The Hobbit - The Battle Of The Five Armies - Trailer

2456

Comments

  • richie4evarichie4eva Posts: 217,838
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not at good as Desolation of Smaug or the LOTR trilogy, but then again Return of the King was always going to be difficult to follow

    Satisfactory end to the Middle Earth adventures overall
    Smaug's death was superbly done. The final battle at the end did drag on a bit but did like the reference to Aragorn and the flashback of sorts to Fellowship at the end
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Dr. Linus wrote: »
    Really, really enjoyed it. Not without its flaws - the pandering to the fanbase really didn't sit right with me, particularly "go find Aragorn" - but for the most part I found it excellent and visually extraoridinary.

    You can read my full review at my blog if you're interested - http://itsandybob.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-review/

    (Not trying to advertise, just can't be bothered summarising in more detail after writing that :p).

    Nice spoiler there .. thanks ..
  • jojoenojojoeno Posts: 1,842
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Seen it last night in 3D it was good and I enjoyed it. IMO not as good as the first two but overall LOTR is still the best and beats the Hobbit by a mile.
  • Virgil TracyVirgil Tracy Posts: 26,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nice spoiler there .. thanks ..

    I saw you in that Christopher Jefferies drama the other night , good job , reckon there's a BAFTA for you next year .
  • RAZORBACKRAZORBACK Posts: 371
    Forum Member
    Really enjoyed this, it's definitely the strongest part of the trilogy and whilst it isn't completely bloat free there's significantly less than there was in the previous two instalments.

    Narratively speaking it moves along at a reasonably brisk pace and the battle sequences (which represent a large proportion of it's running time) are very impressive indeed.

    Overall it's a very decent fantasy flick that more than deserves an 8/10 from me...
  • Tom HarkTom Hark Posts: 44
    Forum Member
    Very disappointed. This one lacked the essentials of a good film like characterization, dialogue of more than a few words at a time , and a story. Spectacular? Yes , it was battle and battle and more battle. If that is your bag, you will love it
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm glad The Hobbit movies have been made. As much as I like the original LOTR trilogy, and despite being superior, more epic, etc, there's only so many times I can listen to Elijah Wood's "Oh Sam" & endure his overly pained facial expressions (It's not just down to EW though, I also found Frodo annoying in the books). It's nice to be able to watch Middle-Earth based movies without that ongoing irritation.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Really not enthusiastic about this film. Part of me thinks I should go and see it because I went to see the other two but the second one in particular annoyed me quite a bit. Such a pity because I loved the LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit novel.

    I've seen these films described as being like trying to spread one sachet of butter over three slices of toast. I think that's pretty accurate.
  • darkjedimasterdarkjedimaster Posts: 18,620
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Just got back from the IMAX showing at the Odeon in Norwich, was disappointed that the HFR wasn't on the IMAX screen but loved the film. Will be getting the extended edition of this next winter to go with the other extended editions of the previous Hobbit films and LOTR. :)
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Extended editions? :o

    The while trilogy feels like a super-extended edition as it is. What more are they putting on there?
  • StansfieldStansfield Posts: 6,097
    Forum Member
    Tom Hark wrote: »
    Very disappointed. This one lacked the essentials of a good film like characterization, dialogue of more than a few words at a time , and a story. Spectacular? Yes , it was battle and battle and more battle. If that is your bag, you will love it
    Have to agree.....not much story, but a lot of battles - which got tedious by the end - but I'll still give it 8 out of 10.
  • Dr. LinusDr. Linus Posts: 6,445
    Forum Member
    Nice spoiler there .. thanks ..

    It really isn't much of a spoiler, and that's not a quote from the film. Aragorn doesn't appear seeing as he'd be about 10. In fact if you haven't seen the film there's really no way to figure out what I was referring to there, so it isn't a spoiler at all.
  • Granny McSmithGranny McSmith Posts: 19,622
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I've just seen the film and I thought it was excellent. Best of the 3 imo. Death scenes were so touching, the necromancer stuff was very well done, loved the reference to Aragorn (agree it's not a spoiler).

    Some of the CGI was a bit dodgy, but a very minor quibble. I may watch the LOTR trilogy tomorrow and immerse myself in Middle Earth. I will sadly miss Bilbo.
  • VolVol Posts: 2,393
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've just seen the film and I thought it was excellent. Best of the 3 imo. Death scenes were so touching, the necromancer stuff was very well done, loved the reference to Aragorn (agree it's not a spoiler).

    Some of the CGI was a bit dodgy, but a very minor quibble. I may watch the LOTR trilogy tomorrow and immerse myself in Middle Earth. I will sadly miss Bilbo.

    I've been a big defender of these Hobbit films, but some of the CGI is undoubtedly awful. One of the main examples I can think of is during the barrel chase in DOS when the dwarves cut a log across the river, when the log splits the CGI effect of the exposed interior is about the standard I'd expect to see in a TV show... not a blockbuster movie.

    Some of the clips I've seen of Five Armies admittedly did look a bit like a video game... hoping it translates better on the big screen (seeing it on Tuesday, can't wait).
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    I saw the film tonight and was unexpectedly blown away by it... for me it justified the long journey through the first two films just to see this...
    - Third films often struggle to match the success of previous installments in any genre, for any demographic. Spiderman 3, X-Men 3, Jurassic Park 3, Shrek 3, Jaws 3. For the record there's a couple of those I really like, and whilst it's not an exclusive rule I think a lot of the time the problem is that the third film in a series (or a trilogy) is usually going through the motions a little bit in terms of formula, and suddenly the film has to rely on a strong sense of character to carry it further. The novelty has worn off by film three, and if there's little substance to back it up then it turns into a flop or is simply more of the same just a little more tired. Some third films seem to be criticised for their extensive battle scenes or overuse of CGI at the cost of a decent story. But in the event of a trilogy, the failings of a third film are often actually indicative that the previous films just didn't set it up very well (a minority opinion, but I think this is why X-Men 3 is so loathed...as I love it on its own!). The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies then, is a third film that has received some of that same criticism. Whilst largely it seems well received, the most frequent issue I see getting mentioned is that the film is lighter on story and heavier on spectacle. Frankly though that's how it should be as far as I'm concerned. We had the incredibly long journey in the first two films setting us up - now all the pieces are on the table, it's up to the third and final film to move them around and knock some of them down. It is battle-heavy, it doesn't have as intrinsic a plot and it strips things down to basics somewhat... but this allows the characters to shine through much more, and sells the film as a real 'big finish' event.

    - 48fps...it isn't for me. Not yet anyway. I feel that the CG and even the practical effects simply aren't ready for that level of detail. Even watching it in the old cinematic 2D, the effects of 48fps can still be seen in these films and it's somewhat jarring - less so in this third film as it seems more of an issue during interior scenes rather than exterior ones. Perhaps The Hobbit films were the wrong films to try out this technology - they were clearly trying to tap into some nostalgia from The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and this new style has held them back and differentiated them a bit. I felt it was at its worst during the Lake-town scenes near the start. Scenes that had been green-screened were clearly green-screened, CG effects stand out as lacking the fluidity and precision of the real world around them...Smaug looked worryingly cartoony in certain shots, the trolls looked like well-rendered PS3 graphics in places. It's not that the eye isn't used to such precision, it's simply that CGI has new hurdles to overcome again, and whilst the effort put in here is admirable it doesn't necessarily always pay off. As I said though, The Battle of the Five Armies is the least offensive of the three films on this front. It also seems to look far better on a cinema screen than the adverts suggest on a TV/computer screen.

    - The end of the film was beautifully understated. I was somewhat expecting another cameo from Elijah Wood just to bookend his appearances in this trilogy but one appearance was enough. In fact despite the battle scenes and drama, a lot about this film was beautifully restrained and reserved. The script (or astonishingly good acting) seemed to give the characters a much needed depth - evil didn't come across as so black and white and it made things a lot more interesting.

    - The inclusion of Smaug is still weird. It didn't so much detriment this film as it does the last one. The Desolation of Smaug was poorly paced from start to finish, but the cliffhanger as it were left it dissatisfying and disjointed. Having now seen this film too, it's almost as if Smaug's involvement all builds up to something of an afterthought. His demise deserved to be the end of the last film.

    - The Dol Guldur content paid off in the end, big time! I loved seeing it in An Unexpected Journey...in fact it was quite the surprise as I didn't think we'd even get hints of that until the second film. By the second film it dragged a bit... Gandalf hanging around the old ruin simply felt like we were waiting for the third film. That we were, really. Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett was a force to be reckoned with - they all had a terrific moment, nobody more so than Blanchett's Galadriel. It was my personal highlight of the film, ironically enough given it's technically not in the book.

    - The film seemed to pace itself well and gave the characters a lot to do - even the likes of Legolas were less annoying an inclusion in this one (although his detour with Tauriel felt anticlimatic, as was their shared story really).

    - I did have an issue with the way the Eagles were used once again. Whilst true to the book and fine enough, I felt this was the perfect time for some exposition and explanation about them - it's basically missing from all six films despite the fact they turn up to save the day in four of them! They're a bit too much of a deux ex machina when they don't necessarily need to be quite so much and the film didn't do anything to fix that.

    - The score was brilliant in this one - Howard Shore's best effort for this trilogy, even if not up to the epic standards of The Lord of the Rings.

    - There and Back Again remains a more appropriate and poetic title for me...regardless of the fact we're already there and the 'back again' consumes only minutes of the film.

    - Most crucially of all I think this film found the balance between light and dark elements they were aiming for between the source material and the additions and references to the LotR trilogy. Whilst The Desolation of Smaug exemplified why we didn't need three films, The Battle of the Five Armies shows not only how three films was acceptable (not denying it was done for profit) but essentially shows what a Hobbit film should be. Light in the right places, darker in others... but a lot more certain of itself than the previous meandering efforts that didn't quite know how to strike the balance so well. It's not a perfect film, but it's not a perfect trilogy. It's the best ending it could have gotten though, and better still it's a respectable conclusion to the six-part saga started with The Fellowship of the Ring.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just got back from watching it and i loved it. Definitely the best of the trilogy. The very last scene was just wonderful :)
  • Matt35Matt35 Posts: 29,797
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Saw this yesterday. Thought it was great although not as long as previous films. Can't wait for it to come out on bluray.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Matt35 wrote: »
    Saw this yesterday. Thought it was great although not as long as previous films. Can't wait for it to come out on bluray.

    I thought that as well actually .. "only" 144 minutes.
  • Super FrogSuper Frog Posts: 11,480
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I did find the battle rather tame. Was waiting for a big moment, e.g. the Rohirrim charge from ROTK, but it never came.

    Still, it was a fun film. I especially liked how they let Billy Connolly play himself.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Super Frog wrote: »
    I especially liked how they let Billy Connolly play himself.

    That got a big laugh in the cinema I was in, especially the line "Would you all mind just sodding off?" :)
  • Matt35Matt35 Posts: 29,797
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That got a big laugh in the cinema I was in, especially the line "Would you all mind just sodding off?" :)

    Yeah that got a few laughing where I was.
  • nethwennethwen Posts: 23,374
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11285677/From-warm-and-witty-to-carnage-adapting-The-Hobbit.html

    ^This article sums up my views on the Hobbit films.

    Peter Jackson did really well with the LotR films, and they will always be classics for me; but I'm afraid he has lost his way with the Hobbit films.

    Having said all that, I haven't seen the third film yet. I will see it sometime, just for closure more than anything else. I am especially not looking forward to the long fight scenes at all. Nor the awful CGI, for that matter.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    nethwen wrote: »
    Having said all that, I haven't seen the third film yet. I will see it sometime, just for closure more than anything else. I am especially not looking forward to the long fight scenes at all. Nor the awful CGI, for that matter.

    I went in with the same opinion and the same concerns. I enjoyed it though - the battle scenes weren't overbearing and were nicely paced between more intimate points, and although the CG still needs work it's mostly okay in this one - a step up from the previous two (I found the first 15 minutes to be of the same quality as 'Smaug but then it picked up after the title card) :)
  • DangerBrotherDangerBrother Posts: 1,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SNL 2014 Martin Freeman "The Hobbit and The Offic…: http://youtu.be/S-zhCo8EM4E
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    SNL 2014 Martin Freeman "The Hobbit and The Offic…: http://youtu.be/S-zhCo8EM4E

    I watch SNL all the time and saw that at the weekend. Great stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.