Less Is More

Disney’s live adaptation is charming and true to its source material.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am no fan of Disney Princesses.  That’s a girl’s world.  Guys stick with video games and cutting down trees.  None of that girly princess stuff.

So what was it about Disney’s live adaptation of their classic Cinderella that caught my eye?  What did Disney do differently from their 65-year-old animated classic that I despise?  What did they change?  What did they add?  What did they cut?  What did they –

They didn’t.

The 1950 story that the world fell in love in is fundamentally unchanged.  More or less, it’s the same story, albeit with live acting.  Twenty years ago, this wouldn’t have stood out so much.  Back then, adapting fairy tales into movies without fundamentally changing them was the norm.  Nowadays, you’re more likely to see a live adaptation that is more mature, makes the characters more three-dimensional to do away with stereotypical heroes and villains, and so on.

Cinderella doesn’t embrace this revisionist theme permeating modern-day fairy tales on the big screen.  It’s more or less the same story everyone fell in love with in their childhood (well, everyone except me, anyways).  And that is what makes it so (forgive my pun) charming.

Despite not being changed fundamentally, there are a few tweaks here and there.  The story’s beginning, which was relegated to pure narration in the animated classic, is much more elaborate, spanning, if I recall correctly, 20 minutes.  But these 20 minutes serve as the foundation for the title character throughout the film.  During this time, her parents treat her with great love and care, showing her the wonderful world she lives in and helping her to see the world not as it was but as it could be.  While this whole segment is necessary to the film as a whole, it can be summed up in four words that form the heart of the film:

Have courage.  Be kind.

The title character lives by these four words throughout the film, even when her stepmother and stepsisters are so cruel to her.  Despite this, there comes a point when her courage fails her.  “I don’t have courage anymore,” she sobs to her deceased mother.  At that moment, her fairy godmother appears to her and rewards her courage.

Even though this film isn’t a part of the revisionist movement (I don’t really know what else to call it), I could see that the ideas of our modern-day big-screen fairy tales did influence some of the tweaking Disney did with their classic.  The animals, which were featured very prominently in the original, are relegated to the side.  This is somewhat for the better, as the mice, instead of being your cliche Disney whackos, are now Cinderella’s adorable friends, always squeaking, never speaking.  Lucifer the cat, who consistently antagonized the mice in the original and was my least favorite antagonist, is now simply a grumpy cat.  He antagonizes the mice once in the film, and that’s it.  He’s gone from being a frightful thing to just being present, to the point where I honestly wouldn’t mind having him around in my house.

Good thing I already have a cat: a sweet one, at that.  I’d rather not have a cat named after the devil.  Who would?

Speaking of which, I don’t really know what to make of Cate Blanchett’s stepmother.  The stepmother from the animated film was certainly cruel, seemingly giving Cinderella hope of going to the ball while secretly plotting to keep her from doing so.  She indirectly prevented her by having her daughters rip up her dress.  Blanchett, on the other hand, did the bulk of the ripping here.  But it was the dress’ origins that made this scene particularly cruel: the dress belonged to Cinderella’s mother.  This, followed by Blanchett’s adamance that Cinderella would not go to the ball, outclasses its source material by quite a bit.

In the end, while Blanchett doesn’t disappoint, she isn’t anywhere near as iconic as the stepmother from yesteryear.  Either way, though, she’s every bit as detestable and cruel.

Then there’s the prince: dashing Prince...Kit??  Well, that’s what his father calls him.  At any rate, he, too, changes little from the animated classic.  He’s still dashing, kind, and willing to go to the ends of the earth to find the girl he loves.  But he also gets much more personality outside of dancing, being dashing, and calling out, “Wait! Where are you going?” Here, he sees himself not as a prince but as “an apprentice.” (to what, I can’t remember) He doesn’t think highly of himself, and he is touched by Cinderella’s belief that courage and kindness are all that we need.  After meeting her (before the ball, I might add), he can’t stop thinking about her.  I’ll admit, that sounds pretty cliche, and it is, but I can let that slide by since I would probably think similarly if I met someone with Cinderella’s optimistic, innocent personality.

Oh, wait.  I did.

One thing I actually miss from the animated classic was the interactions between the king and grand duke.  Having more personality than the prince they married off, they created some of the funnier moments of the film, including my personal favorite when the king tried to knock the duke out after learning from him that the girl his son loves ran away.  Of course, replicating such a scene live would be difficult, but I wouldn’t have minded if the king and duke had similar roles in this live adaptation.  Instead, the king is the prince’s ailing father, while the duke is a diplomat with his own goals in mind.  Still and all, this isn’t necessarily disappointing.

