The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

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. (12/12/2013)

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. (12/12/2013)

I will no longer cry over spilled milk, i.e., that the division into three films does not make sense (but it still doesn't). For the first few tens of minutes, a digital cup of part one spreads across the screen with a sunset / sunrise sprouted behind it. I remember with love the times when Middle-earth was more material and objective for me than the digital figures of orcs and the magnificent play of colors. Jackson stuffs wherever he can. I hope he grows antlers for the elven travesty show. Tauriel is beautiful and annoying, Legolas seems half a century older than in The Lord of the Rings and because he can't be the more casual athlete who actually likes dwarves, he pretends to be a shepherd whose flock of sheep has been sodomized (hello Znojmo) and his contribution lies in spiral choreographies (which is really annoying at the end). For me, the second film is divided by the scene with the barrels. The liquid action voyage is divine, and with the arrival of Bard and Esgaroth, I once again get the feeling that I want to be a part of The Hobbit and engage in it in some way other than just by staring at it. The conflict between the demonically blooming Thorin and the charismatic rioter Bard has an old nobility, and the disgusting sub-grave bourgeois mayor returns to The Hobbit a piece of overlap and humorous theater. Suddenly there is something to discover and something to be surprised and amused by ("why are dwarves crawling out of the toilets?"). The feeling that I was really looking forward to the three-leafed narrative lines intersecting in the grand action finale at the end gradually left me. Smaug is interrupted by a sad love-funeral episode with Kili, and I can't say that I would enjoy watching the stretched part of Kahan's melter in the Misty Mountain. In addition, the final triple cliffhanger is pretty cheap and ruined my assumption that the second film is better structured than the first. So, just like last time. This time even closer to four stars, but given those disappointed expectations... no. No way. Edit after the second watch: Ok, fine. (11/12/2013)

It’s a whole class better than the first film. Jackson tames mostly himself, puts together a somewhat coherent plot, albeit with a slight aftertaste of forced intermezzo, and above all gives credit to the winged lizard. The dragon has no equal in the ring of digital monsters and thus irons out, in the end, the embarrassing impressions of otherwise rather dull (Beorn) and completely useless (Tauriel) characters. (31/03/2014)

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. (23/12/2013)