User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2547 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 1, 2013
    8
    A very well done adaption of a classic book. Not as good as LOTR but still very enjoyable, Although it may be a little to childish for some people, But I personally can't wait for the sequels.
  2. Aug 18, 2013
    10
    Being a fan is irrelevant. There is nothing about this movie that doesn't excite anyone. The script was well-written, humorous and fresh. The movie was visually pleasing. The characters were interesting and unique. The soundtrack brought tears to my eyes. Again, there is nothing not to love. Everything Peter Jackson touches turns to gold, in the form of an Oscar!
  3. Dec 13, 2013
    10
    A very nice movie with a great epic battle,a cast of different characters and a lot of lighthearted and funny scenes.I watched it because every friend of mine told me that it was better than the Lord of the Rings and they were right.This movie is way better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
  4. Oct 23, 2013
    5
    The brilliant settings and action spectacles of "An Unexpected Journey" do not make up for its lack of characterization, thematic unity, and emotional force. From the protagonist, the plot demands a sense of initial self-alienation which should eventually lead to the recovery of the self in others; while present, this seemed more like an afterthought than something gluing the film together.
  5. Oct 1, 2013
    10
    Why are half of the film's reviews complaining about running time?
    You don't watch a movie for the purpose of seeing it end.
    If you have that kind of mindset, obviously you're going to "fall asleep" yeah, I'm looking at the fool(s) who gave this film a 0. A score of 0 is more deserving for actual terrible movies like Jack Black's "Year One". Reviewer Peter Travers is obviously
    Why are half of the film's reviews complaining about running time?
    You don't watch a movie for the purpose of seeing it end.
    If you have that kind of mindset, obviously you're going to "fall asleep" yeah, I'm looking at the fool(s) who gave this film a 0.
    A score of 0 is more deserving for actual terrible movies like Jack Black's "Year One". Reviewer Peter Travers is obviously uninformed and had the gall to state:

    "48 frames per second… Couple that with 3D and the movie looks so hyper-real that you see everything that's fake about it…"

    Idiot! More than 90% of the film was done in New Zealand. Uninformed prick...
    And the first hour of the film isn't even boring...
    It actually is very humorous and charming!
    PLUS IT'S THE FIRST MOVIE OF A PLANNED TRILOGY!
    YOU CAN'T EXPECT AN ARRAY OF ACTION!
    There are film's like "Social Network" where they have minutes of utter drab and unrelated content like teenage partying, yet get more positive reactions in compared to "The Hobbit".
    Half these film critics around the world suck-ass at writing a real review.

    "The Hobbit" is an example of movie-making at its finest executing an adventurous atmosphere and a defining script. Coupled with its various environments, familiar faces and its set of new ones, the film stands as an artwork of its own; one many other movie-makers should aspire to do. It's witty, epic and innovative; a movie worth watching again and again...
    Expand
  6. Oct 27, 2013
    7
    altought it isn´t in the level of the lord of the rings trilogy,it is still a good film,for an prequel this movie have a great story,the special effects are great and it can be a revolution just like the lord of the rings were.
  7. Nov 14, 2013
    8
    A gorgeous movie delivering an unforgettable adventure! It impresses with it's huge scale of breathtaking forests and mountains. While the story is slightly predictable, it stays fresh with the great dialogue, well-developed characters and superb voice acting.
    The plot sometimes doesn't quite excite with it's slight predictability, but The Hobbit it's still an immersive and a deeply
    A gorgeous movie delivering an unforgettable adventure! It impresses with it's huge scale of breathtaking forests and mountains. While the story is slightly predictable, it stays fresh with the great dialogue, well-developed characters and superb voice acting.
    The plot sometimes doesn't quite excite with it's slight predictability, but The Hobbit it's still an immersive and a deeply enjoyable film (Final Score: 8.55)
    Expand
  8. Oct 30, 2013
    10
    A perfect recreation of the Tolkien's world. It's excelent in all the aspects: direction, interpretation, script, soundtrack, etc. And the "guess game" with Bilbo and Gollum is a masterpiece.
  9. Dec 3, 2013
    10
    Perfect movie. The cast was awesome, the dwarves were hilarious, Thorin was awesome, the fight scenes were intense, and the ending was emotionally satisfying. It wasn't slow or boring at all. All in all, this was an amazing, entertaining, funny, exciting film. Great job, Peter Jackson!
  10. Dec 12, 2013
    8
    Peter Jackson combine with j r tollkien makes a very good imaginative partnership though un expected journey is the first chapter before Lord of the rings to tollkien fans the movie brings far more imagination in the middle earth
  11. Dec 14, 2013
    9
    Great film, however not as good as the lords of the rings trilogy. Can be slow paced. Some scenes are not needed and are just there to increase the length, so as the hobbit being a trilogy is justified. This film is aimed more at younger audiences and families then the lord of the rings but is just as enjoyable and can be enjoyed by viewers of all ages. The main character, Bilbo Baggins isGreat film, however not as good as the lords of the rings trilogy. Can be slow paced. Some scenes are not needed and are just there to increase the length, so as the hobbit being a trilogy is justified. This film is aimed more at younger audiences and families then the lord of the rings but is just as enjoyable and can be enjoyed by viewers of all ages. The main character, Bilbo Baggins is very likable and played with expertise by Martin Freeman, other standouts are Ian McKellen as Gandalf(also from the lord of the rings) and Richard Armitrage as Thorin Oakenshield, not all the other dwarves are not as fleshed out but they will be further explored in the other two films in the trilogy, coming in 2013 and 2014. Also has great visuals and futuristic 3D effects.

    To conclude this is not as good as the lord of the rings but is a good starting point and is thankfully not another Phantom Menace. Wait for the sequels which should be an improvement from this and may even reach the standard that the lord of the rings set.
    Expand
  12. Mar 20, 2013
    8
    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'tThis 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
  13. Dec 28, 2012
    7
    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
    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
  14. Mar 21, 2013
    7
    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 hardOverlong 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
  15. Feb 15, 2014
    8
    I don't know why many critics gave this movie a low score. It was long, but it didn't FEEL long. I didn't have a problem with the pacing whatsoever. I wasn't bored at all.

    There's exciting action, along with some good character moments, especially the ones involving Bilbo and Gollum, as well as Bilbo and Thorin. The performances are mostly great, particularly that of Ian McKellen and
    I don't know why many critics gave this movie a low score. It was long, but it didn't FEEL long. I didn't have a problem with the pacing whatsoever. I wasn't bored at all.

    There's exciting action, along with some good character moments, especially the ones involving Bilbo and Gollum, as well as Bilbo and Thorin. The performances are mostly great, particularly that of Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman. The directing by Peter Jackson is, of course, masterful. And the environment itself is beautifully realized. Not to mention the lovely music.

    If you enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, or enjoy fantasy movies in general, this is highly recommended.
    Expand
  16. Dec 25, 2012
    10
    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 theOK 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
  17. Jan 26, 2013
    5
    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 andThe 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
  18. Dec 21, 2013
    1
    All was well until about an hour into the movie and then...BAM!,the text is thrown out the window and the writers are given so-called creative license to write whatever crap they feel will bring in more cash.Azog is dead...Killed by Dain Ironfoot who should appear by the ridiculous 3rd movie) over 140 years before the time of this movie and not by Thorin.That fat goblin is meant to beAll was well until about an hour into the movie and then...BAM!,the text is thrown out the window and the writers are given so-called creative license to write whatever crap they feel will bring in more cash.Azog is dead...Killed by Dain Ironfoot who should appear by the ridiculous 3rd movie) over 140 years before the time of this movie and not by Thorin.That fat goblin is meant to be Azog's son Bolg.The original story covers Bilbo and company escaping from trolls,escaping from goblins,escaping from wargs,escaping from spiders,escaping from elves and that's just before they reach lake town.What's with all the violence?Peter Jackson has gone the way of Lucas,Cameron and Spielberg...So in love with CGI and over-choreographed 'action' sequences that they have forgotten how to make a decent movie.Utter trash. Expand
  19. Jan 27, 2013
    9
    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
    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
  20. Jan 6, 2014
    2
    Ugh!
    As good a job as Peter Jackson did with the rings, I simply cannot believe he is destroying The Hobbit. The Hobbit is the introductory book to the world of Tolkein and he is crapping all over it. This is, however, the best Harry Potter movie to date!
  21. Feb 12, 2013
    4
    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.
  22. Jan 22, 2013
    7
    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 DwarfThe 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
  23. Aug 27, 2015
    8
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has the look and feel of Peter Jackson's imagination as it did with the Lord Of The Rings trilogy; strap yourselves to relive the magic of the old once again with the new.
  24. Jan 28, 2013
    9
    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 comeof 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
  25. Dec 25, 2012
    10
    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.
  26. Dec 28, 2012
    7
    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 theMore 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
  27. May 15, 2015
    7
    The enriching tenderness of an unexpected journey settles as another piece to my childhood I will celebrate among that of the former lord of the rings trilogy. The joy of now the hobbit is not it's familiarity, but the wonder of endeavouring a new and refreshing purposeful massage of Peter Jackson's fantastical middle earth quarry. It's a joyfully entertaining film that merely deepens it'sThe enriching tenderness of an unexpected journey settles as another piece to my childhood I will celebrate among that of the former lord of the rings trilogy. The joy of now the hobbit is not it's familiarity, but the wonder of endeavouring a new and refreshing purposeful massage of Peter Jackson's fantastical middle earth quarry. It's a joyfully entertaining film that merely deepens it's subject matter of the original novel by gracefully taking us on a nearly 3 hour long trek where it seems 30 minutes of cutting was needed to make this new epic reach it's full potential in beginning this ambitious vision of turning a very slim novel into a very long trilogy. Expand
  28. Jan 5, 2013
    7
    Critics wants Lord of Darkness melodrama, with a pre-pubescent choir chanting to a Sauron montage. Hobbit isn't that, but it's still fun. It's a kids movie. And you'll probably like it.
  29. Dec 31, 2012
    7
    I went to see the movie with my 8 year old son and he seemed to adore all the action. If you're looking for something like LotR then you'll be in for quite the disappointment. Still, if you forget about the book, then the movie is enjoyable in a way, but seeing that this one book is going to be stretched out over 3 movies, you don't need to leave much to the imagination as to why.
    The kid
    I went to see the movie with my 8 year old son and he seemed to adore all the action. If you're looking for something like LotR then you'll be in for quite the disappointment. Still, if you forget about the book, then the movie is enjoyable in a way, but seeing that this one book is going to be stretched out over 3 movies, you don't need to leave much to the imagination as to why.
    The kid loved it, and it wasn't too bad, but don't expect too much. Not much LotR like epic moments, but action and slapstick like silliness, except for the encounter with Gollum, which is the only part really worth watching.
    Expand
  30. Aug 24, 2014
    8
    It felt surreal to sit and watch the titles beginning to roll, it really did. The original trilogy (especially "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King") were the top of the hype for me.

    Perhaps that is the problem: I was waiting for another The Lord of the Rings movie. With the same makers, partially the same cast, you both hope and dread for similarities, and while there were
    It felt surreal to sit and watch the titles beginning to roll, it really did. The original trilogy (especially "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King") were the top of the hype for me.

    Perhaps that is the problem: I was waiting for another The Lord of the Rings movie. With the same makers, partially the same cast, you both hope and dread for similarities, and while there were many, some of them didn't work in the best interest of the movie.

    For one, some of the "monsters" didn't follow the old mold - mostly being too talkative. A small detail but bugging nonetheless. At the same theme, if you're not familiar with the world of the previous/later three movies, I urge you to watch them; no time was spared to introduce old characters or the world at general, which for a newcomer might be a bit much to take in stride.

    "The Hobbit" was never my favorite book although I've read it multiple times. I have gaps in my memory and I thought this might be a good thing when going to the theater, to not give me too many pre-set ideas on how the story should run.

    How to make one book into three super-long movies? Ask PJ. I dreaded this fact but at the same time hoped they would introduce events from between "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". That remains to be seen.

    The story took its time picking up after the introduction to the history of Erebor. It's amazing how in three hours I didn't yet learn all the names of the Dwarves OR connect names with faces. It seemed most of them didn't have any visible talents that would set them apart.

    There were scenes that could have been cut short or left out altogether. Also, Saruman doing the Morgan Freeman and explaining a discussion to us that had just taken place... not necessary. All in all the film seemed to lack a certain sense of refinement, the scenes snapping by almost too hastily and cut in a way that made the story feel hectic and restless.

    We got a few great glimpses at things that will be featured in future films, like the Mirkwood Elves (hello, Thranduil; you remind me of the Observers in TV show "Fringe" with that cocked head and empty gaze of yours, but in the best possible sense), spiders, a shadow of Smaug...

    The soundtrack was another thing that bugged me. I've been intensely listening to the LotR trilogy's soundtracks in the past and even if it was amazing to hear those same themes once again, it began to feel like there was very little original score in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" - and using old score in a new scene that didn't match the old one rubbed my mental state in all the wrong ways. (In other words: do NOT use an enemy song in a scene featuring a hero.)

    With all its small problems, I hope the first Hobbit movie will do the same as "The Fellowship of the Ring" did for me and only start the journey. The next two movies might do a lot better. I certainly hope so. The visual effects, the overall story, the air of the film... it's all there, the necessary ingredients; they just need to put it together the right way!
    Expand
  31. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    The Hobbit is, in many ways, the strategic all-age-appealing beast the Lord of the Rings never was. And whilst An Unexpected Journey is not likely to be the best film in the new trilogy, it is riddled (hah!) with many great moments, such as the Riddles in the Dark section, and the Goblin Town. A good if by-the-numbers first installments, which leaves a sweet taste of better things to comeThe Hobbit is, in many ways, the strategic all-age-appealing beast the Lord of the Rings never was. And whilst An Unexpected Journey is not likely to be the best film in the new trilogy, it is riddled (hah!) with many great moments, such as the Riddles in the Dark section, and the Goblin Town. A good if by-the-numbers first installments, which leaves a sweet taste of better things to come in The Desolation of Smaug. Expand
  32. Jan 20, 2013
    7
    Very good movie, but I couldn't stop thinking about how most of it was different from the book, as well as how much of the scenes had been milked, long and overdrawn. Some of them, such as the troll scene for example, were disappointing seeing as how they had been turned into a full-blown battle and stretched out. The side plotline of Dol Guldur was interesting to see as well as the returnVery good movie, but I couldn't stop thinking about how most of it was different from the book, as well as how much of the scenes had been milked, long and overdrawn. Some of them, such as the troll scene for example, were disappointing seeing as how they had been turned into a full-blown battle and stretched out. The side plotline of Dol Guldur was interesting to see as well as the return of old characters that weren't in the book such as Radagast the Brown, but the introduction of Azog and his main antagonistic role throughout the film was a bit off-putting and only further derided from the book. Not to mention he's a complete CGI orc (really Jackson? Couldn't you have just found an actor and put him in costume?) The visuals are stunning however (though it's annoying how all of the orcs in one battle scene are all CGI), and Gollum looks better than ever and is voiced perfectly again by Andy Serkis. Overall, if you're a fan of Lord of the Rings this is a must-see! I'm just hoping the second film is even better than this one. Expand
  33. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    A plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewersA plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewers who have not read the novel, the journey itself is conspicuously Expand
  34. Jan 27, 2015
    4
    Even the extended version leaves me wanting more. This movie could have been so much better. It relied far too heavy on CGI and special effects and not enough on establishing the story and the characters.
  35. Dec 28, 2014
    2
    Nothing at all like the book. All the action scenes go on for too long and have no element of danger to them. Shame really. However, the saving point of this movie is that (1) it's more Peter Jackson Middle Earth, which means that if you watch all 3 of the extended edition of The Hobbit and all 3 extended Lord Of The Rings then you're getting a huge detailed world, which is cool. (2) TheNothing at all like the book. All the action scenes go on for too long and have no element of danger to them. Shame really. However, the saving point of this movie is that (1) it's more Peter Jackson Middle Earth, which means that if you watch all 3 of the extended edition of The Hobbit and all 3 extended Lord Of The Rings then you're getting a huge detailed world, which is cool. (2) The specific characters here (Bilbo+Dwarves), regardless of the rest of the setting or not, are pretty cool. They're not all used, some are just background, but the ones that are have good personality to them. Expand
  36. Sep 1, 2014
    6
    It is clear that Peter Jackson should not stretch the children's book into three Lord of the Rings-length feature films. Nevertheless, Jackson brings an insightful look into Middle Earth once again. An Unexpected Journey is by no means a repeat of the previous trilogy--it's fresh and exciting.
  37. Jan 30, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a movie best described as "unexpected". A decade ago, nobody expected that Peter Jackson would come around and even make The Hobbit. A year ago, nobody expected that Peter Jackson would split it across three movies. A month or two ago, nobody expected that HFR would bring with it a huge dinner party of new problems for visual effects staff. And goingThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a movie best described as "unexpected". A decade ago, nobody expected that Peter Jackson would come around and even make The Hobbit. A year ago, nobody expected that Peter Jackson would split it across three movies. A month or two ago, nobody expected that HFR would bring with it a huge dinner party of new problems for visual effects staff. And going into the theater, despite all of the warnings I'd received, I still didn't really expect what I got.

    It's not that I didn't LIKE The Hobbit -- I very much did, though many of my friends didn't -- the problem is that strictly speaking, it's not a good movie. It would, however, make a very good TV mini-series.

    A movie brings with it certain demands of pacing and condensation; you've got your audience for a set length of time with no intermissions or breaks, and you've got to hold their attention and entertain them for that entire time, which means that the longer your movie runs, the less added fluff you can afford to have in your movie (conversely, shorter movies can afford a lot more fluff, simply because the audience won't get tired of a 90 minute movie unless the whole thing is just unspeakably dull). With a mini-series, on the other hand, you can break the story up into 1-hour chunks, show one a week, move the story along at whatever pace you damn well like and as long as you don't turn into The Walking Dead Season Two you can flesh out the world as much as you want.

    Peter Jackson's heart is in the right place with this movie: he wants to show Middle-Earth in all its glory. He wants to show not only what you read in the book The Hobbit, but also everything important that was happening at the same time anywhere in the world, as well as give some of the otherwise-flat dwarves arcs. All of this would be completely forgiven on TV, and it would be hailed as one of the best shows on the airwaves for its dedication to bringing its setting to full, vibrant life. However, doing this in cinema just means that people are going to get cramps in their asses from sitting in the theater seats for three hours straight once a year three years in a row.

