The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I came late to the party, or at least it seemed that way. By the time I first saw the Rankin-Bass version of "The Hobbit" on television, which I learned about from posters in the English classrooms at school, many of my friends were already into JRR Tolkien. I really enjoyed the animated film and later sought the book out, which I also dug.

Then I moved on to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This was dense and not written in the light manner of "The Hobbit." I got through "Fellowship" and started "Two Towers," then gave up on it. I put Tolkien in the same category as H.P. Lovecraft and George Lucas, great conceptualists, but lousy on the follow through. Over the next quarter century I did finish the trilogy and even re-read it, but Tolkien's style was not for me.

I did enjoy the LotR movies by Peter Jackson however, but I wasn't gaga over it. My brother-in-law was. He convinced me to watch the ten-hour DVD set of it, and it was all right, once. He also got me to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which I was a bit more excited for. Until the middle of the film, it seemed to go on forever. However once it got rolling it was pretty good, the bits with Gollum, and the Orcs on their trail had my interest.

I recently got a chance to finally see the second installment of The Hobbit, The Desolation of Smaug. First, three parts? Really? This couldn't be one, or two at most? This one had the same problem as the first, it dragged, was even boring in parts. I know Peter Jackson, and a majority of his fan base are in love with Middle-Earth, but it's gotta end some time, and you can't make other people love by making these movies longer.

Has anyone thought of possibly making a TV series, new adventures set in Middle-Earth, to possibly fill this need? Will Jackson be filming "The Silmarillion" or "Tom Bombadil" and making them six to nine hours long? There has to be a stop point, folks. I could see new tales (and there's been a little of that here), but stretching one book to match the trilogy made from three?

Lord of the Rings is a major problem here too, even though those events happen almost a century after The Hobbit. So much is put into setting up LotR that this is more like parts 1-3 of Star Wars rather than The Hobbit. All the bits with Legolas and Sauron, were they really needed, or was this continuity minutiae like what Roy Thomas did with World War II in the All-Star Squadron comic book series?

That said, the Legolas fight scenes were among the best in the movie even though none of it occurred in the book. It also occurs to me why isn't Orlando Bloom in a Marvel movie yet? He is action hero material, and he would be heaven sent casting as Quicksilver, even though that ship has left the dock. I also liked Smaug as voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. He was very good, except for when he was filling LotR continuity holes. I also disliked the weird love triangle, what the hell was that about?

I liked the movie okay, and it had slow spots as well, giving me a few quick cat naps. I look forward to the third and hopefully final Hobbit film, but I'm not sure I'll see it in the theater, after all, I waited nine months for this one. Your mileage may vary.

The Hobbit 1966

I was surprised to find this treasure on YouTube as I had never heard of such a thing before. This twelve-minute short from 1966 is indeed the first animated version, predating the Rankin-Bass film by eleven years. Rumor has it the producer, William L. Snyder, had to make a movie before selling off the rights. By making a short, Snyder walked off with quite a profit, and then made more from the rights sale.

This version directed by Gene Dietch, while using rather primitive animation and designs by Adolf Born, is actually quite watchable. Gandalf is Gandalf but Bilbo is a bit like David Tennant with hairy feet, it's fun. The narration by Herbert Lass is somber and appropriate, almost like a serious Edward Everett Horton from "Fractured Fairy Tales." I like him, it's like velvet.

The only thing that may stop viewers in their tracks is a previous knowledge of the JRR Tolkien story. Snyder has irrationally changed character names, streamlined events, and eliminated a few dwarves and details along the way. It seems just fine to the uninitiated however.

I am reminded of HBO's "Happily Ever After: Fairy Tales for Every Child." This is fun, and an oddity for the Tolkien fans, worth checking out.

Prince Caspian

I think at some point I should actually read some of the Narnia books. I've seen previous versions of some of the series made for TV, as well as 2005's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and I always walk away with a feeling that I've missed something. It's not that I'm thick or something and don't get it - it's that I feel there are elements that may have been in the books that ain't making it to the new media.


That feeling hit me again tonight when I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Now for all intents and purposes, and especially to the uninitiated, this is a sequel to the 2005 movie, and that may be for appearances. But, point in fact, this is the third in the Narnia series, and the connections made to its predecessor just aren't there in the books. But as I said, I haven't read said books, so it didn't bug me much. It did however make me wonder what else had been tampered with in the translation.

Obviously the stories are quite old and needed to be updated for contemporary audiences I suppose, or possibly for more current tastes and trends. Specifically, the Lord of the Rings was hot so the powers-that-be in Hollywood seem to have made Narnia more like that, and believe me, after sitting through this 144 minute film, it really wants to be LotR. And I just find that ironic because Lewis and Tolkien were contemporaries who, by some accounts, really didn't care for each other much.

It's not great, but then again, it could have been much worse. The special effects are pretty spectacular and the performances quite good, but there are problems. Most notable among them are the thick accents of the Telmarines. I found myself wishing for captions at several points during the film. And then there are minor things like how Susan's quiver never runs out of arrows.

All in all, it's probably a good family film. Beware of a large body count, even though it's 'fantasy violence.' Of course that's a term I have never understood. How is getting run through with a magic sword less graphic than Bruce Willis shooting up a room with an Uzi anyway? Anyway, good flick, worth seeing, but maybe more worth the wait for DVD.