The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
880 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
A big disappointment.
syes9711 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A couple of years ago, when I heard Peter Jackson would direct two more Middle-earth movies, I started crying out of excitement. Those two movies soon got changed into three and I was angry because I was convinced the story was too short for three three-hours-long movies. Despite the book being approximately 300 pages long, Peter Jackson & co. proved me wrong and managed to not include big parts of the books in these movies, even though there's more than 8,5 hours of total screen time. "Disappointed" is an understatement.

I don't think this movie was supposed to make me laugh at the serious scenes and sigh at the 'comic relief' scenes -basically everything Alfrid was in- but sadly it did. At least the 'funny' scenes in the Lord of the Rings trilogy were subtle and less in number; BOTFA was supposed to be "serious and dark" and those silly, ridiculous scenes pretty much ruined that.

I have nothing negative to say about the acting though. The amazing cast of this trilogy did the best they could with the awful script they were given, and I'm thankful for that. It's not their fault that their character development was rushed because the movie was full of pointless Legolas Vs. Gravity scenes, dull Tauriel scenes who fell in love with Kili after having a conversation with him once or twice - same goes for Kili who fell in love with her and even gave her the token his mother, Dís, gave him.

The worst part of this movie isn't even that it's full of badly done CGI or the big lack of proper character development. It's the fact that Tauriel, a badly written, impossible character made up by Peter Jackson & co., had more screen time than characters who were in the actual book written by J.R.R. Tolkien. Beorn basically got fifteen seconds, if not less, screen time in the last installment of this trilogy. Most of the dwarfs from the Company barely got a line, and a LOT of things are left unexplained.

SPOILERS AFTER THIS LINE

For instance, what happened with Thranduil and the white gems? Did he ever get them back?

What happened to the gold? As a fan of the books I already know the answer, but the movie didn't really care to explain this important part of the story. Come on, the entire battle was about the gold. At least take a minute to explain how it got divided.

Where did those goats suddenly come from?

Why were the dwarfs wearing helmets when they were still inside the mountain, but had no helmets on when they actually went to war?

What happened to the people of Lake-Town? Why didn't the movie explain that Bard became King of Dale? If I had not read the book, I'd get really annoyed after watching this movie and not knowing what had happened to them.

What was the point of those ridiculously large worms and why did no one else /ever/ mention them before? And why were they gone after ten seconds? Did they ever get killed?

Why mention Legolas' mother and never explain anything about her at all?

Besides all these unanswered questions, there are certain things which bothered me more than all of those questions combined. 1. The Durins (Thorin, Kili, Fili) didn't get a funeral. In my opinion it's ridiculous to cut something like that out because they were basically the main characters. Which brings me to my second point. 2. I think Peter Jackson forgot that this story is called The Hobbit because Bilbo is supposed to be the main character, not Thorin. 3. Kili basically sacrificed himself for Tauriel which is unforgivable. In the actual story, Fili and Kili died defending Thorin in battle. Now the poor boy is dead because he had a crush on a badly written elf which also completely degrades the importance of Legolas and Gimli's friendship.

Let's not forget about the scene wherein Legolas grabs a flying bat, or when Bard uses his son Bain to shoot an arrow, which should make him fall but somehow it doesn't, or when Dain and Thorin decide to hug in the middle of a battle, or when Azog somehow manages to float and dramatically opens his eyes.

I absolutely loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are my favorite movies of all time and the reason I became a fan of Tolkien's works in the first place. It's sad that Peter Jackson desperately tried to link the Hobbit movies to the LOTR trilogy, because it's partly the reason why the Hobbit movies are so awful. If the unnecessary Dol Guldur scenes and the Tauriel storyline were skipped, every good part from the book which is now cut out would have easily fit in. I'm still giving this movie a 4 out of 10 though, because I absolutely love the cast and I think they did a brilliant job, especially Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman. Also, the very last scene was exactly like I imagined it would be, with Ian Holm's Bilbo and Gandalf knocking on the door. Loved that part. And "The Last Goodbye" by Billy Boyd was a beautiful way to end this movie and trilogy and made me tear up.

You might enjoy this movie if you really liked the first two -I didn't-, if you're into bad CGI or movies that look like video games or if you don't really care about Tolkien's Middle-earth and are content with a movie that doesn't do Tolkien and his characters justice at all. Otherwise you're probably someone like me and you'll leave the theater disappointed and grieving over the characters you love so much.
887 out of 1,116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Hobbit
MR_Heraclius14 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
37 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I have no idea what happened
account-184-12561113 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I should begin by saying that I am a big fan of Tolkiens work, and have read LOTR and The Hobbit (and his other books) many times. I did enjoy the first trilogy, and thought that the changes Jackson did to the story were sometimes understandable, sometimes acceptable. However, I have no idea what happened with this movie and the whole second trilogy.

I am terribly disappointed, and I have no idea whether the changes were necessary simply to milk as much money as possible out of the whole project (spreading out the story to get 3 long movies, even if that meant adding many new things), or whether Jackson actually thinks he knows better than Tolkien... knows better how to explain things, how to connect the Hobbit to LOTR, or how to make a compelling story.

And yes, an adaption doesn't HAVE to be close to the book. However, if you mess with the story, if you include things that contradict the whole story, and if you essentially kill off the charm and warmth and concept of the book the movie is based on, things get dangerous.

The Hobbit was a book written for children, and while there are scenes in the trilogy that will definitely be fun for children (the dwarfs offering a lot of those kinda scenes), the violence and amount of killing and cut off heads make me wonder how suitable the movie really is.

