Der Hobbit: Smaugs Einöde
Regie:
Peter JacksonKamera:
Andrew LesnieMusik:
Howard ShoreBesetzung:
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Benedict Cumberbatch, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Richard Armitage, Graham McTavish, James Nesbitt (mehr)Streaming (5)
Inhalte(1)
Der Hobbit Bilbo Beutlin und die 13 Zwerge sind unter der Führung von Thorin Eichenschild auf dem Weg nach Erebor, um das verlorene Zwergenreich zu befreien. Getrennt von Zauberer Gandalf, müssen sie den Düsterwald mit seinen Furcht erregenden Riesenspinnen durchqueren. Ihr Ziel ist die Seestadt Esgaroth, wo die Menschen wohnen und im benachbarten Einsamen Berg der übermächtige Drache Smaug über die unermesslichen Schätze der Zwerge wacht. Als die Gefährten im Elbenland in Gefangenschaft geraten, muss Bilbo seinen Mut beweisen. Mit List und Tücke plant er die Flucht seiner Freunde. (ORF)
(mehr)Kritiken (15)
To accuse Peter Jackson – as many here do – of getting too carried away and overwhelming us with attractions is to misunderstand his essence. The truth is that he hasn't changed at all since he was a young boy baking evil alien masks in his mother's oven for his feature debut. He’s a big child who loves movie effects and likes to impress with visual stunts that often go over the edge. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the overstuffed King Kong, and I’ve also enjoyed the overstuffed second Hobbit. It’s so visually sumptuous and rich that no other fantasy or fairytale movie of the last ten years can match it in this respect. It starts to make sense if you take the lukewarm first film as a launching pad of sorts for the massive second part. But at the same time, I warn you, if you are you looking for insightful ideas, eye-popping scenes, in short, that "humanly warm artistic experience", go elsewhere. If, on the contrary, you want Jackson off the chains and as his most exuberant self, you are in the right place.
()
Since the first part of The Hobbit trilogy was one long exposition, the second part doesn’t have to spend any time on introducing the main characters and explaining their motivations, so it is unconstrained in telling its story. The livelier and more focused (though again episodic) narrative lacks a satisfying conclusion. Instead of bringing at least some of the storylines to a close in the climax, The Desolation of Smaug ends with just another complication. ___ Smaug seems like an episode of an epic fantasy series or an RPG, but one played by someone else who definitely isn’t going to skip any cut-scenes. Like in role-playing games, we have before us a group of adventurers who gain new experience through encounters with increasingly powerful enemies and then ultimately come face-to-face with the ultimate boss (who, of course, can’t be killed in conventional combat). In retrospect, one gets the impression that the main objective of the narrative was always the confrontation with the dragon, because nothing else actually happens in the film. Though again long and never as clear as anything done by Spielberg (whose Tintin is brought to mind by the whitewater ride), the action sequences are not there solely for their own sake. Rather, they serve for developing the already known characters (Bilbo becomes a bigger hero and more dependent on the ring), for introducing (old-)new characters (Legolas, Tauriel) and for demonstrating the courage of young, uprooted and seemingly powerless peoples to stand up to a great enemy, which I believe was an important motif for Tolkien, given the era in which he wrote his books. ___ The creative rendering of Middle Earth is also like that of a video game, as CGI animation is used to a greater extent than the authentic New Zealand landscape. The bookish illustrations would have been captivating and I could have looked at them for tens of minutes, but when combined with live-action characters, the setting seems artificial. Not to mention the Orcs, which were apparently copied directly from action-adventure games like God of War (the ease with which the goblin warriors are decapitated would seem to correspond to their video-game origins). ___ The characters whom the protagonists encounter on their journey mostly serve to impart valuable information to the adventurers or provide asylum and weaponry. Take, for example, Beorn. Though he will most likely appear in The Battle of the Five Armies, he is used rather purposefully in The Desolation of Smaug. Conversely, the mayor of Esgaroth, attaining prosperity at the cost of his citizens’ freedom, comes across merely as a dubious attempt to update the narrative with allusions to the current corruption of politics. It is necessary to acknowledge that Jackson managed to justify the presence here of other characters (Azog, Radagast) on whom seemingly needless attention was focused in An Unexpected Journey. It similarly becomes apparent why we had to find out that Bilbo is good at riddles (discovery of the keyhole). ___ The motif of the lost home is weakened, as its bearers are more or less only dwarves, not Bilbo, who is newly obsessed mainly with his ring. I believe that we spent the first forty minutes of An Unexpected Journey in Hobbiton for the sake of the possibility to use the contrast between the Hobbit’s previous comfort and his current discomfort. What came to be the key motif was the egocentrism of whole peoples (elves) and individuals (Thorin) and greed personified by Smaug, which is by far the most well-written character of the entire film. ___ The Desolation of Smaug gains momentum as the linear narrative branches into two and then