User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2517 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. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    Hmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with charactersHmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with characters and places, but also costumes, musical score, cinematography, art direction, you just name it. And while the film holds "universal acclaim" with the general audience of metacritic, I'd highly disagree with this. Yes, the acting is rather solid. Technically the film is good too. However, it gives us nothing new. It does not provide any new, deeper connection with these characters, especially not Gandalf, who is surprisingly weakly portrayed by McKellen after his excellent turn in the Lord of the Rings. Honestly, the story of The Hobbit is not as interesting as the one of the Lord of the Rings, for one. That would do the trick on its own, let alone having high expectations and a million comparisons with one of the best trilogies of all time. Overall, The Hobbit is not a bad film at all. But it is just yet another big-budget blockbuster with great technical aspects, but not quite as much substance as its predecessor had. Maybe the second one will be better? 6/10 Expand
  2. Jan 5, 2013
    8
    First of all, I think if you are not a fan of Tolkien or fantasy in general, you won't like this movie. That being said, I thought the Hobbit was great, better than the first movie of LOTR in my opinion. I really don't think this needed to be 3 movies but more is always good and I think Jackson did in fact make this for fans and had fun doing it. I don't think he intended this for theFirst of all, I think if you are not a fan of Tolkien or fantasy in general, you won't like this movie. That being said, I thought the Hobbit was great, better than the first movie of LOTR in my opinion. I really don't think this needed to be 3 movies but more is always good and I think Jackson did in fact make this for fans and had fun doing it. I don't think he intended this for the average movie-goer who eats up the "Saw" franchise or anything with Adam Sandler or Will Farrel in it. Movie snobs will hate this movie too... bottom line is if you are a fan of Tolkien, go in with an open mind and just enjoy it because there was a lot of attention to detail and faithfulness to the book. Expand
  3. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    Here's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but thatHere's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but that doesn't make it a good movie. There are other positives and negatives of course. If The Hobbit had been the first Tolkien book that Jackson adapted we'd probably all be amazed and astounded, but it's not. To follow his own LOTR adaptation I'm afraid The Hobbit is trapped in that grey area between mediocrity and greatness. Let me sum it up this way - I watch LOTR once a year or so and love revisiting those worlds. I don't have a strong desire to revisit this one. Expand
  4. Dec 21, 2012
    8
    Take away the Lord of the Rings trilogy comparisons, the length in correlation with the original book and the unfortunate overuse of CGI and look at the bare elements of the film for a second and it's very good. I found the dwarf banter light-hearted and entertaining, the Middle Earth feeling natural and the scenes well structured. The last scene in the mountain was brilliant and cappedTake away the Lord of the Rings trilogy comparisons, the length in correlation with the original book and the unfortunate overuse of CGI and look at the bare elements of the film for a second and it's very good. I found the dwarf banter light-hearted and entertaining, the Middle Earth feeling natural and the scenes well structured. The last scene in the mountain was brilliant and capped if off very well! My criticisms come from the fact Bilbo doesn't get too involved in the story for large parts in the middle but from the scene with Gollum, the CGI is definitely overdone in parts and it's probably too long (though this can be forgiven, the time does fly by and the additional elements that have been added do work very well)

    So while it's a tiny bit long for what it's supposed to be covering in the book, it makes up for it with an entertaining film. A good watch, not exceptional but I have few complaints!
    Expand
  5. Dec 28, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Saw it first time in 2D and enjoyed it, although I kept throwing myself out of the experience by picking out the differences between the film and the book. DO NOT RE-READ THE BOOK BEFORE SEEING THIS MOVIE. It will ruin your experience. The second time I went to see it in 3D HFR and it was awesome. Without the constant inner dialogue of "that's different oh God!" I could actually enjoy the film a lot more. 48fps was a level of immersion I had not experienced before and I loved it. When the next film comes out, I will just see it in 3D HFR instead of 2D first. Can't wait. (It will most certainly not just be walking through the forest in "true tolkien fashion". There's Beorn, spiders, elves, a barrel ride, and if I don't miss my mark, the second film will have the dwarves in Esgaroth and a little taste of Smaug, plus Gandalf in Dol Guldur.) Expand
  6. Dec 24, 2012
    9
    I just loved the movie from start to finish. Of course I loved the original Lord of The Rings trilogy as well. The action sequences are tight and entertaining, the characters are well defined and the loved the light humour here and there. I would recommend this movie to anyone who loved the fantasy or fiction genre. It has superb production value. And amazing scenery.
  7. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    I must say that if you must not go in the theater to watch this film with Lord of The Rings in your mind. This film is absolutely different from the previous three films in LOTR trilogy. This film is not based on the victory over evil but it is a film that tells us about the lives of different races in Middle Earth. So,I must surely say that this film is a must-watch for you.
  8. Dec 20, 2012
    6
    Not close to as well made as the LOTR's trilogy but entertaining. I have to knock it for adding in places that really did not need it. Also, there was no content and there's no reason for this to be a trilogy.
  9. Jan 10, 2013
    6
    I saw The Hobbit after having reread the book and found the movie visually spectacular but otherwise somewhat disappointing. Tolkien
  10. Mar 10, 2013
    10
    Like so many other people I can't believe the critic's score.

    I watched this in iMax with my 10 year old son and both of us were utterly enthralled from start to finish. Yes, the HFR cinematography takes a little getting used to, but once you are acclimatised then you find yourself sucked into the Middle Earth universe hook, line and sinker. So lush are the visuals, the storytelling
    Like so many other people I can't believe the critic's score.

    I watched this in iMax with my 10 year old son and both of us were utterly enthralled from start to finish. Yes, the HFR cinematography takes a little getting used to, but once you are acclimatised then you find yourself sucked into the Middle Earth universe hook, line and sinker.

    So lush are the visuals, the storytelling and the attention to detail that you can't help but devour every second. Despite the length of the movie I was left begging for more when it ended.

    Roll on December 2013!
    Expand
  11. Jan 24, 2013
    10
    A great way to spend an evening! There was a nostalgic feel to the movie since we get to revisit some old locations from LOTR. And see some old friends. If you haven't seen it yet go!

    I did see it in 3d and thought it didn't add much to the experience.
  12. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    It was unexpected when they decided to make this film into a 3 part series, but so far they did justice with the first part. I just hope the the next two parts live up to the book and animated film before it. This movie is worth spending some extra $$ to see it in movie theaters.
  13. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    It's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so manyIt's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so many scenes and themes explored in his vision of the trilogy that I will never forget, sadly, The Hobbit failed to make that kind of impression on me. It's not a bad movie, it's just not very substantial past it being a suitable adventure film for the entire family. Read the book instead. Expand
  14. Dec 29, 2012
    10
    PJ struck again in the adaptation of a book by Tolkien, he also managed to make a good connection with "The Lord of the Rings." PJ corrected a flaw in what I believe happened with LOTR actors however were good and he had managed to stay forever in our minds as their characters do not believe that there were great performances (except for Ian and Serkis) as in "The Hobbit "Apart from havingPJ struck again in the adaptation of a book by Tolkien, he also managed to make a good connection with "The Lord of the Rings." PJ corrected a flaw in what I believe happened with LOTR actors however were good and he had managed to stay forever in our minds as their characters do not believe that there were great performances (except for Ian and Serkis) as in "The Hobbit "Apart from having back Serkis and Ian now have 13 major actors playing the dwarves (Richard Armitage Highlight as Thorin) and an Oscar-worthy performance by Martin Freeman. For most, I think PJ got something I was too afraid to go wrong and end turned six chapters of the book in two hours and forty minutes of one of the best films of that year. Expand
  15. Oct 14, 2013
    6
    All the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in anotherAll the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in another country", because watching the movie it just felt like a propagandistic lesson in patriotism and violence. All the grace of Tolkien's writing is gone. Expand
  16. Oct 8, 2014
    0
    I remember being so diappointed after watching this film in the cinema. As a Tolkien fan who knows the books,, I can say that this movie (just like every other Hobbit movie) is a horrible piece of fan fiction.
  17. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    Bilbo is simply the most likeable Hobbit! HFR is gorgeous! Gollum is real! My expectations for 3D-movies have definitly changed with this movie! First thought after seeing it: "I got to see it again!"
  18. Jan 2, 2013
    9
    After almost a decade since the last adventure in Middle Earth, Peter Jackson shows us that he's still got it with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. While I do not consider this to be as good as the almighty Lord Of The Rings trilogy, it's not trying to be, it's not trying to be another Lord Of The Rings film. The Hobbit is essentially a children's book that is more focused on fun andAfter almost a decade since the last adventure in Middle Earth, Peter Jackson shows us that he's still got it with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. While I do not consider this to be as good as the almighty Lord Of The Rings trilogy, it's not trying to be, it's not trying to be another Lord Of The Rings film. The Hobbit is essentially a children's book that is more focused on fun and humour than the LOTR, and Jackson has translated that brilliantly into this film by staying incredibly faithful to the source material (even down to the songs the dwarves sing) and with a very strong script that has many laughs and sustains more of a lighter tone for the most part. Make no mistake though, this is definitely an epic fantasy film full of intense action, brilliant set pieces and great characters. The Hobbit himself : Bilbo Baggins is definitely the stand out due mainly to Martin Freeman's fantastic performance as the character, he completely nails Bilbo by brilliantly portraying the character's journey from the "playing it safe and avoiding trouble" attitude to the determined and adventure craving Bilbo we see in TLOTR, and I looking forward to see this continue in the next two films. The rest of the cast are also very impressive with Sir Ian Mckellan giving a brilliant performance once again as Gandalf the Grey and ofcourse there are the 13 dwarves who are all played well, look great and are great fun to watch on screen. The presentation of this film is incredible, I watched this in 2d and with the normal frame rate and I thought the film looked gorgeous, the direction, the cinematography and the special effects all came together to make this film beautiful and the soundtrack is also fantastic. However while watching it, I did feel that too much CGI was used at some points, I understand that they are not trying to make this film as gritty as TLOTR but there were times when I thought that practical effects would have looked better on screen, nonetheless the film looks incredible. The main problem with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for me is it's length. 2 hours and 45 minutes is a hell of a long time to show just one third of the story in the book and while I understand that Peter Jackson is using more source material than just The Hobbit book but I just felt that there could be half an hour in this film that could be cut for time. The beginning is where the film is at it's slowest, and while it delivers it's exposition very well, and the main characters are introduced in great fashion, by about half an hour into the film I felt like we've been spending a little too much time in the shire and it was time to get on with the adventure. There is also a seen featuring Ian Holm and Elijha Wood as older Bilbo and Frodo, while it was great to see Frodo again, there was no point to that scene and it just made the beginning of the film feel to drawn out. There are other scenes throughout the film that feel like they could have been cut and these scenes make this seem almost like a directors cut rather than the theatrical version of The Hobbit, and I think it's a case of Peter Jackson over indulging in this world. Once the film gets going, it reaches brilliance, the scenes involving Bilbo meeting Gollum were absolutely incredible and it's just things like that that made me feel like I am experiencing entertainment of the highest class. It has it's issues that are hard to overlook but overall, this is an excellent film that I highly recommend. Expand
  19. Jan 11, 2013
    9
    Far over the misty mountains cold... 4 points just for this and the end-titles song. Another 5 points for the Tolkien experience. I save the last point to give it to the next two parts of the trilogy. For all those who gave bad reviews, I wish they are eaten alive by Smaug !!
  20. sLm
    Feb 9, 2013
    7
    They stayed like 30 minutes of the film in Bilbo's house. FFS, I almost slept half of the movie until things actually started happening! After that, it turned a bit interesting, and scenes were also ok. About the eagles.... well, I still wonder why didn't they use them from a start... again.
  21. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    Loving the book has a kid I had to see the movie. I was not disappointed in anyway. Many people rating the film down I feel expected explosions every six seconds. The Hobbit tells a story and does so greatly.
  22. Jan 2, 2013
    6
    I saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. TheI saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the CGI was (mostly) great. The movie is slow-paced at times. Other times it is too fast-paced. Some scenes are longer than they need to be, but I guess that's what happens when you take a single book story and stretch it out to a 3 part movie trilogy. I get the impression that this movie might possibly be targeted at children more than adults, I think a young child would definitely enjoy it more. For an adult, it is alright but just alright. But after some online investigation, I found a reference to letters stating that The Hobbit book was written for children, while the LOTR book trilogy was written for an older audience, so I'll assume the movie is being true to the book in targeting a younger audience. A plot hole I noticed is why don't they just fly on the eagles from the Shire to the Dwarf city/mountain they are trying to get to? Well, this plot hole apparently exists in the book too so I can't hold it against the movie. And what the heck is a dragon going to do with a pile of gold? Well, according to some online blogs male dragons are like bowerbirds that make nests out of shiny objects to attract a mate, so that resolves that question I had that wasn't explained by this movie. This movie mostly reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean although it is nowhere good as the first POC movie, nor is it horrible like some of the later POC sequels. All of the focus seems to be on the special effects and (mostly) failed attempts at humour rather than focusing on decent story telling or character development. I rate it as average since it lacks the Je ne c'est quoi to make it an epic movie (pacing? plot-deviations from book? not sure what went wrong exactly...) and I can't honestly say that I even liked the film. It does not live up to the quality of the LOTR trilogy at all (except for the CGI of Gollum which is still great in this movie as it was in the LOTR trilogy). It's been 25 years since I read the book, but I think I might go pick it up and read it again rather than wait for the next two movies... Expand
  23. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit was actually better than I thought it'd be. My bf told me that he had heard that people who didn't like the fist 3 movies actually enjoyed this one. I, on the other hand, actually liked the first 3 movies and thought this one was good but not as up to par with the others. It was very intense on character development and I can't wait for the next one to come out. I enjoyed The Hobbit.
  24. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    If you go in thinking, Lord of the Rings, prepare to be disappointed because The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is inferior to all three of the LotR flicks. That said, it's still a well-composed, fun, beautiful and exciting film full of light-hearted whimsy, which is refreshing for a fantasy film. The plot just lacks the stakes of apocalyptic doom, which is more of a downfall of 'TheIf you go in thinking, Lord of the Rings, prepare to be disappointed because The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is inferior to all three of the LotR flicks. That said, it's still a well-composed, fun, beautiful and exciting film full of light-hearted whimsy, which is refreshing for a fantasy film. The plot just lacks the stakes of apocalyptic doom, which is more of a downfall of 'The Hobbit' being primarily a children's story as opposed to Lord of the Rings deeper, darker, more symbolic narrative. Expand
  25. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Gosh, I just saw this with my wife. We just loved it. We're fans of the book versions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and the original LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit movie just knocked our socks off. It was beautiful, sensational, exciting, and novel. There were fictional embellishments that deviated from the original book, but not from the story of Middle-Earth leading up to the LOTRGosh, I just saw this with my wife. We just loved it. We're fans of the book versions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and the original LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit movie just knocked our socks off. It was beautiful, sensational, exciting, and novel. There were fictional embellishments that deviated from the original book, but not from the story of Middle-Earth leading up to the LOTR time - the alterations Jackson and his crew have made to the events of The Hobbit are excellent additions that meet the requirements for a rich fantasy adventure that does not betray the original author's intentions for the goings on of the world around the central characters. Expand
  26. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you read the book, The Hobbit is a wonderfully engaging light-hearted fairy tale set in Middle Earth, full of adventure, magic, faerie folks, monsters, and epic deeds. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, involved tragedy, also set in Middle Earth, with some of the same characters, taking place after the events told in The Hobbit.

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

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

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

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

    Overall, fun movie for a Saturday night at home with a few glasses of wine and friends to give it the MST3K treatment, but it's NOT The Hobbit I loved. Wait until its available at home with video on-demand services.
    Expand
  27. Mar 28, 2013
    10
    I don't see how this awesome movie can get a "58". You can't expect this movie to have the same feel of the previous installments because the book had a whole entire different feel to it. This was a very good movie, but the critics seem to have glass up their ass or something when it comes to this movie.
  28. Dec 26, 2012
    6
    This movie is decent, but I couldn't get the same feelings as with the book. I must admit I am biased as a huge fan of Tolkien and I know that making a movie of "The Hobbit" is very challenging, because the original story is very rich in details and it is no subject to the typical constraints of making a movie. Both book and movie start a little slow, while setting all the pieces... butThis movie is decent, but I couldn't get the same feelings as with the book. I must admit I am biased as a huge fan of Tolkien and I know that making a movie of "The Hobbit" is very challenging, because the original story is very rich in details and it is no subject to the typical constraints of making a movie. Both book and movie start a little slow, while setting all the pieces... but what I watched was an action movie (the special effects are amazing), not a magical and adventurous story. Expand
  29. Dec 27, 2012
    6
    While I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "TheWhile I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "The Hobbit" that we know and love. Don't get me wrong I love Peter Jackson and I love The Lord of the Rings but the thing that made"The Hobbit" such a great book was it's own sense of cleverness and grand adventure. It shouldn't have been stuffed with CGI and action scenes because the book is full of humanistic themes and heart. The back story parts that foreshadow the events in LOTR were rather nice but felt out of place in the movie. Overall I will say though it is nice to see Peter Jackson at it again and hopefully all of my gripes with the movie can be conquered in the second and third installments. Expand
  30. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    I watched the 48fps 3D showing and I think with the build up and the enjoyment I got from the LotR movies I walked away feeling a little deflated. There seemed a couple of scenes that would've been best served getting cut during the edit, primarily the scenes with radagast in them. I'm going to watch the standard 24fps 2D version in a few days and see if the whole feel of the film changesI watched the 48fps 3D showing and I think with the build up and the enjoyment I got from the LotR movies I walked away feeling a little deflated. There seemed a couple of scenes that would've been best served getting cut during the edit, primarily the scenes with radagast in them. I'm going to watch the standard 24fps 2D version in a few days and see if the whole feel of the film changes for me in that format. On its own it was enjoyable but not great but still looking forward to seeing the remaining movies. Lastly I have that feeling I had after seeing Phantom Menace where it just felt like and didn't have the magic of the original trilogy. Expand
  31. Dec 31, 2012
    9
    Short and sweet: If you are a big fan of Tolkien and/or The Lord of the Rings Films, you will really enjoy this movie. Visually, it is absolutely breathtaking, but I can't recommend that you see it in the 48fps (High frame rate / HFR) 3D version ENOUGH. I saw it in HFR and IMAX and the HFR version absoluely trumped the IMAX version in every way. The story is light-hearted in nature butShort and sweet: If you are a big fan of Tolkien and/or The Lord of the Rings Films, you will really enjoy this movie. Visually, it is absolutely breathtaking, but I can't recommend that you see it in the 48fps (High frame rate / HFR) 3D version ENOUGH. I saw it in HFR and IMAX and the HFR version absoluely trumped the IMAX version in every way. The story is light-hearted in nature but Jackson does what he can to add some drama and epic emotion to the tale. To that end, he is pretty successful, though the quality of writing in some few scenes is not superb. All in all, I had very high expecatations for The Hobbit, and I was not disappointed. Expand
  32. Dec 31, 2012
    9
    I love this movie. The only thing that most Tolkien complain about is that The Hobbit is stretched across 3 movies. Peter Jackson did add things to the story, but the things he added were in perfect alignment to Tolkien's original work. This movie was action-packed and entertaining. The story and actors were superb, and the graphics were without flaw. A must-see.
  33. Dec 31, 2012
    9
    Although there were parts were it didn't seem right the overall movie was fantastic. It was as good or maybe even better than its predecessors. I recommend seeing this movie as soon as possible .
  34. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    I don't understand why so many critics gave this movie such a bad rating. It is a fun, enjoyable, exciting, movie. Filled with amazing scenes, including one particularly long and elaborate action scene and a very emotional scene at the end, this is a GREAT movie. Does not quite live up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but is amazing nonetheless. Completely lived up to my expectations,I don't understand why so many critics gave this movie such a bad rating. It is a fun, enjoyable, exciting, movie. Filled with amazing scenes, including one particularly long and elaborate action scene and a very emotional scene at the end, this is a GREAT movie. Does not quite live up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but is amazing nonetheless. Completely lived up to my expectations, especially since it got such bad reviews. I saw it in 48 fps, and 3D, and I found the visuals to be great- not nauseating at all. I did not see it in i-max, and if i were to see it again, which i am considering, i will definitely see it in i-max, 48 fps, and 3D all in one. anyway, if you have not seen it yet, do not be scared off b/c of the bad critic reviews- SEE IT. Expand
  35. Jan 3, 2013
    7
    The quality of the film is a far cry from that of "The Lord of the Rings"; but for the novel 3D format, the film would be insipid; so many sections of the film are predictable. The script and direction are ordinary, as is the dialogue which is bereft of all poetic quality and thus utterly generic; since this isn't a silent film, it affects the very feel of the film.
  36. Jan 4, 2013
    7
    "The Hobbit" is a nice movie to watch if you want to fall asleep. Personally I've in it when it was released and I almost fell asleep. The action and everything else is pushed to the limit, in other words they should have made only a movie from the book and not 3. I do not think it is normal to take you less to read the book than see the movies. Of course it may be my fault for expecting"The Hobbit" is a nice movie to watch if you want to fall asleep. Personally I've in it when it was released and I almost fell asleep. The action and everything else is pushed to the limit, in other words they should have made only a movie from the book and not 3. I do not think it is normal to take you less to read the book than see the movies. Of course it may be my fault for expecting too much from the movie and I was disappointed. Although it is quite boring, "The Hobbit" has some scenes that are worth seeing for the lovers of Tolkien's books as I am. Expand
  37. Jan 6, 2013
    7
    It was good but lacked the structure and epic feeling of the Lord of the Rings. It was too long with enough songs to be classified as a musical. Half of this movie could be gone and it would be ten times better. It is a classic representation of how good Peter Jackson's storytelling ability and the Ian Mckellen's acting ability.
  38. Jan 9, 2013
    9
    I'm not sure how The Hobbit has a metacritic rating of 58, my friends and I all loved it. I have not read the Lord of the Rings books or seen the past movies, so the first few minutes of the movie I was a bit lost. After I understood more of what was going on, I quickly warmed up to this movie and loved it.
  39. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Before writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not contain anything about HFR or the such, or me getting motion sickness and violently vomiting into a pop corn box.

