So I saw The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, and I thought it was better than the first one.
In fact, after coming out of this one, it really made me feel less of the first movie,
because now that things are actually happening, it makes me feel as though the sequence of events in the first movie can be described as,
"OK, let's go." And at least things are actually happening now.
The pacing works a lot better in Desolation of Smaug than in the first one, and as someone who's never read The Hobbit,
it made it really difficult to pinpoint exactly what was included in the book in the first place, and what was extra, which is a good thing.
There are a lot fewer scenes in this movie that I felt were unnecessary compared to the first one,
and when Peter Jackson said that the 48 frames per second would look better in this one, I didn't really believe him at first,
but it did look kinda better, if only really because he used a lot less of the far away overhead shots that made it look really distracting.
There's something about the shots of them running through the field that made it look really weird, and almost like they were miniatures.
And every time there was a shot like that, it was still really distracting, but I think Peter Jackson just learned to use less of them in this film.
And because the shots were set up more appropriately for the 48 frames per second, I was really able to see its benefit in this one.
Because the live action characters moved so smoothly, and were the same frame rate as the computer-animated characters,
it made it more difficult to distinguish between the two of them, which is also a good thing.
Like, this Orc dude looked really real.
In the first movie, Ian McKellen's age really showed, but in this one, not so much, and I might just be because I was already used to it,
but holy fucking shit, does Orlando Bloom look past 40.
Which is kinda weird, cuz he's just turning 37. He used to have such a slim boyish face, and now he's got Bruce Campbell cheeks.
And at random points during the movie, he would glare his eyes and look really, really serious, and I nearly burst out laughing.
And speaking of really awkward moments, did no-one find it really fucking retarded when Gandalf and Sauron had a little stand-off?
Like, the camera just kept zooming into his face, and his eye in his face, and his eye repeatedly.
There was no fucking point to that, it didn't even look cool. "Yeah, let's end this scene with a looping GIF."
There were quite a few continuity inconsistencies, as well.
You know, fast characters chasing slow characters over a long distance, and making you think,
"Er, shouldn't they have caught them by now?"
And there were a lotta conveniences, that just happened to work out for the main characters.
Don't get me wrong, Lord of the Rings had those too, but it kinda felt like overkill.
Like, "Oh no, every single one of my friends got tied up by these fucking spiders.
I'm just gonna cut the pieces of web that are holding them up, and they'll fall down fucking perfectly, and take no damage in the process,
despite the fact that every single spider that has fallen from that height got fucked up."
OK, so if you got cut down, and your fall was stopped by the web that breaks after you go through it,
and all your friends are right fucking next to you,
then how did they get there without breaking the exact same web that you just broke?
You know, Peter, you wouldn't have had to stretch out so much material if you just simply added a scene of him being like,
"How the fuck am I gonna get them down?"
You know, you could've come up with an elaborate plan or something,
and not just leaving people wondering why he assumed that that would work. And also why it worked.
Now, I know what some you guys are gonna be saying, "It's supposed to be campy and unrealistic."
And that's fine, if the movie wants to be that way, but it kinda also didn't.
When convenient and campy things happened in the movie, it works best in instances like the barrel scene.
Despite there being implied peril, the entirety of the scene is enjoyable because it's absurd and convenient.
It's self-aware as to what it is and that's part of the humor.
But then we get into parts later in the movie, where the tone is explicitly serious.
Like, you're supposed to feel fucking scared of this dragon right now, there's so much danger going on, everybody's lives are at risk,
except nobody fucking dies. If your character has a name, he'll be OK.
Now, it's my understanding that the source material for The Hobbit was much more child-friendly than that of Lord of the Rings,
so that pretty much explains why none of the characters die, but it also creates a problem,
because this movie is trying really hard to be Lord of the Rings.
OK, so you're really supposed to feel scared of this dragon, cuz he can kill you, except he just can't even kill fucking Hobbit.
There's, like, ten targets, just fucking eat one of them. Why don't you roast 'em up? Make yourself a shish kabob-it.
Why would you make this a great speech about how well you can smell them,
and then not notice them when they're right underneath you?
Oh, that was so close, I really feel the tension here(!) I can't believe that he just made it out of that one(!)
