User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2539 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. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Ann Hornaday you are an incredibly bad critic, find a new job. This movie turned out to be quite delightful, I was skeptical hence all of the negative reviews. but now i see that the user score speaks a whole lot more than the critic score. GO SEE THIS MOVIE, if you are a fan of lotro, or fantasy in general.
  2. Feb 4, 2013
    10
    People got what they wanted. A Peter Jackson directed Tolkien film. The fact that so many critics are bagging on this fun adventure is incredibly weak.
    Does no one have a sense of Fantasy these days?
  3. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is an amazing movie, although it isn't exactly as good as The Lord of the Rings people need to stop comparing the two because they are two different movies. The Hobbit was written for younger audiences.
  4. 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
  5. Jan 10, 2013
    8
    I went to see this movie with many family members, the oldest being 57 and youngest aged 10. I am the only Tolkiendili in the family although my 17yo sister read The Hobbit. We all saw Lord of the Rings prior to this. Our overall reaction after the movie was that it wasn't as long as the critics claimed but to our surprise we found out that it was indeed a long movie - it simply was farI went to see this movie with many family members, the oldest being 57 and youngest aged 10. I am the only Tolkiendili in the family although my 17yo sister read The Hobbit. We all saw Lord of the Rings prior to this. Our overall reaction after the movie was that it wasn't as long as the critics claimed but to our surprise we found out that it was indeed a long movie - it simply was far too entertaining for us to see time go by. I don't understand reviewers, especially the pros who "read the book". How could you expect The Hobbit to be more epic and superior in emotion than Lord of the Rings whileobbit, as a novel, is inferior in both content and quality to the Lord of the Rings? It was an impossible task for Peter Jackson even if the trilogy was made into one single movie. The Hobbit as a novel is a light, contemporary fairy tale with plenty of cartoony events and surprising characters. The Hobbit as a movie is the exact same thing and for this reason I applaud Peter Jackson for preserving the innocence that makes The Hobbit a charming story. The visuals are superior to any I have seen, even better than Avatar. The crystalline details and top-notch focus on the characters, scenery and landscapes is simply unsurpassed. Many additional details made up for the sake of the trilogy still remain canonical, such as the meeting for Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf. As for the others, they never go very far from the original thing and it makes the story more interesting for the viewer. The actors were well chosen and while Thorïn is a lot more polite and friendly in the book, he is still a fascinating character in the movie. The fight scenes are indeed over the top, all sorts of things that you see contrast from the darker Lord of the Rings, but listen, this is not Lord of the Rings. It is the Hobbit. Even for Tolkien, The Hobbit is in a different category compared to Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. The childish spirit of the Hobbit remained untouched and this is how the movie was supposed to be made. The only bad thing about this movie is the fact that there is very little original music, most songs you will hear are from the previous trilogy which makes The Hobbit sound lesser than it actually is. Other than that. this movie is as entertaining as it gets and it respects Tolkien's will, no matter how many of the Tolkien fans or members of the Tolkien estate are against it. Expand
  6. Nov 23, 2013
    10
    The Hobbit was amazing even though I just recently saw it on tv and for the first time. I felt it was somewhat darker than the first three but also very character driven. It invoked a lot more emotion than the previous Lord of the Rings and I thoroughly enjoyed this one more. After being let down by The Two Towers and Return of the King, I feel this film breathes new light into PeterThe Hobbit was amazing even though I just recently saw it on tv and for the first time. I felt it was somewhat darker than the first three but also very character driven. It invoked a lot more emotion than the previous Lord of the Rings and I thoroughly enjoyed this one more. After being let down by The Two Towers and Return of the King, I feel this film breathes new light into Peter Jackson's legacy. Expand
  7. Feb 12, 2013
    8
    This is just one of those movies that may not meet expectations of previous non-fans. I have read "The Hobbit" around 10 times in my life and I knew going in that this was not going to be as serious of a movie as The Lord of the Rings films, and I was OK with that. I felt this movie captured the book successfully and I'm excited about the future movies (which I believe will be moreThis is just one of those movies that may not meet expectations of previous non-fans. I have read "The Hobbit" around 10 times in my life and I knew going in that this was not going to be as serious of a movie as The Lord of the Rings films, and I was OK with that. I felt this movie captured the book successfully and I'm excited about the future movies (which I believe will be more serious in nature). It is unfair to compare this movie with The Lord of the Rings. As a life-long Tolkien fan, I was pleased with this film. Expand
  8. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Lots of fun, great action, and very witty. I loved the hobbit. Even though some things were a bit off from the book, it made the movie that much more enjoyable. People need to realize what the hobbit is about before giving it a bad review. Its not about EVIL and BATTLES, its about an adventure from an unlikely fellow.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    Critics seem to have been looking for LotR 2.0, but readers know this adventure is completely different from the previously made trilogy. It is supposed to be quirky, lighthearted at moments, and generally not as "epic" as LotR. Personally I think the movie fits the book very well, though one could say the violence is a little overdone when compared to the book. But that could be said forCritics seem to have been looking for LotR 2.0, but readers know this adventure is completely different from the previously made trilogy. It is supposed to be quirky, lighthearted at moments, and generally not as "epic" as LotR. Personally I think the movie fits the book very well, though one could say the violence is a little overdone when compared to the book. But that could be said for the LotR movies too, and personally I don't have a problem with it. Overall, it is a very entertaining movie and the easiest near 3 hour movie one could sit through. Expand
  12. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    Whilst a lot lighter in tone this is still a worthy entry into the Lord of the Rings franchise. I saw the movie in old school 24fps 2D and enjoyed it a lot. Ignore the critics, go see it, and make up your own mind.
  13. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    The critic side goes to show what little they know about entertainment. The Hobbit is every bit as good and even more engaging as LOTR (even during the "lulls"). The HFR version does show a few seams in the production and can be a little dizzying in more kinetic scenes, but these very minor factors are quickly forgotten for the sake of an adventure. Welcome back, Hobbitses!
  14. Dec 20, 2012
    2
    Where to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and overWhere to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and over for the idiotic modern viewer. The journey is butchered so the audience can enjoy a cheap joke or set up car-chase esque sequence complete with complete ridiculous jump to platform action scenes. The dialogue is terrible and there are none of the wisdom quips that gave LOTR its magic and lasting effect. The ridiculous slapstick humor injected in comes off as annoying, like others have said, makes the movie feel like a Pirates of the Caribean film. This is a bad action movie, nothing more Expand
  15. 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
  16. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Lord of the Rings is one of the best sagas in all time of movies bout the Hobbit its not Lord of the Rings you have to understand this and its different but its very good too.
  17. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    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!
  18. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Wow, i almost didn't go to watch this film, what with all the bad reviews! I'm so glad, i did now! To be honest it was a fantastic film! Welcome back to middle earth, only a year to wait for part 2! :( :(
  19. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    After I finished watching The Hobbit, I was positively surprised and I really loved the movie. 58 out of 100? Even 68 is too low. The movie stayed at the level of Lord of the Rings and deserves the title of a Tolkien based movie. It's a little more cartoonish and less dark than the LotR trilogy, but that doesn't change the epic atmosphere and the overall epicness of Middle-Earth. I'mAfter I finished watching The Hobbit, I was positively surprised and I really loved the movie. 58 out of 100? Even 68 is too low. The movie stayed at the level of Lord of the Rings and deserves the title of a Tolkien based movie. It's a little more cartoonish and less dark than the LotR trilogy, but that doesn't change the epic atmosphere and the overall epicness of Middle-Earth. I'm waiting for the second and third movie and want to see more Jackson's epicness. Expand
  20. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    An unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come closeAn unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come close to silencing the skeptics like his Lord of the Rings films did, and is actually more ill-conceived than expected.

