Lo Hobbit - La battaglia delle cinque armate

I was distinctly underwhelmed by the first two Hobbit movies, I thought they were good but just that "Good". They live in the shadow of the Lord Of The Rings movies and simply paled in comparison and so going into The Battle Of The Five Armies I expected more of the same.

According to both IMDb and the profit margin this was the most poorly received of the franchise, clearly people did not like the film by comparison. But as usual, I have to be different.

I consider this to not only be the best of the Hobbit franchise but also hot on the heels in quality as the LOTR trilogy.

The story culminates beautifully and if you can get past the many changes that were made you'll see the finale of a wondrous tale and a battle on screen that blew me away.

Once again the fantastic cast, stunning score, mind blowing effects and sheer beauty envelope you into the world of Middle Earth and I was gripped.

Yes its not flawless, but it is pretty damn close.

The Good:

Amazing opening

Action scenes are brutal

James Nesbitt

Evangeline Lilly

The Bad:

Still a lot of changes

One death was poorly done.

What a difference an Extended Edition makes. For the first part we got some jolly embellishment. For The Desolation of Smaug we got bags more depth and character. For The Battle of the Five Armies, it may - I hope - be transformative. Because right now this feels like An Unfinished Journey.

It's as if, after all the complaints about splitting a pamphlet of a novel into three parts, Peter Jackson is playing a joke on us: This is what you get when you ask for Middle-earth-lite. Characters we've come to love or loathe arc into nothing; others (e.g. Beorn and Radagast) are given literally seconds of screen time; and for the first time in this prequel trilogy, a whole chapter (The Return Journey) is pretty much elided entirely.

I'd like to be clear on my admiration for what Peter Jackson has done with The Hobbit so far. For all The Lord of the Rings' mythic grandeur and complex world-building, there's a warm geniality and brisk impetus to these lovingly crafted films. And those qualities are married to a thematic depth missing from its bedtime story source. Home and borders are themes that have run through this trilogy, from Bilbo's (Martin Freeman) heartfelt declaration of solidarity at the end of An Unexpected Journey, to Kili's (Aidan Turner) fevered speech to Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) as she heals his wounds in Desolation, when they realise reconciliation is possible. Heck, I even like the addition of Tauriel - though her unsatisfying conclusion is perhaps typical of a final chapter that too often fails to tie up its loose ends.

The movie kicks off from precisely where the second ended, with the dread dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) descending upon Laketown. The citizens flee but nothing can stop the cataclysm - until a certain someone finds an ingenious way to pierce the beast. Then there's nemesis #2: Sauron (also Cumberbatch). We get to see some familiar faces face-off with this faceless monstrosity.

The story then enters its most intriguing phase: a kind of psychodrama involving Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his sickening relationship with gold and power. It's the one time we really glimpse that signature Jackson oddness, in a wonderful hallucinatory sequence where Thorin imagines he's sinking in a lake of gold.

The narrative follows the book fairly closely. This was, after all, the stage of the story where Professor Tolkien finally foregrounded politics and ethics and the machinations of characters ahead of adventure. The film is at its most successful in the quieter moments, as Thranduil (a subtle Lee Pace) ponders the duty of the elves; as Bard (a brooding Luke Evans) comes to the gate of the mountain to plead for peace; and as Thorin struggles with his "dragon-sickness" (i.e. greed), while Bilbo wrestles with the dilemma of what to do with a certain stolen gemstone.

Thorin was presented at first as this trilogy's Aragorn. But over time we've learned of the dangerous pride that ruined his grandfather. Thorin's hubris and arrogance is in stark contrast to Bilbo's very relatable and achievable traits of decency and humility. The gulf between them is intriguing and wisely plundered for drama. Armitage and Bilbo provide the best performances of the film - mostly internal; mostly in the eyes - and their farewell is one of the more moving moments in a trilogy that has largely prioritised humour over pathos.

The battle itself is undoubtedly impressive - great roaring hordes punctuated with spectacular giants - but in a sense it compounds the problem of the relatively truncated runtime. What was already the shortest Middle-earth film is rendered artificially even shorter by the fact that there's 45 minutes of virtually wordless fighting. By now we should all be braced for Super Legolas and his physics-defying fighting style. That reaches new heights here; as he sprints up a crumbling bridge like he's on the wrong escalator, it's like some sort of visual satire on the weightlessness of CGI.

With its last bastion and swarming armies, the titular battle resembles The Return of the King's Pelennor finale - yet that movie took breath between its showdowns. Galadriel vs. Sauron; Legolas vs. Bolg; Thorin vs. Azog... it's like we're watching someone finish off a video game but we're powerless to stop them skipping the tension- or character-building cutscenes. Moreover, the dubious editing decisions create some strange and jolting juxtapositions and tonal lurches, and negate the sense of time passing or of great distances being crossed.

The result is a film that really earns its status of "theatrical cut", insofar as it resembles many a boisterous blockbuster. This is fairly damning criticism for a Middle-earth movie, usually so luxurious and layered in its sense of a unique world. There's plenty of meat here - but where are the bones that hold it all together? 11 months away, perhaps.

Did Peter Jackson really just conclude his second Middle Earth trilogy? His take on J.R.R. Tolkein's "The Lord of the Rings" was a completely exhausting adventure that in many ways feels like seven films, not three, while "The Hobbit" trilogy feels exactly like it is on paper: one straightforward adventure broken into three parts. "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" proves a fitting, exciting conclusion to this particular trilogy, but compared to the conclusion of "The Lord of the Rings," quite frankly and pun intended – it gets dwarfed.

