The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Rendező:
Peter JacksonOperatőr:
Andrew LesnieZeneszerző:
Howard ShoreSzereplők:
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans, Evangeline Lilly, Orlando Bloom, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee (több)Streaming (3)
Tartalmak(1)
A hobbit: Az öt sereg csatája Peter Jackson Hobbit-trilógiájának befejező része. Miközben sikeresen visszahódították otthonukat Smaugtól, a sárkánytól, Zsákos Bilbó és barátai akaratlanul is halálos veszedelmet szabadítottak a világra. A dühöngő Smaug nőket és gyerekeket sem kímélve támad Tóvárosra. Mindeközben a visszaszerzett kincsektől megrészegült Tölgypajzsos Thorin Bilbó erőfeszítései ellenére hátat fordít barátainak. Ennél azonban jóval nagyobb veszélyek is leselkednek a hobbitra és barátaira. Bár kizárólag Gandalf tud róla, Szauron szörnyű tervet forral: orkok seregeit indította útnak, hogy a Magányos Hegyen támadásba lendüljenek. Ahogy a sötétség erői egyre jobban előretörnek, a törpök, tündék és az emberek választás elé kerülnek: összefognak vagy elpusztulnak. Bilbó az öt sereg gigászi csatája közepén találja magát, ahol saját és barátai életéért is harcolnia kell, miközben Középfölde egészének sorsa forog kockán. (Fórum Hungary)
(több)Recenziók (14)
Poor Peter Jackson, if this film had come out 10 or 13 years ago, everyone would have been gushing over an unparalleled foray into the fantasy genre, but today's audiences are already spoiled by the cinematic attractions of recent years (and rightly so) and CGI effects, however sophisticated, can no longer impress anyone. But I can still feel that playful Peter in there, the 14 year-old kid who would get cyclops moving and trow a spear with photo-montage. I can still see the overgrown kid in who likes to show off, like in his movie beginnings. And I like that. Moreover, as with the Ring Trilogy, the visuals were handled by Tolkien's illustrators John Howe and Alan Lee, so I have nothing to complain about in that respect either. The Hobbit doesn't match the previous trilogy emotionally, but nobody could have expected that with the source material, which is an easygoing fairytale that doesn't solve anything, and I appreciate all the more that Jackson did manage to squeeze some of those fateful emotions into it. Still, unlike the previous two parts, I’m not giving it 5 stars. While the Hobbit's quest was entertaining and engaging thanks to the frequent changes of scenery and encounters with creatures of all sorts, here we basically don't move from where we are, there is more empty filler than necessary and you can also see how the narrative has been brutally chopped up. This policy of the studios (release a shorter cut in cinemas and a half-hour longer one on Blu-ray and make more money out of it) really annoys me. However, when I sum it up and count the pros and cons, I can safely say that although the Hobbit trilogy is not equal to the Ring trilogy in my eyes, it’s still a few thousand Smaug’s Tails ahead of the rest of the fantasy competition.
()
Spoilers ahead. You can’t take a film without an active protagonist, a strong antagonist and a sense of drive and turn it into a thrilling spectacle – not even if you have a dwarf riding a giant pig. It perhaps couldn’t have been any better thought out, but by dispensing with the trilogy’s most charismatic bad guy in the prologue, Jackson deprives the film of a more substantial final confrontation (and the effort to bring Smaug back into the film at least in Thorin’s hallucinations and Bilbo’s flashback doesn’t help much, since it’s obvious that neither of them will yield to the illusion of the dark side and they will both ultimately do the right thing). Though Bilbo’s transformation from a coward deprived of his domestic comforts has been satisfactorily completed (he acts on his own initiative, not only defying Thorin and Gandalf, but refusing to be controlled by the Ring), but during the battle he is still assigned to the role of a mere war correspondent and – as in the book – is unconscious through much of the battle. The sidelining of the hobbit also has a negative effect on the epilogue, which too briefly recapitulates the motif of the lost home and leaves us unsure of the way in which the adventures that the halfling experienced have changed him (has he become an even bigger homebody or has he realised that his home is not the only asset that he possesses?). Although The Battle is the shortest part of the trilogy, it most clearly shows us how much time Jackson allowed himself to tell the hobbit’s story (and leave the beloved Middle Earth). We are held in anticipation of the coming battle, which, however, serves primarily to draw our attention away from the lack of supporting or sufficiently developed storylines. For what purpose do Tauriel and Legolas journey to Gundabad? How does the Necromancer/Sauron contribute to the overall story (other than briefly entertaining Gandalf and creating a rickety donkey bridge to the Lord of the Rings)? What will become of Bard and his family? What was Gandalf’s (dramaturgical) contribution at the Lonely Mountain? It often seems that the flitting between the numerous characters and their personal quests serves only for forced parallels between the “old” and “new” trilogies. At