The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) User Reviews

A good if very flawed conclusion to an entertaining if very problematic trilogy

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 20 December 2014]

Sure, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is not going to please die-hard fans of the book (as evident in the reviews here), mainly because of it being the case of three 2 1/2- 3 hour films based on a 300+ book, and it is not a patch on the brilliant Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies has several major problems, mostly similar problems to the previous two films An Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug but more serious for some, but it also like the previous two have a lot of good even great elements too. Judging the trilogy on its own terms without comparison, I still see as a majorly flawed but entertaining trilogy of films.

As said, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is a long way from flawless for similar reasons as before and they have been mentioned a number of times already. There is too much Alfrid and Tauriel and not enough Bilbo, rather criminal as he is the main character or is supposed to be. Unfortunately, neither Alfrid or Tauriel are particularly interesting. Especially Alfrid, who was incredibly obnoxious, not funny in the slightest and wasn't necessary to the story at all, for me his character is the worst thing about the entire trilogy. Tauriel is a little more tolerable, she is at least alluring and brings some heart in places, but like Desolation of Smaug but even worse the romance between her and Kili felt forced and shoe-horned in with some awkward writing. The script is also very messy and the most tonally imbalanced of all three films, there was a real sense one too many times that it didn't know what to do with itself.

There are some thoughtful parts but some parts were in need of more explanation, the romantic parts were sappily written and the corny humour returns and often is so juvenile particularly with Alfrid that it made the humour in An Unexpected Journey more sophisticated in comparison. It also doesn't do very well developing the characters, the only interesting characters were Thorin, Thranduil and to a lesser extent Bilbo. The dwarfs' roles are so insignificant here that you even forget who they are once the film's over, Beorn is wasted (again!), Azog didn't add a whole lot and still looks dodgy, Legolas does a lot of nice fighting skills and has a great scene with Thranduil but little else and the less said about Alfrid the better. The ending did feel abrupt and left more questions than answers. Despite the overlong and bloated consensus, actually if there was one film from the trilogy that could have benefited from being longer to tie up these loose ends it's this one.

However, like the previous two films The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies looks great. It's well shot, maintaining the softer but darker story-book look of Desolation of Smaug, the scenery and sets as always look amazing, the special effects while overused in places have an awe-inspiring effect (Smaug still looks magnificent, best designed dragon on film since Dragonslayer in my opinion) and the make-up is good. Howard Shore's music for Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit has never been less than good, the Lord of the Rings's music actually is incredible and one of the best film scores in recent years, and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is no exception. It isn't perfect, it's too bombastic at times in places that needed the opposite approach and one does miss the Misty Mountains theme from An Unexpected Journey, but it's still very ethereal and haunting. Billy Boyd's The Last Goodbye finishes the film beautifully and provides a strong emotional core.

Peter Jackson's direction is decent but has been much better before, story direction wasn't a strong suit here and some scenes could have benefited from a less is more approach but he still shows mastery of visual style and detail and that he can create mood well. Story-wise The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the least involving, largely because most of the story of the book was covered in the previous two films. But it does move fairly briskly and has several fine moments(if not as much as the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum and Bilbo and Smaug previously), such as Dol Guldur, the scene between Legolas and Thranduil, the thrilling last battle, Galadriel vs. Sauron the fight on top of the frozen waterfall but especially great were the whole brilliantly played dynamic between Bilbo and Thorin, the excitingly tense Laketown sequence and the emotionally beautiful and clever ending scene.

Other than the look of the film, the best thing about The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the acting, which is the area where it is difficult to find fault. Martin Freeman's Bilbo is heartfelt, filled with curmudgeonly charm and grabs your attention every minute he's on screen while Richard Armitage plays Thorin's descending madness and angst with brooding intensity and raw emotion. Lee Pace elevates his material to a higher level and fleshes out Thranduil's moral ambiguity in a way that makes him one of the more memorable supporting actors, Ian McKellen is also perfectly cast as Gandalf and Benedict Cumberbatch is splendidly sinister as the Necromancer and especially Smaug. Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett are great value, Ian Holm makes a lovely appearance, Luke Evans is great and charismatic as Bard and Orlando Bloom and Evangeline Lilly do play reliably though their characters could have been written better. Billy Connolly is a pleasant surprise and is entertaining and Sylvester McCoy isn't a liability either.

On the whole, possibly the weakest of the three(but the three Hobbit films are very close together in rating) but, while with a lot wrong, enjoyable. 7/10 Bethany Cox

A Bit Weak at the End

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 25 December 2014]

I really enjoyed the first two. I don't buy into the criticism that a 300 page book couldn't be made into a full blown trilogy. That said, I found the last episode way too full of battle scenes and gratuitous violence, big armies banging into each other, terrible orcs riding wolves, and the ultimate confrontation. In the process, all the charm that had been built up in the first two movies seemed to be dropped for a bunch of special effects. It starts well with the appearance of Smaug who fulfills his promise of destroying the town. But after that its a hodge-podge of romance and revenge and ultimately death. As this one ended, I literally felt, "Oh, is that the end?" Having read "The Hobbit" a couple of times, I knew what was going to happen, but it didn't quite work the way I thought it would. There was just something empty. Don't get me wrong, I could revel in the effort, but I can't say that this will stay with me for a long time.

The frustration of the 144 minutes

[rooee · 7/10 · 14 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.

The Hobbit The Battle of the Five Armies: Despite being the most poorly received it stands as my favorite

[Platypuschow · 9/10 · 1 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

It's still not "Lord of the Rings," but this is a fitting conclusion for a perfectly good fantasy trilogy

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 8/10 · 24 December 2014]

Did Peter Jackson really just conclude his second Middle Earth trilogy? His take on J.R.R. Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" was a completely exhausting adventure that in many ways feels like seven films, not three, while "The Hobbit" trilogy feels exactly like it is on paper: one straightforward adventure broken into three parts. "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" proves a fitting, exciting conclusion to this particular trilogy, but compared to the conclusion of "The Lord of the Rings," quite frankly and pun intended – it gets dwarfed.

