Der Hobbit: Die Schlacht der Fünf Heere

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. (05.01.2015)

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. (14.01.2015)

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. (21.12.2014)

Der prägnanteste und wohl ausgewogenste Film der gesamten Trilogie, der es jedoch nicht vermochte Zweifel zu zerstreuen, die mich durch den Hobbit geleiteten. Trotz des krampfhaft hervorgehoben Eposcharakters bleibt die Trilogie leider sehr flach, denn es fehlt an tatsächlich interessanten strukturierten Charakteren (eigentlich ist Thorin der einzige, der außer Bilbo eine dramatisch eingängige Wandlung durchläuft), die hier erscheinenden Handlungsstränge sind schrecklich flach und die drei Filme haben der Vorlage zu keiner Tiefe verholfen, sondern eher für vergnügungsparkähnlichen Ballast in Form unkritisch langer Actionszenen gesorgt. Die Schlacht der Fünf Heere selbst überrascht, denn selbst nach Gondor und Helms Schlucht ist es PJ gelungen, frisch anmutende, übersichtliche sowie choreografisch einfallsreiche Megaszenen zu erstellen (eine Zwergenarmee und der rothaarige Hausmeister Willy auf einem Riesenschwein gehören zum Letzten, was ich in noch meinem Leben habe sehen wollen). Leider bewegen wir uns ab dem Moment, wo unerwarteterweise Riesengämsen auf dem Bildschirm erscheinen, vom Epos hinweg zur vorgeplanten Tolkien-Arcade, einer Art Softversion des Mortal Kombat, die mit haufenweise Klischees und WTF-Szenen gefüllt ist (Legolas und wie er mit Schwerkraft umgeht können doch selbst Peter keinen Spaß mehr bereiten). Geradezu sündhaft wenig gibt es da an poetischer Magie der Ruhe sowie der Pfeifenreinigung, die Gandalf ganz am Ende vorführt, ist daher in der Trilogie der Sünde einzigartig. Ehrlich gesagt werde ich mich am meisten an die digitale Morgenröte mitsamt der Besessenheit der Macher erinnern, nahezu jede Szene episch zu hervorzugeben. Am Ende scheint nahezu alles wie starre Theater zu sein - außerdem ist das Drehbuch etwas schwächer als der brillante "Who am I, Gamling?"-Monolog des Königs Théoden. Der Hobbit funktioniert als Teaser zum Herr der Ringe und ich kann mir vorstellen, dass mein Kind in ein paar Jahren davon begeistert sein wird. Sobald er jedoch erwachsener werden wird, wird er mir sicherlich recht geben, dass die ursprüngliche Filmtrilogie in Anbetracht ihrer höheren filmemacherischen Gewandtheit unerreicht bleibt. Oder er wird in den Arsch getreten werden. (11.12.2014)

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. (11.12.2014)

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. (27.12.2014)

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... (13.05.2017)

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. (29.12.2014)

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. (14.12.2014)

Den letzten Teil der Hobbit-Trilogie bewerte ich (so wie die beiden vorherigen Filme) mit vier soliden Sternen. Den fünften hebe ich mir für die Extended Edition auf. Ich habe nämlich wieder das Gefühl, dass im Film viele Dinge fehlen, dass eine Reihe von Szenen noch "etwas“ braucht. Der Hobbit: Die Schlacht der Fünf Heere ist aber trotzdem sehr unterhaltsam. Der Film ist solide aufgenommen und man sieht, dass er mit viel Liebe gemacht wurde. Smaug hätte auch später sterben können. Legolas hat eigentlich nicht so viel Raum gebraucht, der tolle Billy Connolly als Dain Eisenfuß hätte hingegen davon mehr bekommen können. Und so weiter und so weiter. Die zweieinhalb Stunden haben sich aber wie anderthalb Stunden angefühlt, der Film kam mir (im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Zuschauerinnen und Zuschauern) nicht lächerlich vor und das Ende war rührend. Als ich nach Hause gekommen bin, hatte ich Lust, mir gleich alle fünf Mittelerde-Filme anzuschauen, um noch nicht wieder in die Realität zurückkehren zu müssen. Das ist doch toll, oder?___PS: Die Extended Edition hat mich nicht enttäuscht. Sie hat viele einfallsreiche und witzige Kampfmomente (die Fahrt mit dem Wagen, Bifurs Axt und andere). Dadurch ist der Film noch unterhaltsamer geworden. Details wie Gandalfs neuen Stock muss man einfach lieben und bei Alfrids definitivem Ende lacht jeder… Und dann gibt es noch schöne stille Szenen wie Bilbo und Bofur auf den Ringmauern oder das Begräbnis und die Krönung. Schwupp und der fünfte Stern ist da. (12.12.2014)

In Bezug auf die technische Seite wieder stark auf einem hohen Niveau, aber inhaltlich stark hinterherhinkend. Viele Szenen wirken seltsam verkürzt (als wären eine halbe Stunde Aufnahmen aus dem Film herausgeschnitten worden), andere fehlen wiederum an Spannung, ausreichend Dramatik oder emotionaler Tiefe. Die Action- und Kampfsequenzen sind unglaublich übertrieben und absurd unrealistisch, da sie die Gesetze der Physik, Logik und Wahrscheinlichkeit offensichtlich ignorieren. Viele von ihnen erinnern mit ihrer wahnsinnigen manischen Stilisierung eher an Groteske und passen überhaupt nicht zu einer ernsthaft konzipierten epischen Fantasy wie Der Herr der Ringe und erwecken unbeabsichtigt Lachen. Dies in Kombination mit den müden Dialogen über Liebe, Freundschaft und Ehre macht den letzten Teil des Hobbits spielend zum dümmsten Teil der Trilogie. Leider enttäuscht die Hauptarmee-Schlacht damit, dass die Orks überhaupt nicht furchterregend sind und selbst das Aufgebot einer mit Waffen stark ausgerüsteten Hunderttausend-Armee keinen Eindruck einer gefährlichen Bedrohung erweckt - sie erfüllen eher die Funktion halb-komischer Figuren, die umfallen, wenn man gegen sie stößt. Und der labile Handlanger des Bürgermeisters als komische Figur ist zum Abschuss freigegeben. Im Ergebnis also eher eine Enttäuschung - kein "Wow" findet diesmal statt und stattdessen ein Absturz ins Durchschnittliche. Dennoch muss ich zugeben, dass ich mich amüsiert habe, nur bedeutend anders als bei den beiden vorherigen Teilen oder beim Herrn der Ringe, aber ich hatte keinen Spaß daran. Nach der Rückkehr des Königs rief ich dreimal "Sieg!", aber mir fehlt jetzt ein überzeugender Grund dazu. (11.12.2014)

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. (13.12.2014)

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. (18.12.2014)