The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

9

milogoldDec 15, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I don't understand some of the bad reviews, they're ever trolls or stupid. This film is exactly how the book intended it to be (which is a children's book by the way)! There is some perfectly timed comedy moments, some tense moments which is really helped by the brilliant character development and those cute little Dwarves. Most of the animation was superb, I think Smaug was done brilliantly, however there were some moments which really stood out as very bad animation such as moments in the barrel ride scene and some moments in the halls of Erebor. The side stories with Gandalf discovering Sauron's return and the love triangle with Tauraylon, Legolas and Kili really complement the main action, and I actually am starting to like the fact they added more orcs to the story, unlike An Unexpected Journey where they're existence was annoying and pointless. Synopsis: Better than the first, amazing script adaption and story but some moments were let down by animation!… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

8

moviemitch96Dec 15, 2013

I'd say that this was equally as good as part 1 and that it definitely managed to keep me entertained. I really liked the cast and their performances. Martin Freeman once again fulfilled his role as Bilbo rather nicely. Ian Mckellen isI'd say that this was equally as good as part 1 and that it definitely managed to keep me entertained. I really liked the cast and their performances. Martin Freeman once again fulfilled his role as Bilbo rather nicely. Ian Mckellen is getting old, but he still makes a great Gandalf. Orlando Bloom returns as Legolas and he's fun to watch. Needless to say, the best part is when Smaug finally arrives. Benedict Cumberbatch sounds better than ever as the voice behind Smaug. The action was also great and will likely please adults and children alike. Despite the film's lengthy run time and a cliffhanger ending that left me wanting more, it still delivers and not only met my expectations overall, but got me even more excited for part 3 next year!… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

2

FunkyHermitDec 15, 2013

Pretty terrible. First, I watched the 48 fps 3D version.

The higher frame rate made a lot of the scenes seem very cheaply done. While some scenes looked absolutely gorgeous with it, there were more times that I was trying to figure outPretty terrible. First, I watched the 48 fps 3D version.

The higher frame rate made a lot of the scenes seem very cheaply done. While some scenes looked absolutely gorgeous with it, there were more times that I was trying to figure out what was happening in a scene than enjoying it.

The movie DOES NOT follow the book very closely at all. Jackson added characters in that never existed and that, in my opinion, detract from the flow of the story. These additions to the story also have many plot holes and idiosyncrasies that just leave you scratching your head.

This movie gets a 2 simply because Smaug has a great voice actor, and they did Gandalfs scenes well.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

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

4

TuscaroraDec 15, 2013

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

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

8

Bruce722Dec 15, 2013

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was a really good movie with great visuals and it continued telling an amazing story. The increased action of this film over the previous one will surely get most people's attention and will probably makeThe Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was a really good movie with great visuals and it continued telling an amazing story. The increased action of this film over the previous one will surely get most people's attention and will probably make most younger people actually like it more. The special effects were also a bit better, in my opinion, and the dragon sequence at the end was just amazing. My only real probably with the film is the ending. That just isn't a good place to leave the film hanging. Obviously you should look at all of these films as one large movie broken up into three parts but the reality is that the third part won't be available to see until next year which makes this movie stand alone, in a sense. When considering that the entire movie seemed to be building to a climax that never occurs, it feels a little anticlimactic.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

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

3

Atomic_RossDec 15, 2013

While the pacing and narrative diversity is a substantial improvement over the previous installment (and the dragon looks ingeniously amazing, to boot), this film cannot hardly be stated as anything less than a shocking failure of basicWhile the pacing and narrative diversity is a substantial improvement over the previous installment (and the dragon looks ingeniously amazing, to boot), this film cannot hardly be stated as anything less than a shocking failure of basic cinematic and story-telling fundamentals. There are no arcs for the characters to follow along, no new game-changing information learned by our primaries, and no strong story structure or plot to speak of. Our characters simply start at one place, visit two more, and finish at a fourth place. Nothing is accomplished or lost, and the stakes do not change. In short, this is not a movie, in the sense that a movie is about characters and throughlines and arcs and narrative dynamics. This is simply a part of a movie, or worse yet, an FX reel with some dialogue attached. Jackson's worst impulses in displaying cartoonish set-pieces and indulgent CGI abound here to serve the story very little, and aesthetic choices are garish and jarring without any contextual justification. In all, an astounding and surprisingly bad film, possibly Jackson's worst.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

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

8

waynDec 15, 2013

The hobbit desolation of smaug comes a huge step closer to make peter Jackson king of fantasy director. It is very much better than the first part the hobb8t trilogy does not even comes close to the Lord of the rings trilogy

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

10

PetroleumDec 15, 2013

Enjoyed the movie for it's darker and more Middle Earth feeling. The visual part of the movie was spectacular and eye-popping, with fantastic performances from Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellan and Benedict Cumberbatch, who's role as Smaug wasEnjoyed the movie for it's darker and more Middle Earth feeling. The visual part of the movie was spectacular and eye-popping, with fantastic performances from Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellan and Benedict Cumberbatch, who's role as Smaug was absolutely fantastic. The other thing that made the movie a lot more enjoyable was the break time it had, not trying to have too many things happening at once all the time, unlike the first of the trilogy.… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

10

PeterJamesDec 15, 2013

Considering the hit-and-miss style of the first movie, possibly more a factor of being the introduction movie, the second attempt was quite fantastic! If I were to fault this movie on anything it would be that I have to wait until DecemberConsidering the hit-and-miss style of the first movie, possibly more a factor of being the introduction movie, the second attempt was quite fantastic! If I were to fault this movie on anything it would be that I have to wait until December 2014 before actually seeing the finale. I found the acting, set design, costume, writing, and lore to be engrossing and enthralling. Of anything to criticize it would be the endemic problem of multiple special effects studios working on a project which can lead to variation in the look which can be bothersome. While the movie may not have been completely straight with the book, I never found a single instance where I think they slipped up. Any additional content was superbly meshed into the framework of the original story, giving it several fleshed-out story lines to follow. I wasn't expecting to appreciate this series to the level I have, and I am enticed by the amount of detail poured into these projects. One way to heighten the experience could be to try and explain the majority of the LOTR world to a fellow movie-goer not aware of any previous information even the first movie. It really helps bring out how much thought is required to keep such a complex multi-faceted world going in a script and then portrayed in a movie. I would recommend this to anyone, especially if they have even a little time to dig into the wonder that Tolkien's, and now Jackson's, mind has crafted.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

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

8

JCouch777Dec 14, 2013

Part 2 of the Hobbit Trilogy delivers even more than the first. A great action movie for fans who read the book, and for fans who did not. While there were some major differences and changes in the movie from Tolkien's novel, I thought it wasPart 2 of the Hobbit Trilogy delivers even more than the first. A great action movie for fans who read the book, and for fans who did not. While there were some major differences and changes in the movie from Tolkien's novel, I thought it was still made well. The only thing that felt off to me was the horrible sub-plot involving Kili and his wound. The ending, although completely made up, still leaves you longing for the final installment.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

10

cephaloDec 14, 2013

This film accomplishes everything it set out to do. I don't understand how any fan of the original trilogy wouldn't love this movie. If dragging this small story into three movies makes it like an 'extended edition' I am eagerly awaiting theThis film accomplishes everything it set out to do. I don't understand how any fan of the original trilogy wouldn't love this movie. If dragging this small story into three movies makes it like an 'extended edition' I am eagerly awaiting the extended-extended edition! I'm giving it a 10 because Smaug is a 20, and more than makes up for any shortcomings I had failed to notice.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

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

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

10

dominionatorDec 14, 2013

Yes, peter jackson is back, the movie magic man. Its great adaptation for the hobbit book. You can start to see half way through this second movie why peter intended to make just 2 movies for the book. Scenes get stretched out and fillerYes, peter jackson is back, the movie magic man. Its great adaptation for the hobbit book. You can start to see half way through this second movie why peter intended to make just 2 movies for the book. Scenes get stretched out and filler moments and conversations rear there heads. But I love the world of middle earth so stretching out a third movie is a good thing not a bad thing. But yes Peter should have stayed true to his idea and made just 2 MOVIES not 3, but thats the well known hollywood greed.… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

10

atcDec 14, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Absolutely loved it. Stayed fairly close to the book too. Beorn was excellently portrayed. The additional parts were interesting especially Wizard battles. I enjoyed the action sequences around the barrels as well as the dragon scenes though it was confusing at times. The CGI and voice of Smaug was amazing and really stole the show.… Expand

6 of 14 users found this helpful68

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

10

IsotopesamDec 14, 2013

That was exactly what I wanted to see in a Peter Jackson rendition of the Hobbit. Loved it from start to end. The action was intense and absolutely fun. Smaug was badass! Loved seeing the dwarves fighting to take back Erebor from the dragon.That was exactly what I wanted to see in a Peter Jackson rendition of the Hobbit. Loved it from start to end. The action was intense and absolutely fun. Smaug was badass! Loved seeing the dwarves fighting to take back Erebor from the dragon. The ring's slow effect on Bilbo and Gandalf'a quest made it all tie in to the LOTR movies. I can't wait for the extended edition.… Expand

7 of 13 users found this helpful76

All this user's reviews

10

MemburgDec 14, 2013

This is one of the single greatest films I have EVER SEEN. I shall scream the praise of this movie from the peak of the highest mountain, let it be known, THIS MOVIE IS FREAKING AWESOME! But the gold CGI needs a touch up.

4 of 13 users found this helpful49

All this user's reviews

9

martyisrulingDec 14, 2013

It starts off a little weak, but gets really good. The story elements aren't great, but the movie suits it's purpose. It's a fun adventure. The effects are great, with the exception of a few isolated parts on a river scene and some bad horse CGI.

