Well gang, reviews for “The Hobbit” are in, and unfortunately in addition to looking crazy in 3D and possibly making you barf, everyone seems to think that it kind of sucks.
It’s charting a 67% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is technically still a passing grade, but it’s still a D if you remember from high school. Assessments range from saying it’s a great adventure that simply takes too long, to lacking a certain ring, to suffering from story bloat, to simply being not as good as “Lord of the Rings.”
The chief complaint seems to be Peter Jackson’s decision to milk “The Hobbit,” a relatively small book, for 3 separate 3-hour movies (at least “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” is about 3 hours, and the other are likely to be just as epic) as opposed to the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, which adapts 3 very long books into 3 3-hour movies. The consensus seems to be there just isn’t story to justify 9 hours worth of “Hobbit.”
Which all makes sense: When you’ve got a franchise as successful as “Lord of the Rings,” of course you’re going to want to milk it for as many movies as possible. But what happens when you run out of story? In the case of “Star Wars,” you apparently just keep going regardless, which has led some to worry about the Phantom Menace factor wreaking havoc on Tolkien as the inevitable sequels and prequels roll out over the years.
A.O. Scott of the New York Times writes that it “rises to weary, belated mediocrity” and issues perhaps the harshest criticism—comparing it to “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Clash of the Titans.”
Yikes. Well, whatever—I’ve got my 3D tickets for 11am tomorrow, as I’m sure I will for the next one, and the next one…
Here’s a round-up of some the suckier reviews:
December 14, 2012 at 6:46 pm, Brian Quintero said:
I fell asleep many times, waking up during the battle scenes. Good graphics, too long.
December 14, 2012 at 8:00 pm, John Rusnak said:
(…yawn.) Ooohing and aaahing at special effects for 3 hours is a boring waste of time!
December 15, 2012 at 8:24 am, Shane Spitzer said:
Tolkien would be appalled. Scene after scene of stuff that Jackson made up! The movie you see is not The Hobbit, but a movie loosely based on the Hobbit. And amazingly he left out things that WERE in the book. Instead of adding horrible fluff to the movie, just stay true to one of the best books ever written. Three crappy movies isn't the way to go.
December 15, 2012 at 7:00 am, Cool Clicks: The 12 Best Performances of 2012 | NextMovie said:
[...] Sheesh, a lot of people seem to think "The Hobbit" kind of sucks. It's a brave new world. [Death and Taxes] [...]
December 16, 2012 at 5:49 am, Alvin Mcneal said:
Lol. "Graphics." Like it's a video game.
December 16, 2012 at 6:11 am, Alvin Mcneal said:
I pretty much hated it. First, I'll admit that I hated it mostly because I'm a Tolkien purist; if you're not, you might still like the movie. They made up details, and even entire scenes and histories, to tell the story Jackson, not Tolkien, wanted to tell. They Jar-Jar Binksed Gollum and had dwarves with beards down to their belts using pop culture catch phrases like, "You've got to be kidding me!" Insert obnoxious audience laughter, like it's a blipping comedy. The novel The Hobbit was light-hearted and suitable for a younger audience, compared with The Lord of the Rings. But it didn't rely on sitcom-quality oneliners and ridiculously madcap action sequences to achieve that. This movie struck the wrong tone pretty much the entire time.
December 18, 2012 at 7:18 pm, Logan Winchester said:
Completely agree. Movie was way too goofy. And what was with the 3 trolls acting like the 3 stooges? Hitting each other on the head around the campfire and wailing in pain? Come on!! Total disgrace to the lord of the rings franchise. Not to even mention the wizard who had rabbits pulling his sled…
December 16, 2012 at 1:08 pm, Watch Mr. Spock sing a creepy song about ‘The Hobbit’ | Death and Taxes said:
[...] min agoPeter Jackson’s latest opus “The Hobbit” opened this weekend—despite the tepid reviews I found it to be totally quality and at the very least an effective and much-needed bit of escapism [...]
December 18, 2012 at 11:27 am, Jeffrey M. Donato said:
Actually, it's mostly garbage critics that think it sucks. Everyone I know who saw it loved it and I've read TONS of responses to reviews lambasting critics for their horrid assessments of this beautiful film.
December 20, 2012 at 9:26 pm, Chloe Cb Hohmann-Tabor said:
Yes! Thank you! Someone who agrees!!
January 03, 2013 at 6:23 am, Mary McCulley said:
I'm a long time Tolkien fan…read the books in my teens, loved them, loved the stories. I enjoyed all of the LotR movies. The Hobbit? I hated it. Totally agree with the critics. It was boring, over-bloated, inaccurate, and I hated the way it was filmed, everything looked fake.
January 06, 2013 at 4:54 am, Rich Northup said:
you must have never read the book!
January 16, 2013 at 3:25 am, Jeffrey M. Donato said:
I've read the book many times, the first time having been 20 years ago, the most recent being 2 years ago. It had, and continues to have, a profound effect on me as a creative person and storyteller. So you are quite incorrect sir. My closest friend and my sweetheart are both Tolkien junkies. They both reread the books every year- and they likewise loved it.
April 17, 2013 at 2:34 am, William Downey said:
no it did suck, so hard the theatre almost imploded!
December 20, 2012 at 9:25 pm, Chloe Cb Hohmann-Tabor said:
It was good! Can't wait for the next! And those reviews are SHIT!!!!!!
December 24, 2012 at 12:52 am, The Hobbit, Sucking and Sub-text | Summer of '74 said:
[...] The web is speaking: The ‘magic’ of 9 hour-action scenes of fantasy creatures groaning has worn off… no longer enthralled by the CGI ‘magic’ of Orcs and walking trees, the nerd armies are ready to admit: This movie kind of sucks. [...]
January 16, 2013 at 2:56 am, Ashley Scarborough said:
I liked it as a movie on it's own. I hated it as an adaptation if that makes sense. Why do filmmakers feel the need to invent stuff and add stuff that wasn't in the original work. Why did he add Radagast and that super orc Azog? What was the need? Jackson did everything fine except tell the story accurately. Why Jackson did you add stuff that wasn't in the story? The stupidest change was when he had the dwarves attack the trolls. In the book they walk up one by one and are captuered in sacks. And Gandalf never cracks a rock in half to reveal the sun that turns them into stone. Why was this kind of stuff necessary? The book is epic and exciting enough that you don't have to invented or change things. Shame on you Jackson for brutalizing Mr. Tolkien's vision.
January 16, 2013 at 3:32 am, Chloe Cb Hohmann-Tabor said:
Actually, I think you have to be a big fan of middle earth books and Movies to really enjoy it..
May 19, 2013 at 7:09 pm, David Van Wyk said:
Ok here is my review of the new hobbit movie, this is just an opinion but from one who has read Tolkien’s work many times. First I want to say I was glad to see the movie it was entertaining. First off the movie is or should be called Peter Jackson’s the hobbit, as it really doesn’t have the same feel at all from book to movie. I feel that the audience would have responded well to a more accurate story and would have been more pleased with the real adventure. I think that character and story manipulation, slapstick dwarfs and action repetition sequences gave the movie a generic feel. Also Jackson changed the times and added and took from the movie while I found one of these additions good (the council in Rivendale). Some argue that none of this matters because the same story comes across as things are changed around; one character says other characters lines and times. When timing is changed the suspense and character mood is lost especially for the hobbit. When characters mix lines it can lead to entire characters being removed or the personality of a character can be lost. When things are changed around entire adventures and story information is gone. Tolkien used storytelling with great detail not only the characters but the history of the places with past and present. The hobbit was so rich in fun and exciting adventure because of the way Tolkien invoked thought and imagination regardless of where the adventurers were or were doing. My best example is the story Jackson inserts with the initial tale that was told of Azog from Tolkien’s appendixes. This tale is fine however we get Azog and his thuggish band of orcs made into the main bad guys (Azog never made an appearance in the hobbit). Azog stalks chases and attacks the dwarfs over plain and wood, and this injects a wearisome and forced action stops throughout the entire movie, and stifles the adventure feel. We now have an arch enemy in pursuit Thorin instead of unknown enemies and the dragon to think of at the end. Jackson also has these orcs riding wargs just like in the lotr but in fact wargs are never riden by anyone except the goblins from the misty mountains. The real story of when the dwarfs encountered any wargs occurred when they were fleeing from the goblins of the misty mountains. The Dwarfs and Gandalf and the hobbit wandered into a clearing in the middle of a wood after getting as far as they could from the mountains traveling into the night. Tolkien describes it the party (the dwarfs) all of a sudden felt like they wandered into an altogether bad place although there was nothing wrong to see (suspense/mystery) when all of a sudden they heard howls all around them. These were the wargs in fact it was the wargs secret meeting place and the wargs were surprised and upset to see dwarfs. The wargs are also given a short history by Tolkien and described as giant wolves who were intelligent evil and having their own language. The wargs were planning a raid with the goblins and the goblins were late no doubt from the slaying of the great goblin and the doings in the mountains. The wargs then surround the dwarfs and Gandalf and they climb trees to avoid being eaten. Suddenly the goblins show up and begin laughing at the dwarfs up in the trees who look foolish. The goblins then decide to set the trees on fire and sing a song about fifteen birds in five fir trees who had no wings and get roasted alive. Gandalf lit pinecones and threw them ay the wargs shaggy coats who went mad with flame and pain. During all this uproar in the forest it caught the eye of the eagle lord (eagles are also described in detail by Tolkien as generally good creatures though some are cowardly and cruel and who are also intelligent and speak the language of man as well as their own) This particular eagle knew Gandalf. After Gandalf thanks him the eagle talks about how he had not forgotten about the arrow that shot him down many years ago and the wizard (Gandalf) who healed him.