Mark Kermode reviews The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Mark Kermode reviews The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. This final battle brings to an epic conclusion the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield, and the Company of Dwarves. Having reclaimed their homeland from the Dragon Smaug, the Company has unwittingly unleashed a deadly force into the world. Enraged, Smaug rains his fiery wrath down upon the defenseless men, women and children of Lake-town. Obsessed above all else with his reclaimed treasure, Thorin sacrifices friendship and honor to hoard it as Bilbo's frantic attempts to make him see reason drive the Hobbit towards a desperate and dangerous choice. But there are even greater dangers ahead. Unseen by any but the Wizard Gandalf, the great enemy Sauron has sent forth legions of Orcs in a stealth attack upon the Lonely Mountain. As darkness converges on their escalating conflict, the races of Dwarves, Elves and Men must decide: unite or be destroyed. Bilbo finds himself fighting for his life and the lives of his friends in the epic Battle of the Five Armies, as the future of Middle-earth hangs in the balance.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5...
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live.
"A terribly long journey" - well said.
not a terrible film at all, but not great
Brilliant arguments. Jackson is a hugely talented director, and a fine human being also, so it is impossible to dislike him. I hope as well as Mark that he will surprise us with something unexpected like he did in the past, now that he metaphorically threw his One Ring into the fire for good.
Am I the only one who was disappointed with the scene of Smaug destroying Esgaroth?
He flies around it a couple of times, giving everyone time to escape and when he attacks, there's no resistance. In the books he meets a storm of arrows.
Bard kills Smaug in the books. A bird comes and tells him the weak spot, and he fires the black arrow and kills the dragon.
Patrick Laceholder True.
So what's your point?
It is a pity, in my opinion, that the thrush and the raven were not in the movie, but they would not have fit to be honest.
I agree with the choice of making the black arrow huge, however this father and son scene was just awkward.
Did you not look forward to the destruction of Esgaroth? Were you not disappointed?
Taxtro I was just saying how it was different in the book, and yes, it might not have worked on film.
The destruction sequence was alright for me, it's just sad Smaug suffered from stupidity by moving in the same direction so Bard could take the shot.
Patrick Laceholder Yes, however much less stupidity than in the previous movie.
His death scene was ok for me, since he died for the same reasons as in the source material: unwariness induced by rage and arrogance.
watch the extended edition...
The Lord of The Rings films would be in my best 20 films of all time.
King Kong remake.....too long and excessive CGI, remember that chase scene with the party running through dinosaur legs? First sign there that Peter Jackson was overdoing the CGI.
First Hobbit film......terrible, once again too long with at least 40 minutes that could have been cut, best scene Gollum and Bilbo, not enough for me though to save the film and the DVD long since given to charity.
No desire to see films 2 and 3.But for those LOTR films Peter Jackson has left us the finest trilogy in film history and like Mark says I look forward to see what he does next, but someone needs to reign him in when it comes to CGI and film length.
I really would've like to see the Guillermo Del Toro movies.
I watched Hellboy 2 a couple of months ago and I just thought that afterwards. I think Del Toro does have a better way of taking on this more weird and charming (just more fairy tale) story in the Middle Earth world.
Karl Karlos I really like Pacific Rim. Yes the characters are flat and stupid and occasionally just ridiculous but they are fun. It is also just true that Guillermo del Toro has made better movies with better characters. Why I can see this work is because Hellboy 2 did have a fairy tale like quality in it, and it's something I found in the books and really miss in the movie. But especially looking at how wonderful the monster creations of Hellboy 2 are (and overall with Del Toro), I can really see that working for the Hobbit story .The Hobbit movies now rather seem to go for epic and big and it just does not work for this story.
Karl Karlos I don't mean fairy tale in a childish way. Y'know Pan's Labyrinth. Another reason why I think Del Toro is good in that strange fairy tale quality.
Karl Karlos Excerpt from previous comment: "Wait, let me reply to this differently. What makes all of his other films "not good" in your eyes? Cronos and the Devil's backbone were beautifully shot (especially The Devil's Backbone), very well-acted, well-written, had great effects and wonderful sets and were even SIMILAR in their approach and tone to Pan's Labyrnith (especially The Devil's Backbone) and also were spanish-language films, so what makes them "not good"? Especially the fact that they were well-acted and beautifully filmed makes it hard to argue that they're not good. So you think they were badly written? I'm curious".
I think that answers your question about why I "care" about your opinion and I think you can read that or is that too much as well?
