The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 13, 2013
7.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1834 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,444
Mixed:
256
Negative:
134
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
8
r96skFeb 20, 2021
Still very good, but I found 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' to be a step below the preceding 2012 release.

The conclusion is what affects it the most, in my opinion. It isn't anything bad, but it goes on for too long - yet the endingStill very good, but I found 'The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug' to be a step below the preceding 2012 release.

The conclusion is what affects it the most, in my opinion. It isn't anything bad, but it goes on for too long - yet the ending itself comes out of nowhere a little. It's iffily crafted, with the entertainment value not enough to cover it up. Again, nothing anywhere near terrible... just not as great as I wanted/expected.

I also kinda wanted more scenes with Martin Freeman (Bilbo) across the midway point. I like the focus on Richard Armitage (Thorin) & Co. but I felt there needed to be more with the lead - and with Ian McKellen (Gandalf), for that matter.

I've led with my negatives first, but I have many positives too. I enjoyed the scenes in Esgaroth with Luke Evans (Bard), all of the stuff there looks awesome. The character of Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, is cool. Orlando Bloom (Legolas) remains fun to watch. Everything else, including the score, is very nicely done - as anticipated.

Love the end credits song ("I See Fire") by Ed Sheeran, by the way. Not quite as grand and great as "May It Be" from LOTR, but it's pretty close!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SoapNuggetJul 14, 2020
The film is definitely an improvement over the first one but still suffers from trying to stretch a small book into a 3 hour long epic but still is fun.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
MmmsyJan 9, 2021
Its just a very good movie. Not the best but worth watching. Maybe it is not the same as book but still very good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
riversusDec 23, 2013
It was a good movie. Jackson was able to developed in the right way a book like The Hobbit (that was thought for kids and not for adults). I didnt like some details, especially the romance between the dwarf and Tauriel (I'd say it was noIt was a good movie. Jackson was able to developed in the right way a book like The Hobbit (that was thought for kids and not for adults). I didnt like some details, especially the romance between the dwarf and Tauriel (I'd say it was no sense and not consistent with the rest of the plot). I also think that it should have ended in a different way but whatever. Good job anyway.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
BikerjamesFeb 20, 2014
I saw the movie in IMAX and 3D. Visually, the movie is stunning with terrific special effects. There is a lot of action in the film, and it is one of the loudest movies I have ever attended. Most of the action sequences went on a little tooI saw the movie in IMAX and 3D. Visually, the movie is stunning with terrific special effects. There is a lot of action in the film, and it is one of the loudest movies I have ever attended. Most of the action sequences went on a little too long for me, especially with the dragon in the last 1/2 hour, but there is no question it is a better film than the first installment of the series. The battle scenes are all preposterous, of course. You must go into the film knowing the Dwarfs will face epic battles against great odds but no good guys will die. I also had an issue understanding about 20% of the dialogue with all the noise and synthesized voices, a problem very common in today's special effects extravaganzas.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
7
Lambo442Dec 23, 2013
This film is way too fragmented and leaves so many plot threads dangling in the wind you walk out feeling kind of unsatisfied, Smaug looks amazing but never shuts up talking when he should be scorching stuff.Also getting bored of charactersThis film is way too fragmented and leaves so many plot threads dangling in the wind you walk out feeling kind of unsatisfied, Smaug looks amazing but never shuts up talking when he should be scorching stuff.Also getting bored of characters surviving situations that they would never survive in reality, You expect that to an extent in fantasy films, but falling off of huge crumbling columns and bouncing up again to brush off the dust just makes it seem like they're all invincible. The CGI is so OTT in parts, How many more orcs does Legolas want to use as a surf board? Gone are the gritty brawls like the one Boromir had with that pack of orcs at the beginning of fellowship. Now it's all too easy. Saying all that, I still gave it an 7 because there were some beautiful moments and I will still pretty entertained,… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
GrumpDec 27, 2013
I won't whine and tell you the film was too long, or it was just one long snoozefest, and how I'm not sure if they can make a children story into 3 complex motion pictures... I'll tell you that what this film needs is a stronger script, and aI won't whine and tell you the film was too long, or it was just one long snoozefest, and how I'm not sure if they can make a children story into 3 complex motion pictures... I'll tell you that what this film needs is a stronger script, and a hint of the atmosphere the Lord of the Rings had. I admire how they flawlessly keep your attention for the whole 2 and half hours, and thus making the film more enjoyable, but sometimes after watching it through, you stop and think to yourself: "Wait, so over the last 20 minutes, they essentially accomplished nothing." Thankfully, the movie's flaws are overlooked by terrific performances by almost everyone. (Except a few of the side characters, you'll know what I mean when you see it), and it's strong element of creativity. (Note: following the book is not paticularly a good idea for a movie.) I'd be stunned if you didn't go and enjoy yourself at the second Hobbit film, but like I say, if the original wasn't the next Lord of the Rings, neither is this. (Lord of the Rings never had stupid cliffhangers either.) So go out and enjoy it for what it is.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
CaestusApr 21, 2014
Although not bad, i dont get rid of the feeling that peter jackson and co. don´t do the Hobbit movies with the same love and detail like they did the Lord of the Ring Trilogy. This said, Desolation of smaug is not a bad movie
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
DukeJonDec 18, 2013
Mixed feelings about this film. A lot more action-orientated than the first, with our heroes lurching from one set piece to the next, though my main problem was that they suspended disbelief too much again as they did with the first film. TheMixed feelings about this film. A lot more action-orientated than the first, with our heroes lurching from one set piece to the next, though my main problem was that they suspended disbelief too much again as they did with the first film. The heroes seem indestructible and cut through the bad guys like they're ploughing through a load of indispensable grunts in a video-game. The combat has am unreal balletic nature to it and as such we never really get a sense that the heroes are in any danger. It's pretty far removed from the book, other than a few key scenes, and the whole thing seems laboured and drawn out as though making a short childrens book into 3 epic films wasn't stretching it enough. The love triangle is also a bit odd the she-elf seems to change her whole life for no reason other than the fact that she met fancied a bit of dwarf-rough. Stephen Fry is there for no reason other to let audiences point to him and say "Look, there's Stephen Fry!". However the pacing is better than the first film (no infamous "dwarves doing the washing up" scenes to pad it out) and although the film is a bit of a marathon to sit down to I was never really bored. So bottom line is that if you enjoyed LOTR or the first hobbit film you are sure to enjoy this.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
dharmaMay 30, 2014
Still a cash grab in my opinion, but a well made one. Of course, the dragon delivers with great effects and all, but the pacing is off and it moves too slow, until the next exciting set pieces that is.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
lasttimeisawFeb 27, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Coming to cinema two months later in Mainland China, the second chapter of THE HOBBIT TRILOGY is poised to prevail the box office in a rather lethargic period after the red-hot Chinese Spring Fe festival.

