Critics review 'The Battle of the Five Armies'

There's a thread over on torn at the moment which reminded me that Jackson was selling this movie as a "thriller" before its release. But this movie did not feel like a thriller at all, it was just more swords and sorcery D&D stuff. I'm not sure what he was trying to get at.

This thread looked more appropriate than the other one to post a review, but as such I didn't want to add spoilers. This now contains spoilers;

Azog becomes cooler with every sequel - and I mean that more in the literal than the metaphorical sense (this is consequent).

The fact HFR looks fast at first probably says more about how historic moving picture tech has modified our vision (has become adapted) than anything about HFR. However it is possible that the low frame rate helps with CG (in particular the unusually high ambient lighting from all 6 films), costume flow (the illusion of natural weight), and acting (the best actors - all of the characters in my opinion - look ok in high frame rate). HFR definitely works for the hand to hand combat.

I thought the highlights of the film were the one last time and the ultra Legolas stair sequence. Although the best parts are generally from the book, I did however imagine everything to be a lot more dark when I read it (especially during Bilbo's escape).

What I didn't understand properly was Thorin's diagnosis - if it was just dragon sickness infecting gold then why did his grandfather have the exact same symptoms. DoS seems to suggest it centres on the Arkenstone alone and not any dragon sickness. I also didn't quite understand Galadriel's pale in front of the nine but then one on one with Sauron. The Dune sequence was also a bit beyond me (I was expecting stone giants to appear; perhaps the worms play a role elsewhere in the lore?)

There were a few dialogues that I remember feeling out of place; Thranduil's recommendation of "Strider" to Legolas, and suggestion that he will have to discover his true name (bit like Yoda's mention of immortality teachings in epIII). I was actually thinking the other day before watching the film; where was Strider in all this? I imagine it (BOFA) was all a bit of a surprise, but with the paralleled driving out of Sauron from Mirkwood it makes less sense. This could have been left as a post war sequence. I also thought Bilbo's lie to Gandalf at the end of the film took the there and back again edge away.

I thought the CG during Thorin's last match was awesome, yet although I was expecting the outcome it left me slightly disappointed knowing the throw the block manoeuvre came to his ruin.

I also thought that in Smaug's attack there should have been less time between his first breath and his being slain, or his initial strike should have been less powerful (say in breadth). I also didn't quite appreciate the arrow on shoulder method of launch (I could be wrong about the practicality of this however) and the near wiping out children in wooden cart express train (more shouts for evasive action might have made sense).

Will see it again sometime and hopefully it will come together nicely. I will gain many more insights (and perhaps queries also). This was not intended to be overly critical (I really enjoyed the film), but without expecting a significant extended edition - the last two I thought were particularly well done (in that they saved the narrative, and I can ignore any shenanigans like jumping in elf ponds) - I can probably afford to be less constructive.

A couple of days ago I watched BOFA a second time since my dad and step-mom wanted to see it. It was a nice enough time. I'm disappointed with how the movies turned out, but I'm hardly surprised and I think I'm past feeling actively upset with it.

You're a braver man than I am Eldo!
I find I'm still in a forgiving mood as well. It could have been worse. They did get a couple important things right after all.
But that said, I don't think I'll be ready to watch it again for a long, long time.

it bores me just thinking about BOT5A.

#overit

Ayup All...

Happy New Year all.

Ive just seen on MSN that TH came second in the takings ratings (poetry !) grossing 33.5 million quid behind the Lego movie at 34.3 mil. But like Figgy, I'm #overit. And no, I really don't want to see it again for a loooong time. Not at Fourteen Feckin' Quid a ticket plus popcorn.

David H wrote:
I find I'm still in a forgiving mood as well. It could have been worse. They did get a couple important things right after all.

Let's see:
1. There was a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins in the movie.
2. ??

I'm grasping here; help me out!

Forest Shepherd wrote:
Let's see:
1. There was a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins in the movie.
2. ??

I'm grasping here; help me out!  

Well, for the most part the right dwarves and people lived, the right dwarves and dragons died, and as a bonus the right hobbit returned home to find his assets being liquidated. That's far more than I dared hope from a serial that started out with bunny-sleds and zombie orcs.

As I'm sure I've said before, I did my best to set my expectations as low as possible going into the 3 films. For AUJ I wanted a good Bilbo/Gollum scene. For DoS all I asked was a good Bilbo/Smaug "Inside Information". For Bo5A I told myself all I really demanded was that PJ do the scene with Bilbo at Thorin's deathbed respectfully.  

I thought he did that, with the bonus that some of the dialog was actually recognizable from the Book.  So, PJ having slightly exceeded my expectations, it would be unfair of me to change the rules on him now.

(Which is still not to say that I'm ready to see that mess again any time soon.  )

Ah, dwarf bread.

Quote from 'Witches abroad':
The dwarf bread was brought out for inspection. But it was miraculous, the dwarf bread. No one ever went hungry when they had some dwarf bread to avoid. You only had to look at it for a moment, and instantly you could think of dozens of things you'd rather eat. You're boots, for example. Mountains. Raw sheep. Your own foot.

