A lot of critics are complaining about the length of this movie, but in my opinion this was not one of the negatives. I was amazed and entertained with every second of the movie, and was dreading seeing the credits. A feeling that I'm sure many Tolkien fans will share. Sure the beginning started off a little slow, but after passing the 45 minute threshold the movie almost became a nonstop adventure that fans have come to expect from the LOTR's. The acting was great, the sets and scenery breathtaking, a fantastic soundtrack, and great action. All centered around a amazing story, dotted with additions from other Tolkien books, that for the most part follows the book. The only problems I had with the movie is that I didn't care as much about the dwarves as I did members of the LOTR's fellowship. They just were all to similar and number to many to gain any sort of real emotional attachment, excluding Thorin. The second problem being the use of CGI for orks instead of actors in customs. They just didn't seem as real, and left me wondering why Jackson made the switch. Outside of these minor complaints though, the Hobbit was an amazing film, and my personal favorite of 2012.… Expand

The hobbit lived up to my expectations. The only negative thing I can think of is that the movie as a whole is much more CGI heavy than the LOTR trilogy, however this is both a bad and a good thing. In some scenes it is quite blatantly obvious where CGI was used which in turn ruins the flow of the film, I can only think of two instances of this happening where it actually stood out and made quite a bit of difference. It was purposely used however, to create humor. The positive aspects of the heavy CGI use was that it created very unique looking characters that make the creatures in The Hobbit look fresh and new than the classic orcs we have seen over and over again.… Expand

OK, I'm rather shocked at the negative official reviews. This film is not the best of Jackson's Tolkien films, but it is certainly not a 60! Part of it may have to do with the frame rate fiasco. I happened to see it in the old-school 2D 24 fps, because I feared the technological fads might mitigate my appreciation for the movie. There is a little bit too much gratuitous combat, but other than that, there are few horrible flaws. Even the press reviews compliment the acting and cinematography. While the scenes added from materials from beyond the book (the LotR appendices) might seem a little arcane to the uninitiated, they made sense given the themes Jackson is trying to emphasize: greed, entitlement, loyalty, and risk. I might not have agreed with all the choices Jackson made, but you can appreciate them as intelligent and researched choices. It strikes me that many press reviews are punishing the film for its technological choices - and, as I said, I'm wary of those choices - but they do not warrant the panning the film is getting. It's a rollicking good time. Don't expect the Return of the King, but you can expect a welcome return to Middle Earth. And as most have said, the Riddle Scene is absolutely perfect.… Expand

Flat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and the actors who portrayed the dwarves. I wasn't disturbed by the faster frame pace. What rubs me the wrong way is what upsets me about a lot of recent films: the over-reliance on CGI. Another user commented on how the orcs and goblins are less frightening because they have been "cleaned up". CGI has its place: it would be impossible to display the extensiveness of the dwarves underground kingdom with hand-built sets. However, too many characters and scenery done with CGI make everything less real, less magical and . . . less frightening. The orcs and goblins in "The Fellowship of the Ring" were actors in costume and makeup. The orcs and goblins in "The Hobbit" are CGI and characters in CGI, no matter how much attempted frightening detail, appear cartoonish. A similar example, Jabba in "Return of the Jedi" and the CGI Jabba inserted later into Episode IV. He was more repulsive when the slime was real. Just imagine how much more repulsive the Goblin King would have been if he had been a combination of costume and puppetry.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Hi, I watched the movie today and I have to say it really is the movie I wanted to see! Both, 3D and HFR were great after 5 or 10 minutes, which it took to get used to the higher frame rate. 3D was cool, because there were many scenes you noticed it but it never was the scene highlight, so the film just got better with the 3D-effect and wasn't only good because of 3D. Jackson didn't really cut the books story and nearly everything mentioned in the book is in the film. Some scenes are a little bit different from the book without changing he story, for example in the troll scene, which happens a little different in the book and is just different in the film to make it easier for the viewer, who maybe not know the book, to understand whats going on. That very exact reproduktion of the book's story leads to a little slower speed of story telling, what you have to like if u want to enjoy the first hour of the movie, otherwise you wil be a little bit bored in the beginning. But once Rivendell is reached and the Shire is left behind the Action starts and you can enjoy great effects, pictures and scenes. The "new Orc-look", which is a little different from the LotR-movies, is a little polarising so again not everyone will like it.
All in all i conclude that "The Hobbit - An unexpected journey" is a great movie, but different from LotR so if u loved the LotR movies but never really liked the books (and the hobbit novel) u may be disappointed. But if you know the novel and like Tolkien's books this is your film. You will also notice that there are some things not mentioned in the hobbit but in other of Tolkien's texts and books, which are in the movie, what makes it easier to integrate the movie in the whole middleearth history.
You may have noticed that i am using the word "different" very often. That may show you, that this movie isn't really a prequel to LotR, what would mean it has the same style and epic battles, but the story happening BEFORE LotR, what means it takes place in the same world and is important for the things happening years later and explains why the movie contains more funny and less dark or intimidating moments than LotR.
I love the film as I love the books and LotR-movies and can't wait to see the second part next year and I am pretty sure I will watch this one once again in the cinema, can't wait to see the movie again till its out on blu-ray.… Expand

Finally, I came out of the theater of the long-awaited Hobbit. I have to write a word , I was thrilled. Excellent actors , design , effects and music with an ingenious plot -centric bridge to the Lord of the Rings . The complaints about the length are generally false, and rather serves as a slur. It is due to misunderstanding of original and above what the creators intended . Absolutely masterpieces are for the fans are mentions of the Silmarillion . PS1: The technical design and administration Gollum actor I could not take my eyes . : PS2: 3D is good, comparable to Avatar, but you can see it is not built for this style of filming - after flybys landscape has blurred.… Expand

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 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

This is a fantastic movie that pushes the self-imposed ceiling which filmmakers and critics have embraced for far too long. Yes, 48 frames per second is very different, but it marks an improvement in cinema. Those critics who have, their entire lives, only watched 24 fps movies are not only resistive to change, but obtusely against anything that they are unfamiliar with. There is a reason that this film has an "A" rating with CinemaScore, which measures actual audiences and their thoughts, not cranky critics.… Expand

Gandalf,Bilbo,Thorin and other dwarves began an adventure to take back Erebor. Once more Peter Jackson gave us an masterpiece with great acting and humor. We are talking about a three hours film. THE HOBBIT shows us how everything began in LORD OF THE RINGS.

In 24 fps, 'An Unexpected Journey' felt like a new 'Fellowship of the Rings'; lighter in tone than the succeeding movies, as it sets the narrative foundation upon which the characters, the plot, and the themes can further be developed. It contains a similar mixture of lighter idyllic and comedic moments, balanced against those of a more solemn and thoughtful nature. The same cinematic joy can be found in 'The Hobbit' as in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, thanks to the artistry of the world that has been built, the set and costume design, and the skillful and respectful work of the writers and actors, bringing Tolkien's world to the big screen in spirit, even if not always in exacting detail.

