The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was excellent and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug left us dangling with an exciting cliffhanger. We had to wait until The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) to see how this all ended and hopefully see how it tied in with The Lord of the Rings. Overall, The Five Armies was good, and gave us a satisfying end to the trilogy.

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), and the rest of the dwarf company watch helplessly from the Lonely Mountain as the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) destroys Laketown in revenge for helping the dwarves. In Laketown, Bard (Luke Evans) manages to exploit Smaug's only tiny weakness and brings the dragon down. The dwarves tell Bilbo that Thorin has fallen into madness due to Smaug's "Dragon Sickness" as Thorin seaches for the Arkenstone, the symbol of Thorin's authority to rule the dwarves. Meanwhile, Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Saruman (Christopher Lee), and Radagast (The Doctor Sylvester McCoy) rescue Gandalf (Ian McKellen) from the Necromancer's fortress. Gandalf learned of an Orc army from the east approaching the Lonely Mountain and hurries to warn the Dwarves. Elves Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) discover a goblin army making their way toward the Lonely Mountain, seeking the now unguarded gold. The Laketown survivors implore of Thorin only enough of the dragon's gold to rebuild their decimated lives. They are aided by the elf king Thranduil (Lee Pace) and his soldiers who himself seeks elven crown jewels from the dragon's keep. With these five armies closing in on the Lonely Mountain and Thorin struggling with madness and paranoia, an all out war will inevitably breakout. But Bilbo still has a few tricks up his sleeve and may turn the tides of war.

It did take me a while to figure out who the five armies were; I'd only counted four. The goblin and orc armies look very similar, after all. So, we've got men, dwarves, elves, the orcs and goblins who have been chasing our heroes throughout the trilogy, and an "orc army from the east." There are untold masses of riches and treasure in the Lonely Mountain, but not all the armies are after that. Some are after it for its strategic location to bolster their strength in upcoming war campaigns, others are after specific tokens that found their way into the hoard, and others naturally want more money than they can possibly know what to do with. Everyone has a stake in this battle.

The Desolation of Smaug had some pacing issues in the interest of telling a story, The Five Armies almost had the opposite problem. There is a whole lot of action in this installment to the point that we don't get much story development. To be fair, though, you should have seen all of these many characters developed and have understood enough of the set up in the previous two movies to not need much of that here. There is tons of action and fight scenes and the epic, big scale battles that Peter Jackson did so beautifully in The Lord of the Rings. The only fight I was disappointed in was battling Smaug; he's depicted as immensely powerful and an unstoppable force of destruction yet defeating him seemed a bit too easy and anticlimactic. That fight could have been lengthened or made more significant, but everything else was amazing. You will absolutely not leave this movie wishing there had been more action. In fact, I dare say it was on the brink of being too much action and not enough of anything else.

At the end of the movie we see a couple of characters going off in their own direction which we are sure will lead them to their respective roles in The Lord of the Rings. That was expected, but the one scene which really bridges this trilogy together with The Lord of the Rings is when Gandalf was rescued. Here we see some of the bearers of rings of power and some wizards duke it out with the Necromancer and the nine souls of men who succumbed to Sauron's power and attained near-immortality as wraiths. You watch this and understand how events in The Hobbit significantly affected things in The Lord of the Rings. While we do get a satisfying conclusion, by the end of The Five Armies you'll be ready to catch the next installment which is, of course, the first Lord of the Rings movie.

