Hobbit review thread

[tomBitonti]

Shicked, shocked I am, that EN Worlders are not yet discussing the new Hobbit movie, The Desolation of Smaug.

Spoiler

And I kept wondering [during the forge fight sequence, "What, is Smaug going to just let the dwarves take the treasure and leave to go to Lake Town? Which of course he then does.". That bit of motivation made no sense to me.

Spoiler

In the original plot, the dragon leaves to torch the dwarves, who are still outside (but who then take refuge inside. Then the dragon leaves to torch Lake Town. The whole fight between the dwarves and dragon is added.

The story must have the dragon leave for Lake Town, as the Bard story and the dragon's death rely upon it.

I found the whole forge fight to be exhausting. Although, without it, the movie seems like it would end too soon. Maybe, breaking amid Bilbo's encounter with the dragon would have been better.

Thx!

TomB

 

[horacethegrey]

Well... Might as well chime in as to my thoughts to this film. This was a HUGE improvement over An Unexpected Journey. Much faster paced and definitely less boring bits that made the first film a bit of a slog to watch.






WARNING!!! SOME SPOILERS AHEAD






First the PROS. Smaug was magnificent! I daresay that is the most fantastical dragon to ever appear on a movie screen. Jackson, Del Toro and the Weta team really outdid themselves in bringing him to life. And great kudos to Benedict Cumberbatch in voicing this creature with a dark and sinister edge, as befits most people's classical image of a dragon.

Another plus is the subplot regarding Gandalf's visit to Dol Goldur. The highlight being his encounter with Sauron. Such an incredible sequence watching two old powers of Arda duking it out. In the first film I criticized the inclusion of supplemental materials that didn't appear in the book, but here it's used well and really adds to the film.

The Mirkwood sequence also has to be mentioned. What a wonderfully surreal and creepy scene with some genuinely frightening moments. Like the Spiders. And it even sneaks in a reference to the Ring's sneaking corruption on Bilbo. "Mine!"

But the Mirkwood sequence leads to one of my few CONS with the film. Namely the jerkass Elves who live there. Man, the elves of Lothlorien are saints compared to these a**holes. I get that Tolkien wrote them that way in the book, but here their jerkish nature seems to be taken to eleven. Thranduil is a dick, as is his son the returning fan fave Legolas. It's kind of a shock to seem him so openly dislike the dwarven race, so his friendship with Gimli later on shows just far he came. Suprisingly, Evangeline Lily as Tauriel was pretty good, her gentle nature and common sense provided a relief from all the elvish dickery going around. Not really sure about her ship tease with Kili though, but hey, elf and dwarf romance is something I don't mind.

 

[Kramodlog]

Wow, it felt longer than it actually was. So many subplots. The Smaug part is good, but it takes such a long time to get there. The abrupt cut at the end made people shout in the theatre. Some people were disappointed.

I do not have problem with Jackson adding the female elf character, but I fail to see the point, aside from making the film longer with more subplots. What really is problematic is her lack of motivation. What is driving her? I am not sure the actress knew or Jackson knew either.

 

[Argyle King]

To some extent, I was disappointed by The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug. I still enjoyed the movie. I thought it was really good up until they introduced Legolas; at that point, I feel it started to go sharply down hill. (Though the barrel scene shortly after the elves come into the story was pretty cool.)

I don't want to go into detail for fear of spoiling the movie for someone else, but I can say that I felt Legolas kinda stole the movie, but not in a good way. I think it took something away from the movie and the story of the dwarves to have him there. Also, there are some changes to the interactions between Bilbo and Smaug which I feel weren't as good as they could have been.

I also feel that some of the choices for how Jackson chose to tie Hobbit more closely to Lord of The Rings were (imo) somewhat poorly executed. Which is odd when I think about it because there is a scene with Gandalf which is actually pretty cool, but it doesn't really fit with the rest of the story. I'm not someone who feels you need to stick fast to the book. I understand that some things work better in a different medium. I also understand that Peter Jackson wanted to make some changes to tie The Hobbit to Lord of The Rings more (and I support the idea and theory behind doing so,) I just don't believe his choices for what he changed and how he changed them worked very well. I loved the first part of story which I saw last year, but, while I liked Desolation of Smaug, I left it not feeling nearly as excited about the upcoming third movie as I thought I would be.

A lot of people have said they felt Smaug "stole the movie." I disagree; I actually think the presentation of Smaug was a let down. As I've alluded to already, I didn't like the changes made to the interactions between Bilbo and Smaug; I feel it made Smaug far less cerebral than he was in the book. There were also some things which really didn't make sense. For example, how did Smaug smell Bilbo and know where he was -despite not knowing what Hobbits smell like, yet not notice the Dwarves at all -whom we know he knows the smell of because that's the whole reason for Bilbo being there- even when they were literally right under him? To me, the movie downgraded Smaug from a major villain and major part into something second rate which will only serve to be a speed bump on the way to the Battle of Five Armies. To me, the second half of the movie was really weak.

