PHOTOS: Vuyo Mbuli funeral

Mourners have arrived to pay tribute to Vuyo Mbuli at his funeral at St Johns College in Johannesburg. See the pictures here.

WATCH: Vuyo Mbuli's funeral

Watch the 294-minute SABC footage of the funeral of TV and radio presenter Vuyo Mbuli at the West Park Cemetery, Johannesburg.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (3D)

2012-12-12 13:10
 
Sure to delight the faithful, the occasionally brilliant but maddeningly uneven first instalment in an already over-stretched trilogy isn't going to win over any new converts.
The Hobbit
 
What's it about?

Set sixty years before the events of The Fellowship of the Ring, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey tells the story of Bilbo Baggins' first encounter with Gandalf The Grey as the two join forces with a group of dwarves to reclaim the dwarves' home from the dragon Smaug.

What we thought:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is, in many ways, the quintessential Peter Jackson film. It's self-indulgent, far too long and often tedious, but it's also beautifully assembled, unquestionably cinematic and sporadically brilliant. It also has a number of nice performances and a refreshingly lighter tone than the frequently overly earnest The Lord of the Rings films – though, of course, with no less walking.

The biggest problem at the heart of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is that it is only the first near-three-hour-long installment in a a trilogy that has, as its source, a children's novel that, with large type and double spacing, barely manages to clock in at 360 pages. It's at most a third of the length of The Lord of The Rings trilogy in novel form, but it's being adapted into a series of films that will end up being almost as long as Jackson's already over-stretched Rings adaptations.

Corporate greed may well play a part in this, but if there is one guy who would take a short novel and turn it into three over-extended blockbusters, it would be Peter Jackson.

What results is a film that may bear the Peter Jackson stamps of a striking visual design and a real sense of wonder, but it is also light on plot, surprisingly short on characterisation and far too reliant on a succession of (admittedly well done) set pieces that never quite manages to hide the fact that there just isn't that much going on story-wise. It also may be par for the course for this sort of epic fantasy, but some of the dialogue is pretty wretched too.

The film also commits the cardinal sin of prequels in that, rather than allowing its own story to stand on its own terms, it constantly and clumsily crowbars in references to the later films. The Lord of the Rings never needed any backstory so the decision to reposition The Hobbit as a really long preamble to those films is a frankly baffling mistake.

Fortunately, even with all these flaws and unfathomable misjudgements, there is at least enough good in the film to keep casual audiences satisfied and Tolkien fanboys thrilled. Martin Freeman, who has spent a career playing the likeable everyman is perfect as the self-confessed fuddy-duddy Bilbo Baggins and Ian McKellen plays Gandalf with such mischievous enthusiasm that it's impossible not to be caught up in the fun.

Best of all though, unsurprisingly, is the return of the incomparable Andy Serkis as Gollum. Gollum was already by far the best thing about The Lord of the Rings and his scenes are easily the best here. I'm not sure if he appeared in the original text, as his scene here ties in quite strongly to The Lord of the Rings, but in this case its hard to quibble with his subplot.

The entire scene comes across a bit like a darker, demonic version of Yoda's introduction in The Empire Strikes Back, mixed with smatterings of Monty Python and the Holy Grail and an evil Donald Duck. It has next to nothing to do with everything else going on in the film, but it's still a terrific diversion.

Would that the rest of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was this much fun. As it is, it is sure to delight the faithful but those of us who have yet to be converted to the Church of Tolkien will probably be left wondering what all the fuss is about – certainly at 48 frames per second.

