The Hobbit : Battle of the five armies (December 2014)

seligehgit

Extremely disappointed with it,one long boring battle...this trilogy is'nt a patch on the LOTR trilogy IMO.I suppose it was a bit much to expect that 3 films could be extracted from a much less extensive source material.

Saruman simply disappears to deal with Sauron??

Mr E

I liked it well enough, but found it pretty soulless. Unlike the drawn out ending to ROTK, the ending(s) here worked much better and tugged at the heart strings a bit.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

loveisdivine wrote: »

I don't know if this bit happens in the books but at the end when Thranduil told Legolas to go and find Stryder just for the sake of it, annoyed me too. It seems like it was just a way to mention Stryder. Felt out of place to me anyway.

Also does the timeline make sense? Like what age would he have been?

mikehn

Saw it today, loved the LOTR and other hobbit but this one was a real let down, it was like a movie made up of clips from a video game. No logical flow and the ending ugggh. Couldnt wait to get out.:mad:

Smartly Dressed

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

Also does the timeline make sense? Like what age would he have been?

Around 28. He's 88 in The Two Towers, according to the extended version where he tells Eowyn.

DVDM93

Mr E wrote: »

I liked it well enough, but found it pretty soulless. Unlike the drawn out ending to ROTK, the ending(s) here worked much better and tugged at the heart strings a bit.

I don't know about ye but I cry like a baby at the end of RotK, every time :P when Frodo has to leave, hits me right in the feels

Having watched the 2 Hobbits (extended edition) for about the 10th time and the new Hobbit within the last week I'm not long in to The Fellowship. I enjoyed all The Hobbit movies as I am a huge LOTR fans and my opinion was always going to be biased. Never expected them to be a patch on the LOTR films tbh so I can't say I'm overly disappointed.

Have to say though I grew really fond of Bilbo in The Hobbit films. On first hearing Freeman was going to okay him I was immediately turned off as I just couldn't see it happening from knowing him from The Office. One of my more liked characters across all 6 movies.

The dwarves were fun at times, kind-hearted but to be honest I didn't find myself getting emotionally attatched to any of the characters in the Hobbit films like I did with the LotRs. Didn't feel much at the end with Thrain, more so with Fili & Kili because they remind me of myself and the brother haha, two messers :P Balin would be my favourite of the lot. Jesus if anything happened to Gimli though I'd have been a broken man haha, even Legolas. Yet he comes across differently in the Hobbits

Gandalf is just after falling with Balrog and the water works are in full flow here haha The music adds to that scene big time!

SherlockWatson

I prefer the hobbit(s) to the lotr movies to be honest.


I enjoyed them all, the CGI doesn't bother me.

seligehgit

As mentioned already it would been nice to see how Saruman was turned by Sauron.

micks_address

seligehgit wrote: »

As mentioned already it would been nice to see how Saruman was turned by Sauron.

I'm sure we'll see more in the extended edition

jaykhunter

SherlockWatson wrote: »

I prefer the hobbit(s) to the lotr movies to be honest. I enjoyed them all, the CGI doesn't bother me.

Nice! Can you rate the 3 hobbit films out of 10?

bucketybuck

seligehgit wrote: »

As mentioned already it would been nice to see how Saruman was turned by Sauron.

There will probably be three films coming out about that over the next 2 years.

Zombienosh

The CGI was so much at some points I found myself looking down for a game controller.

SherlockWatson

jaykhunter wrote: »

Nice! Can you rate the 3 hobbit films out of 10?

Wouldn't have them higher than 7-8 really, preferred 2 and 3 to 1, but I still enjoyed 1 overall.


Regards LOTR just in case anyone is thinking i'm crazy/trolling, the only versions of them I have seen, were the Blu-Ray Extended versions, and watched one after the other, I found them to be fairly boring for large parts, but by god the action scenes were incredible in them, and the use of practical effects with CGI made it look so authentic, but there so much boring parts in it, I never really took to the movies like everyone else did.

