delericho
Legend
Are you sure that this was true and it wasn't that your butt was just bigger?
Sadly, that's true too.
Hobbit review thread
- Thread starter Olgar Shiverstone
- Start date
Sadly, that's true too.
Count me disappointed - just did not flow to me and all the "extras" were cheap chase elements that took away from story. Also, the graphics, at times the dwarves looked pasted on the backdrops.
Argyle King
Legend
I think, of all the Jackson/Tolkien films thus far, Desolation of Smaug was the weakest.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
I enjoyed it, but a number of things bothered me, reducing my enjoyment.
First, I didn't like the Beorn sequence. In the book, it's a nice breather, but here it's just another tense action scene. In a movie filled with tense action scenes. Frankly, the movie could have used some breathing room.
Second, I would have traded some of the actions scenes with more of Gandalf and the Necromancer. If you're going to make a trilogy of 3 hour movies out of a short book, why not add more of this little side quest that we know so little about. Particularly since they don't have the right to The Similarion, and they aren't going to get them anytime soon, they can pretty much just make stuff up out of whole cloth.
Funny side story though.
I recently watched the American Doctor Who TV Movie, the one with the regeneration of the Seventh Doctor into the Eighth Doctor. I liked it. Anyways, I'm watching The Desolation of Smaug and I'm looking at Radagast and I'm thinking "hey, this guy's looking familiar." And the other part of my brain is like "yeah, he looks just the guy who played him in the last movie, BECAUSE IT IS." I'm sarcastic to myself like that.
Anyways, I'm walking out during the credits and I see the name Sylvester McCoy come up. And I'm all like "Hey! That's why he looked so familiar!"
And while I'm sure there's lots of people here who know what I'm going on about, I'm the only one I know who knows what I'm going on about.
McCoy was the best part of both movies for me.
First, I didn't like the Beorn sequence. In the book, it's a nice breather, but here it's just another tense action scene. In a movie filled with tense action scenes. Frankly, the movie could have used some breathing room.
Second, I would have traded some of the actions scenes with more of Gandalf and the Necromancer. If you're going to make a trilogy of 3 hour movies out of a short book, why not add more of this little side quest that we know so little about. Particularly since they don't have the right to The Similarion, and they aren't going to get them anytime soon, they can pretty much just make stuff up out of whole cloth.
Funny side story though.
I recently watched the American Doctor Who TV Movie, the one with the regeneration of the Seventh Doctor into the Eighth Doctor. I liked it. Anyways, I'm watching The Desolation of Smaug and I'm looking at Radagast and I'm thinking "hey, this guy's looking familiar." And the other part of my brain is like "yeah, he looks just the guy who played him in the last movie, BECAUSE IT IS." I'm sarcastic to myself like that.
Anyways, I'm walking out during the credits and I see the name Sylvester McCoy come up. And I'm all like "Hey! That's why he looked so familiar!"
And while I'm sure there's lots of people here who know what I'm going on about, I'm the only one I know who knows what I'm going on about.
McCoy was the best part of both movies for me.
Crothian
First Post
I really enjoyed it. I think the flow and acting was better then the first one. I liked the elves and the extra bits as the movie did not feel very long to me at all. The one thing I would have included was evidence of past destruction in and around the lake to show just how devastating the Dragon attack was. I really liked the dwarf verse dragon fight and felt that really showed the power of the dragon to be able to live through that though it would have been better to see the Dragon at least injure a dwarf or two.
Bullgrit
Adventurer
I posted this review on my blog.
Viewed: Theater
I originally read The Hobbit some 30 years ago. I recently read The Hobbit to my boys a few years ago over a few weeks as bedtime reading. They liked the story, and we as a family have been excited to see the movies together. Especially after the great success of The Lord of the Rings movies. We saw the first movie, An Unexpected Journey, last year for my oldest son's 12th birthday party.
We saw this second part of the movie trilogy this week. I'm not the fanboy I used to be about Tolkien. I really enjoyed the stories, both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, in my youth, but they're not in my top ten favorite books now. The LotR movies, though, rekindled my interest. Those movies were very good, and relatively very true to the books. But The Hobbit movies have strayed far from the book's storyline. I know movies can't always follow the books exactly, if for no other reason than they are just such different mediums. But after seeing LotR, I came to expect Peter Jackson to make a relatively faithful production of The Hobbit. He didn't.
The first Hobbit movie, I'd say was 80% true to the book. I thought the product, in general, was good. But this second movie is like 50% true to the book. Arguably less. There are several bits of the book missing in this second movie, and there are whole swathes of this movie that are completely made up, not in the book. That fact alone is not bad, in and of itself. But it's what was added, and how, that makes me not like this movie as much as the previous and the LotR trilogy.
First off, The Hobbit (the book) is a children's story. A story for children. This fact makes the violence in the film adaptations shocking. The movies have lots -- lots! -- of violence, fighting, killing, and at least three beheadings on screen. Fortunately there's not much visible blood from all the sword and axe strokes. Watching this second Hobbit movie made me regret taking my 9 year old son to see it without reviewing it first.
Second, most of the fighting action is what Peter Jackson fabricated whole-cloth for the movies. The last 20 minutes or so of The Desolation of Smaug is a long scene of the dwarves fighting the dragon -- a scene that not only doesn't happen in the book, but feels really stupid in the movie. In the book, Bilbo Baggins survived his encounter with Smaug by using his wits (and the magic ring of invisibility). In the movie it's an action sequence that shows Bilbo surviving mostly by being incredibly lucky. In the book, the dwarves survive the dragon by hiding from it. In the movie, the dwarves manage a running battle with the beast and even forge a freakin' giant gold statue for apparently some kind of morale victory.
