Order by:

Add your comment

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

Comments 1 - 15 of 43

dombrewer's avatar


For a film so determined to labour the point that lust for gold is bad thing it's so ironic that the only reason this overblown, shoddily written CGI-fest is a trilogy is... a lust for gold.
7 years 9 months ago
SpacedJ's avatar


Okay, bring up the sad music ... snow falling ... slow motion looking around you at all the people who died needlessly. You're getting emotional ... wait stop. Billy Connolly, why are you head-butting everyone? We're trying to build a moment here to show how horrible war ... yes, yes they are cheeky buggers. Look there's a dead child! A child! So sad! No ... there you go comically head-butting again. Right after I showed you the dead child. Ah screw it. Just let the troll run head first into the wall and fall over again. The kids will like it I guess.
7 years 9 months ago
Jontaquestion's avatar


Disappointed. LotR - Return of the king is my all time favourite, and this isnt even close. What happenened to actors with make-up and masks? Real locations? The plot and action scenes are cool enough, but the rather bad CGI, and the overused Instagram philter ruins all for me. You were so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think if you should.
7 years 9 months ago
Chikamaharry's avatar


Didn't like this. "I hate the fucking eagles, man". Other than that a lot of the story was disappointing, didn't make sense or were otherwise just plain bad. Movie still suffers from a overabundance of, frankly, bad CGI, with not enough practical effects. Some of the green screen were horribly done, and you could clearly see this kind of weird edge around the characters.

Also, a never ending fight that does not stop. You will leave the theater tired. Basically the same problem that Man of Steel had. Also, I feel like the 2nd and 3rd movie was split at the wrong place, since the first half hour of the movie feels really weird, rushed, and has horrible pacing. It has a really hard time picking up the threads from the second movie in a good way.

Best this about the movie was the Thranduils mount. God, that thing was gracious.
7 years 9 months ago
Valentinwar90's avatar


End of a mediocre movie trilogy. Most of the characters are incredibly weak and they motives to do things seem sometimes really weak also. Trailers showed clips of the battle scenes that didn't even appear in the actual film and are most likely to be shown in the extended editions. Love triangle once again was completely pointless and the amount of minutes devoted to it seemed unnecessary long taking valuable screen time from characters that should have had their own blaze of glory.Conflicts within the narrative were solved so easily that they didn't seem that big of a deal in the first place when looking back at them.

I really hoped that I would've liked this one more than the overtime train wreck that was Desolation since it was the end of the trilogy. But weak set ups in the first two films don't result into great pay offs in the last film. I kept on hoping better ending but it didn't happen. I'm not even angry, I'm just very disappointed.
7 years 9 months ago
neocowboy's avatar


The only enjoyable part of this film was when Gandalf sat beside Bilbo at the end and enjoyed some pipeweed without a word spoken between the two. This is the most genuine moment in a film with a 144 min runtime.
7 years 6 months ago
Unfortunate Synopsis's avatar

Unfortunate Synopsis

As someone who grew up reading the Hobbit and the LotR trilogy and then loving the LotR movies, I don't think the Hobbit series was a letdown. The Hobbit was meant to be a children's book, and despite the bloodshed and gore, I felt like the films kept it a bit more light-hearted than the LotR films. As a result, you don't get the same level of character development and it's not as dark and serious. Nonetheless, I found the movies, as a whole, to be entertaining, and if watched in the order of the storyline, I would think the Hobbit movies would be a good appetizer to the LotR main course (something that I cannot say for the Star Wars films). The one change that I would have made would have been... spoiler
7 years 9 months ago
Pauljt1980's avatar


As much as I've loved the Middle Earth films, this is the first where I've felt completely let down. Didn't care about the fallen Dwarves, the Smaug end was rushed and not climactic enough, Beorn came and vanished completely and half of the time you couldn't tell who was fighting who in the battle. On the plus side, the humour was good at times, the Bolg and Azog final battles were impressive and the Galadriel, Saruman and Agent Smith v the nine was visually impressive
7 years 9 months ago
Nightwalker's avatar


The Tolkien saga is finished. For now. As expected this trilogy didn't come even close to the original The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But, as an almost unconditional fan, I must admit I did enjoy every one of The Hobbit movies. The first one was a bit too slow and the second one made some narrative choices I didn't like, but in the end I just took it like a true fanboy. Unfortunately this wasn't the case for the final episode. Not that it didn't entertain. Not that it didn't have its moments. It just didn't do any justice to what I think is probably one of the best children's stories ever written. Bilbo was no more than an additional character, the special effects were - apart from Smaug - awful (the scene were Legolas walked over those falling bricks? no... just... no...) and almost the whole scenery took place in and between Dale and Erebor. The best scenes of the movie were those in Laketown and Dol Guldur, which is saying a lot. Apart from one scene at Gundabad and one in the Shire, there weren't even any other locations in this third installment. I know this has to do with the book, but that's just the problem: The Hobbit is shorter than every single book of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The latter adaptations missed a lot of characters (most notably Tom Bombadil and Ghân, if I remember correctly), but nonetheless the films were diverse, exciting and not rarely very layered. Peter Jackson is a Tolkien lover and it may be that a dream came true for him, but I think Viggo Mortensen (who wasn't in any of The Hobbit movies) was right: Jackson sacrificed substance for technical and financial glory.
7 years 9 months ago
Worzel's avatar


I saw all 3 films in the cinema and was increasingly disappointed as they dragged on. I saw this last as a sort of obligation to myself to finish.
Now many years later I've just seen the fan edit : all 3 movies recut to a 4h21m runtime with an intermission in the middle, so 2 movies and ... it made sense. It was actually a pleasant experience and I highly recommend you try it.
2 years 8 months ago
Earring72's avatar


Well that was a fitting underwelming end to an underwelming prequel trilogy series. It's very difficult too care about anyone....but acting is good and movie looks and sounds amazing on blu ray.

but...what happended to the gold? The town people....and how did Thorin exactly just became better????
4 years 8 months ago
dm7's avatar


''oy, you! pointy hat''
7 years 6 months ago
toopsy's avatar


go Galadriel! <3
7 years 9 months ago
igordebraga's avatar


There and Back Again is still a better title (though given how most of the runtime is around the battle, the new subtitle does make sense). Finishing the series makes it even more noticeable that two movies could be enough. But given it's the shortest Middle-Earth movie, action-packed to the point it (mostly) averts the slumps for the previous two, and even provides emotional scenes - touching deaths to the ending connecting to Fellowship of the Ring - far from a bad time at the theater.
7 years 9 months ago
Agnezious's avatar


CGI everywhere, just look like Star Wars prequel.
6 years 2 months ago

Showing items 1 – 15 of 43

View comments