Though not quite as good as the Lord of the Rings films, the first installment of the planned Hobbit trilogy was engaging, fun, and beautiful. Some may argue that it takes to long to start but the beginning is filled with fun moments that introduce the characters as well as the quest that will occupy these three films. It does a fantastic job conveying that the Hobbit is more of a bit less serious than the Lord of the Rings and kids will be sure to get a few laughs. Peter Jackson is once again able to show the beauty of Middle Earth with stunning shots of the land and is able to convey the grand scope of the quest effectively. The performances were absolutely fantastic. Sir Ian McKellen delivers once again as the wizard Gandalf and Martin Freeman was incredibly charming as Bilbo Baggins. Though there are a lot of dwarves to keep track of and some of them are more forgettable than others, all performances are solid and Jackson allows pretty much all of them at least some dialogue. I am sure they will get more notice in the next two films. The only downside is that at times there is a feel of overuse of CGI. Part of what made the LotR films great was the mix of real with CGI. Most of the orcs are completely CGI and therefore the combat seems to be lacking. But seeing as this is a happier movie series that isn't combat driven like the LotR films it is forgivable. For those wondering how such a relatively short book will span three films, Jackson adapts many of Tolkien's other writings to the film as to provide background and context. To people who read The Hobbit that may recall something in the film not happening in the book, don't worry it is nothing that Tolkien didn't already write. Overall The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a fantastic film that is tons of fun and does a great job introducing characters and kicking of the beloved epic tale that will take two more installments. Any fan of Tolkien will love it... unless your just a dick.… Expand

Just great. One of the best adaptation of the book ever. Everything that add or change - better. Dwarfs all full of charisma and badassity. Really, I don't know, why some critics say this movie so much suck ass - for me, its only best of the year movie.

CRITICS GOT IT WRONG!!!! And I may have a hard time taking critics seriously ever again. This year, a lot of blockbuster movies were released (e.g. Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers) but The Hobbit surpassed them all and takes the crown as most exciting film of 2012. At first, I wondered at the logic of dividing the book into three parts. But I am a believer as the longer length allows you to fully immerse and appreciate yourself in this wonderful world of middle earth. Wonderful, magical, exciting! You must go watch this film!!… Expand

Peter Jackson tried with this movie to satisfied all the TLOTR fans, without paying attention to the other people who don´t have any idea about what this movie is about. And because of that, if you haven´t seen the other movies or if you don´t enjoy them, this movie would dislike you. The first half an hour of the film is a bit stopped, without action nor battles. The problem of the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is that all the fantasy of the other movies and all the special senses comes at the end of the film, and the other 2 hours are a bit disappointing. I enjoyed so much this movie, ´cause I´m fan of the others and I love the movies. If you liked the others, you´ll enjoy this one.… Expand

This absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the one liners and the CGI (particularly in HFR) is quite frankly shambolic when compared even to the 11 year old Fellowship of the Ring! The CGI characters, namely Orcs, seem to float when they are travelling, swords do not meet bodies meaning it simply looks like the human characters (dwarves etc) are just swiping at thin air. The music score is largely, again, taken or remixed versions of the LoTR soundtrack and some scenes are pretty much identical to a Lord of the Rings scene. It amazes me how some people on here are claiming that critics and naysayers should not be comparing this to a LoTR film.. This is simply ludicrous. First and foremost this is done by Peter Jackson so of course his influence from the LoTR films are going to pass over to The Hobbit. Secondly, the soundtrack and certain scenes are pretty much taken straight from the LoTR cutting room. And thirdly this is set in the same freaking universe and is treading over old ground so of course comparisons will be made (that's like saying you shouldn't compare Star Wars Ep 1,2,3 to 4,5,6). Don't get me wrong I didn't hate this film, there was elements to like, in particular the scene with Bilbo and Gollum and I think Martin Freeman played a wonderful Bilbo Baggins. I just can't help but feel this film was a missed opportunity, I had such HIGH expectations and these expectations were not met. Stretching the 1 book over 3 films is nothing but a money grab and is simply using the previous success of the original film trilogy to 'cash in' if you will. The film, as a result, suffers and doesn't have that same aura and immersive sentiment of the LoTR trilogy. Needless to say after middling reviews and some fan backlash (and surprisingly the box office returns haven't even been that impressive this weekend) I really hope with baited breath, Peter Jackson comes back into form for the sequel and provides us with what he and everyone else knows he can do. On a final note, DO NOT watch this in HFR. That is all.… Expand

I am disappointed in this movie. Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW. I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie. You want to see the hobbit HAHA VERY **** DISSAPOINTING FOR LONGTIME FANS. You know how people trim down film during the editing process, well that doesn't happen here, they literally put everything imaginable into the film just to cash out on poor suckers in a 1-3 installment.
You should have heard people saying what the **** after the movie suddenly cut off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This film is Peter Jacksons (Phantom Menace) cg overloaded trash.… Expand

This movie was great representation of the book. II found myself worried going to see it with all the bad press, but now I can't wait for the next installments. After reading the story countless times I could have gone without the extra character building in the beginning, but didn't find it unnecessary with people new to the story. If you like the book this is a must see, at least once. If you haven't read the book... well that is just sad, it is only 250 pages, go read it :)… Expand

The movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact it was a prequel to LoTR and remove the elements of what made the Hobbit(the novel) great… Expand

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an unexpected movie with an unexpected experience. The movie simply falls flat on its face. It has the best visuals and effects but the sole purpose of technology is to support your script and enhance experience but one should know that one might be able to bring people to cinema due to the reputation and expectations but won't be able to keep them sit and watch the complete movie if its not good. Screenplay works in bits and pieces for me. Story build-up is a drag. The most disappointing thing is that it failed to deliver what you expected to see. My friends who have read the book], enjoyed it a lot but even they think that it gets too boring in the middle.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. the movie was completely amazing.it has great locations,nice cast and a very nice and simple story.
martin freeman as bilbo was perfect.the movie was just a 'little' boring in the middle of the first half,rest of it was simply superb.its a must watch...those who didnt like this must be 'ORCS'.… Expand

Why make a story, that could be perfectly told in 90min last twice the time for part 1? I loved the book but the movie felt like a waste of time. Too much stretching, too much nonsense beside the main plot. I'll pass on the next movies. The only real bright spot: Gollum what an awesome performance!

