User Reviews

Sure, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is not going to please die-hard fans of the book (as evident in the reviews here), mainly because of it being the case of three 2 1/2- 3 hour films based on a 300+ book, and it is not a patch on the brilliant Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies has several major problems, mostly similar problems to the previous two films An Unexpected Journey and Desolation of Smaug but more serious for some, but it also like the previous two have a lot of good even great elements too. Judging the trilogy on its own terms without comparison, I still see as a majorly flawed but entertaining trilogy of films.

As said, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is a long way from flawless for similar reasons as before and they have been mentioned a number of times already. There is too much Alfrid and Tauriel and not enough Bilbo, rather criminal as he is the main character or is supposed to be. Unfortunately, neither Alfrid or Tauriel are particularly interesting. Especially Alfrid, who was incredibly obnoxious, not funny in the slightest and wasn't necessary to the story at all, for me his character is the worst thing about the entire trilogy. Tauriel is a little more tolerable, she is at least alluring and brings some heart in places, but like Desolation of Smaug but even worse the romance between her and Kili felt forced and shoe-horned in with some awkward writing. The script is also very messy and the most tonally imbalanced of all three films, there was a real sense one too many times that it didn't know what to do with itself.

There are some thoughtful parts but some parts were in need of more explanation, the romantic parts were sappily written and the corny humour returns and often is so juvenile particularly with Alfrid that it made the humour in An Unexpected Journey more sophisticated in comparison. It also doesn't do very well developing the characters, the only interesting characters were Thorin, Thranduil and to a lesser extent Bilbo. The dwarfs' roles are so insignificant here that you even forget who they are once the film's over, Beorn is wasted (again!), Azog didn't add a whole lot and still looks dodgy, Legolas does a lot of nice fighting skills and has a great scene with Thranduil but little else and the less said about Alfrid the better. The ending did feel abrupt and left more questions than answers. Despite the overlong and bloated consensus, actually if there was one film from the trilogy that could have benefited from being longer to tie up these loose ends it's this one.

However, like the previous two films The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies looks great. It's well shot, maintaining the softer but darker story-book look of Desolation of Smaug, the scenery and sets as always look amazing, the special effects while overused in places have an awe-inspiring effect (Smaug still looks magnificent, best designed dragon on film since Dragonslayer in my opinion) and the make-up is good. Howard Shore's music for Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit has never been less than good, the Lord of the Rings's music actually is incredible and one of the best film scores in recent years, and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is no exception. It isn't perfect, it's too bombastic at times in places that needed the opposite approach and one does miss the Misty Mountains theme from An Unexpected Journey, but it's still very ethereal and haunting. Billy Boyd's The Last Goodbye finishes the film beautifully and provides a strong emotional core.

Peter Jackson's direction is decent but has been much better before, story direction wasn't a strong suit here and some scenes could have benefited from a less is more approach but he still shows mastery of visual style and detail and that he can create mood well. Story-wise The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the least involving, largely because most of the story of the book was covered in the previous two films. But it does move fairly briskly and has several fine moments(if not as much as the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum and Bilbo and Smaug previously), such as Dol Guldur, the scene between Legolas and Thranduil, the thrilling last battle, Galadriel vs. Sauron the fight on top of the frozen waterfall but especially great were the whole brilliantly played dynamic between Bilbo and Thorin, the excitingly tense Laketown sequence and the emotionally beautiful and clever ending scene.

Other than the look of the film, the best thing about The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the acting, which is the area where it is difficult to find fault. Martin Freeman's Bilbo is heartfelt, filled with curmudgeonly charm and grabs your attention every minute he's on screen while Richard Armitage plays Thorin's descending madness and angst with brooding intensity and raw emotion. Lee Pace elevates his material to a higher level and fleshes out Thranduil's moral ambiguity in a way that makes him one of the more memorable supporting actors, Ian McKellen is also perfectly cast as Gandalf and Benedict Cumberbatch is splendidly sinister as the Necromancer and especially Smaug. Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett are great value, Ian Holm makes a lovely appearance, Luke Evans is great and charismatic as Bard and Orlando Bloom and Evangeline Lilly do play reliably though their characters could have been written better. Billy Connolly is a pleasant surprise and is entertaining and Sylvester McCoy isn't a liability either.