As with "The Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug," "The Battle of the Five Armies" is another beautiful achievement in fantasy filmmaking, with stunning production value and an outstanding director in Jackson. It is creative, humorous, action-packed, brimming with talent and gravitas and so many of the things that made "The Lord of the Rings" the achievement it was. So why was this trilogy less acclaimed and somewhat anti-climactic? Part of this undoubtedly has to do with novelty. We've been to Middle Earth before, we've seen the makeup and the elaborate sets, we know how Jackson navigates a battle sequence. Although "The Hobbit" has new locales and new characters and was the first film series screened with a higher frame rate, it's not as groundbreaking an achievement. Also, that accomplishment set the bar high for "The Hobbit" given how many people have returned from "Lord of the Rings" on camera and off.

Yet the real culprit is story. "The Hobbit" is a children's book, so splitting it into three parts is merely dragging out a streamlined plot of "company seeks treasure and justice, company faces challenges along the way culminating in a mighty dragon, company overcomes odds." The added subplots put more meat on the bones of the three films, especially "Desolation," but did not necessarily add complexity or maturity to it.

"Five Armies" at least does not waste any time. The first act is entirely buildup to the titular battle with plenty of suspense as sides try to negotiate in order to prevent an unnecessary war when a much greater evil is growing in Middle Earth. After Smaug torches Lake-town, Thranduil (Lee Pace) and the Wood-elves march upon Erebor, where Thorin (Richard Armitage) has reclaimed his rightful throne. Thorin, however, is corrupted by his greed, and rather than help the displaced people of Lake-town, grows restless because his treasure's focal point, the Arkenstone, has yet to be found. Bilbo (Martin Freeman), who has been hiding the Arkenstone, sees Thorin's madness could cause a senseless war, which of course it does, only the battle takes a different shape when Azog the Defiler and his orc army arrives.

So corruption and selfishness become dominant themes of the film until the final battle, which doesn't disappoint in scale, entertainment, or visual effects. What it doesn't do, however, is command a vested interest from the audience. And when the larger battle halts entirely in order to follow the main characters, it hurts the larger overall narrative, or rather, calls attention to the fact that there really isn't one at this point in the story other than "kill the orcs." Yes, the fate of Middle Earth is at stake, but we already know how things will ultimately play out.

Someone who has never seen the films watching all six in order could be something special, though. "Five Armies" does make "The Hobbit" trilogy a rather strong bridge to "Lord of the Rings," even in its last shot. In a way, Jackson acknowledges that that tale is the bigger story, the one that matters most. The parting message is kind of like "we hope you enjoyed these three fun movies, but 'The Lord of the Rings,' that's where it's really at." As moviegoers who witnessed "Lord of the Rings," this doesn't quite work for us, because we wanted to go back to Middle Earth for something more, to build on the experience of "Lord of the Rings." "The Hobbit," however, like any good prequel, is the foundation, not the next step, and because the story is so simplistic, it doesn't quite do enough for us on its own.

"The Hobbit" is a fun, small adventure filled with courage, danger, evil and love set in the world of "Lord of the Rings," and "Five Armies" is that big scene at the end of the story where everything comes to boil. That's the gist of it. The rest is Jackson and his extraordinary cast and crew bringing that elaborate world back to life for us to enjoy one more time.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

I wish I could love this movie more.

[bjoernidler · 6/10 · 24 June 2021]

I'm a big fan of both the LOTR and Hobbit books. I also love the LOTR-movies, they're among my favourites. So I thought hard why it's impossible for me to also love the Hobbit movies. I really tried to! All the right ingredients are there. But I can't. And here's why.

I don't have a problem with the inaccuracy and all the additional stuff that Jackson and his team put in the movie. I know that movies are always different from the books. If you want the book, read it and don't watch the movie.

If we're fair, the LOTR movies also took certain liberties, one of the most obvious being Frodo's age when he leaves the Shire. Tom Bombadil's part of the story was cut completely. You can't even find him in the Extended Cuts (which I generally recommend, even for the Hobbit movies).

My problem is the inconsistency of the storytelling in the Hobbit movies.

It was Peter Jackson's goal to link all six movies closely together. So he chose to transform the children's book into movies that should feel kind of similar in tone. And I think that is where he failed. Let me give some examples.

1.) Comedy I think this is due to make the movie kid-friendly. There are scenes in this movie that are supposed to make you laugh But it feels forced. In the LOTR the humour felt more heartfelt and therefore more real (Gimli, Merry and Pippin). Here, the humour is sometimes painfully silly (Alfrid, some actions of the dwarves during battle...)

2.) Serious stuff On the other hand this movie wants to be quite dark and grisly. There is a lot at stake here. I mean, look at the title of the movie! Thorin fights for his soul. We deal with heavy loss for everybody. And that's great! But it doesn't work tonally! Think of the biggest battles of LOTR (Helm's Klamm and Pelennor fields). Those battles were bad-ass! We were invested with the characters because we feared that everybody could die. It was just a terrible battle.

In this movie, the battle sometimes feels serious, then we get some "funny" deaths and decapitations, creative ways to kill orcs, the more serious stuff, sometimes more brutal than LOTR, more funny stuff... As I said: Inconsistent!

3.) Characters vs. Super heroes

I can't get invested in the characters here, because they don't feel real. They feel like super heroes!

In the LOTR, Legolas and the whole fellowship had to work together to kill ONE cave troll in the mines of Moria. Here, Legolas single-handedly kills about 400 orcs sometimes in gravity defying manner. Did he lose these moves after this movie before meeting again at Elrond's council in LOTR? Maybe he got old?

Somewhere between Hobbiton and Erebor also the dwarfves have developed super powers. When about 12(!) dwarves finally join, they turn the battle of 10000s of warriors around. Come on!

