J.R.R. TolkienHobbit, The: Battle of the Five Armies (Extended Edition) (DVD)

Professor Tolkien wrote that one of the greatest problems with drama critics is they are so dramatic. Many critics approached the three 'Hobbit' movies by assessing how they stacked up against 'The Lord of the Rings' movie trilogy, rather than how effectively they present the story of 'The Hobbit'. Reviews of 'An Unexpected Journey' commented on the return to Bag End or the visit to Rivendell or the appearance of Sting as some obligatory nod to the 'Rings' trilogy instead of a filming of an incident from the pages of 'The Hobbit'. I was rather frustrated at the observations about Sting because its appearance is one of my favorite scenes from the book, and I thought the event was presented beautifully in the movie. In his essay, 'On Fairy-Stories', Professor Tolkien has now explained to me that those who observe and critique drama probably are not the people who read and enjoy books, so now the remarks of the critics makes perfect sense: they would be comparing the movies rather than wasting their time reading the dull book. Such is to be expected.Many flaws are pointed out in the development of the 'Hobbit' trilogy as stated by a variety of critics. ‘There is too much cgi work in the films.’ I wouldn’t notice if you didn’t point that fact out. ‘The scene of the dwarves’ visit with Bilbo at Bag End was much too long.’ It is a long and detailed scene, one of the most detailed in the book. ‘I can’t believe the hobbit fell forever in the goblin cave and was unhurt. That simply defies physics and ruined the entire story for me.’ This is a tale about three-foot-tall hobbits and four-foot-tall dwarves and a wizard and some elves, with orcs, trolls and a dragon tossed in and you’re going to cite the laws of physics as a requirement for the story? Perhaps you should read Tolkein’s remarks on the relationship of science to fairy stories. ‘The little thin children’s book did not need to be stretched into three LONG films.’ At nearly 300 pages with action occurring over a 14-month period, and with very little conversation between characters to pad out the story, it is not such a thin book and just what scenes should be cut? ‘Legolas was not in The Hobbit.’ He wasn’t in 'The Hobbit' but he must have been somewhere in Mirkwood at the time. ‘There was no female elf in The Hobbit.’ That is a good point.We come then to 'The Battle of the Five Armies' which seemed to draw a thumbs-down from critics across the board. Why? Were the storytellers supposed to simply kill off the dragon at the end of 'The Desolation of Smaug' and end the story? Ah, but the little children’s book does not end with the death of the dragon. In fact, Smaug’s death is more of a secondary detail of the story. The dwarves do enjoy a few days of peace after the dragon disappears and then those who hope to gain a share of the great treasure said to be buried under the mountain start to gather. And they don’t simply gather to bring food or to collect family heirlooms or to demand an owed debt. The peoples in the book are not so noble. They're ultimately on a treasure hunt.The battle itself is disjointed in the film because it is a massive battle, covering lots of terrain, several armies and several characters. Tolkien handles much of the battle by having his observer, Bilbo Baggins, pass out and once he recovers the highlights of the battle are told to him and to the reader. Thereby, Tolkien simply passes over this great battle without bogging himself down in the telling. That same device in used in the movie and may be part of the disappointment for viewers because we don’t really see the tide turn in the battle to the favor of the dwarves and their allies. 'The Battle of the Five Armies' dwindles into single combat, after which Bilbo passes out and does not see the turning of the battle, because he has lost his friend and for him the battle has ended and he can see no victory.A large portion of this third movie is indeed owned by the character of Thorin Oakenshield. Tolkien is said to have watched Shakespeare’s 'Macbeth' when a boy and came away greatly disappointed by the dramatist and his play. The idea of an entire wood moving inspired Tolkien’s imagination and he was dissatisfied to learn it was an illusion. (So was I.) At the end of the play MacBeth sits on his throne with all of his goals and ambitions achieved, his friends destroyed, and his one desire is to hold on to what he has accomplished. Thorin Oakenshield is a heroic MacBeth in this movie, and very much so in the book. Like Macbeth, Thorin only enjoys his crown briefly before he is confronted by an army on his doorstep. Such a swift approach by an army demanding immediate rewards from the new dwarf king was not the best approach of the local welcoming committee. Like MacBeth, Thorin’s victory is soon tarnished by the cares of the everyday world, and like any warrior king his heroic exploits are soon forgotten by those who demand simple things like food and shelter, or critics who want either another 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy or an animated Seven Dwarfs without Snow White and her whiny step-mother story. Spoiler alert for the book: the story of the Hobbit is not another 'Lord of the Rings' or a Frog Prince story. It’s more of a heroic MacBeth than anything else. Even as Thorin struggles to come to terms with the changes that have come to his life there is a call to battle again, and he must decide if he will sit by unmoved or if he will stand to fight a battle that could magnify his greatness as a king.'The Hobbit' and 'The Lord of the Rings' are two volumes written by the same author but as works of literature they are very different. 