The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

Azog, one of the many examples of how this series was padded out

to mixed results.

In many ways The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies is a hard film to review. Fans of middle earth are going to swarm to the film regardless of what any review contains, and for good reason. The original trilogy easily contains some of the best, if not the very best fantasy films made. The Hobbit trilogy in comparison has widely thus far been considered good albeit disappointing.

The Battle of Five armies starts of where The Desolation of Smaug ends, a film that sadly and amusingly didn't contain the actual desolation of Smaug. Instead it was used as bait to entice viewers to see this presumably final film of Peter Jackson middle earth saga. As a result The Battle of Five armies has an expectedly exciting opening. Although those who where less then impressed by the more cartoon like action of The Hobbit will continue to be unimpressed. Characters from the outset continue to do impossible things, At times this is fine as it is well established in the films that Elves are capable of what are seemingly impossible feats for a human. However this film as the prior two Hobbit films extends this to both the human characters and dwarves. This once again robs the film of their being any sense of risk for the characters present, which undermines the entire epic finale and battle between five armies.

The action remains over the top, but far less so then what was

present in the previous two films.

That isn't to say the film as a finale isn't satisfyingly epic. It just is a film that seem to undercut its intentions for little reason beyond Peter Jackson an co thinking a certain moment may look 'cool', much like Michael Bay seemingly has done with the Transformer films. However compared to the previous instalments such silliness is kept to a relative minimum and thus allows some room for emotional weight. However with a few exceptions such as Bilbo, Gandalf and Thranduil who all have exceptional acting behind them, their is little reasons to care about what happens. This is particularly problematic when it comes to the dwarves of which less then half contain anything resembling a character beyond a caricature. Giving that the entire trilogy is about the Dwarves reclaiming their home this is a particular problem that undermines the purpose of the entire trilogy.

With that being said the performances of those that you do care about that the finale does provide for just enough context to provide some emotional punch and to bring this middle earth saga to a satisfying if not disappointing conclusion. The film is also the shortest of the trilogy and whilst a few areas are left with little resolution this decreased run time is largely welcome and removes the bloat that plagued the first two Hobbit films where it was abundantly obvious that their simply wasn't enough content to sustain an entire trilogy.

Whilst it is far from a masterpiece The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies is a film that is certainly easy to recommend to fans of the Hobbit films. It also has reduced the issues present in the previous two films to a large enough degree to come recommended thanks largely to it slightly less absurd action and its tighter pacing without the bloat that plagued the first two entries of this trilogy.

Whilst it isn't the defining chapter as marketing would have you believe it

is certainly the most enjoyable of the Hobbit films.

What about he HFR? Well I may be somewhat cheating here as this is largely a direct copy of what I wrote last year regarding the HFR in The Desolation of Smaug. It however remains as relevant for this film as it was the last. The short story is I would highly recommend viewing it in HFR, for more detail please read the below.

Whilst more a comment on the technical side I fell compelled to mention the films use of HFR. This is especially the case as The Battle of Five Armies, The Desolation of Smaug and An Unexpected Journey are the only films with a wide release to be shoot and be viewable in such a way. HFR simply stands for high frame rate and as was the case with the prior two films The Battle of Five Armies has been filmed in HFR at 48fps as opposed to the usual 24fps (meaning the number of images a displayed every second is doubled when compared to more or less every other film that has ever been release [there are some exceptions of course, most notably with older silent films before 24fps became the used ‘standard’]). I simply cannot say enough good things about the use of HFR, it provides for a very surreal presentation with everything appearing extremely smooth and lifelike. Likewise the use of 3d especially when combined with the films use of HFR is equally impressive and well worth the extra cost of admission for those interested in seeing this film. The only down side to HFR is it can make the at times less then stellar production values extremely evident. This is of particular note as the entire Hobbit trillogy is extremely inconsistent with it use of cgi. Most scene do look spectacular but on occasion the use of cgi is overly evident and looks more like what one may expect from a film released well over a decade ago.

Collection Update (December 2014 part 2)

The final part for this two part collection update contains both the 3d and Disney blu-rays I have purchased this year.

