Terminator 2: Judgment Day - 1991

"Terminator 2: Judgment Day" - 1991
Dir. by James Cameron - 2 hrs. 17 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

First off, the version of "Terminator 2" that I watched was the theatrical version.  When you crack two (or even three, heaven forbid) hours, I generally speaking am not at all interested in whatever deleted scenes are available - you can keep those, and I'm going to keep my fifteen minutes.

So this is the version of "The Terminator" that I was introduced to.  There are some pretty big differences between the first and second film, and I prefer this one to the first one.  But one of the main differences was that star Arnold Schwarzenegger was firmly cemented as a huge, huge deal, the kind of big deal that justified a leap in budget from $6.4 million (per Wikipedia) for the first installment to $94 million for the sequel.  This was an event film, completely inescapable, whatever the opposite of an underdog is.  Another huge difference: CGI.  One of the selling points of T2 was that the villain was made of liquid metal, which was one heck of a big deal.

Heh.

As with the first installment, two people are sent back in time, butt-ass naked.  One is a T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger), the other is a T-1000 (Robert Patrick).  As we've moved a number of years forward, the spawn of Kyle Reese's unholy demon seed and Sarah Connor's savior ova is now a child of ten or so.  John Connor (Edward Furlong) is a real person, living in a foster home, and is now the target of a Terminator.  But which Terminator?  The T-800 has been sent back in time from John Connor himself to protect his hide from the (liquid metal) T-1000, which confuses the hell out of Sarah (Linda Hamilton) when she is reintroduced to the T-800, inside the mental institution she's been stuck in for a considerable amount of time.  And there are a lot of things that get shot.

It would be hard to argue that James Cameron didn't put his budget to good use.  There are a number of iconic scenes (although the best of which just involves a naked Arnie strolling into a biker bar and treating it like a department store), and many impressive visuals.  The T-1000 really was something new and cool, even if it doesn't come off quite as impressively twenty-some years later.  That's special effects, baby.  The chase involving John on a dirt bike, the T-800 on a Harley, and the T-1000 in a semi through Los Angeles is as good of an idea as it sounds.  And the end battle in a smelting factory is incredible, even if there's no practical reason for them to be there, other than that's where they ended up.

One of the obvious comparisons I had in mind going in was to "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome."  The influx of cashish into a franchise fundamentally changes the film, which is hazardous when you've made your name on a gritty sci-fi film that isn't necessarily going to benefit from being slicker and more explosive.  The first two Mad Max films are incredible, the third one has a children's choir singing in the fucking forest.  The changes that occur between the first two installments here are also not entirely productive.  Yes, the T-800 comes off like a bad-ass (literally exiting the biker bar to George Thorogood's "Bad to the Bone"), but they also turn him into a petulant child's play-thing (not to mention creating the dynamic for "The Iron Giant").  And maybe it was on purpose, but this Los Angeles is a very slick, clean world.  It might have been created that way to juxtapose against the horrific future that's coming, but I feel like that might be overextending credit.

The big problems that I had with T2 are ones that don't really matter to the vitality of an action film.  In a big-budget shoot-em-up, what matters first are big action sequences that are impressive and that you'll tell your friends they need to see.  T2 has those in spades.  It had a hot soundtrack (getting a couple of Guns 'n' Roses songs when that was a really big deal, instead of just a dispatch from some band people used to like and who never release anything anymore), catchphrases.  Whether or not it had a hot chick depends on what you thought of Linda Hamilton (and she was absolutely shredded here, so if you're into hardcore gym bodies, two thumbs up), but she had as iconic of a look as Arnold did.

Check out those guns!

The things that bugged me are things that drag T2 down from being an all-time classic to just something I'll watch when I'm bored and want to see things blow up.  Edward Furlong's screechy voice annoyed the hell out of me, as did the story's insistence of having a Terminator try to be non-violent (although Arnold murdered the shit out of some shins and ankles), as did the story's insistence on turning the T-800 from a nearly unstoppable killing machine into John Connor's big metal puppy.  Sarah Connor is wildly inconsistent; it's as if her time in a mental institution turned her into a crazy person (witness the scene where she goes after the inventor of Skynet).  If you like gym-rat chicks who cry all the time, this one's for you.  The dialogue still isn't any better than last time around.

