User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2539 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

    Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The
    The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

    Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The acting is fantastic with Martin Freeman's performance being fulfilling and most certainly understated yet the other characters were simply unable to recreate the same level of interest and intrigue as those in the book. One can only hope that these characters are explored further in the sequels. As for the 48 FPS it was beautiful with scenery exploding vividly onto the screen and yet i cannot help but think it was just too much as if looking into an oil painting, thus some of the dialogue and action was lost amongst the various stunning backdrops. Finally and most annoyingly i must mention the length. For what is only a relatively short children's book, i cannot see how 3 films of such considerable length will be able to keep the focus of the audience whilst remaining true to the book throughout. So far so good but i expect more can come from this series and i hope that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will not be the unwanted middle child of the trilogy and emulate The Two Towers.
    Expand
  2. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    Hey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. No one will complain, as its Peter Jackson and Lord of the rings.

    And judging by the 9 and 10's I guess its worked. The film isn't terrible, its
    Hey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. No one will complain, as its Peter Jackson and Lord of the rings.

    And judging by the 9 and 10's I guess its worked.

    The film isn't terrible, its just not great either. Whats completely frustrating about it, is that the parts that follow the book are very good, its just all the filler stuff that ruins it. Seemingly filled with cliche comedy moments and bits that just didn't seem middle earth at all, its kind of insulting to the source material.

    If at some point they heavily edit the movie and leave just the relevant book content in, i think you would have a very good movie, but as it stands at the moment, the hobbit is an overly bloated average film that had potential to be much better ( and less drawn out and boring).
    Expand
  3. Nov 30, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit is extremely disappointing coming from a director who has accomplished so much, and knows the material so well. It is still has great moments, and for the most part is easy going adventure to watch, but come on.
  4. Sep 14, 2013
    4
    i don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it that great of a movie shore it has nice 3D effects what show off the team but its like avatar they have a load of fancy effects on it but the story is ai don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it that great of a movie shore it has nice 3D effects what show off the team but its like avatar they have a load of fancy effects on it but the story is a load of rubbish, the annoying thing about this film is that they constantly trying to remind us that this story happens in the same world of lord of the rings, one of the scenes i can't stand in the film is the moving rocks when the dwarfs get crushed but there perfectly fine no cuts boozes or broken bones and before some one says "but its not in the book" i don't bloody care it doesn't make sense and it looks stupid i just saw them get crushed I JUST SAW IT! but so i don't complain about a lot of things i have a problem with in this film i'm going to stop here and just say the ending... was rubbish i know its showing there's more to come but its just stupid looking its like ending a episode of eastenders Expand
  5. Jul 21, 2013
    5
    Fails to capture the epicness of the Trilogy. Also, way too much CGI. What happened? Why is everything CGI in this movie? Im not too excited about the other two now. I just love the Trilogy so much.
  6. Apr 3, 2013
    5
    To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it?To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it? The battles don't feel tense, the themes that the characters espouse don't run through the narrative, and I can think of 3 or 4 scenes that feel as if they've been ripped straight from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films just off the top of my head. Yeah, the acting is all good, and there are a few of those heart warming scenes that we know Peter Jackson for, but there's just not enough good to make up for the bad. Each time I watched this film I liked it less and less. Expand
  7. Dec 19, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we haveThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we have little bit of both. Expand
  8. Sep 10, 2013
    6
    i got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll seei got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll see the future movies at the cinema but on DVD its a must have for kids to kill time. Expand
  9. Dec 11, 2013
    4
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

    With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure. While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

    With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing:

    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure.

    While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that is where the similarities end.

    I can truthfully say that just moments after the introduction, my facial expression changed from one of joy to one of disappointment and scorn.

    While it is true that Bilbo Baggins was a somewhat 'reluctant' burglar, the dwarves and wizard did not simply cast him off as if he were not needed. They knew the importance of having a burglar to steal inside the Lonely Mountain, and Gandalf had very high hopes for Bilbo. In the Jackson adaption, we are shown that, while the company would prefer to have Bilbo be a part of their quest, they could do fine without him.

    After Bilbo chases the dwarves down and convinces them that he wants to accompany them, Jackson strays further off the beaten path; he actually ruins two chapters at once.

    Instead of sending Bilbo to scout the troll camp and possibly hone his burgling skills, he is sent to retrieve the company's ponies, which the trolls have captured. Now, this is a very important deviation from the book, as it changes the motivation of the goblins' capture of the dwarves and hobbit.

    After the episode with the trolls and a quick stay at Rivendell, the dwarves begin their way through the Misty Mountains. After nearly being killed in a fight between Stone Giants, they make camp in a small cave. Instead of attempting to steal the dwarves' ponies, the goblins steal the dwarves.

    This is where the worst deviation from the book occurs; instead of capturing the dwarves as they struggled to free their ponies, the goblins capture the dwarves because an ancient Orc named Azog has put out a bounty on them.

    Now, according to both "The Hobbit" and the appendices of the "Lord of the Rings", Azog was killed by Dain Ironfoot years before the events of "The Hobbit" took place. Now, this may not seem like a serious problem, as Azog was a minor character, but in bringing him back as the main antagonist Jackson has derailed the entire film series. Instead of the quest being "reclaim the treasure of Lonely Mountain", the quest is now "defeat an ancient Orc and reclaim the Lonely Mountain itself". Jackson, in an attempt to stretch the story, has destroyed the original premise of the dwarves' journey. In making Azog a main antagonist, he takes the focus away from Smaug the Great, a much more deadly adversary, and changes the dwarves from artisans to warriors.

    The feel of the book is gone. Instead of crafting sequences around the events of the book, Jackson creates a jigsaw puzzle, half book/half script.

    While many may argue that this is a plot device to build Bilbo's character, that can be disputed.

    In the original book, Bilbo Baggins gradually changed into a stronger person. In the films, he is portrayed as always being of a strong will, and just never having the chance to show it. By going this route, much of Bilbo's ongoing growth is lost, and his character suffers for it.

    Jackson obviously did not trust this film to register with audiences familiar with the source material, and, with that in mind, changed the story to suit those only familiar with his previous films. By inserting Galadriel, Frodo, Radagast, and the 'cute' Sméagol, he gains the support of Trilogy fans, but at what cost?

    Answer: Faithfulness to the original book.

    While the scene with Galadriel could be seen as an adaptation of events from the LOTR appendices, the 'cute' Sméagol cannot. Gollum/Sméagol is meant to be seen as a frightening, wretched creature; the book again and again explains that Bilbo feared for his life during the riddle competition. Why then did Jackson include the 'tame' Sméagol from the LOTR Trilogy? Because he knew it would register with fans of those films.

    In conclusion, I see this adaptation of "The Hobbit" as a way for Peter Jackson and New Line to profit from the LOTR Trilogy all over again. By grafting certain parts of the Trilogy onto "The Hobbit", New Line and Jackson are ensured that at least some of those fans will fork out money to watch three more films. I see this film not as an artistic exercise but as a cash cow. That is all.
    Expand
  10. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    A decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The actingA decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The acting and effects are also both fantastic, with a late entry from a beloved character being the best of both worlds. Overall, a film with great potential squandered with meandering added storyline and a tiring run-time. Expand
  11. Dec 19, 2012
    6
    So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

    The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action
    So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

    The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action sequences. I was shocked by how much yelling, screaming and sword fighting and biting there was, since the book has so little of it. Now, I like a violent movie as much as the next guy, and I really enjoyed LOTR, but the Hobbit is different. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson made an LOTR version of the Hobbit. Mostly, I'm disappointed by him and his dumbing-down of the subtleties of the novel.
    The 3d IMAX experience was awesome, but sometimes the characters were CLEARLY plastic (CG). The action sequences also felt very "harry potter-ish" - Incredible, over the top, unsurvivable scenes and characters walk with nary a scratch. I can practically see the roller coaster name branding spilling out of a couple scenes.
    Expand
  12. Dec 30, 2012
    5
    I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it.I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it. LOTR whilst obviously being a fantasy setting film, had a sense that everything was realistic within its fantasy setting. The Hobbit throws that feeling away and just goes over the top. Expand
  13. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    After seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally IAfter seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally I feel that he killed the part as Bilbo. Andy Serkis is as amazing as ever, albeit a little bit corny at times. Richard Armitage also is a great Thorin. Thorin is played really well and is exactly as a Thorin should be. However that being said, most of the other dwarves feel like fillers, never having any lines or really any say in the story. In LOTR it felt like every member of the fellowship had a role and a point and a back-story. In the Hobbit it feels like there is Thorin, Balin, Kili and Fili and a bunch of other dwarves. The way that they blended the old LOTR story to the Hobbit was absolutely superb and was perfect. Ultimately what ruined the movie for me was the action. In LOTR the fight scenes against the trolls and goblins and orcs and whargs seemed dangerous. They felt like the orcs were this rabble, this horde that was bloodthirsty and ruthless. In the Hobbit they felt more like comic relief than actual enemies. The best comparison I can think of was the fight in Balin's Tomb. In this fight the goblins burst through the door and look fearsome and sound like there ready to kill everything. In the Hobbit they feel stupid and mindless and comical. Cheesy stuff like Gandalf decapitating a goblin and instead of a flying head and a spurt of blood, there is nothing but a confused looking goblin whose eyes move worriedly then his head inexplicably pops off. All in all the way they tied the stories and the only four characters that really felt important (Bilbo, Thorin, Balin, and Gandalf.) and the general enjoyment of the story gives the Hobbit its good points, however the corny fight sequences that seem to have lost all of their seriousness, the mind-dead enemies, the loss of that fear factor that was in the LOTR, and the general was that some things that happen just don't seem relevant to the story really hurts this movie. As much as I would prefer to rate it better I can only give it a six. Expand
  14. Jan 4, 2013
    5
    Overly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from the appendices just makes the film feel uneven and without any coherent tone. A jumbled mess of a movie that doesn't know what it's trying to be - a filmOverly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from the appendices just makes the film feel uneven and without any coherent tone. A jumbled mess of a movie that doesn't know what it's trying to be - a film adaptation of a kids book, or a dark brooding prequel to LotR - it's all over the place. I'm a huge fan of Jackson, but this is one of his worst movies.

    The only truly good scene in the movie is the riddle game with Gollum, it stands head and shoulders above the rest of the film, making it painfully obvious how mediocre the rest of it is. Ultimately forgettable, I just hope the next 2 fare better.
    Expand
  15. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I appear to be alone among my friends in my general disappointment with this film. I really feel, after two viewings now, that it was mostly a remorseless money-grab by Peter Jackson and the production company. It doesn't fit the feel of the book to me whatsoever, and instead has the feel and ambiance of the Lord of the Rings movies -- a grandeur and scale that should be much larger than The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, The Hobbit was an epic tale, but next to LotR it is a quaint epic and more character-driven. One of the other user reviews here mentioned that the Hobbit wasn't written the same way as LotR, and people need to stop thinking about the LotR movies when they watch this. Well, I agree on the first point... but it's kind of hard to not think about LotR when he seems to be trying really hard to make these as much like those as he can. The cameos by Frodo, Saruman, and Galadriel, as much as I loved the latter in the original movies, were completely pointless. Also, if you are going to add Saruman pre-Lord of the Rings... he ought to me a much nicer fellow. Jackson didn't get him right in the LotR movies anyway. In the books he was a wordsmith, someone who could use words to affect others... and until he sided with Sauron he did so for good. There is a reason Gandalf considered him the wisest, and it wasn't just because he wore white. The added detail to the story of the pale orc and Radaghast the Brown were equally pointless, except to draw out the length of the film so he could make more than one. That's really my point, I suppose. The Hobbit should've been ONE three hour movie, MAYBE two... but definitely not three. Also, why does Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the books, not until he was mistreated by the Wood Elf King... and even then his attitude was colored by gold lust. There were a few well-done scenes, like the riddles with Gollum, but for every one of those there is another pointless addition to the story or a rewrite that makes little sense. Why did he feel the need to change how Gandalf dealt with the trolls, or have the pale orc trapping them in trees instead of the goblins and waurgs? It just seems like Jackson has gotten the impression that he knows how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien. I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken. Expand
  16. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    Initially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of theInitially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of the ring. Considering I've read this book, I think I am pretty sure that the following 2 movies will also follow in the footsteps of two towers and return of the king respectively. Expand
  17. Dec 30, 2012
    4
    Peter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. Very disappointing.
  18. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren'tThis is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though. Expand
  19. mcf
    Dec 26, 2012
    5
    I was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic, great animation. But it's not really much different from Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy films. Several of the same actors, same settings, similarI was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic, great animation. But it's not really much different from Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy films. Several of the same actors, same settings, similar battle scenes. Actually, it's not quite as good as any of the LOTR Trilogy movies. Granted, that's a tough comparison. but it is what it is.

    To me, the disappointing part of Hobbit is that nothing really "happens" in this first-of-three. LOTR is a complex, 1,200-page book. I can see "stretching the story out" into a trilogy. Hobbit is a 250-page story written for children. The story could have been told in one 3-hour movie or two tops. To stretch the story into a trilogy smacks of pure Hollywood greed. And, as a result, nothing much really "happens" in the first installment.
    Expand
  20. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Long have I awaited a resemblance of the experience of authentic epicness set by the lord of the rings trilogy! That trilogy was indeed prolonged by a new franchise called
  21. Mar 3, 2013
    4
    Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. AfterOh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. After all, it was only like the first 100 pages of the book. Gollum is the only thing that kept my review from a 3. What a major disappointment. I can tell you one thing, I definetly won't be there for part 2 or 3. Expand
  22. Dec 29, 2012
    4
    The hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see ourThe hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see our characters interact - particularly the scene where Gandalf and Frodo talk in the caves. However, we see none of those heart warming scenes of LOTR and more cliche' dialogues. This movie relies more the production value which is excellent such as the sets and everything and it also banks on people's love for the LOTR movies. I am very die hard fan of LOTR and even if I don't compare Hobbit dazzles but fails to leave an imprint. Expand
  23. Jan 1, 2013
    4
    I'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you so far, and to my mind, not nearly far enough to forgive this movie its flaws. Chief among them was the length. The Lord of the Rings movies were allI'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you so far, and to my mind, not nearly far enough to forgive this movie its flaws. Chief among them was the length. The Lord of the Rings movies were all long, but they had the material to justify their length. One movie per book makes sense. By the end of this first Hobbit movie we've covered about 6 chapters worth of source material. The rest is filler. And not good filler at that. If I never see Radagast the Brown again, that'll be fine by me. He rides around on a sleigh pulled by rabbits for god's sake. I like fantasy just fine, but I like it to be at least somewhat grounded. I loved Tolkien's books, but I was glad that the Lord of the Rings movies weren't 100% faithful to them. I didn't need to see Tom Bombadil on the big screen, and I certainly didn't need to see people singing left and right during their epic quest to save the world. Well, they left the singing in this time around. And it does work fairly well in one instance, but the rest of the time it's just odd and distracting. Too much of this movie is odd and distracting. There are moments that work, but they're wedged between so, so many others that don't. I want to say that there's a very good 2 hour movie hidden in what I saw, but I'm not sure that's the case. Absent the filler, I don't think there's enough to string together a coherent, satisfying narrative from this segment of the story. Maybe when all three films are on the table, I'll be better able to see how things could have been readjusted. Bottom line, I really wanted to like this movie, but I just didn't. Watching it was a chore. Expand
  24. Dec 20, 2012
    5
    "The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and it's just to epic for it's own good. I cringed as the dwarfs charged into the screen with loud music the second time, not to mention all the pointless"The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and it's just to epic for it's own good. I cringed as the dwarfs charged into the screen with loud music the second time, not to mention all the pointless action and filler scenes. The movie has an annoying "stop and go" ark of chained together elements that all look great on their own terms, but just don't add up to a great story. It all looks great and the actors are fabulous, but judged by my expectations, a big disappointment. Expand
  25. Jan 3, 2013
    5
    I saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. TheI saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. The character of "Thorin", the leader of the dwarfs, was particularly annoying. Grouchy, skeptical, humorless, and wrong at almost every turn. Also, the entire scene with Gollum was annoying because I can't understand half the things he says. The next installment should be better as they will be battling a dragon instead of the usual evil Orcs and Goblins that we have already seen in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Expand
  26. Dec 27, 2012
    5
    My definition of cheesy is a movie that comes off as silly while taking itself extremely seriously. Gimli was comic relief. A pack of dwarves is grating. This movie tries so hard to be epic that it loses any sense of timing. It's too long and self-indulgent. 90 minutes would have gotten the job done and left me satisfied and looking forward to the next one. The video game quality of muchMy definition of cheesy is a movie that comes off as silly while taking itself extremely seriously. Gimli was comic relief. A pack of dwarves is grating. This movie tries so hard to be epic that it loses any sense of timing. It's too long and self-indulgent. 90 minutes would have gotten the job done and left me satisfied and looking forward to the next one. The video game quality of much of the CGI challenged my suspension of disbelief. One example of boredom-inducing Hobbit techs: Let's watch a guy fall from some high place, catch on by his fingertips, then fall again, and catch on again, repeat, repeat, repeat. You'd think gravity was the only danger in Middle Earth Peter Jackson could imagine. And then, ironically, any time people actually do fall from freaking high nobody gets hurt. Cheesy. I don't think I can take six more hours of this. Expand
  27. Apr 26, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit has a difficult act to follow. Having already seen the Lord of the Rings Trilogy which is a lot darker and heavier (Like the books), the Hobbit does not feel as gripping. The book of the Hobbit was written before the LOTR and was written for a young audience and I think it shows. The film is trying to be accurate to the text and seems to have a lot of padding to make it moreThe Hobbit has a difficult act to follow. Having already seen the Lord of the Rings Trilogy which is a lot darker and heavier (Like the books), the Hobbit does not feel as gripping. The book of the Hobbit was written before the LOTR and was written for a young audience and I think it shows. The film is trying to be accurate to the text and seems to have a lot of padding to make it more friendly. The opening sequences to me seemed pointless and if they were cut would not have affected the film other than to reduce the run time to something more reasonable. the same can be said for other parts of the film which seem to ramble on rather than actually go anywhere. This not to say the film is poor because it isn't. Overall the casting was good and the acting likewise. Martin Freeman as Bilbo was surprisingly well cast as he got the balance right for the character. One of the issues with the film was a bit like the Star Wars Prequels. You know certain people are going to be okay and also some of the plot if you have seen the later films. This does cross off a few questions raised in the LOTR trilogy but does again make the film have another problem to solve.
    Having Peter Jackson back on board to direct has at least made the universe feel consistent and the camera work is very familiar. The film is not a bad one and I am sure the new Trilogy will be overall good but I can't help feeling that I was not blown away and also that they could have made Two films rather than Three to tell the story.
    I did not see the 3D showing due to not being able to watch 3D so cannot comment on whether this added to the experience. But the world still looks vivid in 2D and maybe even more alive than in the LOTR films.
    Expand
  28. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    Contains spoilers.

    If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Although I am loath to admit it, this adaptation of
  29. Jul 30, 2013
    5
    Set in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon.

    Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with another trilogy, that serves as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, based on Tolkien’s
    Set in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon.

    Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with another trilogy, that serves as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, based on Tolkien’s novel, The Hobbit, but here’s the question? The novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is longer than The Hobbit but that film was adapted into a two-parter so why make another trilogy, based on one novel, when you can just adapt the novel into one film, or two at most? Oh, of course, money! It’s all about trying to top up the box office success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy for Peter Jackson, and fans don’t seem to realize this.

    The Hobbit does not match the standard that was set in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. It may not be the same film franchise, as fans keep mentioning all over the internet, but it’s certainly very similar in terms of the film’s setting, characters and visual style. Just like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the movie suffers from a long running time. But without the emotional and engaging storytelling that The Lord of the Rings trilogy has, The Hobbit just seems to drag on and on with its slow pacing.

    The Hobbit uses a higher frame rate and it’s the first film to use 48 frames per second instead of the standard 24 frames. It may improve 3D footage but it doesn't add any value to the movie viewing experience so is it really necessary? Some scenes looks great, just like Peter Jackson’s many other films, but at times, it looks like the actors are on set rather than a scene. It can be hard to get use to but fans will hardly notice.

    It just shows that Peter Jackson relies too heavily on visual effects nowadays that his most recent films are lacking. One of which is The Lovely Bones, a film which lacks the majesty of the novel that made it such a huge success. Another is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a film, as mentioned earlier, that’s too similar to but does not match the quality set by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Peter Jackson is still a worthy director, considering every film he has ever directed, but if he keeps this charade up, then he won’t be.

    The film’s cast are short of any complaints, with standout performances from Sir Ian McKellen, as Gandalf, and Martin Freeman, as Bilbo Baggins. It’s great to see hobbits on a quest across Middle-earth once again but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is no excuse to revive the “Middle-earth franchise”, just like The Bourne Legacy, a film that tries to revive The Bourne franchise, and The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that tries to revive The Spider-Man franchise, though these two films are pretty decent overall. But in the end, all these films are really unnecessary and we can live without it. It just shows that Hollywood have no new ideas, as many people might have speculated, and has to resort into rebuilding the franchise that should have been left alone when it ended satisfactorily.

    In conclusion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will please fans. For them, the only reason to watch this film is “Hobbits”. The fine performance from its cast does not quite make up for its slow pace, irritating high frame rate and long running time. The film may not have high hopes, and it’s not entirely terrible, but being too similar to The Lord of the Rings, it’s such a disappointment. Hopefully, Peter Jackson will realize what he has done wrong in this film before continuing with the trilogy.
    Expand
  30. Jan 16, 2013
    5
    The movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's justThe movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's just not that interesting of a thing to watch. There are some redeemable moments, but despite some good acting and scenery, it's just not all that fun and seems to drag a bit towards the end. Expand
  31. Jan 20, 2013
    4
    Summary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwritersSummary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwriters expanded Tolkien's novel into a Japanese-style tale of warrior honor and revenge. They introduced some new major characters, and they plan to expand on events that the novel only hinted at. And that all would have worked fine, because it would have been difficult to make a movie based on the novel's themes of hunger and fatigue. The Bad: What should be a 90-minute movie is bloated with an hour of meaningless action sequences. The dwarfs fight. The dwarfs run. The dwarfs cling helplessly to a large moving object that threatens to plunge them to their doom (three times!). None of it advances the plot. With LoTR, I looked forward to and enjoyed the extended edition. With this first Hobbit movie, I'll only watch it again if they release a shortened version. I won't sit through those tedious pointless action sequences a second time. Expand
  32. Dec 25, 2012
    4
    The high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stageThe high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stage and do not blend into the movie.

    It is a three hour movie where nothing happens at all in it. This is partly due to the material of the Hobbit being only one book and they are trying to milk it into a 9-hr movie. You never really get to understand who the characters are in the movie. It is always person X son of person Y keeper of Z. Who cares. It is very weak character development for sure in this movie. I couldn't tell you who the main character was in this movie.

    In fact it is like the Phantom Menace in that there is little to story to the movie but instead we are told to watch more special effects and to enjoy it. I'm not going to see the other two movies in this "trilogy" as its just not worth the time or my money.
    Expand
  33. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the oneThis absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the one liners and the CGI (particularly in HFR) is quite frankly shambolic when compared even to the 11 year old Fellowship of the Ring! The CGI characters, namely Orcs, seem to float when they are travelling, swords do not meet bodies meaning it simply looks like the human characters (dwarves etc) are just swiping at thin air. The music score is largely, again, taken or remixed versions of the LoTR soundtrack and some scenes are pretty much identical to a Lord of the Rings scene. It amazes me how some people on here are claiming that critics and naysayers should not be comparing this to a LoTR film.. This is simply ludicrous. First and foremost this is done by Peter Jackson so of course his influence from the LoTR films are going to pass over to The Hobbit. Secondly, the soundtrack and certain scenes are pretty much taken straight from the LoTR cutting room. And thirdly this is set in the same freaking universe and is treading over old ground so of course comparisons will be made (that's like saying you shouldn't compare Star Wars Ep 1,2,3 to 4,5,6). Don't get me wrong I didn't hate this film, there was elements to like, in particular the scene with Bilbo and Gollum and I think Martin Freeman played a wonderful Bilbo Baggins. I just can't help but feel this film was a missed opportunity, I had such HIGH expectations and these expectations were not met. Stretching the 1 book over 3 films is nothing but a money grab and is simply using the previous success of the original film trilogy to 'cash in' if you will. The film, as a result, suffers and doesn't have that same aura and immersive sentiment of the LoTR trilogy. Needless to say after middling reviews and some fan backlash (and surprisingly the box office returns haven't even been that impressive this weekend) I really hope with baited breath, Peter Jackson comes back into form for the sequel and provides us with what he and everyone else knows he can do. On a final note, DO NOT watch this in HFR. That is all. Expand
  34. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    Hmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with charactersHmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with characters and places, but also costumes, musical score, cinematography, art direction, you just name it. And while the film holds "universal acclaim" with the general audience of metacritic, I'd highly disagree with this. Yes, the acting is rather solid. Technically the film is good too. However, it gives us nothing new. It does not provide any new, deeper connection with these characters, especially not Gandalf, who is surprisingly weakly portrayed by McKellen after his excellent turn in the Lord of the Rings. Honestly, the story of The Hobbit is not as interesting as the one of the Lord of the Rings, for one. That would do the trick on its own, let alone having high expectations and a million comparisons with one of the best trilogies of all time. Overall, The Hobbit is not a bad film at all. But it is just yet another big-budget blockbuster with great technical aspects, but not quite as much substance as its predecessor had. Maybe the second one will be better? 6/10 Expand
  35. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    Here's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but thatHere's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but that doesn't make it a good movie. There are other positives and negatives of course. If The Hobbit had been the first Tolkien book that Jackson adapted we'd probably all be amazed and astounded, but it's not. To follow his own LOTR adaptation I'm afraid The Hobbit is trapped in that grey area between mediocrity and greatness. Let me sum it up this way - I watch LOTR once a year or so and love revisiting those worlds. I don't have a strong desire to revisit this one. Expand
  36. Dec 20, 2012
    6
    Not close to as well made as the LOTR's trilogy but entertaining. I have to knock it for adding in places that really did not need it. Also, there was no content and there's no reason for this to be a trilogy.
  37. Jan 10, 2013
    6
    I saw The Hobbit after having reread the book and found the movie visually spectacular but otherwise somewhat disappointing. Tolkien
  38. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    It's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so manyIt's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so many scenes and themes explored in his vision of the trilogy that I will never forget, sadly, The Hobbit failed to make that kind of impression on me. It's not a bad movie, it's just not very substantial past it being a suitable adventure film for the entire family. Read the book instead. Expand
  39. Oct 14, 2013
    6
    All the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in anotherAll the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in another country", because watching the movie it just felt like a propagandistic lesson in patriotism and violence. All the grace of Tolkien's writing is gone. Expand
  40. Jan 2, 2013
    6
    I saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. TheI saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the CGI was (mostly) great. The movie is slow-paced at times. Other times it is too fast-paced. Some scenes are longer than they need to be, but I guess that's what happens when you take a single book story and stretch it out to a 3 part movie trilogy. I get the impression that this movie might possibly be targeted at children more than adults, I think a young child would definitely enjoy it more. For an adult, it is alright but just alright. But after some online investigation, I found a reference to letters stating that The Hobbit book was written for children, while the LOTR book trilogy was written for an older audience, so I'll assume the movie is being true to the book in targeting a younger audience. A plot hole I noticed is why don't they just fly on the eagles from the Shire to the Dwarf city/mountain they are trying to get to? Well, this plot hole apparently exists in the book too so I can't hold it against the movie. And what the heck is a dragon going to do with a pile of gold? Well, according to some online blogs male dragons are like bowerbirds that make nests out of shiny objects to attract a mate, so that resolves that question I had that wasn't explained by this movie. This movie mostly reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean although it is nowhere good as the first POC movie, nor is it horrible like some of the later POC sequels. All of the focus seems to be on the special effects and (mostly) failed attempts at humour rather than focusing on decent story telling or character development. I rate it as average since it lacks the Je ne c'est quoi to make it an epic movie (pacing? plot-deviations from book? not sure what went wrong exactly...) and I can't honestly say that I even liked the film. It does not live up to the quality of the LOTR trilogy at all (except for the CGI of Gollum which is still great in this movie as it was in the LOTR trilogy). It's been 25 years since I read the book, but I think I might go pick it up and read it again rather than wait for the next two movies... Expand
  41. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you read the book, The Hobbit is a wonderfully engaging light-hearted fairy tale set in Middle Earth, full of adventure, magic, faerie folks, monsters, and epic deeds. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, involved tragedy, also set in Middle Earth, with some of the same characters, taking place after the events told in The Hobbit.

    Unfortunately, Peter Jackson has recast The Hobbit as a direct prequel of LOTR. He's drawn from his own imagination, and from the various other story sources for Middle Earth like the Appendices of LOTR, and the Silmarillion to flesh out a more suspenseful story line. In short, he changed it, and not for the better. It's lost the wonder and innocence of the original.

    The story additions work to fit the tale into the LOTR timeline, and I'm sure are intended to make us want to follow Thorin himself. I found myself thinking at every turn, "I know what's supposed to happen, but I don't know what's going to happen." That fact is about half the reason I wasn't thrilled with this movie. It's like going to a restaurant and expecting steak, but getting chicken.

    The changes make the LOTR movies like Episodes 4, 5, and 6 of Star Wars, and now this movie is Episode 1 - the Phantom Menace. It's complete with Jar Jar Binks, aka Radagast the Brown. Radagast is a bumbling fool with a birds nest under his hat and the associated bird pooh dribbling down his face, driving a sled pulled by talking rabbits. It's Stupid. The classic scene are there, of course: the trolls (which aren't distracted by Gandalf but by Bilbo), Rivendell, the goblin cave, the riddle scene (though Bilbo's finding of the ring differs from the one we say in the LOTR movies), and the eagles as the dwarves escape the wargs... and that's where the film ends in a simple fade to black.

    And then, there's the 3D... It's a gimmick, used too much throughout the movie. Sure, you get to fly with the eagles, but you also have to deal with vertigo in nearly every shot, and lots of cartoon-ish gags tossed in from plate juggling to a nearly endless cavern battle with roller coaster ride cinematography - all in the name of 3D (and a video game tie-in). Don't bother with the 3D tickets, you'll probably have a less crowded theater, too.

    Overall, fun movie for a Saturday night at home with a few glasses of wine and friends to give it the MST3K treatment, but it's NOT The Hobbit I loved. Wait until its available at home with video on-demand services.
    Expand
  42. Dec 26, 2012
    6
    This movie is decent, but I couldn't get the same feelings as with the book. I must admit I am biased as a huge fan of Tolkien and I know that making a movie of "The Hobbit" is very challenging, because the original story is very rich in details and it is no subject to the typical constraints of making a movie. Both book and movie start a little slow, while setting all the pieces... butThis movie is decent, but I couldn't get the same feelings as with the book. I must admit I am biased as a huge fan of Tolkien and I know that making a movie of "The Hobbit" is very challenging, because the original story is very rich in details and it is no subject to the typical constraints of making a movie. Both book and movie start a little slow, while setting all the pieces... but what I watched was an action movie (the special effects are amazing), not a magical and adventurous story. Expand
  43. Dec 27, 2012
    6
    While I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "TheWhile I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "The Hobbit" that we know and love. Don't get me wrong I love Peter Jackson and I love The Lord of the Rings but the thing that made"The Hobbit" such a great book was it's own sense of cleverness and grand adventure. It shouldn't have been stuffed with CGI and action scenes because the book is full of humanistic themes and heart. The back story parts that foreshadow the events in LOTR were rather nice but felt out of place in the movie. Overall I will say though it is nice to see Peter Jackson at it again and hopefully all of my gripes with the movie can be conquered in the second and third installments. Expand
  44. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    I watched the 48fps 3D showing and I think with the build up and the enjoyment I got from the LotR movies I walked away feeling a little deflated. There seemed a couple of scenes that would've been best served getting cut during the edit, primarily the scenes with radagast in them. I'm going to watch the standard 24fps 2D version in a few days and see if the whole feel of the film changesI watched the 48fps 3D showing and I think with the build up and the enjoyment I got from the LotR movies I walked away feeling a little deflated. There seemed a couple of scenes that would've been best served getting cut during the edit, primarily the scenes with radagast in them. I'm going to watch the standard 24fps 2D version in a few days and see if the whole feel of the film changes for me in that format. On its own it was enjoyable but not great but still looking forward to seeing the remaining movies. Lastly I have that feeling I had after seeing Phantom Menace where it just felt like and didn't have the magic of the original trilogy. Expand
  45. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Before writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not contain anything about HFR or the such, or me getting motion sickness and violently vomiting into a pop corn box.

    Firstly I'd like to comment on the
    Before writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not contain anything about HFR or the such, or me getting motion sickness and violently vomiting into a pop corn box.

    Firstly I'd like to comment on the casting which over all I believe is positive, Ian Mckellen returns as the enigmatic Gandalf the Grey, Hugo Weaving as the noble Elrond and Andy Serkis as the bi-polaresque Gollum. Strangely enough both Christopher Lee as Saruman and Kate Blanchett as Galadriel also return despite not featuring in the book. Elijah Wood is used rather effectively as a screening device for Bilbo to tell his story.

    The New editions to the cast are relatively hit and miss. Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins) played the role excellently, portraying the home sick hobbit very well as an audience we can relate to Bilbo who like us is somewhat of a tourist in the fantastic Middle Earth. I'm also going to credit Ian Holm with playing the retired adventurer Bilbo well. Richard Armatige (Thorin Oakenshield) was another rewarding experience as he captured the King in exile exceptionally. Unfortunately with an adventuring party being 14, five more than the fellowship of the ring, many of the cast don't really get enough screen time. Those lucky enough to receive screen time do a very good job. Both Aidan Turner and Dean O'Gorman are blessed with screen time and bring their own quirk and charm to the roles. Ian Mactavish also brings a macho berserker edge to Dwalin. Ken Stott plays the wise Balin incredibly narrating Thorins past very well. The cast the cameras focus on are very agreeable.

    The Sets and Locations are much the same as LOTR, which all in all is no problem, the epic New Zealand landscape paired with the incredible sets really give the film the edge over many other fantasy films. The Special effects are also breathtaking as ever, for instance the dragons descent upon the mountain city is incredible. Ok this is where my Gripe begins: As a child my mother read me the Hobbit, it's charm and beauty captured me and I cannot find a fault with its story in anyway. JR Tolkin for some, not all, weaves magic in the pages he writes. Before watching the film, I had heard rumours of the changes, additional sub plots which had no part in the book. I believed I would be able to look past them. I was very wrong. Unfortunately in aid of the 3 film cash cow expansion of middle earth, Peter Jackson or the powers that be have decided to add a few insy winsy major adjustments. Sauron has returned in the form of the Necromancer who is seeking to return, hiding out at some forgotten castle. Thorin Oakensheild has a nemesis of his own called the Pale Orc who he battled outside Moria. This of course is to provide action to stretch the 310 page book to accommodate enough material for 3 films. The Hobbit is not the Lord of The Rings trilogy, it is more child friendly than the much more mature LOTR trilogy, it should have been 2 films at most. The most upsetting thing is that the added story is so contrived it comes across as a caricature of the epic fantasy, this soap opera, cheap imitation that is neither here nor there.

    Overall I liked the film. I wish I could have loved it, but I just can't with the commercialism they added. I respect Jackson for bringing LOTR life. However I feel this movie to be akin with king kong in some respects with all the pointless additions to the original. Peter Jackson please be Peter Jackson not George Lucas or Steven Spielberg.
    Expand
  46. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    I was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, asI was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, as though to remind you it is indeed a movie. Even the makeup, costumes, and animation seemed more "play" like as though you were watching it on a stage rather than it really happening. It was ok.. but I would say it didn't quite stay in the same league as the first three movies. Expand
  47. Dec 24, 2012
    5
    I wasn't expecting much since I knew there were coming a three pictures. Money. The movie starts a bit before lotr trilogy does and ends in about 60 hears ago. Operator's work is too modern. New actors aren't good enough. Exept Martin Freeman, he is a good choice. There could be one good film. But instead of this we got a bad start of a new trilogy. I hope the next part will be better.
  48. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Expand
  49. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    After 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, itAfter 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, it has no ending! It´s definitely not horrible, but it´s far from being good. Expand
  50. Dec 16, 2012
    4
    Technically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making Thorin Oakenshield an Aragorn for a new trilogy. It's one saving grace is a stellar performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Bravo!

    A great deal
    Technically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making Thorin Oakenshield an Aragorn for a new trilogy. It's one saving grace is a stellar performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Bravo!

    A great deal of effort was placed on the facial animation of Gollum and the goblin king. So much so that many other aspects of the VFX have suffered greatly. Poor compositing and inconsistent quality of animation are most notable. A lack of inertia in character motion, "floating" digital doubles that do not make ground contact, matte paintings that are so obvious it's worth a laugh, and an odd digital double for Gandalf in the opening sequence were quite disturbing (why???). Despite WETA claims of facial motion capture, a great deal of animator skill was necessary for the sequences that they *did* put an effort into. For example, the goblin king and his awesome goiter. The goiter alone bumps the film from a 3 to a 4.
    Expand
  51. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed
  52. Jan 8, 2013
    5
    This movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or whenThis movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or when oversized eagles save the day and carry all of them for a while. Not to mention when Bilbo saves the dwarf king, in what is yet one of those moments again. Why did they have to walk for three hours (of movie time) only to have Gandalf call the birds in the end? Could they not have used the birds in the beginning? But that is besides the point. And there was this other wizard, I honestly do not even know what to think. That bad. The scene where Bilbo finds the ring is overly long and boring, and for some reason he has to engage in a riddle game with that stupid "my precious" guy. Probably one of the most useless moments in a film I have seen to date. One last cry I have about the movie, apart from the strange cgi characters, is that the dwarfs seem somewhat tall.There is this inconsistency, in some shots they seem taller then in others, and a few of them look, well, human. In conclusion, the Hobbit part1 has plenty of nice moments, but in a complex device, such as a movie, everything has to be done right, not just some of the things. Expand
  53. Dec 15, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, a really good film. However, if you're looking for the power and intensity of LOTR, it's just not there. It's almost as if they made this one intentionally for little kids, like a Pixar film. WAY too humorous when it shouldn't have been, up to and including, funny one-liners from goblins as they were dying??!!?? Disappointing. Expand
  54. Jan 10, 2013
    5
    Honestly, nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Often boring and lagging on, losing interest is obvious. However, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography as well as the score and brief exciting moments, excite the mood. Albeit temporarily.
  55. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    Something like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of theSomething like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of the character Radagast, a mushroom munching stoned out hermit. The only balance to this is that there small pieces that are ten out of ten material, particularly riddles in the dark, and they are all that keep me from rating this lower. This story has been stretched thin and exploited so that Jackson can have his second trilogy, and I will not be giving them another theater seat. Renter.
    (P.S. Peter-long after your movies are gone, the books will still remain, unless you feel like revising those too.)
    Expand
  56. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    An unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come closeAn unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come close to silencing the skeptics like his Lord of the Rings films did, and is actually more ill-conceived than expected.

    Things that do work well for the most part in The Hobbit are sequences that come directly from the source novel. Iconic scenes, such as the arrival of the dwarfs at Bag End or the encounter with the trolls are handled pretty well, despite being padded out to unnecessary lengths with lame gags and pointless alteration of the original events in the book. Juggling such a massive primary cast is obviously a challenge, and as such the film's best moments involve only one or two characters, with Bilbo's (Martin Freeman) meeting of Gollum (Andy Serkis) and the finding of the ring being a particular stand-out sequence, the only one that seemed like it could have used more time.

    However, all of the good work that Jackson & Co do with the direct source material is swamped by the content they felt they had to develop themselves. The great achievement of the LOTR films is how they managed to distill the huge source novels to their most important story beats, only hinting at most of the wider story in a way that brought incredible richness to the world in which they take place. With The Hobbit though, Jackson only has a 300 page novel to start with, and the decision to make three lengthy films, I assume to parallel the first trilogy, is precisely why this first film doesn't work.

    The Hobbit should be allowed to stand alone as its own film, but it is structured in such a way, almost identically to the first LOTR entry The Fellowship of the Ring, that it's all but impossible not to compare them. As a side-effect, the much lighter tone will be jarring for a lot of established franchise fans, the very people the film seems to be primarily aimed at. The chase sequence in the goblin tunnels for example is little more than an updated version of the Moria scenes from LOTR. It's exciting enough, but much of the action feels in service of the film- making technology on display rather than the story, and as such none of the stakes of the earlier films are built here.

    Where the LOTR films had to keep moving at such a pace to fit everything in, The Hobbit dwells on unnecessary moments which had only the briefest of mentions in the novel to reach its 2 hour 49 minute runtime. Most damaging are the call backs linking the previous trilogy, setting up what is likely to be an almost completely new story bridge between the two trilogies in the third film due in 2014. There is absolutely no reason for Frodo (Elijah Wood), Saruman (Christopher Lee), and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) to appear in this story, yet here they are, taking us away from a perfectly good narrative about a quest to fight a dragon. It reeks of cynical franchise care, and arguably disrespectful to the carefully crafted world that Tolkien created.

    There's a good movie somewhere in The Hobbit, and had Jackson shown more restraint we might have seen it. The film could easily lose at least 45 minutes, but it feels as if director feels so beholden to his previous work that he needs to deliver an epic on the scale of LOTR. But that's not what this book is, and we're left with an uneasy balance - the lighter tone to distinguish this as a separate story but a strict adherence to the LOTR structure - but ultimately doesn't fulfill either side.
    Collapse
  57. Dec 19, 2012
    5
    Good CGI and feeling to the movie. Don't care much for the cartoon-ish style of character design. Falls short on the story compared to the book. A lot of fill between scenes . Guess that's why there's going to be three movies total.
  58. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    I was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the sourceI was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the source material of the hobbit is not near as good as the LOTR trilogy and I don't know why in the world they decided to turn this into a trilogy creating three movies full of unnecessary fluff, two maybe, three no way. Wait until the dollar theater or redbox and go catch Lincoln, The Perks of being a Wallflower, Wreck it Ralph or Life of Pi. Expand
  59. Jov
    Dec 14, 2012
    6
    Let me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intendedLet me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intended it - at 48 FPS, 3D, with Dolby ATMOS surround sound on 4K resolution projectors, but was repeatedly disappointed by the visuals. Peter Jackson seems to have gone the route of George Lucas in replacing actors, puppets, and good old fashioned screen magic with pure CGI. I'm not sure if it was the 48 FPS or what, but the film looked very, very fake. I felt like I was watching an animated film, or a video game at times. A lot of people are complaining about the over-long run time - I'm not one of them. I love a long film, and appreciated it here as well, but I think that it's significant to mention that despite a nearly 3-hour length, there was very little character development. No pauses for pacing. No - this was non-stop action. I felt like I was on "The Hobbit: THE RIDE". But what was I expecting? It was a children's book, and the film is a children's movie. The battles are toned down and pointedly blood-free. If LOTR is a classically painted master-work, then The Hobbit is a caricature. This isn't to say The Hobbit was all bad. It wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it at points. But the comparison to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is apt. The film is woefully over-full of CGI, lacks spirit. This doesn't feel like a labor of love - it feels like a blockbuster made for a younger generation with short-attention spans. Skip the 3D and skip the 48 fps. I look forward to a fan-edit when all three movies are released. It needs one. Expand
  60. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    This movie seems more like a children's movie than a LOTR movie. Little Dwarves who sing and drink. The action scenes and characters seem cheesy, and mainly, this should NOT be 3 movies. The next movie better be good.
  61. Dec 21, 2012
    4
    A very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they'reA very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they're stretching it out way too much. Most of the movie was boring, and the few intersting/exciting parts weren't enough to save it. Expand
  62. Mar 9, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit is a dazzling film, with almost every other frame gleaming with extravagant special effects. But its deliberately tedious pacing makes it little more than a curtain raiser for the future films in the franchise to follow.
  63. Jan 18, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm apart of the minority that did not like this movie. Really shocked that more people didn't like it. But then again a lot of people never read the book. Just went to see the movie based off all the success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Anyway, I read the book. Twice. Once when I was in the 5th grade and again 2 or 3 weeks before the movie release. I was stunned. Peter Jackson seemed more focused on creating a more visual and beautiful Middle-Earth than we saw in LOTR. This movie was simply, too much of a good thing. Guillermo Del Toro, a fantastic filmmaker in his own right, honestly had ZERO business being apart of the screenplay production. It also seemed as if Peter Jackson wanted The Hobbit to be a comedy because there was, and honestly too much of, comedy in this serious film. Yes, there was comedy in the book, but not to the extent Peter Jackson went. I would rate this movie lower, however there was one scene I found fascinating. And that was the meeting of Gollum and Bilbo. They had an excellent back and forth that I found myself enjoying as it continued. And why did Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the book. Anyway, it could, and SHOULD have been a lot better. It seems as if Peter Jackson watched James Cameron's Avatar one day and looked at the world of Pandora and said, "Hey, forget the script, and character development, and a good story to stay true to the book, I wanna do THAT!" And its exactly what he did. He re-created Middle-Earth with his own vision this time, and not the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Maybe this was just a hit and miss for part 1. A sort of testing the waters if you will. The chapter of Smaug is up next in the trilogy of films that is The Hobbit. I, for one hope that the CGI and lame comedy was all out of Peter Jackson's system because Part 2 is highly critical in if Part 3 can be successful. If Peter Jackson messes up Smaug..... may God help us all. Expand
  64. Nov 11, 2013
    6
    The city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, the trolls, Radagast) with monsters (giant spiders and wolves, demonic orcs, the hideous gollum), the characters' illogical decisions (Gandalf and 13 dwarvesThe city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, the trolls, Radagast) with monsters (giant spiders and wolves, demonic orcs, the hideous gollum), the characters' illogical decisions (Gandalf and 13 dwarves going to kill a dragon, Gandalf asking Bilbo to join them, Bilbo accepting), the lack of realistic fights (nobody bleeds or dies, the direction during the chase in the goblin lair makes the action seem like the heros are on a luna park train) and several redundant scenes that slow the pacing down (two dinners, the riddles) prevented me from enjoying this movie.
    argonautis.eu
    Expand
  65. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    Let's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst sceneLet's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst scene in the movie, and the beautiful special effects are for naught since the orcs and goblins were completely redesigned to look clean and crisp and not at all scary. So it all balances out (hence the 5 rating). I have a ton of things to say about this movie, but to keep this somewhat short, I'm going to mention one that focuses on the bad writing (of which there was plenty). At the end of The Return of the King, Frodo and Gollum fight each other for the Ring. Both of them fall off the ledge, leaving you to think that Frodo dies. Instead, he's hanging on to a small outcropping with his fingertips. In the special features of RotK, Peter Jackson commented that he hated using something so cliche, but it worked perfectly for that scene. In An Unexpected Journey, there are at least three instances where someone falls off a ledge and hangs on by his fingertips. Expand
  66. Dec 22, 2012
    4
    Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!
  67. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    For some reason, during the movie I constantly compared it to "The Goonies." I'm really not sure why. Maybe because "The Goonies" got adventure right, and this didn't. Either way, drawn out, should have been one movie. The end.
  68. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    As a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening sceneAs a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening scene shows both Bilbo, and Frodo at a point in time that is supposed to be right before the opening scene in LOTR, The Fellowship of The Ring. The actors, are visibly aged, and not only are they older, but is is apparent to me that the wigs that were used for both of these characters were not even close to the originals. The hair style is not even quite the same. The hair styles aren't even the worst part. It seems to me that they completely strayed from the original conception of the Orc. Not only was the conceptual trashed, but the incredible make-up, masks, and costumes were also scrapped. Most, if not all of the Orcs and Goblins are C.G. The Orcs are greyish, almost white. Some may argue that these were not Orcs, but rather Goblins. I tried to take that into consideration, but in the movie, they are most definitely referred to as Orcs. The beautiful New Zealand scenery is almost entirely non existent. I understand that the production was plagued with financial problems, and countless other issues, but it is an utter disappointment. So many other times in history, movies, their budgets, and other things have almost cost the movie, but after the release, the movie becomes a phenomenal cult hit, ie. Jaws. Unfortunately, The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, will not be one of those cult hits. The final thing that really bothered me about this is that instead of just taking the complete budget, and creating one last epic movie "The Hobbit", they blew the budget on three separate installments of the film: The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, Smaug, and finally, There and Back Again. It was totally unnecessary to create three different movies. They took quite a bit of creative license and wrote more into the story to extend this one book into 3 more movies, which makes the movie drag out more than necessary. In the LOTR, I found myself wanting more, and shocked when the movie ended where it had. I was sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next installment to come out. Not so much with this one. I was actually quite irritated that I now have to wait another two years to see the final installment of The Hobbit. I'm not looking forward to seeing the disaster that awaits, but hopefully, the story will get better, even if the scenery, costumes, and make-up do not. Expand
  69. Dec 14, 2012
    5
    This movie lacks character. I went to see it on the premier a few days ago without any expectations; I however have read the book about 15 years ago, and I somewhat liked it. I also have read and seen the LOTR trilogy and liked those movies. However, as I've grown older I've grown to expect some sense of style from movies. This movie had no sense of style, aside from the whatever...This movie lacks character. I went to see it on the premier a few days ago without any expectations; I however have read the book about 15 years ago, and I somewhat liked it. I also have read and seen the LOTR trilogy and liked those movies. However, as I've grown older I've grown to expect some sense of style from movies. This movie had no sense of style, aside from the whatever... fantasy cartoony style. Neither did it tell a compelling story. All I remember now is the boring endless 3D computer animated action scenes with tons of camera movement. Some may say that those visuals of the movie are breathtaking, but I fail to understand what is breathtaking about them. There are better and more beautiful visuals in way older films with way less of a budget. What I disliked most was the pointless amount of action, the charisma lacking dwarves (especially the leader) and the bad pacing / storytelling. What I give it 5/10 for is some funny points, like Radagast, one-liners, and overall no-brains entertainment value. Won't see it again. Also, this movie had no sexual themes what-so-ever. Could count the amount of females shown with one hand probably. Count that as a con as well. Expand
  70. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    Bloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save it from being complete disaster though.
  71. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    The opening sequence of this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is so good that one is immediately optimistic about what is to come. Therefore, it is rather disappointing to report that following this excellent opening we are treated to a film whose first half is so dull and dreary that boredom settles in very quickly. It is definitely not the equal of any of TLOTR films. A perfunctoryThe opening sequence of this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is so good that one is immediately optimistic about what is to come. Therefore, it is rather disappointing to report that following this excellent opening we are treated to a film whose first half is so dull and dreary that boredom settles in very quickly. It is definitely not the equal of any of TLOTR films. A perfunctory battle scene and the introduction of the charmless dwarfs do little to up the ante. In fact the real star of the first half of this film is actually the New Zealand scenery and we are treated to quite a lot of it as our intrepid travellers climb up mountain, after mountain, after (yawn yawn) mountain!

    Still, it's not all bad news as the second half improves considerably. This turn of events happens at the time we are introduced to the stone giants which is filmed using swooping camera movements that are very effective. It's onwards and upwards from here on. The special effects are variable (again better in the second half). However, the troll sequence is really awful with some extremely lame attempts at humour (the writing does leave a lot to be desired), but with the arrival of the wonderful Gollum we get to enjoy the film's highlight. The Art-Direction also still affords some pleasures, especially in the opening sequence and in the goblin s' town.

    Martin Freeman works hard to deliver a fair enough performance as Bilbo Baggins, but one misses Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin and Elijah Wood here. In a role similar to the one that Mortensen played in the earlier films, Richard Armitage doesn't really cut it.

    The score occasionally hits familiar notes reminding us of how beautiful that main theme is, but 'The Lonely Mountain' song hasn't the haunting effect of either 'May it be' or 'Into the West'. Overall the film is too long and should never have been planned as a trilogy. The book just isn't dense enough to warrant such indulgence. This error in judgement is the fatal flaw of ' The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
    Expand
  72. Dec 16, 2012
    6
    Great characterizations. The dovetailing with the events from the Lord of the Rings movies is artfully done as well. Mr. Freeman's Bilbo is great. We get a chance to see a different aspect of Smeagol/Gollum as well.

    However, there are a lot of non-canon scenes and sub-plots that have been injected to a) stretch the plot material to last for three movies and b) show off the 3D
    Great characterizations. The dovetailing with the events from the Lord of the Rings movies is artfully done as well. Mr. Freeman's Bilbo is great. We get a chance to see a different aspect of Smeagol/Gollum as well.

    However, there are a lot of non-canon scenes and sub-plots that have been injected to a) stretch the plot material to last for three movies and b) show off the 3D technology. There are many action scenes that are frenetic and pointless.

    It's all well -done and I can't think of anyone who could have done a better job with the story than Mr. Jackson.

    In hindsight though, I think making only 2 movies and sticking more closely to the book would have been best.
    Expand
  73. Dec 18, 2012
    6
    The Hobbit is clearly a step down from The Lord of the Rings. Jackson didn't seem to remember how to direct. Editing, pace, acting and even action sequences were off. The movie simply didn't gel. The visuals were stunning, music remember full and some scenes brought back good memories. The Hobbit isn't a bad movie by any means but the length is simply ridiculous.
  74. Dec 16, 2012
    6
    Too many time-filling gimmicks. The Dwarves are uninteresting in the movie. Some CGI effects actually look pretty terrible. Very far from the artistic looks of LOTR (for the most part, environments seem generic). Maybe the budget for the film was too small, maybe Peter Jackson went nuts, but I truly feel there is not a single aspect of the movie that is outstanding. Directing and editingToo many time-filling gimmicks. The Dwarves are uninteresting in the movie. Some CGI effects actually look pretty terrible. Very far from the artistic looks of LOTR (for the most part, environments seem generic). Maybe the budget for the film was too small, maybe Peter Jackson went nuts, but I truly feel there is not a single aspect of the movie that is outstanding. Directing and editing were bad. Acting was really good. There were some great action scenes after the first 1h30min. Sound effects and original score were good (very nice theme song, though still far from LOTR themes...). I watched it in 2D. Expand
  75. Dec 16, 2012
    6
    Flat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and the actors who portrayed the dwarves. I wasn't disturbed by the faster frame pace. What rubs me the wrong way isFlat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and the actors who portrayed the dwarves. I wasn't disturbed by the faster frame pace. What rubs me the wrong way is what upsets me about a lot of recent films: the over-reliance on CGI. Another user commented on how the orcs and goblins are less frightening because they have been "cleaned up". CGI has its place: it would be impossible to display the extensiveness of the dwarves underground kingdom with hand-built sets. However, too many characters and scenery done with CGI make everything less real, less magical and . . . less frightening. The orcs and goblins in "The Fellowship of the Ring" were actors in costume and makeup. The orcs and goblins in "The Hobbit" are CGI and characters in CGI, no matter how much attempted frightening detail, appear cartoonish. A similar example, Jabba in "Return of the Jedi" and the CGI Jabba inserted later into Episode IV. He was more repulsive when the slime was real. Just imagine how much more repulsive the Goblin King would have been if he had been a combination of costume and puppetry. Expand
  76. Jan 5, 2013
    5
    It's beautifully made, but the 3D let the characters made look like plastic. The biggest downside however was the story. It was cliche and boring. When the movie ended I had the feeling I was only at the half of the movie. Yes, there are coming sequels. Yes, it's based upon a 70 year old book. But that doesn't change my rating. It's so sad that the story really sucks because most otherIt's beautifully made, but the 3D let the characters made look like plastic. The biggest downside however was the story. It was cliche and boring. When the movie ended I had the feeling I was only at the half of the movie. Yes, there are coming sequels. Yes, it's based upon a 70 year old book. But that doesn't change my rating. It's so sad that the story really sucks because most other things are just great! Expand
  77. Dec 14, 2012
    4
    When I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarvesWhen I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarves in cloaks almost comical characters but serious in wilder ways with a funny disposition toward loving gold (2/10). When I think of mystery and discovery in the Hobbit I think of an imaginative scenery based vision with some encounters along the way (2/10). When I think of the Hobbit in it's emphasis I think about a children's book where the exploration of ideas provoke thoughtful meaningful contemplative and illustrative consideration (1/10).
    When I think of the philosophy of "the Hobbit" I think about the underlying currents and the hidden truths (1/10). When I think of the character interaction I think "Fairies and goblins" (2/10). When I think about "the Hobbit" as a contrast to his later work in LOTR I consider the fact he atempted to remake the hobbit after the 8th chapter and realized it wasn't a good idea to continue. When I think about the religion of the Hobbit" I think meaning exists in the world people have a place and there is a reason to believe but in this interpretation it's all boils down to simple-minded post post modern humanist action flick where the ends justify the bast.ardization of the former. If you look real hard you can see JRR tolkiens classic here, but you will strain your heart and mind to do so.
    Expand
  78. Dec 14, 2012
    4
    The movie is worse than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.The 48 FPS I didn't note it.The actors are great.Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are great acting.The director didn't do it like Lord of the Rings.
  79. Jun 4, 2013
    6
    "While not offering much to the beloved fans. The Hobbit is quite the journey indeed. I enjoyed my endevours with our lovable gang. It has some intense moments but the true fact is a 200 page book does not quite add up to a 2hr and 46min running time." B
  80. Dec 29, 2012
    6
    I admit this was not as good as any of the three Lord of the Rings films. However, it was not the disaster that many of the critics labeled it. I actually enjoyed revisiting that world and was entertained and never bored. I get what the critics are saying about it being redundant and uninspired. I do not see the need for the 3 D but it was a good time at the theater. I will bet money II admit this was not as good as any of the three Lord of the Rings films. However, it was not the disaster that many of the critics labeled it. I actually enjoyed revisiting that world and was entertained and never bored. I get what the critics are saying about it being redundant and uninspired. I do not see the need for the 3 D but it was a good time at the theater. I will bet money I will enjoy this more than"Django Unchained" from QT which the critics loved. I will review that after I see it. Expand
  81. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    Peter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world isPeter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world is visually dazzling and the pacing seldom lags. Fans will surely be thrilled, but there's something hollow and weirdly modern about the spirit that makes it more a spectacle than an expressive adventure. BTW, this is the first movie in HRF (High Frame Rate), shot in 48fps and showing in selected local theatres. Basically, it looks like really clean HD video. I review THE HOBBIT and the new HFR format. Expand
  82. Jan 27, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is regarded by many as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy; possibly one of the greatest fantasy franchises ever seen, with 17 Academy Awards won across the trilogy and Return of the King being the 6th highest grossing film of all time Expand
  83. Jan 4, 2013
    6
    Overall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense at all... and are entirely unneccesary.

    Then there is the fact that this was SUPPOSED to be a 2 movie deal until the Studio decided it wanted to make
    Overall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense at all... and are entirely unneccesary.

