gorbadoc25 Reviews

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

The Battle of the Most Random and Unrealistic Moments

[3/10 · 26 December 2014]

I've spent many words on my reviews of the first two Hobbit movies, but I will keep it short for this one, since 'The Battle of the Five Armies' hardly deserves to be called a movie, even performing worse than his two predecessors.

The awful mistake of cutting the book in three movies is most painfully apparent in this final chapter: there is no proper beginning (the lack of the traditional prologue being symptomatic), middle or ending, just a mess of random moments lumped together, without any sense of tension, logic, emotion or narrative flow. All effort has been put in creating pointless and extremely unrealistic action sequences instead of developing a transparent and moving story line. Also, while AUJ (Riddles in the Dark) and DOS (Bilbo meeting Smaug) at least had one great scene, such a (single) highlight was disappointingly missing in BOFTA; instead, we got Alfrid receiving an inexplicably large amount of screen time to act annoyingly over-the-top (failing miserably to add the intended comic relief). To make things even worse, everything after the battle is extremely rushed: we can only guess what happened with Bard, Tauriel, the treasure, the different armies, etc., whereas 'The Return of the King' rightly took its time for proper closures.

I guess there was room for two good movies or maybe even one; now, there is actually no getting around that Jackson single-handedly created a parody of his own, infinitely superior LOTR trilogy.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Whatever happened to the hobbit himself ...

[6/10 · 27 December 2013]

After the disappointment of 'An Unexpected Journey' last year, I went to 'The Desolation of Smaug' with seriously adjusted (= lower) expectations as compared to those I had for the first installment. Nevertheless, my experience of DOS was quite similar to – although probably slightly better than – that of AUJ: an entertaining, but flawed movie, with one excellent scene, but also too much unnecessary filler.

***THE PACING***

Many people complained about the Hobbiton sequence in AUJ being too long, but I certainly wasn't one of them, as I felt that the pacing of the first movie was done quite well. In DOS, however, the first half feels extremely rushed: Bree *blink* Beorn's house *blink* Mirkwood *blink* the Elves' realm *blink* etc. Not a single scene in the beginning of the movie gets the time to breathe and to build suspense (which is a pity for Mirkwood and its spiders ànd the imprisonment of the Dwarfs by the Elves). The pacing does improve significantly from the barrel escape onwards (a quite enjoyable action sequence), reaching its peak with the one excellent scene from the movie: Bilbo's encounter with Smaug. I assume it's no coincidence that, just like the Riddles in the Dark scene in AUJ, this was the only moment that stood out for me in a positive way, since finally a scene was allowed to develop in a both calm and suspenseful way (probably no coincidence either that the scene that works best is the one that stays closest to the book …).

***CHANGES FROM/ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK***

I have no problem with changes from or additions to source material as long as they work within the adaptation. I liked the way the character of Bard was expanded and I didn't mind Tauriel, who is charmingly interpreted by Evangeline Lilly. However, the "thing" between Tauriel, Legolas and Kili feels extremely forced and clearly only serves the purpose of setting up something dramatic in 'There And Back Again'. Also, the cat-and-mouse game between Smaug and the dwarfs suffered severely from too many improbable actions (Thorin on Smaug's snout, really … ?), with everything falling too neatly in place to even have the slightest notion of tension. I understand the need to give Smaug more screen-time (he is after all brilliantly realised by WETA and wonderfully voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), but was there really no other solution than this tedious action sequence in the vein of Spielberg and Lucas at their weakest? I couldn't believe my eyes when that grotesque golden Dwarf statue appeared …

***ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE SELF-REFERENCING …***

Obscure figures in the corner of the Prancing Pony, Gandalf involved in a fight that mixes his encounters with the Balrog and Saruman, a Morgul shaft instead of a Morgul blade, Tauriel glowing just like Arwen, the use of Kingsfoil all over again … As was the case in AUJ, all of these eye-rolling echoes to the Lord of the Rings trilogy are plain irritating and deprive the 'original' sequences.

***WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BILBO?***

I suggest the film makers to change the title of the third film to 'The Hobbit: (Oh) There (He Is!) And (What Do You Know, Bilbo Does Appear) Back Again (After All)'. While we witness every event in the book through the eyes of Bilbo, which creates a strong connection between the main character and the reader and which is the strength of the book (we care for Bilbo!), Martin Freeman seems to be degraded to play a supporting role: often, Bilbo just disappears from the screen (the forest river, most of the time in Esgaroth). Therefore, we hardly see any development in his character, which makes him look equally brave throughout the entire movie.

More than anything else, I think this is the biggest issue with the Hobbit movies: they cut off the emotional core of the story by focusing on everything related to LOTR but Bilbo. While you have many (more) characters and story lines in the Lord of the Rings, it was clear at every moment that Frodo was the real main character and the emotional centre of the story. Instead of investing in Bilbo's character, we now have action scenes that are "AWESOME!!!", "COOL!!!" and "EPIC!!!". I have no problem with the latter as such, but if that's the only thing a movie has to offer (especially a Middle-Earth movie), then you know this is an incredibly missed opportunity.

I'm sure Howard Shore will deliver another musical masterpiece for 'There And Back Again', as he has done for AUJ and now DOS (listen to it on CD to discover its full richness!). As for the third movie itself, I guess it will get stuck in mediocrity as well, just like the first two movies.

The Strange Color of Your Body's Tears (2013)

Beautiful, but exhausting art film

[6/10 · 13 October 2013]

I attended the Belgian premiere of 'L'Étrange Couleur des Larmes de ton Corps' at Film Fest Gent 2013 after reading that the film would be a homage to the giallo genre and therefore would contain music by Ennio Morricone and Bruno Nicolai (in my opinion the two best film composers there are). The only giallo I have seen until now is 'Suspiria', though I'm familiar with the names of some of the directors and actresses and also some of the titles through the work of Morricone and Nicolai. I undoubtedly missed a lot of references, but of course I understood that the name of Dan's wife, Edwige, was no coincidence :)

I was ready to immerse myself in a pure genre film, but it was still quite a challenging trip. On the plus side, the film is beautifully shot, with great use of extremely vivid colours and interior (Dan's breathtaking house by - I assume - Horta) and exterior locations (the Law Courts of Brussels). Much thought has also been put into the editing, the sound design and the choice of wonderful Italian film music. On a technical/aesthetic level, this movie is a triumph.

On the downside, the script is deliberately disorienting, which is even reinforced by most of the shots being exhausting close-ups. Some sequences/parts of the story are too short (the bearded man taking pictures of beautiful women, which is never explained), while others last too long (the sequence where Dan wakes up 20 times thanks to an incredibly irritating door bell that rings about 100 times). Although the story is thin, it's often confusing and hard to follow and the film's conclusion is rather unsatisfying.

All in all, this clearly is more of an art film than a narrative film, so while this means that it's beautiful to look at from start to finish, the story leaves much too be desired.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

An Unexpected Disappointment

[6/10 · 13 December 2012]

I was convinced the (many) criticisms I read beforehand were exaggerated and wouldn't bother me. To my surprise, quite some criticisms seemed justified in the end ...

***THE SCRIPT***

ADDITIONS: On paper, the additions looked like a great way to create added value. However, while I understand why they included them, they all feel out of place.

• Opening scene: Ian Holm just looks too dissimilar from his appearance in FOTR (especially his haircut), which is really distracting. The frame story doesn't blend in naturally and the history of Erebor has too much to show in too little time.

• Radagast: He appears as suddenly as he disappears. His scene in Dol Guldur really threw me out of the movie.

• The White Council: I know the screenwriters want to underline the growing dark powers (hence the - preposterous - finding of the Morgul blade), but the empty talk about things of which we all know how they've played out in the LOTR films isn't convincing at all.

• Azog: An appallingly one-dimensional character, who feels most out of place (the fact that he looks like a creature from a cheap horror movie also doesn't help ...). His scenes have a strange "un-Tolkien" vibe, particularly the battle of Azanulbizar (the worst scene of the movie), which doesn't feel like a fierce and thrilling battle at all.

FROM THE BOOK: The episodic structure prevents the film from having a fluid narrative and squeezes the tension out of every new dangerous situation: the events just leave you cold.

In the book, we experience everything through Bilbo's eyes, which creates a strong connection between the reader and the main part. This is missing from the movie: Bilbo even seemed to have more or less disappeared between the troll encounter and the stone giants' battle. His homesickness, his doubts, all of this isn't really developed in the script.

The emphasis on Thorin is a good thing, but also not perfect: during the enclosure by the Wargs, I didn't buy Thorin's charge towards Azog and especially Bilbo's sudden "action hero saves the day in the nick of time" intervention. The latter seemed like a very inappropriate way to illustrate Bilbo's courage.

