sign in
register
Watch
Max Amazon Channel Max Apple TV
+5
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
+5
JustWatch
Your probable score
?
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

2013
Drama, Fantasy
2h 41m
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)

Directed by:

Peter Jackson

Screenwriter:

Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh

Starring:

Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Martin Freeman, Orlando Bloom, Stephen Fry, Richard Armitage, Manu Bennett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lee Pace, Evangeline Lilly, Luke Evans, Aidan Turner

Franchises:

The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit

Genres:

Drama, Fantasy, Action, Adventure

Countries:

New Zealand, USA

Language:

English
imdb IMDb
Update history
Suggest edit

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

2013
Drama, Fantasy
2h 41m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 48.08% from 6480 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(6543)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 13 Dec 2013
5
20th
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continues to ride the coattails of the LOTR with another mind-numbing installment, only this time around, orcs have been replaced by cheap CGI orcs, Legolas by shiny Legolas and Gandalf by a potato.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
Rated 13 Dec 2013
kramyessevKramYessev
Rated 15 Dec 2013
68
51st
Shot on location in New Zealand's most picturesque green screens.
Rated 15 Dec 2013
mwgerbmwgerb
Rated 13 Dec 2013
57
58th
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.
Rated 13 Dec 2013
ewp805ewp805
Rated 14 Dec 2013
85
85th
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.
Rated 14 Dec 2013
beedubBeeDub
Rated 28 Mar 2016
78
39th
Only a *little* 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 unengaging and patience-testing. Sure, there's plenty of ACTIVITY in the movie, with much less sitting around than last time, but precious little actually HAPPENS. Story-wise, we’re hardly any further along when the movie ends than when it started.
Rated 28 Mar 2016
markjpMArkjp
Rated 29 Dec 2013
45
21st
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.
Rated 29 Dec 2013
vdecraimVdecraim
Rated 13 Dec 2013
60
24th
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.
Rated 13 Dec 2013
leonardisLeonardis
Rated 14 Dec 2013
87
53rd
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.
Rated 14 Dec 2013
omgfridgeomgfridge
Rated 23 Jan 2014
4
33rd
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.
Rated 23 Jan 2014
dresd_r_e_s_
Rated 16 Dec 2013
4
90th
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.
Rated 16 Dec 2013
kasperlKasperL
Rated 12 Dec 2013
75
77th
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.
Rated 12 Dec 2013
derekstarDerekstar
Rated 29 Dec 2013
40
19th
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.
Rated 29 Dec 2013
terrymacterrymac
Rated 14 May 2014
69
54th
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.
Rated 14 May 2014
ytadelYtadel
Rated 18 Dec 2013
5
57th
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.
Rated 18 Dec 2013
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 17 Dec 2013
75
77th
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.
Rated 17 Dec 2013
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
Rated 16 Dec 2013
70
56th
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.
Rated 16 Dec 2013
rufamRufam
Rated 12 Dec 2013
55
21st
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.
Rated 12 Dec 2013
aaautinAAAutin
Rated 02 Dec 2014
48
42nd
About as much excitement as one could expect from a film with the word "desolation" in its title...
Rated 02 Dec 2014
sophiesophie
Rated 22 Jul 2014
65
47th
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.
Rated 22 Jul 2014
barthalenBarthalen
Rated 26 Jan 2014
60
38th
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.
Rated 26 Jan 2014
redbardragonRedBarDragon
Rated 25 Jan 2014
50
18th
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...
Rated 25 Jan 2014
thedenizenTheDenizen
Rated 18 Jan 2014
70
63rd
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.
Rated 18 Jan 2014
nrooNroo
Rated 07 Jan 2014
51
19th
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.
Rated 07 Jan 2014
xakkmasterXakkMaster
Rated 05 Jan 2014
84
73rd
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.
Rated 05 Jan 2014
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 31 Dec 2013
80
84th
