User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2369 Ratings

User score distribution:

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 15, 2012
    9
    I've seen it twice, both in 3D and 48 FPS.
    So, let's get this out of the way, there is nothing wrong with it, this is but the beginning of a new era of HD in cinema, critics are being way too harsh on this, and this is the first movie actually worth watching in 3D in a long time.
    Second: yes, it takes a while to get used to 48fPS but if you are a gamer/PC gamer, you should be used to 30+
    FPS (60FPS if you're a PC gamers) so you won't have any problems, like myself
    3-the pacing is sloppy? yes, but then again, a few scenes make the movie way too long, but they are't bad. I mean, the beginning is perfect, as it describes Bilbo's ways and how he's gonna change
    4-a few cliche moments but nohing major enough to make it a 6/10, after all, Gandalf always does this things in the books
    5-Overall the movie is crazy good, and as far as I understand, the movie could've been a bit shorter, but aside from the length and the pacing, I have no problems with this film.

    I say: watch it and ignore the critics, this is one of the moments in which the critics all say one thing while the crowd will say something different, judge it on your own.
    Expand
  2. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Beautifully done movie that was filled with goodies from the book, and goodies from dear ol' Peter Jackson. Many people complain that it is not as dark as LOTR and that is true, because the book isn't either. The humor was a nice change of pace for Middle Earth and I couldn't stop laughing during some parts. I loved the scene with the trolls by the camp fire as it was my favorite scene in the whole movie. I also loved the intelligent goblin king who was designed quite well, but his voice and personality felt more like a Harry Potter character than an LOTR one. The music, once again, sweeps you away like it did before almost 10yrs ago; I do believe is was the same composer so expect excellence. Others complain about the use of CGI... well how else do you get hundreds of trolls, orcs, dwarves into the same scene or get a man into a giant troll costume? LOTR had hundreds of animations and it was great! and so was this movie. Expand
  3. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Any fan of the book will be pleased by the perfection Peter Jackson has recreated again. Don't be fooled by the critics, this is not LOTR4 It's The Hobbit. 10/10 going to go see it again.
  4. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Reading the negative reviews can be angering... The Hobbit starts the series possibly stronger than the Fellowship of the Ring. The dwarves had tons of character, Gandalf was great as ever, and Thorin and Bilbo stole the show. It was entertaining, and overall a great film.
  5. Dec 30, 2012
    0
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey turned out to be an unexpected Christmas turkey. I saw the 2D version because 3D fx don't work for me. As the movie trudged from one prepackaged fight scene to another, I became increasingly bored at the lack of character development and genuinely good storytelling. As it turns out, I was not alone in my assessment of the film. When the credits started to roll, I heard someone behind me exclaim "What a rip off!" Expand
  6. Jan 13, 2013
    1
    If you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking he is a better story teller than Tolkien. I went into the movie thinking I would be looking for things that they changed to make the scenes work better on screen, I soon found I was looking for things that were actually in the book. A poop covered wizard that rides a sled pulled by rabbits? REALLY!? The book was about the quest and the JOURNEY! A lot of time was given to feeling homesick, feeling hungry and tired on the road, or toughing it out through rain. When I heard how long the movie was I got excited thinking, "Yes! they actually put all that stuff in". Wrong! The movie takes out the journey and immediately puts the characters where they need to be one scene after another. The white orc was only added in so they could write a storyline that has lots of fighting (even though there was enough in the book) to make Thorin look like the honorable badass hero American audiences/zombiemasses apparently require. The dwarves were not warriors at all in the book (although they did fight), they did not even have weapons until they found them in the troll's cave (another butchered scene). Expand
  7. 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 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
  8. Dec 24, 2012
    0
    The only unexpected journey was me leaving the cinema when I couldn't stomach any more of this horrible movie. I can't believe there's going to be two sequels to this as well.
  9. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Its a masterpiece. No sinister "LotR-mood", but that wasnt to expect. It takes as much time, as it needs and all the time is awesome. I just cant believe, that the Metascore is below 60....
  10. 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... 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
  11. 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 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
  12. Dec 15, 2012
    0
    I have NEVER wrote a review in my life for a movie but felt compelled to write one for this P.O.S. I am a die-hard LOTR movie fan and have spent the better part of five years anticipating this movie; what a waste of time, this is not LORT at all. Peter Jackson and New Line capitalized on their success of LOTR and tried to create a "family fun" movie with slapstick humor and OVER dramatic (poor) visual effects. There is a scene with 3 trolls that sound and act like the 3 stooges...................................In LORT almost every seen was shot with live actors in amazing costumes................every troll, goblin, monster was computer animated and poorly to say the least. There is no depth of character for anyone and the script and storyline lacked...... save your time and money for red box !!!!!! Expand
  13. Dec 24, 2012
    1
    So boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening so intrascendental and no charismatic characters.
  14. Dec 30, 2012
    2
    It was like the "Phantom Menace" all over again. Just like that film, I knew 20 minutes into the movie it was a disaster. Poor editing, poor pacing, poor storytelling. My biggest disappointment of the year.
