He was good in HitchHiker's but he's good in everything. Martin Freeman is a British legend (made his debut in the original version of the Office too).
THOUGH THE HITCH-HIKER'S BOOK IS BETTER THAN THE MOVIE that deserves another thread at some point.
Hobbit, yeah I'm down for it. Won't be as good as LOTR though.
It's sorta like the whole post is always best but sometimes you want the TL;DR
But with HitchHikers the tl;dr is glorious since it's the greatest work of fiction ever produced (yeah I'm saying this in a LOTR thread, deal with it).
I'm beginning to wonder if CGI will ever escape that uncanny valley effect. It's amazing that so many years on and Jim Henson's creature shop still beats it hands down.
I agree with Hupu in that the most enjoyable part for me wasn't the plot, the characters or even the effects. It was how lovingly crafted the world was. While overt cartoonish behaviour or illogical character motives will destroy immersion, I didn't get that here. It's because the world was so detailed and fully realised that it's easy to become lost in it. You don't feel like there are boundaries to each and every set. You feel like the entire world exists because it's portrayed as it is.
WIth regards to the plot, it falls short of LOTR but that should come as no surprise. I never finished the book (LOTR or The Hobbit). I only ever read as far as the troll capture so I'm not overly familiar with the source material here. The action scenes were the only things that particularly dragged as, like Boc says, nothing felt at stake. I think if the first battle with the orcs before Rivendell was removed or shortened, as well as a good portion of the goblin segment that nothing of value would have been lost.
Everything in Bag-end was thoroughly enjoyable. Smeagol was incredible, as somebody who doesn't share in the world's unanimous love affair with Serkis' adaptation. I actually felt genuinely sympathetic for him, particularly knowing his backstory and what lays ahead.
I loved the stuff with the necromancer. Radagast was silly but when coupled with that dark plot, it worked fine. Rivendell and the council dragged though. Is that segment true to the original story because some of it just seemed like fanservice and an excuse to re-use the actors.
I liked Azog. I didn't think too much was lost by him being CGI. The CGI WAS very noticeable and distracting though at times.
If Smaug is the most expensive creation on film to date, judging from the "cliffhanger" establishing shot of his nostril and eye, somebody really pissed that money away. It just looked like a generic CGI run of the mill dragon. Maybe more proof that we still aren't quite close to there when it comes to CGI.
I still think the most impressively realised full on CGI character I've ever seen in a movie to date is Davy Jones from POTC. One of the only cases where I legitimately thought it was a costume before doing the research.
I have no idea why people preferred this over the first. I felt like it kinda dragged a lot. The first dragged in places but the duration of this one was far more noticeable.
Spoiler
+
The movie suffered horrendously from a severe lack of focus. This was never a problem in the first which by and large kept the attention to no more than a handful of characters at a time. Lord of the Rings was quite able to weave a multitude of plot threads and character scenes together without any negative consequences but in this case I wasn't feeling it.
I think part of the problem is that at times, it tried to play itself too seriously. You'd have smatterings of comic relief with scenes like the barrel one and then Smaug himself would prove to be a somewhat generic overplayed Disney-esque villain. These things are all fine. It fits the tone of the intended movie and it fits the tone of the original work. To then offset this with some pretty ham-fisted attempts at serious drama just ended up hurting it in a big way.
Again, it's something Lord of the Rings could pull off effortlessly because I cared about those characters. I cared about every struggle and every emotional decision. I followed them without question because the movie invested me. I can't honestly think of one character from this movie that I cared about enough to invest any sort of attention on, so to spin out so many extended dialogue scenes (particularly the Tauriel and Killi stuff...dear lord) just wound up being a boring, long-winded distraction to the action which should have been the main focus.
The ending was piss-poor and forced and don't get me started on the necromancer. I could only picture Lucas during those scenes. Why the necessity to tie it so forcefully into the original trilogy? Why the need to include Legolas just so you can have whacky cameos? We know it's the same universe so let the story speak for itself.
It was good, and I still enjoy the world tremendously. Some of my favourite parts were just seeing the different places and people (like the forest and the shapeshifter). I do have to say that the movies definitely suffered from being broken into three now. I can't feel myself getting excited about the conclusion at all.
It was very good. I didn't like the second movie, but I enjoyed this a lot. I think it rounds off the LOTR movies in quite a nice way. The Hobbit trilogy was nowhere near as memorable as LOTR but it did make me want to watch them again.
All in all there were some very nice moments.
Major Spoilers
+
Thorrin's descent into madness and redemption were very enjoyable, as was his death scene. Martin Freeman did a great job conveying his emotions with that. I'm not sure how true it is to the source material but it works.
Didn't care for the Tauriel stuff and it was silly how Smaug died in the cold open again (Saruman style). NOTICING A PATTERN HERE.
The war was very well choreographed in all, and the movie had solid focus this time. They managed to fit so much into what was a noticably smaller window of time, which really could've served the second movie a great deal.
And as always, it was kind of just nice to be back in Middle Earth even if we didn't stray too much outside of the Misty Mountains.
I would recommend seeing it on the big screen.
It is worth finishing the trilogy on the big screen if just for the end credits!
I was the only person who stayed for the full duration. Beautiful artwork and musical score as always. The Last Goodbye feels so poignant since it's our last trip to Middle Earth and also
Spoiler
+
With the last scene being Bilbo holding the ring. That music goes really nicely with that moment.
By which I mean some plot points were necessary but there's a lot they could've condensed to make it two movies instead of three. The second movie felt very winding and pointless and the third movie felt like a third arc as a whole movie.