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY (2012, 6/10) is a relentless roller-coaster ride with a slew of visual stunts to propel a succinct plot, which doesn’t live up to the expectation of THE LORD OF THE RINGS’ Middle Earth triumphant standing, also Peter Jackson’s innovative shooting technology has received with some resistance and negative feedbacks. The second round, a 3D version is all we have in China, the palette is light-toned, the textual sharpness hasn’t been refined from the first one, a tad dim and the same landscape doesn’t register the same rapt effect anymore.

Nevertheless, the film is an ameliorated update from AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, not simply because of Smaug’s imposing grandeur and droll garrulousness (voiced by a malignantly intoning Cumberbatch). The plain narration bifurcates from the early start, when Gandalf (McKellen) detaches from the rest of the expedition on a solitary quest, as it often pans out, the journey without the omnipotent grey wizard galvanizes more excitement and comic relief. The action set pieces are imbued with sufficient antics in the barrel cruise, the comeback of Legolas (Bloom) and a freshly coined female elf Tauriel (Lilly) reinforces audience’s modern aesthetic as a welcoming love triangle among the two and a handsome (and slightly taller-than-average) dwarf Kili (Turner) is a clever deployment to gratify a touch of romanticism and conforms with the topical love equity enthusiasm. The pulchritude of slaughtering orcs with dexterous archery can never stultify the viewers.

When Bilbo (Freeman) lurches into Smaug’s turf to exert his burglar role, it prompts the zenith with the disparate duel between the dwarf pack and the indomitable fire-generator, it is also worth mentioning the dissonant atmosphere between Bilbo and Thorin (Armitage), is the hobbit only an expedient pawn for Thorin’s stout-hearted vengeance to reclaim his kingdom, or the boundary of species can be breached through Bilbo’s valorous altruism? Let’s wait and see what will happen in the final venture.

This time, one might be able to distinguish the 13 dwarfs more easily besides Thorin, Balin (Stott), Kili and Fili (O’Gorman), Freeman is consistently indulged in his invisible vantage with the ring, while McKellen’s Gandalf has some perilous path to overcome. The film is properly enlightened by several new characters, apart from Tauriel’s apropos feminine touch, Bard (Evans) is the key character introduced here, and for certain his import in the finale is well hinted although we haven’t seen too much potential in him yet. And it is always a delight to watch Stephen Fry, sketchily appears as the Master of Laketown, quips with his insidious underling Alfrid (Gage).

As a middle section of a trilogy, this film actually skirts the conundrum of being left in the epic and enmeshed background without a certain closure to end the film itself, it is both satisfied to see to a not out-and-out victory and intrigued to imagine what will happen when the dragon is released to a more spacious scale, all magnetizes its core audience to return for a third time.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
imthenoobJan 27, 2015
The extended edition really did this one justice. Added so much more content, Built on a lot more to the story. It made a lot more of a satisfying movie than the original version of it. It's such a major step up from the first one. StillThe extended edition really did this one justice. Added so much more content, Built on a lot more to the story. It made a lot more of a satisfying movie than the original version of it. It's such a major step up from the first one. Still relies a bit too heavy on CGI but I can deal with it thanks to the improvement in the dialogue.… Expand
4 of 4 users found this helpful40
All this user's reviews
7
beingryanjudeSep 3, 2014
I'll admit being one of the first to criticize stretching The Hobbit into thirds. That would mean this middle chapter was complete rubbish. The Desolation of Smaug is both an achievement on its own as well as a bridge into the final installment.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Trev29Dec 15, 2013
There is no beginning and there is no end, and there is hardly any dialogue compared to the endless action sequences. I am not entirely complaining though. It was still more entertaining than the last one. It had many great moments, evenThere is no beginning and there is no end, and there is hardly any dialogue compared to the endless action sequences. I am not entirely complaining though. It was still more entertaining than the last one. It had many great moments, even though it felt like a 7 hour movie.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
potatoes351Nov 22, 2015
Peter Jackson's 2nd part in his trilogy of films based around The Hobbit and extended Lord of the Rings fiction is considered by many to be the highlight of the prequel trilogy, whilst this rings true for some sequences of Desolation ofPeter Jackson's 2nd part in his trilogy of films based around The Hobbit and extended Lord of the Rings fiction is considered by many to be the highlight of the prequel trilogy, whilst this rings true for some sequences of Desolation of Smaug, the product as a whole is on par with An Unexpected Journey in many respects.
Continuing the story of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) as he, Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and a band of dwarves travel across Middle Earth to reach the Lonely Mountain, a former dwarven city that 60 years previous had been claimed by a dragon called Smaug. Now with the mountain in sight, the journey begins it's final stages as the group of travellers travel through enchanted forests, elf & human settlements and ultimately come face to face with Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) himself.
The Desolation of Smaug is easy to summarise in one sentence; great opening, solid ending, wobbly middle. DoS opens with an action scene closely followed by a tense and mind bending scene set in an enchanted forest, however upon arriving at the elven settlement the film takes a nose dive into boredom for over an hour until we eventually reach the Lonely Mountain. Even then, the scenes with Bilbo & Smaug are far greater than the scenes that cut away to show what the rest of the group in either the human settlement or outside the mountain are doing.
Much like An Unexpected Journey, DoS is filmed in 3D and at 48FPS and personally the film uses them to much greater strengths than AUJ ever did. However the problem with crappy CGI is still present in DoS as it was in AUJ. Smaug is the exception to this statement however, being one of the most fearsome and highly detailed creatures in the entire Peter Jackson Middle Earth saga.
Desolation of Smaug is a solidly entertaining fantasy action film, though it again fails to meet the expectations set by the Lord of the Rings trilogy and barely surpasses the previous film in terms of quality. Plus was there any point of Legolas in this movie other than to provide pointless fan service and a below average sub-plot with little depth or meaning to the overall story? No...I din't think so.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
moonman1994Dec 21, 2013
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug does fix some of the problems of its predecessor. It has better pacing and the story changes that are made are much more enjoyable. The acting is fine and the film manages to develop the other dwarfsThe Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug does fix some of the problems of its predecessor. It has better pacing and the story changes that are made are much more enjoyable. The acting is fine and the film manages to develop the other dwarfs personalities as well which is a major plus. Unfortunately the film is still much to long and has scenes that would have been better reserved for the extended edition. If you love Lord of the Rings you'll love this film if not you'll probably be bored. That said there is plenty of action but with the length of the film it might not be enough for everyone.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
Iky009Jun 3, 2015
On the first beat a little, but the many fault corrected Serém, plus the second chapter of The Hobbit is fun ... . .

.

.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Rox22Apr 21, 2014
I'm not really sure what to say. The movie kinda deviates from what I remember from the book. Still, book and obvious differences aside I still thought it was allot of fun.

From an entertainment point of view, I though it was far betterI'm not really sure what to say. The movie kinda deviates from what I remember from the book. Still, book and obvious differences aside I still thought it was allot of fun.

