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.
608 Reviews
The Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug: Alike the first, impressive but not ground breaking
Platypuschow30 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
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 moo28 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.
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-47619 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.
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.
A Fun Film, Particularly in 3D
RealDuality9 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.
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
cadillac2010 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.
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.
Excellent!
chapy0047 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.
"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)
Quinoa19843 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.
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.
The Hobbit
0U14 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
ayoreinf16 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.
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
ycare5917 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
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_9311 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!
A good improvement over the first
SnoopyStyle2 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.
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.
A clear step up from the first Hobbit.
tomimt15 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.
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
GroggyLane26 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..
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..
*Awesome film and there are some idea's I would like to address in this review*
henryp19972 January 2014
*THIS IS TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE HOBBIT WAS MADE TO STOP THIS GREAT FILM'S NEGATIVE OUTLOOK BY MANY*
I loved LOTR and equally I love the Hobbit films thus far. I am writing this to help people see the idea and thinking behind the Hobbit films, so people can have more of an appreciation than a negative view. Firstly the thing behind the LOTR was their was three books, three long detailed books, so almost everything required for script writing was already there and could be interpreted into script and into of course, 3 films. On the other hand the Hobbit was written as a children's book, so, if you have read the book you realise things go by at a very fast pace (like really fast). So when Jackson was writing the film he didn't have much to work with, and yes, there are a lot of events in this short book that people are forgetting about, lots of events but only summarised by Tolkien, too summarised for a comprehensive film. People say he needed one film, but when you think about how fast, the film would go by, you would hardly see anything, and you could miss out on some key scenes and characters. So Jackson had to expand the sequences by using information he brought in from Tolkien's other related texts. My next big issue is pacing... seriously, what a stupid argument, where movie "critics" have to find something to be critical about. For instance in the first film in the Shire, where people said it took to long, for god's sake, the movie is called 'THE HOBBIT', and Hobbit's live in The Shire, I enjoyed this scene immensely as it provides more than adequate characterisation, which for a quality film is important, it provided us with Bilbo's character flaws and habits, the dwarfs mannerisms, beliefs, ambitions, quirkiness, and importantly, individual character points and differentiation. Also showing us Gandalf and Thorins power of presence and importance. The movie breezes along at a steady pace for a first film of a trilogy, which is expected. Also people say that the LOTR is more important, or interesting, thing about it... one is to save the whole world, the other to kill a dragon and take back a kingdom, so please stop comparing the two films, they have their similarities but also have profound differences, pros and cons. People have been saying he (Peter Jackson and his associates) verged too far from the books but what he did was really quite clever, he allowed us to see more of Middle Earth than ever before, and in an entertaining, clever way. Thank you Sir.
So please before you go and say something negative about these great films (which I highly recommend above all other films at this point), just think about what has gone into these films and why and also show a certain appreciation for these magnificent films.
And once I again I would like to re-iterate that you go see The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug, filled with awesome characters, mind blowing scenery, fantastic acting and direction for Peter Jackson. This film,is great fun for all ages and I urge you to see it.
Thankyou
I loved LOTR and equally I love the Hobbit films thus far. I am writing this to help people see the idea and thinking behind the Hobbit films, so people can have more of an appreciation than a negative view. Firstly the thing behind the LOTR was their was three books, three long detailed books, so almost everything required for script writing was already there and could be interpreted into script and into of course, 3 films. On the other hand the Hobbit was written as a children's book, so, if you have read the book you realise things go by at a very fast pace (like really fast). So when Jackson was writing the film he didn't have much to work with, and yes, there are a lot of events in this short book that people are forgetting about, lots of events but only summarised by Tolkien, too summarised for a comprehensive film. People say he needed one film, but when you think about how fast, the film would go by, you would hardly see anything, and you could miss out on some key scenes and characters. So Jackson had to expand the sequences by using information he brought in from Tolkien's other related texts. My next big issue is pacing... seriously, what a stupid argument, where movie "critics" have to find something to be critical about. For instance in the first film in the Shire, where people said it took to long, for god's sake, the movie is called 'THE HOBBIT', and Hobbit's live in The Shire, I enjoyed this scene immensely as it provides more than adequate characterisation, which for a quality film is important, it provided us with Bilbo's character flaws and habits, the dwarfs mannerisms, beliefs, ambitions, quirkiness, and importantly, individual character points and differentiation. Also showing us Gandalf and Thorins power of presence and importance. The movie breezes along at a steady pace for a first film of a trilogy, which is expected. Also people say that the LOTR is more important, or interesting, thing about it... one is to save the whole world, the other to kill a dragon and take back a kingdom, so please stop comparing the two films, they have their similarities but also have profound differences, pros and cons. People have been saying he (Peter Jackson and his associates) verged too far from the books but what he did was really quite clever, he allowed us to see more of Middle Earth than ever before, and in an entertaining, clever way. Thank you Sir.
So please before you go and say something negative about these great films (which I highly recommend above all other films at this point), just think about what has gone into these films and why and also show a certain appreciation for these magnificent films.
And once I again I would like to re-iterate that you go see The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug, filled with awesome characters, mind blowing scenery, fantastic acting and direction for Peter Jackson. This film,is great fun for all ages and I urge you to see it.
Thankyou
More entertaining then the first hobbit
Sabiq9 December 2013
Expectations were high and this one surely won't disappoint you.. . Adventure continues taking a good step forward. . Watch it for... - an amazing experience - Good sets, - mesmerizing locations, - Jackson' s imagination - and excellent direction, - lovable characters - Excellent effects. On a whole its very entertaining and taking the previous installment to a new level... and increasing expectations for the next part... Enjoy!
8/10 for this. Reserved 9's and 10's for masterpieces and path breaking flicks . Don't compare it with the great LOTR trilogy and enjoy it for its content. . .
8/10 for this. Reserved 9's and 10's for masterpieces and path breaking flicks . Don't compare it with the great LOTR trilogy and enjoy it for its content. . .
The return of the darkness
freemantle_uk14 December 2013
The first entry of The Hobbit trilogy was met with a mixed reaction by some, being too light, too comic and too long. The second film, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the shortest movie in the series, strives for a much darker tone and begins to weave many of the trilogies plot lines together.
Thorin (Richard Armitage), Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the company of Dwarfs continuing their quest to The Lonely Mountain, in order to defeat the dragon Smaug (Bendict Cumberbatch) and reclaim the throne of Erebor. On their perilous journey through Mirkwood, the company end up clashing with the Elves, led by King Thranduil (Lee Pace) and Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) of Lake-town. These two characters are but a few that hinder their journey before the final day of Autumn. A creature known as The Necromancer (also Cumberbatch) is summoning Orcs to the ruins of Dol Guldur, forcing Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to also face the new threat.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a movie that contains sub-plots galore. Outside the main plot, involving the Dwarfs, Gandalf cleanses Dol Guldur, Thranduil attempts to shelter his people in his borders, the political rivalries between Bard and The Master of Lake-town (Stephen Fry), Bilbo suffering from the effects of The Ring, Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), the Captain of the Thranduil, guards wanting the elves to face the Orc threat and a love triangle between Taureil, Thranduil's son Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Kili the dwarf (Aiden Turner). That a is a lot to handle even for a film that is 161 minutes long and for someone of Peter Jackson's previous experience in Middle Earth, some of the subplots get sidelined. The subplot involving Bilbo's corruption and hearing voices in his head is a presence at the beginning movie, but is ignored later on.
The Hobbit is short novel and straight adaptation would have been a 2 hour, 30 minute movie. To add to the movie the screenplay supplement with the use of appendixes in The Lord of the Rings, some elements of the Unfinished Tales collection of short stories and the filmmakers own creative license. Tauriel is an original character created solely for the movie and Legolas had no role in the timeline. The events in Lake-town were also greatly altered from the original novel.
Unlike previous entries in the Lord of the Rings series The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the first time we look at the North of Middle-Earth. The tensions and policies are explored and showing that the Elf kingdom is insular and does not want to get involved with the wider world and the people of Lake-town are divided. Anti-dwarf prejudice is touched on, as dwarfs are seem as greedy, selfish and short-sighted and only one level above Orcs.
One of the big themes is greed and lust; both for wealth and power. There is physical manifestation with Bilbo starting to see himself and savagely killing a spider, the Master of Lake Town seeking wealth and power, leading to the mismanagement of the town, Smaug not wanting to give up any his ill gotten gains. Thorin also suffers from greed, which affect his judgement, his relationships with his comrades and is forewarned that he could end up like his grandfather.
There is plenty of energy in the movie's action sequences, the highlight being the river chase as the Orcs, Dwarfs and Elves are in a battle, filled with decapitations and arrows to Orcs' heads. Both Legolas and Tauriel are given plenty of chances to show their action credentials, though since this is a prequel we know that Legolas is immune from any perky incidents like an axe to the head. The final battle with Smaug is also ramped up from the book, giving Bilbo and the Dwarfs a larger role.
The first act and the third act are great with its pacing, action and character development. Its the middle of the movie that The Desolation of Smaug slows down, a little too much. This is the case of the events in Lake-town as the Dwarfs try to prepare for the final leg of their journey. It is at this point when Bilbo does not have much of a presence in his own movie.
The Dwarfs are give more chance to shine this time role. In the first Hobbit movie, Ken Stott and James Nesbit were the Dwarfs with the most screen time: in the sequel Graham McTavish as Dwalin was more noticeable with his aggression, Kili is given a background and even the silent Bombur (Stephen Hunter) is shown to be very strong despite his weight problem.
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug will give fans their Middle-Earth and is successful at solving some of the issues of the first Hobbit movie. The tone is darker and the action is much less cartoony. The Hobbit is proof of being the pinnacle of the fantasy genre and this second film still proves that.
Please visit www.entertainmentfuse.com
Thorin (Richard Armitage), Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the company of Dwarfs continuing their quest to The Lonely Mountain, in order to defeat the dragon Smaug (Bendict Cumberbatch) and reclaim the throne of Erebor. On their perilous journey through Mirkwood, the company end up clashing with the Elves, led by King Thranduil (Lee Pace) and Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) of Lake-town. These two characters are but a few that hinder their journey before the final day of Autumn. A creature known as The Necromancer (also Cumberbatch) is summoning Orcs to the ruins of Dol Guldur, forcing Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to also face the new threat.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a movie that contains sub-plots galore. Outside the main plot, involving the Dwarfs, Gandalf cleanses Dol Guldur, Thranduil attempts to shelter his people in his borders, the political rivalries between Bard and The Master of Lake-town (Stephen Fry), Bilbo suffering from the effects of The Ring, Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), the Captain of the Thranduil, guards wanting the elves to face the Orc threat and a love triangle between Taureil, Thranduil's son Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Kili the dwarf (Aiden Turner). That a is a lot to handle even for a film that is 161 minutes long and for someone of Peter Jackson's previous experience in Middle Earth, some of the subplots get sidelined. The subplot involving Bilbo's corruption and hearing voices in his head is a presence at the beginning movie, but is ignored later on.
The Hobbit is short novel and straight adaptation would have been a 2 hour, 30 minute movie. To add to the movie the screenplay supplement with the use of appendixes in The Lord of the Rings, some elements of the Unfinished Tales collection of short stories and the filmmakers own creative license. Tauriel is an original character created solely for the movie and Legolas had no role in the timeline. The events in Lake-town were also greatly altered from the original novel.
Unlike previous entries in the Lord of the Rings series The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the first time we look at the North of Middle-Earth. The tensions and policies are explored and showing that the Elf kingdom is insular and does not want to get involved with the wider world and the people of Lake-town are divided. Anti-dwarf prejudice is touched on, as dwarfs are seem as greedy, selfish and short-sighted and only one level above Orcs.
One of the big themes is greed and lust; both for wealth and power. There is physical manifestation with Bilbo starting to see himself and savagely killing a spider, the Master of Lake Town seeking wealth and power, leading to the mismanagement of the town, Smaug not wanting to give up any his ill gotten gains. Thorin also suffers from greed, which affect his judgement, his relationships with his comrades and is forewarned that he could end up like his grandfather.
There is plenty of energy in the movie's action sequences, the highlight being the river chase as the Orcs, Dwarfs and Elves are in a battle, filled with decapitations and arrows to Orcs' heads. Both Legolas and Tauriel are given plenty of chances to show their action credentials, though since this is a prequel we know that Legolas is immune from any perky incidents like an axe to the head. The final battle with Smaug is also ramped up from the book, giving Bilbo and the Dwarfs a larger role.
The first act and the third act are great with its pacing, action and character development. Its the middle of the movie that The Desolation of Smaug slows down, a little too much. This is the case of the events in Lake-town as the Dwarfs try to prepare for the final leg of their journey. It is at this point when Bilbo does not have much of a presence in his own movie.
The Dwarfs are give more chance to shine this time role. In the first Hobbit movie, Ken Stott and James Nesbit were the Dwarfs with the most screen time: in the sequel Graham McTavish as Dwalin was more noticeable with his aggression, Kili is given a background and even the silent Bombur (Stephen Hunter) is shown to be very strong despite his weight problem.
The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug will give fans their Middle-Earth and is successful at solving some of the issues of the first Hobbit movie. The tone is darker and the action is much less cartoony. The Hobbit is proof of being the pinnacle of the fantasy genre and this second film still proves that.
Please visit www.entertainmentfuse.com
Very Low Expectations Helped Greatly
Theo Robertson17 December 2013
After seeing the first part of THE HOBBIT I thought about catching the rest of the trilogy on DVD but having sometime off work and some money to spend I thought I'd treat myself to a visit to the cinema as a very special treat . I paid my money if only to escape the drudgery of a tough working week followed by a couple of lonely nights in my flat but didn't expect much from Peter Jackson whose creative stock seems to have utterly collapsed since RETURN OF THE KING
To be fair Jackson has made a darker and much better paced film to the first instalment that often manages to disguise how over extended the narrative is . Instead of the painfully repetitive story structure of being captured , escaping , being captured , escaping for the entire movie we actually often have engaging storytelling . I've never read the source novel and Tolkien junkies might hate any embellishment brought to the silver screen but the quest aspects are well done for the most part . The production have now concentrated on making THE HOBBIT a proper prequel to LORD OF THE RINGS as the Necromancer's power starts expanding planning extermination for Middle Earth . This subplot is developed via dual plotting where Gandalf leaves Bilbo's entourage and finds himself in danger . Bilbo and his comrades find they have problems of their own with constant danger all around them
The problem these dangers are often undermined by the production team who concentrate on spectacle rather than developing drama . A good example is where Bilbo and the dwarfs are cocooned by giant spiders which is a terrifying fate but is totally undermined by the arachnids being killed far too easily . This happens several times throughout the set pieces in the film where the good guys constantly defeat the bad guys so easily the audience quickly lose any sense of danger and adventure being involved . There's also a bit too much of the laws of physics being constantly broken . For example a fireball in a confined space would burn up all the surrounding oxygen and anyone nearby would suffocate but this fact is ignored and other implausible things involving science don't make the slightest sense . I know this features in many fantasy films , not least the original LOTR trilogy but it's been done to death and is very distracting . Compare the spectacular set pieces seen here to the battle scene seen in the departure of Boromir in FELLOWSHIP and you'll notice how overblown everything is in comparison here .
In summary this is fairly good film that is better than part one of THE HOBBIT . I say " fairly good " but when you compare it to LORD OF THE RINGS in general and FELLOWSHIP in particular ii is something of a backward step from the production team who brought us the original trilogy . That said I will probably pay money at the cinema to see the finale though more in hope rather than expectation
To be fair Jackson has made a darker and much better paced film to the first instalment that often manages to disguise how over extended the narrative is . Instead of the painfully repetitive story structure of being captured , escaping , being captured , escaping for the entire movie we actually often have engaging storytelling . I've never read the source novel and Tolkien junkies might hate any embellishment brought to the silver screen but the quest aspects are well done for the most part . The production have now concentrated on making THE HOBBIT a proper prequel to LORD OF THE RINGS as the Necromancer's power starts expanding planning extermination for Middle Earth . This subplot is developed via dual plotting where Gandalf leaves Bilbo's entourage and finds himself in danger . Bilbo and his comrades find they have problems of their own with constant danger all around them
The problem these dangers are often undermined by the production team who concentrate on spectacle rather than developing drama . A good example is where Bilbo and the dwarfs are cocooned by giant spiders which is a terrifying fate but is totally undermined by the arachnids being killed far too easily . This happens several times throughout the set pieces in the film where the good guys constantly defeat the bad guys so easily the audience quickly lose any sense of danger and adventure being involved . There's also a bit too much of the laws of physics being constantly broken . For example a fireball in a confined space would burn up all the surrounding oxygen and anyone nearby would suffocate but this fact is ignored and other implausible things involving science don't make the slightest sense . I know this features in many fantasy films , not least the original LOTR trilogy but it's been done to death and is very distracting . Compare the spectacular set pieces seen here to the battle scene seen in the departure of Boromir in FELLOWSHIP and you'll notice how overblown everything is in comparison here .
In summary this is fairly good film that is better than part one of THE HOBBIT . I say " fairly good " but when you compare it to LORD OF THE RINGS in general and FELLOWSHIP in particular ii is something of a backward step from the production team who brought us the original trilogy . That said I will probably pay money at the cinema to see the finale though more in hope rather than expectation
This is a fantasy genre masterpiece that is an absolute must see.
kevin_robbins4 November 2022
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) is a movie in my DVD collection that my daughter and I recently watched on HBOMAX. The storyline follows the continued journey of our dwarf friends, an unlikely hobbit and Gandalf the wizard as they head to the mountain of the dwarf's former home. They will try to find the mountain pass, door and enter while knowing what's waiting for them inside is of course...a dragon. On their way they will be attacked by the creatures of Middle Earth and may have to rely on some unlikely friends on their journey.
This movie is directed by Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings) and stars Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters), Graham McTavish (Rambo), Martin Freeman (The World's End), Richard Armitage (Into the Storm) and Orlando Bloom (Pirates of the Caribbean).
The settings, attire, props and CGI in this are all perfect. The storyline is captivating and takes you deeper into the world of elves and men in Middle Earth which was fascinating. Every scene that involved both elves and dwarves were awesome. The river scene was tremendous and a lot of fun. Smaug is perfectly created in this, and his charm, wit and diabolical nature is perfectly depicted. Every scene in the gold room is outstanding. The ending was a perfect way to segue into the next film.
Overall, the Hobbit films do not get the credit they deserve. This is a fantasy genre masterpiece that is an absolute must see. I would score this a 9.5/10 and strongly recommend it.
This movie is directed by Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings) and stars Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters), Graham McTavish (Rambo), Martin Freeman (The World's End), Richard Armitage (Into the Storm) and Orlando Bloom (Pirates of the Caribbean).
The settings, attire, props and CGI in this are all perfect. The storyline is captivating and takes you deeper into the world of elves and men in Middle Earth which was fascinating. Every scene that involved both elves and dwarves were awesome. The river scene was tremendous and a lot of fun. Smaug is perfectly created in this, and his charm, wit and diabolical nature is perfectly depicted. Every scene in the gold room is outstanding. The ending was a perfect way to segue into the next film.
Overall, the Hobbit films do not get the credit they deserve. This is a fantasy genre masterpiece that is an absolute must see. I would score this a 9.5/10 and strongly recommend it.
The Desolation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Spirit.
CinemaClown24 December 2013
When The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey premiered on silver screen as the first in a trilogy of films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, the response it received was mostly positive to mixed. The majority of criticism was targeted at the needless expansion of a single film story into three features but, in my opinion, it did commence this latest Middle-Earth adventure on the right note and, despite its sluggish pace, ended up providing a largely satisfying experience.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the second chapter of The Hobbit film series & picks the story right from where it was left off in An Unexpected Journey. Continuing the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who's accompanying thirteen dwarfs on their quest to reclaim the kingdom of Erebor, the film covers the journey ahead for these fellows which is full of dangers and even if they manage to get away with it & reach the Lonely Mountain safely, they have a stupendous dragon to deal with.
One thing I have always admired about this Middle-Earth franchise is the filmmaker's strong intent to keep the story very much within the realms of Tolkien's spirit. But this latest chapter marks a significant departure from such faithfulness & ends up being an immensely frustrating experience. There are a few things The Desolation of Smaug gets right but there are also way too many things that are wrong with it. Let's start with the things it gets right first.
Since the previous chapter was criticized for its sluggish pace, the filmmakers have vastly improved the pacing in this middle chapter with addition of many more action sequences to keep the entertainment going throughout its runtime. Production design continues to amaze. Cinematography encapsulates the picture with a darker layer which suits its tone. Visual effects has its share of highs n lows & Howard Shore's score is good but it also stumbles a little for the very first time.
Now coming to what's wrong with it... First, it slaughters the book in a manner that's plainly insulting to Tolkien. Second, the absurdly introduced love triangle, overindulgence of Elves & eye-rollingly cheesy dialogues are poor filler substitutes. Third, this film had a great opportunity to further develop its characters but thanks to its rushed pace & more emphasis on over-the-top action over a riveting narration, we still have difficulty in recalling the correct names of all the Dwarfs.
And that's not all. Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo Baggins but his character is demoted into a secondary role for the centre stage is taken by Richard Armitage's Thorin. The remaining Dwarfs get only as much screen time as they did in the last chapter. Elves have never been as annoying as they are in this film for Legolas wasn't even needed in this adventure & Tauriel, who doesn't even exist in the novel but was created to bring a feminine energy to the series, is given a stupid love story to work with instead.
At last, I would like to talk about Smaug. Exquisitely designed, remarkably portrayed & meticulously detailed, this splendid beast of CGI is a jaw-dropping wonder to look at & the painstaking work that went into bringing this magnificent dragon to life truly deserves a bow. But thanks to its inefficient handling by the filmmakers, the cunning, proud & intelligent dragon of the novel is turned into a foolish creature here which is a shame because Smaug could've been as memorable to this trilogy as Gollum was to The Lord of the Rings.
On an overall scale, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is an emotionally unappealing but visually spectacular sequel which features a much more exciting, fiercely paced & action-packed entertainment that'll satisfy most filmgoers but for the devoted fans of Middle-Earth, it's a heartbreaking disappointment that adds even more insult to injury by abruptly ending at one of the most frustrating cliffhangers in cinema history, thus leaving the experience very much incomplete in the end.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the second chapter of The Hobbit film series & picks the story right from where it was left off in An Unexpected Journey. Continuing the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who's accompanying thirteen dwarfs on their quest to reclaim the kingdom of Erebor, the film covers the journey ahead for these fellows which is full of dangers and even if they manage to get away with it & reach the Lonely Mountain safely, they have a stupendous dragon to deal with.
One thing I have always admired about this Middle-Earth franchise is the filmmaker's strong intent to keep the story very much within the realms of Tolkien's spirit. But this latest chapter marks a significant departure from such faithfulness & ends up being an immensely frustrating experience. There are a few things The Desolation of Smaug gets right but there are also way too many things that are wrong with it. Let's start with the things it gets right first.
Since the previous chapter was criticized for its sluggish pace, the filmmakers have vastly improved the pacing in this middle chapter with addition of many more action sequences to keep the entertainment going throughout its runtime. Production design continues to amaze. Cinematography encapsulates the picture with a darker layer which suits its tone. Visual effects has its share of highs n lows & Howard Shore's score is good but it also stumbles a little for the very first time.
Now coming to what's wrong with it... First, it slaughters the book in a manner that's plainly insulting to Tolkien. Second, the absurdly introduced love triangle, overindulgence of Elves & eye-rollingly cheesy dialogues are poor filler substitutes. Third, this film had a great opportunity to further develop its characters but thanks to its rushed pace & more emphasis on over-the-top action over a riveting narration, we still have difficulty in recalling the correct names of all the Dwarfs.
And that's not all. Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo Baggins but his character is demoted into a secondary role for the centre stage is taken by Richard Armitage's Thorin. The remaining Dwarfs get only as much screen time as they did in the last chapter. Elves have never been as annoying as they are in this film for Legolas wasn't even needed in this adventure & Tauriel, who doesn't even exist in the novel but was created to bring a feminine energy to the series, is given a stupid love story to work with instead.
At last, I would like to talk about Smaug. Exquisitely designed, remarkably portrayed & meticulously detailed, this splendid beast of CGI is a jaw-dropping wonder to look at & the painstaking work that went into bringing this magnificent dragon to life truly deserves a bow. But thanks to its inefficient handling by the filmmakers, the cunning, proud & intelligent dragon of the novel is turned into a foolish creature here which is a shame because Smaug could've been as memorable to this trilogy as Gollum was to The Lord of the Rings.
On an overall scale, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is an emotionally unappealing but visually spectacular sequel which features a much more exciting, fiercely paced & action-packed entertainment that'll satisfy most filmgoers but for the devoted fans of Middle-Earth, it's a heartbreaking disappointment that adds even more insult to injury by abruptly ending at one of the most frustrating cliffhangers in cinema history, thus leaving the experience very much incomplete in the end.
That fixed it up good
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews12 December 2013
The fellowship continue to flee from Orcs, but have to venture alone into Mirkwood(aka, the LSD forest - great sequence, if one of the only two that the increased pace renders rushed through). Gandalf(McKellan, wise and somewhat on his own) has to investigate the land's growing evil. When the dwarfs are discovered by the area's Elven, some secretly disregard the king Thranduil's(Pace, carrying his force with tremendous dignity) orders to stay behind and not run risks. Captain of the guard Tauriel(Lilly, gorgeous and taking matters into her own hands), perhaps because of her growing feelings for Fili(O'Gorman, sympathetic, and still attracted to these tall, gracious beings). Speaking of romance, Legolas(Bloom, still spot-on as the determined prince) goes with her as he is in love with her - however, not to his knowledge, his father refuses him marrying outside of hierarchy.
As this completes the transition into re-imagining(after the first was an adaptation with some added elements), it not only sets up the Lord of the Rings trilogy(serving as a prequel - and though this was not necessary, it is, in my opinion, quite welcome) much better than the original children's faerie tale did(or was ever intended to; for my money, this is much more enjoyable than its source, not feeling like it was made up as he went along, letting its theme of greed and selfishness being something that has to be overcome show more clearly through), it changes for the better pretty much the only things that the first one got wrong(not that I, personally, minded them). As such, the plot not only takes off immediately, it keeps moving throughout. The action never takes over. There are genuine consequences(power is corrupting... this is seen in our protagonists!), and rather than a series of unrelated events, this presents a definite chronology of events, with characters sticking around and being developed.
The most compelling of these, without a doubt, is Bard(Evans, a courageous, loving father), who takes on many roles, living up to all of them. There is a change of the weighing of humor and darkness, now in favor of the latter. We now begin to feel that this is a dangerous endeavor, one that may claim the lives of some of them. While FX tend to be CGI over practical, this never gets lost in them. Reaction shots, use of perspective and other approaches are employed to ensure that. The High Frame Rate will take your eyes(and rest them before and after, this does strain them some - it's worth it) 15 minutes to adjust to - and then you'll literally believe you can reach out and touch what you witness. And even if you won't go with that, make sure to watch this in 3D. Few things poke out at you(meaning they never lose the effect), and it further improves the amazing atmosphere, where every location feels distinct, with temperature and scents seemingly affecting you in the cinema. The scope is shown well, you appreciate size differences.
For those who wished they'd seen more of Smaug(Cumberbatch, making lines work when no one else could) in last year's film, this is for you. He doesn't show up for a while - trust me, you won't mind. We get such a satisfying taste of him, his massive physique, his danger, his manipulative nature. The cliffhanger ending does leave us hanging - excessively so. Dialog and acting are enthralling. Charm and mystery work well to draw us in, keeping each other in check so as to not let either overwhelm us. Bring your kids. Take your parents. There's something for everyone. This makes use of quick, loaded introductions - to people, places, beings, etc. Thus, a ton of detail and change can be implemented, making even the 160-ish minute running time packed with events. No, this is not An Unexpected Journey. That one set the scene. This? The real show. There are winks to those who've seen the previous trilogy already, and they are less on the nose. No one shows up to do nothing in this, we don't visit anywhere that nothing occurs in.
There is a lot of mild to moderate violence and disturbing content in this. I recommend this to any fan of fantasy, drama and grandeur. 9/10
As this completes the transition into re-imagining(after the first was an adaptation with some added elements), it not only sets up the Lord of the Rings trilogy(serving as a prequel - and though this was not necessary, it is, in my opinion, quite welcome) much better than the original children's faerie tale did(or was ever intended to; for my money, this is much more enjoyable than its source, not feeling like it was made up as he went along, letting its theme of greed and selfishness being something that has to be overcome show more clearly through), it changes for the better pretty much the only things that the first one got wrong(not that I, personally, minded them). As such, the plot not only takes off immediately, it keeps moving throughout. The action never takes over. There are genuine consequences(power is corrupting... this is seen in our protagonists!), and rather than a series of unrelated events, this presents a definite chronology of events, with characters sticking around and being developed.
The most compelling of these, without a doubt, is Bard(Evans, a courageous, loving father), who takes on many roles, living up to all of them. There is a change of the weighing of humor and darkness, now in favor of the latter. We now begin to feel that this is a dangerous endeavor, one that may claim the lives of some of them. While FX tend to be CGI over practical, this never gets lost in them. Reaction shots, use of perspective and other approaches are employed to ensure that. The High Frame Rate will take your eyes(and rest them before and after, this does strain them some - it's worth it) 15 minutes to adjust to - and then you'll literally believe you can reach out and touch what you witness. And even if you won't go with that, make sure to watch this in 3D. Few things poke out at you(meaning they never lose the effect), and it further improves the amazing atmosphere, where every location feels distinct, with temperature and scents seemingly affecting you in the cinema. The scope is shown well, you appreciate size differences.
For those who wished they'd seen more of Smaug(Cumberbatch, making lines work when no one else could) in last year's film, this is for you. He doesn't show up for a while - trust me, you won't mind. We get such a satisfying taste of him, his massive physique, his danger, his manipulative nature. The cliffhanger ending does leave us hanging - excessively so. Dialog and acting are enthralling. Charm and mystery work well to draw us in, keeping each other in check so as to not let either overwhelm us. Bring your kids. Take your parents. There's something for everyone. This makes use of quick, loaded introductions - to people, places, beings, etc. Thus, a ton of detail and change can be implemented, making even the 160-ish minute running time packed with events. No, this is not An Unexpected Journey. That one set the scene. This? The real show. There are winks to those who've seen the previous trilogy already, and they are less on the nose. No one shows up to do nothing in this, we don't visit anywhere that nothing occurs in.
There is a lot of mild to moderate violence and disturbing content in this. I recommend this to any fan of fantasy, drama and grandeur. 9/10
Solid follow up is impressive but very long
wildlife-ptech23 October 2019
Rating
8/10
Follows in the vein of the first part. Impressive visuals and special effects. However film is very long and could have been slightly edited. Main characters never seem to be in any serious harm despite menacing opponents. Solidly engrossing.
8/10
Follows in the vein of the first part. Impressive visuals and special effects. However film is very long and could have been slightly edited. Main characters never seem to be in any serious harm despite menacing opponents. Solidly engrossing.
'Hobbit' trilogy picks up steam with much more exhilarating part two
Movie_Muse_Reviews12 December 2013
For those not easily smitten by J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy tales, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was a substantial letdown from "The Lord of the Rings" films, and the thought of enduring another immensely long trilogy too much to bear. But even they'll agree with the biggest fans of "An Unexpected Journey" that part two, "The Desolation of Smaug," shows substantial improvement over the first film.
Foremost, the film benefits from needing little to no exposition. The suspense and action ratchets up quickly as Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the dwarfs, on their quest to reclaim their homeland from the dragon Smaug, are still being pursued by a band of ruthless orcs led by Azog the Defiler at the behest of the frightening, amorphous Necromancer. They must journey through the cursed forest of Mirkwood, home of the wood-elves, up the river to Lake-town and across the lake to the Lonely Mountain where Smaug awaits.
The action sequences alone prove "Desolation" a better film than "Journey." Nothing was really wrong with the first film, but the danger, excitement and creativity of "Desolation" simply trumps its predecessor. The return of Legolas (Orlando Bloom) along with his companion Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, who looks born to play an elf) brings with it the return of incredibly fluid, exciting and yes, perhaps even unrealistic fight choreography. Remember when Legolas took down an entire elephaunt in "Return of the King" in a brilliant sequence? The barrel escape on the river shows it up big time. Simply put, orcs are treated as deli meat in this movie.
Aracnaphobes be warned: director Peter Jackson is relentless in the spider scenes in Mirkwood toward the beginning of the film and as for any dragon-phobes — yeah, you might want to walk out of the theater after the first two hours, because at that point begins the Smaug show. Benedict Cumberbatch delivers delicious vocals (as expected) playing the fearsome dragon, and the sheer scale of the climactic sequence inside the cavernous halls of the dwarf kingdom of Erebor doesn't disappoint.
As was a noticeable challenge in "An Unexpected Journey," the "Desolation" script contains even more filler and plot lines not in the book crafted from appendices than the first film. Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro generally make good use of this creative freedom by keeping the pace of the film up some parts of the movie, though excellently written and executed, go on a bit too long and provide little value outside of pure entertainment.
Two-thirds of the way through this adventure, it has become clear that the themes of "The Hobbit" trilogy don't run nearly as deep as with "The Lord of the Rings," and neither does the emotion. A subplot tries to create a love story between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel as a change-of-pace from the danger and fear (the film's primary and dominant emotion), but it just doesn't hit. Kili has nowhere near the same level of audience admiration as Legolas, whose legacy from "Rings" carries instantly over to this film and who seems an obvious match for Tauriel. Outward ploys to generate some emotion such as this, however, wouldn't be necessary if the same motifs that made "Rings" more than blockbuster (friendship, the struggle of being outside of one's comfort zone, the fear of failure) were a part of "The Hobbit." Freeman and Richard Armitage (Thorin) are true talents, but they can only go so far with this material. What "Desolation" makes up for in entertainment value from "Journey," it loses in heart.
Other casting decisions earn excellent marks among the film's new characters including Lilly and Cumberbatch. Lee Pace nails the elf aura as good as Cate Blanchett playing the elf-king Thranduil and Luke Evans makes a fine, likable hero out of Bard the Bowman, the man who harbors the company in Lake-town. Although his character is a waste, the delightful Stephen Fry is another good call as the master of Lake-town. And let us not forget old friends: Ian McKellan gets a good number of badass moments during Gandalf's side-journey.
Anyone unsure which format to view the film in should consider that the last sequence with Smaug and a few others occur in somewhat dark locales. This is a significantly less than desirable situation for traditional 3D, because 3D already makes the frame seem darker. Those looking to upgrade from 2D should make the jump to HFR 3D, which despite its many critics, definitely has less motion blur and doesn't have the same issues with darkness.
Jackson, of course, continues to marvel with his vision for Middle Earth. The design of the locales and the sets (the wood-elves' kingdom, Lake-town, Erebor) show a great deal of technical sophistication and more importantly, imagination. The places truly come to life in all these films, and with a sense of eye-opening grandeur. Sometimes it even borders on too big and magnificent.
"The Desolation of Smaug" definitely sets the stage for what will surely be another memorable conclusion in both excitement and scale. The film ends on much more of an unexpected cliffhanger than the first film and the first "Lord of the Rings" films. "The Two Towers" definitely unwound in the end, as ominous as it still was, but "Desolation" will leave viewers with a sense that what they just saw will be like foreplay when they witness the conclusion.
~Steven C
Thanks for reading! Visit moviemusreviews.com for more
Foremost, the film benefits from needing little to no exposition. The suspense and action ratchets up quickly as Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the dwarfs, on their quest to reclaim their homeland from the dragon Smaug, are still being pursued by a band of ruthless orcs led by Azog the Defiler at the behest of the frightening, amorphous Necromancer. They must journey through the cursed forest of Mirkwood, home of the wood-elves, up the river to Lake-town and across the lake to the Lonely Mountain where Smaug awaits.
The action sequences alone prove "Desolation" a better film than "Journey." Nothing was really wrong with the first film, but the danger, excitement and creativity of "Desolation" simply trumps its predecessor. The return of Legolas (Orlando Bloom) along with his companion Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, who looks born to play an elf) brings with it the return of incredibly fluid, exciting and yes, perhaps even unrealistic fight choreography. Remember when Legolas took down an entire elephaunt in "Return of the King" in a brilliant sequence? The barrel escape on the river shows it up big time. Simply put, orcs are treated as deli meat in this movie.
Aracnaphobes be warned: director Peter Jackson is relentless in the spider scenes in Mirkwood toward the beginning of the film and as for any dragon-phobes — yeah, you might want to walk out of the theater after the first two hours, because at that point begins the Smaug show. Benedict Cumberbatch delivers delicious vocals (as expected) playing the fearsome dragon, and the sheer scale of the climactic sequence inside the cavernous halls of the dwarf kingdom of Erebor doesn't disappoint.
As was a noticeable challenge in "An Unexpected Journey," the "Desolation" script contains even more filler and plot lines not in the book crafted from appendices than the first film. Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro generally make good use of this creative freedom by keeping the pace of the film up some parts of the movie, though excellently written and executed, go on a bit too long and provide little value outside of pure entertainment.
Two-thirds of the way through this adventure, it has become clear that the themes of "The Hobbit" trilogy don't run nearly as deep as with "The Lord of the Rings," and neither does the emotion. A subplot tries to create a love story between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel as a change-of-pace from the danger and fear (the film's primary and dominant emotion), but it just doesn't hit. Kili has nowhere near the same level of audience admiration as Legolas, whose legacy from "Rings" carries instantly over to this film and who seems an obvious match for Tauriel. Outward ploys to generate some emotion such as this, however, wouldn't be necessary if the same motifs that made "Rings" more than blockbuster (friendship, the struggle of being outside of one's comfort zone, the fear of failure) were a part of "The Hobbit." Freeman and Richard Armitage (Thorin) are true talents, but they can only go so far with this material. What "Desolation" makes up for in entertainment value from "Journey," it loses in heart.
Other casting decisions earn excellent marks among the film's new characters including Lilly and Cumberbatch. Lee Pace nails the elf aura as good as Cate Blanchett playing the elf-king Thranduil and Luke Evans makes a fine, likable hero out of Bard the Bowman, the man who harbors the company in Lake-town. Although his character is a waste, the delightful Stephen Fry is another good call as the master of Lake-town. And let us not forget old friends: Ian McKellan gets a good number of badass moments during Gandalf's side-journey.
Anyone unsure which format to view the film in should consider that the last sequence with Smaug and a few others occur in somewhat dark locales. This is a significantly less than desirable situation for traditional 3D, because 3D already makes the frame seem darker. Those looking to upgrade from 2D should make the jump to HFR 3D, which despite its many critics, definitely has less motion blur and doesn't have the same issues with darkness.
Jackson, of course, continues to marvel with his vision for Middle Earth. The design of the locales and the sets (the wood-elves' kingdom, Lake-town, Erebor) show a great deal of technical sophistication and more importantly, imagination. The places truly come to life in all these films, and with a sense of eye-opening grandeur. Sometimes it even borders on too big and magnificent.
"The Desolation of Smaug" definitely sets the stage for what will surely be another memorable conclusion in both excitement and scale. The film ends on much more of an unexpected cliffhanger than the first film and the first "Lord of the Rings" films. "The Two Towers" definitely unwound in the end, as ominous as it still was, but "Desolation" will leave viewers with a sense that what they just saw will be like foreplay when they witness the conclusion.
~Steven C
Thanks for reading! Visit moviemusreviews.com for more
Best CGI in film, yet poor dialogue and script.
pat_2229 December 2013
"You have nice manners for a thief and a liar!"
Peter Jackson's latest journey to Middle Earth was to explore Smaug and introduce the audience to the battle of the five armies that will ensue in the final film. We find Thorin Oakenshield being thrusted into leading his merry gang of dwarf's to the Lonely Mountain as Gandalf intends to inspect the happenings of Dol Gulder. This film more notably than other Jackson/Tolkien films is incredibly bloated and overindulgent, filled with multiple sub plots that create a relatively exhausting feeling. The new script for the penultimate movie was comprised with various new characters not mentioned in the original novel; this in my opinion created an unnecessary diversion to the traditional tale and therefore disrupted the enjoyment and naturalistic fluency of the story.
'The Desolation of Smaug' once again possesses amazing scenery of New Zealand intertwined with the story accompanied with an immersive soundtrack composed by Howard Shore, the direction of these films never seizes to amaze as the primary story line is perfectly encapsulated and terrific casting options provide a sentimental and emotional substance to this fantasy epic. The film has a thoroughly tedious opening act but as the film establishes the antagonists and setting, it propels into an intensified ambiance unparalleled by many other films. The riddle in the dark sequence with Gollum and Bilbo was commendably the most memorable scene in the entire unexpected journey film, yet unfortunately Martin Freeman was arguably underused in this film. Bilbo shared another memorably extended scene with his encounter with Smaug which was a beautiful use of CGI and fantastically voiced over by Benedict Cumberbatch, the scarily deep and loud tone sends shivers down your spine whilst Bilbo's witty flattery to survive against this beast is a terrifically entertaining combination.
The film tends to become host to some moronic and inane action sequences and experiences the occasional tasteless dialogue especially with the Elves and sub par delivery of key lines,it was rather disappointing from my perspective how the the characters had to continually rely on Legolas and Tauriel saving just in time and how these particular elves repetitively showed their skills monotonously. However the intended creative expansion on Bard the Bowman was impressive and Gollum not featuring in this movie was a somewhat substantial restraint given that Peter Jackson likes to connect and link all of his characters from his Middle Earth films. To witness the phenomenal spectacle Smaug makes up for the seemingly very long wait, despite his arguably disproportionate size in different shots it still compensates for the redundant sub- plots; for instance the love triangle between Kili, Tauriel and Legolas. I firmly believe that this tale would have been better as two, three hour movies rather than three, two and half movies. Problematic narrative flaws and raw characters wither the deep and passionate story of the dwarf's quest to Erebor.
Peter Jackson's latest journey to Middle Earth was to explore Smaug and introduce the audience to the battle of the five armies that will ensue in the final film. We find Thorin Oakenshield being thrusted into leading his merry gang of dwarf's to the Lonely Mountain as Gandalf intends to inspect the happenings of Dol Gulder. This film more notably than other Jackson/Tolkien films is incredibly bloated and overindulgent, filled with multiple sub plots that create a relatively exhausting feeling. The new script for the penultimate movie was comprised with various new characters not mentioned in the original novel; this in my opinion created an unnecessary diversion to the traditional tale and therefore disrupted the enjoyment and naturalistic fluency of the story.
'The Desolation of Smaug' once again possesses amazing scenery of New Zealand intertwined with the story accompanied with an immersive soundtrack composed by Howard Shore, the direction of these films never seizes to amaze as the primary story line is perfectly encapsulated and terrific casting options provide a sentimental and emotional substance to this fantasy epic. The film has a thoroughly tedious opening act but as the film establishes the antagonists and setting, it propels into an intensified ambiance unparalleled by many other films. The riddle in the dark sequence with Gollum and Bilbo was commendably the most memorable scene in the entire unexpected journey film, yet unfortunately Martin Freeman was arguably underused in this film. Bilbo shared another memorably extended scene with his encounter with Smaug which was a beautiful use of CGI and fantastically voiced over by Benedict Cumberbatch, the scarily deep and loud tone sends shivers down your spine whilst Bilbo's witty flattery to survive against this beast is a terrifically entertaining combination.
The film tends to become host to some moronic and inane action sequences and experiences the occasional tasteless dialogue especially with the Elves and sub par delivery of key lines,it was rather disappointing from my perspective how the the characters had to continually rely on Legolas and Tauriel saving just in time and how these particular elves repetitively showed their skills monotonously. However the intended creative expansion on Bard the Bowman was impressive and Gollum not featuring in this movie was a somewhat substantial restraint given that Peter Jackson likes to connect and link all of his characters from his Middle Earth films. To witness the phenomenal spectacle Smaug makes up for the seemingly very long wait, despite his arguably disproportionate size in different shots it still compensates for the redundant sub- plots; for instance the love triangle between Kili, Tauriel and Legolas. I firmly believe that this tale would have been better as two, three hour movies rather than three, two and half movies. Problematic narrative flaws and raw characters wither the deep and passionate story of the dwarf's quest to Erebor.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
