Read Mixed User Reviews for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

5

CanyarionDec 13, 2013

"Decent fantasy-action slightly inspired by The Hobbit"
Most reviews will tell you what's so great about this movie and why it's worth watching, but I figured you should hear the other side of the story.
First of all a small note for"Decent fantasy-action slightly inspired by The Hobbit"
Most reviews will tell you what's so great about this movie and why it's worth watching, but I figured you should hear the other side of the story.

First of all a small note for Tolkien fans. If you thought An Unexpected Journey strayed a bit too far from the book: The Desolation of Smaug looks like the script writers didn't even know there was a book. The movie tries hard to change the story wherever it can, reducing fan-favorite chapters to 5 minute scenes and writing new content that feels out of place.

But it's not only bad if you've read the book. I really wonder what the target audience is, because it feels like it's written for 15 year old boys. There are random action scenes every 10 minutes and 'funny' decapitations every 30. The worst thing here is that the action comes at the cost of character development. You have a band of 13 Dwarfs and a Hobbit, yet you rarely see them interact.

Now I like Elves more than Dwarfs, so I didn't mind seeing so much of them in this movie. But having them show up in every place to save the day feels wrong. Perhaps Peter Jackson thought his cast of Dwarfs wasn't good enough to create an enjoyable movie? Gandalf's scenes in Dol Guldur were an interesting addition in concept, but they are just too slow. I feel his scenes mostly serve as an attempt to raise The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings' level of epicness. And that just doesn't work.

The story is full of illogicalities. How does entering the mountain to steal the Arkenstone to unite the Dwarfs to kill the Dragon to enter the mountain work exactly?? And remember that heartwarming last scene of An Unexpected Journey, where Thorin finally accepts Bilbo? Well, that's all gone again. Even though he keeps outsmarting all the Dwarfs, Bilbo is back to being an unappreciated 5th wheel of the party. And did the writers really think viewers would be so desperate for a love story that they'd enjoy an Elf and a Dwarf flirting it up? Their scenes feel forced and are painful to watch.

Martin Freeman's acting is top notch again, but sadly he hardly gets any screen time. He only shines in his scene with Smaug. Now Smaug as a character is awesome, no complaints there. Yet most of his scenes are way too dragged out. There's a 20 minute scene with the Dwarfs running around thinking they can defeat him. Only at that point the movie already hinted at the only possible way of defeating him. Perhaps the worst aspect is that these scenes make Smaug look like an unintelligent creature. Dwarfs luring a Dragon around by going "Nana-nanana you can't catch me!" is not only silly and cliché, it's an insult to Smaug's character.

Final complaint: the whole movie builds up to a scene.... that's apparently going to be the opening scene of movie 3. Nobody in the cinema was sure if the movie had ended, or there was just an awkwardly long pause when the screen went black.

A movie like this you'll want to see, no matter how good or bad it is. You can't miss out on such a huge release, especially when it looks gorgeous in HFR 3D. But where I watched each Lord of the Rings movie 3 times in cinema, watching The Desolation of Smaug just once was enough for me.

In the end, most problems of the movie seem to stem from the decision to turn the cute Hobbit tale into three epic movies that have to live up to the Lord of the Rings hype. It doesn't work.… Expand

26 of 38 users found this helpful2612

All this user's reviews

5

Edward_FMar 13, 2014

This movie is a personalization of Hollywood's greed. Wonderful book was taken and transformed into trilogy with bizarre moments that were created in sick mind of script editors and references to Lord of the Rings that never were in original.This movie is a personalization of Hollywood's greed. Wonderful book was taken and transformed into trilogy with bizarre moments that were created in sick mind of script editors and references to Lord of the Rings that never were in original.

60% of movie is just made up to make it longer, but non is done in a good way. And it's just makes it boring as hell.

Please someone tell Peter Jackson that he is not Mr. Lucas. He is not filming pre-story to his wonderful trilogy. He is filing different book. let him read it.

The movie is not bad in general. It's good only 40% of time when it follows book. I hope they will make special edition based book authentic script and cutting three movies to look like they were made actually based on Hobbit. Not a greedy - mind created hobbit.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

SupermegaguyJan 10, 2014

You might enjoy this if you know absolutely nothing about the source material and are also a brain dead moron. Seriously this movie is way way too long and has so much needless stuff shoehorned in I can't believe it's made by the same guyYou might enjoy this if you know absolutely nothing about the source material and are also a brain dead moron. Seriously this movie is way way too long and has so much needless stuff shoehorned in I can't believe it's made by the same guy that made The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Truly Peter Jackson is the new George Lucas. I'm glad he's not the one making these stories up though. The books will always be there for those who really want to know about the world Tolkien crafted with his words.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

nicholasbertJan 16, 2014

Blatantly visual-oriented, tries to be funny but isn't, tries to be spectacular but only seldom is, not consistent with the book, acting is horrid, the epic i-am-the-hero discourses are just over the top and what's wrong with Orlando Bloom'sBlatantly visual-oriented, tries to be funny but isn't, tries to be spectacular but only seldom is, not consistent with the book, acting is horrid, the epic i-am-the-hero discourses are just over the top and what's wrong with Orlando Bloom's eyes?

On the other hand, special fx are stunning, especially the scenes with Smaug (which by the way last very little) and the voice of Smaug himself is transcendental. I'm personally biased towards films like this, for I don't usually like fantasy, but this one is not so bad after all.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

steve0393k3kdijDec 19, 2013

1) There is NO WAY (in other words, utterly and completely impossible) that there is going to be ANYTHING even remotely resembling "romance" between and Elf-Maid and a Dwarf. Whoever wrote this Turiel and Kili stuff is an absolute IDIOT.1) There is NO WAY (in other words, utterly and completely impossible) that there is going to be ANYTHING even remotely resembling "romance" between and Elf-Maid and a Dwarf. Whoever wrote this Turiel and Kili stuff is an absolute IDIOT.

2) We already have one Orc general baddie. We don't need to invent another one.

3) Turiel. Totally uneccessary distraction. Inventing superflous characters to give little girls something to identify with is bad film making.

4) The entire battle scene under the mountain between Smaug and the Dwarves was completely ridiculous and literally unbelievable. Nothing even remotely similar happened in the book. But if you MUST invent an entirely unneccesary scene then at least make it believable. Yeah right they on the spot figured out a way to trick Smaug into smelting gold for them, and channeled it into a mold and put him in position to get covered in the melted gold when the mold bursts. Just plain stupid.

5) WE DON'T NEED EXTRA LONG MOVIES PADDED WITH EXTRANEOUS NONSENSE. OK, fine, make 3 movies out of it since you want to milk the property for everyting you can. 90 minutes each is long enough. Sitting through endless poorly conceived subplots does not make the movies better. Just longer.

Unbelievable.… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

6

kingglucoseDec 14, 2013

I was really excited to see this movie as I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I enjoyed an Unexpected journey. This movie was definitely a step down from every other movie in middle earth so far. The cinematography was gorgeous andI was really excited to see this movie as I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I enjoyed an Unexpected journey. This movie was definitely a step down from every other movie in middle earth so far. The cinematography was gorgeous and there were a lot of really great shots. However the movie really falters in the way that it was adapted. If you liked the book for it's humor, lovable characters and charm you will e sorely disappointed. The lighthearted essence of a childrens book is gone in order to make it much darker. Also there is an incredible amount of filler, and to make time for the filler they cut or dramatically altered the actual content from the book. My last complaint is about legolas, why was he in the movie at all? It ruins any tension involved in those scenes because you know hes going to make it, before seeing the movie i thought his involvement would be a short cameo at most, maybe something to do with Gollum. No instead he is one of the central characters in the film. Overall i would say that this movie was disapointing as a LotR fan but a well shot movie with some good cgi and action sequences.… Expand

9 of 15 users found this helpful96

All this user's reviews

4

CaptainMoraviaDec 13, 2013

Seriously if you have seen all trailers of hobbit, you saw all the best of the film. I saw movie in midnight premiere yesterday and according to book it suppose to be a best part of trilogy, but I was so disappointed and bored. AlmostSeriously if you have seen all trailers of hobbit, you saw all the best of the film. I saw movie in midnight premiere yesterday and according to book it suppose to be a best part of trilogy, but I was so disappointed and bored. Almost everything is wrong with that film... Every sequence which was so awesome in the book, is in the movie cutted to few minutes or skipped.... After the first great Unexpected journey movie I expect something better than this sequel. If you have read the book, you will dislike or like me hate this sequel, if you haven't read any of Tolkien's books, you may find this movie entertaining..… Expand

14 of 26 users found this helpful1412

All this user's reviews

6

AnttirokkrDec 13, 2013

Boring movie, I was never a fan of the first hobbit, I just feel wrong that a children's book was adapted into a 9 hour movie like the original trilogy. None of the characters has charisma (except Gandalf), you just don't care for what theyBoring movie, I was never a fan of the first hobbit, I just feel wrong that a children's book was adapted into a 9 hour movie like the original trilogy. None of the characters has charisma (except Gandalf), you just don't care for what they do. Peter Jackson is losing his touch, and we should just give up and keep watching the original ones.… Expand

10 of 19 users found this helpful109

All this user's reviews

6

jeremypJan 11, 2014

The dwarf quest for their home went stale one hour into episode 1. Now it' s become torture. Good actors gone to waste, an endless conversation with a too loquacious Dragon, and too little of the gorgeous elf elf lady who kicks butt.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

evanrmJan 6, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Another year, another average, empty, shallow and lite Hobbit film. The real problem is that the story of The Hobbit is simply too little to pad out into three 2 hour plus films. With the Lord of the Rings, there was too much story, and much of it had to be slimmed down (which wasn't necessarily a bad thing) for the three films. With The Hobbit, there simply isn't enough story. The Desolation of Smaug is somewhat better than the first film, but only because this one appears to have a point to it. I really wish that del Toro had directed these ones, as I think he would have done it much better than Jackson is capable of.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

TiTaToverteefJan 5, 2014

The most dissapointing film of 2013. Jackson has completely mangled the books. The original core (a children's book about Bilbo finding his inner Took) has been dumbed down to an action film. Don't get me wrong, the film is extremely wellThe most dissapointing film of 2013. Jackson has completely mangled the books. The original core (a children's book about Bilbo finding his inner Took) has been dumbed down to an action film. Don't get me wrong, the film is extremely well filmed and it's Middle Earth in all its glory, but it's not 'The Hobbit'. Where Jackson would leave out or alter minor details in the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, he's added extra, unnecessary details. Legolas wasn't in the book and neither was Tauriel, not to mention Azog. He has even added material from the Appendix of the Return of the King! The film should have been ONE film without any added details rather than 3 films that are way too full of unnecessary details. The film could be a lot of fun for people that have no idea what the original book is about, but for people that read the book it's a huge dissapointment. I don't think I'll go to the third film, as I can't bear to see what Jackson will turn the Battle of the Five Armies to. Sorry Jackson, but you messed up big time with The Hobbit pt2. If you enjoy an action film that has the likes of Middle Earth, this is for you. If you like the lore and any backstory whatsoever, stay away from this abomination.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

somerset72Jan 6, 2014

Some of the spectacle and action sequences are amongst the best that I've seen, with the barrel sequence being my own particular favorite

The introduction of Tauriel was good (I didn't know she wasn't in the book until an outraged fan toldSome of the spectacle and action sequences are amongst the best that I've seen, with the barrel sequence being my own particular favorite

The introduction of Tauriel was good (I didn't know she wasn't in the book until an outraged fan told me..), although the love interest felt a bit forced and Orlando Bloom appeared to be trying to act the part only using his eyebrows and an offended expression

The narrative feels clunky and stretched to the point of breaking with some scenes feeling really baggy… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

mvoelckerJan 27, 2014

Like the first movie, the desolation of smaug still suffers the consequence of making 3 movies for a 300 pages book. The result is almost nothing really important to the story happening throughout the entire movie

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

manuelvela-vfxFeb 12, 2014

"The desolation of smaug" is blockbuster action movie with superbe and stunning quality images, much better than an unexpected journey. but I seemed a long boring movie.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

familyguyMar 6, 2014

I say it once and i say it a gain device hobbit in 3 part is the stupid thing peter Jackson ever did.The movie have a lot of unnecessary scenes just to took movie as long as the request . The CGI is only thing good but he use a lot of CGII say it once and i say it a gain device hobbit in 3 part is the stupid thing peter Jackson ever did.The movie have a lot of unnecessary scenes just to took movie as long as the request . The CGI is only thing good but he use a lot of CGI for background instead go out side and use real scene. The camera is another disappointed it give me the headache rather than good view… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryDec 17, 2013

