'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies' wins the box office, but which movie do critics recommend?

The third 'Hobbit' movie, 'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,' won the box office again this weekend, but another strong box office contender has been more well-received by reviewers.

Mark Pokorny/Warner Bros. Pictures/AP
'The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies' stars Martin Freeman (l.).

Hobbits and dwarves dominated the box office once again this past weekend, with the (presumably) final film in the “Hobbit” trilogy, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” winning the box office for the third straight week.

The third “Hobbit” movie, which was first released on Dec. 17, was battling with fellow box office stalwarts “Into the Woods,” the fairy tale musical adaptation that was released on Dec. 25, and “Unbroken,” the adaptation of Laura Hillenbrand’s nonfiction book. "Unbroken" was directed by Angelina Jolie and also came out on Christmas Day.

According to the Associated Press, “Hobbit” grossed more than $21 million this past weekend, while “Woods” came in at second place with more than $19 million and “Unbroken” grossed more than $18 million. Meanwhile, the horror sequel “The Woman in Black 2” took in more than $15 million.

However, “Woods” has been the best-reviewed of the bunch. “Armies” has a score of 59 out of 100 on the review aggregator website Metacritic, while “Unbroken” has exactly the same score and “Black” only holds a score of 42. “Woods,” by contrast, currently has a score of 70.

According to the website Box Office Mojo, “Armies” has taken in more than the second “Hobbit” film, “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” had in the same time period (19 days). “Armies” has grossed more than $220 million, while “Smaug” took in more than $201 million over that time.

Out of the three “Hobbit” films, “Armies” is currently in the middle of the pack in terms of critical reception. According to Metacritic, its 59 score is better than the first “Hobbit” film, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” but not as good as the score held by “Smaug.”

The film “Taken 3,” an action movie starring Liam Neeson, opens this weekend, but the weekend is otherwise quiet, so “Hobbit” may hold onto its crown a little longer unless the newest "Taken" film proves to be a box office smash.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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.