Maybe I am just a horribly jaded person when it comes to movies nowadays but the entire movie put me to sleep much like the first one. I did like the book too.
Escape to the Movies: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
"But that rainbow one kicked me."
Yeah, that was going through my head during this video. I'm completely hopeless...
Yeah, that was going through my head during this video. I'm completely hopeless...
I never read the Hobbit and hated the book version of Fellowship of the Ring. Can't wait to see the movie.
I went to my first midnight showing to see "Desolation of Smaug", and I was not disappointed, well, a few spots maybe, but overall, I really want to see it again.
I did hate where they ended the movie at, but it was fun to watch and I loved seeing Stephen Colbert and Stephen Fry, who I didn't recognize off the bat.
A great movie, fun to enjoy and I am glad I saw it.
I did hate where they ended the movie at, but it was fun to watch and I loved seeing Stephen Colbert and Stephen Fry, who I didn't recognize off the bat.
A great movie, fun to enjoy and I am glad I saw it.
I'm against the majority here, one of my biggest problems with Hobbit 1 was that it wasn't enough like LOTR. SO I say go ahead Jackson, make it as close to LOTR as you can, tie it all in. The Hobbit is for small children, and keeping true to that gave Hob1 some of its worst scenes like the stupid mountain trolls which still makes me cringe. If I were Jackson I would have used the Hobbit book for the main story but wouldn't have adapted a lot of the actual dialogue.
Bilbo: "I have a sore tummy" and rubbish like that.
Can't wait to see the movie, I didn't like Hob1 much but this one seems like a huge improvement. Gotta wait until its Aus release though.
Bilbo: "I have a sore tummy" and rubbish like that.
Can't wait to see the movie, I didn't like Hob1 much but this one seems like a huge improvement. Gotta wait until its Aus release though.
Wait, what? Stephens Colbert AND Fry are in here? That may be a deal maker for me, thanks for the heads up.shogunblade said:
Well... then Tolkien spelt it funny!Psykoma said:
Maybe it's just my Australian accent coming into play, but I've never heard it pronounced any way other than "Smorg" or "Smoug". I suppose a case could be made for "Smauwg", but "Smowg" just sounds bizarre.
WARNING: Full spoilers below.
I've only seen this film once so these are only my first impressions that might easily change with repeat viewings but overall I didn't enjoy this as much as the first film. There are many great scenes within the film - Gandalf's quest, Lake town, Bilbos meeting with Smaug but then there are many more additions, alterations and omissions from the book, which aren't necessarily a bad thing in themselves and some of them do work (legolas' inclusion, Bards character expansion, laketowns expansion) but a lot of them don't. The changes to the encounter with Beorn, the journey through Mirkwood, the character of Tauriel and most of all the finale of the film which involves most of the dwarves and Bilbo 'facing off' against Smaug were simply too far from the source material in intent and tone.
In regards to that last one, I appreciate the fact the screenwriters wanted the Dwarves to confront Smaug more directly rather than leave it up to Bilbo as it is in the book as otherwise this might portray them as cowardly to the audience, but then the purpose of Bilbo (in the film here) is to steal the Arkenstone, which he could have achieved whilst Smaug goes into his rage and destroys lake town before being shot down by Bard which could have been the climax. The dwarves could have even helped him steal it eventually to give them some function rather than make them attempt to destroy Smaug. Instead the film ends on a bloody cliff-hanger, and a very tantalising one at that which certainly builds anticipation for the next film but left me feeling majorily unsatisfied with the ending of this second film.
Also the fast-paced nature of the film which you commended MovieBob I criticise, because it was too fast too often. None of the places we visited or new characters we met was given a great deal of time to play on screen except most notably Tauriels moment with Kili (that was also another issue of mine: the Tauriel and Kili romance, I mean they even seemed to have fallen in love after just two meetings!) There were not nearly enough 'breathing space' moments and the action scenes went on too long (as it did in the first film with the escape from Goblin town). A faster paced film can work but I just don't feel it suited the hobbit material and I much preferred the slower pace of the first film because that time is given to soak the atmosphere of a place in and its more in keeping with the ambling nature of the children's adventure story that is the Hobbit book. Perhaps the extended editions will slow things down as they did so well for Lord of the Rings.
Oh and yeah, considering its called 'The Hobbit' there was not nearly enough Bilbo in this movie at all ? his stuff in Mirkwood was cut down to the bare minimum, again tying in with this 'faster pace' which I didn't agree with and in Lake town he plays barely any sort of role whatsoever.
Just overall I have so many more issues with this film than the first at least upon first viewing. I'm willing to give it some benefit of the doubt and perhaps things will converge more smoothly in my mind upon repeat viewings but for now it was disappointing to me.
I've only seen this film once so these are only my first impressions that might easily change with repeat viewings but overall I didn't enjoy this as much as the first film. There are many great scenes within the film - Gandalf's quest, Lake town, Bilbos meeting with Smaug but then there are many more additions, alterations and omissions from the book, which aren't necessarily a bad thing in themselves and some of them do work (legolas' inclusion, Bards character expansion, laketowns expansion) but a lot of them don't. The changes to the encounter with Beorn, the journey through Mirkwood, the character of Tauriel and most of all the finale of the film which involves most of the dwarves and Bilbo 'facing off' against Smaug were simply too far from the source material in intent and tone.
In regards to that last one, I appreciate the fact the screenwriters wanted the Dwarves to confront Smaug more directly rather than leave it up to Bilbo as it is in the book as otherwise this might portray them as cowardly to the audience, but then the purpose of Bilbo (in the film here) is to steal the Arkenstone, which he could have achieved whilst Smaug goes into his rage and destroys lake town before being shot down by Bard which could have been the climax. The dwarves could have even helped him steal it eventually to give them some function rather than make them attempt to destroy Smaug. Instead the film ends on a bloody cliff-hanger, and a very tantalising one at that which certainly builds anticipation for the next film but left me feeling majorily unsatisfied with the ending of this second film.
Also the fast-paced nature of the film which you commended MovieBob I criticise, because it was too fast too often. None of the places we visited or new characters we met was given a great deal of time to play on screen except most notably Tauriels moment with Kili (that was also another issue of mine: the Tauriel and Kili romance, I mean they even seemed to have fallen in love after just two meetings!) There were not nearly enough 'breathing space' moments and the action scenes went on too long (as it did in the first film with the escape from Goblin town). A faster paced film can work but I just don't feel it suited the hobbit material and I much preferred the slower pace of the first film because that time is given to soak the atmosphere of a place in and its more in keeping with the ambling nature of the children's adventure story that is the Hobbit book. Perhaps the extended editions will slow things down as they did so well for Lord of the Rings.
Oh and yeah, considering its called 'The Hobbit' there was not nearly enough Bilbo in this movie at all ? his stuff in Mirkwood was cut down to the bare minimum, again tying in with this 'faster pace' which I didn't agree with and in Lake town he plays barely any sort of role whatsoever.
Just overall I have so many more issues with this film than the first at least upon first viewing. I'm willing to give it some benefit of the doubt and perhaps things will converge more smoothly in my mind upon repeat viewings but for now it was disappointing to me.
What, is someone making you go or something?canadamus_prime said:
Anyway, I have absolute faith in Peter Jackson to pull off a ridiculously-expanded epic based in the quintessential fantasy universe that he first brought to the screen. He's a good filmmaker, certainly, but perhaps more importantly he knows his Tolkien.
I watched the film last night, and I have to say that I prefer the pacing of the first one. Now, I recognize that this film has a more modern "movie pacing". Every scene drives the plot forward and it feels like you never stay in one place for more than a few minutes. Removing all of the filler scenes makes the world seem smaller, though.
Definitely agree, I liked the first movie but felt there was something lacking, like both the actors, story writers and direction didn't quite remember how they made Lord of the Rings so good. This one felt a lot less rushed, even the cheesy scenes aren't as painfully cheesy as some scenes in the first movie and generally it has a more polished rush about it. Whoever wrote Smaug's dialog was brilliant, it fits perfectly and the interaction between him and Bilbo has exactly the right charm and character you could hope for. The film also adds scenes which show the ring's influence on Bilbo and his growing dislike of it, which ties in perfectly with LotR but wasn't in the book.
In a way it feels a lot like the progression of LotR, with the first movie being about the group and its members, the second separating the group and drawing a more epic picture of the wider world and the third being the one big showdown that wraps everything up and ends the story. I'm definitely looking forward to the third film and recommmend this one to everyone.
In a way it feels a lot like the progression of LotR, with the first movie being about the group and its members, the second separating the group and drawing a more epic picture of the wider world and the third being the one big showdown that wraps everything up and ends the story. I'm definitely looking forward to the third film and recommmend this one to everyone.
He's *STILL* harping on about the same shit he didn't like in the Nolan Batman movies and he *still* snidely swipes at Green Lantern. Granted, I was sorely disappointed by Green Lantern, but I don't think it was nearly as terrible as Bob feels it was.BrotherRool said:
Heh, I actually kinda liked the Hunger Games movies, and I resisted watching them for aaaages.
I guess I went in with zero expectations and was pleasantly surprised.
Anyway, are we not gonna talk about Thranduil's rotting cheek in the scene where he's trying to cut a deal with Thorin?
I mean, his cheek starts rotting away and his eye turns white!!
What do people think it signifies? I have my own theories, but I'd love to hear what others think when they see the movie.
It's not that rare for people to like themBoba Frag said:
That was what was so weird about his 'can we all admit the Hunger Games suck' opening to the last review because even plenty of critics love the films or at least think they're okay.
Yeah, I mean, they're not perfect, and there's numerous elements that really bugged me, but I was giving them a chance for the sake of my girlfriend, and in fairness, I was pleasantly surprised.BrotherRool said:It's not that rare for people to like themBoba Frag said:
I wasn't writhing in agony while watching them by any means. Plus I loved the series of 'fuck yous' the characters were giving to the Capitol, so that was nice.
Plus there's a good political unrest theme going on there, and I love the satire of X Factor bullshit going on too.
Lovely sting at modern celebrity obsession.
I love Bob's stuff, but honestly, I prefer his Big Picture show because it's a lot more fair and balanced.
Lord knows, he's a fan of vitriol and seems to get personally offended in the movie reviews.
If the film has a problem, it's that it fels like it's only the second act to the bigger story being told, which makes sense, but it might be even more so than Two Towers, where that movie felt like it carried a self-contained story better.
So yeah, I guess this means we have to wait for the big payoff.
So yeah, I guess this means we have to wait for the big payoff.