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

10

adrenilinmattDec 14, 2013

Stop comparing the hobbit to the lord of the rings. Jesus. They are purposely crafted differently. Because the story is different. The lord of the rings is set in a darker time than the hobbit. Regardlesd of this, the films are mnot supposedStop comparing the hobbit to the lord of the rings. Jesus. They are purposely crafted differently. Because the story is different. The lord of the rings is set in a darker time than the hobbit. Regardlesd of this, the films are mnot supposed to be copies of one another because quite frankly that would be boring and I for one like new things and a new journey when im paying money to get to see it. Now, on to this movie in particular. Amazing. Crafted with love and care, exciting from start to finish, a visual spectactle to say the least and in my honest opinion, in different ways, just as enjoyable as lotr. The people talking and comparing it to the books, are mere imbeciles. You cannot film a book exactly as it is written. Some things in the book wouldn't work as a piece of film. The day you book realise this, is the day I can finally read reviews without wanting to tear my very eyes out. Thanks for reading. Go see the movie. Listen to th majority, its fantastic. And smaug is the best dragon displayed on screen ever. Simple as that. Less of the cgi orcs would be nice though. They just arent as scary looking as the real actors in prosthetics and such.… Expand

4 of 11 users found this helpful47

All this user's reviews

9

Beowulf4862Dec 14, 2013

Terrific fun. Almost too fast paced, though. I wanted more of Beorn--maybe we'll get some further scenes with him in the extended version. The acting was uniformly good, though Lee Pace had fun chewing the scenery (the cgi?). A little moreTerrific fun. Almost too fast paced, though. I wanted more of Beorn--maybe we'll get some further scenes with him in the extended version. The acting was uniformly good, though Lee Pace had fun chewing the scenery (the cgi?). A little more setup for the barrel escape would be nice, though I'd love to take that ride at TOLKIENLAND when it opens. I predict that this will be yet another of Peter Jackson's films which be criticized for being too long only to turn out to have been too short when the extended version proves to be just right.… Expand

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

All this user's reviews

8

MrAppleKinsDec 14, 2013

It's not necessarily an amazing movie, but it is an amazing viewing experience. It has depth, story and characters, all which play out well in the movie--but the real draw here is the fantastic action and visuals, even though they sometimesIt's not necessarily an amazing movie, but it is an amazing viewing experience. It has depth, story and characters, all which play out well in the movie--but the real draw here is the fantastic action and visuals, even though they sometimes bog down the quality of the film itself. A big improvement over the first, mainly due to how well the epic action manages to propel the story as well as the visuals, as opposed to the first one. 3.5/4… Expand

4 of 11 users found this helpful47

All this user's reviews

10

KalarienDec 14, 2013

Perfect
I love all the trilogy, the movie include some extend actions cenes who i like to much! Legolas in clearly the best! Grats Peter Jackson, u made a wonderfull movie again

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

10

raduflorinDec 14, 2013

This is one of those films you definitely have to watch, in cinema or home. It is filled up with a dynamic action pack, remastered CGI and a more captivating story. Even if you read the books, the movie still gives you unexpected scenes, likeThis is one of those films you definitely have to watch, in cinema or home. It is filled up with a dynamic action pack, remastered CGI and a more captivating story. Even if you read the books, the movie still gives you unexpected scenes, like the opening scene in Bree, or the extraordinary fight between Gandalf and Sauron. Benedict Cumberbatch did an absolutely amazing job with Smaug, and the ending cliffhanger will make it very hard for the fans to wait 'till the next year for the final part in the Hobbit series. 10/10… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

9

eagleeyevikingDec 13, 2013

Desolation of Smaug delivers on everything the first movie lacks with great special effects, swift pacing and much more character development even if a few of them are sidelined.

13 of 21 users found this helpful138

All this user's reviews

3

uvazquezDec 13, 2013

Bifur was right, it was the chiefest and greatest calamity of our age. Nope, not talking about the dragon. I mean the movie.

Book differences aside (I didn't go to the theater with expectations of watching a remake of the book's secondBifur was right, it was the chiefest and greatest calamity of our age. Nope, not talking about the dragon. I mean the movie.

Book differences aside (I didn't go to the theater with expectations of watching a remake of the book's second third chapters), the plot was terrible. And I mean, TERRIBLE with a capital T and the rest of the word capitalized as well.

For starters, there was a time gap between where we left in the first movie and where the second started. Sure, I'm used to it and it can be good for the movie. But it doesn't explain how the orcs have caught up with them. Secondly, there was almost no Beorn. He doesn't even have many lines. What's the point of adding him into the movie if he's not gonna do anything? Thirdly, adding Legolas would have made sense just to connect with The Lord of the Rings, like Jackson wants, but adding another elf, Tauriel, and making them be the entire piece of action in the film was really lousy. There was almost no plot because of the large bits of action from Legolas and Tauriel. If I wanted to watch an action movie I would have bought tickets for another movie.

Also, the movie relies heavily in 3D. It's like Jackson forgot about the plot, just to make it coincide with awesome 3D effects (which I can't watch because I'm from the unlucky group of people who can't watch 3D movies because of sight conditions). 3D should be just an additive to the movie, not the whole point of it.