In 48 fps, 'An Unexpected Journey' is a vastly different movie. Yes, the high frame rate does distract from the movie itself, but it is a welcome distraction; it calls attention to itself by way of throwing the viewer head-first into a sea of visual stimuli that they have never had opportunity to see before. Every single action sequence was dramatically improved watching it in 48fps; every action, gesture and expression performed by the actors is a discrete and observable action, rather than a blur standing in for that movement. The lucidity brought by this method caught me as a viewer by surprise; at first overwhelming and, by the end of the film, wholly welcome. Hopefully the industry will continue to push for growth and further development in high frame rate film-making, in order to cultivate familiarity with this new presentation style in the audiences to the point where 48fps no longer distracts, but integrates into the rest of the experience to immerse the viewer deeper into every strange new world.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Peter Jackson has done it again, with an utterly brilliant adaption of the first third of the classic novel … Expand

This movie was perfect, and all of the critics were wrong. It was extremely close to the book, and I loved how they took things out of the Silmarillion to build up the plot in the film. This movie brought back so many memories of me and my LotR action figures, and I hope my little brother will have the same experience with this trilogy. Thank you Peter Jackson!

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

Before going to watch The Hobbit wipe all preconceptions based on LOTR out of your mind. The Hobbit is much more 'fun', it's not afraid to crack a joke or two and creates a much more upbeat (but with serious undertones) movie. The scenery is spectacular, the special effects awesome and the make up beautiful - but else did you expect? It's also silly, amusing and slightly childish (in a good way!) and the almost 3 hours past in no time, also the HFM did nothing but enhance the gorgeous landscape in my view. Overall a really interesting movie and really looking forward to the next instalments!… Expand

This Film is an epic masterpiece. Peter Jackson has absolutely smashed it again with the superb adaptation. In this films first weekend box-office it has the highest record earning of any film produced worldwide. While this adaptation is from a 300 odd paged graphic children's novel, so yes it has been expanded to be made as a prequel saga for LOTR. I sincerely believe with no real offence to the original novel. I am sure Tolkien would be smiling at this recreation and to relive his work, God rest his soul. What a wonderfully made film, and while watching was as if in middle earth itself, with each scene and character their splendour and charms. Great detail, dialogue, and acting. The Bilbo Baggins, Gollum scene was my favourite being witty, funny, and dynamic. I wasn't bored at all for a second throughout it's lengthy duration the backgrounds and characters the adventure provided was plenty of sufficient entertainment to keep my attention throughout. It started with a great introduction and continued throughout with plenty of adventure while finishing well in line with a return, instead of just an abrupt ending. I can hardly for its return with much anticipation for the rest of this wonderful story.
I cannot understand for a second why critic's gave this epic masterpiece a box-office smashing sensation the bad press they have done. Honestly what do they know? Please watch this film for yourselves before making any opinions. Although obviously with them rating higher worse films this year it has been questionable as to their motives. Weren't they paid, HaHa.… Expand

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a brilliant film. If people are expecting another Lord Of The Rings film, they wont get it. The Hobbit stays true to Tolkiens original book which was written for children. It has comical aspects and also a couple of songs; neither of which are out of place. It adds to the original book's story which only makes the film better. Can not wait for the next installment!… Expand

The hobbit an unexpected journey

As always with new movies I try to skip the publicity, not an easy task with a film that is following up from one of the best trilogy's of all time.

The prologue is just excellent, this movie coming out after LOTR was always going to have to nod to it. the prologue did just that starting at the beginning of LOTR from bilbos perspective with some great nods to the trilogy, and from their the movie become more enthralling, using the same musical cues from the trilogy as well as some new great pieces to play with you emotions while getting to know this new fellowship. As with any movie returning characters always put a smile on your face and scenes with them were always captivating, especially the dialogue with golem and bilbo. From a directors point of view Peter Jackson nailed it once again, fly throughs over some of the action scenes made an already fast exciting scene more tense, as did scenes showing moments of compassion between characters. The screenplay was also excellent despite some departures from the book, which were expected from a movie that is always going to have to nod to the LOTR fans, humour was well placed and not over done, emotive scenes are character relationships were moving, more so than I imagined they would be.

In short, despite my worries how could I ever doubt Peter Jackson skill as a director when handling one of the greatest stories ever written, excellent, bring on part 2!… Expand

To rate this film, the reviewer has to fit the demographic. This may be a prequel, and in sequence to its related films, would be #1 of 6 total, but it is ultimately the first of 3 parts of one story. It is a lighter, less gritty story than The Lord of the Rings, and should be rated as such, and not in comparison. In all honesty, a non-LOTR fan has no business watching this film. If you like LOTR, you're going to like The Hobbit, and if you don't like LOTR, you most likely won't like The Hobbit. The only con I can honestly pick out is the fact that the theatrical rendition feels like an extended edition with some unnecessary scenes, but a LOTR fan is going to love that anyway. The negative reviews are all based off of the story being "padded" and "unfinished". The sad news flash is that this film, in structure, follows suit of the first LOTR film: "The Fellowship of the Ring", where it isn't a full story, but reviewers rate it as its own self containing story. An Unexpected Journey and Fellowship both get their 3-film story going, and are both respective to the overall tone that will be presented. Fellowship is a more epic movie, because it is setting up a more epic 3-film storyline. An Unexpected Journey is a lighter adventure story in comparison, because it is setting up a lighter 3-film storyline. Everything is respective to what it should be, and while I admit this film could have been better if the Hobbit franchise was its original 2 film setup as apposed to the 3 films that Warner Bros stretched it to, it still satisfies the demographic it is aimed at: LOTR fans (which are already a very wide and large fan-base as it is).

