The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) User Reviews (1,033)

The word you're looking for is "reimagining"

[helge-fauskanger · 7/10 · 11 December 2013]

I won't "review" the content of the movie in any detail, but provide some thoughts about how this film should be approached. I consider myself a Tolkienist (in fact I saw this movie on opening night because I secured a promotion deal with the local cinema: I spent four hours until midnight writing people's names in Elvish writing!) It is to be expected that many fans of of the original book will perceive this movie as a bloated, garbled monster version of the written story they loved. It is important to realize, before going in, that this is not simply "the movie of the book". This is Jackson's The Hobbit, not Tolkien's, and they are best appreciated as independent works. They represent different media, come from different centuries, and have partly different target audiences. The children's book was written before Tolkien had any idea of the grand trilogy to follow; Jackson had already produced his Lord of the Rings trilogy and somewhat understandably tries to make the prequels resemble it, in tone and scope.

One could argue that Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, when complete, will set up the LotR film trilogy far better than Tolkien's simple children's book sets up the literary LotR. (The change in tone from children's book to grand epic is VERY pronounced, even grating for those who try to read The Hobbit after finishing LotR.) Incidentally, Jackson's prequel trilogy apparently will not spoil the LotR trilogy the way the Star Wars prequels give away important plot points of the original movies. When finished, Jackson's six Middle-earth movies can be profitably watched in sequence of internal chronology.

To be sure, Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is "based on" the 1930s children's book in the sense that the characters have the same names and visit much the same places in somewhat the same order (though new characters and places are also added). Their basic motivations are also the same. But beyond that, one should not expect much "fidelity". There is hardly anything that isn't greatly embellished and vastly elaborated, mostly so as to allow for a FAR darker tone and MUCH more fantasy action (i.e., fights). The spiders of Mirkwood here approach actual horror, as compared to their rather more children-friendly literary counterparts (where we have Bilbo insulting them with silly "Attercop" rhymes).

The wizards' conflict with the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, which in the book happens entirely "offscreen" and is just briefly alluded to when Gandalf has returned near the end, is here actually shown. This is understandable; Gandalf would otherwise be completely absent for much of this movie. Also, Jackson's audience will already know that this is the start of the war with Sauron, and the all-important Dark Lord could not well be ignored. Tolkien in his letters noted how Sauron casts just "a fleeting shadow" over the pages of The Hobbit; in Jackson's movie the shadow is darker and deeper.

Entire new subplots are freely created and added to the story. The Elf Tauriel and her unlikely infatuation with one of the Dwarfs is clearly meant to add a love story where the book has none, and have at least ONE strong female character (no concern of Tolkien's when he wrote a story for children in the 1930s).

The continued survival of ALL the protagonists despite their endless brushes with death doesn't just strain credibility -- it utterly and completely banishes and eliminates credibility. We are left with FANTASY action in the truest sense, to be enjoyed for choreography, not plausibility. If cats have nine lives, a Jacksonian Dwarf clearly enjoys a three-digit number of lives.

So, viewed as an independent work, is this a good movie? Technically it is nothing short of brilliant, full of detail that can only be appreciated on the big screen. Smaug is, hands down, the best-designed movie dragon the world has yet seen. If I were a teenager instead of a ripe old 42, this wealth of fantasy action would probably have exited me no end. It is nice to see Legolas again, even if he is not in the book. I liked the sequences with the amorphous Sauron. Poor Evangeline Lily would however look better without those silly ears, which are simply too big and look just as fake as they are. Also, I'm not sure the hinted-at Elf-Dwarf romance adds much to the story. All things considered, I'll award Jackson's re-imagined "The Hobbit" seven stars.

There were also seven stars in Durin's crown, for those of you who can understand the literary allusion ...

A Mile a Minute

[Hitchcoc · 8/10 · 7 January 2014]

After reading some of the previous reviews, I wonder what it takes to engage the modern viewer. It seems we have become so jaded that we see the necessity of giving a one star review to something as phenomenal as this film is. It is filled with action, sets of remarkable creativity, amazing characters, in a complex plot that made me long for the conclusion. I know it doesn't follow the book religiously. Get over that. Even a fifteen hour miniseries based on a novel fails miserably. Of course, every English teacher on the planet knows that we are working in two entirely different mediums. Books and movies are different! What Peter Jackson has done is taken the primary plot and allowed his script writers to take what is given and supplement it with their own creativity. The first film, though imperfect, does set the stage for this superior second effort. What we get is nonstop action, moving the characters toward the object of their quest. Tolkien's rules are followed if not the letter of the plot. The first film was criticized for being too talky. Now this one is being criticized for not being talky enough. For me, the scene where the gang must escape an elven prison and face the orcs is one of the most delightful fifteen minutes I've ever spent in a movie theater. I don't expect an action film based on a book with voluminous characters to have character development like "Driving Miss Daisy." See the film for what it is and count yourselves lucky to have the luxury of being able to see the amazing accomplishments of the Peter Jackson's of the world.

The Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug: Alike the first, impressive but not ground breaking

[Platypuschow · 7/10 · 30 November 2017]

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy blew me away, they were truly outstanding masterpieces that deserved every bit of recognition they got.

