The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Review

"I will have WAR!"

Pretty much sums up the plot of this entire movie.

The Plot

After Bard (Luke Evans) successfully slays the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch), the people of Lake-town are left without a home and seek to find shelter. Their only option is The Lonely Mountain. There, the dwarf king, Thorin (Richard Armitage), has succumbed to Dragon Sickness and refuses to let the refugees enter. With an army of elves lead by Thranduil (Lee Pace) arriving to lay claim to some of the mountain's treasure; Bard wanting to ensure the livelihood of his people; and an army of Orcs wanting to claim the mountain for a strategic holding; the dwarves and Bilbo (Martin Freeman) find themselves in the middle of a massive war that can only continue to escalate.

How will this day end?

Review

Well I'll give it this. I wasn't bored as much as the previous two installments. But I can't help but feeling that this film just proves that what I've been saying (and what many others have been saying) about splitting this story into three movies was too much. Case in point, this entire film feels like the battle of Helms Deep stretched out for two hours. I compare the battle to Helms Deep because to compare it to the Battle of Minas Tirith in The Return of the King would be a compliment. And that is not to knock on the Battle of Helms Deep, because I have stated in my review of The Two Towers that it is one of the best battles ever filmed in modern cinema. But my reason for comparison is that The Battle of the Five Armies feels like it should've lasted the same amount of time that the Battle of Helms Deep did. In which case it should've been 40-45 minutes in length. Not over two hours. Because everything just felt so unnecessary.

Richard Armitage's Thorin once again becomes a dick. He gets afflicted with Dragon Sickness, which is a fancy way of saying someone is greedy, and doesn't want to share the wealth. Even though he promised the people of Lake-town that he would. And he probably should've shared the wealth to them because their resident Bard played by Luke Evans is responsible for getting rid of the dragon that stole the dwarf kingdom in the first place. But at least in this film there is part of his development from the previous film still in tact. Thorin's trust of Bilbo is still there, and I'm so glad it is because it was pretty much the most redeeming part in the film.

As Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is one of the highlights of this trilogy, he's highlighted even more as being paired with an opposing force in each film. Unlike the previous films where my favorite highlights have been a single scene involving Bilbo and one other person, in this film it is Bilbo's scenes with Thorin throughout the movie that are truly remarkable. Finally, a relationship between characters works throughout the course of an entire film. And I am so glad that it is between these two. And if you really think about it, had this trilogy been a singular film, their interaction would appear more tighter and a more cohesive growth of relationship rather than an overly long spread out growth. It's good that what was built in the second movie is paid off in here, but it could've been handled better. I wish I can say the same for the rest of this movie.

The subplot that was prominent in the previous film about Gandalf finding Sauron was put to an end rather abruptly. While it was cool to see Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) go ape shit crazy against Sauron and the ghosts who will become the Black Riders, it seemed like an abrupt end to a subplot that ultimately has no major consequences to the main plot of The Hobbit. I understand the need to explain how everything ties in to The Lord of the Rings, but all out honesty, this scene could've easily been added to The Desolation of Smaug. Because there, it would seem more relevant, and give Gandalf more room to recover for this film.

Then there's the forced romance in this saga. The subplot between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) is resolved here. While the love story is a little bit more believable in this film than the very sad attempt to make it seem cute in the previous one, it felt totally unnecessary. It once again only serves as a way to develop Legolas (Orlando Bloom) into the character people will know from the original trilogy. I'm almost certain that if this trilogy was just one film, there would be no romance and Legolas would just be a nice little role that appears here and there. I would've preferred that instead of this forced development when we already know the end result.

And then here comes my big complaint that I have been complaining about for a long time: the overuse of CGI. I didn't feel like I was watching a film that takes place in Middle-Earth anymore once the battle started. In fact it looked more like a console game cinematic that I'm watching on screen. Not once did I believe any of what I was seeing is real. But within that CGI overload, there are some bright spots. Scenes involving Luke Evans' Bard and his people fighting Orcs was actually real. I'm glad that most of the Orcs they faced off with were guys in makeup and not CGI. It recalled memories of the previous films that showed real people fighting in the close shots, only resulting into CGI if it is a wide shot. But unfortunately, the practical guys are swallowed up by the amount of CGI put on screen to the point where it becomes very off putting. 