Adding Dol Guldur and the return of Sauron was a nice touch though, and the Bard the Bowman portrayal was awesome. That adds a few points to the score. However, Evangeline Lilly can't act, which substracts points. And making the action parts so long I almost fell asleep. They should be brief and scattered across the film. Not concentrated during an hour and a half and then abandoned and changed for pure dialogue.

All in all, this makes this movie the worst Jackson Middle Earth movie yet, and it was the one I had most hopes about. I liked the first one more than this and it's really slow.

I was about to give this a 5, like acceptable, but then I got to the cliffhanger. Really, Jackson? Why didn't you give closure to the arc? You have a war brewing, you don't need to keep Smaug alive. Let Bard gun him down already and get this over with. You could have ended the movie with the party at Esgaroth, and then changing to a scene showing the army marching. You have A LOT of stuff to put in the next film without leaving Smaug's closure to be exploited.

All in all, this was the worst of the three. I really do believe the worst is behind us. Come on, Jackson. Give it a worthy ending.… Expand

13 of 28 users found this helpful1315

All this user's reviews

0

PopinFRESHDec 13, 2013

If you are an actual fan of Tolkien you will be sorely disappointed with this movie. I thought Jackson took a little too much creative license in Part 1, however compared to Part 2 it would seem like Part 1 was letter for letter from theIf you are an actual fan of Tolkien you will be sorely disappointed with this movie. I thought Jackson took a little too much creative license in Part 1, however compared to Part 2 it would seem like Part 1 was letter for letter from the book. It's as if Jackson simply read the chapter titles and shot a movie with what he would think was in a chapter that could have such a title.

Jackson spends far too much time truncating interesting portions of the story simply so he can fit more "nowhere-in-the-book" action scenes in spots that should have been done in one cut. Barrels out of Bond is a perfect example of this. Jackson lacks the concept of building a story up to a climax and simply turns the dial to 11 the entire time.… Expand

18 of 43 users found this helpful1825

All this user's reviews

8

MaxsonDec 13, 2013

Pretty much the middle of the book. If you read the book, you know it's really short compare to The Lord of the ring. Peter Jackson did a great job expanding the story. The pacing in this one is a lot faster than the first one, its morePretty much the middle of the book. If you read the book, you know it's really short compare to The Lord of the ring. Peter Jackson did a great job expanding the story. The pacing in this one is a lot faster than the first one, its more action packed, and the special effects was beautiful. Lots of exciting moments in this one, smaug the dragon was...badass. The scale and visual of smaug was beyond amazing. Can't wait for the final installment.… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

9

Luan143Dec 13, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. O filme maravilhoso, o mestre Peter Jackson nunca mais repetirá os erros técnicos que ele tanto cometeu em Um Olhar do Paraíso. Como diretor ele conseguiu renovar seus tempos de glória que duraram dos filmes trash até King Kong. O filme foi repleto de truques de fotografia sensitiva (como naquelas cenas do diálogo ente Bilbo e Smaug onde ele simula a visão do espectador como se ele estivesse dentro do salão em Erebor) combinados com o 3d magnífico só visto em Avatar e efeitos visuais tão realistas e inéditos totalmente o oposto de Uma Jornada Inesperada. Houveram alguns erros de fotografia que me fizeram pensar que Jackson estava menos inspirado ao dirigir (um deles foi numa cena da invasão dos orcs em Esgaroth em que o Legolas mata um orc e na hora da facada ele simplesmente foi empurrado para fora da tela), mas esses aconteceram em um período tão curto de tempo que nem mesmo eu sei como reparei. O roteiro foi maravilhoso, aquela discussão do Bilbo e do Smaug foi uma obra prima do Peter Jackson, assim como vários diálogos vistos em As Duas Torres e o episódio Adivinhas no Escuro.
No aspecto técnico o filme sai quase perfeito (não quero deixar muitos spoilers sobre a emboscada armada pelos anões nas minas da montanha, mas aquelas partículas líquidas de ouro e água foram um avanço enorme para efeitos especiais), mas para um fã de Tolkien as muitas alterações foram o bastante pra te deixar cheio de pensamentos mistos sobre o filme.
Eu achei a ideia de cobrir as missões do Gandalf maravilhosa! Uma alteração que não feriu a história, pois seria muito importante anos após o arco que cobre o romance e ao mesmo tempo era algo que todos os fãs desejavam ver como aconteceu. SPOILER: Ver o Sauron dialogando chegou a ser assustador, na história do Anel ele não teve muita participação em primeiro plano, como eu digo: "ele estava lá, não aqui, mas ao mesmo tempo estava aqui e lá". Vamos ver que rumo essa "adição" terá ano que vem.
Sobre a inclusão da Tauriel, não fui um daqueles que ficaram de birra com a adição dela na história, mas o papel que ela teve foi o que marcou o filme todo, PJ infelizmente quis colocar uma pitada de romance adolescente e enfiou isso guela abaixo no plot, isso foi uma blasfêmia obra de Tolkien, que desejava sempre que a história fosse mais racional possível. O filme atingia um certo clímax e ele era cortado pra cara de sonsa dela (não que a atriz seja ruim, mas o papel)... sério, até as cenas de Dol Goldur e Erebor eram cortadas pra cara dela.
Parece que os episódios da casa de Beorn e da Floresta das Trevas foram cortados pela metade só pra mostrar o romance meia boca "Kiliel" ou "Taurikili" que mais parece uma fanfic de Harry Potter. (My Immortal diz: Oi)
Resolvi ignorar cada cena que aparecia a Tauriel pra pensar na forma de como ela morreria no próximo filme, o que óbvio ELA TEM QUE MORRER PRA DEIXAR UM AR DE DRAMA ADOLESCENTE.
Me senti neutro quanto a inclusão dos Orcs antes da batalha, pra mim Azog já estava morto há anos, mas rendeu muitos risos com as cenas do Bombur esmagando eles.
Para a maioria dos fãs a adição de personalidade aos anões só serviu para um complemento, a obra infantil como qualquer outra, em todas os personagens são meio unidimensionais pra não confundir a cabeça das crianças e isso num filme foi de grande ajuda.
Se eu pudesse me aprofundar numa crítica seria mais completo, mas isso aqui só um comentário extenso e amador sobre o que eu vi hoje.
O filme estava bom, nada mais. Poderia ser perfeito, mas PJ cometeu muitos erros com a história que eu não espero ver ano que vem.… Expand

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

3

jaketyler48Dec 13, 2013

Well, Being a fan of the book I can honestly say I'm not sure what I just watched. If your a fan of Tolkien and his writings your going to hate it! If your a fan of Jackson you will love it! I'm with the first group loved the book. The firstWell, Being a fan of the book I can honestly say I'm not sure what I just watched. If your a fan of Tolkien and his writings your going to hate it! If your a fan of Jackson you will love it! I'm with the first group loved the book. The first movie, An unexpected journey was pretty much the beginning of the book with a few things excluded and a few things added for the sake of cinema. It blended well. I could take that. But, The desolation of Smaug went so far off the beat-in path from the book its not even funny. There was less of the book and more screen play. I understand writing a movie screen play is different than the writing of a book. But Jackson Literally killed The book! With the addition of parts (Far to many added into the screen play) and again not enough from the book! All these positive reviews people must not have read the book. Jackson took a great book and turned it into a whore. That he could pimp out over the span of 3 movies for money. Other than the fact that a character in the movie is in fact a hobbit. And the title is The Hobbit The desolation of Smaug after my viewing I believe they should have dropped The Hobbit from the title entirely. And just called it the desolation of Smaug. I was Concerned when the movie went from 2 to 3 films. I was right in being worried. Like myself fans of the book will see very little of the book in the second film and to much nonsense that doesn't even blend well.… Expand

6 of 18 users found this helpful612

All this user's reviews

0

phibbusDec 13, 2013

SPOILER ALERT! It stinks. END OF SPOILER.

Given that it's the same crap, part 2, this shouldn't come as any great shock. Jackson seems absolutely single-minded in his determination to prove just how much of a hare-brained mess he andSPOILER ALERT! It stinks. END OF SPOILER.

Given that it's the same crap, part 2, this shouldn't come as any great shock.

Jackson seems absolutely single-minded in his determination to prove just how much of a hare-brained mess he and his nincompoop, amateur writing staff can make of a movie in the last years of his career. Apparently following his lead, the worshipful geeks in the special effects shop have set the bar as low as it will go so as not to outshine the awful script. Music is again on a repeat loop from the first trilogy. This is canned movie hacking taken to the least of the least common denominators, and it's hard to imagine how it can get any worse in part 3.

But surely Jackson will find a way.… Expand

15 of 47 users found this helpful1532

All this user's reviews

9

AnEpicPotatoeDec 13, 2013

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is Peter Jackson's middle earth, no doubt about it. If you you go into the movie expecting a faithful recreation of the book, I daresay you'll be disappointed. However, having read both the Lord of theThe Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is Peter Jackson's middle earth, no doubt about it. If you you go into the movie expecting a faithful recreation of the book, I daresay you'll be disappointed. However, having read both the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit book, I can assure you that Peter Jackson's middle earth is nothing short of breathtaking, and I find that the his numerous changes are more than justified. Desolation of Smaug offers much improved CGI (when compared to An Unexpected Journey), a soundtrack wrapped in nostalgia, and non-stop action from start to finish. Unlike the first installment in this new trilogy, the Desolation of Smaug feels much more free from the confines of staying true to the book. It really feels like Jackson just had fun making this movie, dotting it with welcome humor and incredible action. Legolas and Tauriel discover the most creative ways to slay orcs, and trust me, everything about their addition is epic and memorable. Without them, a lot of the intensity and uniqueness of the action scenes may have been lost. And then of course you have Smaug, who is undoubtedly the most impressive dragon I have ever witnessed. Ever. And Benedict Cumberbatch's voice only perfects an already astoundingly memorable creation. Smaug is most certainly up there with the best of the best.

All in all, this film stepped things up so much from the previous installment of the Hobbit trilogy, that I am actually tempted to say it just might compete with the Fellowship of the Ring. In other words, it's really good, and I highly recommend it.… Expand

6 of 14 users found this helpful68

All this user's reviews

0

sarahjreanreadDec 13, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I LOVED the first film in this series. The Hobbit was a wonderful recreation of the first part of the book, with a few embellishments here and there that I endured. This, however, was a complete embarrassment to the Lord of the Rings series, J.R.R. Tolkien and Peter Jackson. I wanted to love it, I even forced myself to sit through the entire thing in theaters, but I just hate it. I would not take a copy of this home if you offered it to me for free, because I know watching it would only make me angry and disappointed all over again. As someone who has read all of the books and previous movies, this just felt like a pathetic excuse for a move today. This just felt like a "filler" film between two movies. Perhaps it was the producers being greedy, wanting 3 movies out of a book that is smaller than the smallest volume of the Lord of the Rings. However it happened, it was just disgraceful. More than half of the scenes were pulled straight out of thin air. Only a few were actually from the book this trilogy is supposed to be based on, like the barrels scene and Bilbo's talk with Smaug (although the sequence the followed was NOTHING like the book's version). What little plot that was included was embellished and out of order, and honestly were ruined for me by the imagined plots thrown into the film. On top of all that, this film had terrible pacing, and was outright cheesy at times. This was just a really, really sad excuse for a sequel. I wish they had just followed the book and stuck to two movies, the original plan. Not even sure if I am going to see the third one at this point, given the way this one turned out. Such a big fan of Tolkien's work and what Peter Jackson has done with his other novels, but this was just painful. Friends don't let friends who have read the book watch this move. Gets a 0/10 for me. I felt like not only did I waste my money, but I should have been paid to watch this poor excuse for a film.… Expand

20 of 36 users found this helpful2016

All this user's reviews

10

ThegodfathersonDec 13, 2013

J. R. R. Tolkien purists will likely have more than a few qualms with Jackson’s second chapter in The Hobbit film series; however, as a movie experience, the director has once again delivered a humorous and enthralling (read: downrightJ. R. R. Tolkien purists will likely have more than a few qualms with Jackson’s second chapter in The Hobbit film series; however, as a movie experience, the director has once again delivered a humorous and enthralling (read: downright entertaining) adventure in Middle-earth with rich characters, sharp visuals, and an epic storyline. Time will tell whether all of the added narrative material pays off when The Hobbit: There and Back Again opens in theaters on December 17th 2014, but in the meantime, it’s encouraging to see Jackson is committed to presenting an impactful version of The Hobbit book for the moviegoing medium even if it means the director has to stand by a few especially controversial changes.… Expand

7 of 16 users found this helpful79

All this user's reviews

10

Velvet_BruschDec 13, 2013

My expectations were met! Peter Jackson has done an amazing job again though the first one was a little bit sluggish this chapter will hook you up, The HFR 3d is the future.

8 of 15 users found this helpful87

All this user's reviews

4

CaptainMoraviaDec 13, 2013

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

14 of 26 users found this helpful1412

All this user's reviews

10

edcollyer1Dec 13, 2013

Yet another case of snobbery among critics and certain individuals on this website. The film was perfect. Unimaginably good. Do not judge it next to The Lord of The Rings, judge The Hobbit by itself.

3 of 13 users found this helpful310

All this user's reviews

10

aerokissDec 13, 2013

Filme absolutamente sensacional!! Melhorou em todos os aspectos o seu antecessor e abre portas para muita ansiosidade para o último filme da trilogia. E uma última coisa a dizer.... Smaug!

7 of 16 users found this helpful79

All this user's reviews

10

wernytitansDec 13, 2013

The Desolation of Smaug gets The Hobbit trilogy on track!
The action is there, the pacing is great, and the characters they change all help improve the story.
Legolas was surprisingly a great addition despite the fact he wasn't in the book.The Desolation of Smaug gets The Hobbit trilogy on track!
The action is there, the pacing is great, and the characters they change all help improve the story.
Legolas was surprisingly a great addition despite the fact he wasn't in the book.
The acting is great, and it is definitely worth seeing 2-3 times in theaters.… Expand

4 of 14 users found this helpful410

All this user's reviews

10

cell989Dec 13, 2013

This movie raises the bar for what an EPIC movie consists of. Legolas has been given the proper badass treatment and they have finally done justice to his awesome character. Smaug is fully realized not cutting any budget shortcuts with teasesThis movie raises the bar for what an EPIC movie consists of. Legolas has been given the proper badass treatment and they have finally done justice to his awesome character. Smaug is fully realized not cutting any budget shortcuts with teases and bad camera angles to avoid expensive CGI, rather Peter goes all out on Smaug making him a very memorable villain up there with Vader, Sauron, and Voldemort.

