[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]
Over on Twitter, I’ve posted a couple of lengthy tweet-bursts today which, taken together, constitute a sort of mini-review of “The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.” Actually, that’s not quite right. Taken together, they constitute a mini-review of the things I didn’t like about “The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug.”
I very, very much enjoyed the movie (I’ve seen it twice, after all, and will again), but I have some significant quibbles and criticisms, and that’s what my tweets were mostly about. I wasn’t focusing on the things I loved – e.g., the conversation with Smaug, the spider scene, the way they made the “bringing a burglar” concept from Tolkien’s 1937 children’s book actually make logical sense, etc. – but rather, on the flaws that I can now clear-headedly critique after watching the movie for a second time last night.
Anyway, because it’s hard to follow an entire tweetsplosion like this, I thought I would present my thoughts here, modified from their original tweet form into something more closely resembling a series of semi-coherent, complete thoughts. At the end, I included a couple of exchanges that I had with Twitter followers. Enjoy:
Went to see “The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug” again (in 3D this time) last night. What I disliked the most is the overbearing musical score. I loved the “Lord of the Rings” films’ scores, and it’s Howard Shore again – but this time, he whiffed, IMHO. Poorly paced, too loud & intense. The score was jarringly loud and intense at moments that didn’t call for it, and barely ever let up to give you a moment to breathe. (The same could be said for the film’s overall pacing, but several scenes would have felt more like “breathers” if scored better, IMHO.)
The script also has a few really weak spots, where they try clunkily to convey a thematic point or get a cheap emotional payoff without “earning it." Like Balin & Bilbo’s interaction in the tunnel, ending with the "courage of hobbits” bit. That was a pale, forced imitation of a great sequence in the book (as well as a poorly executed evocation of Frodo and Gandalf’s “hobbits really are amazing creatures” moment in “Fellowship of the Ring”).
Similarly weak, in much the same way, was Balin’s out-of-nowhere “I fear for YOU!” to Thorin, in reference to the latter’s lust for the Arkenstone and willingness to cast Bilbo aside. I get it, they’re trying to set up film 3, but it wasn’t done well, script-wise. The “fear” came out of nowhere, and suddenly Balin’s yelling about it. Huh?
Another beef: at a number of points, “Desolation of Smaug” (and its score) gives us a really intense setup of imminent doom – then resolves it way too glibly. It starts at the very beginning, with those two over-the-top-menacing ruffians in Bree. If they’re so menacing, why did they meekly leave? I realize Gandalf walked in, and I guess we’re supposed to surmise they know not to mess with Gandalf, but it isn’t done well, movie-wise (or score-wise).
Another instance of a scene that sets up “imminent doom” tension, then resolves it way too cheaply/glibly, is the end of the barrel ride. We see a hundred orcs chasing the barrels down river, as Mr. “This Is Not Our Fight” Legolas watches impassively. Implication: dwarf #PANIC! Then we cut away to the “Tombs of the Nazgul” or somesuch bulls**t. When we return to the dwarves, like 15 minutes later, the orcs are NOWHERE TO BE SEEN. One dwarf is like, “I think we lost them”… and that’s supposed to resolve the massive, imminent-death-tension cliffhanger from before? NO!
It’s like Jackson felt the need to have everyone in CONSTANT MORTAL PERIL AT EVERY MOMENT, but couldn’t always be bothered to close the loop. Why not end the barrel-ride scene with Bolg saying, “Hey guys, we can’t catch them this way, let’s regroup,” instead of OMG IMMINENT #DOOM TENSION? There was no need for that little internal cliffhanger, and since it wasn’t really resolved, why have it at all?
And *speaking* of the Tombs of the Nazgul…
I’m no purist. I don’t care that Nazgul Tombs make no sense. I don’t care that it’d take months to reach the High Fells. That’s fine. But WHERE ON EARTH DID RADAGAST COME FROM? How did Gandalf not see him while climbing the mountain? That was cheap startle-the-audience gimmickry.
That scene also contained a good example of my criticism of Jackson’s obsession in this film with constant, unnecessary mortal peril. Did we really need bumbling Gandalf sliding down slick path, almost into abyss? Why? Just make it dark & spooky. No need for the slapstick.
Side note: Ian McKellen, surprisingly, over-acts a number of lines throughout the film. But they were of a piece with Peter Jackson’s whole overly-intense approach, so it’s likely PJ’s fault, not Sir Ian’s.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of really good stuff in the movie. The spiders were done very well. The conversation with Smaug is awesome. Overall, I either liked or loved a lot of the movie’s individual set-pieces, but disliked the pacing, the score, and parts of the dialogue.
Everyone says it’s too long. Maybe, but if making it 20 minutes longer would have yielded better pacing, I’d have preferred that. (Or, y’know, cut out the unnecessary Laketown orc fight & the Smaug battle inside Erebor, a.k.a. the Carnival of Suspension of Disbelief.)
And why, Peter Jackson, WHY did you cut away from Bilbo in the middle of the cool “MINE!” scene with the Ring and that giant quasi-spider thing? That’s another pet peeve: too many cuts between scenes (to manufacture fake suspense?). Jackson weirdly lacked focus in his filmmaking at times.
Contrary to many critics, I have zero problem with them making three films. It simply isn’t true that they’re unjustifiably, for no reason other than greed, expanding a tiny children’s book into three films. What they’re doing is adapting not just the 1937 Hobbit children’s book, but also the broader canon of Tolkien works, written in later decades, tying in that standalone story – which was written before Tolkien conceived of, let alone wrote, The Lord of the Rings – with the War of the Ring and history of the Third Age of Middle-earth. That’s all well and good. Using those broader Tolkien source materials, there is plenty of story to tell. The problem is, they took a lot of filmmaking shortcuts in how they told it; they paced and scored it wrong; and they had weak dialogue in parts. IMHO, they could’ve made a GREAT movie with these exact plot elements (minus, perhaps, the Laketown and Erebor battles), but better score, pacing and dialogue.
Bottom line: I disagree with most purist gripes regarding the “Desolation of Smaug." I liked it as an adaptation. But on its own merits, as a film, it’s flawed.
It’s well worth seeing, and it has wonderful, soaringly high moments. (#Cumberbatch!) But as a film, it’s way below the genius of (95% of) LOTR.
P.S. Caveat to the "I like it as an adaptation” point: the jury is very much still out on my ultimate opinion of the Dol Guldur stuff. Despite the obvious huge changes, nothing they’ve done so far regarding Dol Guldur makes me recoil… but I have concerns about how film 3 plays it out. Somehow, they need to make the 60-year gap between The Hobbit and LOTR, in terms of Sauron’s growing menace, not totally absurd. We’ll see.
Rebecca Bonfanti: I loved the movie. I thought it did the book great justice.
Me: I agree with your second sentence more than your first. I thought it was a good adaptation, but a flawed movie. Liked, didn’t love.
Brian Cates: The long CGI sequences started to bore me.
Me: Yeah, there were 1-2 too many of them, IMHO. (And I know which 1 or 2: the Laketown orc fight & the Smaug battle inside the mountian.) Having so many diminishes the impact of each one.
I expect long CGI action sequences from Peter Jackson, and am not inherently hostile to them, but ya gotta earn them with storytelling.
Brian Cates: If LOTR triology is a 10, this ‘Hobbit’ trilogy is going to end up being a 6-7 at best. For the score & the pacing of film.
Me: Yes.
Brian Cates: In LOTR, Jackson, Boyens & Walsh were condensing, cropping, making alterations to make a huge epic of 3 novels fit 3 movies. Even with the alterations, 85% or more of what you ended up with was pure Tolkien. Jackson also had better sense back then.
Me: Yes. Particularly re: dialogue. They are not particularly good at writing their own dialogue from scratch. Never were. Invariably, the cringe-worthy moments of LOTR (most of which are in Two Towers) are where the dialogue has no Tolkien basis.
Like @tolkienprof, I have absolutely no problem with drawing on broader source material and making 3 films, but sigh…the script.
Brandon Minich: I feel he doesn’t have anyone telling him no anymore. Just glad these aren’t as bad as Star Wars prequels.
Brian Cates: In LOTR Extended Edition special features, they show several ideas Jackson had that got to filming stage before abandoning them. Having Arwen show up & fight beside Aragorn at Helms Deep, for instance. Or Sauron appearing as an angel to Aragorn at the Black Gates. Back then, the studio/others probably were able to talk Jackson out of his bigger alterations/creations/additions to the story.
Plus, it has to be asked: if just 2 Elves can kill over 200 Orcs singlehanded, why are there any Orcs left?
Me: Heh. I can suspend disbelief there (also: why does Smaug keep forgetting HE CAN BREATHE FIRE until just before his targets can escape?) … but yes, when huge swaths of a movie consist of that sort of suspension of disbelief, it gets to be a little much.
Matthias Shapiro: I’m watching it tonight. I’ve gotten myself excited about it, but I still harbor resentment from the last one.
Me: It’s very enjoyable & better than the first one, but *as a film* (leaving aside separate question of adaptation), it’s still many notches below LOTR.
Brandon Minich: The healing halo Tauriel was a bit … much.
Me: Yes. One of several moments where Jackson visually evoked a moment from LOTR (Arwen with Frodo) and it didn’t work very well.
Michael Blum: They should have just “borrowed” the score from the Rankin-Bass cartoon.
Me: I would’ve paid double to hear Legolas sing “Rollin’ Down the Hole." LOL.