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
Showing posts with label LOTR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LOTR. Show all posts
Sunday, January 11, 2015
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...
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Is the second enty in The Hobbit trilogy, The Desolation of Smaug, better than An Unexpected Journey?
Yes, yes and more yes; provided you watch it in 2D or 3D only.
We pick up where An Unexpected Journey left off, with the company of dwarves, led by Thorin (Richard Armitage), and their Hobbit "burglar" Bilbo Baggings (Martin Freeman) continuing their quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain.
Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) takes off on his own (again) despite promising to accompany the group (again). He leaves after finding "black speech graffiti" near the entrance to Mirkwood and promptly abandons the group to investigate and follow up on his suspicions.
It is from this sequence the pieces to the Lord of the Rings puzzle begin to fall into place, as we see the rise of the Necromancer and his orc army, the effect the one ring has on it's possessor (Bilbo in this instance), and Gandalf uncovers a horrible truth.
We meet new characters like Bard (Luke Evans), from Lake-town, who helps the dwarves on their quest. At the same time we are reintroduced to Legolas (Orlando Bloom) albeit a 60 year younger version than the one we met in Lord of the Rings. But it's the inclusion of Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) that has ruffled the most feathers.
Tauriel doesn't actually exist in the novel. In fact, Legolas doesn't either.
Their inclusion is merely a production decision made by Peter Jackson and crew.
I'm not the biggest fan of movie-makers or writers changing the content of novels in their adaptations and to invent characters is beyond ludicrous. But I can see why they did it, and I think it works in this setting. Legolas helps the audience engage with the elves - his presence helps us be more familiar with them - and Tauriel is woven masterly into the story. Her relationship with the dwarf Kili present an unexplored dynamic to the story given the loathing between dwarves and elves. It is an intriguing change of which I'm looking forward to seeing the conclusion.
Another I had was how long the sequences with Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) were dragged out. I readily admit I haven't read the novels, and I am certain the dragon has dialogue in the texts, but it got a little old - perhaps a tad daft - after a while.
That is only a minor complaint but one that I'm sure is easy to get over.
My biggest gripe is, similar to An Unexpected Journey, is the high frame rate version.
My first experience with it came in the first part of the Hobbit trilogy but it was watching The Desolation of Smaug where it really had a detrimental effect.
The familiar cinematic feel is completely gone, which remarkably reduces how "real" I believed what I was seeing. It was too real to believe they were in Middle Earth. In some scenes where the whole group were involved, it looked as if you were sitting next to the director's chair and watching the actors acting rather than immersing oneself in the fictional world.
The glaringly obvious section was at the entrance to Mirkwood, when the company are just about to walk in. You could tell where the natural trees and surrounding environment ended and the set dressing began. It takes away from the whole experience and is an issue I hope is addressed before There and Back Again (the third part) is released at the end of this year.
The Desolation of Smaug is much better than An Unexpected Journey, but there is room for much improvement when There and Back Again is released.
Yes, yes and more yes; provided you watch it in 2D or 3D only.
We pick up where An Unexpected Journey left off, with the company of dwarves, led by Thorin (Richard Armitage), and their Hobbit "burglar" Bilbo Baggings (Martin Freeman) continuing their quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain.
Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) takes off on his own (again) despite promising to accompany the group (again). He leaves after finding "black speech graffiti" near the entrance to Mirkwood and promptly abandons the group to investigate and follow up on his suspicions.
It is from this sequence the pieces to the Lord of the Rings puzzle begin to fall into place, as we see the rise of the Necromancer and his orc army, the effect the one ring has on it's possessor (Bilbo in this instance), and Gandalf uncovers a horrible truth.
We meet new characters like Bard (Luke Evans), from Lake-town, who helps the dwarves on their quest. At the same time we are reintroduced to Legolas (Orlando Bloom) albeit a 60 year younger version than the one we met in Lord of the Rings. But it's the inclusion of Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) that has ruffled the most feathers.
Tauriel doesn't actually exist in the novel. In fact, Legolas doesn't either.
Their inclusion is merely a production decision made by Peter Jackson and crew.
I'm not the biggest fan of movie-makers or writers changing the content of novels in their adaptations and to invent characters is beyond ludicrous. But I can see why they did it, and I think it works in this setting. Legolas helps the audience engage with the elves - his presence helps us be more familiar with them - and Tauriel is woven masterly into the story. Her relationship with the dwarf Kili present an unexplored dynamic to the story given the loathing between dwarves and elves. It is an intriguing change of which I'm looking forward to seeing the conclusion.
Another I had was how long the sequences with Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) were dragged out. I readily admit I haven't read the novels, and I am certain the dragon has dialogue in the texts, but it got a little old - perhaps a tad daft - after a while.
That is only a minor complaint but one that I'm sure is easy to get over.
My biggest gripe is, similar to An Unexpected Journey, is the high frame rate version.
My first experience with it came in the first part of the Hobbit trilogy but it was watching The Desolation of Smaug where it really had a detrimental effect.
