The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The dwarves, along with Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Grey, continue their quest to reclaim Erebor, their homeland, from Smaug. Bilbo Baggins is in possession of a mysterious and magical ring. (imdb)
Cast and Information
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Written By: Guillermo del Toro, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens
Starring: Stephen Fry, Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Orlando Bloom, Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner, Evangeline Lilly, Manu Bennett
Genres: Drama, Fantasy, Action, Adventure
Franchise: The Lord of the Rings
Country: New Zealand, USA
Where to Stream
Loading...
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug belongs to 53 collections
1. IMDB Top 250 (public: moderated by ppinocchio - 120 stars)
2. AAA: Empire's five star movies (public: moderated by KasperL - 24 stars)
3. IMDb Top 250 Complete (public: moderated by Jorg - 23 stars)
4. Films available in HD (public: moderated by kubricksucks - 13 stars)
5. Sword and Sorcery (public: moderated by jeff_h - 13 stars)
6. #1 at the US Box Office (public: moderated by BeeDub - 10 stars)
7. Sequel (public: moderated by td888 - 9 stars)
8. Based On Novel (public: moderated by tathiel - 7 stars)
9. 86th Academy Awards: Nominated (public: moderated by ceseth - 6 stars)
10. List: Empire's 301 Greatest Movies of All Time (public: moderated by KasperL - 5 stars)
11. Magic (public: moderated by Moribunny - 4 stars)
12. Trilogy (public: moderated by frederic_g54 - 3 stars)
13. Worldwide box office over $500,000,000 (public: moderated by djross - 3 stars)
14. Lord Of The Rings (public: moderated by td888 - 2 stars)
15. Howard Shore (composer) (public: moderated by djross - 2 stars)
16. Dragons (public - 2 stars)
17. Worldwide box office top 100 (public: moderated by djross - 2 stars)
18. Cinema Sins (public: moderated by Phantom Nook - 2 stars)
19. Treasure (public: moderated by td888 - 1 star)
20. Prequel (public: moderated by djross - 1 star)
21. Worldwide box office over $750,000,000 (public: moderated by djross - 1 star)
22. Stuart Wellington Recommends (public: moderated by lexwhitfield - 1 star)
23. film puanlamalarım (public - 1 star)
24. Netflix instant LATAM (public: moderated by Roman_Herbom - 1 star)
25. Subgenre: High Fantasyfantastical events in a fantastical world (public: moderated by tipar - 1 star)
26. 4k Ultra HD discs (public: moderated by dumbjaw - 1 star)
27. Jackson's Tolkien (public: moderated by djross)
28. Wishlist (public)
29. Top-grossing films in each country (2007-2014) (public: moderated by juandr)
30. MTV Movie Award for Best Fight (public: moderated by Ag0stoMesmer)
31. Filmed simultaneously/back-to-back (public: moderated by iconogassed)
32. New Line Cinema (public: moderated by elhenzo)
33. Top 3000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 5 stars)
34. Best by different standards (private: sesito71 - 5 stars)
35. Top 1000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 3 stars)
36. Top 2000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 2 stars)
37. Top AlloCiné (private: sianaa - 1 star)
38. Annual top 5 worldwide box office, 1975 - 2021 (private: djross - 1 star)
39. Movies I've Seen In Theaters (private: SirStuckey)
40. New Releases 2013 (private: fartblaster)
41. Owned (private: ribcage)
42. Seen in Theater (private: virtualbub)
43. My Movies (private: Thilerion)
44. Force molly to watch these. (private: nauru)
45. YTS Good Films (private: normalman)
46. saw in theater (private: ribcage)
47. Complete Theatrical Watchlist (private: SageSledge)
48. Family Bluray Collection (private: SageSledge)
49. Seen, Not Rated (private: SageSledge)
50. Seen, but never ranked (private: gnofs)
51. Laptop (private: Jason212)
52. Owned on physical (private: Neowulf)
53. Middle-Earth (private: LibraLynx98)
Browse the full list of collections
| Stars | User | Rating | |
| 21 |  |
frederic_g54 | 5 21% |
|
Jackson continues to ride the coattails of the LOTR with another mind-numbing installment, only this time around, orcs have been replaced by cheap CGI orcs, Legolas by shiny Legolas and Gandalf by a potato. Gone are the stirring adventures, once associated with pictorial grandeur and unprecedented imagination. What remains is a shameless exploitation of Tolkien's beloved world, an opportunity for a bunch of uncharismatic actors to add the name of a multi-billion dollar franchise to their résume
|
|||
| 14 |  |
KramYessev | 68 51% |
|
Shot on location in New Zealand's most picturesque green screens.
|
|||
| 12 |  |
ewp805 | 85 85% |
|
Smaug! Barrels! Like the first, but with more memorable sequences. More action. Awesome getting to see some classic characters like Beorn and Bard on the big screen, but then Legolas shows up outta nowhere to ham it up. I definitely have some qualms over both the use of and quality of the CGI at times. Smaug looked fantastic, but some of the shots of orcs and horses looked like crap. Nonethelss, I've come to accept my blinded fanboyism and love the fuck out of this shit. Shoot me.
|
|||
| 12 |  |
mwgerb | 57 59% |
|
The action set-pieces are definitely ambitious and fun, and seeing a bold brave Bilbo as the protagonist is definitely an improvement (over the last movie AND over Frodo). But it may be the weakest entry in the Lord of the Rings double trilogy so far. The inability of any dwarf to die becomes absurd, the love story is unnecessary, and the fact that we're left on a cliff-hanger is lame: it's becoming increasingly obvious that Jackson didn't need 8 hours to tell this story.