On the whole, possibly the weakest of the three(but the three Hobbit films are very close together in rating) but, while with a lot wrong, enjoyable. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I'm a big fan of both the LOTR and Hobbit books. I also love the LOTR-movies, they're among my favourites. So I thought hard why it's impossible for me to also love the Hobbit movies. I really tried to! All the right ingredients are there. But I can't. And here's why.

I don't have a problem with the inaccuracy and all the additional stuff that Jackson and his team put in the movie. I know that movies are always different from the books. If you want the book, read it and don't watch the movie.

If we're fair, the LOTR movies also took certain liberties, one of the most obvious being Frodo's age when he leaves the Shire. Tom Bombadil's part of the story was cut completely. You can't even find him in the Extended Cuts (which I generally recommend, even for the Hobbit movies).

My problem is the inconsistency of the storytelling in the Hobbit movies.

It was Peter Jackson's goal to link all six movies closely together. So he chose to transform the children's book into movies that should feel kind of similar in tone. And I think that is where he failed. Let me give some examples.

1.) Comedy I think this is due to make the movie kid-friendly. There are scenes in this movie that are supposed to make you laugh But it feels forced. In the LOTR the humour felt more heartfelt and therefore more real (Gimli, Merry and Pippin). Here, the humour is sometimes painfully silly (Alfrid, some actions of the dwarves during battle...)

2.) Serious stuff On the other hand this movie wants to be quite dark and grisly. There is a lot at stake here. I mean, look at the title of the movie! Thorin fights for his soul. We deal with heavy loss for everybody. And that's great! But it doesn't work tonally! Think of the biggest battles of LOTR (Helm's Klamm and Pelennor fields). Those battles were bad-ass! We were invested with the characters because we feared that everybody could die. It was just a terrible battle.

In this movie, the battle sometimes feels serious, then we get some "funny" deaths and decapitations, creative ways to kill orcs, the more serious stuff, sometimes more brutal than LOTR, more funny stuff... As I said: Inconsistent!

3.) Characters vs. Super heroes

I can't get invested in the characters here, because they don't feel real. They feel like super heroes!

In the LOTR, Legolas and the whole fellowship had to work together to kill ONE cave troll in the mines of Moria. Here, Legolas single-handedly kills about 400 orcs sometimes in gravity defying manner. Did he lose these moves after this movie before meeting again at Elrond's council in LOTR? Maybe he got old?

Somewhere between Hobbiton and Erebor also the dwarfves have developed super powers. When about 12(!) dwarves finally join, they turn the battle of 10000s of warriors around. Come on!

In the LOTR, Aragorn needed an army of THE DEAD to defeat the orcs. Here, some motivated dwarves are enough to turn the tide.

I mean, these are some dwarves and not the Avengers! So this makes it hard for me to root for them because they don't seem real. I was surprised that some of them actually COULD die.

4. Over the top

Last point. In LOTR, there were awesome set pieces and action scenes. Why were they great? Because they held the balance between being outrageous and realistic.

In this movie, everything is over the top. Bigger is better, right? No, it's not. We're invested in action that at least FEALS realistic in the context of the movie. The set design, the costumes, the details, everything feels real, everything draws you in. But the action doesn't. The action screams 'Hey, look at this! Can you believe that? Look what cool stuff BArd/Legolas/Tauriel/the dwarves are doing!' The setting is absolutely realistic, the action isn't for the most part.

So, there are some awesome scenes in this movie, as in the other Hobbit movies. I especially liked some smaller, emotional scenes like Thorin fighting with dragon sickness or Gandalf and Bilbo silently smoking a pipe in the aftermath of the battle. But as I tried to explain, the movie is so unbalanced and inconsistent in its story-telling, too much like the Avengers and too over the top to make me love it. Although I really tried and watched it several times now.

As someone who grew up as a big fan of the book, as well as the LOTR films, I was sceptical when it was announced the 300ish page book would be stretched into three (very long) films. However, I feel like I'm in the minority here as I really enjoy this trilogy and by extension, this film.