From an entertainment point of view, I though it was far better than the last Hobbit movie. Lots of great action scenes and some amazing effects. The Dragon was pretty bad ass and it is rare that I remember seeing a true fantasy Dragon (Sean Connery's Dragon Heart does not count.) Sexy elf lady was pretty cool, should be more female character like her.

However, this movie gave me an overall feeling of doing too much and nothing at all at the same time. The movie really feels like filler and could easily have been edited down to fit onto the end and beginning of the first and last movies.

Overall:
The Desolation of Smaug is far, far, far from perfect, but it is allot of fun to watch and is easier to forgive if you think of it as a loose adaptation, than a direct one.

Side Note:
If anyone from the production team of the movie reads this, please fill in a little exposition into the next movie as to WHY Smaug is hording gold. He's clearly highly intelligent and not an over sized Magpie. What possible use could he have for it? Does he eat it?… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
python2000Dec 30, 2013
The second movie in Peter Jackson's epic trilogy has arrived, which started off with the impressive An Unexpected Journey, so far it's consistent.
While it did get a positive reaction overall the main problem most people had with AnThe second movie in Peter Jackson's epic trilogy has arrived, which started off with the impressive An Unexpected Journey, so far it's consistent.
While it did get a positive reaction overall the main problem most people had with An Unexpected Journey was how slow moving it was and the lack of action. This definitely improves on that, instead of spending 45 minutes eating fine dairy products and washing up pots you go straight into the action. I would just prefer it if the action wasn't so brainless and cartoon like, I have been trying to avoid saying this but it would benefit from being more like the Lord of the Rings. The dwarves and Bilbo attempting to take down Smaug in the climax reminds me of a Tom and Jerry episode I once watched. However all of the actors give respectable performances even if some of their lines can be cheesy. Martin Freeman is more than respectable as the title character Bilbo Baggins (the Hobbit), possibly even more impressive than in the previous instalment. But the most memorable by far is Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes) doing some brilliant voice acting as the trilogies main villain Smaug the dragon. It's just a shame that I was reminded of one of the clichéd Bond villains who doesn't kill its main threat even when they have a good chance at success. Brilliant CGI for Smaug and his lair though. Everyone got pissed off with Peter Jackson after the first movie was (in short) boring, and the movie nerd outrage this time is that there is a love triangle between 2 elves and a dwarf. To be honest it didn't bother me, actually I did for the first 2 hours when I thought it was utterly pointless and only in the movie to make it longer. Then a very emotional and moving speech is made by a dying dwarf which totally redeems it all. Some may find it forced and dismiss it as clichéd, but I enjoyed it and found it to be the highlight of the movie.
Not as good as the first movie despite being much more exciting and having the first appearance of the slightly disappointing Smaug. Worth watching if you liked the first movie, if you hated it this one will be just as bad.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
bm2759Jan 15, 2014
The Desolation of Smaug is a little less boring than the previous instalment, but it’s really no better in terms of craft and narrative. There is one inspired action sequence in which the dwarves and Bilbo escape from the elves in barrels.The Desolation of Smaug is a little less boring than the previous instalment, but it’s really no better in terms of craft and narrative. There is one inspired action sequence in which the dwarves and Bilbo escape from the elves in barrels. This sequence recalls Jackson’s King Kong set pieces where he just builds ideas on top of ideas into an extended adventure. And that’s it. Then it’s all back to normal.

Whilst the Lord of the Rings were Oscar-winning technical marvels, the biggest issue I have with this and Journey is that the story is so mundane that we’re left looking for a visual “wow” factor, and it’s not there. The barrel sequence was so clever, I didn’t care how the effects looked. The generic archery and dragon hunting wasn’t creatively captivating, and it certainly wasn’t visually so.

Overall it's entertaining and it's quite obvious the source material is so short that the crew had no choice but to embellish on the story. And add plenty of visual effects as filler to prolong this story across three films.