As with "The Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of Smaug," "The Battle of the Five Armies" is another beautiful achievement in fantasy filmmaking, with stunning production value and an outstanding director in Jackson. It is creative, humorous, action-packed, brimming with talent and gravitas and so many of the things that made "The Lord of the Rings" the achievement it was. So why was this trilogy less acclaimed and somewhat anti-climactic? Part of this undoubtedly has to do with novelty. We've been to Middle Earth before, we've seen the makeup and the elaborate sets, we know how Jackson navigates a battle sequence. Although "The Hobbit" has new locales and new characters and was the first film series screened with a higher frame rate, it's not as groundbreaking an achievement. Also, that accomplishment set the bar high for "The Hobbit" given how many people have returned from "Lord of the Rings" on camera and off.

Yet the real culprit is story. "The Hobbit" is a children's book, so splitting it into three parts is merely dragging out a streamlined plot of "company seeks treasure and justice, company faces challenges along the way culminating in a mighty dragon, company overcomes odds." The added subplots put more meat on the bones of the three films, especially "Desolation," but did not necessarily add complexity or maturity to it.

"Five Armies" at least does not waste any time. The first act is entirely buildup to the titular battle with plenty of suspense as sides try to negotiate in order to prevent an unnecessary war when a much greater evil is growing in Middle Earth. After Smaug torches Lake-town, Thranduil (Lee Pace) and the Wood-elves march upon Erebor, where Thorin (Richard Armitage) has reclaimed his rightful throne. Thorin, however, is corrupted by his greed, and rather than help the displaced people of Lake-town, grows restless because his treasure's focal point, the Arkenstone, has yet to be found. Bilbo (Martin Freeman), who has been hiding the Arkenstone, sees Thorin's madness could cause a senseless war, which of course it does, only the battle takes a different shape when Azog the Defiler and his orc army arrives.

So corruption and selfishness become dominant themes of the film until the final battle, which doesn't disappoint in scale, entertainment, or visual effects. What it doesn't do, however, is command a vested interest from the audience. And when the larger battle halts entirely in order to follow the main characters, it hurts the larger overall narrative, or rather, calls attention to the fact that there really isn't one at this point in the story other than "kill the orcs." Yes, the fate of Middle Earth is at stake, but we already know how things will ultimately play out.

Someone who has never seen the films watching all six in order could be something special, though. "Five Armies" does make "The Hobbit" trilogy a rather strong bridge to "Lord of the Rings," even in its last shot. In a way, Jackson acknowledges that that tale is the bigger story, the one that matters most. The parting message is kind of like "we hope you enjoyed these three fun movies, but 'The Lord of the Rings,' that's where it's really at." As moviegoers who witnessed "Lord of the Rings," this doesn't quite work for us, because we wanted to go back to Middle Earth for something more, to build on the experience of "Lord of the Rings." "The Hobbit," however, like any good prequel, is the foundation, not the next step, and because the story is so simplistic, it doesn't quite do enough for us on its own.

"The Hobbit" is a fun, small adventure filled with courage, danger, evil and love set in the world of "Lord of the Rings," and "Five Armies" is that big scene at the end of the story where everything comes to boil. That's the gist of it. The rest is Jackson and his extraordinary cast and crew bringing that elaborate world back to life for us to enjoy one more time.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

The Battle of the Five Armies title is a great exaggeration of what an army entails. The movie is about more or less a skirmish with some rather imaginative weaponry. The plot goes sideways and after two three hours long previous films we get a two hours and a half mess that is half completely over the top battle scenes and the other half people talking out of their asses. It is pure chaos, where orcs are either mighty unbeatable beasts bred for war or cardboard armor wearing morons easily defeated by fishermen's wives and children, as the action demands. Things start to remind of Pirates of the Caribbean, and not only because it's the same actor doing kind of the same stuff.

There is even a prolonged ending with Bilbo Baggings returning to the Shire, almost as if wanting to undo the good idea in the Lord of the Rings movies in which they removed the boring book ending with Saruman taking refuge in the Shire, and that portrays hobbits as petty bureaucratic creatures, rather than kind and resilient and courageous as declared everywhere else in the films. If I enjoyed the first two movies and wanted to see how it will all end, the third was a ridiculous failure, trying to do too much with too little: making a country brawl look like an epic battle, keeping the lighter more children oriented tone while killing characters and trying to express deeper heroic emotions, trying to somehow raise on the same level three organized military groups and a bunch of fishermen and animals and tying up lose ends that were there only to make this a trilogy rather than a pair of decent movies.

It is now when all the jokes about the eagles made in good fun in the first two movies (and in Lord of the Rings as well) turn smirky, when the only logic to the plot and action seems to be the panic of production companies trying to achieve their financial goals rather than tell a good story. It is here where the disappointment that everyone talks about when referring to The Hobbit movies raises its ugly head and grows on the small mistakes of the previous two movies. So in order to enjoy the trilogy, one must somehow detach themselves from the ending and see it as an imperfect finish to an otherwise fun movie, maybe imagine their own.

Good but it was dragged on a lot. A lot of people didnt like this movie but nothing can ever come close to LOTR and it will always be in its shadow. If LOTR hadnt been made yet this would have been a great movie but unfortunately it wasn't up to the same standard and should have been but you have to remember Peter Jackson will always be one of the best directors ever.Overall I think that this was a good movie but wasn't up to the standard that it should have been