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

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

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

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

    Overall I liked the film. I wish I could have loved it, but I just can't with the commercialism they added. I respect Jackson for bringing LOTR life. However I feel this movie to be akin with king kong in some respects with all the pointless additions to the original. Peter Jackson please be Peter Jackson not George Lucas or Steven Spielberg.
    Expand
  40. Jan 11, 2013
    7
    I was very excited for this film to release but disappointed they decided to milk it through three films. I reread The Hobbit and even trudged through The Silmarillion to gain a better understanding of the world's mythology and backstory. When I saw the movie I was disappointed in how much literary genius was sacrificed for action scenes and how much the film was drawn out. Bilbo's wit isI was very excited for this film to release but disappointed they decided to milk it through three films. I reread The Hobbit and even trudged through The Silmarillion to gain a better understanding of the world's mythology and backstory. When I saw the movie I was disappointed in how much literary genius was sacrificed for action scenes and how much the film was drawn out. Bilbo's wit is underplayed and Gandalf's involvement is overdone. Expand
  41. Jan 30, 2013
    10
    Storyline: The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is coerced into going on a fantastical adventure with Gandalf the wizard and 13 Dwarfs. In there travels they meet an assortment of creatures. This is only the first of a planned trilogy although the book 'The Hobbit' is quite short. For Ring fans, we finally get to see a Dwarf woman and we learn why Dwarfs hate Elves.

    Acting: Martin Freeman did a
    Storyline: The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is coerced into going on a fantastical adventure with Gandalf the wizard and 13 Dwarfs. In there travels they meet an assortment of creatures. This is only the first of a planned trilogy although the book 'The Hobbit' is quite short. For Ring fans, we finally get to see a Dwarf woman and we learn why Dwarfs hate Elves.

    Acting: Martin Freeman did a decent job playing a younger Bilbo who all Ring fans have become so familiar with. Richard Armitage as Thorin was also worthy of mention. Andy Serkis played Gollum once more and did exceptional work. There were a few surprise cameos as well and all the supporting cast were good.

    Direction: Peter Jackson has outdone himself with this one and must surely get an Oscar nod.

    Production: This film is one of those examples where you can really see where all of the $180 million went. Almost every scene is filled with spectacular detail. This has to be watched 2-3 times to take it all in. There seems to be a decent enough effort to use real world action where possible which helped with authenticity.

    Conclusion: The complete cinematic experience. This film should be universally accessible and covers so many topics. I can't recommend this more highly.

