The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. But I cannot explain why I loved the movies so much without going into a fairly lengthy discussion of the book first.I know a lot of people weren't super thrilled by this final chapter of The Hobbit trilogy. In fact, I know a lot of people out there weren't all that enthusiastic about any of the Hobbit movies, finding them to be far too dissimilar to the book, and bemoaning their length.Well, I loved them. All three of them. No, the movies were not word-for-word true to the book. Yes, the tone and feel of the movies was very different from that of the book. But none of that actually bothered me. Why? Well, because the way I saw it, Peter Jackson wasn't really trying to make a movie-adaptation of The Hobbit. He was trying to make a prequel series of movies for The Lord of the Rings, based on the storyline found in The Hobbit. Do you see the subtle difference there?With regards to the books, The Hobbit was written several years prior to The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien took nearly 12 years to write The Lord of the Rings, and it was another 6 years after that before the trilogy was actually published. When he wrote The Hobbit, Tolkien himself did not know where the story was going. He took a light-hearted romp of a children's book, and turned it into the prequel for one of the most epic high fantasy trilogies ever written. In that 18 years between writing The Hobbit and publishing The Lord of the Rings it is only natural to see that his writing style changed. His author's voice matured. His story, in essence, grew up.In the books, there is actually very little about the world of The Hobbit that matches up to the world of The Lord of the Rings in terms of tone and feel. The themes of the former are much lighter, and the races of the former are much lighter and more comical and care-free as well. The elves and dwarves of The Hobbit bear little to no resemblance to the ones that show up in The Lord of the Rings. In The Hobbit, the dwarves are silly, somewhat bumbling, argumentative, and kind of hopeless without Bilbo - who pretty much does everything important on their adventure. The only dwarf in the book who is not depicted as somewhat ridiculous is Thorin. The elves that you get to meet are up in trees singing mocking songs at the dwarves. You barely even get a hint of the enmity that is inherent between these two races, and very present in The Lord of the Rings... the Dwarves just jaunt off to Rivendell, get some advice, and continue on their merry way.Despite their faults and flaws, nobody would argue that The Lord of the Rings movies are anything but spectacular. Yes, things got left out. Yes, some things were changed. Yes, Jackson ruined Faramir. But, on the whole, the movies are very well-done, beautiful technical achievements, that tell the much-beloved story of The Lord of the Rings and brought new fans to the books and captured new fans of the stories who would never have cared about and will still never read the books. (Their loss, of course, but at least we Tolkien fans can now have lengthy discussions about the elven language around those people without being written off as simply insane).I would argue that to make The Hobbit as one movie, trying to keep it as a prequel to the epic, sweeping saga that is the Lord of the Rings movies, and stay completely, 100% true to the book, without bringing in elements from Tolkien's other works (such as the Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin), would have been to create a movie that in no way could be seen as "part" of the series. I do think they did a good job keeping the look, feel, and tone of the Hobbit movies in keeping with those in the Lord of the Rings movies, while still adding a bit of a lighter, more kid-friendly sub-text throughout the trilogy. (Not that there weren't errors made in this particular vein, a crude scene in the extended edition of movie 1 and a crude and unnecessary comment made in movie 2 sort of ruined the "kid-friendly" feel they had going). I'm just letting you know here, that while I loved these movies, I don't think they were flawless.So, without further ado, the movie. I'm going to break it up into a few key points, because otherwise I could just ramble on all day. Some of you might not mind that... of course... and that makes us true kindred spirits. However, for everyone else, I'm going to try to keep it under control.First of all, I want to talk about the whole Dol Guldur thing. I know that this particular plot point has come under attack as being "not part of the book!" However, what not many people are aware of is the fact that this whole scenario was, in fact, part of Tolkien's writings. Perhaps it was not written in such detail, but in the year 2941 (the same year that Bilbo was traveling with Thorin and company) the White Council was convened at Dol Guldur (which was in Mirkwood) to battle the "necromancer," a power that the White Council suspected might be either one of the 9 Nazgul or Sauron coming back to power. They fought him at Dol Guldur and defeated him, though he came back a few years later and settled in Mordor, where he revealed his true identity.I really enjoyed getting to see Galadriel fight off the Necromancer. It definitely made the rumors about her being "the witch of lothlorien" make a lot more sense, seeing her cut loose with her power like that.I also enjoyed seeing more of the friendship between Galadriel and Gandalf. In Tolkien's histories, Gandalf was Galadriel's first choice to be the head of the White Council, but he didn't want to be, so she picked Saruman instead - which also explains some of Saruman's angst against Gandalf. (There's a lot more to this, but I'm supposed to be reviewing the movie, not giving you the entire history of Middle-Earth).Thorin. Thorin was always my favorite character in the book, and I loved that he continued