Movie Review: The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

Hey there Chaos fans and fanatics! We here at the Eye of Terror hope that you all had a great holiday and that you got plenty of Chaos-goodies in your stockings or under your tree or whatever. I know I sure did- my wonderful (and understanding) wife got me the Sector Imperialis battleboard! Wow! This thing is huge and very nicely detailed. I'm so excited that I have already started to paint them! My wife is the best (or an enabler, depends on how one views the plastic crack habit that is 40K). In addition to that, I have been working on several projects, some of which I will show on this site later this week.

At any rate, my wife and I saw Hobbit 3 just over a week ago, so I decided I'd do a small-ish review. So, without further ado:

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

As my long time readers may remember, I love the original Lord of the Rings movies. Each of those films are both personal and epic, filled with action, emotion, and character. These three movies elevated "fantasy" films to an art form. The LoTR trilogy is without peer. I suppose, one day, I should review them on this site--- if only I had the time!

As my long time readers will also remember, I have been less than satisfied with The Hobbit films. I thought that Unexpected Journey was just awful (see review HERE). Total lack of characterization, tension, respect, filled with stupid CGI battle scenes- yikes. Though it had some good points, UJ was a letdown in nearly every respect. I have very rarely emerged from a movie so completely disappointed. A year later, Desolation of Smaug hit theaters (see my review HERE). While still not as good as LoTR, it was light years ahead of UJ- it felt much closer to the feel of LoTR, and Smaug himself was a fantastic creation, a worthy addition to the entire Middle Earth Saga. The movie had a bigger theme, had some good character beats, and felt like a more fulfilling experience. I left the theater excited for the 3rd part. Would Five Armies manage to keep up the momentum built up by
DoS?

Well, the answer is sadly mixed. Five Armies starts out promisingly enough- Smaug takes his frustration out on Laketown, with only Bard standing in his way. It is a fantastic scene, and Bard come across as both brave and desperate to stop the murderous dragon. The confrontation makes for a thrilling start to the film, but the movie never builds on it, unfortunately. Nothing that follows is quite as exciting or well done as the incineration of Laketown, which hurts the remaining two hours of film time. The remaining film is entertaining, but never rises to such heights as DoS or the rest of LoTR.

While the movie moves much faster than UJ, it has similar problems. Bilbo is pretty much a side character, which seems to defeat the entire purpose of the series. Martin Freedman does the best he can, but the focus is placed on others, and thus Peter Jackson himself seems to forget it was the 4 Hobbits which made LoTR, not the action scenes or special effects. Gandalf is similarly relegated to the sidelines, though his rescue from the Necromancer is thrilling (the only part that comes close to the battle with Smaug)- its great to see the White Council in action, and Jackson is smart enough to barely hint at Saruman's eventual fall rather than telegraphing it (sadly, Jackson poorly telegraphs everything else that will lead to LoTR).

The weakness is again the Dwarves. None have been developed well at all. Balin (my favorite from the other two, acting as the conscience of Thorin) barely gets any time. Killi is still in love with Tauriel (absurdly, in my opinion, and the resolution to that tries to be dramatic but just feels unearned). The other Dwarves are still just bodies. They add nothing to the proceedings. Ironically, a new Dwarf King, Dain, introduced in the midst of the "Battle", has more verve and character than the Dwarves we have been with since the start, and that must tell you something.

The only Dwarf developed at all is Thorin, and here is where the film truly goes awry. DoS built up the theme of greed as a corrupting influence. Now that Thorin has reclaimed his kingdom, what will he do next? The answer is that he suddenly becomes a greedy, selfish, and paranoid nutjob. And why? No, its not a moral failing- its only "Dragon-Sickness". Ugh. So suddenly Thorin isn't responsible for his own actions, and he just as suddenly recovers from his "Dragon-Sickness" just in time to save the day. Cartoonish and convenient, exactly the opposite of his development in UJ and DoS. Thus, when his heroic moment and sacrifice comes, it again feels odd and unearned. I think it would have been better to tone down his "Dragon-sickness" and instead build up his fears of losing his Kingdom again- walking a fine line between legitimate concern and selfishness.

