The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

A great movie. It's blockbuster film production on another level, with superb visual effects and tremendous pacing, but overall I couldn't shake the feeling that Desolation of Smaug was ultimately filler until a supposed brilliant finale (which I'm looking forward to very much as this one left me on the edge of my seat). So overall, it's not as good as An Unexpected Journey, but still awesome.

The talking dragon, Smaug, is great, and voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. The effects here are top drawer, especially when the liquid gold is poured over him, but also the fire breathing and the scaley skin of the dragon are precise and visually spectacular. Orlando Bloom returns as Legolas, and the ending is left open for a big duel in the third film, but I much more enjoyed his friend, Tauriel (played by the gorgeous Evangeline Lily), she can kick some serious ass! All the dwarves are kind of useless. They pretty much get captured by everyone and are defenceless until they make a "deal" or someone takes pity on them. And the leader of the dwarves is a moron that I never liked from the first one -- his selfish true colours are slightly shown here. Oh, and it was great to see Stephen Fry in a small but significant role.

I also loved the noises that the beasts create. The breathing, like a lion, is so powerful and real. Just fantastic. The third is going to be so epic for many reasons; Legolas' duel with that big white man, Smaug versus Lake Town, and the "death is coming to us all" thing....should be great.

Great credits song sang by Ed Sheeran, and the music throughout was generally good too. I think what these Hobbit films might be missing is a battle, which I'm pretty sure might happen in the third one. It was nice to see the inclusion/conception of Sauron, which then ties it into the Lord of the Rings films, and the way that the 'ring' is referred to as "Precious!", that got me smirking. Finally, glad to see Peter Jackson making a cameo right at the beginning of the movie. That was neat, and I love it when I notice stuff like that. The film is entertaining in a way that we've expected from these films. Peter Jackson is a craftsman. The film is filler, but it's the best filler I've ever seen. The Hobbit: There and Back Again just shot to #2 on my list of 2014 most anticipated movies.

A-

--

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring A-
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers A
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King A+
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey A
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug A-

I liked the addition of Evangeline Lilly and the barrel escape, though way over-the-top, was exciting. B+

Well it was great. 4/5 or 4.5/5. I totally expected to see Smaug's death in this movie, so I'm disappointed, but I guess that's not the movie's fault. It did have some lengths, strangely they were mostly during fight scenes. Particularly the 15-minute fight with Smaug that leads nowhere: he comes out of it totally unharmed, and more pissed than ever. Also seeing Legolas fight orcs gets fairly redundant.

All in all, I'd say it might be a bit less good than the first. But it's hard to judge on its own a movie without a beginning or an end. The love story with Tauriel seems pretty pointless, but I guess it might make more sense once I see part 3.

My stance on HFR remains the same: at best, it doesn't add anything to the experience. So why bother with it?

As someone who really enjoyed the first, and high hopes with early better reviews, this was one turd of a film. One of the most pointless blockbusters I've seen in years. The minute Jackson's stupid cameo I knew this was the Jackson of Kong, Lovely Bones, etc. Which is a shame because there are really great moments here, particularly when they aren't bleeding things out for the sake of a third film. Freeman and McKellen's surprisingly brief role are still great.

Honestly it starts awkwardly with a pointless flashback, and a shapeshifting character that's sole purpose is there to lecture them and give them horses for 2 minutes. It is here where they get to the Forest and from here to the barrel sequence it is really great. Great action, and the homages to past films were really less forced than the first film. The dwarfs also this time seem more defined than the first time out, and Bloom and Lily and the King Elf are all great in there smaller roles. Then again we are put to drawn out sequences with little point to them. I really was eye rolling as the only real point was to introduce the guy with his big black arrow which will undoubtedly be a 40 minute sequence in the final film.

