The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BarakrDec 16, 2013

I first read the Hobbit in elementary school, and in the 40 years since have read it maybe ten more times. All my life I hoped and prayed that someone would make the perfect movie of the book, and I was overjoyed when Peter Jackson wasI first read the Hobbit in elementary school, and in the 40 years since have read it maybe ten more times. All my life I hoped and prayed that someone would make the perfect movie of the book, and I was overjoyed when Peter Jackson was finally named to direct the movies.

Er, movies. The-Trilogy-Inappropriately-Named-The-Hobbit. The travesty that has lost all of Tolkein's magic and wonder. The Hobbit is a book in an age of innocence, before Middle Earth realizes the darkness that's coming. There's a lightness and playfulness to the adventure, magic in the dialog and scenes. The best parts of the first movie were those that followed Tolkein most closely. In Desolation of Smaug, the best parts were the all-too-brief encounter with Beorn, the spider scene, bits and pieces of the barrel scene, and Bilbo's wordplay with Smaug. All of these were foreshortened, changed, stripped of much of their magic in favor of added fights, orcs or elves, but at least they kept some of the original.

What hubris to take a classic and destroy it.… Expand

6 of 14 users found this helpful68

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

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

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

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

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

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

6

wl-humeDec 13, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 of 20 users found this helpful812

All this user's reviews

6

RassillDec 14, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

6 of 15 users found this helpful69

All this user's reviews

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

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

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

10

SmauggDec 26, 2013

Peter Jackson's returns to Middle Earth this time with a bang...Dwarves, elves, Hobbits, Sauron, orcs. Movie was heavier in substance than the first part. Smaug's part was astonishing, With impressive CGI and Benedict Cumberbatch's killerPeter Jackson's returns to Middle Earth this time with a bang...Dwarves, elves, Hobbits, Sauron, orcs. Movie was heavier in substance than the first part. Smaug's part was astonishing, With impressive CGI and Benedict Cumberbatch's killer vocals, we watched about 40 minutes of the finest fantasies ever. Martin Freeman did Bilbo's role with top-notch performance and Gandalf is as charming as always...… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

2

donnelbrDec 18, 2013

They ruined it. I've enjoyed every one of these films to date the lord of the rings trilogy, even the first half of the hobbit. However, what they've done here is a travesty. First of all, the film ends right at the climax. That made meThey ruined it. I've enjoyed every one of these films to date the lord of the rings trilogy, even the first half of the hobbit. However, what they've done here is a travesty. First of all, the film ends right at the climax. That made me angry. As result the film doesn't stand on it's own. If one was to divide up the Hobbit into three books, book 2 would be a gigantic question mark. In addition, I've read the book a couple of times, and found the film's version of the story nearly impossible to follow. The film is filled with so much "filler" (stuff that's not in the book, but in no way enhances the story), that it gets downright boring. The challenge with the Lord of the Rings was keeping all the nuggets of the story in. In this one, they filled it with garbage. I couldn't be more disappointed.… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

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

Max142Dec 22, 2013

Beyond magnificent! Went to see this today with my family hoping for great things and we were all so happy to see it was even better than we hoped.

Wonderful gripping story, interesting deep characters, spectacle battle and fight scenes,Beyond magnificent! Went to see this today with my family hoping for great things and we were all so happy to see it was even better than we hoped.

Wonderful gripping story, interesting deep characters, spectacle battle and fight scenes, epic flow of events, dialogue was truly touching in places, acting superb, music was fantastic, look and feel was stunning.

I’m definitely going to go and see this again, a perfect blend of material from the book, other Tolkien works and original content to make it all mesh perfectly together for the film.

I am a huge fan of the Hobbit book and all of Tolkien’s works so I wanted a lot from this film and it absolutely delivered, I really can not praise this enough.

Wonderful film, highly recommend! A must see film!… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

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

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

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

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

0

wew2Dec 16, 2013

I love the world of J.R.R Tolkien. I also celebrate a creative film maker changing a novel to bring it to the screen (Kubrick’s “The Shining” is a brilliant example). I enjoyed Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” immensely, but this? TheI love the world of J.R.R Tolkien. I also celebrate a creative film maker changing a novel to bring it to the screen (Kubrick’s “The Shining” is a brilliant example). I enjoyed Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings” immensely, but this? The original source story is completely gone as well as any feeling of wonder. I remember admiring Mr. Jackson’s restrained use of CGI in the “Lord of the Rings” as a real blessing. He should take a lesson from his source (the One Ring) and realize absolute power corrupts absolutely. This film is a mess. Since when are elves Jedi’s? I disliked the first Hobbit but am such a fan I took a chance and walked out of the theater feeling profoundly disappointed and cheated. I’m done and will not be bothering with the third installment.… Expand

