User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2540 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. Feb 24, 2013
    2
    David Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this toDavid Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this to be just as good. It was a terrible interpretation. The dwarves are silly in the movie they are not in the book. There is much more violence in the movie than in the book. And, the violence is largely gratuitous with boring, drawn out scenes that are well over the top. No doubt video-gamers will like it, but this is a movie not a videogame The other Wizard, living in the forest as its caretaker, is made to look a fool in the book he is not. The escape scenes are also much drawn out and absolutely unbelievable as in so completely unbelievable that I thought I was watching a Saturday morning cartoon. Visually the movie looks attractive, but since the plot is so wretchedly twisted the almost three-hours for me was tortuous the last 60 minutes I was twitching so much in my seat that I no doubt bothered my niegbors in the theater. Mr. Jackson did not need to add in the new characters and plot twists. Tolkien's work has very elaborate text and explanations that could easily have been incorporated to make a three-part series without the "new" material. He could have used much more character and plot development, increased the suspense and reduced the violence. I will see the next two chapters in the cinema, but not with nearly as much anticipation as I had for this first chapter and for the three Lord of the Rings movie. Expand
  2. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    I believe this to be another situation where the movie critics are out of touch with what people actually enjoy. The scenery was spot on, the acting was very good, and the script had a lot of development in it; granted three movies might be a stretch(primary reason it gets a 9 instead of a 10). As a parent who's kid just finished reading the Hobbit and will soon be finished the Lord ofI believe this to be another situation where the movie critics are out of touch with what people actually enjoy. The scenery was spot on, the acting was very good, and the script had a lot of development in it; granted three movies might be a stretch(primary reason it gets a 9 instead of a 10). As a parent who's kid just finished reading the Hobbit and will soon be finished the Lord of the Rings book; she's hardly put them down over the last couple weeks. These movies are a boon: Expand
  3. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From the moment the Hobbit started my jaw was on the floor till the end, the whole exsperience, the HFR, 3D still hate it, would prefer just HFR to the amazing scenary, special effects, story obviously is amazing but fleshed out and thank (Tolkein) Jackson chose to do it. this film would have awful plot holes if he didnt. My only quarrel was it was 20 minutes too short, 3 hrs was what I was expecting and that is expected from a Lotrs related movie. They are for people who want to see a long film, in no way what so every did this feel long and over stretch like some early reviews have said, I have come to realise the early reviews are always the one sided ones because a bad review will always stand out over a good one, reading reviews before a movie can actually make alot of people dislike the movie because they believe the review. The Hobbit is an exception, it is already a classic and 11 years from now I can hear people saying The Hobbit trilogy was great than the LOTRs trilogy, we just need the next 2 movies to prove it because The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey beats all three Ring Movies as the best adaptation of Tolkiens work. Expand
  4. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    It was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR wasIt was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR was a groundbreaking effort that appealed to the "masses" and not just the hard core fans of Tolkien. And a little more than a decade after the film of LotR came Hobbit. For me every little second of the film was a revival of the book, giving picture, sound and life to the fantastic characters of the book. It couldn't have been done in a better way. If you did not like it, you wouldn't probably like the book. There are moments that your backbone shivers by the thrilling scenes, mainly during the singing and fighting of the dwarven company. To wrap it up, Bilbo was the best Bilbo I would expect to see and I wouldn't change a second of the little character's performance in a bit. Really looking forward to the next part(s)! Expand
  5. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Well, did it live up to the hype? In most instances, yes it did. However, there were a few things that could have been changed or made better in this first installment of The Hobbit. I happened to see it in IMAX 3D, and the IMAX part was phenomal, as it always is, but the 3D i felt like was more of a gimmick, and just wasn't really needed. It definitely looked a lot better than most 3D'sWell, did it live up to the hype? In most instances, yes it did. However, there were a few things that could have been changed or made better in this first installment of The Hobbit. I happened to see it in IMAX 3D, and the IMAX part was phenomal, as it always is, but the 3D i felt like was more of a gimmick, and just wasn't really needed. It definitely looked a lot better than most 3D's have, it was shot with those 3D cameras, so I would expect that it would look better, but I could have easily watched it in 2D and had the same experience. I might go back and try out the higher framerate, although this may make it seem even more gimmicky and less immersive. The acting was mostly top-notch, with Martin Freeman as Bilbo, Ian Mckellen as Gandalf (of course), Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, and Andy Serkis as Gollum (once again, of course) really standing out. The other dwarves were very good, but almost just seemed like background characters, rather than characters you felt more emotionally attached to. (ie, the 4 hobbits in LOTR). The action sequences were wonderful, however the CGI made it feel almost fake and more like a video game than a movie. Basically anything non-human in this movie was animated, and it was evident that some of the dwarves and Bilbo were just swinging at thin-air rather than an enemy in some instances. While the animation gave the producers more freedom and creativity, it made the movie feel less real and organic, as the LOTR trilogy had because they had used live actors to portray the orcs, and some other creatures. Granted, I know the trolls and gollum, and other creatures like that have to be animated, but the orcs and goblins in this movie could have been live actors. It almost seems as if it was a bit rushed. Well, at least that aspect of it. While some complained that the beginning of the movie was too long, and took forever to work into the story, I did not feel that as I watched it. I enjoyed the fleshing out of the back story because I feel like the LOTR trilogy could have had more backstory (I know the films were very long, and this was the reason for less backstory), but I enjoyed hearing everything about The Hobbit. Overall though, this movie was outstanding. It had it's great moments, where you felt emotionally attached to a character, or that superb soundtrack kicked in at the perfect time, and how can i forget, the best part of the movie, the riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum. Also, it had quite a few more laughs than the original 3, which was very welcome. So, I say go see it! While it doesnt recapture the brilliance of the FOTR, it is still a film that is very worth your time and money. Thus, I give it a 9. Expand
  6. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    These critics who panned The Hobbit wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face. It was EXCELLENT, and I'm a true Tolkien fan. The film was definitely geared towards the fans, but had enough action and storyline to please non-fans. It is a prequel worthy of Jackson's Thrilling and Successful LOTR Trilogy. So what if you have absolutely no idea where Gondolin is or whoThese critics who panned The Hobbit wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face. It was EXCELLENT, and I'm a true Tolkien fan. The film was definitely geared towards the fans, but had enough action and storyline to please non-fans. It is a prequel worthy of Jackson's Thrilling and Successful LOTR Trilogy. So what if you have absolutely no idea where Gondolin is or who Ungoliant was? Jackson is a true Tolkien fan and I thank him for leaving in songs and words which trigger countless meanings and thrilling stories in the hearts of Tolkien fans. Stories which I hope to one day see on the big screen = ) Expand
  7. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    I felt home again. Everything was perfect. Thank you for bringing just a little bit more beauty to this world, cast and crew of The Hobbit. There is not a single complaint I can come up with for this film. By all means, I don't want to.
  8. 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
  9. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Was a bit concerned after seeing the films fairly low score on here and on rotten but the film is absolutely perfect. I'm tempted to say it's even better than the previous 3 films in terms of it's scope, it's beautiful imagery and the special effects. I was enchanted for the entire duration of the movie, not a dull moment. Plenty of action too, probably more action than the other threeWas a bit concerned after seeing the films fairly low score on here and on rotten but the film is absolutely perfect. I'm tempted to say it's even better than the previous 3 films in terms of it's scope, it's beautiful imagery and the special effects. I was enchanted for the entire duration of the movie, not a dull moment. Plenty of action too, probably more action than the other three (not combined of course). Anyone who says the film is too long either doesn't like the film in general (so it seems drawn out) or just has a rubbish attention span. For me it was over in a flash. A masterpiece. Peter Jackson maintains his legendary status in my eyes. Expand
  10. 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.
  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 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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 bitThough 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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 evenI 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
  20. 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
    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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
    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
  24. 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....
  25. Dec 14, 2012
    8
    The things that struck me about it were one, it
  26. Dec 14, 2012
    8
    "The Hobbit" was great, of course. The only complaint I have is the same one that critics said about the first three (that I disagree with in respect to those films): It
  27. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    While the pacing drags for the first portion of the movie, particularly in the Radagast sequences, Peter Jackson once again brings us a Middle-Earth well worthy of Tolkien's novels and histories. Cate Blanchett particularly shines when she reprises her role from the LotR trilogy as Galadriel, exuding a power that positively sends shivers down the spine. Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage asWhile the pacing drags for the first portion of the movie, particularly in the Radagast sequences, Peter Jackson once again brings us a Middle-Earth well worthy of Tolkien's novels and histories. Cate Blanchett particularly shines when she reprises her role from the LotR trilogy as Galadriel, exuding a power that positively sends shivers down the spine. Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield are both perfectly cast, and their dynamic as characters is absolutely excellent.