The familiar cinematic feel is completely gone, which remarkably reduces how "real" I believed what I was seeing. It was too real to believe they were in Middle Earth. In some scenes where the whole group were involved, it looked as if you were sitting next to the director's chair and watching the actors acting rather than immersing oneself in the fictional world.
The glaringly obvious section was at the entrance to Mirkwood, when the company are just about to walk in. You could tell where the natural trees and surrounding environment ended and the set dressing began. It takes away from the whole experience and is an issue I hope is addressed before There and Back Again (the third part) is released at the end of this year.
The Desolation of Smaug is much better than An Unexpected Journey, but there is room for much improvement when There and Back Again is released.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Just under 10 years after the last chapter of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was released in cinemas, audiences were catapulted back into the world of Middle Earth.
Originally penned by JRR Tolkien and visually embraced by Peter Jackson, Middle Earth is home to what we consider mystical or mythological creatures - elves, dwarves, and of course, the child-sized hobbits.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is based 60 years before the events of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings. The story focuses primarily on a younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman).
It mostly follows Tolkien's literary version of the story, with bits and pieces of the appendices from Lord of the Rings: Return of the King interwoven into the story.
Bilbo leads his normal life in the Shire when one day Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) tricks him into hosting a party for Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his company of dwarves.
There he is recruited as the company's "burglar", and they set off on a cross-world adventure to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch).
As you would expect from any adventure, the group have to overcome danger at every turn, with threats ranging from trolls, who they narrowly avoid, to orcs, who's chieftain Azog the Defiler beheaded Thror and has vowed to break the line of Durin, which includes Thorin.
The most familiar aspect in this film for those who have not read the original text is Bilbo's discovery the One Ring. He finds the ring when he comes across another familiar character in Gollum (Andy Serkis), overcoming his adversary in a game of wits and riddles before escaping with the tainted jewellery.
The biggest talking point with the film was the release of a high frame rate version - that is, shot at 48 frames per second rather than the industry standard 24. It is one of the first films with a wider release to be shot with the higher rate, and you can see why. It is supposed to make the film even more real than a regular 24 frames per second film does, and that genuinely detracts from the quality. It has been described as forcing a film to lose its "cinematic feel" and I have to agree. I'll talk a bit more about this in my review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
Apart from that obvious setback, my other criticism revolves around the first 30-40 minutes.
The whole thing stays in Bilbo's house?! I get that it is building the story and developing (presenting) the different characters' traits, but it just went WAY too long. What makes it so much more of an issue is arguably one of the best sequences in the film - a musical section involving the dwarves and flying cutlery - is buried in amongst the stay.
I can't complain about anything else.
As you come to expect from Peter Jackson's big screen epics, the visuals are simply stunning; the idyllic locations not only an outstanding advertisement for New Zealand (and by extension Middle Earth) but presented beautifully on screen. The action sequences are mind-blowing, the escape from the Great Goblin awe-inspiring despite pushing the limit of what we're happy to believe, and the integration of the interweaving stories sublime.
Originally penned by JRR Tolkien and visually embraced by Peter Jackson, Middle Earth is home to what we consider mystical or mythological creatures - elves, dwarves, and of course, the child-sized hobbits.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is based 60 years before the events of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings. The story focuses primarily on a younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman).
It mostly follows Tolkien's literary version of the story, with bits and pieces of the appendices from Lord of the Rings: Return of the King interwoven into the story.
Bilbo leads his normal life in the Shire when one day Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) tricks him into hosting a party for Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his company of dwarves.
There he is recruited as the company's "burglar", and they set off on a cross-world adventure to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch).
As you would expect from any adventure, the group have to overcome danger at every turn, with threats ranging from trolls, who they narrowly avoid, to orcs, who's chieftain Azog the Defiler beheaded Thror and has vowed to break the line of Durin, which includes Thorin.
The most familiar aspect in this film for those who have not read the original text is Bilbo's discovery the One Ring. He finds the ring when he comes across another familiar character in Gollum (Andy Serkis), overcoming his adversary in a game of wits and riddles before escaping with the tainted jewellery.
The biggest talking point with the film was the release of a high frame rate version - that is, shot at 48 frames per second rather than the industry standard 24. It is one of the first films with a wider release to be shot with the higher rate, and you can see why. It is supposed to make the film even more real than a regular 24 frames per second film does, and that genuinely detracts from the quality. It has been described as forcing a film to lose its "cinematic feel" and I have to agree. I'll talk a bit more about this in my review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
Apart from that obvious setback, my other criticism revolves around the first 30-40 minutes.
The whole thing stays in Bilbo's house?! I get that it is building the story and developing (presenting) the different characters' traits, but it just went WAY too long. What makes it so much more of an issue is arguably one of the best sequences in the film - a musical section involving the dwarves and flying cutlery - is buried in amongst the stay.
I can't complain about anything else.
As you come to expect from Peter Jackson's big screen epics, the visuals are simply stunning; the idyllic locations not only an outstanding advertisement for New Zealand (and by extension Middle Earth) but presented beautifully on screen. The action sequences are mind-blowing, the escape from the Great Goblin awe-inspiring despite pushing the limit of what we're happy to believe, and the integration of the interweaving stories sublime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
