The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - 2nd Verse, just a tiny bit better than the 1st

Did you ever watch the documentaries featured on The Lord of the Rings extended editions? They might very well be the best supplemental materials I've ever seen. It's such a joy to watch director Peter Jackson and his co-writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens discuss how they approached the daunting task of adapting such massive novels. The Lord of the Rings books overflow with gorgeous imagery, stories and characters. Streamlining those books into three-hour films was clearly no easy task. In these documentaries, the filmmakers discuss the difficult choices made when adapting the material to film and the approach they took when deciding what things stayed in the film versions and what things had to be cut. Sure, Tom Bombadil was beloved by the books' fans, but his inclusion in the films would have slowed things down and his storyline didn't really move the plot forward in any way. And yes, even though the Scouring of the Shire is a pretty cool scene in the novel The Return of the King, it seems more like a fun side story than an actual part of the main quest. (So many people complain about the multiple endings of the film iteration of The Return of the King but imagine if the Scouring of the Shire had actually been included; there really would have been something to complain about.)

Those are just a couple examples of wise omissions that Jackson and co. made when adapting The Lord of the Rings. They understood that you couldn't carry everything over and decided to focus solely on what was absolutely integral to telling the story of Frodo and the Fellowship's quest to destroy the One Ring. It baffles me that the same filmmakers are adapting The Hobbit because it seems as if they're making the exact opposite decisions this time around. I sincerely miss the days when these filmmakers were wiser and made actual movies as opposed to cash machines.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a dreadful bore. I couldn't bother hating it because I was so indifferent to its overblown, unfocused narrative and video game style settings and characters. The book itself is simple enough as it is, but stretching it out into an epic length and splitting it across three 3-hour long movies definitely took its toll on this first meandering entry. Throughout the course of the film, Bilbo Baggins and his Dwarven companions ran, hacked and slashed their way through various scenes and then ran, hacked and slashed some more with little to no driving story or character motivations. It was just one video game sequence after another, some taken from the book - most invented for the sake of padding out the running time. In adapting this beloved and unassuming adventure story, Jackson and his team have shown little to no reverence for Tolkien's text, opting instead to compete with their masterful Lord of the Rings films.

So now we come to The Hobbit Part 2 of 3: The Desolation of Smaug and the realization that we may never get a film adaptation that honors the text on which it is based hangs heavy over the proceedings. That being said, Part 2 is actually an improvement over Part 1 in that, at the very least, it is more entertaining and even contains sequences that thrill in ways that An Unexpected Journey didn't come remotely close to doing. Overall, though, it's still a middling entry and suffers from the filmmakers' misguided decision to stretch this simple tale far more than necessary, accentuating its flaws all the more.

Poor Bilbo Baggins, the character who's supposed to be the main protagonist of this story, is shoved to the sidelines and spends most of his time staring on as other characters take the spotlight. Martin Freeman is still as charming as ever and I couldn't help but wish that, as the title character of the movie, he would get to do a bit more. Maybe that's too much to ask, though. Instead of focusing on the Hobbit in a movie called The Hobbit, we get more nonsense about Thorin and the dwarves' quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain and all their silly gold. There's also an extended subplot in Laketown, a location that was featured in the book for a grand total of maybe 10-15 pages, and another plotline involving Gandalf's quest to discover more about the mysterious Necromancer. (A.K.A. Sauron, the big baddie from The Lord of the Rings) In the midst of all this chaos, there is a painfully unnecessary love triangle involving Legolas of the original trilogy, Tauriel, an invention of Jackson and his screenwriters, and Kili, the hunkiest dwarf of all. (Since when did the dwarves start looking like really hot bearded men instead of, you know, dwarves?) I was expecting to be more annoyed with Legolas' inclusion here, but was pleasantly surprised. Seeing him felt like seeing an old friend and served as another sad reminder that these new movies don't hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings. Evangeline Lily is actually a welcome inclusion as well. As Tauriel, she flips about, slaying orcs left and right and she manages to do all this while keeping her hair in place. This is no easy feat and I know from experience. What a babe