While I agree that the third film is overly dependant on mediocre CGI and some of the characters (*cough* Tauriel) aren't especially well written, I still really like this film.

In contrast to An Unexpected Journey, it seems to drag less and have a more mature and darker atmosphere, with the exception of the scenes with Alfrid and The Master.

Another unpopular opinion: I really think the character development in this film is quite good. Thorin's slow descent into madness and his subsequent redemption is well handled and Bilbo's moral dilemma of whether or not to let Thorin have the Arkenstone is certainly interesting.

Also, I cannot stress enough how much I love some of the action in this film. From the stunning opening scenes of Smaug's destruction to the huge central battle. Also, why the hell did they delete the Gandalf rescue scene from the original cut, it is dare I say, one of my all time favourite scenes from the franchise and fills in several plot holes in the original release.

Overall, while nowhere near to the heights of the original LOTR trilogy, in my opinion, this is still a very solid film. While it's generally thought to be the weakest film in the series (although I probably prefer it to An Unexpected Journey), this is by no means a bad film, which is really a testament to the franchise as a whole.

(That was a lot of writing... I'm sorry)

I have read the Hobbit twice. I love the LOTR trilogy of films, they're my favorite films ever. I was initially disappointed with the first Hobbit film because my expectations were set so incredibly high from the first three. Having watched it again recently, I can see that it's a great film. A lot of people are upset with this film because it isn't the book. All I have to say is that books and films are entirely different art forms. If you cut and paste the hobbit onto a movie, you get a very bad film. Anyone can be a critic, not anyone can bring one of the most beloved stories of all-time to life on the big-screen. What Peter Jackson has done, along with all of the very talented people who spent years and years of their lives making these film, is nothing short of brilliant. We should be thanking this man for what he has done, not criticizing every little thing we didn't like about the films. You can't please everyone. Also worth noting...The Hobbit was written for kids and it's pretty silly a lot of the time. The trilogy wasn't written for another 20 YEARS and the whole idea of Middle Earth as we know it today didn't exist. So had Tolkien known he was going to make this little kids book into an epic saga, it's not a stretch to think that he would have made some changes to it. In short, the movies HAD to be different from the books to make them entertaining, cinematically compelling and to keep them true to the spirit of what MIddle Earth and the LOTR trilogy are today. Jackson, and all of the people working on these films are the most passionate fans of Tolkien you could ever meet, heck, they spent the better part of 2 decades making 6 films for us to enjoy. So I am going to say, BRAVO!! Peter Jackson!! Okay, but seriously...I like Tauriel but the whole deal with her and Kili was very awkward. The whole romance is smothered on pretty thick. But I'm not going to let that ruin a fantastic film and a fantastic trilogy for me, and I hope you don't either!! Don't expect the book, don't expect anything and you will have your mind blown. :)

A couple of years ago, when I heard Peter Jackson would direct two more Middle-earth movies, I started crying out of excitement. Those two movies soon got changed into three and I was angry because I was convinced the story was too short for three three-hours-long movies. Despite the book being approximately 300 pages long, Peter Jackson & co. proved me wrong and managed to not include big parts of the books in these movies, even though there's more than 8,5 hours of total screen time. "Disappointed" is an understatement.

I don't think this movie was supposed to make me laugh at the serious scenes and sigh at the 'comic relief' scenes -basically everything Alfrid was in- but sadly it did. At least the 'funny' scenes in the Lord of the Rings trilogy were subtle and less in number; BOTFA was supposed to be "serious and dark" and those silly, ridiculous scenes pretty much ruined that.

I have nothing negative to say about the acting though. The amazing cast of this trilogy did the best they could with the awful script they were given, and I'm thankful for that. It's not their fault that their character development was rushed because the movie was full of pointless Legolas Vs. Gravity scenes, dull Tauriel scenes who fell in love with Kili after having a conversation with him once or twice - same goes for Kili who fell in love with her and even gave her the token his mother, Dís, gave him.