Notes on the 48 frames per second 3D version:

I am a filmmaker, so I wanted to see what Peter Jackson's intended vision would look like, being the 48fps in native 3D. Post processed 3D always looks like a pop up book to me, so I only see films if they were filmed in 3D because depth is much more convincing and captured more realistically. All 3 Hobbit movies were filmed in 3D and at an unprecedented 48fps. Anyone who's not a filmmaker isn't able to picture what that looks like, and when they do, they say it looks like a soap opera because it is the only kind of watchable entertainment they have witnessed higher amounts of fields displayed on screen. The best way to describe it, is the 48fps with 3D (only presented together) looking more like something really happening in front of you, and not a movie. Motion blur is almost completely eliminated since frames that would normally be nonexistent, causing that blur, are actually there. The 48fps without 3D would look really hokey, but with the 3D it is an interesting experience that is not very hard to get used to. I saw it twice this way already, and I had no eyestrain. As long as you drink lots of water (not soda or sports drinks) before a 3D movie, your eyes will stay moist enough that you will not suffer eyestrain. So that argument is out of the picture if proper movie-watching precautions are taken.
I personally prefer the 24fps version (normal movie frame rate and look) because that is traditional and seems the least distracting while watching, but the 48fps 3D is worth trying out at least once. The CGI actually looks more convincing in 48fps 3D as well.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What should I say about this movie? I should say that it was epic, the effects, the cast, the action, this wonderful movie has invade me the whole week that I'm thinking on watch it another 3 times, Peter Jackson, you have never lost your touch of direct a movie, and this is another example of success.… Expand

Perfect. Film of the year. I can think of no way that its pace, effects, acting and its use of the larger Tolkien world could be improved upon. I will never trust mark kermode again

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is without a shadow of a doubt the best film I have seen in 2012. Whilst it is certainly not as polished as the Lord of the Rings, it's a fantastic looking film, with excellent visuals, and top class acting. The critics are simply looking for cheap Star Wars prequel comparisons. Let me tell you this: Radagast is no Jar Jar Binks.… Expand

The movie was a masterpiece. I am by no means disappointed at all with this film, I think the camerawork was refreshing and they followed the book quite well, they pulled it off well and the CGI was beautiful, when you first see Rivendale, it takes your breath away. Good job Peter Jackson, Tolkien would be proud.

First thing first... this is not the lord of the ring trilogy. LOTR was the best trilogy ever in my opinion and I dont think i'll see something as good real soon. The Hobbit is a real nice movie, probably as good and beautiful as LOTR but you need to know that it is completely different too. The movie really look shorter than the 2hour45min it use to be. I see it in 2D and everybody with me was enjoying it as i do. So i recommend you to see it in 2D before and have a clear judgement, then to maybe see it in 3D....not like many critics have seem to do. I really dont understand the 58% average they give... Give the movie a try and youll not be disapointed. Visually stunning and I love the story too. I've read the book long ago and it is as good but a little bit different. For me its a good 9.2/10... a great family fun movie for the holiday.… Expand

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... but what I watched was an action movie (the special effects are amazing), not a magical and adventurous story.… Expand

The Low Metascore is a lie, here is my in depth review, there will be no spoilers so read freely.

As an avid fan of the Lord of the Rings, I saw all of them the second they hit Cinemas in my town, I was quick to watch this and this gave me so much joy I haven't felt since they announced this movie being made. Now, Lord of the Rings ended on a high note so I entered the Cinema with standards not to high but this movie... THIS MOVIE was above standards, this movie contains so many great aspects that I can't even begin to name them. Pure Action, Mixed with Witty Humor and Emotional Back story's. What more could you want from a movie? The lore discovered in this movie about Tolkien's fantasy world will intrigue people who are into 'Fantasy' and these sort of Genre's. The Directing is perfect and it clearly shined in this movie.

In short. I loved this movie. I cannot wait until the next one hits Cinema's. I was glad to of seen this movie and I will be seeing it again sometime soon.

The Hobbit was An Unexpected Journey. 10/10 from me.… Expand

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 "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

Beautiful. Funny. Vast.

It was frustrating to see such low reviews on what I found was a fantastic recreation of a much-loved book. Visually more stunning than LoTR: sunrise pans, beautiful landscapes, fantastic props; unrivaled fantasy effects. Take the Rivendell: a stunning expanse with almost photo-like realism. The pace was well structured. A slower start to introduce the lore and the characters. Once that's done? It races much like an action movie. The fight scenes are always fantastic: well choreographed, weaponry of great detail. The beasts equally so.

I think what really "does it" for me is the fact that having read the fantastic books themselves and while musing away the hours imagining the artefacts -- from weapons to beasts, characters to landscapes -- the films live up to that wonderous world held inside my head. They are visually stunning, fantastically acted -- the two comical dwarves whose names escape me were not actually annoying and they were really well casted -- and well worth your money.… Expand

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 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

You see I have watched all of the LOTR movies and I would say that the Hobbit is the best by far, it has better graphics , modern 3D , and it has good actors, overall I give it a 10-10

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, 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

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.

"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

It's beautifully made, but the 3D let the characters made look like plastic. The biggest downside however was the story. It was cliche and boring. When the movie ended I had the feeling I was only at the half of the movie. Yes, there are coming sequels. Yes, it's based upon a 70 year old book. But that doesn't change my rating. It's so sad that the story really sucks because most other things are just great!… Expand

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.

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.

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

Although The Hobbit is not as good as the LOTR it is still better than most films that have come out in 2012
eg Avengers Assemble, Keith Lemon The Movie.

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 is underplayed and Gandalf's involvement is overdone.… Expand

The best movie ever,people will never ever find any other movie like this or the lotr trilogy.
I recommend this for everyone. i rate this 10/10 because it has the best story.
The tech and defintion lets us enter a new world as if you were seeing it from your eyes.everyone should know about this,it everything you expect but it goes far over the top amazing very one.people should really stop comparing this with lotr,it wasnt even written like it.if u find a better movie i will compare it to this btw all people giving this a low rating are twilight fans… Expand

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 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

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

David Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this to be just as good. It was a terrible interpretation. The dwarves are silly in the movie they are not in the book. There is much more violence in the movie than in the book. And, the violence is largely gratuitous with boring, drawn out scenes that are well over the top. No doubt video-gamers will like it, but this is a movie not a videogame The other Wizard, living in the forest as its caretaker, is made to look a fool in the book he is not. The escape scenes are also much drawn out and absolutely unbelievable as in so completely unbelievable that I thought I was watching a Saturday morning cartoon. Visually the movie looks attractive, but since the plot is so wretchedly twisted the almost three-hours for me was tortuous the last 60 minutes I was twitching so much in my seat that I no doubt bothered my niegbors in the theater. Mr. Jackson did not need to add in the new characters and plot twists. Tolkien's work has very elaborate text and explanations that could easily have been incorporated to make a three-part series without the "new" material. He could have used much more character and plot development, increased the suspense and reduced the violence. I will see the next two chapters in the cinema, but not with nearly as much anticipation as I had for this first chapter and for the three Lord of the Rings movie.… Expand

Not enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, and get up without a scratch and run along. Far too similar to the Fellowship of the Ring, far too boring and redundant. Apparently there aren't even orcs in the Hobbit by Tolkein, but only goblins (and spiders and eagles) instead!! What a laugh.