I was stunned when the movie ended before Smaug attacked Laketown. The Keystone Cops-like battle with the dwarves even made Smaug's boast about being "Death" while flying toward the human settlement feel pathetic. He couldn't kill even one of the 9 dwarves (and 1 hobbit) inside his own lair. Instead of a terrible force of evil nature, Smaug comes across as a buffoon.
All in all, I didn't like this second movie. I don't hate it. I don't even dislike it, although I do dislike the on-screen violence added to a children's story.
Bullgrit
Viewed: Theater
I originally read The Hobbit some 30 years ago. I recently read The Hobbit to my boys a few years ago over a few weeks as bedtime reading. They liked the story, and we as a family have been excited to see the movies together. Especially after the great success of The Lord of the Rings movies. We saw the first movie, An Unexpected Journey, last year for my oldest son's 12th birthday party.
We saw this second part of the movie trilogy this week. I'm not the fanboy I used to be about Tolkien. I really enjoyed the stories, both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, in my youth, but they're not in my top ten favorite books now. The LotR movies, though, rekindled my interest. Those movies were very good, and relatively very true to the books. But The Hobbit movies have strayed far from the book's storyline. I know movies can't always follow the books exactly, if for no other reason than they are just such different mediums. But after seeing LotR, I came to expect Peter Jackson to make a relatively faithful production of The Hobbit. He didn't.
The first Hobbit movie, I'd say was 80% true to the book. I thought the product, in general, was good. But this second movie is like 50% true to the book. Arguably less. There are several bits of the book missing in this second movie, and there are whole swathes of this movie that are completely made up, not in the book. That fact alone is not bad, in and of itself. But it's what was added, and how, that makes me not like this movie as much as the previous and the LotR trilogy.
First off, The Hobbit (the book) is a children's story. A story for children. This fact makes the violence in the film adaptations shocking. The movies have lots -- lots! -- of violence, fighting, killing, and at least three beheadings on screen. Fortunately there's not much visible blood from all the sword and axe strokes. Watching this second Hobbit movie made me regret taking my 9 year old son to see it without reviewing it first.
Second, most of the fighting action is what Peter Jackson fabricated whole-cloth for the movies. The last 20 minutes or so of The Desolation of Smaug is a long scene of the dwarves fighting the dragon -- a scene that not only doesn't happen in the book, but feels really stupid in the movie. In the book, Bilbo Baggins survived his encounter with Smaug by using his wits (and the magic ring of invisibility). In the movie it's an action sequence that shows Bilbo surviving mostly by being incredibly lucky. In the book, the dwarves survive the dragon by hiding from it. In the movie, the dwarves manage a running battle with the beast and even forge a freakin' giant gold statue for apparently some kind of morale victory.
I was stunned when the movie ended before Smaug attacked Laketown. The Keystone Cops-like battle with the dwarves even made Smaug's boast about being "Death" while flying toward the human settlement feel pathetic. He couldn't kill even one of the 9 dwarves (and 1 hobbit) inside his own lair. Instead of a terrible force of evil nature, Smaug comes across as a buffoon.
All in all, I didn't like this second movie. I don't hate it. I don't even dislike it, although I do dislike the on-screen violence added to a children's story.
Bullgrit
I enjoyed it. But then, I don't want/expect it to be like the book at all. I find I enjoy movies more if I don't enter with expectations placed on them, and just let myself be immersed.
I would have enjoyed more Gandalf story, actually. And, while I thought the dwarf battle with Smaug was a bit silly, it did serve the purpose of showing just how dang indestructible he is, making his death an even more impressive feat.
I enjoyed the addition of the elves, mostly. I really liked that there was an Orc that could stand up to Legolas.....as their fighting ability is a bit over the top for me....
I would have enjoyed more Gandalf story, actually. And, while I thought the dwarf battle with Smaug was a bit silly, it did serve the purpose of showing just how dang indestructible he is, making his death an even more impressive feat.
I enjoyed the addition of the elves, mostly. I really liked that there was an Orc that could stand up to Legolas.....as their fighting ability is a bit over the top for me....
Lindeloef
First Post
Saw the movie Friday and it was kinda 'meh' to me.
There were lots of scenes in it that felt really really long. And some unnecessary.
I am not sure what the Beorn scene accomplished except adding time to the film. Sure, Beorn is actually something that happened in the book but still, if it it would have been left out, nothing would be missed.
Also the CGI for the background, environments and surroundings looked kinda bad to me. Took me out of it multiple times. And the liquid gold... ugh.
There were lots of scenes in it that felt really really long. And some unnecessary.
I am not sure what the Beorn scene accomplished except adding time to the film. Sure, Beorn is actually something that happened in the book but still, if it it would have been left out, nothing would be missed.
Also the CGI for the background, environments and surroundings looked kinda bad to me. Took me out of it multiple times. And the liquid gold... ugh.
I enjoyed it. The barrel sequence was a little odd to me tone wise until I heard loads of children in the cinema laughing their asses off at Bombur. So that's cool with me. The only thing I didn't like is that I just didn't understand that giant molten gold dwarf plan at the end.
nerfherder
Adventurer
They thought that burying the dragon under molten metal would kill it. They were wrong.
Similar Threads
