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

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Review

"I am fire! I am... DEATH!"

Famous last words.

The Plot

After braving through the treacherous lands of the Goblins, Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the Dwarves must make their way through Mirkwood Forest. But to do so, they must get out of the clutches of its Elven King, Thranduil (Lee Pace). And if they are lucky, they'll then have to make it to Lake-town, a human settlement near the edge of The Lonely Mountain. Inside the mountain is the kingdom of Erebor, the dwarves home. Inside is the coveted Arkenstone of the dwarves that Bilbo must steal from Erebor's current king, the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch)!

Meanwhile Gandalf (Ian McKellan) is investigating a possible dark conspiracy being perpetrated by a mysterious Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch...again).

Review

Okay now, this is much better!.... by a very small margin. And I mean a very small margin. I'll just start with the positives.

The best part of the entire movie is definitely the one that fans have been waiting for: Bilbo (Martin Freeman) versus Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) in a battle of wits! A hobbit talking his way out of getting killed by a dragon! What is not to like about that? The Sherlock duo is reunited in probably the most ingenious way possible. Cumberbatch is terrifying as a villain. Just look at his portrayal of Khan... I mean John Harrison (really?) in Stark Trek Into Darkness. He just does it so well, and he is even more terrifying as a highly intelligent dragon the size of Godzilla. The sheer vastness and most of the film's CGI budget is definitely shown on screen. He is probably the most realistically rendered creature in this trilogy besides Gollum, and it is completely necessary. The detail of Smaug helps sell that this massive thing is having a conversation with a tiny Bilbo, who is made even tinier because he's a hobbit. Freeman and Cumberbatch are excellent as dueling and complimenting personalities on Sherlock, but in here they are even more incredible as extreme rivals. I find it funny that they did not actually interact with each other on set, but it feels just as natural as they do on Sherlock. These two are pure gold in this movie, and the fact that they're conversation takes place on mountains of gold helps too.

Then there's Gandalf and Radagast's story about finding a Necromancer that is supposedly stirring things up. I guess I just like the wizard characters so much because I found what they're doing to be a lot more interesting than what the actual plot of the movie is. This is probably because I always wondered why does Gandalf keep disappearing in the book and Tolkien fans have also wondered what the f**k happened to Radagast? While I know the Radagast portion of his involvement is made up in the film, Gandalf's search for the Necromancer (also played by Cumberbatch) is canon in the Appendices. Though as much as I like this story, it does seem to be a little bit out of place in this film and does not flow smoothly with the main plot. But there is an upgrade to the main plot.

One of them being Luke Evans as Bard, a man who has to live with his forefather's disgrace of being unable to kill a dragon. Which if you know how big Smaug is compared to a regular human, I think his fellow Lake-town people are over exaggerating how easy it should be to kill one. Because it's not. Though he serves only to be the one guy who helps the dwarves, he doesn't really have much going for him other than a weighted backstory. In fact it really is the only thing that drives him, which I'm sure will follow through in the next film. Evans is a highly underrated actor who makes even the worst roles in terrible movies far more compelling and memorable than they have any right to be. The same goes for this movie. But for now he's just a tool to help the dwarves. And speaking of dwarves...

Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield is starting to become a sympathetic character. Hints of it were shown at the end of the previous movie, but in here is where we really start to see the strong no nonsense king start to break out of his shell. It shows both the best and worst qualities of Thorin, giving Armitage a lot of room to show off why he's casted in this movie. However what I'm afraid of is that this will be the movie where ALL of his character development happens given that the story was unnecessarily stretched out to three movies. Hopefully the next film has more to offer for Thorin.

As for the other dwarves, they don't really change that much. With the exception of Kili (Aidan Turner) who is given the role of giving this movie a love story. Who is the lucky lady? An elf. In fact, a completely original character created for this movie. Because there needs to be another woman in this movie who seems important, but really isn't.

I'm talking about Evangeline Lily as Tauriel, an elven warrior of a lower caste in the kingdom of Mirkwood. She has the luxury of being the woman of Legolas's desire. Yup, Orlando Bloom is here again playing Legolas. While some are wondering why is he in the movie, for fans it makes sense. Why? Because his father, Thranduil played by Lee Pace, is one of the anti-villains in the book. So it would be kind of weird if the filmmakers didn't take an opportunity to sneak Orlando Bloom back into the franchise. Though I was just hoping for a small role, his role has been expanded in order to explain why Tauriel is important. And Tauriel's purpose is solely to make Kili important. When really the one who should be important is Thranduil, the most assholish elf ever put on film. Pace does an excellent job playing a dick, but I keep referring to him as wasted talent. There is so much that could've been done with this character, but he comes off as a one dimensional dick. And people wonder why Legolas hates dwarves initially in The Lord of the Rings? For one: his father was a dick to them. And two: a dwarf is pretty much sending him to the friend zone. Him! So if you really think about it, Tauriel and Kili's love story is only meant to explain this initial animosity between Legolas and Gimli in the trilogy. There really is no other reason to have her or this sub plot in the movie other than that. But on the subject of Pace's Thranduil, he's still a far more compelling one dimensional dick than anyone else in the film. I'm looking at you, CGI orcs.

I'm once again really irked by the overuse of CGI. It is not just the orcs this time, it is the action scenes as well. There was something real about the original trilogy's action because it actually dealt with real people in costumes and make up fighting each other. In here it is mainly CGI guys doing all the action sequences. And this would look incredible in a Pixar or Dreamworks animated movie, but this isn't an animated movie. The hyper stylized action in the movie is just way too over the top compared to the more toned down fighting that happened in the original trilogy. Though people would point to Legolas as doing some pretty over the top things in the original films, I'd argue that those moments were earned because of how cool and collected Legolas is. In this film, Legolas does some ultra ridiculous stuff that makes people wonder why he hasn't done of that stuff in the original. I like Orlando Bloom as Legolas, but in this film I don't like his CGI stunt double. And it's a real shame again that I have to cluster Manu Bennet into this category because he's compelling, but I just wished he wasn't a CGI character. Just thinking about CGI reminds me of how awful the final act of the film involving the dwarves attacking Smaug was, especially when Smaug is much more highly rendered compared to the other crappy CGI that he's surrounded by.

Final Thoughts

While the confrontation between Bilbo and Smaug does not disappoint, and Thorin becomes a more compelling character, that doesn't mean the movie has vastly improved. Instead I find myself complaining about the same things that I did in the last movie. Too much CGI, uneven pacing, and ultimately a large ensemble of forgettable characters. Just now I remembered that Beorn and a guy played by Stephen Fry was in the movie, and I didn't even mention them in the main review. That just tells me that this film trilogy should not have been a trilogy and instead just two movies. Hell, I think it should only be one movie. Because everything is so spread out that it is killing any excitement in the film. Yet part of me still wants to enjoy it because of that one scene between Bilbo and Smaug, but really it isn't enough.

SCORE: 6.2/10 - It gets slightly better, while at the same time gets slightly worse.

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE
For a review of the next film, CLICK HERE

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review

"I'm going on an ADVENTURE!"

Those were words that I could definitely relate to prior to seeing the first of The Hobbit films. Middle-Earth was my home as a child and so to go back to it again as a young adult in his 20s was like a dream trip down memory lane. But sometimes going back to your past can have two different conclusions: you either relive the old days or you regret coming back because the magic is gone. Well...

The Plot

When the Grey Wizard, Gandalf (Ian McKellan), offers a hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), the chance to go on an adventure, he quickly refuses. But when 13 dwarves arrive at his doorstep led by the rightful King Under the Mountain, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), Biblo finds himself being dashed away from the comfortable life of Bag End to the dangerous journey to the Lonely Mountain. Their mission? Retake The Lonely Mountain from the Great Wyrm, Smaug.

And that is only the beginning of their journey...

Review

As a Lord of the Rings fan and a Peter Jackson fan... I was disappointed. Was it because I have high expectations? No. My main problem with the film is how it follows the trend of splitting singular books into multiple films. I was completely fine when Jackson and his team announced the film was going to be split into two movies. I was certain there was enough material in there that can be stretched that long without resulting to fatigue. But when it was announced that so much was filmed that they can now turn it into three movies, that's when I started lowering my expectations. And my biggest fears were right.

I should be used to having an over 2 hour yet under 3 hour Middle-Earth film by now but for some reason, this movie doesn't do it for me. I just kept thinking to myself a lot of what happens in this movie is extremely unnecessary as it takes nearly an hour, maybe less but almost an hour, for Biblo to decide that going on an adventure with Gandalf and the Dwarves is a good idea. It just really feels like a very slow drag and not the type of drag that happens occasionally in movies. This entire movie is just one huge drag. And this is mainly due to the very sad attempt of trying to flush out the personalities of ALL the dwarves that go on this journey.

I'm not a hardcore Tolkien fan who knows all the names of the dwarves, but if a movie is effective in making everyone's introduction memorable then I should remember most of them. Unfortunately, I don't. I don't even remember the names of the ones played by James Nesbitt and the other dwarf who seems to be friendly towards Freeman's Bilbo. The only ones I remember clearly are Kili (the one who seems too good looking for a dwarf), Bombur (the obnoxiously fat dwarf with the crazy beard) and of course Richard Armitage's Thorin (this story's Aragorn but not as noble). Those three dwarves had something distinct about them that made them standout more so than the others. Don't get me wrong, they all look visually distinct from one another. But as far as being visually distinct and having personalities, that goes to Thorin, Kili and Bombur. But then again, Thorin should be the one with the most personality. But unfortunately he comes off as the most unlikeable dwarf amongst the crew, and this guy is suppose to be a main character. It is not Armitage's fault, the character was just written that way.

Then there's the returning cast members who mostly comprise The White Council. These being McKellan's Gandalf, Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, Hugo Weaving's Elrond and Christopher Lee's Saruman. They are all very welcoming returns and in fact probably one of the few things I liked most in the movie. Though Gandalf and Elrond are players in the book, the addition of Galadriel and Saruman was definitely meant as a way to tie in to The Lord of the Rings. There really isn't much to say about their performances because they're in it for a short while, but they are good. But there is a new member amongst the White Council who proved to be another highlight I enjoyed about the movie. That character is Radagast the Brown played by former Doctor Who, Sylvester McCoy. It's always refreshing to see another wizard in the mix, even though he's not in the book. Amazingly he's not involved in this story at all, but it was nice seeing someone crazier than Gandalf.

But if we're going to talk about the old and the new cast there are definitely two standouts of this film.  That being Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and Andy Serkis as Gollum. Freeman is just perfect as Bilbo and he completely owns the role as his own. He doesn't feel beholden to Ian Holm's small portrayal of him in The Lord of the Rings, but it definitely feels like his Bilbo could grow up to become Holm's Bilbo. And what more can be said about Andy Serkis as Gollum. He's perfection, and is definitely one of the fond memories of Middle-Earth you'll be happy to revisit. Their pivotal meeting appropriately known as "Riddles in the Dark," is hands down the best scene in the film. Freeman is excellent and the effects on Gollum are outstanding. If only the rest can be said about the other effects in the film.

Peter Jackson pulls a George Lucas by overusing CGI in this movie. Sure there are lots of nice wide shots New Zealand here and there, but for some reason the overtly CG gloss on the creatures and the locations comes off as...off putting. It doesn't have the same grit that the previous trilogy had, and this is pretty disappointing for someone who loved the use of practical and CG effects. But in here, even if there are practical effects, they are completely overshadowed by an overload of CGI. One of the most jarring ones for me was noticing that the Orcs and Goblins were no longer guys in costumes. Apparently Jackson had filmed them with guys in makeup and costumes, but was so dissatisfied that he had them all replaced with CGI monsters that he finds more appealing. While that explains why someone as imposing as Manu Bennet is playing the White Orc, Azog, as a CGI character, it seems sad that Bennet is doing motion capture for a role that doesn't require motion capture. I mean, the guy was in Spartacus for crying out loud! But alas, he was a last minute replacement so he had to be CGI. But that doesn't excuse the excessive nature that Jackson and his team have thrown into this movie.

Final Thoughts

This trip down memory lane has proven to be a disappointing one. While it is great to see some solid performances by newcomers Martin Freeman and Sylvester McCoy alongside old timers such as Ian McKellan and Hugo Weaving, that isn't enough to save the film. Too much CGI in a film franchise that was praised for being the perfect balance of practical and CGI. Poor attempts at trying to develop a huge number of dwarves that we don't really care about, and that includes the one who is suppose to be the main character, Thorin. And this movie is pretty much the living proof of the Clerks 2 complaint: THIS MOVIE IS NOTHING BUT TWO AND A HALF HOURS OF WALKING! WALKING! And not the interesting kind like in Fellowship. I mean the boring kind. 

SCORE: 6/10 - There's still wonder, but a lot of it seems to be missing...and boring

For a review of the next film, CLICK HERE

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Review

"For Frodo."

That gets me every time.

The Plot

The board is set, the pieces are moving, they've come to it at last. Frodo (Elijah Wood), Sam (Sean Astin) and Smeagol (Andy Serkis) are now in the heart of Mordor with their mission coming close to an end. The city of Minas Tirith of the kingdom of Gondor is the last stronghold for the forces of good and it needs its rightful king to return. That king is Aragorn (Vigo Mortensen). The great battle for Middle-Earth begins and ends here.

Review

There is a common belief that the third film in a trilogy is always the weakest link. But that is not the case for this film. The Return of the King is easily the best finisher to a trilogy in blockbuster cinematic history. All the elements and players built in The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers comes to a head as the climax of this long story finally comes to an end.

There is no possible way I can do everyone justice, but I'm going to knock it out this way. Know these names: Dominic Monaghan, Billy Boyd, Ian McKellan, Vigo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Bernard Hill, Miranda Otto, David Wenham, Hugo Weaving and Liv Tyler are incredible. All of them deliver knockout performances in this emotionally charged grand finale. Even smaller roles like Cate Blanchett's Galadriel and newcomer John Noble's Denethor add so much to this already large ensemble of nuanced characters. But of course at the center of this ensemble's side of the story is Mortensen's Aragorn. Here we see the king has definitely returned and has fully accepted who he needs to be against the forces of darkness. That is to be there with his people for one final stand against Sauron, in order to give a chance for the real standouts of this film.

Elijah Wood and Andy Serkis may have been strong in the previous films, but their performances reach a whole new level in this film. And one unsung hero has finally reached this very same level. That is Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee. He has been mostly Frodo's support for the entire journey and the only sound voice of reason. Smeagol's manipulation of Frodo brings their friendship to a near devastating end, but it also shows just how powerful these three actors are. In here we truly see that Astin's Sam is the hero of the story. This is because of how much he rises to the occasion compared to Frodo who is going through the motions because he feels like he has to. It is this pairing and the splinter that tries to break them that make them the incredible standouts of this film. If anything, it is a wonder why Wood and Astin are not in more bigger mainstream films, because I firmly believe they deserve to be. Serkis on the other hand has capitalized on his success as Smeagol/Gollum by continuing to be a driving force in motion capture. But there is no denying that these three definitely gave the third film it's true conflict that is not a climactic clashing of armies, but rather a clash between individuals over the source of evil. 

That's not to say the clashing of gigantic armies was not necessary. When the film is not focusing on the mission to destroy the ring, the Battle of Minas Tirith makes the battle of Helms Deep look more like a skirmish. This is a chance for director Peter Jackson to unleash everything in the makeup and special effects department on the heroes and their humanly hosts. It is an all out war in the most spectacular fashion but also grounded in the reality of war. It is terrifying. Especially if you're outnumbered and the opposing army has flying Black Riders (Nazgul), gigantic trolls, vicious wolves, and titanic elephants (oliphants/mumakil) on their side. Yet through all the chaos, Jackson never forgets to show the human drama that is going on in every tier of the city. The fact that this chaotic war can easily flow with the more smaller yet more important story of Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol is a true testament of a talented director as well as an incredible editing team. 

If there is a complaint that is commonly brought up, yet mostly understood, it is the multiple endings of the film. Some people felt that the final scenes in the movie felt more like a string of epilogues instead of one singular epilogue giving a singular closure. While I'm perfectly fine with the endings, I do always wonder every time I watch if there was a certain ending the film could've stopped at in order to convey a singular ending that people would be satisfied with. But with all out honesty, I can't think of one. All the endings may drag out the film, but at the same time all are needed in order to bring proper closure instead of a closure.

Final Thoughts

It is no surprise to me that this film won 11 Academy Awards at the Oscars. In fact, it was the first time that I watched the Oscars all the way through just to root for this film to win everything. I may have been a child hitting 13, but even then I knew how incredible this film is. And looking at it now, it still holds up after all those years. It is the film that you wished all third films in blockbuster trilogies would be. Sure, some complain about the multiple endings but in the end all of them are necessary. Peter Jackson, the cast and practically the entire nation of New Zealand achieved something special with this film. One that I was certain as a kid can never be repeated again. And after watching The Hobbit movies.... I was right.

SCORE: 9.5/10 - A near perfect ending to an amazing film trilogy

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Review

Divide and conquer

That's pretty much the best way I would describe this film. Except maybe the conquer part. Not all of them necessarily do that.

The Plot

After a devastating blow that shatters the Fellowship, the splintered groups go off on their own personal journeys. Aragorn (Vigo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) set of an a long foot chase to save Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd). But their paths will once again be split as one group shall enter the kingdom of Rohan and the other will becomes guests to the kingdom of Fangorn Forest. Frodo and Sam continue the mission that was given to them as they continue to trek to Mordor. But their journey becomes complicated when the previous owner of the ring, Gollum (Andy Serkis), wants it back.

Review

As a child, this was the first film I asked my parents to see it twice. Because to me, it was just so much better than the first movie. It's been over a decade since I saw it in theaters as well as constant reruns on my DVD player. And now that I have a lot of experience in how a good movie should be, I know that this film really was worth begging my parents to see twice in the theaters.

The film begins with a bang, a continuation of the battle between Gandalf (Ian McKellan) and the gigantic fire demon, Balrog. It was my favorite scene in the previous film and I was so glad we get to see an expansion of that battle. This opening very much hints at Gandalf's return as a White Wizard, and it was just an excellent way of reintroducing Gandalf to the audience or informing those who did not see the first movie as to why it was a big deal for him to be back.

But enough with reintroductions, it is time for introductions. Because if you've read my review of the first film, then you know I believe the main cast is incredible. But now, let's shift the focus to some newcomers by focusing on the kingdom of Rohan. There is King Theoden played by Bernard Hill, Eowyn played by Miranda Otto, Eomer played by Karl Urban and Grima Wormtongue played by Brad Dourif. Hill's Theoden is pretty much the focal point of the main plot of this story as it revolves around his kingdom and their battle against the turncoat wizard, Saruman (Christopher Lee). He knows how to play a king, and displays a regret as to how he can let Saruman control him for so many years. It is a highly underrated performance, but I believe the most important one in the film. 

Miranda Otto's Eowyn is pretty much set up as Aragorn's new potential love interest in a love triangle that is non-existent because he's in love with Arwen (Liv Tyler). But she does offer up a really nuanced female presence that was not that strong from the previous film. Sure, the last film had Tyler's Arwen and Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, but they're more like pivotal roles rather than mainstay characters. Not to knock on them though, as they play them well. But Otto really has a lot of depth to her character, especially given that her character arc begins here and will definitely pay off in the next film. It's too bad that the same can't be said about her brother played Karl Urban or for the lesser antagonist played by Brad Dourif. Both of them are hugely talented and play their parts well. And in the end that's all that really matters for ensembles. Not everyone has to be given room to grow as long as everyone is on the same level in performance and plays critical roles. But that doesn't mean none of them can steal the show, because Andy Serkis did.

This is Serkis's big breakout role and it will also be the role that will define his future career along with redefining special effects. His performance as Gollum, a creature who was once a river hobbit called Smeagol, is this film's standout performance. It is a large testament to the Weta Digital team behind creating the Smeagol character and to have it match with the incredible acting that Serkis unleashes every time he's in front of the camera. Which says a lot because even though we don't see Serkis, we definitely hear him and see his movements telegraphed through this strange CGI achievement. It did not take long for me to buy into this creature existing because of just how good Serkis and Weta were at bringing it to life. He makes the Sam and Frodo story portion of the movie a lot more fascinating because of his strangeness. What would've been a dull stroll to Mordor immediately became one filled with tension and some humor with Serkis in the mix. But he wasn't the only spectacular part of the film.

The third act of the film known as The Battle of Helm's Deep is one of the best battle scenes ever put on film that would not be surpassed until The Return of the King. This battle showcased the intensity of war in a black and white situation, yet there is still heavy drama built around it. This is really Mortensen's chance to shine as the man who will be king, and he proves that he is definitely capable in this climactic battle. Unfortunately this is also the battle that gave Hollywood executives the idea that having large CGI armies clashing is what will bring people to the movie theaters. Thus came films such as Troy, Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven just to name a few. This film is also responsible for giving executives and producers the idea that fantasy films need to have a large battle between armies in them at the end of the movie. I speak extensively about this problem in my article, Why Lord of the Rings ruined fairy tale movies, so I will not go into too much detail. But I can't deny that this was one of the most intense fantasy battles ever put on screen at the time.

Final Thoughts

As the second act of the trilogy, The Two Towers delivers in upping the stakes and developing the characters even further. What it also achieves is bringing in new characters ranging from large to vital roles and not having it feel too crowded. This is a true mastery of what an ensemble is and continues to hammer home the notion that a fantasy film could be in the conversation of being an incredible cinematic achievement with drama. What's best of all is that it doesn't feel like a set up for a final film, but a film that has it's own standalone plot that still goes hand in hand with the other films it is bookended by. 

SCORE: 9/10 - An incredible progression of what Peter Jackson started with the first one

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - Review

"One Ring to rule them all."

The year was 2001 and I was just 10 years old, not knowing that my life was going to change when I stepped into the theater to watch this film. It's time to look back on the movie that reignited my love for movies and the drive to become a filmmaker.

The Plot

The Hobbit, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), learns from the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) that the magic ring of his uncle, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), is actually the One Ring. A powerful weapon forged by the dark lord, Sauron. A ring that was meant to control all life on Middle-Earth. As the forces of Sauron begin their hunt for their master's ring, Frodo must embark on a journey to destroy the ring in the only place it can be destroyed: Mount Doom, the heart of Sauron's lands in Mordor. He will be joined by three other hobbits (Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd), a ranger (Vigo Mortensen), an elf (Orlando Bloom), a dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), a knight (Sean Bean), and Gandalf the wizard on this dangerous mission.

Review

There was a moment when young children in the 70s watched Star Wars and were in awe of what they saw. It was a life changing experience for them. I could say this film had the same effect on me, but in a different manner. Because when I first saw this movie, I was disappointed.

Disappointed that it had no ending. That it just stopped. I wanted to see the journey continue, but it just ended. And it ended in a place that had me yearning for a continuation. And because I was a child when I saw it, I had no idea that there was another one. But when I quickly learned that there was going to be two more because the films were based on a trilogy, all of a sudden my views on it changed to one of wonder.

The acting in this film is definitely incredible. Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd were just wonderful as the carefree hobbits who find themselves thrown into a darkly situation. It can almost be compared as a young naive teenager discover the dark and terrifying real world they actually live in. And these four play it well. Especially Wood, who quickly acknowledges just how serious the situation and is willing to take responsibility, but at the same time also knows how overwhelming the pressure is. I can only imagine Wood used his own pressure of having to please Tolkien fans with his portrayal of Frodo as a fuel to his performance.

Vigo Mortensen is compelling as Strider, later revealed to be Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor, as he showcases a man who has turned his back on his birthright yet still has the gravitas needed if he should one day return to it. Given this was Orlando Bloom's first big breakout role, it is difficult to judge his acting because in retrospect he's an adequate actor in later roles, yet still his performance here was strong enough to match up with the experienced powerhouses. Particularly his character's relationship with John Rhys-Davies' character. Davies delivers a stellar and boastful performance as a cocky dwarf with such vigor that you would be glad to follow him into battle. This film was also Sean Bean's solidification in pop culture as the guy who always dies. Don't be mad, that's not really a spoiler at this point. But nevertheless, Bean delivers a strong performance by showing the dark side of humanity and how easy it is for any member of the fellowship to be corrupted.

But to me the big standout performances belong to the two wizards in the film. Ian McKellan's Gandalf and Christopher Lee's Saruman were my favorite parts of the film. Both of these classic English actors deliver incredible performances as these powerful beings who walk among men. It is no wonder that McKellan got a nomination for best supporting actor the year this film came out, but that should not take away from how Lee is almost equally as good. With them you see two sides of the same coin. Two wizards who believe in what they're doing is the best for the entire world, yet one of them is obviously wrong. They also have the most incredible fight sequence in the film which I was completely impressed with the simplistic approach of showing two wizards fighting. But it will be Gandalf's face off against the demonic Balrog that highlights the film. Which brings me to another point.

The visual effects and the practical effects in this film are stunning. In a post 2010 world, most big budget films would opt for having everything entirely CGI. But in this film and the two others that followed it, CGI was a tool only to be used when it is impossible to do it practically. This blending of the old and the new is what I believe is the best way to do visual effects spectacles. And the best part is, they don't overtake the narrative.

Final Thoughts

This film marked the beginning of the fantasy renaissance in film, which never really amounted to anything. But what this film did is show that a fantasy film can be put in the conversation as a legitimate film. In other words, have legitimate drama and storytelling. This is shown with the very tamed yet stunning visuals, the powerful acting, the tight script, and incredible direction. But since this is an obvious part 1 instead of a standalone film, it may not have that "umph" factor to fully consider it a good solo film. But it is an incredible beginning. A beginning that will have people coming back for more.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - An incredible beginning that hopefully will continue to be so in the next one.

For a review of the next film, CLICK HERE

What if - John Boorman made The Lord of the Rings in 1970???

Once upon a 1970s time there was a movie...

...that never happened. That film was The Lord of the Rings. Thanks to Peter Jackson and the entire nation of New Zealand, the world was able to finally experience the incredible epic that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote many years ago. It is hard to believe that at a time before Jackson first started the cameras rolling, there had been other attempts to bring this book to life on the big screen. Granted, there was Ralph Bakshi's animated epic but that was just two of the three books condensed into one movie. But before that, director John Boorman was commissioned to turn The Lord of the Rings into one singular movie. Yup, just one movie. One.

One Film To Rule Them All

Director John Boorman, who is most famously known as the director of Deliverance and Excalibur (though for a select few he is known as the director of Zardoz), was commissioned by United Artists in 1970 to adapt The Lord of the Rings after just buying the film rights from Tolkien. At the time, Boorman wanted to make a King Arthur film (which would eventually happen 10 years later) but was pushed to making the Fantasy Epic while the iron was still hot. Along with his fellow screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg, the two then set out to adapt the book that was divided into three books into one film. Through various interviews with Boorman and Pallenberg, the two of them had indeed read the entire trilogy several times and had every single plot point down in their head. However, because the initiative was to make one movie and not a series of films, some things had to be taken out. By some I mean a lot.

The Fellowship of the Ring, the first book in the trilogy, gets the privilege of keeping most of its narrative intact. This amounts to roughly 1 hour and 50 minutes to maybe even 2 hours. The second book in the trilogy, The Two Towers, gets the greatest trimming by only including three key points: Frodo and Sam meet Gollum; Gandalf is alive; and the nation of Rohan gets established. The portion dealing with The Ents is gone. So yeah, no more giant talking trees. The exodus of Rohan to Helms Deep doesn't happen, nor does the infamous battle of Helms Deep. Nope. Again, it only kept Gollum's introduction; Gandalf's resurrection; and the establishment of the Rohirim. That amounts to probably 20-25 minutes. And then you have the final book in the trilogy, Return of the King, which condenses the entire book into the last 30-35 minutes of the film sans the infamous "Scouring of the Shire" chapter that was also never in Jackson's films. That brings about the grand total of hours to 3. Boorman's epic adaptation would've been a 3 hour Lord of the Rings film. Though one would think that if they were going to make the film for a 3 hour running time why not at least dedicate one hour per book instead of roughly 2 hours for the first book, roughly 25 minutes for the second book, and roughly 45 minutes for the third book. 

It is definitely a film for the 70s

Having went to various sites that have summarized what Boorman and Pallenberg wrote, it is astonishing that they were able to condense the last two books so much. However what is even more astonishing is how much drugs, sex, and violence was going to be in the film. Yeah. That's right. Drugs and Sex. There was violence in the Jackson films, but there was no emphasis on drugs or sex. And by sex I mean like literally getting it on and female nudity whenever it can be shown.

If you have seen Boorman's Excalibur then you have a clear idea of just exactly how this film would've looked like. His take on the King Arthur did not shy away from the brutality of violence nor did it shy away from the desire and lust for sex. That style can be found in his script. Galadriel is no longer the image of the Virgin Mary but rather Venus rising out of her shell. A naked Elf that has sex with Frodo before she lets him gaze into the Mirror. Then there is also Eowyn, the warrior woman of Rohan and now daughter of the king instead of being his niece like in the books. After Eowyn kills the Witch King she enters a state of sickness from her wounds and is stripped naked on the battlefield because the warriors needed to find out where she got hurt. Then of course comes Aragorn who heals her by...getting on top of her and mimicking sex while reciting some incantation. On the bright side for Eowyn, she does wind up marrying Aragorn in this version rather than her book and Jackon counterpart where she gets freindzoned. 

And then there's the shrooms. Mushrooms get the hobbits high. They tend to get high a lot in this movie. And of course like I said, things get a little bit more violent.

In other words this is not the epic gritty yet hopeful fantasy film that people know now. This film would've been more akin to Dungeons and Dragons with the tone and style of Game of Thrones but without the high quality costuming. Now that sounds interesting as hell, and had it came out at the time it probably would've been lauded and criticized. However with Jackson's films, this take on Lord of the Rings just seems like a travesty against the text. But so were a lot of adaptations during that time.

I would've seen this movie

Like I said, it is not until recently that the notion that it has to be exactly like the book or closer to the book became the norm to adaptations. So had this movie existed, and given my love for fantasy, I would've definitely seen this film. Just imagine that. A world with a singular The Lord of the Rings film that is Rated R and would set a precedent for Peter Jackson's adaptations. Or maybe, just maybe, if it had happen... Peter Jackson may not have made the films at all. That is a scary thought. But then again we can only imagine what film history would've been like. 

If you wish to know more about this, just google: John Boorman Lord of the Rings.

You won't believe who he was going to cast.