'The Lord of the Rings' centers on the activities of nine different characters who are all motivated by the same goal: they need to take the ring to Mount Doom and throw it into the fire. No matter what each character is doing in the story or what hardships they face, they are all pursuing that common goal even if their efforts take them along different paths. 'The Hobbit' follows the adventures of fifteen different characters who need to take a fortune in gold which belonged to the forefathers of the dwarves away from a very big and very nasty dragon. To do this the group must work together as a team as much as possible. Tossing a ring into a lava flow is not the same as taking a treasure away from a possessive fire-breathing dragon. How could one story be expected to reflect the other in any way, either in a book or a movie?The only characters central to both books are Bilbo the hobbit, Gandalf the wizard and Elrond the elf. In The 'Lord of the Rings' Frodo takes Bilbo’s place, in part because Tolkien’s publishers were asking for a sequel to 'The Hobbit'. Gandalf and Elrond appear in both stories as themselves. The son of the elf-king and a son of the dwarves are included in 'Rings' to represent those two peoples in the Fellowship. Gandalf explained he could not find a Warrior-Hero to go on the quest for the dragon, but two Warrior-Heros appear in The 'Lord of the Rings', in the persons of Aragorn and Boromir. While Aragorn becomes the Warrior-Hero of 'Lord of the Rings' he is not in any way reflective of Bilbo or Thorin. Aragorn has promised to help destroy the ring. His ascension as King of Gondor comes as a result of his effort. Thorin is striving to recover his crown as King Under the Mountain by destroying the dragon. That Thorin makes one of the greatest sacrifices in the quest to destroy the ring is no part of his goal or efforts.The character who most echoes Aragorn in 'The Hobbit' is Bard, but Bard does not appear in the book until he shoots the dragon, and that fame leads him to take part in the advance of Men and Elves on the newly crowned King Under the Mountain. The movies have him appears a little earlier in the story erasing the vague entrance he makes in the book.Elrond’s counterpart is the King of the Woodland realm and no matter what any critic thinks, the elf-king is perfect in this movie. He is just as cold and unforgiving as the elf-king can be, and the complete opposite of Lord Elrond. He does not appear in the first chapters of the book but interferes with the quest of the dwarves later in the story.And no, the story is not always told from Bilbo’s viewpoint. Unlike the movie version, Bilbo and the dwarves do not know Smaug’s dreadful fate for several days. A narrator steps forward to explain to the reader the details of what happened to Smaug and the residents of Laketown.The movies generally follow the plot of the book and part of the reason critics find flaws in the movie is because there are flaws in the book itself. From the first appearance of 'The Hobbit' the major criticism was the fact the story is an array of short stories loosely strung together in a vague plot. The dinner table scene at Bag End does go on for a long time. Gollum does make only one appearance in the story and then vanishes. Maybe the story should have ended with the death of the dragon, but then the death of the dragon really is not the climax of the story. The climax of the story is Bilbo’s parting from his friend, Thorin. Maybe critics need to stop being critical and just enjoy the story.However, there is that problem with the elves in these movies, and it’s a big one. The script writers seem to have taken every detail they knew about Tolkien’s elven race, locked it in a small chest and put that chest deep in the pot under the goblin-king’s throne. The elves are described by Tolkien as enjoying music, poetry and feasting. In 'The Hobbit', Bilbo and his companions first become aware of the Wood Elves when they hear the music of their gathering and smell the food they are preparing. It is such a beautiful image in the book and I was looking forward to how this scene would be presented. It would seem the beauty of elvish custom was tossed into the chest. They did not appear as a people enjoying a nice woodland picnic; instead they enter like some sort of ninja warriors with plenty of arrows to waste. They don’t enjoy music and poetry, they enjoy fighting.The elf-king is not angry that his feast has been interrupted. He’s just angry. And there's no nod given to his history, his origins. Most blogs and notes on the Internet state he proclaimed himself king of the Wood Elves. He did not proclaim himself. He was chosen and he was chosen for a reason. The qualities that brought about that choice are not brought to light in these movies. Somehow this elfin-king is an isolationist who is only concerned with events in his own realm. One is left to wonder: what realm is he supposed to concern himself with? His son appears, not as the adventurous elf of the Ring movies, but a mirror image of his father, without