"I never said, he is an incompetent director btw"
Yeah, that's what most of my comment you didn't read was about since people often are hyperbolic about directors they find overrated (like the backlash against Christopher Nolan) and that's what annoys ME even more than "hyperventilating fanboys". Part of your comment indicates that you might be doing exactly that (your lines about Hellboy being terrible shlock, about fanboys and "I never said, he is an incompetent director btw. I just think he's not that exceptional."). Big difference between "not good" and "not that exceptional", don't you think? Just like there's a big difference between saying Del Toro's overrated and saying that he hasn't made a single GOOD film other than Pan. Whatever.
Karl Karlos" Hope you are happy now"
I am. Thank you.
Karl Karlos If you don't want to read all of it you already admitted you have lost. I am by no means a Del Toro fanboy myself. I just think he was the right man for the Hobbit. The Hobbit as it is now is just not that good and I would've liked to see something different and I think Del Toro would've been the right man.
He clearly is a nerd indeed. It's wonderful to see creations on screen which look like they have been made with love and care.
i thought this was the best of the 3 hobbit films, but agree with mark on the overuse of cgi in the film, and the fact that i did feel at the end of it a sense of being glad its finished, cause i feel the hobbit didn't need to be stretched over 3 films.
cause of the computer graphicy battle sequences between armies it was hard to feel any sort of emotional tension in them, same when Legolas was jumping those bolders. I was more engaged in the one v one character fights.
I just feel like I'm watching transformers films at this point with jackson, he's fallen like lucas, its a new zealand jobs program, he has to keep that machine running, I get it....but I just can't be bothered to care about lotr films anymore.
The 3 hobbit films should have just been a single film. There's not enough story and a lot of the film's feel pointless and a bit tacky/cheesy.
Tell Peter Jackson to make Eragon series into a movie!
I watched this movie, and can't remember anything about it
I genuinely forgot i'd seen this movie. One of the only trilogies i cant remember which scenes happen in which films. What a disaster
I remember Legolas playing hopscotch.
Sadly, you can hear the producers right at the beginning, saying how can we get as much money as possible out of this, what, you mean only 3 movies...
Zahid Khan Perfect comment
These reviews are roughly the length that the films should have been.
The Battle of the Five Armies was a drain fo a film but learning about the production history Peter Jackson was screwed over. Warner Bros. strongarmed him into doing the film or else they would get a director who would do the job i.e. Brett Ratner. Jackson had no time to prepare, the script wasn't ready, and the studio made the last-minute decision to turn The Hobbit into a trilogy. The studio also mandated the love triangle story.
Jackson had to work 21 hour days when making the film and he was so burnt out that Andy Serkis had to take over the filming despite his lack of experience and plan. The filming of the battle sequences was pretty much film so stuff and put it together in editing.
The experience must have taken a toll on Jackson because he's now more interested in documentaries.
"An adequate conclusion" - that should be on the bus ads! :) The movie's too long and drawn out and there's a lot of high-budget rubbish filler in there - true, true, true (including the elves jumping over the dwarves - which Kermode seemed to like). But the core of the movie is still Thorin's obsession with gold, the futility and complexity of war (something the Lord of the Rings ignores completely) and the simple journey of a normal little guy and the idea that home is always where the heart is. Sad thing about Kermode's review is that while he's right about all the wrong things in the movie, he's wrong about the right things in it.
I enjoyed the first two Hobbit films but I definitely agree about most of the criticisms. The overuse of CGI and the use of green screens - McKellen bursting out in tears says it all - is my main problem with it. Wish I could see Del Toro's two part version, the practical effects and sets that he would have used would have been brilliant. Pity. Jackson needs to make another non-big-budget film to get away from these cgi-filled uneven narratives. A horror (comedy?) film by Jackson would be awesome.
Lol,Del Torro is actually main guy behind Tauriel/Legolas/Kili love triangle,that man just came to ruin Tolkien world, PJ saved what he could save
LordOf TheBricks and you know that how? Because the writers said she was their creation not his
LordOf TheBricks I can imagine something like this starting of in the studios for the sake of having Legolas back and a female character (which I do not really mind), but just that is not the problem of these movies. It's just that the entire thing is baggy and too much added stuff in general. I do not mind a small storyline just for the sake of adding a female character, I do have a problem with the entire thing being blown up for the sake of being as big and "epic" as LotR, which the Hobbit just isn't.
LordOf TheBricks Plus look at the visuals, the orc designs, they're very Del Toro. I hate how he left his very discernable stamp on it.
Tom Waits Yeah yeah, you're a Del Toro fanboy, I get it. He's a hack though, look at Hellboy 2, The Strain, Pacific Rim etc. These films would've been even worse.