the same time, it is an indication of the generally unfocused nature of the third Hobbit film. Several stories of individual characters clash in the film due to their incongruous natures (from slapstick to horror to heroic epic to intimate bromance), which make it hard to imagine that the whole film isn’t merely a matter of waiting for the battle (like the previous film “wasn't” just a matter of waiting for the dragon). The synthesis of these micro-episodes during the battle does not come across as a logical outcome of the preceding events, but rather as a case of “I happened to be passing by, so I joined in”. I found the inclusion of giant worms (if I remember correctly, no one even fights with them in the end) and eagles, which for Jackson are becoming a trademark similar to John Woo’s doves, to be equally random. What definitely doesn’t work, due to the weak development of the supporting characters, is the emotion displayed over the deaths of the less important dwarves (all except Thorin). I honestly cannot say which of them lived to see the end. What Jackson continues to excel at are the narrative action scenes that, despite tonnes of CGI and distinctly video-game “choreography” (Legolas skipping across falling rocks), radiate his enthusiasm for craftsmanship and inventing fantastical worlds and nations. Other than the two additional endings, The Battle of the Five Armies doesn’t offer any value added. It’s not a cheap, stupid or sloppily made film. It is a satisfactory film. Was it naïve to expect anything bolder from the conclusion of a perilously expensive fantasy project? 75%
()
(kevesebbet)
(több)
The fact that I’m giving it one more star than the second part it’s not due so much to a better quality, but rather to the better mood I was in while watching it. Or maybe it was the more reasonable run, I don’t know. A plus is Thorin’s momentary episode of madness, a negative, is once again, the digital mess. Bilbo floats with the plot, the battle of the five armies breaks down into individual fights, and as a whole it goes nowhere. Once again I must say that adapting “The Hobbit” as a film trilogy was a very bad decision.
()
The finale of The Hobbit did not satisfy me as much as I would have liked. The return to Middle Earth is nice, but from the very beginning it is clear that the creators wanted to squeeze so much in these two and a half hours that they didn’t know where to begin. They get rid of the dragon already in the opening credits and then a completely different story unfolds, which has nothing to do with the original Hobbit. I’m not blaming them for this, but I would’ve preferred if there were only two Hobbit movies and this one was conceived as a separate story. Especially since I don’t believe this is the creators’ last trip to Middle Earth. From the video logs I’ve seen, I’d say this is the best filmmaking crew ever. Everything here was running without a hitch – from the janitors to the director. What doesn’t work as perfectly is how they’re stretching this movie out, despite the fact it focuses on a single battle. That’s why I’m unwilling to give this the full amount of stars and why the second instalment remains the best movie of this trilogy in my opinion. On the other hand, the fairytale-like quality, the fact that almost everybody here is likeable and the opportunity to take another trip to Middle Earth mean a lot to me, so I am going to remember this trilogy with fondness.
()
The most concise and balanced film of the whole trilogy, which did not dispel any of my doubts that accompanied me through The Hobbit. Despite all the convulsive emphasis on being epic, the trilogy is unfortunately very flat, it lacks truly interesting, structured characters (in fact, the only one who goes through any dramatic change besides Bilbo is Thorin), the supplied storylines are horribly shallow and the three films did not add depth, but rather amusement park-like, uncritically long action scenes. The Battle of the Five Armies itself surprises, because even after Gondor and Helm's Deep, PJ was able to create fresh, well-arranged and choreographically imaginative giant scenes (an army of dwarves and a redheaded janitor Willy on a giant pig are among the last few things I wanted to see in my life). Unfortunately, from the moment the giant chamoises unexpectedly appear on the screen, we move from epic to the pre-planned Tolkien arcade, a soft version of Mortal Kombat stuffed with a ton of clichés and WTF scenes (Legolas and his gravity can no longer even entertain Peter). The poetic magic of silence and pipe cleaning, which Gandalf does at the very end, is thus quite unique in the trilogy of sin. In fact, I'm most interested in digital blushes and the obsession of creators to put epic emphasis on almost every scene, so in the end almost everything seems like a wooden theater - moreover, the script is a bit weaker than the brilliant "Who am I, Gamling?" monologue of King Théoden. The Hobbit works as teaser for The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I can imagine that my child will be ecstatic about it in a few years. When he grows up, he will certainly agree with me that the original trio of films remains are unmatched in their greater muteness and higher cinematic agility. Or I’ll beat his ass.
()
The Hobbit without the Hobbit or in other word the journey there and back. More than ever, the third movie of Hobbit is the result of two directors working together. The first one (let's call him PJ, for example), who understands the characters, the conflicts between them and in them, and can do with precisely cast actors. Once Bilbo, Thorin or Gandalf are on screen alone, it works in a way that often brings the best and most impressive moments from both trilogies. But then there is another director (let's call him CGI PJ, for example), who has poor taste and makes everything over-the-top. And he constantly has coffee breaks lasting (too) long time instead of working and let the computers do the job. In scenes where effects serve events or scenes, there are no reservations. But in scenes packed with effect with no particular reason or where the effect are over-the-top as in the case of (unfortunately not by far only) wannabe cool fun with Legolas’ female elf, the I almost feel ashamed of CGI PJ. In scenes where PJ has managed with ten seconds of "cool Legolas" in the past, CGI PJ needs at leas ten minutes. Fortunately, the work of the first one still prevails in the movie, but after all, the percentage of (poor) taste is rather questionable. On top of that, what is even more striking this time that many things are missing and will be added only in the extended version. Everything that has to do with action was prioritized at the expense of characters, motivations and similar "redundancies". A typical example is the ending. There is an impressive battle lasting couple of minutes but there is no effect and after that one quiet scene with sad Bilbo and Gandalf smoking a pipe does the talking and everything becomes clear. And this applies to everything in this part. The extended version is then interesting mainly in the fact that it underlines both of the opposite approaches. So, there are many more glorious character moments, as well as more of that depersonalized over-the-top CGI action.
()
Roads go ever ever on, under cloud and under star; yet feet that wandering have gone turn at last to home afar. For some, it's a barrage of computer tricks, for others, a pleasant adventurous ride, for still others, it's a meaningless war massacre with no added value. And for me, it's a fairytale preceding The Lord of the Rings, creating one big unforgettable narrative. Peter Jackson is still like Peter Pan so many years after The Fellowship of the Ring. Like a boy who stayed in his own Middle-earth and refuses to grow up. And it's only thanks to him that Bilbo seems like a good friend, Gandalf the wisest mentor, and Thorin as the true main character, with whom it's worth experiencing every sword stroke or chilling breath. And in the cave, in Esgaroth, on the battlefield, in the mountains, and in the Shire, I discovered again and again that their world is also mine and not only were my expectations fulfilled, but they were also easily surpassed. Today, two trilogies have finally created a separate hexalogy, and I want to stay in it forever. So once again... In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
()
This is how I imagine the fulfillment of the phrase "digital plague." Peter Jackson is diligently stealing from himself and showing that in the name of financial gain, he is capable of sinking low. The first Hobbit film already showed all his weaknesses by padding the plot with filler, and the inability to lead the storyline meaningfully, and the third film just tops it all off. Those who like attractions will enjoy the films but towards the end, I only felt resignation and disgust. Overall impression: 40%. I don't know how Tolkien would react to The Lord of the Rings films, but this piece of crap would surely hurt him...
()
I’m probably most disappointed about the shoddy battle with the dragon. Not that it doesn’t look good, but the unfortunate placing it in the intro steals its oomph and it’s too short. The battle of five armies which take up the longest sequences is of course technically sophisticated, in places even better than the Lord of the Rings, but is unnecessary long and fundamentally unimportant in itself. I didn’t have that feeling of inevitability. The best sequences are the humble chats between Bilbo and Thorin which gives some sense to the whole of part three. Part three suffers the most from being separated. It doesn’t work on its own and pointless things (like the vice mayor’s demented remarks) obscure what’s important (what happened to Bard after the battle?!). The sad farewell to the Middle-earth disappoints with its sloppiness.