If you seek an absolutely 100% accurate book to film translation you will be unhappy. But if you want to be entertained and can overlook this you'll have a nice time.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
ViolettJan 8, 2014
So many differences from original book. I'm big Tolkien fan and if I would was younger (pardon my English) I would definitely was pissed off. But the movie itself is very well filmed, bright and colorful.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
benishereDec 13, 2013
Well, first of it's awesome to be back to Middle Earth as an hard core fan since like half my life. However some parts can be seem as a little too long.
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
7
genericusenameJan 12, 2014
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Minor spoilers. It's a solid movie but is also the weakest of Jackson's Tolkien adaptations. There were some very good scenes, such as the escape scene and the Beorn sequence. However, there were some very weak scenes involving Tauriel. The character just didn't work. I've been fine with most of Jackson's deviations in the other movies. However, the addition of Tauriel and the big changes in Smaug's scenes bothered me quite a bit. I still found the movie to be enjoyable, but it's far from Jackson's best work.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
Prodigy2013Jan 1, 2014
It feels like just yesterday I was mulling at my disappointment with ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and its fall from the graces of ‘The Lord of the Rings Trilogy’; however has Peter Jackson got back his mojo? Probably not; but I must say this wasIt feels like just yesterday I was mulling at my disappointment with ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and its fall from the graces of ‘The Lord of the Rings Trilogy’; however has Peter Jackson got back his mojo? Probably not; but I must say this was quite improvement and it seems as if he’s striving to return to the glory of the first trilogy. ‘The Desolation of Smaug’ was an exciting "little" epic and it feels much more purposeful than the first film. The story continues with the band of dwarves on their journey to reclaim the Misty Mountain, which was overrun by the vain and cruel Dragon named, Smaug (perfectly voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch). Of course, along the way, they encounter a great deal of danger which... of course, was engineered to the finest degree. The action sequences did run for too long in many instances, but they were creatively staged; and Jackson and his legions visual effects specialists continue their win streak in this department. One aspect that falls utterly short was the length and enormity of the film; which doesn't match the scope of the relatively small story. A sentiment I also expressed with the first installment, though to a lesser degree, here. This time around the film was filled with too many neat gimmicks (take Legolas’ inclusion as an example) and uninspired subplots, such as the Elven-Dwarf love triangle. Thankfully these stumbles did not do much damage to the main story line, which is setting up dominoes for an epic conclusion, but they do highlight flaws in the screenwriting department. These things aside, ‘The Desolation of Smaug’ was an entertaining, visually appetizing film; that should please fans of the original trilogy and newer followers, if even solely for its pure level of charm.… Expand
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
7
HayzeDec 22, 2013
Although this movie diverges from the book, Peter Jackson does a great job incorporating a good story that was never introduced by Tolkien. The tie in with Gandalf and "The Necromancer", Bard's background story, and the visually incredibleAlthough this movie diverges from the book, Peter Jackson does a great job incorporating a good story that was never introduced by Tolkien. The tie in with Gandalf and "The Necromancer", Bard's background story, and the visually incredible scene with Smaug and Erebor really shows how well they did with the extra story that was unwritten by Tolkien. Hobbit readers may think it isn't fantastic because it greatly changes from the book, but they did a great job switching the story up and making these other elements work. I even was disappointed with some of the changes, but I took into consideration the viewers that haven't read the book. For them, I believe it is excellent. And finally, was the barrel scene not the coolest display of action that you've seen in awhile? Hands down, one of the most spectacular scenes I have ever witnessed in terms of action.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
zthenarkDec 13, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am a huge fan of both Tolkien's works and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I was pleased to hear a few years ago that Jackson would be giving the Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit, the same treatment. I was, however, a bit apprehensive when I heard they were making it a trilogy. Last year's frankly quite disappointing start to the series was everything I feared it would be: bloated and, at parts, boring. This year's addition had no such problems. It was a fun, engaging, and exciting adventure, from the beginning meeting with the skinchanger Beorn to the confrontation with the dragon Smaug at the end. The acting, as should be expected, was incredible, especially on the parts of Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, and the always excellent Sir Ian McKellan. And Smaug is absolutely incredible. Both in the way he looks and the treatment he is given by voice actor Benedict Cumberbatch, Smaug will amaze and terrify you, just as he is meant to in the books. However, this movie was definitely not free of problems. While the action scenes are fun and entertaining, a few of them definitely could have been sacrificed. The dwarves' journey through Mirkwood was barely even touched on, as was Beorn. Maybe this just irks me because I'm a fan of the book; I'm sure audiences would much rather see the dwarves duke it out with a giant dragon in a thirty minute fight scene than trek through a dark forest. Even so, they turned a three hundred page book into three two and a half hour films, and they still found a way to make the beginning of this movie feel rushed. The movie, however, does eventually find its footing, and it is highly enjoyable the rest of the way through. Even with the reappearance of the Lord of the Rings' Legolas (Orlando Bloom), who does not appear in the Hobbit, and the addition of a completely new character, a female elf named Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), the movie stays mostly true to the book, and the changes it does make have no major effect on the direction of the story. All in all, this movie was both a great, entertaining improvement on the first film, and an excellent setup for the events of the next. While Desolation of Smaug may not have been perfect, it has certainly given me high hopes for the final film.… Expand
1 of 9 users found this helpful18
All this user's reviews
7
ThatReviewGuyDec 15, 2013
You know what? Why the hell not. It's a good movie. It's true to Tolkien's masterpiece in almost every aspect, giving that action spin to keep the 'Murican fashion. The cliffhanger and the Elven-Dwarf romance, though.... God, I almost puked.You know what? Why the hell not. It's a good movie. It's true to Tolkien's masterpiece in almost every aspect, giving that action spin to keep the 'Murican fashion. The cliffhanger and the Elven-Dwarf romance, though.... God, I almost puked. They just put those silly elements in for NO APPARENT REASON. Anyways, it's ok. Give it a spin … Expand
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
7
dougie812Dec 20, 2013
The ending of this movie is cruel. I will leave it at that. This MOVIE is a great adaptation from the BOOK. This installment is not a recreation of the book and they do a great job taking the audience to the Lonely Mountain. To me, theyThe ending of this movie is cruel. I will leave it at that. This MOVIE is a great adaptation from the BOOK. This installment is not a recreation of the book and they do a great job taking the audience to the Lonely Mountain. To me, they carved a great impression of Smaug as something that's wise and unpredictable. The movie has the great cinematic and musical feel that all the other movies share.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
bennya98Dec 28, 2013
I mostly enjoyed the Hobbit and especially the action scenes but I felt it was unnecessarily long and could have been 30 minutes shorter. The main story felt bogged down with side-plots (the Bard and the Elves) and not enough attention wasI mostly enjoyed the Hobbit and especially the action scenes but I felt it was unnecessarily long and could have been 30 minutes shorter. The main story felt bogged down with side-plots (the Bard and the Elves) and not enough attention was paid to the title character. Overall, it was an enjoyable film with impressive CGI effects but should have focused on the most important plot line.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
saintivanJan 26, 2014
I seem to be in the minority, but I preferred the first Hobbit movie to this installment. Outside of Smaug and the barrel chase scene, nothing of significance remains, and the rest of the movie has almost been purged from my memory though II seem to be in the minority, but I preferred the first Hobbit movie to this installment. Outside of Smaug and the barrel chase scene, nothing of significance remains, and the rest of the movie has almost been purged from my memory though I just saw it. The greatest failure of this movie is its unconvincing nature. Even Legolas gives a weak performance. Mostly it didn't feel like Tolkien at all, the magic and wonder of the Lord of the Rings movie....and briefly throughout the first Hobbit...is nearly entirely missing. It is not a bad movie, just a very average one.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
macagascarDec 29, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Desolation of Smaug picks up where its slow predecessor left off right after Bilbo discovers the Ring, and right before Thorin and company reach Erebor, the land of their forefathers.The Desolation of Smaug has been long anticipated by many this year and, in many regards, it did not disappoint fans worldwide. Yet, despite its domination in the box office, thrilling premise and great reviews, The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug brought to light several aspects of The Hobbit franchise that remain lacking and rather disappointing for die-hard Lord of the Rings fans, such as myself.

As the story picks up, it grows steadily darker much like The Lord of the Rings franchise (from The Fellowship of the Ring all the way to Return of the King) and this is carefully and perfectly approached by Jackson, so that we're not completely overwhelmed by it, but can appreciate its implementation in the grander scheme of things. Overall, it was a fantastic and incredibly entertaining film.

As for acting... these actors are perfect matches for the roles that they take on. Namely, however, Martin Freeman's performance as the clueless and yet surprisingly courageous Bilbo Baggins is, once again, absolutely astounding he practically carried the film in this regard. If one hadn't seen him in any of his previous work ranging from the UK's The Office to BBC's smash hit, Sherlock they would assume that he was born for this role. No one else would have been able to play the surprisingly layered Bilbo with such sincerity. He was not only hilarious (he somehow made the scene with Smaug as laughable as it was terrifying), but captivating every time he was on the screen, I simply could not tear my eyes away from him! And his moments with the Ring sent uncomfortable shivers up my spine ("MINE").

The film's crowning glory, however, was undoubtedly the scene all Lord of the Rings fans have been waiting for the unveiling of Smaug the Terrible, self proclaimed "King Under the Mountain." Whoever designed, animated and rendered Smaug should be given a cookie every day for existing, and I'd like to thank Peter and company for keeping the design a secret before the premiere seeing Smaug for the first time was simply breathtaking. That, combined with the sultry and devilishly articulate voice of one Benedict Cumberbatch, created an adversary that was as "cool" as it was simply terrifying. The chilling game of words played between Smaug and Bilbo had me on the edge of my seat for the entire ride.

