The post I saw last night and on the picture above said this movie was the defining chapter. Unfortunately as I left the theater last night after the midnight showing of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, I just kind of sighed.
Its probably not that well known on this site, but The Hobbit is the reason I love fantasy and fairy tales today. Its such a rich, and well done book that I was probably more excited for these movies than I was the original Lord of the Rings, not by much, but just enough to make me excited when Peter Jackson said he was making a movie adaptation of the film.
And then he was making a two parter. Which makes sense. Its a three hundred page book, give it the time and day and... oh wait... you're turning it into a three parter?
Oh... you!
I was not totally opposed to the idea of The Hobbit being put into a three part movie... but its a three hundred page book! And I know what you're saying, why not divide them into one hundred pages a movie? I don't know how that would work because I don't know what happened on each hundred pages but that's not what this special little bearded man did did he?
Now this man the first half of the book in his first movie, 9/10 of the other half in the second film, and left The Battle of the Five Armies with a measly 50 pages...
Oh... you... little... son of a... wonderful... GAH!
Here's my reviews on these Hobbit movies.
Also, since I have a lot to say about this film, this is going to be a spoiler review.
Like I said, the The Battle of the Five Armies picks up where the Desolation of Smaug left off, where Smaug was headed to Lake Town to destroy the city, Gandalf was imprisoned in the hold of the Necromancer, and Kili was at death's door with morgul poison running through his veins...
And in fifteen minutes all of that was totally resolved... its almost like you didn't need to leave the last movie on such a cliff hanger Mr. Jackson...
And I think the main problem this movie has is what it was given and what was done in the Desolation of Smaug.
If you've read the book, you know that Jackson kind of shot himself in the foot when he didn't kill off Smaug in the last film. Because Smaug, this horrible and scary dragon, with the beautiful, terrifying voice of Benedict Cumberbatch, doesn't last more than a half hour in this film (I don't know how much time it actually is but a half hour is generous)
And I get it, I get why Jackson thought it was a good idea to split it up this way. Do I think it worked? No, do I get it? Yes.
But Smaug was killed very quickly in this film and while that's what happened in the book, it really gives an anticlimactic ending to a villain that should have been amazing in this film. Instead he's killed very quickly, lots of build up, little reward.
Then you have Legolas, Kate from Lost, and Kili and their weird love triangle thing... well Kili is actually 100% fine when this movie starts, screw that whole morgul wound thing, he had elf magic! They have a quick moment where they stare into each others eyes and he confesses his love... even though they had one conversation in the last film, and but then she goes with Legolas and... lots of build up, little reward.
But then you have Gandalf imprisoned by the Necromancer. Obviously this will build up to something great.
And it does... sorta?
When it finally gets to Gandalf, suddenly we hear Galadriel and she's coming to get Gandalf, and she's actually there. Like no illusions, no dreams, Galadriel is actually there. And then the ring wraiths show up. And then Elrond and Saruman show up.
Now this part... was pretty cool.
These three almost deities are fighting off these spirits, its epic, its extreme. Galadriel goes all ring faced on everyone. It really shows off the power of these three in a way we never saw in the previous movies.
Now... did I need to see this? No I didn't.
Honestly, I didn't need to see Galadriel used force push on ring wraiths and banish Sauron back to Mordor. I didn't need to see that Saruman stunt double kick some major ass. Was it cool? Yeah but I didn't really need to see it.
The best way I can describe my feelings when I saw that was the way you feel when Yoda suddenly pulls out a lightsaber and does his flips and spins routine in Attack of the Clones. I didn't need to see Yoda do all that shit because I already saw him as an incredibly powerful being. I saw him lift an X-Wing out of a swamp, I already saw him be a sage and wise mentor to a lot of jedi, there was no reason for him to pull out a lightsaber and just show us even more that he was a badass.
The same goes for Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel. I've already seen Galadriel go crazy in The Fellowship, I've seen Saruman does his force push movies, I've seen Elrond fight with a sword. I don't need to see them fight ring wraiths.
Was it a cool sequence? Yeah. I really delved into the Tolkien mythos and showed exactly how powerful these beings are...
However, I would think Tolkien would be rolling in his grave if he knew that Galadriel and Elrond and Saruman were Yodafied, especially in a film adaptation of The Hobbit. So while I can't give Jackson too much shit for showing us the power that these characters actually possess, it was really unneeded and really sums up the rest of this movie. Unnecessary.
But lets talk about the good things first. So with Smaug dead, Thorin and his company have occupied the halls of Erebor. Thorin, almost immediately is struck with an obsession with the search for the Arkenstone, the stone Bilbo picked up when he was talking with Smaug in the last film. And suddenly Thorin becomes very paranoid and just a corrupt guy with his greed and what is called, "Dragon Sickness"
While I thought it was a tad rushed, I actually really liked this development. It is kind of the same thing that happened with the Ring in the other films but I'll give the movie a little slack... this review is already going to be tearing it apart.
But with Lake Town destroyed. Bard takes command of the city and takes them to the ruined city of Dale so he can get aid and the treasure promised to the people of Lake Town by Thorin so they can rebuild. But the elves of the Woodland Realm come to the doorstep of Erebor as well to lay claim to jewels in the keep.
Thus comes this standoff between the armies of the elves and men versus the dwarves. I actually really liked this standoff. It was a a great interpretation of the book, it showed how far Thorin had fallen, it showed the tension of Bard and how he doesn't want to attack Thorin and his company but he needs the gold to help his city. Basically you've got the Elf king, and Thorin, two guys who are clearly unbalanced, Bard the sensible one but who is caught in the middle, and then you have Bilbo who eventually becomes the mediator of sorts for the three of them. This was done really well, because it was true to the story.
Now I say the thing with Gandalf kind of payed off because it gave the reason for the Orc Army to be mobilizing to Erebor. In the book it was mainly hawked up to be the Orcs wanted the treasure. But I like what Jackson does and ties it into Sauron trying to have a strategic advantage in Erebor. This was a good tie in and that's why I'm a little more lenient on liberties Jackson takes when it comes to Sauron than other things... like a certain Kate from Lost... but I'll get to that in a second.
The Pale Orc, Azgog is leading an Army to Erebor and with that you have the set up for the culminating Battle of the Five Armies. A battle with the combined armies of Men, Elves, and Dwarves against two armies of Orcs. I'm pretty sure that's the five armies. See in the book its Elves, dwarves, men, orcs and wargs, but the wargs aren't considered an army here. And then there's other elements of the battle like when the Eagles show up and the orcs use like crazy earth worms (which really don't amount to much now that I think about). So the definitions of the armies a little wacked but I can overlook that too.
The rest of the film is the actual battle. Literally, this battle goes on for a full hour... at least.
And that's another good thing about the movie. As much as I thought and still think its silly to have an entire movie based on a battle, not even a war, a single battle, they do the action really, really well. I enjoyed the battle.
The problem I had with it was how different is was from the Original trilogy.
Go back to Return of the King at the Battle of Pelennor Fields.
The rest of the film is the actual battle. Literally, this battle goes on for a full hour... at least.
And that's another good thing about the movie. As much as I thought and still think its silly to have an entire movie based on a battle, not even a war, a single battle, they do the action really, really well. I enjoyed the battle.
The problem I had with it was how different is was from the Original trilogy.
Go back to Return of the King at the Battle of Pelennor Fields.
The original trilogy had some very good CGI and utilized it well when needed. It was the first time huge multitudes of people could be seen on this big of a scale battle. But there was something about the CGI and use of practical effects, not just in the ways armies and such were put on screen but just in general that gave the original trilogy the feeling of being a fantasy epic.
Now again, I don't think the Hobbit is suppose to be a fantasy epic, its not the Lord of the Rings. I would be fine with campy cartoonish CGI that helps a fairy tale fantasy story, if that matched the feeling of the rest of the film as a whole. Instead we have this weird hybrid where Jackson is trying to recreate the films that made him so popular, instead of doing something new with new films!
But overall, the battle was good. You may feel it drags on, but I thought it was done correctly and well done.
I liked the transformation and development of Thorin, even though it was just a walk in a golden river, but I thought it was a good way to show the Dragon Sickness, but also give the character the development he needs in the time we need for him to come back and be the hero again. Perhaps it was a little bit rushed, but that's not the big problem I have with the movie.
The biggest problem I have with the movie is the ending. So... again... spoilers...
And the way the end starts out isn't even bad, its done really well at first. Thorin defeats Azgog but is mortally wounded. Bilbo is there in his final moments and the two reconcile. The movie did a good job at finalizing a friendship that I've thought has been amazing since the first film. How Bilbo goes from this joke to Thorin to a confidant and almost advisor in the last film is awesome and heartbreaking when he despises Bilbo for hiding the Arkenstone, and even more heartbreaking when they reconcile and Thorin dies.
Its a really great scene. Thorin is a great character in the Hobbit Trilogy, one of the great redeeming parts of the movies, a part that I'll always look back on and say, yes that was a good thing about these films.
So again, Bilbo and Thorin reconcile, Thorin dies and it is very sad. I heard people crying in the theater, tragic...
And then they move to this bullshit!
In case you missed it in my Desolation of Smaug review. I have no idea what Jackson was thinking when he was trying to make this weird romance between Kili and Kate from Lost. Its not that its weird for me for a dwarf and an elf to be together, it's just out of place. They're trying to recreate what they did with Aragorn and Arwen... why? And why with Kili and Kate from Lost?
Its just Jackson trying to cash in on the same things he cashed in on 10 years ago. Its lazy, its underdeveloped and it pisses me off.
So Kili dies. Which I suppose would have been sad because he was one of the "more developed" dwarves in Thorin's company. But to follow up the death of Thorin with Kate from Lost bitching about how her heart hurts and she hates these feelings she has for this dwarf who she literally maybe had three (at max) conversations with? He gave you a rock... who cares?!?! I verbally sighed when I saw this scene, RIGHT AFTER the great scene with Bilbo and Thorin. I hated it with a passion. It really gave me a sour taste of the movie, a movie I was thoroughly enjoying. I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more if this scene and the entire end were just reworked.
And then they shoot to Legolas.
Now, I'm not opposed to having Legolas in the Hobbit films. He's not in the book but neither was Sauron and I didn't hate that storyline. I think if Peter Jackson was trying to fill up some time between what is laid down in the books and the end of the film, Legolas isn't a horrible choice to add as a character. And hell, let's give Orlando Bloom some work, lord knows he's not doing anything.
Legolas is all hurt by not being the one Kate from Lost chose, but he's got other things he needs to do. He tells his father he won't be returning to the Woodland Realm... for some reason... And then his father gives him some advice...
To go look for a Ranger by the name of Strider, his real name, you'll have to figure out yourself...
...what?
Really Jackson? You had to throw in reference to Aragorn? Why?
I mean I get that this entire trilogy and had a couple of winks and nods to the original trilogy, why I'm not totally sure, but they've been mostly harmless. They've mostly been to make funny moments like when Gloin mentions Gimli. Was it totally necessary? No, but some people maybe didn't know Gloin was Gimli's father. Its a fun nod, gives the audience a moment of familiarity and again is mostly harmless. But this one just seems very strange and unnecessary and really took away from an ending that was already plummeting in my mind.
I didn't need to know how Legolas came to meet Aragorn, there's just no point to having this mindless and obvious nudge to the audience. Its like Jackson was trying to set up for films that he's already made.
And that's probably the biggest problem that I had had with all the Hobbit films.
I don't think Jackson fully realized that The Hobbit could stand on its own. And if he didn't think it could, why did he make it? I like the way he ties it in at the end, making Bilbo think back on his adventures right before the party they have in the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring. That's fine, tie it into the first movie in harmless ways that tie in.
But treat the movie like its own film. The Hobbit doesn't have to be the next chapter in the Lord of the Rings. Its its own book, an origin story of Bilbo, a fairytale about a bunch of dwarves going to reclaim their home. Its a story apart from the original trilogy and that's fine! We don't need to have everything connect, we don't need everything to wrap up and set up perfectly for a movie you've already made Peter Jackson!
And this would be something that wouldn't bother me that much, if it didn't take away from important parts of the original source material. Yes, I don't care if Legolas is in the film. Frankly, I don't care if Kate from Lost is in the film, but when it takes away from the parts of the story that are important, then I care.
Here's an example.
Without looking, how many of those dwarves can you name? Thorin of course. Kili, sure. Maybe Fili. Balin and Bombur only because he's the fat one. Honestly most people would probably say the fat one and not Bombur. Could you tell me who Bifur was, even if I let you look and say which one is Bifur, who is Bifur? Can you tell me, cause I don't know.
Well guess what, at the end of this film, Thorin, Kili, and Fili die.
So at the end, Bilbo is leaving the company of Dwarves and you see a line up of all the remaining dwarves... and you don't recognize any of them, with the exception of Balin. You killed off the most developed dwarves Jackson! And yes that was apart of the original book, those characters do die. But what does that leave me with? It leaves me with a bunch of dwarves that are really interchangeable, instead of a bunch of characters with personalities, that I'm sad their story is ending. I'm sad that Bilbo is leaving them. Because I felt the connection Bilbo had with them. But with that ending, I just felt like Bilbo was saying good bye to the extras in the film.
And I get it, that's a lot of characters, especially since they didn't have much of a part in the book.
BUT THEY HAD A BIGGER PART THAN LEGOLAS! AT LEAST THEY EXISTED, UNLIKE KATE FROM LOST!
Do you understand my frustration with this film? Not just this film but the Desolation of Smaug and just the way the Hobbit films were executed.
The closest thing to the movie we deserved was in An Unexpected Journey, which I want to do a single review on that movie just talking about what was done correctly in this Hobbit film and what was done wrong in the next ones.
But in short, An Unexpected Journey didn't seem like it was trying to be The Lord of the Rings. Maybe some might call that boring, but The Hobbit isn't a war story, its not Game of Thrones, its not even a really huge set up for The Lord of the Rings.
Really the only characters that are suppose to be in The Hobbit from the Lord of the Rings are Bilbo, Gandalf, and Elrond. There might be another one or two that I forgot, but that's it! There's no mention of Aragorn, there's no Kili and Kate from Lost love triangle with Legolas.
Its just a simple story of a Hobbit going on an adventure. And that's all it needed to be.
Now let me clarify real quick. I did enjoy this movie. I liked the Battle, I liked the characters, Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellen, Richard Armitage, they all did a great job in this film. There's a lot of good things about this film.
But there's a lot of things about this film that are unnecessary, unneeded, or in some cases, kind of dumb.
Now again, I don't think the Hobbit is suppose to be a fantasy epic, its not the Lord of the Rings. I would be fine with campy cartoonish CGI that helps a fairy tale fantasy story, if that matched the feeling of the rest of the film as a whole. Instead we have this weird hybrid where Jackson is trying to recreate the films that made him so popular, instead of doing something new with new films!
But overall, the battle was good. You may feel it drags on, but I thought it was done correctly and well done.
I liked the transformation and development of Thorin, even though it was just a walk in a golden river, but I thought it was a good way to show the Dragon Sickness, but also give the character the development he needs in the time we need for him to come back and be the hero again. Perhaps it was a little bit rushed, but that's not the big problem I have with the movie.
The biggest problem I have with the movie is the ending. So... again... spoilers...
Its a really great scene. Thorin is a great character in the Hobbit Trilogy, one of the great redeeming parts of the movies, a part that I'll always look back on and say, yes that was a good thing about these films.
So again, Bilbo and Thorin reconcile, Thorin dies and it is very sad. I heard people crying in the theater, tragic...
In case you missed it in my Desolation of Smaug review. I have no idea what Jackson was thinking when he was trying to make this weird romance between Kili and Kate from Lost. Its not that its weird for me for a dwarf and an elf to be together, it's just out of place. They're trying to recreate what they did with Aragorn and Arwen... why? And why with Kili and Kate from Lost?
Its just Jackson trying to cash in on the same things he cashed in on 10 years ago. Its lazy, its underdeveloped and it pisses me off.
So Kili dies. Which I suppose would have been sad because he was one of the "more developed" dwarves in Thorin's company. But to follow up the death of Thorin with Kate from Lost bitching about how her heart hurts and she hates these feelings she has for this dwarf who she literally maybe had three (at max) conversations with? He gave you a rock... who cares?!?! I verbally sighed when I saw this scene, RIGHT AFTER the great scene with Bilbo and Thorin. I hated it with a passion. It really gave me a sour taste of the movie, a movie I was thoroughly enjoying. I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more if this scene and the entire end were just reworked.
And then they shoot to Legolas.
Now, I'm not opposed to having Legolas in the Hobbit films. He's not in the book but neither was Sauron and I didn't hate that storyline. I think if Peter Jackson was trying to fill up some time between what is laid down in the books and the end of the film, Legolas isn't a horrible choice to add as a character. And hell, let's give Orlando Bloom some work, lord knows he's not doing anything.
