The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

"If you are ever pass through Bag End, tea is at 4. You are welcome ANY time. Don't bother knocking." -Bilbo Baggins

*Spoilers* if you really care.

Now that this trilogy is complete.  I should be critical and true to myself. I enjoyed each film of the Hobbit Trilogy immensely. They are fun. They are enormous in their scope and detailed in their attempts to bring to life the story and the world it is set in. In some ways, it is a shame that they came out after the original Lord of the Rings series. They would be better regarded if they had gone first.

The Battle of the Five Armies is sadly my least favorite of the three.  It is almost an entire movie of action from start to finish. There is barely a moment to spare for drama as our battle grows closer and closer. In his previous forays into looming battles, Helm's Deep, Jackson was masterful in his building of suspense. -Zulu anyone? Jackson might have attempted the same for this battle, but I am glad he didn't, despite the fact that in my mind it did not come off perfectly. If I watched all three movies in a row, I would find no qualm with this extended pay off, but as this was a single viewing, a year after our last installment, I found myself wanting more substance. Of course, there were highlights and positives, and I loved every moment of it, but somehow it wasn't quite enough.

My first thought was that Peter Jackson had taken the idiotic criticism that his last final installment The Return of the King, took too much time getting to the action and was too slow. In my mind that is what made TRotK so amazing. It deferred action in favor of substance.  -This in turn made the battle payoff even bigger and grander. (I still get chills every time the horn blows and the Rohirrim muster to the charge of Theoden.)  I hope this is not the case.

Alternatively, one could propose that The Battle of the Five Armies was never designed to be more than the culmination of three films and a small battle of less significance. (the stakes were lower.) Thus, letting battle be the central theme would be a natural progression from limited canon-esque material. It certainly was exciting, just not particularly good drama.

I personally wish the film had taken more time with Thorin's madness and his decent into Smaug/Gollum like behaviors. It was great to see that arch within the trilogy and this film, but it was not enough. Perhaps the extended DVD version will give me what I want?

For positives, I will state that the deaths of Fili, in particular,Kili, and Thorin were handled amazingly well. I wondered how audiences and the film itself would react to losing not just 1 brother but two and then again with Thorin. It is common enough for one hero to die in a film, but thee is a lot. I think what I liked the most about these cinematic deaths was their difference.  Fili's death was quick and shocking with nothing more and its finality and emptiness for the audience feel.  Kili's death was that of the long valiant struggle against the inevitable and Thorin's death was the classic- I can defeat evil only once I am humbled and willing to sacrifice myself- scenario. All in all three very different deaths.

*Oh the whole battle between Azog, The Defiler and Thorin on the icy lake was excellent.  I am in favor of morning stars, chains, and flails as under used weapons of cinema.  Azog's giant rock flail was great- in particular for how its weight eventually brought the audience to laugh and cheer as he sank into the ice.

On a scale of one wizard who can solve most things to EAGLES!!!-that seem to solve everything, I give The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies 3.7 out of 5 stars.