MovieChat Forums > The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) Discussion > Why did this movie get BETTER reviews th...

Why did this movie get BETTER reviews than An Unexpected Journey?


I can't figure out why the first Hobbit film got so much negative response when it was released, but then the second one came out a year later and numerous professional critics and fans on the internet were saying it was "much better" and an "improvement" over the first one.

Those who hated AUJ mainly ranted about the useless filler to pad the story, the long running time, and how the IMAX version with the higher frame rate hurt their eyes (I didn't see the movie in the higher frame rate, so this was a non-issue to me. Sorry they picked the wrong theater but that's no reason to bash the film itself). Yet DoS had the same issues as the first film, and they gave it a pass this time around.

I always thought AUJ was the best of The Hobbit trilogy. It had a sense of lightheartedness and fun that the latter two lacked, and I loved the "Misty Mountains" song (which was sorely missing from the second and third films). I didn't watch DoS until it came out on DVD, and I found it to be the weakest of the trilogy -- it suffered from "middle chapter" syndrome because it didn't resolve anything and went on forever, and I found most of the "filler material" in the second one was far less interesting than the "filler material" in the first one. AUJ had some great iconic scenes, like the Dwarfs arriving at Bilbo's home, the Misty Mountains song, Riddles in the Dark, Bilbo being captured by the three trolls who try to roast him alive until Gandalf turns them into stone, etc. Pretty much the only parts of DoS that were worth watching was when Smaug FINALLY showed up. And even that part, as cool as it was, had an underwhelming "conclusion" because Peter Jackson decided to leave it on a cliffhanger for the third movie.

Looking at the RT scores, AUJ got 64% fresh whereas DoS got a 74% fresh.

For those who prefer the second film over the first one, WHAT exactly do you like BETTER? It contains all the SAME flaws that you mercilessly bashed the first movie for, and a far less compelling set of events.

I don't get it.

reply

The Desolation of Smaug felt like it had a much quicker pace than An Unexpected Journey. That might have contributed to its better reception.

"There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world." - Gandalf

reply

Faster pace and more variety.

Yes, it adds more fan fiction, but it can't be denied that it has a faster pace and more variety.

 If at first you don't succeed, you're not Chuck Norris

reply

AUJ was definitely superior, it spent time on world-building, set-up and establishing character - which is precisely why the ADHD phone-checking critics don't like it as much. Too much "talking and fantasy", they need them their video game cutscenes. Also, many reviewers liked that DoS had more women in it because empowerment, which foreshadowed how simplistic the factors for a "good movie" in the eyes of "critics" would become.

reply

Agree; I thought AUJ was a great movie and enjoyed the enhanced scenes. People think the Bagend section is slow, but it's probably my favorite part of the movie. and Desolation was good too as Smaug was an amazing character; I just hated the addition of Tauriel. I am a woman but I don't need a 'strong female lead' to make my stories good. I had issues with what they did to Arwen in Fellowship but understand that change to help with character building. Tauriel was just a Mary sue added because there were no woman; dumb.

reply

Honestly, I was one of the people who thought DOS was much much better than the first when it was released. I've since re-watched them and while DOS is still my favorite I quite enjoy AUJ much more than the first viewing. I still can't get on board with BOFA. Once Smaug dies it's all down hill for me.

But, when it was released I found as others have said AUJ very slow and very long with a lackluster ending. We spend nearly 4 hours in this movie and we barely know our characters' names besides Gandalf, Bilbo, and possibly Thorin. I also hated the CGI Goblins at the time and still find them to be the weakest part.

While DOS had as others said a much quicker pace and felt shorter than AUJ. It also had Smaug that stole the show IMO. They did a fantastic job of bringing him to life and his screen presence was something we hadn't really seen before. An evil intelligent talking dragon of all things. Pretty cool if you ask me.

Another thing that nagged on me was how bloated AUJ felt compared to the Lord of Rings movies. Those were made for under 100M each and I thought did a wonderful job of bring that world to life with minimal CGI and practice effect use. Similar to how the original star wars movies did. While AUJ supposedly cost $250M alone and felt like they used a CGI crutch every chance they got. It didn't feel real, it felt like a very high-end video game cut scene. I remember Ian Mckellen a veteran actor cried on set because it was so hard to act to so much green screen.

If you ask me Peter Jackson and George Lucas have a lot in common. Both made masterful trilogies that had while good in their own right lesser prequels that rely far too much on CGI.

reply

Idk why this one got the strongest reviews of the Hobbit trilogy either, this was the WORST. They made you wait two fucking hours to see that Dragon with much of it feeling padded. They also got rid of the Hobbit music theme from Unexpected Journey which was frustrating. The first Hobbit was much better and should've gotten stronger reviews than this.

reply

The dragon was cool though. And those rabbits from the first movie definitely were not.

Another thing is that when many of us saw the first movie, we were shocked to find it wasn't the Hobbit we knew. By the time the second movie came around, were were resigned to it.

reply