Opinion on The Hobbit: The Battle of five armies OT?

Worst movie in entire franchise (LOTR series included) ... imo. Overlong and tedious battles for 2 Hrs and 30 mins, Only great part i felt was lady gadadriel fighting off ringwraiths and suaron. Timepass movie , but not awesome as first two Hobbit movies ... imo. Peter Jackson i'm afraid is failing on quality lately :(

7/10

Opinion on The Hobbit: The Battle of five armies OT?

I thought it was the best of the whole franchise, it felt less dragged out the action was very good.

let's be honest the whole hobbit has been dragged out way to much, the whole trilogy could easy have been a single 2 hour film.

I'll probably go see it tomorrow when it releases here. Too bad you didn't like it indz. :( I hope you'll be proven wrong.

I really don't have much incentive to see it. I saw the first two and they're all just cgi fest action movies.

I get enough cgi with my video games.

I'm going to see Battle of the Five Armies tonight and I'll be back later to tell you my opinion.

You might enjoy it very much, more even than first two Hobbit movies. Do not let my impression dampen your spirits on seeing this movie John. Its after all my opinion only. Enjoy the movie :)

The hobbit movies are the perfect example of that's everything wrong with Hollywood today.

I miss real battles. stuff like Ran, Bravehart or Waterloo. CGI over the years seems to have kinda become a lazy tool: even for quality film makers.

Shit like this has real awe for me over a gazillion computer generated orcs.

I thought it was better than The Desolation of Smaug but worse than An Unexpected Journey. Great movie although Legolas and Tauriel overshadowed other important characters that deserved more screen time though i am expecting that to be fixed in the extended cut.

I still refuse to watch the movie after the first one leaving a bad taste. I just don't get how they managed to even do 3 movies with 1 book. :|

Just got back from it. It left me with so many questions like: "Since when does Middle Earth have the sandworms from Dune in it?" and "What was that thing riding the pig and why did it have Billy Connolly's voice?"

Also, ironic that a short fantasy novel that has greed as one of it's major themes got turned into one of the biggest cash grabs in film history.

I admit I enjoyed Saruman and Elrond fighting the Nazgul despite myself. Of course Galadriel had to ruin it with a bizzare impression of Phoenix Jean Grey. <_<

Haven't seen it yet. The Hobbit hasn't really been that great, but I'm sure it will be fun to waste some time with.

Haven't seen it, and I won't be doing so until it's on cable. Splitting what should've been a single 2-3 hour film into a trilogy was nothing but a cash grab by the movie studios and us consumers shouldn't reward them or it's going to become a trend if it hasn't already. They did it with Mockingjay, Twilight Breaking Dawn, etc. It's ridiculous.

Whole theatre was laughing when Alfrid dressed as a woman and stuffed gold in his boobs =P Really unneccassary character but delivered some lol. lol

the fact that they made "the hobbit into 3 movies" = exploitation/10.

Just saw Battle of the Five Armies and this is my take.

The movie didn't have that awesome sense from The Desolation of Smaug, Smaug had very little screen time but the battle sense were good so I'm cool with that. I give Battle of the Five Armies a 7/10 and the movie didn't feel like it was 3 hours (3 hours movies don't concern me) and it was alright.

What was your most favourite scene in the whole movie? And what you disliked about the movie? Please explain in bit details if you don't mind :)

@indzman: The battle itself is pretty amazing just from a technical standpoint and rivals any of the battle scenes in LotR. Without spoiling anything it had a few moments that will make any fanboys of Jackson's LotR nerdgasm. I doubt it will win over anybody who already hate the first two (or have a problem with huge changes from the book) but all the fanboys like me who are on board with PJ's vision and can stomach the changes won't be disappointed. My favorite sense was really the battle with the Orcs, Dwarves, Elves and Man. The action is all over the place some of it is silly and over the top but I find that charming. I preferred the slower fights like Thorian and Azogs.

The biggest thing that bothered me was Alfrid, they just kept cutting back to him so we can see him act like a selfish coward and get humiliated. It was fine the first 2 times but by the time it reached cut number 7, I was just cringing.

Have you ever play Shadow of Mordor? (I own the game on PS4) The battles looked to much Shadow of Mordor.

Yep, i've SOM. Finished only 25 % tho, yet to complete heh. Alfrid was annoying and unneccessary lol, should've focussed more on balin or bombur for lol factor.

Action sequence i enjoyed, but felt it was very long lol. But no doubt epic awesome set peices, specially on the ice :)

I think in book Beorn kills bolg, in movie Legolas kills bolg. Yep, no Beorn at all :(

There was no closure to it even. The battle just ended suddenly, Tauriel bawled, and Bilbo got the **** out of there. They didn't have Thorin's funeral where they buried him with Orcrist and the Arkenstone or any of the other "ending" elements that the book had. I was actually shocked how rushed it was, it was the extreme opposite of RoTK in that way.

Kili and Fili are supposed to die defending Thorin, and Beorn kills Bolg and bears (lol) the mortally wounded Thorin out of the battle. If the series was one movie or two instead of a trilogy they could have the battle climatic and to the point. But they had to fill this third movie so they drew the deaths out over a series of contrived circumstances.

That said it's bizzare that they felt that Legolas flying bats and jumping on on falling rocks would be a better thing to fill the movie with than Beorn being the badass he is.

Just came back from the theater. It was pretty mediocre sadly. @Storm_Marine described the pros and cons pretty well. I was impressed with the Smaug scenes, Bilbo was worthy of the book and the battle had some great moments in it. The Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel scene was cool and kinda forced presences at the same time. On the other hand, Legolas got more screentime than needed(a smaller part would suffice to satisfy my nostalgia) even though I won't deny his fight with Bolg was spectacular. CGI again stole the day(in a negative way ofc) - compared to LOTR's orcs, trolls and other effects it felt kinda fake. Prime example of that is Dain, he looked very bad. Not to mention Alfrid and how ridiculous he made the movie at times. Finally, the battle gave place to Bilbo saying goodbye too bloody fast. I didn't feel anything after it was over, even smaller battles in LOTR left me thoughtful.

What was that with Thranduil urging Legolas to find Aragorn? I don't remember Legolas being the one to find the Dunadain and Aragorn.

Saw the first two, pretty unimpressed, not sure if i'll see the third, probably not. Grew up reading Tolkien and enjoy the books way more than the movies.

Havent even seen any of the LoTR movies.

not my cup of tea.

it was good.. the whole trilogy was a disappointment to me though, it just didnt pull me in like the Lord of the Rings did

Indz warned ya about the movie John =P

@indzman: Yeah I enjoyed the previous Hobbit movies a lot more. In any way, we won't see Middle Earth for a (probably long) while again - it was nice being back.

@johnd13:

I don't know why anyone is surprised. Peter Jackson took a lot of liberties in his LotR movies. The Hobbit trilogy isn't any different. I'm in it strictly for entertainment.

@jun_aka_pekto:

The difference is, he seemed to have crossed the line with the Hobbit. LOTR was a fairly consistent trilogy - Jackson's intervention mostly was aiming for that as well. In the Hobbit movies there were deviations from the original that served such purpose as appealing to LOTR fans even if it didn't quite feel right(for example, Legolas having a big part in the story) or ignoring for the most part iconic characters such as Beorn but including many scenes with Alfrid being a douchebag(it was funny at first but they overdid it). Also, Jackson's choice for heavily CGI-ed films really made a bad impression after LOTR's successful work.

If you're in it just for the entertainment then you probably needn't worry about these. At first, I didn't too, I was too happy to have more Tolkien movies in my life again. But the third movie made even me sceptical. Overall, I did enjoy the Hobbit trilogy but flaws were apparent. I believe Jackson had the potential to create something better.

i watched it a few days ago

amazing film

The romance scenes seemed over the top as well as some of the things Legolas was doing.

but other then that it was epic

It is probably my second favorite out of the Hobbit trilogy, I wish they had a bit more lead in to the final battle, shown Saruman when he said he'd 'take care of Sauron', and cut back on the Legolas super show. I thought it was a great end though. Smaug is easily the best (and I enjoyed that one more than Two Towers), and Journey is the weakest to me. I still really enjoy it; and I understand why it had to be the slower paced one but I feel its the weakest of the Middle-Earth Movies.

Also my biggest issue with The Hobbit trilogy is the great eagles didn't talk. They do in the book and it would have been a great time to establish they don't care about what happens in the world and only help Gandalf because he helped to heal their chieftain. Would have certainly stopped the annoying 'why don't the eagles just do this' complaints.

Just wanted to comment on the CGI. The Hobbits films were shot at 48fps then the standard 24fps but seeing The Hobbits filming in 48fps felt pretty good to me but yes, it was too much CGI but The Desolation of Smaug CGI was well done in 48fps but for some reason in Battle of the Five Armies, I didn't see that greatness and it felt lazy coming from Peter Jackson final LOTR/Hobbits films. Back then, there were arguments using 48fps and Hollywood is not ready to adapt 48fps.

@indzman:

I'm inclined to agree on a 7/10. Not magnificent, not too bad either. Thorim's madness was probably the best part in the whole movie.

It was on par with the previous two parts. None of these were a masterpiece comparable to the LotR trilogy which everyone hoped for. But they didn't suck either; still have great entertainment value with some sporadic moments of greatness even. Let's face reality; The Hobbit story could never compare to the LotR. Likewise, translated to film could not change this fact. It was however a misstep, I believe, for The Hobbit to be stretched out to three films. It only made it more obvious how The Hobbit story was not as grand as the LotR. They should have stuck with the original plan with two films.

@ShepardCommandr:

Agreed, because you could have seen the hobbit and skipped right over the desolation of Smaug and seen the battle of 5 armies.

Should have been a single film. The book is not that long and the story is simple.

Goofy but still damn impressive.

The elf/dwarf relationship was completely unnecessary.

Just came back from the theatre and I quite enjoyed it, which considering I only go to the theatre 2 or 3 times a year, it's quite good. Now granted, I was in a "we went out to dinner yesterday, out shopping the day before, I'm bored, let's go to the movies" mood, so I could probably enjoy any non-Shyamalan movie and I was never of the opinion that LOTR was a great masterpiece (although I really appreciate what Tolkien did for the genre); it was only on the second view through the trilogy that I started enjoying it...the first time I thought it was 9 hours of a shortie taking a ring to a volcano. But considering the torrent of crap that fantasy movies have been lately...Avengers, Winter Soldier, Guardian of the Galaxy (I think I just made a bunch of enemies here =p) this was quite an enjoyable film in my opinion. And it didn't feel overly long as I expected (as I felt during the original trilogy), the balance between storytelling and action was quite well achieved. Some stuff were over the top, some of the "comedy" was just slightly off but it didn't bother me.

That being said, a lot of Dutch people are animals...I've been to theaters all over Europe and the Netherlands is the first country where I've seen half the people dumping the rest of their popcorn on the floor before leaving the room...bunch of pigs...

Let's be fair. The Hobbit book is a lot thinner than the LotR. But, take into account Bilbo was gone for a year. Frodo and company took 13 months for the round trip. The LotR was only a month longer than The Hobbit. Yet, the LotR book is much thicker than The Hobbit.

There were a lot of things in Bilbo's travels that JRR Tolkien didn't elaborate on. These would have been great for Peter Jackson to add on. Unfortunately, he didn't.

Well to be fair he did add alot that was only hinted in the hobbit. The entire white council/ necromancer plot was never directly dealt with in the book outside of Gandalf just leaving the company sporadically. I don't remember the specifics of the actual necromancer plot but I felt they did a good job with it. I also liked how they tied Radagast in to the tale, as well as had the necromancer armies be involved in the actual battle. I do believe the role of Legolas should have been cut back a bit though.

I didn't mind the elf/dwarf love story too much and I don't feel it detracts from the story. My biggest issue is the fact that the eagles should have been able to talk. Also, if I remember correctly wasn't Thorin's 'dragon sickness' due to the fact he was wearing a ring from Sauron (in the books). I could be wrong, but I think that was it and I felt like that should have been brought up...but sickness worked as well.

Overall, he did pull alot from the appendices of the LotR and I feel that some of the liberties taken were good choices...though he did go a bit too far in places (again Legolas super show as an example).

I just saw it, and yeah it was okay. Smaug was awesome. A whole lot of Legolas should have been cut or done in a different way jumping on rocks in midair was just too over the top (as was a bunch of other stuff)0 watching Sarumon fight as a good guy was nice. Where the **** was Beorn? Why was Alfred even a character? Why was Legolas told to go look for a guy who wasn't born yet? "Dragon sickness" was not a thing in the book, Thorin loved the Arkenstone not the gold. Gandalf was the only wizard present at the battle. Beorn did not catch a ride with the Eagles. Peter Dinklage should have played Daine. Sand worms?

To the movie's credit, generally speaking, if it was in the book it was in the movie. The movie simply chose to add whatever it wanted and it chose to that a lot.

That end song though!! I'd pay to see the movie again if for nothing else but the ending. God that song was so fantastic and a really fantastic send off for Middle Earth. For the rest of the movie, I thought it was the most exciting of the trilogy and it had some very touching and gut wrenching moments. The scenery, action, and soundtrack was absolutely phenomenal. I really enjoyed the film.

Also if you go and don't stay through the opening of the credit sequence shame on you. Billy Boyd deserves some recognition.

underwhemed.

the rest of it was eh. there was nothing about it that actually made you care about the outcome of any of the battles..

Agreed.

@ShepardCommandr:

Movie/TV have been awful the last 12-15 years.

But what's your beef with Hollywood?