The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug–Film Review

I’ve now seen roughly 2/3rds of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit and can safely attest his prequel trilogy to his much-beloved LOTR matches the original in terms of special effects and scale. However, in crafting a fresh nine-hour epic, the comparisons — and shortcomings — become as transparent as the person who wears Sauron’s ring.

Despite applauding Jackson’s earlier installment, An Unexpected Journey, I’ve had no inkling to revisit it.  Those reservations ring (pun intended) even more true for the saga’s mid-section.  Despite both films’ dazzling new pathways through Tolkien’s Middle-Earth, imbued with seemingly infinite resources; a dazzling and seamless concoction of practical and digital effects — brought to life with skill and imagination, the whole thing feels forced and unnecessary.  The thrills are placed here not to add to the story but to justify its elongated running time.

Video Pick: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

If Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy was plagued by too many endings, then his new Hobbit trilogy prequel will remembered as being burdened by too many beginnings.  We follow the opening title with a prologue within a prologue.  First, we’re taken back to the same day that kicked off the original trilogy.  An elderly Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) is penning his book while his nephew Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) scurries to prep for his Uncle’s 111th birthday.  Bilbo’s story begins with a brief lesson on all things concerning dwarves, not hobbits.  The 101 intro ends in a large-scale battle between the defeated dwarves and an unseen foe that will be saved for another chapter.  It is Peter Jackson’s way of injecting a heavy dose of backstory and spectacle to tide us over for a long hour of talky exposition.  But by the time we’ve finally glimpsed a younger Biblo (Martin Freeman) smoking a pipe and greeting a strange wizard visitor, Gandalf (Ian McKellan), we’re already been prepped for a long, long ride.

Anyone who argued that LOTR involved lots of walking will have their claims reinforced here.  Jackson takes endless helicoptor shots as our bevy of dwarves, hobbits and wizards scale the vast mountains, forests and praries of New Zealand, um, I mean Middle-Earth.  Unlike Jackson’s predessor, The Hobbit doesn’t involve a natural series of obstacles and stopping points.  Instead, the heroes are randomly assaulted by the various evils of Middle-Earth, only to be bailed out, not once, but twice, by Gandalf, who has now eclipsed Darth Vader in the total number of grandiose entrances.

The Hobbit feels like a carbon-copy of the original trilogy, in which the moments you cherish and love remain in place.  We only have one hobbit, but Martin Freeman has fun with his finnicky, safe and secure Bilbo, who’s swayed to join a band of abbrasive dwarves who plan to reclaim their lost kingdom.  Unfortunately, his place in the saga, despite being the title character, is side-stepped for the dwarves.  Although there are 13, only a handful of them will stick out.

Despite the wide range of interesting faces and noble efforts, The Hobbit simply lacks the heart of the original.  There’s no Sam or Aragorn.  There’s no romantic subplot that suddenly doesn’t feel as tackled on to the orginal trilogy as before.  Even poor Gandalf is reserved to dictate the severity of the dwarves’ quest, but doesn’t match the same level of soulful heart-to-hearts with his hobbit companion.  Instead, poor Freeman is left to wander in the backdrop.

So, why do I recommend this film?  Simply put, The Hobbit is tremendous entertainment, despite the sluggish first hour and its seemingly endless battles that wear thin and lack the excitement we felt during the first’s Mines of Moria or the large-scale wars of parts two and three.  The backdrops offer pleasurable distractions from what is an endless exchange of swords and axes where none of our heroes suffer injury.  The finale produces any endless number of decapitations and ridiculous video-game-like twists in physics (Our heroes take one large plunge in a cave that beckons a “WTF” reaction from its audience.)

Yet, the tapestry and visuals bleed into our senses.  My initial viewing was without any 3D or the contraversial 48-frames-per-second.  However, I remains dazzled by the asthetics.  There are many new untapped areas of Middle-Earth on display —  most of which dazzle with imagination.   

