of think he'd have liked (The Hobbit was intended for children).

Still, I don't see how the rest of the book gets tortured into two more movies. What's left? The Beornings, the Elves and the Battle of Five Armies. I assume they'll add the Razing of Dol Guldur and more Sauron connection. I just now remembered that Thorin got his map from Gandalf after GANDALF was thrown into the dungeon at Dol Guldur and met Thrain. Hmmmm.

replies 96Jan 2, 2013 6:25 AM +00:00

yes, r91, I realize The Hobbit was intended for children; I didn't mean to imply that I have expectations of it as adult literature.

We'll see how much Bilbo gains by the end of the movies--so far it's looking like the most he's getting out of it is a lot of cardio.

(What's with Jackson's habit of bumping up suspense by having someone dangling from something by one hand? He does it numerous times in LOTR, and in The Hobbit again. It's like a narrative tic, particularly since Tolkein didn't go in for that sort of thing himself that I recall.)

replies 97Jan 2, 2013 7:00 AM +00:00


Oh my, Peter Jackson pulled a full on insane George Lucas. The final hobbit was miserable to watch, miserable to experience. 0/100. Either the newest of new interns filmed it or his mind must be melted, that was unacceptable. It has the look and feel of a low budget 1980's produced afterschool special. Those no reason maximum tight shots then panned with a stutter algorithm hurt to watch as much as the bad lighting. Everything looked like a miniature model set. It was not cinematic in the least. Stunned. What the hell happened man?

replies 98Dec 25, 2014 11:20 PM +00:00

Are all of you 14 years old? What on Earth compels you to view this film?

replies 99Dec 25, 2014 11:31 PM +00:00

So glad it's finally over!

replies 100Dec 25, 2014 11:34 PM +00:00

OP is just bitter her/his fave gay icon didn't get cast. A typical Datalounge inmate.

replies 101Dec 25, 2014 11:39 PM +00:00

My friend the LOTR fan was on the blower this afternoon: he was really disappointed in it. No way could I bear it: the tiresome first one did me in. I think you have to be into video games to enjoy such thin & numbing CGI shit.

replies 102Dec 26, 2014 2:13 AM +00:00

What is everyone's fucking problems with CGI? I'd rather watch "CGI shit" than those tacky "sexy" shows with naked men and women acting like dumb bimbos.

replies 103Dec 26, 2014 2:58 AM +00:00

I'm glad it's over too. I did decided to torture myself and rewatch the fist two parts before I watched the third. The movies don't hold up well at all. The second film was better than the first and slighty edged out the third. The reason? Andy Serkis and his portrayal of Gollum.

replies 104Dec 26, 2014 3:00 AM +00:00

Luke Evans and Lee Pace were amazing in this though, especially Lee Pace. That man has charisma and screen presence for days. I can understand why he's so popular. He's also one of us so you gotta love him. I don't believe he's with Richard though. The fangirls are nuts. I honestly think Richard is straight and him and Lee are just good friends. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Luke and Lee fucked during the filming of this though, considering they're both gay and there was some sexual tension there.

replies 105Dec 26, 2014 1:14 PM +00:00

Reaction to "Hobbit 2" -
replies 106Feb 11, 2015 2:28 PM +00:00

Saw the first hobbit in the theatre and hated it. It killed any interest I had in seeing the next two. Fucking Bilbo and his throat clearing and Affectations. Martin freeman does look like a hobbit, though.

I caught a bit of the second one on HBO the other day and there was some ridiculous barrel chase on a river. Legolas actually stepped on a dwarf's head as he was floating by. So ridiculous. It completely reaffirmed my decision not to watch this crap.

replies 107Feb 11, 2015 3:02 PM +00:00

ok hon.

replies 108Feb 11, 2015 3:06 PM +00:00

I saw the first two in the cinema (haven't seen either a second time) and this time I just couldn't be bothered to go and the see the third one. So maybe I'll see it when it comes on TV. It just sounds likes it's going to 2 hours of boring CGI battles and I'm sure the goodies will win in the end.

replies 109Feb 11, 2015 4:21 PM +00:00

R104 I thought Gollum was in the first film?

The only bits that made me smile was the scene between Bilbo and Gollum and Sylvester McCoy's scenes (I'm a Doctor Who fan)

replies 110Feb 11, 2015 4:24 PM +00:00

Gollum was in the first and was the part of the movie.

I also liked that they brought back that pretty elf who greeted the dwarves when they arrived in Rivendell. The one who said at Elrond wasn't there. Did he have a name?

replies 111Feb 11, 2015 4:46 PM +00:00

*best part of the movie

replies 112Feb 11, 2015 4:50 PM +00:00

I dreaded going to the third one but it wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. A friend paid so I would go with a group so I thought I would give it a try. At least the studio et al got their money out if it.

replies 113Feb 11, 2015 8:10 PM +00:00

replies 114Feb 11, 2015 8:41 PM +00:00

The Hobbit trilogy DOES suck balls. Saying that, "oh well, it made a lot of money, therefore it is good" is like saying the Ford Fusion is a #1 seller and therefore the best despite the fact that in order to rate it you have to buy it only to find out their recalling 450,000 of them this year because they f.cked up.

Of course the movie is going to make huge bank. YOU HAVE TO SEE IT IN ORDER TO RATE IT. How can you rate something you haven't seen.

If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding!

Comparing tickets sales as a measure of "success" is a morons argument. I knew the Hobbit was bad after the first one, but kept going to see it, with the slightest hopes that it would get better, but nope. It SUCKS BALLS, no script, dead and lifeless performances with no heart. Please pull a George Lucas, drastically cut its scenes out, and replace them with sections of LOTR and then you'll have something.

The only character worth watching was the Bard the Bowman.

replies 115May 7, 2015 12:34 AM +00:00
replies 116Dec 7, 2017 11:26 AM +00:00

I wanted to love the "Hobbit" movies, I loved the "Lord of the Rings" books and movies... but "Hobbit" is just fucking awful.

But it made so much money that I'm pretty confident that a remake will come along in a decade or two. It's got to be better than the three-movie version, whoever makes it in whatever format. It couldn't possibly be worse.

replies 117Dec 7, 2017 2:16 PM +00:00