Just got back from watching this. Anyone else seen it yet?
I was... well, I didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped to. It's a high-budget fantasy movie so you can't hate it, but... yeah. My parents loved it. :)
Also, spoiler:
Sounds like what I felt about the first Hobbit. Plus, the HFR felt really strange to me... I lost all sense of immersion into it, and felt it was actors standing there, dressed up and waving their arms.
Before I go see it this weekend I'd like to know one thing.
** spoiler omitted **
I vaguely recall hearing that the third one won't be another December release but should be out "soon". Anyone know the release schedule?
** spoiler omitted **
But it wasn't all bad. On a more positive note:
The elven king Whatshisname was great. And creepy. And, just like the first Hobbit, I'm really fond of Thorin's performance (all the dwarves are idiots, but Thorin is cool). Also, the scene between Bilbo and Smaug was easily on par with the Bilbo/Gollum scene from the first movie.
Oh, one last thing that kinda bothered me:
On an unrelated note, I'm going to the midnight release tomorrow. I'm hoping it's good, and my girlfriend is only coming along just for the Smaug "sexy-man-voice" as she dubs it. So far I'm hearing mixed reviews, so I'm holding off judgement until I see it tomorrow.
And yeah, I'm pretty sure I heard the same thing about the next movie, but that means it's only about 6 months away.
I had heard the 3rd part was moved to summer 2014. But that was awhile ago.
** spoiler omitted **
The movie ends with (if that's what you're asking):
I can't wait to see this on Friday.
When I first heard that "The Hobbit" was going to be split into TWO movies, I knew that it would necessarily mean creating a bunch of material for the story that wasn't in the book. After a while I convinced myself that there was enough material in The Silmarillion and other works from Tolkien that, if carefully edited, it could still be mostly true to the overall Tolkien universe.
When I heard it would be THREE movies, I knew that it was going to be full of stuff Peter Jackson created out of whole cloth.
So now I'm just hoping it mostly honors the book and the other published material, and that all the extra stuff at least fits the story line and makes some sort of sense.
I'm still looking forward to seeing it.
I really don't care if Legalos has a love interest. Legalos was certainly doing SOMETHING during that period, as was Aragorn for that matter. I think it would have made more sense to add some Aragorn/Arwen scenes in Rivendell to the story, by my reckoning Aragorn was in Rivendell around that time, was a young man and was falling in love with Arwen. That would have been a logical love interest to add to the movie, but I suppose Viggo nixed that.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
I don't think they'd have been able to use Viggo for Aragorn if they did put him in. Remember that this is taking place 60 years before Fellowship, so Aragorn would only be in his 20s.
I'd have to check the timeline in LotR as well, but this also could have been during the time when Aragorn was riding with the Rohirrim before he went down to Gondor to advise Denethor's dad.
I was... well, I didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped to. It's a high-budget fantasy movie so you can't hate it, but... yeah.
As a helpful comparison - how did you feel about Part 1?
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
I absolutely loved it. It was a great follow-up that didn't suffer from second-movie-in-trilogy-ism.
Peter Jackson, I could just kiss you.
Ah, well, that would be an awkward meeting with Arwen then. Shades of Mannequin Skywalker and Princess Armadillo. That was creepy enough for a couple generations of filmgoers...
I'm pretty sure in the LotR movies Aragorn tells Eowyn how old he is. Or hints strongly at it.
In one of the extended scenes, yes. On the march to Helm's Deep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah. Some age difference should be no problem in a relationship.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
In the movies, he's 87 at the time he, Gimli, and Legolas are traveling through Rohan. May or may not sync up with the book timeline (after all, in the book I think like 17 years pass between Bilbo's party and Frodo's departure from the Shire; in the movie it seems like it's a couple of months, tops).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was... well, I didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped to. It's a high-budget fantasy movie so you can't hate it, but... yeah.As a helpful comparison - how did you feel about Part 1?
That's a good question. Overall I liked it, though I thought it was too action-y. If that makes sense. The Hobbit is a fairly low-key story and trying to make it all LotR epic was a mistake. Imho.
That's a good question. Overall I liked it, though I thought it was too action-y. If that makes sense. The Hobbit is a fairly low-key story and trying to make it all LotR epic was a mistake. Imho.I was... well, I didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped to. It's a high-budget fantasy movie so you can't hate it, but... yeah.As a helpful comparison - how did you feel about Part 1?
Totally makes sense. Thanks! Very helpful. And a bit foreboding, for me...
