The Fellowship of the Two Prequel Trilogies

At this point, you've most likely made up your mind concerning Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. A review of The Battle of the Five Armies isn't going to sway you one way or the other (which is why I have taken my sweet time writing it). Instead, this review will focus more on comparing this less beloved prequel trilogy with the less beloved prequel trilogy of Star Wars. To be clear, this is not some fanboy Wars versus Rings comparison a la Clerks II. This is more about how strange it was for me to experience (somewhat) what older fans must have felt when they first saw the Star Wars prequels. But first, some thoughts on The Battle of the Five Armies.

The title says it all for this one. There is indeed a very large battle, but it somehow lacks the impact of the big showdown at the end of The Return of the King. For whatever reason, even with nearly a decade's worth of technological progress, the battle in the film looks and feels more like a cartoon. There are still some awesome moments (a quintuple [or more] decapitation featuring Thranduil and his elk comes to mind), but none of it felt as momentous or real as before. It's all entertaining enough, though it completely confirms that this trilogy should have been at most two films. The battle feels so extended that it seems forgotten at certain points. That never happened with a battle scene from the original trilogy. All complaints about the magnitude and whatnot for this film are unfair, though, since this is a lengthy adaptation of a children's book. The problem is that Jackson and the rest of the filmmakers wanted to somehow marry a kids' film with the darker tone of The Lord of the Rings. So you get annoyingly goofy comic relief in the form of Grima Wormtongue ripoff Alfrid (the unkillable coward shows up every other scene it seems) followed by multiple decapitations. It all cancels out to make a mediocre experience. The kids' movie issue is where the comparison to Star Wars starts.

"Am I funny yet? Do I need to put on a dress and ridiculously overstay my welcome?"

Full disclosure: I like the Star Wars prequels. They started coming out when I was fifteen, so maybe I was on a cusp that allowed me to love them while forgiving them for their more childish elements (like Jar Jar Binks, the Alfrid of the Star Wars prequels). The more likely reason I like the prequels is that I am a bigger fan of Star Wars than Rings. Regardless, both sets of prequels received criticism for being overly childish and CG-heavy.

Both series suffer from the same problem in that everyone already knows how great the story gets later on. Reverse story-telling is inherently flawed when the original films are so beloved. How could Episode I - III or The Hobbit compare to Episode IV - VI and The Lord of the Rings? Those movies were good enough to create empires unto themselves. For example, try to find a product that you can't get a Star Wars version of (while you're doing that I'll go make some toast with my Darth Vader toaster), and look at New Zealand, which will now be a tourist attraction forever thanks to Rings. When films are capable of that, you know there are going to be some grumblings when the filmmakers return to the well. I point this out because other prequels, such as the recent Apes and X-Men films, work because the series suffered some weak entries and lost their holy status.

That is a problem in itself. As dorks, perhaps it's time for us to listen to what people have been saying for so long: it's just a movie. Maybe we shouldn't treat these films as sacred documents. Who am I kidding? That's not going to happen. We're dealing with people who claim that George Lucas ruined their childhood by altering the original trilogy and making a the prequel trilogy. "Ruined" it! Anyone who seriously makes such a claim is not going to listen to reason, so let's try to understand why the prequels are hated by some.

"Meesa called Jar Jar Binks. Meesa here to provide comic relief and ruin yousa childhoods."

First, the source material. The Hobbit truly should be viewed as a separate trilogy rather than the prequel to Rings. It was not created with the intent to give backstory to the events of The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien published the book in 1937, 17 years before Rings would be published. The Hobbit was meant to be a children's story, and it truly is. To be fair, Tolkien did go back and make edits to The Hobbit as he wrote Rings (reminds me of another creator who went back to alter the early material...), but he wrote the stories mostly in chronological order. Lucas, however, did the opposite, waiting almost as long between works (there are 16 years between Jedi and Phantom Menace). It's strange, though. Tolkien as a younger man wrote a children't story and followed that up as an older man with a more serious tale. Lucas as a younger man wrote a relatively serious story and followed it up with more kid-friendly trilogy as an older man. Perhaps this is all perspective. Maybe some view all of it as equally childish. I would argue that both sets of prequels are much more childish than the originals, however. It's just that it makes more sense for The Hobbit to be that way. When you think about it, though, it makes sense that The Phantom Menace was childish because it's about a kid. That trilogy matures with its protagonist/future antagonist. The (possible) problem with both is that the filmmakers wanted it both ways.

