User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 2391 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 18, 2012
    The Hobbit is clearly a step down from The Lord of the Rings. Jackson didn't seem to remember how to direct. Editing, pace, acting and even action sequences were off. The movie simply didn't gel. The visuals were stunning, music remember full and some scenes brought back good memories. The Hobbit isn't a bad movie by any means but the length is simply ridiculous.
  2. Jan 11, 2013
    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 !!
  3. sLm
    Feb 9, 2013
    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.
  4. Dec 16, 2012
    I can't believe that this movie got the reviews that it did. This may be a case where I just love the franchise and I see the movie as being unimpeachable. I still had an amazing time watching it and I was once again sucked into a world that I seriously hope heaven is like when I die. However, I will say that there were some disappointing aspects. There were times where I felt they had taken some liberties with the characters, and I felt they took advantage of the sentimentality and the romanticism that was masterfully utilized in the previous films. Expand
  5. Dec 16, 2012
    Talk about a movie that people are going into with preconceived notions. Has there ever been a movie that people have had so much to say about before they even see it? I was no exception to this, I loved the first trilogy and had read all the publicity about directors, how many films would be made, and the format Jackson chose to film in. After finally seeing the movie and reading many reviews I have to say there was very little about this installment to the franchise that disappointed me. Is this film perfect? No, but few film are. Is the pacing leisurely? Yes, but does anyone remember Fellowship. Does some of this feel more child like than the other three movies? Absolutely, just like the source material. I think what I love about this film and a lot of what I love about the original three can be summed up with two words: world building. Jackson does an unbelievable job building this world, every creature feels unique and in its place, every setting the same. The introduction of the dwarfs exemplifies this perfectly, I love how each set of creatures are are prone to certain characteristics but each character within that set have very unique personalities. This is just one example of his world building but can be seen across every element of the story. This of course is not just a testament to Jackson but also Tolkein's source material. I thought this movie had exceptional acting almost across the board. Freeman and McKellan in particular were fantastic. I think Freeman was a better Hobbit then any of the actors in the previous films. Like its predecessors this movie has many lighthearted moments, some stunning visuals, some pretty cool action sequences, and plenty of time to immerse yourself in it all. I for one will be looking forward to the next two films. Expand
  6. Dec 21, 2012
    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.
  7. Jan 13, 2013
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was able to give me what I expected from it, even more at times. People should give it a thought that the Hobbit was not written like the Lord of the Rings series, the latter had greater incorporation of darkness, the entire concept of the darkness ruling the world. Therefore it shouldn't be compared to the Hobbit, which is written in a totally different way. Its premise doesn't revolve around the Ring, so that's why it doesn't have that dark soul or something like that. It's actually written in humorous way to keep the entire plot light and make it different from the LoTR series.
    Anyway, I still think that if we judge the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in its entirety, we would love this film. I did it and I love it. Peter Jackson always surprises me with his outstanding direction and his brilliant vision, the way he has visualized the book in the film is phenomenal. The best things about this film are of course its entire 3D experience and the cinematography, the beautiful sceneries and its characters, they are lovable, they make you believe in their mission, and especially the performance of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. I enjoyed it, he makes a good Baggins, his expressions and his dialogues are more funnier than I thought.
    Other things the majority of critics talked about were shooting the film in higher frame rates than the usual 24 FPS and the running time of the movie. Both of these arguments are invalid. Shooting a film in 48 fps is not a problem, the technology is advancing gradually and sooner or later, the filmmakers are gonna have to start doing it. Why blame Peter Jackson? He just utilized a latest technology to give us a new experience and we are doing everything but appreciating his efforts and the challenge he would have face while shooting the film. The second argument is a bit reasonable, the running time is long but why do you want a film like this to be shorter? I am really glad that it is that long so I was getting to experience every frame of the movie and loving it completely. I don't mind films with long running time as long as they don't get boring, and to me, the Hobbit never got boring at all. Everyone has their own opinions, a lot of people found the ending of the film ridiculous and dumb, but that's exactly how the LoTR films were ended especially the Fellowship of the Ring. You can't complain about a film that still has two parts to complete it and maybe your opinion would change after watching the remaining installments.
    Long story short, don't expect this film to be anything like LoTR trilogy, it may have some similarities (i.e. its characters, the locations, and a few sceneries) but it surely doesn't have that dark plot the LoTR films had. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the beginning of a funny, daring, terrifying and a beautiful adventure which might really turn into an epicness in the future when the remaining films come out. It is enjoyable, great to watch and finally gives you the satisfactory feeling of how the middle earth would have looked in 3D and better visual effects.