However, watching this movie, and having seen the previous ones, these questions came up in my mind:

  • Is it really FORBIDDEN to make a movie that Doesn't have a love-story involved? Isn't the Hobbit legendary enough, hasn't the book proved often enough it is a great story without a love-story included? Why did Jackson have to create Tauriel, the female ninja-elf and her love-story with a DWARF? Why did this have to be added? Would the film would have so much more terrible (hard to imagine) without a cliché and badly-written love-story that was added by Jackson and Walsh? - I sincerely think that, if the elvish race is capable of doing the things Tauriel and Legolas do in battle, not only could the small group of elven warriors Jackson added to the battle of Helms Deep in Two Towers have totally defeated the orcish army in less than 2 minutes... the history of Middle-Earth would be very difficult if they all could fight even remotely as well. Also, the fighting skills of Legolas in this movie are totally inconsistent to what he was able to do later on in LOTR. Considering that elves live incredibly long, the amount of time that passed between the Hobbit and Lotr is no explanation of why Legolas is a walking "ninja-god" in the Hobbit and much less superman-like in LOTR. - The incredible length of the scenes... it sincerely feels like the movie team was paid by the minutes of film they produced - The worms... I reckon they are based on a small comment by Bilbo, mentioning "were-worms" (a comment that has often riddled Tolkien-fans). Is this an attempt to somehow win over the fans of Tolkien-lore that feel insulted by Tauriel, the changes to the story, the goats, rabbits and deer-mounts, the fact that the WONDERFUL scene of Beorn appearing at the battle in the book and turning the tide, bringing relief and a change to the battle was kinda removed because the ninja-elves prove that Middle-Earth is located in the Matrix? - I really would feel bad for JRR Tolkien if he was able to watch these movies. He felt so much love for the world and characters he created, and put so much time, effort and feelings into his work. All this now was steamrolled over by the production team of this movie. After the rather respectful handling of LOTR, Jackson changed so much about the Hobbit that it feels totally disrespectful to the lifetime of work Tolkien put into his stories.


What went wrong? Did Jackson think that, in order to attract and convince all those that haven't read the books, he would need to turn a wonderful book, written for children with a lot of warmth and charm, into a medieval Transformers (regarding amount of CGI, length of fights, lack of realism, character depth and taste)?

Did he really think this was in any way a respectful adaption of the work of a man who invested DECADES into writing, refining and perfecting his stories? Who, instead of focusing on just hours of battle, managed to create a world full of lore, charm, and wonderful characters?

I have no idea what went wrong behind the scenes. Have no idea whether the movie studio said "Jackson, forget about what people love about the Hobbit. Turn it into three overlong movies for more profit, get us as many battles and skirmishes as you possibly can milk out of this, and just to make sure, add a love-story (we don't care how you do it), add a popular character from the previous trilogy so people will dig that. Oh yeah, the book was written for children, so make sure there is a song or two, bird poo on the nutty wizard who escaped from Hogwarts (Radagast), a dwarf with a pickax stuck in his skull, and funny bits that children love. But don't forget we want adults to watch it too, so please, add tons of action and cut-off heads, too... gotta hit all those demographics".

I know a lot of Tolkien-fans apparently love this movie and the trilogy. One review even said "...from a true fan". Please don't think this is the case in general. I have grown up reading Tolkiens work, and I am simply stunned by how bad, how tasteless and disrespectful this trilogy is.
598 out of 816 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Hobbit: Battle of the Dwarfs, Elves, Orcs, Humans, Trolls, Giant Worms, Pigs, Goats, Eagles, and Anything Else That Peter Jackson Thought Would Make Money
Swisschick0918 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I was as irritated as most people when I heard that Peter Jackson would split The Hobbit into three movies because it was obviously a decision based on nothing more than getting as much money as possible, but even I never imagined that he would stoop to making a movie like Battle of the Five Armies (a.k.a. Battle of the 25 Armies plus a couple of random giant mountain goats and a pig thrown in for good measure).

The CGI was as bad as something you would see in a B movie—even worse than the previous two Hobbit films. But even more noticeably, the script took a dive to rock bottom. Within the first half hour, such utterly laughable clichés as "You make me feel alive," were spoken in a cheesy love scene that seemed like something straight out of Saturday Night Live, except that the audience was apparently supposed to take it seriously.

Shortly before the battle started, there were a few much-needed moments of comic relief, and I thought the film might possibly turn around. But all my illusions were soon shattered during the ten-minute scene where Thorin walks on top of the ice that Azog is floating under with his eyes open, following the orc and apparently waiting for him to break through it, when—surprise!—he does, and (spoiler for those who have not yet watched the ten-minute scene that made this obvious) kills Thorin. Alas. It might have been sad if I hadn't been waiting around for ten minutes knowing that he would get killed.

Things were looking grim for the dwarfs when who should appear? Our heroes the eagles, of course, who have managed to bail out the protagonists in every single movie of the trilogy.

Although I couldn't stop laughing during the scene where three dwarfs find completely random giant mountain goats with no riders in the middle of the battle and proceed to ride them up a mountain, the worst part of the movie was easily the ending. As if the movie isn't long enough, the audience is not only forced to watch Bilbo go all the way BACK to the Shire, they have to re-watch footage from Fellowship of the Ring! I knew it was a bad sign that Peter Jackson actually made a movie shorter than three hours (although it felt like six)—apparently, he had so little material for this movie that he had to re-use material from his original trilogy.

When Tauriel discusses love with the abominably clichéd line "Why does it hurt so much?" I think she described the feelings of most of the audience enduring the latest Hobbit movie.
328 out of 481 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Unequivocally Terrible
knowinglygotebola27 December 2014
Peter Jackson, with this new trilogy, which adapts a somewhat long children's fairy tale into a three-part action epic, each movie being three hours long and delving into completely irrelevant stories that are only hinted at in Tolkien's body of work, has really destroyed his reputation as the Tolkien translator. He will always live in the shadow of The Lord of the Rings, which is a sumptuous, beautiful, heartrending, thrilling masterpiece.