In the LOTR, Aragorn needed an army of THE DEAD to defeat the orcs. Here, some motivated dwarves are enough to turn the tide.

I mean, these are some dwarves and not the Avengers! So this makes it hard for me to root for them because they don't seem real. I was surprised that some of them actually COULD die.

4. Over the top

Last point. In LOTR, there were awesome set pieces and action scenes. Why were they great? Because they held the balance between being outrageous and realistic.

In this movie, everything is over the top. Bigger is better, right? No, it's not. We're invested in action that at least FEALS realistic in the context of the movie. The set design, the costumes, the details, everything feels real, everything draws you in. But the action doesn't. The action screams 'Hey, look at this! Can you believe that? Look what cool stuff BArd/Legolas/Tauriel/the dwarves are doing!' The setting is absolutely realistic, the action isn't for the most part.

So, there are some awesome scenes in this movie, as in the other Hobbit movies. I especially liked some smaller, emotional scenes like Thorin fighting with dragon sickness or Gandalf and Bilbo silently smoking a pipe in the aftermath of the battle. But as I tried to explain, the movie is so unbalanced and inconsistent in its story-telling, too much like the Avengers and too over the top to make me love it. Although I really tried and watched it several times now.

An underrated finale to the Hobbit Trilogy

[willsandy · 8/10 · 22 December 2020]

As someone who grew up as a big fan of the book, as well as the LOTR films, I was sceptical when it was announced the 300ish page book would be stretched into three (very long) films. However, I feel like I'm in the minority here as I really enjoy this trilogy and by extension, this film.

While I agree that the third film is overly dependant on mediocre CGI and some of the characters (*cough* Tauriel) aren't especially well written, I still really like this film.

In contrast to An Unexpected Journey, it seems to drag less and have a more mature and darker atmosphere, with the exception of the scenes with Alfrid and The Master.

Another unpopular opinion: I really think the character development in this film is quite good. Thorin's slow descent into madness and his subsequent redemption is well handled and Bilbo's moral dilemma of whether or not to let Thorin have the Arkenstone is certainly interesting.

Also, I cannot stress enough how much I love some of the action in this film. From the stunning opening scenes of Smaug's destruction to the huge central battle. Also, why the hell did they delete the Gandalf rescue scene from the original cut, it is dare I say, one of my all time favourite scenes from the franchise and fills in several plot holes in the original release.

Overall, while nowhere near to the heights of the original LOTR trilogy, in my opinion, this is still a very solid film. While it's generally thought to be the weakest film in the series (although I probably prefer it to An Unexpected Journey), this is by no means a bad film, which is really a testament to the franchise as a whole.

(That was a lot of writing... I'm sorry)

A clumsy ending

[siderite · 6/10 · 25 December 2017]

The Battle of the Five Armies title is a great exaggeration of what an army entails. The movie is about more or less a skirmish with some rather imaginative weaponry. The plot goes sideways and after two three hours long previous films we get a two hours and a half mess that is half completely over the top battle scenes and the other half people talking out of their asses. It is pure chaos, where orcs are either mighty unbeatable beasts bred for war or cardboard armor wearing morons easily defeated by fishermen's wives and children, as the action demands. Things start to remind of Pirates of the Caribbean, and not only because it's the same actor doing kind of the same stuff.

There is even a prolonged ending with Bilbo Baggings returning to the Shire, almost as if wanting to undo the good idea in the Lord of the Rings movies in which they removed the boring book ending with Saruman taking refuge in the Shire, and that portrays hobbits as petty bureaucratic creatures, rather than kind and resilient and courageous as declared everywhere else in the films. If I enjoyed the first two movies and wanted to see how it will all end, the third was a ridiculous failure, trying to do too much with too little: making a country brawl look like an epic battle, keeping the lighter more children oriented tone while killing characters and trying to express deeper heroic emotions, trying to somehow raise on the same level three organized military groups and a bunch of fishermen and animals and tying up lose ends that were there only to make this a trilogy rather than a pair of decent movies.

It is now when all the jokes about the eagles made in good fun in the first two movies (and in Lord of the Rings as well) turn smirky, when the only logic to the plot and action seems to be the panic of production companies trying to achieve their financial goals rather than tell a good story. It is here where the disappointment that everyone talks about when referring to The Hobbit movies raises its ugly head and grows on the small mistakes of the previous two movies. So in order to enjoy the trilogy, one must somehow detach themselves from the ending and see it as an imperfect finish to an otherwise fun movie, maybe imagine their own.

Nice finish to an Over Extended Film

[MennoMan · 9/10 · 17 December 2014]

It is without question The Hobbit did not need to be made into a three part film series... After all, given the book size of the Hobbit Compared to The Lord of the Rings... The Hobbit Should have been workable into one extended Movie or two at the most. If Jackson would have sun the story of The Lord of the Rings like he did the Hobbit, We would still be waiting for the last two movies in his twelve part series...

So with that off my chest..

This still is a TRUE CLASSIC FILM to be placed in the same titles as The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. The Cinematography was excellent. The special effects pretty much flawless and acting excellent. The Story was intriguing if not a bit over-told with characters and plots a bit beyond the book. However, even these over embellishings are happily accepted. In fact, now that the series is over, I wish Jackson would have made a longer Lord of the Rings. Is simply can not get enough.. It is over! Soon to be delegated to Blue Ray, then sweep to the DVD bin at WalMart along with the rest of our favorites. Enjoy the series now... It will be a long time before you see another classic like Tolkien on the Big Screen.

Jackson delivers industrial quantities of Hobbit

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 15 December 2014]

After Smaug the dragon goes mental, assorted groups of orcs, elves, men, dwarfs and a hobbit battle endlessly with each other for reasons which are far from obvious.

