on Dec 30, 2013 @ 11:38 am|
One of our family traditions is to see a movie on Boxing Day or thereabouts, and this year the no-brainer choice was the second installation of the Hobbit trilogy.
I'm curious what everyone else thought of it? I felt like it suffered from what I call "middle movie syndrome", where the whole thing is just tying movies 1 and 3 together and without a plot of its own.
I thought director Peter Jackson did a better job with the second Lord of the Rings movie (remember it had that epic Helm's Deep battle). Hobbit 2 fell a little flat for me, but as always the special effects and little details were enjoyable.
I also liked seeing Evangeline Lilly as the totally-untrue-to-the-book heroine (#LOSTfan) but thought Legolas's character was strange. I thought he was too serious and rigid compared to the happy-go-lucky guy he was in LOTR.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
|Hobbit 2 on Jan 06, 2014 @ 10:08 am|
I totally agree about the 'middle movie' thing. It wasn't a bad movie but on it's own, it doesn't hold up to the other movies. It's definitely one for the fans not someone looking to just see a movie. Like all the other movies, it's aesthetically it's really beautiful. And I actually really loved seeing Evandegline Lilly too! It ends on a huge cliff hanger so beware!
|SPOILERS BELOW on Jan 06, 2014 @ 02:42 pm|
Well, I would agree on most points. It doesn't stand alone as a great movie (unlike The Two Towers does, it's my favourite of all 3 LOTR movies!), but it was nonetheless enjoyable.
The main problem I had can be attributed to one sub plot - the love story between Tauriel (elf girl) and Kili (dwarf). It added nothing to the movie (unlike the love story between Aragorn and Arwen in LOTR), and served only as a plot connector (the reason Tauriel went after the dwarves and saved them, twice). Some of the scenes between them were just painful to watch, because they were so overdrawn and unbelievable. (i.e. when she was healing him and the light illuminated her, I had to stifle my laughter). The two actors had no chemistry to salvage the subplot, and if they omitted the entire thing the movie could have played out exactly the same.
Another tiff I had was the CGI orcs. I find them too unrealistic to be frightening, and when meshed with real actors they look especially unnatural, thus smashing all suspension of disbelief. The LOTR trilogy used real men for orcs, and they were scary as ****. What bothers me more about this is that they used a real actor to play Bolg (the pale orc), but ended up editing all his scenes to be CGI. The actor's costume is fantastic and really quite scary, and I think if they had kept him in the movie would have been a lot better (see it here: http://badassdigest.com/2013/12/12/see-the-awesome-practical-orc-who-was-painted-over-in-desolation-of-smaug/).
Saving graces were the return of Legolas (ever so dreamy, even with those super pale contacts), and all the epic fight scenes. I think Jackson kind of dropped the ball on this one, because a few minor tweaks could have made this an amazing movie.
|good flick on Jul 03, 2014 @ 06:23 pm|
I thought it was really good and definitely worth a second look. the CGI they did with Smaug made him look incredible. At the end of the Hobbit when Smaug opens his eye from under all that gold, his eye was beautiful - very cat like. A great cast and it's just a fun series to watch. I like the Hobbit movies much better than the Lord of the Ring movies - I slept through those :)
|Smoooog on Jul 20, 2014 @ 05:46 am|
Fun fun fun. Enjoyable watch. The dragon should have stayed golden- would have looked killer in flight. Freaking terrifying job they did with Smog. Can't wait for the best one.