The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Unlike many of my geekier friends, I never particularly enjoyed reading the Lord of the Rings trilogy and have always derived greater enjoyment watching the films.  This can mostly be attributed to the fact that, unlike my friends, I didn't grow up reading them so there was less of a nostalgic attachment for me.  I enjoyed how the films condensed what was in the books in to a leaner tale of adventure. Part of the density of those tomes is Tolkien's detailed descriptions of middle-earth and the filmmakers used this to created a rich world full of history and character.  As a result, the films could concentrate on the plot and let the environment speak for itself.

I actually read The Hobbit last (after wading through The Simalrillion) and I enjoyed its simplicity and playfulness in comparison to the other books.  Granted, it was written for children but, still, it was a breath of fresh air after the density of The Lord of the Rings.

And that is where Jackson and company have gone wrong with the series of Hobbit movies: rather than playing off the innocence and simplicity of The Hobbit, they feel bound and determined to outdo what they did with  the Lord of the Rings.  I have no problem when certain aspects that are present in the book are fleshed out a bit.  The dwarves, for example, are almost entirely interchangeable in the book; all we know is Thorin is the leader and Fili and Kili are the youngest.  So, giving each dwarf a distinct look and personality is a nice flourish.  So is elaborating on their history, however, some of the flashbacks didn't need to be as detailed or, more importantly, as long; I get that it looks really cool but it does tend to make the story drag a bit.

I don't mind Gandalf's adventures being elaborated on either; after all, they are merely showing things that Gandalf tells Bilbo about later and some things are much better seen than heard.  Even Radaghast's addition to the cast doesn't bother me; sure, he's mentioned only once in the book but his depiction is faithful to that brief description and it fits in with the story (and I'm a sucker for wizards).  The same goes for Bard's back story and character; it's implied in the book, there's no harm in elaborating.

What I do have a problem with, and The Desolation of Smaug is the worst offender so far, is the addition of stuff that is neither implied in the original novel nor any of Tolkien's many appendices to the Lord of the Rings.  Case in point: Legolas. Granted, he is the prince of the elves of Mirkwood who do appear in The Hobbit and, I suppose, one could easily infer that he would have been present at the time of their imprisonment, but his appearance would best be relegated to a brief cameo or a scene or two.  Instead, we get, not only Legolas, but Tauriel, a female elf that is entirely a creation of Jackson, in a love triangle with the dwarf, Kili. To an extent, I get it; Legolas is popular and the ladies love him.  Also, a little romance might help the films appeal to a wider audience (i.e. females of the non-geeky variety).  But couldn't a romance between she and Legolas suffice?  Must we go inter-species? Especially when this storyline serves no conceivable narrative purpose other than adding to the film's run time.

Perhaps the greatest crime of all is that, with all the additions and elaborations, one very important element of the story gets lost in the shuffle: Bilbo.  You know THE hobbit? The one from the frickin' title of the movie? This is especially disappointing when Martin Freeman was absolutely the perfect choice for the reluctant adventurer and hero (and, when given the opportunity, he does shine in the role).

You know what else might have been nice to see in The Desolation of Smaug? The actual desolation of Smaug! Book fans will know what I mean when they see the movie.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is by no means a bad movie. It's actually quite enjoyable, particularly on a visual level.  To his credit, Jackson makes the 2 hour and 40 minute run-time move by at a fairly brisk pace but, when all is said and done, the series really could have been two-movies of about that length rather than three. In fact, rather than the extended cut that is sure to be released a year from now (just in time for Christmas!), when all is said in done, I think I would prefer an abbreviated cut which boils all three films down to the single 3-hour epic that it should have been in the first  place.

Oh, and one last thing, whatever the film's faults, SMAUG LOOKS FRICKIN' AWESOME!!!!!