The Hobbit Review - Possible Spoilers.

[DLPB_]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/reviews?filter=hate

Let's kick off with the score I've given it.  5/10.  That 5 is for reasonable job with the comedy, design and things not related to story and pacing (with the exception of Gollum and the cave scene).  In fact, I may need to start looking into the scores I am giving films because I am sick of saying "The graphics are great, but..."

I am not going to arse lick this film or give it a good review just because people tell me I should.  I am sick to death of sheep.  I don't care if this is Tolkien or Jackson or how much money it took to make the film.  If it's bad, it's bad.

Graphics count for shit.  The reason I watch a film is primarily for a great story and well written characters.  I don't get dazzled by graphics anymore (if I ever did at all), and 3D action films do not make a film good.  So right there is the problem with The Hobbit.  The story is shallow and pretentious and cardboard.  I have still not read the book, so if the film is accurate to it, the book itself is poor.  Let's run through why the film had me rolling my eyes throughout:

• The introduction is way too long.
• The pacing is dire (and I've heard scenes that weren't in the book have been added).
• One brainless action scene after another for no other reason than to eat screen time (because the book is 300 pages and they are trying to maximise profits by having 3 films at 3 hours each).  Watching 2 rock monsters fight is not captivating or cool, it's boring.
• Implausibility factor 10.  I understand this is a fantasy.  I understand that if everything was ultra realistic it would end up boring, but for heaven sake, that does not mean you can get away with what happens in this film.  EVERY single scene shows something that would ordinarily kill someone.  Fall down multiple ravines, battle 100's goblins with just a few men, rocks the size of cars flying at you... and no scratches, no deaths.  It just doesn't work.
•   Lazy writing.  You know you are witnessing a lazy-ass story when your heroes are saved at the last minute EVERY time in multiple scenes.  Where does that leave us?  It leaves us with all main characters intact and no dramatic tension.  Every scene you see a massive rock crush a character you know they aren't dead.  Every time you see them perilously close to the edge of a cliff, you know that even if they fall, they will be saved and/or survive.  Further to this point, smaller problems such as Bilbo never handling a sword to suddenly taking on killer beasts like he has been to He-Man training school.
• Cliché crap.  The way Bilbo goes from being an outcast to being accepted is contrived and rushed and totally obvious.  It just smacks of lazy cliché writing.  The acting that goes with it is not good either.   Kind of like "I once said... you weren't one of us... OH how wrong I was!"  Roll eyes time.  Then you have the White Orc that Thorin said he had slain, and you just KNEW it was coming back at the end for some sort of showdown, didn't you?  Talk about obvious.  I blame the film for this because the scenes involved in the exposition were way too see-through. Might as well have had Thorin wink at the camera.  That brings me onto the whole "Thorin dislikes Elves" angle... where you know the elves are suddenly going to  become important allies just so we can have a totally obvious and expected reversal.  Wow, Thorin, you got Bilbo wrong and you got the Elves wrong!  DRAMA.
• Lack of character development.  Think Final Fantasy XII.  This was the stake through the heart of this film...  Most of the dwarves are completely redundant and I could not identify or even accept Bilbo.  This was due partly to the lack of character development, partly to the script and partly to the actor.  Same goes for Thorin except the scenes he is in feel more like a bad soap opera than they do a "blockbuster" film.

It is just dull, lifeless and retarded. You shouldn't do things just because you can.  That isn't how to make a great story/film.  LOTR trilogy for the most part had decent pacing, and it didn't do things too fast, too soon, or for the sake of it.  Some of the original trilogy suffers from the complaints above, but nothing like The Hobbit does...  it's in a league of its own.  I went to watch an engaging movie, not a cartoon.

The use of CGI is also glaringly obvious and fake. Like with the prequels of Star Wars, when the movie cuts between humans and CGI blobs, your brain is onto it.  Stop relying on CGI for everything.  It's getting annoying.  At least Jackson makes real sets so it isn't a total wash out.

There is some real potential in this film and it is squandered; whether that's because Tolkien wrote a flawed book, whether it is because he wrote a book that doesn't take well to a feature length movie or whether it is because Jackson fucked it up, that's what we ended up with.

The ultimate truth is the Hobbit should have been 2 films, and making it 3 has been the final nail in the coffin.

So, I am sat here mightily pissed off that once again graphics and self indulgent, completely pointless action scenes have trumped good storytelling and pacing. 

