The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Is Tolkien Rolling Over in His Grave?

Like just about every movie I write a review on, I saw “The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug” (just “Smaug” after this) twice.  The second time, I saw it with my family.  Afterward my mom and I were discussing it, and we came to the easy conclusion that there wasn’t a lot of the story that was straight from the original book.  There were quite a few embellishments.  I didn’t think that was a bad thing.  My mom, though, is sure that J. R. R. Tolkien is rolling over in his grave.

The first installation of this Hobbit movie trilogy, “An Unexpected Journey” (“Journey” hereafter), had many extras as well.  I’ve read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings several times.  I also read The Silmarillion once, though I really struggled to get through it.  I haven’t tried reading other Middle-earth history, so I don’t know how many of the additions in the movies are cannon and how many are inventions of Peter Jackson and company.  One thing that’s sure, however, is that nothing from the novel has been left out!  Beorn; the spiders and the Elves of Mirkwood; the escape from the Elves; Lake-town and Bard; and the dragon Smaug were all intact (with some enhancement in several cases).

As for additions (without spoiling too much), Legolas was featured in “Smaug” along with another elf that didn’t exist in any Tolkien works, as far as I am aware (Evangeline Lilly did a great job in that role).  Gandalf’s solo adventures were also featured.  Some of the Dwarves were fleshed out in ways that they never were in the book.  That, to me, is a very welcome elaboration because I don’t remember any of them, except maybe Thorin, having much of a personality in their original format.

My feeling about the additions to the story is that either they are meant to make “The Hobbit” more of a prequel to “The Lord of the Rings” than the book really was or to make the story more exciting and approachable for modern audiences.  I don’t think either of those purposes is bad.

 A year ago, I really enjoyed “Journey”.  I liked the hair and costuming of the Dwarves.  I liked the relatively light-hearted feel of the movie (in comparison to the tone of “The Lord of the Rings”).  I enjoyed Radagast the Brown.  The special effects were well done (ugly trolls, creepy goblins, and scary orcs!).  But one of my favorite things about “Journey” was Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins.

All of that is still true for “Smaug”. 

I remember having The Hobbit read to me as a kid.  I also vaguely remember a cartoon version of the book.  From those two sources, my vision of Bilbo was a chubby little guy.  That description doesn’t necessarily fit Martin Freeman (though movie magic makes him hobbit sized).  Freeman is a good deal skinnier than the Bilbo I pictured from my memories as a child.  But that doesn’t seem to matter.  He does such a great job of bringing the character to life that the nay-saying voice in me is hushed and I just sit back and enjoy what’s on the screen.

One of the gripes that I’ve heard about “Journey” was that it dragged in places.  Personally, I didn’t think it did.  But if “Journey” was a little slow on occasion, “Smaug” picked up the pace.  There was a lot more action and peril in this latest installment, but it still managed to feel lighter than the “Lord of the Rings” movies.  Martin Freeman’s Bilbo was a big part of that lightness.

Smaug himself was amazing!  The level of detail in his animation was mind-blowing to me.  (Of course, we might look back in a couple years and wonder why we thought it was so well done.)  Benedict Cumberbatch is a perfect choice for his voice.  He really does a great villain!  (As an aside, that might actually be why he’s so good as Sherlock Holmes in “Sherlock”.)

In summary, many of the additions to the story of The Hobbit may not be part of the cannon of Tolkien’s Middle-earth, but I think they fit well with the original work.  If Tolkien is rolling in his grave, I hope it’s with delight and not with disappointment!

Thor: The Dark World - Illogical Villains, Heavy-handed Heroes, and Funny Science

WARNING:  SPOILERS AHEAD

I’ve been avoiding this post, and I think I finally figured out why.  Hopefully the reason will become clear as I write.

I saw Thor: The Dark World (hereafter TTDW) on opening day, like I do most of the movies I go to see.  Ever since then I’ve been debating with myself whether I liked it or not.  I eventually had to see it a second time to decide.

There are a lot of things in its favor.  It was visually pleasing (always a plus for me).  There were elements of humor reminiscent of the first move, but they weren’t overwhelming (another good thing).  One of my favorite characters from the first one, Heimdall, had more of a part (he’s a favorite because I really like Idris Elba and the character design is really cool).  Finally, Tom Hiddelston as Loki has so much fun with his character that you can’t help but like him even though he is undeniably a bad guy.

The cause of my consternation was two-fold.  First, the villains don’t make sense to me.  Second, elements of the story seemed like thinly veiled references to semi-current events having to do with the United States and terrorism.

The bad guys in TTDW were a race of people called dark elves.  They existed before light, so before the universe.  Their intent was to destroy everything so that they could go back to their previous existence.  Perhaps it’s my failure of imagination, but I can’t get my head around how existing before light would work.  For one thing, I don’t understand why they have eyes if they came about before the advent of light.  Also, why would their ships emit light if they’re that against it?  I know it’s a lot to ask, but I like my bad guys to have some logic behind them.

There were things about the dark elves that I really liked.  Their design was very appealing to me.  And, in spite of my above gripe, I really liked how their ships moved.  Also, one of their more devastating weapons actually made sense for them.  It was sort of a mini black hole grenade.  It made me think that whoever came up with the design of it was actually thinking about what kind of weapons a race that hates light might develop.

The other thing that bugged me was what I perceived as parallels between Asgard and the United States and between the dark elves and terrorists.  I don’t pretend to be up on current events.  Most of what I get is tidbits on the news that makes it through my protective wall of escapist entertainment and portrayals I see within said escapist entertainment (NCIS and NCIS: LA).  So here’s my admittedly frail (and over-simplified) perception of how the US and terrorists are seen:  the United States is a heavy-handed, self-appointed peace keeping nation and organizations such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda use tactics like suicide bombers and such.

The beginning of the TTDW showed a war between Asgard and the dark elves.  The dark elves created a devastating weapon that had the potential of wiping out the universe.  The Asgardians managed to take it away, hiding it in a place that was nearly impossible to get to and effectively neutralizing the threat.  In a last ditch effort, the dark elves crashed their ships into the Asgardian forces, sacrificing themselves in an attempt to destroy their enemies.  The Asgardians were portrayed as heavy-handed peace keepers.  The dark elves were portrayed, essentially, as suicide bombers with the dark elf leaders making their escape to hide until the time was right.

That beginning somehow made the heroes (Asgard) less likable to me.  And because of what I saw as parallels to the United States, it felt like an attack on my love of country.  And instead of being able to root for the entire nation of “good guys”, I had to mentally back a small group of “traitors”: Thor and his friends.  (As an aside, one of his friends uses a rapier-like weapon.  Against heavily armored foes, that weapon makes absolutely no sense!)

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t mind some tarnish on my good guys.  It makes them more believable and, when done right, more likable.  But in this case, the tarnish was too much, and that was another attack on my love of country.  I know that the United States is not perfect.  But I believe that the world would be worse off if we hadn’t acted in many situations.

This post is ending up a whole lot more political than I’m comfortable with.  I think I need to switch gears.

Another minor gripe that I have is about the funny science.  The movie didn’t explain it well, which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective.  Good thing in that it wasn’t botched worse than it was.  Bad in that I couldn’t follow what was explained.  But it was a comic book movie, and I tend to give those more leeway on funny science.  So while it was a negative, it was one I could live with.

In conclusion, if I could figure out a way to turn off my brain, I think I would have liked TTDW a lot more than I did.  Like I said at the top, it was visually very appealing.  The character designs were really cool.  And Idris Elba and Tom Hiddelston were great!  (What does it say when your two favorites are a minor character and a bad guy?)  And, in spite of the illogic of the dark elves, the  attack on my love of country, and the poorly done science, it was a watchable movie.  The first one was better, though.