|
|||
| 11 |  |
MArkjp | 45 21% |
|
I remember as a kid I read somewhere that you could triple the size of gummi bears by submerging them in water over night. Naturally I was excited to try this. Unfortunately the article did not mention that the actual content wouldn't increase and the amount of flavor would stay the same, leaving me with a gigantic, bloated gummi bear that tasted of nearly nothing. I've learned my lesson. Jackson apparently, has not.
|
|||
| 10 |  |
BeeDub | 78 39% |
|
Only *somewhat* better than An Unexpected Journey, a movie that should have been pretty easy to improve upon. With the exposition out of the way, this middle chapter has no excuse for being so inert and unengaging. It's clear that we've embarked on a very long road trip with the wrong group of traveling companions.
|
|||
| 10 |  |
Vdecraim | 60 24% |
|
The Hobbit's second installment is a horrid fiasco that distances itself even further from the epic adventure that is LOTR. In true soap-fashion, all we see is a set of 1D-characters plunging into one stupid situation after another. Little to no development, no redeeming factors in both script and direction. Even the visuals are suffocated by CGI, with little to no room for the world of middle-earth to breathe. The film should be, both substantive and technically, renamed the disaster of Smaug.
|
|||
| 9 |  |
Leonardis | 87 55% |
|
Desolation of Smaug is a far more superior sequel to the trilogy and it's very entertaining despite the usual long length. I do like some of the acting and what really makes this better than the first is the humor, some ridiculousness in the fighting, and the CGI. Nice set design and it is still well made from a directors perspective. It is also closer to the book than Unexpected Journey or Battle of Five Armies. Very entertaining.
|
|||
| 7 |  |
omgfridge | 4 34% |
|
Two good scenes, pugs and Smaug looks cool. That is it. Rest sucks and Jesus - the elf and dwarf love interest subplot, just shoot me.
|
|||
| 6 |  |
d_r_e_s_ | 4 90% |
|
Without having read the book, an therefore having no clue to what the last installment will unfold, this movie have confirmed my thougts, on how this adventure survives us critical viewers. I really don't believe this story would have won our hearts, had it not been for the LOTR movies. Thank God for giving us those, because I am truly in love with this universe. This movie is more entertaining than the first one, and has more depth in almost every aspect. - Very Good.
|
|||
| 6 |  |
KasperL | 75 77% |
|
I like its predecessor well enough but with better pacing and some really entertaining set pieces (barrels bonanza!), there are more fun to be had with this. The performances are very good. Selling this sort of dialogue takes the right actors. So I recommend that the casting crew be awarded with a Special Achievement Oscar. I mean, Evangeline Lilly as an elf warrior... I rest my case.
|
|||
| 5 |  |
Derekstar | 40 19% |
|
Okay. Enough. I can't do it. The Hobbit was a fundamental book in my early development, and one of my favourite books of all time. At this point I don't even care if I see the third movie. The first frame of this film is unnecessary non-canonical crap, and it only continues from there. Somewhere between the CGI barrel riding and the CGI dragon battle, I got complete "I don't give a shit about your fake cartoon battle scenes" fatigue. Like, on a level up there with the Star Wars prequels.
|
|||
| 4 |  |
Ytadel | 5 57% |
|
As an adaptation of the J.R.R. Tolkien novel The Hobbit, it's a joke. I'm not one of those psycho fans who flips out at every change - I liked most of the changes in the LotR trilogy - but this just isn't Tolkien's story. It's Jackson's. That said, Jackson's story does offer some fun visuals and set pieces to a fantasy nerd such as myself. Lake Town in particular is a wonderfully-realized fantasy locale. The final Smaug action scene goes on wayyy too long though.
|
|||
| 4 |  |
Cinema_Asia | 70 56% |
|
The first Hobbit was more about character building. While this was straight up LOTR: The Disneyland ride. You see dwarves in barrels, to boats, to pulley swings. It's as if P.J. is cynically setting up the franchise for a LOTR theme park attraction. Despite all that it's still ok. Legolas gets cock blocked by a dwarf. Smaug can't kill pesky dwarves. The optimal way to view this trilogy will probably be as a nerd marathon since each installment seems to not stand on its own that well.
|
|||
| 4 |  |
FrederikA | 75 77% |
|
Where the scope of LOTR gave little room to play around, there is plenty of time here (now they turned it into a trilogy) to tweak and twist and add new layers. It may have felt a bit confused and random in the first installment, but in this one it sure pays off. Between orc carnage, barrel river rafting, Gandalf's side-quest and the brilliant dragon fight, this is no longer a fairytale for small kids. It's a bona fide epic adventure.
|
|||
| 4 |  |
Rufam | 55 21% |
|
Jackson sadly fails to recreate the "Lord" magic; this feels, for the most part, like a pretty standard action fairytale, alternating between moments of some entertainment value (the silly barrel sequence!) and stretches of mild dullness (though never entering 'tedium' territory). One never gets the feeling that there are any real stakes (the 'horrific' Smaug seems unable to set even a Dwarf eyebrow on fire) and much of the sense of wonder that permeated the "Lord" series is muted here.
|
|||
| 4 |  |
terrymac | 69 54% |
|
There is a lot of padding here. I wonder how effective a straight take on the novel might have been? The film looks stunning; the dragon scenes in particular were wonderfully realised. Freeman's performance was great, and the development of Bilbo's character was handled very well. The shifts between po-faced exposition and crazy action scenes made the tone a bit uneven, and the subplots felt a bit shoehorned in. This is still a good, if bloated, experience, and I look forward to the finale.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
XakkMaster | 84 73% |
|
A step up from part 1; a terrific action film with tremendous sets & a quick pace, despite the long run time. Though the Hobbit trilogy will never pack the emotional punch or the terrific story of the LOTR saga, it's still a blast stepping foot into this world. Jackson's direction is always sharp, the battle choreography is inspired and Bilbo shines brightly. This chapter likely contains the most memorable and exciting scenes from the book and Smaug's reveal was breathtaking. Best dragon ever.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
dylanwilson6 | 80 80% |
|
I love returning to middle earth. This was definitely a more fast paced movie compared to an Unexpected Journey. It's a great movie but the problem that still lingers is that it's still a much less interesting story than the Lord of the Rings. Everyone is great in their roles, but the stakes are less and you don't feel as connected to the characters. Also did the orcs learn English between this movie and fellowship?
