With the recent release of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug here are my impressions/review/thoughts/whatever-you-want-to-call-this on the film. I figured I’d post this around some of my internet haunts. Don’t know if anyone would care about reading this though. The short and sweet review: I liked it. I don’t know if I loved it, but definitely liked it quite a bit and I liked it a lot more than the first Hobbit film. Overall I thought the film had a rather weak beginning, a strong middle, and problematic, but still kinda good end. So let’s divide it up into sections. This will be spoiler filled. I’ll try to avoid spoilers concerning what should be in third film, There and Back Again, in case anyone reading this has not read the book (assuming anyone will read this).
First we have the prologue showing Thorin and
Gandalf meeting. This was an exceptional scene. I loved seeing Bree and the Inn
of the Prancing Pony again. The atmosphere and content were great. I didn’t
know if we would be seeing such a scene because while this basically happened in
Tolkien’s writings it’s not in The Hobbit specifically, but in The Lord of the
Rings. Of particular note is the added importance they decided to give
to the Arkenstone and the fact that their ultimate goal is to steal it
specifically in order to muster the dwarven kingdoms. I find this a welcome
change as it makes the quest seem a little more reasonable and possible and
less like a suicide mission.
Then we come to Beorn. This part was very
disappointing to me. Beorn is one of my favorite parts of the book, but these
scenes were so underwhelming. They really rushed through Beorn so not much of
an impact is left. Beorn is nothing like he is in the book. In the film he is
comes across as very calm and almost somber. In the book he is loud and
boisterous and even laughs heartily at times when he's in a good mood. I can’t really decide if I am ok with this deviation because I’m
not giving enough time to make a decision! Another notable thing is how they
had it where Beorn lost control in bear form. The only reason this was done was
to add action to film, which is unnecessary in my opinion. A problem I have
with the first and second movie collectively is the addition of action where
it’s not needed to make these films more like expected Hollywood action films.
Focus on characters more! One of the biggest problems with The Hobbit, and this
is a problem with both the book and the movies, is the large number of
characters and there’s not enough time to get to know them. By the end of two
movies some of the dwarves still only have no more than a couple of lines except
for an occasional crowd shot where everyone is talking over one another. We
need as much character development as we can get. One of the biggest benefits
of turning a small book like The Hobbit into three long movies is that it opens
up the opportunity to really flesh out characters who could use it, but that’s
not being utilized to its full potential. More action means less character
development time. Sorry for the side tracking. Anyway, Beorn losing control in
bear form could be an interesting alteration if that aspect was fleshed out and
explored, but it wasn’t. Maybe this will be explored more in the third film,
but I have my doubts. I’m also not sure how I feel about his look. I don’t
dislike it nearly as much as I was afraid I would based on the first leaked
picture, but I’m not entirely sure if I like it either. Maybe it will grow on
me. He does look unique though. In the book he has black hair and has much more
of a Paul Bunyan kinda look to him with a great big beard. I also really wished
we saw the bear moot! I want to see or hear (like we do in the book) a meeting
of all the bears as Beorn organizes them to go hunt the orcs. Beorn was also
never enslaved by orcs in the book nor is he the last of his kind, but I don’t
view this as a bad alteration.
Now Mirkwood. Man, this was so underwhelming it was ridiculous. Mirkwood is supposed to down out evil, but it really didn’t
look much different from Fangorn to me. It’s supposed to be super dark with
hardly any light getting through the trees and at night there is an unnatural darkness, so dark that you can’t see your hand in front of your face. In the
book at night, the party could see all kinds of strange creatures looking at
them in the dark. The light of their eyes being the only thing they could see.
