The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Directed by Peter Jackson.  Based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkein

 

Kili: Aren't you going to search me? I could have anything down my trousers.

Tauriel: Or nothing.

 

Here’s the feeling this movie gave me; once upon a time, a very long time ago, I went to the hospital with my grandmother when one of her friends was ill.  I had to sit in the waiting room for hours, and the only thing I found to read was one of those Reader’s Digest Condensed books.  I read one story in it, and had started another when Granny reappeared, and I was saved.  About a year later, the book was made into a movie, and the story was much fuller and richer than the condensed book had been.  This experience felt like that.

 

The story takes us from when the Giant Eagles dropped our intrepid heroes off, through the Myrk Wood, and the spiders within, past the elves (did you know Legolas was the son of the King of the Wood Elves?) and on down to the Lake Town, and into the Lonely Mountain.  There, they will encounter Smaug, the greatest of calamities.

 

There is much in the movie that wasn’t in the book…for instance, Radagast the Brown was no more than a mention in the books.  Here, he is a demented little wizard who gets around in a bunny powered sleigh, and has birds nest hair, literally, and a guano conditioner.  He adds colour and humor, but…he wasn’t in the book.  Not like this.  The same with Azog, chief among the hunters of the dwarves.  He is a mention in the book…a main player in the movie. The list goes on; Tauriel, Legolas, their non-romance, Tauriel, Kili, their attraction.  Never written, never to be forgotten.

 

So…what does that say for the movie?  Well, it says it is far more about Peter Jackson than it is about J.R.R. Tolkien. It is also a brilliant movie; stunningly well made, and will no doubt collect a share of Oscars for its troubles.  It has single handedly made dwarves sexy, (though honestly Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner, and Dean O'Gorman deserve most of that credit).  It is well worth seeing, even to a bibliopurist like me. 

 

Why was the one prequel cut into three movies while the epic three books made do with one movie a piece?  I have two answers Pride and Greed.

 

Three movies make more money than One, and this is Jackson’s last chance to capitalize upon the Middle Earth Franchise.  That covers greed.  The other thing is Pride.  This is Jackson’s chance to really add something to the mythos.  And he has.  For good or ill, Radagast, and Azog are now major players, not marginalia.  And he has created something that will stand the test of time, becoming a part of our culture the exact same way The Wizard of Oz did, 74 years ago.  It is still relevant today, it is still watched today, it still draws a market share today.  Jackson can take great pride in what he has done; as a movie, it is remarkable.  As a vision, it is fully realized.  As the Hobbit…well, I think I will still need a decade to work out how I feel about that one.

 

But Jackson is a visionary; he wanted all his life to create a truly worthy King Kong…and he did.  Now, he has turned that same love and pride on The Hobbit, and for good or ill, our culture will change.