I really enjoyed the first two. I don't buy into the criticism that a 300 page book couldn't be made into a full blown trilogy. That said, I found the last episode way too full of battle scenes and gratuitous violence, big armies banging into each other, terrible orcs riding wolves, and the ultimate confrontation. In the process, all the charm that had been built up in the first two movies seemed to be dropped for a bunch of special effects. It starts well with the appearance of Smaug who fulfills his promise of destroying the town. But after that its a hodge-podge of romance and revenge and ultimately death. As this one ended, I literally felt, "Oh, is that the end?" Having read "The Hobbit" a couple of times, I knew what was going to happen, but it didn't quite work the way I thought it would. There was just something empty. Don't get me wrong, I could revel in the effort, but I can't say that this will stay with me for a long time.
552 Reviews
The frustration of the 144 minutes
rooee14 December 2014
What a difference an Extended Edition makes. For the first part we got some jolly embellishment. For The Desolation of Smaug we got bags more depth and character. For The Battle of the Five Armies, it may - I hope - be transformative. Because right now this feels like An Unfinished Journey.
It's as if, after all the complaints about splitting a pamphlet of a novel into three parts, Peter Jackson is playing a joke on us: This is what you get when you ask for Middle-earth-lite. Characters we've come to love or loathe arc into nothing; others (e.g. Beorn and Radagast) are given literally seconds of screen time; and for the first time in this prequel trilogy, a whole chapter (The Return Journey) is pretty much elided entirely.
I'd like to be clear on my admiration for what Peter Jackson has done with The Hobbit so far. For all The Lord of the Rings' mythic grandeur and complex world-building, there's a warm geniality and brisk impetus to these lovingly crafted films. And those qualities are married to a thematic depth missing from its bedtime story source. Home and borders are themes that have run through this trilogy, from Bilbo's (Martin Freeman) heartfelt declaration of solidarity at the end of An Unexpected Journey, to Kili's (Aidan Turner) fevered speech to Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) as she heals his wounds in Desolation, when they realise reconciliation is possible. Heck, I even like the addition of Tauriel - though her unsatisfying conclusion is perhaps typical of a final chapter that too often fails to tie up its loose ends.
The movie kicks off from precisely where the second ended, with the dread dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) descending upon Laketown. The citizens flee but nothing can stop the cataclysm - until a certain someone finds an ingenious way to pierce the beast. Then there's nemesis #2: Sauron (also Cumberbatch). We get to see some familiar faces face-off with this faceless monstrosity.
The story then enters its most intriguing phase: a kind of psychodrama involving Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his sickening relationship with gold and power. It's the one time we really glimpse that signature Jackson oddness, in a wonderful hallucinatory sequence where Thorin imagines he's sinking in a lake of gold.
The narrative follows the book fairly closely. This was, after all, the stage of the story where Professor Tolkien finally foregrounded politics and ethics and the machinations of characters ahead of adventure. The film is at its most successful in the quieter moments, as Thranduil (a subtle Lee Pace) ponders the duty of the elves; as Bard (a brooding Luke Evans) comes to the gate of the mountain to plead for peace; and as Thorin struggles with his "dragon-sickness" (i.e. greed), while Bilbo wrestles with the dilemma of what to do with a certain stolen gemstone.
Thorin was presented at first as this trilogy's Aragorn. But over time we've learned of the dangerous pride that ruined his grandfather. Thorin's hubris and arrogance is in stark contrast to Bilbo's very relatable and achievable traits of decency and humility. The gulf between them is intriguing and wisely plundered for drama. Armitage and Bilbo provide the best performances of the film - mostly internal; mostly in the eyes - and their farewell is one of the more moving moments in a trilogy that has largely prioritised humour over pathos.
The battle itself is undoubtedly impressive - great roaring hordes punctuated with spectacular giants - but in a sense it compounds the problem of the relatively truncated runtime. What was already the shortest Middle-earth film is rendered artificially even shorter by the fact that there's 45 minutes of virtually wordless fighting. By now we should all be braced for Super Legolas and his physics-defying fighting style. That reaches new heights here; as he sprints up a crumbling bridge like he's on the wrong escalator, it's like some sort of visual satire on the weightlessness of CGI.
With its last bastion and swarming armies, the titular battle resembles The Return of the King's Pelennor finale - yet that movie took breath between its showdowns. Galadriel vs. Sauron; Legolas vs. Bolg; Thorin vs. Azog... it's like we're watching someone finish off a video game but we're powerless to stop them skipping the tension- or character-building cutscenes. Moreover, the dubious editing decisions create some strange and jolting juxtapositions and tonal lurches, and negate the sense of time passing or of great distances being crossed.
The result is a film that really earns its status of "theatrical cut", insofar as it resembles many a boisterous blockbuster. This is fairly damning criticism for a Middle-earth movie, usually so luxurious and layered in its sense of a unique world. There's plenty of meat here - but where are the bones that hold it all together? 11 months away, perhaps.
It's as if, after all the complaints about splitting a pamphlet of a novel into three parts, Peter Jackson is playing a joke on us: This is what you get when you ask for Middle-earth-lite. Characters we've come to love or loathe arc into nothing; others (e.g. Beorn and Radagast) are given literally seconds of screen time; and for the first time in this prequel trilogy, a whole chapter (The Return Journey) is pretty much elided entirely.
I'd like to be clear on my admiration for what Peter Jackson has done with The Hobbit so far. For all The Lord of the Rings' mythic grandeur and complex world-building, there's a warm geniality and brisk impetus to these lovingly crafted films. And those qualities are married to a thematic depth missing from its bedtime story source. Home and borders are themes that have run through this trilogy, from Bilbo's (Martin Freeman) heartfelt declaration of solidarity at the end of An Unexpected Journey, to Kili's (Aidan Turner) fevered speech to Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) as she heals his wounds in Desolation, when they realise reconciliation is possible. Heck, I even like the addition of Tauriel - though her unsatisfying conclusion is perhaps typical of a final chapter that too often fails to tie up its loose ends.
The movie kicks off from precisely where the second ended, with the dread dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) descending upon Laketown. The citizens flee but nothing can stop the cataclysm - until a certain someone finds an ingenious way to pierce the beast. Then there's nemesis #2: Sauron (also Cumberbatch). We get to see some familiar faces face-off with this faceless monstrosity.
The story then enters its most intriguing phase: a kind of psychodrama involving Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his sickening relationship with gold and power. It's the one time we really glimpse that signature Jackson oddness, in a wonderful hallucinatory sequence where Thorin imagines he's sinking in a lake of gold.
The narrative follows the book fairly closely. This was, after all, the stage of the story where Professor Tolkien finally foregrounded politics and ethics and the machinations of characters ahead of adventure. The film is at its most successful in the quieter moments, as Thranduil (a subtle Lee Pace) ponders the duty of the elves; as Bard (a brooding Luke Evans) comes to the gate of the mountain to plead for peace; and as Thorin struggles with his "dragon-sickness" (i.e. greed), while Bilbo wrestles with the dilemma of what to do with a certain stolen gemstone.
Thorin was presented at first as this trilogy's Aragorn. But over time we've learned of the dangerous pride that ruined his grandfather. Thorin's hubris and arrogance is in stark contrast to Bilbo's very relatable and achievable traits of decency and humility. The gulf between them is intriguing and wisely plundered for drama. Armitage and Bilbo provide the best performances of the film - mostly internal; mostly in the eyes - and their farewell is one of the more moving moments in a trilogy that has largely prioritised humour over pathos.
The battle itself is undoubtedly impressive - great roaring hordes punctuated with spectacular giants - but in a sense it compounds the problem of the relatively truncated runtime. What was already the shortest Middle-earth film is rendered artificially even shorter by the fact that there's 45 minutes of virtually wordless fighting. By now we should all be braced for Super Legolas and his physics-defying fighting style. That reaches new heights here; as he sprints up a crumbling bridge like he's on the wrong escalator, it's like some sort of visual satire on the weightlessness of CGI.
With its last bastion and swarming armies, the titular battle resembles The Return of the King's Pelennor finale - yet that movie took breath between its showdowns. Galadriel vs. Sauron; Legolas vs. Bolg; Thorin vs. Azog... it's like we're watching someone finish off a video game but we're powerless to stop them skipping the tension- or character-building cutscenes. Moreover, the dubious editing decisions create some strange and jolting juxtapositions and tonal lurches, and negate the sense of time passing or of great distances being crossed.