OK, so you've been living here how long, and you didn't know this room
that would be, apparently, the only way that they can get an advantage over you or something?
Like, there's only so much they can do, and you're kinda setting it up for them.
Can someone explain to me what the point of this was? "Oh no, I'm covered in gold now, now I'm not. Good job."
Was it not really, really cheesy how the debate in the town took place?
Like, as soon as one sentence is spoken, everybody's unanimously on their side about it,
and as soon as a counterpoint is made, then suddenly everybody changes their mind unanimously.
I felt like I was watching an elementary school debate team on some shitty kids' TV show.
It kinda pissed me off just how little credit they give your intelligence at the beginning of the movie.
There's a scene with Gandalf recruiting Thorin Oakenshield for the adventure.
At the end of the scene, he mentions how they're going to need to recruit a burglar,
and the next shot is of Bilbo, who's already midway through the adventure, with the ever so helpful title saying "12 months later".
Yeah, thanks for making sure that I understood that the scene at the beginning in the movie was before the first movie,
never would have found that out if you hadn't explained it to me.
Some of the attempts for tie-ins to the Lord of the Rings movies also seemed pretty embarrassingly forced.
[clip] That's my wee lad, Gimli.
[YMS] Also, when Smaug referred to The Ring as 'precious' even though he knew nothing about it.
[clip] Precious.
[YMS] What the fuck? So The Ring is actively controlling the characters into calling it 'precious'?
Well, that kinda kills the enjoyment out of thinking that it was part of Gollum's character.
Bilbo did refer to The Ring as 'precious' in the first Lord of the Rings,
but I assumed that he only started calling it that, because he had picked it up from Gollum.
but even if it was just by coincidence, it would still make sense for the story,
as a way to imply that Bilbo's obsession with turning him into Gollum.
But nope, apparently not only does this ring want to make you super obsessed with it,
it also wants to dictate the exact word you use to describe it, and that also affects Smaug, somehow.
You know, despite watching the trailer for this movie only twice,
the choice of lines to put in the trailer really kinda ruined them for the movie.
Every time I could see one of those lines coming, it kinda made me cringe.
"I found something in the Goblin tunnels." "What did you find?" "My courage." [breathy laugh noise]
"That, my lad, was a dragon." [grunt of disapproval]
Well, at least we got to see the dragon, considering that was basically the entire ad campaign for this movie.
"You wanna see this dragon, don't you? Didn't you like that cliffhanger at the end of the last movie, where we were like,
'Hey, you wanna see this dragon? Aw, you wanna see that dragon.'"
And the dragon did look pretty cool, even though apparently he's not a dragon, because they got rid of two of his legs.
Whatever, it works for me.
But considering the dragon only really took up 30 minutes of screen time near the end,
and they left another cliffhanger as it was headed to the city,
it only further solidifies my opinion that The Hobbit should be two movies, and not three.
I mean, even two is kinda pushing it, considering the length of the book,
but at least a lot of the action that happened in this movie could have been carried over into the first,
and then everything involving the dragon could have been in its own movie, instead of having a stupid fucking cliffhanger.
Looks like the ad campaign for the third movie is going to be exact same as this one:
"Wanna see that dragon destroy the city? Yeah, we teased you about that one, huh?"
Also, this movie takes first place for the year's most inappropriate end credits song.
♪ (I See Fire - Ed Sheeran) ♪
I don't care if the name of your song is "I See Fire", and Smaug also breaths fire. Get it?
This fucking hipster song does not fit the movie at all. Is this guy like your friend, or something? Yeah, it kinda looks like .
Now, despite this movie being really upsetting considering how much potential it had to be so much better,
I still enjoyed it, and I thought that it was a good movie overall.
It was well shot for the most part, the music was great (except for the end credits song),
everything was well performed, and I had fun watching it for the most part.
Yes, it is just a worse version of Lord of the Rings, but it's still pretty good,
and I'd recommend checking this one out in theaters, if only for the improved usage of the 48 frames per second.
Despite the 3D being virtually unnoticeable, I'm giving this one a very generous 7 outta 10.
Subtitles by JorWat