'Desolation of Smaug' promises a thrill ride that will not disappoint fans worldwide... mostly.

Rating: 7/10 (27 December 2013)

Long gone is the comfortable hobbit hole at Bagend, and long gone is the Bilbo Baggins that initially passed out cold when reading "incineration" as a cause of death on a "burglar" contract given to him by a company of rowdy dwarfs. Desolation of Smaug picks up where its slow predecessor left off - right after Bilbo discovers the Ring, and right before Thorin and company reach Erebor, the land of their forefathers.The Desolation of Smaug has been long anticipated by many this year and, in many regards, it did not disappoint fans worldwide. Yet, despite its domination in the box office, thrilling premise and great reviews, The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug brought to light several aspects of The Hobbit franchise that remain lacking - and rather disappointing for die-hard Lord of the Rings fans, such as myself.
Once again, Peter Jackson masters the creation of Middle Earth - he and his team masterfully crafted every aspect of the Middle Earth that Lord of the Rings and Hobbit fans love most. The music was absolutely perfect, and the cinematography was captivating, as always - those sweeping wide shots and intimate close-ups with our favorite characters are what make the franchise what it is. As the story picks up, it grows steadily darker - much like The Lord of the Rings franchise (from The Fellowship of the Ring all the way to Return of the King) - and this is carefully and perfectly approached by Jackson, so that we're not completely overwhelmed by it, but can appreciate its implementation in the grander scheme of things. Overall, it was a fantastic and incredibly entertaining film.
As for acting... these actors are perfect matches for the roles that they take on. Aiden Turner finally got his chance to shine with the refined focus on Kili in Desolation of Smaug, and Richard Armitage's approach to the steadily desperate and mad Thorin Oakenshield was very fascinating. Ian McKellen (Gandalf), as always, is just a joy to watch. Namely, however, Martin Freeman's performance as the clueless and yet surprisingly courageous Bilbo Baggins is, once again, absolutely astounding - he practically carried the film in this regard. If one hadn't seen him in any of his previous work - ranging from the UK's The Office to BBC's smash hit, Sherlock - they would assume that he was born for this role. No one else would have been able to play the surprisingly layered Bilbo with such sincerity. He was not only hilarious (he somehow made the scene with Smaug as laughable as it was terrifying), but captivating - every time he was on the screen, I simply could not tear my eyes away from him! And his moments with the Ring sent uncomfortable shivers up my spine ("MINE").
The film's crowning glory, however, was undoubtedly the scene all Lord of the Rings fans have been waiting for - the unveiling of Smaug the Terrible, self proclaimed "King Under the Mountain." Whoever designed, animated and rendered Smaug should be given a cookie every day for existing, and I'd like to thank Peter and company for keeping the design a secret before the premiere - seeing Smaug for the first time was simply breathtaking. That, combined with the sultry and devilishly articulate voice of one Benedict Cumberbatch, created an adversary that was as "cool" as it was simply terrifying. The chilling game of words played between Smaug and Bilbo had me on the edge of my seat for the entire ride.
The problem with The Hobbit franchise, therefore, isn't the story or the filmmaking or the acting; it's the way that the story is being approached. Lord of the Rings fans will recall the incredible, epic sagas that each of the original three films would bring - near four hours of nonstop excitement, twists and character development, all leading up to the pivotal scene at Mordor. Yet, The Hobbit isn't an epic saga, nor should it be approached as one - it's the story of one unassuming hobbit who joins a company of dwarfs to reclaim their homeland and slay a dragon. A to B; point blank and simple - no ring to destroy and Middle Earth to save. Somehow, Peter Jackson tried to take on the entire alphabet, while moseying past more than a few key letters and relying more on action and CGI (where did the REAL men dressed up like the baddies go?) than the base story.
Most upsetting was how the characters were approached. The characters are what's key to the plot of The Hobbit - or any Tolkien work, for that matter - and they're crucial to the telling of any half-decent story. However, while I could name off any Lord of the Rings character and give you my opinion on them, I hardly know any of the dwarfs by name, and I never really get to see anyone's personal journey as the story progresses - in any detail, anyway. Bilbo and the dwarfs are sometimes passed up in favor of thrilling (and completely unrealistic) action sequences though, while exciting, really didn't do anything for me at the end of the day.
I stand by my opinion that three films is far too much movie to be had for Bilbo and his dwarfish companions. One long, four-hour film (or maybe two films, as was the original plan) would have been perfectly suited to tackle this story in a proper way.
That being said, creative differences with Jackson and his team didn't stop me from seeing The Hobbit twice in a weekend, and do not take away from the film being one of the best adventures of the year. The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug definitely trumped its predecessor. The pace picked up, Bilbo finally got his moment to shine as "burglar," and the scene with Smaug was near flawless. It's a "must see" for any movie lover, and especially any fan of Middle Earth!