The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Well there we have it; the spectacular ending to the 13-year long saga that launched the world of Middle-Earth onto our screens in blistering glory. I still maintain that it is a remarkable feat for Peter Jackson and his team to have stretched the relatively small book of The Hobbit (compared to say, Lord of the Rings) into a trilogy of lengthy films (though this is one of the shorter ones - at a mere 144 minutes long). Back in January, upon reviewing this films predecessor, The Desolation of Smaug, I concluded by saying that, though technically it was a great and pleasing film there were a few niggling flaws that spoiled the overall picture. 

Nearly one year on and broadly speaking, in terms of the final film itself and in terms of an ending to this epic saga, I have similar feelings.

Let us start with the positives, because there are quite a few. Firstly, it was a joy to see so many firm cast favourites (from the first trilogy and the second) back in fine form for one final hurrah. Casting and performance-wise, I could not fault anyone. Though we have already established that Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo the titular Hobbit (and he continued to be so in this final film) both the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films have always been spectacular, intricate and awe-inspiring ensemble pieces, and this finale reiterated that; each member of the ensemble shining brilliantly.

Yes Martin Freeman was great as Bilbo, as was Ian Holm as Bilbo 60 years on; the minute he was on screen right at the very end filled me with warmth and firm knowledge that both actors can now easily encapsulate Bilbo to a tee. In terms of other brief cameos - it was joyous to see the likes of Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Sir Christopher Lee back as Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman respectively. Not only did they remind us of why we loved them so in previous films, but they also gave us a little snippet of newness in terms of their characters that we haven't seen before.

Legendary actor and stalwart favourite of every Tolkien film yet, Sir Ian Mckellen definitely and deservedly went out on a high as Gandalf. His was probably the most satisfying ending to watch as his part in the tale is so integral, and McKellen's performance so loved - it was great to see Gandalf's final bow.

Richard Armitage I have found in the previous Hobbit films to be stoically solid as Thorin Oakenshield but not much more. This time he created a moving character arc from honour to madness to honour again all in one film - the results of which were very well done. Luke Evans' Bard grew into his own and reached his final full potential, and Thorin's fellow company of dwarves also reached the end of their journey too - again it was immensely satisfying to see their tales told. We even got to see a new dwarf in the form of Dain - played beautifully by the ever resolute Billy Connolly. 

As with the dwarves, so too did the elves return with a vengeance. Lee Pace again was ever ethereal and commanding as Thranduil. Orlando Bloom was still ever-watchable as fan favourite Legolas (his newly added Hobbit journey was very well done and very well fitted into the rest of his story). And also completely fresh character Tauriel returned and resolved her story beautifully - all embodied in the wonderful Evangeline Lilly. Last time with the last film I picked up on the hinted romance and the distinct love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel and dwarf Kili. This definitely came back strong as an element of this film and again felt like a stop-gap to fill a few plot holes, or even to accentuate a story that did not need embellishing in such a way (more so in this film than the last I'd say). I can see why they've done it, and though it is not what I would have done, in the end it is done in a nice enough way and is just enough of a nice touch for them to get away with it.

Finally, I am glad that though the iconic dragon Smaug was killed, and killed rather swiftly in the prologue of this film, they did  play to the dragon's strengths and to the strengths of the incredible vocal performance of Benedict Cumberbatch before the dragon met his demise. For this was a massive highlight of the second Hobbit film, and an integral part to the third.

In terms of the overall feel of the film - again broadly speaking a fitting conclusion. I do think they did go overboard in trying to justify their new Five Armies title. Not much subtlety about it - the battle scenes were meant to be massive and they were.  Just about different enough in some places to set them apart from previous drawn-out battle scenes that Peter Jackson is famous for, yet there were also times when these elements fell stagnant, Having said that, the overall epic battle scale that was hoped for was achieved 90% of the time. The challenge then laid in infusing enough powerful plot to go with the battles. Again for the most part this was done and done well (note the stellar performances I have mentioned). Yet again there were a few times when I felt they were pushing it, and that they were trying too hard to justify making us wait and pay to see a third film. This slightly sporadic flow did hinder proceedings somewhat, but as I say overall the end result was good.

This final film was marketed as "the defining chapter" of the entire Middle Earth saga. Whilst I do not think it is the defining chapter (though don't ask me to say which one is) and although it is certainly not perfect, it is a pleasing and resounding end chapter. There may come a time for greater reflection on the whole epic six-film saga, but for now I shall say that The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies was a fitting end to what truly has been an incredible journey.

