Time to return to Middle Earth one final time to conclude the story of The Hobbit. Although I wasn’t a fan of the first movie in the trilogy (it was way too slow with not much happening) I thought the second movie delivered what I was expecting, exciting sequences, introduction and development of characters and a finale which had me wanting more. Having not read the book and seeing where the second movie ended, with Smaug on his way to Lake Town, I couldn’t wait to get back into it. Having now seen it i’m not that excited anymore.
The movie continues where the second one speed and does so with a climax. The attack of Smaug is an awesome sequence, but should have been the ending of the second movie. By shifting it into the third movie certain expectations were set and it feels out of place. With Smaug out of the mountain though it creates an opportunity for various groups to try to conquer the mountain for both its gold and strategic position, leading to the titular battle. Director Peter Jackson has shown in the past that mass battles can be exciting and there surely are some spectacular moment, but I had an issue with it all: I never felt there was much at stake. This might be caused by the source material, but I never felt invested in any of the armies. When the biggest part of the movie consists of battles that is an issue. The personal relationships also don’t evolve much resulting in a movie without a heart.
Add to that some jokes felt out of place and didn’t work, with the whole character of Alfrid being the biggest annoyance (The Hobbit’s Jar Jar Binks basically) and the need to have sequences connecting this movie to the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the result is a movie which isn’t an amazing end to a trilogy, but rather a movie that still feels too long despite it shorter running time compared to the previous two movies. The beginning of the trilogy sold me of this idea of the dwarfs conquering the mountain and their people returning to live there. In the end that didn’t seem that important, which is a shame. Also for a movie with Hobbit in the title there isn’t much of him in it. If you have seen the previous two you know you will be checking out this third one, but I wished I would have cared a lot more.
Liked it more than yourself, but the whole trilogy hasn’t been a patch on LOTR. It’s time for Jackson to go back to stuff like Heavenly Creatures.
Yeah, it isn’t on the same level. Have not seen Heavenly Creatures, but have heard more people mention that.
hmm, I haven’t seen the The Battle of the Five Armies yet, wonder whether I should go see it soon. Your review suggests I needn’t bother. What did you rate Hobbit 1 and 2?
You can check out those reviews here:
https://www.myfilmviews.com/2014/01/23/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-2013/
https://www.myfilmviews.com/2012/12/13/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-2012/
WIDE range of opinions on the film. I liked the first Hobbit (didn’t love it), really enjoyed the second one. This one does interest me but I have had concerns from the start.
Yeah, they definitely vary but I’m clear in which camp I’m in 😉
I actually probably enjoyed this one the most out of the three films. The second one had me falling asleep. Although I definitely agree that they should have moved the Smaug sequence to the end of the second one for sure. It completely felt out of place. I also agree that I wasn’t as invested in the battle just because it didn’t feel like there was much at stake. Great review and good points made here, Nostra!
Just shows how different people can experience the same thing a different way. Thanks Kristin!
Just saw it last night and felt let down, a bad way to feel at the end of a trilogy. Wish it had been two movies. Seemed like there was too much filler with the third.
So you feel the same about it as I did. It’s a shame it was so disappointing.
Yep!
Pingback: My Filmyear: 2014 My Filmviews
I kind of agree. If they had given LOTR the same treatment they’ve given the Hobbit, I would have been furious, but I’m not too fussed about the liberties they’ve taken with these films.
Unlike Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit is a short and simple book, so it was always going to be difficult to spread it across three movies. The decision to do so is, for me, more of a reflection on the greed of the studios rather than on Peter Jackson.
That said, I really disliked what they did to Radagast. To me, he was an oblique reference to shamanic traditions, not a stoner with bird poo in his hair.
Yeah, it should have been shorter. I don’t know the books, but can understand your feeling about Radagast. He was a weird, comedic character.