The Hobbit I delayed due to a laundry list of concerns, all of which are being confirmed now I'm finally getting around to them.

They look beautiful, they are a lot of fun, but compared to LOTR they are alike Mythica movies.

The whole franchise has become a cash grab, the Hobbit should have been one single movie and without all the excessive alterations. Yes I know LOTR had changes, but not to this devastating extent.

Desolation Of Smaug certainly has it's moments, I especially enjoyed the spiders and the not so jolly romp through the cursed forest. Thankfully the film isn't as goofy as the first either which was a welcome relief.

Alas it's no better, it still feels lackluster. This is The Hobbit, one of the greatest tales ever put to paper! So why do these movies feel so underwhelming? I enjoyed this I truly did, but not as much as I should have and that right there is the problem.

The Good:

Forest scene was great

Looks stunning

The Bad:

As neat as the barrels scene is it's about as realistic as Tara Reeds boobs

Second movie, second stock scream

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Bilbo Baggins has never seen Arachnophobia (1990), don't.....pluck.....the web

Walnuts make great pillows

Whatever Cumberbatch was paid it was FAR too much

Improves upon the first one just about enough to cover the weaknesses it shares with it

[bob the moo · 28 December 2013]

After seeing the first Hobbit film I must admit that I could have cared less about seeing the second and indeed it took me a minute to get back into it and I was grateful for the film giving me a "12 months earlier" scene to sum up what I am supposed to be following. It wasn't that the first film was bad (it is too expensive to be bad) but more than constant action and movement with no consequences or realism to engage me, really left me looking at a video game that I had no investment in (and I say this as a gamer). I didn't hope for much better when I went to see this sequel and, as Theo Robertson has said, perhaps this helped me enjoy the Desolation of Smaug more.

The plot has more to it than one encounter after another and connecting it to the later films was a good move that made me feel there was more content here – although I think that was artificial, I will not deny that it worked. The action sequences retain the same problems as the first film, which is that nobody ever feels like they are in real danger no matter how long the fall, how low the odds or what is happening. The good thing is that because the film isn't one escape sequence after another, I didn't feel this so often – although it is undeniably still a problem in these films. The characters were a little better than before although perhaps I was just more interested in them. Smaug in particular is a great creation – visually and stylishly; just like the first film where my favorite parts were the still and tense sequences with Gollum, so too here the high point of the whole film is where Smaug is toying with his potential victims and it is such a shame that this was not done longer.

Visually the film remains a feast – although, befitting the time of year, it is a Christmas feast where everything is good but it is endless and eventually just feels indulgent and gluttonous. This remains the case because the film almost never feels like it was shot wholly on a location. I remember the LotR films impressing me with their natural beauty but here even a shot of people walking across a field seems to have been digitally enhanced and, as good as it looks, it does remove me from the film somewhat. Visual effects are impressive but it does really hurt to see Jackson leaning towards the George Lucas "if we can do it then we should do it" school of effects management. The cast do solid jobs – I liked Freeman and McKellan when they were allowed to be more than just special effects The dwarfs made more of an impression on me this time but the elves not so much – Bloom remains stiff while Lilly sports the only unconvincing effect in the film in the shape of her ears. Cumberbatch was strong as the voice of Smaug and I enjoyed Fry and McCoy in supporting roles (shame the latter missed out on more time due to his Doctor Who efforts during the 50th anniversary year!).

The Desolation of Smaug is a solid blockbuster; lots of action, a decent story and strong special effects – this is not the same as saying it is a great film though, but it does still entertain. The story remain distant due to the invincible characters and consequence free (but very seriously presented) action, which does prevent one being drawn into it. Of course I'll be there for the final film, but I really do hope than they focus on danger rather than spectacle and build the tension instead of just increasing the noise.

Great fun, but forget the book

[neil-476 · 8/10 · 19 December 2013]

Bilbo Baggins and assorted dwarfs continue their journey to Erebor, overcoming various obstacles on the way (including hostile elves) before Bilbo has to try to fulfil his engagement as burglar under the fiery snout of antisocial dragon Smaug.

The second Lord Of The Rings movie suffered from Middle Film Syndrome: Hobbit 2, despite occupying the same position in a trilogy, does not suffer to the same extent, and perhaps this is because it is exciting all the way through, yet follows on from a film which was pretty slow throughout its first half.

It also contains large chunks which do not come from the novel - I'm pretty sure Legolas wasn't in the book. He is great fun here, as a much angrier soldier in the Elf Army. And new creation Tauriel is hugely enjoyable, resembling nothing so much as Uma Thurman's character from Kill Bill, albeit attractively played with the hint of a smile by Evangeline Lilly.

Apart from being a more engaging movie than part 1, pretty much everything I thought about that movie still holds. I still have reservations about the dwarfs - their faces and hair feel obviously prosthetic and wigged, and it's still pretty difficult to tell them apart from each other except for the old one, the one wounded by the orc arrow, Thorin, and James Nesbitt's Irish one. I still have reservations about CGI orc faces - the prosthetic orc faces work noticeably better. I still have reservations about some of the action sequences, where more is not necessarily better (one sequence, in particular had the audience laughing because of the extent to which the Elvish derring-do was over-derring-done). And there are times when Bilbo looks cut out and pasted into a scene. And, once again, the 3D is indifferent.