Bread is also a significant part of dwarf culture throughout the Disc. Dwarf bread is like hardtack, only more so; its properties are a parody of Middle-earth cram and lembas. It will enable you to survive for days (by making you realise you are surrounded by things that look more edible) and never goes stale, possibly because it was always stale. Its primary use is as a weapon (although it is also used as a kind of currency), and it is made in many different types. These include boomerang biscuits, drop scones (a reference to real drop-scones) and close-combat crumpets. Reportedly the process of "forging" a loaf of dwarf bread includes gravel as part of the recipe, and kitty litter is apparently a preferred seasoning (neat cat piss, when available, even more so).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfs_%28Discworld%29#Cuisine

Cheery Littlebottom She looks more like a Tolkien Dwarf than the weirdos in The Hobbit do !

Yeah, I love his concept of female dwarfs.

As Tolkien implied of his dwarves, Discworld dwarfs of both sexes have beards. However, while Tolkien stated that female dwarves are rare, and disguise themselves as male when they must travel, female Discworld dwarfs are common, but are traditionally indistinguishable from males at all times. Dwarfs prefer not to spend much time on the subject; the dwarfish language has a gender neutral pronoun, usually rendered as "he" when speaking human languages. Dwarfish courtship is an incredibly tactful affair, primarily concerned with finding out which gender the other dwarf is.

I've been thinking as Ive been editing about what the major issues with BoFA are- and one huge thing sticks out to me - its thematically the opposite of the book.

In the book the battle is stupid and petty, its basically a big unedifying squabble over gold. Whereas in LotR's the war is a war that must be fought, its not a war that anyone looks for, its a necessary war in the face of overwhelming aggression.
TH isn't- but PJ presents both wars the same way- that they are necessary and justified.
In TH PJ does this by trying to tie everything to Sauron and giving the whole thing a strategic world threatening reason, undermining, pissing on and completely missing the point of the central message of the book- thats its stupid, its a war of greed.

For me thats two for two- in Lotr's he totally messed up the central theme of death and in TH he has totally messed up the central theme of greed.

Yep, I agree. He cant see the wood for the trees. He got so engrossed about making it tie in with LOTRs, Sauron, anything evil he could lay his hands on that, he totally forgot what THE HOBBIT story was about ! More proof I feel that he did NOT read TH, did NOT care tuppence about TH, just wanted it all to be "me,me,me". Oh hail to thee oh master of the epic tale that is Lord of The Rings, may EVERYTHING you do connect with it, ( even if its fooking Noddy !) Peejers just couldnt let it go, he couldnt humble himself to keep to a understandable story, he had to make it an epic. In doing so all hes down is show up the cracks, its shown him to be tunnel visioned, blinkered, & unreasonable. Hes floundered on the rocks with this one ! I still feel angry about it all, I dont see any good in the Hobbit at all. It chokes me to agree that a certain scene or character or costume, set design is good. Im so blinded by all the crap that I cant say one good thing about The Hobbit....... except the End.

he certainly didn't mess up LOTR, and I don't think the overall theme is Death anyway. its far more nuanced than just one big theme. there are many themes. and PJ nailed all of them.

but Petty, you are totally right about TH. PJ pissed on the theme of pointless war over greed. he turned the Hobbit films into one big fat cliché.

Probably because Boyens told him the whole book was 'DEATH FOR FILM" and to trust her "Tolkien Nerdishness." Not death for film, just lazy ass screenwriting.

I don't think the overall theme is Death anyway- Figg



"But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness.
It is mainly concerned with Death, and Immortality; and the 'escapes': serial longevity, and hoarding memory."- Tolkien

that's 5 themes. But its different things for different people, that's why its so good. for one person it could be the theme of friendship and loyalty, or the theme of a classic Quest, as in Aurthurian Quests, for some treasure whether its the Holy Grail. or the destruction of the Ring, it took the purist knight to find the Grail and it took the most pure hearted Hobbits to save ME. fall and redemption, forgiveness, there are so many themes, and I think in the case of LOTR PJ did a good job.

Yes but one driving theme- one main theme the tale hinges on. And its completely undermined and screwed up by PJ's ending to the films (not that Pj's films address the other four mentioned either though).
And Tolkien is even clearer on the importance of death as a theme in the letter concerning the events at Mt Doom and how Frodo perceived himself as having failed.
And every point Tolkien makes in that Letter about those events PJ gets wrong or does the opposite of.

So I don't see how it can be seen any other way than PJ utterly failed to convey the central theme of the book, and in-particular in the crucial final scenes of the films. Which PJ gets totally and completely wrong. Either by design or by ignorance.

totally and utterly disagree with your opinion. The ending of the films was perfect, and in keeping with the books 100%

I am contractually obliged to disagree with you.

How on earth can it be 100% in keeping with the book when its the exact opposite of what Tolkien says about the book and those scenes?

A minute ago you were saying death wasn't even the central theme, even though the author says it is.
Now you are saying Pj's ending, which presents the opposite of the book- a Frodo who fights and struggles to the last and who then chooses to continue to go on rather than let go, compared to a book Frodo who is broken in mind and body incapable of action and who therefore regards himself as having failed in his task and who indeed succumbed at the last and who never chose to live and expected to die and becomes resentful of not having done so to the point where his only salvation is a term within sight of the Undying Lands to try to heal his suffering before death- how can those two things be 100% the same? They are opposites.