Movie Review: The Hobbit The Battle of Five Armies - a muffled flourish to a misjudged trilogy...

 

Now don't get me wrong, but I loved The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.  I had never read the books, but the efforts of Peter Jackson and his dedicated crew of artisans, technicians and actors made Middle Earth and its occupants a place that, like so many fans of the novels, I was sucked in to.  I cared about the characters, and marveled at this epic piece of story-telling; and, yes, I shed manly tears at points as 'Return of the King' drew to a close.  These films were an undisputed triumph, and gave Jackson pretty much a free pass to do whatever he wanted.

Sadly, people will look back on his second Middle Earth trilogy less fondly.  Whilst it has had its admirers (not to mention strong Box Office), many of those would be hard pressed to admit that these films fully justify spreading the comparatively-slightest Middle Earth book to a Trilogy.  The first film ('An Unexpected Journey') just about made it, due to the way in which it evoked a lot of warm nostalgia for how immersive and lovingly made the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was - though it almost collapsed under Sylvester McCoy's unfortunate cross-eyed wizardry.  The second film, 'Desolation of Smaug', really demonstrated the folly of stretching this book over three films, with a number of aimless shots of characters walking from one side of the screen to the other, and an infuriatingly pointless romantic sub-plot.

'The Battle of Five Armies' therefore has a difficult job - to make up of the short-comings of the previous film, and justify the decision to stretch one book over three films (besides Box Office takings...).  At the very least it promises a stonking great battle, and Lord of the Rings demonstrated that Peter Jackson is very good at pulling those off.  Whilst there is some spectacular action and battling going on, sadly this film doesn't really resolve some of the additional plot elements added to the source material in convincing manner.  There are also a couple of plot holes, and issues like forgotten characters demonstrate that Jackson and his writing team don't quite have the story-telling skill required to expand The Hobbit in to the Middle Earth prequel they were wanting.

Thorin is about the only character who gets anything approaching a development arc in this film...

The film starts with a couple of scenes that really should have been the finale to 'Desolation of Smaug' (and arguably might have made that film a more satisfying experience) - the Dragon's attack on Lake Town, and the rescue of Gandalf from Dol Godur and the clutches of The Necromancer (the saga's true big-bad, Sauron).  One sequence is arguably the more effective - the showdown with Smaug is tense and doom-laden, almost apocalyptic.  Whereas the confrontation with the Necromancer is disappointingly brief, especially after the return of beloved characters from the original trilogy, culminating in almost psychedelic and bewildering flash of imagery.

Things are then maneuvered in to place to set up the titular confrontation, and whereas the Lord of the Rings managed to successfully balance a multitude of characters and locations without ever losing the audience's investment in any of them, this film doesn't quite pull off the same feat.  Whilst there is enough development in some characterisation that makes certain actions and choices understandable, in other characters this isn't the case - which makes their appearance, and choices seem a tad convenient.  For example, as Thorin (Richard Armitage) is initially consumed by 'Dragon's sickness' and greed for the treasure, it's never made clear why the other Dwarfs don't see the problem the way Bilbo (Martin Freeman) does, nor try to intervene.  Herelies one of the significant areas this trilogy fails in comparison to its predecessor - several of the central 'Dwarf Company' are pretty much background characters and rendered almost forgettable; unlike the Lord of the Ring‘s 'Fellowship', where each was clearly defined and given moments that showed growth and change resulting from the journey they've taken - as well as some fun and often air-punchingly great heroic moments.

Yet strangely, even when they're little more than window dressing, each actor seems fully committed to their role, and to the depth and richness of the world Jackson and his team are committing to film.  Because Middle Earth and its varying landscapes, settings and cultures look as great as ever.  And, initially, the battle scenes are as spectacular as those in the first trilogy.  The sight of massed ranked infantry, thousands of warriors, assembled on vast plains before great edifices, are spectacularly realised; and the moments when battle is joined, and warriors connect in a clash of blade on armour, is especilaly thrilling.  Sadly this impetus isn‘t sustained as well as it was in the original trilogy - the battle moves to an urban setting which at once creates a negative comparison with the Siege of Minas Tirith from 'Return of the King', and suffers from a lack of geographical focus, making it difficult to follow what is happening or where.  The battle is almost entirely abandoned for an isolated showdown between the film's heroes and villain stand-ins Azog and Bolg, and then is resolved by the convenient arrival of Eagles.  It almost feels anti-climactic, which isn't helped that, as stated above, not enough is done to define all the characters or justify their storyline.

Middle Earth, and its armies, look as good as they ever have done across all six films...

So, does this film justify the decision to spread this book over a trilogy?  Well, despite the fact that it doesn't feel as unnecessarily stretched as 'Smaug' did, there are still scenes and the odd shot that feel like they could have been left out and make no impact on the story overall.  Beyond that one of my biggest bugbears witht he last film - the annoying Elf/Dwarf Romance subplot - is not resolved in any manner that is either satisfying or justifies its inclusion.  I think this Trilogy's biggest problem is that, without either the need to faithfully condense a trilogy of Novels in to a faithful yet coherent series of films, or the sound basis that those Novels provided, Jackson's tendency towards self-indulgence has got the better of him.  Even with the expanded material - The Necromancer sub-plot - to tie this to its predecessor, it can be argued that there was still insufficient material to make the one book three films.  Two was a stretch, but three is too far.  Making this expansion seems to have put it beyond Jackson and the screenwriting teams' story-telling ability; for example, Legolas and Tauriel could have been left out altogether. And the showdown with the Necromancer should have been moved to the climax - this would have given the battle greater stakes in Sauron's plans to retake Middle Earth, and added a greater sense of tension as to the oucome of the battle (not to mention given the Trilogy a more persistent and charismatic villain than those Orcs...).

Worst of all, despite the title, and Freeman's best efforts, this trilogy feels like it loses focus of Bilbo - when the actual book is very much told from his perspective.  This means that a number of potentially fun and adventurous moments from the novel feel like missed opportunities; for example, when Bilbo resuces the dwarves from the Spiders of Mirkwood is a great moment in the book, one that when I read it I felt would make for an exciting and thrilling cinematic moment; instead it was handled in a puzzlingly constricted manner.  Why rush these potentially great action moments, then pad out the film with uneccessary characters and aimless shots of people walking?

Perhaps one day someone will return to these films and edit them down in to two (or maybe even one) more focussed and effective adaptation - not forgetting the fate of certain characters (Billy Connoly's Dain, I'm looking at you), nor significant Maguffins (Thorin literally loses his mind over the Arkenstone, yet it's forgotten once the Battle starts).  As things stand, Jackson has come dangerously close to doing to his own reputation what George Lucas did to his.  You can only wonder what Guillermo Del Toro would have done with these films, had things worked out as originally planned...