Change Your Image
jonedney124
Reviews
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
The end of an incredible journey
I would go into more detail but I only have one thousand words so...I find on reading some reviews of this final Hobbit film that most of them couldn't care less (see for example Rope of Silicon's review). The reason that this film is currently on 60% on Rotten Tomatoes is that most people cannot look past the three-film decision and punish this film in particular for that very reason. When I see the words 'hollow spectacle' being used to describe this film, I can't help but snort, given the number of comments I've seen around the internet (mostly from fans, the people who DO care) that found themselves tearing up at certain points in this film.
Peter Jackson and co have always been aware that characters cannot be just lifted off the page and plonked on the screen and this is certainly the case here. Characters like Bard, Thranduil and the dwarfs themselves come across so much more strongly because effort has been put into their characters emotional journeys. Take the spectacular Laketown opening: the climax of this is fairly anti-climactic in the book, given that the story's main antagonist is felled by someone we have just been introduced to and yet here, we have already met Bard in DoS and know what's important to him and to see that played out is so much more satisfying than the book because there is real emotion running through it and that goes for the whole film.
I am fed up of reading comments saying 'Bilbo doesn't do much'. READ THE BOOK, PEOPLE! Tolkien sees fit to have him hide or be knocked out throughout the battle and a lot of what he does in this part of the story is observing the tensions unfold around him, even though it is from his perspective, he often isn't actually doing anything compared to earlier in the story. An early scene between Thorin and Bilbo perfectly captures the hobbit who dreams of home and who is loyal even when friendships are tested.Another scene shows Dwalin, an aggressive dwarf loyal to Thorin, seeing his friend's descent into madness and pleading with him to see reason. Hollow spectacle? PAH! That's not even going into the emotional ends of some of the main characters, one of which has a considerable amount of dialogue lifted straight from the book. Other scenes, such as the White Council at Dol Guldur, are inspired by Tolkien's canon and other arcs, such as the love story, tap into universal themes of innocence, love and loss.
The battle scenes are spectacular if not quite as spectacular as LOTR but then the same could be said for the book, story and film. Nothing in this film can quite match the sheer desperation and then emotional release in Return of the King simply because it just isn't there in the story. What they do have they make the best of, bringing this grand saga to an end in a spectacular and emotional fashion. It may not be quite the defining chapter, that will always be whichever LOTR is your favourite, but this is a shining example of filmmakers going above and beyond the call of duty when adapting a book. Most just look at things to cut, as they would have done had this been one or two films: here, this possibly final cinematic representation of Middle-Earth celebrates the visionary mind of JRR Tolkien's wider world, remembering, as Gandalf says in the book and the film to Bilbo: 'You are only quite a little fellow in a wide world after all'. This is a Hobbit made in light of The Lord of the Rings, literary and cinematic: the original novel only had itself to contend with in the minds of readers. If the average Hollywood director had approached this material, you would not have ended up with this six film saga that is faithful to Tolkien's world in so many ways and the critical send off that this world has received is pathetic. To those of us who truly care, this is the end of a cinematic journey like no other.
Monsters University (2013)
Pixar back to making top quality animated films
When I first heard about this and saw trailers, I felt like it would be OK, a good laugh but not enough to really challenge other Pixar films. I can safely say that I was wrong on that score, for it manages to not only be successful prequel to the original film but also a great film in its own right. Billy Crystal and John Goodman slip effortlessly back into their roles as Mike Wazowski and Sully despite playing younger versions of themselves. The other main highlight of the voice cast is Helen Mirren's intimidating Dean Hardscrabble, who is a menacing presence and I'm sure the design of her character was modelled on Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty. Steve Buscemi's Randall also returns and although I felt that he would have a stronger part in the movie, the seeds are sown for his villainous ways in the original.
What astounded me was the creativity throughout the film, the effort that had gone into the university environment and the monsters that inhabited it (there's one monster who has university down pat in a hilarious moment that all students will understand!). The new characters that become Mike and Sully's friends, the Oozma Kappa gang, are all adorable and memorable, providing a lot of the film's humour as well as one of its most touching moments towards the end. The film is consistently hilarious but also remembers that it has to develop the initial rivalry then friendship of Mike and Sulley. The world set up in the original is also included more than I thought it would (a couple of trips to Monsters Inc. itself) and there are some brilliant cameos from two memorable characters from Inc.
Although the friend I was watching it with said that the film was low stakes, as you knew how it would end, I found that the film still managed to feel fresh despite dealing with underdog clichés and the problem of being a prequel. In a Q and A after the preview screening, the director and producer said that this was about when your dreams don't come true: a strangely anti-Disney philosophy in many ways but one that is honest and teaches kids reality about the world of work, none more so than a delightful montage of pictures explaining how Mike and Sully ended up in their respective positions in Inc. I haven't seen Cars 2 (not sure I want to) and although I enjoyed Brave, it is definitely lesser Pixar fare whereas Monsters University sees them back at the top, creating a touching and hilarious story that will hopefully see them get back to dishing out the quality every time.
I am a bit confused as to some of the critical reviews, and why this film currently has 75% on Rotten Tomatoes is beyond me. I sincerely hope this will go up, because it should be nearer 90. I watched Finding Nemo in 3D in April and although Nemo isn't my favourite Pixar, MU is easily as good as that. One critic argues that this film is too similar to The Internship...well that's the Internship's problem, as this film will have been longer in the making undoubtedly and judging from IMDb score doesn't seem to have anywhere near the same creativity and imagination behind it. This may not scale the heights of the Toy Story trilogy but it most certainly is not forgettable and the fact that I nearly shed a tear at one point (and it was NOT for the main two characters funnily enough) proves that the film gives more than just 'how did Sulley and Mike become friends'. If everyone keeps expecting Pixar to produce a Toy Story every time and if they leave a film having not experienced that and express their disappointment/outrage as a result, that's unfair. My favourite Pixars are Toy Story 1-3, Monsters Inc and Wall-E (10/10), then Incredibles, Up, Finding Nemo, Bug's Life (9/10) and I would place Monsters University just after A Bug's Life but in many ways it's probably better.
9/10 (RT had better follow suit)
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Not as good as LOTR but welcome back Jackson's Middle-Earth
The Hobbit may not be as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy but then that is because it is inherently a weaker story. I would like to address certain criticisms I have often read:
(a) Length: Part of the reason for the length of the film is for scenes between characters that strengthen relationships, something mostly lacking from the book. If The Hobbit was done as one film, it would have to be 3 hours to remotely capture everything and even then it would be forced to leave out character for the sake of plot and pace. You would not get a ten minute Riddles in the Dark, you would get a four minute Riddles in the Dark, which would not be anywhere near as good (6 minutes less of Andy Serkis' Gollum). The structuring is more about character, showing how Bilbo becomes a hero and part of the Company for real. There is Thorin's back story, which gives a reason for the quest and more emotion to his character than the book. This may seem to hold the film up but in the long term, it serves the characters and overall story better as well as giving Richard Armitage something to sink his teeth into. One thing you can say about the Harry Potter films is they don't leave much time to take in the supporting roles played by Britain's best actors. By having the Necromancer storyline as well as more time to dwell on the dwarfs and Bilbo (played to perfection by Martin Freeman) across three films rather than one or two, it gives these actors more to do, which is worth the running time. Would you rather have a brisk 3-hour film with little character development or 3 films that give this story an epic scale and pathos as well as bridging to the Rings trilogy, taking in the wider ramifications for Middle-Earth of the quest?
(b)Humour: Personally I had no issue with the humour in this film. They weren't exactly laugh-out-loud moments but there were plenty of chuckles. Burping dwarfs are only to be expected (they are a rowdy bunch after all) and this is NOT a kid's film, despite the fact that it's based on a kid's book. Radagast the Brown is NOT the Tolkien equivalent of Jar Jar Binks, he isn't even in the film that much. The bunny sled might seem a tad over the top but I want one
The trolls are amusing and stupid in the book and they are the same here, although this scene plays out quite differently to the book but keeps the silly humour of it and if anything, makes it funnier.
(c) Takes 40 minutes for them to leave Hobbiton: This is true but I was actually surprised at how quickly this opening section went. The prologue establishes Smaug's taking of Erebor and the Ian Holm-Elijah Wood prologue ties into the opening of Fellowship and leads very neatly into the beginning of the Hobbit. As the familiar music washes over you, it settles you back into the world of Middle-Earth and establishes older Bilbo as he prepares to leave Bag End again, stating that in many ways he is the same hobbit that set out all those years ago: one secretly craving adventure. Both dwarf songs are from the book, with 'Blunt the Knives' energetically performed as the dwarfs do the washing up and 'Misty Mountains' creating a quiet moment for the dwarfs to reflect on their journey and Bilbo to experience the moment as described in the book. It gives time for the dwarfs to establish their characters, although the first few who arrive individually come across more strongly than the final pile-up group but again, more character than the book dwarfs, some of whom are barely mentioned across the story. I found parts of the immediate section after leaving Hobbiton to be slower but not mind-numbingly boring slowness.
(d) Overuse of CGI: The Rings trilogy wasn't exactly light on CGI, was it? It is extremely impressive CGI, there were only a few moments, mainly when interacting with the real New Zealand environment that looked fake. The Goblin City is great to experience in 3D and the goblins are all mostly CGI but they're still being slain in variously cool styles, depending on the dwarf weaponry on display. The stone giants battle was one of the 'wow' moments in the film and Azog is motion capture, not just CGI. The Wargs are better than their Two Towers counterparts and there are some Orcs that are real, as there will be in the other two films based on behind the scenes footage.
(e) 3D: I haven't yet seen the 48fps but the IMAX 3D was generally impressive, although some parts, mainly sweeping shots were a bit blurred (this may have been the projectors however).
This is very much a film for the fans, with Howard Shore using plenty of old music as well as creating new pieces. The film is long but when you reach the end of it, you will find yourself surprised at how fast it goes and you'll be wanting the next film. This will probably be one of the most faithful adaptations of a book by the time the third film is done and the story of the Hobbit will be all the better for it. Tolkien wrote the extra stuff himself, even if he didn't put it into the book and Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have already added stuff to Lord of the Rings (Aragorn and Arwen) and how much better did that make the trilogy in terms of Aragorn's character? Critics need to stop moaning about the length of movies that are actually filling their running time with stuff worth watching.