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...
No comments:
Post a Comment