Skip to main content

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review *Spoilers*


Well despite my disposition against Middle-Earth, I decided to see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. I shall dissect the film from a former fan perspective and from my current disposition. I must confess that when I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I found the cast of characters adorable. Bilbo, Thorin, Gandalf (Olorin), and the rest of the dwarves were charming and made you feel like you had joined a family for the journey to Erebor. In stark contrast, The Desolation of Smaug is dry and does not contain the enchantment of the first part in Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy.

To be honest, I had great expectations for this film. Having read the book and watched the animated film, I had my version of Smaug the Fire Drake in my mind, and no matter how impressive the special effects or sinister the voice, I knew the likelihood that I would be impressed would be nothing short of a miracle. It is strange and perhaps unfair to scrutinize a character and be cynical about their adaptation. The truth is I am only a half-purist when it comes to Tolkien's Legenderium. I made full allowance for the changes that would inevitably happen between book and film. But in the case of Smaug, I would accept nothing less than spectacular. To my dismay, disappointment pervades over the winged python's depiction. While the design of the Dragon Under the Mountain was pleasing to the eye, I found Benedict Cumberbatch's voice to be only mediocre. As was the case for Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Smaug's voice changed in tempo too often for my taste and frankly it was like they couldn't decide between a deep baratone or are scratchy echo. While I felt glee at Smaug's first flame, I was weary of it by the climax.

This brings up the other problem with the film, pacing. The entire film seems to drag on at parts and leaves you as a fan feeling like this really should have been only a two part Hobbit project. The great struggle in the halls of Erebor between Smaug and Thorin & Company is protracted beyond the point of being entertaining. I felt the entire liquid gold (Velveeta!) was completely unnecessary and that they should have skipped straight to Smaug flying to Laketown and have the showdown with the Bard.

Another issue was the beginning of the film. Rather than continue where "The Unexpected Journey" left off, we are taken back in time (without knowing it or an allusion to why) to Gandalf recruiting Thorin Oakenshield for the quest to take back Erebor. Why was this added? What was the importance of knowing that Thorin had a bounty on his head when that is already explained by the Goblin King in "An Unexpected Journey?" I get that we need to know Thrain, Thorin's Father, is still alive, but couldn't that have just been added somewhere during the course of this lengthy film? Like for instance, Gandalf mentions the rumor of Thrain's survival or something?

When I first saw the trailer for The Desolation of Smaug, I sensed that this was going to be an action epic rather than a dramatic fantasy. My assumptions were confirmed. This film has more battles and epic thrill 'rides' than you can keep up with. From bobbing for barrels to slided down mine shafts, you could make an amusement park out of this film in Orlando Florida! While it was epic to see Legolas return to kick some Orc behind, it felt like many of the fight scenes were trying to top the incredible feats that the Prince of Mirkwood did in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

With the advent of action as a focus, character development faded into the background. Rather than feel close to Thorin & Company like in "An Unexpected Journey," Desolation made you feel desolate when it came to the relationships in this film. The only exception is Turiel and Kili's cross racial romance (elf and dwarves in love oh my!). While the idea of having a elf and dwarf fall in love seems awfully reminiscent of a man and elf falling in love (Aragorn and Arwen anybody?), it worked well on screen and brought something other than sword fights to the story.

Terrific Turiel.

Turiel is a complete invention of Peter Jackson and his team. She is not canonical. She is obviously  a clone of Arwen Undomiel (played by Liv Tyler), but she has the skills of Legolas with a bow and dagger. She is unoriginal, but she is charmingly played by Evangeline Lilly. In fact, I would argue that she is the redeeming factor of this film, which is strange  considering the movie is suppose to be an adaption of a beloved children's story and most fans wanted to see Smaug. Regardless, Turiel triumphs were everything else disappoints.

Can you hear the song of the Bard?

Well this Bard does not sing and frankly that is a good thing. The Bard of Laketown is another favorite of mine. He is played by Luke Evans. To be honest I was not thrilled with Orlando Bloom's return as Legolas. It was not merely his attitude or over the top stunts, there just was something about the Blond Beloved Elf that did not endear him to me. In stark contrast, the Bard was a great addition and overshadowed Legolas when he was on screen. I am looking quite forward to the Bard's sortie with Smaug in the third part of The Hobbit Trilogy: There and Back Again.

The thorn that was Thorin.

I completely and utterly disliked Richard Armitage's performance as Thorin Oakenshiled in The Desolation of Smaug. In fact this Dwarf Prince was devoid and desolate of any delightful moments on screen. Thorin for some reason reverted back to his 'grumpy' state prior to the closing of "An Unexpected Journey." He acts like he is already going as mad as Thror did and treats Bilbo and his own band of brotherly dwarves like disposal pieces of dragon dung (exuse my Dwarvish). I was astounded at Thorin's actions and how sharply he contrasts to Thorin from "An Unexpected Journey." Wasn't he proud to be among his dwarven comrades, did he not fret at their peril and say at Hobbiton that he would "take them over an army from the iron hills, because when he called they answered?" Apparently, Thorin has forgotten this disposition towards his dwarvish brothers and decided to become a thorn in everyone's side (especially Bilbo).

Where's Bilbo?

Strangely enough, the protagonist of The Desolation of Smaug spent more time in the shadows or rather wearing the One Ring and thus invisible to the audience than in "An Unexpected Journey." I was so disoriented by the Necromancer Story Arch, Thorin, Thranduil, and the rest of the characters that I nearly forgot about our famous Burglar. Even the most epic scene when Bilbo is talking to Smaug felt like the "Riddles in the Dark" session that Mr. Baggins had with Gollum in the previous installment. The performance felt forced and not at all witty, which is surprising because the hobbit and the dragon are both British.

Since I have dissected the characters and plot points, let me cover the subtle spiritual undertones throughout the film. There definitely is a distinction between good and evil in this film, more so than even in "An Unexpected Journey." However, despite my best efforts, this good and evil is revealed to be Yin and Yang or rather Cathar or Zoroastrian in nature, King Thranduil of Mirkwood says, "Evil will always exist, it always returns." When Gandalf faces *Spoilers* Sauron at Dol Guldur, which feels more like a showdown between the good Cathar god and evil Cathat god. Gandalf does make the messianic sign of the cross with his body, but he is not sacrificed to defeat evil in some Christ-like allegory. Gandalf after all cannot die until he faces the Belrog much later in The Lord of the Rings. There is a moment when Azog The Defiler (Pale White Orc) says to Gandalf, "We are Legion," and for a moment you sense that this is to denote what the demon said to Jesus when he was delivering the Gisnaret from his demonic oppression; the demon in Gisnaret says, "We are legion, for we are many." (Mark 5:9). However, despite some of these flirtations with Biblical nuances, much of the film remains pagan with enchantments being chanted as Gandalf cleanses Dol Guldur or when Turiel uses Kingsfoil (a herb) to heal Kili (many tribal people who were pagan healed in this manner and that is why Jesus Christ was unique, because he merely touched people and they were healed, he used no potions or herbs). The presence of darkness is much starker and sinister in this film. There is a line the Necromancer says that haunts you in a Satanic way, "There is no light that can overcome the darkness." Granted this is a line you could expect from any villain of repute, but since Gandalf is wielding the Light of Ainur and fails to stand against his enemy and is captured, it feels rather depressing.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug suffers the same fate as most sequels. It is full of more action, but less charm. It feels like a shadow of the first installment and leaves you entertained, but not enchanted. I do not recommend this film to anyone younger than thirteen, because it is full of disturbing images, violence, and it is difficult to discern through the magic and discover the true purpose of what is going on. In addition, the displays of white and black magic may seduce people who are not strong in faith and so it is imperative that if you intend to view this or let your tweens see the film, that they understand any kind of magic is evil and Satanic. That while this story is imaginary, it is using mediums and metaphysical powers that exist and are used by enemies of Christ. The point is that this film will not discourage young people from dabbling in magic and that is where the greater harm comes. Thus in integrity I cannot recommend this film except to those who are certain they are resolute and love the Lord and would not participate in what they see on screen. For some, the very sight of this film will be sin and open a door in their heart to the devil's ways. It is important that you know yourself and if you can just block it out of your mind or not.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These w

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come and died for our sins an

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few people are endeavo