The reader is left to his/her imagination as to what these creatures are. The
party is afraid to light a fire because they don’t want to attract any more
attention. They huddle in the dark afraid to move or even make a sound. I think
my issue is that it all felt very subdued and too bright. Mirkwood didn’t seem
as oppressive and intimidating and dark as it does in the book. The movie
didn’t effectively convey the sense of despair and hopelessness that is
plaguing the party. It’s sort of there, but there’s too little content and the
Mirkwood scenes go by so fast that the despair doesn’t fully come across to the
audience. If they were traveling for longer it might have been better. When
Bilbo rises above the tree canopy in the book I’m just as relieved to see the
sun and fresh air as he is. But that feeling isn’t reciprocated in the movie
because this section is just too short. I also really didn’t like how Bilbo was
able to see the mountain and lake. In the book he can only see forest as far as
the eyes can see in all directions. He ends up descending even more downtrodden
then before he climbed up. Again, the sense of despair plaguing the characters
is subdued in the movie. I was also hoping to see the enchanted river and its
effects on Bombur. This is a really fun part of the book. Although there are
rumors that this part was filmed in some regard, so it might be on the extended
edition. I would have also really liked to have seen the stag part. There’s opportunity to add a lot
to the extended edition so I’m hoping with more content I’ll like this section
a lot more.
The spider scene was handled well for the most
part. I don’t have many complaints. I expect general audiences will be put off
a little because they will compare it to the Shelob scenes, which are more
intense in my opinion. I suppose one could say that the continual reuse of
spiders as enemies is a flaw of Tolkien’s writings as well. But regardless, it
came out well in this movie. The spiders were very creepy looking. I liked how
they made it to where the spiders only talked when Bilbo put on the ring and
could understand their “evil speech.” I actually prefer this to the book where
they talk normally. Personally I would have preferred it even more if they
didn’t talk at all simply because I find a non-talking spider scarier, but
that’s just me. There's one thing that bothers me with the spider speech though.
At first it seemed to imply that it was the ring that allowed Bilbo to
understand the spiders. As soon as he put it on he heard there voices. However,
when he takes it off before stabbing the one spider the spider still talks. It
says “It stings!” So what's with this inconsistency? The only way this makes
since is if we suddenly believe that the ring has some residual effect on
Bilbo, but this is a stretch. This was still a very adequate scene. I did think
that the part where Bilbo freaks out because of his ring a tad awkward though.
I’m not entirely sure why, but it just seemed a little off to me. I did wish we
would see Bilbo chuck rocks with his impeccable aim though. Also, Bilbo's
naming of his sword was far less notable here than in the book because in the
movie this is not his first slaying. In the book the one spider death was his
first kill with the sword. In the films his first kill was the warg at the end
of the first film, so the death of the spider doesn't stand out quite as much.
Then we have the elves and the Woodland Realm.
I was pleased with all this for the most part. I liked the design of the
Woodland Realm. I wish I could have seen a little more of it. Maybe in the
extended. The characters, Thranduil and his eyebrows XD, I think I like him. At
first I thought he was kinda weird with his mannerisms and some of the things
he said and I guess I still think that, but he’s grown on me more and more over
time. I like his character design. I especially like how they have the suitable
crown of branches and berries. The part where he has an orgasm face and shows
his burn scars seemed awkward to me too. Again, I’m not entirely sure why.
Maybe because it came out of left field. Maybe it was his expression.
Legolas
is a racist jerk! In the Lord of the Rings he doesn’t care for dwarves of
course, but he isn’t as bad as he is in this movie. I don’t like to see my
Legolas in such a negative light. I’m
not saying it’s necessarily bad to portray him like this, just that I don’t
like to see him like this, which is the reaction the filmmakers intended. It
will be interesting to see how the character will develop in the third film.
Only then can I have a full opinion on him. I imagine some of his prejudice
will go away and he’ll warm up a bit by the end of this trilogy thanks to
Tauriel, just not quite all the way. Also, I loved the Gimli mention. I would
have liked a little more interaction between Legolas and his father. Legolas
looks notably different. Orlando Bloom looks thicker, not as thin as in the
LotR, but this can’t really be helped. Actors age.
Now the controversial Tauriel. I like her and
I don’t. I think she is fine in and of herself. I like the perspective she
brings to the story and the contrast of her to Legolas and Thranduil. All
that’s fine. However, I am left wondering is it beneficial to devote screen
time to a made up character. The reason I say that is because, again, one of
the problems of these movies is the lack of development of many of the dwarf
characters. Less screen time for Tauriel would mean potentially more screen
time for more character development where it is desperately needed. But we got
what we got and it’s definitely not bad. Now, what I do not like… no, what I
hate is the relationship between her and Kili! My least favorite part of the
movie. The romance subplot is terrible! It feels completely forced and
artificial. Yet another example of Hollywood’s ridiculous insentience on
shoehorning a romance into every move that comes out. Not everything needs
romance! Hollywood, just because you have a male and a female in a movie
doesn't mean you have to force a love story. A movie can sell fine without one.