Too much like Lord of the Rings. Obviously it's the same Middle Earth/Gandolf/ring/etc... but the Hobbit is not as grand a story as the Lord of the Rings. It is a much shorter/concise story. Watching this movie almost cuts into my enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings. As good as LOTR was, the Hobbit is just as bad. What a mess. They really cared about LOTR and Tolkein for the first 3 movies, I think they just wanted more money with the Hobbit.… Expand

This movie is really good. If you're expecting a lot of action sequences, then I recommend you stay away for now. This one is charming, looks beautiful, is well acted, and has great cinematography. I'm excited to see where they go with the next two movies (and yes, I've read the book). I think the heightened expectations because of LotR caused the critics to be against it some, so don't let the sway you.… Expand

I don't know what happened to the official critics to rate this movie so badly. This is one hell of a movie, entertaining, has got the "film" aspect, rouses emotions in you, a has a message. Even better the film will be if you read the book. You can't go wrong when you see how many people rated this movie X>60% (green). Reccommended!

First things first: Although the 48fps improved some smaller aspects of the movie, I would recommend seeing it in plain 24fps 2D.

I greet Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth with open arms. The types of grand adventures that these films portray are so practically non-existant when it comes to genre and it really is a treat to see the grand scenery of a world more fantastical than our own.

All the actors pulled out wonderful performances. Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, all of the dwarves, Andy Serkis, and everyone else. Not a single one of them breaks character.

As it was apparent during the production journals, the film utilizes a lot of CG. I thought it was used appropriately for the most part, my only problems coming a handful of moments where the effects felt over-the-top or unnecessary.

The film's story is arguably the biggest issue in-that nothing much happens. There's a lot of filler, albeit very enjoyable filler, between action sequences and exposition.

The Hobbit is best advertised as a roller coaster, full of entertainment and well-crafted thrills, but lacking the tension that actual danger would have created.… Expand

Overall I liked the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The scenes from the book are done really well better than in Hunger Games or the later Harry Potter films. There is some great acting, camera work, music, and sets. The scenes are really given time to flesh out. The added scenes cause the movie to drag. If some of the scenes were cut out and/or this was one or two movies I would be giving this a higher score. Unfortunately Peter Jackson tries a little to hard to incorporate Middle Earth lore that while cool often is not that interesting and slows the movie down. Its like he was trying to create his own beginning, middle, and end. Despite these flaws though I really enjoyed this movie its flaws are not because the director did not try hard to make a good story but tried too hard, which I appreciate. Maybe if I see it again knowing where its going I… Expand

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 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

I admit this was not as good as any of the three Lord of the Rings films. However, it was not the disaster that many of the critics labeled it. I actually enjoyed revisiting that world and was entertained and never bored. I get what the critics are saying about it being redundant and uninspired. I do not see the need for the 3 D but it was a good time at the theater. I will bet money I will enjoy this more than"Django Unchained" from QT which the critics loved. I will review that after I see it.… Expand

The Hobbit is enjoyable and fun, playing more like a well-performed score with a slow rise into an epic swirl of sonic activity. By itself the movie rates as a 7 for me. No special fanfare scoring or pessimistic knocking. This film serves as a setup for two additional films to come. The biggest drawback to An Unexpected Journey is the film's struggle for meaning and identity early on. There's some coolness to it, but really your first hour or so is setup. Not boring, but not totally entertaining either. However, you feel rewarded for sticking with it once the adventure begins, as the pacing and plot blossum with every moment you spend with it. As the movie closes, I felt that I saw something special growing. Peter Jackson will pull in not just The Hobbit, but The Silmarillion as well, bringing some ancient-world lore and backstory into the set peice to keep the trilogy interesting (otherwise this movie could easily be done as a two-parter). Totally worth seeing, but the score I give is for the movie by itself, which could be adjusted and improved assuming the trilogy fares well. Check it out if you enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy or adventure/fantasy films in general.… Expand

Peter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world is visually dazzling and the pacing seldom lags. Fans will surely be thrilled, but there's something hollow and weirdly modern about the spirit that makes it more a spectacle than an expressive adventure. BTW, this is the first movie in HRF (High Frame Rate), shot in 48fps and showing in selected local theatres. Basically, it looks like really clean HD video. I review THE HOBBIT and the new HFR format.… Expand

The fact that this not LOTR immediately undermines the Hobbit; a smaller children's book that lacks the serious themes of Rings but makes for it with a much lighter tone, amazing creatures and action. Whether Peter Jackson's vision for this new trilogy works and is vindicated is yet to be seen but there is plenty to look forward to with this film. Great performances if not all the characters are developed but there is an overriding sense of fun and adventure which Rings sometimes lacked. HFR isn't successful I'm afraid and some of the CG characters don't feel real but this is a well made film with stunning visuals and a final scene that makes thus first film satisfying whilst setting up a seemingly more epic second film.… Expand

Overlong and playing a little hard for the kids in some moments, The Hobbit is still a good picture. I understand the source material, but it seems like Jackson couldn't decide between going all for a kid-friendly feel or staying more mature in line with the Rings trilogy. The cgi isn't as effective as the makeup from the great looking orcs from the Rings either, and few scene were hard to sit through for me (particularly a singing sequence) but it has some good qualities. The acting is good and it definitely stays true to the story. The film is beautiful to look at and the movie definitely has some great moments that make up for the lackluster stumbles. I still can't help but wonder if a short book will really need three movies for justice, especially if they're all this length.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Without going into the finer points or minor grumbles I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film, so much so that even as the final scene faded to black I was still wanting to watch more .
I wasn't convinced with the start of the film but the pace picks up soon enough and you can just sit back and soak up the story. Golum, as ever is a scene stealer!… Expand

This is nothing short of the beginning of new Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that's basically the best fact ever, and a total reward to those who love TLOTR. It's all here: the music, the spectacle, and a few returning characters of course. My gripe is that the story isn't pushed along fast enough by the action. Meaning, after a battle not much has changed, and on to the next battle. But enough complaints! I'm back in the world of TLOTR!… Expand

I was really afraid this 3-movie concept multiplied by Hollywood standards of moviemaking will ruin the ideas and concepts of the book. Yet it was awesome! I could nip-pick a bit, but in fact every scene or event from "There and back again" is in place and they DO work with "injected" Necromancer plot (which existed before that only in additions to LOTR books and was mentioned in two lines at the book itself). So, great job. It could be better but it is still awesome! 9/10.… Expand

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is another great entry into the Lord of the Rings series. It's lighter than the previous trilogy, but that lightness brings with it a sense of fun and adventure. This is a very promising start to a new trilogy and it sits right alongside Fellowship and Two Towers in the quality department... And several rungs above Return of the King, obviously.