The problem with The Hobbit franchise, therefore, isn't the story or the filmmaking or the acting; it's the way that the story is being approached. Lord of the Rings fans will recall the incredible, epic sagas that each of the original three films would bring near four hours of nonstop excitement, twists and character development, all leading up to the pivotal scene at Mordor. Yet, The Hobbit isn't an epic saga, nor should it be approached as one it's the story of one unassuming hobbit who joins a company of dwarfs to reclaim their homeland and slay a dragon. A to B; point blank and simple no ring to destroy and Middle Earth to save. Somehow, Peter Jackson tried to take on the entire alphabet, while moseying past more than a few key letters and relying more on action and CGI (where did the REAL men dressed up like the baddies go?) than the base story.

Most upsetting was how the characters were approached. The characters are what's key to the plot of The Hobbit or any Tolkien work, for that matter and they're crucial to the telling of any half-decent story. However, while I could name off any Lord of the Rings character and give you my opinion on them, I hardly know any of the dwarfs by name, and I never really get to see anyone's personal journey as the story progresses in any detail, anyway. Bilbo and the dwarfs are sometimes passed up in favor of thrilling (and completely unrealistic) action sequences though, while exciting, really didn't do anything for me at the end of the day.

I stand by my opinion that three films is far too much movie to be had for Bilbo and his dwarfish companions. One long, four-hour film (or maybe two films, as was the original plan) would have been perfectly suited to tackle this story in a proper way.

That being said, creative differences with Jackson and his team didn't stop me from seeing The Hobbit twice in a weekend, and do not take away from the film being one of the best adventures of the year. The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug definitely trumped its predecessor. The pace picked up, Bilbo finally got his moment to shine as "burglar," and the scene with Smaug was near flawless. It's a "must see" for any movie lover, and especially any fan of Middle Earth!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
BiteSizeReviewsDec 31, 2013
This second part of The Hobbit trilogy went on more of an action take than its predecessor, where as the first part focused more on character development. The Desolation of Smaug may have taken some liberties and strayed a bit from the book,This second part of The Hobbit trilogy went on more of an action take than its predecessor, where as the first part focused more on character development. The Desolation of Smaug may have taken some liberties and strayed a bit from the book, but it still is an enjoyable movie to watch.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
7
MattG_123Jan 2, 2014
It mostly has the same problems as the first, such as repetitive action, goofy acting sequences, etc. But the 2nd Hobbit is still a better experience than the first.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug gets a 7.3/10
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
OMGtoastyJan 3, 2014
Because I enjoyed the LotR trilogy so much its hard for me not to compare this move to it. that being said I have a few issues with this movie

My first problem is one I have with many other movies that are being made. The over use of CGI.Because I enjoyed the LotR trilogy so much its hard for me not to compare this move to it. that being said I have a few issues with this movie

My first problem is one I have with many other movies that are being made. The over use of CGI. The lord of the rings spent the extra money to get people dressed as orcs in big battle scenes. the CGI was done very well and It all felt somewhat real. That is quite the opposite for the hobbit. For example, there is a scene where the dwarves are in barrels going down a river trying to escape from orcs while Legolas is massacring the orcs. The CGI is so heave that there is no realism. Legolas' character looks terrible imo. The scene was intertaining, but no where near as good at what I saw in LotR.

My other problem is the final scene. It went from intense action to....nothing. It felt like the scene was cut in half and left us with a giant cliff hanger. The second half of the scene will be the start of the next movie, which sucks.

I can't say I didn't enjoy this movie. The fights were decent, despite the CGI madness. The acting was amazing. My favorite dialogue was with Smaug. Overall I would recommend this movie to everyone, as long as they don't mind CGI.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
MortimerJan 25, 2014
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug sequel The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Peter Jackson took great as always, a beautiful fantasy. The film proved to be a more sombre colors. We were shown the dark side of the heroes. Smaug turnedThe Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug sequel The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Peter Jackson took great as always, a beautiful fantasy. The film proved to be a more sombre colors. We were shown the dark side of the heroes. Smaug turned simultaneously scary and sweet. In The Desolation Smaug was more action adventure.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug great Fantasy with soundtrack good and beautiful special effects.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BrinncdeewhyJan 7, 2014
this a very indulgent, expressive, and well choreographed piece of work. The chemistry between the actors is more than acceptable Even with the dragon who was a fantastic treat. I'd say for the second installment to the hobbit series, its athis a very indulgent, expressive, and well choreographed piece of work. The chemistry between the actors is more than acceptable Even with the dragon who was a fantastic treat. I'd say for the second installment to the hobbit series, its a more then watchable delight.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
jackophantJan 25, 2014
Not a bad movie, not a great one. Desolation of Smaug is in between which is exactly what's wrong with it. This is a sequel, it has no real beginning nor end. It just kind of starts, runs for a few of hours and then fades to black. ThoseNot a bad movie, not a great one. Desolation of Smaug is in between which is exactly what's wrong with it. This is a sequel, it has no real beginning nor end. It just kind of starts, runs for a few of hours and then fades to black. Those few hours are enjoyable, even if they are plagued by some of Jackson's eccentricities, mainly the extremely long and over stylized fight sequences. The dwarves are back and as goofily likeable as ever. Bilbo Baggins is... somewhere. For a movie called "The Hobbit" the only hobbit in the film has very little to say or do until the end where we finally get to meet the dragon we've heard so much about. And Smaug does not disappoint. These Tolkien films have a great way of making cgi characters stand out and Smaug is no different. Voiced by the excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, Smaug is by far the best and most memorable part of the movie. Smaug is terrifyingly captivating, more grandeur than I had ever imagined from the books. Just as we meet him and the movie starts to get good, it ends. I see myself liking this movie much more after the third one come's out but as of now, it just left me unfulfilled.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
BomarJrJan 20, 2014
The best Tolkien "Fan-fiction" to ever hit the big screen. Unlike most critics, I ADORED the first Hobbit film, because it captured the playfulness, and awe of the original work beautifully. This second film downplays all the tones and it'sThe best Tolkien "Fan-fiction" to ever hit the big screen. Unlike most critics, I ADORED the first Hobbit film, because it captured the playfulness, and awe of the original work beautifully. This second film downplays all the tones and it's main characters for the sake of adding completely non-canon content that was in the story like Azog the Goblin and Legolas. The saving grace for me was the fact that it brought more action, and Smaug. Bennedict Cumberbatch as Smaug was brilliant, and terrifying.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
komarhomesterFeb 8, 2014
The second part of one The Hobbit book.
As a amateur of J.R.R. Tolkien I have read The Hobbit, The Lord of the Ring little bit more than once. That mean, that I little bit know what had happened in real book.
Trilogy of The Lord of the RingThe second part of one The Hobbit book.
As a amateur of J.R.R. Tolkien I have read The Hobbit, The Lord of the Ring little bit more than once. That mean, that I little bit know what had happened in real book.
Trilogy of The Lord of the Ring I understand, that is logical, but 3 parts of The Hobbit is abundant, yep crisis in Hollywood is and anyone can understand that, but that is so vulgar try to make money from nothing.
I'm okay when movie and book have differences and in movie add some new aspects, that is normal that is understandable till new things are logical.
Movie is incised and include a lot of sharp jumps to the new sciences.
I really enjoyed the first part of The Hobbit
The second one, I would not recommend to my friend to see. Nothing interesting.
ordinary Score...… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
LordOfTheFilmsJan 25, 2014
This movie shows an incredible description of Tolkien`s fantasy universe, and once again we get thrown into Middle - Earth to experience great character developments and action sequences. The second chapter of a trilogy is often the mostThis movie shows an incredible description of Tolkien`s fantasy universe, and once again we get thrown into Middle - Earth to experience great character developments and action sequences. The second chapter of a trilogy is often the most difficult to make, but Peter Jackson and his crew have taken the right decisions all the way and in my opinion The desolation of Smaug leaves the impression of being better than the first chapter of the trilogy, as the story takes a darker turn. Smaug himself enters the story as one of the most remarkable movie villains of all time, he`s a perfect example of evil and its greediness, in great contrast with little Bilbo who tries his best to survive through dark environments.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
AGuyThatReviewsJan 27, 2014
"The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug" directed by Peter Jackson was a interpretation of the book written by J.R.R. Tolkien under the name "The Hobbit". The movie has impressive CGI, acting talents and provides an atmosphere like no other."The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug" directed by Peter Jackson was a interpretation of the book written by J.R.R. Tolkien under the name "The Hobbit". The movie has impressive CGI, acting talents and provides an atmosphere like no other. However, the movie's story differs from its origin and because of this, creates potholes. The movie doesn't solve all problems that are faced within the story, therefore, forcing the viewer to come back for a third instalment.

