I saw the movie yesterday and thought it was outstanding. I thought "An Unexpected Journey" was just ok. It was entertaining but I caught myself getting board. The Desolation of Smaug was outstanding though. The movie was 2 1/2 hours long but it passed by way to quick. This one may have been my favorite of all the LOTR/Hobbit movies so far. Evangeline Lilly was awesome, I thought she favored Liv Tyler a bit in this movie. Great scenes with Gandolf and Sauron.
My wife and I loved it. You either go with the changes or you don't. Me, no real problem. I liked Evangeline Lilly's addition. Maybe her side story with...Fili?...became a little overlong at the end, but b.f.d. Great action sequences. And Smaug....just awesome.
Saw it regularly and just had two problems with it. The odd first person barrel riding scene took me out of it for that moment, and the weird psychedelic Sauron scene was really odd to me. Other then those two small grips, I enjoyed the movie. Although I don't remember Beorn being that dismissive of the dwarves.
I've avoided the "THEY'RE PUTTING IT INTO 3 MOVIES AS A CASH GRAB" tripe. The appendices (those scenes people think they're "making up") alone could make a couple of movies. However, there is literally about 4 chapters left in the book. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt because Tolkien was a master at taking a chapter to describe a field & then one paragraph for a battle. The Battle of the Five Armies is arguably the biggest battle they're going to put on screen, so that could take close to an hour on its own. Then there is stuff they can take from the appendices to "bridge" to Fellowship of the Ring. In short, I'm reserving judgment on the split into 3 movies until it's all finished. Yes, the Hobbit is one 350 page book. But the movies I'm looking at as "The Hobbit Plus." Just my take.
overall I really liked it, though I didn't have much problem with the first one, or with the fact they are making three movies of it. Spoiler There were a few parts where the lack of realism really got on my nerves (aforementioned acrobatics on the river scene, thorin riding molten gold in something that should melt, mainly, though I didn't quite get the statue thing later either, to be honest) but overall I really enjoyed it. I did see it in HFR on a three story screen 3d and it was really spectacular, though so real at times I wasn't sure how to feel about it. It's just different... not like any movie I have seen, really. I don't mind the additional content of goings on with other characters behind the scenes of "the book" which is technically bilbo's point of view only, but some of the extra stuff was more gratuitous other things. Overall I did really enjoy it, and I may go back now that I'm not examining the difference in detail and frames etc. It really was almost a distraction at times, as it looked so real that it didn't look "normal".
Much better than the first. My wife really enjoyed it, which says a lot. I actually thought the Gandalf vs. Sauron part was awesome, and was very "Tolkienesque" right up until Sauron did a little LSD moment. It bothers me a tiny bit that Gandalf was able to identify Sauron...he wasn't supposed to know at the time and just thought it was the "Necromancer". Only until LOTR is he supposed to realize that Dol Guldur was just a feint while he gathered his strength.
I agree that some of the super unrealistic events could have been removed for a more immersive movie, though they were generally entertaining if completely unrealistic. regarding the statue: Spoiler I didn't fully get it at the time, but they pumped the liquid gold into a cast for a golden dwarf statue, but then broke the cast open before the gold had cooled all the way thru, causing it to burst.
I get the feeling that when it's all said and done, the 2nd installment of the Hobbit is going to be viewed as the weakest link of the entire series. I'm betting that the 3rd act is going to be quite impressive, however.
Goes to show how different people have different tastes. I thought this might have been the best film of all the LOTR/Hobbit films.
I don't agree with what Peter Jackson DID, per se, but... here's an interesting take on the differences between the first and second, in technical specs and usage of the RED Epic Cameras and different lenses... The Desolation of Smaug shows Peter Jackson still hasn't perfected HFR http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/17/hfr-the-desolation-of-smaug/ So what if some people don't like it... it's their opinion. Keep doing what you're doing in advance of the film industry.
totally disagree and i think the overwhelming consensus feels the same. the 1st hobbit movie definitely lagged far more than this one which i thought was pretty damn good.
I think a lot of people were put off by UJ because it was such a jarring transition from LoTR. They went in expecting one thing, and were handed another. DoS had more action, but I found the action... repetitive. Boring and uninspired for the most part. I left the movie thinking "they really shouldn't have made this a 3 parter", which is not close to what I was thinking after part 1. Of course, I'm not an action person (character development is my favorite part of most movies), so that might explain the whole thing.