Ave Sodalis

I don't really completely understand the backlash. Okay, there were a few dodgy moments

the slow motion of Legolas running up the falling tower and just about the whole love story... "because it was real" bleugh

but overall, despite knowing what was going to happen, I still found myself at the edge of my seat. They actually used real horses this time, which I was grateful for and I thought that out of the three, this was probably the best. I really enjoyed it, and I don't think its faults were worth some of the comments here. I would (and most like am going to) watch it again.

DVDM93

micks_address wrote: »

I'm sure we'll see more in the extended edition

I certainly hope so, then again Saruman's death wasn't even shown in the original RotK movie, ONLY in the extended version. Maybe Jackson just doesn't Like working with Christopher Lee :P

Saipanne

Overall, I enjoyed the trilogy. It should have been just two films though.

Freeman was every bit as good as I knew he would be. Good actor. Smaug was truly terrifying. And Armitage was amazing as Thorin.

LOTR towers above this trilogy, though.

DVDM93

Saipanne wrote: »

Overall, I enjoyed the trilogy. It should have been just two films though.

Freeman was every bit as good as I knew he would be. Good actor. Smaug was truly terrifying. And Armitage was amazing as Thorin.

LOTR towers above this trilogy, though.

Post of the thread imo, genuinely.

orubiru

Please excuse the rather long rant... a lot to think about with this movie.

When we came out of the movie my girlfriend said "well that was sh!t" but for me I really wanted to like it so my initial reaction was that the movie wasn't THAT bad.

I think I was just in denial though. The film throws some pretty cool lookin images at your eyeballs but beyond that? There is almost no substance at all.

The opening scene with Smaug was good BUT is it really a good idea to have the natural climax of the second movie as the "prologue" to the third? I felt here that the film basically threw it's best scene at the viewer straight away and then never recovered from that. Bard had his main character moment in the first 10 minutes and then has to go through the rest of the film having essentially completed his character arc.

Even the opening was not without flaws. Remember the "windlance" that was essentially the towns defence against dragons. Not even mentioned here. They built that up in the 2nd movie and never paid it off at all. Even having Smaug destroy it as Bard was trying to get to it would have been OK.

Meh. The scene with the refugees from Laketown was up next and filled with some really bad and uncomfortable acting. Their entire town has been burned to the ground, people dead and we have a scene with no weight at all. Not even some sad musical moments from Howard Shore... nothing. This is the point where we re-introduce Alfrid and he is one of the main failures of the movie. I thought he was shaping up for the standard "redemption" arc but the character really adds nothing and only takes up time that could have been better spent doing other things.

By the time we get to the Dwarf and Elf saying "goodbye/i love you" I am already frustrated by the flimsy and inconsequential plot lines in this film. There's no real exploration of their feelings or what it even means for a dwarf and an elf to be "in love". None of the dwarves seem to care that much really. Legolas is supposed to be jealous, I suppose but they just say "they love each other OK, lets move on".

The scenes with Thorin becoming more withdrawn and the "Dragon Sickness" were OK. Nothing too great but at least the acting was solid enough here.

Any time Bilbo is on screen you get an idea of how amazing and emotionally involving these movies could have been. He gets brushed aside way too quickly to make room for...

The fight at Dol Guldur. Ugh. Another utterly weightless scene. We know that ALL of these characters make it to LOTR so the only potential point of interest here is the corruption of Saruman. Did we really need to see Elrond and Galadriel in a battle with Ringwraiths and Sauron. This was just a few minutes of pretty good fan art. It looked nice and was "cool" but there was zero substance to it.

I was pretty intrigued by the scene where Legolas and Tauriel go to the gates of Angmar. Too bad they used it only to show us "War Bats". Lame.

A point I wanted to make here is that we have 14 dwarves in this film. They basically give most of those dwarves nothing to do. We already know Legolas story. He gets enough screen time in LOTR yet they give him so much to do here. Baffling decision.