    Score: 10/10
    Expand
  42. Jan 23, 2013
    10
    It was a great movie. Not as dark and not as serious as LotR, and Martin Freeman is a brilliant and humorous Bilbo. I liked this first part, Peter Jackson's take on Thorin was good and as for Bilbo, we can see the transition from respectable country esquire to adventuring burglar. Top notch, clearly, and looking forward to the next instalment.
  43. Jan 27, 2013
    10
    The movie is a masterpiece. The "new additions" makes the classic story even better! People complaining 'cause its 3 parts? Really? Who wouldnt like to have more running time from 'Lord of The Rings' saga? I'm starting to think people just don't like prequels at all, even if it as good as the originals.
  44. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    aunque sigue fiel a los libros the hobbit es una película inferior a las del señor de los anillos y aunque tiene unos momentos interesantes la película aburre a la hora y media y si usted es como yo se quedara dormido y no querrá volverla aver
  45. Nov 9, 2013
    3
    The problem with 'The Hobbit' is that he tries to show an epic movie with the passing of the minutes, but forgets that not strong enough for that and reveals nothing less than purely commercial.
  46. Mar 12, 2013
    10
    A funny, witty, and imaginative film that is a cheerful experience and fun to watch. Maybe while not on the epic scope as the original Lord Of The Rings trilogy, I found it to be incredibly entertaining as well as visually beautiful. I would watch this again and will buy it on dvd or blu ray.
  47. Mar 21, 2013
    10
    58 are you kidding me. The Hobbit was almost as good as The Fellowship of the Ring. If I could I would give this a 12 and LOTR a 20. Thats how much I love Middle-Earth.
  48. Rem
    Jul 21, 2013
    2
    Boring, not funny, and plain too long, this is a departure from the well loved franchise and an insult as it only serves to appeal to a younger audience and those who favor 3-D. With absolutely no real effects as CG takes over, it almost becomes painful to think this comes from the flagship franchise that earned 30 Oscar nominations.
  49. Dec 13, 2013
    8
    The first installment of the Hobbit franchise spends a lot of time laying its foundations then uses it to create an immersive experience for its audience.
  50. Dec 12, 2013
    0
    This film broke my heart, in more ways than one. Firstly the animal cruelty & death issues that arose during the making of it and secondly the fact it is absolutely nothing like the book. This piece of Hollywood trash is just a cheap cash in on Tolkien's masterpiece. The book is a beautifully written exciting and sometimes sad adventure that you really immerse yourself in fully. ThisThis film broke my heart, in more ways than one. Firstly the animal cruelty & death issues that arose during the making of it and secondly the fact it is absolutely nothing like the book. This piece of Hollywood trash is just a cheap cash in on Tolkien's masterpiece. The book is a beautifully written exciting and sometimes sad adventure that you really immerse yourself in fully. This movie? My gods! This movie just sucks, big time and what Mr Jackson has done is just made a no-brained action movie from a book he had no right to touch. After watching this I just wonder if he just flicked through the pages and just circled the semi action orientated parts. Jackson, you have proved yourself to be a pathetic director and with this rubbish you have done a 'Lucas'. I just hope someone (like Ridley Scott) in the future is allowed to remake it the way it should be. This Tolkien fan is sad and totally disappointed. Expand
  51. Jan 13, 2013
    1
    If you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking he is a better story teller than Tolkien. I went into the movie thinking I would be looking for things that they changed to make the scenes work better onIf you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking he is a better story teller than Tolkien. I went into the movie thinking I would be looking for things that they changed to make the scenes work better on screen, I soon found I was looking for things that were actually in the book. A poop covered wizard that rides a sled pulled by rabbits? REALLY!? The book was about the quest and the JOURNEY! A lot of time was given to feeling homesick, feeling hungry and tired on the road, or toughing it out through rain. When I heard how long the movie was I got excited thinking, "Yes! they actually put all that stuff in". Wrong! The movie takes out the journey and immediately puts the characters where they need to be one scene after another. The white orc was only added in so they could write a storyline that has lots of fighting (even though there was enough in the book) to make Thorin look like the honorable badass hero American audiences/zombiemasses apparently require. The dwarves were not warriors at all in the book (although they did fight), they did not even have weapons until they found them in the troll's cave (another butchered scene). Expand
  52. Dec 30, 2012
    2
    It was like the "Phantom Menace" all over again. Just like that film, I knew 20 minutes into the movie it was a disaster. Poor editing, poor pacing, poor storytelling. My biggest disappointment of the year.
  53. Dec 30, 2012
    1
    The movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact itThe movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact it was a prequel to LoTR and remove the elements of what made the Hobbit(the novel) great Expand
  54. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    All of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standardAll of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standard set by the first three films. Forced humor in the Hobbit was an active theme throughout with the goblin king, gollum, etc. This humor was forced into the most inappropriate times during the film where in comparison would be as if The king of Rohan cracked a joke as Soroman's army broke through the walls of helms deep in the second film. The introduction of the brown wizard was both uncalled for as well as degrading the the movie itself. The over the top use of computer graphics in this films took its toll on the film, and left the viewers watching another movie such as Narnia from within the theater, instead of drawing the viewer into both the plot and middle earth itself Expand
  55. Jan 4, 2013
    1
    A high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantly going from moments of safety to moments of extreme danger and quite frankly it's just plain boring. The film left me with no incentive to watch any of theA high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantly going from moments of safety to moments of extreme danger and quite frankly it's just plain boring. The film left me with no incentive to watch any of the sequels. Expand
  56. Dec 24, 2012
    0
    The only unexpected journey was me leaving the cinema when I couldn't stomach any more of this horrible movie. I can't believe there's going to be two sequels to this as well.
  57. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The acting, the action, the 3D graphics - everything was absolutely outstanding and I have NO idea why there are so many negative reviews. You guys need to open your eyes and realize what a good film this is.
  58. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    Boy could critics of been any more wrong? What a fantastic film the 48 fps looks AMAZING in 3D and it is really going to take film to a new level. Im just not sure what the critics deal was with this awesome film I mean they seem to just nit pick so much its annoying.
  59. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    I was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, asI was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, as though to remind you it is indeed a movie. Even the makeup, costumes, and animation seemed more "play" like as though you were watching it on a stage rather than it really happening. It was ok.. but I would say it didn't quite stay in the same league as the first three movies. Expand
  60. Dec 24, 2012
    5
    I wasn't expecting much since I knew there were coming a three pictures. Money. The movie starts a bit before lotr trilogy does and ends in about 60 hears ago. Operator's work is too modern. New actors aren't good enough. Exept Martin Freeman, he is a good choice. There could be one good film. But instead of this we got a bad start of a new trilogy. I hope the next part will be better.
  61. Dec 20, 2012
    10
    For the first time in 9 years, Peter Jackson takes us back to Middle Earth with the premiere of his prequel trilogy, "The Hobbit" - and what a return it is! "An Unexpected Journey" is like a drink of cold water on a hot summer day . . . a wonderfully satisfying romp of a film full of strong characters, top-notch acting, gorgeous special effects and sweeping cinematography. Take all theFor the first time in 9 years, Peter Jackson takes us back to Middle Earth with the premiere of his prequel trilogy, "The Hobbit" - and what a return it is! "An Unexpected Journey" is like a drink of cold water on a hot summer day . . . a wonderfully satisfying romp of a film full of strong characters, top-notch acting, gorgeous special effects and sweeping cinematography. Take all the epic sensations of LOTR, stick them onto a pure adventure story, and you arrive at this. Jackson immerses us in Middle Earth like never before - the film lives and breathes this world, and loves every minute of it. It's superbly well-done beginning to end, and the signature scene with Gollum is Andy Serkis's best performance of the character yet. Not only that, but we get to see the humble life of another wizard, Radagast; we're introduced to the presence of a sinister necromancer; we're breathtaken by a simply stunning sequence involving stone giants; we're swept through an epic battle in the goblin mountains; and ultimately, we are teased to the reveal of Smaug the dragon. It's just a beautiful, grand delight right from the start - the inner child of "LOTR" - and for anyone who enjoys simply experiencing Jackson's Middle Earth, this movie will quite likely dethrone the previous trilogy as your favorite of the series. Full 10 out of 10 for an awesome start to a highly promising new set of installments. Expand
  62. Dec 25, 2012
    1
    Very boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and onVery boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and on and on.. All a bit cheesy, like a video game. Dwarves badly made up, some having false noses, others not. This film lacked magic and charm. Expand
  63. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Expand
  64. Jan 9, 2013
    2
    With a horrible ending and stupid fight scenes this film stops exactly when it shouldn't. Maybe with more it will end up like LOTR but at this early stage it doesn't deliver.
  65. Dec 2, 2014
    0
    I badly struggled getting through this. The pace is terrible and there's way too much detail, with an uninteresting story and hilariously over the top and illogical action. Avoid at all cost.
  66. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    After 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, itAfter 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, it has no ending! It´s definitely not horrible, but it´s far from being good. Expand
  67. JMc
    Jan 2, 2013
    2
    I have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeatsI have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeats the purpose. There is a tinny feel to it; I thought I would be getting a voluptuous visual cinematic experience, but far from it. If you can stand the thought of the hours of boredom, at least do yourself the favour of seeing the normal frame rate version. I wish I had. Expand
  68. Dec 16, 2012
    4
    Technically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making Thorin Oakenshield an Aragorn for a new trilogy. It's one saving grace is a stellar performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Bravo!

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

    A great deal of effort was placed on the facial animation of Gollum and the goblin king. So much so that many other aspects of the VFX have suffered greatly. Poor compositing and inconsistent quality of animation are most notable. A lack of inertia in character motion, "floating" digital doubles that do not make ground contact, matte paintings that are so obvious it's worth a laugh, and an odd digital double for Gandalf in the opening sequence were quite disturbing (why???). Despite WETA claims of facial motion capture, a great deal of animator skill was necessary for the sequences that they *did* put an effort into. For example, the goblin king and his awesome goiter. The goiter alone bumps the film from a 3 to a 4.
    Expand
  69. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    A prime example of when the general consensus of critics get it wrong. Amazing film and beginning to another epic trilogy. 48fps 3D was gorgeous and another evolution of modern cinema.
  70. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Cannot understand the critics. Yes, it is a bit more childish than Lord of the rings, but the book is a bit more childish. On the other hand, The Hobbit has the unique LotR feel to it, beautiful to look at, and engaging from beginning to end. I am a 100% satisfied and believe Jackson made another superb movie!
  71. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    It's damn good. Let's be honest and give it the respect it deserves without unfairly judging it against it's award-winning predecessors. It's biggest culprit is the length. It's like so many other films these days.....it's just a hair too long. Regardless, I found The Hobbit superbly entertaining, beautifully filmed, and thrillingly action-packed. As an avid Tolkien reader, this is a veryIt's damn good. Let's be honest and give it the respect it deserves without unfairly judging it against it's award-winning predecessors. It's biggest culprit is the length. It's like so many other films these days.....it's just a hair too long. Regardless, I found The Hobbit superbly entertaining, beautifully filmed, and thrillingly action-packed. As an avid Tolkien reader, this is a very fine representation of the book thus far. I can't wait to see what is yet to come. Expand
  72. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    If you liked The Lord of the Rings movies than you'll like this film. The visuals are absolutely incredible and it has that familiar LOTR feel that we all know and love. I couldn't quite give it a 10/10 for a few reasons. For one, there are so many characters that most of them have absolutely zero development whatsoever. Frodo gets more screen time than some of the dwarves and that'sIf you liked The Lord of the Rings movies than you'll like this film. The visuals are absolutely incredible and it has that familiar LOTR feel that we all know and love. I couldn't quite give it a 10/10 for a few reasons. For one, there are so many characters that most of them have absolutely zero development whatsoever. Frodo gets more screen time than some of the dwarves and that's really unfortunate. Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin are the focus of the film, as they should be, but the rest of the dwarves are essentially filler in the movie. I don't know how Peter Jackson could've done this differently without making the movie even longer (and it's already about 3 hours) so it's really just the nature of the content that has trouble transitioning to film. Secondly, the feel, while similar to LOTR, doesn't seem as epic. When watching Lord of the Rings, even after already having watched it before, there's a sense of awe that this film doesn't quite capture to the same degree. Regardless, the movie is outstanding and I have a feeling that if watching all three films back-to-back-to-back (when they're released that is), it will come off much better. I can't wait for the second installment. Expand
  73. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed
  74. Jan 8, 2013
    5
    This movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or whenThis movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or when oversized eagles save the day and carry all of them for a while. Not to mention when Bilbo saves the dwarf king, in what is yet one of those moments again. Why did they have to walk for three hours (of movie time) only to have Gandalf call the birds in the end? Could they not have used the birds in the beginning? But that is besides the point. And there was this other wizard, I honestly do not even know what to think. That bad. The scene where Bilbo finds the ring is overly long and boring, and for some reason he has to engage in a riddle game with that stupid "my precious" guy. Probably one of the most useless moments in a film I have seen to date. One last cry I have about the movie, apart from the strange cgi characters, is that the dwarfs seem somewhat tall.There is this inconsistency, in some shots they seem taller then in others, and a few of them look, well, human. In conclusion, the Hobbit part1 has plenty of nice moments, but in a complex device, such as a movie, everything has to be done right, not just some of the things. Expand
  75. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    An excellent addition to Jackson's collection of Tolkien adaptations. Word of advice, don't go into watching this film wanting a film exactly like Fellowship of the Ring. It's not, it has a different feel, and different tone, but you will still know you are being absorbed into Middle Earth while watching AUJ. The acting is superb - Freeman and Armitage ARE Bilbo and Thorin, and of courseAn excellent addition to Jackson's collection of Tolkien adaptations. Word of advice, don't go into watching this film wanting a film exactly like Fellowship of the Ring. It's not, it has a different feel, and different tone, but you will still know you are being absorbed into Middle Earth while watching AUJ. The acting is superb - Freeman and Armitage ARE Bilbo and Thorin, and of course McKellen and Serkis reprise their roles with perfection.

    An Unexpected Journey is an adaptation of The Hobbit - not LOTR. It has a different tone and critics going into this film expecting the same emotional ups and downs as LOTR will be disappointed. Not to say there isn't any in AUJ - there are plenty.
    Expand
  76. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Without any kind of doubts, is the best fantasy movie I have ever seen.
    If you like fantasy, it's an essential movie to watch.
    A new magic world awaits you!
  77. Dec 15, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, a really good film. However, if you're looking for the power and intensity of LOTR, it's just not there. It's almost as if they made this one intentionally for little kids, like a Pixar film. WAY too humorous when it shouldn't have been, up to and including, funny one-liners from goblins as they were dying??!!?? Disappointing. Expand
  78. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Perfect film... Amazing 3D... it's slow but I say this as a positive point, savoring the details. The scene with Gollum is superb. The worst thing for me is the soundtrack. I don´t remember any melody and it's very typical, but the film is perfect. I feel sadness about critics who never do nothing but speaks a lot... bla bla bla
  79. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    As a huge fan of the LotR trilogy my wife and I set out on our own unexpected journey to see The Hobbit, in spite of the myriad of very average reviews. Truth is most of the critics have some valid concerns, pacing is a bit slow at first, CGI seems to be a slight mixed bag. However in the net they dont seem to matter much to me. I had read The Hobbit as a young boy my wife had not andAs a huge fan of the LotR trilogy my wife and I set out on our own unexpected journey to see The Hobbit, in spite of the myriad of very average reviews. Truth is most of the critics have some valid concerns, pacing is a bit slow at first, CGI seems to be a slight mixed bag. However in the net they dont seem to matter much to me. I had read The Hobbit as a young boy my wife had not and we both came away with a great appreciation with the time spent to develop characters and story in the first part of the movie. The acting is across the board great.

    The movie is by no means without flaws but I think most reviewers are using a filter of perfect or mediocre. The original LotR wasnt perfect either but the sum of all three movies was so great it immediatley lent a free pass to the flaws it did have. I firmly believe that by the end of this new trilogy we will be thinking and viewing The Hobbit in the same way. Its absolutley worth watching, Never before has returning to a fantasy world felt so good and natural. Its like being wrapped in a wamr fuxxy blanket where you know what to expect but its still great all the same.
    Expand
  80. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is a brilliant movie to start off what will be an amazing trilogy.Now the Director Peter Jackson has not lost his style from The lord of the Rings movies because middle earth still looks excitingly dangerous. Bilbo Baggins played by Martin Freeman from Sherlock owns it as playing Bilbo. He is a brave little Hobbit that goes on a journey with Gandalf andThe Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is a brilliant movie to start off what will be an amazing trilogy.Now the Director Peter Jackson has not lost his style from The lord of the Rings movies because middle earth still looks excitingly dangerous. Bilbo Baggins played by Martin Freeman from Sherlock owns it as playing Bilbo. He is a brave little Hobbit that goes on a journey with Gandalf and the dwarves to try and reclaim there homeland which was destroyed by the evil Dragon Smaug. When your watching this film you are routing for Bilbo all the time because he is the underdog because the drwarve leader Thorin thinks he has not got what it takes to go on the journey. Also we get to see Gollum again played by Andy Serkis is still a creepy mysterious devil like he was in the Lord of the Rings and that was fantastic to see. I think everybody is going to enjoy this movie and I did not want this film to end. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great way to end the year. Expand
  81. Jan 10, 2013
    5
    Honestly, nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Often boring and lagging on, losing interest is obvious. However, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography as well as the score and brief exciting moments, excite the mood. Albeit temporarily.
  82. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    Something like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of theSomething like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of the character Radagast, a mushroom munching stoned out hermit. The only balance to this is that there small pieces that are ten out of ten material, particularly riddles in the dark, and they are all that keep me from rating this lower. This story has been stretched thin and exploited so that Jackson can have his second trilogy, and I will not be giving them another theater seat. Renter.
    (P.S. Peter-long after your movies are gone, the books will still remain, unless you feel like revising those too.)
    Expand
  83. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    An unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come closeAn unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come close to silencing the skeptics like his Lord of the Rings films did, and is actually more ill-conceived than expected.

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

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

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

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

    There's a good movie somewhere in The Hobbit, and had Jackson shown more restraint we might have seen it. The film could easily lose at least 45 minutes, but it feels as if director feels so beholden to his previous work that he needs to deliver an epic on the scale of LOTR. But that's not what this book is, and we're left with an uneasy balance - the lighter tone to distinguish this as a separate story but a strict adherence to the LOTR structure - but ultimately doesn't fulfill either side.
    Expand
  84. Dec 27, 2012
    2
    "Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and"Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and divided it into parts - to make more money.
    Poor attempt of trying to make a lot of $ using great author's name.
    Expand
  85. Dec 16, 2012
    3
    I am disappointed in this movie.

    Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW. I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie. You want to see the hobbit HAHA VERY **** DISSAPOINTING FOR LONGTIME FANS. You know how people trim down film during the editing process, well that doesn't happen here, they
    I am disappointed in this movie.

    Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW.
    I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie.
    You want to see the hobbit HAHA VERY **** DISSAPOINTING FOR LONGTIME FANS.

    You know how people trim down film during the editing process, well that doesn't happen here, they literally put everything imaginable into the film just to cash out on poor suckers in a 1-3 installment.
    You should have heard people saying what the **** after the movie suddenly cut off.

    None of the battles were memorable thanks to the terrible framerate blur.

    They had to seriously reference songs from the 70's cartoon movie just to make the audience chuckle.

    Please don't give this a 10 unless you have reasons, just being a (good) film by beginners standards is not enough.

    They could have improved this movie if they included the spiders but they didn't they wanted some goblin king and some orc to be protagonists.

    I was waiting the whole time to see some live action enemies orcs, goblins anything but NO I AM DISSAPOINT. ALL ENEMIES WERE CG. GOLLUM LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE, he is cute wtf! he scared Bilbo in the Cartoon Version, and he scared the hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, but in this he is not scary at all in this version. They didn't even include the part where it was dark down in that cave where he uses the Sting for light they don't even examine the sword called sting no one even heard the word STING muttered WTF WTF!, but in this movie everything was visible.

    Music was terrible and the jokes were terrible, half the audience was laughing at unfunny parts and half were laughing during the funny parts.

    Bilbo does a terrible job acting around any cg enemy, he literally just smiles and giggles or makes a joke when he encounters an enemy.

    The goblin king makes a lame joke, the dwarves can literally mow down any enemies they encounter.

    13 Dwarves a wizard and a hobbit are not meant to mow down Millions of Orcs and Goblins in a blink of an eye. Why do they even consider running if after they run they just fight them off. Goblins are supposed to swarm and exhaust the enemy not die 1 by 1.

