Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Levels take a further dip with a snot gag and head back down again when Gandalf fails to trick the trolls.

Expanding on Tolkien's mythology: Presumably, the reason you should "never trust an Elf!" (Gimli's line in The Fellowship of the Ring) is because Elves turned their back on the Dwarves when they were being attacked by Smaug? What were they expected to do against a dragon and why were they just standing there anyway? I liked none of the little tweaks and changes effected in the LotR movies, but at least the basic story developments were preserved. But this is basically adding a whole new level of mythology. A big no-no, unless it's an improvement and that isn't in this case here.

The dwarves: They looked ridiculous to me and their behavior was annoying. But no dwarf was more off-putting than Thorin with his ludicrous fur-trimmed leather duster, Rob Zombie do and constant glowering. Ugh.

The introductory scene takes too long but, given all this time, you'd think Jackson would try and be more faithful to the book. But, no, he still manages to mangle it. Anyway, the next day, after Bilbo has decided not to go the day before (he wasn't really given the choice in the book), he just…goes, for no well-explained reason. And it's very interesting (read: stupid) that he's able to overtake Gandalf and the dwarves all riding along briskly on horseback. And when he does catch up with them, he's offered a pony, which he at first declines. Why? Bilbo had nothing against riding a pony. Stupid and pointless.

Azog: The footnote springs to cinematic life and, bam—that is to say, blah—has a vendetta against Thorin. The character in the LotR Appendix, for all of his two-pages of appearance and death at the hands of Dáin, is still more bad-ass than the video game reject in AUJ. Anyway, if Jackson wanted to go this route, it would have made more sense to just go with Azog's son Bolg, who will appear anyway. So, it looks like more overkill from these movies.

Trolls: or, how to take an amusing sequence from the book and drain it of any humor whatsoever—actually, that opinion pretty much applies to the whole movie... But, instead of Gandalf employing ventriloquism on the trolls and getting them to fight each other, Bilbo tells them the dwarves have parasites and Gandalf gets to break a rock in two. Yawn.

Radagast: An utterly ridiculous and repellent visualization of another footnote character, with his ridiculous hat, ridiculous dying hedgehog, ridiculous rabbit-drawn sleigh and ridiculous shit-smeared face. But that's just my opinion. But why is he in the movie at all? To tell Gandalf about the Necromancer, I guess. But if Gandalf doesn't already know this (as he does full well in the book) where did he get the map and key from Thráin (Thorin's father) who (in the book) was a prisoner in Dol Guldur? Presumably, he wasn't in Dol Guldur in the movie. So where is he? Alive, dead, what? The movie basically glosses all of this over. In any case, the very idea that Greenwood is turning into Mirkwood right before Radagast's eyes at the start of the movie just strikes me as a desperate and weak attempt to create a sense of urgency and menace. The spiders are even seen entering the forest as if to take up their positions. Yet another lame and pointless alteration of Tolkien's story. Also in any case, Gandalf's very reason for being in Middle Earth is to help combat the Necromancer (aka Sauron). For him not to know about his presence in Mirkwood is, sorry, just witless.

Rivendell and the White Council: The White Council scene is boring and pointless as the filmmakers desperately try to attach grave import to a knife and Gandalf is talked down to by both Saruman and Elrond.

Apparent invulnerability: None of the protagonists get hurt in this movie. Stone giants fall on them, they get up.They fall a hundred feet or so, they just walk it off. Goblins (who, for some reason, are portrayed as distinct from orcs) attack in droves, no problem, they just cut them down like wheat. Thorin does later fall unconscious (from a blow that should have crushed his skull), but he later turns out none the worse for wear. Even if these characters weren't profoundly irritating, why should I care about them if they're not in any real danger? And enough with the fake deaths. Did anyone watching this really fear the titular character might fall to his death halfway through his own movie?

Riddles in the "Dark": Finally, some resemblance to the book, except even here there are details changed for no very good reason. And couldn't they have toned down the lighting just a bit more to give some impression of darkness? As for Gollum himself, it's hard to find fault with Andy Serkis's performance except that Gollum is now basically a celebrity and practically played like one in the film. He no longer surprises, frightens or disturbs in the least. The aforementioned cosy lighting doesn't help at all.

Bilbo the Badass: Bilbo kills a Warg (which, though strong enough to uproot a tree, will drop with a single arrow or sword thrust/hack). Later he savagely kills an orc. Where'd this come from? Was it to make up for portraying Frodo as a wuss in the movies? Whatever the case, it's so far out of left field, it's just seems tacked on.

