Sound Off: 'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies' - Thoughts?

December 19, 2014

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? "Will you follow me, one last time?" Peter Jackson presents his final (supposedly) adventure in Middle Earth, the conclusion of The Hobbit with The Battle of the Five Armies, now playing in theaters. Martin Freeman returns as Bilbo, who must figure out what's next after making his way into the mountain and escaping Smaug the Dragon. Richard Armitage as Thorin takes center stage, along with Luke Evans as Bard, Lee Pace as Thranduil, Orlando Bloom as Legolas, Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel, and of course Ian McKellen as Gandalf. So how is it? Better than the other two? Does it live up to the Lord of the Rings movies? Is it even worth seeing in theaters or not? Once you've seen it, leave a comment with your thoughts on PJ's grand finale The Battle of the Five Armies.

Spoiler Warning: We strongly urge everyone to actually see the film before reading ahead, as there may be spoilers below. We also encourage all commenters to keep major spoilers from the film to a minimum, if possible. However, this is an open discussion from this point on! Beware of spoilers, don't ruin this movie!

To let loose Dragon Fire, I will say that I think The Hobbit: The Battle of The Five Armies might be the best in The Hobbit series (of movies), but it is still a long shot from anything in the Lord of the Rings trilogy in terms of overall cinematic storytelling quality. Yes, I hate making the necessary comparison so quickly, but it's all I can think about when I'm sitting through these movies. Especially when he keeps shoving Legolas in our face every few minutes. Honestly, I think Legolas gets more screentime than Bilbo does, which is a bit odd because - isn't it supposed to be his story all along? What little time with him we get is good. Eventually the big battle comes, there are a few stunning moments that do get close to PJ's Lord of the Rings roots, but by the end I'm not even that excited about seeing it again. Which is a bit sad, it should be a great experience.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh on The Hobbit, since I do still enjoy it but at the same time, I'm trying to love it and I'm just not falling in love with the characters as much as with LOTR. I still love Middle Earth, and I think Peter Jackson still does stand out from the crowd in the way he crafts the world, using New Zealand and elaborate, beautifully-constructed sets galore. But it doesn't amount to much, especially when there's so much CG embellishment throughout the rest of it. That's the problem, the film bounces all around, between a number of moments and characters and fights, but instead of giving enough time for us to feel for each of them, it's already moved on. Maybe I need to watch the Extended Edition of this one whenever it's finished.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Poster

What did YOU think of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies? Best one yet or the worst?
We will remove any comments that indicate you have not seen the movie, as this area is meant to discuss the film only once you have seen it and can talk about your thoughts. Please keep the comments civilized!

Find more posts: Discuss, Hobbit, Sound Off



I was distracted though out the whole trying to work what the fuck the 5th army was. Men, Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and...

Liam on Dec 17, 2014


People always argue that the 5th is one of either the eagles, bats, or wargs I think though I never actually read The Hobbit so I may have that wrong but that's what I've always seen.

cooper on Dec 17, 2014


Such a cop out for such a clear title. The 5th army could have been eagles, bats, goblins or i'm guessing giant ogres. Just felt like Return Of The King all battle no substance

Liam on Dec 17, 2014


The title directly reflects what the battle is called in lore. The Skirmish for Erabor is refered to the battle of 5 armies. Those armies are, The men of Dale, The Elves of Mirkwood, Wargs, Goblins/Orcs and Dwarves.

Brian Sleider on Dec 17, 2014


Wargs are barely in it and under the control of Orcs. The Trolly/Ogre things are in it more than the Wargs. shenanigans!

Liam on Dec 17, 2014


Well they cut out the parts that from the book that explained that the wargs were a separate large faction chasing down the party. In the book the dwarves burned a bunch of them after they were all chased up a tree so they aligned with the goblins to get revenge.

Brian Sleider on Dec 17, 2014



Michael Berry on Dec 18, 2014


Funny that a movie series ~8 hours long made from a 300 page book had to cut out content. Man this trilogy was terrible.

Brian Sleider on Dec 18, 2014


Exactly - that's how Tolkien conceived it.

Athelstane on Dec 20, 2014


Two orc armies. One from Angmar and one from the fortress in mirkwood.

Eric Lankford on Dec 18, 2014



Brian Sleider on Dec 17, 2014


Some folks have gotten to it - as Tolkien wrote the battle, he saw the five armies as 1) (Dain's) Dwarves; 2) the Woodland Elves; 3) the Men of Lake-town against 4) The Goblin/Orc army, and 5) the Wargs. It's fair to ask why Tolkien doesn't count the Eagles as a sixth army (they certainly played a big enough role to be counted; perhaps he thought of them as an air force of sorts, despite his disclaimers in his Letters). In the movie, however, the Wargs are hardly an afterthought; instead, it's the two distinct Orc armies of Azog and Bolg that seem to round out the two armies of evil.

Athelstane on Dec 20, 2014


I have to agree with Jeremy's post from yesterday that this felt too much like a bridge movie that finishes stories for the Hobbit and leads directly into the LOTR trilogy. The hour long battle I was looking forward to was too underwhelming for me although I liked the little touching moments and sad deaths, like Fili and Kili and also Bard and his son fighting in Dale. With that, I have to say I think Desolation of Smaug was my favorite of the 3 even with its kind of boring traveling and side quests stories if only because the first talk between Smaug and Bilbo has been one of my favorite movie scenes from the past couple of years and gave me whole-body goosebumps. Also, I have to say that the CGI really got to me this movie. Even with how spotty and fake it has looked in certain parts in the past 2 movies, this one finally went over the top with the amount of CGI relied on and different feel it gave the money. But again, just my thoughts and still an ok movie for me but one that I probably wouldn't watch unless watching all 3.

cooper on Dec 17, 2014


How exactly where the deaths of Fili and Kili sad? Ok I get deaths are sad, but Fili had like close to no screentime. Not only that, his death scene was pretty underwhelming blink and you'll miss it. No epic fight, no emotional struggle, just a ''Oh look I caught a dwarf, stab, dead, moving on'' Kili goes from ''revange for my brother!'' to ''Brother who? Tauriel!'' and his death is done in a clumsy way, the to long eye locking they do feels awkward and out of place considering they JUST MET. They should have died defending theur uncles to the death, like epic dwarf warriors, which would have shown their bravery and loyaltie to their uncle and king far better then what we got. The only thing sad about Fili and Kili's deaths is the way they happend. They deserved better as characters. As did Thorin by the way. Getting stabbed by an orc, in the middle of nowhere instead of the heart of the battlefield, after the cliche of seemingly defeating his enemie (who also fought in a clumsy way because of random desire to start using a heavy wapon on top of ice..) only to actually see the guy's eyes open, and still be cought by all means he should have been able to avoid that. His death seemed pointless. In the end, the only reason i could cry over Thorin's death was Bilbo. His emotions when he was about to lose a friend (who he didn't get a proper paced story with either as Thorin was rather bipolar towards him all 3 movies) where so powerfully written all across his face you couldn't help but feel his pain. That scene was saved by Martin Freeman. The 3 of durin, deserved much better death scenes by far. And in the case of Fili, much more screentime so we actually have proper feels when he dies.

Amber Hesselink on Dec 13, 2015


The movie was good ... but I expect the Extended Edition of "Five Armies" to feel more complete. With this installment being the shortest of the Middle Earth movies to date, I expect Jackson has a few more quality scenes that will make fans who left the movie wanting a bit more ... even more happy with the 3rd act. I was hoping for a bit more transition nods to LOTR ... like a potential scene showing Saruman changing sides, or Sauron nod/twist to the story line. Even a bit more of Gandalph and Bilbo's reflecting on the experience while traveling back to the Shire would have been welcomed. I was expecting there to be a better resolution, other than flashing forward to old Bilbo at the end.

J Aquila on Dec 17, 2014


I definitely want more of those quieter, character-building moments. This movie is awesome, but it was over too quickly.

dangeer on Dec 18, 2014


''I definitely want more of those quieter, character-building moments.'' This. Very much this. My most importand ishue with the hobbit movies is the severe lack of scenes like this. Lord of the rings was great because of it's balance between action and emotion. The hobbit movies where like 85% action, 6% awkward emotion that doesn't pay off (random inserting Legolas his mother, or Thorin being swallowed by gold in his mind, Tauriel healing Kili which just seemed like a bad ripp off of Arwen glow with Frodo, any Tauriel scene because sadly when she isn't kicking ass she is in drama zone, with either Thranduil Legolas or Kili, and it's never properly devolped drama either. it's just there, boom, in your face, deal with it, Fili death which was so sudden and random your like....this is it? etc.) and 9% good emotional scenes, which are pretty much all Bilbo. Bilbo/Gandalf Bilbo/Bofur (they are one of the few actual shown friendships in the whole span of those 3 movies, and thats saying something as even they lack some because some of these moments where cut for the theater versions) Bilbo/Balin. The movies where still great fun for the most part, but the thing that prevents me from loving them is the lack of emotional/character building moments.

Amber Hesselink on Dec 13, 2015


Killing off smaug within the first 20 minutes into the movie sucked. The way he was killed again was really silly and dumb. Much like the silly acrobatics used during the the WAR/Army/fights. I didn't care which army won. I didn't care for any of the dwarfs and was glad to see some die. Worst part of this trilogy were the dwarfs. Too many doing too little to matter or care for. Thankfully part 3 had a few good scenes in it with Gandalf and BB mainly though. Peter Jackson failed imo to create any meaningful characters for the audience to actually care about that were not in the LOTR movies. The battle was boring and annoying to see all this violence and NO BLOOD over and over and over again. Some heads just POP off bodies like a freaking cartoon The main villain also goes from being a genius on the battle field to somehow using a stupid rock and chain and hi smain go to weapon.... I am sure he must have had looooooots of training with that "weapon" At least he didn't die very easy just fought really dumb. I actually like this movie more than the rest of them though. Over all Part 1 6/10 Part 2 5/10 Part 3 6.5/10

Henry Willis on Dec 17, 2014


I agree about the "too many dwarves" thing. One of the most annoying scenes in the first Hobbit movie is when Gandalf introduces every single the 3rd one I stopped paying attention to their names.

TheOct8pus on Dec 18, 2014


Jackson dropped the ball on overall arc of the film's IMO. The first film should of dealt with getting to the lonely mountain, the second primarily on Smaug (introduction and death), leaving the third act for the battle and Jackson to indulge himself with jointing the two trilogy's together. I love the setting and don't mind a three film arc, but the story is a mess this time round and it drags.

Steven on Dec 21, 2014


Yea, my opinion for "Exodus: Gods and Kings" was a solid... Oh wait, there wasn't a sound off for that movie...that's right...

JBrotsis on Dec 18, 2014


They should have had Sean Bean in this one....that's all I'm saying.

TheOct8pus on Dec 18, 2014


Like a 2+ hour long third act, finishing story lines that I didn't get to reinvest in. I looked through the first two and there's quite a bit being set up for the last film, but now it just kind of felt like we watched the last 20 minutes of The Desolation of Smaug followed by a 2 hour epilogue. It lacks the strong Smaug or Goblin conversation and the fun barrel or goblin escape scene (I know they're cartoony, but I think those scenes are worth their lack of realism through the creativity of the action). I also couldn't help but count down the remaining armies until it was ready to be a Battle of Five Armies (at which point the battle was over).

Snev De la Fontaine on Dec 18, 2014


You said everything i was thinking of. haha

Jordy Calvo on Dec 20, 2014


The problem with always comparing THE HOBBIT to THE LORD OF THE RINGS is that, well, of course LOTR is better. The BOOK is better than THE HOBBIT book! THE HOBBIT book is great on its own, and these films take into account the story established in the book, the HOBBIT-related portions of Tolkien's Appendices writings, and meshing well with the LOTR film trilogy to make this all feel like the same world. I think Pete Jackson and company did a wonderful job juggling all that around. But it'll never be as great as LOTR because THAT'S the climax to the whole MIddle Earth story! THE HOBBIT trilogy must be judged on its own merits.

dangeer on Dec 18, 2014


The BOOK is better than THE HOBBIT book! Well, sure - but this is a bit like comparing chalk and cheese. The Hobbit was a children's story, and less ambitious - in story-telling, in world creation, or its moral stakes. It's rather unfair to compare them; they aim to be different things. The real problem is that Peter Jackson seems to want to treat them as if they don't. The result is a less coherent story (if, as usual, a brilliantly visualized one). Even on Jackson's terms, it means the movies work less well as movies.

Athelstane on Dec 20, 2014


I like that Jackson made these films feel like they belong in the same world as his LOTR films. They're both Middle Earth, and fans of the films that have not read the either of the books wouldn't accept THE HOBBIT as a straight adaptation of the book, which you pointed out was aimed at a younger audience than LOTR. It would feel like a different world really (save for Hobbiton). However, Tolkien's appendices seem to indicate that in hindsight he wanted his HOBBIT tale to mesh better with LOTR, adding material that is far more "mature" in nature that pertains/connects to THE HOBBIT. That is why I feel it is perfectly appropriate for Jackson to have made THE HOBBIT films feel a bit more grown up than the book and feel like the story exists in the same world he created in the LOTR films. To me, he made the best version of THE HOBBIT that could have been made. Having said that, in the end, the story of THE HOBBIT, even with the added Tolkien material from the Appendices, is still not enough to made THE HOBBIT as good or better than the story of the LOTR. LOTR is simply the better of the two, like you said, which is why I was making my point earlier about how we really can't expect THE HOBBIT films to be better than the LOTR films. The source material is simply not AS good.

dangeer on Dec 21, 2014


That is why I feel it is perfectly appropriate for Jackson to have made THE HOBBIT films feel a bit more grown up than the book Oh, I agree. Tolkien did some retconning of his own, and wanted to do more with THE HOBBIT. The problem I had is that how it was actually executed simply didn't work as well on its own terms - as a movie. I think splitting out such a short story into three movies was a mistake - fleshing it out with all the additional appendix material cut away at the narrative focus and coherence of the story. Bilbo gets lost in his own movie(s); Smaug becomes an almost minor villain. There's good reason why these movies are getting much more mixed reviews than the LOTR trilogy. A lot of it has to do with decisions Jackson and his collaborators made.

Athelstane on Dec 21, 2014


Well, it worked for me, and I know it worked for countless others. And I also know there are those out there who felt it didn't work. Can't please everyone, and that's always how it goes. Believe it or not, there are still people out there that don't like Jackson's approach to LOTR, including the Tolkiens themselves! I won't disagree that Bilbo doesn't seem as prominent of a character in these HOBBIT films as he does in the book, but I still feel like he was the MAIN star of the films. I'm fine with this approach, and I think it'd be a shame to NOT film the appendices material - even if that means featuring other characters a bit more prominently.

dangeer on Dec 21, 2014


Usually I don't go by review sites and scores but this sums it up for me easily. Particularity the RT scores. Rotten tomatoes and IMDB ratings: LOTR FOTR 91% / 8.8 LOTR TT 96% / 8.8 LOTR ROTK 95% / 8.9 The Hobbit UJ - 64% / 8 DOS - 74% / 8 BOTFA - 61% / 8

John on Dec 21, 2014


So, we agree, right? That's about what I'd expect from RT. Again, THE HOBBIT is the lesser of the two tales. But hey, it still has "Fresh" ratings! I would say RT is wrong with the LOTR films though. ROTK is the superior film in the LOTR series, and most everyone I talk to that loves the MIddle Earth films would agree. Also, most that I know that enjoy THE HOBBIT series rate them higher than Rotten Tomatoes. One friend (30+ years old), who LOVES the LOTR films, said that he actually enjoys THE HOBBIT series better (he's the only person I know that said that though)!

