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.
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...
