The Battle of the Five Armies

Denverdave

Denverdave

Resident Ragamuffin
Last night I saw the last Hobbit movie. I am really of two minds about this. At the end of the second movie, during the credits, it makes the statement 'Based on the Novel by JRR Tolkein'. That actually helped. I still wish they would have made two films instead and that Del Toro had stuck it out - but I'll take what I get.

This film is IMHO a bit too focused one action rather than characters. But given that, there are some awesome fight scenes and some incredibly touching moments in the film. I teared up several times. Some very sad moments. A great scene that harkens back to the Simarillion and Unfinished Tales that reminds you about badass the Eldar really are (Galadriel in this case).

Overall, a good action flick, but not what I had hoped for the finale.
 
Well, I think that's really as good as you could have reasonably hoped for. The fact that there are three long films derived from a very short book is certainly telling. The first film was, IMO, abominable. The second was certainly better, but still far from the mark. I don't expect much more from the third. I watch the LOTR films, and re-read the books, at a regular clip (probably too regular). The same will never be said for these films.
 
You can't really focus on character with Tolkien because the characters are paper-thin. All you can do is world-building.

But yeah, I agree that his action scenes are way way way too long. The LOTR films had the same problem.

But I think that The Hobbit is by far the better book, and I enjoy the movies better as well, despite the hour-long scenes of dwarves being chased.

Haven't scened the current film yet, though.
 
I want to go see this only if only to see it completed. I agree that the Hobbit was too short of a book to turn into 3 movies (given that the opposite was true for TLOTR)
 
I may try to see it during my holiday time off.

My feeling on the Tolkein films is that I am happy they were made, even if there were compromises to the stories to make them into movies people would actually want to see. I still like them, even if they are sort of a Cliff Notes version of the books and take some significant liberties.
 
i'm gonna wait till it comes out on dvd and watch it at home.
i have all the others on the shelf, so i will HAVE to have the last one.
 
I have tried more than once and couldn't make it halfway through the FIRST Hobbit film.

IMO, it was God-awful.

I quite enjoyed the LOTR movies, though.
 
Honestly, I don't really like the books (they're okay, but not what I'd consider "great"), and other than a few good scenes, I think all of the movies are pretty bad.
 
I saw it today, and on the whole, I enjoyed it. While I still think padding The Hobbit out to three movies was a terrible idea born of greed, Jackson did manage to pull it all together in the final movie. This one felt less padded than the previous two.

And dare I say it? The movie actually did a better job at justifying what Bilbo does with the Arkenstone than in Tolkein's novel, where it came across (to me at least) as kind of a dick move by Bilbo.

Unfortunately, the high frame rate 3D version made a lot of the movie look cheap -- like made-for TV cheap -- and between the live action and the CGI scenes there was definite lack of a consistent filming style, almost as though there were two cinematographers with very different styles working on it. With a lower frame rate and lower resolution such problems would be hidden, but here they stood out like a sore thumb. Technology has gotten a little out of hand in modern moviemaking, and I expect it'll get worse before it gets better.

Particularly bad were the "shaky camera" moments that every action movie nowadays is obliged to have. With the high frame rate, I found it kind of unpleasant, almost painful, to try to follow the focus of the scene. Every jiggle of the camera was an annoying distraction. And numerous times I felt like the projector speed was set too high (which is silly because there's no film, nor any projectionist).
 
Prages said:
I'm talking about all of Tolkien's LOTR/Hobbit crap, btw.
Click to expand...
Ah, back in the 60's they were quite the thing to read and read them I did. I rather liked them. I wanted to like the movies, but they didn't work for me. Just not a visual guy; I like doing the visualizing in my head.
 
I've read the books twice. Once as a kid in the early 80s and once as a young adult in the late 90s.

I enjoyed them more in the 90s, but still didn't think they were great.
 
Prages said:
I've read the books twice. Once as a kid in the early 80s and once as a young adult in the late 90s.

I enjoyed them more in the 90s, but still didn't think they were great.
Click to expand...
I would agree that they aren't great, but they were unique in my experience, as I was mostly into biographies and history books. Being 16 and in the early days of a growing counterculture elevated the experience I am sure.
 
Tolkien himself said he wasn't much of a writer, so I imagine his style does turn off some people.

He may not have been a good character developer, but he was good at the history aspect of the world he built. Stuff like lineages, myths and the like.
 
Im half way brought 'The Hobbit' on Netflix. It seems quite good id say. Better than the first film in the LOTR series, what a boring snoozefest that was.

Netflix better get the other parts of the trilogy too, the tight bastards.
 
I saw the final last night, thoroughly enjoyed it and then felt very sad when it was over as that is it...no more Middle Earth stories anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top