The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

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. (2015-01-05)

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. (2014-12-14)

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. (2014-12-11)

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... (2017-05-13)

I’m probably most disappointed about the shoddy battle with the dragon. Not that it doesn’t look good, but the unfortunate placing it in the intro steals its oomph and it’s too short. The battle of five armies which take up the longest sequences is of course technically sophisticated, in places even better than the Lord of the Rings, but is unnecessary long and fundamentally unimportant in itself. I didn’t have that feeling of inevitability. The best sequences are the humble chats between Bilbo and Thorin which gives some sense to the whole of part three. Part three suffers the most from being separated. It doesn’t work on its own and pointless things (like the vice mayor’s demented remarks) obscure what’s important (what happened to Bard after the battle?!). The sad farewell to the Middle-earth disappoints with its sloppiness. (2014-12-29)