That's a good question. Overall I liked it, though I thought it was too action-y. If that makes sense. The Hobbit is a fairly low-key story and trying to make it all LotR epic was a mistake. Imho.I was... well, I didn't like it nearly as much as I'd hoped to. It's a high-budget fantasy movie so you can't hate it, but... yeah.As a helpful comparison - how did you feel about Part 1?
I saw Part 1 in the theater twice and on DVD once and each time I see it, I think I like it less and less. It's too more of the same.
Of course, it probably doesn't help that I've seen every minute of the extended LOTR at least 20 times due to a certain drunken anarcho-syndicalist hetero life partner who would come home from work, start the DVDs, drink a 12-pack and pass out every night for five years!!!!
I hate to say it, but I think I'm sick of Peter Jackson doing J.R.R. Tolkien.
I'll probably go see it this weekend, though.
Agree it was very action-oriented. Much moreso than the book. However, it did have some crazy awesome fight scenes. At one point, I leaned over to my wife and said, "Now that's what a high-level martial character SHOULD be able to do!" She laughed. I also liked that Gandalf actually used his magic in combat several times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am probably as much of a Tolkien fanatic as there is on the planet. I have read "LotR" at least two dozen times. I've read 'The Hobbit" at least ten, including reading it to my children. I read the Silmarillion before most people knew the book had been published. I decorated my dorm room with LotR paintings and purchased every calendar for over a decade.
I found the LotR movies to be epic and awesome. While I personally was quite angry with how Peter Jackson depicted some things (Frodo turning on Sam, Farimir bringing Frodo to Denathor and a few other scenes), taking the movies purely on their own, they were incredibly good fantasy movies.
I am appalled at what Jackson has chosen to do with "The Hobbit" from a purist perspective.
But I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie. In terms of just watching a fantasy movie with no preconceived notions about the story or the characters, it was, just like LotR, a really fun and well-done fantasy movie.
I suspect that will be my take on this movie and the final Hobbit movie. Great fantasy movies. I won't begrudge my spending money on them, and I will tell myself that just the fact that the movies are being made, and made well, people will actually pick up the book and read it, and the large majority of them will like the book more than they expected to and might become Tolkien fans themselves.
It's just a movie. I am going to see it tonight and I expect to have a good time.
Alright then. Now that I've actually SEEN the film, I can definitely understand what some of the more purist fanbase had so many issues with. There were quite a few unnecessary tidbits that Jackson & co. decided to add, and a few things that they seemed to have removed, and combined that can make for a bit of a jarring experience for someone who knows the original story.
That being said, that was an awesome f+*~ing movie. Putting aside what I knew about the books and just watching, it was absolutely incredible. The scene between Bilbo and Smaug was pretty much dead-on with the books and captured it incredibly well. The river scene was also absolutely epic, with Bombur taking the cake as per the norm (hah, see what I did there? caues he's fat) and the rest of the crew making a good showing as always.
I just saw and loved it, not that I was surprised that I would.
Saw it and greatly enjoyed it.
Yes, there is more action, but part one did drag on quite a bit in places, part two doesn't. I don't even have a problem with Evangeline Lilly's character, though I've no idea why she's there beyond a need to have a female character somewhere in the film just to have a female character in the film.
The one issue I do have is with the ring. In the book, the ring is really just a Ring of Invisibility, and it's only by reading into things in the greater context of the later trilogy that any "evil effects" on Bilbo can be seen at all.
In the movie however, Jackson seems to want to beat us over the head with the idea that this is an EVIL RING, and that it's TWISTING BILBO'S BEHAVIOR! To the point that it seems impossible that he could have gone the decades between The Hobbit and Fellowship without turning into another Gollum.
Just saw it myself and on its own as a fantasy movie with dragons, elves, dwarves and monsters, it was an excellent movie, well paced, well acted (mostly) and wonderful costumes and special effects.
Smaug himself was.... truly the chief of calamities.
But it really wasn't "The Hobbit" in content or feel. After watching two Hobbit movies by Peter Jackson, I feel sad that I haven't actually seen one Hobbit movie yet.
But the movie itself was a great movie. And if he had filmed "The Hobbit" maybe it wouldn't have translated well to the big screen. The chief joy I get out of reading the Hobbit is the charm that is located in the parts Jackson left out of the movie.
My review, spoilerised for length and, er, spoilers:
The Desolation of Smaug is the middle film of The Hobbit movie trilogy, Peter Jackson's prequel to the Lord of the Rings movies of a decade ago. Its predecessor, An Unexpected Journey, had a mixed reception last year with its lighter tone, great performances and occasional visual splendour being lauded but the overlong running time, over-use of CGI and jarring tonal variances being criticised.