As a trilogy, The Hobbit has pacing issues and included a lot of extra stuff that wasn't in the book. I reiterate that these movies were based on the book by the same title, the appendices to The Return of the King, and Tolkin's personal notes. There is extra stuff that was not in the book, but is still technically cannon. Peter Jackson did add a few things here and there such as Tauriel's character and her rather annoying love interest with Kíli. The Lord of the Rings was a trilogy of books so it made sense to make them a trilogy of movies. The Hobbit was one book originally intended for kids. Now that I've seen the entirety of the trilogy, I think that about half of the extra material included in the movies could have been left out. It did feel like it was random filler to extend the length of the story and justify three movies instead of two, as was originally planned. I still think Jackson could have done The Hobbit an exceptional service transitioning it from book to movie if it had been left at two movies instead of a whole trilogy with extra padding to lengthen the story. This is not at all to say that I don't like The Hobbit; I do! I simply think a more concise pair of movies would have made them stronger. The Lord of the Rings is much better, but that is a very high standard to hold any movie up to.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies was a lot of fun. It championed the beautiful visuals and special effects we have come to love from Middle-Earth movies, we saw our heroes in action one last time and saw their particular strengths shine in the hands of some great actors, we saw how the events in The Hobbit significantly affected events in The Lord of the Rings, and we saw a satisfying conclusion to this trilogy. If you remember that satisfied yet sad feeling you got as the end credits rolled at the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 when you realize that that is it and there will be no more Harry Potter movies, you'll likely feel that at the end of The Five Armies as you realize that there will be no more Middle-Earth movies. I recommend catching this in theaters, it's likely the last chance you'll get to see the beautiful fantasy world of Middle-Earth on the big screen. Though you should wait for the extended edition of the movie to hit blu-ray before buying a copy for your home collection.

What were your thoughts on the additional content put into The Hobbit trilogy. Comment below and tell me about it, but please avoid spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen everything yet.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole Movie Review

I've said in previous reviews that Zach Snyder's movies are often hit or miss, but his visual style is absolutely gorgeous to behold. That said, Snyder's animation debut was pretty exciting news. I finally got around to seeing Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010), and I think it somehow managed to be both hit and miss.

Soren (Jim Sturgess) is a young barn owl who is enthralled by the epic stories his father (Hugo Weaving) tells him of the Guardians of Ga'Hoole, a mythic band of winged warriors who fought a great battle to save owlkind from the evil Pure Ones. While Soren dreams of joining his heroes one day, his brother Kludd (Ryan Kwanten) scoffs at the notion. Kludd yearns to hunt, learn to fly, and earn his father's favor from his younger sibling. Kludd's eagerness causes both of the young owlets to fall from their treetop home and into the talons of The Pure Ones. The two discover the evil plot to abduct fledgling owls and raise them to become an army with which to conquer all of owlkind. Soren manages to escape with a few allies; Gylfie (Emily Barclay), Digger (David Wenham), and Twilight (Anthony LaPaglia). Together they set off to find the legendary heroes, the Warriors of Ga'Hoole to warn them of The Pure One's evil plot.

Zack Snyder's visually intense directing made Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole absolutely gorgeous to look at. Unlike most CGI animated movies which aim for a cartoony sort of look, The Owls of Ga'Hoole strived for a photorealistic art style. It was stunning! You could actually see the individual feathers on the owls fluttering in the wind, getting ruffled up during action scenes, and take on a different texture when they got wet. It is very difficult to animate hair and fur; a whole new program was created just to get Merida's hair to  look right in Pixar's Brave. There are so many feathered characters in The Owls of Ga'Hoole that it each scene must have taken ages to animate and look as good as they do in the movie. The photorealism extends to the sets and scenery, too. You could pause the movie at any time and the resulting still shot would look picturesque enough to frame and hang on the wall.

It came as no surprise to me that Zach Snyder's signature use of spontaneous moments of slow motion during action. He did this a lot in 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch. It's still a neat visual effect, and thankfully we don't get swamped with it. There were moments where I didn't understand why the slow motion effect was used, the scene didn't seem to justify using it. But there were other scenes such as when Soren was trying to fly through a rainstorm and tries to focus; everything slows down for a moment including the thousands of raindrops all around him. That looked really cool.

I only mentioned a few of the voice actors who appear in The Owls of Ga'Hoole above. Others include big name actors such as Joel Edgerton, Sam Neill, Helen Mirren, Abbie Cornish,  and Geoffrey Rush. There's nearly an all-star cast and they do great! The voice acting is spectacular. Hugo Weaving actually voices two characters, but it's done so well you'd hardly know they were the same actor.