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

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

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

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

    There's a good movie somewhere in The Hobbit, and had Jackson shown more restraint we might have seen it. The film could easily lose at least 45 minutes, but it feels as if director feels so beholden to his previous work that he needs to deliver an epic on the scale of LOTR. But that's not what this book is, and we're left with an uneasy balance - the lighter tone to distinguish this as a separate story but a strict adherence to the LOTR structure - but ultimately doesn't fulfill either side.
    Expand
  21. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Simply put, this was an amazing movie to look at. Like anything else it had it's flaws, but the 48FPS is visually stunning. Like Avatar and 3D, this movie sets a new standard for movie making.
  22. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    This movie is a masterpiece of fantasy adventure filmmaking. I especially recommend the high frame rate (HFR) IMAX 3D presentation--it's worth every penny. I did have some nits to pick regarding how Radagast was brought to the screen, but that aside, it's a wondrous film.
  23. Dec 15, 2012
    1
    This movie is terrible for five reasons. First, the pacing is awful. It seemed so very long and it truly felt like chapters in a book instead of a real movie. Second, the dialog is so cheesy. There was a lot of talking and voice overs. Often the film told us the action instead of showing it. Third, the CGI was not very good. It looked fake, as if nothing progressed since LOTR came out.This movie is terrible for five reasons. First, the pacing is awful. It seemed so very long and it truly felt like chapters in a book instead of a real movie. Second, the dialog is so cheesy. There was a lot of talking and voice overs. Often the film told us the action instead of showing it. Third, the CGI was not very good. It looked fake, as if nothing progressed since LOTR came out. Fourth, scenes were too long and could have easily been edited down. There is a part where riddles are thrown back and forth for legit 15 minutes. We don't need the best 2 out of 3 give us one. Fifth, by the 1000th unrealistic escape it starts to feel like a dumb joke. Expand
  24. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is a brilliant movie to start off what will be an amazing trilogy.Now the Director Peter Jackson has not lost his style from The lord of the Rings movies because middle earth still looks excitingly dangerous. Bilbo Baggins played by Martin Freeman from Sherlock owns it as playing Bilbo. He is a brave little Hobbit that goes on a journey with Gandalf andThe Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is a brilliant movie to start off what will be an amazing trilogy.Now the Director Peter Jackson has not lost his style from The lord of the Rings movies because middle earth still looks excitingly dangerous. Bilbo Baggins played by Martin Freeman from Sherlock owns it as playing Bilbo. He is a brave little Hobbit that goes on a journey with Gandalf and the dwarves to try and reclaim there homeland which was destroyed by the evil Dragon Smaug. When your watching this film you are routing for Bilbo all the time because he is the underdog because the drwarve leader Thorin thinks he has not got what it takes to go on the journey. Also we get to see Gollum again played by Andy Serkis is still a creepy mysterious devil like he was in the Lord of the Rings and that was fantastic to see. I think everybody is going to enjoy this movie and I did not want this film to end. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great way to end the year. Expand
  25. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Finally, I came out of the theater of the long-awaited Hobbit. I have to write a word , I was thrilled. Excellent actors , design , effects and music with an ingenious plot -centric bridge to the Lord of the Rings . The complaints about the length are generally false, and rather serves as a slur. It is due to misunderstanding of original and above what the creators intended . AbsolutelyFinally, I came out of the theater of the long-awaited Hobbit. I have to write a word , I was thrilled. Excellent actors , design , effects and music with an ingenious plot -centric bridge to the Lord of the Rings . The complaints about the length are generally false, and rather serves as a slur. It is due to misunderstanding of original and above what the creators intended . Absolutely masterpieces are for the fans are mentions of the Silmarillion . PS1: The technical design and administration Gollum actor I could not take my eyes . : PS2: 3D is good, comparable to Avatar, but you can see it is not built for this style of filming - after flybys landscape has blurred. Expand
  26. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    THE HOBBIT is an amazing film. Peter Jackson has made a masterpiece one more time. This film has also humour and makes laugh. We have once more a three hours movie. Great film.
  27. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    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
  28. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    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 allPeter 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
  29. Dec 19, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is without a shadow of a doubt the best film I have seen in 2012. Whilst it is certainly not as polished as the Lord of the Rings, it's a fantastic looking film, with excellent visuals, and top class acting. The critics are simply looking for cheap Star Wars prequel comparisons. Let me tell you this: Radagast is no Jar Jar Binks. Expand
  30. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    This is AMAZING movie, i've seen 3 times and absolutely love it! Peter Jackson is like Hobbit, he knew how to do great job. Love Stone Giants, Gollum riddles and Dwarfs, photography is outstanding, music by H.Shore good as before Martin Freeman as Bilbo is PERFECT, Sir Ian as Gandalf is my best movie character form The Hobbit. YOU MUST SEE THE MOVIE ASAP
  31. 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
  32. Dec 21, 2012
    8
    The hobbit had some big shoes to fill.Not just normal sized shoes, giant, hobbit sized shoes(this is just a metaphor,I know hobbits don't wear shoes).There were some very high expectations from most people when they went to see the hobbit part 1.People wanted it to feel like a lord of the rings movie, they expected great visuals, grade A story telling, great acting, and for it to have aThe hobbit had some big shoes to fill.Not just normal sized shoes, giant, hobbit sized shoes(this is just a metaphor,I know hobbits don't wear shoes).There were some very high expectations from most people when they went to see the hobbit part 1.People wanted it to feel like a lord of the rings movie, they expected great visuals, grade A story telling, great acting, and for it to have a satisfying conclusion(like the other lord of the rings movies)but to still feel like it was going to lead to something more in later films since it is, after all, the begining of a trilogy. Peter Jackson succeeded on most of these fronts except for a few.Namely it feeling like a lord of the ring movie and he somewhat botched the satisfying conclusion.The main reason this movie doesn't feel like a lord of the rings movie is the visuals(everything visual,the special effects,scenery,and costumes don't give off a very "lord of the ringish" vibe).But don't take this to mean I thought it had a bad look though,the hobbit is the most visually beautiful movie I've ever seen.The scenery and special effects are so gorgeous that they just don't seem like they could be real.This is a good and a bad thing.It all looks beautiful, but some of it was just too extreme to fit in with the previous lord of the rings trilogy.In the other trilogy, special effects were more 'gritty".It all looked fantastic but it all looked like it could've existed at some point in the real world.The hobbit,on the other hand, looks like it belongs in a strictly "fantasy only" world.The ending was descent, but not very satisfying.The movie speeds up very fast for the last 40 minutes or so but then comes to a jarring stop in about the last 2 minutes and so,consequently, the whole final scene just seems out of place.But it does kind of still get you excited for the next installmet, it was probably just the adrenaline still in my system from the epicness that had just occurred in the last 40-60 minutes of the movie but I still wanted to see more when the credits rolled(not in a "this only feels like half a movie" kind of way but in more of a "I'm going to see the next one when it gets to theaters"kind of way).Despite these complaints, the movie was very good.The acting from Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, and Andy Serkis is incredible(especially Andy Serkis's acting, he only had one scene as Gollum but it was amazing).The story was good, it was a little slow the first hour or so of the movie but quickly picked up once they set out on the journey.Many people were worried about this being the phantom menace of lord of the rings movies.Have no fear, it's not.This movie is very good,not as good as the previous trilogy, but much better than the phantom menace,which was garbage.This movie isn't without its issues, but overall it is a very good and very unique movie. Expand
  33. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    First thing first... this is not the lord of the ring trilogy. LOTR was the best trilogy ever in my opinion and I dont think i'll see something as good real soon. The Hobbit is a real nice movie, probably as good and beautiful as LOTR but you need to know that it is completely different too. The movie really look shorter than the 2hour45min it use to be. I see it in 2D and everybody withFirst thing first... this is not the lord of the ring trilogy. LOTR was the best trilogy ever in my opinion and I dont think i'll see something as good real soon. The Hobbit is a real nice movie, probably as good and beautiful as LOTR but you need to know that it is completely different too. The movie really look shorter than the 2hour45min it use to be. I see it in 2D and everybody with me was enjoying it as i do. So i recommend you to see it in 2D before and have a clear judgement, then to maybe see it in 3D....not like many critics have seem to do. I really dont understand the 58% average they give... Give the movie a try and youll not be disapointed. Visually stunning and I love the story too. I've read the book long ago and it is as good but a little bit different. For me its a good 9.2/10... a great family fun movie for the holiday. Expand
  34. Dec 24, 2012
    1
    So boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening so intrascendental and no charismatic characters.
  35. Dec 27, 2012
    6
    While I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "TheWhile I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "The Hobbit" that we know and love. Don't get me wrong I love Peter Jackson and I love The Lord of the Rings but the thing that made"The Hobbit" such a great book was it's own sense of cleverness and grand adventure. It shouldn't have been stuffed with CGI and action scenes because the book is full of humanistic themes and heart. The back story parts that foreshadow the events in LOTR were rather nice but felt out of place in the movie. Overall I will say though it is nice to see Peter Jackson at it again and hopefully all of my gripes with the movie can be conquered in the second and third installments. Expand
  36. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    I was taken by quite a surprise by the reviews of The Hobbit (at the very least I would've expected the paid reviews to bump it up into the 70s), but I went to see it anyway, and I don't regret it one bit. I think the problem is that a lot of people came into The Hobbit expecting the intensity and seriousness of the latter two LOTR movies--e.g. another gradual buildup to an "epic battle".I was taken by quite a surprise by the reviews of The Hobbit (at the very least I would've expected the paid reviews to bump it up into the 70s), but I went to see it anyway, and I don't regret it one bit. I think the problem is that a lot of people came into The Hobbit expecting the intensity and seriousness of the latter two LOTR movies--e.g. another gradual buildup to an "epic battle". Instead it is something more playful, adventurous, and character-driven, and it resembles the beginning of The Fellowship of The Ring more than anything else.

