"The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies" Review

The "Hobbit" movies has gotten flak for being "Lord of the Rings" lite, and to an extent, I understand, but I don't find that analysis completely fair. While it's true that this series is padded with material not found in the book, and at times, adopts the tone of the original trilogy, the "Hobbit" series excels when the atmosphere of Middle Earth takes over. "The Hobbit" movies are strongest when removed farthest from "Lord of the Rings."

The first two installments, "An Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug" make the balance of action and atmosphere work, pushing the story along while giving time to explore the world (wandering through the dark forest, climbing the Stone Giants). However, with the conclusion, "Battle of the Five Armies", the problems come to the forefront, and in a movie that attempts to replicate "Return of the King," director Peter Jackson misses the mark, with a less impactful spectacle trying to masquerade a bloated, confusing plot.

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and his company of dwarves must defend the human stronghold of Laketown from Smaug's fury after they exile the dragon from Erebor, the dwarves' mountain homeland. Unbeknownst to them, their campaign has attracted the attention of all the major powers of Middle Earth, ready to culminate into a final confrontation that will determine everyone's fate.

These characters are still lovable and dynamic; Freeman's Bilbo is reserved, but skillfully and subtly articulates the status of his thoughts, whether they be in doubt, disappointment, or gratitude. Ian McKellen combines gravitas and a kind heart as Gandalf: spectacular as always. (I'm sad to see him go.) Bard (Luke Evans) balances his roles of warrior and leader, (better so than Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn); he delivers what will likely be an underrated performance.

"Battle of the Five Armies" balances out its hits with misses: for every time Christopher Lee kicks ass in the name of wizardry, the Legolas-Tauriel-Kili love triangle rears its studio-mandated head. The action, while presented beautifully in the movie's sets, is shot tight to the point of claustrophobia, let alone comprehension. For every tearjerking speech, there's a bout of irritating comic relief. For every one of my audience's shouts of approval, there's a derisive giggle of disbelief.

However, when compared to its counterparts, "Battle of the Five Armies" has a level of confidence that's hard to fault, likely due to Jackson's comfort with the material. The amount of effort and spectacle demands to be seen on the big screen; you'd be doing it a disservice in any other medium (except for a DVD marathon.)  The movie, regardless of its faults, feels like the return of an old friend. It may not reach the caliber of "Return of the King", but "Battle of the Five Armies" is a serviceable conclusion, and a welcome end to our adventures in Middle Earth.

Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without A Plan, signing off.

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1" Review

I can't help but feel that as the Hunger Games series continues, I'm watching the director's cut of the whole story. Am I issuing a new complaint by saying the trilogy shouldn't be stretched out into four movies? As evidenced by the Divergent and Twilight series, I'm late to the party. However, I feel more disappointed by this truth than in those series, because the newest installment, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1, moves in the right direction: a new direction. Whereas Catching Fire spent half of its movie repeating the events of the original, Mockingjay is an Empire Strikes Back of sorts, testing our heroes' resolve and villain's strength, building to a cliffhanger climax. This movie is fine on its own, but here's the problem: this has to add on to Catching Fire, and with a combined 269 minutes of a second act, Mockingjay does too little, too late.

After sabotaging the 75th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) finds herself in District 13, an underground colony where the members of the resistance hide, plotting to take back the country of Panem from the rule of the Capitol and its leader, President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Recognizing Katniss as a symbol the public can rally behind in a rebellion, the president of District 13, Alma Coin (Juliane Moore), along with Capitol-executive-turned-rebel-spy Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), plan to use her influence to turn the tides, gain supporters and spark a revolution. 

However, our heroine is conflicted. She feels guilt for the kidnapping of her best friend/lover Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), now a Capitol stooge, used to simultaneously taunt Katniss and quell any whispers of rebellion. Jennifer Lawrence, usually reserved as Katniss, allows her a bit more room to be impulsive and vulnerable, feeling the full brunt of the mental and emotional damage such events can do to a person..

The rest of the cast is hit or miss. Hutcherson gives a strong, nuanced performance; Hoffman settles in snugly with the ensemble; Sutherland is venomous and confident. However, actors such as Sam Claflin and Natalie Dormer are underused, Moore seems to be going through the motions, and Liam Hemsworth is as boring as ever.

Mockingjay - Part 1 switches up its satire, going from the madness of media to a look at public perception and the cult of celebrity. In order to promote their message, the rebels get the idea to create propoganda videos (endearingly entitled "propos"), and broadcast them across the districts to elicit public reactions. Time is spent analyzing every choice in order to help maximize the result, all while Katniss is groomed as a fierce symbol of defiance, to her awkward confusion. (Watching Jennifer Lawrence act as Katniss acting as a piss-poor actress is hilarious.) 

Although watching the seeds of rebellion spread and grow is fascinating, the studio's decision to split Mockingjay into two movies leads to filler, at times moving the plot along at a snail's pace. With love triangles, forced humor, and fight scenes that feel like an obligation to the promises of the trailer, the film's most emotional scenes are diluted. Instead of focusing on the little details, why not provide us with information about the war? Three movies in, and I still don't understand why the war between the Districts and Capitol started, who were the main players, why the Hunger Games were chosen over any other form of punishment, and why no one in 75 years ever chose to outwardly rebel as Katniss did. The series may be saving these answers for the last movie, but I'm getting Lost flashbacks.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 would have worked better instead of Catching Fire, slimming down the overall story. The cast works well; the satire is solid for the most part; the developments raise the stakes. However, how high can the stakes be raised until it's too much? With such a long second act, the last movie is now left to wrap everything up efficiently. I worry that Part 2 will either be overdone or left to bare bones, but there's potential in these characters and this subject matter. I'll remain optimistic.

Thank you all for reading; I'm the Man Without a Plan, signing off.