OBLIGATORY SPOILER ALERT. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE GO NO FURTHER LEST YE BE EATEN BY DRAGONS.
The Exposition
In 1937, J.R.R. Tolkien introduced readers to the realm of Middle-earth with the sentence "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." Though it was ultimately overshadowed by it's follow-up The Lord of the Rings it nevertheless helped firmly establish Tolkien's place as a literary master.
Jump forward 75 years. New Line Cinema releases the first film of a movie trilogy (originally meant be a two-parter) based on Tolkien's work entitled The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, directed by Peter Jackson, who took over after Guillermo Del Toro dropped out to pursue other projects involving giant monsters. Everyone thought this would be a good move seeing as Jackson had previously adapted the Lord of the Rings into a ridiculously successful three part cinematic epic, surpassing even Star Wars in the minds of the masses as the seminal film trilogy. Die hard Tolkien fans (myself included though I can't speak elvish worth a rhaich) were largely pleased and were eager to see how Jackson chose to interpret the original Middle-earth adventure story.
For my part I thought An Unexpected Journey was a good effort, but it took too long to get anywhere. Y'see, the Hobbit isn't that long a book, but the filmmakers in their (not-so) infinite wisdom decided to stretch out the story for two films. Their reasoning? Why the appendices of the Lord of the Rings of course, where Tolkien explains what was going on elsewhere while things were happening in the main story. In the text, Gandalf abruptly leaves the Company of Thirteen at the edge of Mirkwood saying he has business in the South, and the reader is never told why. In the appendices it is revealed that Gandalf traveled to the fortress of Dol Guldur to investigate a being known as the Necromancer. Fans everywhere assumed these events would be depicted in the first film, with the confrontation with the dragon Smaug and the subsequent Battle of Five Armies making up the bulk of the second part.
But then the decision was made to make not two but three Hobbit films. Which meant more material had to be produced. The problem however is that even if material from the appendices is included it isn't enough to justify making three films. Essentially the reverse problem from adapting Lord of the Rings. With the first trilogy there was too much material to cram into three films, with this new trilogy there was not enough. Thus, what material was available was stretched out and...AND...Jackson and Co decided to CREATE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL not based on anything Tolkien wrote.
What does this mean for The Desolation of Smaug you ask? Well, precious, you're about to find out...
What does this mean for The Desolation of Smaug you ask? Well, precious, you're about to find out...
The Gist of It
The first problem of DoS (aren't acronyms fun?) is continued from AUJ (the first film, it's tiring writing the titles over and over). Our heroes find themselves being hunted by orcs who have a hate-on for Thorin Oakenshield, led by Azog the pale orc. Why is this a problem? According to the first chapter of the Hobbit, Azog is dead and NOT at the hands of Thorin but by Dain Ironfoot. Worse still, the orcs in these films are CGI, as opposed to LoTR where they were mostly done via makeup, making them more real and frightening. Guess it was cheaper to put a bunch of tiny dots on the actors instead of covering them head to toe in latex but still something gets lost onscreen in terms of authenticity.
The preoccupation with CGI is a problem that recurs throughout the entire movie. Most notably during the escape from the elvish prisons by riding in barrels down the river. Whereas the fight scenes in the LoTR films were well-coordinated with some digital effects for the grander battle scenes, this scene (which was altered from the book as it involves the non-present orc pack) felt so completely fake. When I think back about the battles depicted in the LoTR films, especially the incredible sequence at Helm's Deep, I remember feeling like I was really in the thick of it, terrified of the enemy onslaught and fearful for our heroes' well-being. With this escape I felt so far removed. I didn't feel the stakes at all.
And speaking of elves, really Jackson and friends? You have a hobbit, a wizard and thirteen dwarfs, more than enough characters for a single film, and you decide not only to include characters that don't appear in the book (hey look, ma! It's Legolas!) but you also make up a female elf for the sole purpose of potentially having a romance with a dwarf? You do realize Tolkien's pipe stem would snap off inside his mouth if he saw this right?
Meanwhile, Gandalf heads off to meet Radagast (the hippie wizard apparently, who also doesn't feature in the text of the book) unwisely goes into a big dark scary fortress, has an absurd fight with a bunch of orcs and in so doing displays powers we never saw him use before only to be captured by the Necromancer, who reveals himself to be Sauron, the Dark Lord, the Big Bad, the nastiest person in all Middle-earth. While this is consistent with his later writings, at the time he wrote The Hobbit Tolkien had no idea who the Necromancer truly was. While he later expounded upon it in the appendices of LoTR, the Necromancer was meant to be some mysterious nameless dark force. Revealing him as Sauron in this way is problematic for Jackson and the producers because it negates the whole "we had no idea it was Sauron until now" reaction everyone has in the LoTR film trilogy. Furthermore, if Sauron had Gandalf as his prisoner, he would kill him outright. Another example of pointless peril that plagues this film series.
