Just got back from the movie, TGV IMAX 3D.

The Cinema
I wanted to improve on my IMAX experience. I somehow managed to once again not get middle seats. I was going for 'center, center', but got 'left, center' instead. The screen was so huge, that I had to stretch my eyes to the right when there was something of interest on the right side. This was my fault as I should have booked earlier. The mountain fighting sequence was spectacular on IMAX.

Unfortunately, I noticed a significant amount of 'blurriness' and 'shakiness' to the film. I am not quite sure if it was due to me seated a bit too close or should have sat a row or two behind. There was plenty of noticeable pixelation on-screen, right from the beginning, this was a bit of a downer for me. Maybe third times a charm in the future.

The 3D Value
It was present and there was quite a number of in-your-face moments... some of which even made me blink as the object felt like it was really being hurled at me. The mountain fighting sequence is worthy of being mentioned again. Peter Jackson's first 3D film and it didn't disappoint in the 3D department.

The Film
I went in knowing this is NOT LOTR Trilogy, it was more of a prequel, thus didn't get my hopes too high. In the end, I absolutely loved the film. It started out pretty slowly but quickly kicked into gear. The 'flashback' sequences were not entirely necessary but die hard LOTR fans would appreciate it like crazy. It was amazing to see Elijah Wood as Frodo, felt like I stepped into a time machine. The Shire looked breathtaking as before. Overall, the story was worth it and the feeling of an exciting and perilous adventure was there just like the LOTR trilogy. In other words, yes indeed "The Hobbit" managed to capture that same excitement as the trilogy. This was something I was concerned about as the film could have easily gotten 'lost' what with the years gone by and perhaps PJ not having a golden touch as it was previously ("The Lovely Bones" wasn't particular great). Ahh... it was indeed, an adventure.

The Cast
To be honest, I barely know any of the actors who played the dwarves. Can't really remember the dwarves names except for a few. Once more, felt like stepping into a time machine when I saw Galadriel, Lord Elrond, hey, Gandalf of course! Ian McKellen looks really old (and not just Gandalf old). The cast was brilliant and overall, they delivered the goods. Great job on the casting. The dwarves were loud, nasty and downright rough playing bunch of 'laddies'(??).

The Visual Effects
Really worth the wait to see Gollum... gosh, I was telling myself look at Gollum, the nuances of Andy Serkis' expression captured milimetre perfectly. Time really has done well to improve on the visual effects, and Middle-Earth looked incredible. I believe by the standards that was in the film, it could be nominated for Best Visual Effects at the Oscars.

Final Verdict
It was worth the wait. LOTR fans rejoice. If you have seen the LOTR Trilogy and liked it (and why wouldn't you), this is one unmissable film. I cannot believe I have to wait a year to see part two, and then another year for part three.
Peter Jackson, you didn't let me down.

8.5/10

+ Worthy adventure that meets expectations
+ Stunning visual effects, Gollum never looked so real!
+ Brilliant cast
+ Awesome Howard Shore music score and right on cue on... 'precious' moments
+ 3D was worth it
- Pacing is somewhat of an issue, could have been put through another round of editing/trimming of the fats
- Action sequences can get confusing and...
- ...Overwhelmingly long
- IMAX bluriness and pixelation issues
- Hey, where is Evangeline Lily?

Yeah, come to think of it, it is really not worth it. The one at 1U was really... fail. Pixelation and bluriness aplenty.


Oh... I thought they cut her part out or something. I think I did see a Peter Jackson-looking character but wasn't too sure.

FIRST LOOK INTO 'THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG'!

http://www.thehothits.com/news/movies/3650...n-of-smaug'!

Overly long = unnecessary scenes? I found the length only a minor issue, and I barely felt the 170 minutes runtime. The fact that I did genuinely care for some of the characters is already an achievement. I was really afraid if the 'adventure feel' would be lost. Peter Jackson had always wanted to 'complete' the LOTR Trilogy with The Hobbit, back then he was not well known at all and it was a big risk to have green-lit three films.

After the LOTR Trilogy, there was a lot of talk about doing The Hobbit but PJ distanced himself, making "King Kong" and "The Lovely Bones" instead, heck he wasn't even going to direct it but everything fell into place.

In the end, I am really pleased with how the film turned out to be. You can really tell PJ tried his best to bring back memories from the LOTR Trilogy and a number of instances in the film made me feel like I stepped into a time machine.

Why would anyone want to compare "The Hobbit" to the LOTR Trilogy, I have no idea. These are two separate stories in the same world. There is no way it is going to have the epic scale of those films, but we did see glimpses of war and (again) LOTR fans would rejoice.

Eh? Pete loves to share his production details as always. He is always keen on talking about film-making process. I have the "King Kong Production Diaries" - 2 DVDs dedicated entirely for day-to-day production videos.

For the LOTR Trilogy, three Extended Edition DVD box set - you'd be surprised by the number of production videos (making of...), the details are astounding (favorite is when they showed exactly what happens from start to finish for a single scene - life of a raw film reel).

So it could just be you feeling that way...

Planning on watching it again on HFR3D this weekend.