7 of 21 users found this helpful714

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

JBBuDec 16, 2013

As a Kiwi I am embarrassed for my country. To add insult to injury the NZ government are giving tax breaks and have changing labour laws to accommodate this garbage. We keep trying out Peter Jackson's movies in the hope he will relive hisAs a Kiwi I am embarrassed for my country. To add insult to injury the NZ government are giving tax breaks and have changing labour laws to accommodate this garbage. We keep trying out Peter Jackson's movies in the hope he will relive his glory of Heavenly Creatures from many years ago. King Kong and Part Two of Lord of the Rings were not bad, but this movie will not appeal to anyone over 12 years old. A friend of ours who worked on it told us 2 years ago that Warner Brothers made sure that this series was made for children (where the money is) and instructed Jackson to essentially dumb it down. He succeeded beyond their dreams.… Expand

5 of 15 users found this helpful510

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

9

bearsDec 19, 2013

The second installment of this series encapsulates everything that made me fall in love with the LOTR 's series and kept me completely captivated from it's opening scene. Though I wasn't a huge fan of the first, Peter Jackson regroups with'The second installment of this series encapsulates everything that made me fall in love with the LOTR 's series and kept me completely captivated from it's opening scene. Though I wasn't a huge fan of the first, Peter Jackson regroups with' Smaug' and stays true to the formula that put Tolkien in all of our hearts. In short, it's why we go to the movies and delivers amazing performances by all. The Elves have never looked so slick and the production, especially Smaug the dragon, will make your jaw drop. I saw it last night, have been thinking about it since and will certainly see it a second time in 3D (the format in which I think it's meant to be seen). Brilliant all around.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

1

TerribleOdinDec 21, 2013

This movie is really terrible. Animation just crap, like Legolas there must not be allowed, this film like a parody, and I can not believe it took Peter Jackson. I would put 0 points, but 1 point put in more or less normal animation of orcs.

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

10

WhereDoiStartDec 25, 2013

Hit or miss for many people. However, users claiming the movie will not be enjoyable if you're a fan of the original LOTR trilogy are basically 100% wrong. When did movie watching become a job for people to then criticize to death a person'sHit or miss for many people. However, users claiming the movie will not be enjoyable if you're a fan of the original LOTR trilogy are basically 100% wrong. When did movie watching become a job for people to then criticize to death a person's movie for "flaws" that they perceived? Where is the objective criticism? Enjoy the movie for what it is people.

The acting is great. The CGI is great and, yes, there is a lot of it but I fail to see how this is a bad thing, especially when done so well! The characterization is far better than the first movie and the only aspect that seemed a little unnecessary is the relationship between Tauriel and Kili but it doesn't detract from the movie whatsoever. I've simply come to believe people make it their mission to nit-pick movies. Nevertheless, it is a nearly 3 hour movie that is worth the price of admission, to at least experience or distract yourself with during your free time, more so than the hour and a half movies the industry favors nowadays.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

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

1

UnderTheRainDec 29, 2013

Jesus this film is BORING one book three films you money grabbing ba****ds. I really don't know how anyone can being giving this a 10 unless it's PJ's mom or something dam this film is BORING. Same scenarios from lotr old characters from lotrJesus this film is BORING one book three films you money grabbing ba****ds. I really don't know how anyone can being giving this a 10 unless it's PJ's mom or something dam this film is BORING. Same scenarios from lotr old characters from lotr that aren't in the book same voice actors sounding the same in 3 films now PJ that's just LAME....... still your sat on a big pile of money but this is just one big fu to the fans of the books and probably don't care what anyone says about it. Hollywood in general sucks these days...… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

9

victorhjklDec 19, 2013

This movie is amazing the special effects are incredible, the movie has a great story, there is good actions scenes and also drama scenes, I think that is better than the first movie, and it will make you anxious for the next one.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

cbeers2513Jan 3, 2014

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

6.5/10… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

Tonster911Dec 31, 2013

Really good movie. It added parts that where humorous. The visuals where amazing and Legolas making an apearence really was cool being that he is the best elf ever. The acting was terrific and smaug was as terrifying as in the books

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

AdamwiseGamgeeDec 16, 2013

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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

Marcus341Dec 17, 2013

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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

10

Skylimit117Dec 27, 2013

We know it's not lord of the rings, but if you think of The Desolation of Smaug as a movie, it's freaking amazing. Much better than anything else I've seen this year. Awesome solid film

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

8

CiniMan623Jan 2, 2014

The thing that grabs and holds you is the rich visuals. My eyes were in ecstasy! Such detail goes into these worlds. Its quite a trip. This should be enjoyed in IMAX 3D if you can. Its worth the extra cost. Do not see if you are afraid ofThe thing that grabs and holds you is the rich visuals. My eyes were in ecstasy! Such detail goes into these worlds. Its quite a trip. This should be enjoyed in IMAX 3D if you can. Its worth the extra cost. Do not see if you are afraid of heights. There are so many precarious walkways and stairs without railings that span bottomless pits and gorges you just may find yourself clutching your armrests a little too tightly. The sense if enormous scale is wonderful. I wondered how it would compare to the LOTR series and its different but still good. Plenty of new action like the entertaining barrel escape sequence, great acting, cool special FX. Awesome set pieces. Some things are familiar Orcs are effortlessly dispatched in a thousand bloodless ways by sweatless elves. Some things are worth the price of admission like the deliciously evil and infinitely powerful Smaug. The ending will leave you wanting more even disappointingly so.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

