Very good but lacking the greatness of the literary prowess of Tolkien

Rating: 7/10 (12 December 2013)

Overall the movie was good even very good, 6.5 to 7 stars. I really enjoyed the actors, settings, scenes, and some of the CGI etc, but I left lacking the positive feelings/emotions that the last 2 hours and 41 minutes were well spent. I think the writers were more interested in making a name for themselves than adding to the legacy of the J.R.R. Tolkien series. There was simply too much embellishment where none was needed. The original storyline was brilliant, to change it to become your own Mr. Jackson (writers and the rest of you) detracted from what could have been great. I'm sure in the movie industry there are the investors other business people who push for more thrill (which these days translates to CGI) to increase the target audience thereby increasing the ROI. Okay sure, I get it, movie making is a businessbut this movie could have been really great for Tolkienists, fantasy buffs, modern movie goers, from old to young, women and men alikeinstead I think you sold out to pay for the ridiculous $200 million production cost (which is still baffling given the excessive CGI) turning an 8 or 9 star movie into a paltry homage to a great book and great writer.
I watched "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" the day before I saw The Hobbit Part 2 to kind of sync movie with movie. I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie quite a bit but had a hard time syncing the first with the secondthe transition was vague. I think they were trying to link this second Hobbit movie to the first LotR movie (Fellowship of the Rings)? It seemed awkward at best. I also watched The Hobbit (cartoon) created by Rankin/Bass in 1977 just because I recall being fond of it when I was a kid and I wanted to remember some of what the characters said/did in the cartoon version perhaps with expectations of a more enjoyable Desolation of Smaug through modern movie magic.
Let me start with the pronunciation of the dragon's name. I'm sure Americans mispronounce "Smaug" and if Mr. Tolkien intended it to be "Sma oog" then I apologize but I liked the cartoon version which was more like "Smog." If you say each pronunciation with a deep dragonesque voice, 'Smog' sounds much more frightening (and endearing, unless you live in a big city). The heavily aspirated "au" makes it sound like a pre-pubescent teenage boy with a heavy southern (US) accent (Ma name is Smaug, I live in Arabarn. Why dontch'all come over to air house fer supper). Mr. Boone has long gone from this world (RIP) but I really liked his voice as Smaug in the cartoon version, though to his credit (and probably sound mixing) Mr. Cumberbatch did a splendid job as well.
I got the impression that Bilbo was "invisible" with much of his conversation with Smaug. Perhaps it was the fact the book said as much. And perhaps writers of The Hobbit 2 were trying to show the magnificence of Smaug and the insignificance of Bilbo so his ring was off the rest of the scene(s). The literary power of Smaug describing himself was less than impressive in this movie. Why would they compare his hide to iron, because modern movie goers relate more to iron than shields? The literary version was much better, "My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death."
And the melting statue which liquefies (or didn't cool) almost instantly bathing Smaug in goldoh my *sigh*. Yes, Smaug looked cool as a gold dragon. Maybe this scene was for chemists (you know attract a wider audience) showing how the melting point of gold is much lower than that of iron. And I'm sure one could draw some literary semblance there. Smaug had become too greedy he was gold likening him to King Midas, but why? Again *sigh*.
Orlando Bloom plays a brilliant Legolasbut his character isn't even in The Hobbit. Did they have a contractual agreement to put him in, or was he so popular in the first three LotR series they felt the movie needed more movie star cache to help pay for the bloated budget? I liked him as a LotR character, he plays a great elf. You want to include him because there were many woodland elves in the book, I'm sure he could be one of them. But to create those atrociously long CGI scenes (hunting orcs, barrel riding, fighting in town, chase scene out of town with Legolas' riding a horribly CGI'd horse), enough with the excessive CGI elf fighting. Yes we are supposed to hate orcs (secretly I like some of them, hee hee). But there were probably 100's of orcs coming out of every crack and crevice and basically two people killing most of them over the course of tens of miles with a little help from the "em-barrelled" dwarfs (pulling weapons out of their cracks and crevices I guess).
I love today's fighting females, villains and heroines! And I enjoyed seeing Tauriel in the movie. Ms. Lilly does a great job and her Albertan beauty serves the female elf role well. And it was nice to see the blossoming love between her and Kili to say little of the nice addition of mixed-race relations to a modern movie. There are so many talented and beautiful actresses out there. But again, she wasn't even in the book, creative license you sayokay.
My list is long of grievances but to be fair my list of congratulatory remarks is also long. Let me sum it up by saying, 'Well done, could have been better, stop CGI-ing everything, movie goers don't drink or eat before going to the movie2 hours and 41 minutes is a near impossible stretch to endure with even the most formidable of bladders.'