    This film is Peter Jacksons (Phantom Menace) cg overloaded trash.
    Expand
  86. Dec 24, 2012
    1
    So boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening so intrascendental and no charismatic characters.
  87. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    It pains me to see so many people comparing The Hobbit to The lord of the rings movies. The Hobbit is a completely different story and really doesn't have much to do with lotr, therefore, I don't see this as a prequel and I never will. I think that they did a great job adding stuff that wasn't in the book in order to make this first movie more exciting and interesting.
    The ''Riddles in
    It pains me to see so many people comparing The Hobbit to The lord of the rings movies. The Hobbit is a completely different story and really doesn't have much to do with lotr, therefore, I don't see this as a prequel and I never will. I think that they did a great job adding stuff that wasn't in the book in order to make this first movie more exciting and interesting.
    The ''Riddles in the dark'' scene with Bilbo and Gollum was just glorious. I could watch that for hours and still not be bored. The ending of the movie was really good too, Bilbo took a huge step as a character and I would say it was quite emotional, the bonds between the main characters are getting stronger.
    Expand
  88. Dec 19, 2012
    5
    Good CGI and feeling to the movie. Don't care much for the cartoon-ish style of character design. Falls short on the story compared to the book. A lot of fill between scenes . Guess that's why there's going to be three movies total.
  89. Dec 20, 2012
    2
    Where to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and overWhere to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and over for the idiotic modern viewer. The journey is butchered so the audience can enjoy a cheap joke or set up car-chase esque sequence complete with complete ridiculous jump to platform action scenes. The dialogue is terrible and there are none of the wisdom quips that gave LOTR its magic and lasting effect. The ridiculous slapstick humor injected in comes off as annoying, like others have said, makes the movie feel like a Pirates of the Caribean film. This is a bad action movie, nothing more Expand
  90. Dec 19, 2012
    3
    A big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside BagA big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside Bag End with the plate tossing and especially in the orc caverns were groan worthy. The music sounded like a rehash of the LOTR soundtrack with one additional song. I understand, that they have similar areas -- elves, hobbit(s), wizard(s) but it just wasn't up to LOTR quality to me. The sets, outside of Bag End, seem very small, as if to save money. The cast seemed to be perpetually pressed up next to each other with CGI effects all around them. Almost as if they had a 4ft square piece of plywood to stand on in the middle of a blue screened room. This stood out -a lot-. CGI and 3D were the true stars of this movie. With more screen time given to both of these than any of the other actors. The CGI, which was done as an additional component to the story telling, as Alex Funke said during the making of LOTR, took center stage during this movie. It was rampant and very noticeable. I understand, that it simply impossible to make most or all of the monsters as latex appliances but they did that in the other movies. Why not here? Andy Serkis and Golem's animators were a joy to see. The flash back to Erebor was amazing. The rest of the movie simply wasn't up to the same calibur as those segments. It was more like an old 80's after-school special when compared to LOTR's quality -- and it painfully showed. Many many scenes were homages/repeats of LOTRs camera angles or effects. I could name them, but I don't want to embed them into people's permanent memory. If you have seen LOTR as often as I have, you will spot the same sequences/shots used in this movie as were previously done. That's lazy and it stands out. Also gone are the big sweeping grand panorama shots of LOTR. Lastly the obvious attempts at humor. It felt like George Lucas had directed this movie because PJ had to toss in some kid-friendly elements to make it a family movie instead of just telling the story. Expand
  91. Dec 17, 2012
    1
    I had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. The original Hobbit depending on what publication edition, was roughly 1/5 or less of the number of pages of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This leaves youI had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. The original Hobbit depending on what publication edition, was roughly 1/5 or less of the number of pages of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This leaves you feeling you not only get to pay three times to see one story, but you also get to wait a full year between each release!
    I could wait until all three are out and watch it, but I don't want to sit on my butt for so long in front of a TV that I could have just re-read the original story in paperback.
    Expand
  92. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    I was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the sourceI was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the source material of the hobbit is not near as good as the LOTR trilogy and I don't know why in the world they decided to turn this into a trilogy creating three movies full of unnecessary fluff, two maybe, three no way. Wait until the dollar theater or redbox and go catch Lincoln, The Perks of being a Wallflower, Wreck it Ralph or Life of Pi. Expand
  93. Jov
    Dec 14, 2012
    6
    Let me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intendedLet me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intended it - at 48 FPS, 3D, with Dolby ATMOS surround sound on 4K resolution projectors, but was repeatedly disappointed by the visuals. Peter Jackson seems to have gone the route of George Lucas in replacing actors, puppets, and good old fashioned screen magic with pure CGI. I'm not sure if it was the 48 FPS or what, but the film looked very, very fake. I felt like I was watching an animated film, or a video game at times. A lot of people are complaining about the over-long run time - I'm not one of them. I love a long film, and appreciated it here as well, but I think that it's significant to mention that despite a nearly 3-hour length, there was very little character development. No pauses for pacing. No - this was non-stop action. I felt like I was on "The Hobbit: THE RIDE". But what was I expecting? It was a children's book, and the film is a children's movie. The battles are toned down and pointedly blood-free. If LOTR is a classically painted master-work, then The Hobbit is a caricature. This isn't to say The Hobbit was all bad. It wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it at points. But the comparison to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is apt. The film is woefully over-full of CGI, lacks spirit. This doesn't feel like a labor of love - it feels like a blockbuster made for a younger generation with short-attention spans. Skip the 3D and skip the 48 fps. I look forward to a fan-edit when all three movies are released. It needs one. Expand
  94. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    This movie seems more like a children's movie than a LOTR movie. Little Dwarves who sing and drink. The action scenes and characters seem cheesy, and mainly, this should NOT be 3 movies. The next movie better be good.
  95. Dec 21, 2012
    4
    A very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they'reA very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they're stretching it out way too much. Most of the movie was boring, and the few intersting/exciting parts weren't enough to save it. Expand
  96. Jan 23, 2013
    3
    The hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite theThe hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite the negative comments, the film does show signs of greatness, but they are usually overcome with incredibly cheesy scenes and characters ( radagast) which takes away any seriousness. I have been a huge fan of The Lord of the rings. Trilogy and I was deeply saddened when I saw this movie. The only thing to be said about it is, hold on to the great scenes and try to endure the more child like ones Expand
  97. Mar 4, 2013
    0
    I'm a big fan of the Tolkien books. I mean BIG. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. After about 30 minutes my wife woke me up! I've never fallen asleep in a cinema before. Sitting there watching this bizarely paced movie, way too much CG, not enough acting, I felt myself wishing for the end. Will NOT be seeing the other 2, it is only 2 isn't it?
  98. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    I saw the 2D version--which I highly recommend to do. There is no good reason that this movie is getting such low reviews. Is it as good as The Return of the King? No. As my opinion goes, there are between 5 and 10 other movies including the first two LOTR, The Avengers, Iron Man, and SW: RotS and SW: RotJ that are THAT good, perfect 10/10. Is it as good The Hobbit as written in theI saw the 2D version--which I highly recommend to do. There is no good reason that this movie is getting such low reviews. Is it as good as The Return of the King? No. As my opinion goes, there are between 5 and 10 other movies including the first two LOTR, The Avengers, Iron Man, and SW: RotS and SW: RotJ that are THAT good, perfect 10/10. Is it as good The Hobbit as written in the novel exactly word for word? No. The added one armed orc is forced and his dialogue is bad and unoriginal ("get the dwarven scum") and the whole orc chase scene after them mines is total overkill (as is them surviving a fall on the timber bridge--there is much more suspension of disbelief required in this film). But my goodness people, the other two hours are really, really great. People complained of there being no great characters to identify with. This film has THEMES. An unexpected journey. Stepping out your front door and out of your comfort zone. HELPING homeless people regain a HOME. This is 10/10 stuff. The only reason I give it a 9 is because of the little campy stuff that was added in. I would watch this movie again in a second, and I just might. Expand
  99. Jan 1, 2013
    9
    Is visually beautiful, strong and powerful, returning us to the Middle Ages so high, reigniting the flame of adventure as only Peter Jackson knows how to do, in the sense weak argument because I miss the thrill of a well-made ​​plot and only be a traveling group of dwarfs to return to rule their land.
  100. Jan 15, 2014
    0
    One of the uglier and more bewildering films of our time. I actually laughed when I realized Bilbo's ring-vision actually looks more real than the phoney, almost fully C.G. 'regular' world. Martin Freeman looks visibly uneasy to be in the film during every single, cartoonish scene of this calamity. Peter Jackson should have been put in charge of the J.R.R. Tolkien Theme Park, not the films.
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.