4

ThradarJan 11, 2014

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

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

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

4 of 13 users found this helpful49

All this user's reviews

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

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

0

pierremSep 28, 2014

This film is as good as "Attack of the killer tomatoes". The plot is as near to The Hobbit as Killer Tomatoes is to pizza making; the action scenes are just as laughable (yet higher technical quality). If Jackson had come to Tolkien's tombThis film is as good as "Attack of the killer tomatoes". The plot is as near to The Hobbit as Killer Tomatoes is to pizza making; the action scenes are just as laughable (yet higher technical quality). If Jackson had come to Tolkien's tomb and shat inside, it would be less of an insult to his memory.
As a comic film, it could be good. I really laughed when I saw a hobbit on a metal plate surfing over molten gold. He's made of asbestos!… Expand

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

3

Tom_green_dayDec 21, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I kept wondering when it was going to end, there isn't going to be any material for the third film! The special effects were noticably bad and even for a kids film the stunts were goofy and the laws of science and physics went right out the window. Seriously, they surf on molten metal with A METAL WHEELBARROW. Wow. It's not as interesting as any of the other films, the music is the worst of all five LotR films so far, and it was ultimately really forgettable.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

10

SquilliamJan 6, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What an amazing movie! Just as good as the first one! In my opinion The Hobbit series is on par with The Lord of the Rings series- they are just quite different, and people need to realize that. I will not say it was an improvement over An Unexpected Journey because I loved the hell out of that movie, but this one's just as good.
First of all, the acting was brilliant. Martin Freeman again creates a mesmerizing Bilbo- a very believable character (he isn't a master swordsman as soon as he picks up a sword, and he relies on his wits more than his brawn), and his wit and humour really add some heart to the movie. His subtle, slightly humorous reactions to Smaug waking up are great! His funny little mannerisms and facial expressions and hand gestures really give his character a sense of uniqueness among the other hobbits we've seen. Also, his relationship with Thorin is very well handled, although the best of it will be seen in There and Back Again. Speaking of Thorin, Richard Armitage gives a truly magnificent performance. The right balance of determination, arrogance, and charisma. Thorin is a much darker, more complex character than Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings, and you can really see his arrogance and greed taking over his being once he reaches Erebor, and just the slightest hint of madness (the scene where he holds Bilbo at sword point), which will come into play more in the third movie.
In regards to Ian McKellan's Gandalf, we really didn't see much of him, but he was as amazing as ever, and his duel with Sauron was incredible!
As for the dwarves, it is Ken Stott and Aidan Turner who shine this time, and much to my displeasure James Nesbitt's Bofur falls to the background a bit (but he still has his moments- "Bless my beard, is that the time!"). Stott creates a very memorable Balin, bringing depth, kindness, and heart to his role. Aidan Turner was great as the young, dashing Kili, and his hero moment at the river scene was very well done. Some of the other dwarves fall into the background a bit, but Dwalin, Bofur, Fili, and Gloin all are given some time to shine.
As for the new characters in this movie, they were all excellent and well integrate into the story. Mikael Persbrandt had a short but memorable role as the Skin-changer Beorn, and his performance was very powerful (and he had a really epic Swedish accent). Lee Pace was excellent as Thranduil, who is a very interesting character. Pace provides regal arrogance and a slight unsettlingness to the character, and his scene with Thorin was very powerful. Orlando Bloom is back as Legolas, and this time he provides more three-dimensional acting, as his personality and personal life are fleshed out more here, and we get to see a meaner side to him as well as a softer side. And his fight with Bolg at the end was badass! Tauriel, as played by Evangeline Lilly, was a very good addition to the story. Her character was even more interesting and in depth than I thought before the movie came out, and she was acted very well by Lilly. The romantic subplot with Kili was very well handled and not over done. She is a very interesting character- curious about dwarves, determined, and sticking up for what is right (which means going against her king). In Lake-town we are introduced to Bard and his family, and Luke Evans did a great job as the "Robin Hood of Middle-earth." His family was a nice touch and makes the audience care more for him and adds depth to his character. We also meet the Master of Lake-town and his conniving servant, Alfrid, played by Stephen Fry and Ryan Gage respectively. Both were very good characters. Stephen Fry was hamming it up as the sleazy master, and he was a joy to watch.
And now on to Smaug. What can I say besides that he was the best dragon, cgi character, and villain ever to hit the screens! Perfect vocal and motion capture performance from Benedict Cumberbatch, seamless visual effects by WETA, and some great dialogue. The scene with him and Bilbo was one of the best scenes I've seen in a very long time! Freeman and Cumberbatch were great together. His epic fight with the dwarves was great too.
The writing in this movie was very good. I thought each character was developed enough, and the side subplots, like Gandalf's investigation of Dol Guldor and the Kili/Tauriel sublot, were woven into the story smoothly. Also, the decision to split up the company was one of PJ's best deviations from the book.
The visual effects, costumes, makeup, and art direction were flawless as usual- no point going into details there. But they were truly top notch. The score was also amazing (I particularly like Tauriel's, Smaug's, Thranduil's, and Lake-town's themes). Howard Shore is a genius.
Special mention should be made to the Barrel scene. It was awesome- the best action scene of 2013 for sure! Legolas and Tauriel were badass, and Bombur's orc-anihilating barrel run was hilarious and epic at the same time!
All in all, this movie was perfect!… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

