El hobbit: La desolación de Smaug

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.

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.

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is the standout film of The Hobbit trilogy.

Our beloved hero from the original Lord of the Rings franchise, Legolas, returns-this time joined by a new character, Tauriel. But the best new addition to the story is undoubtedly Bard the Bowman.

Everything about this movie works: the direction, cinematography, choreography, music and soundtrack, VFX and CGI, acting and casting, character development, story, writing, and dialogue-all were excellent.

I haven't read the book by J. R. R. Tolkien, so I can't compare it from a reader's perspective. But purely as a film, it's brilliant.

This movie has a faster pace compared to the first installment. The extended version was 3h 6min and not once did I feel bored while watching.

The cliffhanger ending was smooth and compelling. It didn't shock me, but it did make me pause and think-"Wait, did the movie really end right here?"

Overall, this is an excellent and engaging film that pushes the Hobbit trilogy forward with energy and style.

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

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.