So that evens out to a pretty good action film.  This is the best of the Terminator films I've seen, even if it's not perfect.  I was going to say that it was the last James Cameron film I've seen, but a quick look at his resume says that I definitely saw "True Lies," and that definitely came out after this.  I'm still not a Cameron fan, but I can deal with his work when he's blowing things up.  And he definitely blows things up in T2.

3.5 / 5 - Blu-Ray (Theatrical Version)

The Terminator - 1984

"The Terminator" - 1984
Dir. by James Cameron - 1 hr 47 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Here's the thing I don't understand about "The Terminator."  And yes, it's true that I've never seen the first one until last night.  I've seen a couple of the sequels, but not the original.  What I don't get is that this film is not appreciably better than anything John Carpenter was putting out in the same time period, and yet The Terminator is a big deal, and John Carpenter's stuff (which is arguably deeper, concept-wise) has cult-movie status, at best.  Honestly, if you put "The Terminator" side-by-side with "Escape From New York," I'm probably headed to New York every single time.  That's not to dismiss "The Terminator," but I was fairly underwhelmed, and constantly reminded of Carpenter's work.

So, there's this scrappy young waitress named Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), who works at a diner in Los Angeles.  And there are these two men whom teleport into 1984 L.A., bare-ass naked.  One is mountain of muscle who shows up at Griffith Observatory, is hassled by some punks, and then steals their clothes.  That's the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a robot killer sent back in time to find and kill Sarah Connor.  He's not very smart, though, and just starts killing everyone in the phone book (Google it) named Sarah Connor, assuming that he'll find the right one eventually.  The second one is also sent back from the future, to defend Sarah Connor.  He's a human soldier, fighting against the robot uprising, named Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn).  That's about all you need to know.

So if we're going to get into what makes "The Terminator" worthwhile, you have to start with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  He owned the 1980s (and a good portion of the '90s), and this movie is a good reason why.  No, he still can barely form sentences, and yes, he's jacked like no other.  But, like with the Conan films, director James Cameron uses that to his advantage.  Guy is intimidating and can't talk?  Make him a killer robot.  Problem solved.  Schwarzenegger has presence for days, and the gradual reveal that he's a cyborg under that flesh is a good one.  Plus, I'm not sure any other actor has had more prosthetic faces made for special effects purposes as Ahnold.

If you think this is bad, wait until "Total Recall."

Beyond that, the special effects are alright (I'm sure for the time they were good, but some of it reminded me of the stop-motion and matte work from the first "Robocop" movie), about on par with what John Carpenter was doing at the time.  There are things you just have to overlook as relics of their time, and roll with them, and there are other things that work fairly well.  But "The Terminator" is definitely a pre-CGI film, and that's something that you have to make peace with fairly quickly.  The other thing that stood out to me was the soundtrack, which seemed very much like the direct predecessor to Daft Punk's score to the recent "Tron" film.  And, considering this was an electronic soundtrack in the '80s, I've got to tip my hat for a job really well done.

Where's my beef, exactly?  "The Terminator" isn't much of a story - it's a decent concept with some fighting and shooting and Arnold being bad-ass, all of which was expanded on greatly in the next couple of sequels.  There's a built-in excuse for the clunkiness of the some of the action; it's explained that the robots aren't very smart, and have had great difficulty building cyborgs that could pass for human, and this Terminator is the first one that comes close.  But that is an admission that some of the material is clunky.  As is the dialogue.  Sometimes, like with Arnold's lines, it totally works (largely because he doesn't say more than three or four words in a row at any given point).  Sometimes, like with the police, the dialogue sounds perfunctory, like there's some vital information that needs to be gotten across in the quickest, least elegant way possible.

And there's the issue that while people remember things like Arnold looking bad-ass in a leather jacket and shades, saying "I'll be back," he spends at least as much time in the film dressed like a hulking dork.  Witness:

Total dorkage

I think that a lot of the fondness for the original Terminator film comes down to selective memory.  There are a few memorable scenes, but it's largely indistinguishable from any other action film from the same era, save for Schwarzenegger's presence.  I might feel that way because I saw T2 first (when I was a kid, and I was blown away by it, naturally), but it could just be that I've watched a few films from this era, and a lot of what's here isn't particularly gritty or interesting, even when it's trying hard to be.  But then again, I'm not really a James Cameron fan, so make of all this what you will.

3 / 5 - Blu-Ray

Let's Be Cops - 2014

"Let's Be Cops" - 2014
Dir. by Luke Greenfield - 1 hr. 44 min.

Official Red Band Trailer #2

by Clayton Hollifield

It's been a while since I've truly enjoyed a dumb comedy (and I'm using that term as a genre, ie. "dumb comedy," and not to slur a comedy by calling it dumb), but "Let's Be Cops" wasn't half bad.  When I saw the trailer last year, I kind of wanted to go check it out, but also knew I'd have one hell of a time convincing anyone to go see it with me.  So it slipped through the cracks, and I didn't get around to checking it out until last night, when I discovered it was hiding in the on-demand section of my cable box.  Here's the thing, dumb comedies won't cure what ails you.  At their best, you can check out for a couple of hours and laugh at some doofuses.  That's about it.  It's not fair to judge them on any other basis than whether you had a good time for a little while, perhaps when you really needed it.

Ryan (Jake Johnson) and Justin (Damon Wayans, Jr.) are a pair of losers (let's call them) underachievers who had moved to Los Angeles to pursue their dreams, and now that both are approaching 30, are starting to question whether it's worth it to keep trudging along, or better just to move back to Ohio and do whatever it is that people who move back to Ohio do.  Ryan was a star football player who had an injury derail his career, and Justin is a video-game designer without a spine or any confidence in himself.  They head to a reunion party dressed as cops, only to discover it's a masquerade (which is one of those parties where everyone wears feathered masks and suits and it devolves into "Eyes Wide Shut"), and feel the scorn of their peers, who judge them harshly.  Dejectedly, Ryan and Justin wander around town in their cop outfits, and discover that people actually think they're cops.  So they roll with it, have the night of their lives, and eventually decide to do it again.  And again.  Until they get into a spot of trouble.

One of the things I really enjoyed about "Let's Be Cops" was the work of Damon Wayans, Jr.  There was part of me that fully expected him to have that over-the-top hammy energy that some of the Wayans family possess; this was not the case.  Aside from the familial resemblance, his work was understated, well-timed, and just plain funny.  I feel like it's worth mentioning that he was funny (as was his co-star, Jake Johnson), and that the movie is funny, because there are a lot of things that are pretty stock (TM Lars Ulrich) in "Let's Be Cops," and if you want to enjoy it as a film, you're going to have to forgive some things.

The girl-shaped-object of the film, Josie (Nina Dobrev), is pretty inconsequential.  But, at the same time, history has proven that if you don't include a girl-shaped-object in a losers' redemption story, no one will go see it.  Partially, I believe that's because what defines an underachiever as a "loser" is not having a girl-shaped-object in his life, and that no one will believe that anything meaningful has changed in a characters' life unless he has someone on his arm.  Yeah, this film probably fails the silly Bechdel Test, as do 98% of dumb comedies, but that's because the basic structure of this type of film both requires the presence of a ridiculously hot, yet also attainable girl-shaped-object who also can't have any meaningful personality or influence on the main characters, because the story is really about friendship and directionless men getting their act together.  And, in the parlance of our times, obtaining access to the girl-shaped-object is more about leveling up than being involved in a emotionally meaningful relationship.  Put it another way: would anyone go see a movie where the goal is for some dork to get his life together not because he wants to impress some girl, but instead really wants a copy of Incredible Hulk #181, and this was the motivation the character's behavior hinged upon for the entirety of a movie?

Possibly, but probably not.  So, if you're seeing a film like "Let's Be Cops," you're going to have to check the expectations that there's going to be anything meaningful for women to watch or do.  But so what?  This is a dumb comedy.  The question is whether you laughed, not whether you advanced the cause of equal rights and screen time for women.  There are a lot of funny things here.  Yeah, it seems ridiculously easy to impersonate a policeman, and that the characters didn't even know it was illegal is pretty silly.  Getting a patrol car from eBay is pretty funny.  And the main duo do learn respect for police, beyond just people treating them differently when they're in uniform.  But the big thing is that if you want to watch "Let's Be Cops," don't think about it too hard.  It's a funny movie with funny people in it, but there's a lot of machinery that doesn't quite work propping up the surface of the film.  Also, beware that while the rating does promise nudity, it doesn't specify what kind (or from whom).

2.5 / 5 - TV

The Fluffy Movie: Unity Through Laughter - 2014

"The Fluffy Movie: Unity Through Laughter" - 2014
Dir. by Manny Rodriguez, Jay Lavender - 1 hr. 41 min.

Official Trailer #1

by Clayton Hollifield

I feel like there are a whole checklist of caveats I need to get to before I can really start discussing "The Fluffy Movie: Unity Through Laughter."  The main reason for that is that I was surprised by the second half of the film, and I feel like I need to explain where I'm coming from in order for that to make sense.  So, we'll get to the caveats in a minute here, and why I was surprised, but first let's have a light, refreshing recap to get us all up to speed?

"The Fluffy Movie" is a theatrical stand-up comedy concert film, starring Gabriel Iglesias, which is a rare beast these days.  The film starts off not with the comedy, but what you could probably explain as a short film that goes into how Iglesias' parents met, and how he stumbled across Eddie Murphy's "Raw" as a kid.  This segment feels longer than you'd expect; it's less of a framing device that comedy films usually employ, and more of a necessary foundation for what's to come.  Then, the concert itself, which was filmed in the Bay Area.

So let's get into why I wasn't expecting a lot out of "The Fluffy Movie."  First off, and this might sound awful, but I've never rated Iglesias highly as a comedian.  That's not to say that he's not funny (because he is), and that's not to say that I haven't watched some of his TV specials (because I have), but I usually don't change the channel when he's on because he's good at what he does, but what he does doesn't always require a lot of attention be paid in order to get it.  Put it this way, if it's Saturday night and I'm surfing the internet and maybe have had a drink or two, AND a Bill Hicks special came on Comedy Central, I've got to shut everything down and pay full attention.  Same with Richard Pryor.  Or any of a number of comedians.  But Gabriel Iglesias does work that I can keep on in the background and is broad enough where I'm not going to have to pay attention to catch the nuances of what he's doing.  This is the guy who got out of speeding ticket by offering the policeman fresh donuts, for crying out loud.  His material is not usually pointed social commentary.

Also, frankly, I hadn't intended to sit all the way through the movie.  I figured I'd probably watch about half an hour, shut it off, and finish it the next night.  I do that frequently enough with stand-up specials; a lot of times I'm just looking for something to kill a little time before I can go to bed.  I ended up watching "The Fluffy Movie" wire-to-wire, and I'm really glad I did.  The material in the first chunk of the concert is pretty broad - he talks about how people have pushed back on his attempts to get in better health, and he tells some good stories about exactly what that's like, and not to worry that he's going to change.

The second half of the concert, on the other hand, gets very, very real.  I had listened to Iglesias on Marc Maron's WTF podcast, so I knew a bit of the story, but when the short film at the beginning of the movie becomes the basis of Iglesias' material, his performance is absolutely spellbinding.  Long story short, Gabriel's father shows up at one of his shows, a man he's never met.  And to say that he's conflicted about this is a minor understatement.  It helps that he's such a likable character, because there is real anger present, and he doesn't handle things ideally.  But he reacts honestly, and tells the story honestly (with all of it's complications and angles), and for me, Iglesias goes from a cartoon of a performer (which isn't an insult when you're talking about a comedian) to a man, a real flesh-and-blood man.  Granted, maybe I felt this one a little more deeply because of my own background, but real recognizes real.

So maybe "The Fluffy Movie" is a little uneven, maybe it gets off to a slow start.  But the second half of the movie is worth all of it.  That extended segment, from where his father shows up at one of his shows, is one of the best, realest, most masterful pieces of comedy I've ever seen.  His ability to juggle heavy emotional content with the need to keep things palatable and the need to come across honestly (and stay likable) is something that I frankly never expected to see out of him.  Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention over my laptop, or maybe it really is the breakthrough that I didn't see coming.  It's easy to lash out at other people in comedy, but only the greats like Richard Pryor get to that same level with themselves and their own actions, with the perfect balance of honesty and humor.  Now, no one is as good as Richard Pryor, but for half an hour Gabriel Iglesias came to visit that level, which is half an hour longer than 99% of other comedians have.

4 / 5 - Streaming

Mad Max: Fury Road - 2015

"Mad Max: Fury Road" - 2015
Dir. by George Miller - 2 hrs.

Official Main Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Now this is a dystopia I can get behind!  Sure, I dig a good dystopian movie from time to time, and they're all usually dusty and ragged and jerry-rigged worlds, but rarely do you see something like "Mad Max: Fury Road," where the world has evolved into something truly horrifying (and spellbinding).  Although the premise isn't new ("The Road Warrior" covered some of this, once upon a time), the visuals certainly are, from top to bottom.  The visual aspect of this film is so strong that the story is nearly irrelevant, other than as a road for the frequent clashes between groups to follow.

Max (Tom Hardy) is a haunted man with a past and a bad-ass car, the Interceptor.  But he's quickly set upon by the War Boys, captured, and turned into a blood bag (which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like - the lowest classes in this film are used solely for the fluids they can produce).  When Furiosa (Charlize Theron) makes a break for it with Immortan Joe's (Hugh Keays-Byrne) harem, Max is strapped to the front of a war chariot vehicle, and the War Boys set out to capture Furiosa and Joe's concubines.

All of that isn't necessarily important; this isn't a plot film.  "Mad Max: Fury Road" does what comes rarely in film, and what frequently only comes from truly bizarre or surreal works: this is an experience.  You can dissect the plot, the action, the acting, even the movie poster, but it all comes second to what the experience of watching this film feels like.  And it truly feels, man.  There are truly epic sights, like the War Boys' hometown, which feature giant earthen towers containing all the good stuff (like water), and the wretched who live below, who are periodically given a few drops of water while being warned not to love it too much, lest they resent its absence later.  There's a giant (and I mean giant) sandstorm, which was in the trailer, so I'm not spoiling anything.  There are endless waves of inventively welded-together vehicles; if you have any weakness for cars, this movie is going to blow your mind.  Most of all, there are two full hours here of insane, bespoke, impressive sights that really put you in the middle of the endless fighting and racing through the desert.

In tone, "Fury Road" feels a lot like "The Road Warrior," but with the time to create every nook and cranny from scratch, and the budget to make it a reality.  As is the norm for the Max movies,  there's no CGI in any of the stunts, and you can feel the difference.  I'm not prioritizing one over the other, but when real-world stunts and action are performed and performed well, there's a tangible difference from even the best CGI.  And that's the big deal about "Fury Road."  It's hard to explain exactly why it was so exhilarating; telling you that it's non-stop action for two hours might sound numbing, but it wasn't.  Telling you that the action was top-notch doesn't really get that across.  Telling you that there is originality oozing out of every pore of the film doesn't get across how awesome something like the war guitar guy is to see.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" is completely gonzo, over-the-top, violent, crazy, inventive, original.  I need to see it again on a big screen just to try and catch some more of the details that I might have missed the first time around.  It delivers on everything that the trailer promised.  It's an experience.  You should probably go see this, if you're on the fence about it.  If you're not, "Pitch Perfect 2" came out this week, too, and people seem to like that one.