|
|||
| 3 |  |
TangVampire | 95 79% |
|
While The Hobbit films will never be as close to my heart as The Lord of the Rings films are, I just have to say... SMAUG. SMAAAAUG *heart*
|
|||
| 3 |  |
ratedargh | 50 21% |
|
That certainly was an hour and a half of story stretched damn near to three hours. The Smaug stuff and much of the design were excellent, as was Martin Freeman throughout. But so much could be trimmed. Maybe the final installment will fill in the blanks and render it all worthy as a whole, but it doesn't entirely stand on its own. 2nd viewing has rendered it into something much worse and ineffective than initially thought. Lot of cracks show and it was not nearly as enjoyable.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
Wezzo | 50 4% |
|
New year, new chapter in a long, overblown adaptation. My rant about HFR from last year still applies; it still leaves proceedings looking frustratingly artificial and oddly unappealing. But there are other problems too. It's bloated and messy. I'm no Middle Earth aficionado, so my opinion matters little, but I will say this: it didn't have to be like this, Peter Jackson.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
Okkervil | 80 83% |
|
Even though Jackson is drifting further away from the Tolkien & the source material it can't be denied that jumping back into Jackson's Middle-earth is as welcome as a comfy pair of slippers. It all feels very familiar, but in a most satisfying way. I barely felt the runtime, even less so than the previous instalment, & with several great set pieces this is far too much fun for me to join the grumpy naysayers on a downer over this film. Once again it's beautifully performed & scored also.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
Nroo | 51 19% |
|
It's a slight "improvement" over the dirge that was Part One, mostly due to Pace killing it as Legolas's Gay Anime Dad. The film unexpectedly jumps to life when Smaug appears; like with Gollum, they keep most of the witty and fun dialogue from the book and the effects for Smaug are incredible. Then 10 min later we're back to slapstick set-pieces removing all the momentum and any sense of danger. And Jesus Christ, nobody on planet Earth gives a FUCK about Laketown's politics.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
Barthalen | 60 38% |
|
Uneven, and somehow missing the heart that the first part had. Now we're mostly watching characters we don't really care about walk, run, get lost, be ineffective at combat and accomplish ridiculously little. Most of the action scenes go on way too long and Smaug gets tiresome after 2 minutes. However, it worked pretty well as a fantasy escape from the drudgery of reality.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
sophie | 65 47% |
|
The second part of "I don't get why they make three movies out of one book". Sure, enjoyable but elves jumping on barrels filled with dwarves? Not necessary and not cool enough to bear with it.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
AAAutin | 48 43% |
|
About as much excitement as one could expect from a film with the word "desolation" in its title...
|
|||
| 3 |  |
joseywales | 82 89% |
|
There were a few things I didn't like (CGI orcs, Shore's increasingly tepid scores, Barrel Bowling with Bombur, short time given to Beorn and the spiders) but I loved everything else!
|
|||
| 3 | RedBarDragon | 50 18% |
|
|
I love JRR Tolkien. BUT this is a letdown. Unlike the "original" LOTR trilogy, the new movies seem to rely heavily on CGI tricks. When I watch the original movies I always say the trolls look silly now, but the rest is great. I believe this movie will grow old rather quickly. The main problem is its plot. There are too many scenes that seem "recycled" rather than an homage to its predecessors. The movie is dark rather than a fairy tale original. The heroes are walking cliches...
|
|||
| 3 |  |
immolations | 20 18% |
|
There is no sense of triumph when they reach Erebor. There is no sense of what they have overcome to get there, partly because you have seen the characters overcome adversity and near impossible situations again and again. This occurs in way too many settings, with too many characters jumping in and out to actually have anything resembling development. I really liked the first film but a clear lack of pacing and overarching narrative hurts this film.
|
|||
| 3 |  |
TheDenizen | 70 63% |
|
Most of this was just fine, all of the same high technical quality that we've come to expect from Jackson's Tolkien films....although the added Tauriel character was a totally embarrassing waste of screen time. While the eventual full reveal of Smaug was pretty cool, it didn't have quite enough punch to serve as the climax of the film that it clearly wanted to be. Enjoyed the ride (spiders, barrels etc), hated the point at which they chose to end it. Bring on part 3 already.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Wiche | 84 87% |
|
Where the first Hobbit lacked some depth and the entire story about Azog and the Necromancer felt somewhat dragged into the plot just to have more of a link to Lord of the Rings, this film scored some good points on both aspects. This film is deeper and the story (and the birth) of Sauron really gave something extra. Too bad Jackson made some of the fighting scenes just plain ridiculous (remember the barrel hitting the orcs) and Smaug a complete nitwit (where in the book he is truly majestic)
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Gideon | 2 59% |
|
I wonder what Randal Graves would have to say about this 'trilogy'
|
|||
| 2 |  |
nilkynarfy | 55 40% |
|
All the padding of the first one, but with more spinning around with swords. The barrel scene confused me. When did they want me to press the square button again?
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Trooth | 54 22% |
|
Although the first movie might have stretched the material thin with overlong action scenes and added material from other books... The second movie not only does those things, but removes some great scenes (i.e. pretty much everything with Beorn) and adds new plot lines and other elements that nobody asked for. Like the love triangle between Legolas, Random Girl Elf, and Random Dwarf that adds nothing to the story but a little more tedium.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Bojangles | 25 8% |
|
This seems like as good an opportunity as any to laugh at the folks who claimed a decade ago that CGI is "just another tool" and won't be overused. I could've used this obvious observation for any movie, but this one was just boring enough that I have nothing much else to say. Boring visuals. NO genuine emotion. Decent voiceacting? *question mark*
|
|||
| 2 |  |
VinegarBob | 10 6% |
|
Wander wander, fight fight. Rinse and repeat. God I'm so utterly bored with this franchise.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
overrated | 31 22% |
|
There's more action in this than UJ but it's the same repetitive, Disneyfied bumbling action where no-one's getting hurt. Part of the reason why people hold up LOTR in high regard is that characters we care about die (or we believe they do) so there's some kind of emotional stake and suspense involved. The only things making this passable are your nostalgia for the original films and Smaug. Even McKellen seemed like he was just going through the motions. p.s. Tron-Legolas was creepy.
|
|||
| 2 | klea | 31 18% |
|
|
This is, objectively speaking, a straight up bad movie
|
|||
| 2 | Launch | 75 60% |
|
|
I have some serious issues with this film. Firstly, the elf/dwarf romance is cringe worthy. Secondly, the only reasons orcs are in the movie is so elves can be put in to stop them, there's literally no fucking reason for any of that. Thirdly, when the dwarves are essentially playing tag with Smaug it was infuriating, I mean fuck Smaug wiped out the entire dwarven civilization, but can't catch a few dwarves? All this being said the score is still respectable because Smaug was that awesome.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Zio | 30 18% |
|
Tedious sums up The Desolation of Smaug. Most of this stems from a film that is structurally poor. Even though it is the middle arc and has the job of linking the bookending films, the film itself still needs a narrative arc to keep interest. Unfortunately, there is no arc. And it isn't even a prologue to the final film until the last 30 minutes. That leaves 2 hours of meandering through bloated action sequences, forced romance, and special effects. Oh, and not to mention Shore's terrible score.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Tjekhov | 50 40% |
|
It is a couple of inches better than the first installment, but without any real sense of psychological evolvement (in the first one Bilbo goes from being a to being b(one could argue that the character who evolves the most is Thorin, but he's not really the main character, is he?)). Here we only have the journey (the same one as the first one) to fulfill the basic need for causality. So basically it's just dwarfs going at it for almost 3 hours. I liked Smaug, though.
|
|||
| 2 | jthusky | 68 51% |
|
|
Felt like the first one with higher highs. Great action sequences serve as bookends to the acts, though too much time is wasted on what amounts to professional fan fiction - though I haven't read the book, I could tell what was and was not taken from it.
On the bright side, Bilbo Bilbowned in this one. Martin Freeman was great.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Superargo | 63 50% |
|
Lots of walking. Lots of climbing. Lots of talking about walking and climbing. Lots more talking. Then everybody meets Smaug the dragon, and even he won't shut the fuck up. There's one terrific action sequence--the one with the barrels and the water and the orcs--and fuck yeah Evangline Lilly. Aside from that, though, this is honestly a bit of an endurance test.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
glumpy_99 | 52 11% |
|
Tired (and tiring) continuation feels like an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink rough cut; there's a snappy 90 minutes of good material here, needlessly and endlessly padded out. Highlighted by some fine action set pieces (the spider attack is genuinely gruesomely well-staged and exciting) and a cast of likable performers, but this wears out its welcome long before the home stretch.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
hellboy76 | 71 84% |
|
To say the series has not lived up to LOTR is obvious, but also missing the point. I see this as a companion piece, and a well made one at that. It is mostly faithful to the books (some gratuitous characterization and cartoonish fighting aside) and Smaug is amazing. I look forward to the third.
|
|||
| 2 | donquixotic | 50 32% |
|
|
So much hokey tosh in an over-long frequently tedious fantasy adventure that would benefit from being cut in half and having half the budget.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Actionberg | 30 7% |
|
An Unexpected Journey miraculously held itself together with all its indulgences where this film does not. The reality that there just isn't that much to this story starts to bleed through in this fashioned "second act" of sorts. The bloated running time is not justified by Dwarf #6's fatuous romance or Mayor Stephen Fry. When the actual adventure is afoot, it's as engrossing as ever, but it's surrounded by so much pointless pap that it never stops feeling like a slog.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
progre2 | 32 8% |
|
I could forgive The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for being slow and long and full of fillers, because it was a prequel (supposedly). But this ... this is just Jackson jizzing all over the CGI budget and nothing else at all.
Fillers! Fillers everywhere!
|
|||
| 2 |  |
sheepslasher | 2 31% |
|
I regret originally scoring this higher than the first one.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
eCitizen | 91 90% |
|
Very high production quality. Engaging and entertaining. This was lively and fun to watch, and while there are excessive special effects, it's well done and works. The story arch seemed a bit schizophrenic at times especially regarding the dwarf king. I didn't like the dragon or the orcs. The adventure was quite engaging. Worth watching, even for a second time. There is much to like, and it's a satisfying adventure. Evangeline Lilly & Kate Blanchett were gorgeous. Overall awesome cast.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
TheRealJ-Ro | 90 93% |
|
Given my rating system I struggled with whether this was a high 85 or a low 90, and that takes into account that the first half-hour of the movie I really wasn't feeling. But on the whole, this felt much more akin to the original trilogy in quality, tone and performance. There were certainly hammy moments (the dwarven fight scene with the barrels was almost cringe-worthy it was so hammy). The reveal of Sauron was badass, Smaug's design is great, and the sequel definitely surpasses the first.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
o_rety | 80 69% |
|
It wasn't that bad. Actually, it was quite good. For sure better than the previous one. I'd prefer something more contained, focused and less dazzling. But, if I have to be dazzled, I have to admit they did it to me competently. And I doubt there is anyone who'd argue that Smaug and Gandalf's Dol Guldur scene aren't a treat.
|
|||
| 2 | jfsj513 | 80 82% |
|
|
The spiders were cool. Smaug was awesome. Legolas didn't bother me nearly as much as I expected. The Sauron subplot is kind of interesting, and any footage with Gandalf is enjoyable anyway. My main criticisms would be that the love triangle is really forced and doesn't really matter since Legolas isn't with Tauriel in the LOTR trilogy, and I prefer the grittier visuals of the original trilogy. The Hobbit's got more of a fantasy look, whereas LOTR seemed rugged and more believable.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
LookJabba... | 8 76% |
|
The Desolation Of Smaug is the second instalment in Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. This sequel doesn't suffer from the pacing issues of the first film. From the opening to the climax, the action never seems to slow or tire. The visuals and set pieces are even more impressive than first time round and the scale and spectacle makes for a stunning experience. The retuning cast is great and their are several welcome additions too. I thoroughly enjoyed Smaug in particular. All in all a solid sequel.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Tony Irwin | 30 28% |
|
The film has the aesthetic of a teenage boy: squelchy violence, funny decapitations and we're even treated to a dick joke. The scenes are one note - either heroic, maudlin or spooky, and the music never quits telling us which. Jackson has one great gift - compositing fantastic images for us to gaze at, but he shouldn't be writing drama or getting his wife and her best chum to write it. It's a meaningless and tedious, but still quite beautiful, CGI spectacular. It's Transformers in Middle Earth.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
ktappe | 66 34% |
|
As usual, the splendor, the effects, the grandeur that are Peter Jackson's hallmark are on display. It's a visual masterpiece. The problem is the story: there's simply not enough of it. My viewing companion said as we were exiting, "Nothing happened." And he wasn't far wrong. This is what happens when you take a 300-page book and make three 3-hour films out of it: there's not enough story left to maintain the films.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
Stewball | 50 14% |
|
Yawwwwwwwn.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
naikou | 50 41% |
|
Better than the first movie, still an insane mix of looney toons and iron-fisted medieval drama. Remember that one out-of-place scene in LotR where Legolas grinds down a staircase? Someone on The Hobbit production team was a huge fan of that scene.
|
|||
| 2 |  |
TV+Film-Hub | 26 90% |
|
This is The Lord of the Rings they are milking for all it's worth. Huge production value matched with a very little effort. Most of the action sequences are difficult to watch, virtually all the plot points are ludicracy, but almost all these clearly sucked up hundreds of millions in visual effects while receiving only moments of fore-thought. I love The Lord of the Rings; I'm even hoping for The Silmarillion; but if you're not a fan, don't watch it!
|
|||
| 1 |  |
QtheAlmighty | 75 50% |
|
Still shaky and lacking the magic LotR possessed, but much better paced and filled with fun if admittedly extended action and some good progression and raised stakes which allow one to actually get engrossed in the film. That river barrel scene is just the best thing.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Kurochocole | 76 35% |
|
The visual effects are absolutely stunning, as expected from Peter Jackson. Several challenging shots, especially Legolas's appearance scenes, had been achieved with the aid of modern technologies.It's good that Bilbo is portrayed as a strong willed and smart Hobbit, unlike the fragile Frodo from LOTR. However, I feel that the story wasn't inventive enough. It was linear like any other generic adventure movie. Some of the dwarfs should've just died to stimulate sympathy from the audiences.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Jerky | 60 73% |
|
Meh. The river scene was quite awesome and Smaug looked cool, but at this point I'm kinda done with the overkill of the Tolkien universe. I'll watch the third film, just to complete the series, but I'm not expecting much.
|
|||
| 1 | damil | 80 90% |
|
|
I found it very enjoyable. As an adaptation of the book, I was both satisfied and unsatisfied with this entry. The action scenes were pretty good. Smaug was awesome, and is probably the best dragon I've ever seen in a film. There were a few too many CG environments. It was a bit over-scored too, with music accentuating almost every piece of dialogue, it seemed. The performances were fine, except for Evangeline Lilly, who just isn't a very strong actress, in my opinion.
|
|||
| 1 | elperkele | 60 18% |
|
|
A noisy, overlong and cluttered mess of a movie, Desolation of Smaug completely wastes all it's strengths and revels in its weaknesses. It's basically Jackson's Lord of the Rings addendum, with little or no regard to story or larger themes. Surprisingly, the best parts of the movie are either those few scenes where nothing much happens or Tauriel. Seriously, Tauriel is the best female character in the entire LotR-movie franchise, and has more charisma than the bloated Legolas.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
CMonster | 40 18% |
|
In about 5 minutes it went from all right to so hilariously awful that I was openly weeping in the theater from laughing so hard. The barrel escape is the pinnacle of cinema. It may be the greatest thing to ever grace the silver screen. After that part just get up and walk out of the theater because nothing manages to recapture the greatness presented to you there.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
TjarkoH | 72 48% |
|
Film was too long, especially with it's slow pacing. Combat was ok, but there was too much combat. No great soundtrack and Tauriel and Bolg didn't made any sence. Also, they tried to make the movie much more epic and funnier than it actually was. The last 40 minutes of the movie: noob.
|
|||
| 1 | Scorpus | 83 78% |
|
|
The Desolation of Smaug improves on the first, captivating you in the world of Tolkien from start to finish
|
|||
| 1 |  |
ZachReviews | 40 16% |
|
Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. Of what remains of the Tolkien text we have some quality, the rest is very filler.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Bagger | 77 71% |
|
I finally (re)accepted Jacksons Creature Feature sensibilities in this one, perhaps because he doesn't bother too much with broad comedy in this one and hits a more consistent tone. In fact I did more than accept them - I pretty much adored it - right down to Random Orc Henchman #49 and GIF-generating Sauron.
|
|||
| 1 | RandallODim | 73 31% |
|
|
It isn't bad, but it is painfully long. It could do with trimming down by up to an hour, and there's enough fat between all the largely disconnected plots and episodes that it certainly feels like there's plenty to choose from. Its ending also manages to make it harshly apparent how unnecessary it was as a middle chapter, when it instead should likely have been combined with the next film. Martin Freeman is still perfect as Bilbo though, and the action is very well-crafted and pleasing to watch.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
ribcage | 60 38% |
|
trades in magic for crowbarred action scenes. chaotic and flat.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
lex | 75 40% |
|
I've accepted that Jackson isn't making the true "The Hobbit" but more a prequel trilogy to LotR and I've been enjoying it more ever since, even though it remains drastically inferior outside of Freeman's Bilbo. And so I decided, like with LotR, I'm going to give this trilogy all the same rating. Like Two Towers, this middle entry has a bit less personality but is overall more entertaining than its first piece and it remains a solid fantasy epic.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
nilooravaei | 52 6% |
|
just so unnecessary. this film has no purpose. it's such an obvious ploy at making money - there is no substance, and it's so needlessly long. entire sequences could be cut out without altering the plot. i only watched to see cumberbatch's smaug, but there is only so much performance can do, when the script is so weak. it just felt so unjustified. just because it's a fantasy film doesn't mean that it's okay for the characters to be completely devoid of humanity or more pressingly, logic.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
hsncrspywl | 82 69% |
|
A step up from the first Hobbit but not quite at the levels of the Lord of the Rings films. The settings are a little less familiar, the action has a few big cartoon style exaggerated sequences but also a lot of nice little character moments and the slightly darker tone help out a lot here. The Smaug stuff is really really good and it actually made me want to see the next film. Better pacing too, definitely didn't feel as long as it is and had a good energy to it.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
gogolit | 50 13% |
|
Distilled down all the potential enjoyable parts of the story from the book and replaced them with an attempt to make another LOTR. So much ridiculous about this sadly empty film. All the magic and human ness has been thrown away in favour of MORE WARS, MUTE EVIL ORCS. some of the scenes are basic rip offs of LOTR. a shame because The Hobbit had some nice potential for a lighter, more fun middle earth movie.
|
|||
| 1 | PluggedIN | 50 50% |
|
|
The resultant, nonstop action is likely to please fans who thought the first installment was too plodding, enrage fans for whom Tolkien's books are considered holy writ and exasperate parents trying to thoughtfully discern just how much orc slaughter is too much for young Tolkien fans to take in. (pluggedin.com)
|
|||
| 1 |  |
bof | 58 36% |
|
Improvement on the first one, in that it has something vaguely resembling a plot. It still feels mostly like a well-made cut scene, though, and could easily have been trimmed by 90 minutes or so without losing anything of value. Where's the fun? Where's the wonder? Where's the fairytale?
|
|||
| 1 |  |
TheEscapist | 96 99% |
|
Great spectacle once again. This film is filled with great action scenes with lots of creativity. A couple of great new characters get introduced and they all receive a fair amount of screen time. Tauriel adds a nice change to the film, Thranduil and Bard are established very well. In the theatrical cut I do think Beorn should have been given more screen time and I would have liked to see a bit more of Mirkwood, but the Extended Edition sorts out this exact problem. Watch the Extended Version!
|
|||
| 1 | mkellins | 30 11% |
|
|
Could someone just make a re-cut of these films excluding all the added sideplots? That's the film I'd like to see. Everything consistent with the main story is done ok, The Lake Town looks nice and Smaug is portrayed wonderfully. It's just frustrating to see the film oscillate between exciting and painfully boring.
|
|||
| 1 | gmc14 | 73 30% |
|
|
Poor CG throughout the film was distracting.
Drawn out fight scenes that lost their appeal long before they ended.
While I don't really object to Jackson inventing characters and subplots that weren't in the book, I didn't love his choices.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
lisa- | 2 11% |
|
a creative action scene set on a river and some fun dialogue between bilbo and the dragon are the only really enjoyable parts in this gigantic battle-fest. i do adore the high frame rate 3D though.
|
|||
| 1 | Liretpye | 84 60% |
|
|
SMAWUGS. A gentle giant. Also, is there a plot in here somewhere?
|
|||
| 1 |  |
mandy | 6 44% |
|
Over long, over padded out , too much CGI and not enough character development. But just enough set pieces for family entertainment.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Matthew Parkinson (CineMarter) | 50 47% |
|
I thought a fifth journey into Middle-earth would be a great deal of fun but as it turns out, even the most wondrous of places can wind up somewhat dull if you milk them for more than they're able to give. Smaug is great and some of the action scenes are wonderful, but there's more filler and padding to slog through than previously and there's little in the way of focus or character arcs to hold interest in between them.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Koalafish | 65 48% |
|
They somehow managed to make a 9 hour movie out of a children's book and still it feels rushed and incoherent. Smaug is pretty cool, though.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
DougCollins | 100 93% |
|
Amazing movie that never lets up. Great job coming up with parts of the story that are not represented in the book.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
alanstrang | 70 51% |
|
exhaustingly long action scenes, awkward comedy elements, unnecessary orlando blooms.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
INDYATMN | 67 20% |
|
Thank god 4 Tauriel since her character arc is the most interesting thing in yet another string of loosely-connected journeyman adventures with 13 mostly indistinguishable dwarves only children may care about. There's more action than the godawful part 1, but except 4 a river battle in barrels there's no surprise or thrill 2 any of it. The CGI dragon showdown both befuddles & frustrates as it reeks of epic finale, but u know there's a 3rd film 2 milk, so you're left thinking "When will it end?"
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Zealot185 | 52 31% |
|
If they are going to tell a 1-movie story over the course of a trilogy, you would think they would take some time to develop these characters, or introduce more inventive themes we haven't already seen in LOTR. The barrel scene was great to watch, but this otherwise feels empty. The Elf-Dwarf romance couldn't have been more forced, and most disappointing is how they only gave Stephen Colbert a 2-second non-speaking cameo!
|
|||
| 1 |  |
lumpnboy | 35 25% |
|
Dull. The self-consciously presented 'politics' contradict/clean-up Tolkien's works. Downplays the relation of pure blood to racial strength and monarchical legitimacy (as did the LOTR films) but more directly goes against the politics of the late section of the last LOTR book, where evil for the first time has (ressentiment-based) content, appearing as really-existing socialism, accelerated industrialisation, state-managed egalitarian ideology and the erosion of romanticised feudalism.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Luna6ix | 77 61% |
|
For those of us that didn't think that ten hours of Tolkein in the 00's was enough, Jackson delivered another ten hours in the 10's. The Hobbit movies have a slightly more fun flavor to them, while that provides it's own sort of value, it makes these movies feel slightly more disposable.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Ross | 65 64% |
|
Once again Middle Earth is presented visually stunning, with fine performances and an epic scope. I just didn't care and was bored throughout most of it.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
chadisdanger | 68 20% |
|
Works for the most part as fun popcorn fare, and of course the production design is as impressive as ever, but like the first one it is an utter narrative mess. I maintain that The Hobbit would work much better as one fun adventure film than these three overlong, scattered installments. All the pointless subplots, distracting call-backs (do we really need superhero Legolas in this?) and set piece after set piece really wear thin after a while.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
td888 | 70 76% |
|
Other than the repetitive story line, there is much to enjoy. The barrel-river scene was a hoot and the dragon was the cherry on top. I liked it better than the first one and I'm looking forward for the next instalment.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
letskillrobots | 17 48% |
|
While the claymation was a little spotty and it was super obvious they used 3D animatronics for some of the animals, I thought Smog was one of the better Playstation 2 bosses I've fought in a while.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
zae | 66 43% |
|
Slightly better than the previous film, but still feels like a lazy cash-grab.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
mistersplice | 40 14% |
|
4- might want to skip this one, not that hot :: 95% filler, 85% CGI, 75% wha? They never should have tried to stretch this into three films. At the very, very most, it should have been two.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
MJVmovieMan | 72 57% |
|
Somehow I didn't like this second Hobbit chapter as much as the first. The characters still remain distant, the goal less involving, and the running time less than necessary. But the movie is still a wild, sprawling spectacle to behold and I was still enthralled with the Jackson magic.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
evrana | 58 22% |
|
The Hobbit story does not have the grandeur in its bones to carry such long, tedious productions. Making random references to LOTR just does not save it. Also the behaviour of Smaug is just ridiculous; it is like me chatting with 8 cockroaches while chasing and spraying them and then get tricked into electrocution by my own refrigerator by them. Would you watch that movie? Replacing me with a Dragon doesn't make THAT much of a difference, although the movements of the dragon are really fluent.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
gogokain | 60 60% |
|
I don't think this actually any better than the first. I just don't think any movie can be that disappointing ever again. The CGI is fuck awful, the Legolas (the fuck is with his eyes) and Tauriel shit is fuck awful, the Sauron shit is fuck awful. The Smaug stuff is great... until the forge, which was fuck awful. I kinda like the expanded take on Lake-town and Bard. Acting is good, art is good. These will make a fine movie when a fan edits them into one.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Boyd Crowder | 73 38% |
|
I liked it for the pacing, the atmospheric set pieces and for some of the acting (sherlock/watson do no wrong) ... entertaining & enjoyable, but still far from the greatness of "The Fellowship of The Ring"
|
|||
| 1 |  |
cagedwisdom | 75 65% |
|
Contrary to what seems to be the popular opinion I found the first Hobbit to be a better, more memorable and concise film. Maybe it's just middle child syndrome again for this one. Extremely well made enough that it never feels like 3 hours even though this plot is becoming ludicrously stretched. Smaug is incredible, some of the best CGI I've ever seen. Ed Sheeran's "I See Fire" is fantastic.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
x-human | 78 56% |
|
Much of the under appreciated character development from the first is absent here and we're left simply with Hollywood trappings. As well as Gollum's scene was handled previously Smaug's scene is instead handled poorly; which is unfortunate as Cumberbatch nailed his part perfectly. All the intercutting in Act 3 between plots just watered it all down. Overall sloppy. If this hadn't ended with such a rising action audiences would have been very disappointed. An uncharacteristic dip in a trilogy.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Moribunny | 68 70% |
|
LotR characters in the first Hobbit film could somehow be viewed as an interesting embellishment, but giving Legolas a main role in this part is above and beyond pandering. There's still a lot of the actual book in here, but the constant action scenes, though lavish and stunning, get a little tiresome. I still really enjoyed this, but it felt cheaper than previous Tolkien films by Jackson.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
jetboy | 75 45% |
|
So incredibly boring
|
|||
| 1 |  |
ABUNCHOFCATS | 70 29% |
|
Too long and the action is very cartoonish. Love Martin Freeman though so it's still fun to watch. The Stephen Fry appearance was fantastic.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
misterlizard | 60 61% |
|
Like the first, just feels like too much padding. The LOTR trilogy did an amazing job of condensing 3 "unfilmable" books into a classic series of movies. Here it seems the opposite is at work - extending one easily filmable book into a trilogy of films. The result is still extremely watchable, but is a poor cousin to the LOTR movies. The overuse of CGI, which Jackson so skillfully avoided in LOTR, is all too visible here.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
CHR1S | 80 85% |
|
Impressive. Better than the first part because it was darker and, thankfully, not so childish. Yet, it is no LOTR.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
redacted | 66 39% |
|
Skip to about the two hour mark, you miss some go-pro footage shot from barrels, some barrels & get straight to the dragon interaction. Given all the scope and sets, the highlight sequences from the first two films seem to be when Freeman is alone in a cave. Possibly acting opposite a mop.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
axleblaze | 72 35% |
|
Enjoyable when it's simple but weighed down by seemingly endless, pointless crap. Why is Legolas even in this? You could have literally gotten rid of every elf in this movie and lost nothing. In general, this just continues to not justify being three movies. At least the Dragon was cool.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
metz | 40 34% |
|
In the end of the third movie, we'll see Peter Jackson, covered in gold, planning to make a trilogy out of Tylor Swift song.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
ludvigsen | 80 86% |
|
The extended edition improves greatly on the coherence of the narrative, both film, trilogy and hexalogy-wise (that's six films by the way - I googled it).