It may come top a surprise to many that their are numerous 3d films are available from the 1950's. These are not films that have been converted into 3d in recent times, rather they where shoot in 3d. Not only that but they where also presented in 3d using polarized glasses (as most cinemas currently show theatrical 3d films). The results are stunning as the film makers don't have the fear of depth that modern 3d has suffered through in recent times (though that trend thankfully seems to be mostly over with most 3d films pushing higher levels of depth). If it is indeed a surprise that 3d films in the past where not simply the territory of anaglyph 3d (most commonly using red and blue filters in the glasses) it may also surprise many that Alfred Hitchcock directed a 3d film (Dial M for Murder).

How to Train Your Dragon is a film that I would strongly urge people pick up in 3d, even if they are not 3d compatible currently. Not only is the film an exciting funny breath of fresh air in an industry with a low number of quality recent animated titles, but it features amongst the most stunning 3d I have seen. On the other side I had seen the extended cut of Hansel and Gretel and thought I would pick up the 3d release. Whilst it isn't an entirely lost cause I don't think I will ever watch the 3d release again as the extended edition (which is only available in 2d) is by far the superior version of the film.

Lastly for this two part update are the Disney release from the last year. I could write extensively about the poor practices Disney have been undertaking with their recent blu-ray releases but that would be best left for a latter time. 

In what is somewhat of a sweeping statement I would recommend all of these release in 3d except for Captain America. Whilst it is true that not all of these films where originally intended for 3d, it's presence certainly enhances the films. In particular Frozen and Oz The Great and Powerful are stunning examples of intended and native 3d. Likewise Guardians of the Galaxy has stunning 3d that whilst it is a 2d to 3d conversion was made as a 3d film with the director overseeing the 3d conversion of "every shoot".

So the above (along with the prior post) finishes my home film purchases over the last year. I intend for future collection updates to be far more regular but that will of course depend on when I pick up films. Of note is that I bought zero dvd's in the last year. This is simply as their where no films released that I wanted that where only available on dvd.

Exodus: Gods and Kings Review

Note: The below review does contain spoilers, but nothing that I fell constitutes a spoiler giving how well known this story is.

Exodus: Gods and Kings as one may expect follows the tales of Moses a godless Egyptian prince who upon discovering his true parentage is exiled into the dessert where he meets his wife. One day Moses walks up a mountain that just so happens to be one that is forbidden by whilst trying to capture some stray sheep he presumably shepards. It is here that he meets 'god' who needs a general not a shepard and convinces Moses to return from his exile and see what had become of his enslaved people. Unsurprisingly upon returning matters are worse then before and he decides to take action with the help of 'god'.

Exodus: Gods and Kings is a film that I imagine many people will find offensive. It is directed by a man who has a very low opinion on religion and has treat the film as a simple story. In it god is shown as a largely thoughtless half wit who whilst incredibly powerful is unable to utilize his power in an effective manner and comes across and immoral and evil entity. Something that Moses in this film seems to agree with, but at no stage is it ever explained why. The characterisation for the most part is equally troubling. With few exceptions characters motivations seem to simply change with the changing requirements of the plot and few are giving enough screen time to be fully realized characters in their own right. This leads to the 'epic' scenes lacking any punch and being nothing more then a visual treat in the same way many enjoy brainless action spectacle films.

The cause would seem to be how rushed the film is. For example, the relationship between Moses and his wife is nothing more then them meeting at a water hole, exchanging no words, next Moses is meeting her father who asks numerous questions as she watches and then suddenly they are married. This lack of development is in part to the mostly passable but entirely unremarkable acting on display, but also that their simply where not enough scenes dedicated to developing important characters beyond Moses. Their is an early scene between Moses his sister and adoptive mother which is certainly a highlight that promises some dramatic punch, but neither are seen again and nor is the dramatic punch.

In many was Exodus: Gods and Kings is like Kingdom of Heaven. Both are directed by Ridley Scott that hope to have an 'epic' scope but are faltered by rushed pacing and story telling that skims over far to many important details. Hopefully Exodus: Gods and Kings get an extended edition that improves the film like Kingdom of Heaven had. But in its current state Exodus: Gods and Kings does not come recommended.

What about the 3d?

The 3d is simply put a rather mixed affair. Starting of rather mild it later pushes to rather heavy levels of depth. Whilst this heavier level of depth is certainly a nice trend to see in an industry that seems fearful of anything but mild 3d in years past the presentation here is also inconsistent with the levels of depth fluctuating wildly within the same scene and similar shoots. The result is a mostly competent 3d presentation that will certainly satisfy fans of the format, but will be unlikely to convert those who have yet to be convinced.

Transformers Age of Extinction Review

The Transformers film series is one that whilst at times visually stunning has also been unable to find a consistent tone. The narrative whilst minimal has at times been serviceable such as in the first and third films, and at other times it has been complete train wreck as in the second film which the director himself has now declared as “crap”. Like the director I found the second to be a truly terrible film, however I did find the first and third films to provide for more then serviceable fun action escapism.

Transformers Age of Extinction starts with the American government (or at least a branch of the American government) who once worked alongside the Autobots systematically hunting down both Autobots and Decepticons. From their the plot quickly evolves (or devolves) into a mess of ideas and plot points that are forgotten as quickly as they are introduced. The core idea however revolves around Optimus Prime and the Autobots having there faith restored in humanity. This core idea is one that holds promise, the problem however is that the rest of the film seems to simply be about what Michael Bay thinks would be 'cool', like a kid playing with transformer toys. Thus the narrative fells like it is simply mentioned in passing as apposed to actually being developed in any real way.

The characters as one may expect are lifeless inconsistent caricatures and little to no reason is present to care about any that are present. Mark Whalberg as Cade and Nicola Peltz as Tessa in particular give horrid performances and even the ever reliable Stanley Tucci gives a performance that is passable at best. This problem however extends beyond just the human characters and whilst the performances by the voice actors for the Transformers are extraordinarily good, the characterization for these characters is so basic that it removes one of the few aspects in the story that if handled with more care could provide for the basis of a compelling narrative (the Autobots/Optimus Prime having their faith restored in humanity). Likewise the relationship that existed between the Autobots and humanity in the previous films is not touched on, this absence is in particularly odd given that several of which worked alongside the Autobots in the military that is now hunting them down which could easily have been used to create the conflict that lead to the Autbots loosing their faith in humanity (as apposed to it simply being lost already as the film begins). Likewise the human and Autobot relationship which at times ventured into tenuous territory in the prior films now fells in no way a natural progression for the characters and what is happening. The reason for the continued interaction between Cade, Tessa and the Autobots is simply no longer present, and they exist seemingly for no reason beyond that the film makers decided they wanted human characters to remain the focus.

Transformers Age of Extinction however was clearly not made with the intention of the narrative being the focus. Rather the story simply seems to exists as a framing device for the action. The problem is the action present in this film is far from impressive. The visual effects vary from admittedly impressive to what appears to be embarrassingly unfinished. The action itself also rarely flows together and whilst there are some impressive shoots they remain the minority of the film and even when these impressive shoots do show up there is a complete lack of flow from not only scene to scene but within scenes in of themselves that results in what is simply a chaotic mess to watch that is rarely interesting or exciting. The use of 3d however is well done and whilst some scene it does fell more like an afterthought that is more then enough truly impressive use of the extra dimension to make 3d the way to view the film.

Transformers Age of Extinction in many ways could be described as Michael Bay turned up to eleven. Unfortunately it is all the worst aspects that have been focused on. The narrative achieves the impressive feat of making the seconds films narrative look cohesive in comparison as plot point and characters are introduced only to be not utilized for any purpose beyond a bad joke or getting to an action scene and then is simply discarded. Even the catalyst for the films finale is seemingly forgotten about with the expectation that the chaos that ensues would cover up that little that is happening makes any sense. The problem however is as little makes sense and the action is largely boring, nothing on screen matters so even whilst some shoots are in of themselves spectacular the whole film devolves into what is nothing more then a rushed lifeless bore, full of egregiously in your face product placement that is overly long given the absence of a compelling narrative.

Hence I would recommend staying far away from Transformers Age of Extinction.