A buddy of Brusimm’s, whose opinion I trust, hit up The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug at a theater on Friday and reported back to me what he thought of the movie. Sure, the movie took home an estimated ~$74M domestically, but how much of that was from the over-priced 3D market and such?
Regardless, his take was that he wasn’t disappointed to have spent the money seeing the movie, but it could have gone either way for him. (Seeing Smaug in 3D felt worthy to him though.)
He felt that at times, he was watching something that could have been on BBC and that there were quite a few scenes that felt like like they drawn out more than necessary, as time filler. (Considering Peter Jackson and crew are stretching out one book into three movies, well, I’m not surprised by this.)
And as far as 3D goes, he said that despite moments where 3D was fun, for him, it wasn’t critical. (We both agree that 3D for most live-action films isn’t worth it, but for heavily CGI’d movies and animated features, it rocks! But whose this 3D movie market for? Those who are mostly checking out the technology at least once or twice and GCI movie fans.)
But on the flip-side of the coin, I have an enthusiastic peer who gave The Hobbit 2 all thumbs up and over on Rotten Tomatoes, the numbers look like this:
Out of 166 reviews, 124 were fresh and 42 were rotten, netting the average score of the movie a 6.9.
The audience from RT gave it an 87%, which is on par with the IMDb user rating score of 8.6/10.
So you be the judge of your film destiny!
Do you want to hang out for a 161-minute movie with no breaks or wait until the movie hits FX on TV, where after inserting the palethora of ads they usually do, will make it a four-hour television movie event?