The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies – Movie Review

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!



Chris Stuckmann reviews The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, starring Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans, Evangeline Lilly, Orlando Bloom, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee. Directed by Peter Jackson.


MegaDragonslayer1997 says:

Ugh, book purists are so annoying. They have no right complaining about
movie adaptations. All they do is bitch about how it isn’t 100% accurate to
the books.

Like Chris said – if you get the tone and the feel right, you’ve

photographer85 says:

It began with the filming of the Great Trilogy. Three were given to the
fans. And then the normal version, the extended and the special extended
edition – which above else, had lots of extra content. For within these
DVDs were bound hours of additional scenes and fun to enjoy at move nights.
But they were all of them deceived, for another trilogy was made.
In the land of Kiwis, in the studios of New Line Cinema and MGM, the greedy
Lord Jackson forged in public ‘The Hobbit’, to be shown in three parts.
Into this trilogy, he poured a lot of bullshit, his greed, and his will to
dominate all JRR-Tolkien-related stuff. One trilogy to ruin them all.
One by one, the movies were released over a span of three years. But there
were some who resisted. A last alliance of true LotR-fans didn’t go to the
theatre, and stayed at home and watched the original trilogy instead
because it was a hundred bajillion times better than the hobbit-crap.

The End.

426Darkrai says:

I feel like the only one that read the Hobbit book, and yet still enjoy the

Yes, they could have toned down the CGI, and the romance was
reaaallly unnecessary, but for what they are I still enjoy them, and lets
face it, no matter what direction the Hobbit went in, nothing about it was
going to beat the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

You have to admit one thing, though, they still beat the Star Wars prequels
(which I actually enjoyed, don’t hurt me, but the Hobbit was better.)

Alasteir 177 says:

This is just my opinion but these hobbit movies are forgettable to me
compared to the LOTR. I don’t know if that’s because I watched it as a
child so it stuck with me more, but there was just this real feeling that
surrounded the LOTR. The monsters as a whole looked menacing, the
characters all had their place and role to further the story that one could
connect with, and I felt emotionally invested in the story.
For me, watching the hobbit, I could tell the monsters were all made off a
computer with little emotion given to them (which took me out of the middle
earth feel) , I was bored during the seemingly forced love scenes and some
parts of the movie, and honestly..I cant tell you one of the dwarfs’ name.
That being said I did somewhat enjoy the first two hobbits (haven’t seen
the third) just feel it was forgettable.

Thomas Mason says:

I honestly do not care that the Hobbit films don’t follow the book. They
are awesome films, why should they have to meticulously follow the book?

Following the book has on more than one occasion held something back, shit
will and has to change, it is a different median with a different purpose

Joe bob says:

As someone who has now seen all THREE movies , I can say I am deeply
disappointed in Peter Jackson. Not just because I’m a die hard fan of the
source material, I actually loved some of the additions, but because he
took a story with tons of interesting, unique and varied situations and
characters, and turned it into a generic Hollywood product.

The Roast Mutton chapter of the book is my absolute favourite part in any
book in history, and the scene in the movie was just uninspired. Mirkwood
in the novel was constantly pitch black, and legitimately frightening to
think about, while the scene in the movie was simply “don’t leave the
path!”… And the characters promptly leave the path, to no ones surprise,
without any decent reasoning. Beorn was a very mysterious and deep
character in the novel, with a fantastic introduction to, but all that is
cut in the movie for “He can shape shift into a bear. They’re leaving now.”

The whole series stinks of generic Hollywood clichés in place of the
interesting situations of the novel.

I actually liked how they introduced Bard as a central character, I loved
Smaug’s scene. It’s not all bad, but you’d think if they wanted to make
THREE long movies out of a 300 page book, they’d be sure to put in details.

Oscar Stainton says:

To answer the critique of The Hobbit films as the “Star Wars prequels of
our decade”, I’d say not in the slightest. The acting is considerably
superior, the characters were well realized, the dialogue is far less
stilted, and the emotional scenes in both the first two hit home for me,
and I expect a similar outcome in Part III. And unlike the Star Wars
prequels that hampered my ability to enjoy the Original Trilogy (biggest
culprit – Midichlorians), the flaws of the Hobbit films don’t leave a
scratch on my adoration of Lord of the Rings.

I do think the ending sounds rushed, based on Chris’ assessment, so I’ll
have to wait and see and hope the extended edition fixes that; (I actually
LOVE the ending to Return of the King and how it wraps everything up). And
I agree, the whole romance thing should have been left out, thank you
WB/MGM. -_-

Starmalade says:

I as a Tolkien fan, I don’t like the last two Hobbits because it’s
waaaaaaay more siilly and stupid.

Save4321 says:

The Legolas action scenes in this movies are ridiculously bad. And the dol
Guldur events were poorly done.. I really liked the opening scene, the war
and Thorin and Bilbo. The battle was a bit dissapointing because never
reaches its climax. And in my opinion Tauriel should have died. I rate

Lukas Garcia says:

Yeah, I’m one of those few people who dislike The Hobbit films mostly
because of all the unnecessary subplots and characters added to the film
that weren’t in the book.

I mean, a 300 page book turned into a 470 minute movie (if you added up all
of the 3 movies runtime together). Pfftt.

But this is only my opinion.

John Canuck says:

Rushed, really? Your complaining that a trilogy of movies spanning 8 hours
based on a single book (which everyone said was just milking it) wrapped up
too quickly? These movies just can’t win lol

KainScion says:

90% of all 3 movies aren’t in the book. or books in general. get that
money, jackson.

Forrest Robinson says:

Star Wars and LOTR
Both started off as an awesome and epic trilogy
Both got a trilogy of less-than-awesome prequels

Chris Dynamo says:

This is why I don’t subscribe to you, I prefer honesty than outright
fanboyism. It’s okay to be excited for something, but ignorant of all
negatives? Nah. Sure, you mentioned a flaw once, in nearly 6 minutes, but
come on, I bet a lot sucked. Plus you gave Desolation a 9/10, somehow, and
that was such a weakly written film. You disappointment me again namesake.

ShinbrigTV says:

Haven’t seen any of the “Hobbits” films yet…so I guess this weekend I’m
having a marathon. 

Oscar Eriksson says:

What Peter Jackson has created with his cast of actors and filmmakers is
something that book purist don’t seem to have the slightest grasp on how
difficult and time consuming it really is to create.
There are literally thousands of things that has to go right in order to
create a movie like this. It is impossible for him to create the exakt film
that your mind imagined in your head when you were reading the books. I
mean how could he create the imagination of all the people that has ever
read the book? This is how he saw middle earth after reading the books and
I’m happy he shared his vision.
Movies don’t match the books? Make your own interpretation of it and
release it to the world instead of just complaining. 

The Honest Slug says:

I hate this stupid movie because it doesn’t follow the book, I give it a

michael says:

The Hobbit Trilogy is this decades Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. 

TPiske says:

Out of the three, I’ve only seen An Unexpected Journey. Too much makeup.
Too much CGI. Hollywood tropes all over the place. Pale orc is an extremely
boring villain. It’s tarnishing the prestige of the LotR universe. I guess
I ought to see the rest before I make any final judgements, but the first
Hobbit was just so far off. Made me too mad.

LordOf TheBricks says:

Before You guys start bitching as always about how he ruined the movie,only
because You know The Hobbit book has 300 pages,and that’s all You know,and
You don’t know that Tokien wrote appendices in Lotr what was happening in
The Hobbit,but it is not int he book,please read this. No one can’t compare
book with movies,it is all about style of writing. Tolkien in The Hobbit
didn’t described so detail places like in Lotr,but there are a lot of
important scenes in that one small book,like: Troll Shaws,Rivendell,Goblin
cave,whenthey escaped on trees,Beorn’s house,Mirkwood,Barrel escape (which
I prefer movie style),LakeTown,Erebor,Battle of the five armies,and Back to
Bag-End. There are also things what are not in The Hobbit book,like
Dol-Guldur,but those things are explained in Lotr books,what were happening
at the time of The Hobbit,but it is not in The Hobbit book,but PJ also
included that in Movies,so tell me,how would You include all of these
scenes in only 1 or 2 movies? Some explanations why Legolas is in the
movie:The Hobbit movie is not based on The Hobbit book,it is based on The
Hobbit book + scripts at the end of Lotr book what has some things what
were happening at the time at The Hobbit book,but these things are not in
The Hobbit book.Tolkien wnted to re-write The Hobbit after Lotr,to fit it
in nicely,but he died.Legolas lives at the time of The Hobbit book,cause he
is Thranduil’s son,and elves can’t die by natural death.So, how would You
explain if Legolas is not in the movie? Where is he then? I am a huge
Tolkien and PJ fan,but there is only 1 thing I didn’t like in the movies:
Tooooo big role for Legolas,I like the fact that he is included in
movies,but I would keep him inside of Mirkwood,it was toooo big role for
him (since he isn’t in the book) when he fought with Bolg.Barrel escape was
biggest (positive) surprise,and I would finish with Legolas there.And about
the title,There and Back Again is kind of title for a whole trilogy,not
only last movie,so I understand the reason of changing the title. Peter
Jackson did soooo much for us,if You guys want to complain about every
single detail,then why are You watching this,why You waste Your ”important
time” on writing how he wants only the money? When You see his production
blogs,You will see that he does that because he loves his fans,and because
he loves his job. I don’t think he gets money for production blogs.He did
soooo much for fans,as no one director did before. 

Andybro Ford says:

Just watched it, loved it but I felt like it had some flaws.
1. MY GOD THAT ROMANCE. Its cliche, its badly written, it doesn’t even make
sense and its completely unnecessary.
2.That comic-relief asshole guy, unfunny and completely pointless not sure
what role he was supposed to play as he contributes nothing to the story at
3. Godamn eagles.
4.The opening was confusingly the climax of the previous movie.

ArthurC42 says:

The worst of the three crappy movies. Lotr is amazing. But this… shezus.
Aside from Bilbo and Gandalf – absolutely horrible acting. Complete lack of
immersive epicness. Ridiculously random and boring combat scenes. Not a
single truly touching or emotional moment or death in the story. After the
first two, I really didn’t expect much from this one. But I didn’t expect
it to be poor.
By the way, I’m not comparing to books – just analyzing it as a movie in

JackassJunior627 says:

Just got back fro seeing Battle of the Five Armies, and I loved the movie.
However, I felt the ending segment (about the last 20 minutes) was rushed
leaving a few questions unanswered, that I hope will be explained in the
Extended Edition in late 2015. Some of them are pretty big, especially
if one of them is actually in the book but not in the movie. If you have
seen it then you know what questions I mean, if you haven’t then I won’t
use spoilers just yet.

Tacos Buenos says:

“amazing battle scenes,”
like a dwarven shield wall that is rendered completely useless when the
elves jumped over them.
like a company of 100 goblins that 2 dwarves kill without a worry.
like a dwarf that headbutts 5 orcs in a row.

the guy in front of me was pissed when I started laughing when that dwarf
died. fili? or was it kili?

MadMike1251 says:

If I was one of the brain trust over at Disney studios or Sony I’d be
calling up the Chris Tolkien’s lawyers and literally throwing tens of
millions of dollars at them to try and broker a deal for rights to the J R
R Tolkien literature. Fuck Pete Jackson and fuck New Line and fuck the
horse they rode into town on. I wanna see a Lost Tales or Silmarillion
mini-series or somethin’. Besides network tv ironically is producing the
best content these days. 

sanch Sanchayan says:

I know some of the people may feel rushed post battle.. But the theatrical
edition focused purely on the thorin-bilbo relationship.. the extended will
give closure to every character

Tanzil khan says:

why cant tolkiens children continue the story so that we can watch more
movies and epic wars !! yah!!

ApexPrdator Roar says:

i heard the first ten minutes of the film they battle smaug and killed him,
is that true?(dont care about spoilers) If thats the case then the title of
the second film is misleading as we only see smaug towards the end 

don blem says:

I’m a massive fan of LOTR and I was really looking forward to The Hobbit
movies. However, I found them boring. Strangely, I was most bored by the
3rd film. Terrible effects, forced romance, unrealistic battle scenes. I
found it jarring to see characters having casual conversations / catch ups
in the middle of battle. Also, remember the 2nd Orc army which was coming
in secret? That seemed to get defeated in about 2 minutes, where the 1st
army took over an hour to beat.
Total bore-fest.

OrangeVision says:

My interest in these movies died immediately when I learned it was going to
be a trilogy. I’m not even saying Hobbit is this some kind of sacred holy
book that shouldn’t be innovated upon, but it was pretty clear from start
that Peter Jackson just wanted to have an excuse to repeat the enormous
success that was the first trilogy. I saw those first three movies, they
were great. We still have those movies, they still exist. Make something
that doesn’t.

I would’ve much rather seen a faithful adaption of the Hobbit, with all the
goofy and colourful things and pace that the book encompassed. It wouldn’t
have been the massive success story that was the original trilogy, but at
least it would stand on its own feet. Nobody is going to remember the
Hobbit trilogy ten years from now.

Ryan McLaren says:

Only real issue that bugged me was fucking Legolas, Books are far better
than the films and I understand why Jackson wanted him in it, He’s become
as a character bigger than LOTR especially in RPG’s and the like you cannot
go more than 10 seconds in any MMO without seeing an archer,Hunter,Ranger
without some derivation of his name.

Write a comment