One of the recurring elements I noticed throughout the film is how the narrator, popping up every now and again, as well as earlier characters who knew the title character by name, always call Cinderella by her real name: Ella.  Her stepmother and stepsisters, meanwhile, deride her with a name they meant as mean-spirited.  While the animated film glossed over this detail, it gets elaboration here and becomes a symbol of sorts for our heroine’s plight.  Throughout the film, it can be assumed that she always sees herself as “Ella.”  But when the prince finally identifies her as the girl he loves, he asks for her name.  Her reply was somewhat jarring for me:

“My name is Cinderella.”

Interpret this how you will, but I see here that our heroine has embraced her suffering instead of running from it or fighting it.  In the end, this proves to be her victory.  The allusion here is to the Christian belief that by embracing suffering, we find new life.

That’s not to say, however, that Cinderella is simply a passive heroine waiting for her prince to come and save her.  While it appears to be that way throughout the film, she’s actually very proactive: she is actively kind to her would-be relations.  While this isn’t the kind of proactive our modern culture values, Cinderella eventually reaches a point where she decides to stand up to her stepmother, refusing to help her in her ambitions, which could affect the prince, and asking her why she is so cruel, as she’s beaten her brains out trying to figure out why she is the way she is.  The stepmother doesn’t answer.

Okay, so this film wasn’t completely immune to the revisionist movement with big-screen fairy tales.  But it didn’t succumb to the mature, character-warping nature that we’ve grown accustomed to.  Despite this, or probably because of it, rather than looking outdated as the odd one out, Cinderella shines brightly in our day and age.  It’s an optimistic film with childlike faith that though the world may be a cruel place, it can be beautiful if we strive to make it that way.  Cap it off with an anthem proclaiming the film’s main theme (okay, that pun was accidental) and we have a winner on our hands.

But to be honest, there’s only four words you need to take away from this film to really grasp what it’s all about: four words that sum up the essence of the film, and say all we need to know about it:

Have courage.  Be kind.

Now excuse me while I go get my man points back…

3.5/5 stars

Sidekicks should be sidekicks

Comic film starring "Despicable Me" sidekicks fails to impress.

Sidekicks, it seems, are the new protagonists.  Don’t ask me what this is all about.  I think I know, but I’m worried the answer will offend someone.

Okay, seriously.  This trend can trace its roots back to 2011 with Pixar’s mediocre Cars 2.  Whether or not it can go farther is not my business currently.  Since then, we’ve seen a number of other sidekick stories that are usually okay at best and a waste of time at worst.  The Penguins of Madagascar is the most recent, with the exception of this article’s subject.  Of all these, only Puss in Boots has struck me as being really worth my while.  Granted, I didn’t hate Penguins, but if it came to a choice between that and a Pokemon movie, I’d go with the latter.

Now we have Minions: an unnecessarily long film about the little yellow guys who work for Gru and popularized the Despicable Me movies.  Now don’t get me wrong, I like the minions; who doesn’t?  I can’t imagine a Despicable Me movie without them.  They were one of the reasons the two movies were good.

But the missing ingredients that made the first movie great are very obvious here: the little girls that Gru uses for his villainous plan and who ultimately change his heart.  Without a dynamic character, this movie suffers from a staleness that rivals Cars 2.  At least while Cars focused on Mater too much, Lightning McQueen still had enough time in the spotlight so that the movie wasn’t a complete bore.

Not so with Minions.  No, in this movie, there is next to zero character development.  But then, what did I expect?  The minions were not created to develop.  They were not created to build a story around.  So what are they supposed to be?  Comic relief sidekicks.  They are supposed to be the extra ingredient that makes a good movie great.  They can’t make a great movie by themselves, much less a good movie.

So what was the point of making a film revolve completely around them?  Marketing, of course.  They’re the biggest drivers of the Despicable Me franchise.  But they can only give it a name.  Without Gru and the girls, that’s all the franchise is.  But because of these dynamic characters, the franchise becomes more than that: it develops heart and soul.  And that is what makes the movies great and good respectively...and why Minions is nothing compared to them.

All this talk and we haven’t even gotten into the movie’s plot yet.  Well, to be honest, that’s probably for the better; it sucks.  Basically, the minions are a species that has one objective: to serve a boss.  The problem is that they can’t keep a boss.  After many centuries of failure, they take refuge in an isolated cave, but they quickly lose charisma because they have no boss.  Finally, one of them, Kevin, decides to go and find a boss.  He is accompanied by Stuart while an energetic Bob tags along.  And thus the madness begins.