dangeer on Dec 22, 2014



John on Dec 26, 2014


Where did Jackson make the hobbit movies more grown up? My problem was that they where not, even though the movies where pretending to be. Mature movies need proper character interaction and devolpment, proper plot devolpment and emotional powerfull scenes that make you care for characters. The hobbit movies failed epicly in all of this. the only characters you somewhat care for is bilbo, maybe Thorin or Kili. Everyone else was vastly underused of the dwarf company. Kili wasn't underused, but he was wrongly used, as just a pretty face (which on it's own is a problem for so many reasons) in very badly written and rushed romance that makes no sense and spits on everything tolkien ever wrote about Elves and dwarves and the specialness of the Legolas gimli friendship and Arwen Aragorn romance. The movies had the potential to be better worked out/better paced and more mature compared to the book, by focusing more in the relationships inside of Thorin's company. Show us the family bonds, the friendships. Show us Fili/Kili interaction, (properly! Like with Merry and Pippin) SHow us Thorin/Fili (that shows clearly Fili is his heir) Show us some Gloin/Oin brotherly interaction, or Bombur/Bofur/Bifur, or Dori/Ori/Nori the brother triangle where teh complicating relationship/tension between Dori and Nori is better shown. Balin and Dwalin even could have benefitted from more emotional meaningfull interaction and less cartoon like fights. The hobbit movies, show very little meaningfull character devolpment. The very few that are shown, have random/rushed things happen (Like Thorin going from I don't trust Bilbo/to I love Bilbo he is my bff/to him hating Bilbo to the point of wanting to kill him (gold sickness I get it)/ to random weird golden floor scene/to perfectly back to normal. None of these version had proper pacing into one another. There has been but 1 AND ONLY 1 character who has gotten a good reasonably well paced story out of this and that was Bilbo. To bad there was so little focus on him. Even when not comparing the hobbit films to lord of the rings, it's a stretch to say they are mature by any means. Cartoon like battles, flashy hollywood romance inluding model dwarf (human hormonal teenager who happens to be short) and mary sue elf (human hormonal teenagers who happens to have pointy ears) and random ty ins to the lord of the rings movies that where not properly worked towards, while very importand parts of the actual SMALL BOOK where left out in favor of annoying pointless jokes and battles that are to flashy/take to long. Even Legolas stunts, who i actually loved in the lord of the rings movies, where just to over the top plain redicilious here. I mean all the power to leggy for being able to pull it off, but it just doesn't come across as believable even with a stretch, while his lord of the rings stunts seem somewhat possible. Everything about teh Hobbit movies, are in fact the opposide of mature. Do not confuse characters dying with mature. It's how deelply invested the story and the characters are that makes a story mature. Everyone can make movies that kill characters. Whats hard is to make us give a damn when they do. I'm sure plenty of fangirls cried their hearts out when Kili died. But what about Fili? He got like nothing to do in 3 movies time. If they wanted the movies to feel related to lord of the rings, they should have invested in the bonds and interactions between characters, especialy family ones, instead of badly written romances and over the top action scenes. They should have given us more heart and soul, and less hollywood. Don't get me wrong. the movies are great fun if your able to ignore the things they screwed up on. But it will never ever be a mature, or a more mature version of the book who to me, strangly enough, felt more mature then the movies did. In the book, you don't get much time with the dwarves either (again, this is where the movies could have become better then the book, missed chance there) but the mere idea that Fili and Kili, Thorins younger cousins, fought to the death to protect him, made an impression on me even though I barely knew the lads. In the movies, they have faces, voices, and yet I couldn't care less about their movie deaths. That book death, which wasn't even written in present time, was more powerfull then what the movies where able to pull of even though they had 3 movies to make us know and love these 3 characters. Fili's death was sad alright, but in all the wrong ways. I didn't cry because I felt the loss, Icried because of how lame his death was. the character should have been treated better. Kili's death was also pointless and was waisted by slowmo stare with teenager who is supposed to pass as an elf, to the point a lot of people where even relieved when he died jst to be done with that part of the movies already. I cried my eyes out with Haldir's death, who got less then 10 minutes screentime, because of how things where handeld. I didn't cry at all for Fili and Kili even though I wanted too. ( I really really did like Fili despite the little time he had in screen, The things he said where few, but they where all great. He was a great brother if nothing else.) The movies had potential, but blew it because they where unable to find that balance. It tried to hard to be something it was not, which made it seem like a big mess with messy pacing, random moments that are supposed to be emotional but don't feel that way because of the messed up pacing. Lord of the rings showed us the bonds between characters. The hobbit told us they where there and we where supposed to just believe that withoud being shown. The book had this problem too yes. But if there was anything the movies should have changed, it's that. Most people would have prefered a solid bond between Thorin Fili and Kili being devolped on screen then that romance, and have their ends be fighting together. Just thinking about that almost makes me cry, I can only imagine what would have happend had I actually been shown this. The hobbit movies, a waisted chance. Not bad movies, but far from the great ones they could have been, and at the end of it all, THAT is what thicks a lot of fans off.

Amber Hesselink on Dec 13, 2015


I forgot to mention which of the three HOBBIT films is my favorite. I actually technically enjoyed this one the least (but still thought it was great). DESOLATION OF SMAUG is still my favorite of the three. I think that might change once the Extended Edition of BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES comes out.

dangeer on Dec 18, 2014


Cant agree more. I have a feeling the new hobbit films are going to look really cheesy and dated in 15-20 years, like the fantasy movies of the 80s do now, and I attribute that to the overdone/inconsistent CGI work

jay on Dec 19, 2014


Was good!!

Rich Hill on Dec 19, 2014


take off your BLONDEfold next time you watch it...that's right..I said that.

derpington on Jun 4, 2015


"I think The Hobbit: The Battle of The Five Armies might be the best in The Hobbit series (of movies), but it is still a long shot from anything in the Lord of the Rings trilogy in terms of overall cinematic storytelling quality." This is a good summary. The problem is not merely that The Hobbit trilogy departs so much more from source material than does the LOTR trilogy; the problem is that the choices Jackson makes in doing so make for a less coherent or compelling *movie(s)*. The Hobbit is first and foremost the story of Bilbo - yet to watch this trilogy, you would think that he's merely one bit player in an ensemble story. I had hoped this would change in the final installment, but The Battle of the Five Armies is mainly the Thorin and Bard Story, with Bilbo reduced to not much more screen time than the new Kili and Tauriel love story (which I don't object to per se) - and the death of Smaug and destruction of Lake-town reduced to a mere prologue(!). As a result, the movie meanders and slugs (sometimes spectacularly), but never really comes into focus - much like the previous two installments. Far better, I think, to have done The Hobbit as one (properly focused) movie, and to work up a mini-series on all the side stories and locales that Jackson clearly wanted to explore so much. Perhaps that would not have made as much money, however.

Athelstane on Dec 20, 2014


just a long slog of overly polished special effects without depth or meaning.

Kento on Dec 20, 2014


Cash Grab-best way to describe this movie. The Hobbit should've just been a two-parter. This last could've been included in the 2nd movie. The battle was way to uninteresting

Jordy Calvo on Dec 20, 2014


Did anybody notice during the last few scenes wherein Legolas was talking to his fathre and his father mentioned about a Ranger named striker and that he should look for him? Striker is Aragorn right? was he already born by then? i thought this story happened waaaaaay before LOTR? He shouldn't even be born yet.

Jordy Calvo on Dec 20, 2014


Actually, in the books, Aragorn is...exactly ten years old at the time of THE HOBBIT, which takes place 77 years before the War of the Ring (Aragorn was of the long-lived race, the Dunedain, remember). He hadn't yet acquired the name "Strider," because he hadn't done any striding yet. He was only a child. So yes, that's basically an anachronistic impossibility. Jackson was just a little keen to make yet another connection to the LORD OF THE RINGS. Even allowing for changing Tolkien's timeline, I thought it felt too forced.

Athelstane on Dec 20, 2014


Hmmmmm. Sorry, i didn't read the books but, in the Fellowship of the ring movie, Bilbo was already very old, I thought Hobbits dont age that fast? can you enlighten me some more? so humans in Middle earth do not follow the ageing time of humans here on earth?

Jordy Calvo on Dec 20, 2014


Most do. The descendants of the Numenoreans, who are called the Dunedain by the time of the events of the War of the Ring, are longer lived. They were founded by Elrond's brother, who (along with Elrond) was given a choice by the Vlar whether to be an elf or a man. He chose to become a man, and he and his people were given long life as a gift from the Valar.

Neihan on Dec 21, 2014


Humans have great plastic surgeons in Middle Earth

TheOct8pus on Dec 22, 2014


In the books it's 77 years. in the movies it's just 60. the 17 year gab where Frodo has the ring but doesn't start his travel yet is ignored and does not happen in the movies. So Aragorn is more like 27 in the movie verse around that time. In which he could in fact be strider. So in a way, this was perfectly possible timeline wise. It's perfectly in canon for the movie verse. However there should have been more build up/explenations as to Why he should go there when Thranduil seems actually very relucant to let his son go. movie Thraduil seems to genuinly love/care for Legolas. So telling him to go to a human he never met seems a bit weird. There is plenty of stuff that feels forced about that scene, or out of place. But Aragorn's age is not part of that. movie verse is diferent from book verse. though many consider the hobbit movies not part of canon movie verse either 😛 Me included. (I am taking the best parts of the movies though, like movie Bilbo, he was great.)

Amber Hesselink on Dec 13, 2015


Aragorn is of the Dunedine. A species of man that is blessed with long life. You need to pay attention more.

Rock n Rollllll on Dec 22, 2014


sorry, i only watched the movies. havent read the books. can you elaborate some more about this for clarity? thanks

Jordy Calvo on Jul 19, 2015


Overall I felt it to be completely in line with the other two, which is to say mediocre. Not bad but not something to rewatch either, unfortunately. Out of all the elements I didn't like, I felt like the editing was the worst. It made the flow choppy and made me constantly aware that I was watching a movie. For some reason, I believe there will be a fan edit somewhere down the line. A consolidated version spanning the trilogy, running 3-4 hours max, that will feel much more fluid.

Neuromancer on Dec 21, 2014


If the Hobbit would have started with the Eagles, we could have had just one film.

mooreworthy on Dec 21, 2014


You mean the deus ex-flying machina?

TheOct8pus on Dec 22, 2014


you know ..that joke feels flat when when there is an actual god like creature actually having influence over them every once in a while in the canon of the story

Philip kelton on Dec 22, 2014


Quite inexcusable to drag us through 60+ minutes of mostly boring CGI battle scenes supposedly fought over the wealth within a mountain fortress. Only then to not provide even a mention of an ending resolution to the central stakes of the entire movie....who gets the gold?

Movie Bear on Dec 21, 2014


...who gets the gold? That's actually a good point. All well and good for Jackson to to avoid an anti-climactic dragout of the ending, but there was no effort to up such a basic loose end after the battle, let alone any smaller ones (like Dain succeeding Thorin as King, Bard re-establishing Dale as King, the final softening of Thranduil's character). I'm assuming that there will be something in the Extended Edition, but it's the Theatrical version we are forced to judge by.

Athelstane on Dec 21, 2014


I'm glad I read the reviews for this film before I saw it. Pretty much every review was bad, and I actually thought about skipping the film altogether. Ultimately, more out of a sense of obligation, I went to see the film, and was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't a total piece of shit. Yes, I went in with really low expectations, so that helped immensely. But all in all, it was no better or worse that the average mega-blockbuster. Sure, it was filled with plot holes and sappy nonsense, but come on! It's a movie about a bunch of dwarves who have a beef with a bunch of orcs!

TheOct8pus on Dec 29, 2014


The scene where Thorin comes to terms with the fact that obsessing over all the gold in the mountain was going to kill him, where he got swallowed up by the floor was rather fake and amateurish to my eyes. That scene was ruined for me. All the fighting, slicing, and dicing... leaving barely any blood anywhere was incredibly annoying and ruined the realism of the battles and fighting for me. The blackish/green icing splatter on Thranduil's face kept bothering me. At least the cheek cut on Tauriel's face was 'artfully' done. Dain Ironfoot as played by Billy Connolly? Fortunately he shows up for some comic relief… Unfortunately he seemed particularly underutilized for his star power. How about that love triangle between Tauriel, Legolas, and Kili? Some of the scenes they all played a part in were just cringe-inducing and overly superficial. I won't even go into the fact that Legolas and Tauriel aren't supposed to be there. I'm sure it also would've caused more tears from the audience if Kili and Fili had died while defending their mortally wounded uncle and King (Thorin) at the end of the Battle, as they had in the books. I didn't go into the movie planning to pick it apart and find all the flaws... but these issues, and quite a few others already mentioned by other commenters were too obvious at times not to notice, and they kept ruining the flow and feeling of the movie for me. Let's just hope the Extended Edition is an improvement over the theatrical release.

Andrew Moore on Jan 7, 2015


The Hobbit films are cinematic masterpieces. They're litterally packed with iconic characters and memorable scenes. Peter Jackson's adaptation is in many ways a vast improvement over the book. Don't get me wrong: All credit goes to Tolkien for inventing Middle-earth, story and the characters (or most of them). The book is full of wonderful ideas, but I just think, that many of those ideas are better executed in the films.

BN.filmz on Jan 8, 2015


Finally got to see it, glad it's over. I got a bit bored of it in the end. Hope Jackson can get some more movies out now. It was a bit bloated.

Carpola on Jan 11, 2015


It was boring even on fast forward.

guessman on Mar 26, 2015

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram