Theatrical Review: Beauty & The Beast

Date: Sunday March 19 2017

Time: 1:30pm 3:55pm

Party: 3 (mom sister and I)

 

Director: Bill Condon (of Breaking Dawn and Dreamgirls fame)

Screenwriters: Stephen Chbosky (wrote "Perks of Being a Wallflower", the book as well as directed the movie that Emma Watson co-starred in) and Evan Spiliotopoulos

Composer: Alan Menken (lyrics by Howard Ashman and Tim Rice)

Cast:

Belle- Emma Watson 

The Beast- Dan Stevens 

Gaston- Luke Evans

LeFou- Josh Gad

Maurice- Kevin Kline

Lumiere- Ewan McGregor

Cogsworth- Ian McKellan

Mrs. Potts- Emma Thompson

Duration- 130 minutes ( +2 trailers)

 

Opening remarks 

It's finally here!

I almost feel like it'd been looking forward to this movie than any other- at least in a long time. I think the thing that came closest to this for me was twilight. Seeing that world I came to love in the books and its characters come to life.

As a kid I think Ariel was my favorite Disney princess- even if i always cry at the end of the little mermaid. (The goodbye at the wedding always kills me).

But beauty and the beast was always something I enjoyed but didn't have any major fandom over. But I will say as I've gotten older I love this story so much more. I see myself in belle more than any other Disney princess- we have the same appearance (brown hair brown eyes- that's the one thing about Emilie de Raven's once upon a time portrayal of belle that's amiss for me- she doesn't have brown eyes!!- otherwise she's amazing and perfect in the role).

And of course there's Belle's love of books. I really didn't get to love books as much as I do now until I was in my 20s- where I always had to be reading or was looking forward to the next installment of the series I was reading at the time. And I only recently "got" in the last couple years that people in Belle's town thought she was weird cuz she was always reading. Like what the hell is wrong with that?! Seriously...

 

Anyway-- it should be noted that we didn't get to the movie until almost 4.

We completely screwed up by not double checking the movie times. We got there and the movie had already started. We thought it was 1:30 and it was really 1:05.

Like wtf! Who starts a movie at such a weird time? (But I suppose if I went through old ticket stubs I might find some really random times).

So anyways my mom said "I'm sorry" a hundred times as we turned back to go home. I thought about maybe going back for the next 3D showing so we wouldn't have to wait as long. I found a review that said it didn't have enough going for it to warrant the price. So here we wait- and hopefully some other mishap doesn't happen between now and 3:55 when the next showing starts.

The Arnold Palmer invitational was the perfect way to kill time (yeah I'm such a dork- I like to read and enjoy golf and figure skating).

 

A bunch of people still coming into the theater despite it being one of the later showings. A few families with a bunch of little kids I hope will stay quiet for the whole movie. At the moment it doesn't sound promising.

Three people in their mid 20s or early 30s took a seat two rows ahead of us. Two girls and a guy-I wonder if he really wanted to see this or he lost a bet.

Also we're back in the theater from that notorious "La La Land" showing with the audio issues.... we'll see how it goes

 

(Spoiler alert: both went fine. Although some kids rows behind us were making farting noises with their mouths at one point and one of the parents in front of us crossed the aisle to tell his kids to be quiet because the BIG number- you know the one- was about to start)

 

Somewhere between 40 to 50 people showed up to the theater for this... which is pretty darn impressive considering this isn't the first showing of the weekend.

Trailers 

"Coco" is the latest Pixar film. Looks like a boy and his dog wind up in the realm of the day of the dead and he admires this man (who may or may not be his father) who is a great guitar player- mariachi type.

 

Then a lengthy trailer (much more than a tease) for the last Pirates movie. Complete with Johnny Depp himself in what will be his most famous role ever.

Looked impressive but I don't know if I'm sold enough to buy a ticket.

 

The Main Event 

 

We finally arrived!!

 

Everyone knows the story by now so I won't go too much into it.

First off the visuals are AMAZING. Definitely see a bunch of Oscar nominations in the future. For production design and possibly makeup (unless The Beast makeup is CGI- in that case maybe special effects).

Seeing the sets from the animated film in real life... it was halfway between fangasm and "I wish I could live there."

Of course Emma Watson was great as Belle. And she was definitely a strong confident woman like the character demands. In some aspects more so but that's what happened when you have the freedom to go behind what's drawn on a page.

Luke Evans oddly made me like Gaston for the first half of the movie. Not in that way but I didn't find him as repulsive. Not until he had the town believing Belle's father was crazy. He just needs to walk into a room and give his opinion and people automatically follow him. (I'm sorry but these townspeople are so fickle and stupid sometimes).

Dan Stevens embodied the beastly side of his character really well. But he also had some help from the script he was given. There were a few changes in his early interactions with Belle between the two versions that I didn't appreciate and made it harder to really like him or imagine these two together. This time around anyway I wasn't thoroughly convinced that they belonged together. There just came a point where I threw my hands up and just said "to hell with it."

Other than the romantic side (I can see how they can become friends but falling in love... not so much) everything else worked so well. There was plenty of nostalgia with the songs and the score at certain points (that transformation scene at the end in particular... that was an especially powerful moment in the original and those feelings came rushing back).

I was able to recall a lot about the original and relish in how it was adapted for this version. And I was also able to let go and appreciate the changes (well most of them) as they came.

One massive improvement- LeFou and his relationship with Gaston. Josh Gad couldn't have been any better in this role. He felt like one of those characters you see in a musical where you don't expect them to steal the show and they just do. His character arc was so great- both cause for celebration, laughs and fist pumps (in particular- the battle scene in the castle at the end).
Ewan McGregor was really great as Lumiere and "Gaston" and "Be Our Guests" and "Beauty & The Beast" were all highlights both carried over really well from the original but also bettered with the special effects. Definitely worth a round of applause.

And there are also some great twists about the townspeople and how they have connection to people in the castle.

We also get more backstory from our two main characters that don't, personally, slow the story down but add to the film's length tactfully. One or two songs ran a little long and one of the new songs maybe felt unnecessary.

Overall this is a movie and story for escapism and suspending belief and for me it did its job. Makes me wish I didn't have to go to work tomorrow and see the movie again. But I'd more than enough time away last week with the blizzard.

And when the movie finally ended, a bunch of us in the theater clapped, which pretty much says Disney did their job and nailed it.

Grade: A-

33. The DaVinci Code (2006)

Code-name: SangRael
("It means... royal blood"... it's also derived from the French for "Holy Grail")

Director: Ron Howard
Composer: Hans Zimmer [which was nominated for a Golden Globe]
Type: book-to-movie adaptation, drama, thriller, historical fiction

Cast:
Robert Langdon- Tom Hanks
Sophie Neveu- Audrey Tautou
Lee Teabing- Ian McKellan
Captain Bezu Fache- Jean Reno
Silas- Paul Bettany
Opus Dei Bishop Manuel Aringarosa- Alfred Molina
Remy, Teabing's butler- Jean-Yves Berteloot

Write-up:

As far as religion goes, I'm as casual a Christian as you can get. We were friends with a church-going family and because the patriarch was a reverend, we went a couple times. It never took for me... just a whole lot of reading Bible verses and singing hymns, everyone in the room seeming like they knew them by heart...

But on my own time, I have read my Bible on occasion. One December, I read the first four books of the New Testament and wrote down my favorite verses. And every now and then, I pray to myself, especially when it's over something I'm stressed or worried about.

So... as far as reinterpreting what you thought you knew about the Holy Book, "The DaVinci Code" caught a lot of people's attention. Practically my dad. I think it was one of those many books he bought at an airport, alongside several Tom Clancy, John Grisham and Jack Reacher novels over the years.
I remember him raving about it and even convinced my mom and I read it and the prequel, "Angels and Demons."

With "Angels & Demons," I found it kinda boring compared to "The DaVinci Code," but I loved the movie adaptation. The only negative was that Ewan McGregor wound up being the villain... buzz-kill.

After reading the book, my dad and I saw this in theaters. For a moment, I thought I might have the ticket stub, but I was mistaken. It was May of 2006 and it was a thrilling experience from start to finish.
The only other comments I have to add as far as impressions go; I totally missed the big reveal about Sophie in the book... do not remember that coming up at all. And there was one part of the Prior of Scion scene that I looked forward to seeing play out in the movie, but it never did :( still kinda disappointed about that, but I'll go into more detail later.

Once my SPOILER ALERT warning is posted...

Ok, here we go... for the record, reading the book does help, but unlike with my YA sci-fi/fantasy books that I adhere to like my life depends on them (as if my entries don't already give that away, lol), I'm not demanding it as a prerequisite.
I only read it once in 2005 during my senior year of high school, so I don't remember much, but it was fast-paced and intriguing all at the same time.

Premise

The story begins with a dramatic murder that takes place in the Louvre afterhours. Before the victim dies, he scribbles down a message and turns himself into a replication of Leonardo DaVinci's "Vitruvian Man".

At the same time, Harvard symbology professor, Robert Langdon is giving a lecture about how symbols have been used over the years in different contexts. Like how some symbols thought to represent evil were once used for good. Posiden's trident being mistaken for Devil's pitchfork and a swastika once being a symbol of peace.
During a book singing for his "Sacred Feminine," he's called down to the murder scene by Detective Bezu Fache... unaware this was to force a confession, opposed to using his expertise to determine the real killer.

While there, Langdon also meets detective Sophie Neveau, who shows him the complete murder scene (Fache wiped some of the evidence for his own agenda) and tells him how the victim, Jacques Sauniere was her grandfather.

The message read:
Oh draconian devil, oh lame saint
P.S. Find Robert Langdon
and a set of numbers, when pieced together, make up the Fibonacci sequence
[1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21]
Sophie also reveals "P.S." stands for "Princess Sophie" and believes they needed to meet for some important reason.

Besides symbology, Langdon's specialty is puzzles and anagrams, and he determines that the "draconian devil" bit translated to "Leonardo DaVinci The Mona Lisa".
A few clues later, they find a key with a fleur de lis (the crest of the Priory of Scion) and their quest begins.

At first, we think it's about finding Jacques Sauniere's killer, but it winds up being about Sophie and who she really is.

Casting

For whatever reason (my mom thinks it has to do with his previous work on "Bosom Buddies" and "Forrest Gump"), my dad does not like Tom Hanks, so he was skeptical about his casting as the lead for this film.
He's not still his favorite actor, but he thought he did a respectable job in these movies.
Then again, the detective work and treasure hunting were probably the biggest things he took away from it.
All around, Tom Hanks is just one of those actors that are really nice guys and have a good range they can work. He does comedies and dramas both really well and he isn't a bad voice actor either.

Other people considered for the same role were Bill Paxton (who dropped out), Russell Crowe (who'd worked with Ron Howard on the Oscar-winning "A Beautiful Mind"), Ralph Fiennes, Hugh Jackman and George Clooney.
I can kinda see (and hear) George Clooney doing this role, but otherwise, I don't think anyone else could have done it better. Tom Hanks has kinda solidified in my mind as this impressive character.

Speaking of "A Beautiful Man," Paul Bettany was cast as the murderer, Silas. I find it a little comical that he does full posterior negativity in this movie... between this and "A Knight's Tale" (where I saw him and Heath Ledger for the first time), you'd think it was a thing for him. How he's unable to keep his clothes on.
But unlike "A Knight's Tale," where Jeffrey Chaucer had a gambling problem and kept losing his clothes, Silas goes full nude (always from behind) for a brutal purpose specific to his faith.

Oh, how they ran all those news pieces afterwards about how Opus Dei isn't as brutal a sect as it's portrayed on this film. They're die-hard Christians in more ways than one. For this specific point, like Silas, some of them wear a cilice (a barbed leg brace that they periodically tighten) and whip themselves. The point is to suffer as Jesus suffered.
Too hardcore for my tastes and luckily for this film, we only have to endure one instance of self-flagellation. Gotta give it up to Paul Bettany, he really does go all out for his acting.

The only other actor I knew going into this was Ian McKellan... from being a "Lord of the Rings" fan, obviously. Of course, for Langdon's British colleague who happens (for the sake of this plot) to be a "Grail scholar," you needed an actor of great respect and esteem. For this specific role, he is such a delight to watch. So into his expertise about The Holy Grail.
As fate would have it (or not, depending on which point you are in the story), four murders were committed within the past several hours. All of them happened to be the current highest ranking officials of the Priory... who keep the truth about the Holy Grail. Jacques Sauniere was the GrandMaster of them all.

As for everyone else, I believe I saw Jean Reno in a "National Treasure" film... a great actor I should see more of because he has a great presence on screen. (Interestingly, Dan Brown said he wrote for Detective Fache with him in mind... gotta love it how stuff works out that way).
Alfred Molina, I know well as Dr. Ock from "Spiderman 2," probably my favorite of the trilogy.

Audrey Tautou, I haven't seen in any other movie. I know she was the lead in "Amelie" and she also played Coco Chanel in a biopic, but for the most part, she's a French actress who sticks to a lot of French films.
Supposedly, Ron Howard fought hard to convince her to do this part, so he must have been a huge fan.

Funny how the movies he directs are so serious and so well made and Ron Howard's career started with making us laugh on "Happy Days." I'd only just started the series last year.

Twists and Turns

The book (and movie) have lots of twists. You kinda need to keep on your toes and if you're religious in any way, it helps to keep an open mind.

My dad got into it because it involves figuring out puzzles, but also because it's history reinterpreted. He had to point out on the first couple pages, how it said the story's based on true events. Alongside him, I can't help but be convinced the events in this story might have some truth to them.

The key leads them to a Swiss Bank account, which leads them to a box decorated with the image of a rose. Inside the box is a cryptex. With the right five letter code, you can release the papyrus inside. Get it wrong or force it open and you unleash a bottle of vinegar inside that erases the messages.
And of course, while all this is going on, Landgon and Sophie are fugitives from law and have to keep pace to avoid Fache, notorious for his unwillingness to give up. Lots of great chase scenes, one of which Langdon and Sophie in a Smart car :-P one of the best scenes in the movie.

The dialogue runs fast so it helps to pay attention because every now and then, you find nuggets of hilarity.
One comes in a conversation with Teabing where they talk about the symbols for spear (^) and chalice (v) stand for male and female. And Teabing says something like "[in the military] the more penises you have, the higher your rank".

Probably my favorite scene in the book is the conversation he and Langdon have, talking about the Holy Grail and stuff. But I remembered it reading differently. I think in the book, he and Langdon were in agreement, adding onto each other's thoughts. In the movie, it comes off more as arguing.

So... the big truth that could possibly destroy the Church if revealed... and supposedly the murders happened to prevent the members of the Priory from doing so...
The Holy Grail isn't the famous chalice, but a chalice in other right. Chalice meaning female because it is the shape of the womb. And it points to one woman in particular, Jesus's companion, Mary Magdalene. (Yeah, whenever The Bible namedropped her, the word "prostitute" was common... apparently to discredit this). Not only was she in DaVinci's The Last Supper, but word is that she was carrying the "royal bloodline" at the time of the Crucifixion.

A very controversial notion because somehow Jesus having a bloodline makes him seem... well, human, opposed to miracle-working son of God.
That and the fact she was the one that was supposed to carry on the Church instead of Saint Peter.
Oh yeah, according to old school Christians, it's like "oh God forbid a woman be in charge of the church"...

Don't worry, I'm not one of those feminists that go crazy about inequality of women and such. But it's one of those reasons why I'm not really big on organized religion.
I haven't read enough of the Bible to see any passages about the supposed "evils" of homosexuality, but that's another one of those things.
I got really worked up a couple years ago when I became acquainted with the "pray the gay away" program... within a couple months of each other, I heard two stories about people (one is one of my best friends) who went through the program and they contemplated suicide because it didn't help them.

The biggest mystery that had to be solved was about Sophie. She was raised by her grandfather, on a lot of puzzles and cryptexes, but left home when she was a teenager. This is hinted at throughout the movie, as is a time in Langdon's childhood when he almost drowned in a well... the reason why he's so claustrophobic

The clue hiding under the rose on the box led them to Westminister Abbey to visit the tomb of another Priory of Scion member, Sir Isaac Newton. Something about an orb that ought to be on a tomb... and that's the answer to the cryptex.

During the course of this, we find out who the true villain of the story is and why Silas was sent on this murderous rampage. And Detective Fache does come to realize he was wrong about Langdon and arrives in time to arrest the right man.

The final clue leads Langdon and Sophie to where the tomb of Mary Magdalene might be.
And the truth about Sophie comes out at Rosslyn Church.

Supposedly Sophie was the only member of her family to survive a car accident and Sauniere wasn't her biological grandfather.
The only part of that spectacular scene that I really missed in the movie was the other reveal that Sophie's brother was alive. The man that greets them at the Church was supposed to be him, but they decided, apparently, that the movie was long enough where the detail was unimportant. :-?

The Score

Although I wouldn't commit his name to memory until seeing a movie further down this list, I'd been unknowingly impressed by Hans Zimmer for years.
His score for "The DaVinci Code" has a lot of range to go with the various pacing of the different scenes. But for me personally, the piece that plays in the last minutes of the movie has as much lasting power as my favorite themes... like "Star Wars" and "Jurassic Park"...

The scene is where Langdon has an epiphany about Mary Magdalene. Her sarcophagus wasn't at the church, but might still lay under the rose....or in this case, the Rose-line" that runs through Paris, marking the original Prime Meridian.
With the final riddle being read by him in a voice over, he takes a nightly stroll back to the beginning of our story... at the Louvre. He kneels before it with the camera zooming under the surface to the casket. And the final shot is of him before the screen goes black.

I get chills every time I think about it. The man's got serious musical talent. So you can be sure he'll come up more as my countdown continues.

Next Week

It's a special moment when an actor or actress makes such a strong impression on me that I follow through other movies on their resumes.
While my next movie isn't the first time I saw this actress, it made sure that me and so many other people (including the Hollywood Foreign Press with a nomination) would not be forgetting her anytime soon.

And it's one of many examples of why theatrical trailers are something I swear by...
Behind franchises (based on books and/or the sci-fi/fantasy genre) and actors I go out of my way to research, they're the biggest reason I go to movies. And 9 times out of 10, the end result is worth the $7. 8-)

Theatrical Review: The Hobbit- The Desolation of Smaug

Date: December 29, 2013
Time: 11:15am
Location: Pocono Movieplex
Party: 3 (my mom and aunt)
Duration: 161 minutes (+1 trailer)

Director: Peter Jackson

Trailer:

I believe the name of the movie is "300: Rise of the Empire"... it's the sequel to Zach Snyder's "300" with Xerxes as the returning antagonist and a brand-new protagonist... a female bad-ass, whom my mom and aunt recognized as Circe from the "Game of Thrones" series.
It looks pretty impressive, the scale of it and so on. Here's hoping it got better press than "300" did.

We were among maybe a dozen people in the theater. Then again, it was a rainy day so not a lot of people would be coming out to begin with.

Write-up:
Mind the spoilers... however few there might be.

As was the case with the first film, I won't bother with a lengthy cast list on account of the fact I'm really bad with names in the universe of Middle Earth.
I mentioned that I've yet to read a single book written by Tolkien and I'm probably going to keep it that way. Having said, according to my book-nerd aunt, it didn't really follow the book much anyway.

We begin in flashback at a familiar site. The only familiar site from the original trilogy. The port city just outside of the Shire known as Bree (where Frodo and his fellow Hobbits first met Aragon). Dwarf King Thorin of Oakenshield meets Gandalf there, who urges him to take back his home land or else darkness will overcome Middle Earth.

