Rate the Hobbit:The desolation of smaug
- Thread starter El Alucard
- Start date
AShinyPlatypus
Member
My copy arrived on Saturday 
I thought it was better than the first one, though not as good as any of the LotR films. 8-8.5/10
I thought it was better than the first one, though not as good as any of the LotR films. 8-8.5/10
MuerteMiAmigo
Active member
theacknowledgedone
Active member
Oh it's worth it, the movie was outstanding. The cliff hanger is a swift kick in the nuts though.
The Hobbit should have been made with only 2 movie's maybe even one? The Lord of the rings should have been 4 movies.
I don't get why more money was used on the hobbit then on the Lord of the rings...but what do I know about Life eh..
However I very much enjoyed both Hobbit films and looking forward to the last one I give the second movie an 8.9
Both movie where very long..normally that wouldn't be a problem, as long the story is big enough but the Hobbit unlike The Lord Of The Rings was just one book..so some scenes where stretched out new characters where created some scenes didn't even happen in the book..
However I liked it very much, there is only one fantasy world that stands out and everybody knows about and that is Tolkien's World. there is something about it that you just get that feeling that it really exist.
The only down side of these films is that allot of Orcs are CGI and not guys in costume The main Orc is CGI. don't get me wrong it doesn't look bad, but you can definitely notice it witch is a shame..They used allot of CGI in TLOTR but they made it blend in very good and most Orcs where all guys in Costume and they looked Badass! Otherwise the movie was awesome Smaug being the best part of it
I don't get why more money was used on the hobbit then on the Lord of the rings...but what do I know about Life eh..
However I very much enjoyed both Hobbit films and looking forward to the last one I give the second movie an 8.9
Both movie where very long..normally that wouldn't be a problem, as long the story is big enough but the Hobbit unlike The Lord Of The Rings was just one book..so some scenes where stretched out new characters where created some scenes didn't even happen in the book..
However I liked it very much, there is only one fantasy world that stands out and everybody knows about and that is Tolkien's World. there is something about it that you just get that feeling that it really exist.
The only down side of these films is that allot of Orcs are CGI and not guys in costume The main Orc is CGI. don't get me wrong it doesn't look bad, but you can definitely notice it witch is a shame..They used allot of CGI in TLOTR but they made it blend in very good and most Orcs where all guys in Costume and they looked Badass! Otherwise the movie was awesome Smaug being the best part of it
You must be registered for see images
Eight or nine out of ten.
Like all book adapted movies, not everything from the book is given full justice and some things from the movie weren't in the book. (Obviously)
Though this shouldn't affect opinion on the movie itself, because the book and the movie are two completely different things. The movie, in and of itself, was really good I thought.
Like all book adapted movies, not everything from the book is given full justice and some things from the movie weren't in the book. (Obviously)
Though this shouldn't affect opinion on the movie itself, because the book and the movie are two completely different things. The movie, in and of itself, was really good I thought.
Overall it was a great movie, with that being said...
Highs:
Good character development, especially in Bilbo, being the hero most of the film and Thorin trying to fight off the dwarvish lust for treasure and ultimately getting consumed by it at the end despite his taken likeliness to Bilbo.
Fight scenes were interesting and done well, most of them anyway.
Music is always good, the way it adds effect to the scenes and really gets you into what's happening.
The CGI was pretty good compared to most movies, I don't know why people are bashing the CGI, Smaug looked brilliant, maybe the molten gold was a bit fakish looking, but very good for the most part, the barrel scene was average in CGI. Azog looked good to be.
Brilliant acting from Richard Armitage and of course Ian McKellen, I liked Martin Freeman's acting as well. Ken Scott as Balin does it very well.
Scenery of Mirkwood, Laketown, the desolate Dale and Lonely Mountain looked amazing, I really like how they created the Erebor region.
The Dol'Guldur parts is a brilliant addition and gap filler to where Gandalf was and ties in well with Lord of the Rings and gives us in sight to The Silmarillion. Peter Jackson couldn't have done it better.
Lows:
I felt it was a bit too dragged out in the Mirkwood and Smaug fooling around scenes. This I hated the most in the movie.
The other Dwarves seemed a bit forgotten about and no real focus or even screen time was given to them.
I didn't mind Legolas and Tauriel in the film at all, in fact I kinda liked it, but too much focus or screen time was given to them.
Again, CGI of the gold looked too fakish.
A lot of the terror Smaug had in the first film was taken away by too much running and playing around with the Dwarves, it also made Bilbo's purpose redundant and pointless since he was the one who was meant to SNEAK in ALONE and take the stone.
Very good movie overall, I really enjoyed it and it's a very fun movie to watch. A movie you would need to watch a couple times to sink everything in.