  8. Dec 16, 2012
    With only a 65% on RT and a rather mixed reaction from the critics, I was quite worried that this movie would turn out disastrously. Fear not, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great movie even if it isn't necessarily as amazing as I expected. That being said, the movie is not without its flaws. There are some scenes that feel a bit too stretched out, and better saved for the extended edition. Also, the CGI feels a bit overused at times. Other than that, everything about this movie is great. The movie keeps the lighthearted tone of the book while also having epic battle sequences and decapitations. The character development is really good, especially with Bilbo. The performances are spot on, and the ending leaves you wanting more. If you're a fan of LOTR, fantasy, or good movies, you should definitely see this--preferably during some time in the day, as it is pretty long. Expand
  9. Feb 4, 2013
    People got what they wanted. A Peter Jackson directed Tolkien film. The fact that so many critics are bagging on this fun adventure is incredibly weak.
    Does no one have a sense of Fantasy these days?
  10. Dec 18, 2012
    Marvelous! It felt like we never left middle earth! Directing is remarkable, acting, visual effects, 3D effects, make-up, costumes, cinematography and the music are spectacular as expected.There's only one bad thing about the movie: We will wait a year to see next.
  11. Jan 2, 2013
    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. 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
  12. Dec 18, 2012
    In short, it follows the book to apex, some of the lines in the movie is taken directly from the book itself, while it is extremely good at using the book as a source its also using alot of themes from other Tolkien books. Nothing wrong with that, the things that aint in the book is described in other fictions by Ser Tolkien and they do a excellent work at blending it all together
  13. Dec 16, 2012
    Too many time-filling gimmicks. The Dwarves are uninteresting in the movie. Some CGI effects actually look pretty terrible. Very far from the artistic looks of LOTR (for the most part, environments seem generic). Maybe the budget for the film was too small, maybe Peter Jackson went nuts, but I truly feel there is not a single aspect of the movie that is outstanding. Directing and editing were bad. Acting was really good. There were some great action scenes after the first 1h30min. Sound effects and original score were good (very nice theme song, though still far from LOTR themes...). I watched it in 2D. Expand
  14. Jan 2, 2013
    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.
  15. Dec 17, 2012
    Beautiful HFR and 3d. Many scenes benefit from this where you see action going on in the background and then it moves to the foreground naturally. The movie was very entertaining with many moving moments and a lot of chase scenes. It kinda reminded me of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for a while. All in all I enjoyed it greatly but I was ready for it to end when the credits rolled. Over 3 hours with previews is a little daunting. Expand
  16. Dec 19, 2012
    This film was a great experience for me, from the opening scene to the end credits. I was utterly captivated. Saw it in the older 24fps format, so can't comment on that, but even so, can't understand how the professional reviewers got it so wrong.
    A masterful film that gives me great hope for the next two.
  17. Jan 18, 2013
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm apart of the minority that did not like this movie. Really shocked that more people didn't like it. But then again a lot of people never read the book. Just went to see the movie based off all the success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Anyway, I read the book. Twice. Once when I was in the 5th grade and again 2 or 3 weeks before the movie release. I was stunned. Peter Jackson seemed more focused on creating a more visual and beautiful Middle-Earth than we saw in LOTR. This movie was simply, too much of a good thing. Guillermo Del Toro, a fantastic filmmaker in his own right, honestly had ZERO business being apart of the screenplay production. It also seemed as if Peter Jackson wanted The Hobbit to be a comedy because there was, and honestly too much of, comedy in this serious film. Yes, there was comedy in the book, but not to the extent Peter Jackson went. I would rate this movie lower, however there was one scene I found fascinating. And that was the meeting of Gollum and Bilbo. They had an excellent back and forth that I found myself enjoying as it continued. And why did Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the book. Anyway, it could, and SHOULD have been a lot better. It seems as if Peter Jackson watched James Cameron's Avatar one day and looked at the world of Pandora and said, "Hey, forget the script, and character development, and a good story to stay true to the book, I wanna do THAT!" And its exactly what he did. He re-created Middle-Earth with his own vision this time, and not the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Maybe this was just a hit and miss for part 1. A sort of testing the waters if you will. The chapter of Smaug is up next in the trilogy of films that is The Hobbit. I, for one hope that the CGI and lame comedy was all out of Peter Jackson's system because Part 2 is highly critical in if Part 3 can be successful. If Peter Jackson messes up Smaug..... may God help us all. Expand
  18. Dec 31, 2012
    Appalling from start to finish. Too many farts jokes. Who the the heck did Radagast make up job?? Looked like a really **** make up job??!! No??!!
  19. Dec 20, 2012
    Just great. One of the best adaptation of the book ever. Everything that add or change - better. Dwarfs all full of charisma and badassity. Really, I don't know, why some critics say this movie so much suck ass - for me, its only best of the year movie.