glee or charm. He might be Legolas sixty years after the events of The Ring and not sixty years before.Then we have Tauriel, an elf who must be a part of the King’s household guard. Just what her role in the court of the elf-king might be is never clearly established. She is there after all to appeal to young girls in the audience, or maybe young boys. Supposedly a woodland elf who has never venture outside her king’s realm, she is wise and all-knowing about events beyond her experience and is so much wiser than her king whom we know to be a veteran of at least a couple of major battles in the Wars against the Dark Lord and therefore quite knowledgeable about Sauron and his powers.Tauriel, our elf-maiden, hears that the cute dwarf, Kili, has been stabbed by a morgul blade and she dashes out of the court to follow him. Just how she would know what a morgul blade would be is a matter for Tolkien to decipher, however when she does arrive at the house where Kili lies ill, she seems confused that he is hurt and has brought no medicine to cure him. Not a very organized elf-maiden, I fear.Then, when she cures him, she quotes the same chant that Arwen used as first-aid for Frodo in 'The Fellowship'. How does a woodland elf know a chant used by a highborn lady of the Noldor? And Arwen’s chant only served as a quick fix. Frodo had to be treated by the skills of Lord Elrond in order to survive. In 'The Fellowship' this seemed to be quite a feat but it must have been no big deal because a wood elf could perform both parts of the treatment herself to astounding success. It is simply laziness on the part of the writers. Arwen did give her grace to Frodo, as she states later in the book, 'The Return of the King'. Tauriel has wasted her skills on the doomed Kili, a fact one would think she would have realized if she had indeed gone out of the realm of Middle-Earth and into the Light while bringing about his care.The writers seem to have forgotten another important point about the elves: they can be killed by weapons or grief. They really can’t be moping about the cave, sulking over lost love or a difficult parent. They love poetry and music. Heavy emotions weigh them down. The wife of the elven-king is not mentioned in 'The Hobbit' but she would probably not make an appearance to greet lowly dwarf prisoners of her husband-king. If she did appear, she would be demanding the head of the dwarf because he ruined her woodland dinner party on three different occasions. The fact she is not mentioned indicates she is there around the cave somewhere.The history of Middle Earth contains the story of Lord Elrond’s wife and her fate explained. Elrond does not speak of her or dwell on her loss because he knows where she is. The writers seem to have taken her fate and somehow set it on the unmentioned wife of the elven-king. If there was a gift of jewelry for his lady in the dragon’s horde, the elven-king would be going after it to give to her and not sitting around brooding because she’s dead. Elves are immortal. Even if they die in Middle-Earth, they do not die a mortal death. Therefore, the elf-king would not be mopping over her death.Then there is the final scene of the three of them on the hill after the battle. The King Under the Mountain has just given the greatest sacrifice any king could make for his allies, but we have to cut away from his great tragedy to view the elfin trio in a charming little scene which could have been lifted from the television series, 'Dynasty'. Tauriel is sobbing with heartbroken grief. OK, just hold that shot. From what we know about Tolkien’s elves she will now succumb to grief and go oversea. The burden will be too great for her and she cannot remain in Middle-Earth. (It would have been better for their plot if she had been killed in battle.) The elf-king realizes he has been grief-stricken and so caught up in his own worries that he has been a poor father-figure to his son. Hold that shot. Maybe this could be a back-story for Dain or the Mayor of the Town. It will not work for the elfin-king because if he was so burdened he would have one choice. See above for that choice.And then there is Legolas, pouting about like the scorned lover. If he is such a great warrior shouldn’t he be honoring the great warrior-king, or does elf-respect look like pouting? The story of how Legolas got to Rivendell where he happened to arrive for the Council of Elrond is completely ignored in these movies and yet it is vital to the destruction of the Ring. If Legolas goes wandering off into the wilds now in search of a ten-year-old Aragorn who is in fact at this point living in the house of Lord Elrond (and young Aragorn was not brought out to meet the visiting dwarves, or at least we are not told if he was), then Legolas will not be in Mirkwood later on to accomplish certain tasks and the Ring will not be destroyed yet again. This entire elf tale was poorly visualized and distracts from the greater story instead of enhancing it. A few tweaks could have made Tauriel a wonderful and viable part of the movie, but instead she is a terrible distraction to the story and to the personality of the elves.I had read the book, watch the theatrical versions of the movies, the extended versions, and all the hours and hours of appendices material, yet it was after all of that and when I was reading a blog on a website that I finally understood that Fili and