I admire Peter Jackson's attempts of trying to replicate the grittiness of war he had in the previous trilogy, but in here it just doesn't work. A large battle happens for the first hour then all of a sudden the large battle doesn't seem to matter anymore in the second hour. It is not very well paced, badly edited, and very spotty. I was even wondering at points, "where the f**k did those rams come from?" It just tried to outstretch something that is not meant to be this long into something that is inevitably bloated and in the end very underwhelming. Especially when the giant worms from Dune make a cameo.

Final Thoughts

If you'll notice, not once did I praise the ensemble. Because while everyone is giving it their all, the terrible writing and overload of filler material weighs down on anything that would make them appear to be a perfect ensemble. Which is a shame because I really like Luke Evans and Lee Pace, but in the end they seem more like background characters in this film than important key players. And I feel even more sorry for the ensemble of the Dwarves because other than Armitage's Thorin, I could care less about the rest of them. Martin Freeman is definitely the best highlight of this series and I couldn't have asked for a better person to play Bilbo Baggins. It was nice walking down memory lane, but in the end this is an underwhelming ending to a very disappointing trilogy.

SCORE: 5/10 - This should've been the last 40 minutes of a singular Hobbit movie

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

Dracula Untold - Analysis and Review

The untold story... but you already know the ending

When I was little, I had an obsession with the Universal Movie monsters. Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Wolfman, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. I knew them all, I watched them all, but I didn't stop there. I would look for books that had more information about them, while also searching for other movies dealing with these monsters. But probably my favorite among them was always Dracula.

The Plot

After years of serving the Turkish Army, the notorious warrior Vlad the Impaler (Luke Evans) has taken a life of peace and away from the violent life he once had. But after 10 years of peace, The Sultan, Mehmed the Conqueror (Dominic Cooper) demands that Vlad gives 1000 boys from his kingdom to serve in his army. Including his son. Not wanting to put his son through the ordeal that he went through as  child, Vlad seeks out an ancient evil (Charles Dance) to grant him the power to save his people and battle his former friend. But with great cost.

Analysis

As I've stated before, one of my primary obsessions as a child was Dracula. I know the character inside and out. I've read the classic books. I've watched the Universal films starring Bela Lugosi, the far superior Hammer films starring Christopher Lee and the supreme adaptation of the navel by Francis Ford Coppola with Gary Oldman. I even read every biography and almost every documentary I could get my hands on about his real life counterpart, Vlad The Impaler. Needless to say, I consider myself not just a vampire expert, but a Dracula expert. Whether this knowledge will come in handy in the future, I don't know, but I know everything there is to know about him.

Which also puts me in this strange position the exact same way I was with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's Hercules. I know so much about the character that one would probably expect me to be very critical about how he is portrayed onscreen. The thing about Dracula though is that unlike Hercules who has been portrayed as sort of one note through the decades, Dracula has evolved and changed in so many directions. This is mainly because, besides Sherlock Holmes, Dracula is the most adapted literary character in over a century. Because there are so many portrayals, it is hard to lock down which one is the definitive one. And it is this reason that I'm usually open to new takes and renditions because it has become a tradition to always reinvent the character for the past century.

However if there is one aspect that I gotta point out about this film, that is not really a valid criticism, but rather a geeky one. Since this film is suppose to be about how Vlad The Impaler, the historical figure, becomes Dracula, the fictional figure, there was one opportunity that the filmmakers missed out on. That would be Vlad The Impaler's brother, Radu, who along with him was given to the Turks. But unlike Vlad who would be returned to his Romanian kingdom, Radu remained to become a supreme Muslim commander of the Turk army. This would've presented a really great opportunity of having a brother versus brother story. I state this as a complaint mainly because Dominic Cooper's character, Mehmed The Conqueror, is notorious as the man who kills Vlad the Impaler. So from a story point of view, it would be more interesting to have Vlad battle his brother Radu and would leave it in a position that would set things up. But I'm not the writer, and again, this isn't really a valid criticism because the average movie goer would not be thinking that Radu should be the villain, or that Radu is Vlad's brother. Only a select few know this part of history. I wished that was in this movie.

Review

If you have an idea of how this story will play out, it will play out exactly as you think it will. Believe me, the movie is extremely predictable. Cliches are everywhere, and not in the subtle sense but in the in your face sense. Which is a real shame because there are a lot of interesting ideas in here while at the same time a little bit of history thrown in as well.

The best way to describe it is it is a remake of the prologue in Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but what was only a few minutes in that movie has been extended into an entire 90 minute movie. Now for a cliche movie like this, 90 minutes actually is more of a favor to it than a derision. This keeps the plot tight and has things moving quickly in hopes that the audience will look past all the plot holes and obvious problems in the film. And it will mostly succeed for the general audience, but for a movie buff or Dracula aficionado, it won't work. 

If you have read a previous entry in my blog, you'll know that I am a huge fan of Luke Evans. And honestly, he is an amazing Dracula. The guy fits the bill of being both the sexy monster that girls love while at the same time appearing to be the savage beast that guys wish vampires would be. This role specifically seems perfect for him, and honestly he was the only well written part in the movie. Which is a shame because everyone else is poorly written and not given enough.

Sarah Gadon plays his wife Mirena, whose sole purpose is to be one of his motivations for remaining a good man. However, her dialogue is overtly cheesy and it really is a shame because she was amazing in Cosmopolis. Then of course there is Dominic Cooper playing Mehmed the Conqueror. I strongly believe that Cooper, along with Evans, is a highly underrated actor. The guy can morph into different roles and is extremely versatile. However his performance as Mehmed is pretty one note and cliche villain territory. There was an attempt to make Mehmed and Vlad have this almost brother like relationship, but it was only for one scene and quickly dissolves due to Mehmed being a dick.  And if one wants the very definition of cliche evil, then there is Charles Dance as the First Vampire. He is everything people remember about classic vampires as monsters, not sex symbols. And he plays it perfectly. So much so that one would wish he was the main villain instead of just a catalyst for Dracula's change.

The rest of the supporting cast falls into the same category of not well written and cliche. Character motivations seem to change in a heartbeat. One moment the people love Vlad, the next moment they want to kill him for being a vampire despite just saving their lives, then immediately go back to loving him again. There is even one character who is obsessed with wanting to be Vlad's servant, who appears three times and in those three times there was nothing that establishes why he wants to be Vlad's servant. 

But with cliche story and mediocre character aside, the cinematography and action sequences in this film are incredible. However, because this is a Dracula movie, one would think that this should be Rated R in order to get the full effect of how dangerous Dracula is. The action is very PG-13 with being incredible yet also filmed in a way to hide how gory Dracula's kills really are. But then again, this film is more like a superhero movie set in ancient times than the horror movie Dracula fans would probably want.

Final Thoughts

Despite all of its problems, and there are a lot, I walked away enjoying the picture. I would never recommend it as a must watch, but I do believe the average person can watch it and find it entertaining for a short while. For movie buffs though, it will definitely not be for them. This movie is not good yet at the same time it is not terrible. It is just an entertaining picture that would've benefited more had it embraced a more violent portrayal of Dracula's attacks with an R Rating. What concerns me though is how this film is suppose to be the first step in reviving the Universal Monster Universe. If you want to jump start your universe, this is not the film to do it. But Luke Evans is perfect as Dracula, so who knows, maybe the other ones might work.

SCORE: 6.5/10 - A fairly predictable yet entertaining look at a really cool Dracula

Why Luke Evans would've made a great Batman and Perseus

I remember it very clearly. It was April 2, 2010, I was out with some old high school friends and some new college friends watching the Clash of the Titans remake. Having seen the original Clash of the Titans when I was much younger, within the first few minutes of the remake I was already making judgements about the movie. Then came the scene on Olympus where we see Liam Neeson as Zeus in all his shiny armor glory along with Ralph Fiennes introduction as the scheming Hades. The rest of the Olympian Pantheon was present in their shiny armor, but other than Zeus and Hades there were only two other gods that had lines: Poseidon played by Danny Huston and Apollo played by... who is that?

Funny how Apollo only had two lines yet I remembered him after I saw the movie. I didn't completely understand why, but something about the actor who played Apollo stood out to me. Perhaps because it was such as small role and that he was one of the few gods to actually have lines? That's what I told myself after leaving the theater. It wouldn't be until I bought the DVD (out of pure Greek Mythology fan bias than for being an actual good movie) and watched that deleted scenes that consisted MOSTLY of this actor having Apollo originally playing a larger part in the movie that I realized something. This guy who goes by the name of Luke Evans should've, in my opinion, been the guy who played Perseus.

It really had to do with a deleted scene dealing with Apollo stating to his half brother Perseus (the hero of the movie played by Sam Worthington) that "(they) are brothers." It really was that moment where I thought what if their roles were switched. I have nothing against Sam Worthington. He's a decent actor, though he has yet to wow me. However there was something about this Luke Evans guy who seemed to have more of a draw and a presence. He definitely fit will playing the god Apollo, had his role not been reduced to just two lines instead of an entire sub plot that was deleted. However seeing him just reminded me immediately of the original Clash of the Titans star, Harry Hamlin. They both had presence and a voice that says leading man and legendary hero. I kept thinking about it a little bit more and thought casting Luke Evans as Perseus would've been perfect. Hypothetically had he been cast as Perseus instead of Sam Worthington, would that have made the movie better? Probably not. However it would've made this version of Perseus more compelling. Sam is capable of playing a compelling character if the character is written to be compelling. The Perseus in the remake was not written as a compelling character but rather as a cookie cut out cliche hero character. It takes a compelling actor to make a cliche something watchable, and that was something that Luke Evans had.

Luke would've made a very interesting Perseus. He has looks, the voice, and if he had been casted hopefully the hair would still be in tact because he has that too. Had I been involved with the film as a casting director or as the director of the film in general he would've been my first and only choice. However there are factors I have to put into consideration. The first being no one in America knows who he is. I didn't know who he is. So, the casting of Sam Worthington was definitely meant to draw in the Avatar audience because everyone in the world has seen him in that. However, he did get put into the film so he had to have auditioned for more than one part. If I was the director or casting director of the project I would've taken a gamble with him as Perseus because he just fits the bill perfectly. Although if I was the director of the Clash of the Titans remake, the story would've been completely different but that's not really what this post is about. It's simply stating this idea that's been going around in my mind for three years now. I would've liked the 2010 Clash of the Titans more had Luke Evans been given the role instead of Sam.

Since then I've been following this guy's career to see if anything big is going to happen to this guy. There are cases where you see an actor do a small part in a film who is more compelling than anyone else in the film that you just know that person is going to become someone. And good thing he did. Immortals, Fast & Furious 6, and now The Hobbit trilogy. I'm really glad that right now he has some name recognition because I believe he is one of the most compelling actors in the business. Not the greatest, I'm not saying he's Oscar worthy, but he is definitely someone who you won't have a problem watching or even criticize his acting. That's why this next thought came to my mind recently.

The casting of Ben Affleck as Batman is said and done. I have no problem with it other than the fact that it means I won't see a film directed by the Affleck for a while. But when there was still speculation about who should be the next Batman, I had two choices in mind: Josh Brolin and yep you guessed it Luke Evans. The thought of him playing Batman would've done wonders for propelling his career even further. If The Hobbit movies don't, then him getting casted as Batman surely would.

It would've been a nice nod to Immortals by having Luke (who played Zeus) and Henry Cavill (the new Superman and the lead of Immortals) to be seen side by side one another. Luke definitely has the charm and the voice to pull off an older Batman. He is older than Cavill by about five years so it does fit the bill of an Older Batman as a nemesis and potential mentor figure for Batman. However as the fates may have it, Ben Affleck has the role which means I'll never see Luke Evans as Batman. Then again I'll never see him as the lead in a Clash of the Titans remake. He's got a nice career ahead of him after The Hobbit, and I look forward to seeing what else he does in the future.