7.5/10
Highs:
Good character development, especially in Bilbo, being the hero most of the film and Thorin trying to fight off the dwarvish lust for treasure and ultimately getting consumed by it at the end despite his taken likeliness to Bilbo.
Fight scenes were interesting and done well, most of them anyway.
Music is always good, the way it adds effect to the scenes and really gets you into what's happening.
The CGI was pretty good compared to most movies, I don't know why people are bashing the CGI, Smaug looked brilliant, maybe the molten gold was a bit fakish looking, but very good for the most part, the barrel scene was average in CGI. Azog looked good to be.
Brilliant acting from Richard Armitage and of course Ian McKellen, I liked Martin Freeman's acting as well. Ken Scott as Balin does it very well.
Scenery of Mirkwood, Laketown, the desolate Dale and Lonely Mountain looked amazing, I really like how they created the Erebor region.
The Dol'Guldur parts is a brilliant addition and gap filler to where Gandalf was and ties in well with Lord of the Rings and gives us in sight to The Silmarillion. Peter Jackson couldn't have done it better.
Lows:
I felt it was a bit too dragged out in the Mirkwood and Smaug fooling around scenes. This I hated the most in the movie.
The other Dwarves seemed a bit forgotten about and no real focus or even screen time was given to them.
I didn't mind Legolas and Tauriel in the film at all, in fact I kinda liked it, but too much focus or screen time was given to them.
Again, CGI of the gold looked too fakish.
A lot of the terror Smaug had in the first film was taken away by too much running and playing around with the Dwarves, it also made Bilbo's purpose redundant and pointless since he was the one who was meant to SNEAK in ALONE and take the stone.
Very good movie overall, I really enjoyed it and it's a very fun movie to watch. A movie you would need to watch a couple times to sink everything in.
7.5/10
This is what I wrote up here when it came out:
What was for me the most anticipated movie since the LOTR trilogy has last year shown to be a massive let down. I have since figured it out what bothered me so much: Peter Jackson filmed the LoTR movies as a huge Tolkien fan and with only that in mind, LoTR brought out the best of everyone working on it and nothing was good enough until it was perfect. Back then, PJ made a trilogy that would make professor Tolkien proud.
With the Hobbit PJ is still a fan of Tolkien but either he or the ones higher up are still bigger fans of money. Instead of amazing storytelling, epic scenes and battles, sensational acting and tear-jerking speeches the new PJ movies are deeply corrupted by todays movie formulas. With the first movie there were a few good things but it did't feel as an adventure it was just one "dangerous situation" after another and almost no story at all. The second movie was even worse, instead of what is supposed to be a story based adventure it became a clusterf??? of whirling and twisting battles that were supposed to "look good" (by todays hollywood standards) but just end up making only half a sense. Only a very small percentage of the movie is actually based on the books and the stories added from the appendices are spinned out of control. With the LOTR movies PJ stayed true to Tolkiens story but in the new Hobbit he butchered his work to implement the, today already, cliche aspects of hollywood movies, most notable of which is a romance story between an original character elf and a dwarf (those who know Tolkiens works know that that is enough to make the professor roll around in his grave). The amount of filler that contradicts Tolkien is, frankly, sad.
If you look the LOTR and Hobbit movies and compare them you can see how thw statement "just because you can use CG it does not mean you should use it" is true, Laketown looks completely fake and unrealistic as opposed to Edoras who was built and shot on location (and that was now a13 years ago). The orcs look like they were painted on paper and had oils spilled over them. Dol Guldur looks like it had been done by a child and, once again, Gandalf was made to look like a weakling he is not. The battles made no sense and were way to exaggerated and whirly, not to mention they took way too much of the time and ended up shoving out the story completely. I would list the comedy as a plus as it was actually funnier than most mainstream comedies at times (although that amounts to the abysmal quality of todays comedy standards rather than quality of the Hobbit) but it has no place in a movie based on a Tolkien work. Another positive could have been the brilliant acting of the cast but they simply have not enough screen time to shine, which is because of the overlong battles. The only redeeming qualities were the references to previous films and the brilliant acting of sir Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman.
Lord Of The Rings looks like it was filmed in the real world, The Hobbit looks like it was filmed in a small box with the set drawn onto the walls.
I feel sorry that PJ sold out. The Hobbit is definitely an enjoyable movie but in no way, shape or form is it worthy to be called the prequel tot he Lord Of The Rings. In that aspect it is the most disappointing movie I have ever seen.
I had expected The Hobbit movies to be to the LoTR movies what the Hobbit book is to the LoTR book. But it failed. Qnd please do not come at me with the "you cant make a film completely after a book" because its useless, a movie can be different than the book and yet stay true to the spirit of the story. PJ proved that with LoTR but than destroyed it and turned it to a mess equivalent of an icecream truck being hit with a bullet train (compared to LOTR).
This are thoughts of a true Tolkien fan. Weather you criticize the movie or my review I would love to hear some replies.
What was for me the most anticipated movie since the LOTR trilogy has last year shown to be a massive let down. I have since figured it out what bothered me so much: Peter Jackson filmed the LoTR movies as a huge Tolkien fan and with only that in mind, LoTR brought out the best of everyone working on it and nothing was good enough until it was perfect. Back then, PJ made a trilogy that would make professor Tolkien proud.
With the Hobbit PJ is still a fan of Tolkien but either he or the ones higher up are still bigger fans of money. Instead of amazing storytelling, epic scenes and battles, sensational acting and tear-jerking speeches the new PJ movies are deeply corrupted by todays movie formulas. With the first movie there were a few good things but it did't feel as an adventure it was just one "dangerous situation" after another and almost no story at all. The second movie was even worse, instead of what is supposed to be a story based adventure it became a clusterf??? of whirling and twisting battles that were supposed to "look good" (by todays hollywood standards) but just end up making only half a sense. Only a very small percentage of the movie is actually based on the books and the stories added from the appendices are spinned out of control. With the LOTR movies PJ stayed true to Tolkiens story but in the new Hobbit he butchered his work to implement the, today already, cliche aspects of hollywood movies, most notable of which is a romance story between an original character elf and a dwarf (those who know Tolkiens works know that that is enough to make the professor roll around in his grave). The amount of filler that contradicts Tolkien is, frankly, sad.
If you look the LOTR and Hobbit movies and compare them you can see how thw statement "just because you can use CG it does not mean you should use it" is true, Laketown looks completely fake and unrealistic as opposed to Edoras who was built and shot on location (and that was now a13 years ago). The orcs look like they were painted on paper and had oils spilled over them. Dol Guldur looks like it had been done by a child and, once again, Gandalf was made to look like a weakling he is not. The battles made no sense and were way to exaggerated and whirly, not to mention they took way too much of the time and ended up shoving out the story completely. I would list the comedy as a plus as it was actually funnier than most mainstream comedies at times (although that amounts to the abysmal quality of todays comedy standards rather than quality of the Hobbit) but it has no place in a movie based on a Tolkien work. Another positive could have been the brilliant acting of the cast but they simply have not enough screen time to shine, which is because of the overlong battles. The only redeeming qualities were the references to previous films and the brilliant acting of sir Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman.
Lord Of The Rings looks like it was filmed in the real world, The Hobbit looks like it was filmed in a small box with the set drawn onto the walls.
I feel sorry that PJ sold out. The Hobbit is definitely an enjoyable movie but in no way, shape or form is it worthy to be called the prequel tot he Lord Of The Rings. In that aspect it is the most disappointing movie I have ever seen.
I had expected The Hobbit movies to be to the LoTR movies what the Hobbit book is to the LoTR book. But it failed. Qnd please do not come at me with the "you cant make a film completely after a book" because its useless, a movie can be different than the book and yet stay true to the spirit of the story. PJ proved that with LoTR but than destroyed it and turned it to a mess equivalent of an icecream truck being hit with a bullet train (compared to LOTR).
This are thoughts of a true Tolkien fan. Weather you criticize the movie or my review I would love to hear some replies.
I know it took me two days to respond to your post, but I wanted to analyze it properly before commenting.
I get what you are saying completely, I am a strict Tolkien fan myself, so trust me, I know where you are coming from.
Your review is very personal, you found it disappointing mainly due to your high expectations and comparison to LotR, which there is nothing wrong with that of course, but one should focus on the actual film and how it was made as well. For example: If I don't like like Batman and I watch the Dark Knight, how can I say the movie is a crap movie just coz I hate the character Batman despite the movie made really well?
That was a bad example in your case, since you did mention the movie is enjoyable, but I needed something simple and to show you that there are some personal conflicts.
The fakish look and feel is actually not PJ's fault. The reason it looks like this is because of the advanced cameras they are using to film movies, the movie's are filmed with such high definition that it becomes so real it looks fake (sounds weird, I know, but google it and see for yourself). This makes it very difficult to blend CGI with realism, so during the grading process they need to somehow blend everything to look like one, thus making the whole picture seem off. The CGI is in fact leagues better than LotR, but like I said above it doesn't seem like it. (pause a clip with Smeagol in Lotr and pause one in The Hobbit and compare the two, you will notice a vast enhancement).
Notice how most modern movies with lots of CGI look fake these days. Thor, Man of Steel, Oz, Spiderman, Snow white, Jack the giant slayer etc.
Wow there's a lot more to comment on, but I wanna avoid a wall of text. I'll get to you again.
