REVIEW - The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug 5/10

BEWARE! SPOILER ALERT FOR THE FILM & BOOK.

Oh Peter, Peter, Peter... what is going on? How can you make a film enjoyable but massively flawed at the same time? I really don't know what to make of the latest instalment in The Hobbit trilogy... I felt the same about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - confused - and the same applies here with The Desolation of Smaug. Even though this one is better entertainment-wise, there is a lot more wrong with it, and I'm way more disappointed with it than the prequel. The main issue with this film is the liberty Jackson has taken with the plot. In case anyone is interested, here is the link to my review for An Unexpected Journey (yes that is my other blog).

This film is a lot better as far as action is concerned. There are some exciting sequences that keep you on the edge of your seat. But what is fundamentally wrong is the liberty Peter Jackson and his team of writers have taken. I feel that they went too far with this film, not just because they were inventing characters and situations, but because those fake characters and fake situations were given more time than other characters and events in the book itself. That is what really annoyed me. 

Here is a review of my film in bullet points, covering everything from the good, to the bad, and the very ugly. I know I am far from the best writer in the world so if anyone were to read this review, I've tried to make it easier/more readable.

The Good:

• Bilbo : As ever, Martin Freeman comes to the rescue of this series. He is one of the few actors who fits in with Middle Earth. I think that he has studied Ian Holm's Bilbo, because the expressions he makes and way of speaking is very similar. In this film Bilbo has his first encounter with the Ring's power - he is overcome with possessiveness when a spider almost takes it, and he kills the spider with relish to get his precious back. After he regains the Ring and he returns to his normal self, he suddenly realises his actions, and looks suspiciously/cautiously at the Ring (Freeman even manages to put fear into his eyes as he studies the object). Bilbo seems to have developed a lot from the previous film; he's more courageous, not so panicky about tricky situations, quick-thinking, and above all believes in himself. Not to mention he is adorable, and really stands out as the only one with brains in his group. Freeman plays the part so well, I only wish that he had more to say in Desolation. 

• Thranduil: I was awaiting this character with so much expectation, and Lee Pace met it completely. Just as Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett performed Elrond and Galadriel's roles well, he has done the same. We feel like he is an Elven King, one of the great, wondrous, and wise Elves who we met in LOTR. But what is interesting is that there is an edge of danger and wildness with Thranduil. Galadriel is similar when we first meet her, we don't know what to make of her... she is very powerful, but there is also a softness to her, a sort of maternal quality. We don't have that with Thranduil. He seems selfish, reclusive, snobby - all very Elfish - but he seems unfriendly, more wild, less forgiving. He speaks eloquently and with great command. He was really wonderful. I only wish that he had more lines too. I felt like we hardly saw him on screen and that he barely said a word. Missed opportunity!

• Bard: Luke Evans - what a find! Here is someone who really fits in with Middle Earth. He is strong, cool, cunning, understated, and aware (unlike the others) of the damage Bilbo and the dwarves could cause if they wake-up Smaug. He speaks beautifully (especially with his superb Welsh accent - I know I'm biased but it's lovely) and has a lot of presence. We feel like this is someone struggling in society, outcast, riddled with the guilt of the failure of his ancestor, Girion (bit of an Aragorn vibe here). He gives the film an authenticity, like Bilbo/Freeman and Thranduil/Pace that was desperately needed. 

• Thorin:  I adore Richard Armitage. He is brilliant in the BBC series North and South, and I think he is perfect as Thorin Oakenshielf. He brings the right balance of stubbornness, cynicism, not trusting of others, and unfulfilled ambition to role. But the script doesn't give him enough to say or do. His lines are totally uninspiring. You know, this is the King under the mountain reclaiming his throne, we should be impressed and in awe of him like we were with Aragorn. So why is he given so little to say? You have a fantastic actor for the role. Again - sort it out. 