Of course, the film is still watchable, it is entertaining at times, and the 3D visuals are fun, but for me it is a massive disappointment.  Visuals can not make a film, but when used excessively, they sure as hell can break it.

[corpse]

I've yet to see the film, I my self can't understand why its been expanded to a trilogy (Apart from $$$). I've read the book and can definitely recommend it, I suspect you will find it a lot more appealing, than this film.

[DLPB_]

I read up to chapter V last night and you are right.

[Timu Sumisu]

While I was not as disgusted as you were with it, and I did have a lot of fun with this part 1, I agree, Jackson seems to be trying too hard to 'epic' the Hobbit up.

Part of the reason Gandalf is always leaving the party is because their task just isnt /that/ important.

Onto the actual film, I quite enjoyed the characters, even the dwarves (some got the short end of the character development, but with 13, what do you expect, hopefully more in movies 2 n 3).
 
The main cast came across quite well, and by in large all the book based plot points fit in line with the level of the LOTR series.

The big shortcomings came in over CG'd action.
-Stone Giants? Where did this come from? why is it in the movie? you don't need a godzilla fight to give the characters the excuse to rest in a cave... They'd just do that anyways.
-The white orc/defiler, I do recall him being mentioned in the LOTR appendices or in some mention of history during Moria in the books, so kudos to digging for a villain instead of making one up. Overly CG-ing him was unnecessary though >.>
-The whole goblin mountain sequence - I know PJ loves these rediculous action scenes with extensive chases, unrealistic falls, and all that, but its not a cartoon. Even in the cartoon of the hobbit, they kept it more down to earth. (check that animation out, very oldschool, cute rendition of the hobbit, whole book in ~1h)
-Radagast the stoner? The character design on this guy boggles me. He seems to have jumped out of narnia, not middle earth.

[DLPB_]

The biggest disappointment for me is how Jackson has sold out... he has basically thrown what worked in the trilogy and said "OK, this will be geared to children and mindless action.  We won't have menacing monsters, we will have Phantom Menace CGI and humour"

The humour works in places but not when it is used on creatures that are intended to be menacing.  What the fuck is that Goblin King about?  It's like Jabba and Jar Jar Binx rolled into 1.  I just couldn't feel anything.  Wasn't excited and couldn't care less.. and every other scene was yet another implausible escape routine and "dangle over edge of precipice"  It got old very quickly and we have all seen this 100x before.  How many more times do I have to suffer films that do that?

Also looks like my suspicions were right and not surprising these added scenes were the ones I hated most.

Code: [Select]

ERRORS: *Gandalf distracts the Trolls, who didn't steal any horses, and wades time to turn them into stone. Not Bilbo.

*The great white orcs aren't chasing the Hobbits. They made that up.

*The Hobbits don't run into orcs until they look for reprieve in a cave in the mountain.

*The scene with the Giants was cool, but it's not really brought up much in the book. They just blame the weather on the giants... no fighting involved.

*The brown wizard scenes and the whole Necromancer story was made up. Again, just barely mentioned in the book, but not part of the story.

*Why would the brown wizard run past the dwarfs with the Wargs and Orc following him if he was trying to let them get away?

*Thorin, not Gandalf, kills the Orc king right away. Bilbo was also captured.

*Bilbo finds the ring, quite accidentally, in the dark tunnel. He doesn't see Gollum drop it. And seriously, the ring... it's the one thing they shouldn't mess up!

*The meeting at Rivendale is supposed to be happy and fun. The elves give the dwarfs horses and supervisions for their journey. The dwarfs feast and stay there for 2 weeks.

*The other elf queen and the white wizard are not supposed to be in Rivendale. They aren't in the Hobbit story.

*Gandalf leaves Rivendale with the dwarfs.

*Just the wargs were meeting by chance at the trees. The wargs surround the trees and just Gandalf throws lighted
pine cones. Bilbo shouldn't have been able to climb a tree on his own. He's too short. Again, the mystery white orc
that had a stint with Thorin was not chasing him. In fact, he shouldn't even exist. The eagles come and save them
because they don't like orc and wargs. - The trees don't fall over, but the dwarfs do get nearly smoked out.

[Jenova's Witness]

.

[Timu Sumisu]

DLBP... where did you get that list?

[DLPB_]

IMDB review

[Covarr]

I didn't want to weigh in until I saw the movie for myself. Going in, I was a bit skeptical about some of the things I'd heard about it.