I've already stated my disdain for Peter Jackson's attempt to make a kids' movie that also features the graphic violence of the first trilogy. It was so tonally uneven that it became distracting. And the quality of the battle scenes suffered because they were given a less realistic look so as not to scar the children. Lucas gets crap for this, too. A lot of complaints about the prequels are aimed at the plot about trading blockades and bureaucracy. You have a farting camel creature in one scene followed by congressional hearing. The kiddie humor does annoy me a bit (though it is in keeping with the original trilogy, to a degree), but the government stuff was fine with me, especially since it was a kids' movie. Let these kids know from an early age that committees and negotiations are largely worthless compared to the Force. That's a good lesson in my book. Lucas gets bonus points for his violence, however. Jackson turned some of the battle moments in a cartoon, but Lucas shows a father figure impaled with a lightsaber and shows the villain sliced in half.

The problem that truly plagued both series is time. Star Wars waited too long. The hardcore fans weren't looking for a kids' movie because they weren't kids anymore. The Hobbit came out too late as well. It was never meant to be a prequel. There aren't enough unanswered questions from Rings that need answered in The Hobbit. Star Wars has the origin of Darth Vader, the fall of the Republic, etc. Sure, some people hated Lucas's answers for that, but at least there were questions in the first place. Did anyone go into The Hobbit not already knowing how Bilbo came across the ring? Or that Sauron was a bad guy on the rise? All of this was handled in the mini-prequel that serves as the intro to the first Rings movie. The Hobbit would have been better off it had been released when The Lord of the Rings came out. Then there could be the natural progression from kids' movie to awesome trilogy that everyone can enjoy. Instead, Jackson felt obligated to mimic his first trilogy.

That's the true difference here. Lucas wanted, and did, create a very different trilogy to varying degrees of success. Jackson wanted to create a very similar trilogy when he should have embraced how different it could have been. I think it would have been better if Guillermo del Toro had been able to direct it. Not because he's better than Jackson, but because he is different. This way of thinking is working out for Star Wars at the moment. Take Lucas out of the equation and now all the people with "ruined" childhoods are starting to get optimistic again. Here's hoping that the next trip to Middle Earth (I'm sure there will be one) doesn't include Peter Jackson. We're all thankful for what you've given us, but now let someone else take a crack at it.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I liked The Hobbit. But I loved The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit finally allowed me to have that experience that the prequel haters had with Star Wars. Although I'm not about to claim these three movies "ruined" anything for me, I understand the feeling of disappointment now. It just didn't measure up to what I was used to. As for Star Wars, I won't apologize for loving the prequels. I hear all the complaints about Hayden Christensen and Jar Jar Binks and the CG and I get it, but none of that stuff bothered me enough to hate these films. Perhaps I'm just too much of a Star Wars fanboy. As for Rings, I'm not as forgiving. I never wanted to be that bitter fan who only holds the original trilogy in high regard. I like The Hobbit prequels, and I plan on buying the extended edition set when it's released (I sincerely want to know what was considered extraneous in this bloated trilogy). But I'm positive that when I want to return to Middle Earth, I'll almost always go with Rings. Because of The Hobbit, I now know what all those bitter Star Wars fans feel like, and I don't like it.

"The Desolation of Smaug" Is an Action-packed Improvement on the First "Hobbit" Film

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The first Hobbit film annoyed me a bit.  I ended up liking it for the most part, but it left me less than enthused about this new trilogy of films from The Lord of Rings director Peter Jackson.  It was mainly because it was even a trilogy to begin with... Since all of the footage was shot at once, I had very little hope that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug would be any different from the slow, frustrating first film.  Apparently a dragon and fan service can make a huge difference.  Smaug, the titular dragon, was worth the wait, and the appearance of Legolas (who does not show up in the book) is a welcome call-back to the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  In fact, this film fits right in with that superior set of films.

