Recent Releases and Reviews

[Drasiana]

This is a topic for talking about movies that are currently or were very recently in theatres! For recommendations, reviews, and more. There will likely be spoilers in here but I still encourage everyone to use the spoiler tags when they can.

 

I'll kick it off by blabbing about the most recent theatrical release I've seen: Maleficent!

 

In-Depth Spoiler Review Here

 

Spoiler-Free Snapshot Review:

 

 

Maleficent is a very well-done reinterpretation of Sleeping Beauty that sacrifices neither the tone nor characterization of the original, and tastefully expands upon what was already there. Much of the dialogue is even lifted from the original film, and the casting is as close as possible to the animated counterparts. There is absolutely no issue in believing that these are the same characters from our childhood.

 

What I respect the most about this is that Maleficent herself, while the clearly sympathetic protagonist, does not sacrifice any of her severe, powerful demeanor from the original. Rather than continuing the parade of "safe" princesses, Disney has finally humanized a character archetype that had been previously reserved for strictly "evil" and undesirable women. While with her personal flaws, Maleficent is shown to be neither of these things, and her personality is not a flaw that must be overcome. She has power, agency, and wisdom, and to have her as a protagonist--not a side character, but the main hero--is very bold, and very nice. The same can be said of her shapeshifting raven companion, Diaval, who is portrayed as curious and friendly (if a little complainy) rather than your stereotypical harbinger of doom. They are both character types with a history of being villified, and rather than play it safe by turning them into something they never were, they show us there is nothing wrong with the way they have always been.

 

Don't go into this movie expecting a non-stop action-filled fantasy blockbuster, though. It is slowly and deliberately told, because it is a fairy tale. The style of storytelling is not in line with modern convention, and I think that threw a lot of people off. However, I was charmed once I realized that the pacing was intentional, and found it to be a creatively nostalgic way of telling the story.

 

For several movies in a row, now, Disney has been playing with the themes of True Love, and the idea that the Prince might be Not-So-Charming. While I was getting tired of these tropes, and Maleficent carried on the trend, it's the first time in a long time that I think these were actually well-done. Unlike Frozen, bogged down in contradictions and red herrings, Maleficent shows an organic procession of these ideas and relationships, that culminate at a satisfying climax and ending. Hopefully, now that they've done it correctly, Disney can try some other themes in their movies. Regardless, this was one of the only instances where the message was strong and fulfilled its heartwarming intent.

 

I'll be seeing How to Train Your Dragon 2 this weekend, stay tuned!

 

So, what movies have you seen lately, SFO?

[mjakob42]

Oh, a movie thread!

 

...don't get me started, Dras.

(damn, temptation broke me!)

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoSWbyvdhHw

 

Anywho, the last new movie I saw theatrically was Under the Skin (based on the novel of the same name by Michel Faber), one of the most fascinating sci-fi (?) films I've seen in a while. The film follows a mysterious woman played by Scarlett Johansson as she traverses through the streets of Scotland...seducing men...and then leaving them to drown in a black void. 

 

A wee-bit weird, right?

 

As with any avant-garde film, it is not necessarily so much about the story as much as what is between the lines, so to speak. And nobody better sums up the existential nature of Under the Skin than Matthew Zoller Seitz in his review for www.rogerebert.com.

 

 

 

Is "Under the Skin," in which Scarlett Johansson plays a mysterious woman luring men into a fatal mating dance, a brilliant science fiction movie—more of an "experience" than a traditional story, with plenty to say about gender roles, sexism and the power of lust? Is it a pretentious gloss on a very old story about men's fear of women, and women's discomfort with their own allure? Does it contain mysteries that can only be unpacked with repeat viewings, or is it a shallow film whose assured style and eerie tone make it seem deeper than it is? Is there, in fact, something beneath the movie's skin? Why is every sentence in this paragraph a question?

 

I wish I could say more about the film, but it's one of those movies that really requires multiple viewings, and that's if it is the viewer's type of movie. As you all could probably imagine, this is very much my kind of movie. While I did enjoy it quite a bit, it didn't quite grip me as hard as I was hoping it would, and I can't really put my finger on it right now. It did feel a little repetitive with the whole "seduce-trap-repeat" process, but there is a unique twist at the end where Johansson finds herself the prey instead of the predator that she has been throughout the duration of the film. I guess one of my issues was that the film didn't slowly lead into her prey cycle - it feels kind of last minute. In spite of these complaints, it's not enough to make me say the film was disappointing. In fact, I enjoyed it (for lack of a better way to say it) quite a bit, and I will be adding it to my collection when it is released (but I do disagree with Seitz giving it 4/4 stars). One thing I will say was that the surreal moments were absolutely INCREDIBLE. If you get the opportunity to watch Under the Skin in the theater or on Blu-Ray with a big, hi-def TV and a great sound system, do so, and let the film absorb you.

 

All in all, for anyone looking for a sci-fi/art house experience in the vein of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris, or The Man Who Fell to Earth, Under the Skin is actually a very worthy throwback to that style of filmmaking. I've not read the book, and I've heard the book is actually quite superior, so if reading is more of your thing, perhaps you can add this one to your "to read" list.

 

...anyway, allow me to break away from my awful, college-undergraduate-like review. Dras! Please let me know how How to Train Your Dragon 2 is! I've not seen the first, but I've heard nothing but great things and I actually might have to rent that one soon. 

[Drasiana]

That sounds...uh. Interesting. Dunno if it's my kind of movie, though. I tend to be a little leery of movies written and directed entirely by dudes that claim to be "examining sexism"...

 

But anyway, HTTYD2! It was good.

 

And it was...kind of dark!

 

I hope this movie does well, because I really would like animation to get its footing again when it comes to "not being completely condescending to your audience". Animation lately has taken to this trend where it's almost embarrassed about what it is, downplaying the drama and padding the story with sarcasm towards itself (glaring at Frozen continues). It isn't really enjoyable for me to watch that and it's actually sort of uncomfortable, but that's kind of the beginning of a whole other discussion entirely. The point is, this movie did not do that.

 

The basic premise of the movie is that Hiccup and friends discover that a warlord named Drogo is kidnapping dragons to amass an army to conquer the world. He runs into his mother, a dragon-taming vigilante, and they team up to stop the bad things from happening.

 

This movie is a thriller. Other than a somewhat long (but VERY emotionally charged) scene in the middle, it's pretty much nonstop action, and I think this is the first time in a long time I found myself actively wringing my hands in worry over the potential fate of a cartoon character. There are some very high highs and low lows for the characters in this movie, and it was really intense to watch.

 

Also, it was fucking gorgeous. Every screencap you pull from this movie is a work of art. Everything is staged and framed beautifully, and there is always something going on in the background. Not enough to distract, but it gives depth to the world you're looking at. There are moments in the big climactic battles that wouldn't look out of place in a live action fantasy movie, as odd as that would sound, just in the way that things move, and the sheer sense of gravity that accompanies them.

 

And the characters here can emote. The amount of emotion that these goofy-looking Dreamworks characters can express is amazing. You kind of have to see it for yourself, but wow. Wow!

 

I think that's generally all I have to say, really. I kind of wish Hiccup's mom did a bit more after she was introduced. The subplot with the dragon trapper guy seemed to turn sort of randomly. It was still a really good movie and you should see it.

[Sarita]

Transcendence was an awesome movie and it's super rare that Steve and I both agree on what makes a good movie. So that's reason enough to go see it I think. Don't go in to it expecting action. It's super slow in that regard. I'd say it's a very "intellectual" film. It's pretty different from what the trailer depicted, honestly I think the trailer was more action-packed than the film itself. I don't know what else to say without spoiling it, I guess? Go see it. I wont judge you when you get angry at the terrorists for being stupid.

 

I thought it was particularly funny that at the beginning of the movie it seemed like Johnny Depp was trying to maintain a specific accent different from his own, but by the end of the movie it was just his plain ol' Johnny voice again.

[Clearwater]

I still remember the 13th April, 2014, when me and my friend went to see Rio 2. It was an amazing sequel to one of the best

films I've seen. And for me, now that I know that Rio 2 is coming out on DVD on the 15th of July, a new wait has begun...

[LazerMaster5]

Today I will be reviewing the movie, Snowpiercer. Today it released officially in US theaters, while it has been out in Korea for a while.

Snowpiercer is a film from filmmaker Bong Joon Ho, featuring Chris Evans of captain America fame. After a chemical is released into the air to stop global warming, the earth enters a deep freeze, killing all life, save for the inhabitants of a special train, the Snowpiercer. Originally built as a luxury line, it circumnavigates the world and is weatherproof, provided it keeps moving. The train has 3 classes, the 1st class, economy, and the slums in the rear of the train. The people running the train steal from these people and give to those at the front of the train, and the people cannot take it anymore. They lead a full-scale revolution, taking the train car by car. This movie has many wicked, brutal action scenes, unexpected twists, and untimely deaths. This movie also has some dark humor, which cannot be explained if you have not seen the film yet. I am trying not to spoil too much of the story, so you have to see it yourself. I highly recommend Snowpiercer to those desiring one hell of a ride. 10/10 would watch again

[Drasiana]

Guardians of the Galaxy was really good.

 

This isn't really much of a review because I'm sick and really don't care about what my critic brain is saying (yeah the sorta-romance subplot was forced I get it). It basically hit all my buttons for what I want from an adventure movie: found family themes, a lovable cast with their own unique roles and stories, a healthy dose of comedy and genre-awareness, and that rustbucket space outlaw aesthetic.

 

Yes, this will be one that I'll bring up as a tonal/aesthetic example of what I want from Star Fox.

[Redeemer]

I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and it was absolutely fantastic. The CG looks really, really good and the apes have the most believable, human expressions. One scene actually reduced me to tears, where:

 

Blue Eyes informs Caesar of Ash's death (Ash is the son of Rocket), admitting how Koba murdered him as an example and now controls the apes with fear. His lip trembles as he fights back tears and he struggles to even talk about what happened. Heartbreaking to see, believe me.

 

Also, seeing the apes in their own little culture was fascinating. The start of the movie has no dialogue at all, it's just roughly 15 minutes of the apes interacting as a society and communicating via sign language. They're a very close-knit community, with a school and specific roles, and they're all quite affectionate towards each other, for example, holding forehead against forehead to comfort a friend, touching faces, other face-oriented interaction, still a very primal behaviour that means so much more now. Some of the apes with specific roles, for example doctors or midwives, wear various bones or teeth across their faces and it's rather shaman-like. It's a very refreshing introduction.

 

The most clever thing about this movie was that it didn't really preach anything. There was no wrong or right side, and there was no "these guys live better than these guys because of these life choices" message. In the earlier movies you felt for the humans, as the apes were tyrants and hunted them for sport or experimented on them, and then in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, you side with the apes because humans are abusive and greedy, but in this installment, you side with neither. There are flaws and bad influences on both sides and in the end, you're just watching them clash through a series of unfortunate events and it's truly distressing.

 

There is some very moving character development on the ape's side, which although could have been done badly and could have ended up looking silly, was actually tastefully done. You can understand the characters on their level, especially Koba. I'd actually like to elaborate on that because he's not just a "bad guy":

 

In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Koba was a test subject and was experimented on in a horrible way. He's covered in scars as a result and bears a bitter hatred for humans. However, after being saved by Caesar, he pledges undying loyalty to him and helps bring the apes very, very far in their society and recovery. However, in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, you find that his hatred for humans is just too much for him to handle. At the start of the film, he loves Caesar, as a leader and saviour, and fights viciously to save him and Caesar's son, Blue Eyes from a bear in the forest. He even talks to Blue Eyes like a father, indicating that he is also a close friend of Caesar's entire family. However, after Caesar decides to let the humans have access to part of the forest to try and boot up a power generator, Koba struggles to remain loyal to him. They argue a lot, and in the end, Koba is so resentful towards his old friend, and hurt through believing that Caesar cares for humans more than apes, he cannot find rest in himself and eventually shoots Caesar, taking control of the apes and declaring war on the humans. He is so badly damaged by his past, he can now only work in extremes.

 

I highly recommend this movie but only if you've also seen Rise of the Planet of the Apes. If you want to care about the characters, it helps to be with them from the beginning. I give this movie a 10/10, and look forward to the conclusion.

[Drasiana]

Hey, you. Yeah you, reading this post. Why are you reading this post instead of going to see The Book of Life right now?!

 

Produced by Guillermo del Toro, written and directed by Jorge R. Gutierrez, it's an incredibly vibrant and good-hearted story that pulls from Mexican folklore and Day of the Dead. Two best friends are in love with the same girl, and hope one day to marry her--unbeknownst to them, though, two deities have made a bet on who will "win", and the outcome could effect both the land of the living and the lands of the dead.

 

I have this weird issue where, if animation is really good, I start crying. Nothing especially sad or profound might be happening, I will still cry. The opening of the Lion King always brings on the tears. Well, during the entirety of Book of Life I was trying not to lose it--seriously, this movie is worth it for the art alone. But without giving away too much, the story is so sweet too. It's "dark" but also has such an innocent purity to it that just leaves you feeling good by the end. And the love triangle plot isn't actually horrible; both Manolo and Joaquim have such high respect for Maria, and each other, that it doesn't feel like a mean-spirited catfight the entire movie.

 

Seriously. Best animated movie I've seen in a while, you'll be doing yourself a favor by giving it a go.

[Drasiana]

 

Go watch this.

 

Seriously.

 

It'll be airing on Cartoon Network but it's also available on iTunes in its entirety for $10. It's the network's first animated miniseries and it is phenomenal. It is seriously one of the most charming, dreamy fairytale stories I have seen in years, everything from the setting to the soundtrack does a brilliant job of evoking the grainy melancholy of Miyazaki and Don Bluth. Creative, beautiful, funny and often straight-up terrifying, it's not only an amazing series on its own but the beginning of what I hope will become a trend in Western animation.

 

This is now the "Dras sobs about amazing animation" thread

[Dr. Orange]

My turn to post.

 

Hoo-rah.

 

Tonight. 

 

Are you listening?

 

Square up bitches.

 

Tonight.

 

Interstellar is out.

 

Go see it.

 

Space.

 

Black Holes.

 

Space. 

 

There are your reasons, get up and go. 

[Drasiana]

I'm gonna see that next. However, tonight in keeping up with the

 

This is now the "Dras sobs about amazing animation" thread

 

trend, I saw Big Hero 6. It was so good and cute oh my god definitely see it. It had a couple surprising moments, a lot of great visuals, a lot of fun characters and heart. This has been an amazing couple months for animation geez

[Drasiana]

Ha ha hey kids guess what I saw

 

 

Those of you who pay any attention to my pained ramblings know that this season has been "Dras-cries-about-dwarves-mas". Between Dragon Age and The Hobbit, I was expecting to have my shit wrecked and thus I wrecked my shit. But I'm not here to incomprehensibly babble about The Feels, I'm here to tell you about movies so that's what I'll do.

 

Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy seems to be in hot contention among nerds: the lore isn't accurate! Too much CGI! They stretched it out to three movies! You could even go the "that one angry guy on Youtube" route and complain about how the extremely distant cgi shot of hairy fat dwarf ass in the extended edition of An Unexpected Journey was just "catering to yaoi fangirls" (yes this was a real complaint I saw). But how do these complaints hold up?

 

I'd say... not well.

 

For me, this trilogy has been an absolute delight. For all the cinematic merit the original Lord of the Rings trilogy had, it just did not tonally click with me at all. I respect them well enough as films and this is all a personal preference, but you won't find me frenetically fangirling about them anytime soon. The Hobbit, though. The Hobbit is my shit. Brightly-coloured, comedic, sweet-natured but emotional fantasy is absolutely my shit and I don't care how mad it makes purists.

 

Throughout the series we've been treated to fun. Fun. Remember that word? Remember when fantasy wanted to do more than wank about grimdark political conspiracy? Well, you got it. That's not to say the series doesn't take a dark or political turn, but it is absolutely fun. It's well-acted, it's gorgeous, it's charming. Not without flaw, but flaw makes the craft more genuine to me and that's something I've always said.

 

That being said, how was Battle of the Five Armies as the trilogy finale?

 

I loved it. There were a lot of flaws. The flaws seemingly sprang from the specificity of this theatrical cut and I suspect the Extended Edition will be put together in a significantly more satisfactory manner. I'll talk about why for a bit.

 

The Laketown plot is straight-up fucking dropped. Once shit really begins to go down Bard pretty much vanishes from the movie and there's no resolution. Again, Extended Edition will probably fix this but it seemed like sort of an important thing to jank out of the main cut of the feature. 

 

There's a really weird subplot with Alfrid that goes absolutely nowhere. Y'know, the Master's creepy little sidekick who I'm pretty sure is just a Peter Jackson OC? Yeah, he's in a lot of the movie for seemingly no reason. I kept expecting it to lead to him actually doing something self-sacrificing in the end but he doesn't. Bard just keeps telling him to do stuff and then acting surprised when he does the exact opposite, and then he runs off with a bunch of gold. Thanks for the good 15 minutes dedicated to that? What?

 

The Kili/Tauriel/Legolas love triangle is hilariously nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I actually really like Kili/Tauriel, it's Legolas's involvement that's making me laugh: because no one gives a shit. Tauriel doesn't care at all and Legolas's lines regarding it are so obviously halfassed that I wonder why they were included to begin with. It has absolutely no effect on the plot and it honestly would've been a stronger character point just to acknowledge that Legolas and Tauriel were best platonic buddies and he was worried about her getting into shit with the law.

 

The ending is extremely abrupt. There's clearly a lot cut from it, I suspect they were overly paranoid about accidentally pulling another Return of the King and having like 12 thousand different endings but it really could've used a bit more left in here. Again, extended edition, I'm expecting this to be a good ten minutes longer at least by the time that comes around, but as it plays in the theatre the movie just kind of stops and it's weird.

 

Anyway, that all being said? It was a good movie, I love what they did with these characters and this journey. PJ and friends put a lot of depth to what were originally rather two-dimensional characters and it's resulted in quite the tragic tale of love and loss. The frequently hilarious, over-the-top action scenes have a lot of heart to counteract them and particularly the relationship between Bilbo and Thorin, between Kili and Tauriel, and Thranduil and his backstory make a very interesting trifecta of sad feels. Thanks for ruining acorns for me, movie. It'll keep you entertained just on the action level, but the love between these characters is really the core of the story and it went above and beyond how far I was expecting them to go in regards to some of it. Don't want to give out too many spoily spoils, but there are some good gutpunches in there.

 

I'm a little sad it's over, but it's not really over in the sense that we'll get an EE that'll probably be basically an entirely new movie with how much footage they'll add back in. The EE nonsense is an annoyance probably best left to another conversation, but hey.

[unoservix]

Throughout the series we've been treated to fun. Fun. Remember that word? Remember when fantasy wanted to do more than wank about grimdark political conspiracy? Well, you got it. That's not to say the series doesn't take a dark or political turn, but it is absolutely fun.

 

this i can't hang with, because the film trilogy of The Hobbit is actually all about wanking about grimdark political conspiracy. it just keeps the trappings of lighthearted fun adventure, for a while, before discarding them in the final film.

 

one of the chief points of the ending of the novel is that Bilbo is a bit better off than all the dwarves and men and elves and goblins killing each other over all that gold, because ancient glory and hoarded treasure just aren't that big a deal to him. he's at the battle because his friends are at the battle, but he's not there because he too has a raging hateboner for the dragon that stole Thorin's kingdom and shit. hence Thorin's last words to Bilbo: "if more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." it's simultaneously an acknowledgement of Bilbo's wisdom in not being so worked up about all this shit, and an acknowledgement that at the end of the day this whole quest for Erebor was really about ego and greed, which are rather silly things to die for.

 

well, that's not what's up in the film trilogy of The Hobbit, because the film trilogy is oriented not as "the story of Bilbo Baggins and how he found this neato ring that later turns out to be pretty important," it's the story of the opening salvos of the War of the Ring. now, to Thorin and Bilbo and the dwarves, the quest for Erebor might be about ancient glory and hoarded treasure, but what it's really about, as we the viewers are informed through Gandalf's shenanigans, is countering Sauron's growing strength. we know where that leads, because of all the heroism, sacrifice, and darkness of Lord of the Rings. and this goes from a later-revealed secret agenda in Gandalf's mind that remains only barely hinted at during the story, as it is in the novel, to the central focus of the story, as it is in the films. and surely stopping the Dark Lord's evil plan is worth dying for, as it is in Lord of the Rings.

 

this warps the ending's point about Bilbo's "wisdom and courage, blended in measure" pretty badly. if the quest for Erebor is really about gold and glory, then yes, Bilbo is a bit wiser than everyone else not to take it so seriously. but if it's really about stopping the Dark Lord, then Bilbo is not so wise to not take it so seriously, because it's all about stopping the Dark Lord who wants to enslave and kill everyone and he just doesn't see that. Bilbo goes from someone from whom we might perhaps learn something, to someone who doesn't see the whole picture and offers the wrong way to go. that's a fairly radical change, far more radical than adding in some female elf character or putting an extra helping of bird poop in Radagast's hair.

 

and that all comes to a head in the third film in which, for a movie called The Hobbit, there is not a whole lot of the hobbit in it. the film trilogy of The Hobbit takes the core of the lighthearted adventure and replaces it with grimdark political conspiracy wankery, all of which culminates in The Battle of the Five Armies.

 

it's entertaining if you just put all that aside, and it has plenty of bright spots, but at the end of the day it seems to me like Peter Jackson badly missed the forest for the trees.

[Drasiana]

I'm not really talking about the story here so much as the overall aesthetic. Obviously it goes way into darktown with this installment, but in terms of atmosphere and tone it's generally brighter to the point where it actually is a little jarring alongside the LOTR trilogy even when they're trying to mesh the two trilogies. Characters like The Master or Radagast would seem completely bizarre if you plopped them into the Two Towers or something. 

 

Even then, I don't agree that they botched that ending at all? Putting aside the fact that Thorin's last words were like, verbatim from the book, the whole thing with Bilbo wanting to plant the acorn and Thorin telling him to do so made that pretty much explicit. Bilbo caring so much about carrying a little unassuming acorn all this way because it reminds him of his friends is so quintessentially opposite of what they're fighting for that it's what momentarily snaps Thorin out of the gold sickness. The plot with Sauron has a bit more screentime but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's literally the main plot now, because it isn't, it's only important to the extent that they explain why the orcs found Erebor so important to begin with. Which begs the question what they would've done if they HAD killed the dwarves and tried to take Erebor with Smaug still in it, but I digress...

[Drasiana]

I'd edit this if I could figure out sfo mobile but I also want to clarify that by "grimdark political conspiracies" I meant "lots of political chatter and subdued scenes and desaturation" along the lines of Vikings or Game of Thrones or something and not "the story's excuse for why legolas gets to stab EVEN MORE ORCS"

[unoservix]

Even then, I don't agree that they botched that ending at all? Putting aside the fact that Thorin's last words were like, verbatim from the book, the whole thing with Bilbo wanting to plant the acorn and Thorin telling him to do so made that pretty much explicit. Bilbo caring so much about carrying a little unassuming acorn all this way because it reminds him of his friends is so quintessentially opposite of what they're fighting for that it's what momentarily snaps Thorin out of the gold sickness. The plot with Sauron has a bit more screentime but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's literally the main plot now, because it isn't, it's only important to the extent that they explain why the orcs found Erebor so important to begin with. Which begs the question what they would've done if they HAD killed the dwarves and tried to take Erebor with Smaug still in it, but I digress...

 

that's the thing, though; Bilbo's caring so much about carrying a little unassuming acorn all this way is out of place when the real purpose of the quest is to stop the Dark Lord that wants to enslave and kill everyone. Thorin's last words in the film just show that the filmmakers knew what Thorin's famous last words were, not that they made a movie that reflected it and the sentiment behind it.

 

and the plot with Sauron is definitely at the core of the story now, because Sauron's interest in Erebor is why he has his minions chasing the dwarves for three movies and it's why he sends a giant army at them in the third film, without which all they'd have to do is kill the dragon and then settle shit with Thranduil and Laketown. and it's why Gandalf facilitates the whole quest by finding them a burglar and intermittently leading them towards the mountain. Bilbo and Thorin and the dwarves just don't know it, but the audience does. it would work just as well if Azog is basically acting on his own, since it's not like orcs aren't susceptible to greed and it's not like Azog wouldn't have personal reasons for getting all up in Thorin's shit. and that's pretty much how it worked in the novel: the dwarves, elves, and men fought over the gold, then the orcs showed up and everyone fought the orcs because fuck the orcs.

 

anyway, one of Gandalf's reasons for supporting the quest is to prevent Smaug from ever joining Sauron's side. so presumably if Azog and co had reached Erebor first, they'd be there to convince Smaug to join the dark side, which probably wouldn't be too hard seeing as how Smaug is already on the dark side and he is explicitly a creation of Sauron's master, Morgoth. that was a subtext to the quest that Lord of the Rings later added, but the film trilogy of The Hobbit makes it explicit, and in so doing it overshadows the rather foolish nature of the Battle of the Five Armies.

[Drasiana]

I dunno, it still didn't read that way to me, I still saw the Sauron stuff as an influential but distinctive subplot: granted that's one of the things I can understand people having issue with since the trilogy has a handful of distinguished subplots with their own distinct protagonists, which can be distracting from the other storylines. Bilbo suffered the most for this in Desolation of Smaug.

From my first viewing at least, I wholly interpreted the A-plot as being the "dwarves started out on a noble quest but Thorin went bonkers and all hope will be lost unless he's un-bonkerfied". Why they're kicking Orc ass ultimately winds up as window trimming against that personal conflict. However, I do think this could have come through stronger and that it eventually will when they re-introduce all the obviously-cut scenes from the ending sequence in the EE so we actually get followup beats on some of the emotional points from the beginning of the movie. We really did not need Legolas fighting Bolg for 457418 years in lieu of actual story scenes.

[Drasiana]

Hello old topic! I still see movies.

 

Mad Max: Fury Road

Owned. Owned. Owned. Furiosa owned. Max owned. The wives owned. Flamethrower guitar guy owned. So much was said in so little, everything was cool and fast-paced and surprisingly profound. What a good goddamn movie please see it.

Poltergeist (2015)

Flat-falling remake that wasn't as bad as it could be but still wasn't all that good. Paid no attention to what made the original movie successful and instead focused wholly on "modernizing" elements of the old film, because technology is scary, or something. Really bad tonal whiplash that made it feel like National Lampoon's Haunted Vacation and there were a lot of bizarre internal logic issues. If you want to save $15 for a horror movie just wait until Insidious 3 comes out this week.