    To me this was an improvement since this is the sort of fantasy I enjoy--where the emphasis is on the thrill of the adventure, the unexpected, and the experience, but for those seeking something serious and of grave, apparent consequence, this is not your movie.
    Expand
  37. atc
    Jan 2, 2013
    10
    Beautiful. Funny. Vast.

    It was frustrating to see such low reviews on what I found was a fantastic recreation of a much-loved book. Visually more stunning than LoTR: sunrise pans, beautiful landscapes, fantastic props; unrivaled fantasy effects. Take the Rivendell: a stunning expanse with almost photo-like realism. The pace was well structured. A slower start to introduce the lore and
    Beautiful. Funny. Vast.

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

    I think what really "does it" for me is the fact that having read the fantastic books themselves and while musing away the hours imagining the artefacts -- from weapons to beasts, characters to landscapes -- the films live up to that wonderous world held inside my head. They are visually stunning, fantastically acted -- the two comical dwarves whose names escape me were not actually annoying and they were really well casted -- and well worth your money.
    Expand
  38. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    I don't understand why so many critics gave this movie such a bad rating. It is a fun, enjoyable, exciting, movie. Filled with amazing scenes, including one particularly long and elaborate action scene and a very emotional scene at the end, this is a GREAT movie. Does not quite live up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but is amazing nonetheless. Completely lived up to my expectations,I don't understand why so many critics gave this movie such a bad rating. It is a fun, enjoyable, exciting, movie. Filled with amazing scenes, including one particularly long and elaborate action scene and a very emotional scene at the end, this is a GREAT movie. Does not quite live up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but is amazing nonetheless. Completely lived up to my expectations, especially since it got such bad reviews. I saw it in 48 fps, and 3D, and I found the visuals to be great- not nauseating at all. I did not see it in i-max, and if i were to see it again, which i am considering, i will definitely see it in i-max, 48 fps, and 3D all in one. anyway, if you have not seen it yet, do not be scared off b/c of the bad critic reviews- SEE IT. Expand
  39. Jan 2, 2013
    9
    I've waited so long for this movie, and there it finally is. The special effects are even better than the LoTR. And it has an even warmer feeling then the Lord of the Rings-trilogy. But I've to admit that there are some negative sides. The prologue has for a example a bit childish feeling. The humor and the characters sometimes feeling as they are picked from a Disney-movie. And secondlyI've waited so long for this movie, and there it finally is. The special effects are even better than the LoTR. And it has an even warmer feeling then the Lord of the Rings-trilogy. But I've to admit that there are some negative sides. The prologue has for a example a bit childish feeling. The humor and the characters sometimes feeling as they are picked from a Disney-movie. And secondly (an expected argument) is that the story less epic than the first trilogy. Over all is the movie very entertaining and I would recommend it to every LoTR fan Expand
  40. Jan 6, 2013
    8
    Great movie! I enjoyed the way the story was told and there was almost nothing left out. It is a movie worth seeing. The CGI is great, for the most part, there are one or two scenes where the CGI looks a little poor to me.
  41. Jan 8, 2013
    10
    ESPECTACULAR!! recomendable 100% si no la as visto vete al cine a verla merece la pena verla en 3D muchos criticos la criticaron mal, y que el 3d a 48 fotogramas por segundo no valia la pena y que no se notaba, y toda la gente que a ido le a encantado, me daria verguenza ser critico de cine ahora mismo, la criticaron tan mal solo por quedar mas profesionales o algo pero no tienen ni idea
  42. Jan 10, 2013
    9
    I saw this movie and i was very pleased with what peter did. I didn't go to see Lord of the Rings, i went to see the hobbit. People who expected a new lord of the rings were obviously disappointed. Looking forward for the next 2.
  43. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Long have I awaited a resemblance of the experience of authentic epicness set by the lord of the rings trilogy! That trilogy was indeed prolonged by a new franchise called
  44. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    Initially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of theInitially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of the ring. Considering I've read this book, I think I am pretty sure that the following 2 movies will also follow in the footsteps of two towers and return of the king respectively. Expand
  45. Jan 21, 2013
    7
    I don't think there's another way to describe this film than as sweet. Jackson has once more come back to our screens, reviving Tolkien's first dabble into Middle Earth with The Hobbit. The first film in the upcoming full trilogy delivers a wholly different perspective of Middle Earth; one where returning fans can see a distinct rose-tinted view of Middle Earth, whilst new viewers will seeI don't think there's another way to describe this film than as sweet. Jackson has once more come back to our screens, reviving Tolkien's first dabble into Middle Earth with The Hobbit. The first film in the upcoming full trilogy delivers a wholly different perspective of Middle Earth; one where returning fans can see a distinct rose-tinted view of Middle Earth, whilst new viewers will see a pretty landscape with comic and lovable characters. The film's plot centres around a quest, where once more it is not as simple as it seems; with the mishaps and adventures along the way affording maximum enjoyment and drama for the audience, whilst providing an insight into how things in LOTR came to pass. The film will attract viewers of all ages and though fans of the LOTR series who have not read any of the books, may find this film more simplistic and light-hearted, I must remind them that Tolkien's Hobbit was aimed at children and so the film remains more in-keeping with its original premise, as can be seen from the general feel of the film- it does just make you smile! Peter Jackson's Hobbit is everything it should be; didactic to youngsters and older viewers alike, entertaining and really good fun. Expand
  46. Jan 23, 2013
    10
    Peter Jackson is a master of direction. His cinematography is colorful and artistic, the effects by Weta Digital are great as always and the score has that same wonder and excitement as the LOTR films did. It was a refreshing movie to watch after seeing Red Dawn last and wanting something actually above average and if I'm to believe the movies are to be like the books then Hobbits 2 isPeter Jackson is a master of direction. His cinematography is colorful and artistic, the effects by Weta Digital are great as always and the score has that same wonder and excitement as the LOTR films did. It was a refreshing movie to watch after seeing Red Dawn last and wanting something actually above average and if I'm to believe the movies are to be like the books then Hobbits 2 is going to be even better then the first. Expand
  47. Jan 23, 2013
    3
    The hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite theThe hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite the negative comments, the film does show signs of greatness, but they are usually overcome with incredibly cheesy scenes and characters ( radagast) which takes away any seriousness. I have been a huge fan of The Lord of the rings. Trilogy and I was deeply saddened when I saw this movie. The only thing to be said about it is, hold on to the great scenes and try to endure the more child like ones Expand
  48. Jan 25, 2013
    10
    One of the best movies i've watched in my life as I am a huge LOTR fan. Peter Jackson made this movie in New Zealand which brings out the lovely nature and hills in the movie. It is a fun movie to watch and is an absolute masterpiece.
  49. 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
  50. Jan 31, 2013
    10
    I went to this movie thinking that I would be bored half way through. I really liked the first three but I thought it would just be more of the same. But to my surprise I ended up thoroughly entertained. Peter Jackson was able to take what made the first three so awesome and greatly improve upon that formula. Not only that I thought the actors in this movie did a much better jobI went to this movie thinking that I would be bored half way through. I really liked the first three but I thought it would just be more of the same. But to my surprise I ended up thoroughly entertained. Peter Jackson was able to take what made the first three so awesome and greatly improve upon that formula. Not only that I thought the actors in this movie did a much better job especially the actor who played bilbo baggins. I can't wait to see the other two coming out I am more excited about their release than I was the original trilogy. Expand
  51. 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.
  52. Feb 25, 2013
    10
    Despite the critics opinions The Hobbit is the start of another excellent trilogy from the visionary director peter jackson. the problem with the critics unjust opinions is that rather then see the film as a prelude to the Lord of the Rings, they view it as an equal. this is an obvious mistake since the source material that made the hit LOTR films was so large in scale and robust comparedDespite the critics opinions The Hobbit is the start of another excellent trilogy from the visionary director peter jackson. the problem with the critics unjust opinions is that rather then see the film as a prelude to the Lord of the Rings, they view it as an equal. this is an obvious mistake since the source material that made the hit LOTR films was so large in scale and robust compared to the Hobbit (a story meant for bedtime stories) when you look at what Jackson has created through lesser source material, you can really appreciate the Hobbit and see how excellent of a film it is. The film captures the mood of the story flawlessly leaving the story mostly in its original form, with the only big change being the extension of Azog the orcs character.... In the end The Hobbits a near flawless fantasy film and should be seen by anyone with an appreciation to the literature or the genre. Expand
  53. Mar 12, 2013
    10
    A funny, witty, and imaginative film that is a cheerful experience and fun to watch. Maybe while not on the epic scope as the original Lord Of The Rings trilogy, I found it to be incredibly entertaining as well as visually beautiful. I would watch this again and will buy it on dvd or blu ray.
  54. May 7, 2013
    3
    I was disapointed when i left the theater after this movie.
    * The dwarves look absolutely rediculous, i doubt their budget for the costumes were that strained to justify their awfull appearence. They really do look like they fit in at a high school theater production.
    * Who are the dwarves? I dont know really, none of them got to show their personalities to any greater extent. Did they
    I was disapointed when i left the theater after this movie.
    * The dwarves look absolutely rediculous, i doubt their budget for the costumes were that strained to justify their awfull appearence. They really do look like they fit in at a high school theater production.
    * Who are the dwarves? I dont know really, none of them got to show their personalities to any greater extent. Did they even say anyhing? If it was anything important or intresting i guess it was drowned by all the dumb and childish punchlines.
    * They sure like running alot, did they even fight at all? I dont remember, i really dont. After a while it all just felt like watching someone play a computer game.
    * I liked Radagast though, but thats probably because he's just like me :P
    Expand
  55. 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.
  56. May 4, 2013
    3
    This movie was just horrible! I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but this left me with a feeling of a quick cash grab and the more childish tone of the movie did not appeal to me..
  57. Apr 23, 2013
    8
    This is a quick review of the non-3D Blu-ray Disc edition of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The Blu-ray Combo Pack comes with 2 Blu-rays, 1 DVD, and UltraViolet copy of the film. The Blu-ray resolution at 1080p and 24fps (frames per second) looks really smooth and sharp. The Hobbit was filmed on the Red Epic camera, with widescreen aspect ratio is 2.40:1, and the conversion to Blu-rayThis is a quick review of the non-3D Blu-ray Disc edition of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The Blu-ray Combo Pack comes with 2 Blu-rays, 1 DVD, and UltraViolet copy of the film. The Blu-ray resolution at 1080p and 24fps (frames per second) looks really smooth and sharp. The Hobbit was filmed on the Red Epic camera, with widescreen aspect ratio is 2.40:1, and the conversion to Blu-ray could not be better (with the exception of a couple scenes that seem a bit dark). Audio is also really great in DTS-HD Master Audio surround sound. As far as extras, for a quick Blu-ray release the edition does contain quite a few extras including 127 minutes of video blogs (in HD), trailers (in HD), and a 7-minute featurette "New Zealand: Home of Middle-Earth" (also in HD). Overall this is one the best Blu-ray releases so far this year. Expand
  58. 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.
  59. Dec 11, 2013
    4
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

    With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure. While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

    With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing:

    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure.