About two thirds of the "mistakes" in that list were things that definitely happened. The problem is, Jackson is trying to tell more stories than just The Hobbit here, many of which were published in Unfinished Tales, or the appendices of Lord of the Rings, which it's clear you haven't read. In particular, the whole necromancer plotline was HUGE (and the primary reason Gandalf repeatedly disappears throughout The Hobbit). That "mystery white orc" is Azog the Defiler who absolutely DID exist and DID have a grudge against Thorin's family. The book was told strictly from Bilbo's point of view, leaving out things that he didn't experience. Most (not all) of the additions and changes here are things that happened, but Bilbo did not witness, or changes to the timeline, not introductions of entirely new events and plot arcs out of the blue. The meeting at Rivendell wasn't shown in the book, but is altogether a minor change considering that even if it did happen Bilbo wouldn't have known.

Honestly, it's hard to take that list of mistakes seriously, when it's got so many of its own. And you should know better than to use IMDB reviews for research.

and they are trying to maximise profits by having 3 films at 3 hours each

Yes, because investing money in extra special effects is the cheap and lazy way to do things, right? Keep in mind that this cost them far more to make than it would have at two hours.

The fact is, Jackson made the movie he wanted to make. New Line isn't demanding a trilogy of him, they're just giving him creative control to do what he's passionate about. I don't even agree with all of his decisions; Azog, though definitely a real Tolkien-made character, shouldn't have been anywhere in this movie, some of the action sequences were too long, the pacing in the first act is all over the place... but this was still about making the movie he wants to make and having fun, and he did that.

Ignoring the obvious fact that as a business, making money by selling products is what they are supposed to do and there is nothing wrong with that, you appear to have watched the Star Wars prequels (which I entirely agree with you were abysmal) and left with such a strong cynicism as to completely blind you to even the possibility that something can be successful and good at the same time. It's pretty apparent that you went in already having decided to hate it, and spent the entire time looking for things to complain about. You may resume calling the people around you sheep when you yourself stop acting as such a slave to your own mindless skepticism* cynicism.

But even if they were sheep, even if you were right about every one of your complaints (you aren't; they are mostly poorly thought out ranting), you must remember that IT IS A VIEWER'S RIGHT TO ENJOY WHATEVER MOVIE SUITS THEIR TASTES. If a person likes drawn out CG action sequences, and they paid to see the movie, they got their money's worth. They got exactly what they wanted. You seem to be under the mistaken notion that entertainment should be specifically geared toward you, and that is just a ridiculously short-sighted and narrow-minded point of view.

*Important distinction. Skepticism is based on logic, and willing to change views when a better argument shows up. Skepticism  Cynicism is just negativity for its own sake.

[ajthedj747]

I respect everyone else's opinion. Mine is very different. The showing I saw was High Frame Rate plus Real D 3D. The unnecessary action sequences were a treat for me. I was very entertained, and enjoyed the fluid motion seen through High Frame Rate. 9/10 for me.

[DLPB_]

Covarr, I think a lot of what you have just written is excuse making (and since you are debating this without even seeing the film I will place you in the category of sheep also).  I am well aware that they are a business, but the original trilogy for the most part did not go anywhere near as bad as The Hobbit.  In fact it was going to be 2 films until Jackson had the brain-spark to add a 3rd which has completely wiped out any chance that the pacing can get better in the next two films either. Implying/Saying that it is understandable to make a substandard film because they are a business isn't a retort to what I wrote, it is trying to get away from the fact they made a substandard film.  Attacking me for attacking the film won't wash either.  If everyone thought about profit being the sole consideration then no high-budget film would ever end up decent.  The fact is a lot of films do end up brilliant because the makers decided they wanted to make a good film and invested the time into it.

The Hobbit and for that matter a lot of modern day films are pandering to the lowest common denominator.  Creating CGI sequences as a filler is easier for the WRITER.  It may not be easy for all the special effects guys but the writer/director has a much easier time. 

I could write a better screenplay than Jackson did for this film.  It isn't good enough.  Deliberate adding scenes, twisting scenes and adding in mindless CGI action scenes to compensate for clever design and writing is wrong and lazy.  I understand some people can still like all that, but me, I prefer an intelligent film, not another generic graphic fest. I don't see how anyone can still find these sorts of things interesting, it's been done to death.  We've seen CGI and we have seen grossly brain-dead, over the top action scenes before as well... in fact that's what most big games and movies are these days.