The downside to The Owls of Ga'Hoole is the weak plot. The movie is based on Kathryn Lasky's book series and the movie received a lot of negative comments about the modified story. I haven't even heard of the books so I can't comment there, but it made fans of the books upset enough to mention it here. The story ended up being very predictable and vague on details.  The Pure Ones have some sort of magic metal "flecks" that they get from owl pellets (a mass of undigested parts of a birds food that some bird species occasionally regurgittaes). How that is magic and why that paralyzes enemies was totally lost to me. The characters were simple and predictable. So much of this movie has been done in dozens of other children's adventure movies that literally nothing surprises you in the least.

For being Zach Snyder's first animated feature, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole was not a bad attempt at an animated movie. The photorealistic animation was stellar to say the least, and the camera work was fantastic! The story and characters were so predictable that it's safe to say you've already seen this movies several times before, unless you're an 8-year-old. The movie seemed to try to go for a hard core edge while still being kid-friendly. This wouldn't be a bad family movie; the animation will likely captivate adult audiences while the simple characters and story are easy enough for younger kids to keep up with. Overall, I think I would have been just fine if I hadn't seen the movie at all. I don't think it's worth the money to purchase unless you truly value the impressive animation or have young kids who would enjoy an animated action movie.

Is there a director who has only done live action movies whom you'd love to see make an animated feature? I think a Quentin Tarantino movie would be crazy! Comment below and tell me who you'd like to see direct an animated feature!

Cloud Atlas Movie Review

It’s not often that a truly ambitious movie hits theaters. It’s also pretty rare when a movie that focuses on theme more than story or narrative remains very interesting. Lana and Tom Wachowski (who directed The Matrix) wrote and directed this innovative piece of cinema with the help of Tom Tykwer and brought us an enigmatic movie called Cloud Atlas (2012).

Cloud Atlas is an exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present, and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across the centuries to inspire a revolution. Everything is connected: an 1849 diary of an ocean voyage across the Pacific; letters from a composer to his friend; a thriller about a murder at a nuclear power plant; a farce about a publisher in a nursing home; a rebellious clone in futuristic Korea; and the tale of a tribe living in post-apocalyptic Hawaii, far in the future. Each member of the cast ensemble appears in multiple roles as the different stories move through time.

Cloud Atlas is an impossible movie to summarize; that really was the best way to condense it. There are a total of six stories being told; they are interrelated and interwoven stories that span centuries. The stories have a chronology to them with a unique setting and set of characters. The stories are all told simultaneously, switching back and forth between each story. Usually the transition between the stories is logical, such as switching rapidly back and forth between two stories that both have chase scenes. Other times the transition is less logical, such as a suspenseful moment being interrupted by a calmer scene in another story, then returning to the suspenseful scene.

This makes the movie somewhat disorienting at times, but really makes you think about what the feeling, theme, and idea the movie is trying to communicate. According to David Mitchell (the author of the novel Cloud Atlas was based on), the movie is structured “as a sort of pointillist mosaic: We stay in each of the six worlds just long enough for the hook to be sunk in, and from then on the film darts from world to world at the speed of a plate-spinner, revisiting each narrative for long enough to propel it forward.”

A sizeable cast is used for Cloud Atlas. The cast includes Jim Sturgess, Tom Hanks, David Gyasi, Bae Doona, Hugo Weaving, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, Keith David, Susan Sarandon, Halle Berry, and Ben Whishaw. Listing the characters that these actors play in Cloud Atlas would take a lot of space. Each actor is in each of the six stories, but playing different characters in each one. In so doing, the movie explores the concepts of reincarnation and how our actions have far reaching effects in a way that I have never seen in a movie before. It was fascinating to see how different souls kept finding each other in different lives.

The actors, Tom Hanks in particular, act very differently between stories as they play different characters. Sometimes they are depicted as different ethnicities and sometimes even different genders. Seeing Hugo Weaving dressed as a very convincing female nurse was a bit odd. But so was seeing Jim Sturgess with a makeup job that made him look Korean. The makeup jobs weren’t always convincing, but it did get the point across.

The art direction was absolutely stunning. Camera techniques were captivating, the sets and costumes were stunning, the special effects were spectacular, and even the color pallet and designs were different from story to story; it was simply fascinating to watch! Some of the stories were more action based, while others were more calm and emotional, but they were presented in such a way that really draws you in. Cloud Atlas hooks you right from the beginning and doesn’t let go.

Cloud Atlas is very artistic, somewhat abstract, and a very unconventional means of structuring a movie. Because it’s so artistically complex and unlike anything else out there, I could very easily see some viewers not enjoying it. I even saw some audience members at the theater I attended leave before the movie was over. Cloud Atlas took a non-traditional narrative, impressionistic, and even a poetic approach. There was meaningfully implemented profanity, and sex scenes. That is to say it wasn’t simply junk thrown in to give it a higher rating. I didn’t find it offensive, but it’s still not something to show young viewers.

Cloud Atlas was incredible. It was fascinating to watch, captivating, and really makes you think. At two hours and forty-five minutes it’s a very long movie, but not once did I feel bored. I felt like I was viewing some mesmerizing abstract art. And like any abstract art, Cloud Atlas will not appeal to everyone. If you see it and really enjoy it, I can sympathize. If you see it and are completely confused or even hate it, I can totally understand your reasoning. I don’t expect Cloud Atlas to make much in the box office; I don’t think it will appeal to most viewers because it’s so unusual. But I enjoyed it, and I want to see it again to try to understand more of what this film is trying to say. If Cloud Atlas sounds like something you might enjoy, I recommend seeing it, possibly twice. If it sounds too strange for you, then it probably is and I’d avoid it. Nevertheless, I think I would like to own a copy of this on Blu-Ray. It’s such an intriguing work of cinematic art.

Have you ever seen an experimental film? What did you think about it? Did you like it? Did you hate it? Comment below and let me know!

Movie Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

Marvel Studios has been busy as a bee since 2008, introducing a variety of Super Hero characters. Each character has their own movie, and some even have multiple movies. We have two Iron Man movies, a Hulk movie, a Thor movie, and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) has appeared in all of these movies to varying degrees. There’s even a third Iron Man and a second Thor movie in the works. Any comic book geek with knowledge of the Marvel universe could see what was coming after the post-credits scene in Iron Man (2008).  Nick Fury showed up telling Tony Stark (Iron Man) that he’s not the world’s only super hero and wanted to discuss the "Avenger Initiative". The last of The Avengers team that hadn’t shown up yet was Captain America. I didn’t think Captain America’s story would be hard to do, but it might be tricky to do well. But after seeing how well a Norse god became relatable, I felt confident and ready to see Captain America: The First Avenger (2011).

The year is 1942; World War II is in full swing and the United States has entered the fray. Thousands of young men are volunteering to join the army to serve their country. One among them is Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a short, ninety-five pound asthmatic with a heart of gold who has just been rejected yet again for military service. Rogers’ life changes dramatically after encountering Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) at a recruitment center. Dr. Erskine is impressed with Rogers and recruits him for the top secret “Project Rebirth.” After proving his extraordinary courage, intellect, and morals, Rogers undergoes a Super Soldier experiment conducted by Dr. Erskine and Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) that transforms his weak frame into a body at the peak of human strength and potential. Dr. Erskine is immediately assassinated by an agent of Nazi Germany’s secret research department, HYDRA, which is operated by Johann Schmidt, also known as The Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). Schmidt has been using an object of remarkable power called the “tesseract,” believed to have come from the Norse God Odin’s throne room, to create space age weapons and supply Nazi Germany with an unlimited energy-source for world domination. Rogers is deemed too valuable to be put on the front lines and is misused initially as a propaganda mascot. However, when his comrades who had previously enlisted need his help, Rogers springs into action to aid them and truly becomes Captain America, the hero, not just the symbol. This is where Captain America’s war against the Red Skull truly begins.