With the shortest film in the set, Peter Jackson's lengthy love affair with Middle earth draws to a close, so how do I feel about it? I feel pretty much as I did about The Hobbit parts 1 and 2, actually: whereas The Lord Of The Rings married epic with intimate in both the books and, fittingly, the film adaptations, the relatively small story of The Hobbit, feels bloated by the gargantuan epic Jackson has made of it. I enjoyed it, but I looked at my watch, often, during the extensive battle sequences which fill the bulk of the latter part of this movie. As Jackson's King Kong demonstrated, he isn't always able to tell that More does not necessarily equal Better. This trilogy has been crafted with care and skill and with a complete inability to apply the editor's red pencil when necessary. The story, such as it is, takes a remote second place to the eye candy on offer.

Which is not to say that it doesn't have its moments - it does. The opening sequence of Smaug exacting revenge is quite wonderful, there are highlights among the action, the individual performances from Freeman, McKellen, Pace and some of the others are excellent, and the closing sequence in the Shire is quite good fun, especially the reappearance of familiar LotR music cues.

But against that, we have CGI which is sometimes shockingly unconvincing (Smaug is magnificent, whereas the ballista trolls and Thranduil's elk and Billy Connolly's mount, for instance, aren't), a mixed-race romance which seems entirely out of place, an orc villain who doesn't seem important enough for the emphasis he is given, a batch of featured dwarfs who continue to be indistinguishable and unmemorable (apart from the Irish one, the Scottish one and the handsome one) and, worst of all, an omnipresent and hideously unfunny "comic relief" slimebag who never gets the comeuppance he has been asking for throughout the movie.

I also fear that future generations, watching these three overblown films as a lead in to Lord Of The Rings, simply won't bother with the (chronologically) second, and far superior, trilogy.

I quite enjoyed it, and I shall no doubt watch it again, more than once, but I shall do so without the passion with which I still watch the LotR films because, if I am honest, these films have been something of a disappointment.

one more time for middle earths battle of 5 armies for one mountain

[lark40 · 10/10 · 18 December 2014]

Alright, let's get down to it, The Hobbit - Battle of the Five Armies!!

This is peter Jackson's at his best which was inspired from Tolkien's works. a very busy action packed movie which is the leanest of all middle earth film it comes in at 2hrs11mins with Bilbo's last hurray to build up the tension with other dwarfs 3d is brilliant as you see the dragon I didn't see the last one in 3d so I let myself down as I would have loved more off the dragon in 3d with king Thorin and the rest of the 13 to help claim the lost city eirbor which had its dangers and very perilous situations they had along the way to this is there last stand after the dragon left the lonely mountain valuables behind so they could defend it but with the mountain comes a responsibility to for friendship, love despair and hope with Bilbo journey helps others to believe and not get caught in greed which could lead every one into danger but any way with the lake town we see from the last film the dragon was on his way there we see a very scary situation with these scenario this part has amazing 3d effects so we see Gandalf the Grey withering and the great sauron with his solders on top of the dark prison being help by a few old middle earths friends 3d is amazing here but scary with the all seeing eye from mount doom. so as the city of eirbor is getting reddy for treasure hunting there is a big battle coming with orcs elves birds and loads of humans and elves to fight this turns in to a a hour long battle but not boring it keeps things fresh as legolas and his girlfriend keep fighting in trilling battle but there is a twist in hers that I wont say but its very good fighting scenes its a thrilling finally of one last time I really liked the inclusion of Legolas and and how PJ cleverly linked 'The Hobbit' as a prequel to the LOTR series ian mckellan is good but he didn't get much time like LOTR but this wasn't about his journey that the hobbits and I really would watch it again, for the visuals and the fact that it is the last goodbye to Middle Earth 10/10 a classic old school film for the ages and this film should take in America for 3days about 85million which is would be a record opening for both LOTR and the hbbits if people go see the bridge between the two tolkins books one last time

Peter Jackson's Epic Six-Movie Tolkien Series Ends with a Disinterested Shrug

[brando647 · 6/10 · 18 June 2016]

Finally, Bilbo Baggins returns to the Shire. After three bloated movies originating from around 300 pages of content, we've reached the end and I'm so glad to be done with it all. After a total of six movies set in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth, I'm totally fine with never hearing the word Hobbit again. His HOBBIT series concludes with the grand finale, THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES. When we last saw Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), and their company of dwarven companions, they had been left to gape helplessly as the dragon Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) got tired of chasing them through the mountain kingdom of Erebor and took to the skies to burn neighboring Laketown to cinders. This movie rejoins the action at that very moment, abandoning the dwarfs to focus on Smaug and local hero Bard (Luke Evans), who chooses to engage the dragon. Ten or so minutes later, the whole dragon plot that kept us trudging to the theater for these movies is resolved and we spend the next three hours on the titular battle. You see, Thorin immediately begins to succumb to what the dwarfs call "dragon-sickness" and what us normal folk would call "greed". He's got his rightful kingdom back with more gold than he could ever need, and now he refuses to share it with anyone. The men of Laketown, led by Bard, come knocking in hopes of at least getting some gold for their dwarven-caused dragon troubles (i.e. the incineration of their entire town) and Thorin refuses. Even the woodland elves of Mirkwood Forest come stomping in with an army to demand a share. And, of course, the orc commander Azog has unfinished business with Thorin, having devoted two full previous movies to hunting the would-be dwarven king in hope of ending his bloodline. So all of these armies converge on the front lawn of Erebor for…wait for it…the battle of the five armies.

