The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The most concise and balanced film of the whole trilogy, which did not dispel any of my doubts that accompanied me through The Hobbit. Despite all the convulsive emphasis on being epic, the trilogy is unfortunately very flat, it lacks truly interesting, structured characters (in fact, the only one who goes through any dramatic change besides Bilbo is Thorin), the supplied storylines are horribly shallow and the three films did not add depth, but rather amusement park-like, uncritically long action scenes. The Battle of the Five Armies itself surprises, because even after Gondor and Helm's Deep, PJ was able to create fresh, well-arranged and choreographically imaginative giant scenes (an army of dwarves and a redheaded janitor Willy on a giant pig are among the last few things I wanted to see in my life). Unfortunately, from the moment the giant chamoises unexpectedly appear on the screen, we move from epic to the pre-planned Tolkien arcade, a soft version of Mortal Kombat stuffed with a ton of clichés and WTF scenes (Legolas and his gravity can no longer even entertain Peter). The poetic magic of silence and pipe cleaning, which Gandalf does at the very end, is thus quite unique in the trilogy of sin. In fact, I'm most interested in digital blushes and the obsession of creators to put epic emphasis on almost every scene, so in the end almost everything seems like a wooden theater - moreover, the script is a bit weaker than the brilliant "Who am I, Gamling?" monologue of King Théoden. The Hobbit works as teaser for The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I can imagine that my child will be ecstatic about it in a few years. When he grows up, he will certainly agree with me that the original trio of films remains are unmatched in their greater muteness and higher cinematic agility. Or I’ll beat his ass. (12/11/2014)

The finale of The Hobbit did not satisfy me as much as I would have liked. The return to Middle Earth is nice, but from the very beginning it is clear that the creators wanted to squeeze so much in these two and a half hours that they didn’t know where to begin. They get rid of the dragon already in the opening credits and then a completely different story unfolds, which has nothing to do with the original Hobbit. I’m not blaming them for this, but I would’ve preferred if there were only two Hobbit movies and this one was conceived as a separate story. Especially since I don’t believe this is the creators’ last trip to Middle Earth. From the video logs I’ve seen, I’d say this is the best filmmaking crew ever. Everything here was running without a hitch – from the janitors to the director. What doesn’t work as perfectly is how they’re stretching this movie out, despite the fact it focuses on a single battle. That’s why I’m unwilling to give this the full amount of stars and why the second instalment remains the best movie of this trilogy in my opinion. On the other hand, the fairytale-like quality, the fact that almost everybody here is likeable and the opportunity to take another trip to Middle Earth mean a lot to me, so I am going to remember this trilogy with fondness. (12/21/2014)

The Hobbit without the Hobbit or in other word the journey there and back. More than ever, the third movie of Hobbit is the result of two directors working together. The first one (let's call him PJ, for example), who understands the characters, the conflicts between them and in them, and can do with precisely cast actors. Once Bilbo, Thorin or Gandalf are on screen alone, it works in a way that often brings the best and most impressive moments from both trilogies. But then there is another director (let's call him CGI PJ, for example), who has poor taste and makes everything over-the-top. And he constantly has coffee breaks lasting (too) long time instead of working and let the computers do the job. In scenes where effects serve events or scenes, there are no reservations. But in scenes packed with effect with no particular reason or where the effect are over-the-top as in the case of (unfortunately not by far only) wannabe cool fun with Legolas’ female elf, the I almost feel ashamed of CGI PJ. In scenes where PJ has managed with ten seconds of "cool Legolas" in the past, CGI PJ needs at leas ten minutes. Fortunately, the work of the first one still prevails in the movie, but after all, the percentage of (poor) taste is rather questionable. On top of that, what is even more striking this time that many things are missing and will be added only in the extended version. Everything that has to do with action was prioritized at the expense of characters, motivations and similar "redundancies". A typical example is the ending. There is an impressive battle lasting couple of minutes but there is no effect and after that one quiet scene with sad Bilbo and Gandalf smoking a pipe does the talking and everything becomes clear. And this applies to everything in this part. The extended version is then interesting mainly in the fact that it underlines both of the opposite approaches. So, there are many more glorious character moments, as well as more of that depersonalized over-the-top CGI action. (12/11/2014)

In the first film, we thought it was a slight stumble, a slightly slower start. In the second, however, it was already clear that this trilogy is weaker than The Lord of the Rings, both in terms of its drama and epicness, as well as the directing. The third one is only a reasonable conclusion where at first glance everything looks as it should, but essentially nothing is brought to perfection. The only thing worth mentioning is the excellent transformation of Thorin Oakenshield and the final battle. The rest is a digital mess without order or coherence that cannot be compared in its ferocity and rawness to scenes like in Moria from The Fellowship of the Ring – which is shockingly disappointing, unfortunately in a negative sense. The characters and their motives are outlined just enough to be pleasing, and the visuals are appropriately flashy, which is of course expected as the standard. The screenwriters still take the same trips into various mini-stories (the children in the town, etc.), a few mythical characters are just shown for the sake of it, and everything is concluded with a confusing, digital, wannabe opulent battle. The trilogy that is ten years older is better in every aspect. The 10-year difference in visuals seems to not exist at all – unbelievable. (12/14/2014)

The fact that I’m giving it one more star than the second part it’s not due so much to a better quality, but rather to the better mood I was in while watching it. Or maybe it was the more reasonable run, I don’t know. A plus is Thorin’s momentary episode of madness, a negative, is once again, the digital mess. Bilbo floats with the plot, the battle of the five armies breaks down into individual fights, and as a whole it goes nowhere. Once again I must say that adapting “The Hobbit” as a film trilogy was a very bad decision. (01/14/2015)