Fast-forward to a year later:
The hobbit Bilbo Baggins, the wizard Gandalf the Grey and the legion of Dwarves continue onto their destination: their former mountain home, now under the reign of the Dragon, Smaug.
Along that trek, they encounter more hardships. The theme of the previous film was multiple chase scenes. Here, the reoccurring theme was being captured and imprisoned. First by the Elves and later (although short-lived) by humans in a seaport just outside the mountains.

This time we saw the movie in 2D and certain pieces would have catered well to 3D, particularly when you see small critters like bees and birds flying around. But in some ways, it was a blessing to see it in 2D because it made certain scenes less intense.

When I saw "Chamber of Secrets" in theaters, there were two scenes that I found hard to watch. One featured Aragog and the big spiders in the Dark Forest. The other featured the giant snake known as the Basilisk.
I don't suffer from arachnophobia or fear of snakes, but the spider scene in this movie made that look like child's play. They were freaking huge and freaking scary. In a way, I guess you could say that that meant they were well constructed and the scene was well-written. Per my personal tastes, I couldn't wait for that scene to end.
It was also pretty jerkish that the Elves not only showed up AFTER the fact to help out the dwarves, but they also imprisoned them... for what reason, I really don't know.

They certainly spent a lot of time in this new trilogy emphasizing the dislike between the dwarves and elves. Of course we're seeing this from the POV of the dwarves so the audience is liable to side with them over the elves... even if they are the better looking bunch.
The trailers leading up to this appealed to the masses by showing a lot of scenes with Orlando Bloom (back as Legolas) and Evangeline Lilly (newcomer Tauriel). Legolas's father is king of the Elves and isn't the most likable character in this film.
In a nutshell, his attitude is that the elves should stay out of the worldly affairs and keep to their particular kingdom. He was also the one who refused to help Thorin's grandfather (as seen in the first movie's exposition) because he was blinded by his greed.

I hate to say it, but Legolas wasn't as pleasant to watch this time around. His attitude was severe whereas in the original trilogy, he was just as much a bad-ass in the battle field, but kept a level head while maintaining a good heart. Less snobbish, I guess you could say.
Thankfully, we had Tauriel to save us from hating Elvin kind entirely. She brought great new energy to this series, which was in dire need of some female ass-kicking. That plus the events that followed also allowed for Legolas to change his tune and win back the allegiance of his fan base :-P
There's also a hint of a love triangle where Legolas has feelings for Tauriel, the king tells her this and says not to accept his advances and she starts to develop feelings for one of the younger dwarves (who I didn't really pick up in the first movie, but then again, I only remembered 2-3 of them).

It also seemed like a lame move for Gandalf to leave the Dwarves maybe half an hour into the movie and to wait for him before entering the mountain... he never came back. He was busy heading in another direction, looking to face the Necromancer (who I don't believe we even saw in this movie... despite the fact Benedict Cumberbatch was listed in the cast) and instead gets captured by Sauron (aka: the eye in the tower overlooking Mordor in "Lord of the Rings").

But what was great was how much braver and stronger Bilbo has become as a character. He saved the dwarves from the spiders. He broke the dwarves out of Elvin prison and came up with an escape route for them. And he did his best to distract Smaug while looking the Arkenstone he was "hired' to steal.
Of course, the common thread was the aid of the Ring of Power. Becoming invisible helped a great deal with those situations, but sooner or later, it'll probably be his undoing.

As for Smaug, he was definitely worthy of the subheading in the movie title. Probably the most impressive dragon you'll see in any movie. (Back to Benedict Cumberbatch for a second, IMDB says he does the voice and motion capture for Smaug as well... and the Necromancer IS Sauron). And he got plenty of screen time, more than Gollum got in the previous film :-P

One or two more memorable scenes:
When the Elves "arrest" the dwarves, Legolas looks at the photos one Dwarf was carrying, asking who they were (with a twinge of disgust). One of his wife (reminding me of Gimgli saying how it's hard to tell the difference between dwarf men and women with their beards) and the other was his son... who was, funny enough, Gimgli.
For that reason, I was half expecting to hear a mention of Aragon or his father, Arathorn somewhere... unfortunately we're probably a few decades, if not centuries away from that.

