The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies

As we know, all good things must come to an end - and so, too, must The Hobbit trilogy.

After wowing us and taking over the world with his Lord Of The Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson is finally closing the book on Bilbo And The Trilogy That Should Not Have Been.

We're way past arguing the toss about whether Tolkien's shortest book was up to three films, but if Five Armies shows us anything it's that we were right. It wasn't.

Picking up where Hobbit 2 should have finished, Five Armies' pre-credit sequence is a showpiece of typical Jackson proportions as the town we left last December is laid to fire and waste.

And this bit is quite fun.

After that, there's a battle.

And that's pretty much the whole film.

Sure, there are lengthy conversations on friendship, loyalty, gold that makes you go mad and inter-species love, but these are all really just pauses for breath between all the fighting.

And given that Jackson has proved himself so adept at the epic battle set-pieces, it's a bit odd that this time round the whole thing feels a bit, well, detached.

Maybe it's the ongoing failure to really give us characters we love and care about, maybe it's the effect of trying to just simply do too much, but there are moments here when I was having flashbacks to my Warhammer days.

(For the internet generation amongst you, Warhammer is what we did before they invented World Of War Craft - it was hands-on dice-rolling model fighting-friends fun, rather than staring at a screen and yelling at strangers.)

If you've played the game, you'll know what I mean - but for the rest of you, the huge squares of soldiers are basically how we used to set up our armies back in the day.

Lord Of The Rings never made me think of that.

There are some good points, obviously.

For a start, the whole thing is shot beautifully. And while the odd effect might look just like an effect, the scenery is again so real you could almost smell the snow.

And Martin Freeman is, again, great as Bilbo Baggins.

Throughout these three films, he - along with Ian McKellan as Gandalf - has been the one consistent feature.

He perfectly encapsulates the reluctant adventurer, and through him any emotional pull the film may have is channelled.

Sadly this detracts from the love story Jackson felt the need to create - but this highlights the problem all three films have had.

It doesn't matter what Jackson, Fran Walsh and the other writers created to pad out the story to almost eight hours, they couldn't create anything that had the power and majesty of Tolkien's scribblings.

As a result, the characters don't mesh well.

While Bilbo, Gandalf et al are well formed and rounded, others like Tauriel have seemed flat.

Which is no reflection on Evangeline Lilly's performance, she's more than up to the task - it's just she's not been given much to work with.

Overall, though, the film is just one long battle scene.

And if that's your thing, you're in for a great time - but for the rest of us, the lack of coherent story is a massive failing.

I don't like being negative about the Hobbit trilogy, being a huge fan of the book and Jackson's ast trilogy, but over the three films it's become increasingly clear that this was a bad idea.

One film? Great. Two? Maybe.

But no more.

And I'd forgive Jackson the film's shortcomings if it wasn't for his attempt, right at the end, to tie the whole thing into the Lords Of The Ring trilogy.

You've filmed them in the wrong order, Peter, that's fine. Don't then try and make them "work" if you watch them in the proper order.

And it's that one line (you'll know it when you see it) that ruins the whole film. It makes you realise that, in essence, this trilogy has been created just to set up a trilogy we've already watched.