"Tolkien had no idea what he was doing". And with that bombshell, we present the Red Letter Media boy's Half In The Bag review of The Hobbit. What did Mike and Jay think of both the movie and the high-frame-rate? Click on to find out..

Welllll, as funny as the review was at times, the lads were off on a few things with this one - not that they give a shit I'm sure! But maybe a quick Google search on the details of both the content of the novel and the story behind the movie's journey to production would have helped a bit. Anyway, what do you guys think? Do you agree/disagree with Jay and Mike on this one?

Posted By:
Mark Cassidy
Member Since 11/9/2008
Filed Under "Fantasy" 12/19/2012 Source: Red Letter Media
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and "safe harbor" provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE.
OdinsBeard - 12/19/2012, 11:55 AM
i think im going to call it quits on these guys.. i can only take so much of people tearing down things they secretly wish they were a part of.
NerdyGeek - 12/19/2012, 12:06 PM
SINATRA YOU [frick]!
DEATHbyEXILE - 12/19/2012, 12:29 PM
Alien - 12/19/2012, 12:39 PM

RadicalDuck - 12/19/2012, 12:51 PM
@CoffeeBean - Nope, this is the correct one:
Asterisk - 12/19/2012, 1:12 PM
You may not have noticed it...but your brain did.
Brady1138 - 12/19/2012, 1:16 PM
Yup, I'm done watching. I don't care what the context is, endless single-tone reviews just don't do it for me.
616 - 12/19/2012, 1:18 PM
If I want a good review, I'll ask one of you guys. No joke.
Ceejay - 12/19/2012, 1:48 PM
Are there really still idiots who think The Hobbit being one book equates to one movie? Have they even read the Hobbit let alone any of the stuff Tolkien wrote afterwards that concerns the entire timeline Jackson is adapting to explain half of why things happen in the Hobbit especially Gandalfs many disappearances?

Even without the additional Tolkien appendix stuff to explain everything, the Hobbit is a book that has so many events that dramatizing properly it would take at least two very long movies. The theatrical cut is actually shorter than any of the other LOTR flicks.

This move alone delivers 1/3rd of the book as well as vital history of the Dwarfs setting up the quest for Ereabor and the White council meetings concerning the return of Sauron. He did exactly what he did with the LOTR adaptations which he actually cut a lot out of to make them into three movies otherwise they'd be even longer!

The Hobbit is written like a child's book from one persons perspective, Bilbo's. You can't make a feature length movie like that, especially not one to fall into the level of production that the LOTR movies delivered. Thank god the real fans don't give a shit about the idiots who like to jump on the "its popular to diss a movie" bandwagon who as usual don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Watch the box office and fan reviews and eat your dumb words critics!
jjk2814 - 12/19/2012, 1:50 PM
These guys are damned funny. You don't have to agree with them to enjoy their reviews. Hell, I'm one of the crazies who enjoys Prometheus but that was their biggest target of the year!!!
GrayMatter - 12/19/2012, 2:04 PM
I actually agree with a lot of what they said, but that didn't diminish how much I liked the movie. Recognizing flaws doesn't necessarily mean that I like the movie any less.

But it really seems to me that the criticisms of this movie (outside of the 48fps monstrosity) can be summed up by the fact that The Hobbit is structured as one story. The movies are artificially dividing it into parts. So all the pacing issues, the added parts with Radagast and the Necromancer, etc. all seem forced now, but I think they'll pay off in the long run.

Facade - 12/19/2012, 2:27 PM
Perhaps PJ was giving fans another chance to visit Middle-Earth despite The Hobbit being, ahem, a children's book or a prequel. I'm so looking forward to an extended cut to see if it can be improved upon like LOTR was for me. When I originally watched FOTR (theatrical), I was initially disappointed. Things seemed rushed and incomplete at times. I felt that about The Hobbit, too. It didn't feel quite right until the riddles. I might note that FOTR (extended) is my favorite of the trilogy ;D