    The problem with the movie isn't with the dialogue, the acting, the visual effects (though I will be discussing the unexpected technical issues later; I just consider them petty quibbles rather than major problems), the cinematography, the sound, or any of that; the problem is pretty much just the decision to make the movie as incredibly long as it is. All the scenes themselves are individually very nice, and are at the very least atmospheric if not essential to the plot, but at a running time like this, anything unessential to the plot feels like it's wasting the viewers' time and padding the movie rather than actually giving you anything good, which is a real pity because this movie clearly put a great deal of love and work into everything in it. The good news is that the movie's pace ramps up constantly, until it's moving at full steam by the end, and it never slows down once it's gained speed.

    If I had to change one thing about the movie to make it better, there's one thing I would do: cut the entire chase scene that leads into Rivendell. Have Gandalf simply browbeat Thorin into going to Rivendell in a three or four minute conversation, cut to Rivendell, and have Gandalf meet Radagast there before the whole wizard council, moving Radagast's conversation with Gandalf to that meeting. It cuts out a huge padded chase scene that isn't nice to watch (it breaks the "only provide the illusion of depth; never pop out of the screen" rule that all 3D movies should follow), adds nothing to the story, dilutes Radagast's character, and introduces the Azog subplot much too early. In fact, Azog and his orcs shouldn't have come into the movie at all until Thorin gets a chance to finally see them at the end; this way, the audience feels his same surprise and the scene has that much more emotional impact. It also shortens the movie, which is one of the things that needs to be done with this movie. Moving Radagast to the Council also allows him to play off the other wizards, giving Sylvester McCoy much-deserved screentime to be entertaining while also giving him a chance to show that his character isn't just an insane stoner in the woods. It's shorter and has a better overall effect.

    On the technical side of the movie, HFR is a technology that shows promise, but still has a few kinks to work out. It makes the entire movie look too smoothly animated, like a Final Fantasy XIII cinematic, until you adjust to it, which takes about the first half hour. Once you acclimate, it looks gorgeous, but another problem arises: the greater detail means that costumes (and most noticeably, beards) look less realistic, which means that HFR won't develop further until costuming gets MUCH better. A lower framerate, something like 30, might be easier to work with.

    Hoping the sequel will be better.
    Expand
  38. Feb 13, 2013
    6
    Oh dear. This is the biggest disappointment in a movie I've ever had. I'm a HUGE Lord of the Rings fan (like a lot of people claim they are), the Lord of the Rings truly changed my childhood. Now more than 10 years later The Hobbit is released. This has been my most anticipated movie since heard it was going to be made in 2008. I couldn't believe I was going on another Middle EarthOh dear. This is the biggest disappointment in a movie I've ever had. I'm a HUGE Lord of the Rings fan (like a lot of people claim they are), the Lord of the Rings truly changed my childhood. Now more than 10 years later The Hobbit is released. This has been my most anticipated movie since heard it was going to be made in 2008. I couldn't believe I was going on another Middle Earth adventure! And after finally watching The Hobbit I was really let down. So what was wrong with The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey? It's hard to place, but it wasn't intriguing at all. The story felt really flat, the characters didn't develop well, it was too childish and it was trying too hard to be something it's not. At least don't make the goblins damn CGI! The Goblin King was a joke, the viewer can't connect to the dwarfs all, there wasn't a sense of real danger. Even the script was pretty bad! The movie started off pretty good, you felt like you were back in Middle Earth after 10 years but then it turns into a silly Narnia adventure. 6/10 Expand
  39. Oct 7, 2014
    7
    The Hobbit isn't Peter Jackson's finest work, but it still captures the imagination with stunning scenery and suburb acting. The hobbit tends to drag on certain parts when it could have encapsulated a lot more. Azog was never in the hobbit among other characters and scenes, however, this doesn't necessarily violate Tolkien lore, it does make one wonder if this should be called somethingThe Hobbit isn't Peter Jackson's finest work, but it still captures the imagination with stunning scenery and suburb acting. The hobbit tends to drag on certain parts when it could have encapsulated a lot more. Azog was never in the hobbit among other characters and scenes, however, this doesn't necessarily violate Tolkien lore, it does make one wonder if this should be called something else rather than the Hobbit. Expand
  40. Jan 22, 2013
    7
    I'm not a big fan of Tolkien and the original trilogy and I've read the book a very long time ago, so guess I'm being impartial here. I've definitely enjoyed the movie, it's well-filmed (no wonder in that), but it suffers from one thing, and that'd be the book being split into three separate movies. Not just that, but three two-and-half-hour-long movies. As a result, the story gains aI'm not a big fan of Tolkien and the original trilogy and I've read the book a very long time ago, so guess I'm being impartial here. I've definitely enjoyed the movie, it's well-filmed (no wonder in that), but it suffers from one thing, and that'd be the book being split into three separate movies. Not just that, but three two-and-half-hour-long movies. As a result, the story gains a bunch of unnecessary and often uninteresting details and the beginning feels awkwardly slow, the first half an hour of the film could easily be shortened thrice or so. But once the beginning's over, you'll get immersed in the world of Middle Earth. Another thing is I think that Bilbo is actually a better protagonist than Frodo - he's brave, modest and funny, another great performance by Martin Freeman. Anyway, it's a really good fantasy movie you definitely wouldn't wanna miss. Expand
  41. Jan 21, 2013
    6
    Not horrible, but rather disappointing. Jackson captures the visual appeal of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy but the story feels much too bloated. The ending was satisfying, though.
  42. Jan 28, 2013
    6
    All the major critics of this film relate this film to Lord of the Rings and say how it was not near as epic as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Let me first say that no it isn't but The Hobbit is no epic and so you shouldn't expect it to be. The Hobbit is a short, goofy heart-warming prequel to an epic. Sure, it has it's epic moments but out rightly comparing this movie to Lord of theAll the major critics of this film relate this film to Lord of the Rings and say how it was not near as epic as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Let me first say that no it isn't but The Hobbit is no epic and so you shouldn't expect it to be. The Hobbit is a short, goofy heart-warming prequel to an epic. Sure, it has it's epic moments but out rightly comparing this movie to Lord of the Rings is unfair. So, if that's not my complaint why did I give this movie a 6? The problem is that the Hobbit is a short book and it's ending up being stretched into 3 LONG movies. Since the Hobbit book is even shorter than a single Lord of the Rings book this is a problem and this lead to Jackson looking to the appendices to put more content into the film. This leads to a drawn out film that doesn't seem to want to end. There are definitely scenes that should have been saved for the extended addition and other parts that should have plainly been cut. Anther problem is that the film seems to want to spend more times making ties to Lord of the Rings than developing it's own characters (all of which did great jobs in there respective roles.) This leads to cameos by characters not previously in the Hobbit which while cool is something that makes the movie even more long. If Jackson trims the fat of the movie down just a bit more in the next two films the could be great but he has to learn that he must do that first. If you're a big LOTR fan you will love this movie but if you're indifferent to the series you'll find it to be mediocre. Yeah I enjoyed it and yeah I'm extremely excited for the next two movies. I just hope it's an improvement to this film. Expand
  43. Dec 25, 2012
    9
    EPIC adventure. Outstanding visuals. Great actors. Nice 3D effects. Solid length. An AAA-class movie. No more, no less. I enjoyed every minute of the movie. Waiting for the next part!!!
  44. Dec 23, 2013
    7
    An Unexpected Journey is an overlong film, which seems to buckle under its own weight. The journey is beautifully imagined, but no so beautifully realized. There is some of the Middle-earth magic we have come to love (Riddles in the Dark), but it mostly falls flat.
  45. Feb 3, 2013
    8
    Great movie! The problem is that all those possibilities the movie had in the buildup, really didn't make it to the end of the movie. Also the physics were pretty unrealistic. They should've added some more realism to that.

    Maybe the buildup for the movie will have a reason when I watch LoTR
  46. Jan 23, 2013
    7
    Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (or The Hobbit, as I will refer to it for the purpose of this review) I had very low expectations. When Peter Jackson announced it would be three movies, let alone two movies where I had already felt the source material was being stretched, I cringed. I knew no matter what the reviews were, I
  47. Aug 16, 2014
    6
    A bit longer than it needed to be, but I guess when you break up a single book into two movies some parts are going to be longer than required. Ending was great, finally Bilbo has a self-fulfilling act! I about cheered when he and Thorin made up.
    In summary, see it if you liked the LOTR series. Or if you like New Zealand scenery. Or if you like epics. Just go in with the notion it may
    A bit longer than it needed to be, but I guess when you break up a single book into two movies some parts are going to be longer than required. Ending was great, finally Bilbo has a self-fulfilling act! I about cheered when he and Thorin made up.
    In summary, see it if you liked the LOTR series. Or if you like New Zealand scenery. Or if you like epics. Just go in with the notion it may last longer than needed. I bought it but rent if you're a not a Peter Jackson/Tolkien fan.
    Expand
  48. Jan 26, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit is a great nostalgic ride and a brilliant movie, it delivered at the level of quality i expected it too and it does leave a great desire for more after watching it. Many critics are complaining too much, most expected it to be like LOTR and now that it was they ponder in regret and disappointment, talk about a double sided sword situation. We all know one single movie wontThe Hobbit is a great nostalgic ride and a brilliant movie, it delivered at the level of quality i expected it too and it does leave a great desire for more after watching it. Many critics are complaining too much, most expected it to be like LOTR and now that it was they ponder in regret and disappointment, talk about a double sided sword situation. We all know one single movie wont satisfied most us fans but i do believe a trilogy is stretching the boundaries of the plot, two would be the perfect mark but who am i kidding i loved LOTR and i want that same journey again for my selfish needs. So Mr. Peter Jackson is now going to attempt to do just that with The Hobbit Series, hoping we can get that same feeling we had when LOTR was delivered to us and damn he sure did a good job. In my honest opinion i felt this was the beginning of hopefully another great adventure, the best thing for me about this movie was the Score, the playing of "Old Friends" reminded me of "Concerning Hobbit" and sent nostalgic waves through my mind and was utterly soothing when revisiting The Shire, it was like meeting a old friend ironically. Like always the music was done to a perfection and they carefully bought back some renewed LOTR music at key moments throughout the movie, another great mention was the track "Misty Mountain" it sent chills down my spine giving me that "Skyrim" feel to the movie which was brilliant. Howard Shore sure knows how to deliver a prestige score.

    The locations were perfectly chosen, showing the world another view of beautiful scenery in NZ as well as revisiting some of LOTRs most memorable and beloved places like The Shire & Rivendale. But what really got my attention was the beautiful scenes of where our main cast were shown traveling on beautiful but daunting mountains and warm homely forests. The Goblins home was a grimy location and i felt like it was another nostalgic moment reminding me of the chase in Moria from The Fellowship of the Ring.

    We are spoiled with the amount of characters in this one, starting with the 13 dwarfs who all have their own unique personalities but i felt some out shined others due to the lack of depth & screen time moments (besides the introductions). The re-occurring roles in the movie were great moments for LOTR fans and a young Bilbo sure keeps standards high from where Frodo left off as the helm of the cast. The villains played a big part for the plot, from a unknown & unsettling Necromancer to the scary & ruthless Pale Orc known as Azog the Defiler. Radegast was a clever character but i felt the his appearance was a major disappointment in terms of presentation as well as his depth which i felt was barely justified in the movie. The return of Gollum sure lead to one of the best scenes in the movie, a funny but charismatic riddles challenge with Bilbo which also shows a more aggressive and surprisingly more hostile Gollum, similar to the Gollum we witnessed at the end of Return of the King.

    The first hour of The Hobbit is obscurely slow and felt it dragged some unnecessary scenes but the next two hours surely picked up the pace and was what we all came to expect, a well oiled journey fueled by short sweet humor and cluttered action scenes. Some scenes are breath taking like the revisiting of Rivendale to the unforgettable scene between Gollum & Bilbo and some scenes just felt dragged. The fps was surely odd, it felt some scenes were too sharp and felt like i was watching a TV Movie, some scenes were also outrageous like the battle between stone giants which i felt was breath taking but a bit over the top & ridiculous. But all in all The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is sure a great first step to hopefully another promising trilogy. 8/10
    Expand
  49. Jan 21, 2013
    7
    Despite the harsh criticism about how, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" did not live up to expectations and how it was not nearly as good as "The Lord of the Rings", "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" should be looked upon based on its morals, and not purely on comparison. It is simply not fair to base a movie on its sequels or prequels. A film should be based on how it stands as aDespite the harsh criticism about how, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" did not live up to expectations and how it was not nearly as good as "The Lord of the Rings", "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" should be looked upon based on its morals, and not purely on comparison. It is simply not fair to base a movie on its sequels or prequels. A film should be based on how it stands as a film alone, nothing else.

    This film is full of amazing set pieces and epic battle scenes that provide great entertainment. While nothing is R-Rated, there are some nasty bits of arm-cutting and head-rolling, but nothing too gruesome. After all, this movie is mainly a kids movie. The film has a much lighter side to it than the Lord of the Rings films did, rightly so.

    The character performances in this film are mostly superb, even though some may be a bit corny. The CGI is great for the most part, and are surprisingly detailed. However, the best and most entertaining scene in this film is when Smeagol comes in. The game of riddles is highly entertaining and was one of the highlights of the movie. Sometimes, Smeagol can appear a little too real.

    One thing that I did notice with this film, is that Peter Jackson decided to create it with the future in mind. Meaning that everything in this movie is designed to fit what is to come. I can't really give examples without spoiling anything, but when or if you've watched it, you'll probably know what I mean.

    Overall, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is an unexpected joy to watch, especially for fans of the book. Even for those who aren't, there is still much to enjoy. While not a masterpiece and while it does suffer from some stupid scenes (SPOILERS), such as trolls dangling the dwarves and the hobbit from their fingers and for some reason deciding not to kill them... and Gandalf always popping in to save everyone last second, this movie is mainly a building block for what is to come. I would still watch this movie again just for Smeagol.
    Expand
  50. Dec 27, 2012
    9
    The hobbit being shorter than the Lord of the Rings books, it's a common question as to why three movies are made to adapt it. Many of the reviews I've read have mentioned that it drags in order to keep consistent length, and still have three films. I don't agree them. I appreciate the additions to the story, particularly Radaghast. I also feel this will make the "battle of the fiveThe hobbit being shorter than the Lord of the Rings books, it's a common question as to why three movies are made to adapt it. Many of the reviews I've read have mentioned that it drags in order to keep consistent length, and still have three films. I don't agree them. I appreciate the additions to the story, particularly Radaghast. I also feel this will make the "battle of the five armies" quite massive. "An Unexpected Journey" has a good sense of humor, and sense of adventure, and it's nice to see some of the updated technology utilized in the film to bring the creatures and settings to life.

    (I watched in 24fps, non-3d)
    Expand
  51. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    Yes, the story might lag a little, but I'm glad it's as long as it is. I really enjoyed the visuals and story setup. Go into this understanding that they are marketing The Hobbit to children on Disney and Nickelodeon, and you'll be satisfied. Thoroughly enjoyed, best movie we've seen this year.
  52. Mar 26, 2013
    8
    A lot of fans, including myself, were taken by surprise when reviews of An Unexpected Journey were mixed to positive at best. People questioned Jackson's decision to return to Middle Earth, and even more questioned the decision to expand the film into 3 films. Now that I've seen the film multiple times, I am confident that Peter Jackson is the only person I trust that can bring MiddleA lot of fans, including myself, were taken by surprise when reviews of An Unexpected Journey were mixed to positive at best. People questioned Jackson's decision to return to Middle Earth, and even more questioned the decision to expand the film into 3 films. Now that I've seen the film multiple times, I am confident that Peter Jackson is the only person I trust that can bring Middle Earth to life on the screen. An Unexpected Journey is a highly entertaining and satisfying tale but not without a few flaws. Two of the big problems I had with the film were the slow beginning and heavy use of CGI. This film takes its time in the early moments, but the film as a whole doesn't drag. The Hobbit relies heavily on computer generated orcs/creatures unlike LotR; I personally found the CGI to be poor at times, it really takes you out of the film during certain scenes.

    Flaws aside, this is an entertaining adventure and fully satisfying return to Middle Earth. Jackson's vision remains the same, Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, and Andy Serkis return, New Zealand's beauty shines, and Howard Shore's (excellent) musical score ties everything together by reminding us that we have in fact returned to ME. On top of that, Martin Freeman joins as Bilbo and we have a dozen dwarves to meet; not all of the dwarves are fully realized characters, but they're very entertaining and we have two more films to get to know them better. Freeman is the heart and soul of this film, I really could not have imagined a better fit for Bilbo.

    2 films would have sufficed to tell this story, imo. As a fan of Tolkien, I enjoyed all the additions to the film, it really makes it obvious where the trilogy is going, but this first film suffers a bit because it lacks its own real narrative, but I am beyond excited for where the next films are going to go.