• Smaug: Benedict Cumberbatch must have undergone intense preparation for the voice of Smaug and it pays off. The moment he starts speaking to Bilbo his voice fills you with terror and dread. A dragon is one thing, but a talking dragon is much more terrifying. He isn't stupid and knows exactly what the dwarves are up to. One tiny qualm - I would have liked a tad more cunning in Smaug's voice, that would have made him seem more equal with brains as with braun. The animation of Smaug was impressive too. The facial expressions were quite disturbing and made him across as very evil (a tough call when it comes to talking animals). I loved how you could see the fire in his belly when he was ready to attack. What was also impressive, is that Cumberbatch is a young man, and yet the sound and expressions of Smaug seemed old, experienced, and ancient. I only feel that Smaug didn't seem very big when he was walking around Erebor... more on that later.

• Action: There was a lot of action in this film, however, even that is tainted because it is overlong and involves too much Elves vs. Orcs fighting (I love both but it is overdone here).

• Necromancer: Possibly the most difficult part of the film to pull-off was Gandalf's meeting with the Necromancer, who finally reveals himself as Sauron. Very difficult, a lot of pressure to be met... but this was done okay actually. Gandalf battles the Necromancer's shadow spell, and gradually the shadows fade away to reveal the glowing hot eye of Sauron - with the pupil slit in the shape of Sauron's "human" form which we see in the Fellowship prologue (made obvious by his distinctive helmet). I loved how Howard Shore used the Mordor theme from LOTR over Sauron's revelation - emphasised that he had returned and of course that sound of the menacing doom of Mordor sent shivers down my spine. This scene was very hard to pull off and it was done decently, however, I was hoping for more.

• Comedy: There was some great comedy in this instalment. I particularly liked it when Legolas captures the dwarves and searches Gloin. He pulls out a picture frame with images of Gloin's wife and son. Legolas makes fun of his wife, and also insults his son, who as Gloin states, is his 'wee lad Gimli.' It's funny that Legolas should be so repulsed by Gimli's image, seeing as he will feel the same when he meets Gimli in Fellowship and yet they end up being the best of friends. I also laughed when the dwarves were covered in tonnes of fish to help smuggle them into Laketown.

• CGI: One thing I detested about the previous Hobbit film was how so much of it was CGI. What made the orcs and monsters of LOTR work was how so many of them were real actors wearing prosthetics. That reality is lost on CGI. In this film, Jackson seems to have taken that onboard. There is less CGI involving characters, for example, the orc Thranduil and Legolas interrogate. 

• The Dwarves: I found them all quite irritating in the first film, but here they are less annoying. I think it's because they're not trying to make them likeable. We know who they are now and they are able to be themselves. James Nesbitt as Bofur is particularly funny.

• Laketown: This set looked really cool, literally like a lake-town. It had a cold and very depressing feel. Surprising seeing as I wasn't anticipating the look of this location much. Nicely done. 

The Bad:

• Smaug's Size: Our first encounter with Smaug has him buried under mountains of gold, and he seems enormous. This scene really makes him giant and terrible. But as soon as he starts chasing the dwarves and Bilbo around Erebor (another scene that goes on too long) the size doesn't translate. It was to scale with the buildings but I never got the feeling of 'shit - that huge dragon is chasing them.' The matter of size was fine with the Balrog in Fellowship, but here it was very hit and miss. And I know Erebor is very dark inside because it is not home to the dwarves anymore, but I wanted to see Smaug's beautiful colouring more. It was all very dark and difficult to see clearly.

• Soundtrack: Anyone who knows me will know how much I admire and love Howard Shore's score for LOTR. They are stunning beyond words and bring the film to life. This one seems less inspired. It starts well, the first few minutes of the film have a beautiful piece, but the rest is unnoticeable. It's a shame because when the Necromancer reveals himself the theme of Mordor is played, and when Bilbo does something courageous, the Shire theme is played. Those beautiful, unique pieces of music that we recognise so well. I get teary-eyed every time I hear those bars from 'Concerning Hobbits,' but it's an insult to LOTR to use them here. Because of Freeman's performance, fine, use the theme for him, his Bilbo deserves it. But it's so frustrating because when you hear those tunes from LOTR you're just reminded of how outstanding they were, and how average this is in comparison. Smaug's theme isn't a fraction as menacing as the Mordor/Sauron themes in LOTR. 