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and his dwarf companions travel thru several seemingly insurmountable obstacles to reach the mountain where the dragon sleeps. This continuation of the story is full of action: chases, fights and confrontations.Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and his dwarf companions travel thru several seemingly insurmountable obstacles to reach the mountain where the dragon sleeps. This continuation of the story is full of action: chases, fights and confrontations. Some of it's inventive, but much is just noisy and busy. Freeman manages to add some mild comic charm with his character, but otherwise the story is all serious. The visuals and threatening creatures are convincing, but there's little about this installment that's a visual wow. Mostly, it's just solid movement forward. Fans should be thrilled, while regular moviegoers will not be bored.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

5

DustDevilDec 15, 2013

I'm not writing this review as a great fan of Tolkien, as some who would call me purist to dismiss this analysis would say.

In the perspective of adaptation and cinematographic narrative, this movie is a mess. Peter Jackson simply does notI'm not writing this review as a great fan of Tolkien, as some who would call me purist to dismiss this analysis would say.

In the perspective of adaptation and cinematographic narrative, this movie is a mess. Peter Jackson simply does not seem to be the same director of the absolutely perfect adaptation of the Lord of the Rings (which simply touched all the right spots). P.J. in this movie, moreso than the first, shows an absolute lack of selfcontrol and indulges in his love of the excess in all possible ways, be with the lack of cuts, tropes, horrible 3D, and Spectacle Creep...

The movie fails to use perfectly good oportunities to extend its time in the screen (example, flesh out Beorn, flesh out Mirkwood) by fleshing out the narrative of the book, but instead chooses to add scenes that simply do not add up in the very context of the Hobbit/LotR movies, with also lack logic.

The climax of the movie (SMaug) is great, the dragon is simply beautiful, but even that P.J. manages to bring down with a completely useless and incredibly long scene inside Erebor, with constant cuts to a dwarf searching for the KINGSFOIL in a pig house. Really? In the climax?!

Overrall, although this movie might be more appealing to a wider audience than the first, it was a much, much bigger disapointment I do not recommend it.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

4

TuscaroraDec 15, 2013

Peter Jackson followed the storyline much better when he created the Lord of the Rings. In the Hobbit and particularly in this movie, he took more than a little liberty with the license. The 3D was unnecessary and did not add much to thePeter Jackson followed the storyline much better when he created the Lord of the Rings. In the Hobbit and particularly in this movie, he took more than a little liberty with the license. The 3D was unnecessary and did not add much to the film and the touches to characters from the LOTR were silly. One thing you learn from watching this movie is if you the fellowship had been 12 elves, they could have devastated the armies of the enemy. The elves are killing machines and the races of man and dwarves are useless and incompetent beside them. Also, if you are honest with yourself, you will notice that the background images look fake, this is because of the higher definition playback. I score it a 4 and I am being generous because the film did include a hobbit, dwarves, a dragon and a mountain stronghold... other than that count on Peter Jackson rewriting one of the greatest fantasy stories. At times you wonder if he actually read the movie.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

6

wl-humeDec 13, 2013

“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” is an okay movie, some nice fantastical elements, quite overlong, but provides great escapism. It is held back from greatness by wrapping its story around arguably the most pointless trilogy ever“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” is an okay movie, some nice fantastical elements, quite overlong, but provides great escapism. It is held back from greatness by wrapping its story around arguably the most pointless trilogy ever manufactured by large scale cinema and comfortably dawdling in the shadow of another great franchise it should only occasionally pay homage to.

Before I continue I will say that the only Middle earth lore that I have read is the prologue “Concerning Hobbits, and other matters” from “The Fellowship of the Ring”. I am strictly a film fan of the series, and my opinion of watching “The Journey Begins” was that it felt like a bit of a drag. Going into this installment knowing that the four screenwriters had written some original material outside of Tolkien’s novels to go along with the movie got me a bit excited. I have to say I was a bit let down, it seemed like the filmmakers weren’t really challenging themselves here.

Getting my general complaint out of the way quickly is that at this point the series feels formulaic. “Where’s Bilbo?” Bilbo shows up, demonstrates courage, saves the day, cue Howard Shore’s gently uplifting recycled oscar winning score. None of the die-hard fans or at least the kind that represents the vocal minority on the internet seem to really be bothered by the way in which this adaptation is being treated into 3 somewhat-mediocre films rather than a singular focused masterpiece, and I don’t blame them for wanting to stay in this richly drawn world for as long as possible, but for the filmmakers who are even fans themselves, I would ask for more quality over quantity.

My older brother pointed out to me once while watching “King Kong” that he thought director Peter Jackson seemed to rely a bit too much on CGI. I for one here would initially think that with “The Hobbit” aimed towards a less gritty adult style than “Lord of the Rings”, the CGI would serve the lighter tone of the film better, but in the manner it’s done here it comes across as lazy and inconsistent, with occasionally sub-par CGI used on some orcs (or parts of them) and not others it serves as a distraction.

Speaking of distractions every single callback to the “The Lord of the Rings” that lasts more than a few seconds ruins the pacing and tone of the movie by getting in the way of the main plot, which I’m aware of but not quite as clear as I should be on. Fan-service doesn’t serve a film very well when you refer to a brewing yet rather unrelated conflict that the audience knows was already solved in another film series a decade ago next Tuesday. Funnily enough for some reason, I didn’t think the time-keeping in Middle Earth followed the Gregorian calendar.

The screenplay for the film is a slight weak point, as it takes its time understandably it doesn’t develop the dwarfs in any interesting or compelling way to justify its running time. There are sparks of interest that lie in each of the supporting characters but it is left at that. For Tolkien fans I suppose that’ll do, since I imagine what was or was not presented in books was properly left to the imagination, but here much of what is feels like a waste or a wasted opportunity. I can’t quite remember the names of all the dwarfs but considering the amount of screen time they’ve had so far you’d think they’d talk about something interesting other than the journey. These are the most focused characters I have ever seen on screen, five and a half hours in and they haven’t bothered to really let themselves or the audience get to know one another.

Maybe its because they were as taken aback by the sheer spectacle of Middle Earth as I was. The action in the film is more varied and plentiful than it was in the last film but of course much is still saved for the finale, and with a high production value I understand why Peter Jackson doesn’t want to leave, the whole thing looks like a soft coloured painting. The scenery is brightly lit and beautiful, such a visually resplendent treat that it makes sense to sit and take it in, not for 2 hours and forty one minutes though. A little precious indulgence now and then isn’t too hurtful, but it can lead to audience neglect and unintentionally boring periods of desolation.… Expand

8 of 20 users found this helpful812

All this user's reviews

6

RassillDec 14, 2013

This movie is a slight improvement over the first in this "trilogy that should not have been" only because the pace is vastly quickened. It does however manage to be even less emotionally engaging than the first film which at least hadThis movie is a slight improvement over the first in this "trilogy that should not have been" only because the pace is vastly quickened. It does however manage to be even less emotionally engaging than the first film which at least had Bilbo's speech about his home crowbarred in at its climax in an attempt to make the audience care about the story. There is no such attempt in this movie and I actually felt like I got to know the dwarves even less than in the first one as they, with the exception of Fili and Thorin, have even less character moments.

Martin Freeman again gives a good performance as Bilbo, especially in the scenes in which the ring is shown to be starting to take its toll on him but he's really not given a whole lot to work with and most of his exchanges are simply reactions to the situations happening around him. Ian McKellen is again dependable as Gandalf but is also given very little to do and if it weren't for a fairly lacklustre section, added by jackson, in which he searches for the Necromancer, he would barely be in the film at all.

I also have an issue with the overuse of CGI in these movies. In the LOTR trilogy it only seemed to be used by Jackson where absolutely necessary to achieve a sequence, now it pervades nearly every shot and makes for some very lazy direction on Jackson's part. Maybe it was a tighter budget when filming LOTR that forced him to think in new and inventive ways but in these movies he seems content to just load the action scenes with CGI and as a result the whole thing comes across as a lot more pedestrian. It's clear that these films have been made to make a profit and are not the labour of love for Jackson that the LOTRs films were, which is a shame.

The dragon Smaug is voiced well by Benedict Cumberbatch though I didn't feel it was anything groundbreaking as some critics have lauded it to be. As touched on earlier the new material added by Jackson is passable at best, groan worthy at worst, the main offender being a rather tiresome and unconvincing romance between a dwarf and an elf which had the potential to bring some much needed heart to the movie but did not succeed. And in a very unexpected move the film has one of the most abrupt endings in cinema history, to the point where I could almost feel Jackson personally reaching into my pocket to grab the money I would theoretically be paying for the third film, which I won't be going to see in the cinema.

Overall not a terrible film but certainly a disappointing one for any true fan of Jackson's LOTRs trilogy.… Expand

6 of 15 users found this helpful69

All this user's reviews

6

csw12Dec 14, 2013

The Desolation of Smaug is dragged out just like the first (maybe even more so) but at least the parts that are dragged out are mostly action scenes. Peter Jackson has lost his touch of bringing life to the movie like he did in the Lord ofThe Desolation of Smaug is dragged out just like the first (maybe even more so) but at least the parts that are dragged out are mostly action scenes. Peter Jackson has lost his touch of bringing life to the movie like he did in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and only towards the end, with the dragon Smaug, does some of that life comeback.… Expand

6 of 17 users found this helpful611

All this user's reviews

6

adhamhanyMar 26, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I really enjoyed the first part more than this one. It was more character-oriented and at least had a resolution regarding one plot element (Bilbo becoming accepted and respected among the dwarves).

This, however, feels a little like a mess.

No subplot reaches a satisfying conclusion. Not a single one. The dragon story ends with Smaug flying over to the laketown, with Bilbo watching over in horror. Gandalf is trapped. The orc army is not defeated, and it's not even begun its attack. In short, story-wise, it felt like a camera cutting a scene mid-sentence.

Another problem, is the unconvincing of other story parts. Like when the dwarves are trying to get the Arkenstone ti unite the dwarven families, so they go back to the same place they're in, to kill a dragon they know can only die with a certain weapon they don't possess. What the hell??

And their strategy in trying to kill it, is by luring him into a trap by calling it names. Seriously? This is an insult to a dragon character, that was previously portrayed as a highly cunning creature.

And what is it with that romance thing between the dwarf and elf? Doesn't have any sense of purpose, meaning, or emotion.

The only redeeming qualities in this film, is the action scenes, Peter Jackson's brilliant directing, the beautiful art direction, and the overall sense of adventure.

I hope the final part will be better than this. I hope it focuses on the characters again, because they are rarely interacting in this one. And i hope it has a stronger emotional punch.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

cbeers2513Jan 3, 2014

I was one of the people who really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, as opposed to a majority of critics who saw Peter Jackson's return to Middle-Earth as long and poorly paced. I, on the other hand, enjoyed the new protagonist. Bilbo was anI was one of the people who really enjoyed the first Hobbit movie, as opposed to a majority of critics who saw Peter Jackson's return to Middle-Earth as long and poorly paced. I, on the other hand, enjoyed the new protagonist. Bilbo was an awesome character who, unlike Frodo, went through a noticeable change in character, was extremely useful to his group, and had a memorable personality from one of Hollywood's finest actors (Martin Freeman). That being said, I find it ironic that opinions are completely reversed in the Desolation of Smaug. Critics appreciate this film more, while I believe it lost the magic of the original. Bilbo has already underwent his transformation into a heroic Hobbit, thereby leaving him as merely a side-note on the quest of the dwarves to reclaim their homeland from Smaug the dragon. There are so many new additions that don't work (an awkward love triangle between Legolas, another elf, and one of the dwarves) that it seems silly that the movie even be called The Hobbit at all. It really should be called "The Reclamation of Erebor: The Quest of the Dwarves, Two Elves, Gandalf, and...Oh Yeah, There Was a Hobbit Somewhere in There." Bilbo's story is really lost in this movie beneath nauseating action sequences (I still don't enjoy the camerawork in the film) and a boatload of side characters who serve typically one purpose and have little to invest in. Beorn, one of my favorite characters in the novel, is seen for all of three minutes in this film and is never truly fleshed out. Despite all this, I did enjoy the movie for a few reasons. First, while the action sequences did make my head spin, there are some incredible moments. The barrel riding scene is one of the coolest fights I've seen on the big screen in a long while. In addition, there are some exceptions to the list of boring new characters, including Bard, who is torn between aiding new friends to saving his hometown from inevitable destruction. Also, the path of Thorin and his doubts as he tries to reclaim the throne is always entertaining to see. However, Desolation of Smaug is more sparkle than substance, and is nowhere near as entertaining as the original film. Too many unnecessary additions mask the true stars of the movie, and an added emphasis of action over storytelling makes Bilbo's second romp through Middle Earth more of a misfire than a stellar sequel.