    Gollum, once again, brings a twisted sort of fun in the Riddles in the Dark sequence, and the Ring still bears that soft power to it that seduces and twists. Meanwhile, the hobbit sensibility of Bilbo Baggins is exceptionally relatable even as I sit here with my laptop and mug of tea, reflecting on adventure and home and everything it means to go out your door.

    Many of Tolkien's songs also appear in the movie, lending both light-heartedness and emotional resonance. I actually felt tears in my eyes during the "Far over the Misty Mountains" song, and was pleasantly surprised by the darkly funny "Goblintown." If this movie does not receive an Oscar nomination for its score, I will be deeply disappointed and most offended.

    The 3D was subtle, too, and I am glad of that. Jackson once again shows restraint with the temptation of overusing special effects -- what few there were did not intrude on the story so as to throw me out of it. Once again, Middle-Earth feels as real as the floor under my feet, and for that, I am deeply, deeply thankful.
    Expand
  28. 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.
  29. 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,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
  30. 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
  31. 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 aThe 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
  32. 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 theTHE 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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 thatThis 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
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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 wasStandalone 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    I had very modest expectations coming into this film. I was disappointed by the first two films in the LOTR triology and found them non-memorable and flat. An unexpected Journey is charming from the start, and even though the first half is a little bloated (my primary criticism of the film), the second half is terribly exciting, and I love the characterization of Bilbo Baggins and theI had very modest expectations coming into this film. I was disappointed by the first two films in the LOTR triology and found them non-memorable and flat. An unexpected Journey is charming from the start, and even though the first half is a little bloated (my primary criticism of the film), the second half is terribly exciting, and I love the characterization of Bilbo Baggins and the way he's ingratiated into the crew of dwarves. I find the characters in the first installment of The Hobbit to be much more relatable and sympathetic than any of them in the LOTR series. I'll take young Bilbo over young Frodo any day as a protagonist. I will say that Gollum injects a special energy into the film that crests all the way to its conclusion. So yes, the film won me over in ways I truly did not expect. Expand
  44. 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
  45. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Marked it down a point for two very ropey effects (spotted), an inappropriate Joss Whedon-esque line of dialogue courtesy of the Goblin King and a **** Wilhelm Scream.

