Battle of the Five Armies is a soulless end to the flawed Hobbit trilogy

Ars' resident Tolkien nerd on Peter Jackson's problematic final chapter.

Read the whole story

 

[MysteriousRacerX]

The Hobbit as a trilogy of ~2.5 hour movies is just _too_ long. I’ve posted it before, but I’ll say it again: when I heard about The Hobbit, I was incredibly excited, then it became two movies, and I figured, OK, there’s a decent want to split the source material into a duology. Then it became THREE long movies, with NEW material and as a trilogy, it overstays its welcome.

I look forward to a 3-1/2 hour, single movie fan edit Though honestly, I don’t know if any trimming of the material can keep it tonally consistent ...

 

[technado]

I've been curious since the first movie came out:
Who the fuck thought 3 movies from a short children's book was a good idea?

And where do they live?
So I can mail them little boxes of actual shit, ala Cards Against, for ruining the first story I ever had read to me.

 

[mrvco]

I read the LOTR books numerous times when I was younger and absolutely loved them. I enjoyed the LOTR Trilogy, but reached the point of diminishing returns during the third movie. I watched the first Hobbit movie and could barely sit through it.

 

[OnThePlusSide]

You know what's really sad (and I can't be the only person who feels this way) was that I spent years looking forward to Peter Jackson doing the Hobbit. There were times I thought I'd be dead before he ever got them finished. He got me hooked with the LoTR movies, which while not perfect and sometimes had some ridiculous Jacksonisms thrown in, were pretty darned good overall, so good in fact we've watched them multiple times and I later bought the extended version which I liked even better.

So I was expecting a similar experience with the Hobbit. I didn't even mind the white Orc and the craziness physic-defying shenanigans that happened in the mountain. Sure, it was out there but it didn't ruin the movie for me. Then came the second one. I didn't even know until I watched the second movie he was dividing that little bitty book into three entire movies (I bought it on DVD because we couldn't get to the theater when it was playing there) but despite the bumps in the first movie we were REALLY looking forward to #2 and I know if we'd seen it in a theater we'd have wanted to get up and walk out. It was all we could do to make ourselves watch it to the end. It was just way too off, way too much gratuitous garbage, etc.

Despite that I was still sort of wanting to see #3 but after reading some reviews on it I think I just might pass, instead pulling out my old half-worn-out copy of the book and read it instead.

I appreciate artistic vision but there's a line when basing a work on something that already exists. It's too bad Mr. Jackson didn't figure out where that line was.

 

[2stepbay]

I appreciate artistic vision but there's a line when basing a work on something that already exists. It's too bad Mr. Jackson didn't figure out where that line was.

I'm a huge Tolkien fan. At one time I had hoped PJ would bring the Silmarillion to the big screen, or at least the 1st part. After watching the 3 Hobbit films I am really glad PJ will leave the Silmarillion alone. His blurring of lines in the Hobbit was absurd, and diminished the charm of the original version.. And...stretching the Hobbit into 3 films...that was pure greed by the Studios. Big loss all around.

 

[Shanon72]

Wow, some people are wound a bit too tight. Seriously? Go back and read the book and sing along to the "15 birds song" until your heart is content. Wal-mart has a deal on the 1977 Animated DVD, if that's your preferred version. Seems a bit over dramatic to make the statements you just slopped out there.

I actually enjoy the Hobbit movies much more than the book. Yes, part of that enjoyment is due to the nostalgia of the book I read as a kid, and it's animated version, both of which I enjoyed numerous times. However, the scenery and characters in these movies are almost always more spectacular than I had ever imagined. Arguably the best re-imagining of the sites and characters from the book until these movies were the Iron Crown MERP indirect tie in's (Hillmen of the Trollshaws, Rivendell, Goblin Gate, Mirkwood, etc.). In any case, I find that all six movies add significantly to my enjoyment of Tolkien's mythology, rather than subtract from it.

I find it hard to believe that people are still complaining about the absence of Tom Bombadil from the previous trilogy: that bit of the story doesn't even make my top five moments from the trilogy. Was it an entertaining piece in the greater story? Sure. Was it forgettable? Definitely. I was more shocked that the extended version of RotK had added back in the Witch King and Gandalf confrontation: shocked as in "wow, they actually cut this awesome scene from the theatrical release?".