Six movies deep into this franchise and I can safely say THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES is my least favorite of the bunch. I was so burned out on Middle Earth by the time this movie came around that I refused to see it in the theater. It's the only Peter Jackson/Tolkien movie that I never saw in the theater. I didn't bother watching it until the extended editions were released. In a movie that already feels like 90% filler, I can only imagine what had been added after the theatrical release. Sadly, most of this movie is utterly forgettable. The visual effects are impressive and the 45 minute final battle sequence certainly looks good, but did we need any of this? I don't think so. And, come on, 45 minutes is just too much. That's 45 minutes of CGI swarms of dwarfs, elves, orcs, and men hacking and slashing at each other and the occasional diversion to see what our heroes are doing so the story can keep pushing on. This means that every so often we'll break way so we can see…I don't know…Legolas (Orlando Bloom) hanging upside down from a giant bat monster while swinging his arms wildly to slice and dice a bunch of cartoon monsters that aren't really there. If I sound biased against this movie, it's because I believe its existence to be completely unnecessary and the whole exercise of creating it a gratuitous waste of time for Jackson and his crew. Tolkien's tale could've been handled in two better-paced films. I've been against the heavy use of CGI in these movies since AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY was released and this film just shoves it in my face with unmercifully long sequences of those same hated CG effects bouncing off each other. Would it have killed them to use some of those amazing practical costume/makeup effects for orcs in the foreground to give it an added sense of realism?

THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES is only really interesting for the first act and the final act. Everything in the middle could've been trimmed generously. Unfortunately, when the big tragic moments begin to happen in the final act of the battle, I'm so worn out from the battle itself that they hold no weight. By that point, I'm just wishing we could skip to the end. THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES isn't a horrible film but I can't imagine it rising to the top and becoming anyone's favorite Jackson/Tolkien movie. It's got some nice stuff in there. Martin Freeman is still perfect for the role of Bilbo, even if he has nothing to do here. I loved the addition of Billy Connolly to the cast as Thorin's cousin Dain and I loved his behind-the-scenes interviews even more, where he admits that he never cared for Tolkien's work and freely mocked anyone who did. Smaug is still awesome for what little time we're given with him, and Jackson even found a way to shoehorn Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, and Christopher Lee into the series one last time. If I remember the novel correctly, Tolkien spares us the full details of the battle, choosing to knock Bilbo out when the action starts and filling him in later. In my ideal cut of Jackson's HOBBIT series, we'd get the same treatment. Bilbo is knocked unconscious and the movie would fade out; we fade in, the battle is over, the surviving characters fill us in on what happened in the form of a flashback montage. Keeps the movie a pleasant length and spares us from battle fatigue. In retrospect, I still enjoy Jackson's HOBBIT movies. The first one is enjoyable enough and was actually pretty solid. This third one though…ouch. An epic six movie series and it ends with a shrug. That's the real disappointment.

The weakest of all Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations

[cricketbat · 5/10 · 31 October 2018]

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the weakest of all Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations. Even though this is the shortest of the Middle-earth movies, the story drags on as if it were the longest. But I guess that's what you get when you stretch out one book into three movies. In addition, the battle scenes are so computer generated that they look like in-game cinematics. It's a shame that this film series had to end on this note.

A Fitting Tribute to JRR Tolkien's Middle Earth

[prospectus_capricornium · 9/10 · 14 December 2014]

'The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies" roars with an electrifying opening sequence depicting Smaug setting Laketown ablazed in an apocalyptic fire. Right there, Jackson's mastery of visual spectacle is already screaming, but as the events unfold, the script starts losing track. In the wake of its phenomenal visual achievement, 'The Battle of Five Armies' fails to deliver its narrative as powerfullly as it should be. There are more than enough moments when weak dialogues and one liners fall beneath the overwhelming action-packed CGI-rendered sequences.

Peter Jackson's soaring vision of J.R.R Tolkien's Middle Earth remains unfazed by time, if anything it only exceeds past any cinematic triumph measured by ambitious visualizations. While its true "Battle of Five Armies" has almost nothing new to deliver, there are quite enough heart-stirring sequences to boast, particularly the death scenes of Kili and Thorin. Amidst of narrative shortcoming, Martin Freeman's exceptional Bilbo Baggins shines, there are moments when he seems to be playing a supporting character, but on his owned sequences, he dominates, along with the dwarfs that share their deserved spotlight. It is during in those little moments that the film is saved from being drowned in its own grand visual ambitions, filled by terrifying creatures and jaw dropping sequences "The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies" is a visual extravaganza beyond measure. It is not devoid of shortcomings, but in general, this film can never be placed below exceptional, a fitting closing tribute to one of the greatest stories ever told. This movie deserves 9 of my 10 stars.

Far From A Fitting Conclusion. Disappointment In Every Sense.

[CinemaClown · 18 December 2014]

Here we are at last, at the end of all things! What was originally envisioned as a two-part film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit eventually finishes as another trilogy in the Middle- Earth saga despite the fact that unlike The Lord of the Rings, this novel could've easily worked out as a single feature & certainly wasn't vast enough to warrant three films; a mistake that became pretty evident when the first chapter was criticized by many for its bloated length.

For me however, An Unexpected Journey was still an impressive commencement of The Hobbit film series for it closely followed the events of the book, kept the changes within the realms of Tolkien's spirit & was a largely satisfying cinematic experience despite its obvious flaws. The journey downward began with The Desolation of Smaug which absolutely slaughtered the novel in a manner that was plainly insulting to Tolkien & added even more insult to injury by abruptly ending at one of cinema's most frustrating cliffhangers.

And so after a wait of another year, we come to the third & final instalment of The Hobbit film series but instead of a satisfying closure, what we get is a terribly written & horribly executed premise inflated to epic proportions which, apart from confirming that expanding this single-film story into three features was indeed a stupid move by the filmmakers, also brings the Middle-Earth franchise to its all-time low for there is nothing in this second sequel that works out in its favour.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies begins with what should've been the ending of The Desolation of Smaug but wraps up the fiery wrath of Smaug even before the film's subtitle appears on the screen. The plot then follows Bilbo Baggins & the Company of Dwarfs who after reclaiming their kingdom prepare for an impending war against elves n men who just want their share of the treasure but when a greater threat arrives at the Lonely Mountain, they all are left with a choice to unite against the common enemy or be destroyed

Helmed by Peter Jackson for one last time, the final chapter in the Middle-Earth saga is also the weakest as the director completely abandons all the core elements of storytelling to rely solely on a series of eye-popping visuals & CGI-laden battles to carry its story forward. The screenplay continues the slaughter of its source material by stuffing the narrative with needless fillers while the remaining contents of the book are either presented in an overly exaggerated fashion or discarded in its entirety.

