Le Hobbit : La Désolation de Smaug

The second entry in the Hobbit franchise improves on everything he first film got wrong. It doesn't waste any time and gets right into the action packed sequences. My only problem was the setting change at the end of the film. I felt like it didn't suit the climax. Overall, The Hobbit the Desalation of Smaug is a solid follow up to the first film building on the ideas the first film started.

Peter Jackson's ego that was held at bay all through the previous installment breaks free in this one. The lighthearted atmosphere from the book, that shone so brightly over the 1st part of the his version of the Hobbit, is no longer here, the strange story lines that were added to tie every thing together so no loose end is left and everyone watching the film knows that Peter Jackson did tell us all there was to know. An exact opposite of Tolkien's original who kept always saying (or implying) that middle earth has much more to it than he could ever cover with his stories. It's a difference in egos that doesn't always work for Jackson. Even though he did create a magnificent fantasy epic. Much darker than the first part, much more action packed very high quality of acting performances by all involved. The sins against the original book aren't as grave as those he committed with his LoTR trilogy, mainly because the Hobbit as I already said is a simpler story that doesn't allow for miss representations of the author's intentions. Jackson simply had to invent all these from scratch.

I'm all for re-imagining a story, but if you do so at least be honest and tell us that's what you did, like Tim Burton did when he made his version of Alice. Jackson never said any such thing, if he did it was kept a secret from most of the viewers, which is plain shame as far as I'm concern. I know everyone is going to hate this review to pieces, so many "Jacksoners" are following every bit of film he creates trampling in their wake over all those who dare oppose him. But I personally think that had he kept himself closer to the original, he would've ended with a better movie. It was so with the first part, but I feel like his ego couldn't share the credit with the original author anymore, so that's what we got. It's fun to watch - it's just a different story we're watching than the one we were promised.

When The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey premiered on silver screen as the first in a trilogy of films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, the response it received was mostly positive to mixed. The majority of criticism was targeted at the needless expansion of a single film story into three features but, in my opinion, it did commence this latest Middle-Earth adventure on the right note and, despite its sluggish pace, ended up providing a largely satisfying experience.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the second chapter of The Hobbit film series & picks the story right from where it was left off in An Unexpected Journey. Continuing the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who's accompanying thirteen dwarfs on their quest to reclaim the kingdom of Erebor, the film covers the journey ahead for these fellows which is full of dangers and even if they manage to get away with it & reach the Lonely Mountain safely, they have a stupendous dragon to deal with.

One thing I have always admired about this Middle-Earth franchise is the filmmaker's strong intent to keep the story very much within the realms of Tolkien's spirit. But this latest chapter marks a significant departure from such faithfulness & ends up being an immensely frustrating experience. There are a few things The Desolation of Smaug gets right but there are also way too many things that are wrong with it. Let's start with the things it gets right first.

Since the previous chapter was criticized for its sluggish pace, the filmmakers have vastly improved the pacing in this middle chapter with addition of many more action sequences to keep the entertainment going throughout its runtime. Production design continues to amaze. Cinematography encapsulates the picture with a darker layer which suits its tone. Visual effects has its share of highs n lows & Howard Shore's score is good but it also stumbles a little for the very first time.

Now coming to what's wrong with it... First, it slaughters the book in a manner that's plainly insulting to Tolkien. Second, the absurdly introduced love triangle, overindulgence of Elves & eye-rollingly cheesy dialogues are poor filler substitutes. Third, this film had a great opportunity to further develop its characters but thanks to its rushed pace & more emphasis on over-the-top action over a riveting narration, we still have difficulty in recalling the correct names of all the Dwarfs.

And that's not all. Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo Baggins but his character is demoted into a secondary role for the centre stage is taken by Richard Armitage's Thorin. The remaining Dwarfs get only as much screen time as they did in the last chapter. Elves have never been as annoying as they are in this film for Legolas wasn't even needed in this adventure & Tauriel, who doesn't even exist in the novel but was created to bring a feminine energy to the series, is given a stupid love story to work with instead.

At last, I would like to talk about Smaug. Exquisitely designed, remarkably portrayed & meticulously detailed, this splendid beast of CGI is a jaw-dropping wonder to look at & the painstaking work that went into bringing this magnificent dragon to life truly deserves a bow. But thanks to its inefficient handling by the filmmakers, the cunning, proud & intelligent dragon of the novel is turned into a foolish creature here which is a shame because Smaug could've been as memorable to this trilogy as Gollum was to The Lord of the Rings.

On an overall scale, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is an emotionally unappealing but visually spectacular sequel which features a much more exciting, fiercely paced & action-packed entertainment that'll satisfy most filmgoers but for the devoted fans of Middle-Earth, it's a heartbreaking disappointment that adds even more insult to injury by abruptly ending at one of the most frustrating cliffhangers in cinema history, thus leaving the experience very much incomplete in the end.

The second Hobbit film connects you better to the characters than the first in an entertaining ride with more danger, excitement, and humor. The action is well done, and the 3D adds to it, especially in the "whitewater rafting" scene. That part and the whole movie has good editing. In this one, two of the non-King dwarfs' presence is stronger (Balin and Kili). The she-elf warrior Tauriel and what comes with her works, adding some heart to the film.

Besides Richard Armitage leading the way as the King under the Mountain with his great chemistry with fellow castmates, there are three actors who give specially noteworthy live-action performances. Lee Pace is one of the true highlights as Thranduil, who is an Elf King that deals with foreboding in a way that is different from Elrond. Ian McKellen's acting is comparable to him in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, as he takes advantage of Gandalf getting his own storyline and heart-pounding action scene. Martin Freeman is good once again as the brave titular character, and actually slightly better.

The confrontation with Smaug is very enjoyable. It is a long movie, but the finale is the high point. Benedict Cumberbatch does an excellent job with the arrogant beast's voice, and the dragon looks really cool in 3D. I personally think that they ended it at the perfect place. When they divide a book up, it will inevitably result in a cliffhanger feeling. But, I am satisfied with how they handled it.

After reading some of the previous reviews, I wonder what it takes to engage the modern viewer. It seems we have become so jaded that we see the necessity of giving a one star review to something as phenomenal as this film is. It is filled with action, sets of remarkable creativity, amazing characters, in a complex plot that made me long for the conclusion. I know it doesn't follow the book religiously. Get over that. Even a fifteen hour miniseries based on a novel fails miserably. Of course, every English teacher on the planet knows that we are working in two entirely different mediums. Books and movies are different! What Peter Jackson has done is taken the primary plot and allowed his script writers to take what is given and supplement it with their own creativity. The first film, though imperfect, does set the stage for this superior second effort. What we get is nonstop action, moving the characters toward the object of their quest. Tolkien's rules are followed if not the letter of the plot. The first film was criticized for being too talky. Now this one is being criticized for not being talky enough. For me, the scene where the gang must escape an elven prison and face the orcs is one of the most delightful fifteen minutes I've ever spent in a movie theater. I don't expect an action film based on a book with voluminous characters to have character development like "Driving Miss Daisy." See the film for what it is and count yourselves lucky to have the luxury of being able to see the amazing accomplishments of the Peter Jackson's of the world.