  20. Dec 30, 2012
    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 'The Hobbit' being primarily a children's story as opposed to Lord of the Rings deeper, darker, more symbolic narrative. Expand
  21. Dec 22, 2012
    Critics seem to have been looking for LotR 2.0, but readers know this adventure is completely different from the previously made trilogy. It is supposed to be quirky, lighthearted at moments, and generally not as "epic" as LotR. Personally I think the movie fits the book very well, though one could say the violence is a little overdone when compared to the book. But that could be said for the LotR movies too, and personally I don't have a problem with it. Overall, it is a very entertaining movie and the easiest near 3 hour movie one could sit through. Expand
  22. Nov 2, 2013
    It starts out slow with some story telling, but don`t give up on it cause it picks up, and takes you into the adventure you probably expected.The thing is when I ask myself if I was really amazed, the answer is no for the most part, but it was a good watch.
  23. Dec 17, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. the movie was completely has great locations,nice cast and a very nice and simple story.
    martin freeman as bilbo was perfect.the movie was just a 'little' boring in the middle of the first half,rest of it was simply superb.its a must watch...those who didnt like this must be 'ORCS'.
  24. Dec 19, 2012
    The Hobbit was a great film, it seems that people are complaining about the 48fps however i never found it to be a problem. "best movie I've ever seen about dwarves" - Simon Lane. I would have to agree. Watch the Hobbit now!
  25. Dec 14, 2012
    Seeing the mixed reviews by the critics makes me wonder if people read books anymore. If you read "The Hobbit", then you know that it is a light hearted kid friendly movie (with some serious moments). If you're going in to the movie thinking "It's Lord of the Rings again!" then you will be disappointed. Jackson and co. did the book tremendous justice.
  26. Dec 14, 2012
    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
  27. Dec 14, 2012
    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
  28. Feb 19, 2013
    The Hobbit was epic, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson did a great job in the adaption, I thought it was gonna be really short and have some absurd adaptation because how could they make a book of 320apr, pages long into 3 films that will last about 2hours each? Dont listen to the absurd critics that gave it a less then 8, because I dont really get how people dont like this movie, I mean, it had great effects, a perfect cast(I think Bilbo is now my favourite hobbit) amazing soundtrack and an flaw-less masterpiece that Tolkien wrote.
    Thats all I got to say.
  29. Dec 15, 2012
    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
  30. Dec 16, 2012
    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
  31. Dec 16, 2012
    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.
  32. Dec 16, 2012
    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
  33. Dec 16, 2012
    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
  34. Dec 17, 2012
    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
  35. Dec 17, 2012
    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.
  36. Dec 17, 2012
    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.
  37. Dec 17, 2012
    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
  38. Dec 17, 2012
    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!
  39. Dec 17, 2012
    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.
  40. Dec 17, 2012
    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
  41. Dec 18, 2012
    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.
  42. Dec 18, 2012
    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
  43. Dec 18, 2012
    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!
  44. Dec 18, 2012
    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.
  45. Dec 18, 2012
    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
  46. Dec 18, 2012
    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
  47. Dec 19, 2012
    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
  48. Mar 28, 2013
    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.
  49. pxl
    Dec 20, 2012
    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.
  50. Dec 23, 2012
    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. Collapse
  51. Dec 26, 2012
    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
  52. Dec 27, 2012
    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.
  53. Dec 27, 2012
    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
  54. atc
    Jan 2, 2013
    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.
  55. Dec 31, 2012
    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
  56. Dec 31, 2012
    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 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
  57. Dec 31, 2012
    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.
  58. Dec 31, 2012
    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 .
  59. Dec 31, 2012
    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
  60. Jan 1, 2013
    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
  61. Jan 3, 2013
    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.
  62. Jan 4, 2013
    "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
  63. Jan 5, 2013
    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
  64. Jan 6, 2013
    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.
  65. Jan 9, 2013
    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.
  66. Jan 11, 2013
    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.
  67. Jan 11, 2013
    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.
  68. Jan 11, 2013
    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
  69. Jan 15, 2013
    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
  70. Jan 30, 2013
    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
  71. Feb 3, 2013
    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
  72. Feb 25, 2013
    Despite the critics opinions The Hobbit is the start of another excellent trilogy from the visionary director peter jackson. the problem with the critics unjust opinions is that rather then see the film as a prelude to the Lord of the Rings, they view it as an equal. this is an obvious mistake since the source material that made the hit LOTR films was so large in scale and robust compared to the Hobbit (a story meant for bedtime stories) when you look at what Jackson has created through lesser source material, you can really appreciate the Hobbit and see how excellent of a film it is. The film captures the mood of the story flawlessly leaving the story mostly in its original form, with the only big change being the extension of Azog the orcs character.... In the end The Hobbits a near flawless fantasy film and should be seen by anyone with an appreciation to the literature or the genre. Expand
  73. Nov 9, 2013
    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.
  74. Mar 12, 2013
    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.
  75. Mar 4, 2013
    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?
  76. Mar 15, 2013
    This film is a grotesque frankenstien monster of an adaptation. The sections of this movie which follow the book are entertaining and (barely) decently done, however the remaining half is a butchered and chunky concoction, incorporating elements of Tolkien's other works, 'Adam Sandler' style slapstick stupidity (such as a dismembered Goblin-King fat enough to appear on 'The Biggest Loser' falling on top of our gang of dwarfs, much to the delight of my 7yr old brother I should add) and an extra large portion of Peter Jackson's inflated ego. The resulting plot is a grotesque and thinly veiled carbon copy of Jackson's excellent 'The Fellowship of the Ring' to which The Hobbit's plot has been brutally affixed, even going so far as to tediously extrapolate a non-existent prologue to mimic the fellowship's opening scene. The worst part is that there are still two more films to come, and I wouldn't be surprised, given the quality of this one, if the last part were to rival the last film in the Twilight series for its extreme tediousness and fetal-position mind-numbingness. Expand
  77. Mar 21, 2013
    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.
  78. Jul 21, 2013
    Fails to capture the epicness of the Trilogy. Also, way too much CGI. What happened? Why is everything CGI in this movie? Im not too excited about the other two now. I just love the Trilogy so much.
  79. Mar 24, 2013
    Great movie, great acting and great directing the hobbit once again shows why Peter Jackson is one of the best directors around. I have to admit that I was a little sceptical about splitting the hobbit into three movies, but all I can say that if the next two follow in the footsteps of the first it will be well worth the long three year wait.
  80. Apr 3, 2013
    To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it? The battles don't feel tense, the themes that the characters espouse don't run through the narrative, and I can think of 3 or 4 scenes that feel as if they've been ripped straight from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films just off the top of my head. Yeah, the acting is all good, and there are a few of those heart warming scenes that we know Peter Jackson for, but there's just not enough good to make up for the bad. Each time I watched this film I liked it less and less. Expand
  81. Rem
    Jul 21, 2013
    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.
  82. Jan 15, 2014
    It's like Jackson just took a giant bucket of C.G.I., a giant bucket of terrible editing, a giant bucket of terrible dubbing and a giant bucket of incoherency and dumped them all over an awful movie.
  83. Dec 19, 2013
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we have little bit of both. Expand
  84. Sep 10, 2013
    i got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll see the future movies at the cinema but on DVD its a must have for kids to kill time. Expand
  85. Nov 11, 2013
    The city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, the trolls, Radagast) with monsters (giant spiders and wolves, demonic orcs, the hideous gollum), the characters' illogical decisions (Gandalf and 13 dwarves going to kill a dragon, Gandalf asking Bilbo to join them, Bilbo accepting), the lack of realistic fights (nobody bleeds or dies, the direction during the chase in the goblin lair makes the action seem like the heros are on a luna park train) and several redundant scenes that slow the pacing down (two dinners, the riddles) prevented me from enjoying this movie.
  86. Aug 26, 2013
    This movie is a snooze fest. I fell asleep, that was how absolutely boring that movie was. It is three hours of a hobbit traveling around magical fairy land. Boring.
  87. Dec 13, 2013
    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.
  88. Dec 11, 2013
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film. With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure. While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that is where the similarities end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Answer: Faithfulness to the original book.

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

    In conclusion, I see this adaptation of "The Hobbit" as a way for Peter Jackson and New Line to profit from the LOTR Trilogy all over again. By grafting certain parts of the Trilogy onto "The Hobbit", New Line and Jackson are ensured that at least some of those fans will fork out money to watch three more films. I see this film not as an artistic exercise but as a cash cow. That is all.
  89. Dec 12, 2013
    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. 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
  90. Apr 2, 2014
    The Hobbit :An unexpected journey is a made for children. It has no plot, the actors are not good and the added comedy makes what might have been a okay movie even worse. I sat through the DVD hoping I would end up liking it. But was disappointed . I hated it.
  91. Mar 20, 2013
    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
  92. Dec 28, 2012
    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!
  93. Dec 28, 2012
    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

    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.
  94. Jan 2, 2013
    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
  95. Jun 4, 2013
    "While not offering much to the beloved fans. The Hobbit is quite the journey indeed. I enjoyed my endevours with our lovable gang. It has some intense moments but the true fact is a 200 page book does not quite add up to a 2hr and 46min running time." B
  96. Dec 29, 2012
    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
  97. Dec 18, 2012
    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
  98. Dec 17, 2012
    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
  99. Jan 10, 2013
    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
  100. Mar 21, 2013
    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

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
    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
    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
    It's a bloated, shockingly tedious trudge that manages to look both overproduced and unforgivably cheesy.