Okay, I'll take a break from harping on what I didn't like about DoS (more to come unfortunately) and talk about what was actually good about it. With AUJ, there was one scene I wanted to see done right, and that was the Riddles in the Dark scene, where Bilbo meets Gollum and engages in a game of wits and happens upon a certain shiny gold ring that may or may not be important. With this film I was eager to see Bilbo's interaction with another frightening character. Namely, the title character, the only instance in the film where CGI actually enhanced the film instead of detracted from it. Holy Durin. Smaug was utterly fantastic and terrifying. Jackson smartly kept us from seeing all of him during any previews or adverts, and man did that pay off. When you see Smaug emerge from his hoard of gold, you instantly feel the terror along with Bilbo, which Martin Freeman masterfully portrays. What ensues is an epic game of cat-and-mouse, and perhaps the scene in the movie that best reflects the book. Smaug knows he is superior in every way but is impressed enough with a halfling's boldness to enter his lair he decides to have some fun before he turns him into fricasseed hobbit. Benedict Cumberbatch is quickly becoming the go-to bad guy for sci-fi/fantasy franchises (we need someone British with a deep scary voice. Quick, light the Cumberbatch signal!), but unlike his turn as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness, here he plays an utterly remorseless force of evil. Smaug is pure id; he does what he wants when he wants and anyone who doesn't like it can burn.
Of course the tension gives way to yet another pointless deviation from the source material, wherein Smaug chases Bilbo, Thorin and company up and down through Erebor. What's Thorin's genius plan to thwart the fire-breathing wyrm? Why melt down all his gold and turn it into a giant dwarf statue that will suddenly melt on him. Really? That's your plan for defeating the big red beastie? Not so sure you ought to be king now.
And speaking of elves, really Jackson and friends? You have a hobbit, a wizard and thirteen dwarfs, more than enough characters for a single film, and you decide not only to include characters that don't appear in the book (hey look, ma! It's Legolas!) but you also make up a female elf for the sole purpose of potentially having a romance with a dwarf? You do realize Tolkien's pipe stem would snap off inside his mouth if he saw this right?
Meanwhile, Gandalf heads off to meet Radagast (the hippie wizard apparently, who also doesn't feature in the text of the book) unwisely goes into a big dark scary fortress, has an absurd fight with a bunch of orcs and in so doing displays powers we never saw him use before only to be captured by the Necromancer, who reveals himself to be Sauron, the Dark Lord, the Big Bad, the nastiest person in all Middle-earth. While this is consistent with his later writings, at the time he wrote The Hobbit Tolkien had no idea who the Necromancer truly was. While he later expounded upon it in the appendices of LoTR, the Necromancer was meant to be some mysterious nameless dark force. Revealing him as Sauron in this way is problematic for Jackson and the producers because it negates the whole "we had no idea it was Sauron until now" reaction everyone has in the LoTR film trilogy. Furthermore, if Sauron had Gandalf as his prisoner, he would kill him outright. Another example of pointless peril that plagues this film series.
Okay, I'll take a break from harping on what I didn't like about DoS (more to come unfortunately) and talk about what was actually good about it. With AUJ, there was one scene I wanted to see done right, and that was the Riddles in the Dark scene, where Bilbo meets Gollum and engages in a game of wits and happens upon a certain shiny gold ring that may or may not be important. With this film I was eager to see Bilbo's interaction with another frightening character. Namely, the title character, the only instance in the film where CGI actually enhanced the film instead of detracted from it. Holy Durin. Smaug was utterly fantastic and terrifying. Jackson smartly kept us from seeing all of him during any previews or adverts, and man did that pay off. When you see Smaug emerge from his hoard of gold, you instantly feel the terror along with Bilbo, which Martin Freeman masterfully portrays. What ensues is an epic game of cat-and-mouse, and perhaps the scene in the movie that best reflects the book. Smaug knows he is superior in every way but is impressed enough with a halfling's boldness to enter his lair he decides to have some fun before he turns him into fricasseed hobbit. Benedict Cumberbatch is quickly becoming the go-to bad guy for sci-fi/fantasy franchises (we need someone British with a deep scary voice. Quick, light the Cumberbatch signal!), but unlike his turn as Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness, here he plays an utterly remorseless force of evil. Smaug is pure id; he does what he wants when he wants and anyone who doesn't like it can burn.
Of course the tension gives way to yet another pointless deviation from the source material, wherein Smaug chases Bilbo, Thorin and company up and down through Erebor. What's Thorin's genius plan to thwart the fire-breathing wyrm? Why melt down all his gold and turn it into a giant dwarf statue that will suddenly melt on him. Really? That's your plan for defeating the big red beastie? Not so sure you ought to be king now.
The Anti-Climax
The film ends with Smaug flying off to burn Lake-town and Bilbo asking "What have we done?" I think Peter Jackson should ask himself the same question. The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings. Same universe, some of the same characters but it is not the same story. Trying to make it so only causes it to suffer. Now I can understand why he's trying to do this. More films means more money for his greedy producers plus he hasn't had a massive worldwide hit since the original trilogy (King Kong and The Lovely Bones did not fare well box-officely speaking). Unfortunately the result is something akin to what happened to Star Wars: a much-loved, well-crafted trilogy is being followed up by a much weaker trilogy with an over reliance on CGI. Peter Jackson now truly is the George Lucas of our time. Two middling thumbs sideways.
Answers to Burning Questions
Best scene in the movie? The Smaug/Bilbo face off without question. I held my breath almost the entire time.
Best performance? A tie between Cumberbatch as the beast under the mountain and Freeman as the half-ling far from home. Those two have uncanny chemistry, even if one of them is playing a computer-generated monster (they totally need to make jokes about it on the new series of Sherlock).
If there's a sequel will you see it? Part three, There and Back Again, is scheduled for December this year, and though I am dreading whatever future alterations Jackson has in store, I am eager to see how he handles the Battle of Five Armies. If nothing else that will be spectacular, providing it's anything like the battle scenes in The Two Towers or The Return of the King.
What's up next? Not sure. My next film will either be American Hustle or Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. We'll see.
