Mixed feelings. Thought “Unexpected Journey” was an unnecessarily elongated prologue, loved “Desolation of Smaug” (review here), and the final installment feels like a long-drawn-out closing paragraph. Should have been done in one film. Could have been done in one film. Still, there are some very strong sequences. And any review where I can mention John Keegan (think this is the first one) is a good thing.
My review of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is now up at Rogerebert.com.
With The Hobbit, do you expect nerd-backlash for not loving it as you would if you’d given a lukewarm review to some Marvel property, or are the Tolkien fans a bit more mature?
Ha. I don’t know – I never read comments – my Desolation of Smaug review was really positive so I think that got me points. I mean, I don’t PAN Five Armies, if you notice – it’s super impressive, and the battle scene was my favorite part, warmonger that I am. I adore Red Cliff, the focus on tactical strategies and battle maneuvers and there is a TON of that in this movie and it’s really well done.
But three movies? Why? So unnecessary. And that first one, oy.
So in a word: I have no idea. I am sure they will come at me with pitchforks in the comments section over there, but I rarely read those. Once the review is up, I let it go.
My impression is that comic book fans are the literal worst in the world – they’re the ones sending Stephanie Zachariek rape threats, so horrible and out of control that the editor in chief had to make a statement about it, chastising the commenters. Animals. Behave better, maybe people wouldn’t make fun of you.
Tolkien fans are very quick to jump on you for not “getting” the books – but I’m a huge Tolkien fan, I try to make that clear.
Besides: these are movies. There is plenty of stuff in the movie that is not in the book at all – so you have to take it as a movie, as much as possible.
And Thorin’s gold-madness is awesome, it really is.
So, you know. Mixed bag. We shall see!
If it’s better than the first (I’m with you, oy) then that will be good. We’re going to see it this weekend at any rate. My daughter’s love of all things dragon is ebola-infectious.
The dragon blitz is amazing.
and have fun – come back and tell me I’m wrong after you’ve seen it. I can take it! :)
When we disagree I’m usually the one in the wrong(remembering Rebel Without A Cause), but challenge accepted!
Ha – I had forgotten that about Rebel!
I enjoy back and forth discussions when there are different opinions. (Generally. Not when someone is shouting “YOU SUCK, CUNT” because I didn’t like something. There, I’m not really into the back and forth. Shocker.)
Anyway, the Hobbit movie isn’t awful – I thought the first installment was pretty awful, thought Smaug was pretty great, and Five Armies was bloated and too long – with some really good sequences. Mixed bag!!
Have fun with your daughter!
mutecypher, perhaps we’ll have to compare notes, though if I remember correctly, your daughter is older than my sons. My eldest is very excited to see this movie, so we’ll probably go soon as well. When he watches the Lord of the Rings trilogy, he always goes for the extended cuts, so it’ll be interesting to see what he thinks of the extensive battle scenes in this.
I’ve got to admit, though I love The Hobbit and LOTR, and I appreciate Peter Jackson’s filmmaking quite a lot of the time, I’m not looking forward to this as much as I feel like I should–maybe it’s just Middle Earth exhaustion?
Barb – I think stretching it out into three films was just not the right choice. … I, too, am a fan of Hobbit and LOTR, and loved the LOTR trilogy a lot. The Hobbit is such a small book – stretching it out into three films feels like a pretty blatant cash-grab to me. Or like … Peter Jackson wanting job security. :) I kid, I kid. But still. If you can’t make a better movie than that first installment – then maybe you should re-think what you’re doing. Force yourself to consolidate, to not stretch stuff out – put it into one story, because it IS one story. and leave out the stupid romantic subplot. It has no point being there. All told, the love doesn’t take up a lot of time, but it’s annoying anyway.
The “battle” itself is the best part – worth the wait!! All the armor clamping down, all the elves marching/gliding forward as one – the tactics, the different strategies … It was overwhelming and exciting.
Anyway, would love to hear your thoughts once you’ve seen it!