Where to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and over for the idiotic modern viewer. The journey is butchered so the audience can enjoy a cheap joke or set up car-chase esque sequence complete with complete ridiculous jump to platform action scenes. The dialogue is terrible and there are none of the wisdom quips that gave LOTR its magic and lasting effect. The ridiculous slapstick humor injected in comes off as annoying, like others have said, makes the movie feel like a Pirates of the Caribean film. This is a bad action movie, nothing more… Expand

What i did like is the clever use of silence that made me nervous. Also Gollum part was interesting, and he was the only character that actually had his lines well written. What I didn't like? Everything else. Music, while there are nice compositions, had too much recycled parts from LOTR. Visually too much weight was given to effects. While the light is good and it creates a nice atmosphere, dizzying camera movements and excessive computer graphics put shadow over that. I saw it as 3D, but I do not see the 3D, so i wont comment on that, ill only say that my friends told me that it was supposed to be there only at certain shots. Story is naive, some parts have no reason to be in the movie. Action scenes, well, they remind me of a video game. Rock rolling in the caves that cleans the goblins, trees collapsing like dominos and so on. And the childish humor, punch lines... the list goes on and it makes me wonder why did Jackson do this, behind him he has amazing movies, and this one is really not. And for the end, characters. They are not believable, Bilbo was not so interesting, Gandalf annoyed me with bad written lines and dwarves, well just stupid as **** Picture Gimli from LOTR, and then go back to 13 Santa s helpers. They look like someone gathered a bunch of crazy homeless people, gave them bad lines and a bunch of different medication. Overall it is a movie for 10 years old that don't want to bother to read a book. I did read it a couple of times, and maybe my overall score is affected by my big expectation. I doubt i will watch the movie again, and Im also not sure i will also go to cinema to watch the rest of the trilogy. Shame on you Peter Jackson.… Expand

The only unexpected journey was me leaving the cinema when I couldn't stomach any more of this horrible movie. I can't believe there's going to be two sequels to this as well.

It pains me to see so many people comparing The Hobbit to The lord of the rings movies. The Hobbit is a completely different story and really doesn't have much to do with lotr, therefore, I don't see this as a prequel and I never will. I think that they did a great job adding stuff that wasn't in the book in order to make this first movie more exciting and interesting.
The ''Riddles in the dark'' scene with Bilbo and Gollum was just glorious. I could watch that for hours and still not be bored. The ending of the movie was really good too, Bilbo took a huge step as a character and I would say it was quite emotional, the bonds between the main characters are getting stronger.… Expand

Its a masterpiece. No sinister "LotR-mood", but that wasnt to expect. It takes as much time, as it needs and all the time is awesome. I just cant believe, that the Metascore is below 60....

THE 48FPS IS PERFECTLY FINE AND AMAZING. (I wanted to say that first because all the idiotic critic reviews of the framerate making them sick almost deterred me from going) The fps does take about twenty minutes to get adjusted to, but when you get used to it everything looks amazing. The best looking CGI I have ever seen. Regarding the story line it was a tiny bit slow during the beginning, but can anyone say all parts of every lotr movie were 100% interesting and captivating? No. Once the movie picks up its a fantastic adventure with TONS of action, great dialogue, fantastic musical score reminiscent of LOTR and stunning cinematography. Don't compare this to LOTR, because it's not meant to be. It's an epic adventure in its own right. I watched this movie in 3D 48FPS and i plan to watch it many more times in exactly the same setting. Movies are meant to be this.… Expand

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a great movie. The modern 3D - technology let us enter the world of Tolkien in a new dimension. Peter Jackson made a movie, which shows once again that the small ones are able to be great heroes. The soundtrack fits perfectly to the movie. I recommend you to watch this masterpiece.
I also will watch it at least once again.

P.S.: Please excuse my bad english, i'm from Germany ;)… Expand

This is a beautiful film. The 3D is the best I have seen, the 48fps help this by reducing blur and making the whole thing appear much more crisp. The little references to the trilogy and the book itself (ie chapter names in the script) show that this was a labour of love and further proof of the respect Peter Jackson has for the source material. Although I would not say it surpasses the Lord of the Rings trilogy this was an incredible film with some truly inspired scene. Needless to say Riddles in the Dark is a joy to behold.… Expand

While the pacing drags for the first portion of the movie, particularly in the Radagast sequences, Peter Jackson once again brings us a Middle-Earth well worthy of Tolkien's novels and histories. Cate Blanchett particularly shines when she reprises her role from the LotR trilogy as Galadriel, exuding a power that positively sends shivers down the spine. Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield are both perfectly cast, and their dynamic as characters is absolutely excellent.

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

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

The 3D was subtle, too, and I am glad of that. Jackson once again shows restraint with the temptation of overusing special effects -- what few there were did not intrude on the story so as to throw me out of it. Once again, Middle-Earth feels as real as the floor under my feet, and for that, I am deeply, deeply thankful.… Expand

People need to stop thinking about The Lord of the Rings when they go to watch this film. The Hobbit wasn't even written the same way as LotR by Tolkien. It's not a dark, epic drama that portends the end of an age, ultimate evil, and the tragedy of life lost: not just in battle, but of those who's souls are never the same after the grand journey (Frodo).

It's a fun adventure featuring the races and monsters that birthed contemporary fantasy. If you go in expecting that, you will be MORE than satisfied by this film. It gets better as it goes along. It was accurate to the book, and gave us just enough of a LotR tie-in without overshadowing the main quest of The Hobbit.… Expand

It has angered me critics are disgusted at the films drawn out length in terms of being a part of the lord of the rings franchise. But at the end of the day the story telling ability in this film and the beauty you find in the scenes makes it a fantastic film which definitely deserves a 10. This is a film review not a business case review!

