Skip to main content

You’ve won the mountain. Is that not enough?

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Peter Jackson’s second Tolkien trilogy has ignited controversy and disenchantment, much of it vented by those who praised him to the heavens for his work on the first. The Hobbitses aren’t quite the equivalent of George Lucas’ much-maligned Star Wars prequels, but few would deny there is a noticeable step down in quality from The Lord of the Rings. The main bones of contention remain ever-present in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies.


There are the invented characters and unnecessary encores for known ones that shouldn’t be there. There’s the over-use of CGI employed to engineer frequently ludicrous action sequences, which are rendered devoid of tension as a result. There’s the expansion of a slim volume to the point where it isn’t quite clear what the picture is about any more. I enjoyed the previous two films (the second more than the first), but it was a stop-start enjoyment, whereby Jackson could be relied on to throw something in the mix at intervals that was tonally glaring or even woefully misconceived. 


While I fully expected this to follow suit, I also had limited expectations for the third instalment based on the retitling; Battle of the Five Armies would be an extended dust-up, one that becomes wearisome through repetition and a lack of places to go with its story. In that respect I was pleasantly surprised. The film is much more balanced than its name suggests (There and Back Again would, admittedly, be a misfit), both in the amount of time it takes to get to the fighting and in engaging the viewer with the different strands of the melee itself.


This is a solid adaptation, one possessed of a familiarity that has long since ceased to invite superlatives. It hangs together much better than one would expect, given that it represents the afterthought of the series; Jackson’s not-at-all-cynical-honestly expansion from two films to three. It’s unvarnished genesis is most evident in the leaner running time (by about 20 minutes) and the dispatching of Smaug in the opening sequence. I’m not sure the latter decision really services any aspect of the story, outside of the home viewing of the trilogy arena, since Smaug is the tale’s biggest character and the most iconic presence. Having built up the dragon’s threat effectively, Jackson managed to dissipate the tension and break the rhythm by ending The Desolation of Smaug on a cliffhanger. The sequence itself is effectively staged, but it would be more so as one unit. 


Luke Evans, who has not always been well served in his film roles, makes a strong showing as Bard throughout; he’s a more accessible leader than the impossibly noble Aragorn. The only trouble is that as he assumes the mantle of leader so his screen time diminishes to make way for more dwarfish matters. He also gets a typically dumb Jackson rescue sequence atop a runaway cart (Bard’s sufferance of not-so-comic-relief weasel Aldrid – Ryan Gage – also serves to undermine him slightly.  


Better served in the humour stakes is Stephen Fry’s Master of Laketown; at least, I liked his line where he regrets not saving more people because “they’re just not worth it”.) During the course of the battle itself, we get to see Billy Connolly riding a pig (the CGI mounts in these films have become no better realised in 10 years) and a skydiving bear. The comedy in Jackson’s post-splatter films has always been variable (I don’t think the Beorn is supposed to be funny) and more often that not he misses his marks. Sylvester McCoy, who was surprisingly okay in An Unexpected Journey, is onscreen for about two minutes.


As I say, I’d expected the battle to be a stodgy and overstuffed pudding. Yet Jackson takes well-judged time getting there (although many would say he takes far too much time and liberty getting everywhere in these three films). The release of Gandalf occurs with perfunctory ease, and there is something of a greatest hits package about the arrival of Galadriel (including dark Galadriel revealing her monochrome fury), Saruman, and Elrond, fighting the Nazgul and eliciting a Sauron cameo. At times, the Lucas trap is set for all too see in The Battle of the Five Armies, not only in the over-reliance on CGI where once there was physicality and weight, but also – in scenes such as this – taking unnecessary pains to interlink and reference what is yet to come. I enjoyed the sequence, but Christopher Lee all but winks at the camera when Saruman say he’ll go and deal with this (his super-acrobatic fighting skills are a definite improvement on his Dooku moves).


So too, Lee Pace’s Thranduil when he suggests Legolas seeks out Strider. Who may be some sort of super-special kind of fellow but Thranduil’s not telling quite how. Jackson is over-egging the pudding, just as the effect of bookending the adaptation with Ian Holm denies the story an identity in its own right. The Hobbit will forever exist in reference and deference to The Lord of the Rings, which may not impinge on the latter, but it is definitely deleterious to the former.


Orlando Bloom’s presence in this trilogy is easily the most glaring and egregious. No one was demanding he return, apart from Bloom and his agent, and Legolas’ waxy-fake rejuvenation fails to convince at any given moment. Worse, the already artless CGI acrobatics of his original appearances are now augmented beyond any rhyme or reason. Does Jackson think it’s cool to have the irksome Elf hitch a ride on a bat? Or is he, perversely, clutching the cheesy fakery to his prodigious bosom, just as he did when Legolas slid down a oliphaunt’s trunk in The Return of the King


At least the fight with Bolg has some mano a mano energy, although it too falls prey to busyness and pixelated video-game defiance of feasibility (leaping up falling rocks). What bothers most about the whacky CGI Jackson frequently indulges in The Hobbits is that it destroys the illusion, collapses any suspension of disbelief. Middle Earth is no longer an encompassing, immersive world.


The Elvish are also where my other big beef with Battle of the Five Armies arises. I don’t have a problem changes to the source material as long as it doesn’t adversely affect the wholer picture. Evangeline Lilly’s Tauriel was fine in the previous pictures, partly because Lilly was a strong and commanding presence, easily eclipsing Bloom, and partly because she was used reasonably well. That is, up until the point Jackson decided to intimate the love that dare not speak its name between a dwarf and an elf. 


Obviously, it had to be a photogenic dwarf (Aidan Turner’s Kili) and not a fugly one with a prodigious proboscis (Tauriel’s romance with the fat ginger one Bombur really would have been ground-breaking). Star-crossed besottedness becomes Tauriel’s defining characteristic this time out, and it leaves her ineffectual and hopeless. Their passions have been inflamed after about five minutes together, but neither the actors nor Jackson is able to sell this.  It’s particularly laughable that Thranduil, having read her the riot act, should be persuaded her feelings are in fact genuine and pure. Most damningly, Tauriel also becomes another moon-eyed damsel in distress who needs Legolas to do the man’s work for her.


Other elements work as well as you would hope, though. If Thorin’s dragon sickness echoes and previews Boromir’s, then it feels appropriately so. Richard Armitage musters a compelling portrait of a noble character brought low by greed; it’s the kind of substantial motivation The Hobbits have lacked through being (naturally) slight and slender pieces stretched beyond their means. It also works as an effective twist in a third film, as Thorin has been marked as effectively the classical hero of the trilogy. His face-off with Azog finds Jackson on strong form, and includes a superior sequence as the Orc floats beneath a sheet of ice.


The battle is well staged for the most part, and all-the-more effective for the detours into one-on-ones with Azog and Bolg. While there’s a nod to the novel’s Bilbo being out cold for the duration of the conflict, Jackson wisely makes better use of him, providing a sequence with the ring and so ensuring we keep in our minds how much influence it has on him. Without it, the malign hold would seem more casual than cumulative. 


Nevertheless, Bilbo really is incidental here, and I have to admit that, as dependable as Freeman is, he doesn’t take on the dimensions or presence of Elijah Wood or Ian Holm’s eminent hobbits; this might be because I see past roles too clearly in his performance. As familiarity goes, Ian McKellen Gandalf’s parting lines to Bilbo, verging on admonishment, are up there with his best, but otherwise the wizard is an entirely familiar part of the furniture; a piece placed in the corner of the room with a few coats piled on it.


Jackson doesn’t include about 10 different endings here (there are three), so I expect the extended addition will include a few items that need acknowledgement (Bilbo’s share of the treasure, the fate of the Arkenstone). I’m not expecting great things, but I’m curious to view the extended versions back-to-back; perhaps they will prove greater than the sum of their parts. With the exception of The Fellowship of the Ring, I didn’t find the original trilogy entirely satisfying until it landed in longer form.


I also suspect time will be kinder to The Hobbit than it has been to the Star Wars prequels. Brickbats were out for both, but, while the disappointment with Jackson’s tonal liberties and visual incontinence are understandable, there are still many things here he gets right, and much to enjoy throughout. They won’t ever be seen as classics like The Lord of the Rings – they lack the sweeping scale, the emotional journey, and the clear sense of identity, apart from anything else – but they will probably become accepted as likeable if slightly over-nourished relatives. Which should see them through until the next versions are made in another 30 or 40 years.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I don't like bugs. You can't hear them, you can't see them and you can't feel them, then suddenly you're dead.

