Review – The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Carmen Paddock reviews Peter Jackson’s second adaptation of the Hobbit.

Image credit: Metro

The second installment of Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth trilogy clocks in at 161 minutes, slightly shorter than its predecessor (and all three of The Lord of the Rings) but still ample time for thrilling action sequences; high adventure across forests, rivers, towns, and mountains; and one massive dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will almost certainly delight fans of the franchise with its fast-paced plot, fantastic performances, and excellent art direction and effects.

Once Howard Shore’s haunting music and New Zealand’s stunning scenery are combined, the familiar atmosphere immediately immerses viewers in Middle Earth and the adventures at hand – a testament to Jackson’s and his team’s artistic coherence.

The film begins with a flashback to an introductory scene only heard about in the books.  It then largely picks up where An Unexpected Journey ends, following the dwarves on their continued escape from the band of Orcs led by Azog the Defiler.  Without giving too much away, the ensuing journey takes the party across amazing landscapes, to exciting new places, and into contact with a host of colourful characters – elves, men, shape-shifters, and dragons.

Although Jackson keeps the core storyline intact, those who have read the books, may find a few of the plot changes – some quite egregious – a source of contention and consternation.  The action culminates in terrible suspense; those who have not read the book will have to wait another year to see how that cliffhanger turns out!

Image credit: The Times

The performances are strong throughout the immense cast.  Martin Freeman’s impeccably-timed and precise mannerisms are perfect for Bilbo, and he convincingly portrays the hobbit’s increasing boldness and ingenuity alongside his growing attachment to his new-found ring.

Richard Armitage is once again a compelling, dynamic Thorin; no one aspect of his character – his stubbornness, charisma, power lust, courage, and developing rapport with Bilbo – overpowers another, highlighting both his heroic side and his deep flaws.

The rest of the dwarf company are all fully-developed characters – standouts include Ken Scott as Balin, Graham McTavish as Dwalin, Stephen Hunter as Bombur, and Aidan Turner as Thorin’s impetuous nephew Kili.

Sir Ian McKellen’s Gandalf is a classic, while Orlando Bloom reprises Legolas and is every bit the beloved wood elf of before.  He is joined by Lee Pace as his father, Thranduil, and Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel, a female elf warrior of Peter Jackson’s creation.

Pace creates a nuanced portrayal of a king desperate to defend his people against the growing darkness, while Lilly impresses as a bold, powerful, and utterly competent heroine.  Her addition to the story is quite welcome.

Luke Evans’s Bard and Stephen Fry’s Master of Laketown vary slightly from their book counterparts, especially in their relation to one another, but the two actors flesh out the characters nicely.

Oscar-worthy: Benedict Cumberbatch voices Smaug.
Image credit: Total Film

And no actor review would be complete without mention of Benedict Cumberbatch, who voices both the dragon Smaug and the Necromancer of Dol Goldur.  Despite two different voice modifications, both are noticeably  Cumberbatch – a refreshing touch of recognition amidst the CGI visual performances.  And what a deep, commanding voice it is!

The cinematography keeps the film’s mis-en-scene almost indistinguishable from earlier installments.  A nice artistic touch is varying the shots by location depending on the quality of each: the filming in Mirkwood is dizzying while the Woodland Realm is dreamlike and Erebor is vast and sweeping.

On the whole, the visual effects are successful, the only downfall being that the computer generated Orcs seem less menacing and more ‘plastic’ than their prosthetic, human-acted counterparts found throughout The Lord of the Rings.

Smaug, however, is a phenomenal creation.  At once recognisably and traditionally dragon-like, yet also entirely unique (his movements had an almost bat-like quality), he is a marvel of computer designs, and possibly worth a visual effects Oscar all on his own.

Despite serious departures from original plot details, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a solid, enjoyable, and thrilling continuation of a decades-long franchise.

Although the final chapter, out in December 2014, cannot come soon enough, leaving the fantastic Middle Earth of Peter Jackson’s meticulous creation will be a difficult goodbye.

Carmen Paddock

What did you think of The Hobbit round 2? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting below.

Review: The Fifth Estate

Cumberbatch heads up the ‘star studded cast’
Image Credit: The Guardian

Following on from out Biopics Feature yesterday, Carmen Paddock sees if The Fifth Estate is watertight.

With the polarising, political and current WikiLeaks scandal at this drama’s heart, it is surprising that The Fifth Estate makes no attempt to moralise on this divisive issue.

Neither Assange nor the US government come off as the ‘good guy’ or ‘bad guy’ – they are merely conflicting parties each convinced that their stance is the ethically superior one.

