THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES Concludes The Middle Earth Odyssey In Epic Fashion

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES Review:

- And so it ends. After six movies and two trilogies, Peter Jackson's sprawling Tolkien adaptation is complete. And for that, I am sad - and, also, eternally grateful for what Jackson and his team have given us. Look, I get that a certain cynicism about Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings franchise, and this third Hobbit movie in particular has crept into both certain circles of fandom and the mainstream press. The Hobbit should not have been three movies. Peter Jackson has fallen in love with CGI at the expense of practical f/x with tangibility and soul. The Hobbit films have gotten so wrapped up with elves, dwarves, giant troll monsters, and the massive wars they wage that the titular Hobbit himself has all but gotten lost in the fray. I get it, and to some extent I agree with the knocks. But I also still love these movies, and I still think that they have a magic and a heart and soul that only Jackson could give them. You can pick 'em apart, sure, and god knows people have. But with these movies, and with FIVE ARMIES in particular, my doubts are overshadowed by a feeling that this version of Middle Earth - filled with amazing sights and memorable characters - is one of the greatest fictional worlds ever brought to life on screen. THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES is, to me, a fitting goodbye to that world, a movie that's packed with action, but that also poignantly brings the series full-circle, and to a satisfying conclusion. I walked away with a smile on my face, but also with a lingering sadness that the end of this film marked the end of something truly special.

Over the course of multiple reviews I've talked about what makes Jackson's Middle Earth movies so uniquely great - but I'll talk about all of it just a little more here. Let me start by talking about the world-building. Maybe we take it for granted with these films, maybe we just figure that Tolkien laid so much groundwork, that ... of course these movies would follow suit. But look at how many fantasy and sci-fi film franchises feel like they take place in loosely-constructed, not well-thought-out worlds. We live in a cinematic age now where countless YA adaptations feel that a world based on a simple hooky gimmick is enough. But Jackson never took shortcuts with his Middle Earth films. These are lived-in, breathed-in stories, with history and lore and no detail taken for granted. Jackson and co. truly brought Middle Earth to life, and in my view that absolutely cannot be discounted. BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES serves as an exciting culmination of all that, bringing together the disparate factions and peoples of Middle Earth in a way that's often thrilling.

Of course, part of the thrill of seeing these conflicts play out is in watching such accomplished actors pitted against one another. There's a climactic scene in FIVE ARMIES in which Middle Earth's various great powers collide in a confrontation with a returned and slowly-but-surely re-powered Sauron. It's Ian McKellan, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee all being completely and utterly awesome. Not just because they're great actors, but because over the course of six films these actors have wholly and unashamedly committed themselves to these characters. McKellan *is* Gandalf. Weaving *is* Elrond. Blanchett *is* Galadriel, and Christopher Lee - 92 by-god-years-old and still kicking ass - *is* Saruman, and hot damn, the man deserves some sort of award for being possibly the greatest and most badass person alive. In any case, these actors and so many others have really gone above and beyond the call of duty for this franchise. Specific to FIVE ARMIES, I of course have to mention Martin Freeman. In a year in which he's impressed as Watson on Sherlock and as Lester on Fargo, he again nails the part of Bilbo Baggins - bringing the same sort of understated expressiveness and comic timing to this role as he did to those others. Few doubted that Freeman could pull off a great Bilbo, but I think his excellence in these films is oft overlooked. In this final chapter, Freeman's Bilbo has ample opportunity to shine, even in the midst of many conflicts that at times overshadow Bilbo's hero's journey. In particular, I loved the interplay between Freeman and Richard Armitage's Thorin. Thorin, here, finally goes almost-full-villain - mad for power and corrupted by the cursed treasure won from Smaug. Armitage really kills it and nails the character's descent into darkness and eventual return to the light.

Freeman and Armitage's fantastic performances need to be talked about. So too do the incredible visuals of this movie. Yes, I agree with the masses who wish that the original trilogy's more "solid" look was kept for the prequels - which suffer at times from too-glossy CGI that hampers the believability of some scenes. At the same time, I feel like these complaints sometimes come at the expense of giving Jackson the proper credit he deserves as a director and visual stylist. For every moment in FIVE ARMIES where I wished that perhaps there was a bit less CGI, there are several more in the film that just plain wowed me with their visual splendor. There are so many scenes that are just gorgeously framed, that look like the Tolkien-inspired illustrations I saw as a kid come to glorious life. Jackson is still a master at doing those iconic storybook-esque shots that make the film seem *un-real* in the best way possible - fantastic and painterly and larger-than-life. Jackson's large-scale action is still in many ways the best in the biz. His sense for portraying size and scope is unmatched, even if chaos occasionally overwhelms geography and cohesion. But still, the big battle scenes in this film are epic as all hell. At the same time, there are smaller moments in the movie that just look and feel perfect. I'm thinking, in particular, of a quiet scene towards the end of the movie in which Bilbo and Gandalf sit and reminisce about the adventure they've had. Talk about storybook visuals - the scene looks like something out of a Hildebrandt painting. So to those who endlessly knock Jackson's visual storytelling abilities (especially those who don't also acknowledge his unmatched strengths), my perspective is: I don't think we're watching the same movies here.

On a related note, the entire production team on these movies needs major kudos. The costumes, the sets, the overall aesthetic of the Middle Earth films is just so, so good. And it really shines here as armies converge - each meticulously adorned in unique armor and clothing. These films are simply awesome to spend time with. And a huge part of that is the impeccable production and art design. And the music. I mean, that music. Howard Shore's various LOTR themes are modern classics, and these Hobbit films have carried on the tradition of having absolutely epic, atmospheric, at times haunting scores. I will say that FIVE ARMIES does an excellent job of mixing in classic Middle Earth themes at just the right moments. Conversely, I love some of this trilogy's newly-created themes. The Laketown theme is, to me, a new classic.

So what doesn't work in FIVE ARMIES? Let me list my main gripes that keep the movie from being *as* good as it could have been:

a.) Not enough Bilbo. In general, I agree with the general sentiment that The Hobbit didn't necessarily need to be three movies. I always liked the fact that the book was a simple fantasy story that then set the stage for a much more sophisticated and sprawling epic. But oddly, FIVE ARMIES feels a bit rushed, in that so much is going on that the trilogy's central thematic throughline (at least in theory) - Bilbo's journey - seems to get shortchanged. To it's credit, the movie comes back around to Bilbo by the end, and sort of makes up for leaving him on the sidelines for much of the movie's middle. But what did irk me a bit is that Bilbo's story and character arc is slighted in favor of stuff we didn't need. The movie has too much Legolas, for example. We got enough of him in LOTR - we didn't need even *more* extraneous scenes of him kicking ass in this one. There's also a bit too much time spent on Laketown's comically conniving villain Alfrid, who is better, I think, in small doses.

b.) Battles that lack cohesiveness. Late in the movie, as the film shifts its focus from the main battleground to more personal fights, I couldn't help but feel a bit frustrated that elements introduced in the war scenes never got proper resolution. For example, we see giant sandworms introduced by the evil orc army, but we never see how they are defeated by the allies. Later, I had to roll my eyes a bit when a familiar deux ex machina from the original trilogy returns to serve as the tide-turners in the war. Lame.

c.) Too much cartoon-physics. I get that this is Middle Earth, and I am aware that in LOTR we got Legolas sliding down the tail of a beast as if surfing. But that was one funny/kewl moment. In FIVE ARMIES, we get several of those moments, that come right in the heat of otherwise intense battle scenes. It's one thing when an entire sequence is staged with a certain aesthetic - i.e. the barrel scene in Desolation of Smaug (which I love). But to insert random videogame moments into gritty battles is sort of annoying.

d.) That Strider call-out. There's one super cringeworthy moment in the movie - a bit of unnecessary foreshadowing of LOTR that feels very forced. Should have been left out, or at least handled in a more organic fashion.

Those were my chief complaints, really. And though I have those grievances, they are still not enough to turn me against FIVE ARMIES or Jackson's Hobbit trilogy in general. I would have loved a single, simple Hobbit movie that related to the LOTR trilogy in the same way the book does. But I take these for what they are, and I can't deny that I've enjoyed them. And there really is a lot to love. In addition to stuff I've already mentioned - the great performances, the visuals, the music, the world-building - I could spend paragraphs giving shout-outs to all the stand-out stuff in this film. Here are a few. Evangeline Lilly's Tauriel adds a strong female character to the story, and she's just kick-ass in general. Lilly is great in the part, and you can't help but root for her worlds-collide would-be romance with the dwarven Kili. Billy Connelly! The beloved comic and actor appears in FIVE ARMIES as leader of a dwarf army, and man, I grinned bigtime when I heard that distinctive Scottish-accented voice rally his diminutive troops to battle. Lee Pace is also, again, sort of great as Elven king Thranduil. The Piemaker does a great job at playing the stoic, emotionally-distant monarch. Mark Hadlow as elder dwarf Dori is also great. He's sort of the heart and soul of this trilogy, in a way. Finally, I love the movie's ending. It's a perfect segue into Lord of the Rings, and it made me want to immediately go and watch the LOTR trilogy. Jackson manages to make the ending comforting and poignantly sentimental, all while hinting, slightly ominously, at dangers yet to come.

It's been quite the ride. I think back to the release of the original LOTR trilogy, and remember each of those films being a true pop-cultural mega-event. I was too young to have seen the original Star Wars trilogy in theaters at the time of their release - and these films felt like that sort of monumental moment for me. Not only that, but as a kid I'd read and loved and become perhaps slightly obsessed with Tolkien's fantasy novels, and seeing those stories realized on-screen in such epic fashion was an undeniable rush. The fact that, after so many fits and starts, Jackson and key cast members returned for The Hobbit - it was an unexpected bonus. And though these films have not been the masterpieces that the LOTR films were and are, they have been true pleasures nonetheless. To be able to visit Middle Earth again, to be able to go back to this world, to see these characters again - it's been not just fun, but in it's own way, sort of magical. As I said, you can critique and pick apart these films, but man, if you can't see the magic that happens when Sir Ian McKellan dons his wizard's cloak and becomes Gandalf the Grey ... you might need to turn in your film-fan card. I only hope that we continue to see genre films - be they from Jackson or others - that carry on the tradition of what Jackson and his team did with their Middle Earth odyssey. But what's special about these films is that they now exist as a sort of portal to this world. For years and decades to come, people will revisit this cinematic world when in need of some of that magic. They'll watch as a reminder that even the smallest and unlikeliest of creatures can make a difference. They'll watch when in need of fellowship, fantasy, and great adventure.

My Grade: A-

THE HOBBIT Proves That The Magic Is Still Strong In Peter Jackson's Middle Earth

THE HOBBIT Review:

- The Lord of the Rings books are some of my all-time favorites - I first read them as a young kid, and that experience has stayed with me ever since, and helped inform the kinds of stories I sought out and still do. I completely love the LOTR movie trilogy, and named them as my picks for Best Films of the Decade circa 2009. Over the last several years, it's been a pleasure to watch Peter Jackson become one of the most exciting and inspiring film directors of our time - a man whose passion for the material he works on is tangible in his movies, a man who is nearly the equal of Spielberg in his ability to craft set-piece action sequences, and up there with Ridley Scott in his skill at creating fully-realized, visually-dazzling fantasy worlds. And so, my anticipation for THE HOBBIT was off the charts. The long road towards production made it all the more satisfying when the film finally coalesced into a reality. When Jackson and his team assumed the reigns, after many false starts, all felt right in Middle Earth. Jackson, reunited with the likes of Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee, making The Hobbit. This is how it was supposed to be.

Somewhere along the way, however, something seemed to feel a little off about the endeavor. Sure, Jackson's trademark "making-of" videos were fantastic, chill-inducing fan service. And the casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo was greeted with universal praise. But later, Jackson's decision to make The Hobbit into three films instead of one, or even two, caused a wave of negativity. If there was any one criticism of the LOTR films, it was their lack of brevity - did Jackson really need to extend The Hobbit - a book that was far  simpler and shorter than the LOTR trilogy - with that sort of elongated treatment? Then, there was the use of 48 frames-per-second in the film. This was another extremely sensitive subject. After all, who *didn't* love the gorgeous, painterly look of the original films? Most wanted new films that felt like a return to a beloved place - not something that looked completely different than what we all hold nostalgic affection for. There was a fear that 48 fps could put a black mark on the whole film.

After seeing THE HOBBIT, both of these concerns, I think, turned out to be at least partially justified. It doesn't feel like three films are wholly necessary to tell this story, especially given how much of this world is already established thanks to LOTR. The movie too often takes the focus off of Bilbo, and instead gives us any number of side stories, nostalgic tips of the hat to LOTR, and extended expository exercises. It remains to be seen how the decision for three movies ultimately pays off. But a little of what I saw here worried me, I'll admit. Meanwhile, the 48 fps technology, in my view, hugely detracted from the film's overall effectiveness. It gives the entire film an overly-glossy, smoothed-over, hyper-real look that severely undermines the beauty of the fantastic sets and costumes in the movie. There's now a stark contrast between the film's real and CGI elements, creating a "layer" effect where there's no longer the seamless blend of CGI and live-action from the original trilogy. The CGI now looks completely unreal, without the earthiness or grittiness that allowed, say, Gollum, to meld with the movie's human actors in LOTR. The filter between viewer and screen now feels essentially lifted, meaning that the suspension of disbelief is much harder. We can see where every CGI effect was inserted, where every dash of makeup was applied, where every fake beard was affixed to an actor's face. The scenes that are primarily CGI now flow with an unparalleled vividness, and the 3D is the smoothest and most seamless I've ever seen in a live-action film. But the benefits of the 48 fps by no means outweigh the costs. Suffice it to say, I kept longing during the film to see it in the same manner as I did the original trilogy.

Now I say these things to get them out of the way at the outset. The fact is, despite these issues ... I still loved THE HOBBIT.

The thing is ... the LOTR movies have always been about more than what's on the surface. There's a certain magic that Jackson and team bring to these movies that, again, is less about the length of certain scenes or the way the movie looks, and more simply about the love they have for Tolkien and Middle Earth. And while the story of The Hobbit may not be as epic or as world-shaking as LOTR, by its nature, Jackson still brings the same sense of respect and care for the source material to this one, and still makes it feel as whimsical, wondrous, and full of imagination as Fellowship, Two Towers, or Return. It's a tough challenge. As a kid, I remember reading The Hobbit, and then being astounded to find that this was just the prelude to a much more sprawling and serious epic. All the little details of Middle Earth that Tolkien sprinkled throughout the book - those were all hints of the gigantic tapestry he was crafting. So for the movies to go in the reverse order - to go from the vast and sprawling and serious epics, to the smaller-scale, more lighthearted, more kid-friendly prelude - Jackson is essentially rowing against the tide here. And yet, what he does is pretty cool when looked at in the context of the whole six-film epic that he will have eventually crafted. He's going back and reverse-engineering The Hobbit as a prelude, dropping quick glimpses of characters like Elrond and Galadriel, and hinting at a rising tide of darkness sweeping over Middle Earth. Does he lay it on too thick? Maybe. But mostly, Jackson skillfully balances nostalgic callbacks to fan-favorite characters and locations with the retroactive need to set up LOTR. Those movies are now a decade old, so it's a little jarring. It will be fascinating, though, to someday watch all the films in narrative order and see how, indeed, they end up fitting together.

Like I said, Jackson captures the magic of the LOTR films, but he also adapts to follow the more storybook-esque structure of The Hobbit. In that book, each chapter is almost like a self-contained short story - an effect of the book's origins as a series of bedtime stories told by Tolkien to his children. And I think it's important to remember that when watching the film. The movie follows a similar chapter format - many chapters lifted directly from the book ("An Unexpected Party," "Riddles in the Dark,"), and others invented for the film (an extended encounter with a group of ravenous trolls, an aside featuring the kooky wizard Radagast the Brown). So, while some may take issue with the film's structure, I enjoyed that it honored the spirit of the book in this way. My only real complaint is, again, that the movie veers too far away from telling the story from Bilbo's perspective. I mean, it goes so far as to use a framing device where Ian Holm - back as Old Bilbo - tells Elijah Wood's Frodo his tale of adventure. So when the movie goes off on extended tangents about Radagast's escapades or Thorin the Dwarf's feud with a nasty Orc warrior - it can feel a little forced.

It's hard to get too upset though when the vast majority of the film is so darn delightful. For one thing, the cast is fantastic. Ian McKellan is again an MVP as Gandalf. The man is basically a wizard - he's got the part down to a science, and wholly embodies the character in iconic fashion. When Gandalf is on-screen, you are entertained ... period. I enjoyed that the wizard we see here is a slightly more whimsical version than in LOTR. He has occasion to be serious and badass, but Gandalf's less-intense personality is emblematic of the fact that this movie takes place in a lighter, brighter age than in the original trilogy. McKellan displays that duality to perfection here. As Bilbo, Martin Freeman is also superb. It's still a little surreal to see an actor I became a fan of years ago - as Tim on The Office - playing this sort of iconic fantasy role. But the same sort of "is-this-really-happening?" impishness that made Tim a classic comedy character serves Freeman well in The Hobbit. What remains to be seen is if Freeman can muster up the sort of wide-eyed earnestness that Holmes and Wood had in LOTR. There are signs of that range here, but mostly, this is Freeman as a slightly disaffected version of Bilbo. Perfect for this opening film in the trilogy - but I'll be curious to see how the fear of death and the toll of the Ring affects Freeman's performance in the subsequent movies.

As for the band of dwarves that accompany Bilbo and Gandalf on their journey to confront the evil dragon Smaug, they are certainly a motley crew of personalities. On one hand, there aren't characters that stand out like Gimli or Legolas did in LOTR. On the other hand, the point is less that these characters stand out, and more for them to be strange and gruff and a device to show how Bilbo is suddenly getting swept up into this wider world of adventure and danger. That said, Richard Armitage is quite good as badass dwarf Thorin Oakenshield. Armitage brings a real gravitas to the role, and lends the film a bit of edge that might otherwise be missing. Obviously, there's not really an "epic hero" equivalent of Aragorn in The Hobbit, so Thorin fills the gap.

Also, even though they play minor roles, I think it's worth mentioning the sheer awesomeness of key LOTR returning players like Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee. Their scenes are brief, but man, are these guys good - iconic, all of them. It's a particular treat to see Lee here as Sauruman the White. Knowing that the actor was ailing at the time of the movie's filming, it feels fitting and proper that Jackson went to great lengths to ensure that Lee was afforded the opportunity to cameo.

I will also reiterate that Peter Jackson still has the ability to direct action like few others. Some of the set pieces in THE HOBBIT tend to be a little bit more cartoonish and slapsticky than in LOTR, but again, that's in keeping with the spirit of the book. But Jackson does big action better than just about anyone not named Spielberg. Some of the film's biggest sequences - an underground confrontation with a horde of goblins, for example - are absolutely breathtaking. Similarly, complaints about 48 fps aside, Jackson continues his tradition of making Middle Earth feel positively alive and real. Locations are rendered in stunning detail. Some are familiar - like Bilbo's quaint dwelling in Bag-End. Some are new - the Misty Mountains, for example. And all are pretty awesome. Some will complain that Jackson throws in some unnecessary stuff. But really, can you complain when that stuff includes giant rock monsters hurling rubble at one another, glimpses of the evil-in-waiting Necromancer, and/or insane battle scenes of dwarf vs. orc armageddon?

The thing is ... Jackson not only has a knack for epic action, but he also has an innate sense for how to get the smaller moments right. At the end of the day, what often made LOTR so great were the little moments of friendship, fear, hope, and inspiration that make the stories emotional quests as well as geographical journeys. Jackson again weaves many such great little moments in The Hobbit. Again, it can be a little hard to view The Hobbit as its one thing in the wake of the previous trilogy. But if you look at it serving the same sort of function as the book - as a gateway into Middle Earth, as a sort of entry point into this world, then you have to admire the sense of awe and wonder that Jackson infuses the film with. Bilbo is our gateway - the Middle Earth equivalent of your average real-earth suburban homebody. We begin with his simple life getting interrupted by an unexpected party, his home filled with dwarves and wizards. But once recruited into their ranks, Bilbo's life becomes one of adventure. And with him as our eyes and ears, we see the big, wider world that's out there. We see its wonders (Galadriel, Rivendell), and its horrors (Gollum, Orcs, Trolls, and Goblins). But through it all, there is the recurring theme that Bilbo is a man who has a greater purpose than just sitting at home by his lonesome. And this, of course, is where The Hobbit nicely dovetails back to the greatest theme of all of Tolkien's work - "even the smallest ones can change the course of the future."

In all honesty, it's nearly impossible at this juncture to have a fully-formed opinion of The Hobbit. A key aesthetic / technical decision - to present it in 48 fps - was misguided in my opinion. But ultimately, that won't affect how the film stands the test of time. Perhaps some of the over-use of CGI will (the Orc leader Azog still looked too cartoony / CGI-ish to me). But mostly, the movie is a great blend of the themes and grandeur of LOTR with the smaller and more whimsical tone of The Hobbit as written by Tolkien. And the magic of the original trilogy is still there ... In the "Riddles in the Dark" sequence, where Bilbo first encounters Gollum deep beneath the earth (Andy Serkis is, of course, exceptionally fantastic, once again, as Gollum). When the company of dwarves, assembled at Bilbo's small home, begins grimly, hauntingly chanting the song of the Misty Mountains in unison. When we get our first and final glimpse at the dragon Smaug, in a teaser of a cliffhanger that gave me the same feeling I got after first watching Fellowship of The Ring: "I want to see the next movie right now." These magical moments elevate the film, make it more than the sum of its parts.

So no, I don't know how this new trilogy will stack up when all is said and done, or how it will fill out Peter Jackson's decades-long Lord of the Rings epic both as a prelude and companion piece. What I do know is that, even with its faults, there isn't a team I'd rather see helming this massive undertaking - no other filmmakers I'd rather see bringing this story to life.

My Grade: A-