I was more interested in the character of Thranduil and what his motivations were but we didn't get enough of him in the second movie (instead devoting more time to barrel chases and dragon antics) so his weight in this story is not as it could have been.

The treatment of Dain is even worse really. This guy shows up and we don't really get to learn much about who he is or what he wants.

The only good thing about the build up to the battle is Bilbo Baggins. Again we see the potential in this movie through following a believable, likeable, intelligent and caring character.

Once the battle begins... its a mess. Yes, its pretty to look at but there are no stakes. The battle has no weight at all. Theres no danger to anyone important and its tough to follow whats going on. Sure, they keep raising the bar with troll catapults and trolls smashing down walls and war bats. Really its just an incoherent mess. There are no real heroic scenes nothing that stands out. Just meh. Boredom. We see Bard riding a wooden cart down a hill to save his kids and Alfrid gets more character moments that are not relevant to the story.

I started to zone out of the movie at this stage. I kind of envy people who can watch 45 minutes of anonymous soldiers randomly slashing and be entertained. I just can't do it.

Things only really get going towards the end where we have Thorin and Azogs head to head battle and some real emotional moments between Bilbo and Thorin.

Legolas vs Bolg is rendered pointless by the fact that we know Legolas will win. The ridiculous Elven Physics on display here are the least of this scenes issues. Why not have Taureil and Bolg fight to the death? At least there was "story" there. Again, Legolas gets a huge role in a movie that he doesn't really belong in. Beorn vs Bolg?

I don't think I'll ever understand how anyone who pays attention during this film can justify a 7, 8 or 9 out of 10 score. In a way I sort of resent those people because they can go and enjoy what is, essentially, a pretty amazing story (The Hobbit book) turned into a mind numbing series of good looking images and as a result more and more of these movies get made.

The only reason this was 3 movies was to make money. The only reason Legolas was in the movie? To make money. Dwarf/Elf romance? You get the idea.

I think that taking good, beloved, literary works and turning them in to cash cows is kind of shameful, really.

There is too much in these 3 films that has no weight, no stakes or is not properly developed. The concept of character and story is basically abandoned in favor of "look cool things!" There is no reason why The Hobbit could not be adapted into a solid, engaging and emotional pair of movies. I don't buy into the "extended editions will fix that" thing because the theatrical release should not be a sort of unfinished or incomplete version.

The ending was nice. Again revealing the squandered potential of this Trilogy. Martin Freeman is outstanding in virtually every scene he appears in.

Yet, they even manage to botch this ending. Gandalf knocks on the door and they use the exact dialogue from LOTR except for one line "you haven't aged a day". Obviously they had to cut that because Bilbo obviously HAS aged since Gandalf last saw him. Why not just cut that scene altogether as it makes no sense? I can't understand folks saying it was great how they tied the ending to the start of LOTR when actually there is a glaring error with the "you haven't aged a day". The writers took out that line because they know the scene doesnt work with it in there right? So why have that scene at all when it cant, and doesn't work.

A disappointing end to a disappointing adaptation, really.

valoren

To paraphrase an old saying "Peter Jackson raped my childhood"

Heroditas

Regarding that last "you haven't aged a day scene", I wouldn't be surprised if PJ is going to do an Annakin on it and superimpose Martin Freeman in place of Ian Holm in a rereleased FOTR for the portion of the film where he had his birthday and then leaves for Rivendell.
Then when the Fellowship meet in Rivendell, he's aged into Ian Holm.

Hasn't PJ always hinted he'll tweak the films in future years to " improve" the continuity?

Heroditas

Heroditas wrote: »

Regarding that last "you haven't aged a day scene", I wouldn't be surprised if PJ is going to do an Annakin on it and superimpose Martin Freeman in place of Ian Holm in a rereleased FOTR for the portion of the film where he had his birthday and then leaves for Rivendell.
Then when the Fellowship meet in Rivendell, he's aged into Ian Holm.

