"The Hobbit...Battle of the 5 Armies" a review

If you enjoy mindless CGI technology demonstrations, this is your movie; however if you like stories, characters with substance and good films; save your money!! The whole film seemed so artificial and contrived, composed mainly of fight scenes that didn't even try to look "real" ala the Ed Wood style of film making. There were only 4 armies....not 5....

The "Lord of the Rings" franchise took a great story and commercialized it to death. Tolkien must be spinning in his grave.

The movie was based on the final battle though, so i can understand why it would have been quite difficult to develop consistent progression...but i thought Jackson done an alright job with it. Could have done with less fluff, and less Legolas...

My main gripe about the movie was that it didn't tie the conclusion of the battle up adequately enough...the final ending wasn't bad though...

Even though i think this was the worst movie out of the three, i respect the trilogy as Peter Jackson's interpretation of the story. Books do not always translate well into movies, so there are always things that are going to have to be altered.

I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, and i think The Hobbit movies are pretty good too. At least Guillermo del Toro never proceeded with directing it...

I loved the LoR movies, but The Hobbit movies were horrible in comparison. They eliminated the story and then added in hours of bloated CGI. I wanted to love the movies, but they actually got progressively worse. I suppose I am too old to be in the movie going demographic anymore, but I feel as though they destroyed a beautiful story.

a reply to: olaru12

The Eagles I believe were the fifth army

I got about 25 mins into the first part of the trilogy and was deeply dissapointed after reading to book as a child and enjoying both the books and films of LOTR.

You cannot expect to make such a short childrens book into 3 huge films and get something that works in my opinion.

The Lord of the rings was a huge book and the films sometimes felt stretched.

I think for me what lessened the movie in my eyes is the add on's. things that in no way or in no shape happened in the book. and mostly Evangeline Lilly. every time she was on screen I was wincing not because she is bad actor. But everything she did warped the story in a way.

The dwarves not fighting to the death with Thorin Fili Kili dying protecting Thorin was not really made clear in the movie, to many dwarves at the end of the movie. My cousin points out that there are way to many dwarves. In the book it was almost a massacre.

and near the end of the movie they say something that doesnt make sense the elf king tells legolas to seek out Aragon How is Aragon alive in the hobbit if Bilbo ages so much in the Lord of the rings trilogy. and mind you the ring is supposed to give him more longevity.

I can't quite put my finger on it but I did not enjoy this movie as much as the others. It could have something to do with it just starting minutes after the 2nd movie that I should have watched again.

And peter Jackson you couldn't have thrown us a bone and showed us more Beorn. I am sure people who didn't read the book were like. Did I just see a bear?? Was it like only a second?

The Hobbit for a small book is loaded with content regarding middle earth lore and in my opinion if done correctly definitly could have spawned three quality movies.
As for the the latest edition I cannot possibly understand why Jackson made the decision to push the story line in this direction, my only assumption is that he must have speed read the book,lol.
In the book Beorn is the actual character that kills the protagonist Bolg, the eagles do make up the fifth army and the fight is long and bloody.
quick run down on the actual battle if anybody wants a look.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: American-philosopher
I think for me what lessened the movie in my eyes is the add on's. things that in no way or in no shape happened in the book. and mostly Evangeline Lilly. every time she was on screen I was wincing not because she is bad actor. But everything she did warped the story in a way.

The dwarves not fighting to the death with Thorin Fili Kili dying protecting Thorin was not really made clear in the movie, to many dwarves at the end of the movie. My cousin points out that there are way to many dwarves. In the book it was almost a massacre.

and near the end of the movie they say something that doesnt make sense the elf king tells legolas to seek out Aragon How is Aragon alive in the hobbit if Bilbo ages so much in the Lord of the rings trilogy. and mind you the ring is supposed to give him more longevity.

Aragorn is of the dunedain who have numenorean blood so they have much longer life-spans than normal humans. By the time of LOTR, Aragorn is supposed to be 80 or 90 years old but only looks around half that age.

As for the movie, I was really disappointed. WAY too much CGI, the 3d thing ruins the whole feel of the movie, there were times when even the actual actors looked like they were CGI.

The return of the Nazgul was done horribly with ridiculous flat ghost things blinking in and out, that whole scene seemed like something a fan would have made and uploaded on youtube. Sauron was done really badly also IMHO.