I don't know what happened. But Jackson sacrificed tone, realism, characterization, and story when he adapted The Hobbit. It is unrecognizable as work by the same director.

There are so many problems with this trilogy and this movie that is nigh impossible to list them. Nearly every scene is a real travesty, and the whole operation is an affront to the source material and fans of LOTR. The movies make hyper-violent beheadings and mass slaughter into orgies of staged action sequences and dumb gags. The orcs, which are now entirely computer-generated, are no longer compelling or realistic, and they are seemingly significantly more fearsome than in LOTR... It takes what the audience understands about Middle Earth and makes it BIGGER, in a completely childish overextension of the original story, to make things even more epic! Were-worms and enormous bats - these don't exist in the larger and more climactic battle in LOTR, but sure, they existed back then, right? Sure! Jackson also turns characters into absolutely ridiculous flat caricatures. Thranduil, the bourgeois blue-blood riding an elk, Dain, Thorin's cousin, who rests his enormous high- pitched Scottish girth on a wild boar, the she- elf who falls in love with a dwarf... It's stomach churning how Peter Jackson has combined a love for extreme violence and an eye for juvenile gags and unbelievable characters, and in a beloved, classic setting.

This movie, once again, extends Legolas past human bounds, past elven bounds, past the bounds of Newtonian physics, as he sprints, newly cyan eyes shining, on falling bricks and hangs from bats. We get to watch dwarfs behead seiging armies of orcs, who are impotent to the blows of the tiny Olympians. Again, oh no!, Middle Earth is doomed, the age of men is over, (cue slow-motion shots of Gandalf looking stricken, Thorin killing orcs with Sparta kicks)... The feel, the script, the look is all taken from LOTR and rehashed with this cast of cardboard characters, in a badly rendered world of excess and fancy.

I expected mature film-making for thoughtful audiences expecting real characters living in a real world with a compelling story, but obviously that was too much to expect.

If one of the important themes of The Hobbit is the rejection of greed, as we can see personified by Thorin, then is it hypocritical that Hollywood has churned out three abominably shallow and violent films out of The Hobbit for the public's consumption? I think so. I hate what these films represent, and what they could have done.
553 out of 835 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
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.
376 out of 577 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
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
48 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A horrible failure
phil-walch11 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
As a fan of the books first and the movies second I have willingly celebrated the achievement of Peter Jackson and his team for bringing this wonderful world to the screens.

Sadly on this occasion I cant feel quite so enthusiastic. Without a shadow of a doubt this is the worst blockbuster movie I have ever seen.

The excitement of waking up to the day having finally arrived to have one last cinema experience in Middle-Earth was soon turning into cinema nightmares.

A direction less mess from start to finish that only got worse as this movie went on, from the opening sequences of Smaug having his revenge on Lake-Town and Bard using his son as a make shift aim for his bow this simply descended into a ridiculous aimless shambles.

Our beloved Mr Bilbo Baggin's reduced to a secondary character of no weight or meaning was soon a small quibble compared to the elf- centric nonsense which ensued. Riding bats was bad enough before the ultimate insult of Legolas using a sword as a sort of remote control to crash a troll type enemy into a tower which becomes the setting for quite simply the worst piece of cinema ever used.

I could go on for ever, this films redeeming feature is that it ended. Christopher Tolkien was quoted saying that these movies had reduced the beauty and aesthetic of his fathers work to nothing and it had been absorbed into the absurdity of our time, and I believed he was wrong as he was talking about Lord of the Rings but his words are fitting for this monstrosity of overblown Hollywood Esq movie making.

I am certain that action fans think this is a fitting end to this adventure but as a fan of the books and the previous films I for one am offended by what was put in front of me. The beauty, emotion and heart of this wonderful story of a Hobbit that had an adventure was taken and ripped to pieces by terrible movie making.

A sad end for all the wrong reasons.
314 out of 508 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
That's what happens when you expand a single book into three movies
mikeywinslow-188-29992417 December 2014
Well, I have to say that I'm glad that's over. The final movie was well worth the price of admission, which in my case was a free ticket to a preview screening.

I found this movie to be a stretch and as the final movie in a trilogy that was getting less interesting the further you went into the series, I left feeling extremely disappointed, and glad I didn't pay for the premium experience (3D, Imax, etc).

There was a little too much CG this time around, and it wasn't even all that great. Case in point two close scenes with a rider approaching and leaving were clearly CG...they couldn't even afford to use a real horse and rider? Come on...

The battle scenes went on way too long and in parts were even more ridiculous than the "riding the broken wooden bridges all the way down to the bottom of the cavern..." scene in the earlier edition of this series, and since the battle scenes were pretty much all that carried this movie, well...

Yes, this movie does have to be seen and it should be viewed on a big screen. However, in the opinion of this reviewer, waiting until it appears in a second run theatre will provide better value for money.

It's a movie that wraps up a series, but when compared to Peter Jackson's original LOTR work it pales and is as pale as an orc who has been working in the basement of Orthanc. At night. With the lights out.
439 out of 720 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An ambitious project, with a sad result
arthur-goemans10 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In Jackson's defense: the project was ambitious to begin with. Turn 310 pages of children's literature into an epic Hollywood trilogy. Many debates go on about which movie was the best: the fairy tale, the one in-between, or the die hard-alike final. The sad truth is, that to a pure fan, they are, one by one, in their own unique ways, an abomination.

What can one expect, from a battle that starts in the third-to-last chapter in the book, but that goes on for 144 minutes in the film adaption? Granted, some of the battle scenes were innovative. In fact, the beginning, the cooperation between the elves and dwarfs, who had been ridiculing each other like Tom and Jerry at first, was most entertaining. For a few minutes, at most. But not for two hours.

