[Films] The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug

I've been getting a bit behind on new film releases in recent months. First I missed Elysium. Then I missed Gravity, which by all accounts was amazing and something that, as an astronomer, I really should see. Then I managed to avoid seeing Ender's Game, which I was also looking forward to. Finally, there's the second part of the Hobbit trilogy (don't get me started...). I really enjoyed the first one, and was looking forward to part 2, but I missed the work trip to go and see it at the IMAX. So I thought I'd wait to go with my family over the Christmas holidays. Circumstances contrived to make this difficult, but we did eventually manage to get to see it (in 2D of course) last night.

Promotional poster for 'the Desolation of Smaug', showing Bilbo in front of the Lonely Mountain. (Credit: fansided.com)

Whilst the first film followed the course of the first part of the book fairly closely, adding only enhanced roles for Radagast, the White Council, and the Necromancer, as well as the big bad orc, this second part shows greater deviation from the plot of the book. The side-story involving Gandalf's investigation of the Necromancer has increased screen time,  presumably so that Ian McKellen has something to do - Gandalf isn't exactly around very much in the book. This is a shame, as I feel that it distracts from the main story. Yes, it adds some increased dramatic tension and sense of scale, but it jars somewhat with the dwarves and their quest. One of the nice things about the Hobbit as a book is that it's quite tightly focused, and although I thought that the additions to the first film were ok, this time around I really feel that they're getting in the way a bit, and almost trying too hard to tie the film into the Lord of the Rings films.

Speaking of which, whilst it's good to see Legolas, and his presence makes sense given that the dwarves are travelling through his home, he's more of a superhero this time around than in the Lord of the Rings. Luckily it's never quite as annoying as the Mumakil scene in the Return of the King, and actually pretty cool. (On the subject of needless tie-in, why exactly is he shown a picture of Gimli?) He's also balanced out by the new female elf character, who's equally awesome but much interesting from a character perspective, and who provides a voice of dissent in the elven host. Sadly that good work is let down by a needless romantic interest storyline with Kili. Which brings me to another of my complaints.

Tauriel (left) provides a rare example of a female elf, and is basically a female Legolas with a more interesting and

engaging character portrayal. (Credit: hypable.com)

Not only does Peter Jackson add in the extraneous material (with variable results), he mucks around with the story that's actually in the book!

Exhibit 1 - the dwarven escape from the wood elves. In the book this highlights Bilbo's intelligence and cunning, with him successfully hiding the dwarves who get away without being noticed, and then using the ring. In the film, he (accidentally) brings attention to their mode of escape, leading to a lengthy action sequence. I'll give this one a pass because of said action sequence, which is very enjoyable and also quite funny - much like the chase through Moria in the first film.

Like shooting dwarves in a barrel. Oh wait, that seems to be quite hard. (Credit: news.yahoo.com)

Exhibit 2 - not all the dwarves go the lonely mountain! Fili gets stuck with a Morgul arrow, and in a rehash of Frodo's incident from the Fellowship of the Ring gets very ill, and is saved at the last minute by a female elf. But this means he gets stuck in Laketown, along with his brother and Bofur. Why oh why is this necessary? We've seen this storyline before, and the whole point of the story is the dwarves going to reclaim their home from a dragon. I can't express how irritated this change makes me.

Exhibit 3 - the chase through the Lonely Mountain, with the dwarves somehow sneaking around and confusing Smaug (who's only just shown his intelligence and keen sense of smell), then restarting the forges, then making a giant golden statue to drown the dragon in a golden bath. Ridiculous. Again this was very irritating, and the only point seemed to be to give Smaug a justification for going to attack Laketown. Admittedly this gives us a fantastic final scene and cliffhanger, but that still can't overcome my annoyance at the stupid running around.

I might seem as though I being very hard on the Desolation of Smaug, but I will admit to really enjoying it, in spite of the misgivings I've outlined. The version of Beorn presented here is interesting, and once again the imagery is fantastic. But it's Smaug that's the real star. Benedict Cumberbatch, rapidly becoming one of my favourite actors (and apparently in everything these days, much like Michael Fassbender) is brilliant as the gold-loving dragon, and the visual style and presentation of the dragon is spot-on. The interaction between him and Martin Freeman's Bilbo is very, very well done too; it's as engaging as the scene with Gollum in An Unexpected Journey, but has a completely different feel to it.

Smaug is awesome. That is all. (Credit: screenrant.com [L] and theonering.net [R])

I think it speaks volumes to the way that the Hobbit films have turned out that my two favourite scenes from the two films so far have no action, and feature two characters talking to each other. Bilbo and Gollum, Bilbo and Smaug. In the end these are films about a Hobbit, and it's only right that Martin Freeman is stealing the show.

So what's my overall impression of the film? Like the first one, but more exaggerated. If you liked An Unexpected Journey you'll like this, and if you didn't you won't. If you're a fan of the book then the Desolation of Smaug will frustrate and irritate you at times, but in the end you'll get sucked in by the chance to see some of the best scenes in the book played out in picture-perfect fashion.