Goes on Longer than Needed

Rating: 7/10 (6 February 2014)

WARNING! MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!
Unlike a lot of people, I preferred the first "Hobbit" movie to this. This is not to say that I hated the second "Hobbit" movie; far from it. I just thought that the middle installment had too much padding and plot development that did not need to be there. Even if one accepts the fact that Jackson was correct to fill the plot with elements from the appendix of "Lord of the Rings," and that these elements add to the moviethere's still too much stuff here for this to be a completely satisfactory film. I once played devil's advocate and argued that Jackson was right for stretching "The Hobbit" into three films; now I regret that statement. If Jackson wanted a trilogy, he should have made each movie no more than two hours long, and that's being generous. The second film should have been no more than ninety minutes.
The first half seemed okay. I actually thought the action sequences in Mirkwood were *too* rushed, particularly with the spiders. I like that Jackson kept the Azog and Necromancer elements from the first movie in this one, if only to give the trilogy some consistency. I was more annoyed with the second half than the first; specifically, with the final quarter of the film, where Bilbo and the dwarfs fight Smaug. This sequence was padded beyond belief. There was no reason to stretch the fight against Smaug to half an hour, only to have the film end anticlimactically. The action sequences were not exciting; they were repetitive filler, and it was not right of Jackson to have taken the audiences' time with this.
In short, I thought the pacing was uneven (the first half moved events along too quickly, while the second half bogged down the pacing) and padded with unnecessary and ultimately boring elements. The thematic elements of the film were interesting, and character development was inspired. I liked how Bilbo has grown to be a strong, confident and brave individual compared with how he started in the first film. His diminutive stature and humble appearance only make him a more endearing protagonist, for whom the audience will sympathize with and root for all the way. Also intriguing is the change apparent in dwarf leader Thorin Oakenshield, presumptive "King Under the Mountain." He wasn't all that likable in the first movie, being a humorless, abrasive fellow. Here, he seems more sinister, seduced by greed and willing to sacrifice the life of Bilbo to gain power. While Thorin's malevolent nature is addressed in the movie overtly (via dialogue), I think the "Hobbit" addresses the nature of greed and power more subtly than the "Lord of the Rings" movies. There is no supernatural Ring of Power to lead Thorin astray; his dual nature is entirely within himself, influenced by no outside force, like Sauron or an evil talisman similar to the Ring of Power. The Lonely Mountain is less severe a goal than the destruction of the One Ring. The audience sympathizes with Thorin's quest to regain what is rightfully his; however, the means by which he will achieve this goal are questionable, and the prize itself does not seem worth the toll in lives Thorin is willing to pay (sending Bilbo alone to face Smaug; angering Smaug, etc). In all, the stakes are lower than "Lord of the Rings," but the subtle nature of the "good versus evil" struggle make this a more mature movie than the original trilogy.
I still recommend this movie, but advise patience. I wouldn't blame the audience if they walked out in the final thirty minutes. Still, if you like action for the sake of action, you'll probably love this film and will gladly sit through the whole thing.