The Hobbit. Is it worth seeing? Yes. Is it as good as LOTR? No. I think I was just well prepared in that I knew it would be slow at the start and take a while to get going and that its more a kids movie. If you know thats what to expect and love the first trilogy as much as me then I can't see why you wouldn't enjoy this. Martin Freeman is perfect and the return of Gollum is a real highlight. The 3D is brilliant and makes Middle Earth even more beautiful. As with LOTR I'm sure it can only get more epic as the trilogy continues....… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is regarded by many as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy; possibly one of the greatest fantasy franchises ever seen, with 17 Academy Awards won across the trilogy and Return of the King being the 6th highest grossing film of all time… Expand

To be honest, at first I was a little reluctant to spend almost three hours to see thiz movie but I know I will go anyway, just for curiosity

OK let me get this straight, the critics gave this a 58 and Django blah blah blah an 80? Something is wrong with that picture. I read The Hobbit when I was about 25 years old and loved it. Here I am now 50 and to see the wonder of the book come right of the pages into a BEAUTIFULLY shot movie and was right on line with the book just gave me chills down my back it was so good. Beside the Avengers, this was the best movie that I have seen all year. I saw Batman, Spider-Man, The Avengers, (you can see what kind of movies I like to pay to see) and then I saw The Hobbit. Wow is all I can say about the movie. It had the heart , look, and story of an epic movie. Wow did it deliver. The critics are a bunch of stupid quacks! Take your family to see this EPIC movie. This is a GREAT family movie!… Expand

The Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that they added so much random **** ruins the whole trilogy and ruins what the author wrote. i fully understand that The Hobbit is a stand alone book/movie and not apart of the lord of the rings trilogy, which is also why they didn't need the introduction with frodo and an older bilbo, it was annoying to me to think that they ARE in fact linking the trilogy to the hobbit. the needless intro also ruined the immersion and it felt more like a fake story than an immersive movie. if you read this and thought it was a good movie, i would agree it had it's fine moments, the 3D effect were great and the 48 fps was really breath taking. to make this movie a 7/10 (for me at least) all they could have done is cut out the intro. oh well.… Expand

A great looking movie, but more importantly it keeps the feel of the Lord of the Rings trilogy while putting in some of the musical elements which reminds me of the animated film. It has some added plot elements on top of the original story, probably to help them milk a rather short story into multiple films, but since I enjoyed it so much I'm not complaining.

If you enjoyed the LOTR trilogy you will most likely enjoy this as well, unless you're a purist about the original plot from the books or don't really want to watch long, drawn out action sequences.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Monotonous, dry, bland, unimaginative story telling, as much fun as a trip to the dentist, please deliver us from Peter Jackson. The visuals have been overplayed in the Lord of the Rings and the screen play lands flat and robotic. None of the characters resonate and Richard Armitage looks and acts more like a poor copy of Viggo Mortensen's Aragon than a dwarf royal or not. Huge waste of time and money, this telling lends nothing to Tolkien and appears lifeless even next to the cheesy 1977 animated Hobbit. Jackson only has 2 tools in his tool box, endless sweeps across the landscape of New Zealand and excessive CGI. Both are used to great effect to kill pacing, distract from the story and swallow the characters, not that another whiny hobbit or a band of forgettable dwarves that cannot sing would be missed. The ending is also disappointing, not that I expected any kind of resolution in a film from Jackson, but I really wanted to see Smaug kill off the cast, turn on Jackson and leave us to all live happily ever after in a world free of crappy directors and pretentious film making.… Expand

The movie is of well above average quality. I liked the characters, but not so much as the sightseeing, the world of "Hobbit...". I was dissapointed in Thorin and his band, as they try hard to be more than a background to Bilbo, but it comes out flat. Didn`t find them that interesting. It is good that Martin Freeman came through and gave a great performance. The movie rests on his actions so thanks to him ir does a good job showing us a great adventure. I really liked the villains, especially Azog, but all of them are excellent, along with their homes. The music I expected to be top notch and I wasn`t disappointed. The bad think in my opinion are some of the action scenes, which are too much over the top, unbelievable. The dialogues are really good for and adventure - genre movie. 3hours of it didn`t bore me a second. All in all it is a must see lick, although a masterpiece I think it is not.… Expand

After reading the strangely up and down reviews for this movie, I was very pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed this movie, and honestly haven't felt such a full movie-going experience since seeing the original trilogy in theaters. My biggest complaint was the insane HD look when seeing it in IMAX, I find that it looks way too real, stealing magic and warmth from the overall look and feel of the movie. Though the special effects were quite impressively real looking to fit in with hyper-real look. Otherwise, I found the story, acting, script, and overall film to be truly excellent. Certainly not perfect, but neither were those LOTR films, people.… Expand

Overall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense at all... and are entirely unneccesary.

Then there is the fact that this was SUPPOSED to be a 2 movie deal until the Studio decided it wanted to make more money and stretch it into 3 !@#$% movies! This is why the film is overlong with bloat, bloat, and more bloat! The LOTR was three 3 hour movies from about 1100 pages of source material... The Hobbit films are going to be three 3 hour movies from a little over 300 pages of source material (!?) expanded with additions from the LOTR Appendices.… Expand

Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

Now, in all fairness, I wasn't the biggest LOTR fan. But I did enjoy the movies. This was painful to watch. For a child, I'd recommend it. It's got silly bits and funny bits that I would have loved as a child. But I'm old, and crotchety.... And was expecting/hoping for a neat story in the line of LOTR. Instead I got slapstick humor with filler. Lots and lots of filler.

Is it a 0/10? No. It's okay. Perhaps it was simply not for me. But at 1 hour, I checked the time and was astounded to find that I had not been watching for 2 hours, and that I had 1 hour and 45 minutes left to go. I groaned and turned it off.… Expand

Review based on 48fps non-3d edition as 3d gives me headaches.
I was very impressed with the LOTR trilogy by Peter Jackson, after being worried after seeing his earlier works...but then as now faith has been rewarded. The Hobbit is pretty much as I would have expected it, it matches most of the previous 3 movies high standards without too many shortcummings to stretch a short kids book into another 3 part epic. Lets not forget there is more story and background stuff in "The Hobbit" than all the Harry Potter series put together, so lets look at the main things Jackson got right. 1. 48fps is fantastic and whingers should shut up crying about out of date 24fps formats, though I agree 3d sucks and needs to die quickly.
2. The story is pretty faithful to the book, and actually improves on some duller bits with some awesome special fx action sequences to pad it out in such a way it feels right at home with the lore.
3. The acting is fantastic, Martin freeman was the perfect choice, and to have a lot of the original cast show up is also and linking it seemlessly to the LOTR movies is very welcome...
4. The dwarves... okay they are there to carry the humour, they were written with next to no personality and stereotypical, but it's a kids book remember.