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.
Rated 31 Dec 2013
tangvampireTangVampire
Rated 28 Dec 2013
95
79th
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*
Rated 28 Dec 2013
joseywalesjoseywales
Rated 24 Dec 2013
82
89th
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!
Rated 24 Dec 2013
immolationsimmolations
Rated 19 Dec 2013
20
18th
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.
Rated 19 Dec 2013
ratedarghratedargh
Rated 18 Dec 2013
50
21st
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.
Rated 18 Dec 2013
wezzoWezzo
Rated 16 Dec 2013
50
4th
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.
Rated 16 Dec 2013
dylanwilson6dylanwilson6
Rated 15 Dec 2013
80
80th
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?
Rated 15 Dec 2013
glumpy99glumpy_99
Rated 07 Oct 2019
52
12th
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.
Rated 07 Oct 2019
ecitizeneCitizen
Rated 28 Apr 2015
91
91st
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.
Rated 28 Apr 2015
nilkynarfynilkynarfy
Rated 11 Apr 2015
55
40th
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?
Rated 11 Apr 2015
troothTrooth
Rated 20 Jul 2014
54
22nd
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.
Rated 20 Jul 2014
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 09 Apr 2014
71
84th
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.
Rated 09 Apr 2014
donquixoticdonquixotic
Rated 15 Feb 2014
50
33rd
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.
Rated 15 Feb 2014
vinegarbobVinegarBob
Rated 12 Feb 2014
10
6th
Wander wander, fight fight. Rinse and repeat. God I'm so utterly bored with this franchise.
Rated 12 Feb 2014
overratedoverrated
Rated 25 Jan 2014
31
23rd
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.
Rated 25 Jan 2014
oretyo_rety
Rated 18 Jan 2014
80
70th
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.
Rated 18 Jan 2014
ktappektappe
Rated 11 Jan 2014
66
36th
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.
Rated 11 Jan 2014
bojanglesBojangles
Rated 08 Jan 2014
25
8th
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*
Rated 08 Jan 2014
jfsj513jfsj513
Rated 07 Jan 2014
80
82nd
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.
Rated 07 Jan 2014
lookjabbaLookJabba...
Rated 07 Jan 2014
8
76th
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.
Rated 07 Jan 2014
sheepslashersheepslasher
Rated 07 Jan 2014
2
30th
I regret originally scoring this higher than the first one.
Rated 07 Jan 2014
gideonGideon
Rated 04 Jan 2014
2
59th
I wonder what Randal Graves would have to say about this 'trilogy'
Rated 04 Jan 2014
kleaklea
Rated 03 Jan 2014
31
18th
This is, objectively speaking, a straight up bad movie
Rated 03 Jan 2014
launchLaunch
Rated 27 Dec 2013
75
60th
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.
Rated 27 Dec 2013
zioZio
Rated 23 Dec 2013
30
18th
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.
Rated 23 Dec 2013
jthuskyjthusky
Rated 22 Dec 2013
68
51st
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.
Rated 22 Dec 2013
wicheWiche
Rated 21 Dec 2013
84
87th
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)
Rated 21 Dec 2013
therealj_roTheRealJ-Ro
Rated 21 Dec 2013
90
93rd
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.
Rated 21 Dec 2013
stewballStewball
Rated 20 Dec 2013
50
14th
Yawwwwwwwn.
Rated 20 Dec 2013
naikounaikou
Rated 18 Dec 2013
50
41st
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.
Rated 18 Dec 2013
tvfilm_hubTV+Film-Hub
Rated 17 Dec 2013
26
90th
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!
Rated 17 Dec 2013
superargoSuperargo
Rated 15 Dec 2013
63
50th
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.
Rated 15 Dec 2013
actionbergActionberg
Rated 14 Dec 2013
30
7th
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.
Rated 14 Dec 2013
progre2progre2
Rated 14 Dec 2013
32
8th
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!
Rated 14 Dec 2013
tony_irwinTony Irwin
Rated 13 Dec 2013
30
28th
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.
Rated 13 Dec 2013
tjekhovTjekhov
Rated 13 Dec 2013
50
40th
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.
Rated 13 Dec 2013
vv238vv238
Rated 18 Aug 2021
52
54th
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,
Rated 18 Aug 2021
evranaevrana
Rated 25 Dec 2018
58
22nd
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.
Rated 25 Dec 2018
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 10 Jan 2017
77
62nd
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.
Rated 10 Jan 2017
sweekodenSweekoden
Rated 28 Dec 2016
72
67th
