Don't Listen to the Movie Critics Who Say Negative Things About 'The Hobbit'!
film / tv / lists / guides / news / love / celeb / video / think pieces / staff / podcasts / web culture / politics / dc / snl / netflix / marvel / cbr

Don't Listen to the Movie Critics Who Say Negative Things About The Hobbit!

By Eric D. Snider | Think Pieces | December 7, 2012 | Comments ()


The first reviews of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey have arrived! Speaking as a huge fan of this movie, which I look forward to seeing for the first time when it opens on Dec. 14, I'm thrilled that most of the critics love the movie as much as I plan to. But a handful of reviews have made negative comments about it, and this saddens me. Why would a reputable publication allow its movie critic to behave so unprofessionally?

Look, I know that opinions are subjective. I thought Return of the King was the best Lord of the Rings movie, while some of my friends thought it was Fellowship. And we're all still friends! But a difference of opinion is one thing. Saying something as blatantly false as "the movie itself is a bit of a slog" -- as The Hollywood Reporter's Todd McCarthy did -- is borderline irresponsible.

"A bit of a slog"?? Are you serious? Did Todd McCarthy even see the same movie that I haven't seen yet?

It's absurd to suggest that The Hobbit is anything less than a great movie. I don't have to watch it to know that. Did you not notice that it's directed by Peter Jackson, who made the Lord of the Rings trilogy, aka the finest artistic achievement in the history of mankind? Have you not seen the trailers, which make it abundantly clear that The Hobbit looks and sounds exactly like Lord of the Rings? It even has a lot of the same cast members!

To get even more directly to the point: It's The Hobbit. Obviously it's a great movie. Why? Because it's The Hobbit! What part of this is not clear?

And still some of these so-called "movie critics" don't get it. (I put the term in quotation marks because their negative Hobbit reviews prove they are not legitimate critics.) For example, Jordan Hoffman at Screen Crush says it's "saddled with tangents [and] jabberjaw scenes that never end." Oh, those scenes "never end," do they? So I suppose they're still going on now? That's some great "writing" there, "Jordan Hoffman." Like I'm supposed to take anything else you say seriously when you start with bald-faced lies about scenes that magically defy the laws of time and space and go on forever.

The Hobbit has been my favorite movie of the year ever since the year that it was going to be released was 2008. There's no reason to think that actually seeing it will change this. So it's frustrating to me when trolls get on the Internet and say bad things about it, backing those statements up with specific examples from the film, which they have seen and I have not. Oh, so I guess "seeing" a movie makes your opinion of it more valid than mine? Yeah, right. What happened to living in a democracy?

It's an outrage that Rotten Tomatoes includes these so-called "people who love movies and were able to secure jobs writing about them" who obviously don't know what they're talking about. Journalism standards have slipped so far that nowadays, all it takes to be considered a "movie critic" is to watch a film, think about it, express your opinions in writing, and publish it somewhere. Pretty sad, really.

Take this hypocrite for example: David Germain, from a blog called "Associated Press." He says, "An Unexpected Journey looks like the start of an unnecessary trilogy better told in one film." How does he know it should only be one film when he hasn't seen the other two? That's the kind of bias I'm talking about. These so-called "individuals who have seen the movie in question and have coherently stated their feelings about it" are a fraud, and it makes me angry to think that innocent Internet users will stumble across their dumb rantings and take them seriously.

We need to boycott these critics until they quit lying and admit they loved The Hobbit as much when they saw it as I will when I see it. We will not stand for such flagrant disrespect directed at the best films of 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Lay the Favorite Review: Not Exactly Money, And It Doesn't Even Know It | A Tapestry of Obscenities

Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not

  • David Tanny

    This article brought me great joy. Thank you.

  • Lobelia

    Me again– as I've already said, this is a truly inspiring article. Mind if I share a few more reasons why these "critics" don't know what they're talking about?