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am a Tolkien fan since I was 9 when I read The Hobbit. After I read The Lord of the Rings couple of years later I was forever hooked to the great storytelling of Tolkien. Then came The Silmarillion and all the other books related to the lore. I couldn't get enough. I'm a Tolkien lore nut, not elvish speaking but a nut none the less. I heard complaints about the first hour of the movie, too long, unnecessary and whatnot, but for me it was grand, seeing how Thorin gets his last name, Bilbo's pantry getting ravaged and the dwarfs singing. Also the appearance of Radagast the Brown (I heard someone wrote that he's like Jar Jar Binks, I mean really?) and mention of the Blue wizards works well. Not to mention the Golum creature and the riddle game displayed in full. Peter Jackson draws from other sources not just The Hobbit but from all of the Tolkien lore and, as in the first trilogy he takes liberties to get us closer to the story and he is on the spot. If you are a fan of Tolkien you will see this movie, Jackson doesn't destroy anything of the Tolkien's vision, if I'm allowed to say (and may the Valar forgive me) he improves it in parts.… Expand

This film has a different feel than the Lord of the Rings trilogy but you have to remember it IS a different trilogy and the source material has a different feel too. The story was fleshed out nicely with several tie-ins to the Lord of the Rings that made it truly feel like part of the same world from another time. The story is much lighter with a lot more humor and a bit less intensity/impending doom. Remember, the heroes are only trying to recover something, not save the world as in LOTR. The action sequences are mind bogglingly epic. Though I found myself enjoying the dialog more than the action. Yes the sets are computer generated instead of models but this gave the creators more freedom. I would rate the CG as the best I have seen and the way they blended it with the live actors was very atmospheric and mostly felt natural. Non-fans will have a hard time sitting through the entire movie. It IS long, but if you aren't a fan what are you doing at the movie? Really. Wait for the DVD and fast forward if it's too slow for you. Even when it comes to movies I don't enjoy I hate it when people complain about a movie being too long. I never understood that mindset. Books are never too long, neither are video games; no one is making you finish a movie you are bored of. I say create as much content as possible and let people watch if they enjoy it.… Expand

extremely confused by the critics response to this, i would completely disregard most reviews as this is an excellent film. More lighthearted than LOTR, but then if jackson had given it exactly the same approach people would have criticised him for it. The length seems appropriate, as i didn't notice any sections dragging on and was interested throughout. overall it's an excellent film. IGNORE REVIEWS… Expand

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" have respected my expectations, it's an amazing movie, that respects the original Tolkien's work, and it is linked with the LOTR trilogy thanks to elements picked up by the Silmarillion and LOTR Appendices cleverly inserted by Peter Jackson!!
Costumes, soundtrack, and interpretations were perfect, i loved Armitage as Thorin and Freeman as Bilbo!
I watched the movie in HFR 3D, and I fully refute the criticism towards this new technology, it was amazing! It takes 10 minutes to get used to the eye, but the result was incredible! An image sharpness never seen before! Good job PJ, 9/10… Expand

A master piece by a master directer.
you feel a real energy and really a master piece of work,
perfectly the best, includes every thing that was required, no mistake or rough edge....
LOVE IT

Peter Jackson's latest foray into Middle Earth is far and away different from the original "Lord of the Rings" trilogy he started over a decade ago. The pacing in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is far closer to the pacing that Tolkien was so fond of, which unfortunately for the unweathered, can appear cumbersome at first. In general, the film is much closer to the tone and detailing of the original work than the Lord of the Rings trilogy was. Thorin and Bilbo's actor's do a phenomenal job in my humble opinion, as do McKellen and the rest of the original trilogy's cast that make an appearance(though who honestly expected otherwise from such illustrious names?).

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

Overall, the movie is fantastic. It's very close, especially in tone, to the book, despite having some extra things added (some from Tolkien's own lore, a bit made up for the movie). I feel that Jackson is only beginning to tap into the film set, and I'm very optimistic about the future films.… Expand

The movie is outstanding, although it wasn't as good as the any of the movies of The Lord of The Rings it sure made a good impression. It was filled with beautiful scenarios and stunning characters that had a very good acting. It is guaranteed that for most people it will exceed expectations, for others however should look for a more intense action movie if this wasn't entertaining enough, because even if it is a little wearing it is worth watching the beauty of the movie and it's history… Expand

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey manages to maintain the feeling that you are watching a film set in Middle Earth while being different enough to stand on it's own. The main difference is that the story is much lighter than The Lord of the Rings, much like the book. This allows for a more humourous tone throughout the film and a little more free rein for the writers to adapt it to a full feature length movie(s).

Yes, it is a long movie which could be shorter. Does it need to be shorter? For me the answer is no. I've always loved the world that Tolkien created and I was a little worried before watching it as to whether it would be too long or, more importantly, lose the magic of the first three films. If anything, it has reinvigorated my love for it. Have you ever watched something you loved and wish you could see it again as if you've never seen it before? Well if you felt that way about The Lord of the Rings then this is the closest you'll come to that experience. It is a wonderful film. Fans will love it and if those who are a little skeptical just approach it with an open mind, they'll love it too.… Expand

I loved it! It's pace is rather relaxed when compared to the previous movies, but I was more than happy to sit back and absorb the scenery and atmosphere. I liked the dwarves and I sympathize with their lost patrimony. The movie did everything it needed to do, plus some appreciated extras. This will not be my last time seeing this movie. Can't wait to see Smaug!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a really good movie, 3D is amazing, don't have a bad special effects, and the history is so much cool than the book, i give 10!

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. THE HOBBIT AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
DIRECTOR PETER JACKSON SCREENPLAY: PETER JACKSON PHILLIPA BOYENS GUILERMO DEL TORO FRAN WALSH