The worst part of this movie isn't even that it's full of badly done CGI or the big lack of proper character development. It's the fact that Tauriel, a badly written, impossible character made up by Peter Jackson & co., had more screen time than characters who were in the actual book written by J.R.R. Tolkien. Beorn basically got fifteen seconds, if not less, screen time in the last installment of this trilogy. Most of the dwarfs from the Company barely got a line, and a LOT of things are left unexplained.

SPOILERS AFTER THIS LINE

For instance, what happened with Thranduil and the white gems? Did he ever get them back?

What happened to the gold? As a fan of the books I already know the answer, but the movie didn't really care to explain this important part of the story. Come on, the entire battle was about the gold. At least take a minute to explain how it got divided.

Where did those goats suddenly come from?

Why were the dwarfs wearing helmets when they were still inside the mountain, but had no helmets on when they actually went to war?

What happened to the people of Lake-Town? Why didn't the movie explain that Bard became King of Dale? If I had not read the book, I'd get really annoyed after watching this movie and not knowing what had happened to them.

What was the point of those ridiculously large worms and why did no one else /ever/ mention them before? And why were they gone after ten seconds? Did they ever get killed?

Why mention Legolas' mother and never explain anything about her at all?

Besides all these unanswered questions, there are certain things which bothered me more than all of those questions combined. 1. The Durins (Thorin, Kili, Fili) didn't get a funeral. In my opinion it's ridiculous to cut something like that out because they were basically the main characters. Which brings me to my second point. 2. I think Peter Jackson forgot that this story is called The Hobbit because Bilbo is supposed to be the main character, not Thorin. 3. Kili basically sacrificed himself for Tauriel which is unforgivable. In the actual story, Fili and Kili died defending Thorin in battle. Now the poor boy is dead because he had a crush on a badly written elf which also completely degrades the importance of Legolas and Gimli's friendship.

Let's not forget about the scene wherein Legolas grabs a flying bat, or when Bard uses his son Bain to shoot an arrow, which should make him fall but somehow it doesn't, or when Dain and Thorin decide to hug in the middle of a battle, or when Azog somehow manages to float and dramatically opens his eyes.

I absolutely loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are my favorite movies of all time and the reason I became a fan of Tolkien's works in the first place. It's sad that Peter Jackson desperately tried to link the Hobbit movies to the LOTR trilogy, because it's partly the reason why the Hobbit movies are so awful. If the unnecessary Dol Guldur scenes and the Tauriel storyline were skipped, every good part from the book which is now cut out would have easily fit in. I'm still giving this movie a 4 out of 10 though, because I absolutely love the cast and I think they did a brilliant job, especially Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman. Also, the very last scene was exactly like I imagined it would be, with Ian Holm's Bilbo and Gandalf knocking on the door. Loved that part. And "The Last Goodbye" by Billy Boyd was a beautiful way to end this movie and trilogy and made me tear up.

You might enjoy this movie if you really liked the first two -I didn't-, if you're into bad CGI or movies that look like video games or if you don't really care about Tolkien's Middle-earth and are content with a movie that doesn't do Tolkien and his characters justice at all. Otherwise you're probably someone like me and you'll leave the theater disappointed and grieving over the characters you love so much.

Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy has been pretty troubled so far. And though Desolation of Smaug was a HUGE improvement from An Unexpected Journey, it still lacked the magic and excellence of The Lord of the Rings. However, after seeing Battle of the Five Armies, I can say that PJ definitely upped his game. It was a brilliant, fitting way to end the Middle-Earth saga, and is easily the best in the trilogy. It seemed much more thought out than the previous too and had great emotional depth throughout. As for the battle itself? It may be long, but let me tell you, it is EPIC. After Helm's Deep, I didn't think Peter Jackson would be able to get any better. I was pleasantly surprised. Though a lot of it is CGI, the battle is carried out perfectly. The fighting, effects and acting are brilliant and everyone who worked on the film deserves a big pat on the back. BOFA is also very emotional, and had me biting back tears (Those who have read the book will understand why). Peter Jackson and his team really did themselves proud with this one, and deserve all the praise they are getting. It is a beautiful, touching and completely EPIC way to end the series. Goodbye, Middle-Earth.

The conclusion of the book is pretty satisfying. The movie, not so much. One of the things I hate about "modern" movies is the way that game scenes are built into the movie. It's obvious which ones will be part of games and it detracts from the film.

The invented characters and scenes do not add to the story in this movie. In fact, they take away from the main plot: absolute wealth corrupts as much as absolute power does.

In the book the battle is well-written. The "armies" are actually more like large companies and the battle takes place in front of the mountain. In the movie, the armies are vast (especially the Orcs, who somehow have tens of thousands of soldiers and move them across vast tracts easily...during daylight no less) and spread out into the ruined town of Dale and the surrounding mountains.

The result is a haphazard mess that Jackson admits he just "winged". He should have spent more time making two well-written movies instead of three rushed ones.

One of the most unfortunate outcomes is that it's highly unlikely that the estate will green light a series of movies based on the Silmarillion. Well, at least not with Jackson.

"The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" gets seven out of ten stars from me. A good film, although a few of the scenes early on seemed a little thrown together. For instance, in the scene of the people of Lake-Town gathering after the death of Smaug, a lot of information is thrown in by an unnamed character and just rushed over in order to move the story along. There is a totally unnecessary scene near the end of the film between Legolas and his father to make an obvious tie-in to the Lord of the Rings. Since the end of the movie ties it in perfectly, why the one between the two elves had to be there I just don't get. And, the entire film could have just written out the Alfrid character and I wouldn't have cared at all. I know his cowardice was supposed to be comical relief, but he ended up just being annoying.

But, other than that, the battle scenes lived up to the hype and the death of Smaug at the beginning is done very well with his face the main focus and the fire "going out." I will definitely be seeing this again while it is in theaters.

The Hobbit Trilogy will forever be one of those classic polarizing film trilogies where you either love em' or you hate em'. Were they as good as The Lord of the Rings? Hell NO (and it was unfair for anybody to judge them based on a different trilogy based on better books). Were any of the Hobbit movies unwatchable or boring, though? Definitely not. The first one may have been a little slow in the first 40-50 minutes, but after that it turned into a really good story. The fact that all 3 of them are positive on Rotten Tomatoes proves that they were under-appreciated by many Middle-Earth fans. Some people acted like we should be outside Peter Jackson's house with torches and pitchforks. They weren't THAT bad, and they also weren't Lord of the Rings-award winning-ridiculously awesome either.. They were good, not great. B+ work from Peter & Company.

The Battle of the Five Armies was set up to be the best in the trilogy, but it did fall slightly short of what it could have been. I only had 3 problems with the film (and all 3 are forgivable because what I saw was still epic and satisfying). 1) One of the 5 armies from the book is completely missing from the battle. The orcs fight alongside a large army of wolves in the book, but they chose to just have 2 armies of orcs fighting alongside a handful of trolls, some bats, and maybe a few wolves. I assume the blu-ray extended version might include a lot more wolves/wolf-riders wreaking havoc. 2) Beorn played a HUGE part in turning the tide of battle in the book, but in the movie we only saw like 10 seconds of him fighting. I was hoping to see AT LEAST a minute of him slaying orcs/wolves left and right. 3) Most of the trolls were as large and fearsome as we would expect, but 3 trolls appear at different times in the film and looked about as stupid/cartoonish as they could be. Maybe those trolls were just supposed to be realistically deformed, but they were still distracting to me.

Those 3 minor problems aside, I still think it was a really good film. It started out with one of my favorite chapters from the book ("Fire and Water") and we've been looking forward to that ever since Desolation of Smaug ended with the dragon flying straight to Lake Town. Then we got to see the White Council battling Sauron and his ringwraiths. After that there was some good character development, drama, and lots of action. The actors did a very fine job with their roles (especially Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman), and the visual effects were stunning. Overall, I enjoyed this return to Middle- Earth and I thank Peter & Company for what they've done with the entire Middle-Earth Saga.

I should begin by saying that I am a big fan of Tolkiens work, and have read LOTR and The Hobbit (and his other books) many times. I did enjoy the first trilogy, and thought that the changes Jackson did to the story were sometimes understandable, sometimes acceptable. However, I have no idea what happened with this movie and the whole second trilogy.

I am terribly disappointed, and I have no idea whether the changes were necessary simply to milk as much money as possible out of the whole project (spreading out the story to get 3 long movies, even if that meant adding many new things), or whether Jackson actually thinks he knows better than Tolkien... knows better how to explain things, how to connect the Hobbit to LOTR, or how to make a compelling story.

And yes, an adaption doesn't HAVE to be close to the book. However, if you mess with the story, if you include things that contradict the whole story, and if you essentially kill off the charm and warmth and concept of the book the movie is based on, things get dangerous.

The Hobbit was a book written for children, and while there are scenes in the trilogy that will definitely be fun for children (the dwarfs offering a lot of those kinda scenes), the violence and amount of killing and cut off heads make me wonder how suitable the movie really is.

However, watching this movie, and having seen the previous ones, these questions came up in my mind:

• Is it really FORBIDDEN to make a movie that Doesn't have a love-story involved? Isn't the Hobbit legendary enough, hasn't the book proved often enough it is a great story without a love-story included? Why did Jackson have to create Tauriel, the female ninja-elf and her love-story with a DWARF? Why did this have to be added? Would the film would have so much more terrible (hard to imagine) without a cliché and badly-written love-story that was added by Jackson and Walsh? - I sincerely think that, if the elvish race is capable of doing the things Tauriel and Legolas do in battle, not only could the small group of elven warriors Jackson added to the battle of Helms Deep in Two Towers have totally defeated the orcish army in less than 2 minutes... the history of Middle-Earth would be very difficult if they all could fight even remotely as well. Also, the fighting skills of Legolas in this movie are totally inconsistent to what he was able to do later on in LOTR. Considering that elves live incredibly long, the amount of time that passed between the Hobbit and Lotr is no explanation of why Legolas is a walking "ninja-god" in the Hobbit and much less superman-like in LOTR. - The incredible length of the scenes... it sincerely feels like the movie team was paid by the minutes of film they produced - The worms... I reckon they are based on a small comment by Bilbo, mentioning "were-worms" (a comment that has often riddled Tolkien-fans). Is this an attempt to somehow win over the fans of Tolkien-lore that feel insulted by Tauriel, the changes to the story, the goats, rabbits and deer-mounts, the fact that the WONDERFUL scene of Beorn appearing at the battle in the book and turning the tide, bringing relief and a change to the battle was kinda removed because the ninja-elves prove that Middle-Earth is located in the Matrix? - I really would feel bad for JRR Tolkien if he was able to watch these movies. He felt so much love for the world and characters he created, and put so much time, effort and feelings into his work. All this now was steamrolled over by the production team of this movie. After the rather respectful handling of LOTR, Jackson changed so much about the Hobbit that it feels totally disrespectful to the lifetime of work Tolkien put into his stories.

What went wrong? Did Jackson think that, in order to attract and convince all those that haven't read the books, he would need to turn a wonderful book, written for children with a lot of warmth and charm, into a medieval Transformers (regarding amount of CGI, length of fights, lack of realism, character depth and taste)?

Did he really think this was in any way a respectful adaption of the work of a man who invested DECADES into writing, refining and perfecting his stories? Who, instead of focusing on just hours of battle, managed to create a world full of lore, charm, and wonderful characters?

I have no idea what went wrong behind the scenes. Have no idea whether the movie studio said "Jackson, forget about what people love about the Hobbit. Turn it into three overlong movies for more profit, get us as many battles and skirmishes as you possibly can milk out of this, and just to make sure, add a love-story (we don't care how you do it), add a popular character from the previous trilogy so people will dig that. Oh yeah, the book was written for children, so make sure there is a song or two, bird poo on the nutty wizard who escaped from Hogwarts (Radagast), a dwarf with a pickax stuck in his skull, and funny bits that children love. But don't forget we want adults to watch it too, so please, add tons of action and cut-off heads, too... gotta hit all those demographics".

