Kirpianuscus I love the book. and I am not real convince of the opportunity of its adaptation. this film confirms that for me. because "The Hobbit" is admirable for special effects, for the effort of actors, for specular images but it remains expression of the ambition of director to give another ~Lord of Ring", ignoring, in too many occasions, the difference between the serie and the book. sure, all is great, seductive and fascinating. but Smaug of Tolkien is more alive than the perfect monster of Peter Jackson. and, after the end of film, admiration and respect of viewer has as object the hard work more than artistic virtues.

Gavin Purtell If you've liked the other four Lord of the Rings/Hobbit films, you'll like this one, simple. I found it highly enjoyable and well-paced - not as meandering as 'The Fellowship of the Ring' or 'An Unexpected Journey'. It's not as good as 'The Two Towers', but does an good job of moving the story and characters forward.It also has a great score - every time you hear that motif, you think of Sauron and the ring's temptation - and plenty of great visuals. It's pretty amazing how just watching a film can make you feel comfortable, as you recognize parts of Middle Earth/New Zealand. But most of all, it's fun - there's a bear, plenty of 'catch-me-if-you-can', a waterfall/rapids chase, some spelunking, some gold mining - oh, and a dragon!It's good to see Legolas and some Elves, as well as men, helping out the Hobbit & the Dwarves. Gandalf has some good moments, but this is definitely Bilbo's film - and it's left on a nice cliff-hanger.

Platypuschow 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 pillowsWhatever Cumberbatch was paid it was FAR too much

zkonedog "The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug" is a two hour and forty minute movie. When the closing credits rolled, however, this was my first thought: "Bring on Part Three!". Once again, director Peter Jackson managed to completely immerse me in the fantasy realm of the LOTR universe.For a basic plot summary, this movie picks up right where the first one leaves off. Fresh out of the Misty Mountains, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Dwarf Co. continue to venture forward towards the Lonely Mountain. Along the way, they encounter:-Giant spiders in the forest -The woodland Elvish warriors led by Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly). -Escaping the Elves in the iconic "barrels" scene. -The rising of Sauron and his army of Orcs. -The Lonely Mountain itself, inside which the mighty Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) dwells.Anyone's enjoyment of these movies comes down to how fully they are able to fully immerse themselves into the fantasy atmosphere. I am able to 100% "buy in", so I love it. I enjoy practically every aspect of the picture, from the action/adventure to the music to the "canon" material and even the dwarf bumbling humor. This is one of my favorite series of all-time, so I'm probably not being too objective here, but to me there is nothing here in this movie to shy away from.It has been awhile since I read the "Hobbit" book, so I can't comment on how closely the movie follows the text, but from what I've heard/remember Jackson takes quite a few liberties. To be honest, though, I didn't care one iota while watching the film. I didn't feel as if any of the "new stuff" was boring or dramatically changed the main storyline. Again, of course, that could just be because I'm not intimately acquainted with the novel as I once was.A final comment on this movie (and the series so far): The one thing I DO remember about the "Hobbit" book is that it is very much more light-hearted than LOTR and almost more of a children's book. However, these movies (with their horrifying creatures and graphic battles) are not marketed for the kiddie set. Thus, I can understand why Peter Jackson would want to incorporate more mature themes into the storyline. Too much of "book Hobbit" is childish (for better or worse).Overall, "The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug" was one of my favorite cinema experiences of the year. Like I said, I could have EASILY sat through the entire third segment the same night!