RATING PG-13

MUSIC : HOWARD SHORE MOVIE GRADE A+

Often analyzing a movie of one’s beloved franchise is quite difficult. Hence this review is written months after its release. Peter Jackson’s new installment has already rained box office with a whopping $1.02 billion despite several division between film critics and the series of controversies that dwelled around this movie right from the beginning from bankruptcy of MGM to PETA accusations of Animal mistreatment. One would have to say from a critics point of view Jackson is the perfect Talisman and he has pulled through an amazing cinematic display that he has done thrice before. The movie begins with the familiar notes of Howard Shore that has now if not earlier embedded itself in the world of Middle Earth. Our first glimpse of the Hobbit comes with seeing Bilbo in the present age on the day of arrival of Gandalf. Deciding to write a book on his entire adventure that he had sixty years ago he gave an account of the once epic dwarven kingdom of Erebor before it was smothered by the dragon Smaug. Following the prologue we see Bag End and Frodo talking with Bilbo about the Party Invitations. Later on Bilbo recollects the days when he was young.
The scene moves now to 60 years earlier and it now shows Young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) letting out smoke rings before being stopped unwarily by Gandalf. The story moves at a slow pace where Gandalf invites thirteen dwarves to Bilbo’s place where they begin the planning of a quest to reclaim Erebor. After much negations Bilbo finally agrees and he decides to join the dwarves. There adventure begins with an account of Thorin’s past with the Orc Leader Azog after which they encounter trolls, orcs and wargs before they reach the Elven Kingdom.
In Rivendell we see some of the lord of the rings characters in unity as the White council takes place with issues discussed of a unseen power in the forest of Mirkwood which was seen by Radagast, the brown wizard. The dwarves then leave Rivendell and takes the road of the misty mountains where they fall in a thunder battle between the mountain sized Stone Giants. Bilbo gets separated from the dwarves as the latter are caught by the mountain goblins and they face the Goblin king. Bilbo on his account meets Gollum and discovers a ring that in due course of time would change the fate of all in middle earth but is all unknown to Bilbo at that time. Escaping the mountains they are being chased by Orcs lead by Azog when the Eagles rescue them The film ends in the company seeing the lonely mountain from a distance and waking of the dragon.
Although the film contains 1/3 of the content of the book “The Hobbit” it none the less expands the chapters beautifully as well as adding some extra scenes that took place that time but where not included in the book. The film is as enchanting as it can be and more than anything else is a perfect blend between cinematic sequences and music The epic features of the movie are being shown exceptionally and one can say confidently that we cannot imagine middle earth without Peter Jackson now. The small children’s classic tale being turned into an epic journey that asks for less but sure delivers a lot. Despite being on the slower side the pace gradually picks up and ends in a blast much the fireworks of Gandalf. This is a must watch for all movie goers as it is filled with literary artistic and entertainment values.… Expand

Seeing the mixed reviews by the critics makes me wonder if people read books anymore. If you read "The Hobbit", then you know that it is a light hearted kid friendly movie (with some serious moments). If you're going in to the movie thinking "It's Lord of the Rings again!" then you will be disappointed. Jackson and co. did the book tremendous justice.

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

There will always be haters. But if you're a true fan of the 1st trilogy, then this movie is for you. The user score don't lie; 8.4 for a movie is quite rare. Congratulation again on the new beginning!… Expand

Alright, all these negative critics' reviews of The Hobbit have gotten my jimmies in a rustle, so I've prepared a cup of "Too Long; Didn't Read" to start your morning off the right way.

"It's not as good as the LotR Trilogy." : This is an adaptation of a bedtime story for children. This isn't supposed to be a complex Drama-Epic for adults. It's a wondrous fantasy spectacle for young'ns, so Tolkien hadn't… Expand

First of all, the professional critics who gave this movie below a 65, you are shortsighted whining idiots. I've seen The Hobbit in IMAX 3D HFR and it was awesome. Okay the HFR is something to get used to, especially when the camera is moving it looks like it is played in fast forward. But the images itself look beautiful sharp. The CG looked pitch perfect, so i don't know if i wanna see every movie in HFR but i can see a bright future for all high end CG movies like Avatar in 48fps. A lot of critics are complaining about the slow pace in the beginning, but that is exaggerated, it is entertaining from start to finish. After 25 minutes you are thrown in the adventure and it doesn't let go of you, foregoing from the funny scene's with the drarves in the beginning.The story is great and characters are all very good and very likeable. Martin Freeman as Jong Bilbo is the more then perfect person for the role. The cinematography is top notch, Andrew Lesnie you are legend. The scène riddles in the dark was awesome and Gollum OMG does CG ever gonna get better. Everyone go see this film and Peter Jackson and crew thank you for letting us visit beautiful Middle Earth again.… Expand

After reading mixed critics I begun to worry.

You shouldn't. Critics do not like it because they keep comparing it with LOTR, and it is not. This is an adventure written on a kids book. The story is lighter, and the only thing that LOTR and this have in common is the place and the ring.

I watched it on 48fps and I really liked it. It made 3d more appealing and everything beautiful. The only problem of 48fps was that it was so real, that sometimes you could notice cgi.

But the technology is not the film, just the media and I am reviewing the film (although I liked 48fps)

The story is faithful to the book and brought me back to a place I thought I would never visit again. Just being back in middle earth is amazing.

Martin as Bilbo, Richard as Thorin and Ian as Gandalf reprise their roles with excellence. And thanks to the division into three films we get to know more about the other dwarfs and care about them.

The riddles in the dark scene is outstanding. And Howard Shore's composition is brilliant as ever.

I could not have wanted more from this film. A fun, and amazing comeback to a great adventure to come.… Expand

This movie lacks character. I went to see it on the premier a few days ago without any expectations; I however have read the book about 15 years ago, and I somewhat liked it. I also have read and seen the LOTR trilogy and liked those movies. However, as I've grown older I've grown to expect some sense of style from movies. This movie had no sense of style, aside from the whatever... fantasy cartoony style. Neither did it tell a compelling story. All I remember now is the boring endless 3D computer animated action scenes with tons of camera movement. Some may say that those visuals of the movie are breathtaking, but I fail to understand what is breathtaking about them. There are better and more beautiful visuals in way older films with way less of a budget. What I disliked most was the pointless amount of action, the charisma lacking dwarves (especially the leader) and the bad pacing / storytelling. What I give it 5/10 for is some funny points, like Radagast, one-liners, and overall no-brains entertainment value. Won't see it again. Also, this movie had no sexual themes what-so-ever. Could count the amount of females shown with one hand probably. Count that as a con as well.… Expand

As other reviewers have mentioned, I too wonder whether or not the critics are watching the same movies as we do. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is astounding film; the acting is phenomenal, the cinematography is splendid and akin to that of LotR, the soundtrack is jaw-dropping, and as for the reviews of the visual effects - how they aren't that remarkable -; these are complete misconceptions. The movie is well worth your time, and more than deserves a 10 out of 10 rating.… Expand

Just Excellent! Pure Brilliance... Definitely movie of the year! The cast are just spot on [Gotta love Radagast the Brown] and music is as ethereal as ever; simply pure genius.

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

I hate how the reviewers base their reviews on comparisons between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

Next time you write a review, focus on the movie itself and not the elements outside of it.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly I had doubts about this movie, I thought Peter Jackson could lose the "touch" after all this years, but The Hobbit: An unexpected journey" it's an amazing movie! It brings that nostalgic feeling watching the same actors from ten years ago, the 48fps seems quite nice and easy to adapt to it, good soundtracks from Howard Shore, good acting & setting, they included parts (and will keep including parts) from other Tolkien stories for example The White Council, the investigation of Dol Guldur, etc etc..I LOVED this movie.

