The Battle of the Five Armies - Spoiler Warning!

[Sheilawisz]

I have finally watched The Battle of the Five Armies yesterday, so now it's time to write my own personal review of it and share it here in Mythic Scribes.

This will be full of spoilers, so if you have not watched the movie yet, it's better if you stop reading now.

To start with, let me say that this has been my least favorite of the three The Hobbit films. TB of the FA feels even slower and heavier than the previous movies, and even though the battle sequences are great, they get too long and it starts to become boring.

I missed the beautiful landscapes and colors seen in An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation of Smaug. Five Armies is visually so dull, colorless and boring that you could watch it in black and white and it would be almost the same... Almost the entire movie takes place in the same location, in contrast to the adventures of the other films.

As a person that has never read the original story, I was very disappointed to see Smaug getting killed almost as soon as the movie begins. I was expecting to see much more of Smaug in the final installment, but I must accept that the entire sequence of the great dragon's attack on Lake Town is truly superb.

I always knew that Thorin would die in the end, but Kili's death was a surprise and I hated it!

It was fun to try and identify all of the five armies involved in the fray. The first army to show up was the Elves, and then the Dwarfs, and then I thought that the normal people would be an army too, but apparently they were not considered as one because the third and fourth armies were the monsters.

I came to the conclusion that the fifth army was composed by the giant eagles commanded by Radagast, which looked absolutely great when it happened in the final parts of the movie...

My opinion is that this movie (like the others) could have been considerably shorter than it is. I think that Peter Jackson wanted to make the entire trilogy so great and epic that in the end it became too epic and overdone... A simpler style and faster narrative would have made everything much better.

The good stuff:

The Battle of the Five Armies is an excellent lesson about the dangers of riches, power and greed. It speaks about the value and importance of friends, family and love, and how you would be totally miserable without them even if you had all the treasures of the world.

The movie also connects very well the trilogy of The Hobbit with the later events of The Lord of the Rings, that was nicely done.

My favorite parts of the movie:

1- Smaug's attack on Lake Town.
2- The battle of Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman against Sauron.
3- The start of the fighting at the mountain.

4- When Thorin finally kills that bloody white monster.
5- Radagast and the eagles attacking.

6- Tauriel mourning Kili.
7- The ending.

What do you think of The Battle of the Five Armies?

 

[KC Trae Becker]

I posted a review on my blog. You can read it here:

K. C. Trae Becker: The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies Movie Review

 

[Gryphos]

I absolutely loved it. Say what you will about Peter Jackson, but he knows how to do action. My personal highlight has to be the beginning of the battle, I just love the bit when the elf soldiers leap over the dwarf battle line into the Orc army.

A side note: I think the laketowners do count as an army, so the five armies are men, elves, dwarves, Dol Guldur orcs, and Gundabad orcs. I don't think the Eagles count.

 

[Ruby]

Hi Sheilawisz, thanks for posting this thread.

I went to see The Battle of the Five Armies this afternoon, and I enjoyed it. I actually preferred it to the second film. Of course, it's only "based on" The Hobbit and, although I love the book, I thought the film adaptation was okay. The battle scenes were spectacular and the acting was good. I liked the scary part where the orc emerges from under the ice to fight Thorin!

 

[Philip Overby]

Yeah, I just watched this as well and thought it was probably the second best one of the three movies. I like the first one the most I think. There was definitely a lot of good action and being that I never got around to finishing The Hobbit I don't know when this takes place. But it does a good job of bridging The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings into a complete piece. I'm not sure where they go with Tolkien's work from here. I guess that's up to his estate.

 

[Incanus]

I'm not sure where they go with Tolkien's work from here.

I guess three more, three hour movies 'based on' Beren and Luthien. It's only something like 25 pages, but at this point, they are becoming quite the experts at padding and stretching. At least in this case, they wouldn't have to tack on a love story--it is one already--they would instead have to tack on additional action scenes. Perhaps also weave in a sub-plot from another Silmarillion tale, maybe the grim sons of Fëanor fulfilling their vow to recover the stolen Silmarils. Could work, maybe.

 

[Ireth]

I guess three more, three hour movies 'based on' Beren and Luthien. It's only something like 25 pages, but at this point, they are becoming quite the experts at padding and stretching. At least in this case, they wouldn't have to tack on a love story--it is one already--they would instead have to tack on additional action scenes. Perhaps also weave in a sub-plot from another Silmarillion tale, maybe the grim sons of Fëanor fulfilling their vow to recover the stolen Silmarils. Could work, maybe.

I'm not sure that would work. The sons of Feanor don't get the Silmarils back until two generations after Beren and Luthien are dead, in the time of their granddaughter Elwing (mother of Elrond Half-elven). They'd probably have to adapt the whole book for it to make sense. And that would be a HUGE undertaking.

 

[Incanus]

You're right, wouldn't work as a sub-plot--that complete story lasts centuries. There must be something happening in Beleriand which is contemporaneous with the B&L story though... I'm getting a bit rusty on my Tolkien lore.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I read the book once in my life, as a kid. I remember Fili and Kili die. And year, Thorin, too.

Oddly, I had forgotten the head dwarf's name, but I never forgot Fili and Kili dying. In the Hobbit cartoon, there were six dwarfs killed off in battle, and Fili and Kili lived. I never did forget Gandalf's line in the cartoon, "Seven. Soon to be only six." Then I read the book and was like, "TWO?!" And so began my pet peeve: filmmakers messing with character deaths.

That said, had I seen the films, seeing the female character that was added to the story having a relationship with Kili… yeah, those who read the book knew it wouldn't end well two movies ago. Maybe not "knew," but I think even after adding a character, I'd still have the expectation that characters die as they did in the book.

Unless it's a Spielberg film. "Clever girl" my ass.

 

[BronzeOracle]

I guess three more, three hour movies 'based on' Beren and Luthien. It's only something like 25 pages, but at this point, they are becoming quite the experts at padding and stretching. At least in this case, they wouldn't have to tack on a love story--it is one already--they would instead have to tack on additional action scenes. Perhaps also weave in a sub-plot from another Silmarillion tale, maybe the grim sons of Fëanor fulfilling their vow to recover the stolen Silmarils. Could work, maybe.

WARNING - SPOILER ON SILMARILLION

The problem with anything in the Silmarillion is the downer ending which would be hard to bank roll I'd think. It really is very tragic stuff, nothing like LOTR and even the hobbit has limited destruction compared to the catastrophe that the elves and numenoreans go through. The other problem is the lack of linking characters, you'd have Galadriel and Elrond in limited roles. Whereas the hobbit had Gandalf and Legolas as major linkages. Having said that, boy would I love to see it on film!!!

 

[Surad]

If I can say anything about the his movie, it's that the title is extremely accurate. Most of the movie is one giant battle. The first act is about getting the armies together for a fight, the second and third were all about the various battle scenes and what's going on with them. The fight scenes are fun to watch, but there's really nothing special happening. The behavior of Thorin, although I understand that he was driven to madness by his search for the gemstone, was extremely illogical. What the others wanted from the treasure hoard was a trifle compared to the whole thing. It really seemed extremely forced and stupid. They weren't trying to bully him for generic money, the humans wanted him to keep his end of the bargain (which was basically chump change for Thorin) and the elves wanted an heirloom thingie, which again was just one thing.

The battle was fun, but it was basically just that. A giant battle.

If I can mention just one little complaint with the entire hobbit trilogy, it's that they do too much to tie it into the LOTR movies. The first movie makes some mention of it, the second has a mention of Gimli, the third dropped some hints of characters, it wasn't necessary and it was very eye rolling to be honest. Yes we know it's a prequel series, no one can possibly mistake that, even 50 or a 100 years from now these two series will be recorded as being related to one another.

 

[Guy]

Thorin's behavior was to illustrate the dangers of wealth, how it can spawn uncontrollable greed. The treasure did it to Thorin's grandfather Thror, spawning the need for more and more. Greed was what attracted Smaug to the treasure. You'll recall Thorin said some of the same things about it Smaug did, verbatim, showing the treasure was bringing out the greed in him, fueling it, building it. The same thing happened in the book. I think Tolkien's basis for this concept was Fafnir in German tales. He started out as a dwarf who became so obsessed with his treasure he turned into a creature of pure greed - a dragon.

 

[Penpilot]

Sheilawisz, I have a similar opinion. I actually thought the movie as a whole was a muddy mess, trying to stretch an inch of material over a mile. They totally wasted the fight with Smaug. They used it as an appetizer instead of the main course. It's a fight with a dragon for gosh sake. It should be a climax, not some Bond-esq intro action scene.

They muddied the waters so much that the meaning and emotional impact was diluted. During the movie I had ask myself what the heck does all this mean? What heck does it matter? Five armies, who are the five armies, and what do each of them want? What are the stakes? Why should I even care?

Thorin's fight with Azog lasted way tooooo long. For gosh sake the fight with an orc lasted longer than the fight with a dragon. When Thorin tossed that rock at Azog and he fell into the water, that was the perfect ending to the fight. But NOOOooo, they had to extend it and have IMHO one of the stupidest ways to die I have ever seen. Thorin get's stabbed in the foot because he couldn't just let Azog float away under the ice and die. When Thorin followed Azog along the ice, I knew what was coming and ugg, it was dumb.

There's a good story in all this, but this is a prime example of what happens when you throw a bunch of things together and don't spend the time to fit it all together properly. It becomes a disjoint mess. I sooo wanted to like this movie. I tried really-really hard to like it, but in the end, I couldn't lie to myself. It was mediocre.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

My brother asked me if I liked the Lord of the Rings movies. I said I did. He said, "Leave it at that."

That seems to be consistent advice, often from people who didn't have a single complaint about he LotR movies.

 

[Ireth]

I personally enjoyed both trilogies, flaws, changes and all. It helps that I prefer to think of them as fanfiction -- albeit VERY well-made, VERY expensive fanfiction.

 

[MineOwnKing]

Yeah,
I saw this back in December.
There was a good hour of teary-eyed zoom in close ups that should have found the cutting room floor. Do we really need to see each character and then a five minute zoom-in to his face with absolutely zero dialogue??
There were moments when the dwarves looked like they wanted to say something and then.......pause.....zoom in.....pause......mandatory tilt the head with a teary-eyed look at Bilbo.....pause.....zoom in....cough....zero dialogue.........?
Even Thorin and Azog looked like they might throw down their weapons and start kissing each other with their tilted heads and long drawn out poses and pauses and zero dialogue.
The hobbit was sacred to me so I am a bit of a purist. I was willing to drop my purist tendency until the absurd Dwarf/Elven romance fired up...unreal.
I read The Hobbit as a kid in the 80's and that was a happy memory--tobacco smoke and dandelions, warm sunshine and high adventure, not endless grey and gloom and doom and zoom.
Save the melancholy for the making of the Silmarillion where it belongs.
When did zoom-in close-ups become so necessary? I find them very distracting.
Nothing says great character definition like compelling dialogue, and this movie had none because the added scenes were not in the book and the writers had no idea how to give them anything meaningful to say.
One single page in Moby Dick has more memorable and moving dialogue than an hour of The Five Armies.....pitiful.
Since when do Middle-earth warriors fight like choreographed ninjas? I never imagined Saruman fighting like a ninja with his wizard staff....absolute rubbish.

 

[skip.knox]

Absolutely the best way to look at it. Fanfic is a perfectly respectable genre and can be enjoyed for what it is. I may start thinking of other books-into-movies in that light.

 

[Reaver]

I personally enjoyed both trilogies, flaws, changes and all. It helps that I prefer to think of them as fanfiction -- albeit VERY well-made, VERY expensive fanfiction.

I respect your opinion Ireth, but to call them fanfiction is a stretch. The Hobbit is supposed to feature Bilbo. Every other character is in a suppporting role at best.

Jackson's attempt was about making money, not a good movie. All three movies are full of bad writing, bad acting, plot holes the size of Mt. Doom, made up characters, characters never mentioned in the book, and overblown CGI effects.

Is Tauriel even mentioned in The Hobbit and if so isn't that character male? Where is Legolas even mentioned in that story? Please don't use conjecture and say: "Well, he was around during that time-frame so he could've been there." That's sloppy logic.

Don't even get me started on that cross-dressing made up character from Laketown who wears women's clothing to avoid fighting. Was that meant to be comic relief?

Okay. Rant over.

 

[Ireth]

I respect your opinion Ireth, but to call them fanfiction is a stretch. The Hobbit is supposed to feature Bilbo. Every other character is in a suppporting role at best.

Jackson's attempt was about making money, not a good movie. All three movies are full of bad writing, bad acting, plot holes the size of Mt. Doom, made up characters, characters never mentioned in the book, and overblown CGI effects.

Is Tauriel even mentioned in The Hobbit and if so isn't that character male? Where is Legolas even mentioned in that story? Please don't use conjecture and say: "Well, he was around during that time-frame so he could've been there." That's sloppy logic.

Don't even get me started on that cross-dressing made up character from Laketown who wears women's clothing to avoid fighting. Was that meant to be comic relief?

Okay. Rant over.

All of those reasons serve to explain exactly WHY the movies are fanfic in my eyes. Jackson changed a lot of things that would have been better left alone. Some I minded more than others. Legolas made sense; Bard's expanded role was cool; Tauriel as a character was okay, but the romance with Kili pissed me off.

 

[Reaver]

This makes all my points for me.