|
|||
| 1 |  |
AndreasThau | 65 50% |
|
Much better than part 1. Not nearly as many foolish and annoying jokes. Good old Gandalf and less dwarf-stupidity. And oh, I watched it in 2D - much preferable... But boy, how annoying is it that Peter Jackson and his teammates do NOT know how to cut a film in a length that is tolerable. ...*Sigh*
|
|||
| 1 | bentien | 70 75% |
|
|
Unike most others I actually liked the first part better, mainly because of the last 20 minutes or so that drags on forever. Besides from this, the second part of the Hobbit trilogy really builds up to a very promising final chapter.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Kingjohnbbq | 83 44% |
|
I mean yeah its got good action. The goofy scenes are being taken too far. It feels too much like a cartoon and thats a bad thing.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Sweekoden | 72 68% |
|
I think I watched this in the cinema. Might've been the couch. I think I liked it slightly better than the first one, though this was also overlong.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Lilarcor | 55 14% |
|
Very monotone. Unfortunately as the series go on the cracks are starting to get very visible and bigger by each installment. The wonder of the world that is built is no longer keeping things together. This partly because of several added uninspiring characters and villains. A positive is the fighting scenes, which are well shot and choreographed.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
FunkyAstro | 75 74% |
|
Much better than the first. Although I think when this is all done I might just take the average of all three scores and rate this as if it were one long movie... which it is...
|
|||
| 1 |  |
jeff_v | 71 70% |
|
Don't they realize if they kill the dragon it will result in massive inflation? I don't think they thought this out very well.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Filligan | 82 48% |
|
Some fantastic dragon sequences inch Smaug above its predecessor. Now I'd like to address 48 fps: This is the worst thing to happen to film since colourization. I understand the concept of hyper realism, but it never makes the film better and it usually just distracts the filmgoer, or worse calls attention to the artificiality of films. I need to re-watch the film in the proper fps before I feel I've really seen it. This garbage needs to live and die with The Hobbit.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Mubear | 60 9% |
|
Fuck you, Peter Jackson. When Legolas and Tauriel are the best things in your goddamn movie you can tell things are very, very wrong.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
d_drudges | 20 17% |
|
How much mindless filler can you endure? Everything the Hobbit II tries to say has already been said by the LotR movies. The movie has some of the worst dialogue I have heard all year and I can only be glad a lot of it is in gibberish. When it ended I felt like having watched a three-hour trailer. The decision to cast outspoken racist Stephen Fry as the mayor of a town about to be attacked by "orcs" is intriguing.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
dwyer | 75 50% |
|
I could totally understand if people thought the first Hobbit movie was overly ponderous and took its sweet time in weird places. I would have disagreed, but I'd get it. That's not a criticism one would make about the second movie. It's hardly ponderous at all, and the kind and thoughtful Bilbo is reduced almost to a hanger-on in this film that shifts its focus to a possible dwarf-elf romance, a human (?) son-redeeming-father's-failure story, and lots of running around and bobbing about.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
Henrik | 40 15% |
|
Sligthly better than the first one, but still a plotless spectacle. How about a plot turn? or a subplot that actually affects the main plot in a meaningful way, beyond just stalling the piece of shit?!). The storytelling is without any meaning or emotion, except a few exciting action set pieces, like the barrels-in-the-river-scene which, still, would improve greatly without the camcorder-like HFR 3D-crap.
|
|||
| 1 |  |
DavidBlast | 40 28% |
|
This one had Cumberbatch as a giant dragon, and still nothing...
|
|||
| 1 |  |
chemtrails | 50 38% |
|
There's something wrong with this
|
|||
| 1 |  |
SirStuckey | 70 56% |
|
More standout individual scenes is what elevates this above the first. That and the dragon, which looked really really good. How good he looked made the times where the CGI was flat out bad even more glaring. The rain they put into an early 15 second scene was particularly damning. It could not have looked faker. It's quite repetitive story-wise; dwarfs constantly mention their legacy and fathers, then get in trouble before saved by a ring wearing Bilbo.
|
|||
| 1 | vv238 | 52 55% |
|
|
The Desolation of Smaug is another step down from There and Back Again, which itself is a step down from the Lord of the Rings. The plot is so simplistic that the detours into bad action setpieces, a completely unnecessary love triangle, and random bits of lore from the Tolkien universe seem necessary. I do still like the movie but it comes with a lot of caveats, none of which I had to make for the Lord of the Rings,
|
|||
Displaying 1 to 250 of 293 total ratings: Prev | Next
| Average Percentile 48.36% from 6172 Ratings |  |