()
In the first film, we thought it was a slight stumble, a slightly slower start. In the second, however, it was already clear that this trilogy is weaker than The Lord of the Rings, both in terms of its drama and epicness, as well as the directing. The third one is only a reasonable conclusion where at first glance everything looks as it should, but essentially nothing is brought to perfection. The only thing worth mentioning is the excellent transformation of Thorin Oakenshield and the final battle. The rest is a digital mess without order or coherence that cannot be compared in its ferocity and rawness to scenes like in Moria from The Fellowship of the Ring – which is shockingly disappointing, unfortunately in a negative sense. The characters and their motives are outlined just enough to be pleasing, and the visuals are appropriately flashy, which is of course expected as the standard. The screenwriters still take the same trips into various mini-stories (the children in the town, etc.), a few mythical characters are just shown for the sake of it, and everything is concluded with a confusing, digital, wannabe opulent battle. The trilogy that is ten years older is better in every aspect. The 10-year difference in visuals seems to not exist at all – unbelievable.
()
Like the two previous Hobbit films, I give the conclusion of the trilogy four decent stars and save the fifth for the extended version. Again, it seems to me that there is a lot missing in the film, many scenes still need "something". Anyway, still great fun, filmed honestly and with obvious love. Yes, Smaug's end didn't have to come so soon, Legolas didn't have to have so much space, the amazing Billy Connolly as Ironfoot could have gotten more of space... And so on. But when the two and a half hours of the film pass like an hour and a half, what I'm watching doesn't seem ridiculous to me, unlike many of the viewers in the hall, the ending moves me, and when I get home I feel like immediately watching all five Middle Earth films so I don't have to return to reality... That's great, isn't it?___P.S. The extended version did not disappoint me. Thanks to the addition of many imaginative and funny battle moments (the chariot ride, Bifur's axe and many others), the film is even more entertaining now, the little things like Gandalf's new staff are impossible not to love, and Alfrid's final ending has to make everyone laugh... And beautiful silent scenes like Bilbo and Bofur on the walls or the funeral and coronation. The fifth star is there.
()
From a technical point of view, again strongly on par, but it also very much lags behind in terms of content. Many scenes look strangely abbreviated (as if half an hour of shots were cut from the film), while others lack tension, sufficient drama or emotional depth. The action and battle sequences are incredibly exaggerated and absurdly unrealistic, as they ostentatiously ignore the laws of physics, logic and probability. With their crazy manic stylization, many of the sequences are more reminiscent of grotesque, and they desperately do not fit into the serious epic fantasy ala Lord of the Rings and inadvertently arouse laughter, which, combined with barren dialogues about love, friendship and honor, makes the final part of The Hobbit by far the dumbest part of the trilogy. Unfortunately, The Battle of the Five Armies falls apart due to the fact that the goblins are not scary at all - even the gathering of their army of hundreds of thousands fighters does not give the impression of a dangerous threat, but rather the function of semi-funny pieces that fall when you poke them. And the mayor's unstable underling acting as a comic character deserves to be shot. Overall, it’s rather disappointing. There is no "wow" factor this time, and this is instead a very average film. Nevertheless, I admit that I had fun, just quite differently than in the previous two parts or when watching The Lord of the Rings, but I was not happy about it. After the Return of the King, I shouted "Glory!" three times, but this time I lack a good reason to do so.
()
I can't help it, but as much as I was fascinated by "The Lord of the Rings", I have never been that captivated by "The Hobbit". I am referring to the movie. It's quite clear, but "The Hobbit" didn't even come close to it. If it weren't for the battle in the third film, I wouldn't even find it enjoyable. The emotions at the end didn't move me much. Simply put, Jackson did a decent job, but he has other movies that truly blow me away.
()
And so it is the end of the hobbit trilogy, which only confirmed what was clear from the beginning, namely that two movies would have been enough. The movie is bad for many reasons and its only saving grace is that the second part set the bar so damn low that it would take a lot of skill to make an even worse piece of crap. The movie just drags on and on. It is cut in such a way that I'll have to wait for the director's cut to form an opinion, as with most Jackson's movies. Of course, there’s no way it compares to The Lord of the Rings. But as a trilogy of its own, The Hobbit has a chance of staying in the top half of the fantasy genre. Time will tell. One does not simply compare The Lord of the Rings, charged with emotion, grandiose music, great scenes, awesome characters and actors, and amazing set locations with the artificial Hobbit, with zero emotion, thrill and literally filmed against a green screen for profit. This of course doesn’t mean that I won’t ever watch The Hobbit again and perhaps even gladly do so, which is why I'm giving it a 3.5 stars.
()