All six movies are amazing, and have set the standard for the fantasy entertainment genre as a whole, just as the books had done in their time. The newest trilogy of movies just has the tough position of having to compete with the previous trilogy.

 

[androticus]

The LOTR trilogy was brilliant--perhaps the best motion picture (considered as a whole) of all time.

But I sadly have to agree with Andrew on The Hobbit--the most damning evidence: I am barely motivated to even go see part 3.

One thing Andrew didn't mention was the TERRIBLE look and feel of The Hobbit, seemingly a by-product of the 48fps technology. Every scene looks brightly lit, even ones that are supposed to be in dark shadow. You can't feel fearful when everything is bright as daylight! That aspect was the most annoying to me, even more so than the many artistic and adaptational flaws. I've lost a lot of respect for Peter Jackson over this series.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

thomsirveaux[/url]":29pw4vg8]

Ravant[/url]":29pw4vg8]Honestly, I thought the first two were alright. They were no LoTR, but they were better than a lot of the schlock that the movie industry has piped out lately. Five Armies, however, really deeply disappointed me on various levels.

I think I'm mostly in that camp? Taken as a whole the trilogy isn't what it could have been, but the first two had more enjoyable moments than the last one.

Agreed, the first 2 were at least palatable and made sense, this last one I best describe as overwrought. I definitely could see this as 2 movies with much of the fluff left out.

My ideal would have been 2 movies for the Hobbit itself(still a little over long, but doable), then a third that melded the betweentime of Hobbit and LoTR. Would have been more interesting to see the connections made as flashbacks or vignettes that told the missing pieces of the Hobbit, and how it led, indirectly of course, to LoTR with the history of the Silmarillion.

 

[Mathijs_B]

Entirely agree with this take.

 

[warr10r_za]

My girlfriend I actually quite liked the Hobbit trilogy. Its not LoTR, but its still a lot better than a lot of other movies out there.

However, I'd be quite interested to see if an enterprising fan could edit all the movies into one 3 hour epic. I'm pretty certain they could, and I'm sure it would make for a better movie.

 

[Studbolt]

The lesson?

If you tell a story without developing your characters to the point where the audience is invested in them, the audience doesn't care about the story or how it ends.

 

[elomire678]

azazel1024[/url]":34b44m9g]

Wickwick[/url]":34b44m9g]

Alienfreak[/url]":34b44m9g]Did anyone notice that they completely edited out a scene out of the trailer? You saw the elven army shoot arrows at somewhere where the dwarven one was. But in the movie the whole elven army didnt fire a single arrow. They were busy jumping over some defensive lines, I guess.

Also it breaks the whole LOTR plot by them knowing it was Sauron that has returned. You didn't even mention that in your review!

Seriously! It made the council at Elrond's kind of pointless if they knew Sauron had returned.

Agree completely. There would have been many ways if PJ wanted the Necromancer to be a scene instead of a paragraph or two, to have done that without the good guys knowing it was Sauron. Heck, ways to do it too that allowed the audience to easily figure out it was Sauron, but showing that the good guys are obviously still kept in the dark (rimshot, pun intended).
.

What are you talking about? This is all explained in the Appendices of Lord of the Rings, and it actually follows Peter Jackson's take on the story. That actually happens for the most part during the Hobbit. Your big fuss is over something Tolkien actually wrote himself. It doesn't break the LOTR plot at all, they knew Sauron had returned earlier in Dol Guldur but they drove him out. They thought he was weakened too much from that to return to Mordor in strength. It was only 50 years, they thought it was way too soon for him to have gathered that much strength again.

The Dol Guldur stuff was one of the few things I liked about the movie. The rest... ugh.

 

[Goofball_Jones]

CraigJ[/url]":21v0j1n4]

ayejay_nz[/url]":21v0j1n4]I think most young kids will probably enjoy the movie and most people who read the book when they were younger and are now in their 20's + probably won't.

Is the target audience of the film, as was the novel, young kids?

At the end of the day a $90.6m five-day opening at the US box office says "keep making them like this".

All that crap on E! is popular too. 'Nuff said.

So, it's popular. Why do people have to gauge themselves, or think they're better than other people. They may as well say "yeah, I would NEVER watch anything like that. Look how those OTHER people watch crap like that. Not me! No-sir-re. I'm better than they are!"

I honestly don't care what others like. If they like something, that's great. Doesn't matter to me if someone likes pumpkin spice latte's or wears a fedora or listens to music that I don't. My happiness doesn't derive from comparing myself to others. But that's just me I guess.