Coming to the performances, it's only Martin Freeman & Ian McKellen as Bilbo Baggins & Gandalf the Grey, respectively, who leave a better impression than the others but then their role is somewhat limited in the finished product. The most unexpected disappointment comes from Richard Armitage who played Thorin Oakenshiled amazingly well in the previous two chapters yet here he seems pretty much clueless for the most part & delivers a laughable performance.

The supporting characters are handled so poorly by the writers that even after three films, which totals over eight hours of runtime, many might still struggle in recalling the correct names of all the dwarfs. The first half of the film also deals with the corrupting power of greed which is pretty ironic considering that the very existence of this third chapter is a result of greed on the part of its creators. The only thing that doesn't disappointment in any manner is Howard Shore's score.

On an overall scale, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is far from a fitting conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy & is a disappointment in every manner. Poorly directed, terribly written, needlessly bloated, overflowing with excessive CGI, lacking in substance & featuring some cringeworthy performances, there's so much one can complain about this finale but where this film or The Hobbit trilogy as a whole fails is exactly where The Lord of the Rings triumphed gloriously; its faithfulness to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

I'm not sure why this one takes the most flak.

[CubsandCulture · 8/10 · 28 September 2022]

I think this film goes a long way to explain why Jackson and company decided to split the novel into (at least) 2 films. The material after Smaug's death is grim, especially compared to the rest of it. And given the 3 key character deaths it makes sense that you would want to isolate this section and flesh it out. This is especially true if you are an action filmmaker. Character deaths should have dramatic meaning beyond whatever linguistic obsession Tolkien had. A character we have come to know going mad needs time to breath.

In some ways this is most complete Middle Earth film Jackson ever made. It stands on its own far more than the other 5 films in the series. It feels like an episode unto itself. I rather like as a experience because it is one of few times I have ever been able to follow a battle tactically in cinema with ease. It works as a story of a battle.

So yes like the rest of the Hobbit films this is too long-awkwardly trying to split the difference between the novel and the LOTR films. It is filled with redundancies and bizarre additions, i.e. Alfred But I think it has a lot of great moments-the chariot sequence is really great.

It never captures the charm of the first hour or so of film 1 but it avoids the bottom of the barrel that is the climax of film 2.

Not the best one out of the trilogy but still okay

[deloudelouvain · 7/10 · 3 June 2015]

I am not going to say anything about Tolkien or whatever like some other angry reviewers because I don't care. I will never get why people have to compare a book and a movie. We all know a book is almost always better then a movie so why in the hell if you read the book you still want to watch the movie that you know won't be as good? I didn't read the book, so I just watched the movie. It's for sure not the best one out of the trilogy but I was still entertained though and that's what it's all about to me. Okay sometimes I thought things could have been much better, like the battle between a couple of hundred thousand creatures without or almost without a single drop of blood spilled. But saying this movie is a complete disaster is ridiculous. I knew what to expect and that's what I got. Nothing more, nothing less. To me those movies are just too long, and that's about the only critique I'm going to write about. For the rest I enjoyed the fantasy world of the different kind of creatures. If you hate fantasy just don't watch this kind of movie then.

Very good but not LOTR The Return of the King

[abisio · 8/10 · 17 December 2014]

The third part of the Hobbit (The Battle of the Five Armies) it just takes a few pages of the Hobbit book. When you consider that the full book is about 150 pages and you can read it in 3 or four hours; it is difficult to understand how can Jackson made 7.5 hours trilogy (about 9 on the extended cut). Well basically adding characters and secondary events to the main story. Was that good ? It was not bad; but a little less could have been better.

As a book; The Hobbit is really a kids tale. There is no much character development; the message is quite simple and the end is somewhat sad. There is some mention of the ring but it is not a prequel to Lord of the Ring (or at least it was not originally conceived that way).

The in itself covers three situations/action settings; the attach and killing Smaug; the battle of the five armies and the end which is basically a farewell.

I was surprised the first set was so contained. It is spectacular but not that impressive.

The second set; the battle is more spectacular but still not impressive; until the end; Two man to man (or man to Orc and Elf to Orc) fights (not part of the book) are far more suspenseful and touching than the rest of the movie.

I believe Jackson got tired (or out of ideas) on those massive battles. He kept them for the public; but he was far more interested in the love triangle between Dwarf, Elf and Elf.

In brief; it is not boring at all and worth the price of the ticket; besides these two sagas took too many years to be made right.

Too much already

[RNMorton · 6/10 · 20 December 2014]

The gems in this movie, the best of the Hobbit three, can't offset the ridiculous running time and pointless filler added to artifically expand the running time. The Hobbit, much shorter than any of the Trilogy, only had one full time movie in it. Somewhat fortunately a lot of the meat of the real story was left for this finale. I thought a lot about this - this is the tell: in the Lord of the Rings movies there were extended battle sequences but not extended personal battle sequences, which sort of exposes the attempt to fill the time; I found some of these personal battles tedious. In the LOTR movies the problem was cramming all of the material into the allotted time. Here it's the opposite, so we see too many individual fight sequences which last too damn long. Dain of the dwarfs was spectacular and Thranduil king of the Woodelves very effective. The battle svenes are impressive when kept short. But the source material just isn't up to the LOTR and Jackson certainly couldn't make up the difference.