But yes, its not perfect, it have flaws...very slow paced movie (at the first half of the movie) some details were irrelevant and could have been omitted until the Extended Edition release, Radagast felt weak portrayed, there were more-than-necessary cheesy quotes that I hope they avoid in the next films..
I understand if people didnt like this movie but after reading some reviews most of them have biased "facts" and a 0 score, really? Anyways...it is a great movie, I expected less but it surpassed my expectations, I recommend it.… Expand

An excellent addition to Jackson's collection of Tolkien adaptations. Word of advice, don't go into watching this film wanting a film exactly like Fellowship of the Ring. It's not, it has a different feel, and different tone, but you will still know you are being absorbed into Middle Earth while watching AUJ. The acting is superb - Freeman and Armitage ARE Bilbo and Thorin, and of course McKellen and Serkis reprise their roles with perfection.

An Unexpected Journey is an adaptation of The Hobbit - not LOTR. It has a different tone and critics going into this film expecting the same emotional ups and downs as LOTR will be disappointed. Not to say there isn't any in AUJ - there are plenty.… Collapse

Beautifully made, whimsical, and thoroughly entertaining. Much more lighthearted than I thought, Martin Freeman is great! Definitely recommend, want to see it again in the 48 frames!

Well, I officially no longer trust the review of "critics." How this movie has such an average score with critics is jaw-dropping. While it's not an AMAZING movie, it is no doubt a very very GOOD movie. While it isn't on par with the Lord of the Rings films, it certainly does the franchise justice. And it CERTAINLY does not warrant the bashing is has received from "official" critics. Thankfully the user score comes to the rescue once more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONS:
Overused CGI
The story feels a bit thinly stretched throughout the middle of the film
Odd pacing here and there
I have to wait a year to see the next film... NNNNOOOOOOO!… Expand

It's looks like "Peter Jackson's LOTR fanboys" have got this film pumped up higher than a worthless penny -stock. But that's what this movie is, the film equivalent of a penny-stock. It's value in relation to Tolkien's original story is bankrupt. I hope the Tolkien estate sues MGM and Jackson and pulls this trip from the market, along with the Denny's "Hobbit Breakfast," and all the other marketing minutia that sullies the image of J.R.R. Tolkien and his wonderful literary accomplishments.… Expand

After seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally I feel that he killed the part as Bilbo. Andy Serkis is as amazing as ever, albeit a little bit corny at times. Richard Armitage also is a great Thorin. Thorin is played really well and is exactly as a Thorin should be. However that being said, most of the other dwarves feel like fillers, never having any lines or really any say in the story. In LOTR it felt like every member of the fellowship had a role and a point and a back-story. In the Hobbit it feels like there is Thorin, Balin, Kili and Fili and a bunch of other dwarves. The way that they blended the old LOTR story to the Hobbit was absolutely superb and was perfect. Ultimately what ruined the movie for me was the action. In LOTR the fight scenes against the trolls and goblins and orcs and whargs seemed dangerous. They felt like the orcs were this rabble, this horde that was bloodthirsty and ruthless. In the Hobbit they felt more like comic relief than actual enemies. The best comparison I can think of was the fight in Balin's Tomb. In this fight the goblins burst through the door and look fearsome and sound like there ready to kill everything. In the Hobbit they feel stupid and mindless and comical. Cheesy stuff like Gandalf decapitating a goblin and instead of a flying head and a spurt of blood, there is nothing but a confused looking goblin whose eyes move worriedly then his head inexplicably pops off. All in all the way they tied the stories and the only four characters that really felt important (Bilbo, Thorin, Balin, and Gandalf.) and the general enjoyment of the story gives the Hobbit its good points, however the corny fight sequences that seem to have lost all of their seriousness, the mind-dead enemies, the loss of that fear factor that was in the LOTR, and the general was that some things that happen just don't seem relevant to the story really hurts this movie. As much as I would prefer to rate it better I can only give it a six.… Expand

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

As a massive fan of the book I was desperate for all the magic I remembered to be present, I couldn't be happier with how it turned out. An absolute marvel from start to finish, the performances were stunning, the music beautiful and entrancing, the depth and detail of the environments pulled you in and the script was utterly charming. Although some aspects were tweaked they were few and far between and any change made felt right. I didn't notice the length at all, I was so engrossed it just flew by. With any luck I'll be seeing it again...and again.… Expand

Without any kind of doubts, is the best fantasy movie I have ever seen.
If you like fantasy, it's an essential movie to watch.
A new magic world awaits you!

If you love LOTR you will love this....ignore the majority of the press this film is a masterpiece ! .The length of it seems to be an issue ,all i will say is if you are a fan of tolkien and the idea of spending another 3hrs in middle earth fires your imagination then you will not be dissapointed....this film is awesome.

This was disappointing. As an avid fan of LotR I had been very much looking forward to this.The Hobbit however has turned out to be an over-long piece of bombast, lacking the magic and charm of the book. There are unforgivable alterations to the story - the humour in the unexpected tea party, or in Gandalf's outwitting the trolls - and at least three very loud, long and unnecessary battles which look like off cuts from LotR. The sets are too familiar also. This film really needed a new vision. That said, the cast is excellent and the quieter parts of the film are worth watching. But, how is Peter Jackson going to spin the story out for three movies? I won't be going to the next two to find out.… Expand

The Hobbit was epic, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson did a great job in the adaption, I thought it was gonna be really short and have some absurd adaptation because how could they make a book of 320apr, pages long into 3 films that will last about 2hours each? Dont listen to the absurd critics that gave it a less then 8, because I dont really get how people dont like this movie, I mean, it had great effects, a perfect cast(I think Bilbo is now my favourite hobbit) amazing soundtrack and an flaw-less masterpiece that Tolkien wrote.
Thats all I got to say.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, a really good film. However, if you're looking for the power and intensity of LOTR, it's just not there. It's almost as if they made this one intentionally for little kids, like a Pixar film. WAY too humorous when it shouldn't have been, up to and including, funny one-liners from goblins as they were dying??!!?? Disappointing.… Expand

This is easily one of my favourite films of all time. Great story telling, great balance between humour and adventure, and great acting throughout, especially from Andy Serkis. I have no idea how critics have given it such a low score, other than to appear against the grain and not enjoy a phenomenal piece of cinema, but Empire gave it an 8/10 which should speak volumes compared with other less credited critics. I am tempted to see this film in the cinemas multiple times which I have never done for any other movie. Absolutely Incredible.… Expand

Peter Jackson reminds me of George W. Bush. He is unforgivably bad at what he does, but it's taken about a decade for people to figure it out. Hopefully this disaster is the last we see of him.