Ror made perhaps the most important point in the write up, "a quick Google search on the details of both the content of the novel and the story behind the movie's journey to production would have helped a bit."
SimplyJoshuaJames - 12/19/2012, 4:02 PM
Sorry guys, Usually I enjoy reading everyone's comments but this time I'm going to sound of. Bitching about The Hobbit being three films is pathetic. Watch Jackson's interviews... He LOVES the world Tolkien created... You can hear it in his voice and quite frankly I think he's a saint for bringing in the extra material. I was so happy to see Dol Guldur, Even Azog... I LOVE Tolkien's writing and to be honest... I'm more than happy to accept any changes Jackson makes because I know he won't disrespect the material. I'm glad it's in three parts, Means we don't get a rushed film where they are covering a chapter every few minutes. Yeah films have problems... I loved the Hobbit... I loved The Dark Knight Rises... I loved The Avengers... Why don't people shut the f*** up complaining about everything and just enjoy them?!?!?! As for the review above... I agree... It's just the same crap over and over again... Stopped being funny after a while... Sorry Guys just my opinion...
StarkAnthony - 12/19/2012, 4:03 PM
the guy they have play Plinkett isn't very Plinketty. Maybe they could dub over the voice? Mike is Plinkett
NeoBaggins - 12/19/2012, 10:08 PM
Thought this was going to be funny like the prequel reviews. Oh well, done with this.

btw Saw Hobbit again today. This time in 3D. Awesome.
pepe - 12/19/2012, 10:39 PM
Boring review... Dont do it again...
EarOne - 12/20/2012, 3:05 AM
based on this first movie, i can already tell The Hobbit would be a much MUCH better prequel trilogy than Star Wars eps. 1-3.
EarOne - 12/20/2012, 3:22 AM
these guys look like a poor attempt at copying kevin smith's Clerks guys.
comicb00kguy - 12/20/2012, 8:31 AM
I finally got the chance to see The Hobbit last night, and was curious enough about the 48 fps thing to see it in that format. Frankly, I was blown away by it. I have never seen a picture so crisp and clear in my life, especially in the many action scenes. Special notice to the scenes in the Goblin Kingdom. Absolutely breathtaking, and really enhanced by the clearer picture. I enjoyed the added material, like Radagast and the backstory at the introduction. This movie did a fine job of capturing the first part of this story, and enhancing it with things from the LOTR appendices. Complaints? Only that the Bag End stuff seemed to drag on longer than it needed to.

Did this really need to be three films instead of two? Maybe, maybe not. The additional material here did not harm the narrative flow of the story at all.

Overall, I think I'd give this film a 9.5/10. There are small flaws, but I'm not so anal a geek as to waste time with nitpicking them.
P90 - 12/20/2012, 8:34 AM
I like Half in the Bag well enough, but I refuse to watch their reviews of movies I liked because I know it will piss me off. Also they are often misinformed about subjects that are not film related.
GrayMatter - 12/20/2012, 10:57 AM
I'm actually surprised about what people are complaining about in this movie. The Bag End stuff went on too long? The "random" song number while they're washing dishes? That stuff was awesome, and straight out of the book.

My issues with this (as a self-contained movie) were the starts-and-stops. It's like "We're on our way!" Now we need to stop and tell you Thorin's backstory for this villain we made up for this movie. "Now we're on our way again!" Except we need to stop again and tell you about Radagast.

That being said, I realize that this is one story over 3 movies, so while these things hurt the pacing in this movie, they're necessary over the long haul. The setup and introductions aren't just for this movie by itself, but for all 3.
SauronsBANE - 12/20/2012, 11:12 AM
These guys are hilarious, and as much as I hate to say it, they are completely right for most of this review. It wasn't BAD, it definitely had its moments, but it really was conflicted. They tried making it lighthearted (like the book) while still trying to make it seem "epic" by trying to fit in and expand the White Council scenes, giving Radagast a major role (rolls eyes), and unnecessarily adding in Azog with a cliche' personal vendetta against Thorin (even though he's already dead in the book). They hit the nail right on the head when they say that there's long stretches of where Bilbo doesn't do anything. The movie is called "The HOBBIT" for a reason, but it feels more like the hobbit, the dwarves, the wizards, the goblins with vendettas against thorin, etc etc. I understand the reasoning for expanding the storyline of the Necromancer and stuff, but it would've worked sooo much better had they cut out the unnecessary stuff like Radagast and Azog and stayed truer to the book. Every review out there says it is, but that's simply not the case. I could get into that alotttt more in depth, but i dont want to take up an entire page with one post here. Bottom line, very disappointing movie compared to the much superior LOTR trilogy.
DCwanabe - 12/20/2012, 2:08 PM

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.