• Languages: This only occurred to me today, but why do the orcs in Hobbit nearly always speak their own language? They didn't do that in Rings... so why are they doing it now? I love how Jackson keeps to the traditions of the book by using the languages. Hearing the Elves speak in their own language is lovely, but they're not always speaking in it, which is good because it seems more real. But the orcs speaking another language is so irritating and unnecessary, and it makes them seem even more fake and unbelievable. I loved the cockney, prosthetic orcs of Rings, they were hideous and sounded like east-end thugs. Maybe Jackson is overreaching here.

• Necromancer: As I said before, this was cool, but I felt it was lacking in power. I never forget the first time we see Sauron in Rings, on the battlefield, he seems so dominating, and you wonder why he wears all that armour... what is he hiding? Here it just misses on that. It's cool, we can see it's Sauron, we see his silhouette in the slit of the eye, but it made the audience gasp rather than think, 'holy crap, it's Sauron!'

And the Ugly:

• Tauriel: Firstly, I just want to say that I have no problem with Evangeline Lily - her performance was fine. The problem is with the screenplay. Why has Jackson made her such a focal point in the film? Why is she given so much more screen time than real characters and real events? I wouldn't have minded at all if she was just a warrior, had a couple of lines... that would have been fine. But I felt like here Jackson was trying to make her like Arwen, and failing miserably.

• Legolas: I love Legolas, I love Orlando Bloom's portrayal of Legolas, but what was this about? Seriously? The contacts they gave Legolas were far too bright, the make-up was terrible - dark eyeliner and the foundation was off-colour too. To top it off, I felt Bloom overacted here. 

• Return Performances: When an actor reprises a performance decades later, do they automatically over-act? Do they become a parody of themselves? It certainly felt that way with Legolas/Bloom and Gandalf/McKellen in Hobbit. Al Pacino did the same in The Godfather: Part III... maybe actors should avoid reprising roles in the future. 

• Love Triangle: This was the biggest WTF point for me. Why the hell was half of the film spent on this fake love triangle between Tauriel, Legolas, and Kili? It is boring, pointless, unconvincing... instead of giving us a proper chase between Bilbo and the spiders we are given Kili and Tauriel talking about stars... and instead of showing us more of the cunning riddles Smaug exchanges with Bilbo, we have to watch Tauriel healing Kili and Legolas being jealous. Right. Makes sense. 

• Mirkwood: I have serious arachnophobia. I am terrified of spiders and every time I rewatch LOTR, I am find myself able to watch less of the Shelob scene. And yet even I was unimpressed with the Mirkwood spiders. They were horrible, yes, but where was the real chase? In the book it's terrifyingly exciting as Bilbo (invisible because of the Ring) plays with spiders and sends them on a wild goose chase in the dark. That didn't happen here. The spiders seemed pathetic and the scene was a real let-down. Even the forest itself wasn't scary. Mirkwood is supposed to be really dark, poisonous, foreboding... worse than Fangorn... but that doesn't come across here.

• Woodland Realm: Remember how enchanted we all were the first time we saw Rivendell and Lothlorien in LOTR? I'd never seen anything so beautiful. You wanted to live there yourself. We hardly see the home of the Mirkwood Elves. The most we see is the dungeons, but the kingdom itself is rushed through and underwhelming. I was gutted about this. It's like everything about Mirkwood uninterested Jackson completely, so he speeded through it ASAP. Such a waste. 

• Beorn: Whoa - writing this review I nearly forgot that Beorn was in this film. Again, he had about 5 lines to say in the space of 4 minutes. And yet Tauriel had tonnes of scenes and a load of lines to say? I had hoped to have more to say about Beorn, he seemed cool, and I wanted to see more of him, but his role is one of those 'blink and you'll miss it' ones. 

• Azog: I couldn't stand Azog in the first film, and here he was no different. He is such a dull character, he isn't scary, but I'm afraid we will have to endure him for the entire trilogy (even though his screen time was less in this one - thankfully!)

• Laketown characters: Aside from Bard the Bowman, the characters in Laketown were so annoying and overacting like crazy. I don't know if it was because they were all excited to be in the film, but nearly all of the characters were cringeworthy and OTT.

• Fighting: Perpetual collisions between Elves and Orcs became monotonous and bland very quickly. It was the same in the first film, too many near misses and excessive fighting that dragged on too long. 

Reading through this blog post, I've just been ranting and complaining. But I'm afraid the film was that bad. It's such a shame because there are some great performances by Freeman, Evans, Armitage, Pace, and the story of the Hobbit is an adventurous, exciting one. However, Jackson has ruined it by not only stretching the story out into 3 very long films, but filling the gaps with fake events, and also giving the fake events (love triangle) priority over should-be amazing scenes like the spiders and Elves of Mirkwood.

Some may say that I am unfair in comparing the Hobbit films with LOTR, but when Jackson did such a brilliant job with the latter, I have a right to be outraged that he has made such a complete mess with the former. Watching the films, it's like a joke - one big party Jackson is enjoying because he was drafted in at the last minute. Let's have some fun with this, I know we'll chuck Legolas in there, a hot female Elf, forget what actually happens I want to spend ages on stuff the audience will hate and slow the narrative of the film. Even his cameo right at the beginning of this film - it is so obvious and in your face - he's clearly not taking it seriously. The whole project seems badly planned, rushed, disorganised, and prioritising on events/characters that are unnecessary.

What a shame, what a waste! These films could have been so much fun and a great addition to the Middle Earth filmography. Alas, Jackson and his writers have gone too far this time. In fact, I'd say that the liberty he has taken with Hobbit 2 is unforgivable. I highly doubt that I'll be going to see the third installment.

I love LOTR, and I will forever love Jackson and all the creators who helped make that trilogy possible. But something has gone seriously wrong here. I can't believe that the same people who got it so right one time, have gotten it so wrong now. I understand that with adaptations not everything is as you imagined it in the book - totally understand that - but the changes made here are too much in the wrong direction.

My rating? 5/10 - worth a watch but only if it is on television and there is nothing else on. It's worth watching for some of its performances and the odd beautiful scene. But other than that, you really aren't missing anything. 

The Desolation of Smaug - 1stTrailer: My Thoughts

BEWARE! SPOILERS (if you haven't seen the first film or read the book)

The much-anticipated first trailer to Peter Jackson's upcoming film, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug has finally been released. After the first installment of The Hobbit franchise received a mixed reception (yet still managed to rake in the money - $1.17 billion worldwide according to boxofficemojo.com) it would appear that expectation for the second installment is even greater than it was for the first. By the looks of people's reactions across the internet, most were interested to see if we got a peak at Smaug, or Orlando Bloom reprising his role as our favourite elf, Legolas. We got both of those things as well as a host of others. This trailer is a very good one. It shows a lot considering how early it has been released and really has that 'I have to see this now!' factor. Here I'll just share my thoughts on 8 things that intrigued me most when viewing the first trailer. If you haven't seen the trailer already then you'll find it below:

Our first shot is of The Lonely Mountain (I'm guessing) which reminds the audience of the destination of the quest. But just as we are shown this intimidating landscape, we hear an authoritative, wise, and regal voice who states the basic premise of the quest, 'to reclaim a homeland and slay a dragon.'

We are shown glimpes of other locations as the voice goes on, including the Woodland realm (above) - which looks very much similar to the design of Lothlorien and with bits of Rivendell in The Fellowship of the Ring, but with more green and brown tones, and a more twisted/wild look (suiting Mirkwood) which makes it noticeably different yet undoubtedly belonging to the race of Elves (elegant, magical). 

1.) Thranduil. 

As the voice comes to the end of his statement we are shown a shot of Thranduil, King of the Woodland Realm played by Lee Pace. Being Legolas's father, it is obvious that the make-up department have tried to make him look similar to his onscreen son, with very light blonde hair and dark brows. He has a fantastic crown that resembles elegant yet dangerously spikey branches, hinting that although the Elven race is graceful and beautiful, it can also be deadly. I have never seen Lee Pace in his screen work but just from the few seconds of this clip I can see he will do a superb job as Thranduil. His voice has a deep, commanding, superior, and almost languid quality to it, making him seem wise and as old as he is. It would appear that Pace has really studied his character in the book whilst ensuring that he appears equal in importance and royalty to Galadriel, Celeborn, and Elrond form the LOTR films. Cate Blanchett, Marton Csokas, and Hugo Weaving in the LOTR trilogy all gave their characters a gravitas, magic, mystery, and all-knowing quality, which made them seem like real Elves (Celeborn in the Extended Edition of LOTR - wish they hadn't cut his scene with Aragorn). Pace has a lot to live up to after Blanchett, Csokas, and Weaving did such a tremendous job, but it seems like Pace will fit in well with Elven royalty in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth already, and is every inch the King of the Woodland Realm.

2.) Legolas.

As soon as it was announced that Orlando Bloom would be returning as Legolas, the majority of us had our anticipation levels reach stratospheric heights. Yes, Legolas is not in the original book but seeing as his father Thranduil is then I don't really see the harm in including him at all. It gives a sense of continuity with the LOTR trilogy, and as long as there isn't a massive change to the story by including his character then I see no problem whatsoever. My first thoughts when seeing Legolas was that he looks older, much like I thought in the previous Hobbit film when I saw Gandalf, Galadriel, Frodo, Saruman, Bilbo (old), and Elrond. Yes I know it's obvious that they would all have aged because they're human too, LOTR was filmed over a decade ago, etc, but seeing Legolas was a sad reminder that it was over 10 years ago that we first saw those films. I was a kid at the end of primary school when FOTR came out, and now I've graduated from university. Was it really that long ago that we first saw Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's Middle Earth? Nevertheless he still looks beautiful and he is still our Legolas; it was really wonderful to see him back with his bow and arrow. The line, 'Don't think I will not kill you dwarf,' is brilliant, and harks back to the friendship Legolas has with Gimli in LOTR, a friendship that began as hostile enemies, yet ending with one of the truest and most beautiful friendships in literature. I wonder if we'll see Legolas perform death-defying stunts like he did in LOTR. Fingers crossed! Go Bloom!

3.) Beorn?

This is a very short glimpse of a bear but I'm guessing it's Beorn. Because the clip is so short there is very little to say, however, I am curious as to how Jackson and his team will make Beorn convincing as a "shape-shifter" and if his form as a bear is realistic. They did an excellent job with Treebeard who was a talking tree/Ent, so I doubt that we'll be disappointed with Beorn.

4.) Tauriel.

Arguably the most controversial move Peter Jackson and his team have made in The Hobbit trilogy is the creation of an entirely new character that isn't in the books. I can understand why Jackson wanted a female character in the Hobbit films because it appeals to a wider audience (females); LOTR didn't have that problem because you had 4 female characters; Rosie Cotton, Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn (the latter 3 being very important to the narrative and strong, female roles). But to create one is risky and has upset many fans. I have never seen Lost so I don't really know what Evangeline Lily is like as an actress, but in the trailer she seems fine, she seems like a proper elf, and I hope that she proves Jackson's move to be a good one. I won't be happy if they make her this tough, kick-ass, rebel elf that has a romance with Legolas - that will be ridiculous, annoying, and totally unnecessary. By the looks of the trailer though she'll be a good addition and not cause major changes to the narrative. Good luck, Evangeline Lily!

5.) Dol Guldur.

Gosh, how ominous and foreboding does Dol Guldur look? It looks so creepy and otherworldly... the ultimate lair for the Necromancer. This one is going to be risky too, as what takes place at Dol Guldur is not shown or told in the book as such, it is only hinted at, but we are told in LOTR what happened there (possibly a brief explanation at the end of Hobbit but I can't remember). Regardless, Gandalf is there with his sword, staff, and Radagast, and utters, 'It is undoubtedly a trap.' OMG. There's going to be some serious s**t going down at Dol Guldur and I cannot wait. 

6.) The Mirkwood Spiders.

When I saw the first Hobbit film in January my heart dropped when Radagast was inside his house and you could see the shadows of hundreds of spiders crawling up the outside of his windows. I hadn't read the book at the time, but being an arachnophobe, I immediately thought, oh no - not more Shelobs. The spiders of Mirkwood were terrifying in the book, especially with their metallic-y, hissing, speech. Somewhere online I read that they were descendants of Shelob but she is in a monster league of her own, evil in spider form- these spiders are slightly different and definitely smaller (fewf!). I have heard Jackson say that his team had to make these spiders different and distinct from Shelob herself. However, by the looks of the spider visible in this trailer, the spiders (thankfully) won't be as scary or monstrous as Shelob in The Return of the King. The spider you see in the above screenshot has skinny legs (they haven't shown it's body or face so I am still terrified of what they may look like) but at the moment the spider scene looks like it will be watchable for arachnophobes like myself. I want to be scared of the spiders in this film because of their evil nature not because of their appearance (the more I watch The Return of the King, the less of the Shelob scene I can watch.) For now, all looks positive. I do wonder if Jackson will let these spiders speak like they do in the book? Animals speaking can often look silly, so it will be interesting to see if they avoid this trait of theirs or what they do to make it convincing.

7.) Arrival at The Lonely Mountain.

'That my friend... was a dragon,' says Balin as the dwarves supposedly here a rumble from within the mountain. This promises us that there will be some dragon action in the second installment. I expect that half of the film will be set in Mirkwood whilst the rest will take place at the Laketown and the mountain. A great line for the trailer, it wets our appetite for what is to come. It also hints that the other, younger dwarves haven't really thought about what they've let themselves in for.

8.) Smaug.

Unbelievable, the trailer finishes with a sneak peak of Smaug himself. SHOCK! We only saw his eye in the first film, but here we see his shadowed face. Unfortunately, after reading comments online it looks like people thought the same as myself - he looks a little raptor-y? And a definite shift away from the look of dragons in classic children's literature. Jackson may have done this purposefully however, because he knows that with any clip he releases, he will be inundated with comments and criticisms. In Fellowship of the Ring we see Gollum twice but each time he is covered in shadow; this is because final touches were still being made to Gollum and his appearance really hadn't been finalised yet. That way, Gollum was still visible in the film but you couldn't quite make out the exact features of his face. I think Jackson may be doing the same here with Smaug. Testing what the audience thinks whilst his artists still work on getting the right look for Smaug. The shot of Smaug's eye at the end of the first Hobbit film was promising, so let's hope Jackson stills pulls it out of the bag. 

I do not envy Jackson and his team with creating Smaug though. From how the dwarves described the attack on Erebor, dragons sound like the worst creatures in Middle Earth - meaner, lethal, and more dangerous than Shelob, Nazgul and their beasts, or Balrogs - and dragons are ten times bigger! So Jackson and co. really have their work cut out for them to make Smaug the dragon seem as terrible as legend has it. They haven't let us down with creatures so far, I'm sure they won't this time either. 

Final thoughts?

Overall, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug looks promising, more action-packed, and full of thrills than it's previous installment. You can see some of the changes from the book in the trailer and it looks like most of them will be to make the story more suitable for cinema - not all scenes in books work on film. Fingers crossed that this time the pace and editing of the film will be more flowing and the story in general more planned out. The first Hobbit film seemed incredibly rushed and had a lot wrong with it - still enjoyed it though! I don't think I will ever grow to like the villain of Azog in the film, he really irritates me and annoyingly looks like a highly-computerised, thuggish Voldermort. From what the trailer shows it's going to be a fun-filled ride and a big improvement from the first film. Can't wait to see what Benedict Cumberbatch brings to his roles too, and of course, we know that Martin Freeman will be outstanding again. It's a shame we have to wait until December, ey? It will be worth the wait, I am sure, and makes the perfect early Christmas present. I'm loving this poster for it too (right >).