    1. Some of them really liked the LotR films, so their expectations are just too high.

    2. Some didn't, so they're biased.

    2. a.) In fact, they're part of a conspiracy.

    3. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is really only one third of a movie, so it's just not fair to review it until you've seen the other two.

    4. Some other film I don't like got about the same rating "The Hobbit" currently has, and I just *know* "The Hobbit" is much better, which goes to show how stupidly subjective critical opinion is.

    5. Anyone whining that the film is "drawn-out" or "tedious" is clearly suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder, and is thus unfit to be a reviewer in the first place.

    I wish I could say these brilliant, clinching arguments are my own, but actually I've picked them up from other true fans of the greatest movie we've never seen.

  • Thom Stone

    i've seen every one of these exact argument said... it's sad, really. the one i've back lashed the most are the 'adhd' ones, though. the others i try to use as much reason as possible, but when they say, "the critics have changed. Some like their films less bloated these days because they all have ADD but they can sit around and glorify Avatar (2009, 160-something-odd minutes) and Dark Knight Rises (which was understandable...)", i have problems. they don't really seem to understand anything about adhd, what it does to you, and how small the percentage of people is who have it.

  • Lobelia

    Fantastic article, Eric! But even worse than these "professional critics" are the other trolls who actually defend them on the internet! I'm sure you've seen some of their horrible, cruel, hate-filled comments, like, "those critics just doing their job" and "maybe the film isn't perfect", and even "other people are entitled to have an opinion"! What th-?!! How can anyone be "entitled" to an opinion that's *objectively wrong*?

    Well, you know what they say: "haters gonna hate". *Sigh*

  • I hope this review gets picked up by The Onion.

  • BierceAmbrose

    The Associated Press wishes it was a blog.

  • AudioSuede

    F***ing glorious, this.

  • Khal Mifune

    Thank you so much for this. You've managed to express all those thoughts I've been having lately when it comes to these so-called "movie critics". This year has been terrible. Some of them said Prometheus isn't brilliant. And that Skyfall isn't the greatest Bond film ever. But worst of all, some of them actually argued that TDKR is NOT the greatest movie of all time! WTF!!! And when you try to talk to them, to discuss something awesome and important like IMAX vs. 3D, they want to babble on about plot and character development and stupid shit like that. One of them even said I was "clearly prone to hyperbole". Yeah, I know, more bullshit critic-speak. Hyperbole isn't even a real word, yo. Anyway, good job man, and if I hear anyone badmouthing the Hobbit, I'm going to tell them to read this totally true and well-written article. Later.
    In Nolan We Trust.

  • Bernie

    Screw peter jackson, screw him for fucking over the unions and fuck the NZ government for gifting tax payer dollars to an international studio for this poxie piece of shit movie.

    But hey, you enjoy.

  • duckandcover



  • Seb

    Funny how you have not seen it yet either -.-

  • Thom Stone

    what are you talking about we all know it's going to be amazing the critics are wrong and i can't believe you could say such a thing you're obviously a racist!!!!!!!1!! seriously, i'm voting the hobbit in 2016.

  • i

    If this is supposed to be funny, FAIL.

    If this is supposed to be serious, FAIL.

    If this is supposed to be ironic, FAIL.

    If this is supposed to be amusing, FAIL.

    If this is supposed to be 'hipster cool', FAIL.

    If this is supposed to be lame, SUCCESS!!!

    If this is supposed to be unfunny to the point of boredom, SUCCESS!!!

    If this is supposed to be idiotic, SUCCESS!!!

    If this is supposed to be stupid, SUCCESS!!!!

  • Batkinson

    Your comment convinced me of one thing: I really need to stop using repetition in my writing.

  • pcloadletter

    If your comment is about your comment, SUCCESS!!

  • Thom Stone

    i am actually laughing out loud. thank you *wipes away tear*

  • Jt

    Anybody else still have night terrors from watching the 1977 animated Hobbitt into their thirties?

