One thing all of you will love...there is not a single drop of love story in this. Not even HINTED AT.

It's like watching an RPG being played out.

EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS

They didn't have the rights to The Hobbit 10 years ago.

Also, the Jurassic Park 3D preview made my pants so ****ing tight.

JP 3D? JFC When will it end.

Saw the 3D regular framed version this afternoon, about 25 people in the theatre.

I enjoyed it, beautiful vistas, the Gollum-Bilbo riddle exchange was fantastic. I think this actor is a great choice for Bilbo. I did find myself looking at the time during the last hour - I think they could have easily edited out 40 min, and I found the non-Tolkien story parts annoying - but still - I enjoyed it.

IM kind of the same way. Just burnt out on Peter Jackson and his Tolkien hard on.

Then get the **** outta my thread.

reading alot of bad shit on this movie or its just ok! hmmm... i may hold off on it.

I thought it was a great movie, full of action, a very quick 3 hours. Great for any tolkein/lotr fan. I really don't agree with most the critics reviews...

Liked it alot. Too long. I dont mind long movies but it seemed stretched out. Love Richard Armitage, but I already did, so that's no surprise. I'll see the next one for sure.

You and me both. I'm a huge JRRT/LOTR fanboy and was concerned about some of the reviews, but thought it was fantastic. Can't wait for the 2nd (and 3rd, right?), too bad it's gunna be an entire year.

The 48 fps 3D Version:

Just saw this, and... I'm depressed. It looks VERY much like those "tru motion" displays you see at Best Buy. You know the ones playing a blu ray of a movie you've seen and loved, but now it looks like you're watching the dailies or behind the scenes video. It just looks... Terrible. It makes acting styles look terrible too. Throughout the whole film I was SHOCKED at how cheesy and over the top all the acting was, and how it just didn't seem like the same style as the LOTR trilogy. I got up and my girlfriend and I agreed. It looked like daytime television, the acting was hokey, and the story was spotty. I mean, these characters ROUTINELY fall thousands of feet, and nary have a bruise. It's bizarre.

So, I causally walked a couple of theaters over and watched about 10 minutes of the 24 fps version. All of the sudden, it seemed warm and natural again. It wasn't an action sequence, so I didn't get a chance to judge the movement, but even the acting seemed better and subtler. I'm holding out hope that this is mostly psychological, and that someday I'll come around. But for now, I think motionblur might be a necessary evil for the "analog warmth" that we have come to love in the cinema. Just my two cents.

BTW, the 3D was stellar. And I'm not usually a 3D fan. It was just the 48 fps that I found jarring. Not just jarring, but really unacceptable.

Liked it, didn't love it.

It is natural that it is a lesser. Certainly, no one believed the energy and newness could be maintained?

Five things that are not in the Hobbit book.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/showbi...html?hpt=hp_t3

When people complain about the nearly three-hour length of the first installment of "The Hobbit" film trilogy because the source book is a slim 300 pages, they're forgetting that much of the story isn't from "The Hobbit" itself -- but expanded from the appendices to "The Lord of the Rings."

That extra material is what justifies the longer time on screen, and answers such questions as where does Gandalf go when he disappears? Why is the wizard helping the dwarves on their quest in the first place? What's so bad about dragons? And so, to put a stop to all those moments when you'd otherwise wonder, "But that wasn't in the book!" here are the five major changes from "The Hobbit" the book to "The Hobbit" the films.

Click on link to read more...

Nice,thanks