  15. Jan 1, 2013
    0
    Wow, there is such a thing as too much artistic license. It's sad when you try to "improve" things and they come up so pathetically short of the original. Peter Jackson has done to the LOTR what George Lucas did to Star Wars. Except Lucas ruined his own work. Garbage. This is SpiderMan 3 level of disgust.
  16. 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 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
  17. 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 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
  18. Jan 9, 2013
    2
    With a horrible ending and stupid fight scenes this film stops exactly when it shouldn't. Maybe with more it will end up like LOTR but at this early stage it doesn't deliver.
  19. Dec 27, 2012
    2
    "Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and divided it into parts - to make more money.
    Poor attempt of trying to make a lot of $ using great author's name.
    Expand
  20. Dec 18, 2012
    3
    I almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't that far through, the magic of Middle Earth was lost amongst waterfalls, mountains and lush forests, and I was assuming what they were searching for what was left of the storyline. But apart from that, what also made it worse, because I think other people who disliked this film would repeat that as a criticism, was the humour that was rolled out with each line one after each other, expecting us to laugh uproariously, when it felt forced and just generally unfunny. Much of it was low-brow humour, which was one of the reasons I disliked the dwarves, only really there to please the children. Apart from the visually beautiful scenes, the only element of the LOTR trilogy that was still there and alive was Gollum, who was on perfect form. Martin Freeman could seriously carry this film on his own, as there didn't seem to be much contribution from anyone else - maybe Ian McKellen, if I saw more of him. Expand
  21. Jan 8, 2013
    2
    Fell asleep in the theatre. Also, watching a film at such a high frame rate (HFR) gives the movie a made-for-PBS look to it. At 48 frames per second, the viewer has difficulty suspending disbelief because the frame rate makes the film look too similar to the real world, fantasy setting notwithstanding. It'll be a while until filmmakers can overcome that challenge of making people believe in the fantasy world they create if they stick with HFR. Also, the 3D is an annoying gimmick and I would have been happier watching it in HFR without the glasses and effects. Additionally, the movie takes some pretty big departures from the book, none for the best. Expand
  22. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    If I could give this movie an 8.8 or 8.9 even, I would. An 8 just seems too low. I saw a midnight showing of the Hobbit in HFR (high frame rate) in a cinema with active shutter glasses. While active shutter adds some intensity to the 3D, the HFR added even more. Yes folks, I felt a little bit of butterflies in my stomach and this was not a bad thing. After seeing this I'm not sure if HFR is "better" than shooting in IMAX but it defiantly is the only way to shoot a 3D movie as far as I am concerned. On to the film, this prequel to the Lord of the Rings was not as grim or serious as the first three films. It was more like a roller-coaster as one of my friends put it (the HFR helped with that). I think the Hobbit has done what the Star Wars prequels failed to do. Bring a more lighthearted, kid friendly version of the world to the screen. While this movie won't be winning any oscars for acting or best picture, it will entertain millions and be a front runner for moving the uncertain future of a digital age of film forward in the right direction. Without spoiling any of the plot points of the film, The Hobbit is both a lord of the ring prequel and an adaption of the Hobbit novel. The film captures Bilbo brilliantly. Bilbo was my favorite character growing up, and I find myself reinvigorated in the character after seeing the film in my older age. Expand
  23. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    Standalone review (ignoring lotr) - good although the way the film was set up, the humour was an essential factor to capturing the viewer imo, in my viewing many of the clearly "funny" bits were very awkward and not quite sure if they were meant to be funny, for example the bit where boffur tossed bombur a sausage and for no apparent reason the table broke. the thing is, the book was pretty weird, didn't really stick together like lotr, it was a very all over the place novel with barely any constant descriptions of characters especially the dwarves. i think that's where this film fell short, it had brilliant fight scenes, good character development and good back story but the characters themselves sucked and felt very transparent. they felt genuine and reused. gollum was the only beacon of hope, personally my favourite scene in the whole film, it managed to make me laugh properly and really built bilbo as being brave and humorous at the same time instead of being a bumbling coward. all in all, good little film, although it had no inspiration apart from lotr, lotr clearly took a lot of inspiration from shakespeare and some other films, this film clearly had none of that. think about the way the characters talked in lotr, it was much more medieval, at one point in the hobbit one of the dwarves ASKED FOR CHIPS?? REALLY? CHIPS? IN MIDDLE EARTH? YOU WANT CHIPS?! YOU THINK THEY HAVE DEEP FAT FRIARS IN MIDDLE EARTH???? Expand
  24. 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 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
  25. Dec 30, 2012
    1
    The movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact it was a prequel to LoTR and remove the elements of what made the Hobbit(the novel) great Expand
  26. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Way better movie than the Fellowship of the Rings. The only complaint I have is it is a prequel so you have a rough idea what happens. Moved reasonably quickly when you consider the 2 1/2 hour length. Ignore the major critics ratings. The major critics like gay cowboys, southern racists (apparently the only racists who ever lived), and environmentalist heroes and could not care less about a good story or interesting characters. Expand