Otherwise, this was great fun. Loads of action, some nice character work, an excellent and nasty spider fight, a well-voiced and visually realised Smaug, and not the slightest yen to look at my watch.

And a cliff-hanger. You swine, Jackson.

Some disappointing things, many good things and one magnificent asset- liked it very much

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 20 December 2013]

Having really enjoyed An Unexpected Journey, though it was a long way from perfect, last year, a family cinema outing for this was guaranteed. And it was worth the wait, Dad and I liked it a little less than my brother, sister and godparents(die-hard LOTR and Hobbit fans by the way) but all of us found a lot to enjoy, more so than An Unexpected Journey. Desolation of Smaug also shares imperfections, Azog is still a very one-dimensional villain and doesn't add a lot to the story(Bolg is no better either actually); the love triangle felt forced and shoe-horned in for the sake of it, including a bit that is like an inferior copy of Arwen and Arogorn; Beorn is criminally underused and any signs of development with him is rushed; the Mirkwood scene is far too short though the atmosphere was good; Gandalf deserved more to do with only his encounter with Sauron and perhaps the beginning really standing out for him; and the ending is very abrupt with a pointless, too long and really overly-silly battle between Smaug and the dwarfs(Smaug's final line was incredibly chilling though!).

Moving on from the debits, the film does look amazing. I liked that we saw more locations and that the film has a softer, darker yet more storybook-like feel to it than An Unexpected Journey. The attention to detail in the costumes, make-up and sets(Laketown is fantastic) is remarkable, the photography is beautifully transitioned and atmospheric and most of the special effects are great, especially with Smaug, Sauron and the spiders and excepting the flowing gold and maybe Azog. The music in equal turn is ethereal and haunting, not the most memorable stuff that Howard Shore has written but it fits perfectly within the film. The script has a better balance between the comedic and dramatic, in fact the humour is subtle while taking much more of a serious approach than to An Unexpected Journey without being too morose. It's thought-provoking too, and Smaug's lines especially in his taunting of Bilbo and when Bilbo implores him from not attacking Laketown are just chilling.

The story gets much more to the point than in An Unexpected Journey and the pacing is swifter with generally more dramatic tension(if not always consistent). There are some great set pieces too, Bilbo's encounter with Smaug is the highlight of the film, tense and brilliantly written, though the spider scene is appropriately sticky and matches it in tension, Gandalf's encounter with Sauron was brief but visually stunning and the barrel-on-the-river scene while on the over-exaggerated side is a lot of fun, inventive and thrilling. The acting is good, Martin Freeman is still appealing in a curmudgeon sense, Ian McKellen is still perfect as Gandalf(even doing things that you do not expect someone of his age to still do, but he should have had more to do), Richard Armitage is a brooding presence and succeeds in showing Thorin's worse qualities and Ken Stott stands out among the dwarfs, he is fun and wise here. Orlando Bloom has some charisma, Lee Pace plays the morally ambiguous character of Thranduil just right(he does come across as a douche but from a moral perspective he is an interesting character) and the astonishingly beautiful Evangeline Lilly brings some real heart as the most likable character of the film.

Stephen Fry chews the scenery amusingly, Sylvester McCoy does respectably with Radagast wisely being given a backseat and Bard is well played. The best asset of the film though is Smaug. Right from his design, the best-looking dragon design since that for Dragonslayer. To how cunning, manipulative and physically mighty he is. And to Benedict Cumberbatch's(one of the most talented actors to date) booming, sly, sinister and really quite phenomenal voice-work in definitely the most evil role he has done to date. The film absolutely nails the scene between Bilbo and Smaug, and Smaug and Cumberbatch have much to thank for that, as well as the writing being the best it is. While the film is not faithful at all really to Tolkein's The Hobbit apart from some details- it's often more Lord of the Rings-feeling(though not as good) than The Hobbit- the first half of the scene between Bilbo and Smaug does show clear evidence of fidelity, with the dialogue almost straight out of the book.

Overall, judging it as a stand-alone- which in all honesty it deserves to be, one of those things that I'm getting sick of repeating but it's necessary because of how much of a problem it seems to be(not quite as bad as people having no regard for other people's opinions and making out they're the only ones that are right, there's a lot going on here too)- The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug was a flawed but very entertaining film and superior to its predecessor from personal opinion. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

A Fun Film, Particularly in 3D

[RealDuality · 8/10 · 9 December 2013]

The second Hobbit film connects you better to the characters than the first in an entertaining ride with more danger, excitement, and humor. The action is well done, and the 3D adds to it, especially in the "whitewater rafting" scene. That part and the whole movie has good editing. In this one, two of the non-King dwarfs' presence is stronger (Balin and Kili). The she-elf warrior Tauriel and what comes with her works, adding some heart to the film.

