The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

January 2, 2014 by  

The journey continues for Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the dwarves and this one is a little more action packed than its predecessor. However, just like in a lot of hammock films, it’s pretty much all set up and absolutely no resolution. It still makes for an entertaining film if you’re already a fan of Tolkein’s classics and Peter Jackson’s adaptations. But it leaves a lot to be desired.

This one begins a bit before the first film’s events where Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, who is starting to look sort of tired of playing this role) first meets Thorin Oakenshield (reprised by Richard Armitage). I don’t think we really needed this scene, but what medieval fantasy film would be complete without the “drunk pub” sequence? We need to see thirsty men dance and drink to believe we are in middle earth.

There are some new characters we are introduced to, such as Tauriel (played by Evangeline Lilly, looking a bit…lost), and Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt) who can change into a large bear, but looks even creepier in his human form. The dwarves are still on a quest to recapture their gold from the Lonely Mountain which is still being held captive by Smaug, the dragon (voiced curiously by Benedict Cumberbatch). Along the way they are attacked by large spiders, followed by Azog and the Orcs again. One thing you really come away with in this series is that no one really likes dwarves, and no one really pays much attention to hobbits. But that doesn’t stop these stout hearted men even if they are sleight of height. Some of the antics are fun, such as a rip roaring rapid adventure that looks like it’d be a fun Disney ride. But some of the film slows down once the dwarves are captured by the Elves, who are just so smug and perfect you want to stick an arrow in their backside sometimes. Legolas (Orlando Bloom) is featured here, but his screen time isn’t as majestic as it was in “Lord of the Rings”.

The series itself isn’t as strong as “Lord of the Rings” and that’s obviously because the source material was one small novel and not an entire trilogy of books. Jackson borrows from other sources to beef up the material, but there are some very drawn out scenes that you can tell is just plain filler. The other problem is that a lot of the characters are just not that interesting. The characters don’t have much depth, and Bilbo takes a back seat to the dwarves which is a narrative mistake.

The dragon effects for Smaug are good, and the film starts to find its footing once the dwarves reach the Lonely Mountain. But  here’s the thing about that: just when you think this is going to have some climactic ending…it fades to the credits.

Now, the second film in any planned trilogy is going to naturally suffer from this. Even “Catching Fire” had this problem, though I found that a lot more involving. The only one that’s ever really felt satisfying as a stand alone film is “The Empire Strikes Back”, even though that didn’t really have an ending either. It was saved by having one of the best twists in its climax, though, and it stands as one of the best sequels ever made.

“The Desolation of Smaug” isn’t catchy title, and its matter of fact blandness sort of becomes the symbol of why this film is not very memorable. You’d pretty much only watch it if you were going to watch the entire trilogy of “The Hobbit”. It does leave you craving for the final film, “There and Back Again”; but I think Jackson could have done a better job trying to give this its own identity as well.

My rating: :?

Comments

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!





:D :-) :( :o 8O :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: