THE FLASH, Arrow, Constantine: one of these is quite not like the others.
Hint: it's Constantine.
After the success of CW Network's DC Comics entities The Flash and Arrow, and Fox's Gotham, there was a lot of hype surrounding Constantine's debut on NBC.
While it is solidly entertaining, there is absolutely no way Constantine can match those heights, and even only two episodes in it is clear to see why it was canned.
I have never read the comics so can only base my opinion on the TV show, but Constantine feels like a program that, had it arrived in the mid-1990s, would've had a long run.
It appears to be a show that is better suited a different time.
Comic book properties are all the rage (and have been for the last decade), but while Marvel's films and TV shows took the world, Arrow proved to be DC Comics' first real success.
The Flash was gladly accepted, potentially moreso than Arrow, while Gotham was met by warm, improving reviews.
Constantine, while solid, does not feel like a program that is easily accepted.
Matt Ryan has done a good job in his performance as Constantine, and Angelica Celaya's Zed Martin adds another dimension to the show, but there appears to be something missing.
Whether it's a character, another great performer, better writing - whatever it is, the series severely lacks due to its absence.
Still, even knowing the series was cancelled at the end of one season, Constantine is a program I'll definitely keep watching.
Ryan will reprise the role in Arrow (and The Flash, perhaps?), so thankfully Constantine will not disappear from our screens yet.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Bounce of the Ball ventures to the box
IT HAS been a solid seven months since the last time Bounce of the Ball featured fresh material, but that is about to change.
During the long hiatus from what is my avenue to write about topics I may not get the chance to at work (or where it's more of a fit), I spent a lot of time watching various programs on various-sized screens, and feel it is just about time to return.
Where before Bounce of the Ball was a home to film reviews, it will transform to have more of a televisual focus.The occasional sport stories will still appear, but entertainment is the focus.
Let me know what you like, what you want to see and how often and I'll try to accommodate.
During the long hiatus from what is my avenue to write about topics I may not get the chance to at work (or where it's more of a fit), I spent a lot of time watching various programs on various-sized screens, and feel it is just about time to return.
Where before Bounce of the Ball was a home to film reviews, it will transform to have more of a televisual focus.The occasional sport stories will still appear, but entertainment is the focus.
Let me know what you like, what you want to see and how often and I'll try to accommodate.
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Focus
THERE were only two things that disappointed me in Will Smith and Margot Robbie's latest effort, but apart from those few things - which I'll cover later - I thoroughly enjoyed Focus.
Smith stars as seasoned con-man Nicky Spurgeon, whom Robbie's Jess Barrett tried to seduce and con. Nicky knows what's on and smoothly works his way out of the situation.
He takes Barrett under his wing, teaches her the tricks of the trade, and the pair make millions as Nicky's crew goes to work through a series of slick scenes.
The pair develop an intimate relationship despite Nicky's father warning him to never get involved with anyone in the operation, but that is shattered when the crew disbands after a successful haul.
From there the film essentially restarts a few years in future, but even though that sounds like a bad thing it works well.
Both Nicky and Barrett, as well as the returning Farhad (Adrian Martinez), develop over the the three-year gap and their progression serve to give their stories a new edge.
But even a few days after watching the film I'm still struggling to work out both how to describe Focus, and into which genre it would fit.
Parts of the film seem to be borrowed from drama, another part is from thriller, there's plenty of comedy and the romantic focus on Nicky and Barrett obviously adds another aspect.
While they can work well if they're put together the right way, directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa can't seem the get the right balance.
The finished product remains a jumble of what it is trying to be versus what it actually is.
The film is still bloody good despite those issues, which is disappointing when you imagine what it could've been had they got it all right.
Smith stars as seasoned con-man Nicky Spurgeon, whom Robbie's Jess Barrett tried to seduce and con. Nicky knows what's on and smoothly works his way out of the situation.
He takes Barrett under his wing, teaches her the tricks of the trade, and the pair make millions as Nicky's crew goes to work through a series of slick scenes.