Blake's 7 2.7: Killer

Robert Holmes’ first of four scripts for the series, and like last season’s Mission to Destiny there are some fairly atypical elements and attitudes to the main crew (although the A/B storylines present a familiar approach and each is fairly equal in importance for a change). It was filmed second, which makes it the most out of place episode in the run (and explains why the crew are wearing outfits – they must have put them in the wash – from a good few episodes past and why Blake’s hair has grown since last week).
The most obvious thing to note from Holmes’ approach is that he makes Blake a Doctor-substitute. Suddenly he’s full of smart suggestions and shrewd guesses about the threat that’s wiping out the base, basically leaving a top-level virologist looking clueless and indebted to his genius insights. If you can get past this (and it did have me groaning) there’s much enjoyment to be had from the episode, not least from the two main guest actors.

An initiative test. How simply marvellous!

You Must Be Joking! (1965)
A time before a Michael Winner film was a de facto cinematic blot on the landscape is now scarcely conceivable. His output, post- (or thereabouts) Death Wish (“a pleasant romp”) is so roundly derided that it’s easy to forget that the once-and-only dining columnist and raconteur was once a bright (well…) young thing of the ‘60s, riding the wave of excitement (most likely highly cynically) and innovation in British cinema. His best-known efforts from this period are a series of movies with Oliver Reed – including the one with the elephant – and tend to represent the director in his pleasant romp period, before he attacked genres with all the precision and artistic integrity of a blunt penknife. You Must Be Joking! comes from that era, its director’s ninth feature, straddling the gap between Ealing and the Swinging ‘60s; coarser, cruder comedies would soon become the order of the day, the mild ribaldry of Carry On pitching into bawdy flesh-fests. You Must Be Joki…

Luck isn’t a superpower... And it isn't cinematic!

Deadpool 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps it’s because I was lukewarm on the original, but Deadpool 2 mercifully disproves the typical consequence of the "more is more" approach to making a sequel. By rights, it should plummet into the pitfall of ever more excess to diminishing returns, yet for the most part it doesn't.  Maybe that’s in part due to it still being a relatively modest undertaking, budget-wise, and also a result of being very self-aware – like duh, you might say, that’s its raison d'être – of its own positioning and expectation as a sequel; it resolutely fails to teeter over the precipice of burn out or insufferable smugness. It helps that it's frequently very funny – for the most part not in the exhaustingly repetitive fashion of its predecessor – but I think the key ingredient is that it finds sufficient room in its mirthful melee for plot and character, in order to proffer tone and contrast.

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies (2008)
(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.

I didn't kill her. I just relocated her.

The Discovery (2017)
(SPOILERS) The Discovery assembles not wholly dissimilar science-goes-metaphysical themes and ideas to Douglas Trumbull's ill-fated 1983 Brainstorm, revolving around research into consciousness and the revelation of its continuance after death. Perhaps the biggest discovery, though, is that it’s directed and co-written by the spawn of Malcom McDowell and Mary Steenburgen (the latter cameos) – Charlie McDowell – of hitherto negligible credits but now wading into deep philosophical waters and even, with collaborator Justin Lader, offering a twist of sorts.

How many galoshes died to make that little number?

Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
(SPOILERS) Looney Tunes: Back in Action proved a far from joyful experience for director Joe Dante, who referred to the production as the longest year-and-a-half of his life. He had to deal with a studio that – insanely – didn’t know their most beloved characters and didn’t know what they wanted, except that they didn’t like what they saw. Nevertheless, despite Dante’s personal dissatisfaction with the finished picture, there’s much to enjoy in his “anti-Space Jam”. Undoubtedly, at times his criticism that it’s “the kind of movie that I don’t like” is valid, moving as it does so hyperactively that its already gone on to the next thing by the time you’ve realised you don’t like what you’re seeing at any given moment. But the flipside of this downside is, there’s more than enough of the movie Dante was trying to make, where you do like what you’re seeing.

Dante commented of Larry Doyle’s screenplay (as interviewed in Joe Dante, edited by Nil Baskar and G…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.