Review of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

So we've finally got to the end of Peter Jackson's epic reimagining of Tolkien — unless, of course, he gets the film rights to The Silmarillion, but that seems unlikely. It's been a varied experience. I generally loved the three Lord of the Rings films, although some of the omissions and changes niggled a bit. I felt the same about the first of the Hobbit films, but the second felt too much of a change for no very good reason. I was very unsure what to expect, going to see the final instalment.

There's a lot of good, in fact.  Overall, it sticks somewhat closer to the book than the second film, even though several episodes are vastly inflated from the largely summarised accounts in the original. Smaug's attack on Lake-town (with a too-short reappearance by the great dragon and Benedict Cumberbatch as his voice), the gathering of the refugees and the elves before the Mountain, and very much the battle itself were all filled out.

There's also the attack on Dol Guldur, the climax of the White Council thread. Tolkien never gave a detailed account of what actually happens, though it wasn't at all how I imagined it. Still, it works well, and gives us another glimpse of the mighty Galadriel who was briefly unleashed when Frodo offered her the Ring.

As might be expected, there's plenty of foreshadowing of LOTR, from Saruman's suave assurance that the others should "leave Sauron to me" to Bilbo's growing obsession with the Ring.

This is the stage of the plot where Bilbo really comes of age morally, and Martin Freeman handles his inner struggles excellently, both over the Ring and the Arkenstone (which, like Bard's black arrow, has a lot more significance than in the book). This is contrasted with a thorough exploration of Thorin's descent into near-madness and his return, which is equally well portrayed by Richard Armitage.

The Battle of the Five Armies is the film's centrepiece, as it should be, but arguably it was overdone, as most of the action set-pieces have tended to be. It's perfectly reasonable, of course, that we should see the action itself, and what's happening to people we care about in the midst of it, but I feel it goes on for a little too long.

Possibly the highlight of the battle is the arrival of Dain, Dwarf-Lord of the Iron Hills. Most of the dwarves have Scottish accents, which fits, but it was a joy to hear Dain's greeting in broad Glaswegian and realise it was Billy Connolly. This was no noble, questing dwarf, but a brawler from the Gorbals.

Eventually, though, the whole focus shifts to a personal showdown with the orc-lord Azog and his "spawn" Bolg (the book simply calls Bolg Azog's son) featuring Thorin, Fili, Kili, Dwalin and Bilbo, with Legolas and Tauriel pitching in (giving Orlando Bloom plenty of opportunity for acrobatics). I do think this goes on too long, though its culmination is moving.

And then home to Bag End, shown much as in the book (with a brief cameo of Lobelia Sackville-Baggins) and a final scene with the old Bilbo (ignoring the fact that he shouldn't have grown old) welcoming Gandalf before the Party. And a final nice touch — the song over the credits is sung by Billy Boyd, aka Pippin.

Altogether, I don't find the Hobbit trilogy as successful as Lord of the Rings. The action scenes are overblown throughout, and some changes seem to have been made for change's sake. Perhaps Tauriel irks me most. Not that there's anything wrong with either her character as it stands or Evangeline Lilly's performance, but the romance between her and Kili just doesn't convince me. Why should a dwarf find an elf-woman attractive (she doesn't even have a beard, after all)?

More than that, though, is that she's introduced specifically for a romantic subplot. I can perfectly well understand why Jackson wanted a strong female character in the films (besides Galadriel's brief appearances) but it seems rather tokenistic that the one female character should be introduced purely as love interest, however kick-ass she might be. On the plus side, her presence helps Legolas's development and turns Thranduil into a genuine character, but that could have been done in a less stereotyped way.

Still, there's a lot to like, and I can see myself rewatching the films often enough on DVD. Perhaps I'll even watch the entire hexalogy straight through — if I ever have the odd eighteen hours to spare.

I've also reviewed The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug on this blog.

Review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Generally speaking, I hate it when stories I love are treated as optional extras in film versions bearing their name.  From a kid who loved Kipling's The Jungle Book and confronted with what Disney had done with it to an adult seeing one of the world's greatest classic stories trashed in Troy, I try my best to avoid such rewritings.  Of course, I accept that these may be great films in their own right for anyone who doesn't know and love the original, but in a way that's the point.  Generations are going to believe these are the actual stories.

In view of that, it's maybe strange that I never had too much problem with the wholesale changes Peter Jackson made to my absolute favourite book ever.  I do have issues with the Lord of the Rings films (I still think the Scouring of the Shire should have been included, for instance) but I tend to think of them not so much as adaptations of the books but a different way of retelling the legends of the War of the Ring.  A film about King Arthur, for instance, might draw heavily on Malory, but would be free to take slightly different routes from A to B.

In general, I felt the same about the first instalment of The Hobbit (reviewed last year) but I have to say that the second stretches my tolerance a good deal further.  I think it's probably fair to say that parts of the fight with the giant spiders, of Thorin's defiance of Thranduil, and of Bilbo's encounter with Smaug are the only bits of the book to make it into this film.

It isn't all bad.  It makes complete sense, for instance, for Legolas to be present in his father's halls, and I suspect that, if Tolkien had ever done a thorough rewrite of The Hobbit in light of Lord of the Rings, he'd have included an appearance.  It also makes sense to give Bard the Bowman more of a story.  I always felt it was a weakness of the book that he pops up from nowhere just in time to save the day, and the narrative backstory given in the book certainly wouldn't work in a film.

Also, as in the first film, it makes sense to use the growing conflict with the power of Dol Guldur as a parallel plotline.  We don't see as much of Radagast this time, but his couple of scenes are enjoyable, and Gandalf's eventual confrontation with the vast, numinous figure of Sauron is stunning.

Similarly, the complexities of Lake-town politics, only hinted at in the book, are presented effectively, if at length, with Stephen Fry excellent as the corrupt Master, and the town itself is wonderfully visualised.  Bard has a role that foreshadows what happens later, although the whole nature and significance of his black arrow has been completely changed.

Beorn and the spiders of Mirkwood, too, are visually arresting, but the film's highlight is, as it should be, the dragon.  Forget the dragons of past films — even the wonderful Draco from Dragonheart — Smaug is everything a dragon should be.  He's visually captivating, and Benedict Cumberbatch (who also supplies Sauron's voice) extracts every nuance of character shown in the book.

Not all of the changes are quite as successful, though.  The film introduces an entirely new character, the elf Tauriel, who has a highly improbable romantic subplot with the dwarf Kili.  I found this not only a very long distraction from the main story but very unconvincing.  Granted that Kili bears very little resemblance to a dwarf (like Thorin, he has the appearance more of a dashing human) it would still be an unthinkable step to take, and somewhat reduces the impact of Legolas and Gimli's later unprecedented friendship.

Another problem is the apparent obsession with turning almost every single scene into action.  This is perhaps most clear in the escape by barrel from Thranduil's halls.  Granted that there's little visual in the original sequence, it seems unnecessary to add an orc-attack and a three-way running battle between dwarves, elves and orcs (not to mention more romance between Kili and Tauriel) to what is already a tense and exciting episode.

Not that the way the escape is presented really makes any sense.  In the book, the dwarves are hidden inside sealed barrels while floating downstream, but here the barrels are open and upright.  Which would be fine if they weren't regularly submerged and tossed around going over waterfalls, without apparently shipping any water at all.

Another somewhat pointless action scene is the battle within Erebor between Smaug and the dwarves, although at least this has the advantage of letting us see more of the dragon.  It's presumably there so that the film can finish in a blaze of action, but it rather undermines Bilbo's role as the party's thief to have the dwarves instantly springing into action.  The sequence is beautifully made and exciting, but I'm not convinced it's good storytelling.

Regardless of the choices about the story, the performances are all excellent.  Evangeline Lilly plays Tauriel well, whether or not the character belongs in the film, and Luke Evans as Bard seems to be somewhat channelling Viggo Mortensen, which is fair enough.  The people carried over from the first film remain strong — Thorin is a commanding presence, and Ian McKellan — well, he's Gandalf, and always will be.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo has less centre stage than in the first film, but he continues to handle the transition from home-loving hobbit to courageous adventurer with total conviction.  His confrontation with Smaug (his Sherlock co-star, of course) is delightful.

The film ends with Smaug flying off to attack Lake-town, and I'm sure we're in for plenty more action in the third film, what with the dragon-slaying, the attack on Dol Guldur and the Battle of the Five Armies.  And, presumably, a lot more of Kili and Tauriel.  I just hope there's a bit more of the book present than in this film.

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I first read Tolkien ― Lord of the Rings first, then The Hobbit ― several decades ago, and it was one of the great turning-points in life of my imagination: an explosion of inspiration.  I approached the Lord of Rings films with a mixture of hope and trepidation, having experienced the less-than-stellar animated version in the 70s, but overall I loved them.  I have some issues with the changes Peter Jackson made with the story, but far more of it worked than didn't.

I'd heard mixed views about the first of The Hobbit films, and the fact it was being stretched out into a trilogy gave me misgivings, but I found myself loving the film.  I saw it in 3D, which I generally enjoy, and it seemed to enhance the experience, without becoming all about the 3D.

It's apparently filmed in a new format, and the technical film buffs argue about whether that works or not.  I know very little about these issues, so all I can say is I didn't notice anything different, good or bad.  It just looked great.

Of course, like its predecessors, the film largely starred the New Zealand landscape, but there was plenty else to enjoy.  Martin Freeman was perfectly cast as Bilbo, approaching his adventures with a dazed determination.  I could completely believe he was dreaming all the time about Bag End, but also that he chose not to turn back.

There were several returns from Lord of the Rings ― some a little out of context ― Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm and Elijah Wood all picked up as if they'd finished the previous films mere weeks before, and Andy Serkis (or at least his CGI version) made Gollum's one scene unforgettable, as well as doubling as 2nd Unit Director.

Still, much of the film focuses on the dwarves.  I've seen criticism that most of them don't come over sufficiently as individuals, and certainly some of them fade a little into the background, but it would be difficult to avoid that in a group of thirteen characters.  Seven of them have enough to do that they're memorable: Balin, Dwalin, Dori, Bofur, Fili, Kili, and of course Thorin, their king.  As played by Richard Armitage, he's an arresting, complex character, and has enough charisma that it's believable he can persuade the others to follow him, and his relationship with Bilbo was a welcome extra dimension.

The film has considerably more action than the equivalent part of the book.  In fact, very little happens in the book until the party reach the Misty Mountains; but, by making the conflict between dwarves and orcs more personal, Jackson has set up the possibility for chases and fights at more regular intervals, and those in the book ― the fight with the goblins in the mountains and the stand-off when the party take refuge in the tree ― have been turned up to eleven.

On the whole, the additions to the story make sense.  The film starts with the older Bilbo writing his book, in between preparing with Frodo for the Party, morphing into a flashback to Erebor, Dale and the coming of the dragon.  It's a different approach from the book, where we gradually learn with Bilbo how much the quest means to the dwarves, but I think having that up front works better in the context of a film.

As mentioned above, an extra strand has been added between the dwarves and orcs.  This takes the form of the orc-chieftain Azog, who in the book was killed long before, having been maimed by Thorin and being out for revenge.  Azog, portrayed in CGI by Manu Bennett, is a chilling figure and provides a contrast with Barry Humphries' Great Goblin, a gross, disgusting figure.

The biggest strand of additions, though, concern the events leading up to the White Council and its confrontation with Sauron, which here is treated as a parallel plot, rather than as background.  The party's stay at Rivendell is complicated by Saruman and Galadriel's presence and discussions with Gandalf and Elrond about the presence in Dol Guldur, which here is presented as a new development.

The best part of this strand, though, revolves around Radagast the Brown.  Ironically, Radagast's appearance in Lord of the Rings was cut from the films, whereas he's added here where he was only mentioned in passing in the book.  He's splendidly and eccentrically portrayed by Sylvester McCoy, who has the advantage of a character where there's no such thing as being too over the top, but who still manages to balance the insanity perfectly.

Not everything works perfectly.  As in Lord of the Rings, the history behind the story is simplified, and not always for the better.  For instance, the reference to the Witch King of Angmar having been killed and buried makes nonsense of the whole "no living man can kill him" that's so important in The Return of the King.

On the whole, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and I look forward to the next two, although I'd still be intrigued to see how they manage to stretch it out into three long films.  Some of what's to be come has been foreshadowed ― glimpses of the halls within the Lonely Mountain and the elven king Thranduil, for instance ― but we still haven't had a good look at Smaug the dragon, who's going to be voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch.  I can't wait.