Of course, the writers realized this. Therefore, these bombastic large- scale battles were altered with individual scenes. And this is where all touch with Tolkien faded. Not only were the action scenes needlessly absurd, (I think of Legolas jumping from one falling stone to another, of Azog opening his eyes in an o-so-melodramatic fashion we've seen way too many times, and of Brad's ridiculous carriage scene) but the individual stories weren't nearly as grasping as they should have been.

And this can be forgiven for Thranduil and his son, in an unsuccessful ending scene, that was empty of any convincing emotions, in an attempt to make a bridge to the Lord of The Rings series. This can even be forgiven for Thorin, the classic anti-hero who goes mad after barely a few days of being around his treasure, but realizes his true destiny just in time, only to die an honorable death, in order to obtain forgiveness for his 20-minute-earlier sins. But this can't be forgiven for the Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins is a supernumerary in his own movie. And that is inexcusable.

All fans of Tolkien will probably watch this. The feeling I'm left with, is gratefulness for the untouchable Lord of the Rings series. They can never be taken away. "The Hobbit" falls short right there where the Lord of the Rings is most powerful: loyalty to Tolkien. The trilogy did not fail because it grasped for Hollywood-greatness, it failed because Tolkien would watch it and say "What a fine movie! Where'd you get the idea?"
244 out of 395 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Lazy, Cynical Retread of LOTR
probably-nope19 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I first experienced The Hobbit at the age of 4, when my mother read it to me, and I have been a Tolkien fan ever since. And I have been generally disappointed with Peter Jackson's take on The Hobbit since the beginning. Jackson abused the mythos, struck out trying to turn a lighthearted children's book into a trio of Serious Epics, and created bloated, endless action scenes that did nothing to legitimately advance the plot (before this film, the barrel-battle and the golden dragon-dip were the most egregious). I honestly could not think of a single scene which was not addressed more effectively in the cheap 1970s cartoon. And I found it painfully obvious that Jackson was trying to cheat his way to success by hitting all of the same notes as he did in the Lord of the Rings films, whether or not they made sense in this context (the character Tauriel exists solely to be Arwen; the character Alfrid exists solely to be Wormtongue).

That last point is far and away my greatest complaint about the final effort. I almost didn't believe what I was seeing: the ridiculous, eternal Battle of Five Armies wasn't just reminiscent of Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith, it WAS those battles, shot for shot. Jackson literally plopped the same choreography from his good trilogy into this film and called it done. It's bad film-making, it's lazy, and it's just an inexcusable, cynical cash-grab. For instance:

-In the lead-up to Helm's Deep, a scared, desperate people streamed (left to right) over barren countryside into the fortress. In BOFA, a scared, desperate people streamed (left to right) over barren countryside into the ruins of Dale.

-Characters hidden on a rocky outcropping witness the gates of a great enemy fortress open. A massive army streams out, while its general urges them onward from above. Is that Frodo and Sam at Minas Morgul or Legolas and Tauriel at Gundabad?

-We had a sweeping shot of ranks of spear-bearing Uruk Hai before the walls, who part to allow a mounted leader to advance menacingly through their ranks. Now we have a sweeping shot of spear-baring ELVES before the walls, who part to allow a mounted elf-king to advance menacingly through their ranks. In both cases, we have shots up at the outnumbered defenders peering down from their hastily rebuilt fortress. In both cases, a prematurely fired arrow opens the hostilities.

-A berserker carrying a bomb ran urgently towards the culvert, leaping headfirst to bring down the wall. Now we have a troll with a ram on his head, who runs urgently and leaps headfirst to bring down a wall. The Uruk Hai/orcs following stream together through the narrow hole, then fan out.

-Gandalf rides (right to left) up the steep, winding streets of both Minas Tirith and Dale to warn and rally the citizens.

-Characters say "Send forth the legions", "Kill them all," "The Age of the Orc has begun". In both trilogies.

-Before, Legolas slid on a shield (left to right) down a staircase to save Gimli, using the shield to impale an Uruk. Now, Bard rides a wagon (left to right) down a hill to save his children, using the cart to bowl over a troll.

-When All is Lost at Helm's Deep, a heroic younger character confronts the aging king, urging him to fight rather than hiding. The king agrees, and the small band charges out in one final desperate effort while a dwarf blows an impractically large horn. The burly character shouts "To the King!" The attacking Uruks are taken aback by the blinding sun and bowled aside. When All is Lost at Erebor, a heroic younger character confronts the aging king, urging him to fight rather than hiding. The king agrees, and the small band charges out in one final desperate effort while a dwarf blows an impractically large horn. The burly character shouts "To the King!" The attacking trolls are taken aback by... well, nothing, apparently... and bowled aside. Yeah, this one is EXACTLY the same, without even an effort to hide it.

-In ROTK, Legolas makes his way to the head of a Mumak and brings it down by piercing its brain from above, causing it to crash into another Mumak, resulting in an earth-shaking collapse. In BOFA, Legolas makes his way to the head of a troll (which seems to have morning-stars for feet) and brings it down by piercing its brain from above, causing it to crash into a town, resulting in an earth-shaking collapse.

-In a one-on-one showdown outside Minas Tirith, Eowyn faces the Witch-King, who is armed with a sword and an improbable mace. In a one-on-one showdown above Dale, Thorin faces Azog, who is armed with a sword-arm and an improbable mace.

I could cite more examples, but I'm bumping up against the word limit.

