In order this is how I rank the LOTR/Hobbit movies. 1. Fellowship of the Ring 2. Desolation of Smaug 3. The Two Towers 4. The Return of the King 5. An Unexpected Journey Just my perference. I'm looking forward to the last installment.
seriously dude. what. the hell. Everybody is different though. Anyways, saw it last night and enjoyed it a lot. Bull**** cliffhanger though. Bull****. 9/10.
I quite enjoyed this movie as well. The 3D was pretty impressive relatively speaking -- the bee perching on Bilbo's nose for example. Wonderful film making by PJ. That cliffhanger though. Ugh.
My ranking: 1. Fellowship of the Ring (cause I'm a huge fanboy of the Black Riders and they NAILED that in FOTR). 2. Return of the King (too much epicness not to be at least #2). 3. The Desolation of Smaug (WAY better than the last movie) 4. The Two Towers (suffers from being the middle story. Still good tho). 5. An Unexpected Journey (probably the only film of the 5 I was disappointed by).
I enjoyed this a lot more than the first movie, however, my initial disappointment with PJ splitting into 3 books reared its head again. The filler material really stood out from the original story; the focus has been removed from Martin Freeman; too many Legolas action sequences become boring and like a video game; finally, the CGI orcs don't hold a candle to the prosthetic LOTR ones. The Hobbit would have been an amazing 3-hour long theatrical release with a 3.5-4 hour extended edition for Tolkien fans. The appendices and new content that they've thrown in really dilute the well-written tale. Two movies would've been okay. I did like Evangeline Lilly nevertheless, although that healing scene at the end muddled the Lonely Mountain tension. Although Laketown took valuable screen time away from Bilbo, the set design was incredible.
I liked it a lot and the one reason I didn't have the same criticisms is that I read the book in 8th grade and can't remember too much. The whole "Trilogy" bull**** pisses me off because it reeks of hollywood reaching as far into our pockets as they can but PJ has done a damn god job.
For those of you complaining about the cliffhanger: Part of me agrees with you, but we all know Peter Jackson knows how to maximize ROI. Or he thinks he does. In the case of the cliffhanger, if Jackson had ended the story, um, about one half chapter of the book later (or 30 minutes of screen time--chortle), then this film would have been so climactic as to kill some of the audience for the last film. And as much as I like these movies, let's not kid ourselves as to why there are three "Hobbit" films rather than two or even one: MO MONEY, MO MONEY, MO MONEY! Speaking of Jackson making money for himself and New Line: How many jerkoff nerds besides myself think the Special Editions of LOTR were far superior to their theatrical versions? And didn't mind lining New Line Cinema's pockets to acquire the DVD's and even see them in the theater (I saw them at Edwards MarquEe myself)? "The Fellowship of the Ring" in its Special Edition form would have been Best Picture of the Year. Well, it wouldn't have won, but it would have deserved it. That's because Jackson saved a LOT of the best stuff for the Special Editions (the Witch King of Angmar astride the fell beast, landing on the parapet in front of Gandalf and nearly defeating him; Saruman's demise; the Mouth of Sauron at the Black Gate). And yet in the theater we have to witness Aragorn dream of Liv Tyler so the women will show up to watch "The Two Towers". Not to be sexist; I did also say in another post that I liked the Tauriel addition (maybe because I'm still popping wood? OK, maybe I am sexist; j/k, I thought she gave the film a jolt that it needed). As far as Smaug, whose rendering was perfect, his sequence was dragged out a liiiiiiittle too long. But that's Jackson for you. Can't stop gilding the lily. Like in "King Kong". Why have Kong fight one T-rex when he can fight two? "F*** it!" says Andy Serkis, thinking he's joking but egging Jackson on. "Make it three!" "MAKE IT FOUR!" says Jackson. "Uh, Peter?" "Yeah, Andy?" "Let's keep it at three, huh? Too much of a good thing." (sighs) "All right, Andy."
This is is why I liked the first one better than the second. I felt that the amount of filler in 2 was way worse than 1. I was engrossed in 1 the entire time. In 2, I drifted in and out of it. Maybe I'm just suffering from Tolkien fatigue.
