Film Review - The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Last Friday, The Hobbit saw it's final outing in the form of The Battle of the Five Armies (which I will affectionately shorten to "Five Armies" for obvious reasons). It's been touted as "the defining chapter" and sees Peter Jackson's 6-films-2-trilogies-Many-hours saga finally come to a close; my Hobbit reviews have become an annual thing so I'm sad this will be my last one. Amazingly, the film is the shortest of them all, and picked up where Desolation of Smaug finished, with Smaug wreaking havoc across Laketown. How does it fare compared to the other 5? Did they save the best for last? Was it worth splitting one children's book into 3 epic length films? Keep reading - or stop reading if you haven't already seen it.
After a spontaneous cinema trip on Sunday, I've since had time to digest all 141 minutes. (Bear in mind I've never read Tolkein's The Hobbit, too.) There's much to digest and think about. The Hobbit is the closing chapter, with the character Thorin Oakenshield (a brilliant Richard Armitage) risking war thanks to his growing greed. He begins to go crazy searching for the Arkenstone - so much so that you half-expect him to start growling, "my precioussss". Pair this with a surprisingly sensible burglar hobbit, and you get some very sincere cinematic scenes.
As promised, you also get battles. From five armies, to be exact. Everyone's fighting over the riches under the mountain, and the spectacular battle scenes between dwarf/elf/man and orc offer something we didn't get to see in the first two Hobbit films. You're treated to more kiwi-Middle Earth stunning scenery and moments of humour, and of love. The Legolas-Tauriel-Kili triangle made me cringe at times, and I'm still not sure what die-hard Tolkein fans will make of this (and two characters) being completely invented for the films but it does add that extra element to the film. These films are all about the numerous stories intertwining seamlessly, and to be fair, Five Armies does do it well.
What is particularly great for Lord of the Rings fans is the sneak peek into Jackson filling the gaps and setting the scene for Fellowship of the Ring. How does Legolas meet Aragorn? Why is Galadriel in the woods? What happened to Saruman? There are special moments to make your inner fangirl/boy want to watch the original trilogy all over again. (I have the movies ready on a NowTV tab as I type...)
You get the action, you get closure, and you get a beautifully-told story along the way. However, Five Armies is not perfect. I had several problems with the script, which I tried ignoring until I burst out in a fit of giggles at a scene that was definitely not designed for laughter. I also found that I still had no clue who half the dwarves were, and that the character development was nowhere near the level in LOTR. The actual storyline is less memorable than previous films, but I wonder if this goes back to the fact that The Hobbit has been split into three and not two, or even one. (One seems out of the question unless you want to watch a 6 hour film, however two is a valid argument...)
However, despite all this, Jackson still presents a good, satisfying film and end to a good trilogy. It was an entertaining film, and I personally don't think any other director would have accomplished such a fine job. I also disagree with the friend I went to see it with whose first response was "that was...rubbish" (sorry Josh!). The general consensus and "room for improvement" feedback I've heard so far goes back to the actual plot of Tolkein's The Hobbit, and in some cases, lack of plot. But there's no point debating whether or not it should have been a duology and not a trilogy. Whether we like it or not, we have three films - all to a high standard. I for one can't complain about that!
0 comments