The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug -- December 2013

HOW ABOUT MORE TOLKIEN AND LESS JACKSON?

Installment # 2 in Peter Jackson's current Tolkien series, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, was released in December. It's certainly a popular movie; as of this writing, it has already earned over $800 million worldwide. Like many a middle item in a trilogy, though, it doesn't quite measure up to the first installment and what will presumably be a smashing final episode a year from now. In his presumed quest to make The Hobbit series more like The Lord of the Rings, director Jackson has added a number of elements that aren't in the novel. Overall, while The Desolation of Smaug is worth seeing, to my mind a good deal of the charm of Tolkien's original story has been lost.

The Desolation of Smaug picks up where An Unexpected Journey left off. Hobbit Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf the Wizard, and the 13 dwarves are in the Forest of Mirkwood headed for Erebor, the ancient dwarf kingdom under the mountain, to win back their kingdom by defeating the dragon Smaug. They are soon accosted by gigantic, terrible spiders, and once they extricate themselves from those arachnids they are captured by the wood elves of Mirkwood. As Tolkien fans will remember, there is not a great deal of love lost between elves and dwarves, so Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and company must use their wits to escape, which they do by concealing themselves in wine barrels and then floating down a river. Once they get to Erebor, a significant portion of the picture is taken up by their battle with Smaug, an overpowering and most unpleasant dragon.

On the Plus Side

Acting: As in the first installment, the acting is strong, with Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen giving their usual impressive performances as Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Grey, respectively, along with the 13 actors who play the dwarves. Benedict Cumberbatch does a good job as the voice of Smaug the dragon.

Introduction of Key Characters: There's Smaug, of course, and the character of The Necromancer, who will become the evil Dark Lord Sauron in The Lord of the Rings. There's also the character of Beorn, a skin-changer who transforms from bear to man and back again.

Special Effects: They're impressive overall.

Themes: Along with the overriding theme of good versus evil, the dangers of falling victim to pride, greed, and lack of forgiveness are well illustrated. Thorin, the dwarf king, is a hero of sorts, but he can't forget (and forgive) that the wood elves wouldn't help the dwarves. He and the other dwarves are also tempted by the incredible riches possessed by Smaug in his lair.

A Nice Spiritual Touch: Gandalf the Wizard has a staff that emits light when he uses it – a reminder that Tolkien's books have an underlying Christian perspective.

On the Minus Side

Added Characters: Peter Jackson and his group have brought into the story new characters who are not in Tolkien's novel. One is Legolas the elf, who might actually be a justifiable addition because he does appear in The Lord of the Rings. One wonders, however, whether this character's inclusion is because of the box office appeal of actor Orlando Bloom. A much less justifiable addition is the character of Tauriel, a female elf no doubt added for romantic interest. This character does not appear in either The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings novels.

Violence: There's a lot of it – even if we don't see much blood.

The Interminable Dragon Sequence: Bilbo and the dwarves encounter Smaug the dragon in a sequence which goes on and on and on. A certain amount of this would have been acceptable, but there's far too much of Smaug here. There are times when less is more.

Bottom Line: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is worthwhile in that it more or less satisfactorily continues the story begun in An Unexpected Journey and carries through the theme of good versus evil. Tolkien and Jackson fans will probably enjoy seeing the characters so familiar to them. But in my view The Hobbit didn't need to be stretched out into three movies, and I'd like to have seen more of Tolkien's original story and less of Peter Jackson.

Film Rating: PG-13

My Rating: 2 ¾ stars

Not for children.

Saving Mr. Banks -- December 2013

MARY AND PAM

Patty: Hello?

Mattie: Hi Patty. Guess what. I wanted to get a recommendation from my favorite movie critic.

Patty: Sure, Mat. What are you up for? Heavy drama? Comedy? Something heartwarming?

Mattie: Heartwarming, for sure. My nieces are here visiting, and I thought it would be fun to take them out to the flicks.

Patty: How old are they?

Mattie: They're in their teens.

Patty: OK, then, I know just the thing: Saving Mr. Banks.

Mattie: Is that the Walt Disney picture – something about Mary Poppins?

Patty: That's it.

Mattie: Well, I was curious about that one. What's it really about?

Patty: It's about Disney persuading P. L. Travers – you know, the author of the Mary Poppins books – to give him the rights to make a musical about Mary. It took him 20 years to win her over.

Mattie: Sounds pretty derivative – a movie about making a movie?

Patty: I know what you mean, but it works. It's really about the character of P. L. Travers as compared to the character of Walt Disney – and it's also about relationships between parents and children, especially between fathers and daughters.

Mattie: Why did it take Disney 20 years to persuade her to give him the rights?

Patty: Well, it's the characters of the two of them. Walt Disney comes off as a basically outgoing, humorous, enjoy-life-kind-of-guy. P. L. Travers is just the opposite: At first glance she seems prim and proper, introverted, stubborn ... really formal. We can see that in the names they call each other. Disney insists on calling Travers Pam – Pamela is her real first name – and Travers doesn't like that. She won't call Disney Walt. She insists on calling him Mr. Disney. And then there are lots of other obstacles: Disney wants to turn her stories into a musical, but Travers is adamant that "Mary Poppins doesn't sing," and she says there can't be any animation. She thinks Disney just wants to expand his empire, but his own daughters love the Mary Poppins stories, and he's promised them he'll make them into a film. He finally convinces her that he loves the Mary Poppins character and isn't just trying to make himself richer.

Mattie: What about the relationships between fathers and daughters? That sounds interesting.

.

Patty: Well, the whole movie is done with flashbacks between the present with Walt Disney and the past with Travers and her family, especially her father, in Australia. Travers and her father had a close relationship when she was a girl, but he had a drinking problem, and he got very sick and eventually died. That devastated her, and she's carried that devastation with her for most of her life.

Mattie: What does the title mean? Who's Mr. Banks?

Patty: In the stories, Mary Poppins becomes the nanny to the Banks children in London. Mr. Banks is a stiff, flawed father who doesn't pay enough attention to his kids. He gets into some very serious difficulties with his job at a bank and almost loses his job. In reality, Travers's father couldn't save his family, but in the stories Mr. Banks ultimately is able to save his. You can see it as the way Travers dealt with her pain and difficulties and managed to save her father in her memory.

Mattie: How's the acting?

Patty: Top notch. Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson give their usual strong performances. So does the rest of the cast. Colin Farrell is terrific as Travers's father.

Mattie: Sounds quite good. What kind of rating would you give it?

Patty: I'd give it about 3 ¼ stars. It's rated PG-13 for some language issues, including misuses of the Lord's name, and probably also Travers's father's alcholism.

Mattie; OK, Pat, you've convinced me. Do you want to go along with us?