  • The Guy in the Third Row

    I still marvel when people say they got freaked out by those. I saw them as a kid and still have a sort of nostalgic fondness for them. I'd even still argue The Hobbit was a decent adaptation (not great, but decent.)
    Return of the King...well, I still have the nostalgia for it, but as an adaptation, that's a whole other mess...

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Night terrors? No way, man. In fact, I sing those Glenn Yarborough songs with my sister on vacations.

  • the dude

    Its satire, but I agree

  • TheOriginalMRod

    Those critics are buttholes.

  • googergieger

    I've never been a fan of very long sarcasm, and it kind of defeats the point of being lazy with your "humor".

    Then again, I'm mexican. So you know...

  • Guest

    Your piece is already being taken at face value elsewhere. O well.

  • Captain

    Speculation vs. Actual criticism., unbiased opinions from people who have seen the movie in comparison to a completely biased person who hasn't seen the movie. From a logical standpoint, you can see how I think this article is full of shit, right?

  • Batkinson

    Wow, I'm actually impressed with your susceptibility. In an age of pragmatism and sarcasm, you fly well above the norm. You, my friend, are a saint amongst sinners. You're impressionability is refreshing in this day and age. Thank you.

  • Lobelia

    Hey, don't be too hard on the guy. This article is very, very close to the real thing, after all.

  • Ang

    Oh dear. I think you're missing some key pieces of information, cap'n.

  • DarthCorleone

    I think Jonathan Swift has some babies that he wants you to eat.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    He thinks Kim Jong Un is the sexiest man in the world, too.

  • Guest

    Full of satire, anyway.

  • foolsage

    Today's article was brought to you by the letter 'f' for 'facetious'.

  • You've done it again, Eric, you glorious sumbitch. I anoint you winner of the Internet for the day of December 6th, 2012. Soak it in, you wonderful man you.

  • frank247

    It's December 7th.

  • Dammit!

  • frank247

    In fact, it's the 8th here now.

  • YOU'RE FROM THE FUTURE? Do we have jet packs there? Hoverboards? Are you here to terk er jerbs?

  • frank247

    I come to warn you of a great terror that will engulf you ALLLLL!!!

  • DarthCorleone

    Don't you see, though? He won it for the day before it was posted. Brilliant!

  • DarthCorleone

    Speaking as someone that hasn't not yet not seen The Hobbit but felt concern because of the reviews of these critics you mention, I'm going to reserve judgment on this editorial until the time before I read it.

  • celery

    Quality Pajiba right here. Love it. The internet reverence for some sacred geek properties is a little nuts.

  • Pants-are-a-must

    Someone needs to narrate this in Valley Girl style. Or, conversely, as a congested "misandry is real!!!!!111" Reddit user.

  • Nurc that Lurks

    You clearly didn't see the same movie I didn't see.

  • lowercase_ryan

    This was bordering in tedious, but then you dropped 'a blog called "Associated Press"' and you won me back.

  • BingBong the Troll

    I did get less excited knowing that it would extend to three films.

  • Danar the Barbarian

    They condense a thousand page book like Storm of Swords into a ten-episode television season, but stretch the 300-page Hobbit into a 6+ hour movie trilogy? That's some fuzzy-assed math.

  • The Guy in the Third Row

    20 episodes, actually. They announced that they were splitting A Storm of Swords into two seasons months ago. That's been known since roughly when season 2 ended.

  • midshifter

    They're trying to give Martin enough time to wrap the damn thing up in a way that doesn't suck so they don't get stuck having to do three shitty seasons in a row at the bitter end.

  • BlackRabbit

    Fuzzy-FOOTED math. Wow, what version of the movie are YOU expecting?

  • David Sorenson

    Maybe he just knows the hobbits better than you do.

  • Danar the Barbarian

    Actually I'm a she, and yes, I did experiment in college with hobbits.

  • David Sorenson

    I honestly wondered about that. Can't help but be mildly sexist about barbarians I suppose. Aside from Hanna Barbarian, I can't think of a single female "the Barbarian."

    Of course I have to ask now. Is it true? What they say about men with hairy prosthetic feet?

  • vercordio

    I completely agree. The Hobbit is a little over 300 pages long. If you want to split an 800-page Harry Potter book into two films, fine - great, even. But averaging out at just about 100 pages per 2.5-hour film is borderline greedy and certain to result in sloppy, slow storytelling.

    I own all three LOTR movies; I saw all three again in theatre when they came back last year. I am undeniably a fan. However, hearing Hobbit was going to be more than one movie completely eliminated any excitement I could possibly have about it. At this time, I honestly don't intend to go. Why saddle myself with three overlong, dull movies?

  • foolsage

    Well, to be fair, it's not just the Hobbit being filmed, but also the events taking place at the same time. Gandalf keeps disappearing in the book with no explanation of what he was off doing; that's covered (mostly) in the Appendices to LotR. The movies are adding in all the rest of the plot. Whether the movies are going to be slow or tedious I cannot say, but to be fair there's enough plot there for a lot of screen time, what with the White Council and the Necromancer and for that matter the backstory of the last of the Dwarven Rings of Power.

  • midshifter

    The only real reason he kept disappearing was so Tolkein could actually let the other characters get into some sort of peril. Otherwise, Gandalf would just go around zapping stuff with light from his staff like no big thing. In a world of swords and arrows, Gandalf is a neutron smart bomb.

    None of what he was up to on the side was the least bit important to THIS STORY- the dwarven quest for Erebor. Tolkein knew it, which is why it was an appended afterthought, decades later. It's also why he abandoned his attempts to make The Hobbit more like LotR after it was published. He knew they were different books, and opted to keep them that way.

    I'll bet Jackson knows it too, but like that other Trilogeer, nobody's telling him "no" anymore, and besides- there's all those magical treasure chests full of cash over there, singing "Make me... Maaaaaaake meeeeeee....."

  • MissAmynae

    rekindled my interest right there ya did. talking like yoda i am?? Good news for the day.

  • foolsage

    I'll be very disappointed if we don't get e.g. some backstory on Thorin's grandfather Thror, aka the King Under the Mountain. Oh, and of course the beginnings of Saruman's fall; by LotR he's already a villain, albeit a secret one, but back in the Hobbit he was still mostly a good guy, and leader of the White Council. And then there's the whole story of how the southern portion of Greenwood the Great fell under the Necromancer's power, and the children of Shelob (giant spiders) moved in, leading the place to be renamed Mirkwood. There's a lot of good content to be found, again... it all just comes down to how it's conveyed. I have no concerns whatsoever about not having enough story to fill the time though.

  • MissAmynae

    The more Maia, the better. I'm thinking we'll get to see Thror and Thrain, because of the map, and they're fairly necessary to the explanation of Smaug's rise and origins. Hooray!

  • BWeaves

    Yeah, I with you on that. The middle film is always a let down because it has no beginning and no end. Plus, this isn't a very long book. I was kinda, sorta OK with the idea of it being two movies, but three? I'll have to be convinced by my own eyes, and yes, I'll probably own it anyway.

    I'm guessing, Jackson is just going straight for the extended edition being the theater release version.

  • Unfortunately (or fortunately) you guessed wrong. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey already has an Extended Cut lined up for Home Release next Fall, along with the Deluxe Dark Knight Trilogy and an Oceans Trilogy re-release.

  • Ian Fay
  • Now, when you say "trolls," you really mean trolls, right?

  • BendinIntheWind
  • stardust

    Pre-backlash to the backlash. Meta.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    or is it backlash to the pre-backlash?

    (did I just blow your mind?)

  • Hiro

    Hilarious. Great piece, well written, and definitely on point. It really encapsulates many of the ridiculous and 100 percent irrational and illogical arguments hurled at critics.

blog comments powered by Disqus