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

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I agree with pretty much all the criticism here. Another small gripe of mine is when thorin and the bald dwarf are looking for azog near the frozen waterfall why is it that goblins have to make an appearance? The orcs were doing a grand job bashing the ****e out of everything and all of a sudden we have added goblins? It kinda encapsulates one of the major thought processes behind the film, where pj decides to throw in cool looking gimmicks for no real reason other than to have them there.

adox

Loved the original trilogy, watched the first Hobbit movie and was bored to tears, which has put me off watching the other two.

eviltimeban

I loved the first one, but I didn't see in 48fps (though it was 3D). I own it on DVD and have watched it many times. The first part is great, the "recruitment" section, and then setting off - great, here we go, adventure.

2nd one I thought was pretty good, a bit laboured, not as much fun. I saw that in normal FPS as well.

I don't know if my thoughts would've been different with the 3rd one if I'd seen it in either 2D or normal frame rate; all I know is I hated every minute of watching it. I may have liked it more if I'd seen it 24fps.

pinkypinky

Many people have already said the things I want to say but I have to vent. It should never have been 3 films: there's a strong case to be made for one long film but greed was always going to win out over quality.

Didn't really care about any of the dwarves - only ever managed to remember 3 of their names, so interchangeable were they. The introduction of CGI Billy Connolly was beyond weird and too short to care whether he lived or died.

Legolas - well, he's still a bad-ass but some of those fights were utterly ridiculous, and had no weight because we know he lives. Also, seriously, it's supposed to take him 60 years to find Aragorn?!

No resolution for Tauriel. While the love triangle was awful, such a mistake in a kids' movie, I didn't mind the introduction of her character. Are we supposed to think she just died of a broken heart?

Bilbo totally sidelined for a 45 mins battle. I actually fell asleep for 20 mins of it.

Smaug should have been finished in the second movie, but that opener was the only bit of this film that held my attention.

And that final scene in the Shire, I wanted to cry that there was yet more to get through before I could leave (my driver would never leave early).

Summary: 3/10, massively bloated, CGI heavy, waste of time. But it'll make a shed load of money so they'll count it as a success. Middle movie was the best for me 6/10 and 5/10 for the first, which needed at least 45 mins cut from it.

mcgooch

Deleted User wrote: »

You all sound like those lads stuck in the past loving records over better quality digital music

If you really believe digital offers a better quality sound than analog it shows you know very little, if anything at all, about the subject.

eviltimeban

mcgooch wrote: »

If you really believe digital offers a better quality sound than analog it shows you know very little, if anything at all, about the subject.

Unless he's being ironic.

mcgooch

mcgooch wrote: »

If you really believe digital offers a better quality sound than analog it shows you know very little, if anything at all, about the subject.

Go on then educate me how hissy (Warm) records are better

valoren

david75 wrote: »

Ive just put on disc 2 of fellowship randomly and realised something we all know. The score in LOTR adds SO much to the whole thing. You're looking at amazing helicopter shots on mountainsides but that's not what comes in. It's the music, rousing and powerful, down to Gandalf at the walls of Moria, warning Frodo about the effect of the ring on the others, subtle and effective.
The score was hugely important in the LOTR films. And sadly none of the hobbit films have a score that conjures those feelings or helps imply what you are meant to be feeling, in anything like the same way. Real loss.

Very true. I can't think of any piece of music from the first two movies off the top of my head, except for the company of dwarves theme (which was an ode to the fellowship theme).

I have the same theory about the original Star Wars trilogy. It wouldn't have been half as successful with an adequate, run of the mill sci fi score. I believe John Williams' score was integral to it's success in the same vein as Howard Shore's work on the LOTR trilogy was. I haven't watched the trilogy for a few years but the Shire theme, Rivendell, the Fellowship theme, Gondor, Rohan et al are still all in head

eviltimeban

Deleted User wrote: »

Go on then educate me how hissy (Warm) records are better

Not the right thread.

eviltimeban

eviltimeban wrote: »

Not the right thread.

PM then or in audio forum?

eviltimeban

Deleted User wrote: »

PM then or in audio forum?

Well it wasn't me that said it, but yes I'd say an audio forum would be a better place. Or a simple Google search.

david75

valoren wrote: »

Very true. I can't think of any piece of music from the first two movies off the top of my head, except for the company of dwarves theme (which was an ode to the fellowship theme).

I have the same theory about the original Star Wars trilogy. It wouldn't have been half as successful with an adequate, run of the mill sci fi score. I believe John Williams' score was integral to it's success in the same vein as Howard Shore's work on the LOTR trilogy was. I haven't watched the trilogy for a few years but the Shire theme, Rivendell, the Fellowship theme, Gondor, Rohan et al are still all in head

Along with that, FOTR particularly, feels great cos it looks and feels like just a bunch of guys with a shaky hanicam..the scene when the crebain from dunland for example..it almost feels like a low budget film, but it works! it's tangible, and tactile..but most of all, you care about these characters...Most of the characters in the hobbit films are unlikeable(Thorin) and you dont care about his mission...and you dont get enough of those you want to care about, Bilbo and Gandalf..

Mr Freeze

valoren wrote: »

Very true. I can't think of any piece of music from the first two movies off the top of my head, except for the company of dwarves theme (which was an ode to the fellowship theme).

I have the same theory about the original Star Wars trilogy. It wouldn't have been half as successful with an adequate, run of the mill sci fi score. I believe John Williams' score was integral to it's success in the same vein as Howard Shore's work on the LOTR trilogy was. I haven't watched the trilogy for a few years but the Shire theme, Rivendell, the Fellowship theme, Gondor, Rohan et al are still all in head

Could not agree more. I love a well scored film, and the LOTR has an exceptional score.

My biggest gripe with the 2nd Hobbit film was the lack of a decent score or theme. Where was the Dwarves theme from the first film???? I was waiting the whole film for that to kick in and it never did. Then there was some crap excuses saying that the main theme from the first film was The Misty Mountain theme, no need for it in the 2nd.

The first Hobbit film had a good score due to the Misty Mountain theme throughout, the 2nd didn't and it felt really flat because of it. It really felt like something was missing.

I'm assuming the music in the 3rd film is as bad. By bad I mean dull.

davidrowe

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I agree with pretty much all the criticism here. Another small gripe of mine is when thorin and the bald dwarf are looking for azog near the frozen waterfall why is it that goblins have to make an appearance? The orcs were doing a grand job bashing the ****e out of everything and all of a sudden we have added goblins? It kinda encapsulates one of the major thought processes behind the film, where pj decides to throw in cool looking gimmicks for no real reason other than to have them there.

One thing I liked about the goblins appearing though was when someone said: "There's 100 of them" and Thorin replied: "Okay, we'll handle them" or something to that effect!

Montroseee

I can't believe people are slating this so much. I'd agree that it did not live up to expectations but it was still a decent film - 6.5/10.

bucketybuck

Saipanne wrote: »

The aggregate reviews aren't as bad as you say, though.

At a glance, the whole series gets an average of 70% from Rotten Tomatoes. A 62% from Metacritic. I averaged the three reviews on Wikipedia for those figures.

bucketybuck wrote: »

And the aggregate reviews have been dropping since release as people begin to reflect on what they watched

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, given that paltry response, its fair to say I won that battle. I really have nothing more to add. So I'll revert to lurking.

BotFA Rotten Tomatoes score now 66%. Metacritic score now 58%.

Wonder what it will be next week...

TiGeR KiNgS

I thought the movie was quit good up until the final 30 mins or so, (after the battle, spoiler, hehe), last 30 mins was just cringe.

BTW were the Orcs made of paper mache ?, wtf was that ?

ricero

I enjoyed it, a good film. Freeman was excellent as was Luke Evans

J Mysterio

Saw it on Wednesday. Painfully boring for the most part. As has been pointed out, its a real injustice to the book and will colour it for kids going forward. Jackson really ****ed up with these Hobbit films.

1 was ok (5/10), 2 was dreadful (2/10), 3 was just boring (4/10).

The 48 fps was a bit weird at first, like watching something fast forwarded but then you just forget about it a bit. Also kind of made you aware of some of the sets though, which was strange. I wont go out of my way to attend a screening of 48 fps again.

kevohmsford

I was planning to go see this again in the cinema this week. Not really worth watching again. Will watch the extended version when it is released.
Found the film a little disappointing when I watched it in 3D last weekend. The ending was very rushed. Not enough Beorn in the battle at all. The first part of the movie was very well done. A disappointing end to the trilogy.

Heroditas

kevohmsford wrote: »

I was planning to go see this again in the cinema this week. Not really worth watching again. Will watch the extended version when it is released.
Found the film a little disappointing when I watched it in 3D last weekend. The ending was very rushed. Not enough Beorn in the battle at all. The first part of the movie was very well done. A disappointing end to the trilogy.

Saw it last night and you've saved me the effort of writing a long post.
I really enjoyed the first 45mins but then was just absolutely bored out of my tree for the rest of it.
Dain looked ridiculous. This is a prime example of why CGI and 48fps looks bad. You can tell it's CGI because of the resolution. With the LOTR trilogy, it didn't look as obvious.
The end was far too rushed. Everything wrapped up in about 5mins. Crazy stuff.
Also there were even a few sniggers in the audience for some of the allegedly sad bits.
The ninja elf stuff - ridiculous.
The Angmar bit - pointless
Beorn - obviously being kept for the DVD

Also, it was as if PJ was too lazy to think up some fresh scenes and lifted his favourite ones from the Two Towers and ROTK, namely Helm's Deep and the siege of Minas Tirith. Lazy stuff.
"Hey guys, this worked well the last time so let's do it again but this time we'll use even more CGI, and throw in some bigger trolls as well. Yeah, they'll love that!"

Not as bad as I thought it would be but still disappointing. 4/10

And that's a short post!!!!

Heroditas

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And that's a short post!!!!

Ah yeah.... Once I started I felt the need to vent!

davidrowe

The best thing going for it is the battle-scene between the Council of the Wise and Sauron in Dol Guldur. It made me think that the Council were very lucky to win on that occasion. Sauron had the Nine with him, and they were presumably as potent as they were during LOTR. Admittedly, Sauron was not as strong as he was during LOTR, but he is a Maia. Yet he was defeated by one of the Istari (Saruman) and the wielder of an Elven ring (Galadriel). Galadriel of course being the one to banish him. I suppose it does make sense - as the Elven rings were more powerful than those given to men, and Galadriel put everyting she had into Sauron's banishment.

david75

He only feigned defeat that day though. The White council banishing him is a misnomer. He fled to his new fortress at barad-dur which had been made ready for him.
Once again, the elves kick the ball down the road thinking they've settled the matter. And it isn't resolved at all as we know.

Awkward Badger

If Jackson was aiming for a retelling rather than cashing in on his LOTR success or even hoping to merge the two then he failed miserably. He even partly ruined the LOTR by undermining it with such a contrasting prequel.

They changed and added so much pointless and unnecessary stuff which was done so poorly that it just plain ruined the story.

• Legolas should't have been in it let alone taking on the Bolg storyline reducing Beorn to a cameo in the final battle. Not only did it ad nothing to the story or the movie it undermined his LOTR character as he's visible older and a completely different character.
• The Kili and Tauriel love story also added nothing and the actress that played Tauriel was shocking bad.
• Billy Connelly as CGI the Dwarf was ridiculous even by the ridiculous standards of the movie.
• The battle at Dol Guldur was like something out of the power rangers.

All in all a decent movie and good fantasy trilogy. But its not The Hobbit. Its not even close.

david75

Bloods about to boil
Jackson says he hates when directors use to much CGI & tech


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Wait-Peter-Jackson-Thinks-Other-Directors-Rely-Too-Much-Technology-68760.html

LorMal

e_e wrote: »

Also my point is exactly that it is all relative. Relating to LOTR and even some of Jackson's other work these movies fall way wide of the mark for me. Even as a box office spectacle there's been far better this year.

A tad over dramatic I think. I think it is fair to compare the Hobbit trilogy to Jackson's other work - including LOTR. However, to call them BAD movies with few if any redeeming features is OTT.
My point is that there are many many levels of worse movies out there. The trilogy are not BAD movies in their own right - if they came before LOTR I bet they would be widely praised and admired.
However, they do not compare well with LOTR. This does not make them bad movies or deserving of your universal scorn - it makes them somewhat disappointing but still definitely worth the effort and the few quid to go and see them.

funnights74

david75 wrote: »

Bloods about to boil
Jackson says he hates when directors use to much CGI & tech


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Wait-Peter-Jackson-Thinks-Other-Directors-Rely-Too-Much-Technology-68760.html

Oh dear, a can of worms has just been opened.

bucketybuck

LorMal wrote: »

if they came before LOTR I bet they would be widely praised and admired.

This is just rubbish, and a lazy way to dismiss any criticism of the films.

Forget any of the context, forget LOTR or Jackson previous works, these three films are simply bad films. Poorly paced, poorly plotted, a boring mess in so many ways. They are not bad because the LOTR is better, they are just bad.

LorMal

bucketybuck wrote: »

This is just rubbish, and a lazy way to dismiss any criticism of the films.

Forget any of the context, forget LOTR or Jackson previous works, these three films are simply bad films. Poorly paced, poorly plotted, a boring mess in so many ways. They are not bad because the LOTR is better, they are just bad.

Chip shoulder remove.

david75

pissin meself..this is perfect

e_e

LorMal wrote: »

A tad over dramatic I think. I think it is fair to compare the Hobbit trilogy to Jackson's other work - including LOTR. However, to call them BAD movies with few if any redeeming features is OTT.

They're bad movies by my standard of what a good movie is. Having a negative opinion of something does not equal being OTT or dramatic. I don't know why you keep going in circles here.

LorMal wrote: »

However, they do not compare well with LOTR. This does not make them bad movies or deserving of your universal scorn - it makes them somewhat disappointing but still definitely worth the effort and the few quid to go and see them.

Not worth the effort or the few quid in my case, and many people here clearly feel the same way. Just accept that others will think differently even if their opinion is strongly contrasted to yours.

Dan_Solo

Phantom Menace was only "bad" because people kept comparing it to the original trilogy... :-)
Nope, The Hobbit movies are very much bad in their own right compared to, well, movies in general. Costing 200m and having orcs in them can't make up for dire storytelling.

Awkward Badger

I don't think the Hobbit movies are necessarily bad movies. As an epic fantasy trilogy I think its quite good. Imo its just bad in the context of the original story and the style of the LOTR trilogy both of which it drifted too far from.

I agree its disappointing more than its bad.

david75

watching the extended edition of an unexpected journey...(insomnia will do that to you)
has to be said again, there isnt even a single element or piece of the score thats memorable..
the music is in fact quite annoying..

DVDM93

david75 wrote: »

watching the extended edition of an unexpected journey...(insomnia will do that to you)
has to be said again, there isnt even a single element or piece of the score thats memorable..
the music is in fact quite annoying..

Not good when most of the extended parts are goblin songs or dwarves singing and shouting in a fountain anyway :P

I was very disappointed with the 'extended' version of an unexpected version tbh. The Desolation offered a bit more and was better with regards its 'extended' side but neither a patch on what the LOTR extended trilogy offers.

errlloyd

For years I didn't know their pain. I dismissed it as fanboyism. They would rant and moan as victims, people who felt they had been robbed of something important to them. Pillaged and left empty inside.

For the first time I can truly empathise with fans of the original star wars trilogy.

tunguska

Nipped into cineworld earlier to see five armies after the days crimbo shopping had gone tits up. Have to say i really enjoyed it. Not as good as the last part but still decent all the same.
Yes if you wanna nit pick and moan then Jackson gives plenty of reasons to do so(3 films from such a short book, ropey dialogue, that even ropier tacked on love story). But having said that.........I just enjoyed these trips to middle earth massively and I'm not really concerned about anything else. If you're a Tolkien fanboy then I'd suggest giving it a miss but if you just like a good fantasy movie (that actually hits you in the feels at times) then you'll have fun.

TerrorFirmer

Just saw it yesterday, I thought it was good as films go, but disppointing compared to what it could and should have been.

For a film set in the same realm as LOTR, it had a radically different tone and feel - the battle scenes in particular were far too cartoony and had a distinct lack of peril. Someone mentioned 'Power Rangers', and to be honest, they're not far off.

All in all a good popcorn flick, and the time flew by, which does say a lot about it's sheer entertainment factor. It's not a waste of time by any means, just a very forgettable blockbuster really.

Baggy Trousers

I saw this yesterday. It was very average in my opinion.
I lost interest half way through the battle which is odd.
The cinema wasn't very full at all.

madds

After reading some of the reviews here over the weekend I wasn't in a hurry to see this but my 11 y/o was so looking fwd to it off we went. My expectations were low - I made the mistake of comparing I and II with LOTR and was extremely disappointed. On its own it's not a bad film but it doesn't blow the socks off you either - a missed opportunity by PJ. Some of the CGI was shockingly poor.

Missed Gollum not being in it

[Note: saw this in Vue Liffey Valley. Beware if you are booking tickets online and try to change seats. I reserved 2 seats in the back row but the original seats offered to us were the ones we got. Had to have a chat with the manager afterwards. My wife brought the 2 younger kids to Padington and had the same issue. After much persuasion he gave us 2 complementary tickets.)

the_monkey

Pretty bad this one, as said the CGI was pretty poor in places

- and why

was Billy Connolly 100% CGI ???? he looked AWFUL ... eyes and teeth still are way to much of a giveaway for CGI ...

The 1st 2 Hobbit films were really surprising to me and I thought they were really good - but this just underwhelmed from the start.

And no more about Saruman and Sauron ?? They had 3 long films for a flimsy book and couldn't put more of that in it ???

And those Tremor like creatures ??? wtf ????? ridiculous even for these films - and Legolas running up crumbling stairs - Horseshíte ...
Bolg or Azog (whoever the main baddie was - was terrible - not scary at all, not like the other lad in LOTR III .... and ending it where the LOTR I started ???? why ???? Gandalf says next "you haven't aged a day"
Well he HAS !!!! - Why bring back Ian Holm for this scene ????

5/10.

Alfred Borden

Brilliant imo. Last 15 minutes could have been chopped but was really happy with the rest of it.

Falthyron

Will probably get slaughtered for suggesting this, but I felt it could have been longer... Seriously. I could see where the Extended Edition will take us: more on Saruman and Sauron, more on Thorin's dragon sickness, more on Dain, more on Legolas and Tauriel, more on the Dwarves after they bury Thorin and probably more on Bard. There were some cuts that changed the pace (as someone here mentioned) and I reckon the extended edition will fix the pacing with expanded scenes for better transition.

I really enjoyed it and I felt the end (knock on the door) was done perfectly. Looking forward to the extended edition.

Heroditas

The last thing I'd want is more on Thorin's sickness.
I'd like to see more of Beorn though. He was a hugely integral part of the concclusion of the Hobbit yet he barely gets a mention in the BOTFA

Baggy Trousers

Heroditas wrote: »

The last thing I'd want is more on Thorin's sickness.

Oh stop, I was getting his sickness myself...sick of hearing about it!

charlietheminxx

I absolutely hated the visuals. It felt all wrong, actually thought there was something wrong with the speed when I saw it at first.

I was entertained but the plot was still poor.

david75

Got the extended editions of Desolation of Smaug for a present. Watching the extras yesterday and its crystal clear the whole focus went on GGI. theres at least two sections where they go to an actual location with stunning mountainous just behind them, but massive green screens are put up to block them mountains out so others can be GGI'd in later..and three or four crew guys on camera, baffled that they are doing it this way..

Jackson spends a lot of time in the extras championing the CGI or going 'we'll just do it with CGI'.
Clearly the move away from the Practical effects that are actually built like in LOTR has something to do with their new backers (MGM/Warner).


Does anyone know does the HFR thing apply to the dvds or blurays of these films? it does look kind of different..(i got the dvds)

Dan_Solo

david75 wrote: »

Jackson spends a lot of time in the extras championing the CGI or going 'we'll just do it with CGI'.
Clearly the move away from the Practical effects that are actually built like in LOTR has something to do with their new backers (MGM/Warner).

Do you think anybody has the balls to say to Jackson "you know what Pete, trolls and dragons you have no choice with, but CGI humans look really really really fake"?