Sorry, two-legged dragons are just goofy, even if they did the best they could with that limitation
Cannoli Send a noteboard - 13/12/2013 11:13:34 PM
View original post
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/KzGrfdW.jpg" class="left" height="300" />
There already have been plenty of discussions whether or not Tolkien's novel The Hobbit is worth spreading over 3 long films. Much of your enjoyment of the first part, as well as this one depends on whether you instead view the film as "Bilbo's extended adventures in Middle Earth" or if you prefer to be a purist about new characters and details that may have been different in the book.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/KzGrfdW.jpg" class="left" height="300" />
There already have been plenty of discussions whether or not Tolkien's novel The Hobbit is worth spreading over 3 long films. Much of your enjoyment of the first part, as well as this one depends on whether you instead view the film as "Bilbo's extended adventures in Middle Earth" or if you prefer to be a purist about new characters and details that may have been different in the book.
I think this kind of worked. I am a bit of a purist, and I hate the tendency of all too many works to use dwarves for slapstick comedy, and the over-the-top Rube Goldberg action sequences were the most disappointing aspect of the first Hobbit film; but they work out much better in this. The dwarves are treated more seriously, I like the greater depth given to Bard, and while I concede the implied Smug-fighting set-up in the Lake town is more plausible (I hope they keep the bird-messenger in Part 3, that was part of his royal cred, IIRC), I wonder that they felt the need to impart plausibility to THAT fight after the stretched-out barrel sequence, and the too-convenient combat set-up of the forge. I mean, after all the over-the-top tricks we've seen characters pull off with bows in the first five Tolkien film, they decide that shooting down a dragon with an implied magic arrow is the line they won't cross?
The second part tunes down some of the silliness and has a somewhat gloomier tone,
Which is impressive considering out much they trimmed down the Mirkwood part.
without abandoning its sense of humor altogether, mind. We also learn more about a few of the dwarves, with quite a few parts during which Bilbo almost becomes a minor character.
The film finds the right timing between calm scenes and action sequences, some of which have the same jump and run character you found in the orc mines of part one. That may be a bit too much for some, but it makes for the kind of outrageously spectacular action you pay to see on a big screen.
Agreed. And the story departs even more from the books in this one, though most of the time merely takes a different route to get to the same place. Overall, I think it helps, but they had better come up with something pretty damn good to justify splitting up the company.
The film finds the right timing between calm scenes and action sequences, some of which have the same jump and run character you found in the orc mines of part one. That may be a bit too much for some, but it makes for the kind of outrageously spectacular action you pay to see on a big screen.
What makes this film appear fresher and more interesting than its predecessor are the new locations, breathtakingly beautiful and stunningly designed. Where the first act of the story relied a little too much on conjuring up nostalgia from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, this part finds the right mix of new places and characters you'd love to see more of while still visiting old friends.
Ultimately, the final act of the film belongs to the dragon. While the trailers tricked you into believing he might end up a tad underwhelming, Benedict Cumberbatch's voice and the flawless animation make Smaug one of the greatest creatures ever put on film, menacing, majestic, evil. That's when the film really finds its momentum and delivers one breathless sequence after another. And then decides to end on a truly mean cliffhanger. Bring on next Christmas!
I have to admit the Smaug sequences were well-done with him coming across as just about as deadly as anything that crawls around on two wings can. I was still annoyed at leaving him with no hands. That's fine for bestial dragons, like in SoI&F, but sentient, especially the super-cunning type of sentient, and supremely powerful beings deserve hands, dammit! Even Leto II had hands. Not to mention just about every semi-official illustration I have ever seen features a four-legged dragon.
9 out of 10 wine barrels
BTW, considering that Gandalf is somehow going to escape from the Necromancer's much better confinement, why would Saruman settle for leaving on a rooftop 80 years later?
Also, thanks to Evangeline Lily, they finally have an attractive female elf. Liv Tyler isn't bad looking, but she's never really done it for me, and the best thing that can be said about Cate Blanchett's look is that she gets the inhuman aspect down cold. To inspire cross-species awe at her beauty in anti-elf bigots? Nah, just not seeing it.
Also-also, Legolas, still a douche. Or maybe it should be, was already a douche? Stupid prequels messing with verb tenses....
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug
- 13/12/2013 10:03:50 AM
1593 Views
Sorry, two-legged dragons are just goofy, even if they did the best they could with that limitation
- 13/12/2013 11:13:34 PM
873 Views
I'm glad I am not the only person who cares about that.
- 15/12/2013 08:41:48 AM
794 Views
I don't care whether dragons have "hands" or not, as long as it meets all other draconic reqs.
- 15/12/2013 02:16:15 PM
914 Views
I especially liked Thranduil's scenes. *minor spoilers*
- 13/12/2013 11:25:30 PM
764 Views
such a good physical match for Legolas
- 14/12/2013 01:22:21 AM
1015 Views
Thought he looked more elf than Elrond and Galadriel put together.
- 14/12/2013 07:13:00 AM
930 Views
So how is the new female elf they introduce "Tauriel"
- 14/12/2013 05:34:56 AM
836 Views
I liked her
- 14/12/2013 10:43:22 AM
780 Views
A lot of reviews said she was one of the best parts of the movie
- 16/12/2013 06:05:50 PM
1001 Views
Have to say, this was even worse than the first one, and I fear the third one may be still worse.
- 04/01/2014 12:32:51 AM
811 Views
You know what I think. I definitely have spoilers.
- 04/01/2014 07:23:52 PM
790 Views
No point in arguing about such things, of course
- 04/01/2014 09:51:07 PM
673 Views
This is true.
- 04/01/2014 11:22:51 PM
704 Views
"Hamster", not "Hampster".
- 05/01/2014 05:28:48 PM
703 Views
It's a Gerbil from the Hamptons.
- 05/01/2014 08:11:39 PM
697 Views
Or perhaps a hipster rodent. All the more reason to poison it. *NM*
- 06/01/2014 07:54:13 PM
353 Views
The golden statue
- 06/01/2014 05:55:31 PM
1085 Views
...that doesn't make me feel better.
- 07/01/2014 06:41:01 PM
763 Views
*NM*