Peter, it's time to find a hobby. Get lost and stop ruining these gems from the world's collective childhood.

This is a fantastic adaptation of one of my favorite books. I often found myself simply smiling in the theater, overtaken by the same magic that I first found as a child. While not as serious as the Lord of the Rings trilogy (The Hobbit was a Children's book followed 15+ Years later by the more mature Lord of the Rings trilogy) it has it's fantastic fight scenes and dramatic moments that leave you breathless and wanting more. This movie is not perfect and one scene in particular irked me considerably for a while but aside from that, this movie is near perfect.… Expand

Perfect film... Amazing 3D... it's slow but I say this as a positive point, savoring the details. The scene with Gollum is superb. The worst thing for me is the soundtrack. I don´t remember any melody and it's very typical, but the film is perfect. I feel sadness about critics who never do nothing but speaks a lot... bla bla bla

An undoubtedly well-made movie that is characterized by its immersive and enchanting effects. Not only that, the movie is very fast-paced and really gives an enjoyable time. Although there are a few problems in this movie, for instance, the length of the movie can really distinguish itself from other cinematics, due to its enormous length keeping you from going on the toilet - mainly because you are too immovable during the movie. I may not be the only one that finds it disturbing not being able to go on the toilet because of the abovementioned. Anyway, Peter Jackson did a great job on the movie, the 48 frames per second is just remarkable, and not to talk about the 3D, which gave an actual feeling of being in the movie. Since I have not read the book, I have nothing to compare with, except its previous movies (The Lord Of The Rings trilogy).… Expand

Don't let the mixed reviews and preconceived notions of critics and purists deter you from one of the top films of the year: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is an incredibly fun fantasy adventure that is filled with humor and charm. The first of the three prequels to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, this film focuses on the beginning of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) in his adventure with the dwarven company of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). There are several returning cast members from Jackson's prior Lord of the Rings films, but Sir Ian McKellan is front and center as Gandalf the Gray, and Andy Serkis easily makes Gollum one of the film's most enjoyable characters despite the limited screentime. Some of the dwarves outshine the others, but with a total of thirteen dwarves it's understandably difficult to let them shine as individuals. Remember, in "The Fellowship of the Ring," many of the characters were established by the film's midway point, which let the trilogy's other characters develop naturally. I've seen the film twice now, and not once did I find myself wishing that any particular dwarf had more spoken dialogue. The story unfolding on the screen kept my focus on what was occuring, not what could've been.

The high frame rate (HFR) worked well for me, but it's definately not for everyone. My HDTV is capable of replicating HFR due to its ability to refresh its screenrates at 120 MHz per second, which equals to about 60 HFR. This film was shot at a rate of 48 frames per second (standard cinema is 24 frames per second), which means that each frame has more information encoded. Being a pioneer in this bold venture does mean that there will be issues, as evidenced by a sensation that the film is moving too fast near the beginning prologue. However, I grew used to it pretty quickly, and never really noticed any other issues throughout the film. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can equate the HFR look to a soap opera, as there wasn't a single moment that "soap opera" or anything similar flashed across my mind as I watched the film. Again, it boils down to personal taste, but it's highly recommended if you plan to see the film multiple times to at least try the HFR once. I can only view the HFR in 3D, as there are no HFR 2D showings around me (I live in Columbus, Ohio), so I can't tell you how much of a difference there is between those versions. I did see it in standard 2D and didn't really notice the film looking much better in that version. The 3D is just OK, nothing mind-blowing like "Avatar," but I can say it's the best live action 3D movie I've personally seen since "Avatar," although that's not a tough achievement since the film was shot with 3D cameras. The HFR does add a nice element to the 3D, but it's more about depth perception that stuff popping out at you. Finally, let's get to the plot and storyline itself: if you're a fan of the book, or if you're a fan of "The Lord of the Rings" books and/or films, or if you just happen to like good ol' fantasy adventure films like "Willow," than you' shouldn't have any worries about not enjoying this film. It's a great adventure flick that really encompasses a "journey" quite well. Freeman is absolutely perfect in his role, and the addition of all the new characters really makes this feel less like a nostalgic follow-up to the "Lord of the Rings" than what it really is: a brand new fantasy adventure that proves that faith in Peter Jackson and his team is well-placed. Go see "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." See it twice even. The early comparisons to "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" are utterly ridiculous with no real basis. People are also complaining about the addition of a 3rd movie, and how it affects the film's pacing. Unlike the "Lord of the Ring" films, there is no dire sense of urgency in the overall plotline, so there's no need to rush what is meant to be more of a lighthearted adventure (despite the admittedly gory fight scenes). There isn't many "prequel" films to beloved franchises that are good, but this film is beyond the exception. Ignore the hate, this film lives up to the hype in terms of acting, story, and fun. If there's one negative thing to consider, it's the fact that December 2013 feels that much further away.… Expand

Amazing movie! It perfectly sets the pace for the next two movies and ties it with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Great sets, beautiful soundtrack and spot on script. Peter Jackson brings us back to Middle Earth! Technically is even better than the LOTR.

I have NEVER wrote a review in my life for a movie but felt compelled to write one for this P.O.S. I am a die-hard LOTR movie fan and have spent the better part of five years anticipating this movie; what a waste of time, this is not LORT at all. Peter Jackson and New Line capitalized on their success of LOTR and tried to create a "family fun" movie with slapstick humor and OVER dramatic (poor) visual effects. There is a scene with 3 trolls that sound and act like the 3 stooges...................................In LORT almost every seen was shot with live actors in amazing costumes................every troll, goblin, monster was computer animated and poorly to say the least. There is no depth of character for anyone and the script and storyline lacked...... save your time and money for red box !!!!!!… Expand

Where critics tend to get their knickers in more than a twist but a whole big tangle is when something cinema classic gets a sequel or prequel which could taint their love of the original. Since the early reviews of the phantom menace left many reviewers with egg on their face who praised it before it got universally panned the cool thing to do now it bash a follow up if its the same and bash it if its different. (For example take a perfectly good action movie but take out Jason bourne and replace him with someone else and it goes from a 5 star movie to a 2 star one. This time the critics have been left looking like inept idiots as the fans seem to really love this new adaption whilst the critics are too hell bent on giving it a poor mark because its not "EXACTLY" the same as lord of the rings.