Add Your Review

(Comments may be edited or deleted at the Channel24 editors’ discretion)
Jackie 12/12/2012 10:22 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Whatever! You still don't get it but hey, your reviews are poor anyway.
Ryan 12/12/2012 11:01 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
" I'm not sure if he appeared in the original text" yes he does appear in the original text. It took me about 30 seconds to find that out through Google. You could have just checked rather than make us question your credibility. I do agree with you about another trilogy though. I have a small print version which comes to 156 pages. A Trilogy for the Hobbit is nothing but cashing in by the Producers and Director. Corporate greed at its worst.
Ryan (2) 12/12/2012 11:14 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I appreciate the review. If anything the truth isn't nice sometimes. I like the LOTR and Hobbit books (read them all many times), but I'd rather read a honest review than a fanboy promo. I'm really disappointed to hear the Hobbit will be Trilogy and fully agree its just milking the audience!
ALAN 12/12/2012 12:12 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
WAT TO LONG & BORING.
Olive 12/12/2012 12:49 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
@ Jackie - totally agree with you - i make sure i go and see the movie if it gets a poor review here.
PatPIon 12/12/2012 1:50 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
People shouldn't bash the trilogy idea if they don't know what is planned. It's not just a trilogy of The Hobbit book. There are many other parts of the LOTR universe that will be worked into the movies as well. I think it can be brilliant.
Sean 12/12/2012 2:18 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Is this the same guy who gave the movie Shame 4 or 5 stars? That was one of the worse movies I saw. EVER.
Bob 12/12/2012 3:00 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
"rather than allowing its own story to stand on its own terms, it constantly and clumsily crowbars in references to the later films" Thats because The Hobbit set the foundation for the The Lord of the Rings. And yes smeagle appeared in The Hobbit, it is where Bilbo got the ring from in the first place. My my you should have at least gotten someone who had read the books to do the review. Loved this book as a kid.
Stephan 12/12/2012 3:44 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Rookie mistake, Ilan.
Jese 12/12/2012 4:20 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Did you even bother to read the book before writing this ubsurd review? next time do your homework
Ilan Preskovsky 12/12/2012 8:11 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Jese, I'm not reviewing the book, I'm reviewing the film.
Stefan Viljoen-Els 12/12/2012 10:07 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
If you haven't seen it in HFR3D you can't comment.
Andy 12/12/2012 10:55 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I think this is quite an accurate review. I also found the references to LOTR a bit heavy-handed - especially the prologue at the beginning with Frodo, which went on a bit long, in an already over-long film. There are some great parts though, as the reviewer acknowledged.
Rachel 12/12/2012 10:59 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Ok you wrote this review without even reading the book well done. Obviously he meets Gollum in the book or how do you think he came into possession of the ring? That's one of the biggest plot points.
Alyson 12/13/2012 7:02 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I really enjoyed it
MJ 12/13/2012 7:50 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I had to laugh at the paragraph on Gollum, whether he was in the original text. That's going to offend many readers of The Hobbit. I have not yet seen the film, but one of my best memories of the book is the riddle scene between Bilbo and Gollum. And to comment on the lengths of books, without checking the speed of the story within, is dangerous.
Evert 12/13/2012 7:53 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I enjoyed it, being a fan of the book, I expected that they would add a few scenes of their own. I assume smaug will be defeated in the second movie, which sets up the the 3rd movie for the battle of the five armies. An yes, Gollum does appear in the Hobbit, chapter six if I recall, it also happens a little differently, but the game of riddles was excellent.
Lola 12/13/2012 8:10 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Oh for Christ's sake, this is a film review. It is a review of the film. FILM. If you'd like a book review you're in the wrong place. FFS.
Peter 12/13/2012 8:32 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
You sir are a Cad. Somewhat uncouth and utterly ill read, without substance or meaning. An insult to the journalistic profession with the audacity to sell yourself as qualified. Statements like: "I'm not sure if he appeared in the original text" "those of us who have yet to be converted to the Church of Tolkien" "The Lord of the Rings never needed any backstory" Show you up as the above. It is unfathomable to me that you actually have a job in the print media, not even mentioning a career. For a movie reviewer one would think that at the least you would have read the actual book, understood the literary impact of the book or at least gotten some background on these points from a more reputable source the "the onion" I shrink to think of what your review would be of "Atlas Shrugged: Part II" from Ayn Rand's pen. But being the first in your family to be born without a tail probably set the tone early on in your life. Good day and hope to never hear of you again.
Jackie 12/13/2012 8:39 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
The reason they are making it a trilogy is because Peter Jackson and his writing team are also include the books appendices and obviously also want to stay as true to the book as possible. IMDB's score for the movie is 8.9 and thats an average score from over 15000 votes. The movie can't be that bad, or is the reviewer trying to follow in Barry Ronge's footsteps?
Robyn 12/13/2012 9:49 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Yes it's a film review not a book review but the point of the film is that it's based on a book so you can't really give an accurate review of one without the other. You don't have to have read the book but you should at least know that half the point of the story is that Bilbo finds the ring. I loved the movie and I loved all the extras and the background they put in-The Hobbit is not about catering to an audience who want a short quick fix, it's about doing justice to a literary masterpiece.