This lack of stance may be one reason why some critics have complained that the film sheds no new light on this exciting controversy; however, it is relieving that the creative team chose to focus more on the people embroiled in the leaks – their lives and motivations – instead of on their international implications.

The star-studded cast does not disappoint on any level.

With the help of bleached hair and an Australian accent, Benedict Cumberbatch morphs into WikiLeaks’s elusive prophet. He uses his well-honed talent for sociopathic characters to its full effect; as with his Sherlock, his Assange is multifaceted, by turns charismatic, compulsive, idealistically visionary, ruthless, and unforgiving to those who fail to live up to his vision of a new society.

The film, however, could almost be said to unfold through the eyes of Assange’s slowly-disillusioned disciple, Daniel Berg. Daniel Brühl, fresh off his success as Rush’s Niki Lauda, immediately wins viewers over with his slight naiveté and uncompromised idealism upon joining Assange’s quest, and this sympathetic relationship to the audience is a stark, powerful foil to Assange’s unreachability.

Viewers expecting the film to be all about the two ‘stars’ will be surprised by the extremely strong supporting cast.

Action is kept to a minimum to focus on the characters involved
Image Credit: The Guardian

Alicia Vikander (A Royal Affair, Anna Karenina) captures the mixed devotion and understandable frustration with Assange’s all-hours approach as Berg’s girlfriend, Anke. Peter Capaldi has his same fantastic Malcom Tucker-esque air, albeit toned down and with less swearing, as the Guardian’s Alan Rusbridger.

As two American cabinet workers bent on sorting out WikiLeaks’ implications, the consistently marvellous Laura Linney and the never disappointing Stanley Tucci (where to start with their past credits?) round out the show.

The script is tight and well-written, allowing the characters to define themselves and their actions without monotonous explanation. The production design is, for the most part, solid.

However, the decision to represent the metaphorical ‘WikiLeaks headquarters’ in a dream like physical setting is odd and does not quite fit the rest of the film’s realistic aesthetic.

Have you seen The Fifth Estate? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting or rating below

Horrible Histories

If you know your History then you will know where Thomas Davies is coming from…

Image Credit: The Guardian

EVEN before the release of The Fifth Estate, the new biopic starring Benedict Cumberbatch, it had already come under fire. The ‘star’ of the film and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange launched a well-spoken critique, going so far as to call Cumberbatch a “hired gun” for distorting the “truth”. Assange’s criticism begs an interesting question: what can we do about biopics?

As a history undergraduate, I have very clear views about the fictionalisation of biopics. Bluntly, they shouldn’t happen. Biopics to me are history documentaries with a bigger budget and I don’t like anything that defies the ‘facts’ to any significant extent. But the more you look into the historicity of biopics the more errors you find – some minor, others quite significant. In fact there isn’t a single biopic that I’ve watched that doesn’t contain an error of some kind somewhere.

In reality, therefore, I’ve accepted there’s always going to be something wrong with them.

Some biopics, like Lincoln and Schindler’s List, I’d be more than happy to recommend. Others (don’t even get me started on Braveheart) are not nearly as good. Some are useful even if they don’t do accurate biography; Saving Private Ryan does a poor job of telling the story of the real ‘Private Ryan’ but it’s a brilliant depiction of the Second World War.

We must take every historical film with a pinch of salt and remember they aren’t time machines, more like paintings that get the points across – but not always in a realistic way.

You could argue that this would be less of an issue if we had the real figures giving their input. To some extent you’d probably be right, but in actual fact I don’t think it helps.

People like Assange are just as capable of distorting their own life as Hollywood is. They aren’t impartial and they would want to portray themselves in a certain way. I’m not saying that would be bad, but the same issues would come up.

Rush
Image Credit: Exclusive Pictures

There’s even something to be gained from not letting them influence the writing process. Niki Lauda, whose career was chronicled in Rush, said the film “helped me understand why people were so shocked [at his burned face]”. It’s always going to be someone’s interpretation, and we should embrace that and take it as such. Impartiality is in short supply.

Annoying as it is, we know there are errors and we know biopics are no replacement for good traditional reading. But if we know all this, what is the point in even having this discussion? Why did Assange feel the need to speak out if he knows that biopics aren’t accurate?

Sadly it’s because people don’t check the facts, and I’m as guilty as anyone. What Assange’s criticism highlights more than anything is the extent to which Hollywood influences popular perception and the regularity with which it alters our views to one thing or another. When sitting down to watch the next big biopic, we would all do well to remember this.

What are your thoughts on biopics? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting below.