  27. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    This is easily one of my favourite films of all time. Great story telling, great balance between humour and adventure, and great acting throughout, especially from Andy Serkis. I have no idea how critics have given it such a low score, other than to appear against the grain and not enjoy a phenomenal piece of cinema, but Empire gave it an 8/10 which should speak volumes compared with other less credited critics. I am tempted to see this film in the cinemas multiple times which I have never done for any other movie. Absolutely Incredible. Expand
  28. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    All of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standard set by the first three films. Forced humor in the Hobbit was an active theme throughout with the goblin king, gollum, etc. This humor was forced into the most inappropriate times during the film where in comparison would be as if The king of Rohan cracked a joke as Soroman's army broke through the walls of helms deep in the second film. The introduction of the brown wizard was both uncalled for as well as degrading the the movie itself. The over the top use of computer graphics in this films took its toll on the film, and left the viewers watching another movie such as Narnia from within the theater, instead of drawing the viewer into both the plot and middle earth itself Expand
  29. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    Very disappointing - insanely too long, with a slow, sleep inducing story, and cgi which looked more like a video game. The LOTR films raised the bar for brilliant make-up and great cgi, all within an emotional storyline with breath-taking cinematography and outstanding credibility. The Hobbit is a cynical grab for cash - why did the orcs, goblins and wargs look so cartoonish ? LOTR had a gritty in-camera reality which The Hobbit totally lacked. It should have been 90-120 minutes long but lost its way. Expand
  30. Jan 1, 2013
    3
    A completely forgettable film, practically an insult to the first 3. While the scenery was quite spectacular, there were to many characters to actually care for them. I was almost hoping for some of the characters to die. Some sections just continued to drag on, with almost no point to them then to just flesh out the 2 and a half hour film. Sections became tedious and repetitive, with little being done to elaborate on many of the characters. Nothing like the originals, and no where near as entertaining. Expand
  31. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I couldn't agree less with the critics on this one. I'm usually on their side, with the exception of Looper (disliked it). I enjoyed absolutely every second of this film. You can almost fall in love with it.
  32. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    As a book stickler, i have to drop the score to a 9 out of 10. As a movie lover, this film was an entertaining and visually a treat for the eyes. I would highly recommend it and have even higher hopes for the next two hobbit movies.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. JMc
    Jan 2, 2013
    2
    I have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeats the purpose. There is a tinny feel to it; I thought I would be getting a voluptuous visual cinematic experience, but far from it. If you can stand the thought of the hours of boredom, at least do yourself the favour of seeing the normal frame rate version. I wish I had. Expand
  36. 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 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
  37. Zal
    Dec 14, 2012
    7
    At times, it drags its feet (especially in the first act) and there is a LOT of padding, but The Hobbit was definitely worth seeing. It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but there was never a moment where I didn't understand what was happening. The newest members of the cast like Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage are fantastic and it was great to see Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee again. I went with two friends who were big LOTR fans and they adored this movie. I look forward to the next installments, although I'm worried about the padding and there will be lots of it. The Hobbit isn't that long a book and I'm wondering how they're going to make 3 movies out of it. Even though this movie has its flaws, it's still worth seeing for the characters, acting, cinematography, and, well, everything else! Expand
  38. Dec 28, 2012
    0
    To me the most important elements of a movies are the story and character development, and this movie has none of these. The story is virtually non-existent and amounts to a succession of chase/fight/rest rinse and repeat for 3 hours. The supporting characters are completely blank, (save maybe for Thorin, the only half decent supporting character with Gandalf) and Bilbo is also fairly uninteresting (there's being laid back and there's having no presence on screen). And the pacing... this movie is absolutely too long with no real reason to it. I had never seen a 3 hour movie that manages to have no character development, it's quite a feat when you think about it. So yeah in my opinion this movie is very shallow despite its great effects, I also liked the 48 fps format I think it has a lot of potential (especially during action scenes) but when it's all mixed with atrocious pacing, zero story and bland characters then it's just a waste of 3 hours. Expand
  39. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    As a long time Lord of the Rings fan, this movie was absolutely perfect. They spent so much time explaining the bits and pieces of where things came from. The acting was extraordinary, and I am so glad this time around, villains and heros are not dead within a matter of minutes, instead they explain the background behind everyone. The Witch King and the Mouth of Sauron for instance in the other movies were completely rushed, and died with feeling of little importance. Don't expect that in this movie. To compare this movie to any others of the series, it is much alike the Fellowship. The armies are not as big, and it is not fight after fight the entire time. It is about the story, and the politics of Middle Earth. I was honestly scared to see this movie because I thought they would mess up the series, and goodness was I pleasantly surprised! Please do not make the next movie biased on the fact that critics are naysaying this one. It was so well done. Expand
  40. 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'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
