The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[FilmFreakNZ]

Hi there!


My name is Jodie and I write for a film reviewing blog, (filmfreak.co.nz) with my latest post being about the very new 'The Hobbit' film! The second instalment. Very exciting!


So this is what I thought:



This movie is about three hours long, but I felt like I was in the cinema a lot longer than that. Perhaps because we went to the midnight premiere. Being in a theatre until three in the morning can be tiring…


However, despite not being too fussed about the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or anything to do with The Hobbit, I did enjoy this film.


Despite not seeing the first instalment, I certainly found The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug entertaining.


Well shot, incredible visuals, powerful Howard Shore pieces and a fun storyline! Actually, it was quite funny – particularly the ‘barrels on the river’ scene. Absolutely absurd! Yet brilliant! …you’ll know it when you see it.
There are wicked scenes and it was quick-paced for the most part. But I must mention the exhausting monologues and the drawn-out scenes. It was easy to lose interest during these parts.


I’ll tell you this for free: if Peter Jackson let his movies be edited down to no more than two hours long, I think they would be highly rated by a much wider audience. But I guess he has captured an extremely devoted viewership.


Fair enough though. His films tend to be vast and epic to say the least.
I feel like this movie needs two ratings. For The Hobbit fans, I’d say you will adore this movie and a 7.5/10 would be about right.


However, for those of us who appreciate the movie for what it is, and are not affected by the hype, I think a 6.5/10.


Jodie’s rating: an average of 7/10


As a side note, the scenes that included a dark forest with giant spiders reminded me of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Remarkably similar.

[gandalf26]

I just hope it's better than "An Unexpected Amount of CGI"

[Voigan]

Sounds decent enough but still pretty far below the LOTR trilogy. I'll probably skip this one until it's out on DVD.

[Sane]

I thought it was entertaining enough and if someone had never soon the LoTR movies they would probably love it but after 9 hours of that and 2.5 hours from the first Hobbit I just found myself a bit bored. It's didn't give us anything new and was really just a money maker - it didn't need to exist for the sake of the story and is obviously drawn out so they could make the whole thing another trilogy. Bloom is in it for no particular reason and there are scenes that really drag.

I gave it 6.5/10 for pure entertainment but would rate it lower looking at the "big picture".

[Voigan]

Legolas is in this movie too? :facepalm: Is it just me or is PJ trying to make the Hobbit trilogy seem even worse than it is by throwing in as many references as possible to the originals?

[skizzerflake]

I was entertained for two and a half hours, but it's really not up to the gravitas of LOTR. Parts of the movie seemed like they were priming us for a ride at a theme park (especially the dwarves in the barrels going down the river) and the better parts were somewhat like retreads of LOTR drama. Adding a non-original character, Tauriel (one of the elves) was a bit of a shock, but she wan't too bad of a revisionist character. She was played by Evangeline Lily (formerly Kate in Lost), was easy on the eyes and didn't do any harm. Speaking of elves, they are not as saintly in this movie as in LOTR. They are like nasty martial arts versions of the Swiss...blond, isolationist but also fairly authoritarian, with a dubious king.

The désign elements were all derived from LOTR, but I didn't think the music (Howard Shore, also from LOTR) was up to the standards of the LOTR music.

My biggest comment, however, is just how inflated it seems. Stretching this thinner story out over 3 long movies just seems like too much. Most of the character action was about dwarves and while they are charming, hairy and gutsy, they just don't add much depth.

[skizzerflake]

Legolas is in this movie too? :facepalm: Is it just me or is PJ trying to make the Hobbit trilogy seem even worse than it is by throwing in as many references as possible to the originals?

It should be somewhat consistent with LOTR, because Tolkein did take some pains to create a comprehensive world view, mythic history and set of characters. The Hobbit, LOTR, the Silmarillion and the various appendices and short stories all fit together as one big cohesive story of this place called Middle Earth. He also created a theology, creation myths and several speakable languages. When they did the script, they seemed to need some romantic tease, so Legolas and Tauriel do a little sparking as well as her and the young, sexy dwarf. I would have been bothered, but after all, it's a movie.

[Mesmerized]

He also created a theology, creation myths and several speakable languages.

Well not really. He wrote his stories for his children. His "theology" was already standing and he had a unique way for retelling it. The theology he believed in has stood for 2000 years.

[skizzerflake]

Well not really. He wrote his stories for his children. His "theology" was already standing and he had a unique way for retelling it. The theology he believed in has stood for 2000 years.

The Hobbit was a kid's book but his other books were for adults. His "theology" was a thinly veiled fantasy variation of Catholicism. It's hard to miss the fallen angel character of Morgoth.