RIP Christine Cavanaugh

1963-2014

Noah

As biblical epics go, this is a belter. One of the more blistering (and in some ways one of the most controversial) films of 2014; once again thanks to Sky Movies I have now been able to watch it. This film was controversial at its heart due to its religious nature and origin, like most biblical tales re-presented and re-vamped in the media, Hollywood or otherwise. But I do not really want to get bogged down in all that. At the box office Noah was broadly speaking quite a success and I can see why.

First and foremost, I believe Darren Aronofsky and his team succeeded in getting the initial setting and tone of Noah right from the off. In terms of the locations, sets, costumes, and characters we get the feeling almost instantly that this is taking place just a few short years after the dawn of man. The times are primal, they are organic, they are sometimes savage and they are raw. All this gives us a unique blend of situations, featuring a tinge of biblical "history" (if you want to go down that route) and a distinctly mythical and legendary factor. Having initially succeeded in setting this world up for us in the first half of the film, Noah then proceeds to tear it apart in biblically apocalyptic fashion - presenting to us a classic tale, incredible disaster movie, and a distinctly human story all in one.

Like the setting of Noah, the characters all feel raw and new in the world. They are all individual yes, but they all manage to encapsulate in their own ways the feeling of people who are just stepping out into the light (or darkness) and still all need the guidance of their Creator along the way. In terms of performances, yes they are all varying in terms of feel, screen time and indeed quality, but each actor seems to have pretty much succeeded in fitting their own character into this world of Noah, allowing the story to flow without one having to question individuals too much.

Whilst not necessarily negative, there are a couple (but not too many) characters/performances that fade into the background and become integral yet forgettable building blocks of the story. Douglas Booth as Shem (the titular character's eldest son) is definitely the underdog in terms of fame-attached-to-the-name, and indeed the performance is just as note-worthy. He is involved in a couple of big scenes, but broadly his is the typical "older brother" in the family unit and really seems like a tool to move the progression of Emma Watson's story forward.

Similarly child actor Leo McHugh Carroll as Japheth is the typical "younger brother" of the piece. Nothing bad to say about his performance, but nothing good either.

With an older and a younger brother, we must have the middle brother - Logan Lerman as Ham; and his character feels very deliberately and very markedly placed into the story to stand out (at least among the "youth" section of the cast). I think it is more the situation written and crafted around Lerman's character, rather than his acting talent that allows him to stand out, but to be fair there are moments that, when given the opportunity he does shine enough to fit into his character well.

Speaking of Emma Watson, hers was quite a pleasantly surprising performance for me. I have followed her transitional career somewhat (including but not limited to Harry Potter of course) and whilst I thought she had potential, I generally thought her presence on screen came off as quite shallow and arrogant. In Noah however, I was glad to watch Emma Watson give a layered and emotive performance as Ila. Yes occasionally a few of her moments seemed a bit forced, and at times her character too feels very deliberately placed into the plot just for the sake of it, but generally a positive, well rounded and again quite fittingly raw performance.

The other main female force in Noah is Jennifer Connelly who, in my experience of watching her work is generally known for creating forgettable stuff (apart from 2001's A Beautiful Mind; both she and the film were terrific). Here she fitted well into the story, her relationship and chemistry with other characters was good, and yet again when she needed to be she could turn up the raw and ragged edge to produce some quite trembling moments.

Ray Winstone was his usual "geezer" self but also gave just enough gritty villainy as nemesis Tubal-cain, and I also just want to mention the consummately superb Sir Anthony Hopkins who was a welcome touch of experience, wisdom and class as Methuselah.

So - Russell Crowe as Noah. A few people criticized this bit of casting, saying Crowe was not right for the role. I must disagree. Most of the characters in this film do not really change much from beginning to end, or if they do such change is very predictable. I think ultimately Crowe succeeds in accurately and emotively portraying Noah's transition (both in terms of the biblical story and what is needed for the film) from erstwhile, dedicated and environmentally conscious family man, to hardy, brave saviour of the innocent, to briefly the first aging alcoholic, to eventual patriarch and replenisher of mankind on Earth. This I feel is one of Russell Crowe's better performances, certainly from what I have seen. He inhabits the character of Noah well, and is strong enough and human enough to lead this epic tale from beginning to end.

That's what Noah is really - an epic tale in the best possible way. As I say the overall tone of this film is crucial, and getting it right even more so. I feel they have broadly done just that, and thus this film does indeed bring the classic tale of Noah's Ark positively and resoundingly into the 21st century.