The result is a film that really earns its status of "theatrical cut", insofar as it resembles many a boisterous blockbuster. This is fairly damning criticism for a Middle-earth movie, usually so luxurious and layered in its sense of a unique world. There's plenty of meat here - but where are the bones that hold it all together? 11 months away, perhaps.
The Hobbit The Battle of the Five Armies: Despite being the most poorly received it stands as my favorite
Platypuschow1 December 2017
I was distinctly underwhelmed by the first two Hobbit movies, I thought they were good but just that "Good". They live in the shadow of the Lord Of The Rings movies and simply paled in comparison and so going into The Battle Of The Five Armies I expected more of the same.
According to both IMDb and the profit margin this was the most poorly received of the franchise, clearly people did not like the film by comparison. But as usual, I have to be different.
I consider this to not only be the best of the Hobbit franchise but also hot on the heels in quality as the LOTR trilogy.
The story culminates beautifully and if you can get past the many changes that were made you'll see the finale of a wondrous tale and a battle on screen that blew me away.
Once again the fantastic cast, stunning score, mind blowing effects and sheer beauty envelope you into the world of Middle Earth and I was gripped.
Yes its not flawless, but it is pretty damn close.
The Good:
Amazing opening
Action scenes are brutal
James Nesbitt
Evangeline Lilly
The Bad:
Still a lot of changes
Fili's death was poorly done
According to both IMDb and the profit margin this was the most poorly received of the franchise, clearly people did not like the film by comparison. But as usual, I have to be different.
I consider this to not only be the best of the Hobbit franchise but also hot on the heels in quality as the LOTR trilogy.
The story culminates beautifully and if you can get past the many changes that were made you'll see the finale of a wondrous tale and a battle on screen that blew me away.
Once again the fantastic cast, stunning score, mind blowing effects and sheer beauty envelope you into the world of Middle Earth and I was gripped.
Yes its not flawless, but it is pretty damn close.
The Good:
Amazing opening
Action scenes are brutal
James Nesbitt
Evangeline Lilly
The Bad:
Still a lot of changes
Fili's death was poorly done
It's still not "Lord of the Rings," but this is a fitting conclusion for a perfectly good fantasy trilogy
Movie_Muse_Reviews24 December 2014
Did Peter Jackson really just conclude his second Middle Earth trilogy? His take on J.R.R. Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" was a completely exhausting adventure that in many ways feels like seven films, not three, while "The Hobbit" trilogy feels exactly like it is on paper: one straightforward adventure broken into three parts. "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" proves a fitting, exciting conclusion to this particular trilogy, but compared to the conclusion of "The Lord of the Rings," quite frankly and pun intended – it gets dwarfed.
As with "The Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug," "The Battle of the Five Armies" is another beautiful achievement in fantasy filmmaking, with stunning production value and an outstanding director in Jackson. It is creative, humorous, action-packed, brimming with talent and gravitas and so many of the things that made "The Lord of the Rings" the achievement it was. So why was this trilogy less acclaimed and somewhat anti-climactic? Part of this undoubtedly has to do with novelty. We've been to Middle Earth before, we've seen the makeup and the elaborate sets, we know how Jackson navigates a battle sequence. Although "The Hobbit" has new locales and new characters and was the first film series screened with a higher frame rate, it's not as groundbreaking an achievement. Also, that accomplishment set the bar high for "The Hobbit" given how many people have returned from "Lord of the Rings" on camera and off.
Yet the real culprit is story. "The Hobbit" is a children's book, so splitting it into three parts is merely dragging out a streamlined plot of "company seeks treasure and justice, company faces challenges along the way culminating in a mighty dragon, company overcomes odds." The added subplots put more meat on the bones of the three films, especially "Desolation," but did not necessarily add complexity or maturity to it.
"Five Armies" at least does not waste any time. The first act is entirely buildup to the titular battle with plenty of suspense as sides try to negotiate in order to prevent an unnecessary war when a much greater evil is growing in Middle Earth. After Smaug torches Lake-town, Thranduil (Lee Pace) and the Wood-elves march upon Erebor, where Thorin (Richard Armitage) has reclaimed his rightful throne. Thorin, however, is corrupted by his greed, and rather than help the displaced people of Lake-town, grows restless because his treasure's focal point, the Arkenstone, has yet to be found. Bilbo (Martin Freeman), who has been hiding the Arkenstone, sees Thorin's madness could cause a senseless war, which of course it does, only the battle takes a different shape when Azog the Defiler and his orc army arrives.
So corruption and selfishness become dominant themes of the film until the final battle, which doesn't disappoint in scale, entertainment, or visual effects. What it doesn't do, however, is command a vested interest from the audience. And when the larger battle halts entirely in order to follow the main characters, it hurts the larger overall narrative, or rather, calls attention to the fact that there really isn't one at this point in the story other than "kill the orcs." Yes, the fate of Middle Earth is at stake, but we already know how things will ultimately play out.
Someone who has never seen the films watching all six in order could be something special, though. "Five Armies" does make "The Hobbit" trilogy a rather strong bridge to "Lord of the Rings," even in its last shot. In a way, Jackson acknowledges that that tale is the bigger story, the one that matters most. The parting message is kind of like "we hope you enjoyed these three fun movies, but 'The Lord of the Rings,' that's where it's really at." As moviegoers who witnessed "Lord of the Rings," this doesn't quite work for us, because we wanted to go back to Middle Earth for something more, to build on the experience of "Lord of the Rings." "The Hobbit," however, like any good prequel, is the foundation, not the next step, and because the story is so simplistic, it doesn't quite do enough for us on its own.
"The Hobbit" is a fun, small adventure filled with courage, danger, evil and love set in the world of "Lord of the Rings," and "Five Armies" is that big scene at the end of the story where everything comes to boil. That's the gist of it. The rest is Jackson and his extraordinary cast and crew bringing that elaborate world back to life for us to enjoy one more time.
~Steven C
Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more
As with "The Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug," "The Battle of the Five Armies" is another beautiful achievement in fantasy filmmaking, with stunning production value and an outstanding director in Jackson. It is creative, humorous, action-packed, brimming with talent and gravitas and so many of the things that made "The Lord of the Rings" the achievement it was. So why was this trilogy less acclaimed and somewhat anti-climactic? Part of this undoubtedly has to do with novelty. We've been to Middle Earth before, we've seen the makeup and the elaborate sets, we know how Jackson navigates a battle sequence. Although "The Hobbit" has new locales and new characters and was the first film series screened with a higher frame rate, it's not as groundbreaking an achievement. Also, that accomplishment set the bar high for "The Hobbit" given how many people have returned from "Lord of the Rings" on camera and off.
Yet the real culprit is story. "The Hobbit" is a children's book, so splitting it into three parts is merely dragging out a streamlined plot of "company seeks treasure and justice, company faces challenges along the way culminating in a mighty dragon, company overcomes odds." The added subplots put more meat on the bones of the three films, especially "Desolation," but did not necessarily add complexity or maturity to it.
"Five Armies" at least does not waste any time. The first act is entirely buildup to the titular battle with plenty of suspense as sides try to negotiate in order to prevent an unnecessary war when a much greater evil is growing in Middle Earth. After Smaug torches Lake-town, Thranduil (Lee Pace) and the Wood-elves march upon Erebor, where Thorin (Richard Armitage) has reclaimed his rightful throne. Thorin, however, is corrupted by his greed, and rather than help the displaced people of Lake-town, grows restless because his treasure's focal point, the Arkenstone, has yet to be found. Bilbo (Martin Freeman), who has been hiding the Arkenstone, sees Thorin's madness could cause a senseless war, which of course it does, only the battle takes a different shape when Azog the Defiler and his orc army arrives.
So corruption and selfishness become dominant themes of the film until the final battle, which doesn't disappoint in scale, entertainment, or visual effects. What it doesn't do, however, is command a vested interest from the audience. And when the larger battle halts entirely in order to follow the main characters, it hurts the larger overall narrative, or rather, calls attention to the fact that there really isn't one at this point in the story other than "kill the orcs." Yes, the fate of Middle Earth is at stake, but we already know how things will ultimately play out.
Someone who has never seen the films watching all six in order could be something special, though. "Five Armies" does make "The Hobbit" trilogy a rather strong bridge to "Lord of the Rings," even in its last shot. In a way, Jackson acknowledges that that tale is the bigger story, the one that matters most. The parting message is kind of like "we hope you enjoyed these three fun movies, but 'The Lord of the Rings,' that's where it's really at." As moviegoers who witnessed "Lord of the Rings," this doesn't quite work for us, because we wanted to go back to Middle Earth for something more, to build on the experience of "Lord of the Rings." "The Hobbit," however, like any good prequel, is the foundation, not the next step, and because the story is so simplistic, it doesn't quite do enough for us on its own.
"The Hobbit" is a fun, small adventure filled with courage, danger, evil and love set in the world of "Lord of the Rings," and "Five Armies" is that big scene at the end of the story where everything comes to boil. That's the gist of it. The rest is Jackson and his extraordinary cast and crew bringing that elaborate world back to life for us to enjoy one more time.
~Steven C
Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more
A clumsy ending
siderite25 December 2017
The Battle of the Five Armies title is a great exaggeration of what an army entails. The movie is about more or less a skirmish with some rather imaginative weaponry. The plot goes sideways and after two three hours long previous films we get a two hours and a half mess that is half completely over the top battle scenes and the other half people talking out of their asses. It is pure chaos, where orcs are either mighty unbeatable beasts bred for war or cardboard armor wearing morons easily defeated by fishermen's wives and children, as the action demands. Things start to remind of Pirates of the Caribbean, and not only because it's the same actor doing kind of the same stuff.
There is even a prolonged ending with Bilbo Baggings returning to the Shire, almost as if wanting to undo the good idea in the Lord of the Rings movies in which they removed the boring book ending with Saruman taking refuge in the Shire, and that portrays hobbits as petty bureaucratic creatures, rather than kind and resilient and courageous as declared everywhere else in the films. If I enjoyed the first two movies and wanted to see how it will all end, the third was a ridiculous failure, trying to do too much with too little: making a country brawl look like an epic battle, keeping the lighter more children oriented tone while killing characters and trying to express deeper heroic emotions, trying to somehow raise on the same level three organized military groups and a bunch of fishermen and animals and tying up lose ends that were there only to make this a trilogy rather than a pair of decent movies.
It is now when all the jokes about the eagles made in good fun in the first two movies (and in Lord of the Rings as well) turn smirky, when the only logic to the plot and action seems to be the panic of production companies trying to achieve their financial goals rather than tell a good story. It is here where the disappointment that everyone talks about when referring to The Hobbit movies raises its ugly head and grows on the small mistakes of the previous two movies. So in order to enjoy the trilogy, one must somehow detach themselves from the ending and see it as an imperfect finish to an otherwise fun movie, maybe imagine their own.
There is even a prolonged ending with Bilbo Baggings returning to the Shire, almost as if wanting to undo the good idea in the Lord of the Rings movies in which they removed the boring book ending with Saruman taking refuge in the Shire, and that portrays hobbits as petty bureaucratic creatures, rather than kind and resilient and courageous as declared everywhere else in the films. If I enjoyed the first two movies and wanted to see how it will all end, the third was a ridiculous failure, trying to do too much with too little: making a country brawl look like an epic battle, keeping the lighter more children oriented tone while killing characters and trying to express deeper heroic emotions, trying to somehow raise on the same level three organized military groups and a bunch of fishermen and animals and tying up lose ends that were there only to make this a trilogy rather than a pair of decent movies.
It is now when all the jokes about the eagles made in good fun in the first two movies (and in Lord of the Rings as well) turn smirky, when the only logic to the plot and action seems to be the panic of production companies trying to achieve their financial goals rather than tell a good story. It is here where the disappointment that everyone talks about when referring to The Hobbit movies raises its ugly head and grows on the small mistakes of the previous two movies. So in order to enjoy the trilogy, one must somehow detach themselves from the ending and see it as an imperfect finish to an otherwise fun movie, maybe imagine their own.
Nice finish to an Over Extended Film
MennoMan17 December 2014
It is without question The Hobbit did not need to be made into a three part film series... After all, given the book size of the Hobbit Compared to The Lord of the Rings... The Hobbit Should have been workable into one extended Movie or two at the most. If Jackson would have sun the story of The Lord of the Rings like he did the Hobbit, We would still be waiting for the last two movies in his twelve part series...
So with that off my chest..
This still is a TRUE CLASSIC FILM to be placed in the same titles as The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. The Cinematography was excellent. The special effects pretty much flawless and acting excellent. The Story was intriguing if not a bit over-told with characters and plots a bit beyond the book. However, even these over embellishings are happily accepted. In fact, now that the series is over, I wish Jackson would have made a longer Lord of the Rings. Is simply can not get enough.. It is over! Soon to be delegated to Blue Ray, then sweep to the DVD bin at WalMart along with the rest of our favorites. Enjoy the series now... It will be a long time before you see another classic like Tolkien on the Big Screen.
So with that off my chest..
This still is a TRUE CLASSIC FILM to be placed in the same titles as The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. The Cinematography was excellent. The special effects pretty much flawless and acting excellent. The Story was intriguing if not a bit over-told with characters and plots a bit beyond the book. However, even these over embellishings are happily accepted. In fact, now that the series is over, I wish Jackson would have made a longer Lord of the Rings. Is simply can not get enough.. It is over! Soon to be delegated to Blue Ray, then sweep to the DVD bin at WalMart along with the rest of our favorites. Enjoy the series now... It will be a long time before you see another classic like Tolkien on the Big Screen.
Peter Jackson's Epic Six-Movie Tolkien Series Ends with a Disinterested Shrug
brando64718 June 2016
Finally, Bilbo Baggins returns to the Shire. After three bloated movies originating from around 300 pages of content, we've reached the end and I'm so glad to be done with it all. After a total of six movies set in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth, I'm totally fine with never hearing the word Hobbit again. His HOBBIT series concludes with the grand finale, THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES. When we last saw Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), and their company of dwarven companions, they had been left to gape helplessly as the dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) got tired of chasing them through the mountain kingdom of Erebor and took to the skies to burn neighboring Laketown to cinders. This movie rejoins the action at that very moment, abandoning the dwarfs to focus on Smaug and local hero Bard (Luke Evans), who chooses to engage the dragon. Ten or so minutes later, the whole dragon plot that kept us trudging to the theater for these movies is resolved and we spend the next three hours on the titular battle. You see, Thorin immediately begins to succumb to what the dwarfs call "dragon-sickness" and what us normal folk would call "greed". He's got his rightful kingdom back with more gold than he could ever need, and now he refuses to share it with anyone. The men of Laketown, led by Bard, come knocking in hopes of at least getting some gold for their dwarven-caused dragon troubles (i.e. the incineration of their entire town) and Thorin refuses. Even the woodland elves of Mirkwood Forest come stomping in with an army to demand a share. And, of course, the orc commander Azog has unfinished business with Thorin, having devoted two full previous movies to hunting the would-be dwarven king in hope of ending his bloodline. So all of these armies converge on the front lawn of Erebor for
wait for it
the battle of the five armies.
Six movies deep into this franchise and I can safely say THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES is my least favorite of the bunch. I was so burned out on Middle Earth by the time this movie came around that I refused to see it in the theater. It's the only Peter Jackson/Tolkien movie that I never saw in the theater. I didn't bother watching it until the extended editions were released. In a movie that already feels like 90% filler, I can only imagine what had been added after the theatrical release. Sadly, most of this movie is utterly forgettable. The visual effects are impressive and the 45 minute final battle sequence certainly looks good, but did we need any of this? I don't think so. And, come on, 45 minutes is just too much. That's 45 minutes of CGI swarms of dwarfs, elves, orcs, and men hacking and slashing at each other and the occasional diversion to see what our heroes are doing so the story can keep pushing on. This means that every so often we'll break way so we can see I don't know Legolas (Orlando Bloom) hanging upside down from a giant bat monster while swinging his arms wildly to slice and dice a bunch of cartoon monsters that aren't really there. If I sound biased against this movie, it's because I believe its existence to be completely unnecessary and the whole exercise of creating it a gratuitous waste of time for Jackson and his crew. Tolkien's tale could've been handled in two better-paced films. I've been against the heavy use of CGI in these movies since AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY was released and this film just shoves it in my face with unmercifully long sequences of those same hated CG effects bouncing off each other. Would it have killed them to use some of those amazing practical costume/makeup effects for orcs in the foreground to give it an added sense of realism?
THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES is only really interesting for the first act and the final act. Everything in the middle could've been trimmed generously. Unfortunately, when the big tragic moments begin to happen in the final act of the battle, I'm so worn out from the battle itself that they hold no weight. By that point, I'm just wishing we could skip to the end. THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES isn't a horrible film but I can't imagine it rising to the top and becoming anyone's favorite Jackson/Tolkien movie. It's got some nice stuff in there. Martin Freeman is still perfect for the role of Bilbo, even if he has nothing to do here. I loved the addition of Billy Connolly to the cast as Thorin's cousin Dain and I loved his behind-the-scenes interviews even more, where he admits that he never cared for Tolkien's work and freely mocked anyone who did. Smaug is still awesome for what little time we're given with him, and Jackson even found a way to shoehorn Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, and Christopher Lee into the series one last time. If I remember the novel correctly, Tolkien spares us the full details of the battle, choosing to knock Bilbo out when the action starts and filling him in later. In my ideal cut of Jackson's HOBBIT series, we'd get the same treatment. Bilbo is knocked unconscious and the movie would fade out; we fade in, the battle is over, the surviving characters fill us in on what happened in the form of a flashback montage. Keeps the movie a pleasant length and spares us from battle fatigue. In retrospect, I still enjoy Jackson's HOBBIT movies. The first one is enjoyable enough and was actually pretty solid. This third one though ouch. An epic six movie series and it ends with a shrug. That's the real disappointment.
Six movies deep into this franchise and I can safely say THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES is my least favorite of the bunch. I was so burned out on Middle Earth by the time this movie came around that I refused to see it in the theater. It's the only Peter Jackson/Tolkien movie that I never saw in the theater. I didn't bother watching it until the extended editions were released. In a movie that already feels like 90% filler, I can only imagine what had been added after the theatrical release. Sadly, most of this movie is utterly forgettable. The visual effects are impressive and the 45 minute final battle sequence certainly looks good, but did we need any of this? I don't think so. And, come on, 45 minutes is just too much. That's 45 minutes of CGI swarms of dwarfs, elves, orcs, and men hacking and slashing at each other and the occasional diversion to see what our heroes are doing so the story can keep pushing on. This means that every so often we'll break way so we can see I don't know Legolas (Orlando Bloom) hanging upside down from a giant bat monster while swinging his arms wildly to slice and dice a bunch of cartoon monsters that aren't really there. If I sound biased against this movie, it's because I believe its existence to be completely unnecessary and the whole exercise of creating it a gratuitous waste of time for Jackson and his crew. Tolkien's tale could've been handled in two better-paced films. I've been against the heavy use of CGI in these movies since AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY was released and this film just shoves it in my face with unmercifully long sequences of those same hated CG effects bouncing off each other. Would it have killed them to use some of those amazing practical costume/makeup effects for orcs in the foreground to give it an added sense of realism?
THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES is only really interesting for the first act and the final act. Everything in the middle could've been trimmed generously. Unfortunately, when the big tragic moments begin to happen in the final act of the battle, I'm so worn out from the battle itself that they hold no weight. By that point, I'm just wishing we could skip to the end. THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES isn't a horrible film but I can't imagine it rising to the top and becoming anyone's favorite Jackson/Tolkien movie. It's got some nice stuff in there. Martin Freeman is still perfect for the role of Bilbo, even if he has nothing to do here. I loved the addition of Billy Connolly to the cast as Thorin's cousin Dain and I loved his behind-the-scenes interviews even more, where he admits that he never cared for Tolkien's work and freely mocked anyone who did. Smaug is still awesome for what little time we're given with him, and Jackson even found a way to shoehorn Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, and Christopher Lee into the series one last time. If I remember the novel correctly, Tolkien spares us the full details of the battle, choosing to knock Bilbo out when the action starts and filling him in later. In my ideal cut of Jackson's HOBBIT series, we'd get the same treatment. Bilbo is knocked unconscious and the movie would fade out; we fade in, the battle is over, the surviving characters fill us in on what happened in the form of a flashback montage. Keeps the movie a pleasant length and spares us from battle fatigue. In retrospect, I still enjoy Jackson's HOBBIT movies. The first one is enjoyable enough and was actually pretty solid. This third one though ouch. An epic six movie series and it ends with a shrug. That's the real disappointment.
The weakest of all Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations
cricketbat31 October 2018
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the weakest of all Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations. Even though this is the shortest of the Middle-earth movies, the story drags on as if it were the longest. But I guess that's what you get when you stretch out one book into three movies. In addition, the battle scenes are so computer generated that they look like in-game cinematics. It's a shame that this film series had to end on this note.
Far From A Fitting Conclusion. Disappointment In Every Sense.
CinemaClown18 December 2014
Here we are at last, at the end of all things! What was originally envisioned as a two-part film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit eventually finishes as another trilogy in the Middle- Earth saga despite the fact that unlike The Lord of the Rings, this novel could've easily worked out as a single feature & certainly wasn't vast enough to warrant three films; a mistake that became pretty evident when the first chapter was criticized by many for its bloated length.
For me however, An Unexpected Journey was still an impressive commencement of The Hobbit film series for it closely followed the events of the book, kept the changes within the realms of Tolkien's spirit & was a largely satisfying cinematic experience despite its obvious flaws. The journey downward began with The Desolation of Smaug which absolutely slaughtered the novel in a manner that was plainly insulting to Tolkien & added even more insult to injury by abruptly ending at one of cinema's most frustrating cliffhangers.
And so after a wait of another year, we come to the third & final instalment of The Hobbit film series but instead of a satisfying closure, what we get is a terribly written & horribly executed premise inflated to epic proportions which, apart from confirming that expanding this single-film story into three features was indeed a stupid move by the filmmakers, also brings the Middle-Earth franchise to its all-time low for there is nothing in this second sequel that works out in its favour.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies begins with what should've been the ending of The Desolation of Smaug but wraps up the fiery wrath of Smaug even before the film's subtitle appears on the screen. The plot then follows Bilbo Baggins & the Company of Dwarfs who after reclaiming their kingdom prepare for an impending war against elves n men who just want their share of the treasure but when a greater threat arrives at the Lonely Mountain, they all are left with a choice to unite against the common enemy or be destroyed
Helmed by Peter Jackson for one last time, the final chapter in the Middle-Earth saga is also the weakest as the director completely abandons all the core elements of storytelling to rely solely on a series of eye-popping visuals & CGI-laden battles to carry its story forward. The screenplay continues the slaughter of its source material by stuffing the narrative with needless fillers while the remaining contents of the book are either presented in an overly exaggerated fashion or discarded in its entirety.
Coming to the performances, it's only Martin Freeman & Ian McKellen as Bilbo Baggins & Gandalf the Grey, respectively, who leave a better impression than the others but then their role is somewhat limited in the finished product. The most unexpected disappointment comes from Richard Armitage who played Thorin Oakenshiled amazingly well in the previous two chapters yet here he seems pretty much clueless for the most part & delivers a laughable performance.
The supporting characters are handled so poorly by the writers that even after three films, which totals over eight hours of runtime, many might still struggle in recalling the correct names of all the dwarfs. The first half of the film also deals with the corrupting power of greed which is pretty ironic considering that the very existence of this third chapter is a result of greed on the part of its creators. The only thing that doesn't disappointment in any manner is Howard Shore's score.
On an overall scale, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is far from a fitting conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy & is a disappointment in every manner. Poorly directed, terribly written, needlessly bloated, overflowing with excessive CGI, lacking in substance & featuring some cringeworthy performances, there's so much one can complain about this finale but where this film or The Hobbit trilogy as a whole fails is exactly where The Lord of the Rings triumphed gloriously; its faithfulness to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
For me however, An Unexpected Journey was still an impressive commencement of The Hobbit film series for it closely followed the events of the book, kept the changes within the realms of Tolkien's spirit & was a largely satisfying cinematic experience despite its obvious flaws. The journey downward began with The Desolation of Smaug which absolutely slaughtered the novel in a manner that was plainly insulting to Tolkien & added even more insult to injury by abruptly ending at one of cinema's most frustrating cliffhangers.
And so after a wait of another year, we come to the third & final instalment of The Hobbit film series but instead of a satisfying closure, what we get is a terribly written & horribly executed premise inflated to epic proportions which, apart from confirming that expanding this single-film story into three features was indeed a stupid move by the filmmakers, also brings the Middle-Earth franchise to its all-time low for there is nothing in this second sequel that works out in its favour.