I promise. The romance between Aragorn and Arwen is absolutely beautiful. I
cared about them being together. The romance felt real. Tauriel and Kili is the
exact opposite. It feels contrived. The scene where she is healing Kili and he
looks up at her and she’s radiating was cringe inducingly cheesy. I did kinda
like the conversation at the prisons. If this was all that was in the movie
about them I would be ok with that because the prison scene doesn’t have to
viewed as a romantic thing. It could be viewed as anything, a friendship,
understanding, mutual respect, Kili just acting charming so he can get the hell
out.
Now we come to yet another part where the
movie does not adequately convey the sense of desperation and despair felt by
the characters. In the book the character’s are locked up for weeks before they
get out or even know that Bilbo is sneaking around because Bilbo can’t
find an opportunity to get a hold of the keys. The dwarves are miserable for
weeks because for all they know they’ll never get out. Bilbo is miserable
slinking around in the shadows for weeks. Everything feels hopeless for a
while. In the movie it seems like they’ve only been locked up for maybe a day.
That makes their situation seem less dire and weakens the story.
The barrel scene. I thought this was well
done. It was at this point that I started to really get into the movie. I’m
fine with them adding action to this part to add some excitement to things. But
wait a minute. I was complaining about added action earlier. The reason I’m ok
with this inserted action and not the beginning of the film with Beorn is
because here the action isn’t really taking up extra time from other things
since they have to get down the river one way or another. In the book it was
just done more leisurely. Also, it feels
more natural to have action at this part in terms of pacing. Jumping into an
action scene at the very beginning of a film is usually unnecessary though. Anyway,
a lot of the action here was really fun. There were a couple parts I didn’t
like. I could have done with some less cartoony stuff like body surfing and
Legolas hoping on all the dwarves’ heads, but most of the action was cool. The
part with Bombur rolling was funny. At first I was like, “ok fine” with that
part. And then it kept going on and on and I was like “ok, this is getting to
be a bit too much.” But then he burst his limbs out and started fighting and I
started saying to myself “ok, this just got even more ridiculous, but it’s at a
level of ridiculousness that I can’t help, but find this funny XD.” One thing
that really bothers me though, how are the orcs fighting so easily in the
daylight?
Then Bard and Esgaroth/Laketown. Oh my god!!!
I loved Bard’s grim character and I loved how Laketown was handled! Luke Evans
performance was fantastic and I loved how they fleshed out Bard’s character.
He’s like this movies version of Aragorn. He’s just so cool! He’s very heroic
and I can see how much the people of the city mean to him. Champion of the
common folk indeed. But I also like how practical and logical he is. The
conflict between him the Master and the citizens makes him very dynamic and
interesting. The people want to support Thorin and he sees this, but he can’t
bring himself to side with them despite their desires because he's concerned with
what’s best for the people. And then you see the Master just eyeing the whole
event with his gears turning. He knows supporting Thorin is just what he needs
to raise his own image above that of Bard’s in the public’s minds. I also love
Stephen Fry as the Master of Laketown. In the book he came to power because of
an election as opposed to in the movie, but I’m ok with this change. His toady,
who is an addition to the film and played by Ryan Gage, I also like. He’s
delightfully sleazy. A little bit of a stereotypical character, but fun none
the less. The design of Laketown is breathtaking. I love how dreary and somber
it is and how it’s like a dark Dickensian Venice. It’s ugly and that makes it
beautiful. I can see how the citizens would jump at the possibility of
increasing their fortunes. The emerging focus on politics and economics here is
very interesting and makes it feel “real.” Comparing this to the elves
isolationist philosophy adds to the political intrigue of the film and I can't wait to see how all this plays out in the next film. Is it
really appropriate to call the black arrow an "arrow?" It's for a
ballista so shouldn't it be called a black bolt or missile? I liked that fact
that they mentioned the fact that Fili is the next in line to be king, although
I wish they would bring it up more. Maybe in the third film.
