The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

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 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)

This is how I imagine the fulfillment of the phrase "digital plague." Peter Jackson is diligently stealing from himself and showing that in the name of financial gain, he is capable of sinking low. The first Hobbit film already showed all his weaknesses by padding the plot with filler, and the inability to lead the storyline meaningfully, and the third film just tops it all off. Those who like attractions will enjoy the films but towards the end, I only felt resignation and disgust. Overall impression: 40%. I don't know how Tolkien would react to The Lord of the Rings films, but this piece of crap would surely hurt him... (05/13/2017)

Poor Peter Jackson, if this film had come out 10 or 13 years ago, everyone would have been gushing over an unparalleled foray into the fantasy genre, but today's audiences are already spoiled by the cinematic attractions of recent years (and rightly so) and CGI effects, however sophisticated, can no longer impress anyone. But I can still feel that playful Peter in there, the 14 year-old kid who would get cyclops moving and trow a spear with photo-montage. I can still see the overgrown kid in who likes to show off, like in his movie beginnings. And I like that. Moreover, as with the Ring Trilogy, the visuals were handled by Tolkien's illustrators John Howe and Alan Lee, so I have nothing to complain about in that respect either. The Hobbit doesn't match the previous trilogy emotionally, but nobody could have expected that with the source material, which is an easygoing fairytale that doesn't solve anything, and I appreciate all the more that Jackson did manage to squeeze some of those fateful emotions into it. Still, unlike the previous two parts, I’m not giving it 5 stars. While the Hobbit's quest was entertaining and engaging thanks to the frequent changes of scenery and encounters with creatures of all sorts, here we basically don't move from where we are, there is more empty filler than necessary and you can also see how the narrative has been brutally chopped up. This policy of the studios (release a shorter cut in cinemas and a half-hour longer one on Blu-ray and make more money out of it) really annoys me. However, when I sum it up and count the pros and cons, I can safely say that although the Hobbit trilogy is not equal to the Ring trilogy in my eyes, it’s still a few thousand Smaug’s Tails ahead of the rest of the fantasy competition. (01/05/2015)

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)