‘the Hobbit’ is getting mixed reviews

The first three Lord of the Rings movies got a 92, a 96, and a 94 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, because movie critics are idiots. Those movies are fucking awful. They're long, slow, tedious, and have more gay characters than 'Project Runway'.

'The Hobbit' however, is down at around 71 percent so far today, the first day critics are allowed to post their reviews. The issue? The movie is long, slow, tedious, and, because it was shot at 48 frames per second as opposed to the standard 24, uncomfortably clear.

The Hollywood Reporter says...

"(In this) academically fastidious telling, however, it's as if The Wizard of Oz had taken nearly an hour just to get out of Kansas. There are elements in this new film that are as spectacular as much of the Rings trilogy was, but there is much that is flat-footed and tedious as well, especially in the early going."

And about the frame rate, Variety says...

"everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end home movie."

That sounds a lot like 'The Christmas That Almost Wasn't But Then Was' by the way. And movieline agrees...

"It felt like watching daytime soaps in HD, terrible BBC broadcasts, or Faerie Tale Theater circa 1985, only in amazingly sharp clarity and with hobbits.
Part of the problem is there's too much detail in every frame that the magical filter of cinema that makes most 24 fps film so pleasing to the eye is gone; every prop on a set too clear, and even a performance by someone like the very fine Ian McKellen looks embarrassingly, unnaturally theatrical."

Well, whatever, I'm sure it will still be very successful with LARPers, and who doesn't respect and admire LARPers. If those people don't know what's cool, then who does.