Let’s backtrack to Gandalf. I still hate how
they’re handling the Nazgul. Having the Nazgul being defeated and entombed
makes them seem less intimidating then they actually are and it basically
nullifies the prophecy and to an extent cheapens Eowyn and Merry’s role in The
Return of the King when they defeat the Witchking of Angmar. It doesn’t seem as
impressive if the Witchking’s spirit had been completely defeated and
incapacitated in the past.
Radagast is still obnoxious. The bird nest in
the hair and the bird feces running down his face is the most stupid thing
ever. Tolkien would be rolling in his grave. At least he’s not in this movie as
much as the first one though.
Dol Guldor. I really liked this part. Nay. I
loved it. We saw Dol Guldor a little in the first, but we get to see more of it
this time. I love the crazy bramble everywhere and the hard, spiky architecture. I
loved seeing Gandalf at this part. Him against Azog was cool and I liked it when
he looked over the edge and freaked out from all the orcs and wargs he saw. I
loved how we get to see Gandalf use some actual magic, but nothing too out
there, which is good. We see his dispel magic, him manipulating Azog, the
flash and disappearance, causing a bunch of rocks to fall, and the big
confrontation with the big bad himself. We get to see a sorcerer fight! When we
saw Sauron’s shadow in the first movie I was a little disappointed. I guess I
just preferred mystery to what his spirit would be like. A little shadow just
wasn’t very intense. However, I loved Sauron in here. Seeing all the shadows
and dark energy swirling around and that battle between Gandalf and Sauron with
the light and dark was very very cool. Gandalf’s staff actually breaks! Gandalf
get’s sprayed out on the overlooking pillar and everything’s crumpling apart.
And then we see the Eye and the fiery silhouette of Sauron! I loved the effect
where the camera would go into the silhouette and then we saw another silhouette
and kept repeating. This entire part was really cool. I’ve seen some people complain
because the Wizards are forbidden to match Sauron’s might with might. The
Powers That Be that sent the wizards to Middle-earth said they can only fight
the power of Sauron indirectly because it was the people of Middle-earth’s
responsibility to ultimately defeat Sauron. However, this doesn’t bother me
because it just looked like he was defending himself. Maybe that’s not
forbidden. He wasn’t shooting blasts at Sauron or anything he was just trying
to hold Sauron’s darkness at bay. Almost like a shield. He also didn’t go there
to do battle with Sauron. It happened unexpectedly. This part also deviates in
that in the book Gandalf says he went around Dol Guldor in secret. He never
confronted anyone. But I don’t mind this deviation.
Now Azog and his song Bolg. Azog was one of the worst parts of the first movie, other than maybe Radagast. He was unnecessary, a poorly done excuse to
add action where we didn’t need it, he wasn’t impressive visually, and he just
wasn’t very intimidating. I can’t help but compare him to Lurtz in the
Fellowship of the Rings and there’s just no contest. Lurtz blows Azog out of
the water. A much more logical thing they could have done would be to have Bolg
chase the party (just like in the book!), and, unlike the book, just have Bolg
start chasing them sooner if you want a little more action. Bolg has plenty of
reason to do so. Revenge for the death of his father. I think The Desolation of
Smaug proves this point even more. We see a role reversal and Bolg starts
chasing them like in the book and Azog hangs back. It would have been fine if
Bolg appeared in the first movie. What they should have done is not have Azog
at all and invent a new orc character who is helping to organize things at Dol
Guldor. Even having Azog get resurrected by Sauron, who is called The
Necromancer after all, and sticking around Dol Guldor would have been better. It
is worth noting that I think Azog did look a little better than in the first
movie. Azog was a last minute design choice in the first movie. At first they
had a person in a suit, which is how it should have been done, but they changed
to CG towards the end of filming. So Weta did not have a lot of time to design
and finetune Azog’s look and it showed. In The Desolation of Smaug they had
more time on their hands so things were improved. I liked Bolg’s design, but I
wish he wasn’t CG either. There’s no good reason for him to be besides it being
cheaper. But I do like his character design. It was fun seeing him fight.