    While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that is where the similarities end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Answer: Faithfulness to the original book.

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

    In conclusion, I see this adaptation of "The Hobbit" as a way for Peter Jackson and New Line to profit from the LOTR Trilogy all over again. By grafting certain parts of the Trilogy onto "The Hobbit", New Line and Jackson are ensured that at least some of those fans will fork out money to watch three more films. I see this film not as an artistic exercise but as a cash cow. That is all.
    Expand
  60. 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
  61. 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.
  62. 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.
  63. Dec 18, 2014
    10
    Peter Jackson made a perfect ending for his middle earth odyssey. And Martin Freeman was awesome. Best of Hobbit series. More action and more fun. And more disappointing because of it is the last
  64. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    awsome a great prequel to lord of the ring.very funny,awsome fights,a good story,golum,and amazing 3d.so i think that a great prequel to lord of the rings and i will give it 10/10.
  65. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    First and foremost, I did not, will not and don't suggest you see this film in 3D in any form. Watch it as it was intended. That being said, this was a HELL of a kickoff for the upcoming movies and was just downright great to watch. The beginning prologue with the Fellowship tie-in was a nice addition, and the acting at all levels was superb. I will admit, there were moments where I had toFirst and foremost, I did not, will not and don't suggest you see this film in 3D in any form. Watch it as it was intended. That being said, this was a HELL of a kickoff for the upcoming movies and was just downright great to watch. The beginning prologue with the Fellowship tie-in was a nice addition, and the acting at all levels was superb. I will admit, there were moments where I had to keep myself awake (I'm not a midnight person at all), but that's to be expected in a film that is the first of multiple. It's a pity the Metascore is so low, somewhat shocking; this was a great film and any LOTR fan will recognize every single location in this movie - Jackson did an incredible job recreating Gollum's Cave, Goblin Town, Dale, Hobbiton, Rivendell, etc., etc. Expand
  66. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    Here's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but thatHere's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but that doesn't make it a good movie. There are other positives and negatives of course. If The Hobbit had been the first Tolkien book that Jackson adapted we'd probably all be amazed and astounded, but it's not. To follow his own LOTR adaptation I'm afraid The Hobbit is trapped in that grey area between mediocrity and greatness. Let me sum it up this way - I watch LOTR once a year or so and love revisiting those worlds. I don't have a strong desire to revisit this one. Expand
  67. Dec 14, 2012
    0
    I wanted something closer to Pan's Labyrinth and instead got another Jackson turd. If only del Toro had stayed on to do this properly. The more time that passes since the LOTR the more I grow to dislike them. Randall Graves had it right in Clerks II. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&v=aSB03lr69iU
  68. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Going into the theater for the midnight showing I was eager to see the film but afraid. I had been burned by Star Wars Episode 1 some 13 years ago and was worried I would once again feel the harsh sting of disappointment by high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised.

    First off, I must say that it's a miracle that this film was even made, never mind by Peter Jackson and the crew
    Going into the theater for the midnight showing I was eager to see the film but afraid. I had been burned by Star Wars Episode 1 some 13 years ago and was worried I would once again feel the harsh sting of disappointment by high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised.

    First off, I must say that it's a miracle that this film was even made, never mind by Peter Jackson and the crew responsible for the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. After being in "Production Hell" for what felt like years, word got out it was finally being made. I was excited but weary of the director who I have had the misfortune of not seeing any of his films which I hear are great. Then said director bailed on the project completely. All hope seemed lost, but like the great wizard Gandalf, Peter Jackson himself stepped in to save the day and my expectations went through the roof.

    So what happened between that, the trailers, and opening night that got me so worried? Reviews. What did I read? "The CGI makes all the creatures look fake, the cameos are pointless, the movie is too long, too childish etc. So the point being is that this movie is Episode 1 all over again, Peter Jackson has lost his edge and Middle-Earth as we know it has be scared beyond recognition. After seeing the film I can tell you that while I can see the critics points ultimately they are nitpicking an otherwise great film. Never mind unfairly comparing this lone film to an entire trilogy.

    So lets get down to the meat of this review. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great film. It's fun, exciting, emotional, and all the things I expected from the first installment of a new trilogy set in the LOTR universe. Gandalf the Grey is the old wizard you remember from the Fellowship of the Ring and I found him to be as likable as ever, the same goes for other returning characters such as Old Bilbo, Frodo, Elrond, and even Saruman. Somehow age has not slowed these actors down a bit and aside from a few easily overlooked extra wrinkles these are the exact same characters we met in the original LOTR trilogy.

    As for the new characters, the 13 dwarfs are surprisingly fun to watch. I was so afraid we would have 13 Gimlis on screen at all times and the movie would be crippled by this but instead we get a band of likable characters reminiscent of the fellowship from the first LOTR film. A few dwarves stand out while the rest feel second-tier but that's to be expected with such a large cast and doesn't detract from the film as a whole.

    It wouldn't be Middle-Earth without a few notable bad guys to talk about and this movie has a few. From the dragon Smaug who we only get a glimpse of in the film to the lead dwarf Thorins arch nemesis Azog. This character looks the most artificial of all the CGI creatures in the movie but when I think about it I'm not sure they could convey such emotion (raw hatred) in the wretch any other way. Either way he is the main villain for the first part of this story and is as menacing as any enemy the fellowship came face to face with in LOTR. Speaking of menacing CGI villains I have to talk about Gollum. He is the same creature we all know from The Two Towers and Return of the King but this time he is better portrayed as an evil monster that we should fear rather than the menacing, sometimes comical, creature he was in LOTR. I'm trying to keep this review spoiler free so all Ill say is the movie wastes no time in reminding you that Gollum is not there for a comic relief cameo. He was part of The Hobbit to begin with and is treated as such.

    The movie is around 3 hours long and while any unengaged viewer might find that too long to sit still, any fan will tell you that the film isn't long enough. It's pacing is extremely similar to the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring. Again, not spoiling things, but if you can sit though and enjoy that film you will have no problem with An Unexpected Journey. The adventure proper doesn't start until nearly 45 minutes into the film, leaving plenty of time to introduce you to the characters and the nature of the the main character Bilbo Baggins. Speaking a which...

    Martin Freeman plays him perfectly and not once to you feel like he is either playing a young Ian Holm, playing Bilbo or trying to make the character his own unique entity. Ultimately Freeman's Bilbo is the character we saw in LOTR, read about in the books, and is the ideal image of Bilbo Baggins. If you didn't care for him in LOTR you will develop a new appreciation for him through this new trilogy.

    The Hobbit finally has a proper representation on film and fits almost seamlessly with the LOTR Trilogy. I can easily recommend this film to any fan of the books, movies, or anyone looking for a great action adventure film. I can't wait to see the next two films and plan on seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey again.
    Expand
  69. Jov
    Dec 14, 2012
    6
    Let me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intendedLet me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intended it - at 48 FPS, 3D, with Dolby ATMOS surround sound on 4K resolution projectors, but was repeatedly disappointed by the visuals. Peter Jackson seems to have gone the route of George Lucas in replacing actors, puppets, and good old fashioned screen magic with pure CGI. I'm not sure if it was the 48 FPS or what, but the film looked very, very fake. I felt like I was watching an animated film, or a video game at times. A lot of people are complaining about the over-long run time - I'm not one of them. I love a long film, and appreciated it here as well, but I think that it's significant to mention that despite a nearly 3-hour length, there was very little character development. No pauses for pacing. No - this was non-stop action. I felt like I was on "The Hobbit: THE RIDE". But what was I expecting? It was a children's book, and the film is a children's movie. The battles are toned down and pointedly blood-free. If LOTR is a classically painted master-work, then The Hobbit is a caricature. This isn't to say The Hobbit was all bad. It wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it at points. But the comparison to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is apt. The film is woefully over-full of CGI, lacks spirit. This doesn't feel like a labor of love - it feels like a blockbuster made for a younger generation with short-attention spans. Skip the 3D and skip the 48 fps. I look forward to a fan-edit when all three movies are released. It needs one. Expand
  70. Dec 18, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Without going into the finer points or minor grumbles I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film, so much so that even as the final scene faded to black I was still wanting to watch more .
    I wasn't convinced with the start of the film but the pace picks up soon enough and you can just sit back and soak up the story. Golum, as ever is a scene stealer!
    Expand
  71. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    I found the new Hobbit movie to be a thoroughly enjoyable and engaging journey! I was a huge fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, and was hoping that this movie would take me back to that world and allow me to live there for a few more hours. It accomplished that and much more! The 3D was very well done and definitely enhanced the film and made it even more engrossing. TheI found the new Hobbit movie to be a thoroughly enjoyable and engaging journey! I was a huge fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, and was hoping that this movie would take me back to that world and allow me to live there for a few more hours. It accomplished that and much more! The 3D was very well done and definitely enhanced the film and made it even more engrossing. The characters were great, I loved Bilbo and Gandalf and the dwarf characters were great fun and felt true to character. The story was well told and kept me interested the whole 3 hours, and waiting for part 2 as soon as it ended. I knock one point off because I felt like the final action sequence was unnecessarily overdone. But that is a small complaint and this film will fit nicely into the awesome legacy the Lord of the Rings. Expand
  72. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Better than the book, again. While many purist fans do not agree, I must say Peter Jackson did a wonderful job. To those who say it's different from the book, well, I must say that it's the closest a movie can get to it. The main difference is that Peter Jackson tied The Hobbit well with The Lord of the Rings. It is already a challenge to transport the book to the movie but it's evenBetter than the book, again. While many purist fans do not agree, I must say Peter Jackson did a wonderful job. To those who say it's different from the book, well, I must say that it's the closest a movie can get to it. The main difference is that Peter Jackson tied The Hobbit well with The Lord of the Rings. It is already a challenge to transport the book to the movie but it's even harder if you want to tie something that was written for children with something darker. Why do I give it a 10? Because this time Peter Jackson explored things not even present in the book, it's a plus you get. Do yourself a favor and enjoy this movie. If you liked The Lord of The Rings trilogy, you will definitely love The Hobbit. Expand
  73. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    For some reason, during the movie I constantly compared it to "The Goonies." I'm really not sure why. Maybe because "The Goonies" got adventure right, and this didn't. Either way, drawn out, should have been one movie. The end.
  74. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    Boy could critics of been any more wrong? What a fantastic film the 48 fps looks AMAZING in 3D and it is really going to take film to a new level. Im just not sure what the critics deal was with this awesome film I mean they seem to just nit pick so much its annoying.
  75. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Once again the critics get it wrong. When was the last time a critic called a good movie right. I read this book many times growing up and the movie was everything I could have wanted and more. Faithful to the book and translated well onto the screen. You won't be disappointed.
  76. 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
  77. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Well, did it live up to the hype? In most instances, yes it did. However, there were a few things that could have been changed or made better in this first installment of The Hobbit. I happened to see it in IMAX 3D, and the IMAX part was phenomal, as it always is, but the 3D i felt like was more of a gimmick, and just wasn't really needed. It definitely looked a lot better than most 3D'sWell, did it live up to the hype? In most instances, yes it did. However, there were a few things that could have been changed or made better in this first installment of The Hobbit. I happened to see it in IMAX 3D, and the IMAX part was phenomal, as it always is, but the 3D i felt like was more of a gimmick, and just wasn't really needed. It definitely looked a lot better than most 3D's have, it was shot with those 3D cameras, so I would expect that it would look better, but I could have easily watched it in 2D and had the same experience. I might go back and try out the higher framerate, although this may make it seem even more gimmicky and less immersive. The acting was mostly top-notch, with Martin Freeman as Bilbo, Ian Mckellen as Gandalf (of course), Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, and Andy Serkis as Gollum (once again, of course) really standing out. The other dwarves were very good, but almost just seemed like background characters, rather than characters you felt more emotionally attached to. (ie, the 4 hobbits in LOTR). The action sequences were wonderful, however the CGI made it feel almost fake and more like a video game than a movie. Basically anything non-human in this movie was animated, and it was evident that some of the dwarves and Bilbo were just swinging at thin-air rather than an enemy in some instances. While the animation gave the producers more freedom and creativity, it made the movie feel less real and organic, as the LOTR trilogy had because they had used live actors to portray the orcs, and some other creatures. Granted, I know the trolls and gollum, and other creatures like that have to be animated, but the orcs and goblins in this movie could have been live actors. It almost seems as if it was a bit rushed. Well, at least that aspect of it. While some complained that the beginning of the movie was too long, and took forever to work into the story, I did not feel that as I watched it. I enjoyed the fleshing out of the back story because I feel like the LOTR trilogy could have had more backstory (I know the films were very long, and this was the reason for less backstory), but I enjoyed hearing everything about The Hobbit. Overall though, this movie was outstanding. It had it's great moments, where you felt emotionally attached to a character, or that superb soundtrack kicked in at the perfect time, and how can i forget, the best part of the movie, the riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum. Also, it had quite a few more laughs than the original 3, which was very welcome. So, I say go see it! While it doesnt recapture the brilliance of the FOTR, it is still a film that is very worth your time and money. Thus, I give it a 9. Expand
  78. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Best movie since Lord of the Rings: Return of the King! And thats for sure it is so brilliant! Peter Jackson is really the only man to do this! I really look forward to the next chapter!
  79. 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
  80. Apr 23, 2013
    3
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

    Now, in all fairness, I wasn't the biggest LOTR fan. But I did enjoy the movies. This was painful to watch. For a child, I'd recommend it. It's got silly bits and funny bits that
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

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

    Is it a 0/10? No. It's okay. Perhaps it was simply not for me. But at 1 hour, I checked the time and was astounded to find that I had not been watching for 2 hours, and that I had 1 hour and 45 minutes left to go. I groaned and turned it off.
    Expand
  81. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    I believe this to be another situation where the movie critics are out of touch with what people actually enjoy. The scenery was spot on, the acting was very good, and the script had a lot of development in it; granted three movies might be a stretch(primary reason it gets a 9 instead of a 10). As a parent who's kid just finished reading the Hobbit and will soon be finished the Lord ofI believe this to be another situation where the movie critics are out of touch with what people actually enjoy. The scenery was spot on, the acting was very good, and the script had a lot of development in it; granted three movies might be a stretch(primary reason it gets a 9 instead of a 10). As a parent who's kid just finished reading the Hobbit and will soon be finished the Lord of the Rings book; she's hardly put them down over the last couple weeks. These movies are a boon: Expand
  82. Dec 27, 2012
    2
    "Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and"Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and divided it into parts - to make more money.
    Poor attempt of trying to make a lot of $ using great author's name.
    Expand
  83. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    Endearing characters, well paced, incredibly deep story and action packed.. The hobbit was an amazing movie one fully worthy of standing next to the other three. Whether you're a fan of the book or have never even seen lord of the rings (like my girlfriend) you'll walk away with a filling experience.
  84. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From the moment the Hobbit started my jaw was on the floor till the end, the whole exsperience, the HFR, 3D still hate it, would prefer just HFR to the amazing scenary, special effects, story obviously is amazing but fleshed out and thank (Tolkein) Jackson chose to do it. this film would have awful plot holes if he didnt. My only quarrel was it was 20 minutes too short, 3 hrs was what I was expecting and that is expected from a Lotrs related movie. They are for people who want to see a long film, in no way what so every did this feel long and over stretch like some early reviews have said, I have come to realise the early reviews are always the one sided ones because a bad review will always stand out over a good one, reading reviews before a movie can actually make alot of people dislike the movie because they believe the review. The Hobbit is an exception, it is already a classic and 11 years from now I can hear people saying The Hobbit trilogy was great than the LOTRs trilogy, we just need the next 2 movies to prove it because The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey beats all three Ring Movies as the best adaptation of Tolkiens work. Expand
  85. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie has given me a feeling of epic-ness I have not felt since I watched the Lord of the Rings. As always, you will have the butthurt fools who will give actors death threats and complain endlessly due to the most minute changes from the book, as well as the critics who only give good reviews when bribed, or are zealots and like I said earlier, will whine endlessly of the smallest of changes. The movies animation was near-prefect, and the acting was phenomenal, especially during the prologue in Erebor and the White Council. While Radagast's acting was a bit silly, it was still very good in itself. Anyone who does not see this is missing out on so much, I would almost call them foolish. Expand
  86. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    It was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR wasIt was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR was a groundbreaking effort that appealed to the "masses" and not just the hard core fans of Tolkien. And a little more than a decade after the film of LotR came Hobbit. For me every little second of the film was a revival of the book, giving picture, sound and life to the fantastic characters of the book. It couldn't have been done in a better way. If you did not like it, you wouldn't probably like the book. There are moments that your backbone shivers by the thrilling scenes, mainly during the singing and fighting of the dwarven company. To wrap it up, Bilbo was the best Bilbo I would expect to see and I wouldn't change a second of the little character's performance in a bit. Really looking forward to the next part(s)! Expand
  87. Dec 20, 2012
    6
    Not close to as well made as the LOTR's trilogy but entertaining. I have to knock it for adding in places that really did not need it. Also, there was no content and there's no reason for this to be a trilogy.
  88. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    It is to slow, I fell asleep half way through the film because nothing happened and that isn't an exaggeration. I have no idea why they decided to make a trilogy out of one book that isn't even very long, in fact in the time this trilogy would take to watch, I could have read the book. On top of that everything looks cheaper and fake, I can only come up with the conclusion that the CGI isIt is to slow, I fell asleep half way through the film because nothing happened and that isn't an exaggeration. I have no idea why they decided to make a trilogy out of one book that isn't even very long, in fact in the time this trilogy would take to watch, I could have read the book. On top of that everything looks cheaper and fake, I can only come up with the conclusion that the CGI is just over used where it wasn't so much in LOTR where you often had real people playing monsters that are now CGI. I noticed a lot more sets are CGI too and it just gives off this fake feeling like the Star Wars Prequels. I also do not like the makeup it just all looks like makeup this time around, everything is too bright, there is too much clarity and I feel like I'm watching a play rather than being drawn in. Biggest disappointment since The Phantom Menace. Expand
  89. Mar 27, 2013
    3
    I love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at orI love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at or connecting with a real being. The entire portion with the trolls is difficult to watch, with odd CG, poor "combat", the dialogue can be forgiven (i.e. gross jokes), and a set that clearly looks like a set. Peter Jackson added portions of other Tolkien books and expanded certain sections not covered in The Hobbit, but almost all of them are in odd places, and do not really fit with the story (this could just be bad editing), this is especially so concerning everything revolving around Radagast the Brown. Pacing is very slow, which does not always equal bad, but it takes roughly 45mins for anything to happen in the film. Shooting in 3D was a big mistake, mostly because the lighting has to be so bright that many of the scenes looked odd, especially in Golem's cave, many scenes that should have been dark were oddly bright. I saw both the regular and 3D,48 fps. I did not enjoy the 3D, 48fps version of the film, it made the movie look like one of those 3D films at a theme park, i.e. somewhat cheesy. While there are many continuity issues many viewers will only catch a few. It seems that many of the qualities that Peter Jackson brought to LOTR (which made them great) disappeared in the hobbit. Many other issues include the pointless cameos from old Bilbo and Frodo (who has a 5 o'clock shadow), the long beginning narrative, cliched lines/characters, and odd makeup and props. I hope the next two films are better, but The Hobbit could have been better if Peter Jackson had gone simpler, in the scope and special effects of the movie. Expand
  90. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    WOW. This movie is amazing. I went into the movie theatre quite worried due to critic scores, but after seeing it myself, I really would like to know what film they watched, because it wasn't The Hobbit. I'm an avid fan of J.R.R Tolkien and have all his books, and thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jacksons LOTR Trilogy. The Hobbit is simply stunning, and will be joining my collection once it comesWOW. This movie is amazing. I went into the movie theatre quite worried due to critic scores, but after seeing it myself, I really would like to know what film they watched, because it wasn't The Hobbit. I'm an avid fan of J.R.R Tolkien and have all his books, and thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jacksons LOTR Trilogy. The Hobbit is simply stunning, and will be joining my collection once it comes out on DVD.

