"Review of "The Battle of The Five Armies" movie" Topic

I posted a review on my blog from the perspective of someone who loved Tolkien's books…

Warning, there are a lot of spoilers inside!

landoatwar.blogspot.com

Overall the movie is a good fantasy action film – but as far as following the story of the Hobbit its a bit disappointing. In fact Bilbo sort of gets brushed aside amid all the action and the story-lines of superfluous secondary characters. What was up with the giant Dune worms? The bats 'bred only for war'? Catapult toting trolls? I was disappointed by the epic show down between Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman against the 9 Ring wraiths – the whole time I watched that CGI fest I kept thinking Aragorn drove them off with just a torch on Weathertop. I was disappointed that important characters in the Battle of the Five Armies, such as Beorn, hardly mattered at all – but annoying made-up characters such as Alfrid managed to steal a good 15 minutes of the movie. If you never read the Hobbit its an ok Fantasy adventure, if you have read it . . . lol

Better than the second movie. That is somewhat damning with faint praise. Still, I thought a somewhat satisfying ending. Just don't expect it to follow the book.

I do think that the Hobbit actually lurks in Peter Jackson's 3 movies. I honestly think that if one takes the the extended edition of all 3 and cuts out about 2 hours… you would have the Hobbit. I don't even think you would have to reshoot many scenes. Yes, you would still have a different ending more focused on the heroes, but it would a much better and tighter story.

Joe Collins

I agree. They should have done 2 movies, and it would have worked.

I generally enjoyed the movies but the third was the weakest of the bunch. As others have mentioned, Bilbo is basically brushed aside for most of the movie as it focuses on secondary characters. The ending fight scenes felt anti-climatic, and someone really needs to restrain Jackson's tendency for over-the-top, cartoonish action. It is not thrilling to watch GCI characters duke it out in fights that defy the laws of physics. Good old fashion live-action stunt work is far more entertaining to watch.

I admit I got a little choked up at the end. I enjoyed spending time in Middle Earth, even if it was a lesser effort this time around. Plus the first Hobbit movie came out at a time of major transition for me, so it was like saying goodbye to an old friend.

Anyway, I agree with Joe: At some point, someone is going to splice together the three movies to end up with a version much closer to the actual book, and I bet it will be a better movie for it. I don't agree with some people who believe the Hobbit could have been just one movie. It may only be one book but a lot happens in its 300 or so pages. Two movies would have been the better call.

At least the Hobbit gave us an awesome, if Godzilla-sized, Smaug.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but as I recall from the book didn't Bilbo spend most of the Battle of Five Armies unconscious after catching a stray rock while invisible?

Yes, so this Bilbo got a lot more "screen time" than the book Bilbo. But this Bilbo does get knocked senseless, just not for very long.

As already pointed out, the actual plot of The Hobbit is all there, basically unchanged as to outcome, and even the correct characters die, etc. There is just TOO MUCH other distracting, stupid crap. I have joked, even before this film came out, that a "director's cut" of The Hobbit would be best served by making it c. half as long, and it would adhere to the book a lot better….

Beorn didn't get much screen time, but consider what stopped being an issue when he and the eagles arrived.

This trilogy provided a version of "what happened" (some of it guessed or invented, to be sure), while the book was mostly "what Bilbo witnessed".

I guess we all have to remember that probably one person in ten who sees the movie may have actually read the book – if that. Probably more like one person in a hundred. And movies are usually not made for that person.

I must be the only person in New Zealand who has not seen any of the Hobbit movies. I will wait until this one is available on some other format and watch all three.

Thanks for the review Landorl. It sounds like the Rankin and Bass version is still the best Hobbit Movie out there. :( I will be passing on this one just as I passed on the 2nd movie. I may see the 2nd movie just to see the dragon. Of course, I may just watch Steven Colbert interview the dragon instead. It might be better.

army of goblins and Wargs. Orc's aren't even around in the Hobbit. really can't they stick to the book alittle?

I agree with your review. The pacing of the movies was just way off. Smaug and the Necromancer scenes just seemed anti-climatic compared to the huge build up to them.

The battle was ridiculous and way over the top and then suddenly sidestaged by whatever was going on in that tower.

I think Pete Jackson could've made one really good movie, the Hobbit didn't really need more than 3 hours to tell the original story. But in the end his ego got in the way of telling the story. I think he suffers from the same malady that George Lucas has.

army of goblins and Wargs. Orc's aren't even around in the Hobbit. really can't they stick to the book alittle?

Marcus Arilius, that is a good point, however, by Tolkien's canon, orcs and goblins are essentially the same thing. He used the term goblin in The Hobbit, but went to orc in The Lord of The Rings. There is some debate that possibly goblins are smaller breeds for orcs, but they are still the same creature.

Smaug was one of the best parts of the last two movies. The CGI for him was excellent. He was terrifying!

And yes, I did like the Rankin Bass version, I think it actually fit the style of Tolkien's The Hobbit better than this one did.

My favorite part was the ending credits. It was a very heartfelt, somewhat meta send-off to the entire cast and crew after 6 movies and countless hours spent recreating the world of Middle Earth.