The Desolation of Smaug is, thankfully, a stronger and more consistent movie than its predecessor. Indeed, it feels like Jackson has even listened to his critics, though with most of the trilogy in the can before the first film was released this seems impossible. Still, it may have affected his editing choices. The film is both punchier and pacier than the first movie. Action beats and quieter moments of character-building support one another more organically and there's a distinct lack of totally time-wasting, filler material: no overlong goblin king japery or random moments of erinaceidae resuscitation here. That's not to say there aren't moments that could have been trimmed (most of the action sequences tend to go on a bit longer than they should, though not to the extent of the likes of Man of Steel or The Matrix Reloaded), but generally you can see what Jackson was aiming for and most of his ideas - this time around anyway - are actually good. Sequences that could have bogged down the movie are surprisingly brief: the interlude with Beorn (thankfully much more convincing in motion than the early photographs) is so quick, to the point, effective and then dispensed with that it's hard to believe that Peter Jackson directed the sequence. Presumably a 35-minute version of the scene will be on the extended cut.
Similarly, the trip through Mirkwood unfolds at a rapid, crisp pace, with montages used to depict the wearying journey rather than having it just go on and on. The passage through Mirkwood is one of the areas where the book slows to a crawl and it's rather pleasing that this is one area that the film handles more effectively than the novel. Jackson employs some cleverness - or cliche, depending on your POV - to depict the talking spiders by having the Ring translate their hisses into speech. This idea is not incompatible with what was shown in Rings (with Frodo first hearing Sauron's Black Speech and then what he was saying in Westron) and handily gets around what appeared to be a tonal incompatibility between The Hobbit and Rings (talking animals are present in the former but not in the latter). Jackson again strikes gold by suggesting that Bilbo's surprising viciousness in combat is driven by the Ring and layers some moments of internal struggle into the film, as Bilbo is shown being surprised by this new side to himself, but willing to use it when things get rough. This is a darker, more edgy Bilbo than we saw in the first film and Martin Freeman relishes the chance to play him.
The visit to Thranduil's realm is where the film threatens to go off the rails. Intriguing ideas (like Thranduil being hideously scarred from a previous battle with a dragon but masks it with magic) are presented here and Evangeline Lilly debuts as new character Tauriel, the captain of Thranduil's guard. Tauriel is a more earthly warrior-elf than Liv Tyler's Arwen from the first trilogy, less likely to bog down in emotional self-examination and instead get out and take action. Lilly - who had retired from acting after concluding her role on Lost - provides a stronger performance than some of the material warrants: her flirtation with Kili (Aidan Turner) only really works because both actors sell it so well but some of the dialogue is painful. Fortunately, it's less interminable a relationship than Aragorn and Arwen's constant angsting in the original trilogy.
Less successful is Orlando Bloom's reintroduction as Legolas. Much as the make-up and effects teams do their best, they can't totally hide the fact that Bloom is a decade older (and, a pain I can relate to, just ever so slightly heavier). In particular, he seems to be wearing some contact lenses that look slightly unnatural and make him look a bit more ethereal than in the original film, something I found distracting. Legolas also has no real role in the film: what should have been perhaps a background cameo in the elven-king's hall has been fleshed out into an arse-kicking action hero, the character who took down a mumakil singled-handedly in the original trilogy here turned up to eleven. The scenes where he's using the dwarves' heads as stepping stones to cross a river whilst shooting down multiple orcs are less 'badass' and more 'unconvincing' due to the amount of obvious CGI in use. A scene where he mocks a picture of Gloin's son is also amusing until the film decides to spell out the irony of that son being Legolas's future sparring partner Gimli in neon glittering letters fifty feet tall. Yeah, we got it, Peter.
A more surprisingly successful decision is the one to flesh out Laketown. What was a brief waystop in the novel turns into a full episode in the film, complete with scheming intrigue between Stephen Fry's Master of the Lake (not a role that stretches him, but one he plays to the hilt anyway) and Luke Evans's well-played Bard the Bowman. There's also a potentially controversial decision to split the dwarves up here into two camps, but this actually works out well, giving us a leg in both locations where the inevitable showdown with Smaug will unfold.
The film's climax - or the closest we get to one - involves the showdown between Bilbo and Smaug in the caverns of Erebor. This goes pretty well, with Benedict Cumberbatch bringing the requisite level of menace to the dragon, up until the confusing decision is made to give the dwarves an epic battle of their own with Smaug. This results in much running around and jumping on machinery in an over-clever attempt to kill the beast. It appears this scene stems from a perceived (but unnecessary) need to have the dwarves more active in the battle with Smaug, but all it does is reduce the threat of the dragon. Given the flashbacks in the first film showed him storming the fortress and slaughtering hundreds or thousands of dwarves in minutes, the ease with which nine dwaves give him the run-around makes him look like an idiot and the concluding scenes (which are from the novel, where they are much more logical) unfathomable.