Legolas and Tauriel do fine here, and Legolas' arc seems to be what I thought earlier- he awakens to the needs of all Middle Earth, not just his kingdom and his father. Thranduil fares worse though. His selfishness hits new heights (which is fine), but toward the end he suddenly reverses himself and becomes nice, even sending Legolas on a mission to find Aragorn (talk about telegraphing- not only did I groan, but it makes no plot or character sense to have Thranduil change so suddenly and without good enough reason).

Bard and the people of Laketown get the shaft as well. After defeating the dragon, Bard becomes the leader of Laketown's survivors. Luke Evans does well: he's a family man put in a tough situation. Where can his people go? How will they survive? Don't the Dwarves owe all the people some help? Bard becomes a reluctant warrior, willing to fight to keep his people safe. He is a welcome addition to the story, even if there are shades of Aragorn in his character. Sadly, once the "Battle" is finished, the movie suddenly forgets Bard and his people- what happens to them now? Do the Dwarves, Elves, and Men make an accord? Who knows? Once the "Battle" ends, Jackson decides to run back to the Shire as quickly as possible, seemingly afraid of having too many endings...

Which brings me to the end. Once Azog is killed the battle comes to a sudden end (almost inexplicably abrupt, the more I think of it). The movie swiftly concludes with Gandalf and Bilbo going back to the Shire. Their relationship, which was so warm in LoTR, is virtually non-existent here. Again, Jackson telegraphs the influence of the ring too much, and Gandalf seems VERY suspicious. Huh? Then why the hell does he wait DECADES to do something about it? The worst of it is, though, the film ends with LoTR Bilbo (Ian Holm) greeting Gandalf just before the birthday party in Fellowship. But because Gandalf and Bilbo had little to no relationship develop in the Hobbit trilogy, this ending just feels hollow and reminds you that LoTR are such better films.

Despite my many complaints, there are certainly things to recommend the film. The movie moves quickly, with very little drag, which makes it better than UJ immediately. The actors do their best, even the sidelined Martin Freedman (seriously, it is not his fault). The action pieces are fairly well done. While there is a ton of CGI, you expect it in the larger battles, and it works, with the action not being cartoonish (as it was in UJ)- plus the "Battle" has some stakes, which helps. Watching a Dwarf army go to war is interesting and unexpected in its execution- and I loved it when Daine's dwarves formed a phalanx against the charging Orcs! The single combat between Thorin and Azog is good (though it reminded me of Batman Begins. Seriously- watch and you'll see the resemblance, trust me).

Overall, "Battle" was a fun time at the theater, but as part of the Middle Earth saga, I expect more than that. Way more. So, since I liked it more than Unexpected Journey but less than Desolation of Smaug, I'll give it 2 1/2 Marks of Chaos out of 4.

So, The Hobbit trilogy is now closed, and it was a decidedly mixed bag, at best. It's too bad, because I love LoTR so much that I'd love to spend more time in Middle Earth. Unfortunately, The Hobbit trilogy ultimately forgot so much of what made LoTR so good: the big and the small, the grandiose and the subtle, the personal and the historic- those in combinations made LoTR shine, and the Hobbit lacked so much of it.

Ah well. I think I'll fire up the LoTR blu rays to make me feel better. Now THERE'S a saga well told...

"I wish none of this had happened".

"So do all who see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we can decide is what to do with the time that is given to us". 

Until next time!

  

Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Hey there, my fellow followers of the Ruinous Powers. Old Man Chaos is back with a (somewhat brief) review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, which I shall just call Hobbit DOS just for short). Shall we begin?

OK. Let me be honest. I was very disappointed with Hobbit 1. As a guy who loved Lord of The Rings trilogy, seeing them as the pinnacle of what film-making could accomplish in terms of story, characterization, and special effects, it is understandable that my expectations were quite high for the adaptation of The Hobbit. Now, I knew that there was no way it could live up to LOTR (how could it, it's a single story, lighter in tone), but I was unprepared for just how bad Hobbit UJ turned out to be. I hated it. I have never felt so dejected about a movie (even, believe it or not, Episode I)- I left the theater not wanting to see it again (I saw each of the LOTR movies multiple times in the theater). My original review is HERE - it captures my disappointment and bitterness quite well. A few weeks ago, they released Hobbit UJ Extended Edition, and I decided to pick it up and give it another try. It was telling that the extended cut is only like 10 minutes more footage. At any rate, upon watching it, my opinion remained largely unchanged. My complaints about Hobbit UJ remained, despite my giving it a second chance. At this point, I felt little desire to see Hobbit DOS.


However, last week some reviews began to appear on line. Although they varied in their enthusiasm, the consensus seemed to be that Hobbit DOS was a great improvement over the first. Now, I was torn. I wanted this movie to be good. Perhaps Hobbit UJ was just a fluke. Maybe it was just "ring-rust" that Jackson and company had to work through. Or... was Hobbit DOS destined to fail? Were the reviewers just so elated that Hobbit DOS wasn't the train-wreck that the first was, that they let their positive hyperbole get the better of them? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me...

Bilbo wasn't too happy with the first movie either

Luckily, that was not the case. Hobbit DOS was pretty darn good. Now, it at no point reached the stately, graceful power of the LOTR movies. However, it was a really good, fun, action packed, and at times contemplative film. Gone were the inane attempts at humor, the slap-stick, the fart/bleach jokes, the "forced" moments that meandered and moved along at a snails pace. Instead, we have a  movie that has a mission, and pretty much sticks to it throughout. The characters- even a few of those 13 dwarves, are developed a bit more, while new characters add some much needed depth and contrast. The action is almost constant, with many deeds of daring do, and the stakes are getting higher. Finally, there is a theme emerging here, which I did not expect, which the dragon Smaug ties into perfectly- how greed destroys you from within.

Let's take a few things in turn. First, the action sequences are plainly better. In Hobbit UJ, the few action scenes there were simply were stupid. The fight in the Goblin kingdom was the height of it- no danger, no menace, with a compete disregard for the gritty semi-realism that made LOTR so powerful. In DOS, the action scenes are frantic, with injuries occurring and at all times there is a real threat. From the Mirkwood spiders to the barrel chase to the confrontation with Smaug, their journey is fraught with risk and danger. The action scenes (mostly) mean something to the plot, and characters change as a result of these perils. There's one or two bits that echo UJ, but those are few, and the rest more than makes up for those deficiencies. 

Now, about the characters. Bilbo certainly shines in the first part and the last part (admittedly he gets a little lost in the shuffle in the middle section). Bilbo is clearly becoming braver, more shrewd. He saves the dwarves single- handed in more than one instance. His confrontation with the Mirkwood spiders was a real highlight for me, and his "escape plan" in the barrels is amusing and cunning all at once. Then, at the end, his "confrontation" with Smaug is just wonderful (more on that later). However, Jackson carefully posits the question- is Bilbo getting braver, or is it the ring already manipulating him? A great moral shading here, and well handled.

Some of the dwarves are also given more to do. Thorin, of course, is a strong presence here, being brave but also facing impossible odds- it hangs heavily upon him. His decision to abandon an injured comrade is both sad but very believable. However, Jackson again adds some shading here- is Thorin doing right by his people, or is it "personal"? Does he want to restore his homeland for his people, or does he simply want to be king again, whatever the cost?

The new characters get plenty, and are indeed essential to the theme that Jackson seems to be working on here. The first is Thranduil, the king of the wood elves. His elf king is all but detached from the world, and this is due to an underlying selfishness- the troubles of the world are not for him to get involved in. He simply wants to carry on as he has been. His son, Legolas (back from LOTR in a big role, as it turns out) generally agrees with his father, but his views are tested by Tauriel (well-played by Evangeline Lilly) a female elf that realizes the need to help others and begs Legolas to look beyond to the rest of the world (thus, Legolas will have a transforming arc, which is quite interesting). Finally, there's the people of Laketown, notably Bard, an honest man who has a great doubt gnawing at him; and the greedy and corpulent "Master of Laketown", who decides to aid the dwarves for selfish reasons. All these new roles are preformed very well, adding some great new characters to Jackson's cinematic universe. Lee Pace in particular is great as Thranduil- selfish, uncaring, and short-sighted. He is a great contrast to the wise Elrond and the inspiring Galadriel and the actor plays him very well.

Now, let's get to the titular dragon and the theme of the movie (indeed- the whole Hobbit trilogy?). If it plays out as it looks to, Gandalf is aware that Sauron is trying to return (in the form of the mysterious Necromancer- who is realized by a brilliant special effect). Now, Gandalf goes to investigate this Necromancer- and his fears are realized. What is allowing Sauron to make his return? Greed and selfishness. At the end of DOS it hit me how many of the characters are motivated by greed or entirely selfish needs: Thurandril and (initially) Legolas, Thorin, the "Master of Laketown", the people of Laketown, and, of course, Smaug. These are contrasted by characters who act to help others, who want to aid those in need, including Bilbo, Balin, Tauriel, Bard, and of course, Gandalf (he sees farther than all the others, admittedly, but he is motivated to help all of Middle Earth).

This shot has more thematic importance than might be guessed at first glance

Greed and selfishness have driven the "free peoples of Middle Earth" apart. Insular, self-serving, and indifferent to the needs of others, most of the kingdoms of Middle Earth have put their heads in the sand, unwilling or unable to acknowledge the growing threats and work together to form a solution. This moral failing allows Sauron to begin working toward his return. If they peoples of Middle Earth are busy being suspicious and angry at one another, how can they possibly join hands to stop Sauron?

And, tying all this together is Smaug. Voiced (and played, via motion capture) with superb skill by Benedict Cumberbatch (he's still NOT Khan), Smaug is the brilliantly realized (both in technical and in character terms) epitome of the evil of greed- scary, fearsome, and neigh unstoppable. As a greedy dragon, Smaug wants all the gold he can get (why does he want/need it? Who knows? It makes no sense, which is exactly the problem with insatiable greed), thus he has driven out the dwarves of Erebor and has stayed with his gold for decades, never leaving the Lonely Mountain. He is powerful, vicious, slightly slothful, greedy, and very condescending while being supremely intelligent. He has all this great and terrible power, but all he wants is to guard his hoard.  Smaug is the ugly side of such greed and selfishness, his flames filled with hate and jealousy at those who would wrest his wealth from him, and Thorin has similar feelings- does Thorin want Smaug out to reclaim the kingdom for his people, or does he simply want the wealth and power of Erebor for himself?

As Sauron returns, Smaug would be a natural ally, one who would burn all of civilization just for more gold, while scaring the people of Middle Earth into submission, making Sauron's job easier. Thus, greed becomes a force for even greater evil. Each of the characters is going to have to make a choice- help others or let greed and self-interest have sway. As Bilbo says at the end of the movie- "What have we done?" fits the mood and theme of the film perfectly. I commend Jackson and co for expounding on this so well- after UJ I didn't think he had it in him. Luckily, I was wrong.

There are, of course, flaws in the film that certainly keep it from LOTR status. There's a bit too much going on at times, the screen is a bit too busy for its own good- and you can't get a good fix at what's happening. There is also a lot of padding, with some bits that simply could have been cut- I'm tired of the Orcs mindlessly chasing the Dwarves for the umpteenth time. I also felt that the dwarf battle with Smaug was a bit too much, as it was apparent they couldn't win and as the "battle" went longer the energy of the scene dissipated. Finally, since the Hobbit is such a smaller book, its insane that there are 3 almost 3 hour movies to come from that one book, and you can just feel how they are adding stuff just to fill that run time. There are still issues with having too many dwarves, and there's the occasional bit that just doesn't ring true. Could Tauriel really "love" a dwarf? I'd prefer to think that she is just fascinated by this outsider, rather than "in love", which smacks of studio demographic testing.

Overall, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is superior in every way to its predecessor. The action, the stakes, the characterization, and most importantly, a bigger theme are all well done. IF this had been the way The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey had been handled, this doubt about the Hobbit trilogy would never have come to pass. The quality of DOS makes UJ all the more maddening- how did they make such a poor film, and follow it up by such a strong one. The best I can say about DOS is that I left the theater happy, and I may see it in theaters again. At the very least, I will be looking forward to seeing it on DVD, and I am hopeful now about the third Hobbit movie, concluding the trilogy. If it is as good as this one, I'll be thrilled. I guess two out of three ain't bad. I give it 3 out of 4 Marks of Chaos

Until Next Time!!

Movie Review: The Hobbit

 Happy New Year everybody! I'm back with my promised review of The Hobbit. This has been a difficult task for me. It was tough for me to write this, so let's just go to it:

 I have always been a fan of sci-fi and fantasy movies. Since I was a kid, my parents (who were also sci-fi fans) instilled in me a love of sci-fi and fantasy. In particular, my parents both loved the original Star Trek (they were both around for the first run in the 1960s) and Star Wars. Naturally, there was a ton of this in the 1980s- and due to their influence I watched 'em with them: Star Trek, Star Wars, Conan, Krull, Dragonslayer, Legend, Alien, etc. I have always been partial to those movies, and my love for this genre has only grown over time.

In 2001, I fell in love with a "new" mythology, that of the Lord of the Rings. I was only familiar with it via the old "The Hobbit" cartoon. When I saw Fellowship of the Ring- well, that was it for me. The movie was simply amazing- I immediately got the books and read them. The movie did a wonderful job of making a fantasy world come to life. Great actors giving the proceedings everything they've got. A fantastic, fully realized world, with a creative mix of practical and CGI, which combined to make you feel like "you are there". A wonderful musical score, terrific action sequences, and a cliffhanger ending. When the movie ended, I wanted to see it again. That moment, as a matter of fact. I felt that way upon seeing The Two Towers and Return of The King (for the record, I love the "endings"of RotK- this isn't wrapping up a movie, but a huge trilogy and the "endings befit this).

The most successful element in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, however, was not the epic action scenes or great special effects, or even the fully realized fantasy setting, though. For me, the movies "got me"with it's characters. Fellowship of the Ring takes its time introducing its characters- the warm moments between Gandalf and the Baggins' family is just wonderful, and sets up so much for later. The friendship between the 4 Hobbits is totally relatable, and each character gets a moment or two to shine. Then, as the other Fellowship members are introduced- I mean, Aragorn is so incredibly complex, even from his first scenes. Gimli is typically humorous for a Dwarf, but again. he's so brave, and he obviously wants to protect the Hobbits. You get regal performances from the Elves that, even if they are not fully drawn (yet), you just "get them". And, of course, you have some real villainy from the treacherous Saruman. Though the movie doesn't really dwell on WHY he switches sides, you just know that this is a terrible blow to the heroes, even before they've started. As for the action- well, that's the thing. The action ALWAYS has our group of heroes as the focus. No matter what happens, from goblins to Balrog to Urak Hai- the fights/action are always done in the service of our main characters. The action is in a fantasy setting, but it is always done realistically- swords and arrows and even frying pans clash in desperate combat. The characters are in danger, and you worry about them- they get hurt, they bleed. The action scenes also change the characters- you learn they have courage, or fears, or connections to the others... Well, all the action in the world isn't worth a damn if the characters aren't at the fore.

In the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, these characters are front and center. Throughout the din of armies clashing, giant spiders attacking, and a primordial evil returning to the world to wreck havoc, it is always our heroes that you are concerned about. You identify with them, root for them, feel for them. As the stakes get higher in The Two Towers an Return of the King, with bigger and more complex battles / action sequences, it is still (and always) character above spectacle. See- that's the secret- compelling or relatable characters trump every single time. You love Star Wars because you love Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie. In the recent Batman trilogy, you feel for Bruce in a way you never have before (in movies that is), and his allies like Alfred and Gordon are made into human beings (rather than just mere exposition pieces), which you sympathize with. Look carefully, and you'll see that The Matrix starts with strong characters, but that loses out to the special effects in the next two movies, sadly. The SW prequel trilogy also does that, and you can see the poor results for yourself (though it almost recovers by Episode III, but it's too late).