The lengthening of the book into three films doesn't affect Smaug as much as it did in An Unexpected Journey because the introductions are finished.  My biggest complaint about the first film was the introduction of the dwarves.  There was singing, eating, general goofiness, and they even did the dishes.  I know all of that is in the book, but if there was a moment that could have been pared down, it was that one.  Thankfully, the songs and intros are done with, and the quest to reclaim the mountain home of the dwarves from the terrible dragon Smaug can take the spotlight.

Smaug is an imposing presence in the film.  Benedict Cumberbatch’s voice-work (he also did some of the physical stuff, as well, though I’m not sure how that translated to the screen…) is perfectly sinister as the dragon.  The visual effects are the most impressive aspect of the dragon.  You truly feel the scale of the beast as he threatens Bilbo and rampages through the mountain.  His appearance definitely kicked the franchise into gear.

The journey in Smaug brings the main characters into contact with some other new and familiar faces, too; some more welcome than others.  Beorn the Skinchanger was interesting (though his time felt a bit short).  Legolas's return felt like a gimmick to please fans of the previous trilogy, but it worked for me because the character brings some great action to the proceedings.  And Bard of Laketown offered some compelling complications to the story.  

Other characters are only so-so.  Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) is a new elf that is largely used to inject a love triangle with Legolas and one of the dwarves (I forget which one because of all the silly names, but it's the one that looks most like a human).  The character is not so bad, but the love story felt unnatural.  I understand the desire to add some romance to a very plain quest plot, but all of the other complications (the threatening emergence of Sauron, for one) are enough.  The beefing up of the Master of Laketown and his Grima Wormtongue-esque assistant was an unneeded conflict as well, but it does give Bard some more stuff to do, I suppose.  Maybe developments in the final installment of the trilogy will change my mind, but for right now, these two conflicts seemed to be nothing more than padding for the plot.

Aside from those two minor gripes, I loved this movie.  The visuals and the action won me over.  Devotees of the book might be upset, but the barrel escape (a rather boring moment in the book) is amazingly complex and fun in the film.  A sequence during the confrontation with Smaug was added, as well, but made the film much more exciting.  

There are two aspects concerning the visuals that I did not get to see: the high frame rate and 3D.  Honestly, I really want to see the frame rate just to see what it's like, but I was glad to miss out on the 3D.  A few scenes might have been cool to see, but for the most part, I think it would have been too dizzying to be enjoyable.  Director Peter Jackson likes to spin the camera around, which might have made me nauseous in 3D.  And the frantic action sequences would have been tough to follow had they been in 3D.

In short, The Desolation of Smaug is fine in standard format, just like the Lord of the Rings films.  Beautiful visuals, complex action, and a mythical quest are more than enough for this enjoyable film.  Plus, it leaves you desperately wanting to see the next installment.  Let's hope things just keep getting better.

The Desolation of Smaug gets a:

"The Hobbit" Isn't the "Lord of the Rings" Movie I Wanted, but It'll Do

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Directed by Peter Jackson, written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Jackson, and Guillermo del Toro, starring Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, and Richard Armitage - Rated PG-13

 

 

 

In the battle of the geek trilogies, I’ve always fallen on the side of Star Wars.  Lord of the Rings is great, don’t get me wrong, but part of me agrees with Randall from Clerks 2 when he laments, “even the trees walk!” in those movies.  The Rings trilogy did feature a lot of walking.  But it also had some of the best battle scenes ever, the most impressive CG of the time, and very likable, funny characters.  I may be a Star Wars geek through and through, but I also love the Rings.  If there is one element of that trilogy I found a bit boring, however, it was the hobbits. 

 

I once tried to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy when I was in high school, and I had to stop after a few pages.  I was reading a section about hobbits and I just couldn’t take it.  Author J. R. R. Tolkien was going on about pipe weed and all kinds of other nonsense, and I just did not care about any of it.  When I watched the films, I felt the exact same way.  I did not care a bit about Frodo and Sam and their boring walk through the mountains.  I wanted to see humans, elves, dwarves, and all manner of evil creatures do battle. 