The scene where dwarves are escaping from the Elvin fortress in barrels in the midst of a battle between Elves and Orcs... absolutely crazy, all the acrobatics going on. My mom and aunt were still talking about this scene 10 minutes after we got back home because there came a point when a dwarf-in-a-barrel was rolling down the riverbanks, knocking down Orcs left and right, almost like it was video game.

Ed Sheeran performs "I See Fire," the song in the credits.

The only real negative I can derive is that it ended on a God-awful cliff-hanger.
Granted, we knew this was coming because it's a trilogy originally written as two movies, but still... at least the "Two Towers" had a good place to call it quits. You know, not mid-action. I expected them to at least defeat Smaug... if anything, they worsened the conflict by allowing things to end as they do... or not end.

Comparing the two movies so far, it's a mixed bag. There were good points with both and negatives in both. But I found the original a little more enjoyable personally and despite being 5 minutes shorter, didn't feel as long as its sequel did. Maybe I've just gotten a little tired of the special effects as of late.

My biggest issue, other than the ending, was that it felt too hectic at times, too much going to keep up with... and this was in 2D.

Grade: A-
(92%, whereas the previous film is more like 94%)

Theatrical Review: The Hobbit (3D)

I'll try to make this a regular routine and hopefully I'll be able to post sooner. In other words, while the recollection is still fresh in my mind.
But I'll give the following info every time:

Location: Pocono Movieplex
ShowTime: 11:30am
Duration: 166 minutes (+5 for the one trailer)
Party: 3

I'd say the theater had a decent amount of people coming out to this matinee showing. Also it was a Sunday. I think it'd been ages since I'd seen a show this early (most of which have a noon or 1pm showtime), but we had to wait a couple minutes simply because we arrived early. 
The place wasn't open just yet.

In the theater itself, I'd say there were a couple dozen people, but it wasn't necessarily a packed theater. And it wasn't so packed where people were readily interacting with the movie. If there were any laughs, it was coming from me or the party I came with.
My mom and my aunt, with whom we'd seen a bunch of movies with, mostly the Twilight series because we're all Twi-Hards who loved the series, both movies and books.

Often time, we show up and the picture doesn't start for a while. We arrived as the place was opening and the previews had already begun. The only one we did catch was "Jack- the Giant Slayer" that featured a couple familiar faces, Ewan McGregor among others.
He alone, with his hot Scottish accent, is enough to entice our intrigue.

But we also saw the two Snow White films (although I came with different people to both) and my mom and I enjoy the "Once Upon a Time" series. So the poetic license they plan to take with that film will be the second reason we'll most likely be checking into it.

...
There is just an example of how much previews can snag one's attention before the movie they actually came out to see begins.

First off, it was in 3D and it was a good thing that our ticket seller remembered to give us the free glasses. I wouldn't want a repeat of what happened when I saw the 3rd Madagascar with my sister, never mind the fact that this movie is going to be LONG.

It took a little getting used to the glasses, but after that, getting used to the overall look of the film took an extra 15-20 minutes. With the characters and the set pieces, I'd compare it to reading a pop-up book with certain things being more pronounced than others.

A lot of reviews have come in and even before seeing the film, I agreed that at 166 minutes, this being the first of a trilogy... Peter Jackson, sir, you need to learn about a little thing known as "editing"

I saw all the Lord of the Rings films in theaters, but had yet to read a single book. Either way, I knew Middle Earth pretty well, although I couldn't tell you which characters are which (forget about the actors that played them, unless you're talking about Bilbo and Gandalf).
It felt like coming back to Hogwarts in each Harry Potter movie. The scenery and the overall look is the same, so you know the ins and outs of it, with a few surprises along the way.

As with the previous films in the series, The Hobbit began with a flashback. 
What little I knew of the dwarves came from my knowledge from the previous films. There weren't many left. The dwarves didn't like the Elves. Supposedly the dwarves lived in this mountain where they hoarded all this gold.
Naturally with so much of it, greed was part of their downfall. But a dragon named Smaug broke into the mountain, took it for himself and the dwarves were left without a home. The disdain of the Elves came about because the Elves didn't offer help when they desperately needed it.
And Orcs and trolls were other races that they've had to contend with in an attempt to return to power.

Comparisons were drawn between the dwarf prince and Sean Bean, who played a king in the previous film. But the comparison could have easily have been drawn about his character from the Game of Thrones series (which I'd never seen). Either way, they said the dwarf prince was no Sean Bean.
He wasn't as regal or trustworthy as him or Viggo Mortsenson who played "the king" Aragon as in "The Return of the King," but the actor definitely had a great presence on that screen. Even though it took until the end of the movie for him to accept Bilbo as part of their group, watching him was quite the experience for me personally.

So during the flashback, Bilbo narrates and puts the finishing touches on writing "A Hobbit's Tale" before showing it to Frodo. This connects the film with the beginning of the previous trilogy and seeing Elijah Wood at the Shire again was a nice extra touch. 

Martin Freeman (who I'd only previously seen in Love Actually and maybe one other film) played  Bilbo through the course of The Hobbit, reminding us why the Hobbits are such a lovable, relatable race. He's the reluctant hero, but has the heart of an adventurer, whether he knows it or not.
Of course Ian McKellan was great as Gandalf. I didn't expect him to be quite as bad-ass in this movie, like the being that had the final say in whether a struggle would amount to anything or not. Translation: he saved our heroes on a number of occasions.

Without Bilbo's knowledge, Gandalf posts an invitation for the dwarves to meet at his hobbit hole. It's hilarious as an outsider to see that entire pantry going bare in record time, all those breakfasts that would have otherwise lasted... phew, I don't even know how long. I don't quite know how much a hobbit eats.
Hilarity ensues, but Bilbo is disoriented, not knowing what the hell is going on other than him being eaten out of hobbit hole and home. 
[Admittedly, this was one part of a few that could have been trimmed down by 10 minutes]

It's an open invitation to Bilbo, but after much pondering, he decides to go on this adventure with the dwarves.
One review I read that morning mentioned a character that got a bigger role than he had in the entire book. He happened to be Gandalf's brother, one of 5 wizards of Middle Earth. He's a bit eccentric, communicates with animals and such, but I thought he was great. Very nice of Peter Jackson to give him a bigger role in this movie, if only as a plot device, telling the heroes about this Necromancer that I'm sure will have more of a part in the rest of the Hobbit trilogy.

Two instances, in addition to Gandalf and a handful of other characters, had me feeling right at home in this movie because they were among the details about Middle Earth I somehow managed to remember all these years. (Although to be fair, I rewatched the trilogy just over a year ago).
I remember Rivendell being the name of "the land of the Elves" and of course the characters there, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett being so beautiful to look at with the make-up, costume and such. The other side of the coin being we see the other wizard played by Christopher Lee, who emerges as a villain in the other trilogy.

Moments of hilarity were scattered throughout, but except for one scene, none of them were cliché. They just amounted to character interactions and clashing personalities. 
The dark moments were dark, but the funny moments ranged from a few hearty ha-ha's to side-splitting.

Most of the side-splitting laughs came from none other than Gollum. You have to wait a couple hours, but at least 20 minutes is spent with him and Bilbo running through a series of riddles. 
I was quite surprised that Gollum's split personality seemed MORE apparent here, more pronounced than it was in the Two Towers, when I figured it'd be the other way around. Being driven mad by being separated from the ring, not directly possessing it than the actual possession of it.

One great thing about Middle Earth is the unexpected. One such moment involved mountains that came to life and took on one another like rock 'em-sock 'em robots, but with a lot more crumbling.

Other than that, I'd say it's a movie you really have to experience for yourself to appreciate. I don't want to spoil every detail, but those were a few highlights I really liked.
A lot of critics will go on about how it's overlong in places. 
My advice: come in with an open mind and just lose yourself in the cinematography of the film. You have a close to 3 hour commitment to make, so you might as well relax and enjoy what it has to offer.

Rating: A-