//Force yourself to consolidate, to not stretch stuff out// That really is the key, isn’t it? It feels cynical to me, too, to stretch it out, and I don’t like associating that word either with the previous movie trilogy, or with Tolkein’s work. Based on your review, though, I’m hoping for the best–I’ll keep my eye out for the good stuff!
Yes – it feels cynical to me too. Too much of the film is humorless, too. And The Hobbit is funny. So there are a couple of different issues. Humorless AND too-long? In what universe is that okay? Oh well it’ll make a bazillion bucks but I still think stretching it out like this does not serve the material.
and there really is tons of good stuff. Thorin going mad is particularly good.
Barb –
You know, Peter Jackson gets to do what he wants, and he gets to fit the stories to his aesthetics. But, I don’t have to like it. For me, the integrity of many of the characters in LOTR was greatly diminished. Aragorn’s doom: defeat the Enemy of the age, become King, rebuild Gondor – then and only then will he get the woman he loved – all of that from the books was lessened by the subplot where he tried to convince Arwen to go to the Havens. Denethor was a mighty and powerful steward, but through pride he fell into despair. He wasn’t the whiny coward of the movies. Gandalf never had his staff broken by the Witch King (only in the extended version, I know). The Ents chose to go to war at Entmoot – they didn’t wimp out and then change their minds when they somehow simultaneously came upon Saruman’s clearcutting. And Frodo sending Sam away when they were climbing the stairs at Cirith Ungol – what a disgusting thing to have him do!
I wonder at the sort of person who makes those changes in a story and the sort of person who stretches The Hobbit to 3 movies. What little value he seems to place on integrity.
I understand what you’re saying, mutecypher. I’ve had that feeling of disappointment, too, when something I love is reinterpreted in a way that conflicts with the original text, or doesn’t match my own conception of the story. I think that’s one reason why, after reading a book, I often lose the desire to see the movie version of it, no matter how good it’s purported to be (and in spite of my own long standing infatuation with movies).
On some of your points regarding the trilogy, I agree completely, especially the changes to the Ents’ story. For my part, I was disappointed to find Tom Bombodil and the Barrow Wights written out, leaving Aragorn to simply hand the hobbits the swords that they originally retrieved from the Barrow. I also think the romantic subplot between Arwen and Aragorn was drawn out a bit more than necessary, but honestly, this change I did not mind so much. It gave Arwen a voice. In the book she is beautiful but silent and is treated more as an object to be admired from a distance or won rather than a being with her own thoughts and initiative. At the end, for example, the reader is told that she has given up her chance to go to the Havens–and therefore, her immortality–in order to live her life with Aragorn, but even there, we are not given any indication of how she feels about the decision or if she struggled with it. She is simply given to Aragorn as his earned due. In her case, though it was admittedly too big a part of the overall runtime, the change made added to the film and the story.
What I try to do, then, since books and movies are never going to equate to one another, is to view the movie in the spirit in which it is done. What matters to me the most is how well the film captures the feeling and the core of the book. In this case, I do think that Peter Jackson has a love for this story, its characters, and for Middle Earth. Even the admittedly cynical move of spreading The Hobbit into three films, while it could be seen as the Hollywood trick of the day to earn more money on a property, could also be viewed as his attempt to add more of the background (esp. the rise of Sauron) into his films. Whether he’s succeeded or not, of course, is another matter.
I don’t know if any of this makes sense–let me know what you think.
Barb –
I did leave out one of the changes made by the movies that I liked: Arwen coming to rescue Aragorn and the hobbits after Weathertop. I hoped that she would have a greater role in the story, perhaps taking upon some of the activities of her brothers or accompanying them south to Rohan and delivering the banner she had made for Aragorn. Though, that would bring about a meeting of Arwen and Eowyn, something that could have added to Eowyn’s death wish. But that was not to be.
