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. (05/01/2015)

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. (29/12/2014)

The fact that I’m giving it one more star than the second part it’s not due so much to a better quality, but rather to the better mood I was in while watching it. Or maybe it was the more reasonable run, I don’t know. A plus is Thorin’s momentary episode of madness, a negative, is once again, the digital mess. Bilbo floats with the plot, the battle of the five armies breaks down into individual fights, and as a whole it goes nowhere. Once again I must say that adapting “The Hobbit” as a film trilogy was a very bad decision. (14/01/2015)

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. (14/12/2014)

Roads go ever ever on, under cloud and under star; yet feet that wandering have gone turn at last to home afar. For some, it's a barrage of computer tricks, for others, a pleasant adventurous ride, for still others, it's a meaningless war massacre with no added value. And for me, it's a fairytale preceding The Lord of the Rings, creating one big unforgettable narrative. Peter Jackson is still like Peter Pan so many years after The Fellowship of the Ring. Like a boy who stayed in his own Middle-earth and refuses to grow up. And it's only thanks to him that Bilbo seems like a good friend, Gandalf the wisest mentor, and Thorin as the true main character, with whom it's worth experiencing every sword stroke or chilling breath. And in the cave, in Esgaroth, on the battlefield, in the mountains, and in the Shire, I discovered again and again that their world is also mine and not only were my expectations fulfilled, but they were also easily surpassed. Today, two trilogies have finally created a separate hexalogy, and I want to stay in it forever. So once again... In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. (26/12/2014)