The acting in The Hobbit is generally solid -- Martin Freeman in particular is excellent. But Peter Jackson either ran out of ideas or didn't bother trying. This film is a bloated, self-plagiarizing mess, and the only worthwhile moments are those pulled unaltered from the book.
116 out of 187 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Tolkien will haunt Peter Jackson
jostein-soevik10 December 2014
If you haven't read The Hobbit and/or if you like the first two movies: I envy you of sorts...

If someone had told me some years ago that I would consider walking out from a Tolkien movie opening night, I would have slapped them with a cod. Or a salmon. The Hobbit trilogy is crap.

It's little more than a long list of invented battles and love stories to attract a widest possible audience, as well as loads of idiotic storyline to make the story slide into the Lord of the Rings movies as smooth as an Elven ass.

I understand that some adaption is required from book to screen, but when dealing with a book more or less only surpassed by the Bible and the IKEA catalogue, one should tread carefully.

Do yourself a favor. Read the book. Let your mind be the big screen.
401 out of 694 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The unfinished Story of TBOFA
Daanthebrown18 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
* This Review contains a few spoilers*

The Battle of Five Armies... The last part of a poor trilogy, it made me exited and gave me hope, because maybe it could be like the Return of The king... but no.

This movie was an embarrassment for Peter Jackson, the man who just got himself a star on the street of Hollywood. This man turns out to be just like all the other Hollywood directors, a money wolf. This trilogy was made for nothing more than money, why 3 parts, why?! And half of the book isn't even concluded in the movies.

A 260 page book spread in 9 hours in movie could be something awesome, but it didn't. it became horrible. Something that annoyed me : Added characters, no character development, no emotional moments, to many ''you got to be kidding me'' moments, no Dwarfs, Elve or men die in the battle. Where is there brutality of the LOTR? Where in the most epic battles of movie history everything took place : grief, death, epicness, sadness, moments of smiling while having a hard time trying not to let go of some tears, and above all, the fact that you don't know how many of the good people will survive. Well in TBOFA nobody died, expect orcs (CGI monsters).

And than some other things that made no sense, and are left out. What happens with the Arkenstone, who becomes king under the mountain, where does Tauriel go, what happens to the dwarve, what happens to the lake people, and what about the gems of the Elves?! Isn't that what this movie was all about?? How hard was it to include 15 minutes more and tell this. And why did Peter Jackson change the story about the death of Fili and Kili? Where was the love of brother ship? that's what I liked about the book, it was about love for your brothers, not about the love of a stupid made up elve girl. Oh and above all, Middle- Earth looked life an awful ugly world, while it's supposed to be an amazing wonderful world. Peter Jackson messed up big time

I think this is enough for you guys to get why this movie was horrible compared to what it could've became, a story rank worthy to the LOTR movies.

2/10, 1 star because it was Middle-Earth, and 1 star because Bilbo played an amazing role (oh yeah speaking of Bilbo, he looked like a side character, isn't he the main character?)
104 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
One word: travesty
FeatherlessBiped21 December 2014
Before seeing _The Battle of the Five Armies_ today, I told people, "The first two films lacked fidelity to the book, but this one should be better." I figured Jackson wouldn't have to add lots of extraneous invented action scenes because the final third of the book contained plenty of action.

Boy, was I wrong.

Unnecessary invented characters from the previous films continued to take up screen time in this one, and many new ones were added. Tolkien wouldn't recognize a bunch of grand-scale evildoers or various "good guys" whose relationships were supposed to tug at our hearts, though they turned my stomach instead.

The additions included plenty of trite dialogue. When one invented character, in a scene made from whole cloth, was shown weeping over a loved one and asking "Why does it hurt so much?", I just about tossed my Junior Mints.

Meanwhile, a character largely responsible for turning the tide in the book's Battle of Five Armies (note the lack of a "the" before "Five") was shown in the film, without explanation, for about three seconds. Blink and you might miss it.

When one baddie was apparently killed, I thought, "If he suddenly jumps up and starts fighting again, I'm leaving." Too bad I didn't follow through on my threat after that excruciatingly predictable plot twist.

Did I mention that Dain, confronting the elf warriors, came across as some nightmare parody of John Cleese performing "The Lord of the Fawlty Towers"?

I could go on, but "travesty" is about the kindest word I can use for this mass of claptrap. I now fear that Jackson will film _The Silmarillion_, turning it into yet another tawdry, over-the-top CGI fest.
252 out of 448 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What still of Tolkien ? Nothing...
laurence-ponthieux14 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
How a wonderful book for children became a movie full of noise and void... Poor Bilbo... I felt sad all the time during this last movie, as bad as its predecessor. Unnecessary characters (why Tauriel, why ?!), ridiculous monsters, absurd scenes (Legolas jumping from crumbling stones to crumbling stones), fake sets, loud and empty music, there is nothing to save this movie. Where is the magic of The Lord of the Ring, where the Middle Earth looked so real ? Where is Tolkien's spirit ? Why Peter Jackson could betrayed so much Bilbo ? I sincerely hope that he will do much better in his future projects ; let's forget this trilogy...
130 out of 225 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A disappointing mess of a film, only made bearable because of a very few scenes.
hanna-pirfano11 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
When I went to the theater, I was filled with hope, excitement and joy. I'm the biggest Hobbit fan I know(I adore the movies, the book, and collect all the trinkets and art books I can.), and since the Desolation of Smaug had been a quite good movie, and I had heard Peter Jackson claim this film was going to be even more serious and thriller-y, I naturally assumed it was going to be a dark, thrilling movie that had me on the edge of my seat.

This was not the case.

The movie started with an extremely anticlimactic scene that killed suspension of disbelief, and continued on the same track. Smaug, while a masterpiece of animation, was disappointing, as was most of the movie. The film continued, and I was more and more confused- this is not the movie I had expected. It lacked a good plot, was confusing even to me(who has read the book and the production books five times over), and COULD NOT DECIDE WHAT IT WANTED TO BE.