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies begins with what should've been the ending of The Desolation of Smaug but wraps up the fiery wrath of Smaug even before the film's subtitle appears on the screen. The plot then follows Bilbo Baggins & the Company of Dwarfs who after reclaiming their kingdom prepare for an impending war against elves n men who just want their share of the treasure but when a greater threat arrives at the Lonely Mountain, they all are left with a choice to unite against the common enemy or be destroyed
Helmed by Peter Jackson for one last time, the final chapter in the Middle-Earth saga is also the weakest as the director completely abandons all the core elements of storytelling to rely solely on a series of eye-popping visuals & CGI-laden battles to carry its story forward. The screenplay continues the slaughter of its source material by stuffing the narrative with needless fillers while the remaining contents of the book are either presented in an overly exaggerated fashion or discarded in its entirety.
Coming to the performances, it's only Martin Freeman & Ian McKellen as Bilbo Baggins & Gandalf the Grey, respectively, who leave a better impression than the others but then their role is somewhat limited in the finished product. The most unexpected disappointment comes from Richard Armitage who played Thorin Oakenshiled amazingly well in the previous two chapters yet here he seems pretty much clueless for the most part & delivers a laughable performance.
The supporting characters are handled so poorly by the writers that even after three films, which totals over eight hours of runtime, many might still struggle in recalling the correct names of all the dwarfs. The first half of the film also deals with the corrupting power of greed which is pretty ironic considering that the very existence of this third chapter is a result of greed on the part of its creators. The only thing that doesn't disappointment in any manner is Howard Shore's score.
On an overall scale, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is far from a fitting conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy & is a disappointment in every manner. Poorly directed, terribly written, needlessly bloated, overflowing with excessive CGI, lacking in substance & featuring some cringeworthy performances, there's so much one can complain about this finale but where this film or The Hobbit trilogy as a whole fails is exactly where The Lord of the Rings triumphed gloriously; its faithfulness to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
I'm not sure why this one takes the most flak.
CubsandCulture28 September 2022
I think this film goes a long way to explain why Jackson and company decided to split the novel into (at least) 2 films. The material after Smaug's death is grim, especially compared to the rest of it. And given the 3 key character deaths it makes sense that you would want to isolate this section and flesh it out. This is especially true if you are an action filmmaker. Character deaths should have dramatic meaning beyond whatever linguistic obsession Tolkien had. A character we have come to know going mad needs time to breath.
In some ways this is most complete Middle Earth film Jackson ever made. It stands on its own far more than the other 5 films in the series. It feels like an episode unto itself. I rather like as a experience because it is one of few times I have ever been able to follow a battle tactically in cinema with ease. It works as a story of a battle.
So yes like the rest of the Hobbit films this is too long-awkwardly trying to split the difference between the novel and the LOTR films. It is filled with redundancies and bizarre additions, i.e. Alfred But I think it has a lot of great moments-the chariot sequence is really great.
It never captures the charm of the first hour or so of film 1 but it avoids the bottom of the barrel that is the climax of film 2.
In some ways this is most complete Middle Earth film Jackson ever made. It stands on its own far more than the other 5 films in the series. It feels like an episode unto itself. I rather like as a experience because it is one of few times I have ever been able to follow a battle tactically in cinema with ease. It works as a story of a battle.
So yes like the rest of the Hobbit films this is too long-awkwardly trying to split the difference between the novel and the LOTR films. It is filled with redundancies and bizarre additions, i.e. Alfred But I think it has a lot of great moments-the chariot sequence is really great.
It never captures the charm of the first hour or so of film 1 but it avoids the bottom of the barrel that is the climax of film 2.
Not the best one out of the trilogy but still okay
deloudelouvain3 June 2015
I am not going to say anything about Tolkien or whatever like some other angry reviewers because I don't care. I will never get why people have to compare a book and a movie. We all know a book is almost always better then a movie so why in the hell if you read the book you still want to watch the movie that you know won't be as good? I didn't read the book, so I just watched the movie. It's for sure not the best one out of the trilogy but I was still entertained though and that's what it's all about to me. Okay sometimes I thought things could have been much better, like the battle between a couple of hundred thousand creatures without or almost without a single drop of blood spilled. But saying this movie is a complete disaster is ridiculous. I knew what to expect and that's what I got. Nothing more, nothing less. To me those movies are just too long, and that's about the only critique I'm going to write about. For the rest I enjoyed the fantasy world of the different kind of creatures. If you hate fantasy just don't watch this kind of movie then.
Very good but not LOTR The Return of the King
abisio17 December 2014
The third part of the Hobbit (The Battle of the Five Armies) it just takes a few pages of the Hobbit book. When you consider that the full book is about 150 pages and you can read it in 3 or four hours; it is difficult to understand how can Jackson made 7.5 hours trilogy (about 9 on the extended cut). Well basically adding characters and secondary events to the main story. Was that good ? It was not bad; but a little less could have been better.
As a book; The Hobbit is really a kids tale. There is no much character development; the message is quite simple and the end is somewhat sad. There is some mention of the ring but it is not a prequel to Lord of the Ring (or at least it was not originally conceived that way).
The in itself covers three situations/action settings; the attach and killing Smaug; the battle of the five armies and the end which is basically a farewell.
I was surprised the first set was so contained. It is spectacular but not that impressive.
The second set; the battle is more spectacular but still not impressive; until the end; Two man to man (or man to Orc and Elf to Orc) fights (not part of the book) are far more suspenseful and touching than the rest of the movie.
I believe Jackson got tired (or out of ideas) on those massive battles. He kept them for the public; but he was far more interested in the love triangle between Dwarf, Elf and Elf.
In brief; it is not boring at all and worth the price of the ticket; besides these two sagas took too many years to be made right.
As a book; The Hobbit is really a kids tale. There is no much character development; the message is quite simple and the end is somewhat sad. There is some mention of the ring but it is not a prequel to Lord of the Ring (or at least it was not originally conceived that way).
The in itself covers three situations/action settings; the attach and killing Smaug; the battle of the five armies and the end which is basically a farewell.
I was surprised the first set was so contained. It is spectacular but not that impressive.
The second set; the battle is more spectacular but still not impressive; until the end; Two man to man (or man to Orc and Elf to Orc) fights (not part of the book) are far more suspenseful and touching than the rest of the movie.
I believe Jackson got tired (or out of ideas) on those massive battles. He kept them for the public; but he was far more interested in the love triangle between Dwarf, Elf and Elf.
In brief; it is not boring at all and worth the price of the ticket; besides these two sagas took too many years to be made right.
Too much already
RNMorton20 December 2014
The gems in this movie, the best of the Hobbit three, can't offset the ridiculous running time and pointless filler added to artifically expand the running time. The Hobbit, much shorter than any of the Trilogy, only had one full time movie in it. Somewhat fortunately a lot of the meat of the real story was left for this finale. I thought a lot about this - this is the tell: in the Lord of the Rings movies there were extended battle sequences but not extended personal battle sequences, which sort of exposes the attempt to fill the time; I found some of these personal battles tedious. In the LOTR movies the problem was cramming all of the material into the allotted time. Here it's the opposite, so we see too many individual fight sequences which last too damn long. Dain of the dwarfs was spectacular and Thranduil king of the Woodelves very effective. The battle svenes are impressive when kept short. But the source material just isn't up to the LOTR and Jackson certainly couldn't make up the difference.
A fitting end to an epic journey
Figgy66-915-59847012 December 2014
12 December 2014 Film of Choice at The Plaza Dorchester this afternoon - The Hobbit - The Battle of The Five Armies. This is the long awaited conclusion of the Hobbit Trilogy, and very welcome it was too. Epic battles, beautiful scenery, and one last chance to see the excellent Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Not as long as the other two this was nevertheless a fitting end to our journeys in Middle Earth. The film gathers in all the loose ends and sets you up nicely to re watch Lord of The Rings. Richard Armitage brings real passion to Thorin, a character wrestling with himself, and railing against the world. Ian McKellen has some great facial expressions which only enhance the mystique that surrounds Gandalf, and it was sad to say goodbye to the band of dwarfs we have been following for so long. Legolas was leaping around as only Legolas can and If I had to go into battle on a mountain......I'd like to be riding a goat. I only saw 2D today, this going to be awesome in 3D.
Great Ending to the Middle-Earth Saga
LeDentalPlaque24 December 2014
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was one of the best film series ever to be made in terms of its epic proportions, grandiose score, intricate weaving of stories, and CGI. Peter Jackson did a great job interpreting the three Tolkien novels and putting them up on the big screen, a great feat done with great success.
When I heard that the Hobbit, originally one Tolkien book, was going to be split into three films just like the Lord of the Rings, I was surprised and worried about how they could expand one novel into 3 full-length feature films. So going in to the movies, I did not expect them to follow the book 100% - I expected changes to be made and additions inserted here and there to provide more excitement or emotion to the story.
I have heard a lot of people write and complain about how bad the last Hobbit was, but given the framework of its development and that it was supposed to be much longer than anyone expected, people should not be going into this moving expecting it to be a great nod to Tolkien, but rather one for Peter Jackson. He wanted it to be longer, he wanted to add his own creative flare to it, and he did.
I found that the last Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies, was a great film. Obviously, it doesn't stick to Tolkien's Hobbit in its entirety and makes links to the original Lord of the Ring trilogy, but overall, given what Peter Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a wonderful job. Hobbit 3 had a lot of epic battle scenes, mixed in with a variety of moving, elegant pieces of music done by Howard Shore. It had a mixture of drama, action, adventure, romance, and magic - all of them parts that can make up a great film.
If you've been following along with the Hobbit trilogy and enjoyed it, you'll find this to be a great ending to the story and well worth your money at the cinema. If you were already doubting the first two movies and didn't find them particularly enjoyable, then this may not be for you.
However, as a stand-alone film, the story and the score are enough to earn it a 10/10 for me. Overall, it's a highly enjoyable movie with lots of action and adventure, and it has a memorable score.
When I heard that the Hobbit, originally one Tolkien book, was going to be split into three films just like the Lord of the Rings, I was surprised and worried about how they could expand one novel into 3 full-length feature films. So going in to the movies, I did not expect them to follow the book 100% - I expected changes to be made and additions inserted here and there to provide more excitement or emotion to the story.
I have heard a lot of people write and complain about how bad the last Hobbit was, but given the framework of its development and that it was supposed to be much longer than anyone expected, people should not be going into this moving expecting it to be a great nod to Tolkien, but rather one for Peter Jackson. He wanted it to be longer, he wanted to add his own creative flare to it, and he did.
I found that the last Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies, was a great film. Obviously, it doesn't stick to Tolkien's Hobbit in its entirety and makes links to the original Lord of the Ring trilogy, but overall, given what Peter Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a wonderful job. Hobbit 3 had a lot of epic battle scenes, mixed in with a variety of moving, elegant pieces of music done by Howard Shore. It had a mixture of drama, action, adventure, romance, and magic - all of them parts that can make up a great film.
If you've been following along with the Hobbit trilogy and enjoyed it, you'll find this to be a great ending to the story and well worth your money at the cinema. If you were already doubting the first two movies and didn't find them particularly enjoyable, then this may not be for you.
However, as a stand-alone film, the story and the score are enough to earn it a 10/10 for me. Overall, it's a highly enjoyable movie with lots of action and adventure, and it has a memorable score.
Seduced by gold
Prismark109 March 2015
And finally a moderately length children's book beloved to generations of kids (I read The Hobbit over 3 decades ago) comes to a conclusion on screen.
When the dragon Smaug meets a sharp end in the opening ten minutes and the credits begin, I thought the story had ended. In fact it was just the beginning of a return journey which would take a further two hours and a bit.
In that time Thorin gets seduced by the Gold, goes back on his word and promises. Various armies gather and there are epic battles with decapitations and Legolas becomes a super elf.
Bilbo becomes a secondary character in his own story and although the battles in what is mainly CGI is entertaining the whole enterprise is rather pointless as it should had been tagged on in the last movie.
Ryan Gage's scenes as the cowardly Alfrid looks misjudged, Lee Pace as Thranduil is an arrogant bore
The film does provide a bridge to the Lord of the Rings trilogy with characters such as Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond turning up and fighting which kind of reminded me of the Star Wars prequel and Christopher Lee's stunt double was in those scenes as well.
Lets be plain, The Hobbit films were turned into a trilogy because they were seen as a cash cow and this cow was throughly milked.
When the dragon Smaug meets a sharp end in the opening ten minutes and the credits begin, I thought the story had ended. In fact it was just the beginning of a return journey which would take a further two hours and a bit.
In that time Thorin gets seduced by the Gold, goes back on his word and promises. Various armies gather and there are epic battles with decapitations and Legolas becomes a super elf.
Bilbo becomes a secondary character in his own story and although the battles in what is mainly CGI is entertaining the whole enterprise is rather pointless as it should had been tagged on in the last movie.
Ryan Gage's scenes as the cowardly Alfrid looks misjudged, Lee Pace as Thranduil is an arrogant bore
The film does provide a bridge to the Lord of the Rings trilogy with characters such as Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond turning up and fighting which kind of reminded me of the Star Wars prequel and Christopher Lee's stunt double was in those scenes as well.
Lets be plain, The Hobbit films were turned into a trilogy because they were seen as a cash cow and this cow was throughly milked.
Fairly consistent action carries it along, even if there is little to it and even impacting moments are lessened by the relentlessness
bob the moo18 January 2015
Perhaps it is me getting older but I do wonder if I was too kind on the original Lord of the Rings films in light of how disappointed I had been with the Hobbit films. Maybe because it was all new and different, or maybe they were genuinely better films than these. Anyway, as the Company continues their mission, so too did I return for the conclusion of this trilogy; although it must be said that I did not rush to it or have a great deal of excitement. The cliff- hanger from the previous film did win me over though, plus I wanted to see it through.
The opening sequence picking up on Smaug's attack on the town turned out to be pretty impressive; okay we still have people surviving impossible special effects, but Smaug was a strong part of the previous film and remained so here. There is a feeling of anti- climax after this sequence finishes, but the story continues and builds reasonably well as we see the various armies position themselves (albeit many seem to be able to appear by magic at the drop of a hat). With various action sequences this leads us into many fight sequences with lots of movements and CGI. All of this is reasonably okay but it never seems to stop, and gradually I found myself sort of numbed by it. I think it was the ongoing lack of consequence and depth to it all that did it, because technically it all does look impressive but yet it feels very much like a video game too many times.
The feeling of lack of consequence was a surprise to me though, particularly since we had major characters dying – so in theory that should be a surprise and an impact. Unfortunately for me and the film, most of these are hurt by me frankly not being that engaged with some of these characters and their specific stories, while the delivery of these moments tended to be overly done, so they didn't have a genuine impact so much as a melodramatic one. With the battles I also found that the film didn't seem to convey the sense of scale it should have done. It produces plenty of crowd shots and sweeping cameras, but most fights seem very small and disconnected from the bigger picture; they still work for what they are, but they felt like the film was smaller by virtue of them.
The cast are mixed but mainly everyone does what they do behind heavy costume and make-up, and with lots of green-screen work. The problem is more that the most interesting characters generally don't get the most time – in particular it was a shame that Freeman did not get enough to do considering how good he was throughout. Armitage is good as Thorin, but mostly people were a blur of ears and facial hair (depending on their race). Lilly and Bloom were the ones that stuck in the mind for the wrong reasons – I found them dull.
So the trilogy ends and being honest I am not too sad to see it go. As a film there is probably enough action and dramatics to carry it through the time, but at the same time this is the issue with it. The relentless CGI-heavy action wore me down somewhat, and as I didn't really engage with the story due to the previous films, it was hard to do much here even if some of the specifics offered hope. It is solidly good enough for fans to feel they finished out the story with a bang, but for me it was another very expensive and technologically impressive so-so film in the trilogy.
The opening sequence picking up on Smaug's attack on the town turned out to be pretty impressive; okay we still have people surviving impossible special effects, but Smaug was a strong part of the previous film and remained so here. There is a feeling of anti- climax after this sequence finishes, but the story continues and builds reasonably well as we see the various armies position themselves (albeit many seem to be able to appear by magic at the drop of a hat). With various action sequences this leads us into many fight sequences with lots of movements and CGI. All of this is reasonably okay but it never seems to stop, and gradually I found myself sort of numbed by it. I think it was the ongoing lack of consequence and depth to it all that did it, because technically it all does look impressive but yet it feels very much like a video game too many times.