    Now onto the movie. A lot of critics have given this low scores due to its higher framerate, or complaining about the slow start. Seriously, they have never been so wrong. Although I saw it in 3D 24fps (just to be safe) I cannot understand why people are rating the movie DOWN due to the 48fps framerate. Easy option - go see it in 24fps first. The movie is NOT slow. We spend 40 minutes or so in the shire (10 minutes of that we actually enjoy an epic prologue set in Erebor) which is no different to the first LOTR. It gives us a chance to develop some of the characters and understand their motivation. There's not one part of this film which I thought 'this is slow'. It is beautifully paced. The acting is superb, especially Martin Freeman as Bilbo. The first time you see him as Bilbo, you can understand why Peter Jackson chose him. There is so many events in this film that blew me away. The stone giants, the goblin tunnels, Rivendell, the scene with Gollum (which deserves an oscar), the Prologue in Erebor, the white council with gandalf, saruman, galadriel and elrond, dol goldur, and the EAGLES. The eagles look better than ever and really blew me away. This is a lighter and more humoured middle earth, but that's what Tolkien wrote. There is peace in middle earth, so of course the world is a happier place. Thankfully though, it's not as overdosed as I thought it would be. There are maybe 1 or 2 lines which made me cringe, but that is the only downfall to this movie. Everything else is perfect.

    All of the actors do a superb job as I said previously. Radagast the brown, a slightly deranged wizard, also worried me before seeing the film. He is brilliant. He helps move the story along and also sees something I did not expect... fans of LOTR will be happy once they understand who and what he saw. The action pieces and CGI are fantastic also. The ending couldn't have been any better, with a brilliant piece of character development between Thorin and Bilbo (both of which develop brilliantly throughout the entire film) coming to a final climax, and also... I wont spoil the last shot, just go see it yourself. I can not recommend this film enough. I am so happy to have visited middle earth again and couldn't be any happier with what I saw. Do yourself a favour, ignore the critics, and go and enjoy middle earth again, because The Hobbit is one hell of a ride.
    Expand
  91. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is an amazing movie that serves as a prequel to the Lord of the Rings. I can write pages dedicated towards a summary, strengths, and personal thoughts but they all add up to one sentence: "The Hobbit is the best film to come out in 2012 for any fan of fantasy or Tolkien's novels." The film looks beautiful, characters are fun and memorable, and the special effects look amazing.The Hobbit is an amazing movie that serves as a prequel to the Lord of the Rings. I can write pages dedicated towards a summary, strengths, and personal thoughts but they all add up to one sentence: "The Hobbit is the best film to come out in 2012 for any fan of fantasy or Tolkien's novels." The film looks beautiful, characters are fun and memorable, and the special effects look amazing. The Hobbit has everything that made the Lord of the Rings great. If you enjoyed entering Middle Earth over a decade ago, then I highly suggest watching the Hobbit.

    10/10 Great movie.
    Expand
  92. Mar 10, 2013
    10
    Like so many other people I can't believe the critic's score.

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

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

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

    Roll on December 2013!
    Expand
  93. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This film is easily as good as any of the films in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is a little different in tone, though the difference feels entirely appropriate.
  94. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    I enjoyed it, not as much as any of the LOTR but it's hard to recreated the majesty of the first trilogy. I was hoping we would see more of the spiders and maybe even a peek at Beorn, but it will make it worth the wait for the second movie.
  95. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Freaking awesome movie. Saw it in 3D and thought it was beautifully filmed. The story was very tight and you are left wanting more and more. I found the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum chilling. I got goosebumps for the last hour.
  96. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    It was unexpected when they decided to make this film into a 3 part series, but so far they did justice with the first part. I just hope the the next two parts live up to the book and animated film before it. This movie is worth spending some extra $$ to see it in movie theaters.
  97. May 14, 2013
    9
    A great movie, "official" critics are being too critical as if they never seen prequels in the past... I loved to get back into the LotR universe and highly enjoyed the quality and budget of the movie. Dwarfs storyline is quite interesting. Movie is quite predictable yet not that much to give it score of 4-5.

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

    I'm looking forward to next The Hobbit movie. Also badass ending song, this is probably the only movie in the world that forced me to sit through credits scene.
    Expand
  98. 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.
  99. Jan 24, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I went into it thinking, "is this going to live to the anticipation"? I was sadly disappointed. I guess its still a good a movie. The cast was great, especially the three leads, and the music by Howard Shore was amazing. But the rest of the movie? Meh. The only really good bits were the misty mountains song by the dwarfs, the troll sequence, and the Gollum sequence. I thought the critics were being harsh comparing it to the lord of the rings as the books were very different, so the movies will be too. But now, I can see why. I had so many feelings of deja vu when I was watching this, that it felt like I was watching a recycled version of the fellowship of the ring, and it shouldn't be like that. And the script just dragged everrrryyythhhinnggg oooouuuuttttt soooooo lllloooonnngg. I was almost falling asleep during the white council scene. Which never happened in the book, it was just so they could have Galadriel and Saruman in the movie. Also, the last 10-15 minutes was incredibly melodramatic. Unnecessarily so. I guess it was an OK movie, to be honest I would watch it again, but only if I had nothing better to do. Expand
  100. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I appear to be alone among my friends in my general disappointment with this film. I really feel, after two viewings now, that it was mostly a remorseless money-grab by Peter Jackson and the production company. It doesn't fit the feel of the book to me whatsoever, and instead has the feel and ambiance of the Lord of the Rings movies -- a grandeur and scale that should be much larger than The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, The Hobbit was an epic tale, but next to LotR it is a quaint epic and more character-driven. One of the other user reviews here mentioned that the Hobbit wasn't written the same way as LotR, and people need to stop thinking about the LotR movies when they watch this. Well, I agree on the first point... but it's kind of hard to not think about LotR when he seems to be trying really hard to make these as much like those as he can. The cameos by Frodo, Saruman, and Galadriel, as much as I loved the latter in the original movies, were completely pointless. Also, if you are going to add Saruman pre-Lord of the Rings... he ought to me a much nicer fellow. Jackson didn't get him right in the LotR movies anyway. In the books he was a wordsmith, someone who could use words to affect others... and until he sided with Sauron he did so for good. There is a reason Gandalf considered him the wisest, and it wasn't just because he wore white. The added detail to the story of the pale orc and Radaghast the Brown were equally pointless, except to draw out the length of the film so he could make more than one. That's really my point, I suppose. The Hobbit should've been ONE three hour movie, MAYBE two... but definitely not three. Also, why does Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the books, not until he was mistreated by the Wood Elf King... and even then his attitude was colored by gold lust. There were a few well-done scenes, like the riddles with Gollum, but for every one of those there is another pointless addition to the story or a rewrite that makes little sense. Why did he feel the need to change how Gandalf dealt with the trolls, or have the pale orc trapping them in trees instead of the goblins and waurgs? It just seems like Jackson has gotten the impression that he knows how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien. I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken. Expand
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.