One second, it was comedy, and while some scenes were amusing enough, some were just cringe-worthy(Peter Jackson's horrendous comic timing making itself known), but these scenes completely ruined the atmosphere of the film, making it dull and bland instead of tense and exciting.

The only saving grace this piece of badly directed trash had were the scenes with the King of the Dwarfs, Thorin, succumbing to madness, and his relationship dynamic with Bilbo(who had very little screen time for a film about him) These scenes were brilliant, mostly because of the heartfelt and excellent acting of Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman.

Sadly, even though one feels these scenes should be in center, the movie chooses to focus on dull battle sequences. The scenes that are truly good are hastily skipped over, and we move to classic bad PJ comedy and awful battle scenes. While in Lord of The Rings there were some goofy battle scenes, this movie almost seems like it's trying to make a parody of itself. I did not find many problems with Legolas's gravity defying skills in Desolation of Smaug, but here, it makes you wonder if Middle Earth is actually the moon in regards to the gravity-free atmosphere.

Other than the terrible battle scenes, we have the focus on a romance plot so bad it almost makes me blush of second-hand embarrassment. It's like the movie is trying to emulate elements from Titanic, but fails miserably. The romance was so forced it might as well be a spoof, and was a complete waste of a female character. I am in favor of female characters being added to the story. In fact, I love it. But here? It is so blatantly clear Tauriel was only added to be Kili's love interest, and it hurts my heart to see female character's butchered in this way.

(And that's not even mentioning the atrocity that was making Galadriel, who is the strongest person in middle-earth, laying on the floor sobbing and waiting for her strong male wizard companions to help her.)

The death scenes of some of the characters were underwhelming, except for one, which was emotional enough to make me give this movie my almost-approval, but it is just as many of us feared: This movie gives no screen time or attention to dwarfs who are not Thorin Oakenshield and Kili(we don't even see them fight in this movie. They just stand in the background.)

So, to sum it up, if you expect a thrilling experience, you're out of luck. The movie was generally poorly paced, poorly directed, with really awful CGI, conflicts that were created, solved and sometimes forgotten in the blink of an eye, and an excess of Legolas.(WHO IS LITERALLY JUST THERE TO LOOK PRETTY AND DO STUNTS.). It is a worth watch if you're a fan, but only for a couple of scenes that the director seemed to have deemed unimportant despite them being the only reason this movie was even worth the name. Tasteless jokes, awful fight scenes, terrible cheesy romance that puts the notebook to shame, and more questions than answers in the end. Peter Jackson truly did not deliver, even though it's clear he tried.

He simply tried too much.
139 out of 243 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Get over yourselves, people!
jamoe00717 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I have read the Hobbit twice. I love the LOTR trilogy of films, they're my favorite films ever. I was initially disappointed with the first Hobbit film because my expectations were set so incredibly high from the first three. Having watched it again recently, I can see that it's a great film. A lot of people are upset with this film because it isn't the book. All I have to say is that books and films are entirely different art forms. If you cut and paste the hobbit onto a movie, you get a very bad film. Anyone can be a critic, not anyone can bring one of the most beloved stories of all-time to life on the big-screen. What Peter Jackson has done, along with all of the very talented people who spent years and years of their lives making these film, is nothing short of brilliant. We should be thanking this man for what he has done, not criticizing every little thing we didn't like about the films. You can't please everyone. Also worth noting...The Hobbit was written for kids and it's pretty silly a lot of the time. The trilogy wasn't written for another 20 YEARS and the whole idea of Middle Earth as we know it today didn't exist. So had Tolkien known he was going to make this little kids book into an epic saga, it's not a stretch to think that he would have made some changes to it. In short, the movies HAD to be different from the books to make them entertaining, cinematically compelling and to keep them true to the spirit of what MIddle Earth and the LOTR trilogy are today. Jackson, and all of the people working on these films are the most passionate fans of Tolkien you could ever meet, heck, they spent the better part of 2 decades making 6 films for us to enjoy. So I am going to say, BRAVO!! Peter Jackson!! Okay, but seriously...I like Tauriel but the whole deal with her and Kili was very awkward. The whole romance is smothered on pretty thick. But I'm not going to let that ruin a fantastic film and a fantastic trilogy for me, and I hope you don't either!! Don't expect the book, don't expect anything and you will have your mind blown. :)
79 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Never should have been made
luke-a-mcgowan27 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I despise Desolation of Smaug, so I can assure you I went in with minuscule expectations. Even those were shattered. I have disregarded the book in this review, because the book was ruined back in Desolation of Smaug. I watched this as a movie, ignoring everything I knew about how it was meant to go.

Picking up exactly where Desolation left off, Smaug comes to his fiery end within ten minutes of the film's beginning, which only serves to highlight the terrible decision to split the film into three and to make the cuts where they did. We then spend roughly forty minutes waiting for the infamous 45 minute battle scene to begin, and then plead for it to end. Unlike the gripping, tense and endlessly entertaining battle sequences in LOTR, these CGI-heavy storms contained no sense of danger or drama. The laws of physics are suspended to the point where most people in the audience were laughing, and the hideous and unexplained fan service gives the impression that the film was directed by a 11 year old boy with some magic markers.

Once again the screenwriters run out of Tolkein to fill 2 and a half hours, so invent their own, and the result is cringe-worthy dialogue about love. At the film's conclusion, barely any character is given any resolution save for Legolas (who doesn't appear in the book at all) and to a degree Bilbo himself.

Martin Freeman performs well as Bilbo, nailing nearly every scene he is in. However, nearly every big name actor in the film collects around 2 minutes of screen time (everyone from Blanchett to Connelly) and most of them feel as if they are going through the motions. Blanchett in particular is given a particularly cringe-worthy part and I hope she was paid well. An unrecognisable and CGI-heavy Billy Connelly gives probably the least inspired performance in the film as Dain, whose role is so heavily reduced that it probably doesn't matter. Ryan Gage's Alfrid is so painfully unnecessary and uninspired that he brings down the movie in every scene he appears.

Each of the film's deaths is anti-climactic and changed for the worse. The Lord of the Rings trilogy features some of the best cinematic deaths ever - Boromir, Theoden, The Witch-King, the Cave Troll, the Balrog/Gandalf. None of these fare even close.

Most unforgivingly, the film pathetically pretends to be Lord of the Rings. We first see hints of it when Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond storm into Dol Goldur and Galadriel reprises her role as Green Witch from Fellowship, but it becomes far more blatant later on. BOFA blatantly steals the LOTR Oscar-winning score, it recreates key scenes from Two Towers but replaces the terrifying Uruk-hai with generic CGI white orcs, it sends Legolas off to find Aragorn (which makes no sense) and the final scene is literally taken word for word from the Fellowship of the Ring.

In Conclusion, please AVOID this film if you have an appreciation for film, Tolkein books, the laws of physics or practical effects. Watch only if you want a demonstration of CGI excess, a Martin Freeman performance (which you can find elsewhere) or are a prisoner whose only escape is by watching this film. Otherwise, please just watch the Lord of the Rings instead.
90 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A well-done send-off to a decent film series
CptMacAwesome10 December 2014
So... That was The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. The final film in Peter Jackson's six-film Middle-Earth saga.

This may just be Jackson's most ambitious film yet. It has to work as a standalone film, it has to be the final part of a trilogy, and it has to be the bridge between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings films. Ambitious?

Let me state for the record that I'm an enormous fan of the Lord of the Rings films. I consider them to be the best trilogy of all time. However, I didn't really have that same vibe with the Hobbit films. I admit, when I heard they would begin making more Middle-Earth films, I was excited. The thought of returning to Middle-Earth was exhilarating.

Then, in December 2012, the first Hobbit film has its release. I was disappointed. It may have been because I didn't know what to expect, but it certainly wasn't what I had hoped it would be. There was too much goofy humor, and it was close to putting me to sleep at times.

Come December 2013, The Desolation of Smaug is released. Looking back, I think that this film was intended to split audiences. This film deviated so much from its source material that, at times, I forgot what I was watching. Suddenly, there was a Dwarf-Elf love story, suddenly Thorin's company of Dwarfs split up, suddenly they're fighting Smaug, and then the film ends.

Now, here we are in 2014, with the conclusion to the Hobbit films, The Battle of the Five Armies. This film literally starts off where Desolation left off, with Smaug destroying Lake- Town. A breathtaking sequence. Beautiful visuals remind us that Thorin's actions will bring some devastating consequences.

However, the sequence loses me a bit by cutting away to the Master of Lake-Town and Alfrid, who I guess were meant to be comic relief, but I ended up wishing they'd die. Not because I didn't like their characters, but because I thought they were so annoying and distracting from the overall experience.

After a very Lord of the Rings-esque recovery scene, we meet Bilbo and Thorin's half company of Dwarfs at Erebor, and you can tell Thorin has changed. He's become sick with the aptly named Dragon Sickness, and Bilbo can tell that something isn't quite right about him. Little do they know that Azog (Who is, like, the evilest thing ever.) is marching towards Erebor, as well as the Elvenking 'Mr. Fabulous' Thranduil, is also moving towards Erebor, resulting in a literal clash of the titans.

What we end up with is an enormous battle, so large in fact, that it shares title with the film. And now is also when Peter Jackson displays his qualities and faults as a film director. He manages to makes his battles very intimate, despite the chaos that you see on the screen. However, he has shown a particular love for goofy stuff, and after three films, he finally almost got it. There still is goofiness for people who crave that, but for the rest of us it comes off as dumb excuses for cheap laughs.

But damn, this film has a lot of CGI. And some of it doesn't even look finished! Some sequences looked like video game cutscenes at best, and at points I had to take off my 3D glasses because I had no idea what was happening. Note to self: Never see a 3D film again.

However, all things must come to an end, and in this film, there are so many cases that are left unsolved, almost to the point where it baffled me. We're introduced to Thorin's cousin, Daín Ironfoot, who I'm pretty sure is a CGI version of Billy Connolly. Suddenly, he's gone, and we're left wondering where he went, and we never see what happens to them again. Same thing happens to Beorn, Tauriel, Bard, and *sigh* Alfrid, just to mention a few.

That's this film's main problem; It opened too many doors without shutting them. Does that analogy make sense? There's almost no resolution to any of the characters except for Bilbo, masterfully portrayed by Martin Freeman, by the way. For a film series called The Hobbit, he doesn't appear nearly enough. I'm looking at you, Tauriel! Get out of the frame!

In conclusion, this is a worthy final installment in The Hobbit Trilogy, and a film I consider to be the best of the three.

Pros: Great acting, well-directed battle sequences, Howard Shore (Need I say more?), good visuals.

Cons: Lack of resolutions, obnoxious characters, too much CGI, some cheesy moments.

All in all a fine holiday film. If you enjoyed the previous Hobbits, you'll like this one.
340 out of 638 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Movie ratings are so subjective...
lightningnbreeze9919 September 2015
Although I really enjoyed the first and second one, I didn't want to watch the third one because pretty much everyone I knew said it was disappointing. Well I watched it today and was so disappointed in myself for giving too much credit to what other people think over what Peter Jackson presented through the film's two predecessors. The film was really fast paced and didn't have any dragging lagging boring scenes. There was always something going on that had my full attention, not to mention very emotional and memorable ones that were hard to find in films that I've watched over the past 2 years. Everyone comes from different backgrounds so obviously not everyone's going to like or dislike the same movie, but I thought this one really had depth and I regret not seeing it in theaters. Peter Jackson's films only get better and better IMO.
50 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I never cared
joestevensus-1072714 October 2019
Watching Lord of the Rings I cared about the hobbits and the companions. Here I never cared about the dozen guys in Halloween costumes or the dwarf who looked like a human leading man but lacked the charisma of Aragorn or the hobbit who looked like a human and lacked the charisma of Frodo.