    Otherwise pure brilliance
  46. 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 toThe 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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 peopleFell 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
  49. 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 hadVery 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
  50. 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, withA 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
  51. 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 fairlyTo 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
  52. 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 sitThe 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
  53. 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
    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
  54. 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
  55. 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 previousFantastic 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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 CGIThe 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
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. 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 youCRITICS 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
  62. 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,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
  63. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Amazing! Don't believe the negative reviews from the critics. If you loved the first trilogy or are a fan of the books, you're going to love, love, love this movie. I saw it in regular 2-D, so I can't speak to the frame rate issues, but if it worries you, just skip it. THE HOBBIT RULED!
  64. 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
    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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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!
  68. 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
  69. 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. TheI 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
  70. 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
  71. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    great movie, those reviewers are like the users in video games. Great special effects, while lighter in humor and not as dark as lord of the rings, its still one amazing achievement. Another by peter jackson who just shows that he knows this very well. Incredible movie. Martin Freeman is amazing and so is everyone else. To no like this and to like LOTR is to be a hypocrite. Whilegreat movie, those reviewers are like the users in video games. Great special effects, while lighter in humor and not as dark as lord of the rings, its still one amazing achievement. Another by peter jackson who just shows that he knows this very well. Incredible movie. Martin Freeman is amazing and so is everyone else. To no like this and to like LOTR is to be a hypocrite. While maybe not as good it certainly still is an amazing experience. Expand
  72. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    A great movie all around. I actually enjoyed the light hearted opening to the film contrary to most reviewers. Acting, story and effects/action were very well done. It is a long movie but my only complaint about that was my theater has terrible seats :)
  73. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie has given me a feeling of epic-ness I have not felt since I watched the Lord of the Rings. As always, you will have the butthurt fools who will give actors death threats and complain endlessly due to the most minute changes from the book, as well as the critics who only give good reviews when bribed, or are zealots and like I said earlier, will whine endlessly of the smallest of changes. The movies animation was near-prefect, and the acting was phenomenal, especially during the prologue in Erebor and the White Council. While Radagast's acting was a bit silly, it was still very good in itself. Anyone who does not see this is missing out on so much, I would almost call them foolish. Expand
  74. 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
  75. Mar 22, 2013
    9
    Rewritten review. After watching the video. I have to say this movie is just plain fun. The over the top action sequences are short and even though when I saw the movie in the theatre the late movie action seemed like the Bridge at Khazad Dum scene repeated, after watching the video they are not out of place. Just a little indulgent. Some parts deserve a ten but overall a 9.
  76. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Ann Hornaday you are an incredibly bad critic, find a new job. This movie turned out to be quite delightful, I was skeptical hence all of the negative reviews. but now i see that the user score speaks a whole lot more than the critic score. GO SEE THIS MOVIE, if you are a fan of lotro, or fantasy in general.
  77. Dec 27, 2012
    7
    Though it packs visual grandeur beyond our greatest imaginations, it is a film whose pace is deathly slow and indolent - it slogs on painfully, resulting in the bloated, overlong film that it is. 'The Hobbit' has its resplendent moments which remind you that Peter Jackson is the director, but these moments are too seldom found in the film. Furthermore, the conflicting forces of a demeanorThough it packs visual grandeur beyond our greatest imaginations, it is a film whose pace is deathly slow and indolent - it slogs on painfully, resulting in the bloated, overlong film that it is. 'The Hobbit' has its resplendent moments which remind you that Peter Jackson is the director, but these moments are too seldom found in the film. Furthermore, the conflicting forces of a demeanor of innocence (which is derived from the fact the book was written for children) and the epic tone that is attempted to be carried on from the Lord of the Rings trilogy results in an overall effect of inconsistency and general lack of acuity in the tone of the film. "The Hobbit" is satisfying because of the power of the on-screen spectacles and the near-hymnic power of the sound track, despite its obvious inability to even loiter in the same league as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Expand
  78. 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
  79. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    I didn't expect the movie to be this good. Seeing Gandalf, Bilbo, and Smeagol/Gollum really bring back old memories from the Lord of the Rings series. The dwarves were awesome too, each dwarves has different personality and characteristics, some were cool and funny. I don't know why but I was more excited about the story in this one than the Lord of the Rings series. The story cover up soI didn't expect the movie to be this good. Seeing Gandalf, Bilbo, and Smeagol/Gollum really bring back old memories from the Lord of the Rings series. The dwarves were awesome too, each dwarves has different personality and characteristics, some were cool and funny. I don't know why but I was more excited about the story in this one than the Lord of the Rings series. The story cover up so much details, some references from LOTR which was cool. Visually, the best looking film I seen so far..breathtaking visuals and effects. Settings were amazing, from pretty looking grasslands to the breathtaking mountain tops and caves. Scenery was just amazing. My only problem with the film was that there were some scene that felt unnecessary, like your wondering why that scene even existed? just a minor complaint. Overall, a great film and for those that are fans of Lord of the Rings, you will love this film. Three words describing this film, EPIC, BREATHTAKING, AND EXCITING. Expand
  80. 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
  81. Dec 14, 2012
    8
    This movie was great representation of the book. II found myself worried going to see it with all the bad press, but now I can't wait for the next installments. After reading the story countless times I could have gone without the extra character building in the beginning, but didn't find it unnecessary with people new to the story. If you like the book this is a must see, at leastThis movie was great representation of the book. II found myself worried going to see it with all the bad press, but now I can't wait for the next installments. After reading the story countless times I could have gone without the extra character building in the beginning, but didn't find it unnecessary with people new to the story. If you like the book this is a must see, at least once. If you haven't read the book... well that is just sad, it is only 250 pages, go read it :) Expand
  82. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    Whilst a lot lighter in tone this is still a worthy entry into the Lord of the Rings franchise. I saw the movie in old school 24fps 2D and enjoyed it a lot. Ignore the critics, go see it, and make up your own mind.
  83. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" have respected my expectations, it's an amazing movie, that respects the original Tolkien's work, and it is linked with the LOTR trilogy thanks to elements picked up by the Silmarillion and LOTR Appendices cleverly inserted by Peter Jackson!!
    Costumes, soundtrack, and interpretations were perfect, i loved Armitage as Thorin and Freeman as Bilbo!
    I
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" have respected my expectations, it's an amazing movie, that respects the original Tolkien's work, and it is linked with the LOTR trilogy thanks to elements picked up by the Silmarillion and LOTR Appendices cleverly inserted by Peter Jackson!!
    Costumes, soundtrack, and interpretations were perfect, i loved Armitage as Thorin and Freeman as Bilbo!
    I watched the movie in HFR 3D, and I fully refute the criticism towards this new technology, it was amazing! It takes 10 minutes to get used to the eye, but the result was incredible! An image sharpness never seen before! Good job PJ, 9/10
    Expand
  84. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Peter Jackson's latest foray into Middle Earth is far and away different from the original "Lord of the Rings" trilogy he started over a decade ago. The pacing in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is far closer to the pacing that Tolkien was so fond of, which unfortunately for the unweathered, can appear cumbersome at first. In general, the film is much closer to the tone and detailingPeter Jackson's latest foray into Middle Earth is far and away different from the original "Lord of the Rings" trilogy he started over a decade ago. The pacing in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is far closer to the pacing that Tolkien was so fond of, which unfortunately for the unweathered, can appear cumbersome at first. In general, the film is much closer to the tone and detailing of the original work than the Lord of the Rings trilogy was. Thorin and Bilbo's actor's do a phenomenal job in my humble opinion, as do McKellen and the rest of the original trilogy's cast that make an appearance(though who honestly expected otherwise from such illustrious names?).

    On the downside, the CGI is quite heavy and is highly distracting in some scenes. I was somewhat disappointed to learn that the orcs were no longer going to be live actors anymore, as I feel that is what made them feel so perfect in the Lord of the Rings films. However, after the initial portion of the film, and excluding a few other portions, the CGI lightens up a bit and isn't as distracting(this is largely due to the Del Toro -- Jackson shift if you ask me).

    Overall, the movie is fantastic. It's very close, especially in tone, to the book, despite having some extra things added (some from Tolkien's own lore, a bit made up for the movie). I feel that Jackson is only beginning to tap into the film set, and I'm very optimistic about the future films.
    Expand
  85. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    And epic adventure of 13 unlikely heroes, The Hobbit is a great movie worthy of Tolkien's work, and one of Jackson's best movies to date. Watching in awe as the camera flies through the majestic mountain kingdom of Erebor was enough for me to be satisfied with the film... and that was only the first scene!
  86. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    I loved it! It's pace is rather relaxed when compared to the previous movies, but I was more than happy to sit back and absorb the scenery and atmosphere. I liked the dwarves and I sympathize with their lost patrimony. The movie did everything it needed to do, plus some appreciated extras. This will not be my last time seeing this movie. Can't wait to see Smaug!
  87. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Couldn't have hoped for a better movie to begin a new trilogy in the Lotr universe. The graphics were incredible (I'm currently studying in the 3D industry, and I honestly don't understand those who said that the CGI was bad), the story had a lot of depth, the characters were incredibly well played and the music honored the lotr trilogy while having its own spirit.

    There will always be
    Couldn't have hoped for a better movie to begin a new trilogy in the Lotr universe. The graphics were incredible (I'm currently studying in the 3D industry, and I honestly don't understand those who said that the CGI was bad), the story had a lot of depth, the characters were incredibly well played and the music honored the lotr trilogy while having its own spirit.

    There will always be haters. But if you're a true fan of the 1st trilogy, then this movie is for you. The user score don't lie; 8.4 for a movie is quite rare. Congratulation again on the new beginning!
    Expand
  88. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Alright, all these negative critics' reviews of The Hobbit have gotten my jimmies in a rustle, so I've prepared a cup of "Too Long; Didn't Read" to start your morning off the right way.

    "It's not as good as the LotR Trilogy." : This is an adaptation of a bedtime story for children. This isn't supposed to be a complex Drama-Epic for adults. It's a wondrous fantasy spectacle for young'ns,
    Alright, all these negative critics' reviews of The Hobbit have gotten my jimmies in a rustle, so I've prepared a cup of "Too Long; Didn't Read" to start your morning off the right way.

    "It's not as good as the LotR Trilogy." : This is an adaptation of a bedtime story for children. This isn't supposed to be a complex Drama-Epic for adults. It's a wondrous fantasy spectacle for young'ns, so Tolkien hadn't
    Expand
  89. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    As other reviewers have mentioned, I too wonder whether or not the critics are watching the same movies as we do. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is astounding film; the acting is phenomenal, the cinematography is splendid and akin to that of LotR, the soundtrack is jaw-dropping, and as for the reviews of the visual effects - how they aren't that remarkable -; these are completeAs other reviewers have mentioned, I too wonder whether or not the critics are watching the same movies as we do. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is astounding film; the acting is phenomenal, the cinematography is splendid and akin to that of LotR, the soundtrack is jaw-dropping, and as for the reviews of the visual effects - how they aren't that remarkable -; these are complete misconceptions. The movie is well worth your time, and more than deserves a 10 out of 10 rating. Expand
  90. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Beautifully made, whimsical, and thoroughly entertaining. Much more lighthearted than I thought, Martin Freeman is great! Definitely recommend, want to see it again in the 48 frames!
  91. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Well, I officially no longer trust the review of "critics." How this movie has such an average score with critics is jaw-dropping. While it's not an AMAZING movie, it is no doubt a very very GOOD movie. While it isn't on par with the Lord of the Rings films, it certainly does the franchise justice. And it CERTAINLY does not warrant the bashing is has received from "official" critics.Well, I officially no longer trust the review of "critics." How this movie has such an average score with critics is jaw-dropping. While it's not an AMAZING movie, it is no doubt a very very GOOD movie. While it isn't on par with the Lord of the Rings films, it certainly does the franchise justice. And it CERTAINLY does not warrant the bashing is has received from "official" critics. Thankfully the user score comes to the rescue once more!