So why did I only give it 9/10, well some places didn't really need to be in there (Mountain Giants) but they were nice additions for nothing I guess... nobody would really miss having it when the movie is over 2:30hrs long... but I bought the extended LOTR so I want the lot...warts n all lol. So in essence it's a little long for kids to sit through but ideal for the nippers once it's out on Bluray.… Expand

As the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit.

Endearing characters, well paced, incredibly deep story and action packed.. The hobbit was an amazing movie one fully worthy of standing next to the other three. Whether you're a fan of the book or have never even seen lord of the rings (like my girlfriend) you'll walk away with a filling experience.

Now, you're probably pretty skeptical about this movie, it's too long, will you get bored? Is it even that great to watch, it's so long! The answer is yes, it's worth it. The Hobbit does a fantastic job and keeping you entertained despite being so long. There are many great performances and new features in this film to keep you entertained- even though it is a prelude and these new scenes result in a problem as it sometimes goes off track by not following the book well enough. Despite this, it's a great movie overall and you'd want to see it again- in theatures. Now where's my ticket?… Expand

Push the hype aside and ignore the book, this movie is a very good movie. It is clear expectations were super high and I believe that is where some of the negative scores have come from. No movie will make everyone happy, but this movie is not worthy have very low scores. If this had been the first movie released from the series, fans would have thought they found the greatest movie ever. The pace of the movie is a little slower than any of the LOTR movies, but not as bad as some people say. If you must have action every five minutes, yes, you will be disappointed. If you love the book, this should be a great movie for you. If enjoy fantasy films, this should be a good movie for you. The biggest flaw for me was a few of the actions scenes became too cartoon like. One where the heroes are on a bridge that falls down and they ride it like they were glued to it. Not only was that bad, but it looked like something from a 1970s low budget Sci-Fi movie. Not a worthy scene for the movie. I have read some who complain they do not take the time to get the audience familiar with all the dwarfs in the main group. I do not see how they could have done that without making the movie another hour longer. As far as the format choice, it did not bother me. Yes, it does lack some of the slightly warmer feel of film, but it looks very crisp. I think if no one said anything, most people would not have picked up on the unique format. Bottom line, this is worth seeing in theaters if you enjoy fantasy films. If you are looking for an action packed movie, maybe the next Die Hard can help you with that. s it worth going 3-D, that I do not know.… Expand

I have to say that ignorance is bliss; as someone who has not read the novel I seemed to enjoy it much more than my friends who had read it. Though it has a slow start, it quickly picks up and entertains all the way through, breaking any tedious moments with riveting special effects or brisk action. I would recommend watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy first so you can catch all the subtle (and not-so-subtle) nods to its sister series. Definitely a spectacular film and looking forward to the next movies.… Expand

The movie is visually beautiful. It's a new opportunity to revisit Middle-Earth through the mastery of Peter Jackson - but it is not The Lord of the Rings, it's another story, so don't expect the same experience. If only the climax had been Goblin town, the movie would've been better. The HFR version is almost perfect.

The 3D and high frame rate were amazing, but other than that and that it was my first trip to Middle Earth in a cinema, it was quite okay. Richard Armitage was the best of the cast, along with Martin Freeman and the eternally amazing Sir Ian McKellen. I loved seeing Rivendell, Galadriel and Elrond, and Frodo too, my only true connections in the movie with the LotR trilogy.
I enjoyed seeing Andy Serkis's performance feeling a lot realer and with a lot more of a "Serkis feeling" than in the trilogy. I can't really explain it, you just kind of felt the person in Smeagol more than you did before. I didn't enjoy the kind of humor they put in the script, which was too 21st-century-esque at times when it should be medieval-like, but it was always funny. The visual effects were obviously much easier to notice with the HFR but I'm pretty sure they could have been better even if not seen in HFR.
It wasn't bad but it wasn't especially good or unique either if not for the uniqueness of the story. I expected better, but, at the same time, I was somewhat disappointed by the Lord of the Rings trilogy compared to the greatness of the books, so I didn't have the highest of hopes for this one either. A nice show but way too long for 1 in 3 movies...… Expand

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the best movie of 2012, before I watch the movie I thought tha would be not good, because it is inspired in a book that only have 200 pages, but Peter Jackson did a really great job and the 3D it's perfect. The soundtrack is very good. When The movies end I wanted more. And the actors are so good. Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen for me were the best actors of the whole movie… Expand

The Hobbit is set in the same world as the Lord of the Rings. However, unlike the dynamic storytelling that was in Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit really fails to stand up with the same quality. Many of the characters and bad guys look like plastic CGI characters and fail to bring any amount of believability that Lord of the Rings managed to instill with its costume design. The main Dwarf character is an absolute mirror to Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings and even the main plot diversions follow the same schematic that Fellowship had. (Shire -> Rivendell -> Mountain -> Forest (battle with bad guys)) It really was a letdown compared to its predecessors. However, still a good movie if you are not looking for the same dynamacy of the Lord of the Rings… Expand

Absolutely brilliant movie that exceeded expectations. Do not listen to the mainstream critics who would give a piece of crap black and white silent french film commenting about the nature of existence a 10 but rate the Hobbit a 5 (Wtf??). If you like good movies, see this!

of course it's good. it's primarily good because it makes all the right choices at the right places. the book is much lighter than the lord of the rings in terms of content, so the movie must be too. where the lord of the rings fills up the holes between it's moments of epicness with more epicness, the hobbit fills it up mostly with humour. also, the modern technology helps the world come even more alive.… Expand

One question most of you are wondering is: Does the Hobbit live up to the Lord of The Rings. The answer is both yes and no. No in that it is not as epic as LOTR (Lord of The Rings) which is almost impossible to do, but is very close. Yes in that it is an extremely enjoyable movie that does well for the franchise. The pacing of the movie starts off slow (similar to the first LOTR) but it explodes into an amazing adventure after a little more than 30 minutes. It is very similar to LOTR in most aspects except that has a lighter and more humorous side to it. It follows the book very well and overall is one of my favorite movies of the year. It's simple: if you loved LOTR, this movie is for you. If you didn't like LOTR, you will probably not like it. I watched the movie in IMAX 3D and found it to be one of the most entertaining nights at the movie theater ever. My only gripe is the CGI doesn't always work. At times it can make the movie look almost cartoony. I wish it were more like the LOTR trilogy. It had a much more realistic feel to it. P.S. if you were wondering, the 3D was pretty great. I thought it was one of the best, next to Avatar. They didn't just add in one or two scenes in 3D.… Expand

Best 3D effects that I have seen to date! Amazing special effects. But... these 2 things cant save this movie. I found the movie a chore to watch. It dragged on and on. Alot of action, but none were believable nor intresting.

I was quite weary beforehand knowing that it would be a trilogy. However, all the narrative threats tie together and is pertinent to the wider middle-earth mythos. The vsiual and sound quality is top notch, and the active above reproach. It has neatly set up the story for the next installments and I am definitely looking forward to it.