The Desolation of Smaug benefits from a number of superb action sequences, the best of which is a barrel escape sequence on a river which features the dwarves defending themselves while Orcs and Elves alike hop to and fro, shooting arrows, slashing about and being generally more acrobatic than the laws of physics could feasibly allow. It's just plain great moviemaking and it reminded me of how awesome Peter Jackson can be when he's firing on all cylinders. The extended sequence in Smaug's layer is also thrilling. Benedict Cumberbatch is an inspired choice for the dragon and the effects work that brings him to life is some of the best you'll see all year. (Though nothing quite matches the groundbreaking work done on Gollum) The scenes at Laketown offer a new shade to the Middle-Earth mythos without being entirely necessary and Bard (Luke Evans), a new addition to the already sprawling character roster, is a nice attempt at filling the Aragorn-sized void of this trilogy. (As if Thorin wasn't enough...) There are still far too many meandering side quests, but there's a sense of momentum to the story this time around which makes the slower scenes much more bearable. And then, right as the movie seems to be building to a thrilling climax, it abruptly ends. Actually, saying that it 'ends' is a bit misleading. It doesn't have an actual ending so much as it just stops and cuts to the credits. It's a big Middle-Earth sized middle finger reminding us we'll have to pay three separate times to see a story that could easily have been told within a single film's running time.

So, yes, The Desolation of Smaug is an improvement over An Unexpected Journey and it gives me some hope for the final chapter of this trilogy, but it isn't good enough to stop every single moment in these two films from dragging on and on. There has yet to be any justification for stretching such a simple book out into a nine-hour saga. The Hobbit has lost much of the charm and entertainment value of the original story simply because Peter Jackson feels this inexplicable need to compete with his Lord of the Rings trilogy. At the end of the day, The Hobbit should not be treated as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings; it should be treated as its own story and it's a damn shame that Jackson and co. didn't treat it with the same reverence that was on display in The Lord of the Rings. I can only hope that someday someone will come along and cut together all three of these massive Hobbit movies into a single film. I'm sure that effort would do Tolkien proud. Until then, this is what we're stuck with.

CONCLUSION: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is less painful to sit through than An Unexpected Journey, but it still suffers from the same issues: it's butter scraped over too much bread. It does, however, benefit from some rousing action sequences and improved pacing, but this is still not enough to justify bloating the original story.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire leaves me hungry for more!! (Get it?? Hungry?? Yay!!)

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire caught me completely off guard with its awesomeness. Featuring the superb cast of the first film combined with the assured direction of Francis Lawrence, it's not only an improvement over its cinematic predecessor, it's arguably a big improvement on its source material as well. Fans of the book will be totally engrossed and emerge from the theater immensely satisfied and general audiences won't be at a loss as to why the source material is so enormously popular.

When we last left Katniss Everdeen and her glorious ponytail, she and her kinda/sorta boyfriend Peeta had just emerged victorious from the 74th Hunger Games by not so subtly defying the all-powerful Capitol. Well, President Snow just won't stand for this treachery and has decided to make Katniss' life as miserable as possible. He starts by paying her a visit in her home district and threatening the lives of her friend and family, including that hunk of a man Gale who secretly steals kisses from Katniss when he thinks no one else is watching. (Tsk, tsk) In order to appease President Snow and convince him that she wants nothing more than to avoid sparking a rebellion that could cost countless lives, Katniss and Peeta embark on the traditional Victors tour, visiting the eleven additional districts to deliver prewritten speeches that expound on the glory of the Capitol. Unfortunately, the Districts are already riled up beyond belief and ready to overthrow the Capitol at a moment's notice. To counter these uprisings, President Snow and his new Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee decide that the 75th Hunger Games will bring together all the surviving victors of the previous Hunger Games, including Katniss and Peeta, and have them battle it out in the arena. To the death. Again.

I'll come clean, folks - I wasn't a huge fan of the book Catching Fire. It presented some interesting ideas and suggested intriguing directions for the story to go in and then promptly pulled an about face and became a retread of the first Hunger Games story. Once again, we had to pay witness to more training, talk show interviews, judge presentations, fashion shows and all the other nonsense that comes with preparations for the Hunger Games. There were little twists to each event that helped keep it fresh, but it wasn't enough to hide the lack of new ideas. I enjoyed the book overall, but couldn't help but feel a slight twinge of underwhelmed-itis, a serious affliction in this day and age.

I went into the film adaptation of Catching Fire expecting to have the same lukewarm reaction, but ended up being pleasantly surprised. Chalk it up to the direction of Francis Lawrence (Water for Elephants; I Am Legend) who, with the aid of an excellent screenplay coined by Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionare; 127 Hours) and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine; Toy Story 3), has crafted a suspenseful, emotionally resonant sequel that ups the excitement and drama to even greater heights. Lawrence also eschews the obnoxious shaky-cam format of the previous film, replacing it with a steady hand that allows the excitement to come from the action sequences themselves as opposed to the ADD-ridden camera work. The weaknesses of the book are still present - the lame love triangle; the repetitive nature of the story. But in the wake of such exhilarating moviemaking, these flaws can easily be forgiven.

I've already mentioned that bringing in Lawrence as a director was a great choice, but it would all be for naught if he didn't have a cast as strong as the one here. Easily one of the finest ensembles in big budget filmmaking since Harry Potter, Catching Fire's cast features the likes of Jennifer Lawrence reprising her role as Katniss Everdeen, instilling the character with strong emotion and humanity in addition to being a total badass. Additionally Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is noble and kindhearted as always. And did I mention he's oh so charming? Seriously, how is it even a competition between Peeta and Gale? Peeta's got this thing in the bag. But, speaking of Gale, poor Liam Hemsworth is still stuck on the sidelines as the third part of this lame love triangle. At least he's got a bit more to do this time around than sit and pout while he waits for Katniss to return from battle. Returning cast members Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Donald Sutherland as President Snow and Stanley Tucci as flamboyant talk show host Caesar are all wonderful in their respective roles and new castmates Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Gamemaker Heavensbee, Sam Claflin as the charming Aquaman-esque Finnick and Jena Malone as the ruthless Johanna Mason are welcome additions to the superb cast.

Catching Fire works splendidly for the most part. Its biggest weakness other than the 'been there, done that' vibe may be its ending. Though it stays faithful to the story it's based on, many of my friends who were unfamiliar with the source material felt baffled by the abrupt ending and understandably so. The quality of what precedes it is so strong that it's easy to feel disappointed when it comes to its inevitable sequel teasing cliffhanger ending. Either way, despite my general dislike of the final book in the series, I'm excited for the film iterations of Mockingjay. I'm annoyed that it's being split into two films instead of standing strong as a single entry, but I have faith in this cast and crew. We're halfway there and they have yet to let me down.

CONCLUSION: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is one of the most exciting and enjoyable films of the year. It's emotionally sound and relentlessly entertaining. Keep your fingers crossed that the final chapters follow suit.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Thor: The Dark World

(Oh me, oh my, here I am slacking on reviews again. Forgive me while I play catch up.)

I don't much care for Thor and his 2011 debut feature did nothing to change my feelings for the character. Actually, with the exception of Iron Man, I wasn't really a huge fan of any of the Marvel Studios films prior to The Avengers. I just don't get why some people go gaga for the Thunder God, but I think it has something to do with a few factors: First, he's super hot, so you've got your female audience in the bag. Second, he's got an awesome hammer, so fanboys can geek out whenever he brings an almighty smackdown on his enemies. Third. Um, well, he has a cape. It's red....And he has a beard. And gorgeous, golden locks. Other than that, I don't really get it. He doesn't have much of a personality and he's kind of invincible, so suspense is hard to come by.

Suffice it to say, I didn't have a lot of stake in his second cinematic outing. If it had been awful, I'd just heave an exuberant sigh and carry on with my life. If it was a pleasant moviegoing experience, I'd be pleasantly surprised and then carry on with my life. I'm happy to say that Thor: The Dark World manages to fall on the latter end of the spectrum. It's serviceable entertainment and its second half is a whole lot of fun. With Alan Taylor, director of numerous Game of Thrones episodes, at the helm, we also get some more impressive visuals than those of its predecessor.

Its plot is nonsensical, as these kinds of plots tend to be, involving a dark elf played by none other than the 9th Doctor himself (Christopher Eccleston in yet another thankless role that does very little to showcase his talents as an actor) who wants to gain control of a mystical object known as the Aether so he can destroy the universe. Why does he want to destroy the universe? I haven't the foggiest. You'd think that in the interest of self-preservation the bad guys in these movies would be a little more concerned with their well-being. Either way, the motivations of the villain don't matter too much because we never really find out enough about him to care. Somehow, Natalie Portman's character Jane Foster gets infected by the Aether and the 9th Doctor will stop at nothing to kill Jane to obtain it! Naturally, it's up to our hero Thor to save the day!

Okay, yes, it's all a bit silly and the first half is bogged down by mind-numbing exposition. But, once Loki gets more involved with the story in the second half, the movie really takes off. It's actually fun enough that it makes up for the dullness/confusion of the first half. Even though Thor is kind of a lame character, Chris Hemsworth is a charming lad and he instills this part with a great deal of charisma. Natalie Portman does her due diligence as Jane Foster and Kat Dennings is here, unfortunately, still playing the Jar-Jar Binks of the franchise. But, let's not kid ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Loki show and I sincerely wish Tom Hiddleston had even more screentime. His character is far more interesting than Thor's.

CONCLUSION: Thor: The Dark World isn't a genre-bending revelation, but it's better than its predecessor and a rollicking good time at the movies. Another solid base hit for Marvel Studios!

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5