    Then there is the fact that this was SUPPOSED to be a 2 movie deal until the Studio decided it wanted to make more money and stretch it into 3 !@#$% movies! This is why the film is overlong with bloat, bloat, and more bloat! The LOTR was three 3 hour movies from about 1100 pages of source material... The Hobbit films are going to be three 3 hour movies from a little over 300 pages of source material (!?) expanded with additions from the LOTR Appendices.
    Expand
  84. Apr 1, 2013
    5
    Best 3D effects that I have seen to date! Amazing special effects. But... these 2 things cant save this movie. I found the movie a chore to watch. It dragged on and on. Alot of action, but none were believable nor intresting.
  85. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    Definitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than oneDefinitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than one spectacular one, so I was even more worried when I heard they stretched it all the way out to a new trilogy. The Hobbit is such a great story. They really really are stretching it out, though, here. They added a lot that I didn't remember, and seemed to take a lot of liberties, though to be honest it's so long since I read the book I can't be sure what was or wasn't in it. I may be comparing it too much to the cartoon movie version I loved so much as a kid. But, all in all, I just felt that the story is stretched out a bit too long here. It's true that it probably wouldn't have all fit into one movie, but I think two would have been plenty, and then leave a lot of what they put in out for the blu-ray release. Instead, you get an uneven affair here, some of which reaches the familiar heights of greatness Peter Jackson established with the Lord of the Rings, but a lot of which falls short. Expand
  86. Jan 24, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I went into it thinking, "is this going to live to the anticipation"? I was sadly disappointed. I guess its still a good a movie. The cast was great, especially the three leads, and the music by Howard Shore was amazing. But the rest of the movie? Meh. The only really good bits were the misty mountains song by the dwarfs, the troll sequence, and the Gollum sequence. I thought the critics were being harsh comparing it to the lord of the rings as the books were very different, so the movies will be too. But now, I can see why. I had so many feelings of deja vu when I was watching this, that it felt like I was watching a recycled version of the fellowship of the ring, and it shouldn't be like that. And the script just dragged everrrryyythhhinnggg oooouuuuttttt soooooo lllloooonnngg. I was almost falling asleep during the white council scene. Which never happened in the book, it was just so they could have Galadriel and Saruman in the movie. Also, the last 10-15 minutes was incredibly melodramatic. Unnecessarily so. I guess it was an OK movie, to be honest I would watch it again, but only if I had nothing better to do. Expand
  87. Dec 29, 2012
    5
    With The Lord of the Rings being my favorite film, doubts about Peter Jackson returning to Middle Earth with the Hobbit and concerns about him turning this relatively concise book into three movies; I had conflicting views upon entering this adventure. The final verdict is
  88. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    There are moments that make you remember the first three films, and that unfortunately makes you realize how much better those are than this. Perhaps in the next two (God help us) we will see more development but this is a film that is at least 30 minutes too long and too family friendly for its own good.
  89. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    The two things that make "An Unexpected Journey" not that good as we all have hoped are its length and the inappropriate funny stuff Jackson mixes into it. The dwarfs and their burping and quaffing destroy the mystic feeling of Middle-earth and turn the movie into a unfunny comedy. Luckily, only the first third of the film is ruled by the dwarfs, the rest is focused on the great battlesThe two things that make "An Unexpected Journey" not that good as we all have hoped are its length and the inappropriate funny stuff Jackson mixes into it. The dwarfs and their burping and quaffing destroy the mystic feeling of Middle-earth and turn the movie into a unfunny comedy. Luckily, only the first third of the film is ruled by the dwarfs, the rest is focused on the great battles and the wonderful views of Tolkien's world. But Peter Jackson's habit to turn every little story, as tiny as it may be, into a three-hour-picture is really pesky. Less dwarfs, less battles, less pseudo-humorous talk and we would've got a much better film. But after all, the first part of The Hobbit is dominated by the Oscar-deserving visuals and acoustics, a mostly felicitous cast and fantasy stuff, that is simply amazing to see. Just because of the 3D, the cinema ticket is worth its price. Eventually, you have to keep in mind that this is only the initiation to a hopefully marvelous journey. Expand
  90. Dec 23, 2012
    6
    The movie has its share of flaws. Number one being that the first 20 minutes of the movie are painfully drawn out much too long. While it was true to the book (any maybe the book was really at fault) it did get better. The movie isn't oustanding. I, personally, sat next to a good friend who LOVES, LOVES, LOVES LOTR. She, of course, was so happy about seeing it. Don't get me wrong. I likeThe movie has its share of flaws. Number one being that the first 20 minutes of the movie are painfully drawn out much too long. While it was true to the book (any maybe the book was really at fault) it did get better. The movie isn't oustanding. I, personally, sat next to a good friend who LOVES, LOVES, LOVES LOTR. She, of course, was so happy about seeing it. Don't get me wrong. I like the series, but I feel the next two will be much better. Eh, it was okay in the end. Expand
  91. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    I was very well impressed with the overall movie, but there were some drawbacks, and cuts. It will make you leaving the movie theater happy that you saw it. I will be eager to watch the other two sequels.
  92. Dec 22, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First and foremost I enjoyed the movie but when you hold it against the LOTR it just doesn't hold up. For a movie that has come out 10 years after the original trilogy you would think the CGI would look better but it really didn't. The gravity of the story was lacking, in the LOTR their quest held the fate of Middle Earth in the balance while here we were only trying to save the home of some dwarfs who I didn't really feel sorry for. Also, with LOTR their was a definite connection to mankind BUT there are no men in this flick, we deal with dwarfs, hobbits, wizards, orcs, and goblins.

    All in all not bad, Peter Jackson and his team just didn't step their game up, it's like they went through the same motions without the same drive to make this as great as the LOTR.
    Expand
  93. Jan 1, 2013
    6
    Nothing new for a movie... i only saw rocks flying on the screen using a format launched 10 years ago. Maybe, by the reason of this movie being a first part of a trilogy, when the other 2 parts are released this first will be make a little sense more.
  94. Oct 6, 2013
    5
    You can see its high production right away but this first part of the story was kinda boring I mean there is not that much going on and the dwarfs have no personality or depth to them (was it really necessary to put that many dwarfs in the movie?). Well I hope the next part is better.
  95. May 19, 2013
    4
    As a big Tolkien fan and LOTR movie fan, I felt betrayed after leaving the movie theater. The moment I heard Del Torro was going to direct it, I was a bit disappointed. And it felt good to know that in the end Peter Jackson was going to direct it. Now that I think of it, I'm sure it would have been a better idea to let Del Torro direct it....
  96. Oct 23, 2013
    5
    The brilliant settings and action spectacles of "An Unexpected Journey" do not make up for its lack of characterization, thematic unity, and emotional force. From the protagonist, the plot demands a sense of initial self-alienation which should eventually lead to the recovery of the self in others; while present, this seemed more like an afterthought than something gluing the film together.
  97. Jan 26, 2013
    5
    The Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that they added so much random **** ruins the whole trilogy and ruins what the author wrote. i fully understand that The Hobbit is a stand alone book/movie andThe Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that they added so much random **** ruins the whole trilogy and ruins what the author wrote. i fully understand that The Hobbit is a stand alone book/movie and not apart of the lord of the rings trilogy, which is also why they didn't need the introduction with frodo and an older bilbo, it was annoying to me to think that they ARE in fact linking the trilogy to the hobbit. the needless intro also ruined the immersion and it felt more like a fake story than an immersive movie. if you read this and thought it was a good movie, i would agree it had it's fine moments, the 3D effect were great and the 48 fps was really breath taking. to make this movie a 7/10 (for me at least) all they could have done is cut out the intro. oh well. Expand
  98. Feb 12, 2013
    4
    As the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit.
  99. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    A plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewersA plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewers who have not read the novel, the journey itself is conspicuously Expand
  100. Jan 27, 2015
    4
    Even the extended version leaves me wanting more. This movie could have been so much better. It relied far too heavy on CGI and special effects and not enough on establishing the story and the characters.
Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 40
  2. Negative: 2 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Peter Rainer
    Dec 14, 2012
    58
    My first thought in watching The Hobbit was: Do we really need this movie? It was my last thought, too.
  2. Reviewed by: Liam Lacey
    Dec 14, 2012
    63
    In this fitfully engaging, but often patience-straining preamble to Hobbit adventures to come, there is one transporting 10 minutes of screen time. It happens when Bilbo meets the freakish, ring-obsessed creature Gollum.
  3. Reviewed by: Ann Hornaday
    Dec 13, 2012
    38
    It's a bloated, shockingly tedious trudge that manages to look both overproduced and unforgivably cheesy.