Sunday, December 15, 2013

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Rated PG-13 (So many decapitations)

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (novel), Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro (screenplay)
Directed by Peter Jackson
*** 1/2 out of ****

Peter Jackson just dropped the mic.

Boom.

We all know the story of "The Hobbit, or There and Back Again". If you don't, you probably had terrible parents, or didn't have a cool uncle or cousin, or something. Regardless, you missed out on a good chunk of childhood, and you need to stop reading this and go to the library or fire up a Kindle or something and rectify this immediately.

Back? Good.

Bilbo, Gandalf and the crew of Thorin have escaped the Goblin King and Gollum, and are continuing their quest to Mount Erebor, to reclaim Thorin's throne. They meet Elves, and Men, and Beorn, and Smaug. Seriously though, if you don't already know the story, man. Fix that.

It took a LONG time to get "The Hobbit" to the screen. Trying to figure out who owned the film rights to the book took years. Once that was sorted out, a director needed to be found. Jackson was burned out on Middle Earth, having spent a huge amount of time on "The Lord of The Rings". He had other things that he wanted to do, so Sam Raimi was attached for a while. Then he backed out, and del Toro stepped in. He dropped out because it was just taking so damn long to even get to principal shooting, but did help with the adaptation. Sadly, his designs were not used. I would have LOVED to have seen Smaug designed by him.

So, the ball was passed back to Jackson. When he announced that this would be another trilogy, nerds were shocked and confused. I could see two movies (The Shire to The Lonely Mountain, and The Battle of the Five Armies), but three? Not without some insane padding. After "An Unexpected Journey", I still had doubts. I thought the first installment was disappointing. Too many dwarves, too little character development. Not enough big set pieces. Slow going.

I no longer have these doubts.

Is this adaptation faithful? Mostly. Did I object to the changes? Not at all.

"The Hobbit" was, essentially, a children's story. I am sure I will be corrected, but I just don't feel like doing research, so, I'll go with what I think I remember.

During WWI, Tolkien wrote a sentence: "There was a hobbit that lived in a hole in the ground."  He then had to figure out what the hell a hobbit was, and went from there. He hadn't yet invented the languages and cultures of Middle Earth, but he had a rough notion. The characters are little more than sketches, apart from Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin.

But, when he wrote "The Lord of The Rings", Tolkien remarked that "the tale grew with the telling." That's what I see here. Jackson and company have taken a perfectly fine story and slapped on some chrome.

The story here is centered on Thorin (Richard Armitage), Balin (Ken Scott) and Bilbo (Martin Freeman). The characters are far more fleshed-out than in the previous installment. They brought back Legolas (Orlando Bloom), made up a character with Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), and, somehow, nothing felt shoehorned in.

Then, there are the action sequences. Oh, lordy. Wow.

I was actually giggling during the barrel escape, simply because it was such fun to watch. Much like the motorcycle chase in Spielberg's "Tin Tin" movie, it's completely improbable and that's what makes it great. Smaug  (Benedict Cumberbatch) is huge and impressive. The hoard beneath Erebor would make Scrooge McDuck jealous.

Everything here is bigger and better than in the first installment, and, I have a feeling that the final one will be almost entirely one huge action sequence.