    I wish I could have scored this movie an 8.5. It isn't quite an 8 but neither is it a 9. It is a movie that is just short of greatness, but easily worth your money and time.

    The start to the film will bore some people, but it will enthrall others. If you enjoy a bit of comedy and lots of character development, you'll like the first third. If you came to the movie theaters in hope of constant action, well... you might be yawning for the first hour.

    But action fans will get their money's worth towards the end of the movie. It is a treat to see the wild escapes and fights that form the action packed climax of the film. Some of the coolest looking, and just plain FUN action scenes I've seen in a while.

    The pacing is a bit weird, but those who want story will get it. Those who want action will get it. Those who want both will be VERY happy when all is said and done.

    The acting is fantastic. Bilbo's and Thorin's actors nail it. I was expecting good things out of those two, but "good" just doesn't do them justice. Bilbo is a clumsy, nervous, and unconfident hero who you laugh at, laugh with, and constantly cheer for. Thorin walks that fine line between jerk and tragic hero... he is a dark character who will anger you and pull at your heart strings all at the same time. Both Bilbo and Thorin feel REAL, at least as real as a Hobbit and fantasy Dwarf can.

    This movie is not a 10/10 for a reason though. It certainly has it's flaws. For one, it relies too heavily upon CGI. A good movie will find a balance between real and animated. Unfortunately An Unexpected Journey did not find this balance. While the CGI is great, it's over-usage is a major distraction at points. A second major flaw is that it feels a bit to drawn out. Jackson could have cut out an action scene here or there, or, could have shortened some of the heavy narration and introductions during the beginning of the film.

    Still the flaws do not bog down this excellent movie. I say it is a must see! Just don't go into it expecting the grand scale found in Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is a much smaller story. There is no END OF THE WORLD scenario. It is the tale of a group of Dwarves trying to reclaim their home, and a simple Hobbit who finds the courage to join them on their adventure. PROS:
    A strong story and heavy character development for Thorin, Bilbo, and Gandalf. Great action scenes
    Great visuals (even if a bit to CGI heavy)
    Great use of 3D (note I DID NOT SEE THE HIGH DEFINITION VERSION, so I cannot comment on that)
    Amazing costumes
    A surprising amount of funny scenes

    CONS:
    Overused CGI
    The story feels a bit thinly stretched throughout the middle of the film
    Odd pacing here and there
    I have to wait a year to see the next film... NNNNOOOOOOO!
    Expand
  92. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    As a massive fan of the book I was desperate for all the magic I remembered to be present, I couldn't be happier with how it turned out. An absolute marvel from start to finish, the performances were stunning, the music beautiful and entrancing, the depth and detail of the environments pulled you in and the script was utterly charming. Although some aspects were tweaked they were few andAs a massive fan of the book I was desperate for all the magic I remembered to be present, I couldn't be happier with how it turned out. An absolute marvel from start to finish, the performances were stunning, the music beautiful and entrancing, the depth and detail of the environments pulled you in and the script was utterly charming. Although some aspects were tweaked they were few and far between and any change made felt right. I didn't notice the length at all, I was so engrossed it just flew by. With any luck I'll be seeing it again...and again. Expand
  93. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    This movie is a masterpiece of fantasy adventure filmmaking. I especially recommend the high frame rate (HFR) IMAX 3D presentation--it's worth every penny. I did have some nits to pick regarding how Radagast was brought to the screen, but that aside, it's a wondrous film.
  94. Dec 15, 2012
    7
    An undoubtedly well-made movie that is characterized by its immersive and enchanting effects. Not only that, the movie is very fast-paced and really gives an enjoyable time. Although there are a few problems in this movie, for instance, the length of the movie can really distinguish itself from other cinematics, due to its enormous length keeping you from going on the toilet - mainlyAn undoubtedly well-made movie that is characterized by its immersive and enchanting effects. Not only that, the movie is very fast-paced and really gives an enjoyable time. Although there are a few problems in this movie, for instance, the length of the movie can really distinguish itself from other cinematics, due to its enormous length keeping you from going on the toilet - mainly because you are too immovable during the movie. I may not be the only one that finds it disturbing not being able to go on the toilet because of the abovementioned. Anyway, Peter Jackson did a great job on the movie, the 48 frames per second is just remarkable, and not to talk about the 3D, which gave an actual feeling of being in the movie. Since I have not read the book, I have nothing to compare with, except its previous movies (The Lord Of The Rings trilogy). Expand
  95. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Don't let the mixed reviews and preconceived notions of critics and purists deter you from one of the top films of the year: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is an incredibly fun fantasy adventure that is filled with humor and charm. The first of the three prequels to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, this film focuses on the beginning of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) in hisDon't let the mixed reviews and preconceived notions of critics and purists deter you from one of the top films of the year: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is an incredibly fun fantasy adventure that is filled with humor and charm. The first of the three prequels to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, this film focuses on the beginning of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) in his adventure with the dwarven company of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). There are several returning cast members from Jackson's prior Lord of the Rings films, but Sir Ian McKellan is front and center as Gandalf the Gray, and Andy Serkis easily makes Gollum one of the film's most enjoyable characters despite the limited screentime. Some of the dwarves outshine the others, but with a total of thirteen dwarves it's understandably difficult to let them shine as individuals. Remember, in "The Fellowship of the Ring," many of the characters were established by the film's midway point, which let the trilogy's other characters develop naturally. I've seen the film twice now, and not once did I find myself wishing that any particular dwarf had more spoken dialogue. The story unfolding on the screen kept my focus on what was occuring, not what could've been.