As expected the plot differs, introducing characters and scenarios not seen from its origins and has tweaks in the story. However, one may state that these changes are bad as they detach from the original story, making fans of the book and previous movies disappointed. However, it still does stick to its bases, still introducing locations and plot points from the book.

The visuals are amazing, providing the audience with the atmosphere that it needs and therefore, making the characters believable. The use of CGI can emote what emotion that is being portrayed, however, there are some instances that seem dodgy, or poorly animated such as Smaug's scene.

The movie is a disappointment to its origin and its previous movies, however as an individual movie, provides entertainment and an atmosphere like no other. However, because of its little ties to J.R.R. Tolkien's book "The Hobbit", it will disappoint to fans who are expecting a true movie interpretation of the fantastic book.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
poewilsonFeb 6, 2014
The fabled gold that surrounds The Hobbit is quite applicable as we can see this film struggling with its pacing which stems from no other source than the search of loot, and by loot I mean the money in the general populace's pockets. TheThe fabled gold that surrounds The Hobbit is quite applicable as we can see this film struggling with its pacing which stems from no other source than the search of loot, and by loot I mean the money in the general populace's pockets. The Hobbit is at best two movies and the first of this series helped prove this to a great droning yawn. The acting has become tired and listless save for Smaug and Bilbo the rest of the cast is there for the same reasons as the financiers.
The Poe Scale:
Acting: 1/2
Cinematography: 1.5/2
Editing: 1.5/2
Effects and Design 2/2
Writing: 1/2… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
MovieManiac83Apr 23, 2015
Special effects have always played an important role in Peter Jackson's adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's books but, with The Desolation of Smaug, the middle chapter of The Hobbit movie trilogy, they take center stage. This isn't necessarily aSpecial effects have always played an important role in Peter Jackson's adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's books but, with The Desolation of Smaug, the middle chapter of The Hobbit movie trilogy, they take center stage. This isn't necessarily a positive development because it comes at the expense of things many film-goers value, like character development and narrative thrust. Filmed and exhibited primarily in 3-D with lengthy computer-created action sequences, The Desolation of Smaug often looks and feels more like a video game than a motion picture. There are things to like about the second Hobbit film - the director's vision of Middle Earth is as beguiling as ever - but the bloating that was a problem with An Unexpected Journey is an even bigger issue here.

The Desolation of Smaug is too long and too visually busy to be loved by any but a die-hard fan. Purists - those who treat Tolkien's written word with Biblical reverence - may be horrified. A lot of the running around that consumes the running time bears no resemblance to anything in the books. Although Jackson doesn't change the core story, he treats it like an outline. Less than 50% of what's on screen during the course of The Desolation of Smaug comes from The Hobbit. The rest is culled from Tolkien's notes and Jackson's imagination.

One evident improvement over An Unexpected Journey relates to pacing. This movie doesn't bog down the way the previous one did. It shifts from one action sequence to the next, sometimes without taking time to breathe. Unfortunately, Jackson's overreliance on computer-generated imagery during many of these high-octane sequences diminishes the experience. Action works best when there's an identification with the characters and a real sense of danger. Those elements are absent here. Many of The Desolation of Smaug's high profile sequences feel either like elaborate video game cut-scenes or templates for an amusement ride. An example is the barrel escape, which feels like a hyper-real animated sequence. By spending so much time extending action sequences (there's one in the bowels of The Lonely Mountain that lasts for 30 minutes), Jackson is forced to end the film on a cliffhanger. It's an awkward stopping point that may anger some viewers.

Admittedly, the dragon looks great - quite an achievement, especially when seen in its full glory on the big screen. Benedict Cumberbatch provides Smaug's voice (giving him an opportunity to interact with Sherlock co-star Martin Freeman) with appropriate gravitas. Still, what was a high point becomes distended for no purpose other than to highlight the technical proficiency of the special effects wizards. The movie's look is odd; color is so desaturated during the second half that there are times when The Desolation of Smaug appears monochromatic. And Howard Shore's normally praiseworthy score is disappointingly flat.

Fans of The Lord of the Rings will welcome the return of Legolas (Orlando Bloom). Although he is not mentioned by name in Tolkien's book, this is an example of effective artistic license. The same can be said of the inclusion of Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), a creation of screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, and Peter Jackson. Tauriel at least gives The Desolation of Smaug a female presence and her character arc, limited though it may be, is intriguing. The best new addition to The Desolation of Smaug is Bard the Lake Town hero (Luke Evans), whose story has been expanded beyond the one provided by Tolkien.