Yeah that too... especially the last day of filming on "Return of the King" where everyone was really emotional.


I don't quite know the length of which the film has based its content on the books because I have never read the books. Indeed I've heard about "The Hobbit" being a children's tale... but if that's how it is then so be it. At the end of the day it is still a fantasy film, and a really good one too.

It is never LOTR epicness in terms of scale or story, because it NEVER was in the first place. Did I feel like the film was trying to be epic? No.. To me I see it as how PJ has interpreted the story and made decisions that would please any LOTR fan. If one has never seen the LOTR films, they are still in for a wonderful time but are missing on so many references of what is to transpire on an epic scale.

Anyways,

Not necessarily... on film, there can always be changes.

On a different note, I think the third film will bridge the gap between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship of the Ring" ; could possibly be a film based on references/hints of what could have transpired between that time. The image of Legolas says it all.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays the The Necromancer... hmm, interesting. Storyline for "There and Back Again"



Shouldn't this be film two?

This post has been edited by defaultname365: Dec 17 2012, 03:32 PM

Says on IMDB... "Smaug / The Necromancer" for second film and just "The Necomancer" for third film.

It's based on the books. A film should never punish it's viewers for not knowing the source material. Oddly, it seems now that knowing the source material is what the problem is right now. I didn't even know "The Hobbit" was more of a children's story until recently.

The tie-in factor with LOTR was present because the film is an adaptation of the book and I'm confident it was seen an opportunity to have the references in it. Had the film been done just like books, the question would then be on why make the less menacing and the lack of coherence with the LOTR plot would come into questioning. Perhaps if I did read the book, I would have a different opinion altogether but I didn't.

I didn't find much issues with the film at all except for the darn IMAX. I think my viewing experience would be even better in 48fps.

On another note, the film has grossed over $220 million.

For me, no. Not really worth it. The one at 1U was blurry and noticeably pixelated, felt like they failed to properly configure the display or something. 2D version is in 24fps, so if planning on seeing it again why not go 48fps instead... the 'rarest' of all at this point.

Posted here previously,

http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/624050/+240#

Buy 3D tickets for...

TGV: 3D, 48 fps : KLCC, Sunway Pyramid, Bukit Tinggi, Tebrau City ,1Utama, SetiaWalk (Puchong), Wangsa Walk, Bukit Indah, Rawang

GSC: GSC Pavilion KL, GSC Signature (The Gardens Mall)

I can never forget this:


...when the choir kicks in, 1:44, goosebumps!

And... *drum rolls*, my absolute favorite that glued me to my seat after RotK was over:



The credits had the characters in sketch form. Such a beautiful ending. The end credits itself deserved an award! Incredible lyrics, "And all will turn, to silver glass..." (as uttered in the film).

I wasn't here in the forums back in 2003. If I was, I would be gushing about RotK for pages on end. Back in the days, I only saw one or two films a year.

Hmm.... never thought about it this way. I wouldn't consider myself a Tolkien fan, but if you'd ask me if I was a fan of Peter Jackson's work, then yeah.

I think I will enjoy the movie a lot more in 48fps, given how much of an issue I had with IMAX 3D.

The eagles were summoned by using butterfly/moth. They should have kept some in a jar. Seeing this again on Sunday night, in HFR3D.

Science/logic in a fantasy film with wizard, elves and dwarfs? Ok then, an interesting fact is that a male emperor moth can detect a female about 6 miles (11 km) away. Moths have an extraordinary sensory detection so yeah, word could travel fast I suppose in Middle-Earth, no idea if it can work both ways but just an interesting fact. Zzzz...

Lol, I wonder why they started fighting. I think eventually they got 'too close' due to slow movement of the Earth's crust and bumped into each other. Perhaps that's why they were called a myth since barely anyone has actually seen them fighting. That scene was incredible... it really felt like two behemoths fighting.

Saw it again last Sunday in HFR3D. The experience was miles better than on IMAX 3D. The clarity of the image is astounding, I don't think it can get any better.

I noticed a few quirks:

- Since the live-action plate is so clear, some scenes with visual effects may look clearly CG
- ...and some scenes with live-action tend to look CG due to the frame rate (e.g war sequence)
- Small movements with wide angle shots with no other movements in frame (e.g. walking), tend to look fast motion when in reality it is the way our eyes perceive it
- Takes about 15-20 minutes of HFR exposure from the start of the film to get used to it

As for the loss of movie feel, no, I don't think I wanted to feel it that way. I was watching a movie and it was still one.

In the end, I absolutely loved HFR3D. It really feels as close to reality as possible. It seemed to be 0.5 notch clearer than Digital 2D. For that, I'm really hoping we will see HFR2D in the future.

Also, I was able to name 10 dwarves after my second viewing compared to a meager 5 on my first viewing.

Euww.. (for me). Where was yours at? Mine at 1U, and it wasn't great.

Seen it on IMAX 3D already? If not, good luck. If you've seen it on IMAX 3D, not sure why you would see it again. I prefer HFR 3D over IMAX 3D.

Hmmm... it looks... pretty. The visuals look brilliant.