Directed by:
Peter JacksonCinematography:
Andrew LesnieComposer:
Howard ShoreCast:
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Benedict Cumberbatch, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Richard Armitage, Graham McTavish, James Nesbitt, Ken Stott (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
The film continues the adventure of the title character Bilbo Baggins as he journeys with the Wizard Gandalf and thirteen Dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield, on an epic quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor. Having survived the beginning of their unexpected journey, the Company continues East, encountering along the way the skin-changer Beorn and a swarm of giant Spiders in the treacherous Mirkwood Forest. After escaping capture by the dangerous Woodland Elves, the Dwarves journey to Lake-town, and finally to the Lonely Mountain itself, where they must face the greatest danger of all — a creature more terrifying than any before, which will test not only the depth of their courage but the limits of their friendship and the wisdom of the journey itself — the Dragon Smaug. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Reviews (15)
You're watching the film and say to yourself that everything is absolutely fine, exactly as expected. It's grand, ambitious, and well made. However, this “demo” has a lot less emotion and lacks the fatefulness that "full version" has. The Lord of the Rings is much more mature and sophisticated in literature, and the same goes for the movies. So, technically, it's right, and yet I can't give it a full score. From the second part, you can feel the gloom and that the finale will be grand. Maybe they will succeed in that one.
()
To accuse Peter Jackson – as many here do – of getting too carried away and overwhelming us with attractions is to misunderstand his essence. The truth is that he hasn't changed at all since he was a young boy baking evil alien masks in his mother's oven for his feature debut. He’s a big child who loves movie effects and likes to impress with visual stunts that often go over the edge. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the overstuffed King Kong, and I’ve also enjoyed the overstuffed second Hobbit. It’s so visually sumptuous and rich that no other fantasy or fairytale movie of the last ten years can match it in this respect. It starts to make sense if you take the lukewarm first film as a launching pad of sorts for the massive second part. But at the same time, I warn you, if you are you looking for insightful ideas, eye-popping scenes, in short, that "humanly warm artistic experience", go elsewhere. If, on the contrary, you want Jackson off the chains and as his most exuberant self, you are in the right place.
()
Since the first part of The Hobbit trilogy was one long exposition, the second part doesn’t have to spend any time on introducing the main characters and explaining their motivations, so it is unconstrained in telling its story. The livelier and more focused (though again episodic) narrative lacks a satisfying conclusion. Instead of bringing at least some of the storylines to a close in the climax, The Desolation of Smaug ends with just another complication. ___ Smaug seems like an episode of an epic fantasy series or an RPG, but one played by someone else who definitely isn’t going to skip any cut-scenes. Like in role-playing games, we have before us a group of adventurers who gain new experience through encounters with increasingly powerful enemies and then ultimately come face-to-face with the ultimate boss (who, of course, can’t be killed in conventional combat). In retrospect, one gets the impression that the main objective of the narrative was always the confrontation with the dragon, because nothing else actually happens in the film. Though again long and never as clear as anything done by Spielberg (whose Tintin is brought to mind by the whitewater ride), the action sequences are not there solely for their own sake. Rather, they serve for developing the already known characters (Bilbo becomes a bigger hero and more dependent on the ring), for introducing (old-)new characters (Legolas, Tauriel) and for demonstrating the courage of young, uprooted and seemingly powerless peoples to stand up to a great enemy, which I believe was an important motif for Tolkien, given the era in which he wrote his books. ___ The creative rendering of Middle Earth is also like that of a video game, as CGI animation is used to a greater extent than the authentic New Zealand landscape. The bookish illustrations would have been captivating and I could have looked at them for tens of minutes, but when combined with live-action characters, the setting seems artificial. Not to mention the Orcs, which were apparently copied directly from action-adventure games like God of War (the ease with which the goblin warriors are decapitated would seem to correspond to their video-game origins). ___ The characters whom the protagonists encounter on their journey mostly serve to impart valuable information to the adventurers or provide asylum and weaponry. Take, for example, Beorn. Though he will most likely appear in The Battle of the Five Armies, he is used rather purposefully in The Desolation of Smaug. Conversely, the mayor of Esgaroth, attaining prosperity at the cost of his citizens’ freedom, comes across merely as a dubious attempt to update the narrative with allusions to the current corruption of politics. It is necessary to acknowledge that Jackson managed to justify the presence here of other characters (Azog, Radagast) on whom seemingly needless attention was focused in An Unexpected Journey. It similarly becomes apparent why we had to find out that Bilbo is good at riddles (discovery of the keyhole). ___ The motif of the lost home is weakened, as its bearers are more or less only dwarves, not Bilbo, who is newly obsessed mainly with his ring. I believe that we spent the first forty minutes of An Unexpected Journey in Hobbiton for the sake of the possibility to use the contrast between the Hobbit’s previous comfort and his current discomfort. What came to be the key motif was the egocentrism of whole peoples (elves) and individuals (Thorin) and greed personified by Smaug, which is by far the most well-written character of the entire film. ___ The Desolation of Smaug gains momentum as the linear narrative branches into two and then three storylines. Thanks to that, the final act is as dynamic as the sweeping action sequences in Nolan’s films (though Jackson cuts between individual action scenes with greater deliberation) and, at the same time, emotionally engaging because at least in Tauriel’s case, we do not know what fate awaits her (though because she is an elf, she cannot die). The proliferation of the final confrontations with evil testifies to Jackson’s concept of The Hobbit not as the adventure of a single hero, but as an “ensemble piece”. For a team-oriented action movie in which particularly the abilities of the individual characters and their contribution to the accomplishment of the mission(s) are important (see the exemplary cooperation between Bilbo and the dwarves in the climax), it is hard to criticise the film for its emotional coldness and indifference toward individual characters. At any rate, I don’t find it pleasing, as I believe that many of those involved would deserve a separate film. ___ From the perspective of satisfying storytelling, the doubly open-ended (i.e. without a beginning or an end) The Desolation of Smaug is far from being a useless film. Thanks to the logistically flawless introduction of new characters and changing settings, it holds our attention, but it doesn’t hold up as a stand-alone story. The Desolation of Smaug does a better job than the good-natured An Unexpected Journey of giving the impression that “something” sinister is in the air. At the same time, however, it doesn’t have enough material to fully tell a story and, though it looks like a lively action experience from the outside, it paradoxically spends most of its runtime just treading water. 75%
()
(less)
(more)
Well, the magic is gone. Thanks to its slower pace, the first Hobbit put me on a wave of nostalgia, but this one is just disappointing, with uninteresting characters that you never get to know anything about and a heap of awful digital mess that in a couple of scenes (e.g. Legolas jumping on the heads of the dwarves) reminded me of the infamous car chase in the jungle of the fourth Indiana Jones. Gandalf’s search is utterly pointless, Legolas is an ornament, the love story between Kate from Lost and the second (and also the last) recognisable dwarf out of thirteen (defined with the word “annoyed”) is stupid and, on top of that, the wanderings of the party of dwarves and Bilbo pulled me into a deep confused astonishment (to send a Hobbit into a mountain to dig into drifts of gold and find some kind of powerful stone that could be anywhere, hoping the dragon won’t wake up, it’s a really great plan that may be fine for a children fairy-tale, like the book, but in a movie that wants to be dark fantasy feels out of place, at the very least). Also, there‘s no proper story or dramatic arc (the first one worked with Bilbo being accepted into the group and gaining the trust of the dwarves), so if the plot of the first part could be summarised, with some exaggeration, with “they left”, here “they arrived” is enough without any exaggeration; and with the impression that in the third “they will be there for awhile”. Jackson still has a firm hand, but my disappointment won’t let me give more than two stars to a film that terribly bored me with its barrage of digital gimmicks.
()
It’s a whole class better than the first film. Jackson tames mostly himself, puts together a somewhat coherent plot, albeit with a slight aftertaste of forced intermezzo, and above all gives credit to the winged lizard. The dragon has no equal in the ring of digital monsters and thus irons out, in the end, the embarrassing impressions of otherwise rather dull (Beorn) and completely useless (Tauriel) characters.
()
So of course I went to see the Hobbit in the cinema, the very next day after it premiered. I don’t give a damn that I almost didn’t get up for work the next morning, because the film was three hours long, plus another half an hour of commercials and trailers, as well as a 15-minute break in the middle of the film. But I still have to say that I enjoyed much more than anything in a long time. The first Hobbit was kind of bland. Peter Jackson spent an hour and a half fooling around in Rivendell and the movie was over before it truly began. The second instalment, however, has some balls. In places, it reminded me of the second Lord of the Rings, where the majority of the movie took place during the Battle of Helm’s Deep. I must say Peter Jackson made some of the scenes with so much genius that they were beyond reproach. The barrel scene, for instance, will become an example that will teach young directors how to shoot their scenes in a dynamic fashion. I have never seen such a funny and at the same time action-packed and effective scene and I don’t know if I’ll ever see it again. Add in the amazing setting, amazing characters all of whom have their place in the story (and why wouldn’t they, when the entire Hobbit trilogy will run over nine hours) and above all Middle-earth! The same Middle-earth to which I return every time my imagination starts to fail me. It was a gorgeous, incredible experience. And I’m glad that this film addresses the issue of whether an elven girl should talk to a dwarf boy and whether they should or even could become friends. Such an issue lies at the core of all fantasy worlds, and whenever there is someone willing to address it, the only thing to be said is that such is the world we live in. This movie is so charming that I don’t know if I’m even able to wait a whole year for the next one. It ended so abruptly that I wasn’t able to get over it even a week later.
()
I will no longer cry over spilled milk, i.e., that the division into three films does not make sense (but it still doesn't). For the first few tens of minutes, a digital cup of part one spreads across the screen with a sunset / sunrise sprouted behind it. I remember with love the times when Middle-earth was more material and objective for me than the digital figures of orcs and the magnificent play of colors. Jackson stuffs wherever he can. I hope he grows antlers for the elven travesty show. Tauriel is beautiful and annoying, Legolas seems half a century older than in The Lord of the Rings and because he can't be the more casual athlete who actually likes dwarves, he pretends to be a shepherd whose flock of sheep has been sodomized (hello Znojmo) and his contribution lies in spiral choreographies (which is really annoying at the end). For me, the second film is divided by the scene with the barrels. The liquid action voyage is divine, and with the arrival of Bard and Esgaroth, I once again get the feeling that I want to be a part of The Hobbit and engage in it in some way other than just by staring at it. The conflict between the demonically blooming Thorin and the charismatic rioter Bard has an old nobility, and the disgusting sub-grave bourgeois mayor returns to The Hobbit a piece of overlap and humorous theater. Suddenly there is something to discover and something to be surprised and amused by ("why are dwarves crawling out of the toilets?"). The feeling that I was really looking forward to the three-leafed narrative lines intersecting in the grand action finale at the end gradually left me. Smaug is interrupted by a sad love-funeral episode with Kili, and I can't say that I would enjoy watching the stretched part of Kahan's melter in the Misty Mountain. In addition, the final triple cliffhanger is pretty cheap and ruined my assumption that the second film is better structured than the first. So, just like last time. This time even closer to four stars, but given those disappointed expectations... no. No way. Edit after the second watch: Ok, fine.
()
Deelicious. It’s not a question of whether the second Hobbit is better or worse than part one; it is completely different and no longer resembles either the first movie or the book it’s based on. And whether or not it is any good is a matter of opinion, the same as the fact that part two is more like Jackson’s King Kong, set in Middle Earth, but unlike that movie, here the characters aren’t forgotten due to the impressive and frequent action. On the one hand, the fact that if THIS is what an artificially drawn out (things from the appendices like Gandalf’s journey and the origin of the burning eye are excellent; the newly thought up ones like inter-species romance are terrible) and shaken up money factory that, as the middle of a trilogy, shouldn’t have a beginning or an end (which true, it doesn’t, but there could have been if they had chosen a better place to split it up), looks like, then... Go on and bring us more like it, because it is definitely great entertainment, full of action, ideas and large-format movie magic. However, despite its fatefulness and action content, it is cold as a dog’s nose (the only action not dominated by playful escapades and where it’s important and the opponents “sweat blood" is Gandalf versus Sauron). Not even a team headed by Sherlock could find any hint of emotion here. And despite all its epic spectacular-ness, as in part one the climax is a simple discourse between a hobbit and a CGI character. Unfortunately this makes it even more unpleasant that Bilbo as such is so often utterly sidelined for extended periods. Which best symbolizes the problem of the second Hobbit; while for The Lord of the Rings the foundations to which Peter is laying here, Bilbo is irrelevant, so for the “Hobbit" which this is an adaptation of (whether Jackson likes it or not), Bilbo is essential. It’s the same with the Extended Edition as with The Two Towers; while being considerably longer, it is much more compact, tighter, faster moving and paradoxically feels shorter. Most of the new or extended scenes aren’t just a mandatory offering for the most loyal fans or a cute, completely unimportant extension of something seen already, but they become absolutely component to the story, giving greater depth to it and to the characters. Beorn, Mirkwood, Lake-town and the Gandalf storyline receive the greatest benefit. And some are so fundamental (and good) that you will be asking yourself why on earth they were replaced by something else in the movie theater version.
()
It left the world and took its flight / over the wide seas of the night. / The moon set sail upon the gale, / and stars were fanned to leaping light. Favorite scenes from the book elevated to adrenaline peaks, incredibly functional new characters, and references from other Tolkien works finally depicted in a way that we don't have to grasp for every footnote. And when I was afraid that the tempo might suffer with the arrival at Esgaroth, I didn't realize I would receive such a hearty dose of Smaug that would surpass everything and make The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug the film of the year again. Okay, I'm lying, I did suspect the last part. And I had missed that atmosphere of fantasy, adventure, and this time even real fear and courage much more throughout the year than I was willing to admit.
()
Tasted good. A mountain of gold and a dragon to boot, who wouldn’t like it? The second part of the story unfolds in a more lively and considerably darker tempo. Jackson enjoys his freedom and introduces a new storyline (that he could have easily left out) bringing minor items of news for those who have read the book, too. Comely Tauriel with the face of Evangeline Lilly has one of the most beautiful theme tunes that Shore has ever composed. Bilbo and his gang tumble through one disaster to the next, most impressively the confrontation with the bug, the barrel ride and the final encounter with the lord beneath the mountain. This year, Cumberbatch appears in negative roles (and this is the most powerful of them). I was delighted by Smaug’s dwelling which exceeded my expectations, like the dragon itself. The playful conversation, the action. Only interrupted by Gandalf’s preparations for the finale, but only very slightly. Really effective, accepting that it’s slightly drawn out. The ending provoked disgruntled silence, mumbling and finally “You must be joking!", but honestly they couldn’t have cut it short at a better moment. Next year all it’ll all work out I suspect that episode 3 is going to be a real massacre.
()
I'm excited in a similar way as I was for the first Hobbit, that is, with some reservations that will probably be fixed by further viewings and the extended version (I expect more Beorn, more Lake-town, more Tauriel and Kili, and maybe even Thrain). The prologue is very good, Mirkwood is even better, the scene with the barrels is an absolute highlight, typical Jackson action, which the first one actually lacked (the escape from the underground can't be compared to it) and which makes you think that Bombur is a badass (literally). You can really see that Lake-town is waiting to be expanded (Stephen Fry deserves it), Dol Guldur is riveting... And then it was Smaug, Smaug and more Smaug. A cool little dragon that looks like the older and meaner brother of Draco from Dragonheart. The ending is sensational. The year-long wait for the full ending will be very long. Four and a half.___P.S. Howard Shore is the man to beat, and whoever missed new themes in the first Hobbit, unless they are an elven hypocrite, must be squealing with glee this time.___P.P.S. The extended version is better again, not only thanks to the added fun scenes (meeting Beorn, more wandering through Mirkwood, Stephen Fry's snack), but above all - finally - thanks to Thrain! A fifth star added.
()
Basically, I agree with most of the negative reviews of this series. After the visually and narratively perfect LoTR, The Hobbit looks like a massive sand castle that crumbles under its own weight. I’m speaking about the second one now, which lacks a tangible cliffhanger and dilutes the pace with elements that are either forced (the romance with Tauriel) or nostalgic (the excessively serious Legolas). Mostly, though, it wants to deliver too many epic scenes, which makes it feel contrived at times – something I can forgive only because Jackson is still fun, can pump addictive energy even in the most excessively stretched story and knows how to stage the climactic scenes in such a bombastic way that you can watch them over and over again until you go mental. I writhed impatiently during the visit to Laketwon, but I was richly rewarded with the entrance of the charismatic Smaug, whose company can unleash popcorn orgies. The second Hobbit is still great as a hero’s ballad about a pilgrimage to a huge treasure guarded by a majestic creature, but it’s considerably worse as a story of the legendary Middle-Earth that also maps the rise of the greatest villain in film history. Less is more, period.
()
When you have a trilogy, or rather one book split into three films, the middle section always has the thankless function of tying the beginning and the end together, so it's rare for this story to be as engaging, dynamic and attractive as the sections that hug it from both sides. Without a doubt, The Desolation of Smaug is a beautiful and epic audio-visual spectacle with an unforgettable score that is a joy to watch, because as far as the technical aspects are concerned, as well as the make-up and costumes, the filmmakers have done a decent job. However, as I said before, the second part lacks something compared to the first part that made me watch the screen all the time without distraction. The most impressive parts of the whole film for me were all the scenes with Smaug (Cumberbatch's voice is truly breathtaking), with Gandalf in Dol Guldur (especially the fight with Sauron) and from Thranduil's kingdom (Lee Pace gives the elves a whole new dimension). The fact that they added Tauriel the elf didn't bother me, as I hadn't read the book, and it was probably to balance the genre spectrum with some sort of romantic storyline, but I didn't find the character of Legolas likeable in the LOTR trilogy either, and that hasn't changed here. In short, a film that should absolutely be seen on the big screen, because only then can its qualities be fully appreciated, even if it was still lacking something to perfection.
()
When I returned from the movie theater, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about the movie I had seen. However, it gradually settled in my mind, and I realized that this is currently among the best we can get on the big screen. Compared to the epic failure that is Pacific Rim, this is great both in terms of acting and writing. The created world is beautiful, and I think even fans of Tolkien's world will be satisfied. It annoys me that such a small book is split into so many movies, but on the other hand, at least there's something to look forward to, even a year from now.
()
Total disenchantment and a return back to reality. Tolkien deserves better. I'm not entirely sure what went wrong. The feeling of nostalgia after The Lord of the Rings which was still strong when watching the first part of The Hobbit is definitely gone, and instead came the biggest disappointment I've ever experienced at the movie theatre. Where is the breathtaking New Zealand scenery and the absolutely brilliant music from the first installment? What you get instead are garish green screen “pictures” (I felt the same way about The Lone Ranger). The music, after the bar was set so high by previous Tolkien films, is below average. When it was announced that The Hobbit would be a trilogy, it was clear that the exaggerated length would necessarily have some negative consequences. But the fact that out of the 161 minutes, over 140 is just pointless filler, considerably threw me off. And I'm a Jackson fan. I would have loved to evaluate the acting performances if there were any, but they are barely noticeable in all that CGI nonsense. Freeman is brilliant as usual and the scenes that are focused on him are the best of the whole movie. Unfortunately there are few of them. I hate to say it, but Legolas as a killing machine - unnecessary. The scenes featuring Tauriel (presented as an emancipated elf, which I don’t think makes much sense) were simply excruciating. The bond formed between Bilbo and the dwarves in the first part somehow disappeared, and it’s back to square one. The character of Beorn, the spider massacre and Gandalf’s journey, all of that is superfluous. It breaks my heart to say this, but this movie is a total disaster.
()