2013: The Year in Film: "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Review

The first "Hobbit" movie was... a mixed bag, to be certain. For all of its strengths, it felt bloated, far too long and relied on too much CGI. Much of this stemmed from the questionable decision to turn "The Hobbit" into a trilogy and thus a prequel trilogy to "Lord of the Rings".. when the source material is a 200 page children's book as opposed to a 1200 page epic.  So the decision to turn those 200 pages into 9 hours of film resulted in things like... 40 minute dinner parties consisting of 10 minutes of dwarfs throwing plates in zany ways and seemingly endless chases.  There's also the fact that... not much happened in the first film, which basically covered 70 pages of text. So one would thing that, given that ALL of the action was reserved for the last two films, they'd have to be more exciting almost by default.  The first film left our heroes battered but not broken and within sight of the lonely mountain.

We pick up right where the last film left off, with our gang of assorted misfits having left the Misty Mountains behind en route to Erabor.  A large and seemingly infinite band of Orcs is in hot pursuit (seriously, it didn't seem that big to begin with and how many died in the last movie?), as our wayward travelers make their way to the Lonely Mountain. Along the way, they encounter Beorn, spiders, elves, barrels, and approx. 1900000 orcs on the way to the lost dwarven kingdom and the titular dragon.

The Good: Martin Freeman, especially, and the rest of the cast, are very good. Freeman's portrayal of Bilbo is one of the great performances in the entire LOTR/Hobbit film series and he does an excellent job of grounding the otherworldly happenings in a relatable and endearing way. Ian McKellen IS Gandalf at this point, and despite the fact that his character is less capable and powerful than he was when we parted at the end of the LOTR trilogy, he encompasses the spirit of the character so fully that he's basically the wizard archetype at this point. The plot is much more compelling this time around, and doesn't feel as needlessly bloated. Even though Legolas was never in the book, his presence here doesn't seem out of place and actually makes a lot of sense, and it's nice to see a familiar face. Smaug is impressive, and the scenes of Bilbo trying to outwit the dragon are the best in the film.  



The Bad: despite the clear improvement, this film still faces many of the problems of the first installment. Where the LOTR trilogy used CGI in spots, it primarily relied on makeup and practical effects. The Hobbit films have gone full George Lucas on us, using CGI effects and characters to make the proceedings feel an awful lot like a cartoon. Plus, how many times is someone going to fall 50+ feet onto rock and emerge unscathed? The issue of the plot feeling like one long chase remains, even if its not as glaring as it was in the first film, and I'm still forced to ask just how many orcs are chasing them?

If you're a fan of Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's Middle Earth, you'll like this one as well. It's not as good as any of the Lord of the Rings films, but we knew that going in. Despite way too much CGI, a bloated plot and the most pointless "love" story that's ever been on film, it's still a marked improvement over the first Hobbit film and actually moves at a brisk pace despite the runtime.

7.5/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "The Hobbit" Review

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy is quite simply one of the supreme achievements in the history of film.  He took an epic book series beloved by millions worldwide and made an equally momentous series of films that change enough to be unique while retaining what made the books so influential and popular in the first place.  The definitive directors' extended cuts of the first three films are unbelievably epic and quite possibly the greatest trilogy in the history of film.  (That's a discussion for another day...)  The final film absolutely deserved all of the love heaped on it by the academy back in 2004.  The popularity and quality of those films made the transition of Tolkien's earlier children's book featuring some of the same characters and a familiar world a near certainty and much of the last decade has been spent in sorting out the details.  First Guillermo Del Toro was attached, which offered intriguing possibilities as Del Toro is unquestionably a master at creating wonder and creatures.  Alas, Del Toro had to step aside due to delays and conflicts, but luckily the man behind the LOTR trilogy stepped in so we were promised a Hobbit that would feel very familiar and potentially (ultimately) a film series that would have a very cohesive feel.  So how is it?

Unlike the Lord of the Rings books, I've actually read the Hobbit (back in Jr. High and again this week) so I have a different perspective than I did going into those films.  With that being said, I was initially very, very concerned when Warner Bros. announced that the planned two-part Hobbit movies were to be expanded to a trilogy.  After all, the Hobbit is a 300 page novel written for middle and high school aged readers.. what could possibly be so expansive to justify 3 nearly 3 hour films, an identical treatment that the 1300 pages of Lord of the Rings received?  After seeing the film and re-reading the book I can say that the treatment is warranted.  The book is quite limited in scope, focused pretty exclusively on Bilbo, and quite a lot happens that's either off the page or simply glossed over because Bilbo is hungry or whatever.  So I stand corrected.

"The Hobbit" is a tale of an adventure.  A quite unexpected one at that.  If you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings films (and honestly, it's 2012, how are you not?), you're familiar with the world and many of the players.  Some 60 years prior to the events in Lord of the Rings Gandalf (he's gray, it's the past) recruits an unwitting Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's uncle..) on a quest with a band of Dwarves to retake their home, lost some century prior.  The road is long and hard and poses many challenges, but Bilbo enlists as the troop's "burglar" despite himself.  Along the way the group faces goblins and orcs and wargs and meets some familiar faces.  It's Tolkien.  Nothing's a straight line and the journey's half the fun.

The Good: Jackson doesn't miss a step.  The world and the settings and the shots all feel like a continuation of the earlier LOTR flicks, and this is a definite good thing.  It's good to be back in Middle Earth and he spends quite a bit of time relishing in the familiar sights and sounds of the Shire, Rivendell and the like.  Casting Martin Freeman was a tour de force.  Most familiar to me from the BBC's brilliant Sherlock and "Hot Fuzz" the experienced British actor captures the charm and reluctance of a much younger Bilbo Baggins perfectly.  Ian McKellan is, of course, great as Gandalf, and doesn't miss a step returning to the more jovial "gray" version of the character from the first film.  Richard Armitage as Thorin is a particular bright-spot.  Andy Serkis and Gollum... well, you already know, but it's simply a joy to watch.  Gollum has a depressing charm that makes a somewhat despicable character eminently watchable.  The casting and interaction of the characters on the whole was great.  This is a motley crew and Jackson doesn't do them any disservice by making them parallel the much more capable Fellowship from the LOTR films. These people are a band that is in far over their heads, quite relying on Gandalf and his knowledge and expertise to see them through and Jackson and the script use this quality as a source of humor repeatedly.  On the whole this film is much more light hearted than the LOTR films, as is befitting an adaptation of a children's novel.  The action sequences are often great.  The LOTR films feature some of the most impressive and effective epic action scenes in all of cinema, and the Hobbit proudly carries on that tradition.  Despite the long run-time, there isn't much that feels superfluous, and that's a credit to the filmmakers and the source material that so much can be fleshed out of a short novel.


The Bad: there isn't a whole lot of bad.  Most noticeable to me were two things: 1.) the opening scene tried too hard to tie directly in to LOTR and 2.) an over-reliance on CGI in this newer flick.  Jackson didn't go full George Lucas on us, but where the LOTR flicks used extras and make up for many of the effects, here there are many sequences, creatures and the like are fully CGI which can be distracting if you're familiar with the much more real-feeling LOTR films.  Also, not that the film is over-long, but this feels like it's an extended cut in and of itself.. not a problem for me, but if you aren't THAT into Tolkien's world, it could be tedious.  There's an extended scene with a non-Gandalf wizard in the forest that makes little sense except as set-up for something that's quite a ways off that feels utterly superfluous.  In addition, there are a number of falls/events/injuries where people/dwarves/hobbits fall literally hundreds of feet onto rocks without dying or suffering major wounds that rather annoyed me.  But these are minor qualms with a 3 hour movie and in no way cheapen the achievement.

On the whole, this is a worthwhile addition to the universe of the LOTR films.  Freeman, McKellan, Armitage and Gollum make it worth watching for the performances alone.  The film successfully (except for the opening scene/Frodo cameo) ties into LOTR without being heavy-handed about it, and enhances a universe we already know and love.  Consider the Star Wars prequels - this is no easy feat, although admittedly easier when you're dealing with a known and loved pre-existing property than when inventing a prequel from whole cloth - still, there's a lot that could have gone wrong here, and considering very little did?  Success.  Weaker, on the whole, than any of the LOTR films, but not exceedingly so, the Hobbit is visually masterful, very well acted, and overall a very good film.

8/10.