My biggest concern with this movie was that the character Captain America would be portrayed as a gung-ho, pro-America, nationalist, which seems to be the extent of modern day patriotism. Thankfully, this was not so. Captain America: The First Avenger (directed by Joe Johnston) has something to say about patriotism and where the true strength of America lies. This aspect of the character and plot was not played up quite as much as I was expecting, but it was not belittled or avoided as I had feared. Steve Rogers did not join the military out of a sense of vengeance or bravado as many of his comrades had. He joined out of a sense of justice and a desire to protect the oppressed. This was depicted in an exchange between pre-Super Soldier Rogers and Dr. Erskine. Erskine asks, “Do you want to kill Nazis?” to which Rogers replies without hesitation, “I don't want to kill anybody. I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from.”

We’re shown the other side of war where patriotism can be used as propaganda. Initially Steve Rogers is given a rather eccentric costume after the Super Soldier experiment so that he can help promote the war and sell it to the American public. He is given an embarrassingly simple script to recite about buying war bonds while a line of dancing women are singing pro-America jingles. This ends badly with Captain America throwing a fake punch at a stage actor portraying Adolf Hitler. Rogers is clearly uncomfortable with this and desires to take a more active and useful role in stopping the Nazi bullies. This really is the type of simplified gung-ho nationalist-like patriotism that the character Captain America is not about and I appreciated that they made this distinction in the movie.

In most movies, especially superhero movies, they spare no time in having the newly empowered hero confront the villain and dive headlong into the action scenes. Not so in this movie.Captain America: The First Avenger really spends time developing the Captain America character. This really is an origin story that develops the character at his heart; the movie is more character driven than action driven. There is an action “montage” rather than lots of fighting scenes. This was used to depict Captain America’s multiple successes and shield-smacking victories before getting into the bigger, more plot-specific battles. But don’t worry; when the action arrives it’s really good; I was on the edge of my seat for many of the scenes. There were even a couple of moments during the action scenes that were unexpected and a bit shocking, such as a henchmen meeting a grotesque demise by a propeller.

All the characters were fun and well developed. Steve Rogers’ flame, Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), was interesting, pretty, confident, and independent. Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) was gruff, practical, logical, and helped push Rogers’ to his best potential. Howard Stark (who is the father of the not yet born Tony Stark; Iron Man) is a lady killer, arrogant, creative, and resourceful. All these characters play off of each other really well. No one character is given a bulk of the humorous lines which was a somewhat mediocre device done in Thor (2011).

My only real complaint was the Red Skull. Every good hero needs a good villain; the nastier and more devious the villain, the more interesting the conflict. The Red Skull seemed to be lacking in purpose. He seemed to simply want to take over and destroy the world for the sake of taking over and destroying the world. It was almost as though all the lackluster qualities of a generic throw-away villain were stuffed into what is ordinarily an iconic super villain from the Marvel Comics universe. I have heard Red Skull is supposed to possess a superior intellect and inventive genius, as well as being a highly gifted subversive strategist and political operative. We did see some creative genius as he made ray guns and all manner of sci-fi gadgets with 1940’s technology. But you don’t get a feel for his intellect, political machinations, or strategic plotting. The Red Skull as a character is just about the only major character that seemed flat, generic, and undeveloped. He fills the role of “nasty, ugly villain” quite well, but his depiction in this film just seemed cliché. I can overlook this shortcoming a bit since Captain America is the main focus and there needed to be a struggle over which he could prevail. Such a struggle allows us to see what Captain America is made of and ultimately understand his part in the upcoming Avengers movie.

As opposed to the excruciating Captain America movie that came out in 1990 (trailer here) which, with good reason, no one seems to remember, Captain America: The First Avenger really was a fun movie with a good, fairly solid story. The movie demonstrates the message that patriotism is not about strength. It is about compassion and justice. Patriotism is not about how loud you cheer for your country or how many bad guys you kill. It is about how much you are willing to sacrifice to protect the helpless. Those are real patriotic American values. I enjoyed this movie enough that I intend to get a copy of it on Blu-Ray for my personal collection when it becomes available. This movie will be pretty intense for younger audiences, but it might be worth the effort to show them once they can handle some intense action scenes. Captain America is a hero of good morals and character that would be good to help them model in their own lives.