Immediately after the events of The Desolation of Smaug, Bilbo and the dwarves try to defend Erebor's mountain of treasure from others who claim it: the men of the ruined Laketown and the elves of Mirkwood. Meanwhile an army of Orcs led by Azog the Defiler is marching on Erebor, fueled by the rise of the dark lord Sauron. Dwarves, elves and men must unite, and the hope for Middle-Earth falls into Bilbo's hands.
|Title||:||The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies|
|Release Date||:||December 10, 2014|
|Genres||:||Action, Adventure, Fantasy|
|Production Co.||:||WingNut Films, New Line Cinema, 3Foot7, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)|
|Production Countries||:||New Zealand, United States of America|
|Writers||:||J.R.R. Tolkien, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro|
|Casts||:||Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Dean O'Gorman, Aidan Turner, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, Jed Brophy, Mark Hadlow, Adam Brown, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Mikael Persbrandt, Sylvester McCoy, Luke Evans, Stephen Fry, John Bell, Ryan Gage, Peggy Nesbitt, Mary Nesbitt, Manu Bennett, John Tui, Billy Connolly, Benedict Cumberbatch, Kelly Kilgour, Sarah Peirse, Nick Blake, Simon London, Conan Stevens, Allan Smith, Miranda Harcourt, Thomasin McKenzie|
|Plot Keywords||:||corruption, elves, dwarves, orcs, middle-earth (tolkien), hobbit, dragon, battle, unlikely friendship, epic battle, sword and sorcery|
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Reviews
- A big disappointment.by 11 December 2014on
778 out of 972 people found the following review useful:
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.
- I have no idea what happenedby 13 December 2014on
517 out of 685 people found the following review useful:
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.
- Unequivocally Terribleby 27 December 2014on
486 out of 723 people found the following review useful:
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.
- The frustration of the 144 minutesby 14 December 2014on
352 out of 529 people found the following review useful:
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.
- The Hobbit: Battle of the Dwarfs, Elves, Orcs, Humans, Trolls, Giant Worms, Pigs, Goats, Eagles, and Anything Else That Peter Jackson Thought Would Make Moneyby 18 December 2014on
274 out of 378 people found the following review useful:
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 movieeven 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, whensurprise!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.
- That's what happens when you expand a single book into three moviesby 17 December 2014on
410 out of 665 people found the following review useful:
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.
- A horrible failureby 11 December 2014on
287 out of 444 people found the following review useful:
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.
- Tolkien will haunt Peter Jacksonby 10 December 2014on
351 out of 600 people found the following review useful:
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.
- An ambitious project, with a sad resultby 10 December 2014on
229 out of 361 people found the following review useful:
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?"
- One word: travestyby 21 December 2014on
229 out of 386 people found the following review useful:
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.
Original Title : The Hobbit Release Date : November 27, 1977 Popularity : 1.260733 Original Title : Your Highness Release Date : April 8, 2011 Popularity : 2.133503 Original Title : The Return of the King Release Date : May 11, 1980 Popularity : 1.131345 Original Title : The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Release Date : December 18, 2001 Popularity : 7.705777 Original Title : Excalibur Release Date : April 10, 1981 Popularity : 1.728592 Original Title : The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Release Date : November 26, 2012 Popularity : 8.805265