A fitting end to an epic journey

[Figgy66-915-598470 · 10/10 · 12 December 2014]

12 December 2014 Film of Choice at The Plaza Dorchester this afternoon - The Hobbit - The Battle of The Five Armies. This is the long awaited conclusion of the Hobbit Trilogy, and very welcome it was too. Epic battles, beautiful scenery, and one last chance to see the excellent Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Not as long as the other two this was nevertheless a fitting end to our journeys in Middle Earth. The film gathers in all the loose ends and sets you up nicely to re watch Lord of The Rings. Richard Armitage brings real passion to Thorin, a character wrestling with himself, and railing against the world. Ian McKellen has some great facial expressions which only enhance the mystique that surrounds Gandalf, and it was sad to say goodbye to the band of dwarfs we have been following for so long. Legolas was leaping around as only Legolas can and If I had to go into battle on a mountain......I'd like to be riding a goat. I only saw 2D today, this going to be awesome in 3D.

A decent, if problematic, final chapter for the Hobbit trilogy.

[shawneofthedead · 7/10 · 16 December 2014]

There's simply no denying it: The Hobbit is no The Lord Of The Rings. While cast and production values remain absolutely top-notch, the first two films in the Hobbit trilogy have proved disappointing, especially when assessed against the sublime trio of movies that first transported us to Middle-earth. It's evident that the slim narrative of J.R.R. Tolkien's source novel - even when supplemented with details and backstory from his Appendices - simply doesn't merit an expansion into three unnecessarily protracted movies. Strictly speaking, The Battle Of The Five Armies suffers from many of the same problems as its predecessors. But director Peter Jackson proves once again that he's a dab hand at crafting epic battles underpinned by love, loyalty and sacrifice. As a result, the final Hobbit film is (more or less) the best of the trilogy, although it still pales in comparison to what comes after it.

Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the dwarven company of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) watch in horror as Smaug the dragon (Benedict Cumberbatch) lays waste to Laketown. When Bard (Luke Evans) bravely manages to take the dragon out, Thorin regains the mountain kingdom of Erebor by default. He succumbs swiftly to the 'Dragon Sickness' - a hungering greed to keep the treasures of Erebor all to himself, refusing a claim from elven king Thranduil (Lee Pace) and rewards for Bard and the now-homeless humans. As a battle brews between dwarfs, elves and men, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) returns from Dol Goldur with news that entire battalions of orcs are on the march as well - signs of an incipient evil that might soon sweep Middle-earth again.

Truth be told, The Battle Of The Five Armies doesn't have quite the sense of magic and poetry that so effortlessly infuses the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Indeed, the script is peppered with simplistic dialogue, with many characters forced to navigate entire chunks of exposition or deliver not particularly witty one-liners. Bilbo and Gandalf, for instance, spend a great deal of the raging battle standing still and expounding on what's going on around them. It also seems remarkably odd for a film weighted down with so many characters, including wholly invented ones like lovelorn elf Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), that so much screen time is devoted to Alfrid (Ryan Gage). The vile right- hand man of Laketown's Master (Stephen Fry) is clearly meant to provide comic relief now that the dwarfs are caught up in emotional turmoil of their own, but winds up annoying rather than entertaining the audience.

And yet, Jackson somehow manages to salvage the film from itself, in no small part because of the engrossing battle scenes and some deft character work from his stellar cast. The climactic battle stretches well over an hour, as the upper hand shifts from orcs to everyone else and back again, but Jackson keeps the action and drama coming thick and fast. Waves of orcs slam into ragged battle lines of men, ranks of elves swell and rise, and Thorin wavers between greed and honour as he decides whether to plunge into war or stay safely sequestered within the impregnable walls of Erebor. Many of the battle sequences may be technically extraneous, but it's hard to care too much when Legolas (Orlando Bloom) - scoring his requisite action-hero moment - dances his way to safety over a collapsing bridge and takes out an orc or two while doing so.

Jackson's cast - actors we've spent so much time with over the past decade - rises remarkably to the occasion. There's stellar support, as always, from fan favourites like McKellen and Cate Blanchett, whose Galadriel goes briefly supernova in a confrontation which foreshadows the darkness that will befall Middle-earth come The Lord Of The Rings. Armitage lends considerable depth and weight to Thorin, who could easily lose a great deal of audience sympathy when he burrows further into himself and starts losing (and banishing) friends. Pace exudes a solemn, almost malevolent dignity as Thranduil, one which he tempers with a surprising amount of heart as well. For a brief, touching moment, the imperious king finds within himself the father he has forgotten how to be. Even Lilly, who is saddled with a made-up character and fledgling, forbidden romance with dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner), miraculously mines some genuine emotion from a fairly poorly-conceived and utterly fictitious love story.

The true triumph of the Hobbit franchise, however, remains Freeman. He's playing the same archetype that Elijah Wood did in The Lord Of The Rings - the homebody Hobbit who's small in stature yet casts an enormous shadow - but makes it feel thoroughly fresh. Freeman's Bilbo is equal parts heart, humour and hero, and he makes it easy to see why Gandalf holds hobbits in such high esteem. Freeman's scenes with Armitage, rife with paranoia and tension on Thorin's part, are some of the best in the film, with a huge emotional payoff at the end.

With The Battle Of The Five Armies, the curtain really does fall at last on Jackson's vision of Middle-earth. In the past three years, it's been - frankly - a pretty bumpy journey. In too many ways, the Hobbit trilogy recalls but never quite manages to recapture the indescribable magic of The Lord Of The Rings. That's true of the final film in the franchise as well. But it certainly comes closer than either of its two predecessors to truly making Middle-earth live again. The film's final scenes quite literally bring everything home, and in that final swell of music and emotion, throw open the doors to the epic world that Jackson first invited us into over a decade ago.

Great Ending to the Middle-Earth Saga

[LeDentalPlaque · 10/10 · 24 December 2014]

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was one of the best film series ever to be made in terms of its epic proportions, grandiose score, intricate weaving of stories, and CGI. Peter Jackson did a great job interpreting the three Tolkien novels and putting them up on the big screen, a great feat done with great success.

When I heard that the Hobbit, originally one Tolkien book, was going to be split into three films just like the Lord of the Rings, I was surprised and worried about how they could expand one novel into 3 full-length feature films. So going in to the movies, I did not expect them to follow the book 100% - I expected changes to be made and additions inserted here and there to provide more excitement or emotion to the story.