    The high frame rate (HFR) worked well for me, but it's definately not for everyone. My HDTV is capable of replicating HFR due to its ability to refresh its screenrates at 120 MHz per second, which equals to about 60 HFR. This film was shot at a rate of 48 frames per second (standard cinema is 24 frames per second), which means that each frame has more information encoded. Being a pioneer in this bold venture does mean that there will be issues, as evidenced by a sensation that the film is moving too fast near the beginning prologue. However, I grew used to it pretty quickly, and never really noticed any other issues throughout the film. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can equate the HFR look to a soap opera, as there wasn't a single moment that "soap opera" or anything similar flashed across my mind as I watched the film. Again, it boils down to personal taste, but it's highly recommended if you plan to see the film multiple times to at least try the HFR once. I can only view the HFR in 3D, as there are no HFR 2D showings around me (I live in Columbus, Ohio), so I can't tell you how much of a difference there is between those versions. I did see it in standard 2D and didn't really notice the film looking much better in that version. The 3D is just OK, nothing mind-blowing like "Avatar," but I can say it's the best live action 3D movie I've personally seen since "Avatar," although that's not a tough achievement since the film was shot with 3D cameras. The HFR does add a nice element to the 3D, but it's more about depth perception that stuff popping out at you. Finally, let's get to the plot and storyline itself: if you're a fan of the book, or if you're a fan of "The Lord of the Rings" books and/or films, or if you just happen to like good ol' fantasy adventure films like "Willow," than you' shouldn't have any worries about not enjoying this film. It's a great adventure flick that really encompasses a "journey" quite well. Freeman is absolutely perfect in his role, and the addition of all the new characters really makes this feel less like a nostalgic follow-up to the "Lord of the Rings" than what it really is: a brand new fantasy adventure that proves that faith in Peter Jackson and his team is well-placed. Go see "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." See it twice even. The early comparisons to "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" are utterly ridiculous with no real basis. People are also complaining about the addition of a 3rd movie, and how it affects the film's pacing. Unlike the "Lord of the Ring" films, there is no dire sense of urgency in the overall plotline, so there's no need to rush what is meant to be more of a lighthearted adventure (despite the admittedly gory fight scenes). There isn't many "prequel" films to beloved franchises that are good, but this film is beyond the exception. Ignore the hate, this film lives up to the hype in terms of acting, story, and fun. If there's one negative thing to consider, it's the fact that December 2013 feels that much further away.
    Expand
  96. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Spectacular! Incredible performances by Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis and, of course, Sir Ian McKellen. Critics say it is too long? I completely disagree, time flew by! Yes, Jackson added/expanded some things, but he did an excellent job. What is the most important thing - he stayed true to the book and its atmosphere. "Every good story needs embellishment" says Gandalf in the first quarterSpectacular! Incredible performances by Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis and, of course, Sir Ian McKellen. Critics say it is too long? I completely disagree, time flew by! Yes, Jackson added/expanded some things, but he did an excellent job. What is the most important thing - he stayed true to the book and its atmosphere. "Every good story needs embellishment" says Gandalf in the first quarter of the movie. All in all - a masterpiece worth watching. Expand
  97. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    If anyone on this earth remembers when talking pictures came out there were aot of people that said it was no good and when color film came out there were alot of people that did not like that either. when flat screen tvs come out I met a lot of old folks that did not like them either. Open you mind. 48fps is an innovation, dont let your old minds be stuck in the past..... Anyway it was aIf anyone on this earth remembers when talking pictures came out there were aot of people that said it was no good and when color film came out there were alot of people that did not like that either. when flat screen tvs come out I met a lot of old folks that did not like them either. Open you mind. 48fps is an innovation, dont let your old minds be stuck in the past..... Anyway it was a great movie that looked fantastic. Expand
  98. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    Thorin Oakenshield: So this is the Hobbit.