to be my favorite character in the movie. I thought Richard Armitage did a fabulous job portraying this character, especially as he struggled against the madness brought on by the gold and the search for the Arkenstone. I felt that the movie was actually far kinder to Thorin in this, explaining his madness better than the book does. I loved that, even knowing how it all had to end, I was still on the edge of my seat whispering fervently, "Come on, Thorin! Do the right thing!"And, even though I knew the end, I still hoped he might survive the Battle of Five Armies.I LOVED his final scene, and the moment of reconciliation between him and Bilbo - with all my favorite lines straight out of the book! Hooray!Sigh. If nothing else, all three movies are definitely worth watching just for Thorin's character alone.Bilbo. What can I say? Martin Freeman truly became Bilbo Baggins and brought him to life straight off the pages of Tolkien's book. Perhaps the storyline veered off course a time or two, but I have nothing but praise for the way that Bilbo was portrayed, written, and acted. His expressions, his deeds, his lines... all were nothing less than fantastic.Smaug and Lake-town. If I have anything negative to say about this movie, it is that Smaug got way too little screen time, and Lake-town was all wrong. I always pictured Lake-town as being a sort of island (either made of land or built of wood) in the middle of the lake, approachable only by boat or a large bridge (as described in the story), but not a city where the streets are waterways. I don't know, I have just re-read that chapter and I guess I can see where the moviemakers got their ideas. The other problem I had with Lake-town is that it did not seem to fit into the world that was portrayed in the rest of the films. What is a sort of Charles Dickens' Britain doing in this epic, medieval, fantasy realm? The whole tone and feel of it was just "off" to me.Considering the build-up and send off that Smaug got in the second movie, his attack on Lake-town and subsequent demise felt like a bit of a let-down, as well.I also would have been perfectly content to see a whole lot less of Alfrid, the sleazy Master's Lackey. I disliked him in the second movie, and despised him in the third. I really wanted him to get killed off, but realized pretty quickly that he wasn't going to oblige. Blech.The Battle. So epic. So awesome. So many things that were true to the book (Bilbo getting clunked on the head, "The eagles are coming, the eagles are coming!", Beorn.... if I have any complaints about the Battle at all, it is the lack of screen time that was given to Beorn. Hopefully they will remedy that in the extended edition.My family members I went to see the movie with said they felt that the battle was a bit lacking, that we didn't see the sorts of numbers of enemies and armies that we were expecting. It wasn't like the Battle at Helm's Deep or the Battle of Pelinor Fields, or the final assault on Mordor. But, then, this was not a "war" it was a "battle" and a sort of haphazardly thrown-together battle at that. The five armies don't necessarily represent any particular realm's "full strength." So I thought the smaller-scale feel to it was actually a pretty good representation of the way I always pictured it in the book. (And we got to see a lot more action than in the book, seeing as how Tolkien sort of bypassed having to write about the battle by knocking Bilbo on the head and doing a "fade to black" just as things got interesting). (I LOVE J.R.R. Tolkien, by the way. But I do recognize that he was human, and an author, and I acknowledge that he did take shortcuts every now and then. Doesn't diminish his ability as an author in my eyes at all).Tauriel. Okay, I'm sorry, I just can't help it. I really like her. I don't care that there is a lack of female characters in the story, and wouldn't have minded if none showed up at all in The Hobbit movies. But, if you're going to add your own character, Tauriel is just awesome. I don't even mind the random "love" story between her and Kili. I should probably just put Tauriel in her own blog post... as this one is already getting pretty lengthy.Legolas. Okay, I know he's not in the book. But he COULD have been, if Tolkien had known about him when he wrote The Hobbit. Being Thranduil's son, and all, this is the addition that actually makes the most sense to me. Orlando Bloom did a phenomenal job making Legolas' character seem younger, rasher, and less well-seasoned. I loved that we get to see him accomplish ever more incredibly impossible feats (if you've seen the movie, all I need say is: stairs. If you haven't seen the movie... you'll understand what I'm talking about when the moment comes). And finally, FINALLY running out of arrows. I mean, it had to happen eventually, right?Perhaps my favorite moment in the film is the one between Legolas and Thorin towards the end of the movie. Without giving away too much, suffice to say that Thorin finds himself weaponless, and Legolas is out of arrows and has to make a split-second decision about whether or not he really wants to save this dwarf's life. He pulls his (Thorin's) sword Orcrist from its sheath and gives it a sort of sorrowful glance, as if to say, "But I really like this sword." It's a priceless moment in moviedom.Overall? I think you can guess where this is going, but I really, really liked the movie. Yes, it had its flaws. No, it wasn't word-for-word what Tolkien originally wrote. But in the end, it has done exactly the same thing The Lord of the Rings movies did. It brought a new generation of readers to these wonderful books, and it allowed me to share a story I love with people I love who will still never read the books. And that, in my book, is a win.Five Dragon Eggs. Unreservedly.Have you seen the Final Chapter of this epic set of movies yet? What did you think of them? I'd love to continue the discussion with you!