Yes, this film can be very cheesy at times, but it has some of the most honest emotion and most blatant adventuring that I have seen from a film in a LONG time.

I love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at or connecting with a real being. The entire portion with the trolls is difficult to watch, with odd CG, poor "combat", the dialogue can be forgiven (i.e. gross jokes), and a set that clearly looks like a set. Peter Jackson added portions of other Tolkien books and expanded certain sections not covered in The Hobbit, but almost all of them are in odd places, and do not really fit with the story (this could just be bad editing), this is especially so concerning everything revolving around Radagast the Brown. Pacing is very slow, which does not always equal bad, but it takes roughly 45mins for anything to happen in the film. Shooting in 3D was a big mistake, mostly because the lighting has to be so bright that many of the scenes looked odd, especially in Golem's cave, many scenes that should have been dark were oddly bright. I saw both the regular and 3D,48 fps. I did not enjoy the 3D, 48fps version of the film, it made the movie look like one of those 3D films at a theme park, i.e. somewhat cheesy. While there are many continuity issues many viewers will only catch a few. It seems that many of the qualities that Peter Jackson brought to LOTR (which made them great) disappeared in the hobbit. Many other issues include the pointless cameos from old Bilbo and Frodo (who has a 5 o'clock shadow), the long beginning narrative, cliched lines/characters, and odd makeup and props. I hope the next two films are better, but The Hobbit could have been better if Peter Jackson had gone simpler, in the scope and special effects of the movie.… Expand

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

Such a great movie, I went in with a skeptical mind and came out pleasantly surprised. I think Jackson has a fantastic start to The Hobbit and I look forward to the sequels!

Don't believe the critics! It's strange how they seemed to point out a lot of negative things about this pic, when these weaknesses were always prevalent in all of Peter Jackson's previous efforts: slow pace, overlong set pieces, and the bladder inducing run time of 3 hours. Nevertheless, Jackson's strength as a tent pole director is without parallel: great sense sense of scope, an intricate sense of detail, incredible use of practical / digital effects as well as bringing the best out of his actors / actresses. It's not as good as the LOTR trilogy but that's because the material itself was lightweight in comparison. The Hobbit was meant to be a much more simpler adventure yarn. In this department, The Hobbit delivers.… Expand

Critics pushed me to write a review. First of all, I must say I haven't read any LOTR or Tolkien books. That being said, I enjoy the world of Tolkien. As a kid I used to play Warhammer countless hours. I am a big fan of the LOTR and the hobbit realy lived up to my expectations. I can somewhat understand why people whine about FPS or "humorous beheading sequences played for cheap laughs" but I gotta say to these people "GET A F**** LIFE*. If you start to complain about little things as such, well I feel sorry for you then. Honestly, I HIGHLY recommend this movie - especially if you like that type of fantasy. I have friend that said this movie was OK but they are more into anime/japanese stuff which I enjoy too. Anyway well done Peter Jackson!… Expand

After so many years in production hell at MGM with serious doubt over these films happening at all, The Hobbit finally hit our screens, and quite a hit it was.
If it is at all possible NOT to see Lord of the Rings before you see the new prequel trilogy then do so, because as enjoyable and entertaining as the Hobbit was, it simply wasn't LOTR.
We clearly see from the beginning of the "Unexpected Journey" that these are much simpler times in middle earth, set sixty years prior to LOTR, we see Bilbo almost unwittingly setting out with a set of dwarves led by their King, Thorin Oakenshield, to reclaim the Lonely Mountain, forcibly taken from them years before from the dragon, Smaug.
An unneccesary forty minutes or so of introduction classes involving the dwarves, Bilbo and the welcome return of Ian McKellan as Gandalf the Grey did seem long-winded, but thats what happens when you split a 310 page book into three films.
What enticed me about this film, as i was watching the LOTR trilogy a few weeks later, is how Jackson has beautifully bounced them off each other to create an almost parallel world with no stone left unturned, little things such as the orc sword given to Frodo by bilbo makes an appearance, the trolls which are briefly seen in LOTR, simple little devices like this which take us down memory lane that can be effortlessly entertaining without relying too much on the past.
This is exactly why The Hobbit is so different, it was an attempt to rely on itself and not the massive cultural impact of the LOTR trilogy, something which Jackson succeeded greatly on. It's light-hearted, often humorous and exceptionally beautiful to watch. 48 fps took a little adjusting to, but where this HFR really shines are the action scenes in "Goblin City". A particular scene involving Bilbo and the dwarves find them trying to escape a duel between two stone giants, which is simply breathtaking to watch.
Arguably the greatest part of the film is the brief return of Gollum, who engages in a battle of riddles with Bilbo, and without any spoilers, a predictable but smile-on-your-face discovery is made from our dear Hobbit.
Excellent performances from Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Martin Freeman as a young bilbo, Richard Armitage as the miserable and brooding King Thorin as the the head of the dwarves, and the dwarves in general, its no secret the rigorous time in effort which goes into creating these creatures so bravo to all involved.
With brief appearances from Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving and Christopher Lee reprising their roles of Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman the White respectively, its wonderful to see familiar faces so utilized so brilliantly, but expertly placed to set up their own stories which we see in the LOTR. I thought Elijah Wood's appearance as Frodo, while cool to see, was simply unnecessary and to simple a paycheck to earn on Wood's part.
Light-hearted, humorous, and excellent action scenes make this a stand alone film to be reckoned with, while not as engrossing and spectacular as its predecessors, this prequel stands on its own two feet and has set up what could be a roller coaster of a trilogy on an epic scale.… Expand

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.

A great movie, "official" critics are being too critical as if they never seen prequels in the past... I loved to get back into the LotR universe and highly enjoyed the quality and budget of the movie. Dwarfs storyline is quite interesting. Movie is quite predictable yet not that much to give it score of 4-5.

