'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies': Is it a satisfying end to the film trilogy?

'Battle,' which hits US theaters on Dec. 17, is the final movie in the film trilogy based on J.R.R. Tolkien's book 'The Hobbit.' It stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, and Richard Armitage.

Mark Pokorny/Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
The 'Hobbit' film series stars Martin Freeman.

The final “Hobbit” movie, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” has received mixed reviews so far, with some critics praising the combat sequences but others saying the movie is too long and full of nods to fans.

“Battle” is the third in the trilogy of movies based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s novel “The Hobbit,” which follows the adventures of hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman of “Fargo”), wizard Gandalf (“X-Men: Days of Future Past” actor Ian McKellen), and dwarf Thorin (“Robin Hood” actor Richard Armitage), among others. The movie was already released in areas such as the UK and will hit theaters in the US on Dec. 17.

According to the review aggregator website Metacritic, “Battle” currently has a score of 62 out of 100. This is better than the first film, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” which earned 58 out of 100, but lower than the series’ second installment, “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” which holds a score of 66.

One thing critics agree on: if you don’t like battles, this is not the movie for you, though the title may have tipped you off to that. 

Variety critic Scott Foundas wrote of the movie,

“The result is at once the trilogy’s most engrossing episode, its most expeditious (at a comparatively lean 144 minutes) and also its darkest… Only fans need apply… if 'The Battle of the Five Armies' feels psychologically weightier than the previous 'Hobbit' films, that’s largely a credit to Armitage… Jackson… invests his five-army rumble with such a visceral feeling for landscape and physical action, a sure eye for elaborate battlefield choreography and, above all, a sense of purpose, that he leaves most of the competition – including some of his own previous battle sequences – seeming like so much digital white noise… it’s hard not to marvel at Jackson’s facility with these characters and this world.” 

And Andrew Pulver of the Guardian found the film to be “a fitting cap to an extended series… just as enjoyable as each of the five films that came before it.” 

However, Inkoo Kang of TheWrap called the movie “lumbering and overstuffed.” 

“The 144-minute running time showcases Jackson’s worst tendencies: eons-long battle scenes, sloppy and abrupt resolutions, portentous romances, off-rhythm comic timing, and, newly in this case, patience-testing fan service,” Kang wrote.

And Tim Robey of the Telegraph called the film “a series of stomping footnotes in search of a climax.” 

“There’s more aftermath than plot left,” he wrote. “The last third is rescued by one meaty, entertaining set piece… [but] the film is… a paragraph on steroids.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies': Is it a satisfying end to the film trilogy?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today