I'm also tired of Jackson's habit of moving the camera in every single take. A stillshot can be just as effectful thank you very much!
Nearly every new movie I watch nowadays i feel like screaming hold the camera still!!!
killboggins He does have talent and used to make great movies back in the day, but then again so did George Lucas.
killboggins His original Star Wars was quite visionary (inspiration does not equal plagiarism), but watching it now I don't think it's really held up all that well as a movie. The world building and effects are what impressed people so much back in the day.
I agree that Empire was much much better, the only great Star Wars movie as far as I'm concerned. It took Lucas' cinematic world and did something much better with it, and the best ideas (like the big twist) came from other people. Jedi suffered greatly from his increased involvement.
The movie was a MESS. What is it that you people see in it? It's like freaking World of Warcraft now with cave trolls LITERALLY walking on stilts!
Billy Connolly also got a boar mount with the funny running animation!
Love your comment.
I feel like the hobbit trilogy are a series of movies which have suffered quite profoundly from the black and white mentality of the internet, wherein everything has to be the most life changing experience imaginable or a repulsive blight upon the cultural landscape. Not that they aren't flawed (see video) but I feel like a lot of people were expecting them to have as much impact and quality as the Lord of the Rings, which was never going to happen. But people don't wan't to have the balanced opinion that it's "Fine, not great" because that isn't incendiary or funny enough and doesn't grab other peoples' attentions.
Loved the movie, but they're right; that moment when Legolas jumped on the falling stone blocks was awful. The worst part of the movie.
Yes
Having Legolas always took me out of the movie because he wasn't even in the original book the Hobbit, so putting so much focus on him was distracting and unnecessary.
Lion of Judah True.
I didn't really like the movie because as Mark says the action never really reaches the level that it got to at the beginning with Smaug. It lost an overall sense of scale and tension that meant I didn't know when it was going to end, and when it did I was like "oh, it's over now? ok..."
Every film his powers and abilities get more absurd. In the first film he kills to orcs with one arrow, in the second he uses a shield to shake down some steps, in the third film he single handled takes down a huge elephant creature and about 20 men. Now he is basically a superhero.
The second Hobbit was a big let down so I'm not hyped for this one
***** I'm not surprised, I felt exactly the same about the second film it was awesome for an hour then the other hour and 40 minutes were mostly filler with a few entertaining scenes. This is coming from someone who absolutely adores the LOTR trilogy so I was really disappointed.
Mr. Kermode, you forgot the superb work done by Richard Armitage.
I actually enjoyed AUJ but I disliked TDoS and really disliked this film. Too many bad changes and overused cgi in the battle scenes.
I'm looking forward to somebody doing a high quality downloadable 'fan edit' of the 3 Hobbit extended editions, condensing them into two movies. But then I guess nobody would ever agree on what bits should be cut out/left in. Personally, I found myself groaning every time another drawn-out, visually-spectacular action sequence kicked off... these sequences just reminded me that a short story had been stretched out to make more money.
I just feel this trilogy was milked... I thought the first one was quite witty and a good paced "chase" movie, the Shire bit was probably slightly too long but it is just enough to get away with it! Desolation of Smaug was pretty dull, I think the addition of the Elves helped bring the quality up slightly but it was a pretty bland film and did not like the ending of Smaug flying towards Laketown which was abruptly concluded at the beginning of part 3..... The third installment was an improvement but still did not feel like a coherent story which was exciting.... Overall enjoyed 1/3 films despite the terrible frame rate in part 1 which gave me a headache and sore eyes from what I recall (still enjoyed it though) Shame really, maybe Kermode is right and 2 films might have been better, I feel two chunky fast paced films would have been better than 3 dragged out stories....
I will be seeing the movie when the pre-Christmas rush calms down, from the first two episodes I have come away thinking that the trilogy it is more of a retelling of the story in the way that you may recount things with your friends down the pub much later, full of embellishments and exaggerations, which grates against some of Tolkien's style which is more exact.
I do wish that the trilogy was trying less hard to reflect the Lord of the Rings films and had a more innocent feel.
This whole trilogy was like a Richard Mille watch--an elaborate, expensive junk that isn't worth the cost and doesn't even look all that good.
2 movies would've been enough, hell even 1 long feature would be sufficient if done well. It's a fairly short read children book. Read it as a kid and absolutely loved it. The last film was just a giant headache.
I'm a die hard Lord of the rings fan, I love the books and I loved the films overall, and I love the Hobbit book and I wish I could have been sad because it was all over when I left the cinema.
