I am Fire. I am Death.

               I read a lot of science fiction and fantasy and it all started in the fourth grade with Tolkien’s The Hobbit. So almost ten years after the final installment of the Lord of the Rings films, I was elated when they announced the coming of the movie version of The Hobbit. When I heard that it would be broken into three installments I was concerned but hopeful. I missed seeing The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in theaters and recently watched it at home. And truly, I was a bit disappointed.

               Critic Richard Corliss for Time magazine however, identifies the film as a “thrilling achievement”. He lauds the film for being “livelier, ruder and less slavishly faithful to its source” comparing it to the first installment The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. In my opinion the pace and tone of The Desolation of Smaug and the lack of faithfulness to the text greatly deter from the enjoyment of the film. The Hobbit was never meant to be a deep, serious book, rather it was written by Tolkien in a lighter tone so that it may appeal to children. The book was even turned into an animated film in the 70’s. By turning The Desolation of Smaug into an action packed journey with forceful overshadowing of doom, we lose the sense of the story as written by Tolkien in the persona of Bilbo Baggins. What is meant to be a hobbit’s tale, instead becomes a playground for director Peter Jackson.

               One point that Richard Corliss brings up in his review is that of the character Tauriel. Many Tolkien fans have been infuriated by the addition of this character but Corliss claims the addition “works, lending the story a touch of gender democracy and warm Arthurian romance”. The writers of the film add her because they felt that there needed to be a feminine energy. The addition of such a character, especially in a time where female archer heroines are in vogue, would be a neutral aspect if not for the love triangle she is placed in. In the film she is the obvious love interest of Legolas and the only slightly less obvious love interest for the dwarf Kili. While the banter between elf maid and dwarf is amusing, it is completely unnecessary to the story and even Corliss admits that their dialogue does not sound like Tolkien. Legolas as the third part of the bewildering love triangle is another character that does not belong. As the son of Thranduil it could be implied that Legolas takes part in the events of The Hobbit but instead of a brief cameo, the film insists on using him as a key player. While this alone would not be a problem, the romance is a strange chapter in a film that is essentially an action movie.

               Tolkien’s genius in writing The Hobbit was that it was completely believable as a memoir of Bilbo Baggins. A hobbit, being a well-fed creature of comfort, would surely remember vividly the long hard trek and poor food on the journey. In The Desolation of Smaug however, Corliss argues that the film “sensibly reduc[es] the book’s passages”. Rather than keep with the true spirit of the book, this film takes many liberties with the storyline as well as the pacing of story.

               The only part of Richard Corliss’ review I can agree with is the mind-blowing depiction of the CGI dragon Smaug at 48 frames per second, which in my mind is the only part of the film worth watching.