• It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more and sign-up! here.

Zarovich

Zombie
Jul 20, 2012
20
Anyone else seen it yet? We went last night and I was very disappointed.

My review here but it does contain some spoilers...

http://noquarterbattles.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-desolation-of-smaug-review.html
 

Duke Danse Macabre

The Duke
True Blood
Sep 16, 2010
3,696
Sunderland, United Kingdom
Well I can't say anythign till i watch it myself, I think it has likely been strung out to far but it is still a great first movie and if the second is even half as good i can feel confident of yelling "HERESY!" in your general Direction. ;)
 

Yorga

Vampire Count
True Blood
Apr 7, 2011
1,844
Both my son and I found this one to be even BETTER than the first one. And Tauriel....just plain HOTNESS on a stick! :perv:

I saw it on an IMAX screen and what a ride it was! Pure entertainment. I'd like to see it in a D-Box seat. :D
 

TMS

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Nov 26, 2008
4,662
Sweden
I saw it last week and I liked it too. I'm pretty easy to please with most things though.
 
Feb 1, 2013
139
Wisconsin
I was disappointed with the first movie, and nothing I've heard in any reviews has convinced me to see the second one (this of course after standing hours in line to get in on the first showing of each of the LotR movies as they came out)
 

Theerteen

Cheerful Cranium
True Blood
Aug 20, 2012
1,503
Germany
I just came back from the movie, and while I agree with NoisyAssassin that the first movie was way under my expectations, the second one is absolutely great! While they put tons of stuff in the movie which were mentioned in one or two sentences in the first one, the are really close now to the middle part of it. Liked it very much, and I must say, this new (at least new in Germany :P ) HD - 3D thing doesn't make me wanna rip my eyes out and squish my brain through the holes. No headache after 2 1/2 hours of movie :thumbsup:
 

untitled_musketeer

Vampire Count
True Blood
Aug 9, 2010
1,426
Huddersfield
I've got to admit, I was disappointed with the first, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but then again I saw it in 3D and I've never much been a fan of the the 3D gimmick. I wasn't going to let that put me off, and I'm glad I didn't. This one was a lot better. As a film it wasn't bad at all. It was engaging, beautifully shot, edited and appealed to the heart, which when coupled with a great score, is a pretty powerful thing. I laughed, I came close to tears and more than once I found myself on the edge of my seat. Cinematically, it wasn't bad at all.

However, as a telling of one of my favourite books it sucked a little. A statement I don't make lightly. While Lord of the Rings didn't religiously follow the text, it honoured the main story pretty well and felt like it was believable and true. Not only that, I thought the characters were represented as I (and indeed a significant majority of everyone else I know who read the books) had imagined them. Unfortunately, I thought The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug, was a little too self conscious of the LotR franchise. There were lots of unnecessary back references to events in the LotR trilogy, big deviations from the story, not enough emphasis placed on some notable characters, and a little too much placed on other less notable ones (and even on characters that did not feature in the original books). In my opinion the story was over embellished and perhaps a little stretched, especially for 3 films.

Whilst I enjoyed what I saw, I left feeling a little disappointed. I can't seem to place my finger on what or why, but something about it didn't sit quite right with me. Mixed feelings. o_o
 

Theerteen

Cheerful Cranium
True Blood
Aug 20, 2012
1,503
Germany
Yeah, you say exactly the thing I had in mind after the first movie. While lotr was too big for 3 movies - cool, great movies for a huge number of mainstream orientated masses - the story was told good without getting boring over 3 very long movies. Stretching the Hobbit to the same length is a mistake. And you're right again, all those references to lotr were a little much. I take the films as I took lotr: Not comparing to the books but as great movies that satisfy the ever hungry hole for fantasy stuff in some of us (:
 

Harland

The Colonel
True Blood
Feb 23, 2010
1,931
Right Behind you...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with pretty much everyone in this thread.

I have just come back from watching Desolation of Smaug, and I feel let down, really. I am firmly of the opinion that the first hobbit was pretty much perfect for what it set out to do. The pacing was fine, it drew you (or at least, me) in, and delivered every detail it could without getting stale.

This, on the other hand, was disappointing. I think it boils down to two things:

  1. The lack of music. Seriously, I actually expected not to see Howard Shore's name in the ending credits. Where was the score? Where were any of the themes from the last movie? The Dwarf theme, or epic music of any kind, did not happen ONCE. This is not how they've done things in the past. They changed the formula and they broke it.
  2. So. Much. Wasted. Time. At least half an hour of shit with legolas could have been cut out and not made any difference. I actually quite liked the business with Tauriel/Kili, but seriously, it was all unnecessary. Not to mention all the crap that happened in laketown.

Other than that, the film itself just seemed... uncohesive. Disparate. Clunky. Maybe it would look better tacked onto the previous film (and quickly followed by the next one)


To be honest, #1 was the killer for me.
 

Count Vashra

Lord of Shadows
True Blood
Sep 29, 2013
1,717
New Zealand
Yeah, there wasn't that much music was there? And a song in the credits does NOT count.

I think why they're doing a trilogy is because this is a prequel (and basically the same series) to Lord of the Rings, which was a trilogy.
 

Harland

The Colonel
True Blood
Feb 23, 2010
1,931
Right Behind you...
They're doing a trilogy because money. However, I think it would have been fine if they had just STUCK TO WHAT THEY KNEW WORKED.


Ugh. Peter Jackson, you have one chance, one chance to redeem yourself. Don't mess it up.
 

Theerteen

Cheerful Cranium
True Blood
Aug 20, 2012
1,503
Germany
:D To be honest, I really didn't notice the lack of music :tongue: But I am excited (and drunk like hell atm, why it took me 5 trys and the consultation of my girlfriend to spell "excited" right") for the last one!
 

Blutsauger

Vampire Count
Apr 10, 2013
1,089
Harland said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with pretty much everyone in this thread.

I have just come back from watching Desolation of Smaug, and I feel let down, really. I am firmly of the opinion that the first hobbit was pretty much perfect for what it set out to do. The pacing was fine, it drew you (or at least, me) in, and delivered every detail it could without getting stale.

This, on the other hand, was disappointing. I think it boils down to two things:

  1. The lack of music. Seriously, I actually expected not to see Howard Shore's name in the ending credits. Where was the score? Where were any of the themes from the last movie? The Dwarf theme, or epic music of any kind, did not happen ONCE. This is not how they've done things in the past. They changed the formula and they broke it.
  2. So. Much. Wasted. Time. At least half an hour of shit with legolas could have been cut out and not made any difference. I actually quite liked the business with Tauriel/Kili, but seriously, it was all unnecessary. Not to mention all the crap that happened in laketown.

Other than that, the film itself just seemed... uncohesive. Disparate. Clunky. Maybe it would look better tacked onto the previous film (and quickly followed by the next one)


To be honest, #1 was the killer for me.

I absolutely agree. I mean, it felt like the entire "dragon chasing dwarves through Erebor" scene was there purely to pad the movie out by another 45 minutes, but the movie was already 2 hours 45 minutes long, it didn't need padding out any more! Why not just stick to the book? And the Tauriel/Kili thing was so groan worthy. It could have been an interesting exploration of the differences between the races and the ability of individuals to overcome generations of mistrust and feuding, but instead we got a hamfisted romance that flies in the face of established lore...

I mean, I enjoyed the movie but it felt like a significant divergence from Tolkiens work, rather than an interpretation of it.
 

Adam_Barrow

Sleepless Knight
True Blood
Dec 25, 2010
3,068
Nashville, TN
I can understand no Barrow Wights in Fellowship. It's a movie with a lot of walking. Get to Moria already. But Peter, seriously? I've been excited for two years straight, from the first announcement the film would be three movies. Because I read they were shooting the Necromancer in Mirkwood. My favorite part of the time period The Hobbit takes place in is the Necromancer raising the dead at Dol Guldur. I can't /believe/ there weren't any undead in that fight.
 

Kaptain Von

Vampire Count
True Blood
Feb 26, 2008
1,189
United Kingdom
Too bloody long, even with all the Necromancer stuff off on the sidelines and the political flimflammery in Laketown. Too many sequences that should have had 'not actual game footage' in the corner (how many bits that could have been a very pretty CRPG did YOU count, dear reader?).

The mistake isn't doing a Hobbit trilogy - there are three nice neat breaks in the narrative and they've come at the right points. The mistake is doing a Hobbit trilogy of nearly-three-hour rump-numbers. There's just not enough in there to justify the length of the film.

Tauriel's a neat addition though, as is that trippy sequence in Dol Guldur, and while I don't think Benedict Cabbagepatch should be in EVERYTHING EVER (unlike some people) he does make a very good dragon voice.
 

untitled_musketeer

Vampire Count
True Blood
Aug 9, 2010
1,426
Huddersfield
Benedict Cumberbatch was also the voice of the Necromancer, and if you ever had the chance to see him in the National Theatre's version of Frankenstein with Johnny Lee Miller, I suspect your opinion of him would be diferent!
 

Von Calyptra

Black Knight
Mar 3, 2011
378
Boston, MA
I enjoyed it, but it needed more singing, more of the Doctor, and less Rube Goldbergian action sequences. The only thing it had over the first one, in my opinion, was a more even tone; An Unexpected Journey oscilates between the more light-hearted, fairy tale tone of the Hobbit and the more sombre, epic tone of Lord of the Rings.
 

Kaptain Von

Vampire Count
True Blood
Feb 26, 2008
1,189
United Kingdom
untitled_musketeer said:
Benedict Cumberbatch was also the voice of the Necromancer, and if you ever had the chance to see him in the National Theatre's version of Frankenstein with Johnny Lee Miller, I suspect your opinion of him would be diferent!

Actually, I did!

He's not a bad actor by any manes, but I'm sick to death of people saying he should be cast as everything ever. I blame the Sherlock fans, myself.
 

Zephyr

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Mar 3, 2008
2,522
Rotterdam
I have to fully agree with the negative comments in here, does this general fantasy-action flick even have anything to do with Tolkien's works?

I was annoyed with the first three movies too yet I own them because I can look beyond the changes from book to movie. At least the overall plot was intact.
This time though my annoyance turned to resentment. It's not just the changes that make this movie bad but damn me if this movie wasn't like Cameron's Avatar-movie; when you take away the CGI-pr0n and (ludicrous over the top)action scenes you are left with a gaping black hole that sucks in everything of worth.

I'm officially done with Jackson.
 

Mr. West

Lahmian Tomb Guard
Mar 26, 2013
242
This afternoon, I did something very sudden, something I should've refrained from.
I went. To see. Desolation of Smaug.

And, there's only one singly tiny thought that emerged after the credits rolled past ...

Peter Jackson ass-raped Ronald Reuel in his shallow grave.

There. Review done.
 

robtion

Vampire Thrall
Aug 23, 2011
989
Australia
I actually thought it was pretty good. Not amazing, but a solid blockbuster style movie.

Should only have been one movie instead of 3 but still overall good fun.

I would say the first and second movie are about the same quality and roughly on par with the LOTR's trilogy.
 

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Jan 28, 2012
1,897
robtion said:
I actually thought it was pretty good. Not amazing, but a solid blockbuster style movie.

Should only have been one movie instead of 3 but still overall good fun.

I would say the first and second movie are about the same quality and roughly on par with the LOTR's trilogy.

The first movie was slightly better than average, though there were some embarrasingly bad actions scenes, overextended shots, weak storylines, and general bits where they wanted to make a 3 hour film out of what should have been 2houars maximum by randomly adding extensions where they could. *flashback to falling tree that just will not fall and orc smashing Thorin's unprotected face with stone axe...no result*

Far, far, far below LOTR trilogy, in my opinion. I was quite bored at several points.

If the LOTR movies had included Tom Bombadil (which would have been a huge mistake), then maybe An Unexpected Journey movie could have looked them in the eye as an inferior yet still comparable film. LOTR was a true epic; Unexpected Journey was a bit of an epic failure for what Jackson and Del Toro could have achieved.

The second film was a major improvement, perhaps because it was largely worked on by one director instead of two (Del Toro gave up after creating some bits of film for the Hobbit as a whole trilogy). It had a quicker pace, the additional storylines were both relevant and captivating (except perhaps the elven singing/healing, which was a bit over the top, even for Tolkein's work!) and the actions scenes were far more realistic and less monotonous.

It could be seen as worthy of LOTR, but it is still considerably below the mark set by that trilogy. Frankly, they had more material to work with in LOTR so it was easier for them to make a masterpiece trilogy out of it. The hobbit followed that, though not so well. The shooting of LOTR, the acting, the action, the storylines...everything...was just so complete, as one might put it, and beautiful, and the brilliance of one film linked in to strengthen another. In my opinion, the hobbit is nt quite equal to LOTR. But the second one was still a very good movie, and the third will hopefully improve it to the point where the trilogy can be compared to something (barring some of the scenes in the first hobbit movie) that is only marginally below LOTR in terms of quality.
 

robtion

Vampire Thrall
Aug 23, 2011
989
Australia
You are right, these are not quite up to the standard of the LOTR's trilogy, but still they are not bad, just overly long and poorly paced. Hollywood milking a cash cow turning one movie into three.

Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor is looking pretty cool, set between the hobbit and LOTR's. The nemesis system for generating different PRC enemies on each play through seems interesting, if they can pull it off and it has enough depth to it.
 

About us

  • Our community has been around for many years and pride ourselves on offering unbiased, critical discussion among people of all different backgrounds. We are working every day to make sure our community is one of the best.

Quick Navigation

User Menu