6.5/10… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

AdamwiseGamgeeDec 16, 2013

As a massive follower of anything Tolkien I couldn't help but be disappointed by this film. To sum it up it was far too long, too disjointed, it follows characters that you just don't care about, it seemed like the quantity of the film cameAs a massive follower of anything Tolkien I couldn't help but be disappointed by this film. To sum it up it was far too long, too disjointed, it follows characters that you just don't care about, it seemed like the quantity of the film came from scenes that weren't even in the book. And finally the film is called the Hobbit but I just don't feel you saw enough of Bilbo. Instead you ended up following four separate stories which just seemed pointless.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

Marcus341Dec 17, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Better than 1st. The shape shifter and Dol-Guldur scenes were superb. The romance element was a good addition. Rivertown scenes OK, they are visually immaculate, but also at times comic and cheap looking, plus, who makes a pillow out of walnuts! Smaug was great. Legos was over the top though. Orcs, possibly more annoying than in the 1st, are way too easy fodder for the blade. Some of the later scenes have an element of impossibility where everyone survives while every possible thing is falling around them, that hurt the first one, but it is better done in this installment, funny at times.
I felt that Bilbo was pretty much lost in all the plot side diversions. What scenes he is in come to a point and end fast, unlike the multi-minute long slash and stab sequences lavished on others. They could have spent more time in Mirkwood, and in the halls of the elf king, and developed some action and drama there with Bilbo. The basic imagery is overly computer altered, I miss some of the natural scenery depicting middle earth Jackson put in LOTR. Overall, I enjoyed most of the film, even if there were parts I felt kept it from reaching it's true potential.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

ThradarJan 11, 2014

Bilbo ends The Unexpected Journey by saying “I do believe the worst is behind us.” Cinematically speaking he couldn’t be more wrong! He ends The Desolation of Smaug with a despairing “What have we done?” I’m wondering the same!

TheBilbo ends The Unexpected Journey by saying “I do believe the worst is behind us.” Cinematically speaking he couldn’t be more wrong! He ends The Desolation of Smaug with a despairing “What have we done?” I’m wondering the same!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a tedious failure when compared to the purity of its source. Peter Jackson has been infected with some incurable malady that needs exercising. I have little hope for the final installment of the “trilogy,” and I can only hope, once again, that some fan with brilliant video editing skills will get to work on these movies when they are all available on Bluray and give us what we all really want . . . The Hobbit.… Expand

4 of 13 users found this helpful49

All this user's reviews

6

DarthSidious63Dec 18, 2013

Much like the Star Wars prequels The Hobbit suffers from the same fate. Except for Bilbo, Gandalf and Legolas there are hard to like or memorable characters. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is overlong and didn't pickup until the meetingMuch like the Star Wars prequels The Hobbit suffers from the same fate. Except for Bilbo, Gandalf and Legolas there are hard to like or memorable characters. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is overlong and didn't pickup until the meeting of Smaug the evil dragon.. It ends like Harry Potter: The Deadly Hallows Part 1 with a to be continued ending. This trilogy which is based on one book is way too long.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

6

schyguy96Dec 14, 2013

Decent. I mean, its based on a children's book so its not like I expected A Lord Of The Rings experience with it, but it was good. MY complaints would be that the CGI, just like the first one, is so obvious, compared to Lord Of The RingsDecent. I mean, its based on a children's book so its not like I expected A Lord Of The Rings experience with it, but it was good. MY complaints would be that the CGI, just like the first one, is so obvious, compared to Lord Of The Rings where there was virtually no CGI outside of Sméagol. Also, it didn't progress the plot in the last hour and a half terribly much. I love Benedict Cumberbatch and dragons, so it was all fun, but sitting for so long waiting for something to happen and not much happening is a little disappointing. Very good cinematography, though, and the acting for the parts is done well. Especially Ian McKellen as Gandalf. Also, nothing beats an IMAX theater experience. Worth the extra money.… Expand

1 of 8 users found this helpful17

All this user's reviews

5

JacobDec 26, 2013

The Desolation of Smaug was a movie that promised excitement and epicness but instead what we got was a whole lot of nothing. The story lacks any substances consisting of lots of filler and pointless action which goes on for far too long. TheThe Desolation of Smaug was a movie that promised excitement and epicness but instead what we got was a whole lot of nothing. The story lacks any substances consisting of lots of filler and pointless action which goes on for far too long. The characters are not that interesting or developed. This movie is so focused on flashing CGI and dumb action scenes that it fails to provide any real substance to justify it being three movies. This is a two part movie that should have stayed a two part movie or been one long movie. As it is Peter Jackson has yet to convince me that three 2 hour and 40 minute movies are necessary. If you are a die-hard Lord of the Rings fan check it out but if you want something with substance there is none here. This movie is a whole lot of nothing Bland, forgettable, and excessive filler. It had an entertaining first half but once you realize this movie has nothing to offer in terms of character and story but just mindless action you will be disappointed. I’m probably going to forget about this movie in a couple days, which is shame considering how much potential it had.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

gromitJan 5, 2014

After the disappointing borefest that was the first hobbit movie I was really hoping for a big improvement in the second. Unfortunately it is more of the same, long winded drawn out scenes, lots of extra embellishments that weren't in theAfter the disappointing borefest that was the first hobbit movie I was really hoping for a big improvement in the second. Unfortunately it is more of the same, long winded drawn out scenes, lots of extra embellishments that weren't in the book and DEFINITELY weren't needed in the movie. They seem to be desperately padding these movies to make what should have been a single long movie into 3 hideously overdone movies. I guess it is all about money now and not quality.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

RedfordstoFeb 1, 2014

This was less a chapter of the Hobbit and more a prelude to the Lord of the Rings. Dividing The Hobbit into three parts seems more a financial move than a creative one; much of this episode is neither found in the novel or the Silmarillion,This was less a chapter of the Hobbit and more a prelude to the Lord of the Rings. Dividing The Hobbit into three parts seems more a financial move than a creative one; much of this episode is neither found in the novel or the Silmarillion, but fabricated. Further, it's a far departure from the spirit of the original work. Where the first chapter of the Hobbit was at least partly light-hearted as the book was, this movie was filled with foreshadowing for the impending LOTR movies (which is unnecessary and again misses the point of the original work). Further, the acting and action scenes were occasionally so over the top that they come off as unintentionally comical. This isn't a new telling of a timeless children's story but a clunky, clumsy, B-rate action movie. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the Michael Bay version of high fantasy.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

CLUTCHJan 1, 2014

This film was really disappointing. Half way in I was wishing for it to be over and had to sit for a further 1 and a 1/2 hours till it ended...It should have been 2 hours long max.

The special effects were bordering on terrible at timesThis film was really disappointing. Half way in I was wishing for it to be over and had to sit for a further 1 and a 1/2 hours till it ended...It should have been 2 hours long max.

The special effects were bordering on terrible at times and the CGI creatures were very unconvincing and cartoon-like.
Then there is all the tacked on stuff that wasn't in the book, which probably accounts for the unnecessary extra hour of the film.

It wasn't a 'bad' film, but it was very over-long and drawn out, and the visual effects were the least impressive that I have seen in a long time. Hard to recommend...and this is coming from someone that loved the LOTR trilogy.

I'd say watch it on DVD when it comes out, that way you can take it in pieces and not have to sit for nearly 3 hours in a cinema. That's is how I watched the first Hobbit movie and I don't remember it being bad, but if I had to sit through it all in one sitting, my opinion might have been different.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

GigaHzDec 17, 2013

This is mostly in response to m_elders, the most helpful negative review.

I too went into H:tDoS with low expectations but also realistic expectations. The first film in the Trilogy was far from a masterpiece and didn't follow the sourceThis is mostly in response to m_elders, the most helpful negative review.

I too went into H:tDoS with low expectations but also realistic expectations. The first film in the Trilogy was far from a masterpiece and didn't follow the source material to the letter. Because of that I expected "creative liberties" and more action than digestible narrative. For better or worse, this is exactly what Smaug delivers.

First you address the writing, pacing and delivery of the dialogue. Hate to break it to you but the LotR trilogy you value so much is guilty of doing this exact same thing. Whether or not this is the fault of Hollywood or Jackson doesn't matter, there are "high fantasy" flicks across several mediums that embody this style of delivery. Even if it weren't a cliche, what incentive would Jackson have to break out of this style, especially because he's trying to maintain his established Tolkienian universe?

Regardless of pacing issues, the acting is one of the stronger aspects of this film. You complaint lies in the editing or directing and Actors can't do a thing to correct that.

You didn't notice the music until the very end? I'm sure the composer would be happy to hear this, as this is what every single one strives to do. Especially in a film such as this with wall-to-wall score (something I found kind of exhausting to be honest).

Film score, for the most part, is supposed to embody the emotion of a scene without drawing too much attention to itself. This is contrary to a Theme which grabs your attention. That's why there is a LOTR Theme, a Jurassic Park Theme, a Back to the Future Theme etc. Everyone who has watched these movies know exactly what the themes sound like. Usually a Theme is recurring or strongly accented during an important moment. I wouldn't be able to tell you what the Theme for the Hobbit is because I can't recall a scene where they've made use of it. Whether the format can't accommodate a Theme or the Theme isn't memorable doesn't matter, the score in its current state is widely varied and works seamlessly with the visuals.

The action point I'll give you. I would have preferred less action and more focus on certain aspects of the source material. There were many parts that were over way too fast, such as Beorn's scene, that I would have liked to experience in greater detail. However, many of the creative liberties seemed to work with "general audiences".

Legolas in the movie? Sure... why not? Definitely held my girlfriend's attention. Oh, and make sure that the most attractive Dwarf flirts with another attractive "creative liberty", Tauriel. Surely the girls are far too clever to fall for such an obvious trick... oh wait, they're smitten. Well, point in your favour producers.

But your 'Anything Else' section confuses me. Smaug was stupid because he looked and sounded like a dragon? Would you rather he looked like giant cat and sounded like Eddie Murphy? That's about as far from a cliche as you could get but that doesn't make it appropriate.

Smaug is supposed to look and "sound like a dragon". I'm sure there are several interpretations of what a dragon could look or sound like, but Jackson's take was appropriate. You could argue his approach was cliche but breaking news, dragons ARE cliche. I'm sure if Jackson took a chance and cooked up some more "creative liberties", people such as yourself would call him out for the same crap.

In closing, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a decent film if you know what to expect. It doesn't provide a lot of substance, or accuracy, or innovation but it can be entertaining and accessible. Go with friends, shut off the overly critical part of your brain and enjoy it for what it is.

Or you could just watch a terrible movie and have a critic's field day.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

5

DemoraseDec 25, 2013

Much better than the first one, which was unsalvageable, but the pacing is still atrocious. There's no good reason for this movie to be 2 hours and 40 minutes long, and as a result it hurts the overall experience.

The director shouldn'tMuch better than the first one, which was unsalvageable, but the pacing is still atrocious. There's no good reason for this movie to be 2 hours and 40 minutes long, and as a result it hurts the overall experience.

The director shouldn't force on the audience all this unnecessary material that degrades the overall movie, it should be the director's cut for fans. It's a shame because it could have been an excellent movie without the bloat.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

LokathorDec 22, 2013

Better than the first one, but still full of action that clearly has no element of real danger. The Black Arrows were changed into harpoon things instead of actual arrows, which was strange. The movie doesn't feel like a story that completesBetter than the first one, but still full of action that clearly has no element of real danger. The Black Arrows were changed into harpoon things instead of actual arrows, which was strange. The movie doesn't feel like a story that completes on its own, which is probably the result of being a Part 2/3.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

spollardFeb 25, 2014

It was an improvement from the previous installment but continues to lack memorable characters due to a shortfall in character development creating no emotional attachment to any of the dwarfs travelling with Bilbo Baggins. However, theIt was an improvement from the previous installment but continues to lack memorable characters due to a shortfall in character development creating no emotional attachment to any of the dwarfs travelling with Bilbo Baggins. However, the visuals are amazing it is much more action packed compared to the first one giving it a final score of 64.6 out of 100.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

dtlDec 21, 2013

Far better than its predecessor in almost every way, DoS is still not a great movie, but it is a great spectacle. I thought the CGI and 3D effect were very well done here, and the few times I particularly noticed the work they did on theFar better than its predecessor in almost every way, DoS is still not a great movie, but it is a great spectacle. I thought the CGI and 3D effect were very well done here, and the few times I particularly noticed the work they did on the sound, it was impressive. Smaug was definitely a highlight for the movie being impressively rendered and voiced in a manner that made him seem very powerful.

Neither the story nor the characters were a strong point for the movie, but both were executed better than before, and the movie didn't need those aspects to shine for it to be worth watching. If you are interested, watch it. If you aren't interested, you aren't missing much.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

Dimitris01Jan 3, 2014

The various scenery, 3d effects and direction of action scenes are great but the story is an inconsistent mixture of action, drama and comedy which lasts too long. Also, the characters keep making illogical decisions, there is no sense ofThe various scenery, 3d effects and direction of action scenes are great but the story is an inconsistent mixture of action, drama and comedy which lasts too long. Also, the characters keep making illogical decisions, there is no sense of danger for anyone of them and Smaug behaves like an idiot.
argonautis.eu… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

4

zwedizhfizhDec 28, 2013

Book inconsistencies alone would have rendered this film a 7, for me it is the low quality CGI in the final fight scenes between Smaug and the Dwarves/Bilbo (maybe the 3D makes it less noticeable? I saw the film in classic 2D, as most viewersBook inconsistencies alone would have rendered this film a 7, for me it is the low quality CGI in the final fight scenes between Smaug and the Dwarves/Bilbo (maybe the 3D makes it less noticeable? I saw the film in classic 2D, as most viewers would at home), the inconsistencies with on-screen action (apparently, the average movie goer can't count barrels correctly), and the consistent mispronunciation of Smaug. It's quite obviously "smog", I don't see why it couldn't be like that in the film. This is similar to the mispronunciation of Aang as "ong" in the Avatar movie, it's wildly noticeable and degrades the experience. Overall, this has to be the weakest film in the series, designed only to make money on sub-par writing and inane extension of the middle bits. I left this film feeling only dread for the fate of the series, though I did find some enjoyment in the added story bits. This and my love of the original films are the only things holding this film from a lower score in my own personal view.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

cidgrad01Dec 30, 2013

At the end of the first movie, Peter Jackson had me believing he could successfully stretch this story into a trilogy. After watching this one, I can say he has failed. He should have made this film an hour shorter and ended it in the sameAt the end of the first movie, Peter Jackson had me believing he could successfully stretch this story into a trilogy. After watching this one, I can say he has failed. He should have made this film an hour shorter and ended it in the same place or kept the same length and wrapped up the series in two movies. As it stands, the Desolation of Smaug feels like butter scraped over too much bread.

This one is long, boring and inserts many pointless scenes not found in the novel. I thought just about everything Jackson inserted into the LotR movies was brilliant and appropriate for a film adaptation. Not so, here. There are a lot of strange decisions.

First of all, the journey through Mirkwood, one of the most memorable parts of the novel is breezed through in about ten minutes with much of its story cut out or altered. And in a departure from Jackson’s other Tolkien movies, how he depicts Mirkwood does not at all match how I had envisioned it.

Then there is too much time spent attempting to develop a romance between Kili the dwarf & the invented female elf character so Bilbo’s rescue of the dwarves feels rushed. We get to the barrel scene, which is fun but goes on too long (like the movie itself). I got quite tired of the orc pack continually hunting the group, especially all the way to Lake Town. They introduced the Pale Orc to give some backstory to this guy who is hunting Thorin, they have this pack of orcs continually chasing the dwarves & Bilbo, but now they are being led by…another pale orc? It was an interesting plot device in the first film but in the second I think the focus needs to firmly shift to the dwarves & Smaug.

To that end, there is far too much discussion of Sauron going on. Little references such as the first film had are fine but so many people talk about Sauron so often in this one that it loses its grip on what the main story is. A dark power is rising somewhere to the East, you say? Uh, yeah. I know. I already watched three very long films all about that very subject. And how is this going to end where all of these people know Sauron is “preparing for war” but 60 years later (in Fellowship) Gandalf is leisurely attending Bilbo’s birthday party and is caught off guard by his return?

I had hoped Jackson would develop the character of the Necromancer more since he is only vaguely referenced in the novel. I won’t spoil the details of how this plays out, but let’s just say it was unsatisfying and further muddies the waters of what the main story is.

A few more disappointments: the decision to have several dwarves left in Lake town is quite odd. An excuse to show yet more elf stuff with Legolas and whats-her-name, I suppose, but I had my fill of that during the barrel chase scene (not to mention the first three LotR movies). Bilbo all but completely disappears for the very long middle part of the film, too. You almost forget about him entirely until the party reaches the door on the mountain. And the whole chase through Erebor was a silly waste of time that, once again, did not happen in the novel. I half expected to hear the Benny Hill theme music start playing.

There are some things the film does right, most notably the scene of Bilbo entering Erabor alone and climbing on the massive piles of treasure and his initial confrontation with Smaug. Like the other high points of the film, though, it takes a sour turn before long. You’ll quickly grow tired of the environment between Bilbo’s extended “I can almost reach the Arkenstone…aw, I missed it again!” sequence and the mindless chase through the halls after that.

Which brings me to the terrible, atrocious ending. Again, I won’t spoil anything other than to say it’s the most shameless hook for a sequel setup since the Matrix Reloaded.

Overall the Desolation of Smaug is a film with an incredibly short attention span that seems intent on reminding you about Jackson’s LotR movies instead of standing on its own. If characters aren’t breathlessly whispering about Sauron and dropping leaden references to a coming war, Legolas is flitting about like he did in the other trilogy. We even had to revisit the town of Bree and the Prancing Pony in this film, for goodness sake. So my initial instinct was correct: there is simply not enough in the story of the Hobbit to warrant three movies. Hopefully the third will be much better and henceforth I’ll just skip the second if I ever rewatch the series. I cannot imagine willingly watching the Desolation of Smaug again and become somewhat queasy at the thought of a special, extended version of it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

RunicDragonsJan 20, 2014

The Hobbit may be lighter and sillier than The Lord of the Rings, but that's how it's supposed to be. J.R.R Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a children's book. So it's not quite comparable to The Lord of the Rings.

It's supposed to entertainThe Hobbit may be lighter and sillier than The Lord of the Rings, but that's how it's supposed to be. J.R.R Tolkien wrote The Hobbit as a children's book. So it's not quite comparable to The Lord of the Rings.

It's supposed to entertain rather than to tell a deep story, and that's exactly what Peter Jackson is doing. Now, I do understand why some people might be disappointed by this movie, and to be fair, a part of me kept expecting something as magnificent as LOTR. Sadly, it hasn't reached that point. At least not yet. Who knows, maybe the third installment will blow us all away.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

american_hustleDec 23, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An Unexpected Journey was pretty good for this most part, but Desolation of Smaug is very disappointing. I didn't want to see heads behind cut off every 6 seconds, nor Stephen Fry (wtf?), nor that stupid cringeworthy romance. Who's idea was it to film action sequences by throwing a handheld camera about? Who the hell is this bard bloke? Why did they feel the need to put in a token?

Jackson has lost his way in capturing the essence of the hobbit, slathered on a thick helping of cheese and colour saturation, and bloated it beyond proportion with stuff that you dont care about. So much poor dialogue and acting, and the main attraction? Smaug was ok but not that great he talked waaaay too much by the end he just seemed silly, and ffs benedict cucumberpatch?! why did they need an a-lister to voice the dragon?… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

HazzypurpllDec 23, 2013

Hollywood ruined this movie. its far too long, why a reasonably short book had been turned into three marathon movies i do not know. The film seems as though it was written lazily, leading to numerous plot holes. it also skims over materialHollywood ruined this movie. its far too long, why a reasonably short book had been turned into three marathon movies i do not know. The film seems as though it was written lazily, leading to numerous plot holes. it also skims over material from the book and instead chooses to add 30 minute action sequences which don't make sense (what was the point of all that gold?) Its poorly paced with predicable action sequences to keep the audience from falling asleep due to all the filler. It is by no means a terrible film, and if you liked LOTR its worth watching, but if you are a genuine fan of Tolkien and his books you will be disappointed.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

merrilymccarthyDec 31, 2013

Ho Hum...beautiful scenery. Love the looks of the film. The River scene was visual fun...but became a long ride of the same water and barrels and ugly dudes...and whimsical dwarves. Love looking at Orlando Bloom....and the gold Smaug isHo Hum...beautiful scenery. Love the looks of the film. The River scene was visual fun...but became a long ride of the same water and barrels and ugly dudes...and whimsical dwarves. Love looking at Orlando Bloom....and the gold Smaug is the ultimate collectors item...but the end came as a shock. The cave of treasure has been revisited way too many times in movies...overall the movie was well filmed and colored and extremely scenic...but Ho Hum...I am off to see the wizard...!… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

g-whizFeb 6, 2014

I honestly don't know why we need 3 movies per book.

The Hobbit (book) is a great story and doesn't need to be messed with.

That said, this was a pretty good movie in spite of that.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

kaizidokillerFeb 24, 2014

It's no LOTR but this is certainly much better than the first movie. The high frame rate doesn't annoy me as much, probably because I'm use to it now but I wasn't back then when the first movie came out in theatres. Back then it looked moreIt's no LOTR but this is certainly much better than the first movie. The high frame rate doesn't annoy me as much, probably because I'm use to it now but I wasn't back then when the first movie came out in theatres. Back then it looked more like a video game and there was really no value to it. Sadly, some of the problems from the first movie are still present in this movie. It's like 3 hours long (which would be okay if it wasn't boring half the time) and it's overstuffed with underdeveloped characters. The fact that this movie uses footnotes from many of Tolkien's other novels means that it's not truly faithful to the original source material, too often it diverts away from the main story. Only the devoted Tolkien fans (not me) would get the most out of it but for the uninitiated (me), it just feels like a lot of subplots. There's really no need to extend a short children's book into a trilogy. The only reason for that is to make even more money (obviously 3 is more than 1). The Hobbit trilogy is just Peter Jackson's way of reliving his golden era when the LOTR trilogy was critically and commercially successful, with the last movie winning Best Picture award. This movie would be better off as one movie, or maybe even a two-parter because at least then it would be more faithful to the book. But of course, all the good points in the last movie are present in this movie as well such as the film's visual style, score, special effects and the wonderful performances from the cast. This movie is more action packed than the last one which makes it more enjoyable and stand out as an exciting fantasy adventure in it's own right. I do hate that it's a bit of a disappointment when you compare it to LOTR therefore, I won't be expecting the last movie to meet the same standard (but I do hope it's good). I do understand that the books are very different from each other but Peter Jackson's direction makes the two franchises very similar to each other. He does almost everything he did back when he was directing LOTR so don't b***h about how it's unfair to compare The Hobbit to LOTR. If you're already a fan of the first movie, no doubt you'll enjoy this one.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

FilmVirtueFeb 14, 2014

Desolation of Smaug, unlike the first feature contains more interesting scenes and dialogue that make the film somewhat better than the first film in the Hobbit series.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

DarthPreampJun 23, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Fairly awful treatment of Tolkien's work. Why did Jackson add so many stupid things? I mean, a love affair between a dwarf and an elf? C"MON!!! If he'd done it in a way that was mature it still would have been barely acceptable, but the mediocre and degradingly juvenile way in which he did it here was really in low taste. Then there is the giant dwarf statue made of molten gold? Huh? No really, simply awful. I really liked the first movie, this one was really bad.… Expand