Besides Richard Armitage leading the way as the King under the Mountain with his great chemistry with fellow castmates, there are three actors who give specially noteworthy live-action performances. Lee Pace is one of the true highlights as Thranduil, who is an Elf King that deals with foreboding in a way that is different from Elrond. Ian McKellen's acting is comparable to him in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, as he takes advantage of Gandalf getting his own storyline and heart-pounding action scene. Martin Freeman is good once again as the brave titular character, and actually slightly better.

The confrontation with Smaug is very enjoyable. It is a long movie, but the finale is the high point. Benedict Cumberbatch does an excellent job with the arrogant beast's voice, and the dragon looks really cool in 3D. I personally think that they ended it at the perfect place. When they divide a book up, it will inevitably result in a cliffhanger feeling. But, I am satisfied with how they handled it.

A Fantastic, Exciting Adventure

[cadillac20 · 8/10 · 10 December 2013]

While I enjoyed the first Hobbit film, it did feel like it left a bit to be desired. This was no surprise, as everything that I loved about the book was in the second half. I knew that I would be waiting for all the good stuff with the second and third films. And sure enough, the second film delivers where the first film didn't quite excite as much as I had wanted. While it isn't perfect and does unnecessarily deviate a bit, this is easily better than the first film, giving us a bigger, bolder adventure and a more interesting Bilbo Baggins this time around.

Before I get to the good stuff, let me get my complaints out of the way. My biggest complaint are the unnecessary plot threads. There seems to be a big need for this series of films to tie into LotR, and I really don't understand why. A great deal of time is taken in this film to introduce us to things we already know the outcome of. We're, at points, taken away from the dwarfs and Bilbo to follow Gandalf as he goes off on his own adventure to uncover the growing evil of Sauron and his armies. Like the first film, it's completely unnecessary, but unlike that film, it's jarring. We're ripped from a fantastic adventure to a story that we don't really need to know and has no real relation to the dwarfs and their adventure. In fact, any time we're taken out of the company of the dwarfs, it almost feels cheap. The almost romance between Evangeline Lily's elf and the dwarf Kili feels something of the same, the whole lot of these stories coming off as filler in an effort to make time for three movies instead of just two. It feels like a stretch and brings a screeching halt to the momentum of the main story.

That said, the rest of the film is an excellent and expertly crafted adaptation. There is a definite sense of character growth, especially from Bilbo, who seems to struggle with the power of the ring and it's greed. We already know where this goes, but it is none the less fascinating considering who he was when we first met him. The dwarfs seem to almost take a back seat here. They are less prominent, with the exception of Thorin and Balin, who take front and center. That isn't to say they aren't entertaining, as they usually are every time they are on screen. Thorin is the real standout though, as he goes through similar changes as Bilbo, which lends them an interesting comparison in their mutual struggles. The actors are all excellent once again in their respective roles, with Freeman once again being the standout. Evangeline Lily is also a pleasant surprise in an original role as an elf created for the film. She adds a much needed feminine touch to an otherwise predominantly male cast. She proves herself to be a fine silver screen presence and hopefully this will net her some further film roles.

While the film does an excellent job of not simply being the middle film, something The Two Towers struggled with in the LotR trilogy, it is the action, set pieces, and effects which are the true stars. This may not be a LotR movie, but it's close. We almost immediately start out with a bang and it rarely lets up. Of course, much of what happens early on, as exciting as it may be, pales in comparison to it's explosive and lengthy climax. Smaug is quite possibly the best creation of any of the film, Hobbit or LotR. He is as awesome as you could have hoped for and Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent in the role. While effects have been applied to his voice to give it more boom, he does a fantastic job as the sneering, wise, and boastful dragon. Watching and listening to him face off against Bilbo is a delightful treat, and that is before we get to any fire breathing and chasing. What follows is a lengthy conclusion to the film that will excite and delight all. I have no qualms in saying that Smaug makes the entire film worth the admission of price. But don't go in expecting a solid conclusion. This is, after all, the second of a trilogy, so you can surely expect the film to leave you salivating for the next one.

While this new Hobbit film still doesn't reach LotR heights, it is superior to the previous film, especially when it comes to being an enjoyable adventure. It feels like it matters to the trilogy and delivers on being an epic. And I simply can't rave enough about Smaug. If you didn't enjoy the first film, you may find yourself feeling about the same here. But at least this one has a cool dragon.

Decent fantasy-action slightly inspired by The Hobbit

[tlotr_tloz · 6/10 · 12 December 2013]

Most reviews will tell you what's so great about this movie and why it's worth watching, but I figured you should hear the other side of the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent!

[chapy004 · 10/10 · 7 December 2013]

In the words of J.R. Tolkien - "Things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway"(The Hobbit, Chapter 3, paragraph 26).

"The Desolation of Smaug" is sure to satisfy those who thought the first installment dragged its feet. From the first frame to the last, the movie is a thrilling achievement of Peter's. The action is none like we've seen in any middle-earth installment. The visual effects are much improved, the pace is seamless, and the danger is ever more present. Yet through it all, Bilbo and the company's journey to reclaim the Lonely Mountain is not forgotten as the driving force of this tale.