One does get a bit more of Arwen’s story and thoughts in the appendix, but there’s essentially nothing about her beyond her beauty and that she and Aragorn are seriously distant cousins in the main story.
I think that the inclusion of Radagast in The Hobbit might have been something of a sop to the folks who missed Bombadil. He has Tom B’s love of nature and animals. Maybe less time could have been spent on Bilbo’s party and added some time for the Old Forest and the Barrow Downs.
Despite my grumpy remarks, Peter Jackson definitely has a love of Middle Earth. The movies are an impressive achievement. As for my own strategy for beloved books turned into movies, I have to say I rely on word of mouth and reviews before going to see movies based on beloved stories. I loved Winter’s Tale and hoped that the movie was excellent. Once I read the reviews, I decided I just didn’t want to see it.
“Should have been done in one film. Could have been done in one film.”
*Sigh* I haven’t seen the third Hobbit movie yet. I am a fairly big LOTR fan (loved the books when I read them), but the Hobbit movies have been a slog. I try to view film adaptations of books on their own merits, but MY GOD it is really hard to do it with this trilogy. The Hobbit movies have joined Star Trek Into Darkness, and the X-Men movies, as triggers for my nerd-rants.
I love The Hobbit cast, but I just find all the extra action sequences so numbing. And I like action! I just kept thinking, watching the last one, “why do you need all this? There is a dragon in this story. A DRAGON.”
And I should really stop here, before I start ranting in earnest.
May – Ha! Please continue to rant – that’s why we’re all here.
// I just find all the extra action sequences so numbing. And I like action! //
I have the same sensation. I like action too – and the “battle” in the last Hobbit is the best part about it. But still – it’s all a bit … overblown for what that book actually is.
Also, if you sacrifice the humor (thank God for Martin Freeman’s line readings – but he’s not in it enough) – then you’re really doing some other kind of movie, a ponderous doom-y thing – and I get it, there is that element in The Hobbit – but it’s not the MAIN element.
And then, when Jackson tries to be homey and cutesy – he has dwarves washing dishes and singing a merry song, like in the first one, and I CRINGED.
Rant, May, Rant.
We’re all friends here. (please don’t ban me, Sheila, for using That Movie)
hahahahahaha
mutecypher, Sheila, you really shouldn’t encourage me like this! You’re all just lucky that I’m at work at the moment and don’t have the time to write up a lengthy thesis on the dragon-sickness of the Hobbit movies.
And yet the urge to rant remains so strong!
hahahaha
I LIVE to encourage the rants of others!!
And Barb and Mutecypher – I really appreciate your back and forth. While I am a fan of the books, I don’t know them as well as I know, say, the Narnia series, or – say, The Anne of Green Gables books – where if you mis-placed a sentence or merged two characters or altered an event in any way – I would clock the change instantly!
So it’s good to hear your perspective.
//I LIVE to encourage the rants of others!!//
Sheila, perhaps you’re the Rant Falstaff – not only ranty in yourself, but the cause that rants are in others.
Me, I’m the Nerd Falstaff. I enjoy using the “X” Falstaff formalism (which is how a nerd would state it).
My review – wow, I can see why you prefer to have some time to process.
Elves, frack yeah!
Dwarves, frack yeah!
Bard, double frack yeah!
Legolas, triple frack yeah!
And I’m not sure which I want: a battle-elk or a battle-mountain-goat. Pretty sure I don’t want a battle-pig. As an aside, when I was out riding my bike this morning, someone was walking their pig in the park. I didn’t realize at the time that it was foreshadowing.
Smaug’s burning and his end were excellent. Thorin’s dragon-fever was excellent. And Bilbo is even better than Raymond Shaw: he’s truly the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful hobbit I’ve ever known in my life.
I hated the comic book hero battle with Elrond, Saruman, and Galadriel against Sauron and the Wraiths. I hated the Fili/Tauriel love story even more than when it was foisted upon us in The Desolation of Smaug. I was disappointed that the thrush played no role in helping Bard slay Smaug (yeah, a bit “inside baseball” for those not up on the story). I liked that the eagles dropped a giant bear into the midst of the orcs when they arrived – I’m assuming it was Beorn.
