The Hobbit WSS Review

[Westside Steve]

The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug

New Line

PG 13 161 min

Bear with me here friends. I feel a little bit like a Baptist minister coming to grips with the idea that the church would probably more profitable not to mention mire accessible to the heathens of the world if I were to add a bar to the recreation room. See, I always assume that history writers have despoiled the true saga of our world mightily over the years for fun and profit.

It's no secret that a few quarts of ink can make the difference between a hero and a despot in the eyes of the public. I expect that. Here's why... For the simple reason that I have less respect for [enter the name of any politician you choose] than I do for Heroes of legend. That's right. You see in the real world wars are made up of expansive mobs of cruel and brutal human beings. There is desolation grief and misery raining down upon the heads of innocent people all over the world. Everyone's hands are stained with blood. The bad guys are invariably the ones on the other side no matter what side you are on.

In Middle Earth the line that separates good and evil is distinct. Why then would I begin a movie review with a big dose of, as my friend John used to say, my own bar room philosophy?

 

Because as human beings we need to be able to believe in the purity of mythology whether the prophet is Siegel & Schuster, Ian Fleming or JRR Tolkien.

I don't want to see Superman kill the bad guys, James Bond take a bribe or Gandalf the Grey make a deal with Saruman.

(As a matter of fact it pisses me off if anyone dare put a wig on Lex Luthor)

 

So at the outset I beg forgiveness for my own hypocrisy, realizing that I should be furious with Peter Jackson for the liberties he has taken with the book The Hobbit.

I suppose one excuse might be the fact that I've already given high praise to Jackson's vision of the Lord of the Rings even though he neglected to feature one of the trilogy's most important characters, Tom Bombadil and egregiously left out be scouring of the Shire. According to the fundamentalists of the trilogy I'm already going to hell for allowing that. Remember friends, in my own defense, I did take issue with those transgressions.

Another mitigating factor is that Tolkien never wanted The Hobbit (a relatively minor work in his opinion) to be an equal part of the larger Rings epic.

 

Still I urge those folks who refuse to accept Jackson as one of our own to go back and review the Ralph Bakshi version, and sing along with the dreadful Frodo of the nine fingers... And the ring of doom!!!

 

With THE HOBBIT series the problem the presents itself is the opposite of the one that dogged THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. In LOTR there was just so much information such a vast story that it would have been impossible to tell it all in 3 films under 5 hours each. Here there's probably just enough story for one moving picture let alone three.

That means the crew had to incorporate some elements of the Appendix, some elements of The Silmarillion and, of course, just make some stuff up.

So I have to admit it's been a few years since I read The Hobbit, but I have read it multiple times. I had to check with a friend on some of the changes from the book to the film. The similarities are obvious. The title is the same and there is a dragon. The first part is the band of dwarves and Bilbo making their way through Mirkwood forest and escaping, as you recall, in elvish barrels. The last half is mostly Indiana Jones style action as our heroes battle the Dragon. Much of the backstory has been enhanced to appeal to present day moviegoers. For example there is more emphasis on the part of minor Dwarf (Fili?) and a completely new character Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) a hot she elf who just happens to be proficient with a bow and arrow. I couldn't help wondering if Peter Jackson hadn't just watched THE HUNGER GAMES and experienced an epiphany about appealing to teenage girls. Anyway along with the new character we get a romantic hook, an apparent upcoming triangle among Legolas, Fili and her. I'm not sure I'm buying the idea of an elf woman and a dwarf especially during the wedding dance but I digress...

In essence I guess that if you are looking at this as a true interpretation of the book you'll be unhappy. If, as I try to do, you look at it from a purely a film standpoint I'll admit you might still be disappointed. Not that it isn't fun not that I don't love Peter Jackson's view of Middle earth not that I don't love the characters and for the most part the characterizations but...

Fact is that there's just not enough meat on the books bones to make as much stew as Jackson has. Adding more orc battles tossing in a romantic side story and going overboard with the action might make for a more accessible film if it weren't quite so long. Not to mention that they telegraphed the cliffhanger. Even if you'd never heard of the book you'd be able to see that one coming all the way from Mordor.

Personally I'm wishing against hope that the third installment includes the scouring of the Shire omitted from LOTR.

But you know the old saying, wish in one hand.....

B-

WSS

[The Gipper]

Just a note: recall from The Hobbit Book that Gandalf does leave the troop before they enter Mirkwood to "deal with business elsewhere", before rejoining with them. This movie does "fill in the blanks" of the book that I believe needed filling in. That portion is partially made up, partially from the Silmarillion....but nevertheless I like that they do delve into that story.

[The Cysko Kid]

But do the goddamn goblins sing "down down to goblin town you go, my lad"? If not it is an epic fail