Smaug rules, and the rest of the movie... is okay (thought I'd say 'drools' didn't ya)

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 3 January 2015]

Bilbo is supposedly the lynch-pin of this whole story - hell, it's called 'The Hobbit' after all, and it's about (as the song in the 1977 animated film starts, 'The greeeeatest adventurrrre') - but damn if you'd know it watching the majority of this entry. I say the 'majority' as he does show up in large part at the end, when it comes time to enter the castle in the mountains and the face-off against the dragon, Smaug, who has hoarded over the dwarfs' gold. But with the exception of a few scenes scattered about, it felt like there was a lack of Bilbo, which is a shame since Martin Freeman is so moving and funny and on-point in this role of the quirky 'straight-man' to these much quirkier, rambunctious dwarfs led by who is arguably the real protagonist - or co-protagonist - Thorin Oakensheild.

Let's talk about that for a moment. For what he's asked to do, Richard Armitage isn't exactly bad in the role, not by a long-shot. He is there and present in this character if the hardcase leader of the dwarfs who has a rightful problem with his father, the former king of the dwarfs, being killed. He wants revenge and justice and so on, but the character just feels so flatly written and plain, somehow there was just a little more dimension with the Lord of the Rings trilogy's mirror character, Aragorn. Thorin comes into a scene and makes his declarations, which is what you do in a fantasy epic like this. But I never really felt for the character so strongly or his quest so much, despite the ending of the first film where there is something of an arc between him trusting Bilbo. Again, not a bad character, but something that I wish was a little more strongly written or played dimension-wise.

Like the other two films in this unnecessary trilogy, there's padding. This is like looking at a nervous football player, loaded up so that he doesn't get pummeled. It's mainly in the inclusion of the elves, and an elf/dwarf romance that comes when the dwarfs are captured momentarily and the really handsome one and Evangeline Lilly's elf fall for one another. Oh, and Legolas returns and there's sort of a hint of a love triangle, because these epics need them nowadays. Not bad actors, once again, and Lilly has more than proved herself on Lost to be capable with a bad-ass action heroine as her character is here. But where's the purpose with the main story? There's no connective tissue with this, and just enough (though added not from the Hobbit but from appendices that Tolkien wrote - just that word 'appendices' like an organ you don't need) with Gandalf on his separate quest which will figure in to this whole SIX film epic at hand.

There's enough well-filmed action and peril to keep things moving along not briskly, but in a manner that I at least didn't fall asleep... well, I did get annoyed by a barrel chase for technical reasons (sure, throw in a low-quality go-pro camera in the river chase while you're mostly using the highest-quality RED cameras, sure, why the hell not?) But, at least, the sequence with Smaug is perfect. It's a marvelous CGI creation that ironically brings back together from Sherlock Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch, who voices and also does the motion-capture work for the dragon of the title. This is a sequence fraught with tension, clever dialog (much of it with Bilbo's riddles, and this is very similar to the animated film by the way), and intense action and suspense. It's what one wants to see from one of these movies, with a dollop of humor as well.

If only the rest of the film had that. Desolation of Smaug is a good movie, on the whole, but it's so uneven that it may frustrate those who aren't already super-psyched to return to Middle Earth anyway.

A return to form for filmmaker Peter Jackson; swifter pacing and epic setpieces

[george.schmidt · 9/10 · 18 December 2013]

THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG (2013) ***1/2 Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Dean O'Gorman, Aidan Turner, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, Jed Brophy, Mark Hadlow, Adam Brown, Lee Pace, Mikael Persbrandt, Sylvester McCoy, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, John Bell (voice of Benedict Cumberbatch) A return to form for filmmaker Peter Jackson (who co-wrote with his team of Fran Walsh, Phillippa Boyens, and Guillermo del Toro) in his ongoing adaptation of JRR Tolkien's novel with the pack of dwarfs en route to stop the invincible dragon Smaug (scarily intoned by Cumberbatch) from the onslaught of the kingdom laid waste and the all-consuming blood- thirsty Orcs empowered to bring upon even more evil. Faster-paced with swift sequences of fantastic action and thrills (i.e. a shoot-the-rapids barrel ride cum battle and the spooky voyage thru a forest plagued with giant spiders) and a boost of energy (and shout-out to the fan girls) with newly created 'sheElf' Tauriel (babelicious ass-kicker Lilly) and a more easier to understand plot line overall. The as-expected visuals and effects are even more thorough and despite a few video game like executions continues to be the blue chip mix of state-of- the-art-technology with old-fashioned escapist storytelling. The third and final chapter should be a doozy!

Too rushed, wrong emphasis

[benisof · 7/10 · 23 February 2014]

I liked the movie overall, but in the end I felt that everything was rushed and little was presented...

1. I don't understand how a book presented in three 3h movies can seem so rushed... The meeting with Beorn was quick with no tension, no detail, no nothing. The journey through mirkwood was dull, a mere 2 minutes of wandering and then they jumped directly to the spider fight... The barrels escape came from nowhere. In the Lake town they were caught and they were gone. The search for the keyhole was stupid... Why the need of the light of the moon if they had a staircase which led to a wall smaller than one wall in my room where all they needed was to search a little for a hole? The story from inside the mountain seemed a totally different thing than the book... What was the story with the Lake chief? What is Gandalf doing, and why are the orcs here better armored (in the end) than in LOTR?