My take? Clearly worlds better than the first part of The Hobbit trilogy. I was able to blow off the things Jackson included from other sources, or just made up, that didn't come from the novel, which I've read 4 or 5 times since the mid-'60's. Why? It wasn't glaringly obvious, because it wasn't as plodding and "weighty" like the Elves showing up at Helm's Deep, which almost made me walk out of the theatre when they strolled up in The Two Towers, and the nearly non-stop action helped with that. Simply outstanding, and I disagree with DD about the length. I didn't notice it being overly long at all. Just a great job by Jackson, and I can't wait for part 3.
Absolutely agree with your take. And the movie was good enough that when it was over I wasn't ready for it to end yet. The movie was 2 and a half hours long but it didn't feel that way at all to me. I can't wait till the end. Deck, I never read the Hobbit or the LOTR books because as much as I love the story I just couldn't get into his writing style. Were the scenes with Gandolf and Souran in the Hobbit also in the book? I enjoyed the scenes but was under the impression that Gandolf did not know of Souran during the time of the Hobbit.
Gandalf and "the Necromancer" (Sauron) was more in the Appendices that were tacked onto the end of LOTR book. Gandalf didn't know the Necromancer's true identity, not having dealt with Sauron for 3000 years.
What ROXTXIA said. The conflict the films have Gandalf involved in were mentioned in the novel, but with no details worth mentioning, and the Appendices were not in the original version of The Hobbit (and not in The Lord of the Rings) that I read so long ago. So not made up out of thin air at all, crash, but not in the novel either, except for a mention here and there. You were given a reason for Gandalf's long absence, but very little in the way of details. I think Jackson is doing an excellent job of bringing those "outside" sources into this trio of films, especially this one, and loved how Legolas and his babe are brought into the story, and before I saw Smaug, I thought it would bother me a great deal. It didn't, not at all. In fact, it added a great deal to the enjoyment of the flick, at least for me. -
It was VERY different from the book, but that sorta added to the entertainment value. They took out a few things in the book that my daughter loved: Spoiler The way Gandalf snuck the dwarves into Beorn's house. The weird animals that served as servants at Beorn's house. The enchanted river knocking Bombur unconscious. Bilbo mocking the spiders with the "Attacop, attacop" chant. The dwarves giving Bilbo credit for saving them amidst the spiders (now its the elves instead) She said the completely reenvisioned Smaug sequence, and the addition of a female character in Tauriel, was worth the trade. I agree.
ROX, Deck, mateo, Thanks for the clarification. I didn't read the ASOIAF series until after I watched season 1 of game of thrones. There were details in the story that I did not pick up on watching the series but became crystal clear after I read the books. I'm thinking on giving Tolkien another try because of how much I enjoyed reading GOT after I watched the series. My wife read LOTR & The Hobbit and she said she enjoyed the Hobbit the most.
Just came back from seeing it. Thoughts (spoilers for this and possibly next movie): Spoiler - The opening scene in Bree was a great way to set up the film and connect it to the LOTR films. - Beorn scenes were great. Wished they could've spent longer there, would've loved to see him smash up some orcs. - Mirkwood was amazing, especially the spiders. I jumped a few times. - From there, I felt the film fell a bit flat. Overall it looked great, but there seemed to be heaps of unnecessary stuff in it. - Barrel scene was great, and should be a themepark ride in the next year or so. - Smaug was fantastic. - I wish there could've been some kind of closure at the end, it felt a bit like 'Lost' or 'Homeland' with a massive cliffhanger(s). Except we have to wait a year instead of a week. - Can't wait to see the White Council come in and wreck the Necromancer. - Overall, a great movie with lots of awesome visuals and sound, but I came away a bit disappointed and feeling a bit empty. The big question: Arwen or Tauriel?
I took three youngsters [9, 15, and 20] All of them fell asleep at parts of it I agree with DD . . . about 30~45 minutes too long Rocket River
One of my favorite scenes in the Hobbit was Gandalf's story to Beorn that slowly increased the number of people in their group starting at two and building up to 15. I was a little disappointed that Jackson cut that out, especially since he seems to be looking for stuff to add in to stretch into a trilogy.