Honestly, I would’ve just preferred the madness to this plot.  It’s that dumb.  Plus, in one of the short films that came with the first Despicable Me, it is said that minions are created from one strand of mutated DNA.  This implies, for me at least, that the minions were Gru’s creation as opposed to a millennia-old species.  That makes a thousand times more sense than the plot of this movie, and I’m sticking with that when it comes to the canon of this universe.

The other characters in this film are even more obnoxious and soulless than the minions themselves.  Queen Elizabeth gets a role in the film, but she’s nothing but a satire of the real deal.  I don’t know if that’s disrespectful or just plain satire.  Either way, I was repulsed by her depiction.  On the other hand, a family of villains picks our heroes – er, sidekicks – up at one point to get them somewhere.  They don’t play any important role beyond that, but they still show up every now and again, and they’re always supporting the minions.  That’s one of the few aspects of this film I like, but more on that later.

Sandra Bullock plays villainess Scarlet Overkill, who initially hires the minions.  Later, however, she turns and becomes the antagonist.  I don’t really keep tabs on celebrities, but I know Bullock is a good actress.  Why did she waste her talent on this film?

Thankfully, the movie isn’t all bad.  While Scarlet is overkill (no pun intended) as a poorly constructed character, I thought she used some pretty original gadgets.  Also, the energetic Bob is a total sweetheart.  While he’s nothing compared to the girls in the other films, especially Agnes, his innocence and kindness warmed my heart.  And for all its flaws, I did think the film’s climax was decent at the very least.  And the end of the film was also very cute.  It was definitely one of the best parts (if not the best part), and that’s not because it ended the woes of the viewers.  So what was it?  Well, I’d tell you, but I think this is the one part of the film I shouldn’t spoil.  Even if you skip this movie, feel free to look up the ending; you won’t be disappointed.

Sadly, all these perks couldn’t save this movie from feeling like a waste of ninety minutes of my life.  Granted, it was more tolerable, but I can think of plenty of other ways to spend those ninety minutes.  And if you take my word for it, so can you.

On the other hand, if your kids love the minions, they might enjoy this movie.  My six-year-old sister loved it, but I would’ve said the same thing if I was her age.

1.25/5 stars

Welcome to the New Age

Age of Ultron ushers in a new age of Marvel superheroes.

“Now, I’m free.  There are no strings on me.”

Those were the infamous last words we heard from the first trailer for Marvel’s Avengers: Age of Ultron, spoken by the subtitle character himself.  It might have made some fans groan, but hey, that’s what happens when you let Disney try to rule the cinematic world.

Luckily, Disney doesn’t hinder Marvel’s awesomeness in cinema.  And Age of Ultron is the definitive proof of that.

Even from the outset, we knew that Ultron was going to be darker than its predecessor from 2012.  How much darker is it?  Well, the overall atmosphere didn’t do a full 180 from the first film.  It’s closer to 90, but I’d put my estimate more around 75.

Anyways, the film doesn’t waste any time and thrusts us into the action right from the get-go, as the team from the last film is in the heat of battle at a remote Hydra hideout.  I won’t spill the details here (their mission was supposedly top-secret), but I will say that their mission was successful.  Shortly afterwards, they regroup at the Avengers Tower (formerly Stark Tower).  While there, Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) convinces Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to help him create a new, more powerful Artificial Intelligence than his current Jarvis.  This new Intelligence he dubs “Ultron.”  Their efforts are successful...to an extent.  Yes, Ultron is successfully created, but that’s where success ends...and absolute insanity begins.

Ultron awakes in a manner that reminded me instantly of Mewtwo’s awakening in Mewtwo Strikes Back. (Yes, I like Pokemon.  Deal with it) Only in this case, the newly awakened doesn’t waste any time getting to know his companion before taking control.  He is confused and afraid.  When he first confronts the Avengers as they’re having a party, he declares his intent of bringing about their “extinction.”  A skirmish ensues, ending with Ultron’s body being destroyed, but by then it’s too late.  Being an artificial intelligence, Ultron has access to a digital hub that no one else can get to the way he can: the internet.  This allows him to continue to thrive.  He creates a new body for himself: a more powerful body.  And since Stark created him, he has the ability to control his Iron Man army. (except for Iron Man suit itself, as that is controlled by another intelligence Stark made, presumably as a backup in case Jarvis failed)

Ugh...why is it that every time the good guys come up with a genius idea that they never come up with in movies, the bad guys steal it?!

One thing that’s quickly noticeable in this movie is the improved CGI graphics.  I know that may sound redundant, but in this case it makes sense.  The one character who best exemplifies this is the Hulk. (Banner’s super-powered angry side) In the first film, we only saw Hulk in action twice.  Yes, he’s a force to be reckoned with, but I never found myself put off by him. (well, he does manage to make me jump at least once every time I watch that movie; you know what I’m talking about, right?) The general reaction was probably something more along the lines of “Oh, yeah, Hulk smash!”

This time around, however, Hulk’s CGI elements have pulled a 75 right alongside the movie.  When his muscles grow, the effects make it more pronounced.  His facial expressions are also more twisted at times.  There isn’t too much difference, but there’s enough that it’s noticeable, especially in the scene where Iron Man dons his Hulkbuster armor.  Between the two films, this was easily Hulk’s most offsetting sequence.

On top of that, we also get to see Hulk do a reverse transformation back into Banner, something that we didn’t get to see onscreen in the last film.  It’s easy to turn Banner into the Hulk, but turning Hulk back into Banner takes a little more work.  We didn’t see too much of it onscreen this go-round, but there was enough that they used CGI to make it work.  Not quite perfect, but impressive nonetheless.

That could basically be said about the film as a whole, too, although “impressive” doesn’t quite capture the quality of this movie.  “Just what you’d expect” is probably a little more accurate.

The film’s darker elements come into play in strong ways.  The most obvious example of this is the Disney-quoting Ultron, whose original purpose of protecting humanity is twisted into believing that their destruction is the key to the world’s salvation.  He’s definitely a step out of line from Loki, who took his villainous role seriously while still having fun with it.  Ultron, on the other hand, is sparing no time having fun while working to fulfill his self-given mission, and he has what it takes to do it.

Then again, if you have an Iron Man army, what can’t you do?

The stakes are also higher: not just for saving the world, but also for the Avengers themselves.  While in the first film all they had to do was hold back an alien invasion while shutting down the portal that allowed said-aliens to attack, this time around, the final conflict has them holding back Ultron’s army from accessing a power source which, according to one of them, if he gets it, it’s “game over.”  There was a “game over” possibility in the first film, too, but it wasn’t as straightforward: the Avengers get overwhelmed by the invasion and can’t hold it back or shut down the portal.  This time around, the game is “Capture the Flag.”  If they lose, it’s “game over.”

And the stakes are even higher as they come ever closer to the final conflict, as tensions within the team are building from the moment Stark begins work on Ultron.  The most prominent example of this is Stark’s unbelievably relentless determination to make Ultron “work.”  In this sense, Stark unintentionally makes himself a villain.  And since he convinces Banner to help him out, that only makes things worse.  These divisions come to an intense climax that goes way beyond any tension in the team from the last film, and it’s not in the same vein as a “who would win” scenario, either.

One of the running themes in this film also takes influence from the darker atmosphere.  Just as I predicted, this movie gives more food for thought than the first film.  The most thought-provoking idea that film produced was Loki’s idea that freedom as we know it is a lie, and that, deep down, we long to kneel before some higher authority.  While the idea is implicitly rejected, it never truly gets challenged in and of itself, and it never comes up again once the movie passes the one-hour mark.

This time around, Ultron’s entire mission is based on the idea that human beings must be destroyed.  “They are doomed,” he says, referencing humanity’s destructive tendencies.  Such tendencies come into play as the film explores a theme previously explored in Captain America: The Winter Soldier: the line between good and evil gets blurred throughout the film.  This puts our heroes in a pickle, forcing them to really give some serious thought to whether or not they are the good guys or the bad guys.

Newcomer twins Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and his twin sister, Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) are working with Ultron. They hope to get revenge against Tony Stark, whose weapons killed their parents when they were ten years old, further expanding on the themes mentioned above.  Later, another newcomer becomes the antithesis of this blurred line between good and evil.  “I am on the side of life,” he says when he appears.  And that’s the end of it.  Said-character states that he does not wish to kill Ultron, but that he doesn’t have much choice.  The stark contrast between this moral absolutism and the ambiguity of other characters’ alliances manages to set everyone straight...and set up one of the most hilarious moments in the movie.

Then again, maybe it was the most hilarious.  After all, it was the only moment that got a round of applause from the audience.  Well, applause or no applause, the darker atmosphere in this movie does not curb the high-quality humor that was one of the most appealing aspects of the first film. (and yes, there is such a thing as low-quality humor.  Why do you think I don’t watch much TV?)

