Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Three and half Stars out of Five

PG13

Bilbo Baggins: Martin Freeman

Gandalf: Ian McKellen

Thorin: Richard Armitrage

Director: Peter Jackson

Writer: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro

Cinematography Director:  Andrew Lesnie

When J.R.R. Tolkien published “The Hobbit” in 1937 it was aimed at an audience made up children. Since “The Hobbit” was critically and commercially well received, one might presume Tolkien felt sufficiently confident in his craft to publish the much (much) longer trilogy, “The Lord of the Rings”.  The books, long and short share a number of things in common, but the one I want to focus on is corruption. In “The Hobbit” it was the corrupting influence of wealth, while in “The Lord of the Rings” it was the corrupting power of Power. These stories are highly entertaining, but with the exception of length or the inclusion of a flying dragon, are they really that much different? Having written “The Hobbit” first, it makes some sense for Tolkien to expand his stories into the long form employed in “The Lord of the Rings”. But can director/writer Peter Jackson devise some reason for filming “The Hobbit” after “Lord of the Rings”? Well maybe if you want to see a flying dragon, or make some money, but was there any compelling artistic reason?

From a technical or artistic (set design-wise) point of view The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies is truly amazing. As in his previous movies from the Hobbit genre, Jackson displays a beautiful cinematographic vision. His use of the New Zealand landscape as a stand-in for Middle Earth coupled with aerial photography creates a fantastic vision for the land of Orcs and Elves. And as in his earlier movies, Jackson and his art and set design teams create a world where no piece of architecture, weapon design, or costume is overlooked or done in slipshod fashion. The story though, left me expecting more; especially when so much went into designing the stage that the story is to be told upon.

Perhaps Jackson’s reason for filming The Hobbit was to create a cinematic prequel to the Lord of the Rings. (I can suggest a far more mundane reason that aligns well with Tolkien’s “Hobbit” theme referred to above). But why break a short story into a cinematic trilogy; a trilogy that takes longer to view than the book to read? One seems at least somewhat justified in wondering about the wisdom of creating a seven hour plus film version of The Hobbit; most especially when something is lost in such an endeavor; and something indeed was lost. What was lost was the quaintness of the original story, its sense of wonder, the camaraderie of the dwarf/hobbit/wizard team, and most importantly the simple honesty and honor of the central character, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman). The primary themes of good versus evil and of wealth’s corrupting influence are retained in the movie, but the loyalty and the incorruptibility of the title character are swamped beneath a sea of violent warfare in this, the third part of Jackson’ Hobbit trilogy. By stretching the story into such a prolonged and multi-year affair, the use of the hobbit Bilbo as an exemplar of “humanity” at its best is badly diluted. What we are left with is an extraordinary exercise in CGI ingenuity; there is really almost no story to talk about in part three.

In the initial scenes of part three Jackson uses the fire-breathing Smaug’s attack on Lake Town to set the tone for the movie. I found these opening scenes the most useful for the story as it had its own mini-story arc plus it helped introduce the impetus for the ensuing war over the possession of Smaug’s lair and his cache of gold. The concept of the dragon’s hoard corrupting the dwarf king, Thorin (Richard Armitrage) is also believable and a good goad for the potential war between dwarves, Men and elves. The irony of this misbegotten war is clever as an example of the pettiness of Man (whether he be dwarf, elf or Man). It is also a clever plot point as it brings sufficient amounts of the forces of Good (for the wrong reason, of course) such that when the forces for evil arrive, Good is ready for them; almost ready, anyway. Of course, such a story requires a few setbacks for the good guys and at least one arrival of the “cavalry” from over the hill in order to turn the tide in favor of our heroes. The CGI used in these early scenes was done remarkably well. I especially liked the technical artistry of the flying dragon and the elvish ranks of archers.

But the story then descends into a confused collection of bad armies (orcs and goblins) fighting relentlessly and without any clarity to the viewer with the good armies of dwarves/Men/elves. Our hobbit hero is largely pushed to the side, and the wax and wane of the warring parties cannot be followed; indeed it does not seem to really be necessary to follow the battles. The viewer is treated to examples of the good guys acting heroically and of the bad guys being felled endlessly by opponents impossibly small and clearly incapable of felling such large evil doers. How many giants does Bilbo kill with his stones (really, with a stone?)? And while I’m on this topic, it quite frankly seemed easier to demolish any one of the giants or ogres or whatever monster than it is to cross a street. I can let these objections go, but for me, I cannot let go the lack of any coherent story message in this movie. It was largely a technical success, but by stretching the movie into such a long affair, the heart and soul of this story was ripped out.

Ultimately, I was disappointed in part three. So much time, brilliance and technical genius went into this movie, but rather than adding to the story, it suffered for it. Of the three parts to Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, I do recommend part 2, but remain unhappy with parts one and three.