A wickedly entertaining, sometimes thrilling adventure.
Friday, 13 December 2013
Adventure, Drama, Fantasy
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage
jon said on Saturday, January 25, 2014 7:10:50 PM
You have no credibility if you think this is a good movie, Roeper. Peter Jackson thinks he can just create this electronica mash-up of middle earth characters, events, landscapes and lore while abandoning all fidelity to the original story - one in which Bilbo Baggins is the de facto main character. This is a noisy and heartless reimagining of the middle of a completely different book. I don't care how good the CGI is or how fun the barrel scene is - if you review movies for a living, your primary focus should be on the story-telling.
Steve C said on Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:12:29 PM
I liked this one much better than the first Hobbit which felt like a cartoon. Smaug was great. But I could have done without the addition of the made up Thoriel character and the ridiculous love triangle including her and a dwarf. As a huge fan of the Tolkien books (read them all multiple times) the concept of an elf falling for a dwarf is laughable and really took away from the film's credibility. I'm surprised Jackson pulled such a stunt after the incredible job he did with LOTR. I suppose since there was no romance in the Hobbit book he had to invent it. Okay. Didn't work for me. I'd give the film maybe a B- for too much filler in trying to stretch one book into three long films. It probably would have been best as one three hour film, but I am still looking forward to seeing the final installment.
Jacob said on Thursday, December 26, 2013 8:06:06 PM
B+ is fair, if not generous. Without the amazing dragon, this movie would have been worse than the first Hobbit movie, which was not that great in comparison to the other LOTR films.
Bruce said on Monday, December 23, 2013 4:45:22 PM
Quit whining about the length of the movies, it was just fine, both times. What else have you got to do anyway since you review movies for a living?
Reply from Richard Roeper
First of all, commenting on the length of a movie is not 'whining.' Might I suggest you look up the definition of the word.
As for what else I have to do for a living:
I co-host a four-hour, daily radio show about news, politics, sports and pop culture.
I've written eight books and I'm working on a ninth.
I've written more than 5,000 columns. Currently I write two video essays per week.
That's what else I've got to do. How about you?
D-Man said on Monday, December 23, 2013 3:16:30 AM
Whew, lots of fanboy studio-plant butthurt in these comments. Thank you for the wonderful review Mr. Roeper, despite your glowing praise it seems once again the obsessive fanboyism surrounding the film will keep me far away from it. Also: Three movies for one book? This isn't The Hobbit, it's a cash-cow spawned from focus groups.
Boromir's Uncle said on Monday, December 23, 2013 1:28:43 AM
Actually, this movie was worse than Roper lets on, especially given the excellence of the material. Poor exposition (Where are we going, and why?), misuse of CGI vs. real settings (remember the awesome countryside setting of LOTR, and even Hobbit 1?...well, you have your memories--Jackson has CGI), and ADDED complications to an already fairly complicated story. The woman elf Thoriel, however, was an excellent addition. Seems that Jackson just doesn't know how to edit, build suspense, use the suspense that's inherent, etc. Someday someone will make a good one, but it may be a few generations. Oddly enough, the animated children's cartoon version is still the best.
Billy said on Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:14:16 AM
Comments, truly, are what ruin the internet. Great review, as always, but feel free to turn off the comment section.
scott said on Friday, December 20, 2013 9:39:10 PM
Before I went a 7 year old kid on tv said it was the greatest film he ever saw.I am 45 years old. We grow pessimistic as we get older.The 9 year old that still lives in me gives this movie a 10
Blane said on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:02:16 AM
I dont understand how people like you have a job sometimes. Yes, I get that some movies suck but this movie and Unexpected Journey were the most memorable movies ive seen in years. I prefer these over all the harry potter and hunger games movies. I even prefer it over The Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises. And Ive seen those movies 100 times.
Just because you dont "get" the world of Middle-Earth and what Jackson is trying to with the story, doesnt mean its a so-so movie. Your terrible reviews (and others alike) are why people arent going to see it.
I left the movie in complete awe and yearning for more, which apparently other VIEWERS did as well. Seeing that the viewers give this a much better score than the so-called "critics" proves that your opinions should not carry as much weight as they do.
Go see the movie people! You wont be disappointed! I heard a teenage girl walk into the theater making fun of it and leave saying she cant wait to see the next one and that she was hooked on it.
Jim Richardson said on Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:51:30 PM
B+ is about right for this movie. Certainly more action than the first. I don't mind the extra storylines from the books and you're right Richard, Evangeline Lilly is a welcome addition to the series and among geeks should spawn many a conversation about who had the most creative, acrobatic "kills", her or Legolas. This movie did have a strange effect on me though, at times it felt too long and when it ended suddenly, I grumbled that it wasn't long enough. I nominate it for most abrupt ending to a movie since Lando flew off with Chewbacca.