three storylines. Thanks to that, the final act is as dynamic as the sweeping action sequences in Nolan’s films (though Jackson cuts between individual action scenes with greater deliberation) and, at the same time, emotionally engaging because at least in Tauriel’s case, we do not know what fate awaits her (though because she is an elf, she cannot die). The proliferation of the final confrontations with evil testifies to Jackson’s concept of The Hobbit not as the adventure of a single hero, but as an “ensemble piece”. For a team-oriented action movie in which particularly the abilities of the individual characters and their contribution to the accomplishment of the mission(s) are important (see the exemplary cooperation between Bilbo and the dwarves in the climax), it is hard to criticise the film for its emotional coldness and indifference toward individual characters. At any rate, I don’t find it pleasing, as I believe that many of those involved would deserve a separate film. ___ From the perspective of satisfying storytelling, the doubly open-ended (i.e. without a beginning or an end) The Desolation of Smaug is far from being a useless film. Thanks to the logistically flawless introduction of new characters and changing settings, it holds our attention, but it doesn’t hold up as a stand-alone story. The Desolation of Smaug does a better job than the good-natured An Unexpected Journey of giving the impression that “something” sinister is in the air. At the same time, however, it doesn’t have enough material to fully tell a story and, though it looks like a lively action experience from the outside, it paradoxically spends most of its runtime just treading water. 75%
()
(weniger)
(mehr)
Well, the magic is gone. Thanks to its slower pace, the first Hobbit put me on a wave of nostalgia, but this one is just disappointing, with uninteresting characters that you never get to know anything about and a heap of awful digital mess that in a couple of scenes (e.g. Legolas jumping on the heads of the dwarves) reminded me of the infamous car chase in the jungle of the fourth Indiana Jones. Gandalf’s search is utterly pointless, Legolas is an ornament, the love story between Kate from Lost and the second (and also the last) recognisable dwarf out of thirteen (defined with the word “annoyed”) is stupid and, on top of that, the wanderings of the party of dwarves and Bilbo pulled me into a deep confused astonishment (to send a Hobbit into a mountain to dig into drifts of gold and find some kind of powerful stone that could be anywhere, hoping the dragon won’t wake up, it’s a really great plan that may be fine for a children fairy-tale, like the book, but in a movie that wants to be dark fantasy feels out of place, at the very least). Also, there‘s no proper story or dramatic arc (the first one worked with Bilbo being accepted into the group and gaining the trust of the dwarves), so if the plot of the first part could be summarised, with some exaggeration, with “they left”, here “they arrived” is enough without any exaggeration; and with the impression that in the third “they will be there for awhile”. Jackson still has a firm hand, but my disappointment won’t let me give more than two stars to a film that terribly bored me with its barrage of digital gimmicks.
()
It’s a whole class better than the first film. Jackson tames mostly himself, puts together a somewhat coherent plot, albeit with a slight aftertaste of forced intermezzo, and above all gives credit to the winged lizard. The dragon has no equal in the ring of digital monsters and thus irons out, in the end, the embarrassing impressions of otherwise rather dull (Beorn) and completely useless (Tauriel) characters.
()
So of course I went to see the Hobbit in the cinema, the very next day after it premiered. I don’t give a damn that I almost didn’t get up for work the next morning, because the film was three hours long, plus another half an hour of commercials and trailers, as well as a 15-minute break in the middle of the film. But I still have to say that I enjoyed much more than anything in a long time. The first Hobbit was kind of bland. Peter Jackson spent an hour and a half fooling around in Rivendell and the movie was over before it truly began. The second instalment, however, has some balls. In places, it reminded me of the second Lord of the Rings, where the majority of the movie took place during the Battle of Helm’s Deep. I must say Peter Jackson made some of the scenes with so much genius that they were beyond reproach. The barrel scene, for instance, will become an example that will teach young directors how to shoot their scenes in a dynamic fashion. I have never seen such a funny and at the same time action-packed and effective scene and I don’t know if I’ll ever see it again. Add in the amazing setting, amazing characters all of whom have their place in the story (and why wouldn’t they, when the entire Hobbit trilogy will run over nine hours) and above all Middle-earth! The same Middle-earth to which I return every time my imagination starts to fail me. It was a gorgeous, incredible experience. And I’m glad that this film addresses the issue of whether an elven girl should talk to a dwarf boy and whether they should or even could become friends. Such an issue lies at the core of all fantasy worlds, and whenever there is someone willing to address it, the only thing to be said is that such is the world we live in. This movie is so charming that I don’t know if I’m even able to wait a whole year for the next one. It ended so abruptly that I wasn’t able to get over it even a week later.