I know a lot of Tolkien-fans apparently love this movie and the trilogy. One review even said "...from a true fan". Please don't think this is the case in general. I have grown up reading Tolkiens work, and I am simply stunned by how bad, how tasteless and disrespectful this trilogy is.

No matter what people say, this movie was thrilling and stunning. The problem is - people are comparing it to LOTR. THE HOBBIT IS NOT LOTR!!! If everyone had watched this film before LOTR, every one would love it. Stop thinking of it as not what it is! It has very deep character development, and even characters that you only see for a few minutes are great - like Dain. Peter Jackson really did do a good job. Yes, some of the effects were unrealistic, but the battle itself was amazing - rivalling the Battles in RotK. There are some truly epic moments too - when Thorin pulls himself together and charges forward, Dwarfs behind him. When the Dwarfs lock shields in a formation then the Elves jump over the top. When Thranduil skewers like 6 orks. You really must see this film.

I had to write this review - usually people only write reviews because they are angry with the film - and people that liked it don't bother. That is why there are so many negative reviews.

I must admit that when I saw "An Unexpected Journey" I was disappointed. It is probably one of my least favourite movies. It was then that I thought that Peter Jackson had lost his touch. But I realised how awfully wrong I was when I saw "The Desolation of Smaug". It was an incredibly enjoyable movie and became one of my favourites in the middle-earth saga. The Desolation of Smaug ended on a cliffhanger when Smaug flies to lake town to destroy everything. So, when the movie ended, I thought whether I would be able to wait another year for the finale or not.

When I entered the theatre, it was with high-expectations though I was a little put down due to the fact that the running time of the movie is 144 Mins. The movie started where the previous installment had ended. Scenes of epic destruction and fire in the lake-town are brilliantly shot. I must say that 3D is somehow a hindrance, though there are some moments where 3D adds magic to the movie, but also at some places it fails to be effective.So here we are, Bard kills Smaug with the Black Arrow but lake-town is completely destroyed. Thorin takes shelter in Erebor and refuses to pay any heed to the troubles of the men of lake- town. Also, Gandalf is rescued not by giant eagles, but surprisingly by Lady Galadriel, Saruman and Lord Elrond. On the other hand, Bilbo smuggles the Arkenstone out of Erebor and gives to Bard. He asks him to use the stone to negotiate with Thorin. Then there is a small surprise, I don't want to disclose it at the moment and we move into the 35-40 min long battle which is surprisingly good. I think that if Peter Jackson wasn't the director, this battle would not work because only he can shoot the war in such a way that is both effective and jumpy. Also some imp main characters die and this adds an emotional depth to the movie.

The battle leaves us on the corner of our seats and finally the movie ends with Bilbo arriving back in Shire, also with a few shots of Ejiah Wood. So, the ques arises " Is the movie good?" You bet it is. It is one of the best blockbusters of the year and in the winter category might stand second only to Interstellar.

Martin Freeman has done excellent work as Bilbo Baggins and shown us that his acting talents are not limited only to Sherlock. Ian Mckellen is refreshingly good as Gandalf but Evangeline Lilly and Benedict cumberbatch's voice-over steals the movie. Though it is the shortest movie in the series, it is enough, satisfactory and not remotely boring. I am looking forward to watch the movie once again. Believe me folks this is worth your bucks. It is not just a movie, it is a cinematic experience even non-hobbit fans will enjoy. Highly Recommended.....don't miss this one.

There's simply no denying it: The Hobbit is no The Lord Of The Rings. While cast and production values remain absolutely top-notch, the first two films in the Hobbit trilogy have proved disappointing, especially when assessed against the sublime trio of movies that first transported us to Middle-earth. It's evident that the slim narrative of J.R.R. Tolkien's source novel - even when supplemented with details and backstory from his Appendices - simply doesn't merit an expansion into three unnecessarily protracted movies. Strictly speaking, The Battle Of The Five Armies suffers from many of the same problems as its predecessors. But director Peter Jackson proves once again that he's a dab hand at crafting epic battles underpinned by love, loyalty and sacrifice. As a result, the final Hobbit film is (more or less) the best of the trilogy, although it still pales in comparison to what comes after it.

Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the dwarven company of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) watch in horror as Smaug the dragon (Benedict Cumberbatch) lays waste to Laketown. When Bard (Luke Evans) bravely manages to take the dragon out, Thorin regains the mountain kingdom of Erebor by default. He succumbs swiftly to the 'Dragon Sickness' - a hungering greed to keep the treasures of Erebor all to himself, refusing a claim from elven king Thranduil (Lee Pace) and rewards for Bard and the now-homeless humans. As a battle brews between dwarfs, elves and men, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) returns from Dol Goldur with news that entire battalions of orcs are on the march as well - signs of an incipient evil that might soon sweep Middle-earth again.

Truth be told, The Battle Of The Five Armies doesn't have quite the sense of magic and poetry that so effortlessly infuses the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Indeed, the script is peppered with simplistic dialogue, with many characters forced to navigate entire chunks of exposition or deliver not particularly witty one-liners. Bilbo and Gandalf, for instance, spend a great deal of the raging battle standing still and expounding on what's going on around them. It also seems remarkably odd for a film weighted down with so many characters, including wholly invented ones like lovelorn elf Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), that so much screen time is devoted to Alfrid (Ryan Gage). The vile right- hand man of Laketown's Master (Stephen Fry) is clearly meant to provide comic relief now that the dwarfs are caught up in emotional turmoil of their own, but winds up annoying rather than entertaining the audience.

And yet, Jackson somehow manages to salvage the film from itself, in no small part because of the engrossing battle scenes and some deft character work from his stellar cast. The climactic battle stretches well over an hour, as the upper hand shifts from orcs to everyone else and back again, but Jackson keeps the action and drama coming thick and fast. Waves of orcs slam into ragged battle lines of men, ranks of elves swell and rise, and Thorin wavers between greed and honour as he decides whether to plunge into war or stay safely sequestered within the impregnable walls of Erebor. Many of the battle sequences may be technically extraneous, but it's hard to care too much when Legolas (Orlando Bloom) - scoring his requisite action-hero moment - dances his way to safety over a collapsing bridge and takes out an orc or two while doing so.

Jackson's cast - actors we've spent so much time with over the past decade - rises remarkably to the occasion. There's stellar support, as always, from fan favourites like McKellen and Cate Blanchett, whose Galadriel goes briefly supernova in a confrontation which foreshadows the darkness that will befall Middle-earth come The Lord Of The Rings. Armitage lends considerable depth and weight to Thorin, who could easily lose a great deal of audience sympathy when he burrows further into himself and starts losing (and banishing) friends. Pace exudes a solemn, almost malevolent dignity as Thranduil, one which he tempers with a surprising amount of heart as well. For a brief, touching moment, the imperious king finds within himself the father he has forgotten how to be. Even Lilly, who is saddled with a made-up character and fledgling, forbidden romance with dwarf Kili (Aidan Turner), miraculously mines some genuine emotion from a fairly poorly-conceived and utterly fictitious love story.

The true triumph of the Hobbit franchise, however, remains Freeman. He's playing the same archetype that Elijah Wood did in The Lord Of The Rings - the homebody Hobbit who's small in stature yet casts an enormous shadow - but makes it feel thoroughly fresh. Freeman's Bilbo is equal parts heart, humour and hero, and he makes it easy to see why Gandalf holds hobbits in such high esteem. Freeman's scenes with Armitage, rife with paranoia and tension on Thorin's part, are some of the best in the film, with a huge emotional payoff at the end.

With The Battle Of The Five Armies, the curtain really does fall at last on Jackson's vision of Middle-earth. In the past three years, it's been - frankly - a pretty bumpy journey. In too many ways, the Hobbit trilogy recalls but never quite manages to recapture the indescribable magic of The Lord Of The Rings. That's true of the final film in the franchise as well. But it certainly comes closer than either of its two predecessors to truly making Middle-earth live again. The film's final scenes quite literally bring everything home, and in that final swell of music and emotion, throw open the doors to the epic world that Jackson first invited us into over a decade ago.