Hasn't PJ always hinted he'll tweak the films in future years to " improve" the continuity?

I would say that he will just change the finding of the Ring portion

Falthyron

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say that he will just change the finding of the Ring portion

Yeah, that's the only real inconsistent part. Personally, I would like him to put the Hobbit scene of finding the ring into the Fellowship of the Ring. It would also be a nice way of linking the old trilogy back to the new trilogy.

orubiru

valoren wrote: »

To paraphrase an old saying "Peter Jackson raped my childhood"

Haha. That's a bit much.

What I would say is that before these movies any kid who read The Hobbit would have to rely on the writing and their imagination to build and enjoy this world.

Now, I found that LOTR movies really complement the books. The Hobbit movies, and this is just an opinion, do not complement the books at all and, I think, they kind of take a lot of the intrigue and wonder out of that story.

The Hobbit movies didn't "rape my childhood" but the impact of the books on future childhoods will be reduced due to the existence of these not so good movies.

I would imagine that children who DO see the value and quality in Tolkien's work will be drowned out by kids who find books boring but love looking at big endless battle scenes.

Kids who loved Bilbo Baggins and were terrified of Goblin Town and Smaug the dragon, will be replaced by kids who love Legolas ninja-elf antics and crazy chase sequences.

orubiru

Heroditas wrote: »

Regarding that last "you haven't aged a day scene", I wouldn't be surprised if PJ is going to do an Annakin on it and superimpose Martin Freeman in place of Ian Holm in a rereleased FOTR for the portion of the film where he had his birthday and then leaves for Rivendell.
Then when the Fellowship meet in Rivendell, he's aged into Ian Holm.

Hasn't PJ always hinted he'll tweak the films in future years to " improve" the continuity?

It's crazy though. Obviously, at some point, there would have been a discussion on having that scene play out the way it did and instead of realizing that it doesn't really fit and trying to do things another way they just essentially says "f*ck it, let's put it in anyway".

The whole Hobbit Trilogy comes across to me as PJ throwing out tons and tons of dodgy ideas and everyone around him saying "this is gonna be great PJ" instead of actually trying to keep things in check.

Bringing Legolas back, the Dwarf/Elf romance, making it into 3 movies. These are pretty bad decisions.

I feel like in LOTR they made choices so that they could make the best movies possible. In The Hobbit it feels like they made choices so that they could make the most money possible.

Even having 2D, 3D and HFR 3D looks like an attempt to have people, who wouldn't normally see a movie more than once in theaters, but tickets for more than one showing. You go to HFR and it's so horrible you want to go back and see it "normally" or you go to 2D and then you read online that a lot of "fanboys" are raving about the HFR 3D so you want to go and see it in that format.

Ave Sodalis

orubiru wrote: »

Haha. That's a bit much.

What I would say is that before these movies any kid who read The Hobbit would have to rely on the writing and their imagination to build and enjoy this world.

Now, I found that LOTR movies really complement the books. The Hobbit movies, and this is just an opinion, do not complement the books at all and, I think, they kind of take a lot of the intrigue and wonder out of that story.

The Hobbit movies didn't "rape my childhood" but the impact of the books on future childhoods will be reduced due to the existence of these not so good movies.

I would imagine that children who DO see the value and quality in Tolkien's work will be drowned out by kids who find books boring but love looking at big endless battle scenes.

Kids who loved Bilbo Baggins and were terrified of Goblin Town and Smaug the dragon, will be replaced by kids who love Legolas ninja-elf antics and crazy chase sequences.

I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. It's always been the case of kids who've read the books and kids who've seen the movies for everything. Lord of the Rings is one of the only exceptions to an otherwise very large collection of poor book to movie translations, and that doesn't ruin the reading experience of any other book.

orubiru

sup_dude wrote: »

I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. It's always been the case of kids who've read the books and kids who've seen the movies for everything. Lord of the Rings is one of the only exceptions to an otherwise very large collection of poor book to movie translations, and that doesn't ruin the reading experience of any other book.

