The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug (2013) Dir: Peter Jackson
Instagram post:
Peter Jackson's second Middle-Earth trilogy had got off to a fairly strong start in 2012 with 'An Unexpected Journey', and the next year, the second part followed, to much excitement. I remember being as excited as I ever had been to see a film, and I also remember loving this. However, even then, I knew the film was not perfect.
This second film is probably the film with the most actual story involved, as well as being the one that feels the most tonally varied, for good and bad. It kind of felt like Jackson wanted to hit as many plot points as possible in this second installment, so that he could go action epic in the third part. What this meant for part 2, is that the film was very long and very packed.
There was a lot I really enjoyed on my most recent viewing, but, equally, a lot of stuff that I wasn't at all fussed about. First and foremost, there is a noticeably weird filter used, that had the effect of making some of the characters look like they were air-brushed.
Furthermore, there was even more of an over-reliance on CGI than in tje first film. I didn't realise quite how heavily it was used throughout the film. Some of it looks good, sure, but a fair amount was just not what you'd hope for.
I was not a fan, this time around at least, of the opening ten or fifteen minutes of the film. It felt a bit too slow, out of sync with the rest of the story in the film and just a bit random. I realise that the scene is adapted from events in the book, but it probably could've been cut and not made much of a difference.
From there, however, things certainly improved. I think the investment of time in 'Mirkwood' was particularly worth it, but I also think Jackson did well with how he built up the events surrounding 'Lake Town' and the 'Lonely Mountain' - even if he perhaps did too much. One of the best and worst things about Jackson's trilogy is his vast world-building.
The film's ending could not have been better in all honesty. It was thrilling, intense, and has one of the best cliffhangers of the last decade. No matter what other issues the film had, and there were a good number, Peter Jackson absolutely nailed the ending.
Martin Freeman is actually a bit stronger than in the first part, with a little more development in his role by that point, allowing a little more freedom in his performance. I particularly enjoyed his work with the later mentioned Benedict Cumberbatch.
Ian Mckellen had a lot more to do than his novel counterpart, but I for one will never complain about more of his wonderful wizard performances. He holds these films together with poise, grace, and a little bit of cheek. He was able to bring his Shakespearean theatre presence to the fore, and commands his scenes with both drama and subtlety.
Richard Armitage really came into his own in this second part, thanks to some developments which, similarly to Freeman - in fact more so, allow him to explore the range of emotions that his character experiences and portrays. I think he was brilliant from the halfway point onwards.
Graham McTavish, Ken Stott and Aiden Turner were the three men to stand out from the other dwarves characters. Turner gets heaps of character development, seemingly out of nowhere, but I didn't mind it honestly. I think these three each provide the most rounded performances consistently of the supporting dwarves characters.
Each of the other dwarves also deserve a mention. While they have less of a spotlight on them, they still provide plenty of entertainment; Dean O'Gorman, James Nesbitt, Mark Hadlow, Stephen Hunter, William Kircher, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, Jed Brophy and Adam Brown.
The returning Orlando Bloom provided an interesting version of his familiar and popular character - one deliberately less developed than his Lord Of The Rings counterpart. I was very pleased to see him featuring again - he was well worth recasting in his role.
Evangeline Lilly and Luke Evans prove to be exciting and enjoyable new characters to the story, and while both are pretty strong, I think Evans was the better of the two, in part thanks to what felt like significantly better writing. Still, both were intriguing inclusions, Lilly's character being an entirely original character for the films, having not appeared in the books.
Benedict Cumberbatch's performance should be commended for two aspects. Firstly, and perhaps most obviously, his voice acting, which was phenomenal. He produced a sinuous, cunning and sinister voice, which felt powerful and scary. The other aspect which cannot be ignored is the work he did for his character's motion capture. He did so much work that comes across excellently in the mannerisms and movements of his character. And, for what it's worth, I actually think this was his best performance.
Manu Bennett started to feature plenty more than the first part, but, unfortunately for him, he is upstaged by the terrific display of Cumberbatch. That said, I think he was still pretty decent in his performance, and felt threatening enough to hold a consistent, if underlying, threat to the plot and characters.
There were a whole host of noteworthy names in the supporting cast who deserved at least a mention. Those being the likes of Sylvester McCoy, Lee Pace, Stephen Fry, Ryan Gage, John Bell and Mikael Persbrant.
Overall, this second installment has some of my favourite scenes and sequences of the whole trilogy, but is weighed down by the same pacing and bloating issues that hold back the other two films. For what it's worth, I still really enjoyed the film, as I did the prior one, but it's hard to look past some of the issues going on here.
Comments