Spliced between these scenes are why this had to be a trilogy in the first place: the new storyline where Gandalf travels to Dol Guldur to investigate the mysterious 'Necromancer'. These scenes would be creepier if the Rings-seasoned audience wasn't sick of ancient, mysterious and creepy towers by this point. Gandalf's face-to-face confrontation with the Necromancer is also rather disappointing, and carries less weight than his fight with Saruman in Fellowship of the Ring (the use of Gandalf creating a magical force shield complete with lighting and strobing effects is also rather unnecessary compared to the more subtle effect he uses to stand against the balrog in the original trilogy). Watching through these scenes, one can't but help feel that Tolkien's decision to keep the Necromancer as an off-page threat was the correct one.
Ultimately, The Desolation of Smaug (***½) is more watchable, drags far less and is less twee than its predecessor. The new characters and actors all do great work, the effects are better and more of the dwarves are given their moments in the sun (even Bombur takes a level in badass at one point and turns into an orc-killing machine). New locations, characters and subplots - even non-Tolkien ones - are inserted into the story with more skill than I think many were expecting, and Jackson is able to tie most of the narratives together satisfyingly (the Dol Guldur strand excepted, which still feels too disconnected from everything else). But where the film comes undone - to the point of triggering audible gasps of horror and then anger from the audience I watched the film with - is the exceptionally bad choice of where to end the film. The last act of the film builds and builds to an epic showdown...only to push it off at the last minute to the next film. If this was in just the main storyline it could perhaps be borne, but no less than five plots and subplots are all left on cliffhangers for the final movie, robbing this one of any sense of satisfying climax or catharsis. It's a poor editing choice by Jackson, one which will presumably leave the next film with a very muddled and anti-climactic opening.
The Desolation of Smaug is on general release now and will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray, again twice over, in 2014.
After a while I convinced myself that there was enough material in The Silmarillion and other works from Tolkien that, if carefully edited, it could still be mostly true to the overall Tolkien universe.
This is true. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson doesn't have the rights to THE SILMARILLION or, more damaging, UNFINISHED TALES, where the bulk of the ancilliary material useful to THE HOBBIT is located.
As a result, they can't actually even use all of Tolkien's own HOBBIT material for the movies, which is ludicrous. This is why Gandalf 'forgot' the names of the other two wizards in the first film and why the meeting scene in the second movie is moved from a road outside the Shire to Bree.
According to the Tale of Years, Aragorn is 10 during the Hobbit. Born in 2931, most of the Hobbit takes place in 2941.
He doesn't go out into the Wild for another 10 years or so.OTOH, I'm not at all sure the movie Aragorn is that old.
In the Extended Edition of THE TWO TOWERS Aragorn says he is 87, and THE HOBBIT takes place sixty years earlier, so he'd be 27. The LotR movies omit the 17-year gap between Bilbo's 111st birthday and Frodo leaving the Shire, accounting for the discrepency.
Saw it last night. My views:
Combat on the river in barrels was fun without going too far, especially with Legolas, orcs, and dwarves in barrels.
Smaug was excellent. Great choice for voice actor, and the 'battle' between Bilbo and Smaug was well-played on both sides.
While the dwarven battle in Erebor against Smaug may make some believe Smaug is being made to look an idiot, what it really shows me is that despite the unorthodox methods Thorin and company used against him, Smaug really IS a force of nature. The dwarves have survived well with their teamwork and unexpected tactics/antics. When their best (or worst) doesn't do much but aggravate the dragon, it helps give you the idea that our heroes are really in for the fight of their lives.
Tauriel: I liked the character, surprisingly. Sure, there's a bit of the 'oh look the outside world has intruded, now I'm curious' going on, the curiosity motive for leaving, I think if the romance between her and Kili had been fleshed out more slowly it would work better. The actors do their best, but the dialogue needs help. The parts that are an homage to Aragorn and Arwen could have been omitted. Oh, and Evangelline Lilly? That is one fine looking She-Elf :)
The homages. Could have lived without references to the previous movies. I think most of the audience who came to see this movie has already seen the previous LotR movies, so they're a bit heavy-handed.
Legolas: I don't care for him as a meaner, more xenophobic elf. Not the best way to phrase it, but his overall hostility doesn't do much for him after we've seen him in LotR, where he's never really all that hostile to the dwarves. Somewhat, but not that bad. His badassedness established in LotR, he still kills a lot of orcs. I'm glad they didn't decide he needed to top the Oliphaunt stunt. The problem? One orc fought him and lived. Breaks my suspension of disbelief a bit.