Adam 12/13/2012 9:51 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
You're not sure if Gollum appeared in the book? WTF? I don't expect you to have memorised the entire text like a nerd fanboy, but my goodness, that's probably one of the biggest plot points of the entire series! You could really just have googled it. What a lazy journalist! Seems like just about everyone with a keyboard can publish on news24 these days. No standards.
Christie 12/13/2012 1:49 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
"not sure if he was in the original text". You write a review without reading the barely 360 page wide spaced children's novel, or doing some very basic research?? Yes, Gollum DID appear in the original text. One of the seminal characters actually, because it's through him that Bilbo finds the Ring. As far as the trilogy idea is concerned, I agree...it seems to be dragging it out far too long - but, as I have yet to see it, I reserve comment until then. But please, do the basic background if you want people to respect your opinion. Those of you who HARP on about it being a "film review" - if a reviewer wants to be taken seriously, a little bit of background research is fundamental - they are by no means expected to know the literature by heart, but seeing as this movie was based on a pretty famous book, I reckon at least knowing the basic story-line of the book should be a given. You could have googled in seconds.
chris 12/13/2012 3:00 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Rubbish review, awesome film.
Leslie 12/14/2012 9:28 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Rubbish Review. It was a awesome, enjoyed it.
Chris 12/14/2012 11:14 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Being a film fan and a lover of books, I do want to say that film is film and a book is a book. One need not have read a book on which a film is based in order to critique a film. The film is it's own thing and should be judged as that. Film and book are very different mediums and many films based on books woul not fare well if you judge with the bias of the book they're based on. I do not have to read the Twilight books in order to be able to say the movies are boring, I just need to watch the movies. Then again, they're not aimed at me, but teenage girls and they seem to love them.
Lili 12/14/2012 1:16 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Your review is well written, and obviously tastes differ, but I don't know why you decided to review this specific film. You've obviously not read the book, you think the LOTR was boring and overly serious and your favourite thing about the franchise is Gollum. So why review a genre that you don't particularly like or understand? Just curious.
Max 12/16/2012 10:34 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
The movie was really good. I really enjoyed the extra stuff from the appendices from LOTR.
Full of opinions 12/17/2012 5:42 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I grew up with Star Wars new hope. As a five year old I thought it was magic, and by the time I reached thirty, I would take a bat to the face of a Trekkie who dissed the holy trilogy! Having said that though, if I were honest, then cinematically a new hope is flawed and quiet rubbish it just means a lot to me. I think that is what happened with the LOTR movies. Short people walking for twelve hours in beautiful environments. Come on people. If you did not read the book or have some past love affair with it and look at the film alone what you would be looking it is pretentious one dimensional characters with a quest that involves taking a ring from point a to b. To anyone saying read the book first, understand the film should work as a stand alone, if it does not the film has failed.
P1373R 12/18/2012 10:55 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
return of the worst film reviewer ever. and he strikes again. his salary (if he gets one) is more like a gift since he doesn't seem to earn it when you read the reviews. and judging by most other comments (incl. from chris, Jackie, Ryan, Sean, Bob, Stephen, Jese, Peter, Adam (probably my favorite), Christie, Leslie) on this page, I am certainly not alone in my opinion! Review rating: 0 stars. Film rating: 3 stars
Ilan Preskovsky 12/18/2012 7:31 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I try not to comment on my own reviews, as I normally prefer to sit back and enjoy the weirdly personal vitriol but I need to respond for the second time here. Regarding my not Googling whether or not Gollem appears in the book, I concede that I probably should have. To be honest though, I don't think it would have changed much except that my opinion about the film might now also apply to the novel as well - but again, I don't actually want to comment on the novel as I HAVE NOT READ IT! That's right, I did not read the book. In fact, as a rule, I don't generally go out of my way to read novels on which the films I review are based because a) I don't have that kind of time, b) film reviewers generally don't read every book based on every movie they've ever seen - and I'm including the most respected ones and c) when I review films, I try to review them according to what they are. In fact, looking at a film through the eyes of the book is often detrimental to my views on the film. Take Blade Runner, for example. On its own, it is one of the greatest science fiction films of all time, but held up against the book, I can't help but wonder why it's such a poor adaptation. Imagine if I went to every film with that baggage.
Adam 12/18/2012 11:46 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Dude, you just don't get it. This isn't about right or wrong (technically speaking your review was well written), but whether you managed to establish credibility with your audience. Judging from the comments, you obviously haven't. Fantasy is a genre with a very devout and well informed following. Either you could have done some homework (like a 10 second internet search, which you evidently didn't), or you could have handed the job to someone with a better understanding of the genre. If you disengage with the audience, any writing, no matter the quality, becomes irrelevant. It's like writing about Apollo 13 the movie, and confessing during your review that you're not sure whether anyone actually ever landed on the moon or not. It's not central to the film, but it's such a major gaffe, that the entire text becomes corrupted.
Ilan Preskovsky 12/19/2012 12:37 AM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Adam, that's a fair point - and I appreciate that you phrased it in a constructive way, by the way - except for one small thing. This isn't a fantasy fansite so I wasn't trying to particularly appeal to that particular rabid fanbase, but to a wider casual movie going audience. Again, I admit that the Gollum thing is a gaff but it didn't affect my enjoyment of the film as a non-fan (and I did, oddly enough, do a fair amount of research into the book for my own interest after submitting the review) so I doubt that it's a gaff that would annoy most of the readers of this site. In a similar sense, I can get VERY nerdy when talking about comic book movies but, when reviewing them for this site, I try to keep in mind that my audience doesn't in fact know the intricacies of comic book history. But yeah, I admit, it's a very fine line.
Michiel 12/19/2012 1:55 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
You are clearly not a fan of Tolkien, hence your review is biased and subjective. Rubbish review, brilliant film.
Ilan Preskovsky 12/19/2012 4:47 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Ah what the hell, once more for the hell of it... Michiel, you do realize that all reviews and criticism is entirely biased and subjective, don't you? That's kind of the point. Especially since I basically admitted that someone who is a Tolkien fan will undoubtedly get more from the film than me.
Full of opinions 12/19/2012 6:52 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Ilan is a critic. The very title is almost synonymous with someone to despise, much like a lawyer. Yet we all rely on them, because quiet frankly they know their trade. I find two facts amusing. The first that everyone who labels this review rubbish comments not on any logic flaw the reviewer mentioned but rather that he has most likely never read the book or is not a Tolkien fan. These are non relevant to reviewing the FILM on cinematography, story structure, character development or music score. The second funny fact is that everyone is familiar with this reviewers work... Oh all his views are like this... Etc. clearly you need his opinions as you visit back so frequently. I am a regular reader of reviews and have never seen so many comments on one reviewer. Ilan's review on some aliens sequel comes to mind as well... To which I say here here, all reviewers worth their ink get hate mail. I think it's what makes them great, unbiased and reviewing incorruptibly.
Full of opinions 12/19/2012 6:52 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Ilan is a critic. The very title is almost synonymous with someone to despise, much like a lawyer. Yet we all rely on them, because quiet frankly they know their trade. I find two facts amusing. The first that everyone who labels this review rubbish comments not on any logic flaw the reviewer mentioned but rather that he has most likely never read the book or is not a Tolkien fan. These are non relevant to reviewing the FILM on cinematography, story structure, character development or music score. The second funny fact is that everyone is familiar with this reviewers work... Oh all his views are like this... Etc. clearly you need his opinions as you visit back so frequently. I am a regular reader of reviews and have never seen so many comments on one reviewer. Ilan's review on some aliens sequel comes to mind as well... To which I say here here, all reviewers worth their ink get hate mail. I think it's what makes them great, unbiased and reviewing incorruptibly.
X 1/1/2013 6:25 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
This was a good film but seriously people go watch Looper, that's good too
Gershon 1/2/2013 1:51 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I am a HUGE fan of The Lord of the Rings trilogy! This movie lacked the emotional impact of those movies and felt like we were just going through the motions. Even when Bilbo gives his speech about the central theme of this movie, having a home, it doesn't make you feel anything. It's almost like, whatever, will you get a move on please. Very sad that this wasn't the masterpiece that Lord of the Rings was! I know that people say that it's true to the source material but movies should also be changed to be entertaining and to have that emotional impact on the audience. I'm very disappointed! I really hope that the sequels raise the bar! The scenery and graphics etc was great. Unfortunately means less without a meaningful story to tie it together. Fingers crossed for part 2 and 3!
Gershon 1/2/2013 2:03 PM
  • Rating:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
I am a HUGE fan of The Lord of the Rings trilogy! This movie lacked the emotional impact of those movies and felt like we were just going through the motions. Even when Bilbo gives his speech about the central theme of this movie, having a home, it doesn't make you feel anything. It's almost like, whatever, will you get a move on please. Very sad that this wasn't the masterpiece that Lord of the Rings was! I know that people say that it's true to the source material but movies should also be changed to be entertaining and to have that emotional impact on the audience. I'm very disappointed! I really hope that the sequels raise the bar! The scenery and graphics etc was great. Unfortunately means less without a meaningful story to tie it together. Fingers crossed for part 2 and 3!
vanessa.grib.73 1/5/2013 7:12 AM
You cannot complain that the adaptation is not faithful if you haven even read the book.
Your Name
Email
Comment
Please enter the following text
Captcha
Your rating
for this movie
Rate Me...  
 
 

Recent Reviews

Fast & Furious 6

2013-05-23 10:34

If you're a detractor, you're not about to change with this one. While not as good as Fast 5, it's a noisy, fun and ridiculous time at the movies. Read More »
Add your review

The Great Gatsby (3D)

2013-04-09 15:04

Following two years of hype and the expected extravagance of one of the world's most beloved stories, how can we possibly enjoy the year's biggest movie? Read More »
Add your review

There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.