()
Ich werde nicht länger über der verschütteten Milch weinen, dass die Aufteilung in drei Filme keinen Sinn macht (aber das macht es eben immer noch nicht). Während der ersten zehn Minuten fließt eine digitale Kaschiermasse der Einser-Folge über die Leinwand, eben mit irgendeinem Sonnenuntergang / Sonnenaufgang daher. Zeitgleich erinnere ich mich liebevoll an die Zeiten, in denen Mittelerde für mich materieller und gegenständlicher war als die digitalen Charaktere der Goblins oder das großartige Farbenspiel. Jackson stopft hier fröhlich aus, so gut es nur geht. Möge ihm für diese Elfen-Travestie-Show ein Geweih wachsen. Tauriel ist wunderschön und nervig, Legolas scheint im Vergleich zum Herr der Ringe um ein halbes Jahrhundert älter geworden zu sein, und weil er nicht den legeren Athlet darbieten kann, der Zwerge eigentlich mag, schaut er wie ein Hirte daher, dessen Schafherde jemand sodomisiert hat (Gruß in die südmährische Stadt Znojmo), wobei sein Beitrag in spiralenförmigen Choreografien (die gegen Ende wirklich nervig sind) besteht. Die Szene schlechthin im Zweier ist meiner Ansicht die Fassszene. Diese flüssige Action-Kreuzfahrt ist einfach göttlich und mit der Ankunft von Bard und Esgaroth hatte ich wieder das Gefühl, dass ich ein Teil Des Hobbits: Smaugs Einödesein und mich hierauf auch anders einlassen möchte, als den Film einfach nur zu begaffen. Der Konflikt zwischen dem dämonisch dahinblühenden Thorin sowie dem charismatischen Aufwühler Bard hat etwas von der alten Noblesse eines alten Adels und der ekelhaft herüberkommende Burgeoisie-Bürgermeister bringt wieder ein Stück Überschneidung und humorvollen Theaters in Dem Hobbit: Smaugs Einöde. Plötzlich gibt es das wieder etwas zu entdecken und etwas Überraschendes und Amüsantes ("Warum kriechen denn die Zwerge aus unseren Toiletten?"). Das Gefühl, dass ich mich enorm auf die Zusammenführung der drei Erzählsträngen freue, die in einem großen Action-Finale am Ende zusammenlaufen werden, ließ mich allmählich los. Der Smaugs Vortrag wird durch die popelig-trauernde Episode mit Kilim unterbrochen, und ich kann nicht gerade sagen, dass ich es genießen würde, die in die Länge gezogenen Angelegenheiten am Nebelberg zu betrachten. Außerdem wirkt der letzte dreifache Cliffhanger ziemlich billig und hat meine Annahme zerschmettert, dass der Zweier besser strukturiert wäre als der Einser. Also ist´s eben - genauso wie beim letzten Mal. Diesmal zwar noch näher an vier Sternen, jedoch in Anbetracht der enttäuschten Erwartungen ... gibt´s die eben nicht. Das geht einfach nicht. Edit nach der zweiten Betrachtung des Films: Gut, es geht.