When will people get bored?

And I will repeat for the 1000th time, what a person likes does not bother me.  Anyone who likes this film is free to do so, but it is a badly made film and that's a fact.  Lazy screenplay, bad pacing, screen time wasting tactics, repeatedly breaking the suspension of disbelief for no other reason than to create the next "cool" action scene, too many clichés, awkward acting moments, rushed plot in some areas and long drawn out in others, unrealistic looking CGI and I can't be bothered remembering the rest.  Finally, Jackson's supreme arrogance to believe that all the changes he makes are for the better when a lot are simply inexplicable.

My review on IMDB is doing quite well with regards to votes, so maybe there are slightly less sheep than I thought.  Still too many though.  Members of my own family, people who I know to be very intelligent liked this film, but I have to come to the realisation that their appreciation for good writing is none existent.  When I came out of the cinema all anyone could talk about was the action scenes.  Any dissent was met with the following:

"You can't compare it to LOTR"  - Great excuse, also used with FF games.
"The action scenes were great!"
"It was epic" - No reason given why... because satisfactory reason does not exist.

  If it has 100 action scenes, it is automatically "an epic".

[Covarr]

(and since you are debating this without even seeing the film I will place you in the category of sheep also).

No, I was saying that I waited to post until after seeing it. I wanted to weigh in sooner, but I felt it wouldn't be fair to make a judgment until I saw it myself.

Regarding the pacing, my biggest problem isn't that it's too fast or too slow, but that it's inconsistent. The first act of the film can't make up its mind what tempo it wants to move at, cutting back and forth between scenes at a moment's notice, and then letting those scenes drag. In fact, I think that's indicative of the film's biggest flaw. It's not the writing, nor the acting, and certainly not the (absolutely stellar) music. It's the editing. Fortunately, this type of problem is one that can readily be fixed in a director's cut, which I absolutely hope this movie gets. Not an extended edition, mind you, but something designed less for theater-friendliness and assuming the viewer has already seen the LotR trilogy. Without even touching the order or inclusion of scenes, just removing a shot here and there in the action sequences would make a huge difference. I don't feel this movie was in need of better writing, or even more writing, just a shorter length entirely.

Here's the thing. I 100% agree with you that this film isn't perfect. But I absolutely do not agree that it is lazy, or pandering, or outright bad, nor do I think it's fair to call people sheep just for liking it. Go watch a genuinely bad movie like Baby Geniuses 2, Twilight, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, Attack of the Clones, Transformers... Those movies are all varying degrees of bad. The Hobbit doesn't even come close.

And as far as intentional story changes? The writing was designed to do three things: to tell Bilbo's story, to bring lore and story elements to the screen that otherwise would've been skipped because they weren't substantive enough to make a film all on their own, and to work on a screen rather than in print. That's very much the opposite of lazy; a lazy writer would have changed pretty much nothing, and released an "adaptation" as unwatchable as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

One final note: There was action in the book. It was more drawn out in the movie, and I fully agree that it needed to be trimmed, but it would certainly not be good to remove it. While truly intelligent, dialogue-driven movies like The Prestige certainly have their place, trying to shoehorn other things into genres or styles where they don't fit would be even worse than making something as mindless as Transformers.

[DLPB_]

If you take away the action scenes I don't think there's be much left tbh...  and the book does not have the likes of 2 rock monsters having a generic fight that's for sure, or so many last minute saviours.  The cliche "just caught you before you fell to your death" was done a few times.   The balance is completely wrong.

In order for me to connect with a film it has to make me care about the characters and there is nothing here to do that.  And when a chance does arrive, it is squandered by the next useless action scene which has no dramatic tension because the film has already established how it will proceed... namely, last minute get outs and crazy cartoon slapstick.  How can I take it seriously?

More over, why did Jackson use CGI for the Orcs when live actors did so well in the trilogy?  I don't get it. 

But what other way is there to sum up a screenplay that has so many action scenes and so little actual substance in 3 hours than to call it lazy?  I read the first 5 chapters of the Hobbit and it's infinitely better than that film, and the film could definitely have been made better.  I am just very tired of seeing the same old pattern of action sequences filling up where a story should be (and in the case of games, where a GAME should be).

It is a real shame Jackson took over this project, because with 2 films and a different approach, this might have worked.  But 3 films, you just know the next 2 have to cram in another million action scenes to compensate for the fact the book is only 300 pages long and we are already around 1/3 through.  The Hobbit as a book is not on the level of the trilogy to begin with so trying to make it a trilogy is idiotic.

As for sheep, given the film is currently scoring 8.6 on IMDB, I'm afraid I am sticking by it.  The consensus is it is a great film, and it isn't.  It's yet another example of "it is great coz all my mates say so and it has super graphics and I loved LOTR".  If you look at all the games and movies that had widely inflated scores you notice 1 common factor... they were all big budget, had great graphics (and little else) and had a large fanbase from previous (and better) installments.

And talking about money, Jackson has enough.  If he is still making films because of his own wealth or for a company, he is a greedy cunt.  I slave my arse off on FF7 related things and other projects for no money at all, and I do it because I love the game/project.  Money would just be a nice bonus, so... if Jackson and co really are just money driven, they are the wrong people for the job.

[DLPB_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xDD7egEN2k

That's what I call brilliant.

[Template]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/reviews?filter=hate

I have still not read the book, so if the film is accurate to it, the book itself is poor. 

/facepalm

This is why movies made from books are generally crap. The filmmakers know that the audiences are unlikely to know the literature well, if at all. Tolkien's The Hobbit is absolutely brilliant in style and scope. It is a very short book but it can make a youngster feel as though their experience has been doubled--this in contrast to some of his other work which can be overwhelming in detail and language.

I haven't bothered with the movie, cause I assumed it would be cgi crap and that it would be insensitive to the original story. My suggestion is that if you are looking for wonderful storytelling and don't care about graphics anymore (or never did), stop wasting your time and money with Hollywood (where cgi will ALWAYS be advantageous to live actors because profit margins are the main concern) and start reading books that are proven classics, like the Hobbit is. Honestly you are getting a little old for that book, Tolkien tells it in language for a very smart 10 year old, which I'm sure you were, but reading it now will sound a little out of its time. Then again I'd say the same about the good FFs. We're all playing those games still so that we can feel a bit younger, I suspect. 

I also suspect your interest in the fantasy genre has more to do with language than the average consumer, just based on the fact you have spent so much time re-translating ff7. If that's true, and you haven't actually bothered delving into Tolkien's work, you are doing yourself a disservice. By trade he was a linguist, and he created whole languages (ala Klingon, which Trekkies developed no doubt with Tolkien's glossopoeia concept directly in mind) with which to simply study and play, as well as to use within the context of his literary work, like Elvish. Who in Hollywood would be so focused?

I just find it amusing you go to the movies still expecting to find rapture. If you want something done right, do it yourself. You especially must feel that's true. The thing is, if you went to Hollywood to make this film with your own money, and do it "right", you'd end up with something that smelled old, and all the little internet trolls out there who can't be bothered to spend days/weeks/months on books would both not understand it, but think it looked cheap. So you'd probably not have a financial success. Good example for me is the movie Gettysburg. It's very long, follows the book it's based on almost verbatim, and is totally epic, making use of almost as many horses as the Jackson Ring trilogy and, by far, more live actors. It has a great cast, wonderful music, and lots of gallantry and moments of extreme heroism. It was also basically a movie that Ted Turner himself wanted to see, and payed 15 million dollars to do so; that was the difference between its massive budget and the paltry 10M it brought in.

Then to say fans of the book shouldn't bother responding to your post unless they've thrown money down the drain and wasted hours to see the crappy movie, when you hadn't even read the book... what kinda pipe-weed are you smoking, Dan?

[DLPB_]

Normally what you said would be true, but here we are talking about Peter Jackson who wrote the trilogy.. and did a pretty good (not perfect) job of it.  The only reason I thought it would be good is because I thought he and Del Toro could not possibly wreck it.  Jackson especially had a great incite of when and where to use CGI and how to direct/tell a story...

Then we got this...

So now I'm screwed... no where left to run.  That's it now.. no PS3.  No Ps4. No modern movies.  Looks like I am just gonna have to get rat arsed and live in the past.

(also yes, since writing that I have read the book and it is clear that the problem  lies with the movie. Also having read the book, my original post does not need editing, so what exactly is your point?).

[Template]

Normally what you said would be true, but here we are talking about Peter Jackson who wrote the trilogy.. and did a pretty good (not perfect) job of it.  The only reason I thought it would be good is because I thought he and Del Toro could not possibly wreck it.  Jackson especially had a great incite of when and where to use CGI and how to direct/tell a story...

