My Other Self

If you're going to compare Rotten Tomatoes percentages to the general public, then use the audience score.

An Unexpected Journey -- 83%
Desolation of Smaug -- 86%
Battle of the Five Armies -- 80%

They're all pretty consistent. The Battle of the Five Armies, having just come out, will most likely go up percentage wise. Nothing seems out of line in terms of audience approval.

hanshotfirst1138

It's just barely fresh on RT .

brainee

Just got back from this (3D IMAX). 4/5 for me. The movie raced by and was over before I knew it, so it certainly succeeded as a piece of entertainment for me. Weakest part was the comic relief coward guy ... could've done without any of that. I was glad to not have the endless ending of Return of the King. Let that stuff be saved just for the extended editions. And, all things told, the trilogy should've been just movies. Too much good stuff for just one movie (like some suggest). But there's a whole movie-worth of fluff, extraneous, weak, and repetitive stuff that could've easily been removed to trim it down to two.

Dr. DVD

Interesting. Smaug has the highest rating with both audiences and RT, yet I kind of feel it gets weaker with subsequent viewings. The first actually gets better IMO. I felt they really should have ended the second one with Smaug's death, as opposed to having it open this one with no real frame of reference. I also wish they had EE spoiler

Mike86

Saw this last night, I'm not the hugest fan of Tolkien or anything and have only just started to read the actual novel this trilogy was based on. Having said that I've really enjoyed all three entries of The Hobbit (I've actually liked these films more than The Lord of the Rings to be honest). I do think that this one was the weakest of the three but still not terrible. I actually think I like them about in the order they came out in. For some reason An Unexpected Journey is the most entertaining to me, even though I really like Smaug a lot from The Desolation of Smaug. This one doesn't seem like it'll be quite as memorable and just served as the wrap up story. Which it was but I dunno.

Groucho

My only complaint is that Alfrid didn't get enough screen time.

csant

They should've left the ending of Smaug to part 2. I like this one was it great, probably not... maybe not even good. I am just a big fan of the books and feel like a kid watching it on screen.

Im kinda sad we wont get anymore middle-earth movies to look forward too.

Giantrobo

Saw this Sunday and really enjoyed it. I want the extended versions of The Hobbit films.

Giantrobo

Hey, basically Star Wars was about how the old ass Jedi's and Pussy Rebels got their asses raped by the Empire.

TimeSkip

I didn't care about the characters. therefore I had a hard time caring about the confusing battles or the peril that came with those battles. Forced references to LOTR. Oh and a crappy Dwarf-Elf romance. The movie should be thankful I gave it a 5/10.

taffer

Then the Empire got raped by ewoks.

Ewoks > everyone else

B.A.

agreed.

It may have had the shortest run time of any of the films, but it felt longer to me.

johnnysd

After seeing all three I could definitely see this cut down to 1 really awesome 3 hour movie because this movie literally felt like 15 minutes of actual content spread over 2.5 hours. The stuff I really liked was the stuff with the main LOTR characters. I think if they had stayed with their original plan of Hobbit in one film, then a bridge film to the LOTR trilogy it would have been far superior. It just seemed too much that even great bits like the fight on the ice fell flat and most of the combat felt really repetitive. One thing that kept occuring to me as I watched was: They will reboot the LOTR franchise in 10 years with a new director and vision. This is the last visit for Peter Jackson's LOTR but I suspect not truly our last visit. I did really dig the scene with Sauron. Just 3 stars for me.

dave-o

I haven't seen anyone ask this yet, but how long is it supposed to be between the end of this one and the start of LOTR? Because I always though it was a few decades, at least 30 years, but probably more since LOTR starts with Bilbo's Eleventy what ever birthday. Which all leads me to my point. When Papa Legolas tells junior to go look for Strider, wouldn't Strider be at most a teenager?

Groucho

It's about 60 years. Aragorn is in his eighties in LOTR.

Josh-da-man

In the Extended Edition of "The Two Towers" Aragorn tells Eowyn that he is eighty-eight years old. Aragorn is Dunedain, which means he is a descendent of the original race of men, who have longer lifespans than normal men; I believe it's stated to be about three times the length.

I'm not sure if that means age three times as slowly, or if they reach adulthood at the same rate as normal men and then age more slowly into old age. If it the former, then Aragorn would appear to be about nine or ten years old; if it's the latter, he would appear to be either a teenager or a man in his twenties.

dave-o

Thanks guys. I was actually wondering about the lifespans of certain humans and whether or not that was explained. It's been a long time since I've read the books and it just seemed like a weird timeline without knowing the background...

dave-o

Okay, I gave it a night to process and I'm still utterly disappointed in this movie. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, it was beautiful with some great action scenes and some nice acting as well. But it was bloated, poorly paced, and just, blech. I absolutely love the LOTR, so I'll pretty much like anything set in Middle Earth, but my god these could've been soooo much better.

I know it's beating a dead horse at this point, but these should've been two movies, max. And that might've been stretching it. Killing off Smaug in the first 20 mins of this film was a ridiculous way to take all of the power out of what should've been one of the pivotal scenes in this story. This movie was basically two scenes. Killing Smaug and the big battle. Everything in between was fluff, that could've possibly been useful if handled better. Instead we get a great fight between the white council and the Nazgul, only to just be left hanging.

Like I said, I enjoyed it and it wasn't nearly as bad as the last one, but worse imo than the first Hobbit, and the second worst of all these movies. Instead of an EE of these, can we get the opposite? A cut where they reduce these movies in to two solid films?

Solid Snake

I would like to see the EE for this to see if that council bit was ever actually finished. It was very unfortunate to not see it furthered. I really liked that scene though. Had the right amount of spirit that much of this Hobbit series didn't have.

dave-o

Yes, I liked that scene quite a bit as well, which is why it was all the more disappointing that it really meant nothing. It highlights one of the fatal flaws of these movies (besides the bloat of expanding a small children's story into 3 epic length movies that is)...which is trying to force the tone and feeling of the much more adult LOTR series into a a fun and irreverent children's story.

covenant

Well, that wasn't so bad after all. I actually enjoyed the whole thing!
It may not be a good movie, but it's a great Middle Earth movie. I like all the little deeper lore tidbits they throw in and can't wait until the EE comes out.

DJariya

I saw this yesterday during a 3D showing.

Much better than Part 2. Certainly helped that there was a lot more action, especially in the last act. Lots of brutal kills. It was also good that this was the shortest of the 3 movies.

But, I'm glad the series is finally over. I'm ready to move on from Middle Earth. I was however glad to see Bilbo's backstory in these movies. I think Martin Freeman did a great job.

I gave it 3 1/2 out of 5 and probably around a B for a grade.

Dr. DVD

Any chance they might offer both the theatrical and EE at the same time, as opposed to trying to get people to double dip?

Solid Snake

doubt it. WB don't run like that.

Goldberg74

Loved it. Fitting end to a long journey.

I'm surprised that I gave this movie it's only 5.