I'm looking forward to next The Hobbit movie. Also badass ending song, this is probably the only movie in the world that forced me to sit through credits scene.… Expand

Definitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than one spectacular one, so I was even more worried when I heard they stretched it all the way out to a new trilogy. The Hobbit is such a great story. They really really are stretching it out, though, here. They added a lot that I didn't remember, and seemed to take a lot of liberties, though to be honest it's so long since I read the book I can't be sure what was or wasn't in it. I may be comparing it too much to the cartoon movie version I loved so much as a kid. But, all in all, I just felt that the story is stretched out a bit too long here. It's true that it probably wouldn't have all fit into one movie, but I think two would have been plenty, and then leave a lot of what they put in out for the blu-ray release. Instead, you get an uneven affair here, some of which reaches the familiar heights of greatness Peter Jackson established with the Lord of the Rings, but a lot of which falls short.… Expand

I couldn't disagree with the critics more. I love the original trilogy but went into The Hobbit with low expectations because of the reviews. But I thought it was as good if not even better than any of the original films.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I went into it thinking, "is this going to live to the anticipation"? I was sadly disappointed. I guess its still a good a movie. The cast was great, especially the three leads, and the music by Howard Shore was amazing. But the rest of the movie? Meh. The only really good bits were the misty mountains song by the dwarfs, the troll sequence, and the Gollum sequence. I thought the critics were being harsh comparing it to the lord of the rings as the books were very different, so the movies will be too. But now, I can see why. I had so many feelings of deja vu when I was watching this, that it felt like I was watching a recycled version of the fellowship of the ring, and it shouldn't be like that. And the script just dragged everrrryyythhhinnggg oooouuuuttttt soooooo lllloooonnngg. I was almost falling asleep during the white council scene. Which never happened in the book, it was just so they could have Galadriel and Saruman in the movie. Also, the last 10-15 minutes was incredibly melodramatic. Unnecessarily so. I guess it was an OK movie, to be honest I would watch it again, but only if I had nothing better to do.… Expand

More of a new tech demo than an addition of epic saga, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey prioritizes more on the graphic until the point of unnecessity. Fortunately enough, the amazing talents and the nostalgic lore will make the journey worthwhile. The retelling of previous adventure of Bilbo Baggins has myriad of mystical elements, although with 48 fps, the visual is a departure from the earlier trilogy's cinematic feel. It's closer to a video game or documentary than a cinema flick, and it takes a while to get used to. The look definitely smoother, but somewhat too hyper realistic in tandem with 3D which makes it lost that ethereal look.
The story goes that Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is suddenly recruited to a party of thirteen Dwarves and one wizard to be their burglar in a quest to restore Erebor, the lost city of Dwarves that was stolen by a materialistic dragon. The invitation process is terribly awkward, and the fact that the first scenes in his house are excruciatingly long makes it even more so. Nevertheless there he is, trudging the forest and plain of Middle Earth in his spare time while the Dwarves are seriously moody about their fallen kingdom. Bilbo does a give foreign perceptive on the affair, but it feels like he's shoehorned into the party.

Despite the initial slogging opening, Martin Freeman does a very good job on this role. He's not really valiant or witty, just enough to not be killed, and in some way he represents what Frodo did, a normal person in midst of heroes. It's a very relatable role, more pronounced by his flaws, I think audience will respond well to that. Ian McKallen reprises his role as Gandalf, it fits him like the beard and robe. Gandalf is a strong character, yet he accepts his shortcomings and his companions'.

The Dwarves are stubbornly merry, they are more defined as a pack rather than individually. Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) stands out more than the rest, because he has a banished king appearance. His character is brave and bitter, making it the far cry of Bilbo. Andy Serkis as Gollum returns and pretty much steals the show with his unique expression and body language. He is one of the best mixtures of acting and technology to date. Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving return as their respective characters. Though only briefly, they maintain solid performances as if they never left the characters.
The singular most annoying problem of this movie is the dragging pace. It's a too visible attempt to advertise the new 48fps. I seriously doubt that the audience needs to see more than half hour of Dwarves singing while washing dishes in the beginning, or the slightly troubled relative of Gandalf, Radagast The Brown, resuscitating a hedgehog many times over before he rides in his woody cart attached to bunnies. Its writing isn't at the same level as Tolkien's, sometimes it's bordering on bland and expectedly dramatic.

For all the flaws, it's still an impressive visual. How the characters move or their heights' difference is seemingly normal, fast skirmished and action are a treat, although I'm not sure if this is the direction big budget title should go. Music is splendid, counting the nostalgic factor of the theme's soothing hum. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will most likely entertain you, although not in the same league as its predecessors.… Expand

The Hobbit - An unexpected journey is a film of 2012 directed by Peter Jackson and based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. The story speaks of the facts prior to "The Lord of the Rings" and tells of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who, together with Gandalf and thirteen dwarves will help to regain the treasure of the latter, guarded by the fearsome dragon Smaug. The film is very faithful to the novel and adds some parts that are in the book just mentioned while in the film are expanded and will be key for the next chapters. Excellent choice of cast with actors formidable, fantastic photography and scenery typical of "Lord of the Rings", incredible special effects that digital is very little known and very beautiful music. Perhaps you might find the first part of the film a little bit slow while the second can achieve high moments of action.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit was by far my most anticipated film of 2012, and whilst it was fantastic it still disappointed me due to my views on the Lord of the Rings trilogy -- a trilogy I view as perfect films. An argument I have seen thrown around a lot is "It is based off a children's book -- lay off!" However films that are based from books can still delve into dark areas, The Hobbit did not. I will fully explain what the film did well first -- the visuals were stunning. There was a big fiasco and outrage about the film being shot in 48FPS but this did not bother me in the slightest and in fact I found the film to look crisper and clearer for the use of it. I should note I did not watch it in 3D though, so perhaps this would have affected the outcome. So the settings and the visuals were stunning, the soundtrack -- while most was re-used from LotR, was still beautiful and fitting. Ian McKellen shows he can still act Gandalf after a decade, his performance was solid and his age did not detriment the film in anyway. (The same cannot be said for Lee's Saruman, however -- he stumbled through his lines and his age was very noticeable.) I feel that Martin Freeman did a solid job as Bilbo, however he came across as a bit jittery and stuttery sometimes. The trolls scene irked me slightly as the CGI came lacking (especially when one of the trolls holds Bilbo in his hands, that effect did not transition onto the screen very well) and the scene was played for laughs. The same thing again in the Goblin's lair as the King came across as comedic design, and when the wooden walkways fell on the dwarves the "You've got to be joking" line had me rolling my eyes. Another scene I had a slight issue with was when Thorin dismounted the tree and walked to face the Pale Orc. This scene has dramatic music playing, a camera focused on Thorin's determined face framed by firelight and sparks -- and then he is almost instantly defeated by a swift blow to the face. I actually laughed out loud in the cinema at this scene -- surely they could have shown him swing his sword a bit first? Though I have listed all these complaints, I still did thoroughly enjoy the film. Rivendell was beautiful and Galadriel and Elrond and their respective actors had great performances and did not feel hamfisted into the film at all. The Gollum scene was by far the best part of the film and indeed I almost felt sorry for the poor wretch when Bilbo decided not to kill him. I concede that all the comedy added to this film was most probably to distinguish it as a kid's book, but alas then, in comparison to LotR it seemed a bit corny and afraid to get "dark" -- the only scene I would consider dark was Gollum's, and that scene was by far the best in the film. In short, no, this film is not as good as the LotR trilogy -- but it comes close and for that I am very grateful.… Expand