()
Deelicious. It’s not a question of whether the second Hobbit is better or worse than part one; it is completely different and no longer resembles either the first movie or the book it’s based on. And whether or not it is any good is a matter of opinion, the same as the fact that part two is more like Jackson’s King Kong, set in Middle Earth, but unlike that movie, here the characters aren’t forgotten due to the impressive and frequent action. On the one hand, the fact that if THIS is what an artificially drawn out (things from the appendices like Gandalf’s journey and the origin of the burning eye are excellent; the newly thought up ones like inter-species romance are terrible) and shaken up money factory that, as the middle of a trilogy, shouldn’t have a beginning or an end (which true, it doesn’t, but there could have been if they had chosen a better place to split it up), looks like, then... Go on and bring us more like it, because it is definitely great entertainment, full of action, ideas and large-format movie magic. However, despite its fatefulness and action content, it is cold as a dog’s nose (the only action not dominated by playful escapades and where it’s important and the opponents “sweat blood" is Gandalf versus Sauron). Not even a team headed by Sherlock could find any hint of emotion here. And despite all its epic spectacular-ness, as in part one the climax is a simple discourse between a hobbit and a CGI character. Unfortunately this makes it even more unpleasant that Bilbo as such is so often utterly sidelined for extended periods. Which best symbolizes the problem of the second Hobbit; while for The Lord of the Rings the foundations to which Peter is laying here, Bilbo is irrelevant, so for the “Hobbit" which this is an adaptation of (whether Jackson likes it or not), Bilbo is essential. It’s the same with the Extended Edition as with The Two Towers; while being considerably longer, it is much more compact, tighter, faster moving and paradoxically feels shorter. Most of the new or extended scenes aren’t just a mandatory offering for the most loyal fans or a cute, completely unimportant extension of something seen already, but they become absolutely component to the story, giving greater depth to it and to the characters. Beorn, Mirkwood, Lake-town and the Gandalf storyline receive the greatest benefit. And some are so fundamental (and good) that you will be asking yourself why on earth they were replaced by something else in the movie theater version.
()
It left the world and took its flight / over the wide seas of the night. / The moon set sail upon the gale, / and stars were fanned to leaping light. Favorite scenes from the book elevated to adrenaline peaks, incredibly functional new characters, and references from other Tolkien works finally depicted in a way that we don't have to grasp for every footnote. And when I was afraid that the tempo might suffer with the arrival at Esgaroth, I didn't realize I would receive such a hearty dose of Smaug that would surpass everything and make The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug the film of the year again. Okay, I'm lying, I did suspect the last part. And I had missed that atmosphere of fantasy, adventure, and this time even real fear and courage much more throughout the year than I was willing to admit.
()
Wieder extrem langwierig, emotional leer und im Grunde genommen auch sinnlos. Meine Punkte sammle ich eigentlich nur für den Drachen, der mit seiner Monumentalität Respekt erweckt und... und für weitere digitale Ungeheuer. Spinnen! Ihre Szene dauert etwa 7 Minuten und gehört zu dem Besten, was man im Film sehen wird. Ein dichter Wald, noch dichtere Spinnennetze, viele behaarte Beine und giftige Zähne. Die Ankunft der Achtbeiner fehlt nicht an Atmosphäre, der Kampf mit ihnen sorgt für die richtige Spannung und ihr CGI-Design und ihre Bewegungen sind absolut perfekt. In der Qualität kann ihnen nur Odula Konkurrenz machen, aber sie verliert eindeutig in der Quantität.
()
Tasted good. A mountain of gold and a dragon to boot, who wouldn’t like it? The second part of the story unfolds in a more lively and considerably darker tempo. Jackson enjoys his freedom and introduces a new storyline (that he could have easily left out) bringing minor items of news for those who have read the book, too. Comely Tauriel with the face of Evangeline Lilly has one of the most beautiful theme tunes that Shore has ever composed. Bilbo and his gang tumble through one disaster to the next, most impressively the confrontation with the bug, the barrel ride and the final encounter with the lord beneath the mountain. This year, Cumberbatch appears in negative roles (and this is the most powerful of them). I was delighted by Smaug’s dwelling which exceeded my expectations, like the dragon itself. The playful conversation, the action. Only interrupted by Gandalf’s preparations for the finale, but only very slightly. Really effective, accepting that it’s slightly drawn out. The ending provoked disgruntled silence, mumbling and finally “You must be joking!", but honestly they couldn’t have cut it short at a better moment. Next year all it’ll all work out I suspect that episode 3 is going to be a real massacre.
()
You're watching the film and say to yourself that everything is absolutely fine, exactly as expected. It's grand, ambitious, and well made. However, this “demo” has a lot less emotion and lacks the fatefulness that "full version" has. The Lord of the Rings is much more mature and sophisticated in literature, and the same goes for the movies. So, technically, it's right, and yet I can't give it a full score. From the second part, you can feel the gloom and that the finale will be grand. Maybe they will succeed in that one.
