First off, Happy 2014!
I saw the second instalment of The Hobbit trilogy just before Christmas break and I was beyond excited to finally see it! As a movie-goer I thoroughly enjoyed the film and having read the book (not religiously) I was satisfied with the story. Peter Jackson, once again, nailed the cast as he did with Lord of the Rings, and Benedict Cumberbatch voicing Smaug couldn't have been a better match. I have a high respect for Mr. Cumberbatch as he seems to take his rolls very seriously and carries out a strong performance every time; he is enjoyable to watch and really draws me in to the character he's playing, I hope to see him in projects in the near future.
Finally getting to see the dragon on film was an epic reveal! I mean we're talking about the most iconic dragon in history here and getting to see him come to life was terrifying brilliant. This is the dragon that lives up to his villainous name, in my opinion there is no comparison.
I was, however, surprised to hear several people disliked the film. Some were disappointed with the way it ended, and I personally disagree. Being a fan of cliffhangers and seeing as there is still one last instalment of the trilogy the ending just made me that much more anxious to see what happens, I feel they were fair and smart in ending it where they did (story wise) now it's up to Peter Jackson to accept the challenge of meeting everyone's high expectations for what will go on in the last film.
Others found the movie to be more like "Lord of the Rings" rather than "The Hobbit" I'm still a little frazzled by this so if anyone can shed some light I'm all ears!
And then there's the few who felt they left stuff out. Again I disagree. I felt all the important facts were there and yes the cast had said there were some scenes they were disappointed didn't make it into the film, but then you have them to look forward to in the extended edition on DVD. The movie is 3 hours long so if there were anything remotely important that needed to be cut, it would have been the barrel scene. (Stated in an interview w/ Peter Jackson)
Now if there is one complaint I have with the film it would be the amount of CGI that was used. I had just recently re-watched the LOTR films and notices the amount of CGI used in those films were slim to none and when used, it was appropriate. The reliance of CGI now a days is tremendously upsetting. Don't get me wrong, I respect the artists involved in CGI, they are amazingly talented individuals and they've definitely taken visual story telling to a whole new level, but for movies such as this, it kind of takes away from the "fantasy" aspect of it all.
For example, take the LOTR movies. More than half of the film's sets, FX and characters are all done during production. The Orcs? All people in makeup. The Orcs in the Hobbit? CGI. I could go on and on comparing but see for yourself. There's something about taking that extra step to making the story that much more believable and using CGI to enhance the believability not to cover it up completely. Yes there are so many things one can do with CGI that is hard if not impossible to do on set, but to me, it's a sign of laziness and for that I was disappointed.
All in all, that is my personal review of the film and I enjoyed it non the less. I'm looking forward to "There and Back Again" and what other tricks Peter Jackson still has up his sleeves.