 

So when I heard about The Hobbit moving into production, I was not that excited.  I was afraid it would take all the elements I hated from the trilogy and focus only on them.  It turns out I was only slightly correct.  The film’s star is definitely a hobbit, Bilbo Baggins to be exact (played by Ian Holm in the trilogy, and by Martin Freeman here), but there are plenty of other characters, maybe too many. 

 

The Hobbit is essentially about a group of dwarves (I won’t even attempt to list all of their goofy names) led by the sullen Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage).  They are on a mission to reclaim their home from a dragon.  Of course, it isn’t an easy journey and pretty much every step forward leads to two steps back.  It is a bit frustrating to deal with another trilogy set in this world in which the characters have to slowly travel to a specific location.  It’s really infuriating when you know that Gandalf (Ian McKellen) can just call on those birds from the trilogy whenever he wants.  It’s also a bit maddening when you know that this trilogy is based on one short book rather than a lengthier work like Rings.  It all feels a bit drawn out, and, to be honest, the film felt like the necessary first part that will lead a far more entertaining second and third film.

 

That said, this is still a Lord of the Rings film directed by Peter Jackson.  Believe it or not, I truly liked it.  I just feel a little disappointed when I compare it to the other films.  I suppose that’s not fair, but how can you help it?  If you liked the trilogy, you should find some, if not all, of this film quite enjoyable.  There are beautiful locales, goofy creatures, Gollum, Gandalf, the elves, a slight mention of Sauron, plenty of action, etc.  It’s a good time at the movies, and it’s certainly worth your money.  The Hobbit is easier to nitpick than the other films, but when you stop judging it against the other, superior films, you realize that it is very entertaining. 

 

I did find myself slipping into a negative mindset as I watched, however.  The dwarves were more annoying than amusing.  Gandalf’s vague proclamations were a bit more maddening than usual.  Bilbo’s whiny, reluctant hero was a bit too familiar.  The action at times felt too cartoonish.  I was thinking of all of this and imaging how I was going to write this up in a review that would be middling heading towards downright negative.  As you can see, I did start to do just that.  But as I let the film sink in and I thought about it a day or two later, I came to the conclusion that I was being a bit of a snob.  Perhaps this isn’t very critical of me, but I decided to forgive The Hobbit its flaws because once you get past all of them, this is a fun first film that can only lead to bigger and better things.  Now, if the next two Hobbit films fail to blow me away, then you’ll get to read a full-on negative geek meltdown.  I hope that’s not the case (although that does sound fun to write…).  Until then, just accept The Hobbit for what it is: a lesser work in an amazing series of films.  That is still much better than the usual crap you’re subjected to on a regular basis.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

Seriously?  The giant birds again?  Why does Gandalf only use them as a last resort?  And why couldn't they just fly them all their destination?  Why strand them on what appeared to be some very precarious rocks?  Those birds bothered me in the first trilogy, and I'll be damned if Jackson didn't roll them out at the beginning of this new trilogy.

 

The goofiness of the film was annoying.  The singing dwarves were boring and stupid enough, but did we need a scene of them tossing dishes around?  Jackson can justify all he wants about making this into a trilogy, but when I see dwarves doing the dishes, I think that he's adding a bit too much. 

 

That goblin king thing was way too similar to Boss Nass from Episode One.  Nothing else to say, really, it just seemed too cartoonish.

 

With the introduction of the hillbilly wizard, I am now convinced that all wizards in Middle Earth are weak stoners.  Why does it seem like Gandalf has no powers other than yelling and whispering to birds?  And shouldn't the bird whispering be a skill exclusive to that animal loving wizard?  I'm just wanting to see Gandalf let loose. 

 

Randall has new ammo for his Rings argument because even the mountains walk in this movie!  Still wondering what that was about, and why the mountains didn't take part in the battle for all of Middle Earth sixty years later...

 

Finally, the battle scenes were weak at times.  There are some great moments, sure, but it seemed as if the dwarves just had to run into their enemies to defeat them.  Most of them are designed in such a way that physical battle is impossible, so I suppose Jackson's hands were tied there.  I'm just saying action for action's sake is fine if the action is interesting.  When it's there to add twenty minutes to a film, it sticks out like a sore thumb.