The truth is LOTR was a 10/10 movie trilogy and the hobbit is a 8.5/10 movie in comparison. The critics once again left with egg on their face scoring it what 5.5.… Expand

Spectacular! Incredible performances by Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis and, of course, Sir Ian McKellen. Critics say it is too long? I completely disagree, time flew by! Yes, Jackson added/expanded some things, but he did an excellent job. What is the most important thing - he stayed true to the book and its atmosphere. "Every good story needs embellishment" says Gandalf in the first quarter of the movie. All in all - a masterpiece worth watching.… Expand

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

Amazing! Don't believe the negative reviews from the critics. If you loved the first trilogy or are a fan of the books, you're going to love, love, love this movie. I saw it in regular 2-D, so I can't speak to the frame rate issues, but if it worries you, just skip it. THE HOBBIT RULED!

"The Hobbit" was a children's book that has served as a key cornerstone in the fantasy genre and a story held close to many reader's hearts. I felt that Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book has been an extraordinary cinematic experience that reminds me of the magic found in those books of old. The tone of the original novel was translated brilliantly onto the big screen, while some may find this 'journey' to be slightly trivial or child-like to the grand battle scenes of LOTR, I enjoyed the translation regardless. Technically, I enjoyed the new technology a lot (having watched it in 48 frames and 3D) while it does require a slight getting used to, the 48 frames helped create a magnificent 3D viewing that would put other epic films to shame. Another thing that should be pointed out is that the relation to LOTR was immaculately added into the plot, there are plenty nostalgic moments that will fuel the delights of old fans but is computed on a level that will not likely to isolate new ones. There are a couple stranger moments here and there, but overall I feel confident that such a magical story is in the the tender hands of such gifted film makers. I for one, is eagerly waiting for the next segment to Bilbo's tale. (I don't know if this consists of a 'spoiler')… Expand

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

As a huge fan of the LotR trilogy my wife and I set out on our own unexpected journey to see The Hobbit, in spite of the myriad of very average reviews. Truth is most of the critics have some valid concerns, pacing is a bit slow at first, CGI seems to be a slight mixed bag. However in the net they dont seem to matter much to me. I had read The Hobbit as a young boy my wife had not and we both came away with a great appreciation with the time spent to develop characters and story in the first part of the movie. The acting is across the board great.

The movie is by no means without flaws but I think most reviewers are using a filter of perfect or mediocre. The original LotR wasnt perfect either but the sum of all three movies was so great it immediatley lent a free pass to the flaws it did have. I firmly believe that by the end of this new trilogy we will be thinking and viewing The Hobbit in the same way. Its absolutley worth watching, Never before has returning to a fantasy world felt so good and natural. Its like being wrapped in a wamr fuxxy blanket where you know what to expect but its still great all the same.… Expand

I watched this movie without looking at any reviews before hand, but afterwards I was shocked at how low they were. The movie wasn't perfect but I would say it is just as good as the fellowship, if not better. If you liked the Lord of the Rings, then this is a must see. You won't be disappointed unless you are expecting an exact replica of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

I have read a fair amount of other's reviews on this movie before writing my own. Most of them were negative reviews because I wanted to see why their opinions differed so much from my own. It seems to me that those writing the more negative reviews tend to analyze things on a far deeper level than I ever do. Some talk about how they notice prosthetics on actors, painted scenes, or even even how they thought someone hanging onto the edge of a cliff about ready to fall before being pulled back up was dumb because too many other movies use that. I'm bringing this up because I usually never even notice such things while I am watching movies and I want to set up my perspective. I thought the movie was exciting and humorous. I loved seeing the dwarves story and their history that led to the point of the movie as well as Thorin's personal history. The humor that the dwarves had constantly brought a smile to my face while watching the movie. I also loved seeing Bilbo's own struggle to find his place within the company throughout the movie as he was mostly looked on as a burden by the others. I also saw the movie in the new 48fps HFR format, which many of the preliminary reviews were negative. Almost all of the negativity, that read at least, on this was that the picture looked either too good or weird. I completely don't understand the looking too good part of those reviews so I'm not going into that. As for the weird part I can understand somewhat. For the first 15-20 minutes of the film it almost looked like everyone was moving at a slightly faster speed than normal, such as 1.1x or 1.2x the normal speed reminded me of the creepy jerking motion that is used in scary movies. I think my eyes just had to adjust to it, however, because after that 15-20 minute time frame I didn't notice it anymore and the picture seemed normal to me.… Expand

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

If anyone on this earth remembers when talking pictures came out there were aot of people that said it was no good and when color film came out there were alot of people that did not like that either. when flat screen tvs come out I met a lot of old folks that did not like them either. Open you mind. 48fps is an innovation, dont let your old minds be stuck in the past..... Anyway it was a great movie that looked fantastic.… Expand

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

A great deal of effort was placed on the facial animation of Gollum and the goblin king. So much so that many other aspects of the VFX have suffered greatly. Poor compositing and inconsistent quality of animation are most notable. A lack of inertia in character motion, "floating" digital doubles that do not make ground contact, matte paintings that are so obvious it's worth a laugh, and an odd digital double for Gandalf in the opening sequence were quite disturbing (why???). Despite WETA claims of facial motion capture, a great deal of animator skill was necessary for the sequences that they *did* put an effort into. For example, the goblin king and his awesome goiter. The goiter alone bumps the film from a 3 to a 4.… Expand

Most of the writers of negative and mixed reviews must be hopped up.
I can't understand how people can say this movie is too slow paced or too long. I was kinda sad when the film ended, I could have sit for 3 hours more in the cinemas and that's always a good sign.
Of course, "The Hobbit" has its weaknesses, but I am gladly willing to accept these if I get brilliant scenes like "Riddles in the Dark" on the other hand.
Can't wait for the next part.… Expand

