Tag Archives: Orlando Bloom

Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) (2D)

battle of five armies

I more or less knew what to expect when I decided to see The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies at the cinema over the weekend. Not much plot and loads and loads of battle action. Both predictions turned out to be accurate, though I must admit there was a little bit more plot than I anticipated and, amazingly, probably even more battle action than I was prepared for.

The whole film is essentially a massive, extended climax. At a relatively short 144 minutes, and with much of the running time dedicated to battle, it feels much swifter than An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug. As such, it might be better to regard the film as pure popcorn entertainment and fantasy nerd eye candy as opposed to the resounding final piece of the Middle Earth puzzle. As a standalone movie, Five Armies comes across as fairly soulless in comparison to the other entries. But as a 144-minute climax to a 447-minute film — or if you include LOTR, a middle-climax to a 1005-minute film (a couple of hours longer than that if you add director’s cut versions) — it actually kinda makes sense. I suppose it all depends on your perspective.

By now you should be well aware that Five Armies deviates substantially from its source material. Of course it had to, considering there weren’t many pages left in The Hobbit by the time The Desolation of Smaug finished. This might irk Tolkien loyalists, but for me it didn’t matter. It helps that I don’t remember much of the book, which I was never that fond of since I first read it as a pre-teen, and then again at university.

To be honest, it doesn’t really matter if you don’t remember much from the first two films either, because Five Armies is all about the spectacle. Say what you want about the rest of the movie, but there’s no denying that Five Armies is one of the most impressive visual feasts you will ever see. While it is dominated by special effects, I never got the sense that the film was overwhelmed by CGI. The war sequences were also spectacular and rarely felt repetitive, with long group battles involving all types of creatures and lengthy one-on-one duels. That said, the “wow” factor is no longer there. It’s undeniably good, but my mind was not blown like it was when I first watched the Battle of Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers.

The drama offered by the film obviously pales in comparison to the action, but you can still tell that Peter Jackson really tried. The humans (led by Bard the Bowman — Luke Evans) head to the Mountain for refuge after their Laketown village is ravaged by Smaug the dragon (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), while the dwarves (led by Thorin Oakenshield — Richard Armitage) are holed up in Mountain with their gold, refusing to share. The elves (led by Thranduil — Lee Pace) want their share of the treasure in the Mountain, and the Orcs (CGI) are looking to kill everyone and claim the Mountain for themselves (I think that’s about five armies, no?). Throw in the love triangle between Legolas (Orlando Bloom), Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) and Kili (Aidan Turner) for some romance, a bit of comedic relief in the form of a cowardly, greedy politician’s aide (Alfrid — Ryan Gage), old regulars like Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), and don’t forget the the stoic protagonist, Biblo Baggins (Martin Freeman), and you can see how there’s more than enough characters and subplots to go around. The emotional resonance may be lacking if you compare it to LOTR, but at least Jackson gave it a shot.

Martin Freeman, whom I will never see in the same light again after watching him in the Fargo TV series, feels more like a supporting character here. He does what he can in his allocated slot of screen time, though I never got the feeling that the story was truly about him. But then again, the hobbits have always felt more like observers of the action than participants. Also, Richard Armitage might be no Viggo Mortensen and Thorin Oakenshield might be no Aragon, but Armitage still makes Thorin an awesome, memorable character who offers something different to what Aragon did for LOTR.

There will be a lot of people who hate this movie, or at least deeply disappointed by it. Lovers of the book might not like the liberties Jackson took with Tolkien’s story, or how he expanded just a few pages of text into a 2.5 hour movie. But if you accept all that and watch the movie for what it set out to be — and that’s an exciting fantasy epic filled with extensive and well-executed battle sequences — then it might turn out to be pretty thrilling.  There’s dragons (well, dragon), elves, dwarves, orcs, trolls, goblins, hobbits and giant eagles and bats, and they’re all killing each other. If fantasy adventure is what you want, then what more can you ask for?