I have heard a lot of people write and complain about how bad the last Hobbit was, but given the framework of its development and that it was supposed to be much longer than anyone expected, people should not be going into this moving expecting it to be a great nod to Tolkien, but rather one for Peter Jackson. He wanted it to be longer, he wanted to add his own creative flare to it, and he did.

I found that the last Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies, was a great film. Obviously, it doesn't stick to Tolkien's Hobbit in its entirety and makes links to the original Lord of the Ring trilogy, but overall, given what Peter Jackson was trying to accomplish, he did a wonderful job. Hobbit 3 had a lot of epic battle scenes, mixed in with a variety of moving, elegant pieces of music done by Howard Shore. It had a mixture of drama, action, adventure, romance, and magic - all of them parts that can make up a great film.

If you've been following along with the Hobbit trilogy and enjoyed it, you'll find this to be a great ending to the story and well worth your money at the cinema. If you were already doubting the first two movies and didn't find them particularly enjoyable, then this may not be for you.

However, as a stand-alone film, the story and the score are enough to earn it a 10/10 for me. Overall, it's a highly enjoyable movie with lots of action and adventure, and it has a memorable score.

Not that great...and it doesn't age well

[sir_brettley · 6/10 · 4 November 2017]

The conclusion of the book is pretty satisfying. The movie, not so much. One of the things I hate about "modern" movies is the way that game scenes are built into the movie. It's obvious which ones will be part of games and it detracts from the film.

The invented characters and scenes do not add to the story in this movie. In fact, they take away from the main plot: absolute wealth corrupts as much as absolute power does.

In the book the battle is well-written. The "armies" are actually more like large companies and the battle takes place in front of the mountain. In the movie, the armies are vast (especially the Orcs, who somehow have tens of thousands of soldiers and move them across vast tracts easily...during daylight no less) and spread out into the ruined town of Dale and the surrounding mountains.

The result is a haphazard mess that Jackson admits he just "winged". He should have spent more time making two well-written movies instead of three rushed ones.

One of the most unfortunate outcomes is that it's highly unlikely that the estate will green light a series of movies based on the Silmarillion. Well, at least not with Jackson.

Seduced by gold

[Prismark10 · 3/10 · 9 March 2015]

And finally a moderately length children's book beloved to generations of kids (I read The Hobbit over 3 decades ago) comes to a conclusion on screen.

When the dragon Smaug meets a sharp end in the opening ten minutes and the credits begin, I thought the story had ended. In fact it was just the beginning of a return journey which would take a further two hours and a bit.

In that time Thorin gets seduced by the Gold, goes back on his word and promises. Various armies gather and there are epic battles with decapitations and Legolas becomes a super elf.

Bilbo becomes a secondary character in his own story and although the battles in what is mainly CGI is entertaining the whole enterprise is rather pointless as it should had been tagged on in the last movie.

Ryan Gage's scenes as the cowardly Alfrid looks misjudged, Lee Pace as Thranduil is an arrogant bore

The film does provide a bridge to the Lord of the Rings trilogy with characters such as Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond turning up and fighting which kind of reminded me of the Star Wars prequel and Christopher Lee's stunt double was in those scenes as well.

Lets be plain, The Hobbit films were turned into a trilogy because they were seen as a cash cow and this cow was throughly milked.

Fairly consistent action carries it along, even if there is little to it and even impacting moments are lessened by the relentlessness

[bob the moo · 18 January 2015]

Perhaps it is me getting older but I do wonder if I was too kind on the original Lord of the Rings films in light of how disappointed I had been with the Hobbit films. Maybe because it was all new and different, or maybe they were genuinely better films than these. Anyway, as the Company continues their mission, so too did I return for the conclusion of this trilogy; although it must be said that I did not rush to it or have a great deal of excitement. The cliff- hanger from the previous film did win me over though, plus I wanted to see it through.

The opening sequence picking up on Smaug's attack on the town turned out to be pretty impressive; okay we still have people surviving impossible special effects, but Smaug was a strong part of the previous film and remained so here. There is a feeling of anti- climax after this sequence finishes, but the story continues and builds reasonably well as we see the various armies position themselves (albeit many seem to be able to appear by magic at the drop of a hat). With various action sequences this leads us into many fight sequences with lots of movements and CGI. All of this is reasonably okay but it never seems to stop, and gradually I found myself sort of numbed by it. I think it was the ongoing lack of consequence and depth to it all that did it, because technically it all does look impressive but yet it feels very much like a video game too many times.

The feeling of lack of consequence was a surprise to me though, particularly since we had major characters dying – so in theory that should be a surprise and an impact. Unfortunately for me and the film, most of these are hurt by me frankly not being that engaged with some of these characters and their specific stories, while the delivery of these moments tended to be overly done, so they didn't have a genuine impact so much as a melodramatic one. With the battles I also found that the film didn't seem to convey the sense of scale it should have done. It produces plenty of crowd shots and sweeping cameras, but most fights seem very small and disconnected from the bigger picture; they still work for what they are, but they felt like the film was smaller by virtue of them.

The cast are mixed but mainly everyone does what they do behind heavy costume and make-up, and with lots of green-screen work. The problem is more that the most interesting characters generally don't get the most time – in particular it was a shame that Freeman did not get enough to do considering how good he was throughout. Armitage is good as Thorin, but mostly people were a blur of ears and facial hair (depending on their race). Lilly and Bloom were the ones that stuck in the mind for the wrong reasons – I found them dull.

So the trilogy ends and being honest I am not too sad to see it go. As a film there is probably enough action and dramatics to carry it through the time, but at the same time this is the issue with it. The relentless CGI-heavy action wore me down somewhat, and as I didn't really engage with the story due to the previous films, it was hard to do much here even if some of the specifics offered hope. It is solidly good enough for fans to feel they finished out the story with a bang, but for me it was another very expensive and technologically impressive so-so film in the trilogy.