I was actually relieved that Peter Jackson wouldn't mess up any other of Tolkien's books. What happened?! (ok, greed happened.) The LOTR felt so genuine, great actors that you'd remember as their characters for ages - but this?! I feel a bit let down to be honest. I could go into details that I think sucks (SPOILERS WOOP.) such as the love triangle blocking family relations that could have been so much more interesting - Kíli and Fíli should have died trying to save their uncle and it should have been about the three Durins dying together. We had an opportunity to see a proper relationship between Legolas - like we know from before - and his father. They ruined Thranduil's character too to have him the mean dad who doesn't approve of his son's love interests. In the end of the book he was actually quite nice to Bilbo. It was all like "Oh, yeah, here comes the bitchy elf dad." I am not against them having Tauriel in the story - I am totally against how they used her character though.
But that's just my opinion.
Nothing says "we're stretching this out" more than the fact the titular conflict was an event totally skimmed over in the book because Bilbo was unconscious through the whole thing.
Incredible movie,
I agree very much with this. It was at best only mediocre. The beginning would have been much better used as a finale in the previous film, huge chunks of it felt like a 1 to 1 rehash of Return of the King, Bilbo was hardly involved in it at all, and the pointless and forced love story reached the absolute bottom of its awfulness.
Here's to hoping Del Toro would get to direct a mythological film based on Silmarillion.
The hobbit films were good but didn't live up to Lotr- the last film the main problem was CGI. I do like the extended edition a lot more and I think it added a good amount of material- The ring of fire scene, thorins funeral, and the chariot chase were all good and I love the scenes when BOFUR HIJACKS STUMPY THE TROLL!!!!!!! What a great scene
Odd that he likes all the bang bang stuff and not the quiet subtle stuff - the contrast the Dr usually dislikes the other way round in other films. I really enjoyed the quiet moments, discussions and the odd sing song. I thought the dragon moments were a bit see it done it in any old adventure movie - whereas the real enjoyment was the Tolkien-y bits...
The film’s issues are the writing, length & direction, but the film’s still well acted, well characterised & effective, however the film’s the weakest in The Hobbit films. (61%) (3/5 stars) (mixed)
This movie made me think of the concept of fan-edits. There are plenty in existence for the Star Wars prequels. For those movies I never really saw the point, the Phantom Menace in my opinion is more or less unsalvageable. But here I think the good stuff can be glimpsed beneath the baggage. So many moments had the kernel of a great idea (I actually liked the thing of Thorin taking on a "dragon voice") but were hammered to death numerous times and therefore lost their meaning. Once all the Hobbit films are out on DVD, I wonder if anyone will undertake a lengthy editing procedure, and try to bring the films back to the heart of their story. It's a shame (and probably morally dubious) to take a chisel to Peter Jackson's hard work, but in this case I think you could justify it. Maybe you could trim these films down to 2, or even 1 really good movie.
The thing with these movies is that just about every single moment that needed to be a hit also worked perfectly well. But then you have everything else just dragging it down. I do feel like internet culture's way of being either "this is the best thing ever" or "garbage" is kind of exaggerating the issues that they had, though.
It gets lost in the "special effects" sequences, and the battles which are not very credible, there is a better movie (and in all three of the books) without some of the cartoon like action sequences, Martin freeman does a fantastic Job with Bilbo and a simpler cut more about the development of Bilbo, Vs the corruption and pride of of Thorin and Thanduril. trusting JLR's would be better,
I think Kermode hit the nail on the head regarding what was wrong with the movie (or at least, what I felt was wrong)
If I have to think of the most simialr example of a man who does a prequel trilgoy to a successful trio of films, George Lucas comes to mind. And in some respects, Jackson pulled a Lucas, perhaps even worse if we consider that he added 'new' material to what was already enough material from the book. But Kermode is right: The Battle of the 5 armies is NOT a abd movie and throughout the entire Hobbit trilgoy, there have been great moments. The firts movie was very strong, the Desolation of Smaug, though padded out, managed to still retain a good pacing.
Then we come to this movie. If I have to reference a quote from Mr. Plinkett (that guy from Redlettermedia) its like a person whose using story to 'get to the effects'. Or in this case, the action, the fanservice. You have one or twoa ction scenes fans of the Jackson movies (and maybe the books) may have always wanted to see but, and some would argue, its excessive. But Kermode points out: there are good moments. Martin Freeman does a good Bilbo for instance.
And I agree: I really hope Jackson does not go back to Middle-Earth. Do another tintin movie. Do a remake of The Feebles. Just, and this is gonna sound odd (knowing peroples opinions of remakes), but, I'd rather see LotR get remade, a decade or so down the line. Its a vast work. It was made into two separate radio plays, one by the NPR, the other being that stellar BBC version. It spawned two different animated treatments, one by Rankin-Bass, the other by Ralph Bakshi. Each with their own ideas of how elves and orcs should look.
And aside from Tolkien, there's a wealth of fantasy that could be explored: Game of Thrones is doing a good job on TV. And still hankering for more Dwarf on Elf on Orc action? Why, they're doing that Warcraft movie. But another Jackson foray into Middle-Earth, frankly, is overkill.
That love story, and crowbarring female characters in just to look more acceptable to modern views ruined this. I just fast forward past her and the Love story, that's just utter rubbish
I enjoyed i,t but it is by this point I feel like it's similar to enjoying a nice fromage frais. The Smaug sequence at the start was fantastic as you say, then it was just a deliciously rendered strawberry goop dripping into your eyes.
Quicker and cheaper to read the book
disappointing trilogy all round. as movies they were mediocre at best, but as adaptations of the book they were bordering on offensive.
The Shire is now scorched earth
Havent seen any trailers about the movie as i wanna see it so much. I dont
always like that guys reviews anyway so in no way has he put me off seeing
it. x
I think the only part of this film that I remember enjoying was the part where the White Council arrive to rescue Gandalf from Dol Guldur, and that was a pretty cheap thrill. I found the contrast between scenes where there's nothing happening, and the ones where there was seemingly constant peril really tiresome
Out of interest, where did del Toro want to divide the films?
End of the first movie...
***** Bit late, but Del Toro was going to end the first film after the barrel sequence, right when the company meets Bard.
Dboy477 It's actually where the first movie ends now.
I haven't read The Hobbit so at what point would the perfect break be, had this been a two parter like Del Toro wanted?
End of the first movie.
Loved LOTR's. Liked Hobbit 1 and 2. This film, did not like. Agree 100% with this review. The opening in 3D and HFR was spectacular. After that it all looked like a lavish made for tv Christmas special. HFR really makes all the wigs look like wigs. Id rather watch the stone giants fighting for hours. (which blew me away).
The only part I disagree with here is that if you really enjoyed the first two you'll enjoy this. I really enjoyed the first two (obvs nowhere near as much as LOTR) but I really disliked this one. It was an incoherent mess from start to finish and there was no emotional payoff to anything. It was just generic middle earth characters fight general middle earth battle. Massively disappointing way to end what's been (including LOTR) such a wonderful series of middle earth movies.
It was a jumbled mess it was nothing like the other two! It was a rushed endinh with no resolve
as much as people would like for this to appear as the george lucas of the lord of the rings style movies his hobbit films will never EEEEEEEEEEEEEVER be as bad as the prequels of star wars
I've never liked LOTR, controversial I'm sure. I gave the first film a try and I just cringed. Particularly the opening sequence (I think?) when Gandalf is chatting with Frodo, that always made me shudder for some reason. This next part may infuriate so be warned. I enjoy the Harry Potter series more, and shockingly enough I am an adult! I suppose if the HP books were as ancient as J.R.R's fantasy works there wouldn't be such a divide.
Maybe I should pick up one of his books instead, as the movies themselves just don't do it for me.
I was so excited to see Billy Connolly as Dain, so I was majorly disappointed when I couldn't even recognise him because he was basically CG rendered it seems. I love what CGI can do in films, but everything in this Hobbit movie just looked way to false. The battle of Helms Deep was so good because it was tactile, a lot of Helms Deep was built and you could see that, in this you can just tell a lot of it isn't really there.
Probably had to make three films to cover the costs, and make a profit. I was huge disappointment, and still don't understand how they made three films out of that childrens book. I loved the books, and read them for my kids. Lord of the Rings films were great, but The Hobbit? Boring. Way too long. By the way, why did Tom Bombadill not make an appearance in any of the films?
I lo ed the 6 of them
I will see and judge for myself. The first one was a snore for sure, but the second was nice I reckon. Of course, The Hobbit book, unlike LOTR, was much better than the movies.
SS
i haven't seen this third movie and have no intention of doing so. the previous 2 were rubbish and there isn't a decent actor in the lot. the first 3 movies in middle earth were so good that these others just reduce what they achieved.
no sense in 3 films when 2 would do just fine in my opinion.
plus, i can't stand the actor playing Bilbo.
The Hobbit movies were awful.
