#1  
Old 12-05-2013, 01:36 PM
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug



Directed by Peter Jackson

Written by Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro

Genre: Fantasy

Plot Outline: The dwarves, along with Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Grey, continue their quest to reclaim Erebor, their homeland, from Smaug. Bilbo Baggins is in possession of a mysterious and magical ring.

Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry

Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images

Runtime: 161 minutes


I enjoyed the first one, but it wasn't even close to the level of the LOTR trilogy. I'm hearing that this one is much better.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-09-2013, 10:52 AM
I seemed to enjoy the first more than most, and the Extended Edition is a nice improvement over it, but everything about this entry seems superior. I'm pretty excited, in particular because I'm hearing amazing things about the action sequences. Jackson always was one of the most inventive action stylists.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-09-2013, 03:51 PM
still need to see the first Hobbit

This looks epic though.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-10-2013, 07:34 AM
I need to see this after reading the positive reviews...Peter Jackson is back. The first installment was very good but fell shrot of that LOTR greatness , this looks extremly epic.

And that Benedict voice...ohh shit.

Last edited by CuatroDiablos; 12-10-2013 at 07:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-10-2013, 09:15 PM

^^^
Yeah Cumberbatch's voice is the shit. No wonder he gets all the ladies.

And I totally forgot we'll be getting an Interstellar teaser before it. Shit I'm down for that
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-13-2013, 11:06 PM
Saw this a few hours ago and it was definitely underwhelming compared to all the reviews the championed it as one of the greatest things. The ending, although I slightly understand their reasoning, was anticlimactic.

6/10
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-13-2013, 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
Saw this a few hours ago and it was definitely underwhelming compared to all the reviews the championed it as one of the greatest things. The ending, although I slightly understand their reasoning, was anticlimactic.

6/10
The critical consensus is pretty much the same as the last one.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-16-2013, 07:44 AM
Far less drawn out and tiresome than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,though i still feel the addition of characters not in the book is a blatant draw out the series money grab ,it works because the aforementioned add excitement and a touch of romance to the film.The last 45 minutes include some of the best 3D and action sequences i have ever seen on the big screen and establishes that feeling when it ends that makes you anticipate the 3rd film more .

Scale of 1-10 an 8
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-16-2013, 12:40 PM
Eh, I didn't like it as much as I anticipated. I enjoyed the first Hobbit more.

6/10
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-26-2013, 06:52 PM
Sharing the sentiments as most of the board. While I understand the ending, I was still let down by it. That being said,

The river sequence and then when the dwarves enter the mountain and face Smaug, EASILY worth the price of admission alone.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-27-2013, 10:42 AM
Could've done without that romance being shoe-horned in, yet another big film that should've been cut by at least 30 minutes. The action sequences are great but I definitely preferred the first movie by a long way.

7/10
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-28-2013, 10:28 AM
I found that both the first and the second hobbit movies were based on the wrong audiences. What I mean by this is that it seemed too child friendly and they tried to add to much comedy into it. I think the first hobbit was entertaining but overall an average film (mainly because of that awesome theme song.) And the second one was a good story but there were some bull shit scenes that weren't in the book to fill up viewing time.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-30-2013, 04:33 PM
This was certainly an improvement over the first film. From the great opening scene until about mid-way through the Smaug sequence, it had a really terrific rhythm. I just felt that at the mid-way point of that sequence, it started to cut away too much and then I started to feel the length of the movie (something I hadn't felt up until that point). All of the Smaug stuff was great, it's just that the cutting away interfered with the pacing. I suppose the stuff they cut to is important to the story, but I think there were probably a few different ways they could have shaped it to make the storytelling a bit more efficient. I did like how they ended it though.

The biggest highlight was the barrel sequence. Peter Jackson might not rank up there with the absolute best directors, but one thing is for sure, there are few directors who can direct action like he can. His action sequences are almost always coherent, exciting and inventive. The barrel sequence is one of his finest. I also have to commend him and his casting director(s), because throughout this trilogy and the LOTR trilogy, they have essentially perfectly cast every role. They are not always the greatest actors in the world, but they are perfect for the roles they have been given.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-02-2014, 12:18 AM
I definitely preferred the first one.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-02-2014, 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordspicywings View Post
I found that both the first and the second hobbit movies were based on the wrong audiences. What I mean by this is that it seemed too child friendly and they tried to add to much comedy into it. I think the first hobbit was entertaining but overall an average film (mainly because of that awesome theme song.) And the second one was a good story but there were some bull shit scenes that weren't in the book to fill up viewing time.
Jackson is clearly trying to strike somewhat of a balance between the darker tone of his LOTR films and the lighter, more whimsical nature of the Hobbit book. But you're better off thinking of these films as a 'LOTR Prequel Trilogy' than a mere adaptation of The Hobbit... because, of course, they're not. Once you come to terms with that, I'm sure you'll enjoy them more. Besides, I'd bet anything that if Tolkien had written The Hobbit later in his life, he would have definitely included a lot more details than he originally did (especially about where Gandalf kept going and including Legolas in with the Woodland Realm, since he is, after all, the son of Thranduil). And if you never noticed, with the exception of Bilbo and Thorin (and maybe Gandalf and Smaug), all the characters in the book are pretty non-descript... so further character development is another reason we're getting 3 movies instead of just one or two.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-03-2014, 03:00 AM
Saw this earlier today and really wish I liked it more than I did. It wasn't 3D or IMAX or any of that; it was actually a little blurry so that definitely contributed to the overall lack of enjoyment but I don't know, almost all of it felt filler and a few things really pissed me off, the elf dwarf romance stuff especially. Absolutely absurd, Tolkien must have rolled over a few times in his grave over that.