I hope so. I wonder where they will go next with Tolkiens material? I can't imagine that Warner Bros will allow Middle Earth to sit and gather dust now.

I know that they have a Harry Potter "spin off" trilogy in the works so I reckon we will be seeing some kind of new Middle Earth movie within the next 10 years.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

I hope so. I wonder where they will go next with Tolkiens material? I can't imagine that Warner Bros will allow Middle Earth to sit and gather dust now.

I know that they have a Harry Potter "spin off" trilogy in the works so I reckon we will be seeing some kind of new Middle Earth movie within the next 10 years.

The Children of Hurin. Now that would be a lovely uplifting happy family adventure

Ave Sodalis

orubiru wrote: »

I hope so. I wonder where they will go next with Tolkiens material? I can't imagine that Warner Bros will allow Middle Earth to sit and gather dust now.

I know that they have a Harry Potter "spin off" trilogy in the works so I reckon we will be seeing some kind of new Middle Earth movie within the next 10 years.

I'd be willing to bet on it.

That's the thing about Middle Earth, there were no cut corners, they pretty much made an entire world. There's always the likes of Silmarillion, the Children of Hurin, the Complete History of Middle Earth (if you really want to go big) etc. Tolkien pretty much covers everything in a book so there's opportunity for movies. If they'd be made into film or not, I don't know.

Anita Blow

The Tolkien estate & film studio are not on good terms after LOTR so any future Middle Earth films are unlikely

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

The Children of Hurin. Now that would be a lovely uplifting happy family adventure

Haha. The thing is, I think it would be pretty cool if they could take the world of Middle Earth and create various different types of movies that are aimed at different audiences.

There's no reason why there couldn't be a crazy fun madcap adventure movie for kids and some kind of deeper more dramatic movie for adult fans.

Instead we get these "one size fits all" movies that are all about maximizing profits.

The Children of Hurin could become a stunning movie if done correctly. Or even a top level TV show. The problem with this genre is that, the creators try to make serious works of fiction but when put into the hands of Hollywood movie executives they little more than sequences of pretty interesting images and "cool" action.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

Haha. The thing is, I think it would be pretty cool if they could take the world of Middle Earth and create various different types of movies that are aimed at different audiences.

There's no reason why there couldn't be a crazy fun madcap adventure movie for kids and some kind of deeper more dramatic movie for adult fans.

Instead we get these "one size fits all" movies that are all about maximizing profits.

The Children of Hurin could become a stunning movie if done correctly. Or even a top level TV show. The problem with this genre is that, the creators try to make serious works of fiction but when put into the hands of Hollywood movie executives they little more than sequences of pretty interesting images and "cool" action.

I don't know. Hurin would be just so bloody depressing, I don't think that a book ever made me feel so pissed about everything as much as that did.

But I know what you mean about the whole "Let's make things go Boom" of Hollywood

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know. Hurin would be just so bloody depressing, I don't think that a book ever made me feel so pissed about everything as much as that did.

But I know what you mean about the whole "Let's make things go Boom" of Hollywood

No doubt, but a lot of popular stuff like The Dark Knight, The Sopranos and Breaking Bad contain the same kind of character ideas, though obviously in a less epic setting. I think there would be an audience for it.

At least the LOTR movies are still pretty solid.

Teferi

Anita Blow wrote: »

The Tolkien estate & film studio are not on good terms after LOTR so any future Middle Earth films are unlikely

Isn't it more that Christopher Tolkien isn't on good terms with the studio? I think a lot of the rest of the family don't mind the movies and some even have a cameo in them. Chris is 90 years old so I wouldn't be surprised to see more movies in the future once he heads off to the Grey Havens.

davidrowe

Teferi wrote: »

Isn't it more that Christopher Tolkien isn't on good terms with the studio? I think a lot of the rest of the family don't mind the movies and some even have a cameo in them. Chris is 90 years old so I wouldn't be surprised to see more movies in the future once he heads off to the Grey Havens.

Haha - I like your thinking! I just read some comments that Jackson made at Comic-Con earlier this year. The main issue seems to be getting the Tolkien Estate to agree to it alright. Personally, I'm disappointed with Jackson after The Hobbit Trilogy though, so I wouldn't necessarily want him to direct any pre-Hobbit films. I do like the look of the world he that he presents on the cinema screen, and the fact that he builds sets, etc. But I couldn't bear for him to start injecting his own sub-plots into The Silmarillion, The Book of Unfinished Tales or The Children of Hurin.

Saipanne

davidrowe wrote: »

Haha - I like your thinking! I just read some comments that Jackson made at Comic-Con earlier this year. The main issue seems to be getting the Tolkien Estate to agree to it alright. Personally, I'm disappointed with Jackson after The Hobbit Trilogy though, so I wouldn't necessarily want him to direct any pre-Hobbit films. I do like the look of the world he that he presents on the cinema screen, and the fact that he builds sets, etc. But I couldn't bear for him to start injecting his own sub-plots into The Silmarillion, The Book of Unfinished Tales or The Children of Hurin.

If the rights are released, it will be completely Jackson's call though. I can't imagine the executives involved in making the decision risking it on someone else, unless they are forced to.

bucketybuck

Saipanne wrote: »

If the rights are released, it will be completely Jackson's call though. I can't imagine the executives involved in making the decision risking it on someone else, unless they are forced to.

After the rubbish he churned out in the last three films, I can't see why they would let him near the property again.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

After the rubbish he churned out in the last three films, I can't see why they would let him near the property again.

Did they make a sh1t load of money?

Saipanne

bucketybuck wrote: »

After the rubbish he churned out in the last three films, I can't see why they would let him near the property again.

You don't understand how accountants think.

Saipanne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did they make a sh1t load of money?

Yes, but as we all know, movie execs care more about the art.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

Did they make a sh1t load of money?

You say that as if they wouldn't have made money regardless of the director. Which is silly.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

You say that as if they wouldn't have made money regardless of the director. Which is silly.

But they did not use another director did they? They used Jackson and made money so if they go with, let's be fair, obscure material they will think Jackson = profit

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

But they did not use another director did they? They used Jackson and made money so if they go with, let's be fair, obscure material they will think Jackson = profit

Your logic actually supports my original point you know.

The source material of the Hobbit is such that they were guaranteed to make money, regardless of the quality. They did indeed make money, but they also generated a lot of discontent with the directorial decisions made by Peter Jackson. People went to see them, but came away complaining about what Jackson did.

Knowing that, why would a studio make the decision to give him obscure material, material that can't coast on name recognition like the Hobbit?

There is a reason you hear Peter Jackson compared to George Lucas a lot these days. The announcement that the Silmarillion is to be filmed would be greeted with joy, but the news that Jackson is to direct would be greeted with the same trepidation as news that George Lucas is to direct the new Star Wars.

Saipanne

bucketybuck wrote: »

In my opinion, Your logic actually supports my original point you know.

In my opinion, The source material of the Hobbit is such that they were guaranteed to make money, regardless of the quality. They did indeed make money, but they also generated a lot of discontent with the directorial decisions made by Peter Jackson. People went to see them, but came away complaining about what Jackson did.

If I'm right, why would a studio make the decision to give him obscure material, material that can't coast on name recognition like the Hobbit?

In my opinion, There is a reason you hear Peter Jackson compared to George Lucas a lot these days. The announcement that the Silmarillion is to be filmed would be greeted with joy, but the news that Jackson is to direct would be greeted with the same trepidation as news that George Lucas is to direct the new Star Wars.

Fyp.