I only have one real complaint about this movie: they shipped.  Yes, they went there and paired up Banner with Black Widow, a.k.a. Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson).  When I realized they were doing that, I did a mental facepalm.  Granted, some of their interactions help to bring the aforementioned themes in the film into focus, but other than that this pairing serves no purpose in the film.  It’s a gimmick.

On the upside (though it’s a dim upside, really), it’s not as bad as Kili and Tauriel in The Hobbit trilogy.  And it’s still a better love story than Twilight.  But I’m still gonna complain.

And what about Hawkeye x Black Widow?  They teased that one in the last film, intentionally or not.  Either way, the Hawk is out of the way, as Hawkeye, a.k.a. Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), reveals that he has a wife and two kids, with a third one on the way.  This has “cop-out” written all over it.  I guess this comes as a slap in the face for those shippers.

Nice going, Whedon.

No, really.  Age of Ultron is, as I said above, not quite perfect, but it’s still just what you’d expect of a Marvel film of this magnitude.  It’s darker than its predecessor, yes, but it’s still The Avengers.  The biggest difference between the first and second films is that where the first film focused on the awesomeness of something unprecedented in superhero cinema history, Age of Ultron is more focused on being a Marvel film: exploring themes, telling a story, etc.  And they’re both no less superb for it.  Of course, the first film wasn’t quite as flawed as Ultron, but that doesn’t necessarily make it better.

Can I complain?  Yeah, but I say just let it go.

…

Darn it, Disney!  You’re doing it again!

4.75/5 stars

Epic? Yeah. Defining Chapter? Yeah Right...

Final installment in Hobbit Trilogy is as epic as you’d expect.

Peter Jackson’s three-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit has overall proven to be less than what it could have been.  The first installment, An Unexpected Journey, had a nice blend of Tolkien’s original tale and additional content connecting it to The Lord of the Rings.  The next installment, The Desolation of Smaug, didn’t blend the two parts of the saga so well: when the focus was on the main story, progression was smooth and engaging.  But when it shifted focus to the subplots, the movie dragged along, making me roll my eyes (and don’t even get me STARTED on the most evil cliffhanger in the history of evil cliffhangers).  The redeeming factor, of course, was the subtitle character and primary antagonist of the original story: Smaug the Magnificent (excellently voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), and oh boy, was he magnificent!  Hands down, this is the best CGI dragon in the history of live-action cinematic dragons.

Now we have The Battle of the Five Armies, the long-awaited conclusion that, like Smaug’s live-action incarnation, lives up to the hype surrounding it.  Starting out, while the second movie showed us the magnificence of Smaug, this movie’s opening, picking up immediately where the second one left off, shows us why this magnificent creature is so feared...and it delivers, as Smaug here is, to quote my older brother, “terrifying.”  Of course, that only lasts for the first five minutes, as he’s shot through that hole in his armor before the movie’s subtitle shows up, conveniently falling on top of the destroyed Lake Town’s fat, power-hungry leader, killing him.

With the dragon dead and winter quickly approaching, Bard, now leader of the townsfolk, places his hope and trust in Thorin Oakenshield, rightful King Under the Mountain, who promised the townsfolk that when the dragon was dead they would share the spoils with them.  But Thorin, now holding full control over the mountain, is obsessed with finding the Arkenstone, a precious gem his fathers handed down and treated as the emblem of their kingdom while driving them mad.  The greed that now infests his heart (called Dragon-sickness) drives him to break his promise to the townsfolk, stating (in a sinister echo of Smaug in the previous film) that he won’t part “with a single coin.”

Take one look at all the gold in that mountain, and then tell me that Thorin is in his right mind.  Go on.  I dare you.

The townsfolk aren’t the only ones who want something from the mountain, however.  The elves from the previous film also have a stake: bright gems made of a certain material.  Of course, to the naked eye, this is easily accepted, but to a critic’s eye (even one as reluctant as me), this has “we needed something to get the elves involved in this because they won’t just fight for no reason” written all over it (did any of that make sense?  I’m having a hard time making sense of it myself).

But wait, there’s more: Azog, an evil Orc-lord and Thorin’s archrival, is also leading a considerable force of Orcs on the mountain in order to take it for the reviving Sauron as a strategic point.

I can see where this is going.

