I have a dark secret that, after I've confessed it, may mean certain people do not look at me in quite the same way: I did not like the Lord of the Rings films. There, I said it. I watched all three but was never fully satisfied with them and therefore I confined the trilogy to a dark place where other films I have only ever seen once are placed, never to return.
So, surely, with the same director and the same author of source material, I would feel the same dissatisfaction with the Hobbit films. Well, no! I have enjoyed the first two instalments immensely and am actually quite excited about the third film, due out in December (I've already booked my tickets).
So what makes this trilogy more appealing than The Fellowship of the Ring, et al? The first thing that springs to mind is the hobbit himself. Martin Freeman is charming, even when he is sniffling in the face of danger. His journey from coward to hero is one that I have watched with great interest. I care what happens to him (yes, yes, I know everything turns out OK and he eventually 'grows' up to be Ian Holme but I can still worry). This is in stark contrast to my feelings towards Frodo and Sam in the first film trilogy. I don't know why but Freeman is just much more likeable.
The Dwarves of the film are also well cast. Richard Armitage is fantastic as Thorin OakenShield, a 'giant' among dwarves. Here is a character that could well have turned out to be a figure of hate, a sullen, rude dwarf who has little to no redeemable qualities. However the audience doesn't hate him, in fact they are fully behind the rightful king and this is in no small part down to Armitage's skill as an actor as well as Jackson's direction.
But enough of the trilogy, what about this particular part of the series?
Some fans are upset with the changes that have been made to the original story; swapping goblins for Orcs, adding characters that didn't exist in the novel, etc. However, as a film, the changes make sense. Orcs are well established thanks to the Lord of the Rings, so the audience can already identify the enemy. This also applies to the extra parts of the film featuring Gandalf and the White Council. These vary enormously from Tolkien's text but it draws the audience in as they are familiar characters.
The original theatrical release was epic enough with a run time of 2 hours and 41 minutes but the Blu-ray has added and extended scenes meaning the film now clocks in at 3 hours long. Some of the included scenes include a whole plot line involving Thorin's father which was absent at the cinema.
It takes two thirds of the film before we meet the dragon of the title but he is more than worth the wait. Voiced and motion captured by the brilliant Benedict Cumberbatch, Smaug is a formidable enemy. His size and (literal) fire power is impressive but he is also clever, ruthless and charming in a scaly, human-hating kind of a way.
The supporting cast including Orlando Bloom's Legolas (the only role I've ever liked him in) and brand new character Tauriel (Lost's Evangeline Lilly) are all superb.
There are a few niggles which may seem minute considering the scale of the film. Things like, why is the most charming and romantic of the dwarves the least 'dwarf looking' (I'm talking about you Aidan Turner)?
Why do we even need a romantic angle (Legolas/Tauriel/Kili)?
Why did they feel the need to change the character of Bard the Bowman? No offence to Luke Evans but he seems to be the weakest of such a big name cast. I just hope he can prove me wrong when he takes a more central role in the next part.
The Blu-Ray version is a tad too long and the new scenes do not add anything to what was already a great film. However, one of the bonuses of Blu-Ray is the pause function (handy for the much needed loo breaks).
And, without giving away the actual ending, prepared to be left with a cliffhanger than will have you wishing the time away until the release of The Battle of the Five Armies
