The good, the

 

3"." is!

"El “I! mm W HES “I mar VIII

a“

arm alibi}

was _.

f‘? | Tuesday, january27th, 2015

 

name!

 

bad, “The Hobbit:

The Battle of the Five Armies"

Austin Gonzalez
OPINION EDITOR

The most recent and final addition
to “The Hobbit” is the greatest one yet, in that
it brings with it the end to Jackson’s uninspired
drivel. “The Unexpected Journey” was a bad
start to a highly anticipated trek back into the
Lord of the Rings universe.

Featuring twelve cardboard dwarves
with less character than their cousins in “Snow
White,” audiences spend more than half the
“journey” watching flashbacks. In the “Desola-
tion of Smaug,” we depart from the source ma-
terial and ruin the fantasy world that was once
so consistent. “The Battle of the Five Armies”
relies on big screen shock and awe to tie up this
poorly retold story. The plot isn’t memorable.
Even after dutifully spending 144 minutes
viewing the movie, I had to watch it again to

 

remind myself of what really happened.

With over an hour of the screen time
being dedicated to fighting, it’s unsurprising
that not much is done to create memorable
moments. “The Battle of the Five Armies” tru-
ly is a film solely about a battle of armies. The
basic rundown is what we’ve seen in the past,
but with larger ramifications. Thorin is a jerk;
Thranduil is a jerk; there’s mortal peril.

The interpretation is bad. Tolk-
ien’s universe is massive and Jackson decided
to do away with that, and make his own. His
interpretation of the “Dragon’s Greed” under
the mountain and other elements key to his
story are without backing. During the battle,
there a few brief moments where the audience
catches a glimpse of “were—worms.” These mas-
sive creatures aren’t a part of the battle in the
source, they aren’t consistent with the source,
and to top it off they don’t truly exist in the

source (They’re mentioned once in a Hobbit
idiom.)

Aside from the elements themselves,
their composition is lazy. The cinematography
is old hat after 5 movies of similar sequences.
Between long segments of tiny people bur-
geoning ugly people with the help of the tall
people, there are establishing shots of scenery.
These moments do less to make the audience
“ooh and ahh” than they do to pull you out of
the experience. Were you watching a dwarf
getting swashed by a troll baby? Well then, now
is definitely the time for a picture of this snowy
mountain.

At the end of the day, it’s a terribly
poor example of what one of our best direc-
tors can produce. In the “Lord of the Rings”,
what you see is an internal conflict and an ex-
ternal conflict play out simultaneously. Frodo
and journey to destroy the ring is about the

strength of self. The raging battle of good and
evil happens alongside and provides a contrast
that is part of the same story. The eleven hour
saga of “Lord of the Rings" is able to maintain
audiences’ attention through its combination
of characters, score, and story. The possibility
of redemption for this movie does not save it
from being a terrible movie, but gives it a jus-
tification for even existing. “The Hobbit” is a
children’s book. It’s a collection of bed time
stories tied together; each chapter is its own
exciting adventure curtailed by a cliff hanger
ending.

If Peter Jackson was aiming at the
child audience, then he made a movie that
children could enjoy. There are fart jokes, there
are tons of gigantic things to “ooh and aah”
at, and there is a battle scene. (To be clear, the
battle scene is the movie.) The Hobbit movies
have been a mess from beginning to end.

DECEMBER 17~

HFR 3L)

‘-‘».‘ - IMAX'SD

Image courtesy of thehobbit.com