I remember a time when each new installment of LOTR felt like Christmas (though that might have been because it was always released at Christmas). Hands down, it would always be my most anticipated movie of the year. With The Hobbit, on the other hand, watching each new entry felt more like an obligation. You’ve seen all of them, so you might as well keep going.

That said, it’s still hard to believe that it’s finally over. After 14 years — nearly half a lifetime for me — JRR Tolkien/Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth franchise has drawn to a close. If you consider the film part as of a six-entry series, then fair enough, it’s probably a disappointment. On the other hand, if you think of LOTR and The Hobbit as two separate trilogies, then you might find it as enjoyable as I did, for Five Armies is clearly the best of the three films (though not on the same level as any of the LOTR flicks). Either way, it’s both sad and a relief to see this magnificent world come to an end. Unlike Star Wars, there’s no more cash to milk from this cow, and that’s a good thing.

4 stars out of 5

Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (2D)

The-Hobbit-Desolation-Of-Smaug-new-psoter

I was one of a few people who thought the first film in The Hobbit trilogy, An Unexpected Journey, was pretty good. For all the boredom of the first half, the riveting second half was as exciting as the best parts of The Lord of the Rings.

And so it was with slightly heightened expectations that I saw the second instalment, The Desolation of Smaug, which by all accounts is better than the first one. For the most part I agree, though it is still far too long at 161 minutes (8 minutes shorter than Unexpected Journey), rendering the final instalment, There and Back Again (due end of the year) in very real danger of “hobbiting” everyone out.

I mean, as much as I love the world JRR Tolkien created and Peter Jackson interpreted, there has to come a point when it all becomes too much for people – apart from the die hard fanboys – to take. I felt that at times in Desolation of Smaug; there was a feeling that I had seen it all before, and the sense of wonder and magic that made LOTR so remarkable had begun to wane.

Still, there are a lot of things to like about Desolation of Smaug. For starters, no more boring tea parties. The film gets into the action a lot quicker and is better at sustaining it. There are still some slow bits but on the whole the excitement was much better distributed, with a few creative and amusing action sequences that bring freshness to the franchise. Secondly, Martin Freeman seems much more at ease this time as the protagonist, Bilbo Baggins. There were at times in Unexpected Journey when he appeared out of place, but this time there were no such concerns. Thirdly, even though he’s not in the books at all, Orlando Bloom returns as everyone’s favourite elf, Legolas, and he actually has a pretty meaty role as well. Joining him is Lost star Evangeline Lilly, who plays a female elf and one of the only women in the whole movie. A lot of Tolkien fans derided the decision to create her character (she’s not in the book), but I think it adds to the film and was the right decision in the end.

And last, but not least, the titular dragon himself, Smaug, voiced by none other than Benedict Cumberbatch, the man with the best voice in Hollywood. I was sceptical at first because I thought a talking dragon with humanistic emotions would come across as silly on screen, but I could not have been more wrong. Smaug, in all his CGI glory, received a lot more screen time than I had expected, and he was not only an awesome sight but also a great character. I saw the film in ordinary 2D but I hear that in IMAX, and especially in 3D and at the 48 frame rate, the visual experience is unbelievable.

As a piece of visually stunning entertainment, Desolation of Smaug definitely delivers, but problems with it as a trilogy film remain. While LOTR was three lengthy films made from three very long books, The Hobbit is three equally lengthy films made from one short book. While Jackson adds a lot of other material from Tolkien’s works into it, the film still feels like it was trying too hard to “build” itself into an alternate LOTR. But The Hobbit and LOTR are so different (the plethora of dwarves, for starters), and should be different when adapted to the screen. This is why I still think The Hobbit would have been much better off had Guillermo del Toro stayed on as director and the series shortened to just one or even two films.

Instead, Peter Jackson, as great as he is, has arguably stretched the material too thin. It’s obvious he loves his work too much to cut it down, and he wants his audience to be as immersed in Middle Earth as he is. The result is that The Hobbit films, at least the first two, come across as director’s cuts of a diluted version of LOTR, which is potentially a dream come true for some but also overkill for others.

So while I will admit I enjoyed Desolation of Smaug more than Unexpected Journey and thought it was an excellent, well-crafted and fun film with shades of the best stuff LOTR had to offer, I will also confess a bit of “hobbit fatigue” creeping in. Yes there was explosive action, incredible visual effects and lovable characters, but all of that was enveloped in an increasingly numbing familiarity that prevented me from feeling the same level of exhilaration and wonder I experienced in LOTR.

All I can say is that I hope it doesn’t affect my experience of the concluding chapter, There and Back Again, in December.

4 stars out of 5

Movie Review: New York, I Love You (2009)

I just went to see a screening of New York, I Love You, a collection of 10 short films masquerading as a full-length feature.  Despite having one of the most amazing ensemble casts ever, it was no good.  No good at all.

New York, I Love You comes to us from the producers of the French film Paris, je t’aime (ie “Paris, I Love You”) and has basically the same concept.  All stories take place in the city of New York, and each one is about love, or the search for love (which is often confused for sex).  Apart from that, they are entirely different and standalone pieces, even though it is put together as though it is a single film.  Characters from one story might make a cameo in another every now and then — and there’s one character, a girl who walks around New York carrying a video camera, that I suppose links the pieces together — but there’s absolutely no connection between the stories.

You can’t discuss this movie without talking about the actors that make up the ensemble cast.  Just off the top of my head, there was: Natalie Portman, Shia LaBeouf, Ethan Hawke, Bradley Cooper, Hayden Christensen, Anton Yelchin, Blake Lively, Orlando Bloom, Chris Cooper, Christina Ricci, Julie Christie, James Caan, Rachel Bilson, Andy Garcia, Robin Wright Penn, Jacinda Barrett, Maggie Q and Shu Qi.  Brett Ratner directed one of the stories and Natalie Portman wrote and directed another.

I guess the whole point of New York, I Love You was to show off New York as a city, and to make some sort of general comment about the “moments” and “connections” people make, whether it is with a completely random stranger or with someone you’ve been with for 60 years.

Needless to say, I struggled with this movie.  Putting aside that I did not know it was really a collection of short films as opposed to a segmented narrative (eg Love Actually, Crash, He’s Just Not That Into You, Valentines Day), many of the stories didn’t work for me.

That’s what happens when you combine what is essentially 10 films written and directed by different people.  There is no consistency in the style or the tone or the feel of each one (for instance, some stories used internal dialogue; another had a narrator).  More importantly, many of the situations and much of the dialogue felt contrived.  It was very uncomfortable watching something you know is trying to manipulate your emotions in a hurry because it only has 10 minutes in which to do it.  I often found myself shaking my head wondering who on the planet reacts and talks like that to random strangers!

The short films all certainly had a lot of style — with the pretty shots, arty imagery and poetic chit chat — but there was rarely enough substance to establish an emotional connection.  And besides, even if you did connect with a particular character, you may never see them again anyway.

Individually, some of the stories were pretty good, witty and insightful.  My favourite one was a short conversation between Ethan Hawke and Maggie Q.  A couple of others, the one with Anton Yelchin and the one with the old couple, were decent.  However, not all of them hit the mark.  One or two were actually quite boring or irritating.  And the worst part about this being a collection of short films is that about half of them (or more) had a twist ending.  Usually one or two in a film is fine, but when it keeps happening over and over, it can start to get a bit tedious.

I would have very much preferred it had they simply presented the movie as 10 short films written and directed by different people, and broken them up accordingly without trying to force an unnecessary link between them.  Knowing when one short story ended and another began would have helped me reset and watch the next one with a clean slate.  Instead, the “combined” collection we ended up with felt uneven, disjointed and lacking in direction.

New York, I Love You is technically sound, shows New York in a nice light, and features an amazing cast — but so what?  It wasn’t enjoyable and that’s all that mattered in the end.

1.5 out of 5 stars!