2. Fighting scenes are overly exaggerated... Probably influenced by LOTR. They get overly creative with all angle arrow shots and creative decapitations by Legolas.

3. The CGI is disappointing... There are a few scenes which seem taken from a video game. The orcs do not look real. There Is a scene where the orcs run over a lake bridge and Legolas follows ahorse when the riding doesn't seems at all natural.

The best thing the movie did was to make me read the book again, to remember the real details...

The Desolation of Culture

[rdawson689 · 1/10 · 26 December 2013]

I watched this film for entertainment. I had no expectations. I don't mind if a director deviates from their source material, provided that the film works. However, I felt, as I watched, as if someone was patting my back, and picking my pockets.

There are some beautiful scenes: butterflies flying from the treetops of Mirkwood, Smaug gradually revealing himself, etc. Nevertheless, the visual virtuosity is wasted, because the scenes have no emotional impact. The characters are undeveloped, and barely interact with each other. There is no tension, no texture, no warmth. The story feels as fake as the over-the-top special effects.

The screenplay is insultingly bad by any standard. If you consider that it was adapted from the masterpiece of a world-class philologist, it's a crime against culture.

If I had to summarize the film, I would call it a juvenile, tasteless, video game-like action sequence. Take the barrel riders scene. A dwarf rolls along the shore in a barrel, knocking orcs off the screen, exactly like in the Donkey Kong Country games. Meanwhile, Legolas and Tauriel, in god mode, with unlimited arrows, and a perfect aim, are slaughtering hundreds of orcs. I felt my brain cells dying as I watched.

In conclusion, I left the theatre feeling violated. The film, to an even greater extent than its predecessor, embraces three things I despise about Hollywood: catering to the lowest common denominator, showcasing special effects at the expense of storytelling, and blatantly treating filmmaking as a business rather than as high art.

The Hobbit

[0U · 14 February 2020]

The second entry in the Hobbit franchise improves on everything he first film got wrong. It doesn't waste any time and gets right into the action packed sequences. My only problem was the setting change at the end of the film. I felt like it didn't suit the climax. Overall, The Hobbit the Desalation of Smaug is a solid follow up to the first film building on the ideas the first film started.

A very good movie, slightly reminiscent of the Hobbit

[ayoreinf · 8/10 · 16 December 2013]

Peter Jackson's ego that was held at bay all through the previous installment breaks free in this one. The lighthearted atmosphere from the book, that shone so brightly over the 1st part of the his version of the Hobbit, is no longer here, the strange story lines that were added to tie every thing together so no loose end is left and everyone watching the film knows that Peter Jackson did tell us all there was to know. An exact opposite of Tolkien's original who kept always saying (or implying) that middle earth has much more to it than he could ever cover with his stories. It's a difference in egos that doesn't always work for Jackson. Even though he did create a magnificent fantasy epic. Much darker than the first part, much more action packed very high quality of acting performances by all involved. The sins against the original book aren't as grave as those he committed with his LoTR trilogy, mainly because the Hobbit as I already said is a simpler story that doesn't allow for miss representations of the author's intentions. Jackson simply had to invent all these from scratch.

I'm all for re-imagining a story, but if you do so at least be honest and tell us that's what you did, like Tim Burton did when he made his version of Alice. Jackson never said any such thing, if he did it was kept a secret from most of the viewers, which is plain shame as far as I'm concern. I know everyone is going to hate this review to pieces, so many "Jacksoners" are following every bit of film he creates trampling in their wake over all those who dare oppose him. But I personally think that had he kept himself closer to the original, he would've ended with a better movie. It was so with the first part, but I feel like his ego couldn't share the credit with the original author anymore, so that's what we got. It's fun to watch - it's just a different story we're watching than the one we were promised.

Bilbo meet Mr. Smaug

[ycare591 · 10/10 · 7 December 2013]

This must be the best movie of 2013. There is no movie that comes close to it recently. I must say, if you enjoyed the first one, you will enjoy the second one by far. I had the experience of seeing it early, and man, I made the right decision.

Even if you haven't seen the first Hobbit movie, I suggest you see this. The action, the story line, the scenes, nothing comes close to it. If you enjoyed the Lord of The Rings trilogy, you will enjoy this.

I recommend everyone to go by yourself or with a friend and see this movie worth a life-time. It been a while since I seen a good movie, and this movie will not be beat. I can't wait till the third one comes out.

Go see the movie. 10/10

Peter Jackson goes all in!