To go look for a Ranger by the name of Strider, his real name, you'll have to figure out yourself...
...what?
Really Jackson? You had to throw in reference to Aragorn? Why?
I mean I get that this entire trilogy and had a couple of winks and nods to the original trilogy, why I'm not totally sure, but they've been mostly harmless. They've mostly been to make funny moments like when Gloin mentions Gimli. Was it totally necessary? No, but some people maybe didn't know Gloin was Gimli's father. Its a fun nod, gives the audience a moment of familiarity and again is mostly harmless. But this one just seems very strange and unnecessary and really took away from an ending that was already plummeting in my mind.
I didn't need to know how Legolas came to meet Aragorn, there's just no point to having this mindless and obvious nudge to the audience. Its like Jackson was trying to set up for films that he's already made.
And that's probably the biggest problem that I had had with all the Hobbit films.
But treat the movie like its own film. The Hobbit doesn't have to be the next chapter in the Lord of the Rings. Its its own book, an origin story of Bilbo, a fairytale about a bunch of dwarves going to reclaim their home. Its a story apart from the original trilogy and that's fine! We don't need to have everything connect, we don't need everything to wrap up and set up perfectly for a movie you've already made Peter Jackson!
And this would be something that wouldn't bother me that much, if it didn't take away from important parts of the original source material. Yes, I don't care if Legolas is in the film. Frankly, I don't care if Kate from Lost is in the film, but when it takes away from the parts of the story that are important, then I care.
Here's an example.
Without looking, how many of those dwarves can you name? Thorin of course. Kili, sure. Maybe Fili. Balin and Bombur only because he's the fat one. Honestly most people would probably say the fat one and not Bombur. Could you tell me who Bifur was, even if I let you look and say which one is Bifur, who is Bifur? Can you tell me, cause I don't know.
Well guess what, at the end of this film, Thorin, Kili, and Fili die.
So at the end, Bilbo is leaving the company of Dwarves and you see a line up of all the remaining dwarves... and you don't recognize any of them, with the exception of Balin. You killed off the most developed dwarves Jackson! And yes that was apart of the original book, those characters do die. But what does that leave me with? It leaves me with a bunch of dwarves that are really interchangeable, instead of a bunch of characters with personalities, that I'm sad their story is ending. I'm sad that Bilbo is leaving them. Because I felt the connection Bilbo had with them. But with that ending, I just felt like Bilbo was saying good bye to the extras in the film.
And I get it, that's a lot of characters, especially since they didn't have much of a part in the book.
BUT THEY HAD A BIGGER PART THAN LEGOLAS! AT LEAST THEY EXISTED, UNLIKE KATE FROM LOST!
Do you understand my frustration with this film? Not just this film but the Desolation of Smaug and just the way the Hobbit films were executed.
But in short, An Unexpected Journey didn't seem like it was trying to be The Lord of the Rings. Maybe some might call that boring, but The Hobbit isn't a war story, its not Game of Thrones, its not even a really huge set up for The Lord of the Rings.
Really the only characters that are suppose to be in The Hobbit from the Lord of the Rings are Bilbo, Gandalf, and Elrond. There might be another one or two that I forgot, but that's it! There's no mention of Aragorn, there's no Kili and Kate from Lost love triangle with Legolas.
Its just a simple story of a Hobbit going on an adventure. And that's all it needed to be.
Now let me clarify real quick. I did enjoy this movie. I liked the Battle, I liked the characters, Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellen, Richard Armitage, they all did a great job in this film. There's a lot of good things about this film.
But there's a lot of things about this film that are unnecessary, unneeded, or in some cases, kind of dumb.
Ugh...
Like I said, I'll be doing a review of An Unexpected Journey and pointing out how close Peter Jackson was to a really great Hobbit film... and where he just lost it in Desolation of Smaug.
Overall, I think The Battle of the Five Armies was a good wrap up of what we got of a Hobbit trilogy. I did enjoy the film, I also just had a lot of problems with it. But that's what we're left with. All I can do is enjoy what I got and hope to god Peter Jackson is done with the Lord of the Rings forever... I really doubt it though.
But what did you think of The Battle of the Five Armies. I want to know if I'm alone in my thoughts or if I'm onto something here. Comment and Discuss Below.
I'll leave you with this. Obviously its an Honest Trailer. Enjoy!
No comments:
Post a Comment