The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Just remember, if you're not tired of The Hobbit yet, there's still three more hours on the way.

I mentioned in my The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review that I haven't read the book this is all based on (loosely, I suppose).  That hasn't changed in the past year, so once I again I can't comment on the faithfulness to the source material.  I don't necessarily have any issues with some of the newly added characters or plot points that seem to be more of a reference to The Lord of the Rings trilogy than having anything to do with The Hobbit.  In some cases, they were a good thing, like with the addition of Evangeline Lilly's character Tauriel.  She's a total badass and gives the audience a strong female character to identify with.  It doesn't hurt that she's super hot dressed up as an Elf.  I think she might have replaced Antje Traue's Faora from Man of Steel as my current nerd crush.  I liked her character so much that I would totally support and happily watch Tauriel: Badass Elf Chick.  I liked how they brought Legolas (Orlando Bloom) back into the fray, as he got some really cool action scenes that showed more of a ruthless side that wasn't necessarily seen in the original films.

I don't figure there's a lot of need to get into the plot.  The Desolation of Smaug isn't so much a sequel than the continuation (more like extension) of a story that really could have been told in a single film, but whatever.  Smaug and An Unexpected Journey could have easily been edited into a single, three hour film, but for some reason I was never bothered by the length or pacing of either.  If you've followed my blog at all, you know that I tend to pick on a movie's length or pacing a lot.  Simply put, I enjoy this world so much and hanging around in it that I don't want them to end.  Hell, I've already sat through the Extended Edition of An Unexpected Journey twice already, even though it didn't expand on the story the way the Extended Editions for The Lord of the Rings trilogy did.  You don't even have to twist my arm to say that I've enjoyed the The Hobbit movies far more than the Star Wars prequels.  The Hobbit is how you make a prequel trilogy and throw in references to the originals.

The real question I think most people will be asking is do we finally get to see the dragon in this one.  Well, we do and it's glorious!  Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) is easily the best looking dragon ever seen in a movie.  It's not just a quick shot either.  We get an extended look and he plays heavily during the last part of the film.  The wait was worth it.  Although, I will add this, why is it so hard for a giant, fire-breathing dragon to kill a bunch of halflings?  Shouldn't he have been able to kill them like fifteen times each?

Overall, the special effects had more polish to them when compared to the first film.  There were times in Journey where it looked too much like a computer game, but I didn't get as much of that here.  I think a lot of that look was due to the high frame rate used.  I saw Smaug in IMAX 3D with the high frame rate, and there were still times where it still had that artificial, sped-up look.  I thought it was much less noticeable though, but I can see how some viewers may still have an issue with it.  If you're on the fence about what format to see it in, you should probably err on the side of avoiding the HFR screenings.  I liked the 3D though and don't have a problem recommending it.

Another reason I enjoyed Smaug so much is that there's a lot more action.  Journey took close to an hour before anything happened, but there's less setup in Smaug and more getting to the very creative and fun action scenes throughout the film.  The "barrel scene" has a almost Rube Goldberg feel to it, as did another scene later in the film.  Again, there there are many scenes with Tauriel and Legolas where they get to kick ass.  There are arrows to the head and beheadings galore.  Oh, and there's no musical sequences this time around.  It's not that I dislike them, but they're not always my thing or don't necessarily fit well in the story.  I also appreciated that there was less corny humor.  The whole tone of the film is much darker.

It isn't just better effects and action though.  There were many character moments I appreciated.  In particular, I liked how they took time to show how Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is slowly getting corrupted by The Ring.  I enjoyed how Thorin (Richard Armitage) was developed, and I came away liking him bit a more than I did after Journey. Many of the company of dwarves get to show more personality, especially with Kili (Aiden Turner), who is one of the few characters that gets a love interest.  If there was any disappointment I had it's that Gandalf (Ian McKellen) took a bit of a back seat in this chapter.  I'm assuming he'll be back with a vengeance in the final chapter.

I had a lot of fun with The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  Sure, it's too long, and purists will have issues with the story, but it's still an improvement over An Unexpected Journey.  If anything, it gives fans another opportunity to hang out in Middle-earth while providing more of the action and spectacle that made The Lord of the Rings trilogy so entertaining.  Plus, there's a dragon...

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Good Doctor (2012) - Movie Review

With a title like The Good Doctor, you know this can only turn out one of two ways.  He's either actually going to be a good doctor, or he's going to be a terrible doctor.  I'll let you have a guess at which.  Don't worry, you've got a fifty-percent chance of being right.  Spoilers ahead...

Martin Blake (Orlando Bloom) is young doctor starting his residency.  He's having difficulty fitting in, and clashes with one of the nurses (Taraji P. Henson).  He's desperately wants the respect of his co-workers and supervisor (Rob Morrow).  After initially screwing up with a patient, he gets a chance to redeem himself when a cute, young patient, Diane (Riley Keogh), comes in with a kidney infection.  Under Blake's care, Diane quickly recovers and is sent home.  Diane's parents are so happy they invite him over for dinner.

There's a darkness to Blake though, and while there are hints to this early in the movie, they go unnoticed by his co-workers.  He sabotages Diane's recovery, forcing her ailment to relapse, which leads to an even longer stay in the hospital.  Blake spends even more time with Diane, continuing to sabotague her while telling his supervisors that she's been 'resistant to treatment'.  It might have been funny if it weren't so creepy.

As you might guess, things take a turn for the worse and he loses the patient.  At one point Diane's father confronts him in the hospital and accuses him of killing his daughter.  He insists he did everything he could, but the reality is that he did kill her.  Worse yet, he didn't really seem to have any guilt about it.  His cold demeanor is looked at as professional detachment by his supervisor and hospital psychologist.  His colleagues try to reassure him by saying that everyone loses a patient at some point, and that you aren't really a doctor until you do.

Later, a irresponsible orderly (Michael Peña) finds something that could be used against Blake, and uses this leverage to bribe him for drugs.  This leads to another series of bad decisions by Blake as the movie continues into the bizarre.

Normally, I don't mind character studies or movies that have ambiguity about them, but this was one where it bugged me.  From the opening moments right up until the very end, Blake engages in a series of increasingly illogical decisions that just made me scratch my head.  The problem I had was that it was never explained why he was doing these things.  Was he really so driven to gain respect that he'd do anything to get there.  Was he was falling for Diane and didn't want to let her go?   Maybe he was simply a psychopath.  You see that Blake has a scar on his forehead, that he attempts to cover with a really bad, Donald Trump-like haircut.  Are we to guess that he had head trauma in his past? If so, do they really let doctors with a history of head trauma become doctors? Did he have a psychological evaluation at any point? Maybe I'm missing the point they were trying to make here, but I don't like making excuses for a film.

It's nice looking at least, but the pace was sluggish and I couldn't figure out what the tone was.  I think that director Lance Daly and John Enbom couldn't either.  If this was meant to be a dark comedy, then there should have been some actual humor in it, and if this was a character study, they didn't give us about the character to care.  There's not enough depth.

I also didn't get enough chemistry between Orlando Bloom and Riley Keogh to care about their relationship. I felt both of them were very flat together.  I do think Bloom brought a creepy, detached element to his performance, but it seemed he spent a lot of time just staring out into the distance.  I enjoyed the supporting performances from Taraji P. Henson and Michael Peña more. While they didn't get a lot of screen time, I felt like they both had more going on and wanted to see more of them.  I think they really missed an opportunity with Peña's character to do more there.

The Good Doctor could have been a dark and complex story, but it misses the mark because it failed to give us a compelling character to watch.  We end up getting something that was creepy, unsatisfying and a little boring.  It's not awful, but there's really nothing to recommend about it. You can skip this one, folks.

2 (out of 5) Death Stars