And you probably can, too.  After all, this movie is named after a battle, so it makes sense that these conflicting goals end up bringing these parties into war with each other.  And who is caught in the middle of it all?  Title character Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who once again shows us why he is the title character.  I’ve always enjoyed the moments with Bilbo in these movies, with the only exception being the ending of this movie (more on that in a moment).  More often than not, these movies, unlike The Lord of the Rings trilogy, show us wizards, elves, dwarves, orcs, and goblins. Bilbo is the only one of his kind in the mix: a Hobbit whose life used to revolve around trivial things like doilies.  Whenever he does something heroic, we’re reminded of how far he’s come since he left Bag-End.  Also, that magic ring he found in the dark caverns beneath the Goblin kingdom actually manages to keep its dark aura concealed until the very end of the movie; I was grateful for that, since in this story the Ring, while still inherently evil, is seen only as a trinket of wondrous magic.  The first two movies (particularly the second) went too far in reminding us of the Ring’s true nature.

Yeah, I know it’s evil.  I saw the other movies, okay?  I’m not stupid.

Hey, come on.  I told you, I’ve seen the other movies.  I know it’s evil, okay?

Are you listening to me?!

No.  No, he isn’t.

Blast it all.

The first part of the film does a very nice job at its assigned task.  While the other two films involved a blend of main plot and subplots, this one has only to build up to the battle we’re anticipating. Everything we see throughout this first part, whether it’s main plot or subplot, is geared toward this climactic battle.  The battle itself takes up the bulk of the rest of the film, ranging from clashing armies to rallies to victory, and then, at long last, Thorin and Azog meet and have their long-awaited final battle.

While the results of said-battle are just what I expected, the actual battle itself was more original than what I’m used to.  I’m not sure why there was snow and ice around them, but Bard did say that winter was coming, so it’s not out of place.  And how did it end?  Thorin killed Azog, and Azog killed Thorin.

The best part?  I predicted that it would end like that from the start.  What up, yo?

Okay, all joking aside, there were two things, and two things only, that majorly disappointed me in this movie.  One of them, brought back from the last movie, was the once-implied romance between Kili the dwarf and Tauriel the elf.  They should have left it as “implied,” but they didn’t.  Nope; they just had to let the romance bloom.  After all, they love each other, right?  Put them together, right?

The shippers are not impressed.

The other majorly disappointing thing about this movie was the ending, by which I mean everything following Azog’s death: from Thorin’s last moments to the bitter end.  I remember well how Thorin passed away in the animated version of The Hobbit from before I was born: it was long, somber, and a heart-jerker.  Here?  Just a few last words to make amends with Bilbo before the hobbit weeps for his dead friend.

I was not impressed.

Also, what’s Tauriel doing with Kili’s - NO, NO!  DON’T KISS HIM!

Ugh.

And how did Gandalf know that Bilbo found a ring?!

The end of the main story has Bilbo returning to his home...only to find the hobbits in the village auctioning off his stuff, as he is presumed dead.  An indignant Bilbo makes things straight and returns home a changed man...er, hobbit.  You’d think he’d settle down, smiling at the adventure and marvelling at the amazing things he saw, hoping to do it again someday.

Instead, his focus is on the ring as its sinister theme from The Lord of the Rings plays.  Next thing we know, it’s sixty years later all over again, back at the start of The Fellowship of the Ring.

I would be more satisfied if there was a sense of resolution to this story, like there was in the animated version and, I assume, in the book as well (I haven’t read it).  Sure, you can give a nod to the future adventure that Frodo will embark on to complete what The Hobbit began, but here, everything exists to point to that adventure.

It’s almost like Peter Jackson is using these movies to say “Go watch The Lord of the Rings!”  Come on...can’t we have the story we know and love without thinking about what’s coming after?

On the whole, I can’t complain too much.  The Battle of the Five Armies is a satisfying third film with an unsatisfying ending, but given that this third film ends the story, it’s a good conclusion overall. But why is it called the defining chapter?  Because it’s the last film that involves an official story from Middle Earth?  Because there’s no more material to -

Puh-lease.  I may be reluctant, but if you think I’m a stupid critic, you’re dead wrong.  I know how Hollywood is nowadays: they always try to milk every last drop out of a franchise, even if the audience hates what they’re getting as a result.  And I’ll have you know right now that Tolkien’s Middle Earth is FAR from out of content to work with...unless Jackson decides to disregard The Silmarillion.

But he won’t...not even if he tries.

The Battle of the Five Armies is definitely epic.  But is it the defining chapter in the Middle Earth saga?  I highly doubt it.

4/5 stars