Renee Sogueco, ‘Doah Managing Editor
January 21, 2015
The last of the Hobbit movie trilogy premiered on Dec. 17, 2014 all over the United States, and people lined movie theaters across the country to see it. “The Hobbit: the Battle of the Five Armies” promised spectacular CGI effects and veteran actors performing at their best. While both occurred, nothing else transcended from what was to be expected at an LOTR screening.
Outside of the Vista Theater in Los Angeles, CA, the owner dressed as Gandalf the Grey, an iconic LOTR and Hobbit character, and he seemed to be the only one enthused. It was only a day after the movie itself premiered in the country, yet there were seats empty inside. Granted, it was a smaller theater made to only seat perhaps a couple hundred people.
Besides the low population of moviegoers, the movie itself was mind numbing and did not necessarily require a lot of mental capabilities to understand. The books, on the other hand, use many philosophical ideas and various myths and lore in an intricate plot with colorful characters. While the LOTR movies do not necessarily diverge from the J.R.R. Tolkien novels, they only take certain pieces. Sometimes, they even take small, seemingly insignificant parts, of the book and create drawn out scenes for dramatic spectacle. The Hobbit novel reaches only just over 100 pages and could’ve stood to only have one movie come out, not three for the sake of making money off of a successful franchise. Though the plot left much of the more interesting material out, the trilogy did end on a satisfying note that would leave audiences watching the LOTR trilogy over again.
Aside from the simplified plot, the special effects speak to what time period this movie came out in. The emphasis of movies in the contemporary age focuses on explosions and how clear audiences can see the explosions. There were many explosions and fire sequences in this particular trilogy. Visually, the movie was in the top tier of aesthetically pleasing movies.
In terms of acting, each actor truly encompasses his or her character. The most disappointing part of the film may have been Martin Freeman’s lacking appearance. He hardly factors into the action or speaking scenes even though he is the main protagonist. The most interesting parts were with Richard Armitage’s emotional acting scenes; the audience sees his leaning toward all encompassing greed and evil and leaning toward his former self. It was in the quiet and still moments that made the seemingly and nicely wrapped package worth opening.
What do you think?