  41. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Dwarves reclaiming they're homeland from Smaug the Dragon and Bilbo Baggins gets thrown into this epic adventure. Yes I am a huge Lord of The Rings fan and I dare say I prefer it than Star Wars in most circumstances. Just my taste. After hearing the harsh criticism I was going to expect an "okay" movie that was bloated. I'm happy to say it was a fantastic journey of my own. Other than a few minor problems, I thought this was a great movie. I also saw it in 48 fps and I was ready to get disgusted by the visuals but to be truthfully honest I found nothing wrong with this. This is how I saw it but everyone has different taste so therefore the 48 fps for me is alright in my book. I was so happy to return to Middle-Earth. As soon as Bilbo lit the candle the 48 fps was weird, than not even before the camera leaves Bilbo's face, I just got used to it. It does have its pacing problem where it almost never gets to the point, which it didn't bother me at all. Though to a non Tolkien fan you will find it frustrating. The only main characters are Gandalf, Bilbo, and Thorin. Balin, Fili and Kili are secondary characters and that's really all the characters you get to know. There are thirteen dwarves but you don't get almost anything from the majority of the group. Unlike in the Fellowship you get to care and get to know about all the nine members in the first Lord of the Rings. So there aren't character development for the majority. Personally I had enough character development from Martin Freeman who is just so perfect for this role. Ian Mckellen is a legendary presence as always. Thorin played by Richard Armitrage is one of my new favorite characters replacing Aragon as the heroic leader of the group. There is so much development in his character especially the relationship between him and Bilbo and his desire for this quest above anyone. He is the most important new character and a great one. As I have said the acting is nothing short of great. Andy Serkis has come back to grace us with his presence in the best scene of the entire movie. Riddles between Bilbo and Gollum are top notch acting. I would be saddened if he did not return for the rest two installments . Howard Shore's score is as great as it has ever been. As a movie lover and a Tolkien fan I am happy to say its worth a watch, if you're curious about this movie. I don't know if you should watch this in 48 fps but my experience was good. If you love this fantasy as much as I do than I guarantee another great addition to this Epic adventure. You may call me a "fanboy" because I would decline every negative review and by going against all the negative backlash said on the 48 fps or whatever they are nitpicking. Everyone has different experiences. If you thought ill of The Lord of the Rings I'd recommend don't watch it. My score is a 9/10. Expand
  42. Jan 2, 2013
    2
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an unexpected movie with an unexpected experience. The movie simply falls flat on its face. It has the best visuals and effects but the sole purpose of technology is to support your script and enhance experience but one should know that one might be able to bring people to cinema due to the reputation and expectations but won't be able to keep them sit and watch the complete movie if its not good. Screenplay works in bits and pieces for me. Story build-up is a drag. The most disappointing thing is that it failed to deliver what you expected to see. My friends who have read the book], enjoyed it a lot but even they think that it gets too boring in the middle. Expand
  43. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    THE 48FPS IS PERFECTLY FINE AND AMAZING. (I wanted to say that first because all the idiotic critic reviews of the framerate making them sick almost deterred me from going) The fps does take about twenty minutes to get adjusted to, but when you get used to it everything looks amazing. The best looking CGI I have ever seen. Regarding the story line it was a tiny bit slow during the beginning, but can anyone say all parts of every lotr movie were 100% interesting and captivating? No. Once the movie picks up its a fantastic adventure with TONS of action, great dialogue, fantastic musical score reminiscent of LOTR and stunning cinematography. Don't compare this to LOTR, because it's not meant to be. It's an epic adventure in its own right. I watched this movie in 3D 48FPS and i plan to watch it many more times in exactly the same setting. Movies are meant to be this. Expand
  44. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    extremely confused by the critics response to this, i would completely disregard most reviews as this is an excellent film. More lighthearted than LOTR, but then if jackson had given it exactly the same approach people would have criticised him for it. The length seems appropriate, as i didn't notice any sections dragging on and was interested throughout. overall it's an excellent film. IGNORE REVIEWS Expand
  45. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    A master piece by a master directer.
    you feel a real energy and really a master piece of work,
    perfectly the best, includes every thing that was required, no mistake or rough edge....
    LOVE IT
  46. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Lord of the Rings is one of the best sagas in all time of movies bout the Hobbit its not Lord of the Rings you have to understand this and its different but its very good too.
  47. Mar 30, 2013
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. THE HOBBIT AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
    DIRECTOR PETER JACKSON SCREENPLAY: PETER JACKSON PHILLIPA BOYENS GUILERMO DEL TORO FRAN WALSH

    RATING PG-13

    MUSIC : HOWARD SHORE MOVIE GRADE A+

    Often analyzing a movie of one’s beloved franchise is quite difficult. Hence this review is written months after its release. Peter Jackson’s new installment has already rained box office with a whopping $1.02 billion despite several division between film critics and the series of controversies that dwelled around this movie right from the beginning from bankruptcy of MGM to PETA accusations of Animal mistreatment. One would have to say from a critics point of view Jackson is the perfect Talisman and he has pulled through an amazing cinematic display that he has done thrice before. The movie begins with the familiar notes of Howard Shore that has now if not earlier embedded itself in the world of Middle Earth. Our first glimpse of the Hobbit comes with seeing Bilbo in the present age on the day of arrival of Gandalf. Deciding to write a book on his entire adventure that he had sixty years ago he gave an account of the once epic dwarven kingdom of Erebor before it was smothered by the dragon Smaug. Following the prologue we see Bag End and Frodo talking with Bilbo about the Party Invitations. Later on Bilbo recollects the days when he was young.
    The scene moves now to 60 years earlier and it now shows Young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) letting out smoke rings before being stopped unwarily by Gandalf. The story moves at a slow pace where Gandalf invites thirteen dwarves to Bilbo’s place where they begin the planning of a quest to reclaim Erebor. After much negations Bilbo finally agrees and he decides to join the dwarves. There adventure begins with an account of Thorin’s past with the Orc Leader Azog after which they encounter trolls, orcs and wargs before they reach the Elven Kingdom.
    In Rivendell we see some of the lord of the rings characters in unity as the White council takes place with issues discussed of a unseen power in the forest of Mirkwood which was seen by Radagast, the brown wizard. The dwarves then leave Rivendell and takes the road of the misty mountains where they fall in a thunder battle between the mountain sized Stone Giants. Bilbo gets separated from the dwarves as the latter are caught by the mountain goblins and they face the Goblin king. Bilbo on his account meets Gollum and discovers a ring that in due course of time would change the fate of all in middle earth but is all unknown to Bilbo at that time. Escaping the mountains they are being chased by Orcs lead by Azog when the Eagles rescue them The film ends in the company seeing the lonely mountain from a distance and waking of the dragon.
    Although the film contains 1/3 of the content of the book “The Hobbit” it none the less expands the chapters beautifully as well as adding some extra scenes that took place that time but where not included in the book. The film is as enchanting as it can be and more than anything else is a perfect blend between cinematic sequences and music The epic features of the movie are being shown exceptionally and one can say confidently that we cannot imagine middle earth without Peter Jackson now. The small children’s classic tale being turned into an epic journey that asks for less but sure delivers a lot. Despite being on the slower side the pace gradually picks up and ends in a blast much the fireworks of Gandalf. This is a must watch for all movie goers as it is filled with literary artistic and entertainment values.
    Expand
  48. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    After reading mixed critics I begun to worry.

    You shouldn't. Critics do not like it because they keep comparing it with LOTR, and it is not. This is an adventure written on a kids book. The story is lighter, and the only thing that LOTR and this have in common is the place and the ring.

    I watched it on 48fps and I really liked it. It made 3d more appealing and everything beautiful.
    The only problem of 48fps was that it was so real, that sometimes you could notice cgi.

    But the technology is not the film, just the media and I am reviewing the film (although I liked 48fps)

    The story is faithful to the book and brought me back to a place I thought I would never visit again. Just being back in middle earth is amazing.

    Martin as Bilbo, Richard as Thorin and Ian as Gandalf reprise their roles with excellence. And thanks to the division into three films we get to know more about the other dwarfs and care about them.

    The riddles in the dark scene is outstanding. And Howard Shore's composition is brilliant as ever.

    I could not have wanted more from this film. A fun, and amazing comeback to a great adventure to come.
    Expand
  49. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    This is a fantastic adaptation of one of my favorite books. I often found myself simply smiling in the theater, overtaken by the same magic that I first found as a child. While not as serious as the Lord of the Rings trilogy (The Hobbit was a Children's book followed 15+ Years later by the more mature Lord of the Rings trilogy) it has it's fantastic fight scenes and dramatic moments that leave you breathless and wanting more. This movie is not perfect and one scene in particular irked me considerably for a while but aside from that, this movie is near perfect. 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
    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. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    After 9 years we are back to middle earth. Gandalf the Grey chose Bilbo Bagins to help Thorin to take back Erebor. One hobbit,one wizard,thirteen dwarves. Peter Jackson delivered us one more epic adventure back in middle earth. It is a three hour masterpiece.
  52. 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, 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
  53. Jan 4, 2013
    1
    A high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantly going from moments of safety to moments of extreme danger and quite frankly it's just plain boring. The film left me with no incentive to watch any of the sequels. Expand
  54. Feb 9, 2013
    2
    This is a stunning visual experience at times. What ruins it for me is the lack of unique content.
    I got the same experience as I did with the first movies. This film also features some of the most ridiculous CG sequences I have ever seen in a high budget movie. It looks utterly fake, and it is about time the people who animate these things, take a physics course. At the very least, try
    to make gravity appear uniform. Expand
  55. 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. 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
  56. May 4, 2013
    3
    This movie was just horrible! I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but this left me with a feeling of a quick cash grab and the more childish tone of the movie did not appeal to me..
  57. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The acting, the action, the 3D graphics - everything was absolutely outstanding and I have NO idea why there are so many negative reviews. You guys need to open your eyes and realize what a good film this is.
  58. 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. 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
  59. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Fantastic and very well done movie. The critics were/are, as usual, insignificant in their stupidity and love of Hollywoods current obsession with dark depressing ideas. Here's a movie that is beautiful to watch, well scripted, well acted, incredibly grand in scope, meaningful, family friendly yet not boring, and in truth, more exactly fitting to Tolkien's book than was Jackson's previous adaptation of The Lord of The Rings. Expand
  60. 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 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
  61. 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 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
  62. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    Boy could critics of been any more wrong? What a fantastic film the 48 fps looks AMAZING in 3D and it is really going to take film to a new level. Im just not sure what the critics deal was with this awesome film I mean they seem to just nit pick so much its annoying.
  63. Dec 31, 2012
    10
    Please - pay no heed to soulless modernist critics who are dead inside and have no stomach for a film that is pure magic. I saw the film today, finally, and I went into the cinema with no small amount of trepidation after having read a number of less than stellar reviews. I need not have troubled myself. The film was a quasi-spiritual experience for me. It's perfectly enunciated themes of unashamed heroism, self-sacrifice, loyalty, nobility and courage were presented in a dazzling array of scenes that were filled with adventure and laden with meaning. It is clear that Jackson is using this trilogy as a vehicle to tell us not only the thrilling story of The Hobbit, but also a broader story drawn from the appendices from Lord of the Rings, painting a magnificent picture of the world leading up to the War for the Ring. I came out of the session totally speechless - and profoundly impacted. After having re-read some of the critic reviews I can only conclude that they have some philosophical bias that prevents them from giving Jackson the praise he so richly deserves; either that or there is some effort afoot to bring Jackson down, or prevent another Tolkienian conquest of popular media. It is true the values and subtext of the film speak strongly of traditional values - perhaps this is an unwelcome message for some. For me, it speaks directly to the human heart in a manner so powerful and so seldom achieved nowadays that it is all the more magical when it does happen. Truly inspiring, eye-opening, thrilling. I could go into details and try to explain just how wonderful it all is, how perfectly cast, how masterfully crafted... but words fail - just go see it. It is truly a masterpiece. Note: I saw the film in 24fps, 3D. No technical complaints whatsoever. Expand
  64. 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, 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
  65. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    I enjoyed it, not as much as any of the LOTR but it's hard to recreated the majesty of the first trilogy. I was hoping we would see more of the spiders and maybe even a peek at Beorn, but it will make it worth the wait for the second movie.
  66. 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
  67. 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.
  68. Dec 22, 2012
    10
    The movie is made wonderfully, great cure for the details, photography and soundtrack exceptionally stunning and amazing as in LOTR. Whatever people (or better, critics that do not deserve their job) could say, technology is fundamental in the future of cinema, and The Hobbit gives a beautiful glance at what could be the standards of future movies: 3D is wonderfully rendered and CGI reaches its top levels for now. The plot is very well adapted from the book, and all the changes are fully understandable and appreciable (always remember that a movie is NOT a book). Fundamental warning: this isn't LOTR! The circumstances, tone and messages of this story are completely different!! Do not expect to see a master-of-epicness like LOTR, but a much more light and humorous narration, set in the same amazing world of LOTR, Middle-earth. Given this, enjoy this masterpiece, and thank you PJ! :) Expand
  69. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is an amazing movie, although it isn't exactly as good as The Lord of the Rings people need to stop comparing the two because they are two different movies. The Hobbit was written for younger audiences.
  70. Dec 22, 2012
    4
    Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!
  71. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    A magical movie. nothing new, nothing unexpected but a wonderful epic tale given in the most fascinating fashion. for almost 3 hours you are part of the most worm and magical grandfathers tale. the critics hate it the audience loved it. maybe we have to reevaluate the purpose of cinema.
  72. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Though not quite as good as the Lord of the Rings films, the first installment of the planned Hobbit trilogy was engaging, fun, and beautiful. Some may argue that it takes to long to start but the beginning is filled with fun moments that introduce the characters as well as the quest that will occupy these three films. It does a fantastic job conveying that the Hobbit is more of a bit less serious than the Lord of the Rings and kids will be sure to get a few laughs. Peter Jackson is once again able to show the beauty of Middle Earth with stunning shots of the land and is able to convey the grand scope of the quest effectively. The performances were absolutely fantastic. Sir Ian McKellen delivers once again as the wizard Gandalf and Martin Freeman was incredibly charming as Bilbo Baggins. Though there are a lot of dwarves to keep track of and some of them are more forgettable than others, all performances are solid and Jackson allows pretty much all of them at least some dialogue. I am sure they will get more notice in the next two films. The only downside is that at times there is a feel of overuse of CGI. Part of what made the LotR films great was the mix of real with CGI. Most of the orcs are completely CGI and therefore the combat seems to be lacking. But seeing as this is a happier movie series that isn't combat driven like the LotR films it is forgivable. For those wondering how such a relatively short book will span three films, Jackson adapts many of Tolkien's other writings to the film as to provide background and context. To people who read The Hobbit that may recall something in the film not happening in the book, don't worry it is nothing that Tolkien didn't already write. Overall The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a fantastic film that is tons of fun and does a great job introducing characters and kicking of the beloved epic tale that will take two more installments. Any fan of Tolkien will love it... unless your just a dick. Expand
  73. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    CRITICS GOT IT WRONG!!!! And I may have a hard time taking critics seriously ever again. This year, a lot of blockbuster movies were released (e.g. Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers) but The Hobbit surpassed them all and takes the crown as most exciting film of 2012. At first, I wondered at the logic of dividing the book into three parts. But I am a believer as the longer length allows you to fully immerse and appreciate yourself in this wonderful world of middle earth. Wonderful, magical, exciting! You must go watch this film!! Expand
