The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

So of course I went to see the Hobbit in the cinema, the very next day after it premiered. I don’t give a damn that I almost didn’t get up for work the next morning, because the film was three hours long, plus another half an hour of commercials and trailers, as well as a 15-minute break in the middle of the film. But I still have to say that I enjoyed much more than anything in a long time. The first Hobbit was kind of bland. Peter Jackson spent an hour and a half fooling around in Rivendell and the movie was over before it truly began. The second instalment, however, has some balls. In places, it reminded me of the second Lord of the Rings, where the majority of the movie took place during the Battle of Helm’s Deep. I must say Peter Jackson made some of the scenes with so much genius that they were beyond reproach. The barrel scene, for instance, will become an example that will teach young directors how to shoot their scenes in a dynamic fashion. I have never seen such a funny and at the same time action-packed and effective scene and I don’t know if I’ll ever see it again. Add in the amazing setting, amazing characters all of whom have their place in the story (and why wouldn’t they, when the entire Hobbit trilogy will run over nine hours) and above all Middle-earth! The same Middle-earth to which I return every time my imagination starts to fail me. It was a gorgeous, incredible experience. And I’m glad that this film addresses the issue of whether an elven girl should talk to a dwarf boy and whether they should or even could become friends. Such an issue lies at the core of all fantasy worlds, and whenever there is someone willing to address it, the only thing to be said is that such is the world we live in. This movie is so charming that I don’t know if I’m even able to wait a whole year for the next one. It ended so abruptly that I wasn’t able to get over it even a week later. (2013-12-18)

Deelicious. It’s not a question of whether the second Hobbit is better or worse than part one; it is completely different and no longer resembles either the first movie or the book it’s based on. And whether or not it is any good is a matter of opinion, the same as the fact that part two is more like Jackson’s King Kong, set in Middle Earth, but unlike that movie, here the characters aren’t forgotten due to the impressive and frequent action. On the one hand, the fact that if THIS is what an artificially drawn out (things from the appendices like Gandalf’s journey and the origin of the burning eye are excellent; the newly thought up ones like inter-species romance are terrible) and shaken up money factory that, as the middle of a trilogy, shouldn’t have a beginning or an end (which true, it doesn’t, but there could have been if they had chosen a better place to split it up), looks like, then... Go on and bring us more like it, because it is definitely great entertainment, full of action, ideas and large-format movie magic. However, despite its fatefulness and action content, it is cold as a dog’s nose (the only action not dominated by playful escapades and where it’s important and the opponents “sweat blood" is Gandalf versus Sauron). Not even a team headed by Sherlock could find any hint of emotion here. And despite all its epic spectacular-ness, as in part one the climax is a simple discourse between a hobbit and a CGI character. Unfortunately this makes it even more unpleasant that Bilbo as such is so often utterly sidelined for extended periods. Which best symbolizes the problem of the second Hobbit; while for The Lord of the Rings the foundations to which Peter is laying here, Bilbo is irrelevant, so for the “Hobbit" which this is an adaptation of (whether Jackson likes it or not), Bilbo is essential. It’s the same with the Extended Edition as with The Two Towers; while being considerably longer, it is much more compact, tighter, faster moving and paradoxically feels shorter. Most of the new or extended scenes aren’t just a mandatory offering for the most loyal fans or a cute, completely unimportant extension of something seen already, but they become absolutely component to the story, giving greater depth to it and to the characters. Beorn, Mirkwood, Lake-town and the Gandalf storyline receive the greatest benefit. And some are so fundamental (and good) that you will be asking yourself why on earth they were replaced by something else in the movie theater version. (2013-12-12)

Well, the magic is gone. Thanks to its slower pace, the first Hobbit put me on a wave of nostalgia, but this one is just disappointing, with uninteresting characters that you never get to know anything about and a heap of awful digital mess that in a couple of scenes (e.g. Legolas jumping on the heads of the dwarves) reminded me of the infamous car chase in the jungle of the fourth Indiana Jones. Gandalf’s search is utterly pointless, Legolas is an ornament, the love story between Kate from Lost and the second (and also the last) recognisable dwarf out of thirteen (defined with the word “annoyed”) is stupid and, on top of that, the wanderings of the party of dwarves and Bilbo pulled me into a deep confused astonishment (to send a Hobbit into a mountain to dig into drifts of gold and find some kind of powerful stone that could be anywhere, hoping the dragon won’t wake up, it’s a really great plan that may be fine for a children fairy-tale, like the book, but in a movie that wants to be dark fantasy feels out of place, at the very least). Also, there‘s no proper story or dramatic arc (the first one worked with Bilbo being accepted into the group and gaining the trust of the dwarves), so if the plot of the first part could be summarised, with some exaggeration, with “they left”, here “they arrived” is enough without any exaggeration; and with the impression that in the third “they will be there for awhile”. Jackson still has a firm hand, but my disappointment won’t let me give more than two stars to a film that terribly bored me with its barrage of digital gimmicks. (2013-12-12)

It left the world and took its flight / over the wide seas of the night. / The moon set sail upon the gale, / and stars were fanned to leaping light. Favorite scenes from the book elevated to adrenaline peaks, incredibly functional new characters, and references from other Tolkien works finally depicted in a way that we don't have to grasp for every footnote. And when I was afraid that the tempo might suffer with the arrival at Esgaroth, I didn't realize I would receive such a hearty dose of Smaug that would surpass everything and make The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug the film of the year again. Okay, I'm lying, I did suspect the last part. And I had missed that atmosphere of fantasy, adventure, and this time even real fear and courage much more throughout the year than I was willing to admit. (2013-12-23)

Tasted good. A mountain of gold and a dragon to boot, who wouldn’t like it? The second part of the story unfolds in a more lively and considerably darker tempo. Jackson enjoys his freedom and introduces a new storyline (that he could have easily left out) bringing minor items of news for those who have read the book, too. Comely Tauriel with the face of Evangeline Lilly has one of the most beautiful theme tunes that Shore has ever composed. Bilbo and his gang tumble through one disaster to the next, most impressively the confrontation with the bug, the barrel ride and the final encounter with the lord beneath the mountain. This year, Cumberbatch appears in negative roles (and this is the most powerful of them). I was delighted by Smaug’s dwelling which exceeded my expectations, like the dragon itself. The playful conversation, the action. Only interrupted by Gandalf’s preparations for the finale, but only very slightly. Really effective, accepting that it’s slightly drawn out. The ending provoked disgruntled silence, mumbling and finally “You must be joking!", but honestly they couldn’t have cut it short at a better moment. Next year all it’ll all work out I suspect that episode 3 is going to be a real massacre. (2013-12-13)