There’s also some interesting new faces including Gandalf’s gentle wizard counterpart Radagast (Sylvester McCoy), whose appearance is only hindered by some rather crappy-looking CGI sled-riding scenes.  The dwarves that do ingrain in our memories are fun.  There’s hope that their characters will mature and stick with us during the second and third parts of this saga. 

The special effects have blossomed by two steps in many sequences, but have taken the plunge by one in others.  Jackson clearly loves his special effects team and has made the mistake of entrusting them with too many tasks, whereas the original saga (especially the first) had a more natural blend of practical and digital wonders.  There are moments when a bit of practical bit of lighting would have removed any distractions as witnessed during the magical moments in Lothlorien — where many familiar LOTR faces make a cameo appearance simply for the hell of it.  But there are stride, especially with the larger foes.  The goblins and trolls are remarkably life-like thanks to Weta Digital’s brilliance with motion capture and facial animations.  

Then there’s Gollum, who is the real reason The Hobbit deserves my recommendation.  Andy Serkin once again injects his tortured CGI counterpart with equal parts menace and tragedy.  There’s some beautiful uses of subtly in the performance, such as Gollum/Smeagal being a tad more lucid and cognizant than we’ve seen, as if to suggest that 60 more years of torment have not been kind to the little guy’s sanity (as well as being deprived of his precious). 

The Hobbit is a welcome journey to anyone who missed being in Middle-Earth.  But like any return trip, there’s a chance you will experience more turbelance and a feeling a deja vu.  And it’s also one very long ride — much too long.  If you thought Lord of the Rings was laborious, then stay away.  But if you like all things concerning hobbits, and dwarves, and wizards, and elves, and goblins, and bizarre giant rock people, then it’s at least worth taking the trip once.  But I doubt you’ll refer to the film as your precious.

Tricksy hobbitses!

I wasn’t planning on voicing an opinion concerning Peter Jackson’s recent announcement that he’s stretching out his Lord of the Rings prequels into three separate Hobbit films.  The Internet is circulating with thousands of editorial pieces as I type; some of which I’ve read.  Most of the negative responses lack any form of concrete resolution.  All of the angry tirades dwindle into some exhaustive sigh of defeat.  As if the fans are being “forced” against their will to fork over $30 total to see one complete film.  Can a Tolkien fanatic refuse a film that was blatantly elongated for the purposes of greed?  It doesn’t appear so.  Instead, it’s like listening to angry diatribes of alcoholics who just learned that Budweiser is tripling its prices.  Maybe the easiest solution is to just quit.       

Jackson will presumably milk 7-8 hours from a 300-page children’s story.  And you thought King Kong needed some editing!  Ten years earlier, Jackson told a similar Tolkien fable that was based on three much larger books and managed to translate each into three-hour installments.  So, is the change a studio gimmick to sell more tickets or a means of helping Jackson flesh out his vision?   

It’s premature to chastise Jackson too angrily.  There are many aspects we just can’t judge until the films hit the big screen.  According to Jackson, the expansion to three films was done to accommodate a slew of material from Tolkien’s appendices, which are included as an addendum to his last Rings novel,  The Return of the King.  Having read all four books, I only skimmed through that portion.  I honestly have no idea what extra material would merit expanding The Hobbit into a bona fide trilogy.  (I do know that the Appendices does include a brief reference to Aragorn’s love triangle, which gave Jackson the freedom to add a romantic subplot to entice the coveted female demographic to his Rings saga.)  In total the Appendices amount to 100 pages of additional material.  When added to The Hobbit, that leaves 400 pages for three films!

I love Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, but cannot understand how this precursor can be told in eight hours.  Hell, the book was already made into a 77-minute cartoon–and that included a bunch of long-winded minstrel song numbers!

After a year of on-and-off shooting in New Zealand, Jackson surely has accumulated at least a dozen hours of good footage.  But how of it truly great or, more importantly, how much of it is crucial to the core of Jackson’s story?

This kind of predicament isn’t new.  Since the advent of the medium, every film-maker has been hindered with an infinite amount of tough calls, including choosing which good shot footage works within the context of the film as a whole.  If you follow the deleted scenes on DVDs, you’ll notice that most of the severed material, frankly, just stinks.  On a rare occasion, there may one or two moments which are truly fantastic, but just don’t add to the finished product.  (For a strong reference point, check out the DVDs of James Cameron’s Aliens or The Abyss.)  Generally a ton of work (and money) is exhausted to get these scenes on celluloid (or in some digital form).  Sometimes, directors fall into the trap of falling in love with their work and have to depend on a strong-willed third party member to step into the fray and remind the director that the audience doesn’t give a shit if an unworthy scene took a full month of sweat and tears to capture.  If it’s unnecessary, take it out!

Jackson is a very talented film-maker and has accumulated accolades, Oscars, and a mountain of wealth that would make Scrooge McDuck faint.  The man needs no ego boost.  But it’s becoming clear that when powerhouses like Jackson, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and James Cameron are told enough times that their shit doesn’t stink, they start leaving the bathrooms without spraying the Lysol.  That’s not to suggest Jackson is beyond any morsel of humility.  But his discipline is being undermined by capricious studio execs who used to pressure film-makers to cut their films shorter and shorter, but are now demanding they be longer and longer–just so they can conjure an excuse to sever the movie into individually sold products. 

Jackson’s first fore into Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, is certainly long-winded.  But this was necessary to squeeze in the sheer girth of Tolkien’s world.  The Hobbit is a different breed.   It lacks the wealth of characters and twists of the latter books.  It will require a lot of fine-tuning in order to constitute another three-installment film opus.  I fear Jackson’s decision was based on the constant nudging of the bankrupt MGM that prefers another billion in the bank rather than pushing a Hot Tub Time Machine 2 down our throats.   

Once we begin to consider that most current movies, even the singular film offerings, are way too long, we can revert back to the old principle that film-makers once upheld: the assumption that movie-goers want to see a story on the screen that has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and that a majority of their captured footage is just crap.  And one film is just enough. 

The best example I can offer involves two of the greatest films ever made: The Godfather Part I and Part II.  In 1977, Coppola assembled a compilation miniseries of both films using a chronological narrative (Young Vito from Part II, then Godfather Part I, then Michael’s story from Part II).  The saga also included over an hour of deleted scenes.  The final product was incoherent and redundant.  And that was The Godfather! 

If the elongating trend continues, our home video shelves will soon be filled with multiple snap-cases devoted to a singular feature.  (Personally, my shelving doesn’t need any more space hogs!)  And within the confines of three separate blu-rays, there will be no deleted scenes–they’re all in the finished film, just like the studios wanted.  So, what’s to be done?

Wait.  Just sit and wait.  Before The Hobbit Part 1 even hits your local multiplex, word of mouth will spread like a virus.  Before you preorder tickets on Fandango, read the opinions of critics and/or the obsessive film-goers who just can’t stand to idle for one more second than they have to.  Let the first wave stampede into the midnight showings (assuming the studios continue those) and preview the first third of Jackson’s saga. Their feedback will assist your prognosis on whether audiences are being shortchanged or being handed the greatest saga since….well…The Lord of the Rings.  If the first Hobbit ends with a to be continued… and a lot of irate faces, save your money.  Voice to MGM that you won’t be taken for a fool–paying $30 dollars to see essentially a very polished rough cut.  Tell Peter Jackson that you’ll pay $10 after he severs scenes A, B, C and molds a better, more condensed version.  No one ever seem to ask for an abridged version to a movie; they always think longer is better.   

Or…

Maybe The Hobbit will be another great trilogy.  Maybe Jackson has assembled enough film to constitute its three chapters.  Maybe Hollywood’s greed-mongering has made me too jaded.  We’ll have to wait until December to reach a final verdict.  As an Elvin Princess once surmised, “There is always hope”.