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

8

MovieAndGameExpJan 2, 2014

Well, I have to say that this movie was better than the last one, but stills very bad if you compare it with The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy; I think Peter Jackson is doing an excellent work with the Tolkien's novel, but no good enough.

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

0

DannyGNov 8, 2014

Milking Tolkien For All He's Worth! See What Happens When Greedy People & Corporations Sink Their Teeth Into A Great Story! Sorry! But I've lost my patience! Watching The Hobbit was quite demoralizing! Unfortunately, The Hobbit has beenMilking Tolkien For All He's Worth! See What Happens When Greedy People & Corporations Sink Their Teeth Into A Great Story! Sorry! But I've lost my patience! Watching The Hobbit was quite demoralizing! Unfortunately, The Hobbit has been turned into a commodity like toothpaste and underarm deodorant! There is ZERO justification for turning the Hobbit into a trilogy, if you are going to drag out the story and do such a poor job. The Tolkien family - who I assume controls the rights to J.R.R. Tolkien's works - should be ashamed of themselves.They could have insisted in putting the story first instead of letting director Jackson create such a vapid and mediocre second Hobbit film. It's really quite sad! How can a director who made 3 masterpieces out of Lord of the Rings stoop so low and turn The Hobbit into something so trite and empty that, at times, it's like watching a Saturday morning breakfast cereal commercial on T.V.?

I badly wanted to like this movie. At least the first movie of The Hobbit trilogy had some interesting moments despite its many flaws. But now the Hobbit has been turned into a cartoon with mostly boring two-dimensional, cardboard characters. The acting was so poor at times it ruined the illusion. But worst of all, there's very little heart, unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which is the epitome of passion and adventure and good storytelling.

I also think part of the problem is that director Jackson is trying to turn The Hobbit into another The Lord of the Rings, which is quite stupid. They are very different stories. From what I have read, Tolkien wrote The Hobbit essentially for fun and wasn't even going to have it published until his friend, the great writer, C. S. Lewis convinced him otherwise. The Tolkien family should have went with a different director. Since when does one man own a storytelling giant like Tolkien?

Then I was forced to watch this awful movie in 3D or drive elsewhere. I noticed about 30 seconds of special 3D affects. How can that be called a 3D movie? I call it a rip-off and I wish the Federal government would call such a claim fraud, so filmmakers would think twice about ripping off the public!

Hollywood pulled the same stretching-out-the-story-stunt with Harry Potter, but at least I was smart enough to never have watched the last film. I eventually became so disgusted, I could care less what happened to Harry Potter. The same storytelling destruction non-sense has now captured the Hobbit. When I started hoping that Smaug would snap Bilbo Baggins and the King of the Dwarfs in a half, I realized I'm now done with all things Hobbit movie related!!… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

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

0

iSchobDec 15, 2013

The movie just feels way too long and dragged out. In addition to that the action scences are just boring, predictable and repetitive and the forced love story is just cringeworthy.

6 of 29 users found this helpful623

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

0

next4ideasJan 11, 2014

How people could place a good rate for this movie?
Like a fan of LOTR, i bpredictablecame very disapointed with this last.
The difference between the others and this was great. for me this was like any other hollywood movie with a lot ofHow people could place a good rate for this movie?
Like a fan of LOTR, i bpredictablecame very disapointed with this last.
The difference between the others and this was great.
for me this was like any other hollywood movie with a lot of "cliches"
And terrible argument, what was the dragon scene? He was loosing for a single hobbit and be cheated?
Terrible to see it. The king of elfs a person with big ego with stupid behaviors,
A king dont act like him.
My impression was, the produccer took a new direction and let the movie so predictable and let the persons so fool with stupds behaviors like the key scene about to enter into the dwarf citie.… Expand

3 of 17 users found this helpful314

All this user's reviews

0

SpazzieDec 18, 2013

This movie is different from the book. Therefore a ZERO is obligatory. The quality and beauty of the movie doesn't matter. Being entertained for over 2 hrs with an incredible spectacle doesn't matter. Having the desire to see it again doesn'tThis movie is different from the book. Therefore a ZERO is obligatory. The quality and beauty of the movie doesn't matter. Being entertained for over 2 hrs with an incredible spectacle doesn't matter. Having the desire to see it again doesn't matter. It is different than the book and deserves a ZERO. My opinion. My rules. ZERO.… Expand