Smaug was great, the barrel sequence down the river was really great but the ending got to me too; I found the writing to be pretty lazy in many scenes, and overall just a big step down from the original LOTR, so much so that I'm surprised it's the same team of people. Definitely enjoyed the first one more and I'm not even looking forward to the third one now.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-03-2014, 05:50 PM
But it should be stated, Martin Freeman is carrying both of these, IMHO. I loved from BBC's Sherlock, but he's absolutely slaying it as Bilbo.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-03-2014, 06:24 PM
Yeah, Jackson definitely knew what he was doing when casting the lead actors for LOTR and The Hobbit. I mean, can you picture anyone else playing Frodo than Elijah Wood, or Bilbo than Martin Freeman? Just perfect casting.

I think the problems people have with The Hobbit films stem from two sources. The first is that The Hobbit itself is a much less satisfying narrative than LOTR. The stakes aren't as high, the impending doom isn't there, etc. I mean, when you see the prologue for Fellowship, you know shit is going down and that it's going to be a hell of an adventure. It's the ultimate middle earth adventure. With The Hobbit prologue, it felt like what could have been one of many middle earth adventures. The second is that it shouldn't have been stretched into three films. The second film I thought mostly stuck to things that are important to the story (minus the love triangle bit), but the first film could have easily lost several scenes. It would be naive to say that money isn't a part of it, but I also think that Jackson wanted to recapture the epic nature of the LOTR trilogy (i.e., 3 films, each approximately 3 hours in length). The problem is, since the narrative isn't as satisfying as LOTR, it feels padded and less epic. Had it been two films, I think there is enough interesting content for those films to have been very good or great. Instead, there are three films containing a lot of unnecessary content that leaves them being merely "OK" or "decent".
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-05-2014, 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
A few things really pissed me off, the elf dwarf romance stuff especially. Absolutely absurd, Tolkien must have rolled over a few times in his grave over that.
Granted, Tolkien wasn't that skilled at writing romance himself (or female characters in general). I mean, the way he wrote Eowyn, you'd assume she basically fall for every guy she met.
Quote:
Smaug was great, the barrel sequence down the river was really great but the ending got to me too.
I honestly feel the ending for this film was always going to be a catch-22. If you end it after Smaug is defeated, the cries of all the people claiming Jackson is milking the story probably get more credence. If you end it before then, as he did, you're basically left in limbo -- just as we were with "The Empire Strikes Back," Back to the Future II" and "The Matrix Reloaded" (among others). And, of course, those of us who have read the book know, the story doesn't end with Smaug's demise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I think the problems people have with The Hobbit films stem from two sources. The first is that The Hobbit itself is a much less satisfying narrative than LOTR. The stakes aren't as high, the impending doom isn't there, etc. I mean, when you see the prologue for Fellowship, you know shit is going down and that it's going to be a hell of an adventure. It's the ultimate middle earth adventure. With The Hobbit prologue, it felt like what could have been one of many middle earth adventures. The second is that it shouldn't have been stretched into three films. The second film I thought mostly stuck to things that are important to the story (minus the love triangle bit), but the first film could have easily lost several scenes. It would be naive to say that money isn't a part of it, but I also think that Jackson wanted to recapture the epic nature of the LOTR trilogy (i.e., 3 films, each approximately 3 hours in length). The problem is, since the narrative isn't as satisfying as LOTR, it feels padded and less epic. Had it been two films, I think there is enough interesting content for those films to have been very good or great. Instead, there are three films containing a lot of unnecessary content that leaves them being merely "OK" or "decent".
Jackson has said all through promoting these first 2 films that he's trying to tie them more into the LOTR trilogy. And, as has been the case with all of these Middle-earth films so far, the extended cut will more than likely be better. The theatrical cuts are always aimed more at the masses, thus they have all the action and essential plot elements. The extended cuts add the further character elements for which more learned moviegoers generally go, which help enrich the rest of the story.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-16-2014, 02:59 PM
I liked this more than Unexpected Journey. That film had some extremely silly elements such as the Radagast rabbit sled, the rock giants, and the cartoonish Goblintown action sequence. It was redeemed by the delightful Riddles in the Dark scenes, but overall not as good as I'd hoped.

Desolation of Smaug is an improvement because the action is better (the barrel sequence especially!) and the character development stronger. I'm in the minority I guess for liking the Kili-Tauriel stuff. It was a nice surprise and unexpected, but a very earnest romance. I couldn't help but be drawn in by it.

I loved the production design, particularly for Laketown and the Woodland Realm. HFR was improved as well, but I'm still not sure I prefer it.

The weakness of the film IMO is the Smaug action sequence at the end. It goes on just a little too long. I don't mind the cliffhanger ending, but did feel that this installment had the least emotional buildup and catharsis at the end. Compare it to the Breaking of the Fellowship or Sam's speech at the end of Two Towers. I kinda missed that aspect.

Also I found Howard Shore's score to be the weakest of the five. What happened to the excellent Lonely Mountain theme from part one??? It was completely absent.

9/10 or A

Last edited by dannywalker17; 01-16-2014 at 03:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump