The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (Blu-ray 3D & Blu-ray) (4-Disc Box Set)

Excellent movie ! Short movie ! Start to finish is awesome.. Few scene is boaring but few scene touch ur heart.. Action, adventure, emotional, romantic and many more feature make this movie, story wonderful..This is last part so everything done very fast..Quality could be enough..Few scene feel this is a drama but few scene feel what a movie..U know smaug death could be better and could be danger but this scene is not feel something real..But o my god - kili & fili and thorin death scene make this movie great.. This scene is so sadly & touching heart...When i start watching this movie i want never end this movie but 138min movie is very short.. Hope extended 'll be superB..Overall movie, story, never imagine.. This is great part of this series..I got this movie in dvd format @ only 100INR.. that is not enough.. This is great deal for me..Thanks for releasing this movie in hindi language.. Awesome for me...Thanks

Its a good deal got it for 640rs. It has 4 discs which includes 2- 3d bluray and one 2d bluray and extra bonus disc but it had some dents on case otherwise would have given 5stars.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (3D) Last part in Hobbit Series and Quite a fun watching action sequences in the final era. Dragons roar, fires rage, arrows fly, magic surges, swords clash, axes fall, iron meets steel, trolls crash through walls, towers topple, buildings collapse, Were-worms erupt from the ground, wargs snarl, dwarven shields form walls, elves leap into the fray, orcs and goblins charge to their deaths.Audio DTS-HD MA 7.1 lossless track that's armed to the teeth and ready for battle.Never miss this one if you are a serious Blu-Ray Collector...Disc Packing info:Consists Four Blu-Ray Discs...2x 3D Blu-ray (Part 1 and Part 2)1x 2D Blu-Ray1X BD includes Bonus Content.VideoCodec: MPEG-4 MVCResolution: 1080pAspect ratio: 2.40:1Original aspect ratio: 2.39:1AudioEnglish: DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1Hindi: 5.1 DD ( only in 2D)Regards,AVBuff™ (Audio/Video Fan)

the hobbit 3 (conclusion of hobbit series) From Unexpected to five armies great movie with production team includes special features separate bonus DVD. Peter Jackson prove again a memorable series like lord of the rings. Howard shore music tunes spring charms in your ears with long memories, Action Sequence wow..with Best sound mix Up To 7.1 MA DTS (Dolby Atmos) in a Blu ray & 5.1 Dolby digital HDMA in a DVD thunder-bass sound effects, go grab it today, i bought in a deal @ 180 Only ..cool

Beware of Seller New Superstar Selections, I ordered for the 4 disc special edition and received the 2 disc 3D version only. Have seen the movie and it’s great! Ordered for collection purposes. I’ve asked for a replacement with the correct order, let’s see if I get the proper version. Will u-date when I do..

Nice product, with lots of special features for viewers, critics, and collectors, at a reasonable price. The film has been too widely reviewed already, and it's rather pointless if I express my thoughts about the film per se at this stage. However, we may expect a special-special edition of the trilogy in future (as had happened in LOTR), which may open up newer areas for discussion.

Thank you Pritam Music and Amazon for making the steelbook available at a discount.It looks amazing, however it's have been better if it had embossing on it.I haven't opened the pack yet, because steelbook are in fact for collection purpose more than watching the movie itself.

Amazing Trilogy of middle earth saga of peter jackson...Got this normal version steelbook 3D Blu-ray with 4 Discs in it..Good deal by Amazon @635...Now I have all the collection of middle earth The Hobbit & LOTR..👌👍

Ok, well, I'm pretty sure I'm just asking for more "unhelpful" votes in writing this. But then, when have Amazon reviews ever been about whether a review is "helpful" or not vs. whether those who vote on the review happen to agree with it?Let me start off first with something I was pretty happy with, which is the vulnerability of the elves. One thing that bothered me in the LotR films was the seemingly complete invulnerability of Legolas. If I recall, I don't think he ever actually takes any injury in those films, and he is rarely even dirty from his battles. This doesn't make for very much dramatic tension. In the second Hobbit film, he takes on Bolg and at least gets a bloody nose for his trouble. And then here in Five Armies, he seems to be in some genuine peril in his final battles. To my mind, LotR would have benefitted from a Legolas we believe could actually have died or been harmed at some point. And being about 2,500 years old as he is, it's not as if his combat skills would have improved appreciably in the 77 years between the setting in this film and the War of the Ring. Tauriel also takes something of a beating in this final film too.Another positive aspect here is that Jackson, wisely, I think, paralleled themes from LotR of how desire can warp your understanding of things. For the Dwarves (well, Thorin, anyway), it's the gold and jewels that hold such allure (of course, that was Tolkien's theme, not Jackson's), in LotR, obviously, it's the desire for power, represented by the ring. It's fitting, since in Tolkien's works, the Dwarves actually have a pretty strong resistance to the power of the seven rings given to them by Sauron (the Silmarillion explains that they were purposely made stubborn so as to resist the temptations of Melkor). Their desire is for gold. The six-film arc shows us two iterations of the power of temptation and this theme dovetails with the theme of the passing on of responsibility from one generation to the next between The Hobbit and LotR (Gloin passes it to his son Gimli, Bilbo to Frodo, Thranduil to Legolas, etc...) similar to the way the veterans of WWI (like Tolkien) passed responsibility to those who would fight WWII (Tolkien's son Christopher). By the way, Jackson went through a lot of trouble to parallel parts of the two trilogies; it's curious, then, that Gloin wasn't given more significance in the movies since he is Gimli's father, after all.A couple of things that disappointed me in FotR, during the council of Elrond, are that nobody speaks except the principle actors (wouldn't having some other characters speak up open up the world a little, and show that there are really a lot of people involved? I'm digressing, but a similar issue caused the battle of Pellennor fields and its aftermath to feel a little empty. Where are the captains and lieutenants in charge of the regiments and such, particularly prince Imrahil?) At the council of Elrond, it is Gloin who speaks on behalf of the dwarves, which would have been proper. Gimli would have respected his father's paternal authority and not spoken. I realize there are already a lot of characters, but when you've got 10 hours of film time, there is PLENTY of time to go around. The result is that we have a few principle characters who me we know and a bunch of anonymous people fighting around them. At times, the character development is a little tortured when the writers could have made more space for secondary characters to open this epic up a bit. Ironically, I think Jackson accomplishes this a little better in the Hobbit trilogy. Part of it was because he had no other option, since he chose to include all 13 dwarves (even though he did awful things to them to make sure young kids would be able to differentiate them--which I can't really blame him for when so much money is on the line).Oh, one more bit of praise. You hardly have to see any of Radagast's poop hair. Jackson needs to reign in his puckish and adolescent urge to include puerile, particularly scatalogical, humor. His poor comic sense also brought down King Kong to a degree.I do think this film was the best of the trilogy, not necessarily because it was so much better, but because it had many fewer bad parts, and it was far less often hampered by puerile comic relief and astonishingly implausible sequences with the Dwarves. I think it was a poor decision to make the dwarves as miraculously agile and, well, lucky as the elves for the sake of zippy action sequences. The dwarves and the elves are basically antithetical races, and yet the dwarves jump, flip, and pull off absurdly graceful combat sequences, very much in the style of the elves. The sequences of the Dwarves in action are simply cartoonish. I would direct you to the chase through Goblin Town, the encounter with the trolls and with the rock Giants, the escape from the Thranduil, and their encounter with Smaug. You would think they were all part of a circus high-wire act. Compare this to the way Gimli was something of a clumsy fool in LotR.My main complaint about the film is shared by many of the reviewers of the film. There really was very little plot in Five Armies. In one way, this wasn't such a bad thing because Peter, and Phillipa, and Fran overestimate their ability to write convincing drama and they are particularly poor with dialogue (consider that for all the many Oscars won by Return of the King, there was not even a single nomination for any acting awards, despite the fine actors in the film--they simply weren't given a good script to work with). The main reason the Hobbit trilogy--in my opinion--are a group of typical so-so blockbusters instead of transcendent film like the LotR trilogy is that Jackson just couldn't make lightning strike twice. Of course, if you are one of the greats, then you don't need lightning. In all honesty, Jackson doesn't make a lot of "great" films. He will always be a director who created something spectacular, but I don't think, in the future, he'll ever be considered one of the greats. King Kong and The Lovely Bones were both mediocre, but I will always maintain that he directed one of Hollywood's greatest films--Fellowship of the Ring.Ps. One thing I've wondered-- Ian McClellan was Jackson's greatest commodity as an actor, and Gandalf MAY be his greatest commodity as a character and yet, through all six films, particularly this last, he doesn't use him as much as he might've. I wonder why.

I'm giving it five stars because it as entertaining, but left the book behind in all aspects, only some words matched the book. But of course this is Hollywood, and they figure people only have an I.Q. of three, so we will just flash action at everyone since they also only have five-second attention spans. It is sad to see a generation that is losing its attention span. If you want to read the real story grab the book, You will find it much better then the movie. Having read LOTR's and The Hobbit, many times. I was disappointed by all the movies when they left the story line and went off into their own world. I do not think I reviewed the other movies on here since I did not buy them off amazon. Like Harry Potter by the 4th movie the only reason it was Harry Potter was they said his name! The same goes for The Hobbit, and LOTR's. The books are fantastic, but the movies lack the quality and detail to the story.

Having read The Hobbit back in the late sixties I was a bit short memory wise when I watched the movie. There appeared to be new material introduced for the movie. Maybe taken from background stories of the Second Age in "The Silmarillion" or "Unfinished Tales." However, the storyline all fit nicely in the telling. The acting was superb as usual in Peter Jackson movies. I really can't imagine anyone else bringing the Tolkien books to film than Peter Jackson. Well, I can, but I'll stick with Jackson. Martin Freeman was without a doubt the standout actor in the film. Of course as Bilbo, he had a large share of the picture to carry. Richard Armitage was so, so, at least in my view, as Thorin Oakenshield, who also had a large share of the picture to carry. Visually the movie was excellent. Loved the Dragon, Smaug who's voice was that of Benedict Cumberbatch.

I thought this was a good ending. I didn't feel as excited about this one as the others - perhaps I'm just over the "Hobbit" movies and LOTR. Still it is a good movie, only this time I didn't feel like I wanted even "more" Middle Earth. I haven't even watched the extras yet.Let's face it, it's the third movie so if you enjoyed the other two you're likely going to enjoy this also. Even if you don't you'll probably want to watch it just to have the "End" of it all.I'm still thinking I may need to have "just one more" stretch to completely be off the LOTR movies :) Maybe watch the hobbit series back to back and then the LOTR - I'm sure that'll be a weekend well spent...

I wanted to like it so badly, but I had so much trouble digesting this movie.First, the decision to expand the book into a trilogy was a huge misstep. There are so many unnecessary scenes and characters in these movies! The decision to divide the film into a trilogy ultimately victimizes this film the most. This "film" is basically just a bunch of actors fighting digital orcs. There is no structure at all really. This should have been the third act of a single three-hour movie, Peter Jackson is so easily distracted he seems to completely miss the point of the Hobbit. Martin Freeman is probably the most perfectly cast Bilbo that any of us could hope for, but by the time Bilbo says goodbye to the surviving company at the end, it feels completely false because Peter Jackson didn't invest enough time with the dwarves that don't die. It's such a pity because Martin Freeman is so great. Honestly, we don't need to check in with Gandalf every five minutes. We don't need Alfrid Lickspittle at all. We don't need to make every single connection we possibly can to LOTR. We don't need Elrond, Galadriel, Legolas, Saruman, Ratagast, or even Sauron in this film! We don't need to spend that much time on Bard's honor because we got it already! There is so much drag. We could be spending more time with Bilbo and the Dwarves! Peter Jackson created so much filler for this trilogy that it, unbelievably, feels somewhat incomplete because he didn't stay focused on what was really important in The Hobbit. Just a huge, disappointing, expensive, and badly aimed effort.