[trygve_93 · 8/10 · 11 December 2013]

This movie takes a big step up from the first movie. The movie is intense from the start to the end, in a very good way! The story is following the book very well. The dragon may have more lives than in the book, but the scenes are fantastic anyway. . The film gets a big lift by more characters to follow. Peter jackson does the sequel superb by telling the story with a lot of exiting action throughout the movie. Martin freeman plays the role as Bilbo Baggins extremely well yet again. I can't wait to for the final chapter in the hobbit masterpiece by Peter Jackson who blows you in to middle earth yet again! The hobbit and the lord of the rings will be the greatest master piece of all time! In a 100 years these films will be the Mona Lisa of films! I would recommend you go see this movie over and over again!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[auuwws · 8/10 · 21 December 2020]

A great movie, especially in the second half of the events with the appearance of Smaug, who was one of the greatest personalities of Middle Earth. He was a very terrible character, and the end of the mouth is better in the end. You are very enthusiastic about the second part. There are some flaws in the film, the most prominent of which is feeling bored in some scenes, especially in the second half before the appearance Smaug and the beginning of the third part disturbed the rating of the film

Disgrace to the books and original movies.

[germancrickett · 6/10 · 11 March 2014]

They completely changed the story from the books and original movies which ruined Smaug's introduction. True readers and lovers of the books will be more than disappointed when Smaug has his entrance. The scene didn't just veer from the story like most movies do, the plot entirely was changed and not for the better. It slightly changed the whole premise of the movie. Thorin and the dwarfs should have NEVER entered the cave and the attempt with the gold made no sense. Not to mention they completely slaughtered Smaug's speech by breaking it up and destroying the power that should have been portrayed. Also, Smaug was not to even see Bilbo until the very end of the speech, instead Bilbo's location was known the whole time defeating the purpose of the ring aspect and Smaug never smelling hobbit before. It's absolutely ridiculous how "creative writing" is used so loosely and can ultimately ruin a movie that had such great potential.

A good improvement over the first

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 2 November 2014]

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the dwarfs led by Thorin Oakenshield are on a quest to recover the Arkenstone from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) and unite the dwarf armies. The group travels through Mirkwood where they encounter the wood elves. Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom) are elves who end up following the group. Meanwhile, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) goes off to investigate the true enemy behind the looming threat.

This is a good improvement over the first part. It is essentially one long road trip. There is no need for an introduction. There are several compelling action sequences. I especially like the barrel rides. Also there are a couple of good character sequences. Oakenshield and Tauriel have some good interactions and build up some good chemistry. Then Bilbo has some great funny moments with Smaug. It's a great ride and what I hoped the first movie would have been.

Incoherent and unemotional with fragments of greatness

[sumanchakraborty-kol · 6/10 · 2 February 2014]

One big factor of Tolkien's universe is emotional aspect and metaphorical meaning of the conflicts going on to the real world. This movie tried too many things but failed to be coherent enough to leave a great aftertaste. There are moments of greatness through dialog, action, cgi and some fragments of great characters. But unfortunately the emotions of a Hobbit or the leadership of Thorin don't get much screen time among the action of Elves. Many good moments, characters are initially built and then the movie leaves them and jumbles between 2-3 parallel story arcs. We don't see enough of Bilbo here and the emotional bond between Bilbo and the dwarfs is almost gone. We had many emotional moments related to loss of homeland and fearless leadership of Thorin in the first installment of the trilogy, but the second installment fails to deliver in that aspect, instead there are some good moments depicting the resurrection of the dark powers. This instead of complementing the Hobbit storyline competed against each other and finally left almost nothing for Freeman. Freeman's natural and eloquent depiction of Bilbo is a treat to watch shorty in the final act. And the Smaug is really menacing with his tyrannical but witty personality. On a technical front, this movie being so reliant upon cgi should have invested more in high quality cgi, the cgi looks artificial in some scenes during the light and shade in some scenes related to motion. The brand name of Tolkien's universe is enough to drag us to the theater and the Producer/Director should have paid more respect with a better thought out and a more authentic storyline.

A clear step up from the first Hobbit.

[tomimt · 8/10 · 15 December 2013]

Let's get the best news out of the way: As a movie Desolation of Smaug is much better movie than the Unexpected Jourrney was. It moves well, pacing is great, acting is mostly great, special effects, especially Smaug, look mostly stunning and the music and the set are great as ever.

And here's the but: it takes a lot of liberties with the story. A lot of the scenes in the movie have only bare bones resemblance with the book. This, however, isn't a surprise, as the first movie altered the narrative from the book quite a bit. So you either roll with it and are okay with the changes, or you cringe your teeth. I rolled with em', as the movie itself is good.

Just like the first movie, I saw this one in HFR as well. I must say, that during the first film of the series I had some issues with the quality, but now it looks like most of the small issues have been cleaned aside.

Like the Two Towers, Desolation of Smaug has no real ending. Afer all is said and done, the movie comes into sudden stop, where, I assume, the third, and the last, movie will continue straight on.

DoS is very entertaining, well crafted movie. It is a step up from the first movie and allows to expect good things from the last movie.

Very Disappointing

[GroggyLane · 6/10 · 26 January 2014]

I had high hopes for this one. The first one was fair. There were problems, but all in all a good effort. This was the place where they would either bring it back or go completely in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, they went completely in the wrong direction. The Hobbit story is a good story. I read it when I was young and I know many others who did or at least tried as well. They only criticism I'd ever heard was that Tolkien could be a little dry. But it was a good story and there was no need to change it so drastically. I understand that they were trying to develop subplots in order to extend the story and stretch it into 3 movies, but please. I wonder if the people responsible for writing the screenplay ever actually read the book or just the Cliffs Notes version. If they had actually read the book, they would have seen that there was plenty of story there for 3 movies without ruining the story. But they didn't. So yes, they ruined the story. I don't post a lot of reviews, but in this case I couldn't resist. I guess we'll have to wait for someone else to come along perhaps 30 or 40 years from now to do it right. Until then we can watch the animated version and pretend this movie doesn't exist.

