The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I will no longer cry over spilled milk, i.e., that the division into three films does not make sense (but it still doesn't). For the first few tens of minutes, a digital cup of part one spreads across the screen with a sunset / sunrise sprouted behind it. I remember with love the times when Middle-earth was more material and objective for me than the digital figures of orcs and the magnificent play of colors. Jackson stuffs wherever he can. I hope he grows antlers for the elven travesty show. Tauriel is beautiful and annoying, Legolas seems half a century older than in The Lord of the Rings and because he can't be the more casual athlete who actually likes dwarves, he pretends to be a shepherd whose flock of sheep has been sodomized (hello Znojmo) and his contribution lies in spiral choreographies (which is really annoying at the end). For me, the second film is divided by the scene with the barrels. The liquid action voyage is divine, and with the arrival of Bard and Esgaroth, I once again get the feeling that I want to be a part of The Hobbit and engage in it in some way other than just by staring at it. The conflict between the demonically blooming Thorin and the charismatic rioter Bard has an old nobility, and the disgusting sub-grave bourgeois mayor returns to The Hobbit a piece of overlap and humorous theater. Suddenly there is something to discover and something to be surprised and amused by ("why are dwarves crawling out of the toilets?"). The feeling that I was really looking forward to the three-leafed narrative lines intersecting in the grand action finale at the end gradually left me. Smaug is interrupted by a sad love-funeral episode with Kili, and I can't say that I would enjoy watching the stretched part of Kahan's melter in the Misty Mountain. In addition, the final triple cliffhanger is pretty cheap and ruined my assumption that the second film is better structured than the first. So, just like last time. This time even closer to four stars, but given those disappointed expectations... no. No way. Edit after the second watch: Ok, fine. (12/12/2013)

Tasted good. A mountain of gold and a dragon to boot, who wouldn’t like it? The second part of the story unfolds in a more lively and considerably darker tempo. Jackson enjoys his freedom and introduces a new storyline (that he could have easily left out) bringing minor items of news for those who have read the book, too. Comely Tauriel with the face of Evangeline Lilly has one of the most beautiful theme tunes that Shore has ever composed. Bilbo and his gang tumble through one disaster to the next, most impressively the confrontation with the bug, the barrel ride and the final encounter with the lord beneath the mountain. This year, Cumberbatch appears in negative roles (and this is the most powerful of them). I was delighted by Smaug’s dwelling which exceeded my expectations, like the dragon itself. The playful conversation, the action. Only interrupted by Gandalf’s preparations for the finale, but only very slightly. Really effective, accepting that it’s slightly drawn out. The ending provoked disgruntled silence, mumbling and finally “You must be joking!", but honestly they couldn’t have cut it short at a better moment. Next year all it’ll all work out I suspect that episode 3 is going to be a real massacre. (14/12/2013)

It’s a whole class better than the first film. Jackson tames mostly himself, puts together a somewhat coherent plot, albeit with a slight aftertaste of forced intermezzo, and above all gives credit to the winged lizard. The dragon has no equal in the ring of digital monsters and thus irons out, in the end, the embarrassing impressions of otherwise rather dull (Beorn) and completely useless (Tauriel) characters. (31/03/2014)

You're watching the film and say to yourself that everything is absolutely fine, exactly as expected. It's grand, ambitious, and well made. However, this “demo” has a lot less emotion and lacks the fatefulness that "full version" has. The Lord of the Rings is much more mature and sophisticated in literature, and the same goes for the movies. So, technically, it's right, and yet I can't give it a full score. From the second part, you can feel the gloom and that the finale will be grand. Maybe they will succeed in that one. (15/12/2013)

Well, the magic is gone. Thanks to its slower pace, the first Hobbit put me on a wave of nostalgia, but this one is just disappointing, with uninteresting characters that you never get to know anything about and a heap of awful digital mess that in a couple of scenes (e.g. Legolas jumping on the heads of the dwarves) reminded me of the infamous car chase in the jungle of the fourth Indiana Jones. Gandalf’s search is utterly pointless, Legolas is an ornament, the love story between Kate from Lost and the second (and also the last) recognisable dwarf out of thirteen (defined with the word “annoyed”) is stupid and, on top of that, the wanderings of the party of dwarves and Bilbo pulled me into a deep confused astonishment (to send a Hobbit into a mountain to dig into drifts of gold and find some kind of powerful stone that could be anywhere, hoping the dragon won’t wake up, it’s a really great plan that may be fine for a children fairy-tale, like the book, but in a movie that wants to be dark fantasy feels out of place, at the very least). Also, there‘s no proper story or dramatic arc (the first one worked with Bilbo being accepted into the group and gaining the trust of the dwarves), so if the plot of the first part could be summarised, with some exaggeration, with “they left”, here “they arrived” is enough without any exaggeration; and with the impression that in the third “they will be there for awhile”. Jackson still has a firm hand, but my disappointment won’t let me give more than two stars to a film that terribly bored me with its barrage of digital gimmicks. (12/12/2013)