In this second installment of “The Hobbit” trilogy, the little hobbit Bilbo and a band of warrior-dwarves journey through dangerous lands to reclaim a mountain inhabited by a big, mean and clever dragon. It’s not necessary to have seen the first installment to understand what’s going on, because the first scene in this movie explains what the dwarves want from the mountain: to re-acquire the magical Arkenstone and restore the Dwarf Kingdom.

After my two young adult sons enjoyed the 3D Extended Edition of the first “Hobbit” installment last year and my younger son had seen the theatrical versions of all three “Hobbit” movies previously, I could not get them to see the 3D extended version of this second installment. I tried. But they didn’t want to see any more “Hobbit” films. And that despite the fact that they were avid fans of the original Lord of the Rings (LOTR) movie trilogy, which depicts events that occur after those in “The Hobbit” films. So why? Same LOTR universe, some of the same characters, the same director, a bigger budget and more advanced technology than the LOTR films. What’s the problem?

The problem is that, because “The Hobbit” films bear so much similarity to the LOTR films, we’re expecting a similar magic and greatness, and it doesn’t happen. “The Hobbit” films are very entertaining, very imaginative, intelligent, artistic, funny, beautifully produced, with lots of love and thought put into every frame. But that special, intangible piece of magic that was in LOTR isn’t really in the “Hobbit” movies; the magic is there still, but diluted. And so I think that’s why my two sons, who have seen the entire LOTR trilogy (Extended Edition) at least three times and could see it again, were not willing to watch the second installment of “The Hobbit.”

If the LOTR movies had never existed until after “The Hobbit” movies were produced and “The Hobbit” films had been the first cinematic introduction to Middle Earth, I think my sons and others would have looked at “The Hobbit” trilogy more kindly.

As far as I’m concerned, “The Hobbit” movies in extended, 3D format are a lot of fun and worth the money to buy on Blu Ray (which I did). So they’re not as great as LOTR. What films are? I wouldn’t call “The Hobbit” films great except for some standout scenes, but they are overall excellent.

Let’s take a closer look at this second installation of “The Hobbit” trilogy, “The Desolation of Smaug.” Out of the three “Hobbit” films, this is the one that received the best reviews. That’s probably because it’s the most well-rounded of the three. The first installment is more character and exposition, and the third one is almost entirely action. This second installment balances out action, character development and exposition, giving us just the right amount of everything. It does what a good fantasy film is supposed to do—draws us into its universe, engages us with its characters and drama, amazes us with imagination and great visual imagery, and thrills us with well-choreographed action.

This and the other two Hobbit movies feel long. That’s not so much a result of the running time of the Extended Edition, which is slightly over 3 hours. The shorter, theatrical versions also felt long. The reason is that “The Hobbit” story just shouldn’t have been three movies.

LOTR was based on the original trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien—those were three looooong books, with an overwhelming amount of arcane detail. When Peter Jackson made the LOTR film trilogy, he cut out much of the fat of the original material and made the final result actually a lot more entertaining and accessible than the novels were.

But “The Hobbit” was written in a different style, despite being by the same author; it is one short and concise novel.  The moviemakers had to take additional characters and ideas from other Tolkien works in order to be able to expand that short novel into three separate movies. “An Unexpected Journey” should have been the first half of “The Hobbit” movie, “The Desolation of Smaug” the second half, and “The Battle of Five Armies” the climatic finale. That’s why the movies feel long; they’re taking more time to tell the central tale than they should.

Also, the tone of “The Hobbit” films are quite different than that of the novel. The book is funny, cute, witty, whimsical and only gets more somber toward the end. The “Hobbit” films retain some of the humor but mostly carry the grim tone of LOTR throughout. LOTR was ominously grave in the original novels, but “The Hobbit” novel had a different spirit, a lighter and more jovial one than that of “The Hobbit” films.

But don’t be discouraged from seeing “The Hobbit” trilogy. Instead of thinking about what it could have or should have been, take it for what it is and consider it on its own terms. If you do so, you’ll find it’s a very entertaining and artistic incursion into the world of fantasy, produced by the filmmakers who know how to do it best. “The Hobbit” movies are worth seeing.

If you have never seen the LOTR movies, you should see “The Hobbit” trilogy first, starting of course with the movie that preceded this one.

If you have seen the LOTR movies and liked them, you should see “The Hobbit” trilogy as well. Just cut the movies some slack and don’t expect them to be LOTR. You’ll enjoy going back to Tolkien’s universe, in 3D no less, finding yourself once more in the company of Gandalf and Bilbo Baggins.

However, you should see the 3D Extended Edition. The Extended Edition fleshes out the characters more, brings in some essential scenes that make you wonder why they weren’t included in the theatrical version, and slightly lengthens some of the engaging action sequences.

The Extended Edition makes a really big difference in one major scene, that of Gandalf vs. the Necromancer. The extended edition adds a lot more atmosphere and action to this segment, making this particular scene the highlight of the entire movie. Not only that, but it also adds a surprise character to the scene that should have been included in the theatrical version.

And the 3D just makes every scene literally pop out more. Nothing like seeing severed heads and arrows flying through the screen. Also, the 2D versions make the CGI characters and the human characters seem to exist in separate universes, while the 3D versions coalesce the CGI with the live-action to make them feel part of the same movie.

Don’t be put off by comparisons to the original “Lord of the Rings” movies and step into this second installment of “The Hobbit” trilogy; you’ll enjoy it.

Extra:

• According to my research, Gulliermo del Toro was supposed to direct “The Hobbit” movies but reportedly backed out after doing an extensive amount of pre-production work on it. The original LOTR director, Peter Jackson, stepped in, but he didn’t have the luxury of time any more because over a year and a half had already been spent on pre-production; this was quite unlike his experience with “Lord of the Rings,” where he spent years designing and planning the films himself. He did the best he could under the circumstances, but perhaps “the magic” might have returned if Jackson had worked on the project from the very beginning or if Del Toro had continued.
• Viewed on 3D Blu Ray.