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.
Rated 28 Dec 2016
davidblastDavidBlast
Rated 21 May 2015
40
28th
This one had Cumberbatch as a giant dragon, and still nothing...
Rated 21 May 2015
gogokaingogokain
Rated 01 Jan 2015
60
60th
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.
Rated 01 Jan 2015
lexlex
Rated 12 Dec 2014
75
40th
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.
Rated 12 Dec 2014
misterlizardmisterlizard
Rated 07 Dec 2014
60
61st
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.
Rated 07 Dec 2014
ludvigsenludvigsen
Rated 25 Nov 2014
80
86th
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).
Rated 25 Nov 2014
elperkeleelperkele
Rated 18 Nov 2014
60
18th
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.
Rated 18 Nov 2014
abunchofcatsABUNCHOFCATS
Rated 20 Oct 2014
70
29th
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.
Rated 20 Oct 2014
andreasthauAndreasThau
Rated 30 Jul 2014
65
50th
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*
Rated 30 Jul 2014
kurochocoleKurochocole
Rated 25 Jul 2014
76
35th
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.
Rated 25 Jul 2014
hsncrspywlhsncrspywl
Rated 29 Jun 2014
82
69th
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.
Rated 29 Jun 2014
zealot185Zealot185
Rated 26 May 2014
52
31st
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!
Rated 26 May 2014
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 18 May 2014
50
47th
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.
Rated 18 May 2014
jerkyJerky
Rated 16 May 2014
60
72nd
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.
Rated 16 May 2014
chadisdangerchadisdanger
Rated 27 Apr 2014
68
20th
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.
Rated 27 Apr 2014
zaezae
Rated 09 Apr 2014
66
42nd
Slightly better than the previous film, but still feels like a lazy cash-grab.
Rated 09 Apr 2014
koalafishKoalafish
Rated 27 Mar 2014
65
48th
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.
Rated 27 Mar 2014
mubearMubear
Rated 23 Mar 2014
60
9th
Fuck you, Peter Jackson. When Legolas and Tauriel are the best things in your goddamn movie you can tell things are very, very wrong.
Rated 23 Mar 2014
baggerBagger
Rated 20 Mar 2014
77
71st
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.
Rated 20 Mar 2014
chemtrailschemtrails
Rated 21 Feb 2014
50
37th
There's something wrong with this
Rated 21 Feb 2014
dwyerdwyer
Rated 12 Feb 2014
75
50th
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.
Rated 12 Feb 2014
redactedredacted
Rated 30 Jan 2014
66
39th
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.
Rated 30 Jan 2014
lisa_iilisa-
Rated 29 Jan 2014
2
11th
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.
Rated 29 Jan 2014
mistersplicemistersplice
Rated 26 Jan 2014
40
14th
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.
Rated 26 Jan 2014
x_humanx-human
Rated 25 Jan 2014
78
56th
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.
Rated 25 Jan 2014
kingjohnbbqKingjohnbbq
Rated 24 Jan 2014
83
44th
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.
Rated 24 Jan 2014
gogolitgogolit
Rated 20 Jan 2014
30
6th
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.
Rated 20 Jan 2014
liretpyeLiretpye
Rated 15 Jan 2014
84
60th
SMAWUGS. A gentle giant. Also, is there a plot in here somewhere?
Rated 15 Jan 2014
scorpusScorpus
Rated 13 Jan 2014
83
77th
The Desolation of Smaug improves on the first, captivating you in the world of Tolkien from start to finish
Rated 13 Jan 2014
bentienbentien
Rated 08 Jan 2014
70
75th
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.
Rated 08 Jan 2014
alanstrangalanstrang
Rated 07 Jan 2014
70
50th
exhaustingly long action scenes, awkward comedy elements, unnecessary orlando blooms.
Rated 07 Jan 2014
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 07 Jan 2014
72
57th
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.
Rated 07 Jan 2014
nilooravaeinilooravaei
Rated 04 Jan 2014
52
6th
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.
Rated 04 Jan 2014
boyd_crowderBoyd Crowder
Rated 03 Jan 2014
73
38th
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"
Rated 03 Jan 2014
mkellinsmkellins
Rated 01 Jan 2014
30
11th
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.
Rated 01 Jan 2014
ddrudgesd_drudges
Rated 31 Dec 2013
20
17th
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.
Rated 31 Dec 2013
henrikHenrik
Rated 31 Dec 2013
40
15th
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.
Rated 31 Dec 2013

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...