The pacing on this movie is fantastic and you get more Middle Earth lore exploration, definitely better than part 1. Even Sauron makes a stronger appearance, with his deep strong heavy voice, its epic ladies and gentlemen.

Peter Jackson was born to direct these movies, I cant even imagine what the final movie in this saga will be like, cause for sure he is going to raise the bar even further.… Expand

4 of 12 users found this helpful48

All this user's reviews

10

RevRonDec 13, 2013

I love “The Lord of the Rings” films and was very happy with “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.” “The Desolation of Smaug” picks up the pace like a year hasn’t passed since the last release and it gets moving quickly and fluidly. TheI love “The Lord of the Rings” films and was very happy with “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.” “The Desolation of Smaug” picks up the pace like a year hasn’t passed since the last release and it gets moving quickly and fluidly. The characters are still interesting and played by actors who seemed to be magically made for their roles, the visuals are breathtaking, the special effects are incredible and the movie is dramatic, action-packed and fun! I really enjoyed this return visit to Middle-earth.… Expand

5 of 14 users found this helpful59

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

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

2

annilitaDec 13, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I feel like this franchise has become a sacred cow that no one is allowed to speak ill of.
I don't see how any fan of the original story could be happy with either of the Hobbit films, but this one was simply terrible. Every great thing about this part of the book was removed and replaced with orc fights. EVERY great thing. The humor, the perseverance, everything.
The CGI was really hit or miss until they entered the mountain, which is when the movie really came into it's own, just in time to end 20 minutes later. At one point, they mixed in helmet-cam footage from a crappy camera going through some rapids with high def footage from other angles. It looked ridiculous.
The love story fell so flat, you're left wondering why they bothered.
There was ZERO pay off in this film. If Jackson wanted to drag it out, he should have stuck to two films and stayed closer to the source material, because his embellishments have been absolute rubbish.… Expand

16 of 36 users found this helpful1620

All this user's reviews

10

nikhil714Dec 13, 2013

Desolation of smaug proves to be majestic in its narrative and it is an improvement over the unexpected journey, it offers powerful action with crispy visuals and never feels bored, aslo leaving the audience very much excited for the nextDesolation of smaug proves to be majestic in its narrative and it is an improvement over the unexpected journey, it offers powerful action with crispy visuals and never feels bored, aslo leaving the audience very much excited for the next installment… Expand

14 of 26 users found this helpful1412

All this user's reviews

10

dangerous1Dec 13, 2013

Really greater than its predecessor, darker and also more fast paced than unexpected journey,the desolation of smaug is entertaining action movie with stunning visuals.

11 of 24 users found this helpful1113

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

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

10

PradyuDec 13, 2013

I feel this movie receives unfair criticism from critics who compare it to the LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit was a children's book written by Tolkien for his kids and which was written before LOTR was even conceived. It was only after theI feel this movie receives unfair criticism from critics who compare it to the LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit was a children's book written by Tolkien for his kids and which was written before LOTR was even conceived. It was only after the popularity of this book and demand for a follow up that Tolkien set forth to write LOTR. It is supposed to be a fun and adventurous book and that is what the movie tries to present.
I watched the movie in IMAX 3D HFR 48fps and i loved the whole experience. I understand that this rendering of the cinema has many critics. It is important to note every cinematic experience relies on the suspension of disbelief. It is unfair to criticise the realistic quality of the backdrop of a fantasy flick. The HFR really adds to the quality of action sequences.
The performances in the movie were adequate and the movie was well set-up for the final instalment of the series.… Expand

15 of 28 users found this helpful1513

All this user's reviews

10

LivEricsenDec 13, 2013

Posh film, strong, fast, isn't typical, is the fashion and stereotypes of contemporary big movie .On a lot better than the first one, entertaining and impressive, I go again when it comes, and in our country. The only thing I'm afraid thatPosh film, strong, fast, isn't typical, is the fashion and stereotypes of contemporary big movie .On a lot better than the first one, entertaining and impressive, I go again when it comes, and in our country. The only thing I'm afraid that dubbing will not allow again so wholly enjoy the film, as a voice Smaug gorgeous and generally better original actor can't be anything? The special effects are amazing, I am sure that the hobbit and gravity will be the main rivals in the fight for Oscar in this category. Howard Shore is good as always, but the bar LOTR apparently he does not repeat the already never found. Actors matched perfectly, Peter Jackson always had a flair, Martin Freeman perfect Bilbo, but it would at most of the So impressed with Lee Pace in the image of Thranduil very good. Go, and don't you doubt one of the best films of the year… Expand

6 of 13 users found this helpful67

All this user's reviews

10

Maycolino10Dec 13, 2013

An epic sequel!! From start to finish you will be on the edge of your seat. Smaug and all the CGI effects are just incredible. A must see for all Peter Jackson's fans.