I gave it a 6 because the visuals and effects were very cool. The dragon was great. 6 might be generous. I give it about a 4 for what they did to the story and 8 for visuals. The average is 6..

The Desolation of CGI - the Hobbit trilogy continues to disappoint

[GrassCrown · 4/10 · 11 December 2013]

I saw the movie in 2D because I hated the 3D HFR in the first Hobbit movie. I thought the HFR just made the movie sets look like sets instead of being part of the movie universe. I much preferred the 2D experience here and it was easier for me to try to immerse myself in the movie. Regrettably there were too many things that were wrong with the movie for me to achieve that.

This movie had a budget of something like 200 million dollars, over double that of any of the individual movies of the original trilogy. Where did all that money go? To that mostly horrid CGI? There was just bloody too much of it like in the first movie. Everything looks so damn fake with the CGI slammed front and center with no artistic attempt to hide its shortcomings. For example, when Legolas starts chasing Bolg out of Laketown, even his horse is made with CGI. Why? Couldn't you afford to rent one horse? The orcs were mostly made with CGI and they weren't menacing in the slightest. The few scenes with actual actors with makeup playing the orcs were far superior. Erebor looked quite good in general with its mountains of coins and treasures but the melted gold looked unbelievably bad. Many of the actual sets in the movie were very well done and I'm really puzzled why they didn't use them more. The CGI in LOTR looked far more convincing and epic, the large establishing shots looked like grand paintings come alive. What happened here? I don't get it. It felt like I was watching a video game and I don't want to feel that way when I'm watching a movie. Granted, the original trilogy did have a bit of silly looking CGI here and there but at least it was constantly grounded by real sets.

There was also some really weird editing here too. The movie is already way too long and they still include absolutely pointless scenes. For example, when Gandalf is climbing the stairs by the mountain and the ledge gives up, the movie suddenly cuts to a sweeping shot of the mountain side. Why not just stay with Gandalf, it would provide more intensity. There's many examples like this. In Mirkwood when Bilbo is snapping at the spider web they shouldn't zoom deep into the web with the camera. Stuff like this tells nothing and adds nothing to the film. This also takes time away from the character development. When one of the dwarfs oversleeps and misses the boat to Erebor, I couldn't even remember who he was and why I should care that he was stranded in Laketown. Also, the most puzzling and distracting choice in the movie was using that weird POV camera footage in the barrel scenes, it looked so utterly different that it took me out of the movie completely.

The action could've been cut down significantly too. There was no real context or meaning for most of it anyway. Also, after Legolas has killed his umpteenth orc in yet another physics-breaking and miraculous way, you simply lose interest. He can apparently do anything. My feeling is that in the original trilogy the "laws of physics" so to say were merely bent somewhat, here they're completely shattered. All of this may sound nitpicky but I'm essentially doing this because the movie didn't get me emotionally invested in it in a positive way at all.

The movie wasn't particularly funny either despite its lighthearted source material, I laughed much more heartily in many parts of the original trilogy. The Gimli joke was quite funny though. There was also absolutely no memorable music in this movie and none of it moved me like much of the music did in the original trilogy. I didn't get shivers at any point of the movie.

It wasn't all bad or mediocre though. Smaug was magnificent and Benedict Cumberbatch did a great job voice acting the dragon, definitely something to witness in a theater. Smaug's discussions with Bilbo were also great. Gandalf's venture into Dol Guldur was also interesting though that is mainly because Ian McKellen is such a fine actor that he can catch your attention with ease. The cameos by Peter Jackson in the beginning eating the carrot and by Stephen Colbert as the Laketown spy were fun even though I think they might've been too distracting had I loved the movie. The pacing in the movie is a bit of a mixed bag. The first movie had bad pacing because it was overly long without anything really happening. Desolation of Smaug swings the pendulum to the other end with endless action sequences pasted after another. Sure it's more exciting to watch but it was dearly missing some slower sequences to digest everything.

I'm a massive fan of the original trilogy but the first two Hobbit movies simply haven't captured the epicness and magic of those movies at all. And if the Hobbit wasn't intended to feel epic, then why make it into three movies? There's also something else I don't get. The original movie trilogy adaptation established what the LOTR universe looked and felt like. Is the Hobbit trilogy still supposed to happen in that same universe? I didn't ever feel like anyone was in any serious danger because they survive crazier and crazier encounters after the next and because of that there's no tension. This wasn't the case with the originals. Huge spiders were very dangerous in LOTR, here Bilbo is just killing them off left and right. I just wish they'd taken much more liberties with the material and really placed this story into the grittier universe that was established by the original trilogy. Or maybe they should've done something completely different instead of trying to imitate the originals and coming short of them. Anything but this.