Continuing their characters' stories after 'The Desolation of Smaug' are all the names with which we've become so familiar - Freeman, McKellan, Bloom, Armitage, Blanchett etc - and Christopher Lee again making a brief, but welcome, re-appearance.
The story assumes that we'd remember what had happened before this one picks it up again. But a year ago my interest had already become so depleted that then I just let it wash over me. So for the most part in this final take I had nary a clue what was going on so once again just sat back in my seat and watched the spectacle - of which there's no shortage.
There's big-scale fighting galore, as noisy as one might expect - with elves, dwarves, wizards, dragons, flying reptiles and monsters of various types and dimensions, but it quickly all became so ho-hum for this viewer. It didn't hold my attention and I found myself consulting my watch frequently. I think one would have to be a die-hard enthusiast to enjoy these films to the full. I had actually enthused about the first of the LOTR films, 'The Fellowship of the Ring', but then it had helped having read the entire 'Ring' volumes four times by the time that first film was released. However, after that particular opening instalment I found the appeal to see the remainder decreased, so that by the time the first of 'The Hobbit' series of films arrived (I've only read that slender book twice), and knowing that it had been expanded so far as to make the original literary work almost irrelevant, I was far from keen. Still, the first 'Hobbit' film was hardly bad - just so much of a lesser event following after the mighty LOTRs.
This final episode is also the shortest, though still coming in at over 2 hours 20 minutes. For me it felt as long, or longer, than it actually was.
Director Peter Jackson has accomplished two major trilogies which will probably be considered as 'significant' in the annals of film history. I've no quarrel at all with his role in directing the six parts. They are all pretty seamless in structure - and continuity fluffs have been much rarer than I normally notice. But in the final analysis, the films just didn't do it for me as I didn't find them interesting enough. I wouldn't care to see any of 'The Hobbit' parts again ('LOTR', maybe).
As for this 'The Battle of the Armies', relating to my own enjoyment, a generous rating would be...............4/10.
We will go and see this because it is the last one and I feel we have to. but after the last installment I also couldnt wait to leave. a 4. not so bad. I best take lots of snacks.
ReplyDeleteYou pinpoint exactly the reason I saw it, Sol. I feel some relief that it's now over and done with.
DeleteI will see it for the sake of closure as well. I liked the book; the movies are not anything like them - they were inflated to be LOTR bits.
ReplyDeleteIt was a disappointment. I would have been happy seeing this as one movie, sans battles.
Yes, 'over-blown' would be a fair description of the entire Hobbit trilogy. Anyone not familiar with the books would think that this threesome carries the same literary weight as LOTR. Maybe one might have been more receptive to the Hobbit films had one been ignorant of the quailties of the book as compared to the much more ambitious LOTR cycle.
DeleteI also think the best film is "Fellowship" but enjoyed the whole LOTR series immensely. The "Hobbit" films, not so much. I like watching, but the story is over complexified (I made that up) and takes too long. I will not see "Five Armies" until it comes on our satellite package toward the end of 2015. I can wait.
ReplyDeleteIf you've seen all the others on the cinema screen, Walt, it would make sense to see this last one there too, but only for the reason of a neat ending - otherwise there's no good reason. But if you're not bothered about the diminished effect of watching battle scenes on a small screen then that's further reason to avoid the extra expense.
DeleteI haven't seen any since #3. Maybe that's a good thing?!? I'm hearing raves about the upcoming "Into The Woods." Will you possibly lower yourself to see a Disney-made film of the musical theatre hit?
ReplyDeleteOh I SHALL be seeing 'Woods' all right, Mitch - if only because I know it so well, as well as being an aficianado of Sondheim's works, most of which I've seen on stage. However, I've already steeled myself to be disappointed, as nearly all musicals one knows from the theatre are a let-down when seen on film ('Sweeney Todd' being just the latest of a very long line). It helps a lot when one has NOT previously seen the piece performed live - for me the recent ones being 'Mamma Mia', 'Chicago' and 'The Jersey Boys', though I'm often aware of the musical numbers that they reduce in length or cut out completely.
DeleteSuccessful theatre calls on the audience to use their imagination and accept a range of conceits, which are all taken away in the literalness of cinema adaptation - and in the trailer of 'Woods' I see already that there's no room to use one's own intellect. But that's the essential difference between the two modes of entertainment.
Still, the 'Woods' cast appears to be a strong one, though I'm not so happy about seeing Depp (yet again) playing the Big Bad Wolf. But I'll try to go with an open mind. Not going to damn it beforehand.
My partner likes to go to the movies on Christmas day - we will see Into The Woods.
DeleteI only hope that it turns out to be the Xmas treat for which we are hoping, Dr Spo, but my own guess is that it will probably fall short, alas, as just about all filmed stage musicals do. But we'll see (North Korea permitting).
DeleteIt does all sound like dazzlingly portrayed nonsense, stretched and padded way beyond the limit of what's sensible.
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly it, Andrew. It's patently obvious that the lure of squeezing out as much cash takings as one can from a modest, flimsy source has gone to the brain. It's made all the more difficult to swallow in that Peter Jackson is otherwise an extremely capable director with, possibly, his best yet to come. But this latter trilogy is a sorry example of the promise of riches dictating the agenda - and it's mugs like me that let them get away with it!
DeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies. Maybe it's not fair of me to criticize these movies but I'm going to anyway. To me all these movies are basically about a "David versus Goliath" premise and "David" always wins. Along the way we're subjected to ever more elaborate CGI effects (which can be fun, I admit, even I am impressed occasionally) but still I prefer a storyline that isn't so predictable and maybe, just once, stomp on one (or two) of those munchkins. Now that would be something different I may watch. (smile).
Ron
...or a few David's against endless waves of Goliaths, and the Davids always winning. Ludicrous nonsense, whether it's The Hobbit, Lord of The Rings, or even Die Hard, Bond, etc., etc., etc. Give me atmospheric French realism movies with subtitles any day (though it's a long time since I indulged).
DeleteRon, you are dead right in identifying the basic concept. There is only a given number of ideas which work in drama and this is one of the most over-worked of them. In this case it's the CGI that carries the film, though even that becomes, in time, yawn-invoking.
DeleteAndrew, so many of the best films are turned out when it doesn't look as though its makers have one eye on the box-office takings.
In view of what you say about the films you like I wonder if you ever caught 'Deux Jours, Une Nuit'. It's one of my films of the year and I'd be very surprised if you didn't like it as much as I did:-
http://raybeard.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/two-new-films-deux-jours-une-nuit.html
Ray,
DeleteI am now watching the HBO series "The Wire" from my Netflix DVD rentals. No "David versus Goliath" theme here. Human drama which I never tire of watching and evaluating. A "slice of life". However, I still like all the "Star Wars" sagas, even though I know the basic concept, again, is Good versus Evil and the CGI special effects. Maybe this preference of mine for real life as opposed to "reel life" is why I have always considered W.C. Fields to be one of the greatest comedians ever. He replicated real life, his life. And as Shakespeare famously said "All the world is a stage and we area all but actors upon it."
Ron
Ron, for some time now many have been saying that the best drama to be found these days is on TV - and 'The Wire' is high among those being praised. I've never seen any of them myself as it's shown far too late on TV first time around and I can't play DVDs - and I've never rented anything to watch anyway. So it seems quality TV like this one is likely to evade me for some time yet. Maybe for me it's a case of not missing what one doesn't know.
DeleteI found the Star wars series the most tedious of all cinema series. I could never get past the appalling scientific inaccuracies myself, but I'm aware that there professional scientists around who just lap it all up with glee. In a way I envy them. (I can never enjoy 'Doctor Who' for precisely the same reason).
I've never seen W.C. Fields in anything other than that inferior film 'My Little Chickadee' with Mae West, which ought to have been a hoot of a film but in reality was a great bore - largely, I read, the result of the fact that the two of them couldn't stand each other off-screen.
I'm fully aware of the high reputation Fields had, and I believe it. I only wish there was more opportunity to see him. His films are just never broadcast on TV here, but have rather disappeared into oblivion, just like all those Abbot and Costello films we used to see at the Saturday film club for kids.
Never ever have I been able to get into LOTR films. So no surprises for me here.
ReplyDeleteI take it, then, that you've not read the books, FB. I think my experience would have been much like yours if I hadn't been familiar with the source, and, which, regarding the 3 LOTR films, they did make a pretty good job of transferring to the screen. But I know it isn't everybody's cup of tea - and that's me speaking as someone who's never really enthused greatly about the original books anyway.
Delete