6 of 15 users found this helpful69

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

10

tomymgDec 13, 2013

Yesterday, I had the amazing opportunity to went to the preview of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. I had huge expectations on this film due to I'm of those that found The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a brilliant movie. As I said inYesterday, I had the amazing opportunity to went to the preview of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. I had huge expectations on this film due to I'm of those that found The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey a brilliant movie. As I said in another review, The Hobbit trilogy is taking another perspective of The Lord of the Ring's one, but in this new film the connections are more than an evidence.
Personally, yesterday I spent the best 2 and a half hours of the year, contemplating a marvelous cinematographic technique with unique shots. Technically is a masterpiece and the interpretations, specially the Martin's Freeman and Ian McKellen's one, where astonishing.
For me, a much better second part of a triology that will continue transporting us to the Middle Earth, one of the biggest and wonderful world ever created. 10/10… Expand

8 of 19 users found this helpful811

All this user's reviews

10

ReubenIsAGodDec 13, 2013

Better then the first film, yes the series is not as good as the original films, but really what made u think that this film would be as good as the amazingly spectacular film trilogy that is Load Of The Rings, also the films based on a bookBetter then the first film, yes the series is not as good as the original films, but really what made u think that this film would be as good as the amazingly spectacular film trilogy that is Load Of The Rings, also the films based on a book that's only about 200 pages, Peter Jacksons done an amazing job directing the films and i for one really enjoyed the film, although the one real big disappointment for me in this trilogy is probably the CGI, orcs where better when they weren't CGI, overall The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug is a great film that is very entertaining and engaging two watch that is bigger and better then the original Hobbit film and i for one cant wait too see the final in the series

-9/10, gave it a 10 because scores are WAY to low… Expand

11 of 25 users found this helpful1114

All this user's reviews

10

BKComerfordDec 13, 2013

A bombastic squash buckler which intends to be just so. Canonical inconsistencies aside Jackson shines in his special aptitude for fantasy and darkness. A great second piece to an enchanting trilogy.

8 of 19 users found this helpful811

All this user's reviews

10

ZineZDec 13, 2013

Enjoyed it thoroughly. Much better than the first one, it's not as action based as the LOTR series but that's not a bad thing. It sets its own pace and is more "adventurey". Makes me laugh where needed and was just a ton of fun to go for atEnjoyed it thoroughly. Much better than the first one, it's not as action based as the LOTR series but that's not a bad thing. It sets its own pace and is more "adventurey". Makes me laugh where needed and was just a ton of fun to go for at launch night.… Expand

43 of 76 users found this helpful4333

All this user's reviews

9

AlderHaloDec 13, 2013

Improvement in drama & action over the prior film. Cool new characters.
Great fight sequences, particularly the barrels set-piece.
My only complaint would be there's some odd pacing at times.
Overall much better than an unexpected journey.
9/10

15 of 31 users found this helpful1516

All this user's reviews

3

m_eldersDec 13, 2013

I went into The Desolation of Smaug with low expectations and managed to be disappointed. Like many, I love The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but the prequel trilogy has yet to impress.

That’s not entirely true. Peter Jackson’s cameo made meI went into The Desolation of Smaug with low expectations and managed to be disappointed. Like many, I love The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, but the prequel trilogy has yet to impress.

That’s not entirely true. Peter Jackson’s cameo made me laugh out loud. I also loved the visuals. My only complaint with An Unexpected Journey’s visuals was that the orcs looked totally different than they did in the LotR movies. Thankfully, the orcs (with the exception of that pale fellow and his chum) are back to their old menacing look and feel.

But TDoS does not impress in writing, acting, music, action sequences, or anything else.

Writing: If I had taken a drink every time there was a dramatic pause followed by some God-awful, stupid line, I might have given this review a higher score on account of being too inebriated to catch all the uninspired writing and nonsensical plot filler that littered the last half of the movie.

Acting: With how long this movie is, and with how much filler they squeezed in, it’s amazing to me that it never seemed like anyone had time to properly deliver a line of dialogue. Everything felt rushed. Questions bled into answers as if the characters knew what would be said before it was said. The emotions of the characters seemed either non-existent or so over the top that the viewer could not possibly relate.

Music: I didn’t notice it until the very end when I thought, “There’s music playing, isn’t there?” Any LotR fan knows this is a bad thing.

Action Sequences: These were my least favorite parts of the movie, and they took up about half of the time. I love a good action sequence when it’s done right. However, these are not. Half of the action was silly and cheesy, and the other half was boring (not quite half, actually, because I properly liked one bit of action: when that dwarf did a barrel roll, if you know what I mean). It was always predictable. “Predictable? That’s the nature of a prequel!” I hear you scream. Well then tell the writers to get the action over with fast so we can focus on, say, caring about the characters.

Anything Else: Smaug was stupid; he looked cliche-dragon, sounded cliche-deep-voice, and acted like an enemy in a bad action movie (coincidence???). The movie strayed far from the book. I mean, I’m not the sort to bad-mouth a movie because it’s different from the book, but I am one to bad-mouth a movie that ruins everything it touches in the book. Which in this case is everything.… Expand

21 of 51 users found this helpful2130

All this user's reviews

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

User Reviews