4 of 24 users found this helpful420

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8

intruder313Dec 18, 2013

It's an entertaining and at times stunning movie but some of the sections which are actually from The Hobbit (as opposed to The Lost Tales) deviate quite dramatically and annoyingly.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

TheQuietGamerMay 7, 2014

The tales of Middle Earth continue, with all the spectacle and epic moments we have come to expect from the Peter Jackson movies. It's a huge improvement over the already great first movie. The characters are just as enjoyable as always, andThe tales of Middle Earth continue, with all the spectacle and epic moments we have come to expect from the Peter Jackson movies. It's a huge improvement over the already great first movie. The characters are just as enjoyable as always, and the story does an excellent job of providing it's own story whilst showing us events that lead up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Overall I was blown away. I only have one minor complaint, and that is that the over-the-top action and goofy moments this movie provides is at odds with what I have come to expect from the Tolkien universe. It's not bad, it's just that some times it can feel out of place. Still this is one excellent movie, and one that any Middle Earth fan will love. I do recommend that newcomers experience the first Hobbit before jumping into this one though. I give the movie a near-perfect score of 9.9/10.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

gromitJan 5, 2014

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

SaltankDec 25, 2013

An absolute feast in IMAX 3D HFR. Vastly more interesting than an Unexpected Journey, seemingly longer and more fast paced, Desolation of Smaug brings fantastic directing with exciting visuals and much better use of HFR. The onlyAn absolute feast in IMAX 3D HFR. Vastly more interesting than an Unexpected Journey, seemingly longer and more fast paced, Desolation of Smaug brings fantastic directing with exciting visuals and much better use of HFR. The only disappointing thing is, I can't get HFR at home when this is released on bluray.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

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

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

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

4

CLUTCHJan 1, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

8

kevtheobaldDec 23, 2013

For fans of the series, this a great movie if you not obsessed with the book. I have never read the book, but a common theme among those who are avid readers of the book is mixed reviews at best. If you like fantasy movies, this should be aFor fans of the series, this a great movie if you not obsessed with the book. I have never read the book, but a common theme among those who are avid readers of the book is mixed reviews at best. If you like fantasy movies, this should be a great one for you to see. If you love action movies, you will likely still enjoy this. Some of the action looks very cartoon like, but should not be a total surprise considering the type of movie it is.

Covering the basics, the acting on average is fine, the pace of the film is much improved over the previous one, the script is fine, special effects were in general very good, and since I saw it in 2D, I have no idea if the 3D is worth the extra money.… Expand

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

8

rafa14Dec 21, 2013

So I read this book and the movie had some differences that is necessary to have, because the book was wrote for kids so there isn´t anything very excited in the book so Peter Jackson had to do some alterations, but I can't denied that thereSo I read this book and the movie had some differences that is necessary to have, because the book was wrote for kids so there isn´t anything very excited in the book so Peter Jackson had to do some alterations, but I can't denied that there are somethings that I didn't like it, for example the part that a Elf start to feel something more for Killi, but almost everything worked out perfectly, the actors were great and I couldn't make this review without saying how Peter Jackson was audacious to make the movie again in 48 frames per second so this is very good. The story is very rich and ambitious, in the end of the film let everybody anxious to watch the last part of the movie and the song choice "I see fire" was perfectly right. This movie was way better than the first one and also one of the best movie of 2013… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

grandpajoe6191Aug 27, 2015

"The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug" follows on through the first Hobbit film with its creativity, intelligence, and visuals as the movie continues on Peter Jackson and the audience's journey towards reclaiming the home of the Dwarfs from"The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug" follows on through the first Hobbit film with its creativity, intelligence, and visuals as the movie continues on Peter Jackson and the audience's journey towards reclaiming the home of the Dwarfs from the evil Smaug.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

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

10

DocTJan 2, 2014

Great just great! After almost 3 hours this movie has you wanting to see more. I could have sat through another 3 hours easily. Can't wait for the next!

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

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

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

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

8

theofficeDec 29, 2013

Not as good as the first one I think but still a very solid movie all around. The story, action sequences, comedy, etc was all really good. The one knock against it is that it didn't give me the same "epic" feeling the lord of the ringsNot as good as the first one I think but still a very solid movie all around. The story, action sequences, comedy, etc was all really good. The one knock against it is that it didn't give me the same "epic" feeling the lord of the rings movies and the first hobbit movie gave me. It didn't seem as grand an adventure as the first one. And I also feel there is too much computer animation which takes away from the realism. In any case I still very much liked it and highly recommend you go see it!… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

OfficialMar 8, 2014

This sequel improves on the first film's pacing and it was exactly what I wanted from this film. Smaug was a bad-ass (coolest dragon ever), the film was entertaining and thrilling, and the journey back to Middle-Earth was a warm welcome.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