At Laketown we saw Legolas and Tauriel fight
the band of orcs led by Bolg. I’ve always been fine with Legolas being in this
movie. It makes perfect sense for him to be, but I really wish he and Tauriel
didn’t pursue the orcs. This story is supposed to be about a hobbit and
dwarves, not about elves and certainly not about Legolas. They put a lot of
focus on Legolas and Tauriel, so much that I think it detracts from the other
characters. I like the idea of having a fight in Laketown, but I would have
rather seen the dwarves fight back and defend themselves then elves showing up
and saving the day. I feel like the dwarves are being neglected from achieving
their full potential storywise when the elves show up to do the work for
them. I don't like how superhero-esque the elves are. Tauriel isn't quite as
bad with this, but Legolas is. A lot of people didn't like things like Legolas
shield surfing or how he took down the oliphant in the LotR because it was too
over the top and superheroic. That type of stuff was hugely magnified in this
movie. It breaks the realism of the world. I liked how the party was separated.
It makes it interesting to follow different storylines at the same time. That
way things stay fresher for the audience. I didn’t like how athelas/kingsfoil
was used to cure Kili. It’s too reminiscent of Frodo in Fellowship of the Ring.
To an extent, it feels like we’re just repeating what we’ve already seen and
that’s bad writing. And the poisoning of Frodo and the healing was much better
than in here with Kili. So is athelas some kind of great cure-all that can cure
any poison?
I liked the party heading to the Lonely
Mountain. There was some amazing scenery. I liked the scene at the door. I feel
really bad for Thorin when he is filled with despair because it isn’t working.
Doesn’t Thorin say Bilbo has keen eyes when he finds the stair? It’s gigantic. I don’t think one
really needs keen eyes to see it.
Now, the big tamale himself. The one, the
only, Smaug, self proclaimed King Under the Mountain! I really like his design.
He looks phenomenal. Smaug may very well be the best looking dragon we have
ever seen on screen. His size was foreboding. It might have been kinda nice to
see a little more visual emphasis on the jewels that are supposed to be
covering his underside. In fact, in the book the gems on his underside are the
only things protecting him. Naturally his underside is supposed to be soft. But
he’s still excellent. Benedict Cumberbatch did a great job at the voice work and
the dragon looked really good talking too. It’s not easy to get a head of that
shape to look convincing talking. However, I’m still trying to decide which
performance I prefer, Benedict Cumberbatch or the excellent work of Richard
Boone in the 1977 animated The Hobbit film.
I thought the treasure hoard was a little
much. It was too much treasure to suspend my disbelief and it makes stumbling
upon the Arkenstone too hard to believe. In the book the treasure was in a
single large mount in the middle of the room as opposed to filling every inch
of the room and the Arkenstone was placed at the top of the mound (I’ve always
assumed Smaug put it there) making it easy to see. The amount of treasure also
makes the use of a “burgler” kind of pointless because since Bilbo has to walk
over all the gold he’s making a tremendous amount of racket. In the book, Bilbo
was able to walk on bare ground and consequently move stealthily. In the movie,
recruiting Bilbo to “steal” the Arkenstone because of his stealth doesn’t make
sense. The only benefit he had there was instead having a scent unfamiliar to
Smaug.
I hated Bilbo when he met the dragon. Firstly,
why the hell did he not put on the ring right away?! He should have put it on
the moment he went into the room. And why did he not put it on quicker the
moment he saw the dragon?! And why did he not put it back on sooner after he
involuntarily took it off?!
I felt the skirmish between the party and
Smaug was too much. It felt very cat and mouse, almost Tom and Jerryish. What I
mean is, Smaug is chasing 10 people around and he can’t catch just one! Smaug
doesn’t seem as menacing when he can’t catch even a single one of them.
Meanwhile they keep one-uping him by ways such as dropping large objects on his
head, spraying him with water, and of course the golden shower (sorry, I had to
say that XD). I did like seeing him so enamored by the giant gold statue. It
was visually exciting and a part of me loves to see every second of the dragon
because he’s so marvelous on screen, but I still think it’s too much. And the
part where Thorin was riding the shield on molten gold was just plain stupid!
