Before we start, I’d like to ask if there’s anyone out there who still believes these movies are supposed to be faithful adaptations of J. R. R. Tolkien’s beloved novel? Just raise your hand. Yes, you sir, there in the back. If that’s what you truly believe then, for your own mental wellbeing, I’d respectfully ask that you leave the room while we discuss The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. You’ll thank me for it later.
He’s gone? Good. Now the rest of us can talk about the conclusion to Peter Jackson’s mega-million dollar work of fan-fiction without having to put any Tolkien purists on a death watch. You see, even though I understand the anguish of such folks, for those like myself who have been willing to overlook Jackson’s elaborations on the written word and approach the Hobbit films as basic entertainment, the trilogy has been fairly enjoyable. Did I necessarily need a barely mentioned character from The Simarillion turned into a major antagonist or a goofy romance between a dwarf and an elf? No, but these things didn’t ruin the movies for me either.
And that’s a good thing, because The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is only marginally better than the first two installments when it comes to tinkering with Tolkien’s world. I mean, come on, giant were-worms straight out of Dune? Really? Such things seem quite distant from Tolkien. And yet, as part of Peter Jackson’s middle-earth LARPing, they’re really not that bad.
Overall, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is a fine conclusion to the series and a bit of a step-up from the first two movies. It begins right where the last film ended, with the great wyrm Smaug headed towards Laketown to rain down fiery vengeance for an imagined slight. Once again, Benedict Cumberbatch is in fine form as the voice of the dragon, full of arrogance and overconfidence as he taunts the doomed village.
Yeah, it’s a bit weird having the desolation of Laketown by Smaug occur at the beginning of this movie rather than at the end of the last one where it would have made more sense (what with it being called The Desolation of Smaug and all), but thematically it does set a suitably dark tone for this film. Like the final chapters of Tolkien’s Hobbit, The Battle of the Five Armies is a much more somber outing than what has come before.
This quickly becomes evident as Thorin, having now secured his position as king under the mountain, quickly falls victim to the same “dragon sickness” which had previously possessed Smaug. His descent into madness is wonderfully captured in a bizarre hallucinatory sequence in which the Dwarven leader is ultimately swallowed up by a lake of gold. For those who are familiar with Jackson’s pre-Lord of the Rings filmography, the weirdness of the scene is a nice throwback to some of the director’s more out-there work.
Having promised the people of Laketown to share a portion of the near limitless hoard of treasure at his disposal, the sickened Thorin now refuses to part with a single coin. In this, at least, the movie sticks closely to Tolkien and the Catholic heart at the root of his works. The dragon sickness which descends upon Thorin is nothing less than the sin of avarice warned against by the Church when she proclaims, "He who loves money never has money enough." This disordered desire can exceed the limits of reason and drive a person to covet unjustly what is owed to another. Such is the sin that blackens Thorin’s heart and sets in motion the events which follow.
Well, most of the events anyway. There’s still the little matter of Gandalf being imprisoned at Dol Guldur to be dealt with. In a scene not found in any of Tolkien’s writings, the members of the White Council mount a rescue effort to retrieve Gandalf from the clutches of the newly awakened Nazgûl. Is it a necessary addition to the story? Nope, but just watch Christopher Lee’s Sauron go into full battle wizard mode and try to tell me it’s not a welcome side trip. I won’t believe you if you do.
Now, on the other hand, if you want to make the argument that many of the scenes involving Legolas and Tauriel are unnecessary, then I might be inclined to lend a more sympathetic ear. I realize he fits in with the timeline, but there’s really no reason for Legolas to be in this story other than Orlando Bloom’s admirers want him in it. To make matters worse, his extreme stunts from the earlier films morph here into full on super-heroics. It’s fan service at its worse.
So, it’s not a perfect movie. And yet, of all of the Hobbit movies, it’s probably the most satisfying. The emotional heft of the film is definitely weightier than its predecessors thanks to its depiction of the crumbling relationship between Bilbo and Thorin. The little hobbit’s grief over his inability to save his friend from slipping into sin is palpable, and his anguish over his necessary betrayal is heartfelt. As in the previous two films, Martin Freeman’s Bilbo isn’t really given as much time as he should be, but when he is onscreen it’s all good. It just goes to show that the entire exercise of adapting The Hobbit into a three part epic has been a mixed bag.
In the end, the Hobbit films in no way match the Lord of the Rings trilogy in terms of scope, complexity or deepness of meaning. But you know what, if we’re being honest, that’s exactly how it is with the books as well. Reading The Hobbit for the first time remains one of my most cherished childhood memories, but the fact is that reading The Lord of the Rings was a much more mature and broadening experience. And that’s pretty much sums up my reaction to these movies. If you want a masterpiece, then by all means revisit The Lord of the Rings movies. But if all you need is an entertaining romp, The Hobbit films should do just fine, thank you.
And today we celebrate...