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

8

MouthofSauronDec 23, 2013

The second installment in The Hobbit franchise is a fast-paced adventure flick, sure to please the average moviegoer. The visuals are fantastic, if a little over the top- some scenes seem excessive and drawn-out. It's a darker film than itsThe second installment in The Hobbit franchise is a fast-paced adventure flick, sure to please the average moviegoer. The visuals are fantastic, if a little over the top- some scenes seem excessive and drawn-out. It's a darker film than its predecessor, and certainly a stronger one.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

fallen-saviorFeb 9, 2014

Great Movie so Far.Better then the first one.Better the fellowship and two towers .Great art Direction Lovely landscapes.Fast Paced heart pounding, mind blowing, barrel riding action. The world is living and breathing I feel like playing aGreat Movie so Far.Better then the first one.Better the fellowship and two towers .Great art Direction Lovely landscapes.Fast Paced heart pounding, mind blowing, barrel riding action. The world is living and breathing I feel like playing a Middle Earth rpg Game specially lake town segment is best. and who can forget about the CGI???If you wanna see a real dragon then watch this movie.
Overall Superb Movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

idohakerDec 20, 2013

i will give any one of you a slap if you will not see the hobbit: the desolation of smaug, an amazing movie, the first hobbit is nothing compared to this masterpiece, great story, the 3d was the best i saw since avatar, the story of this onei will give any one of you a slap if you will not see the hobbit: the desolation of smaug, an amazing movie, the first hobbit is nothing compared to this masterpiece, great story, the 3d was the best i saw since avatar, the story of this one was much interesting, the movie was much action packed, well it was an amazing excpeirience and i also saw it on 4d so the chairs moved all the time and there was water all over me every time there was rain, and there was wind at me every time someone shooted a arrow, but the real treat of this movie is one thing only, smaug, you will be like wtf when you will see smaug this movie deserve a 6/10 without smaug, smaug is freakign awsome and he was the whole last hour of the movie, for conclousing i will slap to any one that will not see this movie. there is no way someone is passing on this movie.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

8

JamesCannonDec 16, 2013

Return of the Jackson. Finally Jackson gets it right. His post Lord of the Rings commercial films have been mediocre at best (King Kong, Lovely Bones, Hobbit 1). They seemed like they would have been sure easy slam dunks for him, but theReturn of the Jackson. Finally Jackson gets it right. His post Lord of the Rings commercial films have been mediocre at best (King Kong, Lovely Bones, Hobbit 1). They seemed like they would have been sure easy slam dunks for him, but the lack of editing in all of them, made them bloated hot messes. I like a few of his pre Lord of the Rings work as well and I knew it was matter of time till he finally directed a good film. The second Hobbit movie gives him more to work with. One you have a great creature creation that Weta can show off, but you also have great action sequences that looked amazing in the high frame rate. The problems of straining my eyes were no longer there and I was able to just absorb everything on the screen. The film still has pacing problems and the characters just aren't as lively or interesting as the LOTR. The biggest problem is the story only really offers dwarves getting in and out of shenanigans and nothing else really propels the story forward until smaug shows up. All that being said its much better than the first and it has me anticipating the final act, which hopefully will shave off another ten minutes from its running time and be ever sharper.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

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

Compi24Dec 21, 2013

Capitalizing on every ounce of humor, majesty, and mischief that its predecessor excelled in, but also adding in an infinitely satisfying amount of second-chapter-dread, "The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug" steers the lucrative franchiseCapitalizing on every ounce of humor, majesty, and mischief that its predecessor excelled in, but also adding in an infinitely satisfying amount of second-chapter-dread, "The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug" steers the lucrative franchise into the most engrossing direction possible.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

SwatiJan 7, 2014

Jackson certainly endeavoured to outdo himself and he succeeded in at least the visual department, with both the visual effects and set design. The photography was breathtaking, suggesting the same sense of wilderness audience must beJackson certainly endeavoured to outdo himself and he succeeded in at least the visual department, with both the visual effects and set design. The photography was breathtaking, suggesting the same sense of wilderness audience must be familiar with if they have seen Lord of the Rings.

The bad blood between dwarves and elves is further explored. Thorin Oakenshield, Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf remain the main characters. The rest of the dwarf company also come in handy. At other times they goof around and keep the mood from turning gloomy. The orcs are more fierce enemies than just being the cannon fodder. The aura of incorruption around the elves is lifted when they behave in quite an ordinary and unnoble way. One new character I felt like should have been given a bigger role than the ones which were was Beorn. We follow three gradually diverging narratives_ Gandalf's search for the Necromancer, Bilbo's and the dwarves' journey through Mirkwood and beyond, and Legolas's and Tauriel's adventures.

The visual effects were stunningly beautiful. The creatures depicted, such as the horde of gigantic spiders and the orc leaders, were better done than the ones in the sister franchise. Azog and his son Bolg are the first time a sense of family has been associated with orcs. I especially liked the scenes with the Necromancer and the dwarves' predicament in the forest. Smaug is the best dragon I've seen anywhere on film and tv, and his scenes with the sea of gold in a cave projected a scope out of this world. New places, like the town of Esgaroth, the ruins of Dol Guldur and Mirkwood were created in CGI but looked authentic. The fighting scenes were thrilling and enduring.

New characters joined the plot whenever the existing ones ran into trouble they couldn't find their way out of. Lord of the Rings did that only in the first instalment, and those characters remained important, like Aragorn and his buddies, and their quest remained relevant and sometimes became more important. Here, Legolas just walks into the film and so does Bard, conveniently at times when the dwarves most needed them, and their stories become central for no apparent reason. Legolas should have only been included if his interaction with the company and his impact on the narrative had been so essential to the onward flow of the plot that had he been removed the story would have crumbled. His inclusion was just a fan service. The natural growth of a story to include these characters was not visible, and their stories were irrelevant. This is a sign of weak storytelling. I guess this could be argued for against Lord of the Rings too but at least it didn't claim to follow only Frodo.

Lord of the Rings was a tale that you felt about and cared for. Maybe it was because of the fact that the visual effects did not outshine the indomitable strength of the narrative and its emotional impact. The Hobbit series may not be memorable, or it may be but only because of Jackson's attachment, for quite frankly it was a show-off of the advancements of visual effects. Maybe if they had stuck with the decision to make only two films there would have been more enduring scenes at regular intervals instead of empty action gimmicks presented with nothing at risk. No character's life is ever seriously threatened. While that rang true to some extent for the second and third instalments of the Lord of the Rings, here not one character sacrifices his life for the benefit of others, even with a ridiculously large fire-breathing dragon as their adversary. For this reason I feel The Hobbit series is in the same vein as Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

The stakes skyrocketed after Smaug comes onscreen, and the film improved manyfold, but unfortunately it takes two hours to reach him. While the Lord of the Rings was distinguished with Gollum's entry in The Two Towers, this time it was Smaug who allured and amazed and fascinated. One more film franchise rescued by Benedict Cumberbatch. His voice was haunting.

Legolas seemed like a different character. He's haughty, disrespectful and reckless, and occasionally needs saving. I explained this development by observing that he was young back then. He engages in sword duels when there really is no need for it. His fighting skills in LotR was effective in that he doesn't feel the need to showcase his abilities and only does what is necessary to kill his opponents with the least amount of energy and with a view to overcome the odds of the orcs pitted against him.

The movie tended to drag before the tempo being picked up again by the action sequences. What they did better was the start and finsish of the film, which were promising and spiked interest immediately. It felt like an amalgamation of some very great scenes which when brought together didn't really help either Bilbo and his ring story or the main story about the dwarves' kingdom. This movie only roused my wonder with the visuals but had absolutely no impact on my emotions.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

ToffenuffJan 21, 2014

Better than the first part of the Hobbit trilogy. More intense and action-packed. You finally get to see and hear Smaug. Great visuals and locations, a hallmark of all LotR films, once again transport you to the beautiful and dangerous landBetter than the first part of the Hobbit trilogy. More intense and action-packed. You finally get to see and hear Smaug. Great visuals and locations, a hallmark of all LotR films, once again transport you to the beautiful and dangerous land of Middle Earth. As a film, this was highly entertaining with enough humor, action, and intrigue to go around. However, it does stray from the book as the writers changed, removed, or shortened certain sections. That being said, I still enjoyed this second installment of The Hobbit and would recommend it to anyone who loved the original LotR trilogy.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

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

10

sharkman265Feb 13, 2014

Peter Jackson does it again ...
This movie took ahold of me and took me on a Journey from begining till the end !!
This movie i saw in Real 3D it was one of the best on par with Lord of the Rings:Two Towers on more ways than one aka thePeter Jackson does it again ...
This movie took ahold of me and took me on a Journey from begining till the end !!

This movie i saw in Real 3D it was one of the best on par with Lord of the Rings:Two Towers on more ways than one aka the abrupt ending which i knew Peter Jackson would do as seeing this was the first sequal in the trilogy and he has a knack for leaving us in suspense !!! Must watch & Must own for any J.R.R Tolkien fan !!!!!… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

10

LeZeeDec 20, 2013

The second installment of the 'Hobbit' trilogy which is the prequel to 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy. 365 days of wait is over, last year around the same day I saw 'An Unexpected Journey'. It totally blew me away with those awesomeThe second installment of the 'Hobbit' trilogy which is the prequel to 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy. 365 days of wait is over, last year around the same day I saw 'An Unexpected Journey'. It totally blew me away with those awesome thrilling adventures and great graphics especially to watch a favourite movie in high frame rate gave a new dimensional experience. Also to see the 'The Lord of the Rings' character in digital 3D especially Gollum was amazing.

The movie kick starts with the director Peter Jackson's cameo as he crosses over from left to right on the screen having a bite of a carrot in a town called Bree. Then the missing scene from the first part of 'Hobbit' commence where the great wizard Gandalf the Grey offers the help to the dwarfs to reclaim their kingdom. After that the narration continues from where it ended in 'An Unexpected Journey'. The nonstop exciting journey of dwarfs proceeds in the middle-earth nothing lesser than its earlier part with the company of a Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. So the hope remains in Thorin, the next king of Erebor to fight back their enemy and take a revenge.

The missing in this movie is the Gollum, I don't think he will come back in the next installment as well. A little disappointing for Gandalf fans as well. He was not in action as much we aspired to see his magical stuffs. If you are a die hard 'The Lord of the Rings' the list goes on. In another way it is great to see new faces around. But you must remember it is not the movie(s) about the 'ring', it is the dwarfs tale where it all happens before Gimli, son of Gloin.

Like I said the good thing is the reintroduction of the Elvin prince of Woodland Realm, Legolas. Last time we saw him in the final battle of middle-earth in the movie 'The Return of the King'. The 'Lost' fame Evangeline Lilly was the newest major addition of the series and she was amazing. She lonely fulfilled the due of women's contribution of this particular movie of 'Hobbit' trilogy. Like she Luke Evans was also had a prominent role but I guess his major action sequences will come in the next part.

In this and next paragraph I gonna write some good's and bad's of this movie. I wanna begin by saying HFR was unbelievable, the picture quality was very good with no blurs in fast panning camera sequences. I know few people may get hard time to adjust with smoothness in motion but you will get used to it if you already saw the first. Compared to 'An Unexpected Journey' it had a little more drama in story narration but as usual it had the adventures that happen in a tight situation. There's a similar kind escape scene what we had seen under the mountain kingdom Goblin. Here which happen in the water I mean the river where dwarfs are getting escaped from the Elves and of course the Arcs.

"My arm is like tenfold shields, my teeth are like swords, my claws are the spear, the shock of my tail is a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane and my breath death" is what the Smaug describes himself angrily. In this whole movie all I expected was to see the Smaug, the last great dragon of middle-earth. As we know it was an adaptation of children's book so I was curious to see Smaug to talk. In all the last four movies I have not seen talking animal as per my knowledge. The first time I got the impression of the root base of fantasy touch like we had seen in 'Narnia' and 'Harry Potter' movie series. The British actor Benedict Cumberbatch gave his incredible voice and performance through motion capture to the Smaug.

There's nothing we can do than have a peek while it is in the cinema hall. As usual this movie will bomb the box office. I am already beginning to think about the 2015 Christmas holiday, without 'Hobbit' it will be most disappointment festival season. As for now I gonna end 2013 with this masterpiece.

Tolkien would have been blown away to see his own creation in a breathtaking motion picture. He wrote it keeping in mind children, as based on a children the movie achieved the heights that no one ever imagined which attracted the adults more than children. So all the credits go to the man behind it, Peter Jackson and then the his cast and crew. Now I have to wait another 365 days to have the grand finale of the 'Hobbit' series, feels like one more decade to go. In the mean time I might see it again and wait for the Blu-ray. So what's your plan...… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

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

8

sanyrubJan 7, 2014

Can´t believe I´m saying this but I really liked and enjoyed this second part of the trilogy. I love The lord of The Rings (especially the last part and especially Frodo+Sam, the heart of the film) and yes the first Hobbit was a letdownCan´t believe I´m saying this but I really liked and enjoyed this second part of the trilogy. I love The lord of The Rings (especially the last part and especially Frodo+Sam, the heart of the film) and yes the first Hobbit was a letdown because it felt long and was boring at parts, like there was no reason whatsoever for this new adventure despite the stunning visuals. TLOTR was vibrant and exciting and had a heart, the first Hobbit didn´t have that and it made us wonder if this was a bad decision. Well, so surprised they convinced me with this second part that the effort to do this new trilogy was worthy. They explain some more things about this adventure that make it more grounded. I enjoyed it from start to finish, visuals can´t get any better, good acting (actor playing Bilbo was an amazing choice, he is fantastic for this), the pacing was great this time because the start of the film was strong, this younger Legolas we didn´t know is great to see, the new Elfo woman is a good character too, the King of the Elves from the forest seems like a great and intimidating character too (I´m sure we´ll see him a lot in the last part of the trilogy) and of course the moment we finally get to see Smaug is impressive, very entertaining and spectacular. Best part of the film was Smaug+Bilbo scenes. It went a little downhill after that when all the dwarfs join Smaug and Bilbo because it felt like nobody was at risk despite the giant dragon trying to kill them.

Overall, I think it´s time to accept The Hobbit has always been a lighter story and that it is here to be enjoyed without getting emotionally involved like it happened to everybody with Frodo, Sam and the whole TLOTR trilogy. This time the director got it right and was entertaining and stunning offering so I give this a strong 7.5 (I gave the first Hobbit a 6 out of 10).… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

User Reviews