As spectacles go, The Desolation of Smaug delivers, at least in its ability to provide eye candy. It fails to excite on a deeper level, however, lacking the emotional impact delivered by The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King. It's epic fantasy for those who thinks the term means monsters, chases, fights, and little else. One can argue that it's unfair to judge the middle chapter of a trilogy until all three volumes are available, but Jackson hasn't done an especially good job of making The Desolation of Smaug work as a stand-alone project. Like the dragon's treasure hoard, it's pretty and vast but lacking in substance.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
PeterAlexanderJun 10, 2015
The Desolation of Smaug is a much improved instalment of the Hobbit franchise. The movie adopts a frenetic pace that captures the viewer whilst also exploring welcomed new fantastical themes within Middle Earth. It is clear that Peter JacksonThe Desolation of Smaug is a much improved instalment of the Hobbit franchise. The movie adopts a frenetic pace that captures the viewer whilst also exploring welcomed new fantastical themes within Middle Earth. It is clear that Peter Jackson has taken a much more colourful approach in his story telling of Middle Earth. The film never reaches the emotionally gripping and dark aspects of the Lord of the Rings, and rather takes a more vibrant and fun route. Whilst this provides a great film for the most part, it once again does not live up to the ridiculously high expectations set up by the Lord of the Rings. A good film nevertheless, ending on a painful cliffhanger that sets up the third film expertly.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DanBurritoSep 15, 2015
I honestly don't see why people always refer to this as the best. It's got moments and Benedict Cumberbatch makes a good Smaug (same for Freeman as Bilbo) but really I think the third one is better. Not saying this one is bad though. It's aI honestly don't see why people always refer to this as the best. It's got moments and Benedict Cumberbatch makes a good Smaug (same for Freeman as Bilbo) but really I think the third one is better. Not saying this one is bad though. It's a decent enough film. Like the first. I haven't seen any of The Lord of the Rings movies so I don't know how it compares to them but I suppose it might please LOTR fans.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
JP32Nov 16, 2022
You get your money’s worth from Jackson, who still proves to be one of the tippy top action directors working.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Jaredc324Dec 11, 2019
Desolation of Smaug picks up the pace and enthralls us in maybe the most enticing parts of all the book, and leaving us in a place of perfect disclosure. But it does seem to drag from moment to moment, but equally gives us an insight on whatDesolation of Smaug picks up the pace and enthralls us in maybe the most enticing parts of all the book, and leaving us in a place of perfect disclosure. But it does seem to drag from moment to moment, but equally gives us an insight on what this trilogy could've been had it just been 1 or 2 films. i found myself connecting with this one more than the first due to the power of a love dynamic that brought a new found life in this story, Tolkien never intended on exploring. And the Dragon, voiced virvaciously by Benedict Cumberbatch, elevated the movie to an unforgettable level.
But in the end, it's just a shade better than the first being the most intruging part of the story, but still carries the same issues in length and over-conveyed character exposition that makes it lose it's mysticism. But a fine sequel nevertheless.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Mikibruno02Nov 8, 2020
It's not a bad movie overall, but being used to a flawless Middle-earth, this movie makes me turn up my nose. So ... script that begins to wobble more than the first film and in fact I start to worry about the final film ... Until I arrive inIt's not a bad movie overall, but being used to a flawless Middle-earth, this movie makes me turn up my nose. So ... script that begins to wobble more than the first film and in fact I start to worry about the final film ... Until I arrive in the city and in Erebor, the plot is boring and devoid of the typical magic of the first film. What destroys this film for me is the presence of Orlando Bloom with Legolas, which is senseless and leads this film to be a fan-film and not a sacred monster of cinema. The soundtrack is not bad but it begins to decay. On the bright side of this film is Benedict Cumberbatch doing a crazy (!) Job for Smaug. The scene inside the mountain is really beautiful, and actually this is what brings my rating from 6 (just enough) to 7.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Cementer200Sep 27, 2020
The Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug is a good movie. The movie continues on The Hobbit journey to kill the dragon.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
iCampoRamilNov 16, 2021
A pesar de ser, para mi, la peor de las 3, sigue siendo una obra magistral en todos sus aspectos.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Fixer84Mar 16, 2023
In my opinion it is the best of the trilogy, Smaug is graphically well rendered and is a mysterious and interesting villain.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
johnbobs1Jan 16, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Peter Jackson adaptations of Tolkien's Middle Earth books have always made epic viewing, even if often receiving mixed reviews from Tolkien enthusiasts and film critics alike. The Desolation of Smaug is no different, and in this aspect, I guess no one expected it to be.
It has all the plus points of it's Peter jackson siblings; Stunning and atmospheric scenery and backdrops, generally strong character acting, interesting story and depth. But it also has all the minus points of the previous films; Added and often irrelevant storylines and characters, poor scripting in some scenes and over the top CGI, not to mention a few hammy attempts at humour thrown in for bad measure.
Unfortunately, Jackson seems to have expanded on the negatives rather than the positives in this film.
The plot now deviates hugely from the original works of Tolkien in places; so much so that it is difficult to regard this as an adaptation, more a Jackson interpretation. We also have characters such as Legolas taking up a lot of screen time and stealing scenes, when they were barely mentioned in the book.
Tauriel is an example of a character who has been entirely created for the purposes of the film. Needless to say, as a character she doesn't work and the scenes involving her are needless additions to the plot.
One of the film's major triumphs is it's recreation of Smaug; Brilliantly animated, menacing and superbly voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, But even his scenes are someone spoiled when the storyline deviates from the book strongly once again. I could also go into the scenes involving Gandalf and Sauron at Dol Goldur, but I won't. Just to say that although interesting, they also didn't appear in the book....
So that's it then - if you like over the top CGI, daft battle scenes and didn't read the book then you'll love this. Otherwise, it's an entertaining but slightly disappointing stab at the work of a literary genius. I hoped for more from Peter Jackson as a film maker, but didn't necessarily expect it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
PikeaxMar 9, 2019
This is based on the trilogy as a whole.
The Hobbit is a wonderful book but it simply doesn't have enough content to be spread between three movies. Each movie doesn't really tell a cohesive story on its own and while I judged the Lord of theThis is based on the trilogy as a whole.
The Hobbit is a wonderful book but it simply doesn't have enough content to be spread between three movies. Each movie doesn't really tell a cohesive story on its own and while I judged the Lord of the Rings as a whole because it improves an already amazing experience, The Hobbit has to be judged as a whole because the movies make no sense in any other method of viewing. Even still they hit middling at best and never truly great.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
wiiy71Dec 30, 2017
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
5
TyranianApr 11, 2019
The second Hobbit film has an awesome dragon but is otherwise worse than first film. Very disappointing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
5
SpangleApr 20, 2016
Overstuffed and packed to the brim with logic holes, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug spends too much time trying to add onto its already bloated storyline with side plots and side journeys in an attempt to extend one book into threeOverstuffed and packed to the brim with logic holes, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug spends too much time trying to add onto its already bloated storyline with side plots and side journeys in an attempt to extend one book into three movies. From what I understand, Legolas was not in the book and this is made abundantly clear here when all of his scenes literally add nothing to the movie and the adventures of the dwarves or Gandalf. Heck, even Gandalf's side journey (which is in the book) adds nothing here to this story. It just serves as distraction from what the movie is allegedly building up to, only to then cut off and not do anything until the third movie. Film is not television. Cliff hangers should not be allowed like this. In film, it makes the product feel entirely unfinished and prevents the film from being able to standalone from the rest of the franchise. Instead, The Desolation of Smaug willingly plays in the problems faced by many middle entry stories in that it is neither the beginning or the end. Even worse, the film repeatedly does shoutouts to Lord of the Rings. Again, I know it is a prequel, but I also know that every little shoutout it does is not in the book. More than anything, these moments feel as though they are simply trying to garner goodwill based on the success of the Lord of the Rings films. Unfortunately for Desolation of Smaug, this does not work and the end product is simply a thoroughly average film that may entertain at times, but has serious pacing issues and drags from beginning to end.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
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
5
psyberdelicMay 7, 2014
A whole lot of extra and, IMHO, unnecessary stuff to get three films out of one short book... However, worth $1.26 at Redbox but somewhat irritating if you loved the book... Too much like Lord of the Rings in tone and substance...
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
joao1198pedroNov 27, 2014
People say this movie is much better than the first one, i badly disagree with that, because this movie is the most useless in the franchise so i hope they fix the next one with most useful stuffs.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
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
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
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
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
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
HarmonicAug 6, 2014
There was a great cast : Ian McKellen ! Martin Freeman ! Richard Armitage!
Peter Jackson was the director of The Lord of the Rings ; King Kong ; Lovely Bones...
There was an amazing composer for the soundtrack : Howard Shore... So ? WhatThere was a great cast : Ian McKellen ! Martin Freeman ! Richard Armitage!
Peter Jackson was the director of The Lord of the Rings ; King Kong ; Lovely Bones...
There was an amazing composer for the soundtrack : Howard Shore...

