Audio Reviews - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Audio Review

Tags:  movie review, audio, spill, spill.com, martin freeman, ian mckellen, richard armitage, andy serkis, elijah wood, the hobbit, peter jackson

• 
  

  March 31, 2013 at 2:42 AM, fearfulmatrix said ...

  Ya'll just need to just chill the fk out, the movie looks amazing in 48. Cohost needs to stop talking for "everyone" in that people are not going to get used to 48.

  Also, the movie really bored me in that only a few of the dwarves had character development... the rest were just there for comic relief. Bilbo's story was not compelling and had a lot of missing development... all of the sudden he's become a warrior that can handle a sword, like wtf... Even Merry and Pippin had to learn to handle a sword in the fellowship. The only real character was Thorin, which I would've liked to see the movie be based off of.

• March 31, 2013 at 2:40 AM, fearfulmatrix said ...

  Ya'll just need to just chill the fk out, the movie looks amazing in 48. Cohost needs to stop talking for "everyone" in that people are not going to get used to 48.

  Also, the movie really bored me in that only a few of the dwarves had character development... the rest were just there for comic relief. 

  
  
• 
  

  January 29, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Tyler Valdal said ...

  Judging in on 48fps rather then 24fp is like seeing without your glasses looks good but it could look way better with your fucking glasses on

• January 29, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Tyler Valdal said ...

  I saw the film in 48fps and 24fp and let me tell you 48fps was HD and to clear yes but you can tell he ment the movie to be that way , i though 24fp was to dark and did not have to flashy and beautiful shots that was ment to be

  
  
• 
  

  January 27, 2013 at 9:24 PM, said ...

  My Review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey  http://www.ryanhawbecker.com/2012/12/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey-movie.html?spref=tw …

• January 11, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Tony Beers said ...

  
  
• 
  

  January 07, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Hector Fernando Andrade JR. II said ...

  @Leon: East Bridgewater Cinema 6 has the worst sound system in my opinion.

• January 06, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Hector Fernando Andrade JR. II said ...

  My Uncle Jose and I saw the 7:00 P.M. movie presentation of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 2D last night.
  
  

   

  The only 2 things that I knew walking into this movie were this:
  
  

   

  1. The story: Bilbo Baggins (played by Martin Freeman) is a reluctant hobbit who wanted to be left alone in his quiet comfort which is a hobbit-hole who is called by the wizard Ganddalf (played by Ian McKellen) and 13 other homeless dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (played by Richard Armitage) to go on an unexpected journey across Middle-earth to go to The Lonely Mountain to get their gold back from Smaug the dragon.
  

   

  2. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
  
  

   

  I thought that The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a fun, funny and epic prequel with a very good story with a lot of funny lines written by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro, awesome acting performances by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage and Andy Serkis, great directing by Peter Jackson, fantastic visuals by Weta Digital, incredible action scenes, amazing music by Howard Shore and charming message about a good and brave hobbit learning not to doubt himself and his intelligence to gain the confidence necessary so that he can make a big difference in the world no matter how confusing and difficult the mission may seem at first.
  
  

   

  Overall If you haven't read The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolken or seen the beloved movie trilogy like I have and you lower your expectations then I guarantee that this fun movie will be an unexpected surprise of a good movie for you just as it did for me.
  
  

   

  I give The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a Full Price and I hope you enjoy The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

  
  
• 
  

  December 30, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Ryan Togioka said ...

  Though for everything else in 48 fps, this image did look too clean and sped up at times. If you're a 35 mm/24 fps fan who HAS to have the artifacts in their movie, avoid HFR and seek out a 24 fps projection (call ahead of time. Some theaters won't mention which screens are using which format).

• December 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Ryan Togioka said ...

  Saw it for the second time last night. Actually thought it was better on the second g-around, though I'm a bit biased toward liking the film to begin with (see my avatar).

  Things I was kind of unsure about the first time are growing on me (Radagast, for instance, is a lot more charming and useful once you get over his little eccentricities). And since I accidentally got into a 48 fps screening, the effects I thought were kind of wonky at 24 fps were much, much better integrated.

  
  
• 
  

  December 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Paul Monroe said ...

  Am I the only one who really hated the Lord of the Rings trilogy? (And I watched the 3 of them, always on the hopes that it would get better in the next installment somehow. )

  This one won't see me going to a movie theater or renting a DVD. Not even on free downloads. I would say that even if I get the blue-ray as a gift I won't watch it. Even if I was offered good money to go watch it - well, I would think twice before going. That's how much I dislike it. 

  I think the only positive thing that the Lord of the Rings brought to the world (apart from a lot of money to its film producers) is a bunch of silly lyrics in one or two Led Zeppelin songs. 

  Enough said. I'm happy to have it out of my system. 

  For all of you who disagree with me : enjoy (just never call me to join you). 

• December 27, 2012 at 11:12 AM, said ...

  The novel flies past. The film crawls. Rental at best. 

  
  
• 
  

  December 21, 2012 at 3:39 PM, David Szaks said ...

  I dont really understand what the issue is with the 48fps. How does a better picture equal it looks worse? Faster camera speed makes everything crisper and clearer and that makes it look like a TV?  Idk what TV you have but my TV shows vary rarely look better than movies. I watched the movie and I though it looked great. And for the speed up issue at the start I did notice it slightly but I quickly acclimated to it.

  There was some stuff that I don't remember from the book, but tbh I liked the new stuff. It really gave a sense of importance and connection to the other movies that the books didn't have aside from bilbo found the ring. And as a stand alone movie i could see how some of the brown wizard stuff could be superflorous, but it really made the story of LotR as a whole tighter. This movie really felt like just another part of the LotR story and not just a stand alone adventure.

  It's a bit long for sure, and honestly Idk if they could stretch it to 3 movies, but definately 2. I really enjoyed this movie and would give it a high full price.

• December 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, David Szaks said ...

  @ jon

  the trolls talked in the book...... just sayin

  
  
• 
  

  December 21, 2012 at 6:47 AM, said ...

  @Jon I think if Peter Jackson could convince people to make the movie for free he would do it. In my opinion saying he wants to make more money so he split the movie is just rediculous. Even if you cut everything possible including all the necromancer scenes and then tacked on the scenes they wanted to have which was all the way to the floating barrels it would of been a 3 and a half or 4 hour long movie and you still would not of seen smog. And smog is finished about 2/3rds into the book. Not started finished. I honestly am surprised they will fit everything into 3 movies espeially when they include the necromancer scene. So unless your cool to sit in a 4 hour or longer movie (Man would I love to see the spill crew review that) I fail to see why you wish it was 2 parts.

• December 21, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Jon said ...

  finally saw the film today with my sister

  we were both very happy re-visiting Middle Earth seeing familiar characters and learning more about the mythology

  the theater we were in wasn't bad, it was a digital projection

  I didn't think the pacing was off considering many critics complained about it that's how Jackson does his films

  the special effects were amazing with the Eagles, the Wargs, the environments and even Gollum, he blended back into the background so perfectly

  the plot did have some padding in certain areas, a lot of dwarves has little to no personality and I hated them making the trolls talk it just sounded too goofy

  but I liked everything else, it followed the book very well and had that same epic feeling from the trilogy, Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan and Richard Armitage all put on damn good performances, that rock giant sequence was freaking cool, the Orcs and the Goblins looked scary and Rivendell was so beautiful-looking

  love the small references to the 1st 3 movies, too, can't wait to see Smog in the next one

  I really wish Jackson didn't have to split this short story into 3 parts; he wants the money

  
  
• 
  

  December 21, 2012 at 1:39 AM, said ...

  MY OPINION ON THE 48fps

  Well, I watched this film in a pretty nice theater with Stadium seating. I did not notice any significant extra blurring due to the added frame rates. I think that the reason people have so many complaints is because of a 'placebo-like' effect. Before the movie aired we were all warned that the new frame rate would make people nauseas but I did not experience any unusual discomfort. The film was beautiful and I have no complaints

• December 19, 2012 at 8:09 PM, said ...

  @Josh

  Ah, I see what you mean. When I say Bilbo is whiny, I'm more referring to when he's out and about with the company and complaining about rain and the rigors of travel, that sort of thing. They could've done more to show Bilbo as being respectable (maybe if they cut that useless intro with older Bilbo writing the book and hiding it from Frodo... utterly useless).

  
  
• 
  

  December 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM, said ...

  @John Yeah I am optimistic about the next 2 films coming up with murkwood being the area where I feel Bilbo Grows the most and his character really changes and expands. 

  I agree with the split ancestry being a huge trait I just think the Baggins side is not whiny or a bitch but a respectable, highclass, smart, content, and more stubborn than the took side. I think Sackville-Baggins are more the whiny-bitch type which is what I get in small doses from Martin. 

• December 19, 2012 at 7:17 PM, said ...

  @Josh Truff

  You know, you're right about one thing - during the very first scene when he talks to Gandalf, the only thing I could think of was Arthur Dent. But when I thought about it, both characters are actually quite similar (at the very least, in terms of their roles in the story and how they act as protagonists). In any case, I gradually forgot about Hitchhikers as the movie went on.

  One of Bilbo's major characteristics is his split Tookish/Baggins ancestry - he has his stubborn, adventurous Tookish side as well as his complacent, whiny-little-bitch Baggins side. I think there were parts of this movie in which you did see small bits of the former, but I daresay that over the course of the next two films we'll see more of it as he goes through something of an arc. At least, I hope so.

  
  
• 
  

  December 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM, said ...

  @John Bilbo in my eyes is much higher energy much more stubborn and less awkward and weird. Martin acts like he is slow bordering stupid/mentally challenged. He does some things similar to the new actor for the spiderman tribute (Andrew Garfield) which makes him seem like a whiny little bitch. Now Andrew does this far worse and more often and ruined spiderman for me but  Martin has little bits here and there lines that I think weren't delivered properly or just emotionless casual scenes. All I see is his character from Hitchhikers. The characters he plays are just not people I would like in real life. I am being very critical of one of my favorite books and definitely the book I've read the most amount of times but he just wasn't for me. Its ok though because he really gets carried by the story and the other characters and the world that we are brought into. And he is not bad just not good in most scenes.

• December 19, 2012 at 5:27 AM, said ...

  @Josh

  I'd like to hear what your take on Bilbo's character is, then, because I thought Freeman was absolutely spot-on.

  
  
• 
  

  December 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, said ...

  Loved the movie! I fanboyed out on this one and actually teared up during the beginning of the movie when gandalf and bilbo were talking. Tears of joy man. Absolutely the best movie of the year. My favorite film was teh riddle scene my second was the one with galadriel. So my second favorite scene was something he just added and not from the book. I see this and know that if its done right additions work fine. That being said many things that were added I did not like. The goblin king was too silly, radagast has alot of potential but the drug thing was weird and the birdshit threw me off. I saw it in IMAX so it was not 48 frames but holy shit was it the most beautiful thing i've ever scene. The fight scenes were epic, 

  Martin Freeman did a good job but he just does not have the personality that Bilbo does in the books. At least not the Bilbo I see and read. 

  Anyways I thought the film was a little long and I have no idea how they are going to fit the book into 3 movies. I think 4-5 are needed because this movie was awesome this story is awesome and I want them to put everything they can into it. Because why not? I would love to see more and more films like this and I think this film could of ended earlier and fit even more scenes and jokes from the book.

  Full Price for sure. I give it about as good as sex. No better and no worse. More problems than the original 3 but such great production value and directors love of the story shine through.

• December 18, 2012 at 11:33 PM, said ...

  Guys.

  THERE WAS NO 3D EYE STRAIN OR HEADACHES FROM ME IN 48 FRAMES.

  Had about 20 minutes of 3D trailers before the film, and in the middle of it, head started to feel fuzzy and kind of out of it. Absolutely no strain or light-headiness from The Hobbit because of the high frame rate. It's so much easier to process for your brain/eyes. ALL 3D FILMS SHOULD BE PRODUCED AND PRESENTED IN HFR. I fully agree with you guys on the story elements, everything else, but 48 FPS was a wise choice.

  
  
• 
  

  December 18, 2012 at 9:04 PM, said ...

  

Post Comment