Well, that brings us to The Hobbit. It has been over 10 years since Peter Jackson and company first produced the FotR. Now, everyone was saying that The Hobbit as a book is more lighthearted, not as epic, not as action packed, etc. I wasn't concerned about any of that. I wanted Jackson to bring these characters to life. I wanted to see young Bilbo setting out on his "adventure". I wanted to see how Bilbo formed his bond with Gandalf the Grey. I wanted to see him match wits against Gollum in the darkest cave, despite his fear. I wanted to see Bilbo become a hero, seen as worthy by his Dwarven compatriots. I wanted to laugh, smile, feel some chills and thrills, and feel connected to our characters.

And that's the problem. There are moments where this happens. When the Dwarves first come to Bag End, you can totally sympathize with Bilbo, while still laughing at the antics of his "guests". When Gandalf is trying to convince Bilbo to join their quest, you get where both men are coming from. Radaghast the Brown, for all his weirdness, is interesting and funny all at the same time. The White Council is brilliantly realized, and you get the impression that they are good people (even Saruman!), but they are divided as to what the best course of action is. The Dwarves get a few moments to bond with Bilbo (the Troll scene). And yes, the Riddles in the Dark scene is great fun and thrilling.

However, add that up, and its about an hour. The rest is--- oh no. What have they done? It's all crazy action scenes, filled with POINTLESS fighting and STUPID physical feats. Jackson and company nearly totally forget why they were successful the first time around- the characters are not at all developed, and hence you don't care about them. The Dwarves are, for the most part, just bodies- you don't really get to know them at all. Yes, Thorin is tough, but he's SO damn one-note ("I want to get my home back and I have nothing else to say"). Balin is well played, but he's mostly just exposition. The rest of them are just forgettable arrow fodder. Jackson should have cut them down to a more manageable number (purists be damned! If Jackson could get rid of Tom Bombidil, meld characters, re-arrange events, and still make LotR kick ass, then he could have cut 5 Dwarves and nobody would have noticed). As it is, the audience doesn't really know them, and hence, doesn't care.

The most unforgivable sin, though, is how they handle Bilbo. Now, don't get me wrong, Martin Freedman is really good at the role. It's not the performance, its the writing. For huge swathes of the film, Bilbo is silent, a bystander at best. If he is "us"- how the average person might fare thrust into such an adventure- well, he isn't developed enough. The 4 Hobbits are developed more carefully in FotR than Bilbo is in this entire film- and he's the only Hobbit and the main character. We don't get to know him, and it hurts the film. Ian McKellan is again stately as Gandalf, but he is given less to do (the White Council scene not withstanding). When Gandalf's biggest laugh is him COUNTING the # of dwarves he has with him after an action sequence, well... it may be humorous, but it is also a sad commentary on how little Gandalf is developed or used here.

Then, there's the staging of the action itself. So much of it is CGI. Now, I wouldn't care IF I had strong characters, but, since I don't, the endless sweeping CGI shots quickly become pointless. When Radagst takes to his sled to drive the Orcs away- it is so frantic, without any sense of geography or any sense of menace or dread, it just looks stupid (to compare, look at the scene where Arwen is trying to escape the Wraiths with Frodo- it is a strong chase scene. Radagast's chase is similar in idea, but horrible in execution). When the Dwarves are fighting the Goblin King and his warriors on the wooden bridges- half of it is the dwarves running wildly in all too obvious CG. Then, when their bridge collapses and they kind of glide on it and hit rock bottom... an obvious disregard for physics and common sense (again- its instructive- look to FotR, at the Bridge of Khazad Dum scene. It is filled with peril, as the wrong move would cause them to fall to their deaths- there is tension in the scene, as the goblins shoot arrows and the bridge begins to crumble- you don't want these characters to fall, and it just feels like that could happen at any moment). This bit is laughable in The Hobbit. By the time the last action scene comes, you're exhausted, because you've seen enough action, but really because you just don't care as much as you know you should.

That is the sad part of this movie- you just don't connect to it as much as you did to LotR. Now look, the LotR trilogy isn't perfect (whatever is, anyways?), but whatever weaknesses it has become inconsequential compared to what the movies accomplished. With The Hobbit, the characters are never developed enough for you to latch onto- you don't know them, so you don't care. That fatal flaw derails the whole movie. The maddening thing is- there are moments that show this COULD have been excellent. The scenes at Bag End, the White Council, the Riddles in the Dark... all are great bits that had energy, momentum, humor, and SOME character beats. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just a mess of rapidly sweeping camera shots, overuse of CGI, and stupid action moments that undermine the "fantasy reality" that LotR established. I'm giving this 2 Marks of Chaos, and I'm saddened that I have to.

Now, all is not lost here. There is a huge possibility that recovery can be made. There are 2 more movies here- and the damage can be fixed. Here's what I'd like to see happen, and I hope it does:

1. Bilbo becomes the focus of the next 2. Here, he's the main character, buy he's a cipher for a good chunk of it. Give him some time, show how he grows. Let us see through his eyes, as we saw through Frodo's.  Make him the CENTER of the movie, and that will go a long way to make the audience feel invested.

2. Same for the dwarves. Now, you can't possibly develop them all. But, for heaven's sake, let the audience get to know a few of them. Give them close ups. Heroic moments. Small moments with each other. Moments with Bilbo. Kill a few- just to show that there is real danger here. The audience will bond with them if they feel for them being in constant danger.

3. Speaking of danger- stop the damn CGI sweeping action bits that are more at home in a video game than a movie. Give us close quarters combat. Show these dwarves being brave against Orcs or whatever. Show us some blood, some sweat, some fear (all of which were present in spades in LotR). The action scenes must have real stakes in order to be gripping. It was done for all three LotR movies- it can be done here.

4. Develop the antagonists. I didn't mention this earlier, but the "enemy" isn't developed here at all. LotR had a ton- Sauron, Orcs/Gobblins, Wraiths, Saruman, Grima, Gollum, Urak Hai, Easterlings, Haradrins, Shelob, etc. Here, the enemies are simply wave after wave of CGI sprites to be dispatched. Give them some personality. The Gobblin King had some, but it was too little too late. The Orc chasing Thorin (whose name I can't even remember at this point) is barely seen, and does little to stand out from other Orcs (metal claw not withstanding). In the next one, give us the bad guys- Smaug, the Necromancer, the Spiders. Make them evil, and cunning, and intelligent. Now, since they've casted Cumberbatch to be both Smaug and the Necromancer, there's a great chance of them being strong antagonists, which is sorely needed at this point.

5. Its the little moments. Yes, as I've been saying the whole time, develop characters by giving them time to breathe. The Hobbit seems to be so damned concerned with getting to the next "cool action bit" that a vital element is lost. The best part of the LotR trilogy are the quiet parts, the small moments for reflections, camaraderie, grieving, humor, frustration, quiet acts of bravery or personal sacrifice. Watch RotK and notice how Sam doesn't eat, so that Frodo has more food to keep going. Or when Aragorn looks back at his army, with all seeming lost, and says "For Frodo" so quietly, but with total conviction. Look at TTT and see how Theoden looks to his niece, and with a small look tells her that Aragorn is dead- look at their faces, and see pain and sadness. When Gimli begs Aragorn not to "tell the elf" about "tossing a dwarf"- so funny, but also a great character moment. Its these little scenes that add power and depth. And that is just a few! The Hobbit ignored most opportunities to do these things.

Sorry about the rant. It's just that I love what Jackson and company did with Lord of the Rings so much. I knew that The Hobbit wouldn't reach those levels, nor did I want it to, actually. I simply used LotR for comparison, since they are so closely related and all. The truth is, they left out vital elements which ANY movie needs. Since you never get drawn to the characters, there is little chance that you will get invested in the movie. Now, that's OK for a mindless action movie like Taken, but for The Hobbit, with its great literary and cinematic pedigree, it is almost tragic.

The Grand Unvieling: The Heldrake

Hey there Chaos fanatics! How's your holiday week going? Was Santa good to you? Did you get some 40K goodies in your stocking? I sure did- I got 2 boxes of the new Raptors, Khorne Bezerkers, a Warpsmith, and a Dark Apostle. The new Raptors are fantastic models. I love the new jump packs, and the models can be posed very dynamically. I also love the Wapsmith- the pictures did not do this model justice at all- lots of detail that just didn't come through in the photos.

I did indeed see The Hobbit. I will be writing my review shortly. I must say that I had very mixed feelings about it. There were parts that were amazing- parts that made me remember why I fell in love with LotR, and filled me with hope about The Hobbit, and there were parts when I wanted to just yell at the screen and say "Is this the same Peter Jackson who made the brilliant LotR movie?". Mixed feelings indeed... not something I wanted with The Hobbit at all, unfortunately. I'll review that movie soon.

So- I have just finished my Heldrake. Would you like to take a look? Hehe! I thought you might after all...

Since I already had a Hell Talon painted in my Death Guard scheme, so I decided to make the Heldrake a part of my new Khorne Bezerker army. Initially, I had been ambivalent about the Heldrake model when they first showed it in White Dwarf. Indeed, I still don't know how I would go about "Nurglefying" it. However, the dragon look ended up being a perfect fit with my Khorne Bezerkers.

The model goes together really, really easily. Like a dream, as a matter of fact. Despite the sheer size and vast amount of detail, the model is actually a good kit to build. The directions are really clear and straightforward- even newcomers could tackle it if they carefully follow the pictures/numbers. Once assembled, it is hard to not to be impressed with the model, as looking at it in person is way better than any magazine shot. The wings can be posed in several ways, making the Heldrake look very dynamic. The detail work is extraordinary, with tons of Chaos symbols, baroque rims, a tail that is both metal and flesh, and a dragon head that looks vicious.

The only downside, to me at least, is that conversions would be difficult, to say the least. There seems to be little room for massive conversions, which I am used to as a Chaos player. The only difference is the 2 guns (minor at best). Converting is more difficult as you have so much detail that conversions won't look (or be placed) right. A small quibble, but for a longtime Chaos modeler its a bit of a bigger issue. I did add to icons and a skull chain from the Chaos vehicle sprue.

Painting-wise, I did it in my typical World Eaters color scheme- a deep, dark red with plenty of brass trim-work. I also used what I did with the Maulerfiend- I used blues to represent daemon-warp energy inside the metal shell. This ties the two big beasts together in a further way. Looking at both models, I really like the synergy between the two. I know that I was not a fan of the models when they first appeared in the pages of White Dwarf, but after assembling and painting them, I really do like them now. I do wish that you could convert them a bit more, but... I can see ways of doing it with a Maulerfiend (I have ideas for my next one), but less so with the Heldrake. However, that said, I do like these two now, and they are a worthy addition to the forces of Chaos. They also look nice with the new Helbrute (which will always be a Dreadnought to me).

The other day I happened to be in the city, and as often happens, I wandered by the Games Workshop store there. I decided to ask some of my rules questions to the guy there. He answered a lot of my questions about the Maulerfiend and flyers. After his suggestions, I realized I simply should not have charged a Wraithlord. He's just too damn powerful. If my Mauler went after the War Walkers or something, that would have been very effective. Oh well- live and learn. He also clarified that the Heldrake CAN do a vector strike over something he passes over and then fire his gun at a different unit. That makes the Heldrake even more effective than I initially thought. The GW guy was very helpful and patient with my questions, and I do appreciate it.

So, with these new models ready and new strategic ideas learned, I can't wait to play my next game. I don't know when that will be exactly, but I can't wait to try out my new models and ideas. With the Heldrake done, I'll be working on some of the other stuff- the Raptors are first up for me- I'm so excited for them! The models are absolutely first rate. I also have a Land Raider and Possessed to work on too. I'll let you know as I get done with 'em.

I hope you've enjoyed the pics. Until next time, my friends...