  74. Dec 20, 2012
    10
    For the first time in 9 years, Peter Jackson takes us back to Middle Earth with the premiere of his prequel trilogy, "The Hobbit" - and what a return it is! "An Unexpected Journey" is like a drink of cold water on a hot summer day . . . a wonderfully satisfying romp of a film full of strong characters, top-notch acting, gorgeous special effects and sweeping cinematography. Take all the epic sensations of LOTR, stick them onto a pure adventure story, and you arrive at this. Jackson immerses us in Middle Earth like never before - the film lives and breathes this world, and loves every minute of it. It's superbly well-done beginning to end, and the signature scene with Gollum is Andy Serkis's best performance of the character yet. Not only that, but we get to see the humble life of another wizard, Radagast; we're introduced to the presence of a sinister necromancer; we're breathtaken by a simply stunning sequence involving stone giants; we're swept through an epic battle in the goblin mountains; and ultimately, we are teased to the reveal of Smaug the dragon. It's just a beautiful, grand delight right from the start - the inner child of "LOTR" - and for anyone who enjoys simply experiencing Jackson's Middle Earth, this movie will quite likely dethrone the previous trilogy as your favorite of the series. Full 10 out of 10 for an awesome start to a highly promising new set of installments. Expand
  75. 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 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
  76. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    It pains me to see so many people comparing The Hobbit to The lord of the rings movies. The Hobbit is a completely different story and really doesn't have much to do with lotr, therefore, I don't see this as a prequel and I never will. I think that they did a great job adding stuff that wasn't in the book in order to make this first movie more exciting and interesting.
    The ''Riddles in
    the dark'' scene with Bilbo and Gollum was just glorious. I could watch that for hours and still not be bored. The ending of the movie was really good too, Bilbo took a huge step as a character and I would say it was quite emotional, the bonds between the main characters are getting stronger. Expand
  77. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    The movie is outstanding, although it wasn't as good as the any of the movies of The Lord of The Rings it sure made a good impression. It was filled with beautiful scenarios and stunning characters that had a very good acting. It is guaranteed that for most people it will exceed expectations, for others however should look for a more intense action movie if this wasn't entertaining enough, because even if it is a little wearing it is worth watching the beauty of the movie and it's history Expand
  78. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Amazing movie! It perfectly sets the pace for the next two movies and ties it with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Great sets, beautiful soundtrack and spot on script. Peter Jackson brings us back to Middle Earth! Technically is even better than the LOTR.
  79. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is amazing. A perfect adventure. Through excellent characters such as Bilbo, Gollum (very good), Gandalf, among others, the film reveals extremely fun. Do not believe the notes of specialized critics, the film is monumental.
  80. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I watched this movie without looking at any reviews before hand, but afterwards I was shocked at how low they were. The movie wasn't perfect but I would say it is just as good as the fellowship, if not better. If you liked the Lord of the Rings, then this is a must see. You won't be disappointed unless you are expecting an exact replica of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
  81. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I have read a fair amount of other's reviews on this movie before writing my own. Most of them were negative reviews because I wanted to see why their opinions differed so much from my own. It seems to me that those writing the more negative reviews tend to analyze things on a far deeper level than I ever do. Some talk about how they notice prosthetics on actors, painted scenes, or even even how they thought someone hanging onto the edge of a cliff about ready to fall before being pulled back up was dumb because too many other movies use that. I'm bringing this up because I usually never even notice such things while I am watching movies and I want to set up my perspective. I thought the movie was exciting and humorous. I loved seeing the dwarves story and their history that led to the point of the movie as well as Thorin's personal history. The humor that the dwarves had constantly brought a smile to my face while watching the movie. I also loved seeing Bilbo's own struggle to find his place within the company throughout the movie as he was mostly looked on as a burden by the others. I also saw the movie in the new 48fps HFR format, which many of the preliminary reviews were negative. Almost all of the negativity, that read at least, on this was that the picture looked either too good or weird. I completely don't understand the looking too good part of those reviews so I'm not going into that. As for the weird part I can understand somewhat. For the first 15-20 minutes of the film it almost looked like everyone was moving at a slightly faster speed than normal, such as 1.1x or 1.2x the normal speed reminded me of the creepy jerking motion that is used in scary movies. I think my eyes just had to adjust to it, however, because after that 15-20 minute time frame I didn't notice it anymore and the picture seemed normal to me. Expand
  82. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Most of the writers of negative and mixed reviews must be hopped up.
    I can't understand how people can say this movie is too slow paced or too long. I was kinda sad when the film ended, I could have sit for 3 hours more in the cinemas and that's always a good sign.
    Of course, "The Hobbit" has its weaknesses, but I am gladly willing to accept these if I get brilliant scenes like "Riddles
    in the Dark" on the other hand.
    Can't wait for the next part.
    Expand
  83. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Another masterful movie from Peter Jackson that fans of Tolken will fall in love with. Some have said it was to long, i only wished it lasted longer. This is a masterpiece that does the book proud. I look forward to the second and third parts.
  84. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    This movie is clearly worth seeing again and again. If you liked LOTR, you'll love "The Hobbit". It stays with the same universe, the same story and the same idea.
    I was afraid that it could be disappointing from LOTR but it is the contrary, it is maybe even better than LOTR.
    Peter Jackson didn't only use the book "Bilbo" but also the appendices of the third LOTR book which is a
    fantastic idea. It makes the wonderful world made by Tolkien get into movie.
    The landscape are extraordinary, the 3D is the best I have ever seen, very well used and HFR makes action easier to follow.
    Expand
  85. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    This is AMAZING movie, i've seen 3 times and absolutely love it! Peter Jackson is like Hobbit, he knew how to do great job. Love Stone Giants, Gollum riddles and Dwarfs, photography is outstanding, music by H.Shore good as before Martin Freeman as Bilbo is PERFECT, Sir Ian as Gandalf is my best movie character form The Hobbit. YOU MUST SEE THE MOVIE ASAP
  86. 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.
  87. 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
  88. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit IS NOT Lord of the Rings. It's starting a new franchise with its own touch. The book is lighter and fun, and the movie is a wonderful adaptation of the book. Critics didn't see the same movie as i did, for sure. I loved it!
  89. Dec 25, 2012
    1
    Very boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and on and on.. All a bit cheesy, like a video game. Dwarves badly made up, some having false noses, others not. This film lacked magic and charm. Expand
  90. Dec 27, 2012
    9
    This film is not bad. At least, no where near as bad as critics and some of my friends are making it out to be. If you have read the book, you will notice a lot of changes, some probably unnecessary (I'll never understand why they made Radagast the way they did, let alone include him at all) but you have to consider it in the way that it was intended and originally written; as both a prequel to The Lord Of The Rings and more importantly, a stand-alone story. If you go into the cinema expecting a continuation of the Lord Of The Rings movies, you would be best to change your attitude, because The Hobbit is a completely different animal. Expand
  91. 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
  92. 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 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
  93. 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
    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
  94. Apr 7, 2013
    8
    Personally, I don't understand why the critics were so harsh with this one. The story is captivating, the acting is very good and the art is stunning. Some complained about compugraphics that were too apparent, but to me, telling a story successfully is more important than perfectly credible an utopia compugraphics.
    I read the book very long ago, and from what I remember, the movie
    seems to captivate the spirit of the story.
    In addition, to my pleasure, I did not find some of the annoying weeping scenes (hobbits), the ridiculous comic reliefs (e.g. Legolas skating the shield down the stairs), abusive slow-motion dramas, and fuzzy fight scenes of the LOTR.
    The only complain I have, and that is a major one, is that Jackson decided to make this a movie trilogy, only to make more money with it.
    In addition to unnecessarily making each movie longer, it forces us to wait for the rest year after year.
    Expand
  95. Feb 14, 2013
    3
    plenty of reviews have already nailed this so ill just say bored the life out of me. watching it i couldn't stop thinking is this one movie stretched into 3 just to line some pockets? really looked forward to this, tried to like it. but... do you give points for prettiness? on substance alone i can only give this a 3....
  96. Mar 10, 2013
    3
    Not enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, and get up without a scratch and run along. Far too similar to the Fellowship of the Ring, far too boring and redundant. Apparently there aren't even orcs in the Hobbit by Tolkein, but only goblins (and spiders and eagles) instead!! What a laugh.

    Too much like Lord of the Rings. Obviously it's the same Middle Earth/Gandolf/ring/etc... but the Hobbit is not as grand a story as the Lord of the Rings. It is a much shorter/concise story. Watching this movie almost cuts into my enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings. As good as LOTR was, the Hobbit is just as bad. What a mess. They really cared about LOTR and Tolkein for the first 3 movies, I think they just wanted more money with the Hobbit.
    Expand
  97. Jun 13, 2013
    0
    What am I a child? I wasted my time watching this pile of junk that was neither interesting or entertaining. Since I was a fan of LOTR I expected Jackson to deliver. A waste of money it was to sit through this stupid cartoon-ish looking movie.
  98. 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 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
  99. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    I found the new Hobbit movie to be a thoroughly enjoyable and engaging journey! I was a huge fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, and was hoping that this movie would take me back to that world and allow me to live there for a few more hours. It accomplished that and much more! The 3D was very well done and definitely enhanced the film and made it even more engrossing. The characters were great, I loved Bilbo and Gandalf and the dwarf characters were great fun and felt true to character. The story was well told and kept me interested the whole 3 hours, and waiting for part 2 as soon as it ended. I knock one point off because I felt like the final action sequence was unnecessarily overdone. But that is a small complaint and this film will fit nicely into the awesome legacy the Lord of the Rings. Expand
  100. 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 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
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.