In my opinion, I think people have had their fill of middle earth. But if another Tolkien work is released, it will be offered to Jackson first. Why? Because none of the reasons you mentioned above will even enter the decision. What will matter is the billions of dollars that Jackson is credited by the accountants with generating. You don't seem to want to understand that. Nothing I can do about it.

bucketybuck

Saipanne wrote: »

Yes, but as we all know, movie execs care more about the art.

Saipanne wrote: »

What will matter is the billions of dollars that Jackson is credited by the accountants with generating. You don't seem to want to understand that. Nothing I can do about it.

You seem to like repeating this, bully for you. What you don't get is that it is irrelevant to the point. Even dumb Hollywood studios like to have their cake and eat it too, they are quite capable of realising that they can have the billions of dollars and also possibly billions more by not using the director who is becoming synonymous with George Lucas.

Saipanne

bucketybuck wrote: »

You seem to like repeating this, bully for you. What you don't get is that it is irrelevant to the point. Even dumb Hollywood studios like to have their cake and eat it too, they are quite capable of realising that they can have the billions of dollars and also possibly billions more by not using the director who is becoming synonymous with George Lucas.

Time will tell, bucky. But when Jackson gets the next movie, and you're enraged at how the world didn't work out as you planned, remember where you heard it first.

e_e

Saw it today, rubbish. Might as well have been 100% made on computer because there's no weight to the film at all. I felt nothing.

For the person asking earlier I'd go:

Hobbit 1: 6/10
Hobbit 2: 4/10
Hobbit 3: 3/10

SimonTemplar

The Lord of The Rings trilogy were excellent movies with occasional misjudged moments.
The Hobbit trilogy were three misjudged movies with occasional moments of excellence.

Riddles in the dark and Bilbo's first meeting with Smaug (up to that ridiculous gold smelting rollercoaster scene) were the only two real worthwhile moments for me. Those were the moments that I felt really could only come from a middle earth tale. The rest was just over indulgence of the worst kind. I include the barrel scene in that because it was really just too over the top to enjoy. There was no sense of threat or peril.

Battle of the Five Armies pretty much proves that splitting the novel into three parts was a mistake. I felt like I had walked into the last act of a movie - it was a strange experience. Even with the appendixes, there wasn't enough material for three 2.5+ hour movies, as evidenced by having to spend time with that awful Albert character.

I don't mind the inclusion of the non-Tolkien Tauriel character because Evangeline Lily has decent screen presence but she had nothing to do except stand in for Legoman for elf badassary and be the love interest.

And that moment were Legoman was climbing up the falling rocks looked absolutely ridiculous. It looked like a pre-vis animation. I couldn't believe they but that in the final cut. I was so shocked it took me right out of the film.

I'd happily revist LOTR again but I don't think I could stomach The Hobbit again. It is a shame because Martin Freeman is excellent in his role (much better than Elijah Wood imo) and I feel he was short changed by this trilogy.

Actually, one positive thing I'll say about Battle is that short silent moment between between Bilbo and Gandalf. I wish the trilogy had less stupid gags, less over the top CGI and more of those moments.

Hobbit 1: 6/10
Hobbit 2: 7/10
Hobbit 3: 3/10

SimonTemplar

If you have seen Frozen, there is a scene near the end were the characters are trying to fight their way through a heavy blizzard. That short scene had more physicality and sense of weight than any action scene in The Hobbit trilogy

e_e

SimonTemplar wrote: »

If you have seen Frozen, there is a scene near the end were the characters are trying to fight their way through a heavy blizzard. That short scene had more physicality and sense of weight than any action scene in The Hobbit trilogy

Exactly. I'd compare the visuals of the film to video game cut scenes but that kind of does a disservice to Shadow of Mordor, which for me is far more immersive and fun than this whole trilogy.

SimonTemplar

Was Billy Connolly's character CG or just filmed poorly in front of a green screen? I couldn't tell.