The movie was actually better than I remembered though I did fast forward through some of the worst of the CGI. Bard was almost interesting and the first hour felt like a movie generally. At some point it became a montage of video game cuts scenes until say the last 20 minutes. When compared to Lord of the Rings, it is amazing to think that the same creative team was behind it. I get the sense that much like Lucas, Jackson got lucky once and never will be able to come close to his masterwork.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Something that rhymes with Hobbit, starts with SH
mladen-191-17969320 December 2014
The third part of the trilogy (?!) is by far the worst ever movie inspired, if inspire is the word to be used in any relation to this movie, by a Talkien book.

If Peter did it for money - I understand. I hope he is happy for taking the money from people earning 250 EUR per month in my country, and that is with the story which is about how gold eventually corrupts everything. In a way, he proved the point, didn't he?

But, if Peter truly believes that THIS was the Hobbit, than something is seriously wrong with his reading and directing skills.

Hollywood at its worst, 144 minutes of violence based on anti-war children book. Could there be a bigger nonsense than this?!

Fortunatelly, this gives an opportunity for someone to make a good Hobbit movie soon.
196 out of 379 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Epic and a groundbreaking finale
priyamunshi20144 December 2014
The movie got plot, action, emotions and above all the panorama of all the other middle earth movies. Martin is great, Richard is amazing as Thorin and every character has performed greatly. A fitting and a worthy bridge between the hobbit and the lord of the rings franchise with an epic and a thrilling battle sequence finish. Here comes The biggest blockbuster this year which is going to revolutionize film making. Watch it in the HFR rate, it is more spectacular and hold the audience to the edge of their seats. Botfa will serve both the fans and others as it got everything a movie must have even though it is high in action. The chemistry between actors is also spot on.
141 out of 268 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
7.5/10
James_De_Bello18 December 2014
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is my favourite movie of all time. But my passion for middle earth doesn't stop there, I am obsessed with this world and in love with the vastness and complexity of its characters and stories. So, did I like the movie? Yes, a lot. Was the movie actually good? That would be more debatable. Before I go into the thick of this review, I just want to remind that I really like the movie, but if it seems that I am highlighting only the negative points it is because they are so frustrating.

Everything that is wrong with this and the other two Hobbit movies are basic filmaking decisions that are wrongly taken. This is to say that Peter Jackson's brilliance remains, he gave proof in all of these movies that he knows how to direct his films. There is nobody in the world that knows how to stage a battle like him. He takes us through amazing visual choices and complex staging flawlessly. The fluency of everything is magnificent, thanks to an amazing pace. Despite me thinking about the wrongs of it, I could not help but be flattered by the sheer epicness of this. I was genuinely on the edge of my seat, I felt amazing tension at times, I really loved the experience and was attached to the very end to the characters. Every one of them. The duels were fantastic, it was all riveting. But there were simply decisions that were made early on that took away from it.

Why are these movies shot digitally! Other than looking very bad it does not make sense. The whole 48fps, 3D, digital shooting was a mistake to being with. These films shot have been shot on film, just like the Lord of the Rings, it would have given them a thousand points more. The whole CGI is just too much. There isn't any of the practicality from the first movies and it shows so bad. Digital masses of everything that have no weight and look way too bad for a 500million$ production. I am convinced that by shooting on film and loosing half of the CGi in favour of practicality would make these three movies ten times better. To this point by removing half of the CGI we could also remove all the extravagant madness that comes from it. There are scenes or monsters in this film that would have never even passed first draft back in the Lord of the Rings, because they are so weird and out of the moment (talking for example about that Legolas moment in this one, those of you who have seen the movie understand me). Other than this you do not waste time on characters we don-t give the F***K about! I am really OK with making three movies out of the Hobbit, you know if it's the last time we visit Middle Earth we might as well throw in everything that Tolkien wrote that could fit in. But lets not waste time on Alfrid or the Governor! You know three two/hour movies could have really made it! Anyways, I don't want to indulge in my frustration too much because it would be a waste of time. Go see the movie if you-re a fan like me, you won-t be disappointed more than you were with the other movies. They are really good, but they could have so easily been f****g great!
130 out of 246 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Politically correct pile of rubbish.
iwantspam29 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In this film you will see: Animated fights containing dwarfs. Animated fights containing elves. Animating fights containing humans. Animated fights containing orcs. Superlarge animated worms which digs through unnoticeable through the ground. Characters you don't care about dieing. Plot devices everywhere. Eagles saving the day... once more... for no reason. Animated animations doing animated things. Legolas breaking even more laws of physics (seriously, that dude must be a god or something.. He jumps like... 30 meter, onto a giant troll which is about 7 meters tall, sticks a knife in his brain, mindcontrols him to knock down a tower which later on becomes a bridge which he will fight another giant orc which will almost die like 123 times and then at the end die once and for all.... lol jk he survived but noes, now he did die and lol we're happy ohno he survived anyway OK now legolas killed him). A love story which feels awfully forced and pointless (srsly... who cares???). Countless forced references to lord of the rings (also sersly... we get it... the hobbit is a prequel, okay, let it go.).

And lots more. I can go on forever. This film was awful, i feel cheated in so many ways.
269 out of 529 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed