The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
2013
Director Peter Jackson extends the Lord of the Rings saga with this second installment of Bilbo Baggins's dramatic experiences in Middle Earth. Accompanied by Gandalf and 13 dwarfs, Bilbo journeys toward a confrontation with the dragon Smaug.

Scott Hardie: “It ruled.”

This is more action-packed than its immediate predecessor, a benefit of covering the most exciting part of the source material. There's no feeling of padding the running time like in the last film; even if every scene isn't necessary in the final analysis, each one feels essential as it's happening. But the movie's lack of a beginning or ending really hurts, It just keeps going and going and going (and going and going) until it arbitrarily stops at some point, no better or worse a stopping point than any other scene, and the events just feel like they're happening in sequence instead of leading up to something important or meaningful.

On the bright side, the movie continues to look amazing, with several signature Jacksonian shots that only this director or a close imitator could produce, and the new character of Tauriel is a welcome presence that Philippa Boyens was wise to add for balance. As in every production he appears in, Benedict Cumberbatch continues to be worth every penny they're paying him; the character of Smaug is an incredible creation. I laughed at the jokes (the more sophisticated ones anyway) and thrilled at the narrow escapes and smiled at the love story, so I consider the movie a success, if a minor one compared to The Lord of the Rings.

− December 15, 2013 • more by Scottlog in or create an account to reply

Samir Mehta: Simple question from someone who lovedthis book as a child (I think I read it 3 times in a year as a kid):
Do I have to actually watch the first movie? I can't believe that this book deserves 6-8 hours to watch. I really like Jackson but I'd much rather get a new King Kong movie than deal with three Hobbits. − December 22, 2013 • more by Samir

Scott Hardie: You don't need to watch the first movie in order to understand the second, no. There are a few running subplots borrowed from elsewhere or totally invented, such as Gandalf investigating rumors of a necromancer, but none should be hard to follow.

That said, both Hobbit films so far have been a lot of fun. They're both worth seeing. They're not great films like The Lord of the Rings, but they're as entertaining as, say, most of the recent crop of superhero movies. − December 23, 2013 • more by Scott

Want to join the discussion? Log in or create an account to reply.


Evie Totty: “It ruled.”

Firstly - what is with casting actors that look alike? You put Thorin, Bard and Legolas together and you'll see what I mean :)

Anyway the barrel scene makes it more than worth it and reminds me why I love Legolas so much. He's such a bad-ass. And then there's another hour or so after that!

− December 17, 2013 • more by Evielog in or create an account to reply

Scott Hardie: Yes! I sat there trying to recognize the actor playing Bard, and wondered if it was possible that Orlando Bloom was playing two parts. − December 24, 2013 • more by Scott

Want to join the discussion? Log in or create an account to reply.


Erik Bates: “It ruled.”

It's definitely a "middle" movie that wasn't based on the middle book of a 3-part series. It doesn't feel like there's a beginning or an end, but more like I just tuned in in the middle, and then fell asleep before the end of the episode. But I'm very OK with that. But what we got was beautiful, and fun. I feel like I need to read some of the other materials surrounding the Hobbit to understand some of the side stories going on more (unless there's more made-up stuff here than I realized).

I will say this: the love story is 100% uneccessary and just a little bit far-fetched. Just because a movie doesn't have an inherent love story, that doesn't mean that you need to add one in. Hell, you've managed to stretch a single book that is a fraction of the length of just one of the books that the Lord of the Rings trilogy was based on into three entire movies of its own. Jackson probably could have just gone ahead and said, "Yeah, I think we have enough content here" and just left that out.

− December 23, 2013 • more by Eriklog in or create an account to reply

Scott Hardie: Normally I'd agree that the invented love story was unnecessary filler, and I'd go even further and say that it's a shame that they created a female character to diversify the sausage fest that is Tolkien's book only to make her storyline entirely about which man she's going to wind up with. But to be honest, I kind of liked the romantic subplot, minor though it was. There's so much ugly racism in the real world that I have little patience for elves and dwarves and other fictional races acting bigoted toward each other, so I kind of enjoyed this refreshing cross-race (cross-species?) love story. Maybe the actors really sold it for me, or maybe I just was just drawn to some of the lighter material in an otherwise heavy story, I don't know. − December 24, 2013 • more by Scott

Want to join the discussion? Log in or create an account to reply.

write your own review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug


Other Movies from 2013

The Family

Erik Bates says, "It sucked." Go »

A Talking Cat!?!

Scott Hardie says, "It sucked." Go »

Ender's Game

Scott Hardie and Evie Totty say, "It ruled." Go »

Oblivion

Erik Bates says, "It was ok." Go »

Movie 43

Scott Hardie and Samir Mehta say, "It sucked." Go »

Riddick

Evie Totty says, "It was ok." Go »