 

[JPan]

PRMan[/url]":3bcflzbm]Hey, the Star Wars prequels may have been dumb, had bad acting and bad lines, but one thing they weren't is BORING. I like them more than the second Hobbit movie already (I fell asleep for 15 minutes during the dragon sequence and missed NOTHING).

Unfortunately I have to concur I would rather see sw2 or 3 than the hobbit movies again. The first one is insufferable though.

I agree with a lot of things said here but my main surprise was the shitty cgi. The lotr trilogy had so many cool wow scenes. I cannot remember one in the hobbit trilogy that didn't have smaug. I mean I actually pulled out the 10 year old trilogy and yes the big troll in Moria still looks real and dangerous and big and doesn't just fall over and vanish like 5000 other big trolls. The elves shooting arrows in towers looked cool in hobbit 3 we have them ballet jumping over dwarves.
The olifants in lotr3 were amazing the artillery trolls and Sanddorns in hobbit3 were just boring. I am not sure what it is but it was all so pointless and csrtoonish and without awe. Worst being of course azok the defiler and his ugly cgi face spewing out dark sentences like the world of man is over ( which is cool once or twice)

I have seen similar Shit in Peter Jackson's King Kong. The stupid chase scene under the dinosaur stampede? Thousands of fake cgi things going on at the same time and me getting totally bored. I think he thinks it's better directing than moving the camera out a bit and making sure the action and cgi is still believable. And he is freaking wrong. It started in the original trilogy the wargs sucked there too. You could clearly see that they weren't real. Fast small cgi elements that get too close with actors still suck even now. It looks blurred and unrealistic ( i call it the transformers effect)

The directors using awesome cgi are James Cameron ( if you computer generate a world you can at least make it look cool and glowing) and jj Abraham's. Whatever you say about star trek the effects were amazing and looked almost always real and with weight. ( lens flairs excluded)

 

[carlisimo]

PRMan[/url]":2z5aquzx]Hey, the Star Wars prequels may have been dumb, had bad acting and bad lines, but one thing they weren't is BORING. I like them more than the second Hobbit movie already (I fell asleep for 15 minutes during the dragon sequence and missed NOTHING).

I'm in the same boat; I found The Hobbit and Desolation boring. The Star Wars movies often had me cringing, but they kept my attention. I wanted to keep watching and seehow the plots would play out. I can't say the same of this series. With a few exceptions, especially the Gollum scene in The Hobbit, I felt like I could walk away at any moment. Bilbo was the only character I found myself interested in.

I read the book probably a bit too early in my life and never reread it, so I didn't remember much of it and I have no stake in whether the movies are faithful adaptations or not. I was excited to have the tale retold to me. But there was very little excitement. The first two movies failed to come together and now I feel like the only way I can express my dissatisfaction is by not going to see the third.

 

[Frodo Douchebaggins]

I don't know what the exact opposite of ADHD is, but it'd be required to watch all of Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations in their entirety without one's mind wandering for about 15 of the 20 or so hours of combined runtime.

 

[Carewolf]

Frodo Douchebaggins[/url]":2phc68bj]I don't know what the exact opposite of ADHD is, but it'd be required to watch all of Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations in their entirety without one's mind wandering for about 15 of the 20 or so hours of combined runtime.

Aspergers. But I don't think it would help.

 

[Paul M]

From the article:

the first movie suffered in part because it followed the events of the book too closely even when they made for poor viewing

Uh, what?
The first movie set the expectation that this story was only loosely inspired by the book. It absolutely did not follow the book except it had some characters with the same names, and they started out on a journey.

 

[caldepen]

Jackson = Nolan = Lucas = many other directors who have their heads so far up their own asses they can no longer see clearly. And unfortunately must not have anyone with large enough balls to tell them any different. They must not have pals like I do -- "Hey man, what the fuck was that!?"

 

[Digimike]

Hesster56[/url]":1ym7fzhp]I, for one, am waiting for the De-Extended, one-movie edition. I watched the first, could see the level of cgi "hijinks" they were embracing, and hit the eject button. The LotR movies are nigh-perfect, this series crumbled under its own needless expansion.

That said: if it serves to get even 5% of its audience to pick up the book and get lost in Middle Earth, then it has been worth it. But the films are not my cup of tea, at either first or second breakfast.

I was thinking yesterday that a fan edited cut where the 3 movies are cut down to 1 would likely be pretty good.

 

[fizzlefist]

Would've been much better suited to a mini series format rather than multiple feature length films.

 

[Griking]

I haven't watched the third film yet but what I didn't care for in the first two was that they portrayed the dwarves as Time Bandit like buffoons rather than serious characters. There was too much slapstick comedy in the action scenes for me. The barrel ride fight scene down the river for example was just too silly for me to enjoy.

 

[kelly93]

"The Desolation of Smaug, the second of the three movies, was probably the one that strayed farthest afield from the source material"

This is probably a hard distinction to make... the first film had Radagast driving a sleigh pulled by a team of rabbits over Tolkien's grave. let's just call it a 3 way tie.

 

[Bob_2k]

I liked the trilogy as a whole. Maybe it wasn't as good as LOTR, but IMHO that's a pretty high standard to meet. As with LOTR, the extended editions added some much needed character development, background information, and dialog IMHO. I expect the 5 armies extended edition will be similar.

After seeing the third movie, my immediate reaction was, and still is, that I liked the Hobbit movie trilogy far better than the book. The book was a simple children's story, written almost 20 years before LOTR, and Tolkien had not yet fully formed all his ideas about this world, if indeed he ever did so at all. The book suffered from a lot of things like "well I don't know how to make Bilbo important with Gandalf around to save the day, so let's just make Gandalf disappear for a while with no explanation" and then years later he would perhaps invent some reason for that disappearance. I thought the movies filled in these sort of gaps much better, and gave more background on motivations, why the Elven king had gone mad, etc. (disclaimer: I have no idea how accurate those added bits are vs. Tolkien's ideas, having read only the Hobbit, LOTR, and part of the Silmarillion). I thought it did a better job of tying its events into LOTR as well (the movie adaptation at least). Overall I just feel that the trilogy made for a better story than the book. I realize I may be in the minority due to nostalgia from all those who read the Hobbit when they were young.

EDIT: I will say that Alfrid got a little tiresome and I was hoping that he would drown or some orc would just off him quickly.

 

[poopjuggler]

Wickwick[/url]":1rozvlnf]The LotR trilogy is really six books and in three movies with 9? hours of film they couldn't even work in Tom Bombadil.

To be fair, the whole Tom Bombadil segment really doesn't contribute much to the story. It's just sort of a nice fanciful little interlude.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I liked it hel it was much better than alot of films this year even if it was dragy.... Not to mention LOTRs books are hella dragy......

The Silmarillion will be interesting since its more world building and mini stories than anything else....

 

[bigpopasmackahoe]

Orcs/gobs should have been real actors in make up, they looked too cartoonish in the first two films to take seriously.

I enjoyed the first two though...Havent seen the third yet. Im going too wait till it comes out at home.

 

[SinclairZX81]

Pokrface[/url]":14hjrai0]I watched the first Hobbit movie in a great theater with my wife. We came away disappointed in the soulless spectacle.

I watched most of the second Hobbit movie on an airplane and I quit paying attention after the barrels.

Won't be watching the third one. Life's too short for that crap.

This was my experience precisely. The LOTR movies were very good adaptations of the material. Loved all three of them, watched them more than once each in theater, and own the extended edition disk sets.

The Hobbit, from the two movies I've seen so far, resides firmly at the opposite pole - everything Hollywood can do to mess up the adaptation of a book to film is perfectly represented here. What a flippin' shame. I'll be passing on the third film, and won't be purchasing the disks at all.

I remember reading an interview with Jackson several years ago, just before The Fellowship of the Ring was released. They were asking him why he did LOTR first, instead of starting with The Hobbit. Jackson replied that he never particularly cared for the latter book, and felt that LOTR was much more "literature". Apparently that contempt for The Hobbit remains. It certainly shows in the result.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

Everyone knew this was a book that could be made into two movies, tops.

Three was just greed and it shows.

 

[Shanon72]

I think that if The Hobbit was a movie that faithfully followed the book, without any add in's from JRRT lore / PJ artistic license, and was presented as a single movie, it would have left me wanting for something more. Kind of like when I watched Stargate (the movie) on release: it was entertaining, but it just seemed like it was over way too fast, and that there was so much more that could have been done with it.

The whole Dol Guldur side quest adds significant depth to the movie as a whole, as does the Thorin back story. My impression of the thirteen dwarves from the book was that they were bumbling idiots that just got lucky now and then, and that Thorin was a stubborn jerk. While the movies do frequently present them as such, they also build some of their characters out enough for me to take more of a liking to them (i.e., Thorin, Balin, Kili). I was also glad that they did a bit more with the Dwarves in battle than they had done in LotR with Gimli's simplistic strategy of "hold your axe here and a Uruk will run into it". A little silly, and perhaps unnecessary at times, but so were the Ents at Isengard, and the collapsing Moria stair case in the LotR movie trilogy.

I can't wait to see the eventual extended version of the latest release: I've not been disappointed with the footage added back in for the first two.

 

[Fyrebaugh]

elomire678[/url]":3q87tsof]

azazel1024[/url]":3q87tsof]

Wickwick[/url]":3q87tsof]

Alienfreak[/url]":3q87tsof]Did anyone notice that they completely edited out a scene out of the trailer? You saw the elven army shoot arrows at somewhere where the dwarven one was. But in the movie the whole elven army didnt fire a single arrow. They were busy jumping over some defensive lines, I guess.

Also it breaks the whole LOTR plot by them knowing it was Sauron that has returned. You didn't even mention that in your review!

Seriously! It made the council at Elrond's kind of pointless if they knew Sauron had returned.

Agree completely. There would have been many ways if PJ wanted the Necromancer to be a scene instead of a paragraph or two, to have done that without the good guys knowing it was Sauron. Heck, ways to do it too that allowed the audience to easily figure out it was Sauron, but showing that the good guys are obviously still kept in the dark (rimshot, pun intended).
.

What are you talking about? This is all explained in the Appendices of Lord of the Rings, and it actually follows Peter Jackson's take on the story. That actually happens for the most part during the Hobbit. Your big fuss is over something Tolkien actually wrote himself. It doesn't break the LOTR plot at all, they knew Sauron had returned earlier in Dol Guldur but they drove him out. They thought he was weakened too much from that to return to Mordor in strength. It was only 50 years, they thought it was way too soon for him to have gathered that much strength again.

The Dol Guldur stuff was one of the few things I liked about the movie. The rest... ugh.

Yes, it was Tolkien material just not from the book he wrote and released. It was from as you mention the Appendices of the Lord of the Rings... Which is fine, it doesn't break the Middle Earth wall, but it was not present in "The Hobbit", it was not part of the book that we all read, enjoyed and wanted to see. There was no white orc in "The Hobbit" chasing Thorin from the shire to Rivendell, to the Goblin caves... Yes there was a white orc Azog in Middle Earth and he killed Thror, but was killed by Dain, he ruled from Moria, but the only mention of him in "The Hobbit" was Gandalf stating: "Your grandfather Thrór was killed, you remember, in the mines of Moria by Azog the Goblin,". Tolkien did not see Goblins and Orcs as two different creatures, but merely different names for the same creatures in different languages, much the same as Mithrandir and Gandalf referring to the same person.

 

[Sulla]

Wickwick[/url]":te5b0w7f]

arcite[/url]":te5b0w7f]This is an easy one for me. I read the Hobbit when I was about 12 years old. I realized at the time it was one of the greatest books ever written and cherished every page of the story as I read it. I knew that once I was finished, nothing would be quite as good. I have of course re-read the novel, including LOTR many times since, but the memory is there. The first LOTR movies were excellent, barring minor alterations (such as inventing female roles non-existent in the text). However a line must be drawn, and I decided some memories must remain pure, and as such have made a personal pledge to never see the Hobbit trilogy, thankfully it doesn't look like I'm missing much.

Oh, Aragorn letting Bilbo and Sam continue on their own

Bilbo and Sam?

 

[enilc]

Given that the alternative is James Franco and Seth Rogen schlock...yeah...I'll be in line to watch this on Christmas.

 

[Fyrebaugh]

My biggest problem with this installment was that when Thorin and his 12 companions finally do exit the mountain, to join their cousins, it was treated as if they were a force greater to what was on the field. That those 13 people were stronger than the 50,000 dwarves that Dain brought to support Thorin. Come on now, this is not like when Gandalf brought the Horse lords army to Helm's Deep. Where a small group of defenders are besieged and the battle is most surely lost until the larger force of Rohan come sweeping in flanking the Orc army. This is the Orc army overpowering three other forces, the Wood Elves, the remnants of Laketown, and the dwarf force.. 13 people rush out of the mountain and save the day, at least until the second round of orcs come in from the north...

 

[caldepen]

Given that the alternative is James Franco and Seth Rogen schlock

At least they don't pretend it is anything else...

 

[bullshit]

You are right but so very wrong.

The basic problem is that Jackson is absolutely horrible at large battle scenes. They are and were always abysmal, including the ones in the LOTR movies. In particular, TROTK is a repetitive mess of "maybe riding straight into those headbanging oliphants will work this time if we do it with feeling". This is then continued into the ridiculous roller coaster scenes in the hobbit.

On the other hand, I think it's amazing that they brought all the appendix materials into The Hobbit that in many cases are rewrites to make it fit with the much more adult-oriented LOTR. Frankly, while the action scene itself is somewhat on the silly side, I think the Dol Guldur scenes are among the few ones actually worth watching in The Hobbit.

 

[caldepen]

As a whole I think we are remembering all the previous 5 movies with rose-colored glasses. Try watching the "march up the mountain" in the ROTK or the weird wolf-rider scene in the Two Towers where Aragorn falls off the cliff mysteriously or all the meetings that happened everywhere. Or Frodo and Sam trudging through a swamp for 2 movies, or...

Like most 21st century action movies they were made to immediately wow and do not hold up. As an experiment try watching Skyfall or Batman 3 or Inception or Into Darkness or Avengers more than once, yecchh.

 

[demonbug]

androticus[/url]"p2h6jop]The LOTR trilogy was brilliant--perhaps the best motion picture (considered as a whole) of all time.

But I sadly have to agree with Andrew on The Hobbit--the most damning evidence: I am barely motivated to even go see part 3.

One thing Andrew didn't mention was the TERRIBLE look and feel of The Hobbit, seemingly a by-product of the 48fps technology. Every scene looks brightly lit, even ones that are supposed to be in dark shadow. You can't feel fearful when everything is bright as daylight! That aspect was the most annoying to me, even more so than the many artistic and adaptational flaws. I've lost a lot of respect for Peter Jackson over this series.

Having been dragged to it last night, I agree with the remarks on the high-frame rate seeming to reduce the cinematic quality - I had the added "pleasure" of 3D, which just made it so much worse. The depth of field was generally too great, meaning characters were rarely if ever isolated from the background - everything was in sharp focus, sets looked like sets, computer models looked like toys. I can only assume this is done to prevent eyestrain from things being out of focus in 3D or something, but it was really noticeable and detracted greatly from the cinematic look. Instead of being blown away with the opening scenes of Smaug, it created more of a comical effect - look at the animated dragon attacking the toy town! No feel of danger or suspense when everything is clearly just a toy. The high frame rate seems to catch too much motion detail, as the difficult problem of giving computer-generated characters and sets the feel of physical weight and inertia are made even worse, as every wiggle and bounce and not-quite-right impact is clearly visible and discernible and destroys any suspension of disbelief.

There also seemed to be very little range in the way scenes were lit, though I think that was partially an artistic choice - everything for most of the movie was a drab grey, not too bright, not too dark... just a melancholy grey. When all the scenes look the same, it just makes a jumble in your memory (though mostly forgettable characters shoehorned into meaningless scene after meaningless scene don't help).

 

[Mydrrin]

caldepen[/url]":24dyrxvd]As a whole I think we are remembering all the previous 5 movies with rose-colored glasses. Try watching the "march up the mountain" in the ROTK or the weird wolf-rider scene in the Two Towers where Aragorn falls off the cliff mysteriously or all the meetings that happened everywhere. Or Frodo and Sam trudging through a swamp for 2 movies, or...

Like most 21st century action movies they were made to immediately wow and do not hold up. As an experiment try watching Skyfall or Batman 3 or Inception or Into Darkness or Avengers more than once, yecchh.

All of those were terrible movies in my books. Inception was bad but I liked it because of it's ideas, the latest Avengers was bad IMO - other friends who like chase movies that stuff blows up - liked it.

 

[dbinky]

The fight scenes remind me of the action-packed tedium that sometimes happens in Jackie Chan movies when you're in the 20th minute of a single, not-winding-down fight scene and Jackie's integrating props (chair, ladder, etc) into the fight as he reliably defeats one foe after another who have kindly queued up for him.