The battles went on forever. They were awesome. This was a movie with just excellent fight sequences. Perhaps more strictly enforced truth in advertising laws would require that the movie was called The Battle Of Five Armies, With Some Random Scenes From The Book “The Hobbit” Sprinkled About Haphazardly.
Curious to hear what other folks say. But now, my daughter and I will follow our Christmas Tradition of building one of the LEGO LOTR sets and putting it on the coffee table in the living room (we stopped build gingerbread houses together about 8 years ago).
Oh, and I hadn’t seen the Tom Hardy Mad Max: Fury Road trailer before. I pray that Jesus does not take me before May of next year. I need that sweet, sweet violence.
Well, I finally saw it.
mutecypher — //I hated the Fili/Tauriel love story even more than when it was foisted upon us in The Desolation of Smaug//
The hatred I feel for the pandering, sexist Fili/Tauriel bullshit love story burns my soul like dragon-fire. I actually feel personally insulted by it. When she had to be rescued by not just one, but by BOTH of the men pining for her, my inner, militantly feminist, child completely lost her shit. Adding an original female character to the story, and then reducing her to little more than a love interest–in a love triangle of sorts–is far worse than having no women in the story at all. If they were so worried about the lack of women, they should have just made one of the dwarves a woman. They all have beards, so who would really notice the difference? They’d barely have to change a thing ;-P
The Sauron battle was stupid.
Smaug was still the best part of the movies. Though they shouldn’t have split up his part between films. Because I haven’t watched Desolation of Smaug since it came out, I found the split really reduced Smaug’s impact, making it seem like he was barely in the movies at all. They should have just ended the last one with the destruction of Laketown and Smaug’s death.
My favouite part was The Shire and the thieving Lobelia Sackville-Baggins. There weren’t nearly enough hobbits in The Hobbit films.
We saw it this weekend, too!
//I liked that the eagles dropped a giant bear into the midst of the orcs when they arrived – I’m assuming it was Beorn.// Yes, I’m sure that was Beorn. He changed in midair.
I’m sorry to say that, due to a popcorn emergency, I missed Smaug v. Bard, so I’ll have to wait for the dvd to see that.
The movie had its good bits–and I appreciate that many of the additions now feed this tale into the film series as a whole, so that the 6 movies could be watched as one long story rather than as a stand-alone and a trilogy. I’m not convinced, though, that the scene in which Galadriel and the others rescue Gandalf was entirely necessary. I did like her drawing on the power of her ring to banish the wraiths. Also, while I often feel exhausted by lengthy battle sequences in movies, this one was, as Shelia said, spectacular. I’ll even forgive them the “true love” between elf and dwarf for the sake of these scenes! (In honesty, the love triangle is the weakest part of the film for me.)
Favorite bits–of what I saw? Thorin’s gold sickness. Bard and Thorin talking through the chink in the wall. The battle and the fantastical animals that are just tossed in as if they were nothing special, since in this world, they aren’t. Thorin’s death scene–which doesn’t quite top Cyrano de Bergerac’s for length of time standing with a mortal wound, but certainly comes close. The scene between Balin and Bilbo in which they talk around the fact that Bilbo has the Arkenstone, perfectly understanding each other.
And Bilbo. Martin Freeman is so perfectly cast, and yes, he delivers most of the few funny moments in the movie. He doesn’t have enough to do in this one, but every one of his scenes is memorable. I especially loved the coda to the battle, with Gandalf making a show of lighting his pipe, trying to get a smile out of Bilbo. Beautiful.
May –
//The hatred I feel for the pandering, sexist Fili/Tauriel bullshit love story burns my soul like dragon-fire.//
I don’t know what to make of your ambivalence.
As for adding dwarf women, they could have made Kili into “Lili” and given Fili a really forbidden love interest. Yuck.
Yes, the “true love” and “rescue the maiden” stuff was awful.
Barb –
// I appreciate that many of the additions now feed this tale into the film series as a whole//
For me, when Thranduil tells Legolas to go look for a promising young Ranger named Aragorn, I find myself thinking “but Aragorn was all of eleven years old when that battle was fought, and he was being raised as a foster child by Elrond.” I don’t like turning off my critical thinking so often ( says the guy as he talks about a movie with elves and wizards).
LOL-mutecypher, give me about a year to read the Silmarillion, and then you and I can hash it all out! I had forgotten about that timeline entirely (but it makes sense in terms of the movie, right? Kinda sorta?)
mutecypher — //I don’t know what to make of your ambivalence.//
Sorry. I’ll try to muster up some passion next time.
//As for adding dwarf women, they could have made Kili into “Lili” and given Fili a really forbidden love interest. Yuck.//
Oh, I’m pretty sure there is a “Wincest” version of that out there already.
Barb & mutecypher, re: Aragorn’s age during the Hobbit — Aragorn was somewhere around 80 or 90 during LOTR, right? I think the problems is the questionable movie timeline. I’m unsure about how far in the past the film version of the Hobbit is vs the book. In the film version of LOTR Frodo seems to leave shortly after inheriting The Ring, while in the book it is years and years later (a decade or so). Those missing years would account for the difference in Aragorn’s age. In the films, if Aragorn is 80 or 90, then he seems to be an adult during the events of The Hobbit. In the books, mutecupher is right, and he is only a kid.
It was still about sixty years before Bilbo’s 111th birthday though, right? I don’t think the times match up especially because they aged Aragorn down.
I have to say May I agree with your response…I was so underwhelmed and I wasn’t expecting much at all (I mostly went because it’s a boxing day tradition dating back to the good ol’ LoTR days). I didn’t find the battle scenes engaging and there were some atrocious edits that really messed up the spatial choreography. In contrast to Helms Deep where the stakes felt real, this mostly felt like a bunch of pixels and extras hitting each other.
I laughed when Thorondor and his buddies rocked up….what a pack of assholes.
Freeman increasingly to me seems like he’s always impersonating Jack Lemmon’s Daphne hiding in different genres of movie/tv. His thought processes are so clownish. I enjoyed the relief if it brought to the undifferentiated mass gloom and swords but I’d rather see him do it in something as good as Fargo.
Gosh I’m a gloomy gus about it! I feel like The Hobbit has magnified all of Jackson’s weaknesses. If I never saw another of his shots of dirty but aesthetically pleasing white and pure terrified extras in the middle of a battle it would be too soon. I love Tolkien so much but I don’t mind changes – LoTR on the whole made appropriate changes. But I couldn’t find anything of the joy and gravitas of LoTR in this.
Oh! One thing I did love was that haunting shot of Azog under the ice, I wish it hadn’t been cut short for a jump scare and another boss battle!
Per LOTR Appendix B, The Tale of Years, Aragorn was born in Tbird Age 2931, and The Battle of Five Armies was in 2941. And near the end of Appendix A Annals of The Kings And Rulers is the tale of Aragorn and Arwen. She wasn’t just a trophy to him.
May, you’re right, the timetable could certainly have been altered, though it’s hard to understand how Frodo could have begun his journey so shortly after Bilbo’s eleventy-first birthday and then Bilbo outlived the Old Took on their trip to the Grey Havens. Perhaps that journey was a couple of decades after the destruction of the One Ring. But then Sam waited a long time to start a family… My brain hurts.
Barb, I agree that making Aragorn old enough that Thranduil would know of him does suit the altered timeline of the movies.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sub-creators, for they are subtle and take decades to work everything out.
Jessie-//Freeman increasingly to me seems like he’s always impersonating Jack Lemmon’s Daphne hiding in different genres of movie/tv.// I might not agree, but that made me laugh. Thanks for that.
