Battle of the Five Armies is a soulless end to the flawed Hobbit trilogy

Ars' resident Tolkien nerd on Peter Jackson's problematic final chapter.

Read the whole story

 

[Duskalro]

Horses for courses. I loved the trilogy and just enjoyed it for what it was, some dammed fine popcorn fantasy.

Edit: so many down votes!

Look at it this way, I went to the cinema and enjoyed an action packed fantasy film. You guys watched the same film and got your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't actually matter.

Downvote away

 

[jeromeyers2]

I saw the original LOTR movies several times each. There was always an element of Jackson that I noticed, but it was okay.

I watched 3/4ths of the first of the second three movies, never finished it and never bothered with any of the others. To "fall flat" is a good description of their internal reception.

Oh well, at least the costumes looked good.

EDIT: The best thing about the second set of three movies was the interview with Smaug on Colbert.

interview with smaug

 

[Hesster56]

I, for one, am waiting for the De-Extended, one-movie edition. I watched the first, could see the level of cgi "hijinks" they were embracing, and hit the eject button. The LotR movies are nigh-perfect, this series crumbled under its own needless expansion.

That said: if it serves to get even 5% of its audience to pick up the book and get lost in Middle Earth, then it has been worth it. But the films are not my cup of tea, at either first or second breakfast.

 

[Ravant]

Honestly, I thought the first two were alright. They were no LoTR, but they were better than a lot of the schlock that the movie industry has piped out lately. Five Armies, however, really deeply disappointed me on various levels.

 

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Your description of the cold, formulaic, zoomed-out, and affectively flat battle scenes make it sound like this would be a surprisingly strong contender for a swords-and-sorcery take on WWI.

Is this so, or am I imagining things?

 

[clm100]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":399j0vhi]Your description of the cold, formulaic, zoomed-out, and affectively flat battle scenes make it sound like this would be a surprisingly strong contender for a swords-and-sorcery take on WWI.

Is this so, or am I imagining things?

That's far, far too generous.

 

[Wickwick]

The LotR trilogy is really six books and in three movies with 9? hours of film they couldn't even work in Tom Bombadil.

The Hobbit, is a children's book with more deus ex machina scenes that I dared remember. And that was stretched into an equal number of hours.

And enough with the tie-ins between LotR and The Hobbit already! Elrond, Gandalf, Bilbo, and Gloin (father of Gimli) should have been enough.

 

[fizzlefist]

It's like PJ took some people's complaints about how Return of the King had too many endings and decided to flip it on its head. None of the characters that actually matter had any sort of resolution at all. Kili, Fili and Thorin didn't get a funeral. Thrunduil didn't show his respect by burying Thorin with Orcrist. No word whatsoever on what happened to Bard or the folks from Lake Town. Barely a proper ending for Bilbo either.

Here's all you need to know about why you'll be so disappointed with this film: Aside from Thorin, Kili and Fili, Alfred (the Master's lackey) got more screen time and dialogue than all of the dwarves combined.

I wasn't disappointed as I walked out of the theater like I was with Desolation, but it didn't take long for me to become so.

 

[Marid]

Well, at least the suffering is over.

 

[Danation]

Quisquis[/url]":trx0qt3c]Argh! I want to read this so much but I don't want it spoiled even though I've read the books...

Having read the books and not seen this movie, I don't think there's enough spoilers for you to worry about in this article.

 

[arcite]

This is an easy one for me. I read the Hobbit when I was about 12 years old. I realized at the time it was one of the greatest books ever written and cherished every page of the story as I read it. I knew that once I was finished, nothing would be quite as good. I have of course re-read the novel, including LOTR many times since, but the memory is there. The first LOTR movies were excellent, barring minor alterations (such as inventing female roles non-existent in the text). However a line must be drawn, and I decided some memories must remain pure, and as such have made a personal pledge to never see the Hobbit trilogy, thankfully it doesn't look like I'm missing much.

 

[jeffronicus]

I cried tears of joy two years ago at the start of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, so glad was I to return to Middle Earth. The Desolation of Smaug left me ready to weep for other reasons. When The Battle of Five Armies flowed across the screen, I was unmoved.

It was ironic to see Guillermo del Toro credited as one of the writers in the end credits, because he has said that the worst thing for a director is to have no limits. Peter Jackson pretty much proved him right again.

 

[evan_s]

I just saw this on Sunday and agree with pretty much everything that was said. I did enjoy the move but more as action flick popcorn movie than a true epic tail like Lord of the rings. I was worried as soon as they said it would be a trilogy because I knew that meant they needed to add a lot more stuff. Either by stretching out things that were covered quickly in the books or by pulling stuff in from the Silmarillion or just flat out making stuff up.

Definitely spot on about being predictable. As I was watching it could have called both of the examples he mentioned before they happened.

 

[thomsirveaux]

Ravant[/url]":2zf57ssc]Honestly, I thought the first two were alright. They were no LoTR, but they were better than a lot of the schlock that the movie industry has piped out lately. Five Armies, however, really deeply disappointed me on various levels.

I think I'm mostly in that camp? Taken as a whole the trilogy isn't what it could have been, but the first two had more enjoyable moments than the last one.

 

[pokrface]

I watched the first Hobbit movie in a great theater with my wife. We came away disappointed in the soulless spectacle.

I watched most of the second Hobbit movie on an airplane and I quit paying attention after the barrels.

Won't be watching the third one. Life's too short for that crap.

 

[Dilbert]

Hobbit should have been made into one movie. Could have been awesome that way. But noooo they tried to milk it by making three. You know there isn't enough story for three movies when they turn the Bilbo/Gollum riddle scene into a drawn out scene that lasted good 15-20 minutes, or solid 10 minutes of dwarfs running for their lives with the rocks crumbling down on them. So stupid.

 

[caldepen]

I remember discussing with a fellow Tolkien fan, prior to this trilogy starting, that we hoped they wouldn't try to recreate the size, scope and seriousness of the LOTR trilogy with this one. Sad-face.

 

[bojesphob]

I must be in the minority here, I enjoyed each of the Hobbit movies. They're not perfect movies by any stretch, but when the source book describes the Battle of Five Armies in less than a page, the fact there was a lot added to these made it more palatable considering that most people who didn't read the books would be looking for the things that tie the Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings (and rightfully so). Sounds like people are wanting to go into this movie and not have the "written in a children's book" feel to the whole thing, while I feel it captured that well and giving enough weight to it to warrant having movies being made for it at all. But, Jackson wanted it to be 2 movies, and the studio told him to make 3, so it is a bit too long in those respects, but I, for one, will have all of these on bluray when the third one is released and will watch it the again the moment I get it home.

 

[flunk]

Going to see it anyway, I thought the second hobbit film was fairly good, taken as an action movie. There is plenty of space for action in the third movie so I'm sure it will be as good as a classic Schwarzenegger movie (and better than the expendables, which sucks). Note, I have read all 4 books.

Stretching one short novel into three movies was a bad idea, especially after compressing 3 huge novels into 3 movies. Every complaint I made about the Lord of the Rings movies is roughly reversed in the Hobbit. Still, not the worst movies I've ever seen.

 

[rick*d]

I hope someone will do a Phantom Edit on this and cut it down to the one great movie it should have been all along.

Edit: That was posted having not seen the third movie. From the other comments here it sounds like there might not be enough material to make a great movie. Sounds like PJ stretched a one movie book into three movies and still didn't manage to tell the whole story.

 

[Wickwick]

Dilbert[/url]":2wmacnmw]Hobbit should have been made into one movie. Could have been awesome that way. But noooo they tried to milk it by making three. You know there isn't enough story for three movies when they turn the Bilbo/Gollum riddle scene into a drawn out scene that lasted good 15-20 minutes, or solid 10 minutes of dwarfs running for their lives with the rocks crumbling down on them. So stupid.

Tolkien always had a terseness with language that conveyed so much with so little. There were references to battles or historical events that suggested a real world with as complex a history as ours but no more than a line was spared - the details were never forthcoming (No - Christopher Tolkien's expansion of that doesn't count!).

That's part of what made reading these books worthwhile. Things were left to the imagination, the prose was short and the pace was fast.

If only Peter Jackson had learned that lesson from the author.

 

[rick*d]

Dilbert[/url]":x7vovqvw]Hobbit should have been made into one movie. Could have been awesome that way. But noooo they tried to milk it by making three. You know there isn't enough story for three movies when they turn the Bilbo/Gollum riddle scene into a drawn out scene that lasted good 15-20 minutes, or solid 10 minutes of dwarfs running for their lives with the rocks crumbling down on them. So stupid.

Not to mention bringing in characters from LotR that didn't exist in The Hobbit for ticket sales, or worse, making up new characters just for filler.

 

[Wickwick]

And what happened to the songs?

Ok, so LotR didn't have all the songs. I don't even recall that they had any. But if you're going to start the first Hobbit movie with a massive song and dance then that should carry through. That song/dance scene from the first Hobbit movie is probably the most faithful thing to the source material (well, except for the juggling of plates but you get the idea).

 

[kranchammer]

It strikes me that these movies are the creation of a person with a genius for visual filmmaking that has lost or stopped listening to the voices that tell him that hey, maybe this is a bit over-the-top or maybe we should pay more attention to the story and less to paying WETA to make cool-looking shit.

 

[Alienfreak]

Did anyone notice that they completely edited out a scene out of the trailer? You saw the elven army shoot arrows at somewhere where the dwarven one was. But in the movie the whole elven army didnt fire a single arrow. They were busy jumping over some defensive lines, I guess.

Also it breaks the whole LOTR plot by them knowing it was Sauron that has returned. You didn't even mention that in your review!

 

[Faramir]

Hesster56[/url]":3w1d2z05]I, for one, am waiting for the De-Extended, one-movie edition. I watched the first, could see the level of cgi "hijinks" they were embracing, and hit the eject button. The LotR movies are nigh-perfect, this series crumbled under its own needless expansion.

The Fellowship of the Ring extended edition was excellent (notwithstanding the tragic elimination of Bombadil). In the Two Towers and especially in the Return of the King, you can tell that PJ was already getting bored of the source material and the quality suffered.

The first hobbit movie was a travesty, and I after that I stopped paying attention.

 

[strohminator]

I'm eagerly awaiting the 2 hour recut version of the Hobbit. I'm sure there are fans working on it right now.

 

[Wickwick]

flunk[/url]":31ty8avy]

Wickwick[/url]":31ty8avy]

Dilbert[/url]":31ty8avy]Hobbit should have been made into one movie. Could have been awesome that way. But noooo they tried to milk it by making three. You know there isn't enough story for three movies when they turn the Bilbo/Gollum riddle scene into a drawn out scene that lasted good 15-20 minutes, or solid 10 minutes of dwarfs running for their lives with the rocks crumbling down on them. So stupid.

Tolkien always had a terseness with language that conveyed so much with so little. There were references to battles or historical events that suggested a real world with as complex a history as ours but no more than a line was spared - the details were never forthcoming (No - Christopher Tolkien's expansion of that doesn't count!).

That's part of what made reading these books worthwhile. Things were left to the imagination, the prose was short and the pace was fast.

If only Peter Jackson had learned that lesson from the author.

Tolkien wrote an entire book of background information called "The Silmarillion", kinda defeating the point you're trying to make there. I don't recommend you try to read it, it's very dense.

I have read it And it is very dense. So dense, in fact, that his son spent another 12? books expanding it to normal pace? That's exactly my point - to a ridiculous degree even.

The Silmarillion was published after JRR's death. It's even got some sections where the history was repeated as it was just a collection of his notes that hadn't really been cleaned up.

My point was the JRR didn't bog down LotR with those details but they were in his head when he wrote.

 

[Ulf]

I loved the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, especially the extended editions and all the extra stuff they came with. Even bought every soundtrack I could get my hands on.

The moment I found out that they were "expanding" the Hobbit? I lost all interest, and from what reviews I've read I see I made the right choice.

 

[Wickwick]

Alienfreak[/url]":37rbqx6p]Did anyone notice that they completely edited out a scene out of the trailer? You saw the elven army shoot arrows at somewhere where the dwarven one was. But in the movie the whole elven army didnt fire a single arrow. They were busy jumping over some defensive lines, I guess.

Also it breaks the whole LOTR plot by them knowing it was Sauron that has returned. You didn't even mention that in your review!

Seriously! It made the council at Elrond's kind of pointless if they knew Sauron had returned.

 

[kranchammer]

Faramir[/url]"boks7h5]

Hesster56[/url]"boks7h5]I, for one, am waiting for the De-Extended, one-movie edition. I watched the first, could see the level of cgi "hijinks" they were embracing, and hit the eject button. The LotR movies are nigh-perfect, this series crumbled under its own needless expansion.

The Fellowship of the Ring extended edition was excellent (notwithstanding the tragic elimination of Bombadil). In the Two Towers and especially in the Return of the King, you can tell that PJ was already getting bored of the source material and the quality suffered.

The first hobbit movie was a travesty, and I after that I stopped paying attention.

I feel the same (although I never missed Tom Bombadil, that was actually a necessary subtraction, imo). I really enjoyed the LOTR movies, but the changes to Faramir, to Aragorn, and to Denethor made me suspect that Jackson really didn't 'get' the material.

 

[Hesster56]

I don't mind having this discussion, but it could be a bit off topic.

Bombadil doesn't work in the movies.

There's nowhere between A Shortcut to Mushrooms and The Sign of the Prancing Pony to drop "and then our characters spend a long weekend having brunch with God."

 

[Rene Gollent]

flunk[/url]":2iib7moz]
Tolkien wrote an entire book of background information called "The Silmarillion", kinda defeating the point you're trying to make there. I don't recommend you try to read it, it's very dense.

Except he didn't, The Silmarillion was slapped together and pushed out by Christopher Tolkien from random parts of his father's notes after the latter's death.

 

[CanSpice]

kranchammer[/url]":3ibkty71]It strikes me that these movies are the creation of a person with a genius for visual filmmaking that has lost or stopped listening to the voices that tell him that hey, maybe this is a bit over-the-top or maybe we should pay more attention to the story and less to paying WETA to make cool-looking shit.

It's probably a lot easier to ignore those voices when you're looking at a cheque with a whole wack of zeros on it.