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!
No comments:
Post a Comment