The feeling of lack of consequence was a surprise to me though, particularly since we had major characters dying – so in theory that should be a surprise and an impact. Unfortunately for me and the film, most of these are hurt by me frankly not being that engaged with some of these characters and their specific stories, while the delivery of these moments tended to be overly done, so they didn't have a genuine impact so much as a melodramatic one. With the battles I also found that the film didn't seem to convey the sense of scale it should have done. It produces plenty of crowd shots and sweeping cameras, but most fights seem very small and disconnected from the bigger picture; they still work for what they are, but they felt like the film was smaller by virtue of them.
The cast are mixed but mainly everyone does what they do behind heavy costume and make-up, and with lots of green-screen work. The problem is more that the most interesting characters generally don't get the most time – in particular it was a shame that Freeman did not get enough to do considering how good he was throughout. Armitage is good as Thorin, but mostly people were a blur of ears and facial hair (depending on their race). Lilly and Bloom were the ones that stuck in the mind for the wrong reasons – I found them dull.
So the trilogy ends and being honest I am not too sad to see it go. As a film there is probably enough action and dramatics to carry it through the time, but at the same time this is the issue with it. The relentless CGI-heavy action wore me down somewhat, and as I didn't really engage with the story due to the previous films, it was hard to do much here even if some of the specifics offered hope. It is solidly good enough for fans to feel they finished out the story with a bang, but for me it was another very expensive and technologically impressive so-so film in the trilogy.
An Almost Satisfying Conclusion To An Often Unsatisfying Trilogy
Theo Robertson17 December 2014
I almost gave this a miss . I fell in love with Jackson's LOTR trilogy and found myself often underwhelmed by large segments of the other Hobbit films which often took a long time to go nowhere . Even the title THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES conjures up what to expect - big overlong battles realised by some dodgy CGI . On top of that I'm not really a great cinema goer down to the fact you have to share an auditorium with other human beings and Hell can indeed be other people . None of this is helped by certain cinema chains allowing food and drink in to the showing . The first trailer was an advert for the Odeon's Croma Pizzeria where patrons can walk in a showing guzzling their ugly fat faces on pizza and I can confirm this temptation was too good for some salad dodgers to pass up . Bad enough cinemas are full of people slurping drinks and munching on crunchy popcorn but now respectful cinema fans have to endure the stench of jalapeños wafting around . We're not allowed to smoke in public places but we're allowed to annoy innocents with junk food . Sorry Odeon cinema you've just lost a patron for life . And this conclusion had better be bloody good in order to distract me from the stench and noise of the present cinema environment
So did it ? Just about . The third part is the strongest part of the trilogy as with the previous two films less would have been much much more and you're aware of the very cynical marketing trick of making three films each lasting on average 2.5 hours when you could have had a superb film lasting three hours . One thing I did notice early on is that I'd forgotten who most of the characters were since I hadn't bothered rewatching the two previous films and if you can't remember who was who and how they fit in to the story this must be seen as a creative failure of sorts , but to be fair the plot isn't exactly taxing and it's easy to pick up what's previously happened . Perhaps even better it's easy to pick up where it's going and several scenes do overlap in to the narrative of the later LOTR trilogy . One thing the LOTR trilogy was very good at was pointing out that greed for money are ultimately self destructive and again we see the same sort of subtext which nothing else means Jackson's stream of six films are very consistent
One wishes that Jackson had kept to subtext but unfortunately he himself becomes greedy for spectacle and so has to introduce overlong battle scenes which soon outlive their welcome . To give the director some credit a few of the fight scenes do contain extras involved in intricate choreography in the fights but there's often a reliance on sweeping shots that don't entirely convince you that they're anything more than something created on computer software . Like so much of this trilogy bigger is not necessarily better
So in summary apart from the unwanted smells and sound effects emitting from the audience I don't really feel I had wasted my time and money visiting the cinema to watch the Hobbit trilogy . This conclusion is darker in tone than its two predecessors but unlike LOTR I wasn't totally blown away and one hopes Hollywood can stop all their cynicism by making a story with two hours plot in to a franchise which unfortunately is becoming more and more common as seen in the TWILIGHT and HUNGER GAMES franchise
So did it ? Just about . The third part is the strongest part of the trilogy as with the previous two films less would have been much much more and you're aware of the very cynical marketing trick of making three films each lasting on average 2.5 hours when you could have had a superb film lasting three hours . One thing I did notice early on is that I'd forgotten who most of the characters were since I hadn't bothered rewatching the two previous films and if you can't remember who was who and how they fit in to the story this must be seen as a creative failure of sorts , but to be fair the plot isn't exactly taxing and it's easy to pick up what's previously happened . Perhaps even better it's easy to pick up where it's going and several scenes do overlap in to the narrative of the later LOTR trilogy . One thing the LOTR trilogy was very good at was pointing out that greed for money are ultimately self destructive and again we see the same sort of subtext which nothing else means Jackson's stream of six films are very consistent
One wishes that Jackson had kept to subtext but unfortunately he himself becomes greedy for spectacle and so has to introduce overlong battle scenes which soon outlive their welcome . To give the director some credit a few of the fight scenes do contain extras involved in intricate choreography in the fights but there's often a reliance on sweeping shots that don't entirely convince you that they're anything more than something created on computer software . Like so much of this trilogy bigger is not necessarily better
So in summary apart from the unwanted smells and sound effects emitting from the audience I don't really feel I had wasted my time and money visiting the cinema to watch the Hobbit trilogy . This conclusion is darker in tone than its two predecessors but unlike LOTR I wasn't totally blown away and one hopes Hollywood can stop all their cynicism by making a story with two hours plot in to a franchise which unfortunately is becoming more and more common as seen in the TWILIGHT and HUNGER GAMES franchise
Flawed but great.
beresfordjd10 May 2015
I have to say I have reservations about this film, largely to do with casting but overall I thought it was terrific. I think the casting of James Nesbitt and Billy Connolly in particular just took a lot away for me - Connolly is so much himself it brought one back to reality instead of being steeped in the world of MiddleEarth. Luke Evans was great as Bard and I could see him cast as Thorin too. Richard Arming had a difficult task to be a hero and villain at the same time. I loved the battle scenes, inventive as ever and in spite of taking up most of the film I never grew tired of seeing it. Lots of people have been irritated by Legolas' seeming disregard for physics but if you remember the LOTR films he displays an uncanny knack for seemingly impossible physical feats. If you study the elves army's movement you will find that fascinatingly odd too - they are elves for Chrissakes! Peter Jackson has given a suite of films based on Tolkien's work which I do not believe anyone else could have done. I applaud him.
Little Besides the Battle Scenes
JamesHitchcock14 January 2015
"The Battle of the Five Armies" presumably marks the final instalment in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's work. (Unless, of course, he is thinking of having a crack at "The Silmarillion"). The battle was dealt with in a single chapter of "The Hobbit"; its expansion into an epic feature film lasting well over two hours is symptomatic of the way in which this relatively short novel has been inflated into something far more grandiose in Jackson's hands.
The seemingly invincible dragon Smaug is killed early on by the courageous archer Bard while attacking the city of Laketown. This leaves the Dwarfs and their leader Thorin Oakenshield in possession of the dragon's treasure which they claim is theirs by right. Unfortunately, other parties also have claims to the treasure, and two Dwarf armies, one led by Thorin, the other by his Glaswegian cousin Dain, prepare to do battle with armies of Men, Elves and Orcs. (I know Glasgow is not actually in Middle Earth, but Billy Connolly plays Dain as though he were a denizen of the Gorbals).
Another strand in the plot deals with the development of Thorin's character. When we first see him in this film, he is suffering from what Gandalf calls "dragon sickness", that is to say that he has been corrupted by the dragon's wealth. He is so selfish, greedy and arrogant that he is prepared to fight the Elves and Men, who should be his natural allies, for possession of it; only later does he come back to his senses and make common cause with them against the Orcs.
In terms of spectacle and excitement, the battle scenes can compare with anything in Jackson's earlier "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Unfortunately, the film contains little else except battle scenes. The plot has many twists and turns, but these mostly involve the arrival of yet another army on the battlefield, the shifting alliances between the various factions or a reversal of fortune suffered by one side or another on the battlefield. Some of the actors are good, notably Martin Freeman as the resourceful Bilbo, Richard Armitage as the tormented Thorin Ian McKellen as Gandalf, but they tend to be overshadowed by the grand spectacle being played out behind them. "The Battle of the Five Armies" did nothing to overturn my view that it was a mistake to try and film "The Hobbit" in the same style as "The Lord of the Rings". 7/10
The seemingly invincible dragon Smaug is killed early on by the courageous archer Bard while attacking the city of Laketown. This leaves the Dwarfs and their leader Thorin Oakenshield in possession of the dragon's treasure which they claim is theirs by right. Unfortunately, other parties also have claims to the treasure, and two Dwarf armies, one led by Thorin, the other by his Glaswegian cousin Dain, prepare to do battle with armies of Men, Elves and Orcs. (I know Glasgow is not actually in Middle Earth, but Billy Connolly plays Dain as though he were a denizen of the Gorbals).
Another strand in the plot deals with the development of Thorin's character. When we first see him in this film, he is suffering from what Gandalf calls "dragon sickness", that is to say that he has been corrupted by the dragon's wealth. He is so selfish, greedy and arrogant that he is prepared to fight the Elves and Men, who should be his natural allies, for possession of it; only later does he come back to his senses and make common cause with them against the Orcs.
In terms of spectacle and excitement, the battle scenes can compare with anything in Jackson's earlier "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Unfortunately, the film contains little else except battle scenes. The plot has many twists and turns, but these mostly involve the arrival of yet another army on the battlefield, the shifting alliances between the various factions or a reversal of fortune suffered by one side or another on the battlefield. Some of the actors are good, notably Martin Freeman as the resourceful Bilbo, Richard Armitage as the tormented Thorin Ian McKellen as Gandalf, but they tend to be overshadowed by the grand spectacle being played out behind them. "The Battle of the Five Armies" did nothing to overturn my view that it was a mistake to try and film "The Hobbit" in the same style as "The Lord of the Rings". 7/10
Get on with it
costakcpc19 January 2017
The one overriding feeling I have whilst watching this movie is "Get on with it!"
The dragon is killed in the first ten minutes. And then you're left wondering what's next?
Lots of talking and the odd skirmish. Galadriel's scenes are excellent. But once she leaves you're left wondering what's next? You begin to stare at your watch. At 50mins in you realise there's almost two hours to go.
Cue more talking. Discussions that are unnecessary. Scenes that could be omitted.
It could've been fast paced. It could've raced and heightened the drama. The story is there but it's given too much space to breathe.
The dragon is killed in the first ten minutes. And then you're left wondering what's next?
Lots of talking and the odd skirmish. Galadriel's scenes are excellent. But once she leaves you're left wondering what's next? You begin to stare at your watch. At 50mins in you realise there's almost two hours to go.
Cue more talking. Discussions that are unnecessary. Scenes that could be omitted.
It could've been fast paced. It could've raced and heightened the drama. The story is there but it's given too much space to breathe.
A Notch Above Its Predecessor
Uriah431 January 2015
This movie picks up at the exact same spot that its predecessor ("The Hobbit-The Desolation of Smaug") left off with the dragon known as Smaug in the process of destroying Laketown. Likewise as a prequel to "The Lord of the Rings-The Fellowship of the Ring" it ends at the same spot where the later film begins. In other words this movie fits right in and ties "The Hobbit" trilogy in with the three "Lord of the Rings" films quite nicely. That said, I would strongly recommend that a person new to these movies begin with "The Hobbit-An Unexpected Journey" and then continue on through "The Hobbit" series before beginning on "The Lord of the Rings" movies if at all possible to gain a better understanding and appreciation for this particular film. Of course if a person has read all of the books in the "Tolkien series" then perhaps that might not be necessary. However that's just my opinion and I suppose a person can perhaps still enjoy this movie without any previous knowledge. In any case, I found this movie to be a notch above its predecessor and I believe that fans of this genre will certainly like this movie as much as they did all of the others. Accordingly, I rate this film as above average.
The Hobbit
0U14 February 2020
Good but it was dragged on a lot. A lot of people didnt like this movie but nothing can ever come close to LOTR and it will always be in its shadow. If LOTR hadnt been made yet this would have been a great movie but unfortunately it wasn't up to the same standard and should have been but you have to remember Peter Jackson will always be one of the best directors ever.Overall I think that this was a good movie but wasn't up to the standard that it should have been
A very short review of "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" (2014)
ericrnolan29 September 2015
I think that "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" (2014) is the best of Peter Jackson's prequel trilogy, and not only because of its predictably terrific climactic battle. I'd give this movie a 9 out of 10.
First, it's less cartoonish and far more adult than its predecessors, in everything from its themes to its fight choreography. (Compare the beautifully staged final melees here, for example, with that Warner Brothers-esque sequence in the second film, in which the dwarfs dance across barrels and river rapids to repel their orc pursuers.)
It also seems like a better peek at a larger fantasy universe, with different races, armies and cultures working at cross purposes before needing to align, and with more than one protagonist's real failings factoring in to that.
And HOT DAMN! That's GOTTA be the greatest depiction of a dragon I've ever seen. One small quibble I've had throughout all of Jackson' Tolkien films was that the stories' antagonists sometimes seemed too silly and clownish to be truly menacing. (The orcs, trolls and goblins seemed cartoonish and are too easily defeated by beings sometimes half their height; only the Nazguls and the Uruk- Hai hybrids managed to impress.) Jackson's depiction of Smaug ravaging Laketown makes dragons look like Middle Earth's equivalent of a goddam nuclear device.
First, it's less cartoonish and far more adult than its predecessors, in everything from its themes to its fight choreography. (Compare the beautifully staged final melees here, for example, with that Warner Brothers-esque sequence in the second film, in which the dwarfs dance across barrels and river rapids to repel their orc pursuers.)
It also seems like a better peek at a larger fantasy universe, with different races, armies and cultures working at cross purposes before needing to align, and with more than one protagonist's real failings factoring in to that.
And HOT DAMN! That's GOTTA be the greatest depiction of a dragon I've ever seen. One small quibble I've had throughout all of Jackson' Tolkien films was that the stories' antagonists sometimes seemed too silly and clownish to be truly menacing. (The orcs, trolls and goblins seemed cartoonish and are too easily defeated by beings sometimes half their height; only the Nazguls and the Uruk- Hai hybrids managed to impress.) Jackson's depiction of Smaug ravaging Laketown makes dragons look like Middle Earth's equivalent of a goddam nuclear device.
A Spectacular Finish To An Epic Journey
zevatayler16 December 2014
So I went to The Hobbit marathon. Yes, my fangirling has reached the level where I'm willing to sit in a theater for nine hours straight.
First of all, seeing the first two movies on the big screen again (and for the last time) was a wonderful experience. Seeing all three on the big screen in one night? Very cool. And getting to watch the character transformations and story lines in a row, fantastic. The effects, casting, acting, setting, action... everything was good.
Martin Freeman should win some major awards for his acting... actually everyone should. They're all incredible. I must say, I cried for most of the last fifteen or so minutes. If you've read the book etc., you know why. If not, please go so you can cry too.
The action and battle scenes are captivating, intense, and extremely fun to watch. We get more info about Sauron, which makes me very happy. We also get more Legolas and Tauriel, and let's be honest, who doesn't want more Elvish epicness?
There were a few moments I could have done without, and a few moments where the CGI seemed off, but other than that, I honestly couldn't ask for a better movie. I feel like braiding my hair and learning to wield a sword now.
People complain about these movies so much, but honestly, this is as good as it gets when it comes to book adaptations.
9/10
Once again, thank you Peter Jackson. Agorel vae. Galu.
First of all, seeing the first two movies on the big screen again (and for the last time) was a wonderful experience. Seeing all three on the big screen in one night? Very cool. And getting to watch the character transformations and story lines in a row, fantastic. The effects, casting, acting, setting, action... everything was good.
Martin Freeman should win some major awards for his acting... actually everyone should. They're all incredible. I must say, I cried for most of the last fifteen or so minutes. If you've read the book etc., you know why. If not, please go so you can cry too.
The action and battle scenes are captivating, intense, and extremely fun to watch. We get more info about Sauron, which makes me very happy. We also get more Legolas and Tauriel, and let's be honest, who doesn't want more Elvish epicness?
There were a few moments I could have done without, and a few moments where the CGI seemed off, but other than that, I honestly couldn't ask for a better movie. I feel like braiding my hair and learning to wield a sword now.
People complain about these movies so much, but honestly, this is as good as it gets when it comes to book adaptations.
9/10
Once again, thank you Peter Jackson. Agorel vae. Galu.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews