>For the record I liked the LOTR trilogy a lot and I certainly
>thought the previous Hobbit film the Desolation of Smaug was a
>lot of fun.

When that's the best in ANY series you know that's fucked up.

>
>However, Battle of the Five Armies is such a poor film it will
>besmirch the other films in Jackson's Tolkien cannon.
>
>The pacing of the film is way off. I literally almost got up
>to walk out of the film twice, first with 45 minutes to go and
>then again with 20 minutes to go. The film just did not hold
>my attention. It is very rare I go to the cinema and want to
>leave a film early.

Right? After those first 45 - 50 minutes the movie is done.

>
>Like BWood said the love triangle adds nothing in this film.
>But that is one of the lesser problems.
>
>The acting throughout is awful, especially from the minor
>characters. Perhaps they were asked to ham it up but the
>villagers/fisherman showed very poor quality of "acting".
>Especially the guy who was Alfred.
>

It's the Star Wars prequel effect homie. We came in looking for the final installment to redeem the trilogy and it doesn't. Like at all.


>The special effects look like they come from the 1980s. Really
>unimpressive. There were times when it looked like a computer
>game but from a previous decade.
>
>I'm still having trouble adjusting to the 48 frames per second
>look, the appearance makes the film look low budget.


Dude, my press screening for the first film was in 48fps 3D and that shit makes CG look like ass and you can tell everything is a set. That's the unfortunate quality of having such clear picture.

Also, it's just like watching one of those True HD TVs at Best Buy where it looks unnatural in movement. Even someone raising their arm makes them move like a crackhead.

As Andrew Todd said on Twitter: "Suspension of disbelief lives between the frames. That's why HFR looks like trash. It suffocates suspension of disbelief."

HFR is a failed experiment. One that James Cameron is gonna use for the 3 Avatar sequels.

>
>The Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett walk ons were weird, I
>guess Jackson just wanted to pad the film length and introduce
>and set up for LOTR.

See when they popped up to save Gandalf, I didn't mind. Only thing that bothered me was Suaramon saying he's gonna deal with Sauron *wink wink nudge nudge*

>
>There are a lot of battle scenes, you expect this given the
>film's title but there is very little plot.
>

Yea dude, this movie should've been an hour 40 - 2 hours max.

>There is weak dialogue yet the film is still portentous; a
>strange mix but I've never felt the writing has been a strong
>point in any of Jackson's Tolkien films.
>
>I thought the start of the film with Smaug should have
>probably been included in the second film. Again this is
>linked to pacing and structure.

Yea man. The film starts so suddenly and unnaturally. All three LOTR films feel like separate films. Shit even the first two Hobbit films feel like separate films. This literally felt like 2nd half of another film. It's the same problem I have with The Matrix sequels. They felt like one big long movie cut into two. I mean shit at least Back to the Future Part 2 and 3 at least feel like different movies.

>
>Jackson should really have made The Hobbit a two part film
>rather than three and then made two director's cuts but making
>a third film the studios can bring in another $500 million.

That was the OG plan to do two movies with the second film concluding The Hobbit and being a bridge film for LOTR.

Now I see why del Toro left. His two films would've been great. And he said they would've been no longer than 2 hours a piece.

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