So it’s kind of like I like these added action scenes and dislike them at the
same time. All this added action also didn’t add anything to the story. There
was no consequences. You could literally take all this action out and there
would be zero changes to the rest of the story. It was just fluff. Action
scenes with consequences are the best action scenes. I expected some action to
be inserted here. In fact, I think it makes perfect sense that Thorin would
want to take the dragon on. I was even always a little surprised that the
dwarfs do not fight Smaug in the book. So I do welcome some action here,
although I have some issues with how it was handled. I think that Thorin’s
long, convoluted, grand plan was awfully weak. Really, Thorin? Really? You’re
plan is to coat a walking volcano with molting gold? It’s no surprise it didn’t
work! I guess it’s better than no plan, but still… But my god, did Smaug look
cool covered with gold. I almost wish he would stay like that throughout the
next film. XD
A big flaw with this movie that is admittedly
difficult to avoid is the story structure. It falls victim to the middle film
syndrome. These are three movies telling a single story, but it is still
preferred if each of the films had their own internal stories. The best films
that are part of an ongoing series are able to end after a big milestone in the
story and see the conclusion of subplots. This makes a movie a satisfying
experience for the audience. The Fellowship of the Ring concludes with the
ending of the Fellowship, which is what the movie/book is named after afterall,
and the conclusion of the Boromir subplot. The Two Towers, which is an
exceptionally done middle installment, concludes with the Rohan story arc. The
first Hobbit movie concludes with a major change in the relationship between
Bilbo and Thorin. The Desolation of Smaug didn’t really end with any kind of
conclusion that is satisfying to the audience. It was a cliff hanger and
nothing else. Again, with the story being set in three movies this might have
been unavoidable. Of course, it begs the question, would these movies benefit
if there was only two like they originally planned instead of three. I did love
the last lines though. “I am fire. I am death.” Very melodramatic, but very
cool and intense the way Smaug said that.
I hate the overabundance of CG in the movie.
Same with the first one. Sometimes it’s necessary of course, but there is an
overreliance. The Lord of the Rings movies actually look better because of less
use of CG and more practical effects. Most of the orcs in this movie were CG
and the orcs look better in the LotR, despite that being over 10 years ago!. As
far as the big orcs characters go, compare Lurtz and Gothmog to Azog and Bolg.
There’s no contest because Lurtz and Gothmog actually look real.
To those who thought the first movie suffered
from poor pacing and was too slow, this film should be a treat. The plot is
constantly advancing and there is energy and added gravitas that one could
argue isn’t as pronounced in the first one.
Again, we are delightfully treated to
excellent performances. Martin Freeman again knocks it out the park. Ian
McKellen, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans, Evangeline Lily, and everyone else’s
performances are top notch. One thing Peter Jackson has a remarkable talent
for is casting. I have a few complaints concerning some of the writing for the
characters, but as far as actual performances go I have no complaints.
A little over reliance on CG aside, overall the
visual design and sets and costuming and things like that are breathtaking as
usual. Rarely has a film been able to present a fantasy world in such a grand
and believable fashion. The team at Weta has never gone astray from their
remarkable talent.
The music is once again phenomenal. I think I
liked it more than the soundtrack of An Unexpected Journey since I think this
one had more original music. An Unexpected Journey was still phenomenal, but a
lot of the music was simply renditions of music we’ve heard in the LotR because
a lot of the locations were the same. I particularly liked Lake Town’s theme.
And there are no words to describe how much I love the talented Ed Sheeran’s I
See Fire (the credit song). It’s utter perfection.
One of my viewings was of the high frame rate 3D
version. I must say, the 3D was quite good in my opinion. The high frame rate,
I’m not sure what to think of it. It’s certainly true what people are saying.
It looks like watching a soap opera or a British drama or something. The
movement is just so fluid. Because of the added clarity I think the CG might
have looked worse, more fake, but I would need to see both versions back to
back to make sure. Ultimately, I think I prefer the regular version, but I
didn’t dislike the high frame rate version as much as some people do. I noticed
that the high frame rate was particularly jarring at first when the movie
started, but as time went on I guess my eyes adjusted because I didn’t pay as
much attention to it later in the movie.
If you care enough to read to the end of this:
“A winner is you.”
.jpg)