Eagles: Gandalf just happens to spot a moth nearby in the tree he's climbed up to avoid the orcs and warts. How convenient. And anyone who's seen those other movies knows what's coming. So, no surprises there. And the book's explanation for the eagles doesn't work because…? There really is no good reason. Jackson wants to make full use of the eagles, but only as devices (and something to ooh and aah at); he doesn't seem to want to give them any backstory or personality or anything. You'd think with his apparent love of exposition and the characters making speeches all the time, something could have been said about them, but no, the eagles just drop them off and depart. They're nothing more than deus ex machina. Granted, there are challenges to following the book more closely here (mostly because of how these films have been set up) but I still think Jackson takes the cheap and easy way out.

Final scene: At the conclusion of the movie, Bilbo blithely states "I do believe the worst is behind us." Really? Why would he believe this while looking at a mountain that is 1) still leagues distant; and 2) he knows contains a fire-breathing dragon?

halfwise wrote:Raddy, you are far too cool-headed in your review.  It's unbecoming.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:That was only my initial shellshocked review made under duress for the NotP (the duress was having to watch the film first)- my parody I feel more fully expresses my thoughts on AUJ.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Thing with a PJ adaptation is they only really go one way- and they can dip into the red or rise into the red- but its always to the red  

There comes a time when we must stop kidding ourselves. These ‘Hobbit‘ films – with ‘The Desolation of Smaug‘ representing the shank of the trilogy – are not real movies. These are exploitation films for Tolkien nuts, for enthusiasts of the original ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies and for audiences so hungry for high fantasy they’ll gobble up whatever is served to them and ask for seconds.

As someone who has sympathy, but not empathy, for those who have such proclivities, I can get why someone might come away liking this picture. But that is more of an involuntary reaction to exposure to certain elements, not the summation of a film. Listen, there’s a grey-bearded wizard who warns in low tones about a place that sounds like “Doggledoor.” And there’s someone referred to as “Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror.” I love that geekorama stuff more than most. It’s hilarious, and I’ll probably refer to my cat as “Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror” for the next week. But this movie doesn’t cohere – there’s no forward momentum, no character development, no story happening. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fibber.

Does this mean there’s nothing of merit in ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’? Quite the contrary. The dragon of the title – voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch and rendered by the furthest advances of computer science – is the bomb. Smaug is, undoubtedly, the coolest movie dragon ever. He’s sly and foreboding and his massive stature is quite palpable. My disbelief was suspended like a kid setting off firecrackers in study hall.

Too bad it takes about two hours to get to him. Before that you’ve got a whole lot of nothing. A bunch of interchangeable dwarfs running from things. Well, they’re not all interchangeable. There’s the really fat one with red hair and the really old one with grey hair. Then there’s the handsome one that’s supposed to remind you of Viggo Mortensen from the last series (the aforementioned Thorin) and another handsome one named Kili.

I don’t specifically recall Kili doing much in the first ‘Hobbit’ picture, but in this one he catches the eye of an elven warrior named Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) and the two almost have a scene with a modicum of spark and spontaneity to it. But there’s no time for any character development, there’s more running to be had.

There is, unquestionably, a remarkable action sequence for the ages in ‘The Desolation of Smaug’ – a moment where the dwarves are in barrels, careening through rapids as orcs pounce on them and elves fire arrows everywhere. It is highly reminiscent of the big chase at the end of ‘The Adventures of Tintin,’ which ‘The Hobbit”s Peter Jackson produced with Steven Spielberg. Prior to this, there’s also some cool, gross action with giant spiders, but, I tell yah, in between it’s a rough, dull slog.

There aren’t any dwarves singing and doing dishes in this one, and while that was a bone of contention for many, I would have preferred a little bit of that spring in the movie’s step. Instead we have a second act where we’re introduced to a slew of new characters in a drab setting. Stephen Fry appears, gets a scene to ramble about things not germane to the plot, and basically disappears. When one of the dwarves oversleeps and misses a boat trip, anyone who hasn’t read the books (or just watched the first ‘Hobbit’) will ask, “Who’s this guy? Why do I care that he overslept?”

I can’t fully dismiss any movie with a giant talking dragon, but I must confess that I found the last film superior. And I didn’t even like that one that much.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Where's the parody?- Rhaddy

http://www.hobbitmovieforum.com/t744-an-unexpected-journey-as-seen-by-petty-tyrant

bungobaggins wrote:This review gave me a good chuckle (especially the first two paragraphs).

http://screencrush.com/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-review/

Mrs Figg wrote:I have a feeling there will be very little to salvage for a purist edit. Hardly anything has any basis in the books.

Bluebottle wrote:Isn't Smaug in one of the clips?

Or his head at least?