Bullet-Pointed Inventory of The Battle of the Five Armies

So let me run through what I see as the major flaws/foibles and successes/strengths of the third and final Hobbit film, which we'll presume is PJ et al's *'lucky last' cinematic interpretation of JRR Tolkien's fantasies. These - with much 'after the fact' additional fleshing out - I am simply repeating in the exact order in which they occurred to me on Tuesday the 16th of December (New Zealand time), with a **plus or a **minus immediately preceding each one, signifying whether that point is to me on the positive or negative side of the ledger, i.e. a bouquet or a brickbat.

+Bilbo Baggins - Master of the (perfectly placed, carefully enunciated, and adeptly put) Understatement.

+Lotsa rather effective love metaphors (cf Song of Songs in the Good Book's Older Testament).

+Tauriel/Kili and Legolas/Thranduil were very carefully and effectively - if rather unTolkienesquely, let's be honest - portrayed.+Especially good characterization/character development of the three elves. 

+/-Alfrid (the Master of  Lake-town's #1 civil servant, courtier, PR consultant and general bootlicker): as in Hobbit film #2, very well done - but what became of/where'd his Master disappear to? (Or, as my brother informed me, was he in fact not vaporized by, but rather landed upon and squashed to death and a million odd smithereens, as Smaug impacted upon the Long Lake in his final death descent? Most probably.)

--The fabled Arkenstone itself? Not all that impressive; in fact I was distinctly unimpressed. For the very 'heart of the (Lonely) Mountain', surely PJ & Co could've come up with something, anything, much better, i.e. a gemstone - in colour, texture, shape and size, in sheer, pure outward glory, splendour and overall majesty - more truly befitting royal status? Would that have really been too much to ask? As a bare minimum any of Earth's present-day super-abundance of precious metals and crown jewels of say India or Burma, or some Middle Eastern emirate or caliphate even would've sufficed, one would have presumed. I mean, really. (As so often happens in my life - 'beset' by odd, bizarre serendipities, felicities, synchronicities or what some would merely term 'coincidences', but which I prefer to see as mini-Providences or even minor miracles (of a sort) - just a few minutes ago (4/1/2015) NZ TV One's nightly 6 p.m. News featured an item about a comet presently passing over Planet Earth and/or through its ionosphere: this little 'beastie' from outer space, named ***LoveJoy apparently, glowing with a stunning bright blue radiance like the most majestic, dazzling midday sky, is exactly, precisely, in every which way in fact what the Arkenstone ought to have looked like. So take good and proper note, Sir Peter, and realize what a little more time and effort could have done...transforming an utter fizzer into something to write home about. At least you got the general colour of the Mountain's 'Heart' right, though even that was a little fuzzy and hazy around the edges.)

-Bilbo oughta have become invisible during the major battle finale - again, as in Tolkien's original story; and not only for this reason, as Mr Baggins was quite obviously hardly any sort of a match for the various orc/goblin etc adversaries accosting, confronting and tackling him (and his associates and other allies) from all directions. (See similar remarks vis-a-vis Bilbo Baggins and the wolves/wargs at the very end of film #1.)

++(Cinematically) effective as in well wrought, powerfully portrayed battle royales - especially those between Azog and Thorin, and Bolg, Tauriel and Legolas. Yet, oddly enough, unlike the two earlier Hobbit and three Lord of the Rings films, in this particular instance it seemed somewhat appropriate, being, after all, effectively 'the Battle of the Five Armies' (and much more significantly, of course, of Smaug's demise). Surprisingly, for Peter Jackson, not overdone (in terms of what was 'necessary' to make the film, as they say, a 'goer'), and, as I say, if ever such high dudgeon-based action were justified, it was in this film (of the six). Though such fighting did probably absorb, when Smaug's death-dealing siege of Esgaroth is included, well over half this final film, the comparative portion of the book, by sharp contrast, actually constituted just under a sixth (less than 16%) of its contents, I've only now uncovered to my surprise; and for the barely three pages devoted to Smaug actually attacking Esgaroth, only seven measly pages concerns the topic/title of this final film, i.e. the battle of the five armies!) Not that I really find such warfare something I particularly enjoy, much less consider an apt or accurate reflection of Tolkien's relevant tomes (i.e. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings), but if any of the six Hobbit/LOTR films seemingly deserved such treatment, one might have supposed it was this one. But once again, closer inspection proves vastly otherwise! (It wouldn't escape an observant reader of this and earlier posts just how much PJ et al's rendition of JRR's works has gradually, insidiously, imperceptibly lowered my otherwise once high expectations, so that as this grand finale has at last shown its head not only has mediocrity now apparently become the norm and trumped all in its inexorable path, Tolkien-Jackson devotees such as myself now indeed expect no more, and are thus almost content with that rather sad and sorry status quo.) How have the once mighty cinematographers fallen!

++Much more realistic (cf LOTR) in terms of the multiple deaths of the protagonists.

+/-Billy Connolly is well utilized - as far as he is in fact used - but strangely vanishes off the page in the various mini-battle finales (such as those aforementioned ones between both Azog and Bolg and 'the [various and assorted] goodies').

++Good - if rather belated - reversion to Tolkienesque ending - unlike LOTR. Hence much more realistic and true to JRR's tome, as in (again, cf the third LOTR film - not) Bilbo, much like Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry in Tolkien's The Return of the King, arriving home not to cheers, hurrahs and general, well-earned acclaim - i.e. what he (and they) properly deserved, a heroes' welcome - but rather to a general divvying up of Bilbo Baggins' (& Co's) assorted lifetime goods, hoardings and everyday stuff. Of course, upon arrival back in Bag-End, Mister Baggins by his very, if unwelcome, presence, promptly puts an end to these unwarranted proceedings, putting swift paid to all those unjustified consequences of assuming he'd suffered a premature demise. As ****one wag famously described a similar past occurrence: "Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

+/-Am glad that Billy Boyd (Pippin in LOTR) secured some sort of a role in the film, if 'only' in the musical score 'The Last Goodbye' at the very end. Though actually, unlike both the preceding Hobbit flicks and especially the three Lord of the Rings' films, I'm constrained to say that musical scores in The Five Armies were neither especially well done nor for that matter all that noticeable much less memorable. In fact, I have to add that I've absolutely no lasting memory of any tunes let alone lyrics from film #3, though a haunting one remains from one of the first two flicks, something about going in search of dragon treasure and the like, upon an adventure the end thereof being still completely unknown and eliciting much trepidation. That one, whatever it was, did have a certain 'catchiness' and haunting broodiness to it, enabling easy recall; indeed readily coming into mind just now for the first time in possibly yonks when I simply tasked my mind to recollect any such tunes and words still residing within one of memory's vaults.

+/-The film early on seemed to constantly jump back and forth between various settings with their respective actors and thus evoked a sense of the Rings' films especially following the splitting up of the Nine Companions; such 'cutting' in and out actually serving the useful purpose of keeping the viewer upon his or her toes and in a state of unremitting suspense thus only enhancing the tension and dramatic effect.

+/-Fine characterization of Thorin: his stubbornness ('purest' obstinacy), 'dragonsickness' and relationship to Bilbo are conveyed with aplomb; but his death, though welcome as one of the film's realistic elements (see above), appears uncannily reminiscent of Boromir's death 'speech' in PJ's Fellowship of the Ring, belatedly apologizing for not having had the prescience to discern the reality of Bilbo Baggins' (cf Frodo's) loyalty and devotion to the cause. (See also my criticisms of Hobbit #2 film's disconcertingly frequent echoes/repeats of other major Rings' film scenes and speeches.)

+/-Despite the relatively (as in appropriate to the source text) fitting ending (as above) - and admittedly it was probably much too hard to show Bilbo's return alongside Gandalf et al all the way back to Bag End or at least Hobbiton - it is a bit strained at times vis-a-vis frequent and all too obvious attempts to tie together all three Hobbit and Lord of the Rings films (is too much like 'with the benefit of hindsight' etc), though such touches as re-inserting Bilbo - at the start and end of the Hobbit saga - in his older Ian Holm manifestation, is obviously necessary to tie the two trilogies together, notwithstanding these 'touches' do come over as increasingly forced and unnatural in my view.

+Thranduil's (the Elven-king's) imperious coldness, severity is well-depicted.

+Alfrid's weaselly/cowardly and money-grubbing tendencies is a brilliant touch.

+/+The Lakeshore (cf LOTR film#2) is well shot/very realistically done (set similarly along some Central Otago lakescape?)...and Lake-town residents' well-founded anger at Alfrid and his Master (who has now vamoosed, leaving his dutiful, most devoted servant to cop all the blame and opprobrium) is well-depicted.

+Bard's kids - very 'quaint'(ly done) and appropriate in both attire and sober, serious demeanour (again, cf the Two Towers film).

-The talking raven, Roac son of Carc, could have been used to much better effect, as in actually doing just that, i.e.talking, communicating in actuality with the likes of Bard and the dwarves, as in Tolkien's tome. As opposed to Bard et al simply instinctively, intuitively knowing precisely what to do, which was the most appropriate course of action to take in the circumstances - whether in terms of unveiling, literally uncovering Smaug's best kept secret, the hollow beside his left breast, or as in the tread of footsoldiers coming towards the Lonely Mountain as the imminent 'battle of the five armies' drew ever closer, or for that matter Bilbo's being informed that 'Hi-ho, Smaug is Dead, the Dragonbeast is dead, the Dragonbeast is dead, hi-ho, the wicked Smaug is dead' (in the inimitable manner of The Wizard of Oz) rather than - as the film erroneously depicted - his being able to espy such as occurring merely by the dancing of light and flame upon the far horizon.

+Effective villains/battle sites [Stone/Mountain Trolls etc: cf Thunder 'Trolls' in film#1]. The snowy mountain fastnesses and melting ice crusts are realistic, as is the poignant, literally gripping moment when Azog stabs Thorin from below, piercing his battle-hardened and weary feet from beneath, another more realistic touch, showing there's life in the old rogue yet.

+Villains (especially Azog/Bolg) were thus realistically portrayed here, not being easily defeated let alone killed off (for good).

+Odd but effective 'touch' having King Thorin himself thus die, and before he gets to taste the joy of securing Smaug's vast treasure hoard for good and ever after, but as in the book, this realistic scene only enhances the credibility of the story as a whole.

+Nice good-bye scene of Bilbo with the ?nine/ten? remaining/surviving dwarves, not only Thorin, but Fili and Kili also suffering martyrdom for the cause I believe.

-Not so/very much is seen of the other company dwarves this time, including Balin, the overall emphasis indeed being distinctly non-dwarvish, upon such new stars/novas as Bard (and the Lake-'men' generally), Tauriel, Thranduil and Legolas.

Introductory scene of the Chief Villain, the Dragon Smaug, beseiging Lake-town is well-enacted/depicted  - featuring no Jacksonesque el typical (though they do work very well in The Lord of the Rings flicks, and in the first Hobbit film anyhow) backgrounder or flashback. Yes, Smaug here in his final moments is every bit as downright scary, vengeful and fire-breathe-ingly nasty as he should have been, as his well-earned reputation warranted.

Radagast the rustic, country bumpkin wizard is okay, if merely adequate here, though the eagles are well done again. Whereas 'the Lady Galadriel' - shades if not major overtones of 'Mother Mary' of Roman Catholic 'Mary, Mother of God' in/famy (which I realize is no great insight or new revelation) - is also okay, if a little strained (in trying to connect Lord of the Rings' and Hobbit films; again, cf Hobbit films#1 and 2.)

+/- Six-minute specially-designed Introduction adequate - as far as it went - but really neither here nor there (as in a useful add-on). Better for Jackson/Tolkien afficionadoes to invest in proper backgrounder dvds (like those accompanying the Lord of the Rings films).

-/+Way too many un-credible close shaves for Bilbo Baggins, whereas compare and contrast and note well the highly credible near-killing of Gandalf.

+/-Scenery at the start is typically kiwi-ish picturesque, yet somehow, unaccountability - it pains me to say this and quite frankly I didn't think I'd (ever) be doing so - unrealistic, as in somewhat unpersuasive; like picture painting, cf actual photo shot.

+Depiction of Thorin's unaccountable, 'death'll first freeze over before I'll ever back down, and even then I won't', stubbornly senseless intractableness - seen in relation to other characters, not only Bard the Bowman and Dragon-Slayer, but moreover his fellow (special company) dwarves - i.e. both friends and kindred and foes alike - is especially effectively portrayed, being almost a master-stroke of the film's characterization...and unfortunately one of the very few really good examples thereof in Battle of the Five Armies.

+Billy Connolly's much-vaunted entrance a welcome and interesting respite, even a foil of a sorts to other characters/the situation in general. But ultimately a bit of an anticlimax, as no sooner are we introduced to Dain, King of the Northern Dwarvish Kingdom than, hey presto, we see no more of him.

+Thorin et al's determination to go in a 'to the death' pursuit of Azog, Bolg et al [Enemy Head Honchos Inc.] is a somewhat useful addition to Tolkien's original narrative.

+Much more creative licence and liberty is employed in this third Hobbit film, but generally to good effect, effectively capturing the essential spirit of Tolkien's book despite it all.

+/-The Master's attempt at all conceivable costs, whatever utter shredding to his erstwhile fastly vanishing credibility, to escape from Lake-town like the proverbial rat from the sinking ship - and many of his former townspeople, in days, weeks and years to come, no doubt would've considered that an all too fitting symbol and metaphor for their former Mayor - is effectively portrayed, but as I say above, he shouldn't have henceforth disappeared entirely from the story.

+Hobbiton folks' utter ignorance of Bilbo's adventure and the consequent raiding of all his personal effects they are able to lay their grubby little paws upon, is very well and quite cleverly depicted.

(Something pretty well only alluded to in previous films, including and especially Fellowship of the Ring, though the extent to which and the way in which that film in particular dealt with Lobelia Sackville-Bagginses is brilliantly portrayed for all that, however brief and savagely succinct the 'mention' therein may well be.)

+Refreshing greens and hues of Hobbiton's and Bag-End's rich, earthy setting and surrounds at very end following the exhausting, long drawn out battle scenes around the increasingly desolate and forlorn-looking Lonely Mountain.

+Galadriel's and Saraman's and Elrond's mini-battle royale with Sauron is well portrayed - especially his speedily returning might, readily sapping Gandalf's and Galadriel's energy reserves/life forces. But, and it's no small but, as I remarked in one or other of my various blogposts upon Hobbit films one and two, if Sauron is really this very powerful already, what could possibly have delayed him 60-odd years from making - c/o his henchmen, the nine Ringwraiths, so memorably and skilfully and powerfully, hauntingly rendered in PJ's Fellowship of the Ring - his raid upon the Shire in pursuit of the 'One Ring to rule them all'?  

+Use/employment of neighbouring mountains and vistas is good.

+/-The re-employment of Beorn (and Radagast: see above) is again okay as far as it went.

So what sort of initial conclusions can one make about this third and final part of Peter Jackson Et Al's second Tolkien trilogy? Overall, some rather brilliant touches, innovations and creative genius displayed in this final Hobbit film, but so many of my responses seem to reflect a sense of mere adequacy, of that mediocrity-eliciting term 'okay', that overall - upon  (soon-arising) reflection if not admittedly upon initial impression - one cannot avoid the idea that the whole Jacksonesque take upon Tolkien has ended more with a whimper than a bang, fizzling out much like a damp squib or a Guy Fawkes sparkler that has simply failed to really kindle much less flare up...a disappointment upon all manner of fronts even if said movie nevertheless featured some powerful portrayals and characterization, some stunning settings and scenery, and several brilliant touches and master-strokes. But if nothing else, Smaug the Dragon, the Chiefest of Calamities, goes out in the blaze of infamy and inglorious splendour well befitting JRR's exquisitely-depicted portrayal of said 'giant worm'. At least Smaug the Terrible fails to disappoint, and perhaps that is a redeeming feature of The Battle of the Five Armies that makes it all worthwhile, alongside Bilbo's sadly inglorious return to his home, where his kindred could frankly care less that he has just managed to save their collective bacon for a little while longer from not only a Dragon but Sauron's soon-coming wrath. As One has well said, and indeed has Tolkien well portrayed in The Lord of the Rings even if this was completely absent from Sir Peter Jackson's Return of the King: "A prophet is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house." So Master Baggins, you're amidst some very esteemed company indeed!

*I'm assuming, that is, that he and his crew are finally completely through seeking to convert JRR's classic fantasy tomes to movie format, seeing as the only likely contender, The Silmarillion - Tolkien's own especial favourite - is, aside from exceedingly complex in nature, apparently more of an historical take upon all things Middle Earthian than a strictly go to woe narrative as such. Then again, if PJ Et Al were to seek to also adapt this book, approval would again have to be sought, and I somehow strongly suspect such authorization would now be a lot less likely to be given than heretofore...but it's only a strong suspicion.

**Double (or even triple) ratings naturally being reserved for especially positive/negative efforts.

***Confirmed to me a couple weeks later by an astronomical buff I happened to almost literally bump into, who - admittedly, perhaps simply to be agreeable, but he seemed totally genuine - also agreed with me that the famed Arkenstone had indeed been a bit of a let-down.

****Or was it in fact post-World War Two United States President Harry Truman, in regards to his presumed election defeat in 1948 - as opposed to his premature death - as in the notorious and much-lampooned, with the benefit of hindsight, U.S. newspaper proclaiming his imminent defeat by Republican challenger Thomas Dewey on election night prior to all the votes being counted?