Then we got this...

So now I'm screwed... no where left to run.  That's it now.. no PS3.  No Ps4. No modern movies.  Looks like I am just gonna have to get rat arsed and live in the past.

(also yes, since writing that I have read the book and it is clear that the problem  lies with the movie. Also having read the book, my original post does not need editing, so what exactly is your point?).

I don't know, pal. Maybe just to ruffle your sensitive feathers a little. Maybe to educate you on how Hollywood works and how it doesn't work for you. They are after your money, not your approval. And they got what they wanted. Bet you ate a buncha, popcorn too. 

Maybe also if you weren't too proud to take suggestions from people you don't like: If you want to be MOVED, then you need to use your eminently capable brain and read the real stuff (Moby Dick, Frankenstein, the Count of Monte Cristo)--instead of expecting someone to transport you to another time and place in a dark theatre and to be enthralled the way you were with DUNE when you were little, or whatever did it for you then. If you wanna have that kinda experience and be completely transported to another world, maybe you should try LSD or something. Or maybe instead of getting "rat arsed", whatever that means, and living in the past, you could look for contemporary examples of true literary art in the fantasy genre. I suspect there is a very active self-publishing community of fantasy authors. Instead, I expect you'll go to whatever giant conglomerate bookstore is thriving in the UK, pick up a copy of something awful but well advertised like Game of Thrones and then complain about it to your internet audience when it fails to compare to Lord of the Rings.

By the way, Jackson's Rings trilogy was a disappointment to most true Tolkien fans. It introduced characters from his other books (like Liv Tyler, who stuck out like a sore vagina) in an attempt to address one of the trilogy's main defects, a general but not total lack of female characters. There were a lot of issues like that. The third movie, as I think you said, was terrible. I left early when it just wouldn't frikkin end.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I mostly just wanted to debate with you, but you said the movie sucked anyway, so I'm not gonna go see it just so I can authoritatively agree with you. My main point was that it was a really silly thing to suggest in your OP, even if it was sarcastic, that it might be the book you hadn't read yet that caused the movie to feel so inauthentic. I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I think you're brilliant, but when you write crap like that sometimes I wanna fly to England and flick you in the forehead.

[DLPB_]

Ahhhhh I get it, you're being a dick.  Hahaha 

otherwise, I agreed with you.. mostly.

[Template]

Takes one to know one, I guess. Couldnt count how many times you've been temp banned from this very forum for being a complete monster. Yet I still respect you enough to admit you're scary smart. At some point I realised u actually get off on counter trolling people on here, and every once in a blue moon I kinda do too. Cheers, Dan.

Edit: Considering my father just died and I'm a Jew, this has been a rather somber Christmas. But I genuinely hope it's been good for the rest of you, even the OP.

[DLPB_]

Not the time of year for that!  Hope you had a good christmas 

[Mendelevium]

Just want to bring up a point that my friend brought up; the movie went through several directors didn't it? Peter Jackson wasn't the first choice, for whatever reason.

I got the impression there was a lot material that existed before he even got his hands on it, but I wouldn't know for certain. My friend said there were bits of the film already made before Jackson even came to the set. o.o

It felt like my friend was miss informed, but I cannot be for sure. :3.

[DLPB_]

I don't think there was any footage shot at all until Jackson came along, but Del Toro does have a writing credit.  It was going to be 2 films also until Jackson decided he wanted EPIC.

[Kaldarasha]

I think you're to negative. 

[DLPB_]

Are you sure?  I found this gem on IMDB about the Hobbit:

Congratulations, Fanboys!, 1 January 2013
1/10
Author: Hans Vega from United States

You have managed once again to make IMDb worse than it was before.

Look, nobody cares if you spend all your money to go see this BS-movie 5 times. And nobody cares if you spend all your life on your computer and probably haven't f...d a girl in months. BUT please be so reasonable to go the f.. away from this site. There are a lot of people who actually depend on this site to find out the quality of a movie before they go see it.

So they see an 8.4 rating and then actually go watch the movie and are very disappointed. As a result they won't go for months to see another movie and they won't for sure look up this site again to find out what a good movie is.

I know you Fanboys have never created something in your life, but at least try not to destroy things.

I endorse the above review.

[Covarr]

The review doesn't say a single thing about the movie. It's every bit as bad as fanboy reviews that approve of the movie because of intangible qualities such as "epic".

But that's okay as long as you agree with the review, right?