My thoughts on: The Desolation of Smaug

So I've always been a Lord of the Rings fangirl. It is my weakness and it is the one thing that brings out my inner nerd within five seconds of it being mentioned. My brother introduced me to LOTR. I was reluctant at first, acting as if I was too cool for fantasy films, but in fact I was just trying to hide my inner fangirl, which was of course desperate to show itself.

My brother had mentioned the Hobbit to me several times, back then, in 2003. Frankly, I didn't give a shit about that second best children's book, and if it were turned into a film it could never beat the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, two summers ago I decided to start reading the Hobbit, as I wanted to be acquainted with the story before the film came out. I read about fifty pages, uni happened, and I never picked up the book again (my brother's e-reader, that is).

I remember how I wasn't really impressed with the first film. I left the cinema with that kind of subdued feeling you get when you just saw a film and aren't quite sure what to make of it yet. The film was okay, it was alright, certainly no Lord of the Rings, but that didn't matter. I watched it again and decided it was slightly better than good: Visually stunning, engaging, and amusing.

Then the second film happened. First impressions after the first half of the film: "wow", "this is fun isn't it?", "spiders...". The second half was slightly disappointing in the sense that I found some elements I did not quite agree with. Now this doesn't mean I don't love the film, because I really really do. However, I don't understand some of Jackson's choices. First of all, I love Tauriel. She kicks ass, literally, and it is refreshing to see a women be a badass in this trilogy that is dominated by men. The thing that bugs me isn't so much the (slightly) weird love triangle Jackson created between her, Kili, and Legolas, but the fact that their 'romance' is literally duct taped to them. What was Kili's ramble about love all about? Too much Peter, too much.

Now I've read the complaints on the addition of Tauriel to the film, and the several subplots Jackson put in there. As I've not read the book I can't really say anything about it, but in general I think it is safe to say that an addition is only a bad one if it doesn't contribute anything to the film, or if it's just generally shit. In my view, the subplots are thrilling, and they certainly add some life to the film. Personally, I'm not sure if the original plot of the Hobbit (I am acquainted with it) could stand for an interesting film, and certainly not three of them.

Which brings me to another complaint that I've read over and over again. The film is 'too long', it is 'boring', 'useless'. Whenever I read comments like that I ask myself if those critics were watching the same film. Yes, the film is very long, and yes it could have been shorter. But does it need to be? Sure, some scenes are a bit dragged out, but I would not want to have missed any of the swag and sass Lee Pace put into his character Thranduil, and those long action scenes did not make me weary: I could watch Orlando Bloom shoot arrows all day every day.

Ofcourse everyone has different preferences when watching a movie, but I think some critics get stuck on one little thing they dislike in a film and whine about it untill it has ruined the entire film for them. As I said I was not particularly happy with the cliché Hollywood romance between Tauriel and Kili, and seriously Peter what was the flashy Sauron thing about? In all seriousness though, the film was, like the first installment, a treat to look at. It has a nice balance between humour and seriousness, action that is neatly tied to the right amount of dialogue, and some sublime acting from the likes of Richard Armitage, Martin Freeman, and definitely Lee Pace. In other words: the big picture is a splendid one. It doesn't reach the level of the Lord of the Rings and it never will. There is no comparison between the two, because the books that lay at the cores of these movies are so very different.

In conclusion, yes there are some things that I wish were different, but it doesn't take of the shine for me, at least not in a major way. My expectations were extra high for this film because I always seem to expect more from Jackson, and I was a bit disappointed he'd reverted to some clichés. However, all is forgiven, certainly when I compare this film to others I've seen in 2013.

If anything, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a great film to end the year with.