Tag Archives: luke evans

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” a disappointment

Peter Jackson has finally finished The Hobbit series, a series that pretty much everyone knew beforehand should have been at most two films. As the third entry ends, everyone’s worst fears are vindicated. This was too long, too monotonous with too much shoved in to create three films from what should have been a very simple story.

The film begins exactly where the last left off, the evil dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) intent on destroying Laketown. After his demise, the kingdom of Erebor, long sought by Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his company, is up for grabs, with orcs and men and elves and dwarfs all converging in one climactic battle. This battle consumes most of the film, but with no real characters of consequence other than Bard (Luke Evans) involved, there’s not a lot to be emotionally involved with, and the overabundance of CGI effects (in stark contrast to the first trilogy, which heavily used effects, but in conjunction with actual props and locations) renders the spectacle more tedious than thrilling. In much the same vein as the reviled prequel Star Wars trilogy (1999-2005), Jackson has sacrificed emotion at the expense of attempting to create awe, but awe is created with a blending of grand spectacle combined with concern for characters. The Battle of Helm’s Deep in The Two Towers (2002) was immersive in scope, a grand attack on a large scale, but at its heart was a concern for the people of Rohan, our heroes laying everything on the line in a last desperate attempt to save humanity. The Battle of the Five Armies has several random armies fighting for gold and jewels and strategic advantage. With Bilbo, Thorn and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) pretty much on the sidelines, there is not a lot to care for. Bilbo needs more to do, with more of a stake in the events surrounding him, for an audience to care.

The entire series suffers from a lack of direction, torn between adoration for the original trilogy with its hardened war analogies, and Tolkien’s original novel, more whimsical and youth-based. For every scene where the dwarfs are in danger of being eaten by trolls (youth), there is a gory battle scene involving orcs and decapitation. The lack of a cohesive vision has hurt the series overall, giving it no real identity. Audiences can only wonder what originally-planned director’s Guillermo del Toro’s films would have been like. A new director with a new style may have served the story well, differing in tone from the first trilogy while still fitting into the same Tolkien world.

Somewhere hidden in this mess of forced romances, overlong battles and dismissive comic relief (the character of Alfrid is not only not funny, he is downright painful to watch) lies a pretty good four hour film. Perhaps some fan edit will give us the Hobbit film audiences deserve. What Jackson and company have given us however are three films that pretend to deliver heart, but abuse that sentiment under an avalanche of CGI nonsense and subplots that offer nothing to the tale of Bilbo (Martin Freeman), the supposed protagonist who is often relegated to secondary status, the single worst sin by the filmmakers. Bilbo’s tale, and his relationship to Thorin and the other dwarfs, should have been the heart of the film. What we have instead is a mess.


‘The Girl on the Train’ a boring rehash of other’s ideas

You may initially be confused by the title of “The Girl on the Train” in thinking that it is “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” or perhaps “Gone Girl.” That is intentional as “The Girl on the Train” is really just an imitation of both of those projects.

Rachel (Emily Blunt) takes the train to work in New York everyday. It passes by her old house where her ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux), lives with his new wife, Anna (Rebecca Ferguson), and their new baby. Next to them live Megan (Haley Bennett) and her husband, Scott (Luke Evans). She sees something shocking one day and the next morning she wakes up with bruises and no memory of her previous night. And no one can find Megan.

The story is told in confusing fashion, leading the viewer not to trust Rachel. Without a firm character to latch onto emotionally, the plot is rather aimless, the audience not really caring personally about the mystery. And as the mystery is revealed, it generates a meh response for being pretty obvious and unoriginal.

The thing that keeps the film somewhat strong is Emily Blunt’s performance. She’s great in the lead role, showcasing insanity, uncertainty and shame. It’s a shame it’s pretty much wasted in this film.

The film and book it is based off really just feel as if they are trying to capitalize on the woman-mystery craze typified with “Gone Girl” and “The Girl With…” series. Crafting new stories into the genre is not in itself a poor choice, but you have to have a strong narrative to tell and “The Girl on the Train” simply doesn’t. It’s a half-baked concept with semi-decent execution.

Live-action ‘Beauty and the Beast’ a cashgrab snore

Disney continues its run of uninspired, derivative live-action adaptations with “Beauty and the Beast.” Directed by Bill Condon, the film follows Belle (Emma Watson) as she meets the Beast (Dan Stevens) who… well, you know the plot.

The film feels more like an excuse to photograph lavish set design as its story is exactly the same as the animated film. Right down to the jokes pretty much, there is nothing new in this film, and the end result is that the movie is boring. You know what’s going to happen exactly as it happens. So while it’s pretty to look at, that’s no excuse for good story.

The cast is fine for the most part. Luke Evans is adequate as Gaston in a role that is far too villainous for its own good. Emma Watson does an okay job with Belle, but Dan Stevens as the Beast, in all his CGI monstrosity, is distracting. All the digital effects substitute realism for design and the result is a disconnect with whatever story we have. Special effects are supposed to blend in with the story, not be a central focal point.

In conclusion, the film is less a film than a mass marketing enterprise. It sells nostalgia instead of ingenuity. It sells it well though. The film has grossed half a billion dollars in the United States. Instead of nothing ventured, nothing gained, Disney has finally achieved nothing ventured, millions gained.