    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a great movie. It boasts top-notch acting, (as to be expected), spectacular scenery, an amazing soundtrack, and a solid plot, as well as memorable characters. Martin Freeman as Bilbo is a highlight. The guy knows how to act, (as one can see in the TV show, "Sherlock", where he plays alongside Benedict
    Thorin Oakenshield: So this is the Hobbit.

    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a great movie. It boasts top-notch acting, (as to be expected), spectacular scenery, an amazing soundtrack, and a solid plot, as well as memorable characters.

    Martin Freeman as Bilbo is a highlight. The guy knows how to act, (as one can see in the TV show, "Sherlock", where he plays alongside Benedict Cumberbatch who plays Smaug here), and he packs wit and charm into the film. As much as I like Frodo and co. from Lord of the Rings, Bilbo is much, much easier to like and root for.

    Sir Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf, and boy is he a badass. In fact, I won't spoil anything, but know that he has some great moments here.

    Finally Thorin, played by a certain "Richard Armitage" is the leader of the party, the Dwarf King. He doesn't like Bilbo much, but for all the right reasons. He also has probably the most awesome moment in the whole film, music loud, and all aflame, it was a sight to behold. Nevertheless, the best scene of the film is, hands down, "A Game of Riddles", where Andy Serkis returns one final time as Gollum.

    Talking about sights, this film looks simply marvelous. The environments are so well realized and filmed, I was hypnotized into the mythical world that is Middle-Earth. The soundtrack helps that immersion, as its excellent.

    The action sequences happen throughout the whole movie, and they are terrific. Very beautiful all over, especially on the large IMAX screen.

    The main complaint most people have with this film is pacing, but if you can accept the fact that it'll take a while to get going, and be patient through the first hour or so, you will be keenly rewarded, as was I. Just let it pick its own time.

    If I'd have to recommend it, see it in IMAX. The reception of 48 fps. is all over the place, but one thing's for sure - don't watch it in that format the first time. As a rule, I hate 3D, but Hobbit's one of the few films where it works. I suppose if you don't mind the glasses, it's definitely worth checking out, or just for the immersion. Just know that it's definitely not a minus.

    Finally, don't expect Lord of the Rings again. This is not it, this is a story on its own. Sure, the Hobbit is set in the same universe, Middle-Earth, but so is Spider-Man and the Punisher, yet no one goes into these films and comics expecting something similar.

    Overall, the Hobbit delivers. It's beautiful, it's fun, it's entertaining, it's a great film, and if you can forgive some pacing issues and accept the fact that it's a new series of films, you'll love it, that's for sure. And the more of Tolkien's books you've read, the more you'll like this, as the details are everywhere. Enjoy!

    4.5 / 5 = A fantastic effort, one that everyone must see. One of my all-time favorites.
    Expand
  99. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    I loved this movie. I read to escape. The Hobbit took me on that journey. The movie takes you on well, re-created journey through middle-earth and the first 3rd of the Hobbit with a sprinkling of the Silmarillon. If you walk into this movie expecting more intense or natural pacing as would be delivered in a complete pre-ordained book then you won't be happy. The LOTR trilogy had moreI loved this movie. I read to escape. The Hobbit took me on that journey. The movie takes you on well, re-created journey through middle-earth and the first 3rd of the Hobbit with a sprinkling of the Silmarillon. If you walk into this movie expecting more intense or natural pacing as would be delivered in a complete pre-ordained book then you won't be happy. The LOTR trilogy had more material Jackson could pick and choose from, it was more unique and it was truly best in class when thinking of Fantasy material. When relating the movies comparatively, the critics won't be happy. The LOTR trilogy really had some power-house characters (think Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, The king of Rohan). The Hobbit has Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf. Comparatively, from a dramatic effect, it will suffer. This movie is not a metacritic 58. When viewed as complete Trilogy people will have a much more positive interpretation. I eagerly look forward to the next installment Expand
  100. Jan 7, 2013
    7
    Tolkien fans will know the story well. Many years before Frodo travels to Mordor in Lord of the Rings, Bilbo Baggins embarks on an adventure of his own. Hired as a
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.