Kili were Thorin’s sister-sons and that Fili was the heir. While Tolkien describes the pair as always together, he does not mention until the closing paragraphs of the book that they are indeed Thorin’s nephews, and regarded by him as his heirs. The relationship is revealed a little earlier in 'The Desolation of Smaug', rescuing the detail from being an ‘Oh, by the way’ point at the end of the story. Not in any of these movies is there any hint that Fili is the elder (even Tolkien describes him as the younger several times in the book and only explains that he is indeed the elder of the brothers in the appendices of 'The Lord of the Rings'). In fact, all indications in the movies seem to be that Fili is the younger. Thorin never speaks to him, never notices him. All his attention, all of his remarks are directed to Kili. Even when they are caught in the battle of the thunder giants and Fili is separated from them, Thorin screams for Kili when it is clearly Fili who is among the dwarves who crashed on the mountainside. Only when they are in the house of Beron do we see the pair seated together and looking at each other with any understanding. And when they come into the treasure cave, Thorin tosses a piece of the gold to Fili, but it might have only been a lucky catch on Fili’s part. A study of their dress indicates Fili has a fur collar on his jacket to match Thorin’s but other of the dwarves wear fur collars so this is not any distinction, and it is canceled out by the fact that Kili’s jacket matches Thorin’s in color.As they are preparing to leave Laketown, Fili wants to stay with his wounded brother and Thorin says to him, “You can’t stay here. You could be king.” Since there is no criteria to establish Fili as the heir, what could have been a monumental scene between the two is simply annoying. Thorin sounds as if he is saying, “Well, your brother’s going to die and you had better just come on with us as this means you’re going to be king,” suggesting that Thorin thinks Kili’s condition is hopeless and he'll now have to made do with Fili as an heir. Therefore, we instantly agree with Fili that his place is with his brother, and not with his moody uncle. (The writers of movie scripts do see ‘moody’ as adding depth in a character, don’t they?) In truth, Thorin is saying to Fili, “I could die and then you would have to step up and take my place.” ‘I could die’ is quite a different statement from ‘Your brother is dying anyway’ and now we realize Fili is here all in a moment faced with choosing between the two of them. He owes allegiance to his uncle and king, but he is also bound to his brother and when he chooses one he may never see the other again. It is an emotional moment for the three of them and it’s totally wasted because there is no clear relationship established among the three. Surely, in this jewel-conscious world, there was some token, a ring or a brooch given to Fili to show his status. Would his culture not have expected that?Perhaps a weakness of these movies is that Thorin’s company is presented too perfectly. They function as a wonderful group for the first two movies, therefore when they are separated by circumstances at the end of the second move, there is a mood and a tempo that is never regained throughout the rest of the story. In the book Kili is not wounded by an arrow, and he and Fili have an active part of the adventures at the hidden door. After the dragon disappears there is a lull in the action of the story as the group of dwarves, along with Bilbo, explore Erebor together. In the movie, 'The Desolation of Smaug', when part of the group is left behind at Lake Town the viewer is too overwhelmed with anger at Thorin for his choice, resentful at Tauriel for interrupting the flow of the story and annoyed at the other dwarves for carrying on as if all is normal. This anger robs the impact of the events at the secret door, dims the interest in the exchange with the dragon and causes us to lose faith and concern for Thorin. When he falls into his malaise in the third movie the viewer feels it’s only his just reward and there is not enough time for us to gain back our faith and trust for him to care about what happens to him. The Fellowship of the dwarves, if you will, falls apart and the viewer is lost and wandering on a bleak landscape where random scenes are playing on the screen and they make little sense because we have lost the main plot of our story. Again the writers are too lazy to maintain their plot and the viewer is served a number of easy clichés instead of a continuation of the mood and tempo created in earlier scenes.In the book Thorin and his followers make a supreme effort to drive the dragon away and take back the Lonely Mountain but neither Thorin nor his followers enjoy any reward for their efforts. Tolkien introduces the characters of Bard and Dain in the last few pages of the book and in a matter of a couple sentences makes them the main characters of the tale. Bard is the descendent of the king of Dale but do we know or care that Dale had a king? Dain was king of the dwarves in the Iron Hills. While at the beginning of 'An Unexpected Journey' we are told his ambassador refused to take any part in the march to Erebor, now suddenly Dain is moving to the Lonely Mountain and taking over the place. What about the dwarves who came on the journey with Thorin? They simply get written out of the story after all their efforts. In the book Balin does visit Bilbo years later and Bilbo does notice that he is richly dressed but his dress could be because he is a relative of the king, and not a sign of his status as one of the Heroes of Erebor. If each of Thorin’s companions received one fourteenth of the treasure in the Mountain, did each one get to keep his share after Dain ascended the throne? Did Dain receive the shares belonging to Fili and Kili since he was their close relative? Bilbo took the Arkenstone as his share and gave it to the people of Laketown. After the battle the people of the town returned the stone to Thorin and received Bilbo’s share of the gold. That detail would suggest the other dwarves received their just share of the wealth but it is another detail we are left to ponder over because there is no indication of how the matter was settled within the pages of the book, making that omittance another flaw in the source story.Again, this plot device of suddenly removing the characters of the story and replacing them in the last few scenes of the book and the movie is similar to the ending of 'Macbeth'. Characters who made a brief appearance at the start of the story return as the victors in the end, displacing the cruel MacBeth and his wife as the major characters in the story. As MacBeth is a tragic hero his displacement is applauded. As Thorin in a heroic hero we are displeased at his removal and resent the new hero, Dain. Perhaps such a reaction is why there are fewer heroic heroes than tragic ones..Many of the so-called flaws of these movies are in fact details that are lifted right out of what is called a simple little children’s book. In the end what Bilbo is really telling is the story of Thorin and Thorin’s quest to be a good king to his followers. Thorin pays a great price to stop Sauron’s growing powers and deals the Dark Lord a blow from which he will not recover, but that sacrifice is not completely understood until the end of 'The Lord of the Rings'. Somehow that sacrifice is lost in these movies. In the theatrical cut of 'The Battle of the Five Armies', Thorin’s body is left on the battlefield and there is little bother of any kind of a ceremony. That omittance just goes to show that a dead hero is a forgotten hero.Two minor details in the plotting of these movies bother me. First, Tolkien describes Thorin as ‘dignified’. Why would a dignified and kingly dwarf allow and even encourage his followers to indulge in a food fight while guests at Lord Elrond’s table after Elrond had just allowed Thorin to retain Orcrist, the sword of the king of Gondolin? Surely Elrond could have laid claim to his own grandfather’s sword and Thorin would have had to agree. Second, in the confrontation between Thorin and Thranduil, Thranduil implies he was in battles with the Balrogs by suddenly displaying burned flesh on his face. Yet if details of the 'Lost Tales' are considered, it is Legalos and not Thranduil who is named as being in the final battle of Gondolin when the balrogs attack. The Legolas of the Tales, who shares some traits with the Prince of Mirkwood, comes forward to aid the escape of women and children from the destroyed city and are soon pursued by balrogs. Legolas leaves the party after the threat of the balrogs pass and fades into the forest.There is an underlying disrespect for warriors and for those who fall in defense of their homes and followers in these 'Hobbit' movies that cannot be explained away with the excuse this is a children’s story. A major part of the plot of this story has to do with a warrior who along with his close family members, falls in defense of his people. Indeed, that is a great part of the appeal of the story for young audiences. Yet this sacrifice is lost in the worrisome details of a dysfunctional elf family's emoting.We are left with a king who came into his power on the first days of winter, a Winter King if you will, who dies a few days later and is left slumbering under the mountain with the light of promise in his hands. The new year will come with all its potential and promise. In the book Thorin remarks that he would like to take on the Necromancer, and Gandalf replies that he should concentrate on reaching the Lonely Mountain for he is not strong enough to win against the Necromancer, and yet events will prove otherwise. The best line in 'The Battle of the Five Armies' comes when Bilbo explains Thorin was his friend. He is a powerful friend to have. When you watch these 'Hobbit' movies, remember, this is really Thorin’s story—Bilbo is the narrator—so ignore the Dynasty scenes and other distractions and listen to Thorin’s story. It is the one Tolkien wanted to tell.In the book, 'The Hobbit', when the company arrives at Rivendell Tolkien as narrator comments: ‘things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway.’ He more than any other viewer might understand why the evenings camping quietly on the western slopes of the Misty Mountains, the gentle days resting in Rivendell, the feasting of the elves in the Woodland realm, has been replaced by those endless chase scenes and running battles. At least in these movies they only lose one set of ponies and not—is it four sets?---I always lose count. So, a note to critics: if you can’t stand these movies, you probably don’t want to read the book. The law of physics is not the decree of the land there either.

