Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

a place to start posting reviews of the Hobbit DOS

first one here http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=137814

empire wrote:Verdict
Middle-earth's got its mojo back. A huge improvement on the previous instalment, this takes our adventurers into uncharted territory and delivers spectacle by the ton. And in case you were wondering, yes, someone manages to say the title as dialogue.

Damn, did the review embargo break already? That was pretty spoilery. Most of what they say sounds pretty encouraging. I've been trying to figure out what the big action sequence that people keep praising is, and based on the descriptions elsewhere and in Empire's review I suspect it's the fight between the Dwarves and Smaug. Some people on another forum were speculating that it would be the barrel scene, but...

Empire wrote:our posse of undersized heroes clamber into wooden casks and are lobbed into what’s not so much an action sequence as an unrelenting pile-up of lunatic, barrel-based gags. As they rocket down-river, pursued by elves and orcs (who are simultaneously waging war in the branches above), oak cylinders fly at the camera, plunge down fizzing waterfalls and bounce off rocks to scatter servants of evil like skittles.

They describe it as "fun", but they also compare it to King Kong's middle action sequences, so I'm not sure how much stock I can put in their assessment of what is fun.

Not much suprises there- everything Empire praise sounds like all the worse excess of PJ as a film maker to me.
And I dont think they have ever given PJ a bad review- not with all the exclusives they get from him during productions.

Norc I subscribe to EMPIRE, but I wouldn't necessarily trust their reviews-virtually every film drops down a star when it is released on DVD (basically you end up getting two different reviews)...and they gave Star Wars Attack of the Clones 5 stars!!!! (People still take the piss on the letters page today).

Still, it's good to know the film is a better film at least.

Though you certainly won't catch me jumping on the bandwagon.

I don't think they've given PJ a bad review on a Middle-earth movie either, but their four-star review of AUJ was one of the first indicators to me that the film's reception would be lukewarm compared to LOTR. For Empire not to give PJ a five-star rating means something is up (and it definitely was).

Fake edit: Also, I'm really not thrilled about the orc brutalization that's apparently going on here. I'm not a fan of Jack Bauer-esque heroes in general, but The Hobbit seems a particularly inappropriate place for that sort of thing.

Yeah, reviews are generally worthless to me, except until after the fact and if they happen to be funny.

"Ooooh, action sequences!" BFD!

it at least says it's better than AUJ

also who changed my awesome title  ?

Being better than AUJ seems to be a recurring theme in the reviews so far, yep.

{{{}}}

A few more sites posting their reviews -- it seems that the embargo has indeed broken early.

The Hollywood Reporter

The Bottom Line: Non-stop peril and action in the improved middle section of the Middle-Earth saga.

Nearly everything about "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" represents an improvement over the first installment of Peter Jackson's three-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved creation, writes Todd McCarthy.

Variety

After a bumpy beginning with 'An Unexpected Journey,' Peter Jackson's 'Hobbit' trilogy finds its footing in this much more exciting and purposeful second chapter.

it depends on their definition of better. From what I have read, its one long chase, fight, scene after another.

Variety points out that DOS feels much more "purposeful" than AUJ did, and that seems to have come up several times. From THR's review:

Part two is almost entirely devoted to the dangerous expedition of 13 dwarves recruited by the Wizard Gandalf with the aim of reinstating Thorin Oakenshield to his rightful place as monarch of the Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor lost in the devastating battle that opened the first film.

That really should have been the point of the first movie too (then again, AUJ and DOS should have been one movie for the most part), but it's good to hear that PJ seems to have finally gotten things together (at least a little bit).

Mrs Figg wrote:it depends on their definition of better. From what I have read, its one long chase, fight, scene after another.

I'm hoping that it's just reviewers who loved the action focusing on that, and that there will be calmer moments to explore the settings of Mirkwood and Lake-town and establish the supporting characters there.

Eldorion wrote:
They describe it as "fun", but they also compare it to King Kong's middle action sequences, so I'm not sure how much stock I can put in their assessment of what is fun.

Oh christ, King Kong was such a bore.

From what I've heard, it seems like it could be worse. More invented crap and characters. I know reviewers generally don't use that as part of their criteria but, well, to Angband with them!

Critics typically aren't concerned with the nuances of adaptation, and some might not even be familiar with the book.

Some critics don't seem overly concerned with plot holes, etc either  

If DOS is well-paced, entertaining, and capable of standing on its own then it will be an improvement over AUJ and I will be happy (more or less).

Hollywood Reporter gave AUJ a less than favorable review last year.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/review/397416

Seeing that it's the same critic, and he's give DOS a favorable review, that might mean there is hope for a tighter, more exciting movie.

Reading the Hollywood Reporter review-  reads like a negative review to me-

First thing to note- the author has presumably little knowledge of the book if they thinks this-

"After exhibiting an almost craven fidelity to his source material the first time out"  

"his perennial tendency to let bloat creep in reasserts itself to an extent—as in the Lord of the Rings films, not to mention King Kong, he has a hard time knowing when enough is enough"

"Always, they are stalked and, as often as not, attacked by the fearsome Orcs, muscle-bound uglies in league with Smaug"   

"as one skirmish follows another, it becomes clear that suspense cannot be a factor here because the rules of the game mitigate against it. Where the elves are concerned, there is no danger because they are, by nature, immortal."- Um, elves are supposed to be able to die physically. PJ makes a big thing of it when Haldir dies in TT.

"This is not the case for the dwarves but, with the exception of one injury, the little guys consistently escape unharmed while the humongous and ferocious orcs go down as easily as shooting gallery ducks."

"With Ian McKellen's ever-imposing Gandalf bowing out for a long stretch on other pressing business (consult the appendices), it might seem that the heavy lifting would be taken up by Martin Freeman's slowly flowering Bilbo Baggins...... Bilbo also steps to the side through a middle stretch that provides time not only for Legolas (with a blond-tressed Orlando Bloom not missing a step, nor an arrow shot, since Ring) and Tauriel (a winning Evangeline Lilly, of TV's Lost) but for a significant layover in a port called Lake-town."- so The Hobbit doesnt bother with the actual Hobbit of the title for the middle stretch of the film?  

"a fine voice it is, supplied by Benedict Cumberbatch but too unnaturally deepened and electronically modified to afford pure enjoyment of the actor's menacing readings."- bit like how they ruined Galadriels big speech by lighting her up for xmas.  

"the predominance of CGI in most scenes is consistent not only with the previous entry but all the Rings films"- does this person even know what they talking about?

"too many of Jackson's and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie's carefully calibrated swooping and circling camera moves look like they were generated by a computer program."

"After exhibiting an almost craven fidelity to his source material the first time out"

Yeah, see, that's the thing. He's obviously not familiar with the source material the way we are. Oh, it's long and boring and they spend a lot of time talking? Well, it must all be in the book, right?!

lol nope

"his perennial tendency to let bloat creep in reasserts itself to an extent—as in the Lord of the Rings films, not to mention King Kong, he has a hard time knowing when enough is enough" - Captain Obvious

Yeah, that reviewer is pretty clueless.

That's why reviews mean nothing to me. The LotR films were universally well-reviewed and even ended up on the AFI Top 100 list, which means nothing (and honestly lessens the worth of that list) to me.

Well, to be fair, they're reviewing a movie. Just a movie. They're not overly concerned with adaptation.

Radaghast wrote:Yeah, that reviewer is pretty clueless.

He doesn't seem to know what the word purist means in Tolkien fan circles and he's probably not overly familiar with the book, but I don't think that makes him clueless.

That's why reviews mean nothing to me. The LotR films were universally well-reviewed and even ended up on the AFI Top 100 list, which means nothing (and honestly lessens the worth of that list) to me.

The AFI Top 100 list has nothing to do with reviewers, though.  It was a list chosen by film industry professionals.  LOTR received overwhelming praise not only from the vast majority of reviewers but also from many different industry groups, including the AFI and the AMPAS.  Plus it was one of the most successful box office trilogies ever made and only increased its gross with each film, suggesting that audiences were also very fond of each new movie.  Obviously that doesn't mean that you or anyone else is required to like the films, but LOTR is one of the most widely-praised movie series (by any metric of praise) ever made, and it goes way beyond movie critics.

If he's just reviewing the movie, he should leave the book out of it. And if he's unfamiliar with the book, he shouldn't claim to be or presume to know what he's talking about when he clearly doesn't; if he's making inaccurate statements about the book, it suggests cluelessness to me.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:"Always, they are stalked and, as often as not, attacked by the fearsome Orcs, muscle-bound uglies in league with Smaug"   

Just noticed this part.  Now I'm crossing my fingers that Radaghast is right and the reviewer is clueless, instead of the alternative.