There were also many scenes that seemed to be almost carbon copies of scenes from LOTR and overall the feel of the movie was lacking. 3-d is cool for action movies and that type of thing but I feel it totally ruins the mood of these types of movies.

I understand the hobbit, the book, is more child-oriented than LOTR is, but the movie seemed very "kiddy" and felt like I was watching some disney movie. Most people that want to see the hobbit probably have already seen LOTR so I think they made a mistake by not matching the level of maturity that those films had. Splitting it into three movies was also a mistake as I think it would have been much better off as two movies, if they didn't think it was possible to fit it into one.

I never thought the day would come when I was "over" tolkien inspired movies but this seems to have done it. The first hobbit was good, the second not bad, but this was pretty bad and I don't think I'll ever put effort into watching it a second time. LOTR had a certain magic to it that the hobbit trilogy failed miserably at matching, and it seems like they completely gave up when doing the third one.

This whole trilogy has been really painful. I was hoping the third movie would redeem all, but sadly no.

The disappointment started with the way Bard shot down the dragon. No thrush telling him about the chink in the armor. No line about the black arrow - ""Arrow!" said the bowman. "Black arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the Mountain, go now and speed well!" I was really hoping this would stay true, but the whole thing was played out rather meaninglessly. In LOTR they pulled out actual quotes from the book here and there, and it was thrilling. Bah.

"Why does it hurt so much?" Because it wasn't real. Too much focus on added garbage and too much blatant CGI nonsense.

The Hobbit, while short, could have been fluffed into an epic two movie set while still staying true to the storyline. It could have stayed true to it's childlike nature without being a cartoon. It could have been beautiful. It could have been ...

Like a glutton for punishment, I will still buy the extended version set when it comes out, hoping to find some of the heart of the LOTR that perhaps didn't find it's way to the theaters.

a reply to: James1982

But Legolas and Aragon didn't meet until the fellowship right?

can anybody tell me if after the credits or the pictures was there and extra scene at the end? I was hoping they would show some movements by sauron and what was going in mordor. or movement by Gollum even.

Actually Legolas comes to the council to give news that Gollum escaped from their keeping at Mirkwood. It was Aragorn that captured him and brought him there. So it is plausible that they've known each other for a while.

a reply to: eeyipes

okay fair enough I never got that impression that they knew each other

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: eeyipes

okay fair enough I never got that impression that they knew each other

I THINK in the time between the Hobbit and Fellowship Aragorn and Legolas were supposed to have gotten into mischief together so by the time of the LOTR series they were good friends. It's been over a decade since I've read the books so I could be off on that!

Anyone know about Gandalf and Bilbo's relationship in the time between the Hobbit and Fellowship? The movies make if seem as if after Bilbo goes back home at the end of the Hobbit he never sees Gandalf again until the events of Fellowship, years and years later. But in the fellowship Frodo acts as if he knows Gandalf, and the people in the shire act like they know Gandalf too. It's possible that Bilbo told stories of Gandalf to everyone, but in the fellowship movie it really gives the impression that Gandalf has been back to the shire at least a few times since the hobbit, but the hobbit movie makes it seem as if they hadn't seen each other since the end of the hobbit.

As I said I haven't read the books for a long time so I'm really rusty, can anyone confirm that gandalf never went back to the shire until the events of fellowship? If so, was Frodo's apparent friendship with gandalf (and other hobbits disdain for him) supposed to have been due to stories told or just something made up by peter jackson?

The books don't really tell in detail what happened in the inbetween years, except that Gandalf becomes suspicious of the origins of the ring and spends some time researching it. He travels all over Middle Earth for information, including Gondor where he spends some time with Faramir and reading scrolls in the library. He asks Aragorn to track down Gollum, and when he is captured Gandalf interrogates him, then they leave Gollum in Mirkwood for safekeeping. Due to his suspicions about the ring, the Dunedain are asked to watch over the borders of the Shire, and Gandalf pops in on Bilbo every now and then to check on him. So yes, Frodo did know Gandalf before the LOTR, and people of the shire knew of him too, although his visits were infrequent, short and secretive.

I don't remember any specific mention of Legolas being a part of all this, but with the Mirkwood connection it's plausible he had some part. Also, Aragorn was fostered in Rivendell by Elrond from age 2, so he certainly has a strong connection with the elves.