Middle Earth is exploited as The Hobbit fails to impress

I'm going to be rather critical in this review, so before I begin properly, I’m going to get a crucial point out of the way early on: I love this movie. More than that, I love each and every one of the Middle-Earth movies that director Peter Jackson has made. They are fantastically put together, very well written and do an excellent job crafting an entire world. They also invest audiences in the characters, which is crucial. In short, they are great films; don’t ever get that wrong.

That being said, this film is in desperate need of some tough love, and Peter Jackson is long overdue for some well-earned criticism.

Mr. Jackson, please, let Middle Earth rest.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the second entry into Jackson’s cinematic retelling of The Hobbit. As this sequel picks up immediately where the previous film left off, there will be slight spoilers for the first film on. If you wish to avoid them, please skip down to the paragraph beginning with “While this sounds. . .”

The film portrays the exploits of our hobbit hero, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), and an entourage of dwarves as they journey to reclaim the Lonely Mountain, the dwarves’ treasure-trove home, which has been taken over by a massive dragon named Smaug. The film begins with Bilbo reporting to the company that they are still being pursued by the Orc band of Azoc the Defiler, from whom they narrowly evaded death at the end of the previous film.

Pressing onward, the company moves through Mirkwood forest, still suffering from a plague of dark magic. Wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) departs the party to investigate the cause of the plague, based on a tip he received in the first film. Left to fend for themselves, the dwarves are left to face killer spiders, hostile elves seeking the mountain’s treasure for themselves, the social and economic woes of a port city, and of course, the dragon itself.

While this sounds like a lot of material to fit into one film, let me assure you that in practice, it really isn’t. This movie is padded to an unbelievable extent.

Director Peter Jackson drew heavy criticism when he revealed that he was splitting The Hobbit into three films, and rightfully so. On its own, the book upon which it is based is shorter than any single installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Jackson justifies this decision by insisting that he would be including material from other works of Tolkien, namely appendices from Return of the King, to give more backstory for the film.

In An Unexpected Journey, this works rather well. The film felt like a genuine prequel to The Lord of the Rings, delving into far more intricacies than were actively portrayed in the novel.

This film doesn’t fare as well. While elements of this still exist (admittedly, Gandalf’s exploits in the film are very cool), most of this film doesn’t need to exist.

There is little reason for scenes, such as the Barrel ride chase, to be as long as they are (this particular chase is over thirty minutes). While they increase the action element in the film, they slow down the progress of the plot to an unbearable degree. Any progress or continuance of the story is lost amid confused screaming, CGI flare and acrobatics. Similar chases happen multiple times throughout the film, and each time, they grind the plot to a halt.

But there are worse things in the film than the action scenes. Like the non-action scenes, which either act as “plot dumps,” with characters spouting off exposition, or are spent introducing new plot points and characters. Most of these plot points and characters, while very cool, don’t go anywhere.

But all of these plot issues all have to culminate in something eventually. And that culmination — or the ending — is the film’s biggest flaw. I won’t spoil it, but audiences will be left unsatisfied and upset to say the least. It’s a rare occasion to see a movie and hear someone shout “oh, you’ve got to be kidding!” when it ends. It’s even rarer to hear multiple people shout it.

However, when they do matter, and when the plot does exist and progress, it does so beautifully. For all of the flaws in the plot and its padding, it does have remarkably strong elements: the diplomacy between the dwarves and elves, fending off spiders in Mirkwood forest, Gandalf discovering not only the source of The Lord of the Rings’ notorious Black Riders, as well as the source of Mirkwood’s curse. These scenes will ensure that audiences are at no loss for great story elements. The only issue is that they are meshed between far too many drawn-out sequences of unnecessary padding.

Speaking of the characters, I will give credit where it is due. The film is fantastically cast, and beautifully acted. Big players like Freeman and McKellan continue to bring their “A-game,” portraying their characters with aplomb. Other players, like Richard Armitage, who plays leader of the company Thorin Oakenshield, bring a very deep and emotional edge to the film. Armitage gives his character the traits of nobility, honor and courage while weaving in his ambition and ends-justify-means sense of revenge that begins to overtake him the closer he gets to the mountain.

The newcomer who steals the show, however, is Benedict Cumberbatch, who assumes the voice of the dragon, Smaug. His performance will give audiences chills, and the scenes with the dragon are easily the best in the film.

The cinematography in the film is controversial at best. Jackson filmed The Hobbit in extremely high definition and at 48 frames per second. What this means in layman’s terms is that the film looks fantastically real, which can, surprisingly, be a bit of an issue; everything looks so picture perfect and clear that it actually begins to look fake. While not a huge issue, it may be off-putting to some audiences. Also, while Jackson has always been known for huge, broad and sweeping shots, this film is no exception. However, with the vastly improved visual quality and the slightly faster pace of the shots in this film, the visual pace of the film can be a little, for lack of a better term, nauseating. While this reviewer did not experience this, some audiences have reported seasickness, even if only seeing the film in 2D.

The musical score is beautiful. Composer and conductor Howard Shore has never disappointed with his work in Jackson’s films, and he delivers yet again.

He captures the feel of grand quests and battles, as well as the quieter moments of peace in equal measures of greatness.

This is an impressive movie. Its characters are strong; its acting is superb; its music is fantastic; it’s visually beautiful; its plot, where it comes into play, is engaging and entertaining.

The one standout problem is that this is a very good film that doesn’t need to exist; it could have just as easily been gutted of its padding. Additionally, it had its relative plot points added to the end and beginning of the first and third films, respectively. There just isn’t enough to justify The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug being its own film.

You do excellent work, Peter Jackson, but please, let Middle Earth rest.

Overall rating: 3.5/5