It's probably not coincidence that the credits were just basic pencil drawings of the main characters … refreshing, really, after 3 hours of explosive, gut-pounding CGI.

The run time for this one is 2:24. So knock off 5-10 for credits and this was the shortest of all the Middle Earth films. But they seemed to pack a lot in there even with several slow moving scenes.

Tolkien's canon, orcs and goblins are essentially the same thing.

Indeed. The Tolkien companion says that Orcs come in different shapes, sizes and colors not unlike real life humans. Moria Goblins are essentially Orcs as are the Goblins of Goblin town. It also says that Goblin is the Human word for Orcs. In Elven it is Yrch (sp)

I hated the Lord of the Rings movies because they did not follow the books. But we watched them. I really had no interest in seeing his version of the Hobbit. But I consented to try.

Prior to seeing the first Hobbit movie we read book as a family. I was very proud of my daughter – from the start she keep saying this is not what happened in the book – scene after scene. Finally after the nonsense in Goblintown she said "Let's go." We did…and we never went to another – and won't.

Simply put Jackson is a f-ing idiot. Pay millions of dollars for rights to a movie then chance every aspect of it beyond all recognition. I will never see another movie he makes about anything. He is an utter ass.

Since I saw the movie I've been reading through the actual battle in the book and marveling at how many elements I didn't remember are in both the book and the movie: the bats, Mount Gundabad.

I've been considering what details changed and why it was changed and if that is sensible. I can accept "plays better cinematically" as a valid reason for change. I realize some here will not.

Certainly the Trolls, the Troll siege engines, the tunneling worms, etc., are CGI cinematic inventions. They do add a lot of drama though.

We know the White Council drove the Necromancer from Dol Guldor, and discovered he was Sauron in the process. Cinematically it is better to show this than talk about it.

As far as the Ringwraiths, yes at Weathertop Aragorn holds off 5 (not 9) who are far from their master and distracted by the Ringbearer. Weathertop is an ancient site of Numenor and may be a place of power. Certainly Aragorn has the benefit of much lore and is rising to the peak of his prowess and majesty. The Nine's major weapon is fear and despair and Aragorn's greatness is he never bows to this.

In this Hobbit film we see the White Council, 2 of whom are weakened, confronted by 9 Ringwraiths in the presence of their master. Recall that the White Council never had the power to destroy the Ringwraiths in battle over the long years. Recall that Glorfindel -- Glorfindel who died killing a Balrog and was sent back by the gods! -- had the power to rescue and counsel a king of Gondor against the Witch-King, but not to confront. Much as he did many years later for Frodo.

I felt the Dol Guldor scene played well enough.

Peter Jackson like Lucas is died to me. What a worthless hack. Unless he does a Gallipoli movie I wont see anymore of his movies.

Oh, I don't know. Lucas' malady is that he is great in the business and can turn pretty much anything he touches into gold. Ditto Mr. Jackson, long before The Hobbit. They are mere mortals given godlike powers. What else can we expect other than great and horrible movie making out of them? Some scenes will remain iconic in both categories.

As I said, the plot of the book is not changed in any essentials. The same is true of the LotR Trilogy of films, Tolkien's story is told in essence. When Jackson said, "These are filmed versions of the story", not direct filmed book story detail for detail, we were warned at the time. Ten years later The Hobbit takes that warning to new heights. I almost didn't go to see this finale. But it is what it is. Hopefully the DVD "directors' cut" won't be only an extended edition, but will allow trimming of scenes we hate. Yeah, right, like that's going to happen….

I was disappointed that the final return to the Shire scene was as short as it was. I would have like Jackson to play up Bilbo's return rather than just give it a token 5 minute "do it because I have to" treatment.

Overall, one of my biggest complaints about The Hobbit movies is the conflicting tones Jackson uses. Sometimes his film work and script are clearly inspired by The Hobbit's more youthful audience, while at other times he wants to be as heavy-handed and dark as the darkest scenes in the LOTR movies. I just watched The Two Towers again, and I think if Jackson had approached The Hobbit with the same reverence and serious tone as LOTR, it might have worked much better. As it is, it is neither fish nor fowl.

My sentiments are basically the same as Charles's above. I didn't care for the LOTR films, and from what I've heard (including what's been said on this thread), The Hobbit films are even worse. I can't bring myself to watch them.

I loved the scenery, the soundtrack and some of the sets (though they ruined Lothlorien) in LOTR. I actually prefer Bakshi's old version from the 70's because it sticks much closer to Tolkien's story, though there are some major issues there too, of course.

What?! The goblins lost?! Darn it!

;-)

As painful as this is to say, I would rather watch a Lucas or Jackson movie of almost any stripe than a Michael Bay movie. That man's picture appears in the dictionary under the definition of the word 'Hack'.

Saw it. Loved it.

It s not really Tolkien, yes. But it s great Shakespearean drama. Macbeth meets king Lear with dragons.

Acting is very good too.

Saw it and rewatched fellowship this past week and there is a jarring difference in tone. LOTR goes for authenticity and a rich background tapestry; Hobbit is more about cartoony action adventure. I suppose you could make the case that each reflects the spirit of the respective books.

Anyone else confused by the actual Battle of Five Armies? We know from the book and various maps/scenarios over the years that the free peoples hold out on the lower reaches of the mountain, attacked from below and above. But in this version the dwarves are in front of the gates, the lakemen run for the ruins of Dale for no apparent reason, the elves actually seem to slink off in cowardly fashion half way through! I had trouble visualizing who was doing what where and when, which isn't great direction from my perspective. The extended edition will hopefully clarify.

Agree with earlier comments – not really The Hobbit, but it was a decent fantasy action flick. I wonder if the clashing/inconsistent tone is related to the change of directors? Del Toro and Jackson are very different story tellers. I noticed that Del Toro still got a writing credit.

The battle as written does not focus on any characters except Bilbo. A glimpse of "supporting characters" is given, such as the encounter between Thorin and Bolg, surrounded by his bodyguard of huge goblins. Beorn kills Bolg in the book version, but that steals Thorin and Company's thunder, so the shape-changer gets very, very short shrift. Boo. Hiss. But it is an example of expedient film making decisions. Taking all of the characters away from the main battle in front of the gates of Erebor made focus on them much easier (and cheaper, I reckon). The actual story doesn't change as per outcome, only the specific details get altered, "a bit"….

I enjoyed it but of all the LOTR & Hobbit movies, this one disappointed me the most. I know that some of it is the filmmaker's vision but it seemed to me that so much time was devoted to tying up loose ends for characters who played a minor part (or no part…) in the book that the overall "big picture" was lost.

I too was a bit confused with the battle and wondered where the elves went. Beorn, I seem to remember (along with the eagles) was the most important factor in the victory but only gets a cameo. There should have been a stirring scene showing Thorin being buried deep within the mountain with the Arkenstone at his breast. Bilbo should have journeyed part of the way back with the Elvenking – didn't he also pass through Rivendell? I think that Bilbo's part was shortchanged during the return to the Shire "There and Back Again" when one should get the feeling of a long journey home. They just wasted too much time on irrelevant scenes with Legolas, Alfred et al…

I can only hope that they had to cut out relevant parts of the film which can eventually be restored for the "extended edition" but if it's the "Director's Cut", I'm not betting that it will be better. Here's hoping though :-)

Apparently there are an extra 30 minutes that will be in the Extended Edition, so there is hope for a Thorin burial scene etc.

Loved the books. Dug the films. From the start, I have always approached the films with the mindset that these are peter jackson's interpretations of tolkien's stories and not a faithful, word for word translation from one medium to another. Doing so made me enjoy both books and films immensely.

I have always approached the films with the mindset that these are peter jackson's interpretations of tolkien's stories and not a faithful, word for word translation from one medium to another. Doing so made me enjoy both books and films immensely.

Absolutely. I don't think there's any point feeling betrayed. I read the book when I was a wee little critter and immediately fell in love with the world of fantasy but surly anyone thinking that a three part Peter Jackson Hobbit would adhere strictly to the book was being a touch naive… maybe? I enjoyed the movies but (and this might sound silly to most) but what annoys me to no end is the ridiculous CGI action/fight scenes. I really do enjoy a well choreographed fight scene (some of the Zoro movies spring to mind.) But there's something very unsatisfying watching extraordinary feats of balance, agility, and motor coordination that do not in anyway correspond to what my brain tells me is achievable in this physical reality (middle-earth's physics seem to correspond to earth's most of the time!) When the action starts I actually feel like I'm interiorly shaking my head in disgust when I consider what a few very talented stunt men could have achieved instead…heck most computer games achieve a greater sense of reality in their action sequences :)

I don't think it's the adding of material many object to as much as the additions are so far below the quality of the source material. Alfrid – I name thee Jar-Jar Binks of the Middle-Earth Jackson-verse; Bard's shrieking kids – go back to the world of B movies; Elf/Dwarf jungle fever – yecch; guest appearance by the Worms of Arrakis – wth? Shoulda been Wyrms (with a y), Peter!

Exactly. The added material sacrificed Hobbit content. Replaced Hobbit content in fact. Beorn was so shorted out that the scene was a jarring intrusion. "What was that?" If you didn't know Beorn showed up as a giant bear in the book, the movie nod to him makes no sense at all. Why bother?

And I totally agree on the CGI suspending the laws of physics. It was so bad in the second movie (battle of the barrel riders) that I almost didn't go to the last movie. But with no greater expectations beforehand, I enjoyed the visual feast as-is and forgot the book. If I had continually compared book to film I'd have been squirming in my seat the whole time….

I want an iron hills dwarves shield wall, now!

I also did not get the whole, Dwarf General runs off in the middle of the battle to a frozen, empty tower thing. Will we get iceskaters in the EE version? So what I want to know is where did the warsheep come from in the middle of the battlefield?

Last, I watched the Christmas greetings from Saruman back in 2013, in which he indicated lots of screen time in BOFA. I suspect we will see a lot more of Dol Goldur in the EE.

Kind of a shame that the whole Hollywood Middle Earth series ends with as a sub-par experience.