The scenes with Smaug were wonderful, but again they are drawn out completely to have no payoff, as are Gandalf's. I'm really believing the arguments that they could have easily done one film for this. The biggest problem with the cliffhanger (Literally Bilbo on a cliff saying "What have we done, may have actually been on deciding to make a third film) is the films are just not epic. Like the first, the Hobbit's best moments it's fast, breezy and great entertainment. Everything else is vast hopes to make it more than it truly is: Not LOTR. So it really shouldn't be attempting it. Also the end song is the worst part of the whole film

It felt like an old Batman episode cliffhanger.
Will Legolas' bloody nose get vengeance?
Will Elves and Dwarves make short but cute babies?
Will the third Hobbit film actually finish the tale, or will they announce a true final fourth entry in the series, consisting of titles and everyone reflecting on their adventure?

C-/ D+

Peter Jackson had a similar cameo in The Fellowship of the Ring.

I know, but I loved FOTR so I can over look that.

This makes absolutely no sense as Jackson cameos in all of his films.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Algren always adds to the conversation here at KJ!

Pot and kettle.

I meant his cameo which kicks off a 10 minute flashback that serves no purpose to the film, outside of a cameo by Jackson.

The 10-minute flashback sets up the second movie. For people that needed their memory jogging, it was useful.

It also shows that Thorin is in trouble. And it gives right away a darker feel than AUJ to the movie.

BJs Grade:

A-

Better than AUJ and ROTK fo sho

Yeah, there's a bounty on his head, which is never touched on again throughout the film, in fact I found it even more silly considering everyone that he comes into contact with is on board with his mission except for Arrow, but that's only because he is worried about his own safety. I believe the scene with Bilbo watching the Orc's would have started the film with the exact same feel.

What purpose does Gollum's flashback reveal in RETURN OF THE KING? Why do we see Gandalf fighting the Balrog at the beginning of THE TWO TOWERS (especially when we see it again later)?

Because you need to at least in some way an introduction to your film. (Also, the flashback with Gandalf and Thorin is doubling down on the importance of the Arkenstone which is the reason the third act of this film happens.)

Thanks, that is the worst part of ROTK as well. And I stand by the worst of the trilogy. But I at least liked that scene as it gave Gollum an interesting side to his madness. Even if Bilbo contradicts that scene completely

I enjoyed this take on it via an IMDb review:

Bradley, in your own words - what is it that you feel is missing from Jackson's LOTR/Hobbit-films?

Chekov's gun is an old trope. Plus we all know your love for the book. With the same arrow.

No doubt Bradley will watch the third part of this trilogy at midnight of the opening day. He hates them so much.

I have written extensively on that topic over the years, however I will endeavour to assemble my collected wisdom into a separate Cinemania thread down the road so as to not disrupt this review thread.

It's not the trope, but rather the manner of it's use as a faux cliffhanger. However I'm glad to hear that you found it to be the perfect way to end a 161 minute movie (and a correspondingly perfect starting point for the third movie).

At least it's not as stupid as a mist army defeating the entire enemy in 10 seconds making the whole trilogy pointless. I mean why not do that in FOTR?

This was a MUCH better experience for me than the first film. The first film was a boring blur for me - it felt very purposeless and had the annoyingly long and boring beginning at Bilbo's place, and lots of boring action sequences.

This film had a purpose and stuck with it, and it was frankly just more entertaining and interesting to watch (the spiders, the barrel scene, and Smaug, who was EXCELLENTLY portrayed - Smaug is the best part of this series so far). Also, what generally helps this series is that Martin Freeman is the perfect Bilbo.

I agree with a prior comment that a big weakness of this series is that it is trying to make it a second LOTR, when The Hobbit is actually a more lighthearted/fun adventure story (as a book), whereas LOTR is truly a sweeping epic.

I now wish Guillermo del Toro had stayed on to direct the series, because I think his directing style would have been better for this story, and it would have also been good I think to have a new director on board for this series to have a fresh set of eyes that created something distinct from LOTR.

The Desolation of Smaug: B

(An Unexpected Journey: C+)

Peace,
Mike