You all will have to factor into my reaction the fact that I saw this with two young-ish boys who sat with rapt attention throughout, and applauded when it was done. I get what you’re saying, and I don’t even disagree with it, but I was entertained both by the movie and by my sons’ reactions. Sometimes, that’s enough for me. :-)
Jessie — //this mostly felt like a bunch of pixels and extras hitting each other.//
When Legolas was running up those falling stones, my first thought was: “I’ve played this Mario level…” Peter Jackson became prequels-George Lucas faster than expected.
//I feel like The Hobbit has magnified all of Jackson’s weaknesses.//
Like the excessive use of slow-motion? Iiiiiiiit’s sssssssooooooooooooooooo ddrrrraaaaaaaaammmmmaaaaattttiiiiiiiiic.
mutecypher — //My brain hurts. //
Yes. I had to stop thinking about it.
Oh Legolas running up those stones.
No. Stop it.
I can’t hold that against you Barb, atmosphere is everything. I don’t loooove Moulin Rouge now but seeing on the day of its release with a rapturous audience that gave a standing O at the end made me loooove it at the time! Great experience.
Yes May, so much of it felt like a video game! The excessive CGI was so glossy.
I especially felt the glossiness of the CGI in the dragon-blitz scene – when there would be characters in the foreground and the burning city in the background … It just feels cold, and it is clearly not real. Something about having a figure in the foreground and a very busy background … the CGI folks have not made that work yet.
And so, poof, there goes all your tension, all your belief. At least that’s how it works for me.
The images may be impressive, but they leave me cold.
May –
//Peter Jackson became prequels-George Lucas faster than expected.//
That’s obnoxious/perfect.
mutecypher — //That’s obnoxious/perfect.//
I just wish I could take credit for it. It was my first thought, but I’ve also seen it stated everywhere (reviews, comments, etc). It must be a common thought in the collective nerd unconsciousness.
Barb & Jessie, re: atmosphere — it’s very true! We had a seat-kicker behind us when we went to the Hobbit, and some excessively chatty kids in front, so we were a bit cranky.
RE: the CGI — The whole Hobbit trilogy has reminded me a lot of Attack of the Clones (hence the George Lucas thought). The battle scenes on Geonosis looked like it was pulled directly from a video game. Hell, the digital animated Clone Wars cartoon series looked better.
Most of the time, I’d prefer cheesy muppets to CGI.
I am adoring the conversation about the timeline. You all rule. (like the One Ring?)
No, but seriously, good stuff.
My daughter and I got a kick out of Legolas running up the stones because it was like something from Mario. It was a needed bit of silly in the middle of the epic fighting (and gratuitous Tauriel rescuing). To us, anyway.
Funny, all the disparate reactions that none the less settle on disappointment.
Jessie – Azog under the ice was a great image.
But you don’t loo00000ve Moulin Rouge? “Chwistian, you may see me as only a drunken, vice-ridden gnome whose friends are just pimps and girls from the brothels, but I know about art and love, if only because I long for it with every fiber of my being.” Clap your hands together, Jessie. Don’t let the green fairy die.
“Funny, all the disparate reactions that none the less settle on disappointment.”
Yes, and I think that could be why you won’t see a great “nerd-backlash” to negative reviews. I’d imagine that a lot of hard core Tolkien fans are disappointed by the Hobbit movies. We’ve all proven our book-cred (mutecypher pulls out the appendices for the win!), so I think our reactions aren’t too far off the average.
Also, I’ll have to disagree with Sheila about comic book fans. Video game fans are the literal worst. Though, old-school comic book fans are a close second. Comic book fans used to be the worst, but the community has already hit rock-bottom and is slowly being dragged back up.
The Hobbit should have been 2 films, not three. I understood LOTR being 3 movies as it was 3 books… but the 2nd part of the Hobbit film was a waste. A ridiculious 30 minute river scene. Talk about a money grab, hopefully the 3rd film can be worth watching.