There were actually only two great scenes: Riddles in the Dark is amazing, but ironically, it also painfully shows how mediocre the rest of the movie actually is, because this is the only moment that comes close to the level of LOTR. Also, Bilbo's speech after they've escaped Goblin Town is a very welcome, for rare touching moment.

***THE PACING***

It's quite astonishing some people complain about the pacing, because the film was over before I knew it. In fact, I think the pacing is about just right and proved it would have been really difficult to adapt the book in just one fully-fledged movie. But since I didn't like the additions, I'm doubting whether a third film is necessary after all (but I suspend my judgment until 2014).

***THE CINEMATOGRAPHY***

One of the biggest (unpleasant) surprises is the cinematographic style. I'm not talking about the bright colors or the digital images, but the (lack of physical) camera use. Whereas LOTR has stunning "real" camera movements and an extremely accomplished "handicraft" feel, AUJ often feels like a video game. The camera is flying and whirling so limitlessly that it just doesn't feel like an authentic movie anymore. This is particularly apparent during the Orc chase and above all the absurd Goblin Town escape. The CGI is perfect, but too much is just too much.

***THE MUSIC***

After my long list of complaints, I'm truly relieved to say there is at least one thing that unconditionally gets my support, which is the score. The people who unfairly label Howard Shore's work as a "re-hash of LOTR" obviously didn't pay full attention, because when you listen to the score multiple times (and I admit it also took me several spins to really appreciate it), you discover a new rich and diverse musical tapestry once again masterfully woven by Shore. OF COURSE you hear the same themes when EXACTLY THE SAME places are visited as in "The Fellowship of the Ring" ... If someone deserves credit for "The Hobbit", it's Shore: his music is in my view the only aspect of the movie on par with the level of LOTR.

***3D & 48 FPS***

• The 3D was good, no complaints about that. However, although I have no problems with watching movies in 3D, I start questioning its necessity.

• I am bewildered many people claim that 48 fps creates a "TV-look" with "actors with clear make-up on a fake set". I didn't have that feeling at all, but on the other hand - and this was the most surprising - the difference with 24 fps isn't THAT spectacular. After 30 minutes, I even had to remind myself: "Oh, I'm watching 48 fps, right?". Yes, the images look very clear and it does smooth fast movements, but the latter (which is positive) only sticks out a couple of times (and no, the motion never comes across as "sped up", so I was never distracted by the higher frame rate). All in all, I consider 48 fps to be an improvement over 24 fps (without diminishing the "cinematic" look of a film), but I didn't have the feeling I had witnessed a "revolutionary new cinema experience".

***** CONCLUSION *****

I didn't expect (or want) a replica of LOTR, but while "The Hobbit" isn't a bad movie, it isn't good either. I'm still perplexed I don't feel any urge to go see it again, unlike the LOTR films. We can only hope that Jackson recovers in time to save the next two films from unnecessary additions, lack of focus on Bilbo and a video game feeling. Well, at least we have new brilliant music to listen to!

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Best Harry Potter movie yet, but ...

[6/10 · 2 April 2005]

I have read all the Harry Potter novels so far and I saw the first two movies before I watched 'Prisoner of Azkaban', which is definitely the best Harry Potter movie yet. The acting skills of the youngsters improve steadily, the CGI was nice but not breath-taking and there were some tense and exciting moments. Cuarón did a much better job than Columbus, that's for sure.

So far the good news. The whole movie was totally messed up by the worst adaptation I've ever known. It was completely disorderly, unbalanced, indistinct and without any structure. The movie starts way to fast (you only have to blink after Aunt Marge's blowing up or Harry is suddenly in Hogwarts), the mid part is an incoherent pack of randomly taken fragments of the book (with leaving out lots of important stuff and mentioning vague, further unexplained elements: Snape taking over the lessons from Lupin, Trelawney making a creepy prediction) and the end isn't too long but also not very interesting. After Black is saved, Harry suddenly receives a new broom, he flies with it, and BAM! the movie is done ... The pacing was horrible. I also didn't like the 'restyling' of Hogwarts and its students. There weren't hardly any resemblances to the Hogwarts from the first two movies and the school from the third movie. Hagrid's hut is suddenly replaced, there are Stonehenge-like structures, the Wood has a totally different look ... not to mention the fact that the students almost never wear their costumes anymore, contrary to the first two movies.

I rated HP1 4/10, HP2 5/10 and this one 6/10 (so maybe number 7 will get a 10/10?)