    In short, The Hobbit 1 is not as good as LotR. It feels bloated at times in the beginning due to a lot of backstory/additions to the story and a strange dependence on cg effects, but it is a wonderful return to Middle Earth and will satisfy fans of the original trilogy.
    Expand
  53. Dec 30, 2012
    8
    Short of expectations. I've read the books and love the whole LOTR world that Tolkien has masterfully created for us all to enjoy. Also thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. That said, I cannot believe they are making a trilogy out of this one book (the shortest of them all!). Talk about milking it for all it's worth. Anyways, I digress... As for the actual movie: I watched this in theShort of expectations. I've read the books and love the whole LOTR world that Tolkien has masterfully created for us all to enjoy. Also thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. That said, I cannot believe they are making a trilogy out of this one book (the shortest of them all!). Talk about milking it for all it's worth. Anyways, I digress... As for the actual movie: I watched this in the normal 24fps since I had heard bad things about the higher framerate. And it was far too long!! Definitely could have been edited and cut down more. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get more time spent in the realm of Middle Earth, but this was simply excessive. I also feel like they were trying too hard to capture the same sense of the first three movies, and while The Hobbit's tale is definitely epic but it is simply not big enough to match the same level of the three main books so their attempts were futile. There were a lot of flashbacks and jumping around all over, so it can feel a bit disjointed. My favorite scene is definitely Gollum's part in the movie. Anyway, other than it being too long, trying too hard, and disjointed, I did like it and was entertained by it. Recommended, but I wouldn't set the bar as high as the first three movies done. ALSO: 3D and IMAX 3D aren't worth the hiked up price. Regular IMAX (if that's offered) or simply a regular cinema screen would be better (unless you're really into that). I barely noticed the 3D and felt it was more of a chance to ripoff than something that would make me enjoy the movie better. Expand
  54. Jan 28, 2013
    8
    I find that allot of the criticism that this movie receives is very unjust. The Lord of the Rings trilogy set an extremely high standard that very few fantasy films could ever hope to achieve. The High Frame Rate might have been a little bit of a blunder, but the film itself is exactly what it set out to be: The story that happened before LOTR. It's not meant to be as epic or grand. TheI find that allot of the criticism that this movie receives is very unjust. The Lord of the Rings trilogy set an extremely high standard that very few fantasy films could ever hope to achieve. The High Frame Rate might have been a little bit of a blunder, but the film itself is exactly what it set out to be: The story that happened before LOTR. It's not meant to be as epic or grand. The hobbit is a fantasy adventure story and it succeeds in that completely. If I had to criticize, I would say that it might not have been a bad idea to cut a few of the Dwarves from the cast. Most of them feel like they're there just to form a crowd. Overall: I thoroughly enjoyed it and loved every minute of it. It didn't wow me the same way Fellowship of the ring did, but it kept me enthrall just the same. I can't wait to see the next movie. Expand
  55. Dec 31, 2012
    8
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was not exactly what I was expecting. On one hand it was able to deliver what any Hobbit/ Lord of the Rings fan would want, but on the other hand, it was just shy of the greatness the trilogy had established. Visuals looked top notch however, allowing for some of the best CG in movies these days. The new 48 frames per second allowed the visuals to alsoThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was not exactly what I was expecting. On one hand it was able to deliver what any Hobbit/ Lord of the Rings fan would want, but on the other hand, it was just shy of the greatness the trilogy had established. Visuals looked top notch however, allowing for some of the best CG in movies these days. The new 48 frames per second allowed the visuals to also move smoothly through surrounding environments and react with real world objects. The story telling was very well done even though some of it had been over exaggerated from the book or, if I recall correctly, not in the book at all. Acting was great and believable just as it had been in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The real challenge for anyone watching this movie is sitting through all of it. Unexpected Journey is the shortest movie ever made for the Lord of the Rings universe and it is still too long. Running at two hours and forty nine minutes, I'd be amazed if anyone could sit through this without having to leave for the bathroom. Another challenge, will be breaking this book up into three movies and not trying to flutter the audience down with even more extended scenes that weren't as long as they were in the book. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great movie! People should really go see it in theaters! However, if you have difficulty sitting down for so long, I would suggest to you that you wait and rent the movie instead of having to miss twenty minutes of it because you had to go to the bathroom. Expand
  56. Mar 25, 2013
    7
    I'm too tired to write a full blown review for this one. S if you're interested in whether you should see this movie or not. I will tell you this. This is NOT the Lord of the Rings. Do not expect a starting film of the same proportions. Go into this movie expecting an adventure (Unlike Bilbo :D) Go into it, snuggle up and watch some really cool action sequences, some great dialogue betweenI'm too tired to write a full blown review for this one. S if you're interested in whether you should see this movie or not. I will tell you this. This is NOT the Lord of the Rings. Do not expect a starting film of the same proportions. Go into this movie expecting an adventure (Unlike Bilbo :D) Go into it, snuggle up and watch some really cool action sequences, some great dialogue between some of your favorite characters and see some great villains and plot points unfold. If you're coming from the book, you will be pleased to know it does an absolutely terrific job of displaying Tolkiens vision. It's a good watch and I'm sure the next two will be even better 7/10 Expand
  57. Mar 24, 2013
    8
    saw it loved it. but if there wasn't any of the other movies i think this would bite the dust. i have seen twice and i don´t remember any of the dwarfs names. then again it has nice scenery and shots overall a great movie but it has its downfalls. but really 58/100
  58. Dec 25, 2012
    8
    I read the hobbit when I was very young and my imagination was the only escape I could use to go to Middle earth, 20+ years later and my imagination is now realized on the screen... and it looks great!
    There are parts that felt better reading than when realized in the cinema mostly because reading it gives me time to digest more fiction, The hungry golums and the cooking part, the rabbits
    I read the hobbit when I was very young and my imagination was the only escape I could use to go to Middle earth, 20+ years later and my imagination is now realized on the screen... and it looks great!
    There are parts that felt better reading than when realized in the cinema mostly because reading it gives me time to digest more fiction, The hungry golums and the cooking part, the rabbits sleigh, Bilbo's house dishes cleaning and some other it felt a little bit I am watching a disney fiction, thank God that didn't last long, and the movie does pickup the pace and Bilbo - Smeagol was comforting and well acted.
    Overall I enjoyed it and wouldn't have missed it and would recommend any old and new Middle Earthern to go back...
    Expand
  59. Dec 25, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. -MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS- Best Lord of The Rings movie yet. Yeah I said it best YET. The character development is actually pretty good especially considering that there is 14 characters consistently throughout going on a very epic journey to help the remaining of the dwarves who didn't get killed by the army of Orcs reclaim the city of Elaboar (Can't Spell this stuff). The battle scenes are epic especially the one where they are on the bridges getting chased by Goblins which also showcases the great special effects and the 3D is very well done (unfortunately I didn't get to see it at a high frame rate though). Unlike most people say the movie did NOT start out slow you saw some crazy stuff at the beginning. OK some issues at certain battle scenes where swords and stuff are clipping through Orcs ect. but it wasn't that noticeable. The only real complaint is flashbacks can be drawn out until you forget there was a flashback or explanation in the first place so I can get slightly confusing and let's face it the scene with the Golem was too long. But overall it was an AWESOME movie Expand
  60. Dec 26, 2012
    9
    I think that the people that are posting bad reviews just saw the movie listen to some critics and cry about how its gonna be 3movies and how childish it was.
    Let me inform you that the Hobbit (the book) was indeed a bit chilsdish in the beginning with the talking trols and de dishes but thats the book, if that was cut out you would be crying about that.
    And the "meehhhhh why is is in
    I think that the people that are posting bad reviews just saw the movie listen to some critics and cry about how its gonna be 3movies and how childish it was.
    Let me inform you that the Hobbit (the book) was indeed a bit chilsdish in the beginning with the talking trols and de dishes but thats the book, if that was cut out you would be crying about that.
    And the "meehhhhh why is is in threee movieess meehhh''' well beceause most of you **** diden't read the books so now they will show you how sauron was risen beceause you dont read that in the Hobbit. That is why its in 3 movies.

    Sorry for the bad grammar!
    Expand
  61. Dec 26, 2012
    8
    I understand fans have made comments that the start is slow - I loved it - I agree there are some holes in how we get to when the action really begins at about the 1 hour mark - but every minute is worth watching - love this - know its not true to the book - but Jackson owns this world.
  62. Dec 29, 2012
    8
    good film, some comedy and more action, but the whole film is not finished, which probably means the second part will be out a good time from here, like harry potter or twilight, the whole proper end fight is in a different film. But it was good
  63. Dec 31, 2013
    10
    First I like to start with that I am one hell 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy fan freak, it is EPIC to all the EPICS in human history of filmdom. I voted many movies for 10 outa 10 but by far LOTR stays in highest peak point on that list. I never compare HOBBIT to LOTR because the time and technology differentiate both the movie (trilogy) and I request you all not to do that. Another solidFirst I like to start with that I am one hell 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy fan freak, it is EPIC to all the EPICS in human history of filmdom. I voted many movies for 10 outa 10 but by far LOTR stays in highest peak point on that list. I never compare HOBBIT to LOTR because the time and technology differentiate both the movie (trilogy) and I request you all not to do that. Another solid reason is that I saw LOTR as plain live action graphic movie but saw HOBBIT a decade later in 3D with advance CGI technics in it.

    Now lets talk about 'An Unexpected Journey', The first installment of 'The Hobbit' trilogy which tells the untold adventurous story of Bilbo Baggins, the ring holder, which take place 60 years early to the actual LOTR, it also tells how Bilbo Baggins ends with the precious Ring in his pocket that everyone in the Middle Earth was looking for it over the centuries. As usual stunning visuals, Peter Jackson did hell great job by handing the massive characters/cast/role and also got what he wanted from CGI technicians, It was not gigantic cast like LOTR trilogy though. In fact I have seen only 33.333...% of the movie so far I mean I yet to see other two parts (66.666...%) which make it a trilogy so my rating for this movie is temporary till next two years.

    The movie begins with slow dramatic style, introducing all the characters one after one otherwise some could get mix up to identify all the dwarfs who look alike. And then little fun get pass through middle of the movie with small-small adventures then begins second half where most of the real adventures take place which kick starts with mountain Trolls. Extraordinary 3D effects with few great pop-ups, some action sequences were simply breathtaking especially one in underground Goblin city is treat for eyes specially if you see it in 3D version, expected ultra slow motion images Like what we see in cricket, sadly I did not get chance to see the movie in 48fps, that really scuks as being LOTR fan, great to see 500 years old freaky, an aggressive Gollum in 3D, you gonna witness the best Gollum in technically, Andy Serkis did great job in his short phase. There is a brief scene where this movie meets 'Fellowship of the Ring' where Gollum lose his Ring in a dark cave and that situation was bit strange and different than what we saw in LOTR may be because it was brief like i said before. Meet between them, Bilbo Baggins and Gollum was more like funny simultaneously frighting too, specially kids may feel that. Background score was so great throughout the movie like previous trilogy, even some songs too. When movie ended I left cinema hall like everyone else but felt I still wanted another hour of it, I was forced to leave the place How many of you will agree me, it started slowly but ended strongly, that's why all this drama of me.