Although the story coincides with Tolkien 's work, it's slow start seems to keep the story progression from picking up and lingers too long in Middle Earth at times. The visuals are spectacular, and at other moments it can be quite the opposite, as there is a "BBC television" feel to the filming (especially indoor shots). I'm not sure what's to blame for this, whether it's the i-max, 3-D, 48 fps or bad lighting but it is comparable to being on a live set observing a film shoot, which removes you from the sensation of it being a film at times. Despite it's flaws, and all the harsh criticism, the movie is still entertaining and worthy of being seen in theaters (as well as a future blu-ray purchase). There isn't much to the story of the Hobbit, and I think Peter Jackson has done a lot with a short children's story while tying in plot points that lead to the events of Lord of the Rings. The film manages to maintain the same atmosphere of Middle Earth with elaborate sets, creatures, wardrobe and beautiful cinematography. Well done.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I must have watched a different movie than those other critics with negative reviews. This movie stuck well with the book, it had tons of action with gorgeous visuals. The end of the film transitions well into the second movie. I'm looking forward to the next film with the encounter with Smaug. The first movie would have been too long had they end with the Smaug encounter.… Expand

Another masterful movie from Peter Jackson that fans of Tolken will fall in love with. Some have said it was to long, i only wished it lasted longer. This is a masterpiece that does the book proud. I look forward to the second and third parts.

A great movie that is let down by acouple of pacing problems early on. Fans of the LotR will love this, despite just missing tout on the greatness of that trilogy. No doubt will be improved by the extended cuts and sequels.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is an outstanding movie. I've been waiting for this flick for a long time and it did not disappoint. It had exactly what I was looking for in an adaptation of Tolkien's book. Unfortunately I do not live near a theatre that was showing the HFR version, so I'm unable to comment on that. But from what I've heard from friends it's either hit or miss.

I loved every minute of this movie. I wouldn't have changed a thing. I read the hobbit 20 years ago and I am very happy with the result of this movie.

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

It's nice to be back in Middle-Earth. Great actors, cool action scenes, epic soundtrack. It might be a bit slow at times, but it's never boring at all.

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

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

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. … Expand

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

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

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you read the book, The Hobbit is a wonderfully engaging light-hearted fairy tale set in Middle Earth, full of adventure, magic, faerie folks, monsters, and epic deeds. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, involved tragedy, also set in Middle Earth, with some of the same characters, taking place after the events told in The Hobbit.

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

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

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

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

Overall, fun movie for a Saturday night at home with a few glasses of wine and friends to give it the MST3K treatment, but it's NOT The Hobbit I loved. Wait until its available at home with video on-demand services.… Expand

Peter Jackson didn't disappointed us with the Lord of the Rings and if your really want to know, he didn't disappointed me with the hobbit either because Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings mostly for big fantasy thinkers, but he wrote the hobbit for his very own children and you might have noticed the movie has more humour and the actions are not that realistic but in a way he brought us all back to the Middle Earth we love because the quality of the movie and the music has only improved itself and for me they are doing a great job by giving the Lord of the Rings fans another joy to watch, that's my own judge on the movie.… Expand

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

I was very well impressed with the overall movie, but there were some drawbacks, and cuts. It will make you leaving the movie theater happy that you saw it. I will be eager to watch the other two sequels.

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

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For those who have seen the film...Why it reeked. I was hugely disappointed in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". Instead of sticking to the children's story, which is very short compared to LOTR, Peter Jackson has added a ton of unnecessary bloat. Many of the scenes were just added to connect it with LOTR, which was not needed, such as all the scenes with Frodo. The movie starts with a huge back story, which would have been better told as the movie progressed. Thorin has a new adversary (he was mentioned in the book, but the party had no interaction with him) ...the strange white orc that slew his father. One of the changes that bothered me the most was that Bilbo is looked down upon throughout the movie, and he has to be a savior in almost every instance to prove he is worthy of the party. In the book the animosity is not nearly as bad. Bilbo does enough in the book without having to, for instance, save Thorin from the white orc. If I remember right the first thing that Bilbo kills with his new short sword in the book is a spider, and Bilbo names the sword Sting. Shouldn't Bilbo have named the sword Fang or Claw in the movie? One of the scenes that doesn't work is when Bilbo escapes from Golum, and Golum just screams instead of running after Bilbo. Why didn't Golum go after Biblo you ask? Well, in the book the goblins are guarding the way out of the mountain, and Golum didn't want to get caught. I was looking forward to see the whole party stuck up in the trees, and the goblins making fun of them with song, but this was not included. Instead of the party being almost burnt up in the trees, the problem is the trees are collapsing. After the long intro, the movie turns into a roller coaster ride. A lot of people compare it to Pirates of the Caribbean, and they are right on. This movie is more Pirate of the Caribbean, than Pirate of the Caribbean could ever be. THREE different instances of having to jump from one place to another to stay alive...The stone giants, the collapsing walkways in the mountain, and the collapsing trees! Speaking of the stone giants, hasn't Peter Jackson learned that some things are better off left for the imagination? In the book the stone giants are mentioned, almost in passing, while in the movie they ride them! It would have been great, if during the storm rocks were falling, you could hear the noise of huge rocks getting smashed...and then through the storm a slight glimpse of something made of rock moves.... Thorin, Thorin, Thorin. He does not hate the elves, he was thankful for their hospitality, and the thing he loves most is gold. In the movie they try to make him a bleeding heart for his homeland, when all he wants is the gold! He IS a dwarf for goodness sake! A new (uneeded) comedy relief was added...Radagast the wizard. Poop. Another new twist is Gandalf hearing about the necromancer. I was almost intrested in this, I think it comes straight from Tokien's notes. However, it does make the movie longer, and is the main reason we have to deal with Radagast the Gastly. The troll incident is changed, for the worst. In the book Biblo is trying to steal something from the trolls, instead of saving the horses. Everyone in the party gets captured except Thorin, who puts up a fight. In the movie, everyone gives up their weapons to save Biblo from getting ripped apart...one person ripped apart, or everyone gets eaten hmmm....This is another time where Biblo basically saves the day, instead of Gandalf. Bilbo keeps the Trolls arguing in the movie, but in the book Gandalf throws his voice, making the Trolls think that they are disagreeing on how to cook the party. The visuals of the movie are descent. More CGI was used, and less animatronics than in LOTR and it shows. I could continue to nitpick very easily, but I think I will leave it there. To sum it up, this is not a movie about a Hobbit, as the book was. It is a movie about the whole of the goings on in middle earth during the story of the Hobbit, and it doesn't work. It tries to be too much like LOTR, instead of the childrens book it was intended to be.… Expand

The hobbit an unexpected journey

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

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

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

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

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