The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

We all remember how George Lucas created an amazing trilogy called "Star Wars," then went back later to do a prequel trilogy and tried to destroy the franchise by focusing on ridiculous visual effects and neglecting the story entirely; so too has Peter Jackson fallen.

The five points I have given are purely for the visual aspect of the movie. It is amazing. But we all expected that.

0/5 for story. Tolkien wrote an amazing little (LITTLE) book called the Hobbit. Jackson could have fit the important and relevant parts of "An Unexpected Journey" into about an hour. It is the same here. There is a ridiculous amount of filler, needless side-plots, and a stupid (for lack of a better word) love triangle that makes a Ryan Reynolds romantic comedy seem deep. And I mean OK, I expect filler if you're going to turn a tiny book into three three hour movies, but at least keep what happens in the book if you're going to make stuff up. A few times scenes that were actually written by Tolkien feel rushed and cut short, while filler scenes seem to drag endlessly.

Smaug had the potential to be great, and started out that way, but the gross on screen overuse of his character makes you think of a brainless rat running through a maze searching for cheese rather than the majestic dragon we all grew up reading about.

I could keep on listing things I did not like (like bringing Legolas into the film to draw fans, and then overusing every cool thing he ever did in LOTR until you're sitting in your seat begging him to stop {ex, he surfs on EVERTYTHING}) but I am going to stop.

Go see the movie on principle, but don't go looking for the nostalgia of LOTR like I did. Because even though it should be there, any chance these films had of greatness was lost in the desperate attempt to turn what should have been one great film into a three year money making machine.

Fmovies: 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.

I won't "review" the content of the movie in any detail, but provide some thoughts about how this film should be approached. I consider myself a Tolkienist (in fact I saw this movie on opening night because I secured a promotion deal with the local cinema: I spent four hours until midnight writing people's names in Elvish writing!) It is to be expected that many fans of of the original book will perceive this movie as a bloated, garbled monster version of the written story they loved. It is important to realize, before going in, that this is not simply "the movie of the book". This is Jackson's The Hobbit, not Tolkien's, and they are best appreciated as independent works. They represent different media, come from different centuries, and have partly different target audiences. The children's book was written before Tolkien had any idea of the grand trilogy to follow; Jackson had already produced his Lord of the Rings trilogy and somewhat understandably tries to make the prequels resemble it, in tone and scope.

One could argue that Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, when complete, will set up the LotR film trilogy far better than Tolkien's simple children's book sets up the literary LotR. (The change in tone from children's book to grand epic is VERY pronounced, even grating for those who try to read The Hobbit after finishing LotR.) Incidentally, Jackson's prequel trilogy apparently will not spoil the LotR trilogy the way the Star Wars prequels give away important plot points of the original movies. When finished, Jackson's six Middle-earth movies can be profitably watched in sequence of internal chronology.

To be sure, Jackson's Hobbit trilogy is "based on" the 1930s children's book in the sense that the characters have the same names and visit much the same places in somewhat the same order (though new characters and places are also added). Their basic motivations are also the same. But beyond that, one should not expect much "fidelity". There is hardly anything that isn't greatly embellished and vastly elaborated, mostly so as to allow for a FAR darker tone and MUCH more fantasy action (i.e., fights). The spiders of Mirkwood here approach actual horror, as compared to their rather more children-friendly literary counterparts (where we have Bilbo insulting them with silly "Attercop" rhymes).

The wizards' conflict with the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, which in the book happens entirely "offscreen" and is just briefly alluded to when Gandalf has returned near the end, is here actually shown. This is understandable; Gandalf would otherwise be completely absent for much of this movie. Also, Jackson's audience will already know that this is the start of the war with Sauron, and the all-important Dark Lord could not well be ignored. Tolkien in his letters noted how Sauron casts just "a fleeting shadow" over the pages of The Hobbit; in Jackson's movie the shadow is darker and deeper.

Entire new subplots are freely created and added to the story. The Elf Tauriel and her unlikely infatuation with one of the Dwarfs is clearly meant to add a love story where the book has none, and have at least ONE strong female character (no concern of Tolkien's when he wrote a story for children in the 1930s).

The continued survival of ALL the protagonists despite their endless brushes with death doesn't just strain credibility -- it utterly and completely banishes and eliminates c

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug fmovies. 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