I love this film, it has everything a good film should have - It makes me laugh and it makes me cry many times over. I don't even have to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Desolation Of Smaug first, I can watch this one as a standalone. And to really upset the cultists, I love the Tauriel and Kili love story most of all and I cry every single time Tauriel's with him when he dies and I'm not even into love stories usually. Thorin is gorgeous and I cry when he dies too.

Fans of the book "The Hobbit" & "Lord of the Rings trilogy" are some hard core fans to satisfy! Changes are almost always made when converting books into movies because movies have a whole different pace. Peter Jackson has managed to do a great job staying close enough to the books & deliver stunning action filled movies to please both hard core fans & introduce a new generation of people who hopefully enjoyed the films enough to want to discover & read the original source material. As far as Jackson's releasing the theatrical versions & then extended versions can be viewed as a clever capitalistic maneuver, but I'm sure most fans will agree that the extended versions are a much more satisfying movie experience. Its not just fleshed out with superfluous filler they actually contain a lot more information in character development & action as well. I have heard many complain that peter Jackson's move to make "The Hobbit" a trilogy was a indulgence & not necessary. I don't agree when J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit it was originally a children's story & while it was a prequel to the Lord of the Rings I believe the changes were necessary for the movie franchise. Jackson needed to deliver a much edgier version of the hobbit to match the scale & scope of The Lord of the Rings trilogy that had already impressed movie goers. I think the extended version of "The battle of the five Armies" benefitted the most from the extended material. Now that it is all "in the Can"...so to speak future generations watching these movies from beginning to end will have a very satisfying extended experience!!! Its hard to review act three of a six act story without bringing up the other acts that make this a staggering epic tale. Many fans of the Sword & Sorcery genre thought of Tolkien's books as the gold standard for the genre, I believe Peter Jackson's film interpretation is now the Gold standard for the movie genre of Sword & Sorcery. Some consider Tolkien as the Grandfather of the genre while others give this distinction to Robert E. Howard, I love both men's work & where Howard published mostly short stories for the pulp magazines Tolkien gave his work to the world in novel form. I have no reservations advising Tolkien fans to get the extended versions of the films, it may not be as important for the more casual fan. I now have both trilogy's in the extended version & while they all benefit from the extra little gem's that are in the extended versions "The Battle of the Five Armies" greatly benefit's from the extra material in the extended version. while a lot of the extra material is action sequences there is a bit more character development & the extra battle action in the extended version really drives home the dramatic impact of the Five Armies!!! I was very happy to by both version's being able to sit down & watch the extended version with my daughter & then letting her take home with her the theatrical version as a gift. I gifted her the theatrical versions because her Grandma took her to see them in the theater.

This five disc set is a fine looking steel book edition. The digital copy code that was included could not be redeemed out side the UK territories, but for me was a small issue. My first order was lost but the seller provided a quick response and replacement. Pleased to find a standard non-3D copy alone with the two 3D movie discs and the two bonus features discs.

The box set is great, 2d & 3d extended ED.Only thing better will be 4k one day

I saw the cinema release of this title whilst I was recovering from surgery in hospital. I hated it; simply thought that it was never-ending battle for a hoard of gold and lucre. The extended version, as per usual, makes all the sifference in the world. It takes the time to lay the plot work which extrapolates the history of the battles at this final edition, yet Jackson leaves space for empathy, love, humor, and the wonderful prospect that we will see the bulk of these characters very soon when the Lord of the Rings bigins several details later. I paid this one forwar; I've been a huge fan of this franchice, so I was more than happy to pay for the release of the disk ahead of time. There are two more archival discs, and the movie comes in both 3D and ordinary Hi-Def, as well as Ultra Violet - so you can play it anywhere you go. A fabulous price for the very last release of Middle Earth movies, and the extras discs have been contiguous right since the Lord of the Rigns through all 3 of these 'The Hobbit' movies. I have loved these with a passion, and they take pride of place in my blu ray collection!

Not only is this movie amazing. Viewing it in 3D with my psvr makes the experience even better!

Blu-ray was exactly as expected.