    In world cinema, there will be always some characters which will remain in people's mind forever, like the Joker, Jack Sparrow, Dark Vander etc, like that Galdalf is for LOTR, of course including Gollum, Ian McKellen was so awesome in all the four movies, without him or replace of him is like a bowl of curd rice without a Piece of pickle.

    Overall an excellent standard movie, must see in big screen with 3D version specially if you are a film freak you should not miss it, some people might have not get satisfied with movie but all I can say is still another two is yet to come so it will make difference at least then. Now all we can do is wait.....
    Expand
  64. Dec 29, 2012
    6
    Looks fab - in 2D, none of yer 3D muck, please. Lighter in touch than the darker LOTR trilogy, which is as it should be. The characters are as they should be, and although there are a large(ish) number of similar looking Dwarves you do get to know their individual traits. Still, there are problems, mainly the length of time it takes to get going. And when it does get going it seems to doLooks fab - in 2D, none of yer 3D muck, please. Lighter in touch than the darker LOTR trilogy, which is as it should be. The characters are as they should be, and although there are a large(ish) number of similar looking Dwarves you do get to know their individual traits. Still, there are problems, mainly the length of time it takes to get going. And when it does get going it seems to do so in a mad rush to fit things in - and yet doesn't feel like much has happened. There are big splendid CGI sets, cities in mountains and goblin lairs and Rivendell and it looks sumptuous and particularly glittery. There are chases and fighting but it never feels like anyone is in danger, which dulls the sense of adventure considerably; there's lots of talk about danger and not enough of it. The trouble with The Hobbit is it's all surface shine and little depth, or, as Smaug would probably agree: all that glistens is not gold. Expand
  65. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    Lighter in tone than Lotr, the hobbit tries hard to remain recognisable within the screen world established so well in the first trilogy. And on the whole, it succeeds. It is, however, a weaker film. Martin freeman is no Elijah wood, he is simply not as strong an actor, although us likeable in the role. The story does not consistently revolve around his viewpoint. There is cgi overload,Lighter in tone than Lotr, the hobbit tries hard to remain recognisable within the screen world established so well in the first trilogy. And on the whole, it succeeds. It is, however, a weaker film. Martin freeman is no Elijah wood, he is simply not as strong an actor, although us likeable in the role. The story does not consistently revolve around his viewpoint. There is cgi overload, and although thrilling at times, too many action scenes in the second half with our heroes in perilous situations where we all know gandalf will turn up at the last minute and rescue them. Or eagles. Again. The story feels padded at times, and over stretched like butter over bread. Highlights were the shire opening, the trolls, and gollum. Some solid performances too from previous actors, as well as several strong newcomers. I suspect and hope this will be the weakest of the three films, overall enjoyable, not as hood as Lotr and unlike that trilogy, I found it left me cold, but hopeful. Expand
  66. Feb 3, 2013
    6
    A film with such a big budget and all kinds of spectacular special effects and with a running time of 3 hours on purpose should not feel so long and boring at parts. Maybe it is affected by the previous trilogy, but it feels like we have seen it before. It is still great but without that surprising point it becomes tedious when the film is 1 hour and a half in. It feels like a contrivedA film with such a big budget and all kinds of spectacular special effects and with a running time of 3 hours on purpose should not feel so long and boring at parts. Maybe it is affected by the previous trilogy, but it feels like we have seen it before. It is still great but without that surprising point it becomes tedious when the film is 1 hour and a half in. It feels like a contrived journey. But it becomes interesting in the last hour again once the most loved creature by the public finally appears and steals the show for a long while.
    Many other films with long running-times released in 2012 are way more interesting, impacting, emotive and feel shorter than what they are: Django, Les Miserables, Skyfall, Dark Knight Rises and more.
    Expand
  67. Mar 23, 2013
    10
    This is one of the few movies I wanted to see in the theatre, but skipped it cuz I was just too busy..and now after watching it on blu ray with all the hype gone I must say, best movie I've seen all year..hype kills movies these days..every movie I've waited to watch on blu ray has allowed me to view it on its own merits instead of stacking it up against hundreds of other big budget moviesThis is one of the few movies I wanted to see in the theatre, but skipped it cuz I was just too busy..and now after watching it on blu ray with all the hype gone I must say, best movie I've seen all year..hype kills movies these days..every movie I've waited to watch on blu ray has allowed me to view it on its own merits instead of stacking it up against hundreds of other big budget movies we've seen in the past 20 years..same thing happened when i watched Total Recall and Lincoln Vampire Hunter..critics and fans alike all seem to hate movies that don't innovate to the point of reinventing the wheel..what about just being a well executed and fun movie Expand
  68. Feb 7, 2013
    5
    Bilbo's story, though not without thrill, is much more lighthearted then "The Lord of The Rings" so don't expect to see a lot of doom and gloom or giant armies slugging it out. Unfortunately the Peter Jackson doesn't strays from the novel a lot in this film which, in my opinion, ruined the story a little.
  69. Jul 20, 2015
    7
    For me. this is a good start to the trilogy. It's got the action, the characters, a sprinkle of humour all mixed in one for fans of fantasy epics. The length is a given to any lord of the rings fan but something about this movie was wasted. Oh yes, the entire cavalcade of **** with the elves could've been cut down by 50%, it was lengthy, boring and felt like an unnecessarily long toFor me. this is a good start to the trilogy. It's got the action, the characters, a sprinkle of humour all mixed in one for fans of fantasy epics. The length is a given to any lord of the rings fan but something about this movie was wasted. Oh yes, the entire cavalcade of **** with the elves could've been cut down by 50%, it was lengthy, boring and felt like an unnecessarily long to include, there is too much dwindling time filling dialogue in this movie with non suspenseful meaning to it. Almost brought it down to a 6, but thank God for the impeccable action and some amazing scenes of humour and light heartedness. Expand
  70. Feb 24, 2013
    8
    I am a loyal fan of the pre movies and just relating was pretty cool but this was not a really exciting film the Orcs were not as disgusting as before in terms of appearance and it almost appeared to be on stage like a PLAY in other words WE NEED NOT RE EVENT THE WHEEL.
  71. Mar 19, 2013
    7
    It's one of those hyped movies that I might only remember because of the hype. If this story wasn't written by Tolkien, and Gandalf wasn't in it, this movie would've passed by as 'a better than average movie'.

    Quite a good movie i certainly did enjoy- but somewhat slow.
  72. Feb 25, 2014
    5
    These are just not my type of movies. I did enjoy some parts of the Lord of Rings and this one just is not as good. Characters are not as memorable and the journey is not as good as the Lord of the Rings, but maybe this will change in the next two. Something else that annoyed me is that just when we think one or some of them are going to die, they are saved by something ridiculous andThese are just not my type of movies. I did enjoy some parts of the Lord of Rings and this one just is not as good. Characters are not as memorable and the journey is not as good as the Lord of the Rings, but maybe this will change in the next two. Something else that annoyed me is that just when we think one or some of them are going to die, they are saved by something ridiculous and makes you wonder why doesn't the wizard just use his powers all the time to protect them? Just a thought. In the end I would have rated this movie lower but due to the incredible special effects I gave it 54.5/100. Expand
  73. Jul 22, 2013
    4
    Bilbo definitibamente es poco entretenido y algo estupido a una excepcion la pelicula guarda exclentes efectos y la originalidad al 100 sin embargo solo BLA BLA BLA Y ganas de ZZZzzzzz
  74. Dec 13, 2014
    7
    Comparisons to The Lord of the Rings are inevitable, but these comparisons certainly won't make The Hobbit look weak. It can at times feel stretched too thin, because adapting one book into a trilogy of 2+ hour films was always going to be ambitious. The lack of a decent quantity of source material can make the film feel needlessly dragged out at times to, but, we are back in Middle-Earth!Comparisons to The Lord of the Rings are inevitable, but these comparisons certainly won't make The Hobbit look weak. It can at times feel stretched too thin, because adapting one book into a trilogy of 2+ hour films was always going to be ambitious. The lack of a decent quantity of source material can make the film feel needlessly dragged out at times to, but, we are back in Middle-Earth! The Hobbit tells the story of Bilbo Baggins, a cautious yet caring hobbit, who I like more than Frodo. Perhaps due to Martin Freeman's on-screen brilliance. I found the characters in the story much more admirable and realistic than those in the first LOTR outing, Fellowship. This meant I truly cared more about the fate of the characters and as a result, felt more involved during their dangerous encounters. This is a very introductory film in terms of the plot, but, we do learn things. How Smaug claimed Erebor. How Bilbo acquired the ring from Gollum which is one of the film's best scenes. The conflicts and history between the secondary antagonist Azog and the dwarves. The Hobbit also sees the return of many classic LOTR locations, which brought a smile to my face. The music is gripping which only enhances true feelings. An Unexpected Journey is a steady yet strong film that sets the trilogy on the right path through great characters, great history and most of all, great anticipation. Expand
  75. Dec 9, 2014
    7
    Everything is about money, including this new and unnecessary trilogy.

    This new trilogy is far away when it comes to Middle-earth magic, as we know it. The main issue is that there are three movies on one book that’s only one-third of The Lord of The Rings; this can only result in a worse trilogy than Lord of the Rings. It’s all about money. One result of this is that it took like 25
    Everything is about money, including this new and unnecessary trilogy.

    This new trilogy is far away when it comes to Middle-earth magic, as we know it. The main issue is that there are three movies on one book that’s only one-third of The Lord of The Rings; this can only result in a worse trilogy than Lord of the Rings. It’s all about money. One result of this is that it took like 25 minutes for the movie to really start; there are so much slow scenes in the beginning. There’s also much slow and silly scenes in the film, there’s no LotR-magic. But at the same time are there some highly entertaining and funny things that I totally enjoyed to see, and the action is great, but not as unique as in The Lord of the Rings. The biggest problem with the action is that there’s too much CGI, and by that I mean bad CGI. It doesn’t look real. Some of the villains that are only CGI are superb, but when it comes to other living objects like trees and fires am I not impressed. The movie is overall very entertaining because it gives us a greater backstory of Bilbo’s life, which hasn’t been fully explained before. There are lots of connections between the two trilogies, which I truly love! The extended edition is even greater, so much more material. The last aspect of the film that I really enjoyed is the soundtrack. It’s so touching. But not as epic as The Lord of the Rings.

    This movie gives the audience a greater backstory of Bilbo’s life, before everything in one of the greatest trilogies ever made. Even though Peter Jackson directed this film, it got some flaws. The silliness and a big lack of innovation and dramatic scenes don’t make this film even close to matching The Fellowship of the Ring.

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey gets a 7.5/10.
    Expand
  76. Jan 5, 2014
    6
    I can't rate this any higher than a 6. The film is deviating from the book just a bit too much for me to enjoy it. For those of you that enjoy a good action movie set in Middle Earth, this is for you. If you care about the lore and any backstory whatsoever, don't watch it as it has too many details that aren't supposed to be there.
  77. Sep 28, 2014
    1
    The Hobbit: An expected failure. This film is to a good film... what cold leftovers are to a gourmet meal. Even if the meal was originally good, after a few weeks it holds even more maggots than an orc. LOTR was applaused? Just make the same, and pretend it is an adaptation from The hobbit. But this film is just stupid! Nothing to do with the book! It is still better than the secondThe Hobbit: An expected failure. This film is to a good film... what cold leftovers are to a gourmet meal. Even if the meal was originally good, after a few weeks it holds even more maggots than an orc. LOTR was applaused? Just make the same, and pretend it is an adaptation from The hobbit. But this film is just stupid! Nothing to do with the book! It is still better than the second film, but still an insult. Desolation of smaug is more an insult than sh!tting inside Tolkien's tomb. This one is merely as much as peeing inside. Expand
  78. Ogr
    Dec 25, 2013
    3
    The new Hobbit Movie is out for a while, so I tried to watch the old one again, to get into it. I kinda liked the books, even if I don't think that they are as great as everyone says, I prefer darker and more serious fantasy like SoIaF. Still I thought this movie could be pretty nice, as I love the landscape... and yes, New Zealand's landscape is the best of The Hobbit. Singing dwarves andThe new Hobbit Movie is out for a while, so I tried to watch the old one again, to get into it. I kinda liked the books, even if I don't think that they are as great as everyone says, I prefer darker and more serious fantasy like SoIaF. Still I thought this movie could be pretty nice, as I love the landscape... and yes, New Zealand's landscape is the best of The Hobbit. Singing dwarves and a stretched boring story, sometimes it's a real torture to watch this movie. The good thing is that my TV has a mute function and I can enjoy watching the scenery. Sorry, I don't want to troll around here, but this movie is so bad except for it's modern technology, I had to write it down. Expand
  79. Dec 8, 2014
    10
    Great movie, I enjoyed and I think that Peter Jackson had and will do a great job with middle earth because Middle earth is very difficult to make in a movie. Great actors comes with great effects and movie making.
  80. Dec 28, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit: and Unexpected Journey was everything that i had hoped for. I'm a a very big Tolkien fan and i have read a lot of his books, and i gotta say: this was amazing! a lot of Tolkien fans did not like it but that is probably because they expected WAY to much and wanted everything to be JUST like the book... well you just can't expect that from a movie adapted from a book, their needThe Hobbit: and Unexpected Journey was everything that i had hoped for. I'm a a very big Tolkien fan and i have read a lot of his books, and i gotta say: this was amazing! a lot of Tolkien fans did not like it but that is probably because they expected WAY to much and wanted everything to be JUST like the book... well you just can't expect that from a movie adapted from a book, their need to be changes. the acting delivered was perfect especially from Martin Freeman. Expand
  81. Jan 7, 2014
    7
    It's definitely not at the level of Lord of the Rings, and I"ll admit, there are some lines that I laughed at that I probably wasn't supposed to, but it was still entertaining. It was well-written, and the fact that it's more "childish" than LOTR is just because that's how the books went as well.
  82. Jan 5, 2014
    3
    Slow, dill and boring. Was so disappointed with this as i loved lord of the rings! The action sequences seemed silly and almost pointless (stone gods anyone??) and hardly built on characters unlike the original. I knew about one of the dwarves names along side the obvious characters (bilbo and gandalf) and you need to build characters a lot more if they are all the same race! The dwarvesSlow, dill and boring. Was so disappointed with this as i loved lord of the rings! The action sequences seemed silly and almost pointless (stone gods anyone??) and hardly built on characters unlike the original. I knew about one of the dwarves names along side the obvious characters (bilbo and gandalf) and you need to build characters a lot more if they are all the same race! The dwarves had so little dialogue too you forgot half of them existed! Not really worth seeing unless you are die hard LOTR fan. Luckily Desolation of smaug was great! Expand
  83. Feb 14, 2014
    5
    Peter Jackson's new take on the Lord of the Rings like always contains vivid scenes of animation but fails to make the film anymore than a simple adventure story.
  84. Mar 4, 2014
    8
    It drags quite considerably, but technically and musically, it's just great. Full to the brim with nostalgic scenes and references and an unsurprisingly great Freeman as the Hobbit. Not as grand and heartfelt overall as the LOTR series, but I felt the same with that first installment too, so here's hoping it improves!
  85. Dec 14, 2014
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

    Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visual que, digamos, cumple con las expectativas (debido a que las 3 películas de "The Lorg of the Ring" ganaron el Oscar en la categoría de "Mejores Efectos
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

    Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visual que, digamos, cumple con las expectativas (debido a que las 3 películas de "The Lorg of the Ring" ganaron el Oscar en la categoría de "Mejores Efectos Visuales), y que le dan una caracterización bien ilustrada a la tierra media, sin embargo, la película tiene un fallo, y es que sus largos 169 minutos de duración (o 2 horas con 39 minutos, que en general son casi 3 horas de metraje) resultan un tanto pesada o fastidiosa (aunque no todo el tiempo), por lo tanto algunas personas quizá puede resultar un poco, digamos, lenta (aunque no en todo los términos), pero, esa larga duración no hace que la película caiga, así que, logra mantenerse firme durante todo su trayecto y terminando con un espectáculo lleno de buenos efectos visuales, buena ambientación y con un comienzo respetable de esta nueva trilogía de la edad media.
    Expand
  86. Oct 12, 2014
    10
    I love this movie and I really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really like this movie.
  87. Mar 29, 2014
    8
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a great film. I enjoyed it very much. I really wish people would see what the trilogy is. I believe that Peter Jackson is making The Hobbit into a Trilogy so that it may live up to The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, not just to make extra money. So while this first movie may only take up a fraction of the small Hobbit book and add things that may seemThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a great film. I enjoyed it very much. I really wish people would see what the trilogy is. I believe that Peter Jackson is making The Hobbit into a Trilogy so that it may live up to The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, not just to make extra money. So while this first movie may only take up a fraction of the small Hobbit book and add things that may seem unnecessary, AUJ was very good. Expand
  88. May 18, 2014
    9
    Some great scenes in this movie, that I will remember for a while. Not as good as the second Hobbit movie though. It started off really well by introducing all of the main characters well as the movies take place before LOTR. There are some great battle scenes in this movie, and a scenes with a song that I really loved. It was a really long movie but I think every scene was needed in it.
  89. May 3, 2014
    8
    What did Peter Jackson in this film is no small thing! He was able to make epic a tale for children, and playing with the narrative by inserting the apparitions, in my opinion, very apt and not at all out of place !
    The film lasts about three hours, but not boring in the least , and also distracts from the hassles of 3D ! It 's true , the scene at Bag End is a bit long and slow , but at
    What did Peter Jackson in this film is no small thing! He was able to make epic a tale for children, and playing with the narrative by inserting the apparitions, in my opinion, very apt and not at all out of place !
    The film lasts about three hours, but not boring in the least , and also distracts from the hassles of 3D ! It 's true , the scene at Bag End is a bit long and slow , but at least I have followed with great pleasure , it was also a good way to learn about the dwarves , and not having a blurry image! Many complain that the dwarves are too clumsy and stupid , well Gimli in the previous trilogy did not seem much different , coincidentally the comic he was angry with Pippin and Merry ! Also, it seemed like the right choice to give the film a touch of zing , considering that the story does not have the same magnitude of the previous trilogy ! Yes, because the story is not deep and eclectic as that of the Lord of the Rings , but we say more childish and playful , it is an air of terror and fear, at least not until Bilbo finds the ring !
    The direction of Jackson 's mammoth as always , the same applies to photography and script! To define the beauty of the scenery , maybe there is not even a term that enhances 100% !
    Expand
  90. May 4, 2014
    3
    Aweful, just plain aweful. one of the most boring movies I have ever seen... and I love lord of the rings so this movie was a huge huge let down. Hobbit 2 and 3? count me out
  91. May 10, 2014
    2
    My enjoyment of this movie was somewhat marred by the fact that that I was constantly aware that Tolkien's novel was emphatically not supposed to be a fantasy epic. It is a charming book about the development of a group of dysfunctional individuals (thrown together by the machinations of Gandalf) and especially the development of the eponymous character from a homeloving 'respectable'My enjoyment of this movie was somewhat marred by the fact that that I was constantly aware that Tolkien's novel was emphatically not supposed to be a fantasy epic. It is a charming book about the development of a group of dysfunctional individuals (thrown together by the machinations of Gandalf) and especially the development of the eponymous character from a homeloving 'respectable' hobbit into a resourceful adventuring hero. The movie was a heavy-handed travesty of the story; Peter Jackson (and presumably his backers) are obviously just interested in a cynical rehashing of the Lord of The Rings trilogy. Of course, that too showed Jackson's leaden touch, especially in the last sixty minutes of The Return of The King. Minas Tirith miraculously rebuilt, instead of showing that the rebuilding was going to happen as a result of those reforged alliances and friendships between dwarves, elves and men begun in The Fellowship Of The Ring. Not quite 'Hollywood' enough, I suppose? And these long, travestic final scenes left no room for the 'Battle of the Shire' at the end of the book where four once commonplace hobbits returned home as seasoned heroes to kick Saruman and Wormtongue out of the Shire. Jackson doesn't pay much attention to character; he seems interested only in action. No doubt Jackson's new trilogy will win lots of Oscars again: money for old rope. I for one cannot, in all conscience, rate An Unexpected Journey any higher than 2 out of 10. Expand
  92. Jun 25, 2014
    10
    A great action, adventure, fantasy film. Improves on the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and is less dark, sad, and violent. It's well balanced between non-exciting moments to exciting moments. Has some good parts for comedy and laughs. Has a rat gripping storyline, jaw-dropping CGI and awesome action scenes. A great film for everyone, and an absolute must see! And must see the sequel!
  93. Jan 29, 2015
    8
    The only reason I give The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey an 8 is because of the fact that it takes about 43 minutes for Bilbo's journey to actually start. Plus the, what I call "Deleted beginning LotR scene", which I thought was not necessary. But other than that, it was very enjoyable to see one of my favorite books finally appear of the silver screen.
  94. Jul 15, 2014
    7
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to go on an adventure with 13 dwarves to kill a dragon that has destroyed their homeland.
    Now Bilbo, like many Hobbits, does not like to partake in these kind of things. The dangerous world of middle earth is no place for them. But, in a fortunate 30 minutes of screen time, they convince him and we have our journey.
    Right off the bat I just want to say that the Hobbit AUJ is a long film. Just about as long as Fellowship of the Ring. However, in fellowship, a lot more happens. I wont knock The Hobbit down any points for dragging on because, while it does do so, there is plenty of more material to see during these moments. You get to meet the dwarves, who are fun and eccentric. You also get to see Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
    Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen do great, especially Freeman. He makes Bilbo more three dimensional than before.
    And Thorin? He’s a wonderful character with a great back story who really shows leadership over the dwarves.
    Sure there are a few forgettable dwarves in the movie, but for the most part they are interesting characters with colourful personalities.
    If I were to nitpick anything (minus the argument over 40fps) is that this film has a lot more CGI. So much so that it really just takes you out of the experience. There were many scenes where I was like
    “They got over a thousand extras for Helms Deep but had to CGI those 8 guys?”
    It is kinda upsetting and really seems unnecessary at points.
    But other than that, the film is great. It was cool to see the battle at Moria, I love how it’s told, I love the build up, I REALLY love the attention to detail, and I surprisingly love Radagast the Brown.
    and the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ sequence? Yeah, talk about chilling.
    There’s really not much else to say here, if you love LotR you’ll absolutely love The Hobbit AUJ. If you love film in general you will, for the most part, enjoy The Hobbit. Although, you may be annoyed by the FPS and many of the drawn out scenes.
    If you hated LotR and everything it stood for then dude, stay as far away as possible, this will not change your mind. In fact it will most likely strengthen your hatred.
    But for me, I enjoyed it. While I believe it was not perfect, it left me in great anticipation for the sequel.
    Expand
  95. Aug 14, 2014
    7
    The opening chapter of Peter Jackson's second Middle-earth trilogy is a bit of a mixed bag, but the bag itself is gorgeous. The scenery, the set design and the special effects (mostly) dazzle, and the 48fps theatrical release was, for me, a game-changer of a visual experience (YMMV). The ensemble cast (both old and new) is uniformly good, and Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect in theThe opening chapter of Peter Jackson's second Middle-earth trilogy is a bit of a mixed bag, but the bag itself is gorgeous. The scenery, the set design and the special effects (mostly) dazzle, and the 48fps theatrical release was, for me, a game-changer of a visual experience (YMMV). The ensemble cast (both old and new) is uniformly good, and Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect in the title role of a thoroughly domesticated hobbit pushing middle-age, who finds himself uncharacteristically swept away on an adventure. The film doesn't precisely follow the beloved children's tale it's adapting (though the first 45 minutes or so is just shy of reverential), but many of the changes are understandable, and work to make the movie more accessible. I have no idea why Jackson decided to change this from a "quest" into a "chase," but Azog makes a pretty decent bad guy.

    There are really only two issues that keep this film from getting a higher score from me, and they're both hard to ignore. First, of course, is the length. When I heard that Jackson was turning this slim novel into a trilogy, I still never imagined that each film would be pushing 3 hours long. The LOTR movies could get away with this, because they had so much story to tell, but this one feels a bit padded.

    The second problem, which runs throughout the film, at least after it leaves Bag End, is the overwhelming about of computer graphics. One reason the first trilogy was so well accepted, even by non-fantasy fans, is how grounded it felt, with lots of real locations and practical effects. This film moves away from that trend, perhaps because Jackson has a substantially larger war chest to play with. Goblin-town is particularly egregious. The Great Goblin looks fantastic, and so does Gollum, (who continues to steal all his scenes), but the rest of it just feels fake, more like a video game than a movie, especially the escape.

    Overall, this is an enjoyable adventure film, and a fun, if flawed, beginning of moviegoers new foray into Middle-earth.
    Expand
  96. Jul 28, 2014
    5
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is many steps down from the Lord of the Rings. It is, of course, very different as a book, and it is not right to compare it to the previous Middle-Earth installments. The film was marketed as a prequel to Lord of the Rings, though. "The Hobbit" is a children's book and is very good at what it is. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", however, gets lost"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is many steps down from the Lord of the Rings. It is, of course, very different as a book, and it is not right to compare it to the previous Middle-Earth installments. The film was marketed as a prequel to Lord of the Rings, though. "The Hobbit" is a children's book and is very good at what it is. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", however, gets lost while trying to give the story a more "adult" tone, with more violence and more darkness (through extra material and lots of unrealistic CGI). The result is a confusing blend of humour and drama that makes the purpose of the film unclear. There are many enjoyable scenes, of course, but it lacks the quality of both the book and the LotR films.

    There is also the problem of the film being too long and having too little to say. I didn't quite understand why it had to be split in three movies, except for profit reasons. A not-so-long book cannot support three 3-hour-plus films, and it is no surprise that, with "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", some may feel like watching a 20-minute episode on TV in slow motion.

    It is watchable, even enjoyable, but no great film.
    Expand
  97. Feb 20, 2015
    7
    Let's get this out of the way first. The Hobbit is not in any way, shape, or form as good as Lord of the Rings. However, when compared to such incredible films, very few movies are great. When looking at it from an unbiased standpoint, I found there was much enjoyment to be had in this fun fantasy romp, even if its clumsy pace and overabundance of CGI bring it down a few notches.

    7.2/10
  98. Nov 9, 2014
    8
    The first installment of the Hobbit franchise spends a lot of time laying its foundations then uses it to create an immersive experience for its audience.
  99. Dec 24, 2014
    9
    We've gotten used to the world of hobbits, elves, dwarves and orcs so maybe Its a taking a bit more every time to keep us entertained. But this is a fun night at the theater. A morality lesson for kids ( and Adults)..loads of action, heaps of special effects and the odd scare. The slight minuses are that Smaug doesn't feature so much and the Orcs are so frail that a two foot nothingWe've gotten used to the world of hobbits, elves, dwarves and orcs so maybe Its a taking a bit more every time to keep us entertained. But this is a fun night at the theater. A morality lesson for kids ( and Adults)..loads of action, heaps of special effects and the odd scare. The slight minuses are that Smaug doesn't feature so much and the Orcs are so frail that a two foot nothing hobbit with a pebble can knock them over. Expand
  100. Aug 7, 2014
    10
    Excellent movie Series..!! thanks a lot for making an extra ordinary movie :) you have really worked hard as well as amazing. hope to watch an unfinished tale as well.
Metascore
58

Mixed or average reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 40
  2. Negative: 2 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Peter Rainer
    Dec 14, 2012
    58
    My first thought in watching The Hobbit was: Do we really need this movie? It was my last thought, too.
  2. Reviewed by: Liam Lacey
    Dec 14, 2012
    63
    In this fitfully engaging, but often patience-straining preamble to Hobbit adventures to come, there is one transporting 10 minutes of screen time. It happens when Bilbo meets the freakish, ring-obsessed creature Gollum.
  3. Reviewed by: Ann Hornaday
    Dec 13, 2012
    38
    It's a bloated, shockingly tedious trudge that manages to look both overproduced and unforgivably cheesy.