4.5 / 5 - Theatre (3D)

Avengers: Age of Ultron - 2015

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" - 2015
Dir. by Joss Whedon - 2 hrs. 21 min.

Trailer #3

by Clayton Hollifield

Well, I think my streak of seeing Marvel movies is just about over.  No, not because of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," it was just fine.  Instead, I saw trailers for both "Ant-Man" and the "Fantastic Four" reboot, and I'm pretty sure I'll be giving one of those a big ol' pass.  FF, in particular, looks brutal.  But we're not here to talk about those films, we're here to talk about the official sequel to one of the biggest-grossing, most-beloved action films in recent years.  And it was pretty good.  I didn't like it as much as the first, or even as much as the first "Iron Man" and "Thor" films, but I did like it.  I think, once some time has passed, and another Avengers film comes along, that this will come off better, and as part of a longer story being told.  Right now, it's much like the second "Star Wars" film, in that it's the "bummer" film, and until another movie in the series comes out, it's the final word on the story.

The Avengers start off avenging, crashing Baron Strucker's (Thomas Kretchmann) party and liberating Loki's wand-thingy from the grips of evil-doers.  Tony Stark (Ghostface Killah Robert Downey, Jr.) borrows the wand for a few days for some research, which means trying to understand how Asgardian technology works.  Ultimately, after bonding over being mad scientists, Stark draws in Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) to help with the research, as there's a bit of a time crunch before the artifact is to be returned to Asgard.  The goal: artificial intelligence, in the form of something that will help prevent something like what happened in the first Avengers movie from happening.  The actual result: a crazy robot named Ultron (voiced by James Spader) that wants to, well, you know exactly what a crazy-ass robot accidentally created by Iron Man and the Hulk is going to want to do.

So, I wasn't kidding when I said this was the "bummer" film in the series.  Part of that is that the events in the first Avengers film have had lasting effects (Iron Man, in particular, has had difficulty in processing all of it), but part of it that one of the opponents they have to deal with, the Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), has the power of killing positive vibes and forcing people to wade through their own personal nightmares.  This leads to one of the best action sequences, the thing that should have been built around in it's own film, putting fright and fury into the Hulk, which results in even more of the carnage that Dr. Banner has been trying to avoid and atone for.  The message of the film is very much that people are often their own worst enemies (and that everything is better when you're part of a team, if you can manage to keep that team on the same page), and messages have to be felt and understood, not just explained to people.  That means that everyone on the team will have to suffer in their own heads (which also leaves open the door for some stellar character development, where you kind of start to understand what it is exactly that motivates each character).  These scenes aren't easy viewing, but they are good filmmaking.

Big action films need a couple of things.  Big action pieces (check.)  Big stakes (check).  Bringing back as much of the cast as humanly possible (check - the only people that were really missing was Pepper Potts and Natalie Portman's character, and they were both discussed within the plot, so I don't think we're to assume that Ms. Portman and Ms. Paltrow have been written out of the series).  Once you get past that stuff, it helps if you can sympathize with the characters, even if they're on opposite sides (check).  And maybe if there wasn't another Avengers film, I would have liked this one better.  The big issue was that the first Avengers film felt epic (and not in a internetty way, in a Homeric way).  The action sequence at the end of that one was exhilarating and exhausting in a completely satisfying way, and hit upon something that I rarely see in films (how fighting for something, even something worthwhile, can wear you down to your very soul, and leave marks that can't be seen).  Even though the stakes in "Age of Ultron" were large, it never felt epic in the same way.  It was a giant battle, but felt on an individual scale.  And the result never really felt like it was in doubt.

From where I'm sitting, "Avengers: Age of Ultron" felt more like another one of Marvel's admittedly pretty damned good string of solo character films that like another event film, like the first "Avengers."  That means it was still good, all the things that you would have enjoyed about the other combination of characters are still there (like the character interactions and fast-paced dialogue), and it didn't break the string of enjoyable Avengers-related films.  But things might look different five years from now, if there's a third Avengers film and more story with these characters.  I leave open the possibility that "Ultron" will feel more like an important, but down chapter in the longer story when the whole deal is wrapped up.  I do not leave open the possibility that the new "Fantastic Four" film is going to be any good whatsoever, though.  That's straight doo-doo.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre (3D)

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - 2014

"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" - 2014
Dir. by Peter Jackson - 2 hrs. 24 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

Yeah, it's kind of lame that I'm only now getting around to seeing the third Hobbit movie in the theatre.  But sometimes things get in the way, even of things you want to see.  Besides, past the first week of release, it's pretty much the same when you see something.  Some dork on TV will have already spoiled the movie, if one of your friends haven't already.  Anyhow, I read "The Hobbit" a couple of years ago, so I knew what was going to happen.  And all things considered, you probably ought to as well, so don't get your hackles up if one or two things get talked about without a precious "spoiler" tag, okay?

"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" is the final of three Hobbit movies, and as the title might suggest, is largely the huge battle at the end of the book.  Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) sets his sights on burning down Lake-town near his lair, which is one of those win/lose situations.  Yes, there is ample opportunity to roast s'mores on the smoldering ashes of what was once a town, but Smaug also receives a most-uncomfortable piercing (right in the heart!) from Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) that snuffs out Smaug's fire forever.  The rest of the movie is mostly concerned with the battle of the five armies, over the immense fortune Smaug had hoarded over the years, that the crew of dwarves, led by Thorin II Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), have taken possession of.  Because everyone loves gold.

Of the three Hobbit films, this is the one that's probably least qualified to stand on it's own as a film.  There's a lot of things that have happened over the roughly five hours of screen time that precede this installment, and some of it is compelling!  We have gotten to know some of the players who are going to populate the giant final battle, and without that, you might as well just punch in a cheat code and go around killing things in a video game.  If all you want is action, "Five Armies" doesn't even match up to the second installment, which had a bonafide must-see action sequence (the one that starts with the river escape in wine barrels).  Yes, there are armies fighting, and one-on-one battles of great importance, but none of it is particularly memorable.  Enjoyable, yes, most definitely, but nothing here ever kicks into that extra gear that truly great action sequences have.  The action is like a solid B, bordering on a B+, except that when you take into account all the resources that were used to create these adaptations, it's definitely a B.

This isn't really an "acting" movie, either.  Director Peter Jackson basically spent five hours trying to get you to care what happens to these characters, and spends these two and a half hours answering those questions one-by-one.  The only character that really gets to do anything beyond fight and grimace is Alfrid (Ryan Gage), who is delightfully cowardly, and a welcome chance to catch your breath during what would otherwise just be wall-to-wall sword swinging.  I have a hard time judging the plot here, since I have read the book recently enough that there weren't going to be any surprises.  I very much wanted to be blown away by this film, and there were moments here and there that were spectacular (the New Zealand scenery, as always, and also the War Moose thing that Thranduil (Lee Pace) rode in on - I couldn't stop staring at the giant rack of horns it wielded), but my biggest problem with the series is that it only occasionally topped what was in my head when I read the novel (and in a couple of instances, fell way, way short).

So this third installment was more about delivering what had been promised, and Peter Jackson did that.  There weren't going to be any big surprises, and I had hoped for a little more, but I can't complain about what's here.  It's a solid work, and it'll probably be a very long time before anyone else tackles the same material, so we're all just going to have to get used to the idea that these films are the definitive film versions of "The Hobbit."  I'm largely okay with that.  I could definitely imagine blowing through the trilogy again, it was that good.  If "The Battle of the Five Armies" was the least of the three, that's because it's two hours of resolution without really presenting new questions to be resolved.  But I'm a bad example - not quite a super-fan, but I'm familiar enough with the material that I can't be surprised.  These movies are probably blowing some kid's mind somewhere, and that's good enough for me.

3 / 5 - Theatre