I just feel this trilogy was milked... I thought the first one was quite witty and a good paced "chase" movie, the Shire bit was probably slightly too long but it is just enough to get away with it! Desolation of Smaug was pretty dull, I think the addition of the Elves helped bring the quality up slightly but it was a pretty bland film and did not like the ending of Smaug flying towards Laketown which was abruptly concluded at the beginning of part 3..... The third installment was an improvement but still did not feel like a coherent story which was exciting.... Overall enjoyed 1/3 films despite the terrible frame rate in part 1 which gave me a headache and sore eyes from what I recall (still enjoyed it though) Shame really, maybe Kermode is right and 2 films might have been better, I feel two chunky fast paced films would have been better than 3 dragged out stories....
The reaction to the film is quite interesting. Many people in the audience in the screening I went to showed signs of quiet disappointment, just like Kermode here. I thought the film was ok, it had a terrific start and was entertaining all the way through. The ending was a bit rushed though. Great Cinema? Definitely not, but good fun nevertheless.
As a lover of the books first then of Jackson's concept, it is a shame he allowed the studio to dictate the format of 3 films. When you have a two and half hours of film with only 30 mins of story you know their is a problem. Of course I'll buy the final DVD but it's a shame it couldn't have finished on a high.
A final comment - It is a disgrace that Andy serkis has never received an #Oscar for what is arguably one of cinemas great character creations as Gollum. The \academy should hang its collective head in shame
Fair review. My feeling was that the three-movie structure was also flawed, insofar that they were trying to make it a simple prequel trilogy to LotR rather than it’s own thing. That’s a shame, however, I think fantasy cinema does have more to offer, if some strong directors and screenwriters could get behind some of the later fantasy writers. We’ve seen the success of Game of Thrones on TV, but we’ve yet to see fantasy icons like Elric of Melnibone or Corwin of Zelazney’s Amber series come to life. These could be spectacular on the big screen, but it would take some directors risks to get there.
LegoLand ha!
This film combined the worst qualities of the first two films. It's the absolute worst of the Middle Earth saga.
One of the worst movies of the year
Spot on review Mark.
All the Saruman thread began to feel like a trailer for a film [LotR] that already exists - not a continuation of a thread
I felt like Kermode did at the of this at the end of the last LOFR film. So I've not bothered with any of the hobbit films.
Looking forward to seeing this movie despite Marks review, i love Peter Jacksons interpretation of J.R.R. Tolkien's work i hope he does more of his stories in the future.
6 years later I'm interested in your take now?
This was one of the most hideous films I've ever seen. It was as if PJ was deliberately trying to destroy his entire legacy.
This review means only one thing....... WAAARRR
When all the Hobbit films are all out on a dvd box sets, Peter should mail one to Mr Lucas with the phrase "this is how to do a prequel trilogy" written on the cover. Don't you think?
There weren't enough dwarves in the original trilogy now we know why as they had the first three to command and the last three shows their decline with moria and gimli being the only dwarf in the second trilogy. Also shows a lot of elves which are leaving in the second trilogy it all fits in perfectly.
If you're referencing the books I really couldn't care about the order they were made.
It was the original trilogy not in time order but the first one made about middle earth so take it as you will only nit pickers Like yourself will feel the need to correct youtube comments to some sort of technical standard.
Care to draw it out for me and make sense of your opinion because original to me in this sense would be the first trilogy made.
the extended editions for all 6 films are the proper way to watch the films in my opinion
I watched Two Towers extended.... thought it ruined the pace of the plot and the extra bits were extraneous.
It's fun over multiple days.
I thought this film was in two parts ?
100% on the mark....kermode😉
The Hobbit was a lighter, shorter and more whimsical book than LOTR. It comes out, unfortunately as heavier, flabbier and more violent than LOTR as a film. LOTR used many real NZ locations and real extras, giving it a palpable feeling of place. More time was given to characterisation, so that our involvement was greater. CGI was used comparatively sparingly. Sequences rarely felt overstretched. The Hobbit, sadly, reverses almost all of that. The title is "The Hobbit", but too often Bilbo is pushed to the peripheries. The film is better when he is centre stage. Too many of the fight scenes are like those on games consoles, ie people being slammed into rocks, then bouncing back as fit as a fiddle.
The film could have been improved in many ways, eg many of the fight, chase and escape scenes could have been shortened or even eliminated. The rather tiresome elves and dwarves should have been more incidental, giving time for Martin Freeman's rather charming Bilbo more prominence. Additional characters dragged in from other parts of Tolkien's writing should have stayed there : they added nothing.
After the original LOTR, Jackson released director's cuts and additional scenes. Maybe he could reverse the idea this time and release a pared down version as one film, which would certainly work better.
The CGI complaints surprise me. Of course the film is mostly CGI, Jackson used the technology and techniques available to him at the time for both trilogies. I once watched an interview with him and he said he had originally wanted to do the Nazgul in LOTR completely CGI but there was simply not enough time to do it, so using actors in robes was the only practical solution.
For me the only negative aspects of the films were the changes from the source material. Azog should have been decapitated by Thorins' father at the battle of Moria after Azog decapitated Thror and Bolg could have been the one vengefully perusing Thorin throughout the journey. Keeping Azog alive seemed completely pointless except for the single purpose of using Bolg as an antagonist for Legolas.
Very fair review. I have some of the same criticisms as Mark, but my main problem is this. The source material is just too weak. The Hobbit had nothing like the depth and attention to detail that The Lord of the Rings had, and to make it adjust into his universe Peter Jackson added in "more stuff".
Some worked, like the White Council and the extra screentime for Bard. What didn't work was Tauriel, Legolas and Fili and their love triangle. I felt like I was counting in my head the amount of minutes they had on screen. If all of that had been taken out, the series could have been 20-30 minutes shorter. Take out the song from the first one and you are looking at a solid 30 minutes saved.
With some better editing and removal of other nonsense moments (the loathsome comedy character who tries to hide with the women), I reckon you could trim 45-60 minutes from the series and this raises the question that maybe it could have been two really good movies.
It's been down hill all the way since bad taste for Peter Jackson
This was the stupidest of the six movies.
I loved the first two Hobbit movies, but we lost our main character here.
The lord of the rings movies are strong on their own and even stronger when watched as a trilogy, especially the extended editions. The Hobbit movies don't hold up on their own as they are totally relient on each other to give you a real pay off. But watch it like a trilogy and The Hobbit gets much stronger and (Imo) almost as good as Lord of the rings.
I saw An unexpected journey and Desolation of Smaug before going to the premiere of Battle of five armies, and I strongly recommend it.
I`ve never seen any of the Lord of the Rings films, but I watched all the Hobbit films recently one after the other over the course of a week, and I LOVED them! Now my head is filled with Hobbits & the shire & adventure & the all wonder of Middle Earth!
I know its been 2 years. But you were kidding when you wrote this comment right?
Also i hope you watched lotr eventually :)
Totally agree with you on this: the Fellowship of the Ring got fantasy right (against my expectations) but The Hobbit was tiresome.
It was so drawn out considering the source material length. Adding characters in who weren't supposed to be there and creating mountains of exposition the book deliberately avoided seemed indulgent. I understand the problem of Lord of The Rings being presented first as film series but creating a bridge between The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings was unnecessary. The Hobbit could have been presented as two 2 hour films and even that is stretching it.
I really enjoy Kermode, especially his rants. But in his admission that he didn't really like the LOTR books, he also admits that he doesn't understand Tolkien at all. The 'tea-party' stuff, the singing of songs and the lore, is really the essence of Tolkein. LOTR was not about big over the top, CG battles. That's what Jackson turned it into. The LOTR films were excellent. The Hobbit series started OK and then went downhill from there. But neither were really carried the spirit of Tolkien. LOTR trilogy was close, but both are very modernized adaptations. Of course they'd have to be, in order to make money. But all the stuff he didn't like is really what Tolkien was about. I would have loved to have seen Del Toro's version. I think he would have caught more of the spirit and less of the hack&slash. Tolkien would have found that vulgar.
IYAMNI In my opinion Peter Jackson managed to improve both stories (LOTR and The Hobbit). He took the best things from the books and added some brilliant stuff, and the result was: two trilogies that I consider to be masterpieces.
The Hobbit would set a very low bar for masterpiece. The LOTR trilogy set a new standard for fantasy and started a cinematic trend. Jackson upped the ante on effects and created completely new ones. But the Hobbit was just more of the same and really had nothing to do with the books. All Tolkien's books are a far superior product if only for the reason that if not for them there would be no film. The LOTR legacy is in literature. Tolkien reframed fantasy and fantasy characters. Before Tolkien elves were silly little characters; he created orcs, he created an entire history and complete languages, Jackson did a great job of adapting contemporizing the story, but Tolkien is the genius here.
IYAMNI You write: "The Hobbit would set a very low bar for masterpiece."
No, not really. When it comes to the basic quality there's no difference between the two trilogies.
"The LOTR trilogy set a new standard for fantasy ... the Hobbit was just more of the same ..."
"More of the same"?? The Hobbit trilogy tells a lighter and (initially) more amusing story than LOTR. It should in fairness be judged on its own terms.
"All Tolkien's books are a far superior product if only for the reason that if not for them there would be no film. The LOTR legacy is in literature. Tolkien reframed fantasy and fantasy characters. Before Tolkien elves were silly little characters; he created orcs, he created an entire history and complete languages, Jackson did a great job of adapting contemporizing the story, but Tolkien is the genius here."
Tolkien will certainly always be credited for inventing the universe, the story and the characters, and I do consider his books to be some of the best ever written - they are, after all, the only fiction books I own, aside from James Herriot's book series "All Creatures Great and Small". ... But I prefer to get the stories told on film rather than in books, and while Tolkien knew how to write a book, Peter Jackson knows how to make a film.
In other words: Tolkien was a genius in terms of telling a story with words, but Peter Jackson is a genius in terms of telling a story through living pictures.
You can like the Hobbit. Nobody is questioning you right to call something a masterpiece if you want. But again, you're setting a low bar. There has to be an objective measure. You can't base everything on your subjective tastes. While the LOTR series was innovative and creative., The Hobbit is not as good. It's just not. Sorry. It was just an excuse to squeeze more money from the franchise. It might have been better condensed into two films. But it wound up like Bilbo said "stretched.... like butter scraped over too much bread." And Jackson has had his failures. King Kong and Lovely Bones are examples of when his instincts have led to weak results.
IYAMNI You write: "you're setting a low bar."
Only according to YOU. There are thousands of people who will agree with you - but there are also thousands of people who will DISAGREE.
"There has to be an objective measure. You can't base everything on your subjective tastes."
Oh, come on! Who do you think you're fooling here? There is no such thing as "an objective measure". Your so-called "objective measure" is just based on YOUR subjective tastes.
You've got every right to think, that the Hobbit films don't deserve to be regarded as masterpieces, but it's no use behaving like your opinion is a fact.
"The Hobbit is not as good. It's just not."
That's your opinion and also mine - it's not some universal truth. Tens of thousands of people throughout the world think, that the Hobbit films are just as good as the LOTR films. In my opinion they are NOT, because LOTR tells a stronger and more interesting and emotional story than The Hobbit. But when it comes to the BASIC quality of the two trilogies, I think they are equally good.
"But it wound up like Bilbo said "stretched.... like butter scraped over too much bread."
Again: Only according to YOU. Other people - for instance myself - think, that the expansion of the story DOES warrant three films. When the Appendices are included and new characters and scenes/events are added, there is definitely enough material for a trilogy. And your argument concerning "butter scraped over too much bread" is misleading, given the fact that Peter Jackson in fact has added more "butter".
"And Jackson has had his failures."
Of course he has. I have never come across a director who has only made good films. I don't like "Heavenly Creatures" or any of the other films he made before The Lord of the Rings. And I also don't like "The Lovely Bones". I think that those films are weak or mediocre. ... But I truly love his Middle-earth films, which in my opinion are true cinematic art.
I loved it, great acting, superb battle scenes and a great lead up to LOTR.
"changed the face of fantasy cinema" - What the hell is he talking about?
Well, you know, there's this thing called a face and I guess you mix it with film somehow aaand than, (got bored with typing my sarcastic comment)
Are you by any chance Drax the Destroyer or Spock?
I am a huge fan of the books, and I really enjoyed this film, I believe mark is being slightly pessimistic as he lacks the ability of an open mind and embracing new ideas within cinema.
You're asking me when I haven't even seen the film yet.
That's the opposite of what he said. He wants new ideas. He wants directors to take risks. The Hobbit, however, didn't do that and was more of the same when he was looking for more than that
AjayTheGlorious. this is clearly the first time you've seen Mark Kermode if you think he doesn't have an open mind and doesn't embrace new ideas in cinema, of which the Hobbit trilogy have none.
spanishforyou123
i think this was the best of the hobbit trilogy, though agree it didnt have that element of risk to it. the cgi battles between armies lacked tension a felt like watching a computer game alot of the time. the smaug sequences and some of the one v one character fights were good, i enjoyed the stuff with the necrumancer, though after that sequences played out i thought, did that need to be there?
and martin freeman has definatly put a stamp on is performance as bilbo baggins.
ASobsessive i thought it was a good film but the camera work was so annoying theres no need for it at all spmetimes good old fashioned camera work is called for
Loved the Lord of the Rings--despise the Hobbit. In LOTR Jackson was up there with Stanley Kubrick; with the Hobbit he has degenerated to the level of Michael Bay.
Honestly surprised Kermode is being so kind, I thought it was bloody awful!