()
Von Der Hobbit: Smaugs Einöde bin ich so ähnlich wie von Der Hobbit: Eine unerwartete Reise begeistert, d. h. mit einigen Vorbehalten. Die werden wahrscheinlich nach einem erneuten Anschauen und nach der Extended Edition verschwinden (ich möchte mehr von Beorn, Esgaroth, Tauriel, Kili und vielleicht auch von Thráin sehen). Der Prolog ist sehr gut, der Düsterwald noch besser und die Szene mit den Fässern top. Die Action trägt Jacksons Handschrift, welche mir in dem ersten Teil eigentlich gefehlt hat (die Flucht aus der Unterwelt kommt ihr nicht gleich) und bei der man sich denkt, dass Bombur echt klasse ist. Bei der Seestadt ist zu sehen, dass sie auf eine Erweiterung wartet (Stephen Fry würde es ja auch verdienen). Dol Guldur ist atemberaubend… Und dann schon Smaug, Smaug und Smaug. Ein toller Drache, der wie ein älterer und böserer Bruder von Draco aus Dragonheart aussieht. Ein sensationelles Ende. Das einjährige Warten auf das Finale wird sehr lang werden. Viereinhalb.___PS: Howard Shore ist klasse. Diejenigen, denen im ersten Teil neue Motive gefehlt haben, werden diesmal vor Behagen schnurren (falls sie nicht Elben-Heuchler sind).___PPS: Die Extended Edition ist wieder besser – nicht nur dank der hinzugefügten lustigen Szenen (die Begegnung mit Beorn, das Herumirren im Düsterwald, das Pausenbrot von Stephen Fry), sondern vor allem – endlich – dank Thráin! Der Film verdient fünf Sterne.
()
Basically, I agree with most of the negative reviews of this series. After the visually and narratively perfect LoTR, The Hobbit looks like a massive sand castle that crumbles under its own weight. I’m speaking about the second one now, which lacks a tangible cliffhanger and dilutes the pace with elements that are either forced (the romance with Tauriel) or nostalgic (the excessively serious Legolas). Mostly, though, it wants to deliver too many epic scenes, which makes it feel contrived at times – something I can forgive only because Jackson is still fun, can pump addictive energy even in the most excessively stretched story and knows how to stage the climactic scenes in such a bombastic way that you can watch them over and over again until you go mental. I writhed impatiently during the visit to Laketwon, but I was richly rewarded with the entrance of the charismatic Smaug, whose company can unleash popcorn orgies. The second Hobbit is still great as a hero’s ballad about a pilgrimage to a huge treasure guarded by a majestic creature, but it’s considerably worse as a story of the legendary Middle-Earth that also maps the rise of the greatest villain in film history. Less is more, period.
()
When I returned from the cinema, I wasn't particularly impressed with the movie I had watched. However, it gradually grew on me and I realized that this is currently the best we can get on the screen. Compared to the epic failure of "Pacific Rim", this is great in terms of both acting and writing. The created world is magnificent, and I also think that fans of Tolkien's world will be satisfied. It annoys me that such a small book is divided into so many movies, but on the other hand, let's face it, at least there is something to look forward to, even a year from now.
()
Total disenchantment and a return back to reality. Tolkien deserves better. I'm not entirely sure what went wrong. The feeling of nostalgia after The Lord of the Rings which was still strong when watching the first part of The Hobbit is definitely gone, and instead came the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced at the movie theatre. Where is the breathtaking New Zealand scenery and the absolutely brilliant music from the first installment? What you get instead are garish green screen “pictures” (I felt the same way about The Lone Ranger). The music, after the bar was set so high by previous Tolkien films, is below average. When it was announced that The Hobbit would be a trilogy, it was clear that the exaggerated length would necessarily have some negative consequences. But the fact that out of the 161 minutes, over 140 is just pointless filler, considerably threw me off. And I'm a Jackson fan. I would have loved to evaluate the acting performances if there were any, but they are barely noticeable in all that CGI nonsense. Freeman is brilliant as usual and the scenes that are focused on him are the best of the whole movie. Unfortunately there are few of them. I hate to say it, but Legolas as a killing machine - unnecessary. The scenes featuring Tauriel (presented as an emancipated elf, which I don’t think makes much sense) were simply excruciating. The bond formed between Bilbo and the dwarves in the first part somehow disappeared, and it’s back to square one. The character of Beorn, the spider massacre and Gandalf’s journey, all of that is superfluous. It breaks my heart to say this, but this movie is a total disaster.
()