Overall, quite enjoyable. Laketown looks great, as does Erebor. It'll be interesting to see how they play out the third movie. I'll happily get this on DVD when the extended cut comes out.
|
My review, spoilerised for length and, er, spoilers:
** spoiler omitted **...
One comment - Evangelline Lilly didn't 'retire from acting after Lost'. She did take a break to have a baby, but she's been in a number of movies since Lost
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seen it. Enjoyed it most thoroughly.
Smaug took the show like candy from a baby. He was amazing. It is by far the single best dragon ever put in a movie or a cartoon. Not a single one even comes close.
Also, someone obviously used D&D 3.5 red dragon as a reference for the design.
Smaug most assuredly was a truly evil bastard. My only regret is that Jackson chose not to put in one scene from the book that would have done even more to show his awesome power. But that's a rather minor complaint.
Which scene?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's that much better than Vermithraax Pejorative?
My heart will always belong to Vermithrax, but this Smaug is the closest anything has come since then. Those two dragons (plus Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty) are the (un)holy trinity of movie dragons as far as I'm concerned.
I was also a little bit upset by
I don't know Vermithraax. Oh, well. Smaug has been the model of BBEG for me since Rankin and Bass decided to animate "The Hobbit" so very many years ago. For me, the top three movie dragons are Smaug (really the cat-like animated one, but this new incarnation will do), Maleficent (a witch-queen turned coal-black dragon that breathes green hellfire is ok by me!) and the dragon from Dragonslayer (just a really good-looking dragon).
All in all, though, I've got to agree with AD in that the movie(s) was(were) very far from the (one, short) book but that they are good, enjoyable fantasy movies that I won't complain about having spent money on. Now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure that the last movie I actually paid to see in the theater was the first Hobbit movie (I don't go to movies in the theater very much, any more).
Anyway, the bits that are pulled in from appendices, the Silmarillion, or just made up for movies don't, in my opinion, take away from the enjoyability of the story(ies, now) but change the flavor considerably. I think we will hear way too much from purists wanting to see a word-for-word retelling with the images that they got in their own heads while reading the book, but they're good.
The movie was absolutely atrocious. Save your money and see something better. The only redeeming quality in the whole movie was Benedict Cumberbatch's voice acting as Smaug
The movie was absolutely atrocious. Save your money and see something better. The only redeeming quality in the whole movie was Benedict Cumberbatch's voice acting as Smaug
Wow Kestrel, can you provide some details about WHAT was so atrocious (without spoilers)? I mean nothing's perfect and there are always flaws in any movie, but "absolutely atrocious?" That seems harsh.
Saw it tonight. I haven't seen the first part given all the bad reviews. So i wasn't expecting to be thrilled. But i did enjoy it. It verred away from the book a bit too much for me at times, but visually stunning.
Smaug was very well done visually and Benedicts voice acting suburb.
I thoight the dwarven halls a little odd, this may sound weird but there was a little too much gold and treasure..I always envisioned it being a large pile but not a huge towering mountain that if released into the world at large would induce crippling hyper inflation.
Loved lake town, loved the look of lonely mountain and the lake.
Always assumed Lake town more temperate so was kinda non-pliussed about the ice..but whatever
did not enjoy the Dol Goldure sequences..especially since in the LOTR appenixes it is explained that Gandalf had already been their and found Thorins grandfater and thus got the map and key.
Also, I know Chris Lee was not likely to sign on for this but you can't include the white council references without including saruman. .
But that is me metagaming.
As an fantasy movie very good with Smaug stealing the show.
Of course Smaug stole the show! Can I remind you of this?
One of my constant pet peeves is the Hollywood idea of a "pile of treasure."
It's not just in this movie, although this was one of the most egregious, it's in pretty much any movie with a "pile of treasure" including National Treasure or Indiana Jones or even The Mummy.
Most people don't realize that all the gold ever mined in the history of the human race would more or less fit in an Olympic sized swimming pool.
That's ALL the gold, not just the gold in a single treasure pile.
And before someone says "well, Middle Earth isn't our earth," go check your Tolkien quotes, because he asserts very much that it is.
Hey, now! Electrum looks more like gold than real gold does. Maybe the pile-of-gold-under-the-mountain was a big mix of various yellow-hued metal mixtures....
Ok, still too much.
It's been a while. I didn't realize that that dragon had a name. I guess I'm going to have to watch it, again.
Thanks!