"Five Armies" does make "The Hobbit" trilogy a rather strong bridge to "Lord of the Rings," even in its last shot. Someone who has never seen the films watching all six in order could be something special, though. And when the larger battle halts entirely in order to follow the main characters, it hurts the larger overall narrative, or rather, calls attention to the fact that there really isn't one at this point in the story other than "kill the orcs." Yes, the fate of Middle Earth is at stake, but we already know how things will ultimately play out. What it doesn't do, however, is command a vested interest from the audience.
So corruption and selfishness become dominant themes of the film until the final battle, which doesn't disappoint in scale, entertainment, or visual effects.
Bilbo (Martin Freeman), who has been hiding the Arkenstone, sees Thorin's madness could cause a senseless war, which of course it does, only the battle takes a different shape when Azog the Defiler and his orc army arrives. Thorin, however, is corrupted by his greed, and rather than help the displaced people of Lake-town, grows restless because his treasure's focal point, the Arkenstone, has yet to be found. After Smaug torches Lake-town, Thranduil (Lee Pace) and the Wood-elves march upon Erebor, where Thorin (Richard Armitage) has reclaimed his rightful throne. The first act is entirely buildup to the titular battle with plenty of suspense as sides try to negotiate in order to prevent an unnecessary war when a much greater evil is growing in Middle Earth. "Five Armies" at least does not waste any time. "The Hobbit" is a children's book, so splitting it into three parts is merely dragging out a streamlined plot of "company seeks treasure and justice, company faces challenges along the way culminating in a mighty dragon, company overcomes odds." The added subplots put more meat on the bones of the three films, especially "Desolation," but did not necessarily add complexity or maturity to it. Also, that accomplishment set the bar high for "The Hobbit" given how many people have returned from "Lord of the Rings" on camera and off.
HIGHWAY 2014 TORRENTKING SERIES
Although "The Hobbit" has new locales and new characters and was the first film series screened with a higher frame rate, it's not as groundbreaking an achievement.
We've been to Middle Earth before, we've seen the makeup and the elaborate sets, we know how Jackson navigates a battle sequence. So why was this trilogy less acclaimed and somewhat anti-climactic? Part of this undoubtedly has to do with novelty. It is creative, humorous, action-packed, brimming with talent and gravitas and so many of the things that made "The Lord of the Rings" the achievement it was. As with "The Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug," "The Battle of the Five Armies" is another beautiful achievement in fantasy filmmaking, with stunning production value and an outstanding director in Jackson. "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" proves a fitting, exciting conclusion to this particular trilogy, but compared to the conclusion of "The Lord of the Rings," quite frankly and pun intended – it gets dwarfed. Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" was a completely exhausting adventure that in many ways feels like seven films, not three, while "The Hobbit" trilogy feels exactly like it is on paper: one straightforward adventure broken into three parts. Did Peter Jackson really just conclude his second Middle Earth trilogy? His take on J.R.R.
0 kommentar(er)