 

[billd91]

The movie had me thinking "The Empire Strikes Back looks more and more amazing all the time" because it's becoming pretty clear to me that making the middle movie of a trilogy is a killer. You get build up, but the payoff is weak because the resolution of the story of the movie can't be effected until the final movie comes along.

I got more or less what I expected once I learned that Jackson was breaking up the 2 movie plan into 3 moves - a lot of action porn padding and uneven pacing. Despite good scenes between Gandalf and Radagast and some good visuals in Mirkwood and Erebor, this was easily the weakest of Peter Jackson's Tolkien movies yet.

 

[delericho]

I thought it was pretty terrible. I really have no idea how Jackson managed to screw this one up so badly.

The good things:

- The acting was still pretty good. Given that material they had to work with, I thought everyone did as well as could be hoped.

- The visuals were spectacular. But then, I consider that the minimum acceptable standard for any 'big' film these days; it's not enough by itself to carry a film.

- My seat was much more comfortable than last year.

And, in fairness, it did start pretty well - up until the elves showed up, at which point it went to pieces.

The list of things that were wrong is huge and tedious, so I'll leave it there.

My over-riding impression at the end: wouldn't it be good if someone actually made a film of "The Hobbit".

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I got more or less what I expected once I learned that Jackson was breaking up the 2 movie plan into 3 moves - a lot of action porn padding and uneven pacing.

Personally I'd hoped for more but was not at all surprised at getting less in a longer run-time.

Can't make too many comparisons to the book because although it's on my shelf it's been a couple decades since I actually read it. Probably merciful as the extravagant departures from the text would have been more jarring than they already were. Truthfully I don't consider the professors books quite as untouchable as some. I don't mind elimination of scenes, rearranging a story point or two or even making up characters and subplots out of whole cloth, but it's 2 hrs 40mins and those fight scenes DEFINITELY went on WAY too long. The movie should have been 30 mins shorter and would have been that much the better for it.

Somebody just didn't know when to say when. The film would have lost NONE of its epic-ness just by being shorter. Ensuring that it runs closer to 3 hours than 2 doesn't turn Courtney Solomon into David Lean. It's even LESS justifiable knowing that this was split from 2 films into three. It would have been expected that the results would have made for 3 SHORTER movies instead of trying to make two 3-hour films into THREE 3-hour films. That's less forgivable to me than all the unrestrained creative license being applied.

The one thing that bothers me about that last point - the new invented stuff - is Bard and his Black Arrow.

Spoiler

It seems utterly pointless to me to change this from a humble arrow that had become special to Bard simply by not having been broken and always recovered after use, and instead make it Moar Epical(!) by turning it into a Ballista Bolt of Dragon-Slaying +9000 (!).

If they have a failure being demonstrated here it is that they convinced themselves that the already grand, sweeping, heroic source material was simply NOT sufficient to impress the snot out of jaded, modern fans of epic fantasy. With invented fights that dragged on they are dangerously near making it farce - not sweeping epic.

As with the LotR trilogy I believe that it's unfair to judge the films by anything but its own merits - NOT by what it does or doesn't do faithfully to the source material. Not that comparisons can't or shouldn't be made but the films must ultimately stand or fall on their own. This one is definitely stumbling. Still worth seeing, but pacing and the fit into the greater arc of the (now) trilogy was simply not up to the standards THEY set.

7.5/10

 

[Kramodlog]

The one thing that bothers me about that last point - the new invented stuff - is Bard and his Black Arrow.

Spoiler

It seems utterly pointless to me to change this from a humble arrow that had become special to Bard simply by not having been broken and always recovered after use, and instead make it Moar Epical(!) by turning it into a Ballista Bolt of Dragon-Slaying +9000 (!).

If they have a failure being demonstrated here it is that they convinced themselves that the already grand, sweeping, heroic source material was simply NOT sufficient to impress the snot out of jaded, modern fans of epic fantasy. With invented fights that dragged on they are dangerously near making it farce - not sweeping epic.

Maybe it is a bait and switch sort of twist, and what was used in the book will prevail.

It makes for a lot of drama if we see Bard us the Blak Arrow we saw and fail and than use the onen the book as a last ditch effort.

 

[TarionzCousin]

- My seat was much more comfortable than last year.

Are you sure that this was true and it wasn't that your butt was just bigger?

 

[samursus]

Saw the movie yesterday.

Loved it!!! I know that it isn't terribly faithful to the book, but you know what? I don't care. The book will always be there for me to re-enjoy. I don't expect a movie to recreate the feel of the book... very few movie adaptations have ever done that for me.

I am happy with a new experience/feel with a movie adaptation. And although I am sure the movie could have been done "better", I was quite happy to suspend my disbelief/preconceptions and enjoy Peter Jackson's efforts (including LOTR) as a Tolkien-esque movie that did D&D better than any other movies IMO.

It was cool to feel the thrill of the combat sequences as exciting portrayal of D&D-like combats, and be able to explain to my SO that this is a big part of what D&D was to me. She found the combat sequences cool and exciting too.

TLDR I love stories in whatever form they take, and I felt this movie was an amazing one, however much divergence it took from the source.