The pair develop an intimate relationship despite Nicky's father warning him to never get involved with anyone in the operation, but that is shattered when the crew disbands after a successful haul.
From there the film essentially restarts a few years in future, but even though that sounds like a bad thing it works well.
Both Nicky and Barrett, as well as the returning Farhad (Adrian Martinez), develop over the the three-year gap and their progression serve to give their stories a new edge.
But even a few days after watching the film I'm still struggling to work out both how to describe Focus, and into which genre it would fit.
Parts of the film seem to be borrowed from drama, another part is from thriller, there's plenty of comedy and the romantic focus on Nicky and Barrett obviously adds another aspect.
While they can work well if they're put together the right way, directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa can't seem the get the right balance.
The finished product remains a jumble of what it is trying to be versus what it actually is.
The film is still bloody good despite those issues, which is disappointing when you imagine what it could've been had they got it all right.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
We Need To Talk About Kevin
Spectacularly constructed film with a performance to leave the hairs standing on the back necks everywhere, We Need To Talk About Kevin is an underrated yet unsettling film.
Told as a combination of flashbacks and present day, WNTTAK highlights shows Kevin Khatchadourian's (Ezra Miller/Jasper Newell) develop from a creepy child to a sociapathic teenager through the eyes of helpless mother Eva (Tilda Swinton).
Lynne Ramsay adapts Lionel Shriver's international best-selling novel brilliantly, even if the jump between present and past is sometimes annoying.
The fascination lies in the mental disintegration of Eva, as Kevin becomes increasingly manipulative.
He is clearly in control in any of their interactions, and both Miller and Newell portray the perfect amount of "creep" to show it. The utter disdain in their (older and younger Kevin respectively) eyes and tiny "I'm in the power position" smile they wear is terrifying.
I had a similar reaction to WNTTAK as I did Snowtown, in that it was difficult to watch because it was so well-crafted. While I still believe Snowtown did a better job at making the audience wish they were anywhere but in front of the screen, WNTTAK presented Kevin's descendence into madness in a manner that was similarly uncomfortable but just as compelling.
A tough but rewarding watch.
Told as a combination of flashbacks and present day, WNTTAK highlights shows Kevin Khatchadourian's (Ezra Miller/Jasper Newell) develop from a creepy child to a sociapathic teenager through the eyes of helpless mother Eva (Tilda Swinton).
The fascination lies in the mental disintegration of Eva, as Kevin becomes increasingly manipulative.
He is clearly in control in any of their interactions, and both Miller and Newell portray the perfect amount of "creep" to show it. The utter disdain in their (older and younger Kevin respectively) eyes and tiny "I'm in the power position" smile they wear is terrifying.
I had a similar reaction to WNTTAK as I did Snowtown, in that it was difficult to watch because it was so well-crafted. While I still believe Snowtown did a better job at making the audience wish they were anywhere but in front of the screen, WNTTAK presented Kevin's descendence into madness in a manner that was similarly uncomfortable but just as compelling.
A tough but rewarding watch.
Why is #Gogglebox so appealing?
THE ONLY reality programs I've enjoyed are the second season of Big Brother, the first season of The Contender and some snippets of So You Think You Can Dance and Dancing With The Stars.
I'm quite open about my disdain of reality television.
I dislike the format, I don't particularly like the talents thrust onto my screen, and I hate the complete saturation of coverage where I can't watch other programs I like without at least four or five ads or references to the reality shows.
That said, I am at a loss to understand why Gogglebox is SO DAMN GOOD.
I'm a little late to the party, having just finished binging on the first three episodes almost four weeks after the Australian version of the hit UK show premiered.
When Gogglebox was first advertised I looked at it with disdain. The concept sounded silly: instead of watching "real" people compete in cooking competitions or being stranded on an island, let's watch people watch programs from the week prior.
It is, essentially, Twitter for television, and maybe that goes some way to explaining why I want more Gogglebox.
For those that follow me on Twitter, you already know I'm slightly addicted to the social network.
I tweet about just about anything: politics, random thoughts, conversations, my thoughts on film and television, and commentating or tweeting live sport.
Therein lies my strange fascination with a program that shows "real" people passing comment on programs from the previous week.
A lot of the scenes, particularly those that covered Four Corners' live baiting investigation and Top Gun, are reminiscent of what happens when I watched the same programs. The shock at seeing defenceless piglets tied to lures for greyhounds, the debate as to whether to allow 15 and 16-year-olds to watch the program in the first place (the Daltons decide to let them watch, but both leave), and the general reaction to Top Gun (particularly THAT volleyball scene) are all real.
I think that is one of the most important aspects: this reality program feels more real than any before.
In programs like Survivor, Big Brother, and Masterchef, the contestants are in an artificial situation that doesn't reflect reality. Masterchef particularly tries to capitalise on the "everyday people", yet trot out recipes and meals with ingredients most families wouldn't have used.
Gogglebox gives us a real situation of which we can all relate. The scenes depicted in the 10 lounge rooms are reminiscent of the viewing experience of most people watching television. Where the 10 groups verbalise their opinions with their offsiders (as they have to for the program to work), a lot of people express themselves via Twitter or other social networks.
The casting seems to dissect society and represent the general quite well, with people from different social economic class. That said, there is one thing that stands out: they're awfully white. The only non-white group are the Sri Lankan Delpechitas. I'm not going to make an issue about it as others can do a far better job of it, but it does stand out for mine. Hopefully that will change when it is (hopefully?) renewed for further seasons.
That aside, there's been a strong variety of programs they've chosen to air, and the casting has been perfect. The groups look to be from extremely different backgrounds, and most have hammered home countless one-liners that have had me in stitches. I haven't genuinely laughed as loudly or openly during a television show as I have watching Gogglebox, and I hope that doesn't change.
Gogglebox airs on Lifestyle Channel at 9.30pm Wednesdays (8.30pm in Qld) and Channel 10 at 9pm Thursdays.
I'm quite open about my disdain of reality television.
I dislike the format, I don't particularly like the talents thrust onto my screen, and I hate the complete saturation of coverage where I can't watch other programs I like without at least four or five ads or references to the reality shows.
That said, I am at a loss to understand why Gogglebox is SO DAMN GOOD.
I'm a little late to the party, having just finished binging on the first three episodes almost four weeks after the Australian version of the hit UK show premiered.
When Gogglebox was first advertised I looked at it with disdain. The concept sounded silly: instead of watching "real" people compete in cooking competitions or being stranded on an island, let's watch people watch programs from the week prior.
It is, essentially, Twitter for television, and maybe that goes some way to explaining why I want more Gogglebox.
For those that follow me on Twitter, you already know I'm slightly addicted to the social network.
I tweet about just about anything: politics, random thoughts, conversations, my thoughts on film and television, and commentating or tweeting live sport.
Therein lies my strange fascination with a program that shows "real" people passing comment on programs from the previous week.
A lot of the scenes, particularly those that covered Four Corners' live baiting investigation and Top Gun, are reminiscent of what happens when I watched the same programs. The shock at seeing defenceless piglets tied to lures for greyhounds, the debate as to whether to allow 15 and 16-year-olds to watch the program in the first place (the Daltons decide to let them watch, but both leave), and the general reaction to Top Gun (particularly THAT volleyball scene) are all real.
I think that is one of the most important aspects: this reality program feels more real than any before.
In programs like Survivor, Big Brother, and Masterchef, the contestants are in an artificial situation that doesn't reflect reality. Masterchef particularly tries to capitalise on the "everyday people", yet trot out recipes and meals with ingredients most families wouldn't have used.
Gogglebox gives us a real situation of which we can all relate. The scenes depicted in the 10 lounge rooms are reminiscent of the viewing experience of most people watching television. Where the 10 groups verbalise their opinions with their offsiders (as they have to for the program to work), a lot of people express themselves via Twitter or other social networks.
The casting seems to dissect society and represent the general quite well, with people from different social economic class. That said, there is one thing that stands out: they're awfully white. The only non-white group are the Sri Lankan Delpechitas. I'm not going to make an issue about it as others can do a far better job of it, but it does stand out for mine. Hopefully that will change when it is (hopefully?) renewed for further seasons.
That aside, there's been a strong variety of programs they've chosen to air, and the casting has been perfect. The groups look to be from extremely different backgrounds, and most have hammered home countless one-liners that have had me in stitches. I haven't genuinely laughed as loudly or openly during a television show as I have watching Gogglebox, and I hope that doesn't change.
Gogglebox airs on Lifestyle Channel at 9.30pm Wednesdays (8.30pm in Qld) and Channel 10 at 9pm Thursdays.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
About Time
IT MAY not be the best film of all time but there's something about About Time that I loved.
(I'll try to keep spoilers at a minimum but watch the trailer)
Domhnall Gleeson, who you probably better know as Bill Wesley from Harry Potter, stars as lead Tim Lake.
When Lake turns 21 his father, played by Bill Nighy, reveals to him the family secret: the men of his family can travel back in time. But not just any point in history - it has to be a time and place they've already been before.
Lake is discouraged to use his power for monetary gain or fame, so the red-haired, seemingly socially awkward man uses his gift to improve his love life.
Time travel is a gift many people wish they had. Whether it is to lead more financially lucrative lives or find fame, or if its simply to change the way an interaction, conversation or meeting played out, a lot of people, myself included, have wished they could simply go back in time and do it better.
Lake gets to do just that but he uses it for his love life, though it doesn't work out exactly as he hopes it would the following summer with sister Kit Kat's (Lydia Wilson) friend Charlotte, played by Neighbours alumni and future Harley Quinn Margot Robbie.
A move to London opens the door for a chance meeting with Rachel McAdams' Mary, with whom he shares a night flirting at a restaurant. The two connect, but Lake learns another lesson of his unique gift: if he changes the past, he will inevitably change his future.
My major beef with this film is Gleeson is a little too creepy.
When he meets Mary for the first time (again), he is the type of creepy of which would have police and security called within seconds. Defying utter logic (and obviously feeding on rom-com aspect), she instead agrees to meet him for dinner.
It just doesn't make sense.
If it was someone like Ryan Gosling or Hugh Grant in that scene, their natural charisma and charm would've made it a totally plausible outcome. Gleeson is just creepy all round - the way the lines are delivered coupled with the scary intensity of his eyes sends shivers rather than the suggestive signals he was supposed to.
His social awkwardness and reactions to certain situations do deliver some extra laughs, and to his credit Gleeson softens up in different times of the film.
McAdams is perfect as always, Nighy adds energy to the family, Wilson's free-spirited Kit Kat is a troubling yet refreshing sidestory to the main plot, and Richard Cordery's minor role as Uncle Desmond is hilarious.
Even though Gleeson is a little on the creepy side at times About Time is a film that will make you smile, laugh, and leave you coming back for more.
(I'll try to keep spoilers at a minimum but watch the trailer)
Domhnall Gleeson, who you probably better know as Bill Wesley from Harry Potter, stars as lead Tim Lake.
When Lake turns 21 his father, played by Bill Nighy, reveals to him the family secret: the men of his family can travel back in time. But not just any point in history - it has to be a time and place they've already been before.
Lake is discouraged to use his power for monetary gain or fame, so the red-haired, seemingly socially awkward man uses his gift to improve his love life.
Time travel is a gift many people wish they had. Whether it is to lead more financially lucrative lives or find fame, or if its simply to change the way an interaction, conversation or meeting played out, a lot of people, myself included, have wished they could simply go back in time and do it better.
Lake gets to do just that but he uses it for his love life, though it doesn't work out exactly as he hopes it would the following summer with sister Kit Kat's (Lydia Wilson) friend Charlotte, played by Neighbours alumni and future Harley Quinn Margot Robbie.
A move to London opens the door for a chance meeting with Rachel McAdams' Mary, with whom he shares a night flirting at a restaurant. The two connect, but Lake learns another lesson of his unique gift: if he changes the past, he will inevitably change his future.
My major beef with this film is Gleeson is a little too creepy.
When he meets Mary for the first time (again), he is the type of creepy of which would have police and security called within seconds. Defying utter logic (and obviously feeding on rom-com aspect), she instead agrees to meet him for dinner.
It just doesn't make sense.
If it was someone like Ryan Gosling or Hugh Grant in that scene, their natural charisma and charm would've made it a totally plausible outcome. Gleeson is just creepy all round - the way the lines are delivered coupled with the scary intensity of his eyes sends shivers rather than the suggestive signals he was supposed to.
His social awkwardness and reactions to certain situations do deliver some extra laughs, and to his credit Gleeson softens up in different times of the film.
McAdams is perfect as always, Nighy adds energy to the family, Wilson's free-spirited Kit Kat is a troubling yet refreshing sidestory to the main plot, and Richard Cordery's minor role as Uncle Desmond is hilarious.
Even though Gleeson is a little on the creepy side at times About Time is a film that will make you smile, laugh, and leave you coming back for more.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
The Man with the Iron Fists
The DVD case splashes "Quentin Tarantino presents" in red across the top while the tagline "You can't spell kung fu without F and U" sit prominently in white under the main image. Any expectation you have of the film is then shattered when you see a cast littered with the likes of Russell Crowe, RZA, Lucy Liu and Dave Bautista.
This film can only be described as wild.
The epic opening sequence fuses the rap of RZA and Howard Drossin with a crazy fight scene in which the leader of the Lion Clan, Gold Lion, is murdered. The film's plot comes from this event, with his son Zen-Yi (Rick Yune, Day Another Day) seeking revenge when he learns of what happened.
We soon meet Russell Crowe's Jack Knife - "I am Mr Knife, but you can call me Jack" - an opium-addicted British soldier named after his weapon of choice. Knife takes refuge in a brothel which is home to several hilarious Crowe scenes.
Dave Bautista plays Brass Body, a massive unit capable of turning his body to metal. The character wouldn't be out of place in an X-Men film, and his existence in this simply bizarre world RZA and Eli Roth have created I don't think has been answered.
Meanwhile RZA, the film's director, producer, screenwriter, and half of the composing team (with Drossin), plays the lead role as "The Blacksmith". The Blacksmith's main role is to rescue his lover Lady Silk (Jamie Chung) from the Pink Blossom - the same brothel in which Mr Knife took refuge.
The four are brought together by the common purpose of stopping the Lion Clad, and through 90 minutes of terrible scripting and gravity-defying fight scenes featuring tunes from Wu-Tang Clan and RZA we are ripped through RZA's homage to the martial arts film genre.
I felt the film wasn't necessarily bad but it isn't good either. It's 90-odd minutes of top-quality entertainment with glimpses of humour, but it is a film that most will smirk when they read the blurb and continue on by.
Is it worth 90 minutes of your time? Only if you want to hear pearlers like "These motherfuckers got a Gatling gun" and see a bunch of throats get ripped open.
One more thing: the trivia section on IMDB says RZA wanted this film to be four hours and split into two. Thankfully Eli Roth stepped in and said 90 minutes is enough.
The epic opening sequence fuses the rap of RZA and Howard Drossin with a crazy fight scene in which the leader of the Lion Clan, Gold Lion, is murdered. The film's plot comes from this event, with his son Zen-Yi (Rick Yune, Day Another Day) seeking revenge when he learns of what happened.
We soon meet Russell Crowe's Jack Knife - "I am Mr Knife, but you can call me Jack" - an opium-addicted British soldier named after his weapon of choice. Knife takes refuge in a brothel which is home to several hilarious Crowe scenes.
Dave Bautista plays Brass Body, a massive unit capable of turning his body to metal. The character wouldn't be out of place in an X-Men film, and his existence in this simply bizarre world RZA and Eli Roth have created I don't think has been answered.
Meanwhile RZA, the film's director, producer, screenwriter, and half of the composing team (with Drossin), plays the lead role as "The Blacksmith". The Blacksmith's main role is to rescue his lover Lady Silk (Jamie Chung) from the Pink Blossom - the same brothel in which Mr Knife took refuge.
The four are brought together by the common purpose of stopping the Lion Clad, and through 90 minutes of terrible scripting and gravity-defying fight scenes featuring tunes from Wu-Tang Clan and RZA we are ripped through RZA's homage to the martial arts film genre.
I felt the film wasn't necessarily bad but it isn't good either. It's 90-odd minutes of top-quality entertainment with glimpses of humour, but it is a film that most will smirk when they read the blurb and continue on by.
Is it worth 90 minutes of your time? Only if you want to hear pearlers like "These motherfuckers got a Gatling gun" and see a bunch of throats get ripped open.
One more thing: the trivia section on IMDB says RZA wanted this film to be four hours and split into two. Thankfully Eli Roth stepped in and said 90 minutes is enough.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The Hobbit trilogy
A central place for my reviews of Peter Jackson's film adaptations of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbi.
Click the links to read the reviews:
The Hobbit
An Unexpected Journey
The Desolation of Smaug
The Battle of the Five Armies
Click the links to read the reviews:
The Hobbit
An Unexpected Journey
The Desolation of Smaug
The Battle of the Five Armies
Saturday, January 10, 2015
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
I remember watching The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and despite enjoying the film more than I did The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, had hope the third and final chapter would be even better.
After watching The Battle of the Five Armies I can't help but feel a little disappointed.
The final chapter in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's masterful works set in Middle Earth finally came to Australian screens on Boxing Day 2014, more than 10 years after he started (with Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring).
One of the criticisms of the LOTR trilogy was their length, but even with the excessive run times (more than three hours-odd each) Jackson had to cut a lot of content from the book (Mr Bombadil's story arc anyone?). The same criticism can easily be directed at The Hobbit, in which Jackson manages to stretch a single novel - which is smaller than each "third" of LOTR - into three long films.
The main criticisms I have for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies stem from this issue.
Instead of one or two action-packed films that could sweep audiences across Middle Earth at a brisk pace as Bilbo and the Dwarves complete their quest, fight Smaug/orcs/elves/men/each other, and try to overcome their greed (I'm looking at you Thorin Oakenshield), we are treated to three films that lack any real punch.
As a big fan of the series it pains me to say The Battle of the Five Armies was boring.
Way too much time was spent on the negotiation sequences between Thorin, the bunch of Elves with a grudge and the Men whose town was destroyed by Smaug (thanks Thorin/Bilbo). The way the Dwarves were chilling up top looking down at Bard (from the destroyed city of Laketown) and Thranduil (leader of the Elvish army) looked like it came straight out of a Monty Python film.
Richard Armitage (Thorin) did his best to look as if he was slowly being overcome by evil as the film mercilessly dragged on, which was capped by a dream sequence in which I'm certain he drowned in a pool of gold (which, funnily enough, was the point at which he woke up from his evil/greed/lust).
Despite those two main problems, there are several positive aspects.
The multiple combat/battle sequences were all outstanding, even though a) it takes a REALLY long time for several characters to die, and b) I'm not sure how the injection of just nine Dwarves can change a battle being waged by several armies each numbered in their hundreds. Yes I know they are our heroes (and I know it's fiction and follows a source text) but am I seriously expected to believe that could happen? Even if a film is set in some mythological/fictional place I will happily accept whatever happens if I believe it could. Had it been nine wizards or Ents, yes I'd cop that battle-winning change. Nine Dwarves? Nup.
The way Jackson slipped his nods to the events of LOTR were expertly done. He included just the right amount of information (Legolas' instruction to track down Strider/Aragon for example) to make fans want to run back home and buckle in for the next leg of the ultra Middle Earth marathon.
The Battle of the Five Armies does its job, albeit poorly after being let down by previous chapters, decision making, and the corporate dollar (whatever you believe to be the reason The Hobbit was stretched into a trilogy). The loose ends from Desolation of Smaug are tied up, we get a resolution to Bilbo's quest and get to see him get home to the Shire (I'm still filthy over its omission from Return of the King Mr Jackson), and there is just enough included to set up LOTR.
>I would like to know whatever happened to Radagast the Brown however. He is seen in the climatic scenes of Battle of the Five Armies but doesn't appear in the film versions of LOTR at all (he is in the books).
Perhaps we will find out if/when Mr Jackson tackles The Silmarillion...
After watching The Battle of the Five Armies I can't help but feel a little disappointed.
The final chapter in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's masterful works set in Middle Earth finally came to Australian screens on Boxing Day 2014, more than 10 years after he started (with Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring).
One of the criticisms of the LOTR trilogy was their length, but even with the excessive run times (more than three hours-odd each) Jackson had to cut a lot of content from the book (Mr Bombadil's story arc anyone?). The same criticism can easily be directed at The Hobbit, in which Jackson manages to stretch a single novel - which is smaller than each "third" of LOTR - into three long films.
The main criticisms I have for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies stem from this issue.
Instead of one or two action-packed films that could sweep audiences across Middle Earth at a brisk pace as Bilbo and the Dwarves complete their quest, fight Smaug/orcs/elves/men/each other, and try to overcome their greed (I'm looking at you Thorin Oakenshield), we are treated to three films that lack any real punch.
As a big fan of the series it pains me to say The Battle of the Five Armies was boring.
Way too much time was spent on the negotiation sequences between Thorin, the bunch of Elves with a grudge and the Men whose town was destroyed by Smaug (thanks Thorin/Bilbo). The way the Dwarves were chilling up top looking down at Bard (from the destroyed city of Laketown) and Thranduil (leader of the Elvish army) looked like it came straight out of a Monty Python film.
Richard Armitage (Thorin) did his best to look as if he was slowly being overcome by evil as the film mercilessly dragged on, which was capped by a dream sequence in which I'm certain he drowned in a pool of gold (which, funnily enough, was the point at which he woke up from his evil/greed/lust).
Despite those two main problems, there are several positive aspects.
The multiple combat/battle sequences were all outstanding, even though a) it takes a REALLY long time for several characters to die, and b) I'm not sure how the injection of just nine Dwarves can change a battle being waged by several armies each numbered in their hundreds. Yes I know they are our heroes (and I know it's fiction and follows a source text) but am I seriously expected to believe that could happen? Even if a film is set in some mythological/fictional place I will happily accept whatever happens if I believe it could. Had it been nine wizards or Ents, yes I'd cop that battle-winning change. Nine Dwarves? Nup.
The way Jackson slipped his nods to the events of LOTR were expertly done. He included just the right amount of information (Legolas' instruction to track down Strider/Aragon for example) to make fans want to run back home and buckle in for the next leg of the ultra Middle Earth marathon.
The Battle of the Five Armies does its job, albeit poorly after being let down by previous chapters, decision making, and the corporate dollar (whatever you believe to be the reason The Hobbit was stretched into a trilogy). The loose ends from Desolation of Smaug are tied up, we get a resolution to Bilbo's quest and get to see him get home to the Shire (I'm still filthy over its omission from Return of the King Mr Jackson), and there is just enough included to set up LOTR.
>I would like to know whatever happened to Radagast the Brown however. He is seen in the climatic scenes of Battle of the Five Armies but doesn't appear in the film versions of LOTR at all (he is in the books).
Perhaps we will find out if/when Mr Jackson tackles The Silmarillion...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