So ? What happened ? The 3D is useless, the picture is often illegible. The set smells the green screen and the numeric with full nose. And, I know a movie can be brilliant without respecting the work of origin but : Legolas ? Seriously ? What the hell is he doing there if it's not to make a useless allusion to Lord of the Rings...
To my mind, here is that is that movie : a far too long useless allusion to Lord of the Rings, a work which suffered from the Peter Jackson's numerical megalomania for, in the final, a result close to the disgusting.
Without forgetting the useless sub-plots added to the screenplay (an emancipation towards the book, okay, why not, but from there to change all the weft it...) ; some strokes of humour which completely fall flat ; the completely ridiculous look of the dwarfs and, naturally, unspeakable campaign of communication and advertisement made around films (planes, immense sculptures in stations and.), amounting to a degree of nonsense which exceeds the imagination !!
In brief : Much Ado About Nothing !… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MiawMixMar 25, 2015
I love the first movie, i think the story is exciting and the craracter are charming. But everything good about the first movie vanished here. There're certain two characters (i call them Gary Stu couple) clearly doesn't belong in this story.I love the first movie, i think the story is exciting and the craracter are charming. But everything good about the first movie vanished here. There're certain two characters (i call them Gary Stu couple) clearly doesn't belong in this story. They fell really out of place, and the worst thing they change my view about the main character group. They make what is a reckless brave warrior before in to a bunch of incompetent melancholic midget. My other complain is the pace, it feel really streched in the most part of the movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CinemaphileJul 29, 2016
Sadly, Walsh, Boyens and Jackson opted to remove most of the interesting materials from Tolkien's heartfelt work in this installment in favor of inserting irrelevant interspecies love stories, pointless politics and endless, shiny CGSadly, Walsh, Boyens and Jackson opted to remove most of the interesting materials from Tolkien's heartfelt work in this installment in favor of inserting irrelevant interspecies love stories, pointless politics and endless, shiny CG violence. The desolation of this installment is the lack of growth of the film's protagonist, who is relegated to supporting player and foil for a visually impressive, but soulless CGI dragon. The crux of this film's problem lies in the decision of Jackson, Warner Brothers, New Line and MGM in turning a two-picture-at-best story into a generic action film which appeals to a broader demographic. The collaborators' decision to include appendix material isn't the problem - it provides welcome explanations for Gandalf's seemingly fairweather loyalty to the party. The problem is that new materials, specifically the romance and the politics are mundane and hamfisted. Much of the wonder of An Unexpected Journey and The Fellowship of the Ring are missing from The Desolation of Smaug. The accessibility of Tolkein's The Hobbit lies in the fact that it is a first person narrative. Unfortunately, due to the deep cynicism of the entertainment industry, in an effort to emulate other action film franchises, it has produced another generic e-ticket ride to nowhere.

Skip the full ticket price showing of this flick, catch a matinee and only pay extra for 3D if that's your thing.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
FilipeNetoApr 29, 2018
This film continues "The Hobbit" trilogy, which is a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". However, after the hard failure of the first film, with obvious CGI exaggerations, miserably basic cinematography and several flaws concerning actors, it wasThis film continues "The Hobbit" trilogy, which is a prequel to "Lord of the Rings". However, after the hard failure of the first film, with obvious CGI exaggerations, miserably basic cinematography and several flaws concerning actors, it was hard to do worse with a millionaire budget. Thus, "Desolation of Smaug" is a general improvement without doing miracles. In this film, the company of Thorin Oakenshield finally reaches the lonely mountain, after some difficulties with the elves and a forced visit to Lake Town. However, increasingly powerful forces maneuver in the shadows and covet the gold of the dwarfs without them knowing.

I can not comment on how Peter Jackson and his team adapt the original material of J.R.R. Tolkien because I never read it. The actors were well. Ian McKellen plays Gandalf without much news to add. Martin Freeman continues to look like a solid Bilbo and plays his part without major flaws, as can be said of Richard Armitage (Thorin). This actor does an excellent performance, showing the gradual change of his character, more and more selfish and insensitive. Orlando Bloom returns to the role of Legolas, heir to the Elven throne, but it seems much more impersonal, mechanical and hard than it was in LOTR. Evangeline Lilly looks excellent as the sensitive Tauriel, just like Lee Pace, flawless in the role of King Thranduil, whom the misfortune of the dwarfs never moves. Smaug, the dragon, is not represented by any actor, its an artificial creation, but its an well thought-out character with a cruel personality, selfish and true hatred of the dwarfs. The action scenes are plentiful but continues to suffer with incompetent cinematography and a lamentable abuse of special effects that make everything artificial, pointless and devoid of emotions. The soundtrack, created by Howard Shore, is powerful, impactful and meets the expectations of the public.

"Smaug's Desolation" is not necessarily bad, it's even better than the first film of the trilogy. But it still looks like a show-movie, full of background noise, impersonal, artificial and unable to reach the audience. The sense of danger, the emotion, all that made "Lord of the Rings" a successful trilogy, has disappeared and only comes at very precise scenes.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
Page:
More From This Movie

66 Critic Reviews

7.7 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL