User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2316 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    Does very well to follow the 3rd edition of the Hobbit which includes Gollum's revised character and the pieces added from the Silmarillion. I thoroughly enjoyed the first half of the film, which is light and much more in style with the feeling of the book. While the second act was quite long, I was never bored and appreciated the addition of Galadriel to give some balance to the cast. Well done, and I look forward to the next one! Expand
  2. 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.
  3. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    Please, do not look at the low score critics gave. They compare the hobbit with the lord of the rings. What they do forget is that the hobbit isn't lord of the rings. It's written before lotr and the atmosphere in the book is much lighter. Peter Jackson tries to implement this in his movie, and does it pretty well. I've also seen the high frame rate version, which is great. Never saw a movie technically so good. Expand
  4. Dec 23, 2012
    8
    Although the film's first act may seem a bit sluggish to some, in my opinion "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" powers through it with plenty of humor, surprisingly well-developed characters, and an always-stellar amount of visual magnificence.
  5. Dec 22, 2012
    10
    Is it just my impression or have these critics been drinking a lot lately? Cmon, their low knowledge about the middle earth and Tolkien's works almost freightened everyone i know away from the movie. It's an amazing movie, with plausive adaptions from the book, and just as LOTR it looks like it will get even better on the next movie. Dont you waste your time reading 'noobs' reviews, just go watch the movie. Its worth the money. A lot. Expand
  6. Dec 22, 2012
    4
    Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!
  7. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    Go Watch this movie thinkig yourself: im going to watch The Hobbit, not im going to watch lord of the ring. This movie ia a lighter, funnier and to my own opinion better approach to the middle heart. It is an extremely fun ride that will leave goosebumps all over your body and that will make you smile from the begining to the end. There are much less battles, compared to the two towers or to the return of the king but the few that are in the movie are freaking epic. Its impossible not to compare it with its lord of the ring counterpart, and i can only say its as good if not better than the trilogy. And Thorin si a badass. Expand
  8. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    Only goes to show just how pointless being a movie reviewer is. Movie reviews are very subjective. The critics that bashes this movie, comparing it to the milestone that was LOTR, should go find a real job.

    Its an excellent movie, by all standards. Only minus is the overuse of CG, wich im not that much of a fan of, but it was still well done.
  9. Dec 22, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers. First and foremost I enjoyed the movie but when you hold it against the LOTR it just doesn't hold up. For a movie that has come out 10 years after the original trilogy you would think the CGI would look better but it really didn't. The gravity of the story was lacking, in the LOTR their quest held the fate of Middle Earth in the balance while here we were only trying to save the home of some dwarfs who I didn't really feel sorry for. Also, with LOTR their was a definite connection to mankind BUT there are no men in this flick, we deal with dwarfs, hobbits, wizards, orcs, and goblins.

    All in all not bad, Peter Jackson and his team just didn't step their game up, it's like they went through the same motions without the same drive to make this as great as the LOTR.
    Collapse
  10. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    I loved this movie. I read to escape. The Hobbit took me on that journey. The movie takes you on well, re-created journey through middle-earth and the first 3rd of the Hobbit with a sprinkling of the Silmarillon. If you walk into this movie expecting more intense or natural pacing as would be delivered in a complete pre-ordained book then you won't be happy. The LOTR trilogy had more material Jackson could pick and choose from, it was more unique and it was truly best in class when thinking of Fantasy material. When relating the movies comparatively, the critics won't be happy. The LOTR trilogy really had some power-house characters (think Aragorn, Frodo, Sam, The king of Rohan). The Hobbit has Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf. Comparatively, from a dramatic effect, it will suffer. This movie is not a metacritic 58. When viewed as complete Trilogy people will have a much more positive interpretation. I eagerly look forward to the next installment Expand
  11. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    The movie is outstanding, although it wasn't as good as the any of the movies of The Lord of The Rings it sure made a good impression. It was filled with beautiful scenarios and stunning characters that had a very good acting. It is guaranteed that for most people it will exceed expectations, for others however should look for a more intense action movie if this wasn't entertaining enough, because even if it is a little wearing it is worth watching the beauty of the movie and it's history Expand
  12. Dec 22, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For those who have seen the film...Why it reeked. I was hugely disappointed in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". Instead of sticking to the children's story, which is very short compared to LOTR, Peter Jackson has added a ton of unnecessary bloat. Many of the scenes were just added to connect it with LOTR, which was not needed, such as all the scenes with Frodo. The movie starts with a huge back story, which would have been better told as the movie progressed. Thorin has a new adversary (he was mentioned in the book, but the party had no interaction with him) ...the strange white orc that slew his father. One of the changes that bothered me the most was that Bilbo is looked down upon throughout the movie, and he has to be a savior in almost every instance to prove he is worthy of the party. In the book the animosity is not nearly as bad. Bilbo does enough in the book without having to, for instance, save Thorin from the white orc. If I remember right the first thing that Bilbo kills with his new short sword in the book is a spider, and Bilbo names the sword Sting. Shouldn't Bilbo have named the sword Fang or Claw in the movie? One of the scenes that doesn't work is when Bilbo escapes from Golum, and Golum just screams instead of running after Bilbo. Why didn't Golum go after Biblo you ask? Well, in the book the goblins are guarding the way out of the mountain, and Golum didn't want to get caught. I was looking forward to see the whole party stuck up in the trees, and the goblins making fun of them with song, but this was not included. Instead of the party being almost burnt up in the trees, the problem is the trees are collapsing. After the long intro, the movie turns into a roller coaster ride. A lot of people compare it to Pirates of the Caribbean, and they are right on. This movie is more Pirate of the Caribbean, than Pirate of the Caribbean could ever be. THREE different instances of having to jump from one place to another to stay alive...The stone giants, the collapsing walkways in the mountain, and the collapsing trees! Speaking of the stone giants, hasn't Peter Jackson learned that some things are better off left for the imagination? In the book the stone giants are mentioned, almost in passing, while in the movie they ride them! It would have been great, if during the storm rocks were falling, you could hear the noise of huge rocks getting smashed...and then through the storm a slight glimpse of something made of rock moves.... Thorin, Thorin, Thorin. He does not hate the elves, he was thankful for their hospitality, and the thing he loves most is gold. In the movie they try to make him a bleeding heart for his homeland, when all he wants is the gold! He IS a dwarf for goodness sake! A new (uneeded) comedy relief was added...Radagast the wizard. Poop. Another new twist is Gandalf hearing about the necromancer. I was almost intrested in this, I think it comes straight from Tokien's notes. However, it does make the movie longer, and is the main reason we have to deal with Radagast the Gastly. The troll incident is changed, for the worst. In the book Biblo is trying to steal something from the trolls, instead of saving the horses. Everyone in the party gets captured except Thorin, who puts up a fight. In the movie, everyone gives up their weapons to save Biblo from getting ripped apart...one person ripped apart, or everyone gets eaten hmmm....This is another time where Biblo basically saves the day, instead of Gandalf. Bilbo keeps the Trolls arguing in the movie, but in the book Gandalf throws his voice, making the Trolls think that they are disagreeing on how to cook the party. The visuals of the movie are descent. More CGI was used, and less animatronics than in LOTR and it shows. I could continue to nitpick very easily, but I think I will leave it there. To sum it up, this is not a movie about a Hobbit, as the book was. It is a movie about the whole of the goings on in middle earth during the story of the Hobbit, and it doesn't work. It tries to be too much like LOTR, instead of the childrens book it was intended to be. Expand
  13. Dec 22, 2012
    10
    The movie is made wonderfully, great cure for the details, photography and soundtrack exceptionally stunning and amazing as in LOTR. Whatever people (or better, critics that do not deserve their job) could say, technology is fundamental in the future of cinema, and The Hobbit gives a beautiful glance at what could be the standards of future movies: 3D is wonderfully rendered and CGI reaches its top levels for now. The plot is very well adapted from the book, and all the changes are fully understandable and appreciable (always remember that a movie is NOT a book). Fundamental warning: this isn't LOTR! The circumstances, tone and messages of this story are completely different!! Do not expect to see a master-of-epicness like LOTR, but a much more light and humorous narration, set in the same amazing world of LOTR, Middle-earth. Given this, enjoy this masterpiece, and thank you PJ! :) Expand
  14. Dec 22, 2012
    10
    I lose all respect for any and all critics who reviewed this movie saying it was slow at the beginning or not as god as it should have been. It stays more true to the book then lotr movies. Has anyone ever heard of character development(building). It is a integral part of a great movie and no one does it better then Peter Jackson and this movie is no exception. Fellowship of the ring started just as slow or slower as far as action and it was reviewed amazing. People and mainly critics have truly forgotten what elements make up a great movie. Its not just action action action which it seems people want to see these days. All action movies are good but they lack movie magic. The Hobbit is loaded with all the elements of a perfect movie and a movie like it only comes around every few years if were lucky.

    +Cinematography
    ----Captivating camera work
    ----Inventive shooting techniques
    ----Good quality film
    +Acting
    ----Expressive, believable Actors
    +Location
    ----Appropriate Locations
    ----Well defined, detailed scenery
    +Plot
    ----Compelling, interesting plot
    ----Good character development
    ----Unexpected twists (its a movie from a book so this doesn't apply)
    +Visual Effects
    ----Timeless FX +Directing
    ----Unique, revolutionary directing
    +Music
    ----Descriptive music, well composed
    +Sound
    ----Good quality sound FX
    ----Clear voice quality
    +Lighting
    ----Dynamic lighting environments, that set an appropriate tone There is NOT a single point that The Hobbit did not deliver on.
    10/10 Easy
    Expand
  15. 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 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
  16. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An absolutely stunning fantasy adventure. I was enthralled from start to finish. Does it help to know the book, and the mythical background? Maybe, but I can't unknow it, whereas those ignorant of the story of how (and why) a wizard calls in on a homely hobbit to persuade him to go on a quest, have a choice.

    Great though the Lord of the Rings movies were, Jackson and his team have created a more complete fantasy world than was possible 10 years ago, and populated it with humour and humanity. As was the case with the last trilogy, the actors make a great ensemble, with enough strong performances to carry the story without any of them overwhelming. Where previously the studios were wary of making audiences sit through long movies, Jackson can here take his time, not just in expanding (not padding) the original tale with additional material that helps stitch the entire of Middle Earth into existence, but in allowing critical scenes time to unfold and draw you in.

    The action sequences are just mesmerising. Knowing that they are created with 'special effects' does not matter if you allow yourself the pleasure of wallowing in the details and being carried breathlessly through the backstory of the loss of the dwarves' home of Erebor, and the fights with trolls, wargs and goblins.

    But the two most telling moments - proof that within this oft derided genre are the essentials of what story is about - are the most quiet. The scene where Bilbo and Gollum meet under the mountain for the first time climaxes with the critical moment for the whole of Middle Earth where the hobbit, hiding from Gollum, who is in turn hiding from the dwarves, has the chance to kill the pathetic creature from whom he has obtained the ring. He changes his mind.

    But for me, the most affecting moment came after the rumbustious goings-on when the dwarves first arrive, and Bilbo wakes to find they have tidied up and gone, leaving him to his ordinary life. The silence ringing round Bag End is terrifying, and it is this realisation that he has lost his chance to live a real life that compels Bilbo to change his mind once more, and propel him out of the door.

    Now, to find a cinema where I can watch it again, this time in 48fps and 3D!
    Expand
  17. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    These critics who panned The Hobbit wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face. It was EXCELLENT, and I'm a true Tolkien fan. The film was definitely geared towards the fans, but had enough action and storyline to please non-fans. It is a prequel worthy of Jackson's Thrilling and Successful LOTR Trilogy. So what if you have absolutely no idea where Gondolin is or who Ungoliant was? Jackson is a true Tolkien fan and I thank him for leaving in songs and words which trigger countless meanings and thrilling stories in the hearts of Tolkien fans. Stories which I hope to one day see on the big screen = ) Expand
  18. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    If you liked The Lord of the Rings movies than you'll like this film. The visuals are absolutely incredible and it has that familiar LOTR feel that we all know and love. I couldn't quite give it a 10/10 for a few reasons. For one, there are so many characters that most of them have absolutely zero development whatsoever. Frodo gets more screen time than some of the dwarves and that's really unfortunate. Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin are the focus of the film, as they should be, but the rest of the dwarves are essentially filler in the movie. I don't know how Peter Jackson could've done this differently without making the movie even longer (and it's already about 3 hours) so it's really just the nature of the content that has trouble transitioning to film. Secondly, the feel, while similar to LOTR, doesn't seem as epic. When watching Lord of the Rings, even after already having watched it before, there's a sense of awe that this film doesn't quite capture to the same degree. Regardless, the movie is outstanding and I have a feeling that if watching all three films back-to-back-to-back (when they're released that is), it will come off much better. I can't wait for the second installment. Expand
  19. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    The Hobbit what I heard about it is it was suppose to be long and boring. The Hobbit was not a let but gives us a hell of a ride and is worth your money for 3 hours of your life. I haven't seen such a good movie in a long time. All I can say now is well done Peter Jackson and looking forward to the next chapter. The Hobbit 9.1/10
  20. 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 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
  21. Dec 21, 2012
    8
    Take away the Lord of the Rings trilogy comparisons, the length in correlation with the original book and the unfortunate overuse of CGI and look at the bare elements of the film for a second and it's very good. I found the dwarf banter light-hearted and entertaining, the Middle Earth feeling natural and the scenes well structured. The last scene in the mountain was brilliant and capped if off very well! My criticisms come from the fact Bilbo doesn't get too involved in the story for large parts in the middle but from the scene with Gollum, the CGI is definitely overdone in parts and it's probably too long (though this can be forgiven, the time does fly by and the additional elements that have been added do work very well)

    So while it's a tiny bit long for what it's supposed to be covering in the book, it makes up for it with an entertaining film. A good watch, not exceptional but I have few complaints!
    Expand
  22. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    Thorin Oakenshield: So this is the Hobbit.

    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a great movie. It boasts top-notch acting, (as to be expected), spectacular scenery, an amazing soundtrack, and a solid plot, as well as memorable characters.

    Martin Freeman as Bilbo is a highlight. The guy knows how to act, (as one can see in the TV show, "Sherlock", where he plays alongside Benedict
    Cumberbatch who plays Smaug here), and he packs wit and charm into the film. As much as I like Frodo and co. from Lord of the Rings, Bilbo is much, much easier to like and root for.

    Sir Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf, and boy is he a badass. In fact, I won't spoil anything, but know that he has some great moments here.

    Finally Thorin, played by a certain "Richard Armitage" is the leader of the party, the Dwarf King. He doesn't like Bilbo much, but for all the right reasons. He also has probably the most awesome moment in the whole film, music loud, and all aflame, it was a sight to behold. Nevertheless, the best scene of the film is, hands down, "A Game of Riddles", where Andy Serkis returns one final time as Gollum.

    Talking about sights, this film looks simply marvelous. The environments are so well realized and filmed, I was hypnotized into the mythical world that is Middle-Earth. The soundtrack helps that immersion, as its excellent.

    The action sequences happen throughout the whole movie, and they are terrific. Very beautiful all over, especially on the large IMAX screen.

    The main complaint most people have with this film is pacing, but if you can accept the fact that it'll take a while to get going, and be patient through the first hour or so, you will be keenly rewarded, as was I. Just let it pick its own time.

    If I'd have to recommend it, see it in IMAX. The reception of 48 fps. is all over the place, but one thing's for sure - don't watch it in that format the first time. As a rule, I hate 3D, but Hobbit's one of the few films where it works. I suppose if you don't mind the glasses, it's definitely worth checking out, or just for the immersion. Just know that it's definitely not a minus.

    Finally, don't expect Lord of the Rings again. This is not it, this is a story on its own. Sure, the Hobbit is set in the same universe, Middle-Earth, but so is Spider-Man and the Punisher, yet no one goes into these films and comics expecting something similar.

    Overall, the Hobbit delivers. It's beautiful, it's fun, it's entertaining, it's a great film, and if you can forgive some pacing issues and accept the fact that it's a new series of films, you'll love it, that's for sure. And the more of Tolkien's books you've read, the more you'll like this, as the details are everywhere. Enjoy!

    4.5 / 5 = A fantastic effort, one that everyone must see. One of my all-time favorites.
    Expand
  23. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    Loving the book has a kid I had to see the movie. I was not disappointed in anyway. Many people rating the film down I feel expected explosions every six seconds. The Hobbit tells a story and does so greatly.
  24. Dec 21, 2012
    7
    Not a bad movie by any means...but it felt a wee bit bloated with filler and some out of place comedic bits. I saw the high frame version and while some of it looked awesome, others it looked like the characters were moving at 1.5 or 2 times speed and looked unnatural. Peter Jackson has two sequels to sort the tech out...
  25. Dec 21, 2012
    4
    A very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they're stretching it out way too much. Most of the movie was boring, and the few intersting/exciting parts weren't enough to save it. Expand
  26. 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!
  27. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit IS NOT Lord of the Rings. It's starting a new franchise with its own touch. The book is lighter and fun, and the movie is a wonderful adaptation of the book. Critics didn't see the same movie as i did, for sure. I loved it!
  28. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    Muy entretenida. Supera a la Trilogía original porque no tiene largas escenas pesadas. Muy divertidos los enanos y los trolls. Muchas escenas de acción. Muy buenos efectos especiales. Acertados personajes conocidos rejuvenecidos.
  29. Dec 20, 2012
    10
    For the first time in 9 years, Peter Jackson takes us back to Middle Earth with the premiere of his prequel trilogy, "The Hobbit" - and what a return it is! "An Unexpected Journey" is like a drink of cold water on a hot summer day . . . a wonderfully satisfying romp of a film full of strong characters, top-notch acting, gorgeous special effects and sweeping cinematography. Take all the epic sensations of LOTR, stick them onto a pure adventure story, and you arrive at this. Jackson immerses us in Middle Earth like never before - the film lives and breathes this world, and loves every minute of it. It's superbly well-done beginning to end, and the signature scene with Gollum is Andy Serkis's best performance of the character yet. Not only that, but we get to see the humble life of another wizard, Radagast; we're introduced to the presence of a sinister necromancer; we're breathtaken by a simply stunning sequence involving stone giants; we're swept through an epic battle in the goblin mountains; and ultimately, we are teased to the reveal of Smaug the dragon. It's just a beautiful, grand delight right from the start - the inner child of "LOTR" - and for anyone who enjoys simply experiencing Jackson's Middle Earth, this movie will quite likely dethrone the previous trilogy as your favorite of the series. Full 10 out of 10 for an awesome start to a highly promising new set of installments. Expand
  30. Dec 20, 2012
    10
    I am giving this film a perfect score. Because I have read LOTR and the Hobbit, I knew I should have different expectations (not lower expectations). The move impressed me most with its creativity in presenting something I had only imagined from reading the book. Peter Jackson is great with making long films for 2 reasons. Firstly, I am never wondering why something is being filmed because there is always subject matter being presented (I can never imagine the actors in a scene asking for his lines). Secondly, the attention to detail not just visual but also with overall feeling in mind, because the Hobbit seemed more childish to me as a book I expected the movie to be less serious and more lighthearted, without losing the middle earth action style. I saw this film in IMAX 3D, and I was amazed by how I was able to focus so well even though general 3D makes me feel ill and upset. I have seen other critics saying the most harsh things about this film but I can't help but wonder what they are actually saying about the film that is "bad". I give the movie two thumbs up and the negative critics two thumbs down. Expand
  31. 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.
  32. Dec 20, 2012
    7
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a revolutionary film that has now expanded how film can be shot. Using the new 48-frames per second with stunning 3-D we get an absolutely beautiful picture that shows how real a movie can look. While this is all great, I found that I really enjoyed the way Peter Jackson shot and filmed his original trilogy, with lots of makeup, huge sets, and limited CGI(Computer Graphic Images). I found that while this film is beautiful, I could tell when a creature was CGI and I found it heavily distracting. The original trilogy got Oscars for makeup! and now they were using CGI for most of their characters and back sets. I give it a seven because while it was very cool to look at, I found it to be merely entertaining;a good way to spend three-hours at movies. Expand
  33. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    As a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening scene shows both Bilbo, and Frodo at a point in time that is supposed to be right before the opening scene in LOTR, The Fellowship of The Ring. The actors, are visibly aged, and not only are they older, but is is apparent to me that the wigs that were used for both of these characters were not even close to the originals. The hair style is not even quite the same. The hair styles aren't even the worst part. It seems to me that they completely strayed from the original conception of the Orc. Not only was the conceptual trashed, but the incredible make-up, masks, and costumes were also scrapped. Most, if not all of the Orcs and Goblins are C.G. The Orcs are greyish, almost white. Some may argue that these were not Orcs, but rather Goblins. I tried to take that into consideration, but in the movie, they are most definitely referred to as Orcs. The beautiful New Zealand scenery is almost entirely non existent. I understand that the production was plagued with financial problems, and countless other issues, but it is an utter disappointment. So many other times in history, movies, their budgets, and other things have almost cost the movie, but after the release, the movie becomes a phenomenal cult hit, ie. Jaws. Unfortunately, The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, will not be one of those cult hits. The final thing that really bothered me about this is that instead of just taking the complete budget, and creating one last epic movie "The Hobbit", they blew the budget on three separate installments of the film: The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, Smaug, and finally, There and Back Again. It was totally unnecessary to create three different movies. They took quite a bit of creative license and wrote more into the story to extend this one book into 3 more movies, which makes the movie drag out more than necessary. In the LOTR, I found myself wanting more, and shocked when the movie ended where it had. I was sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next installment to come out. Not so much with this one. I was actually quite irritated that I now have to wait another two years to see the final installment of The Hobbit. I'm not looking forward to seeing the disaster that awaits, but hopefully, the story will get better, even if the scenery, costumes, and make-up do not. Expand
  34. pxl
    Dec 20, 2012
    10
    The movie was a masterpiece. I am by no means disappointed at all with this film, I think the camerawork was refreshing and they followed the book quite well, they pulled it off well and the CGI was beautiful, when you first see Rivendale, it takes your breath away. Good job Peter Jackson, Tolkien would be proud.
  35. Dec 20, 2012
    10
    Just great. One of the best adaptation of the book ever. Everything that add or change - better. Dwarfs all full of charisma and badassity. Really, I don't know, why some critics say this movie so much suck ass - for me, its only best of the year movie.
  36. 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 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
  37. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    Contains spoilers.

    If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Although I am loath to admit it, this adaptation of
  38. Dec 20, 2012
    5
    "The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and it's just to epic for it's own good. I cringed as the dwarfs charged into the screen with loud music the second time, not to mention all the pointless action and filler scenes. The movie has an annoying "stop and go" ark of chained together elements that all look great on their own terms, but just don't add up to a great story. It all looks great and the actors are fabulous, but judged by my expectations, a big disappointment. Expand
  39. Dec 19, 2012
    9
    One question most of you are wondering is: Does the Hobbit live up to the Lord of The Rings. The answer is both yes and no. No in that it is not as epic as LOTR (Lord of The Rings) which is almost impossible to do, but is very close. Yes in that it is an extremely enjoyable movie that does well for the franchise. The pacing of the movie starts off slow (similar to the first LOTR) but it explodes into an amazing adventure after a little more than 30 minutes. It is very similar to LOTR in most aspects except that has a lighter and more humorous side to it. It follows the book very well and overall is one of my favorite movies of the year. It's simple: if you loved LOTR, this movie is for you. If you didn't like LOTR, you will probably not like it. I watched the movie in IMAX 3D and found it to be one of the most entertaining nights at the movie theater ever. My only gripe is the CGI doesn't always work. At times it can make the movie look almost cartoony. I wish it were more like the LOTR trilogy. It had a much more realistic feel to it. P.S. if you were wondering, the 3D was pretty great. I thought it was one of the best, next to Avatar. They didn't just add in one or two scenes in 3D. Expand
  40. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    An extremely well done movie suited both for those familiar with the movies and those new to the series. Being a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies and book trilogy I thoroughly enjoyed this film. To describe the movie I think it is suffice to say that it doesn't feel like a 2 hr 45 min film. The production value is high and it definitely shows in all ways. Plenty of foreshadowing of what is come within the timeline of the movies so if you know the other three you'll love the references. Of the 4 total that have been made this is my second favorite (behind fellowship). Not quite as much mind-numbing action but the story is superb. You should definitely see this movie. One of the best of the year. Expand
  41. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    This movie is simply amazing in every way. Its absolutely perfect. There is no part of this movie that I don't like. I've been a bit fan of the IP/mythos since I was a child. I've read all the books and other source material.

    I've even seen the movie in both classic and HFR (48fps).

    Frankly I'm shocked at all of the poor critic reviews. Its as if they wanted to watch LOTRs instead of
    The Hobbit. Make no mistake, its not a childrens movie. There is a lot of death in this movie, but surprisingly, very little actual blood or gore. Mostly just stabbings and beheadings without meandering on the wounds or casualties. Expand
  42. Dec 19, 2012
    6
    So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

    The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action
    sequences. I was shocked by how much yelling, screaming and sword fighting and biting there was, since the book has so little of it. Now, I like a violent movie as much as the next guy, and I really enjoyed LOTR, but the Hobbit is different. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson made an LOTR version of the Hobbit. Mostly, I'm disappointed by him and his dumbing-down of the subtleties of the novel.
    The 3d IMAX experience was awesome, but sometimes the characters were CLEARLY plastic (CG). The action sequences also felt very "harry potter-ish" - Incredible, over the top, unsurvivable scenes and characters walk with nary a scratch. I can practically see the roller coaster name branding spilling out of a couple scenes.
    Expand
  43. Dec 19, 2012
    9
    This film was a great experience for me, from the opening scene to the end credits. I was utterly captivated. Saw it in the older 24fps format, so can't comment on that, but even so, can't understand how the professional reviewers got it so wrong.
    A masterful film that gives me great hope for the next two.
  44. Dec 19, 2012
    3
    A big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside Bag End with the plate tossing and especially in the orc caverns were groan worthy. The music sounded like a rehash of the LOTR soundtrack with one additional song. I understand, that they have similar areas -- elves, hobbit(s), wizard(s) but it just wasn't up to LOTR quality to me. The sets, outside of Bag End, seem very small, as if to save money. The cast seemed to be perpetually pressed up next to each other with CGI effects all around them. Almost as if they had a 4ft square piece of plywood to stand on in the middle of a blue screened room. This stood out -a lot-. CGI and 3D were the true stars of this movie. With more screen time given to both of these than any of the other actors. The CGI, which was done as an additional component to the story telling, as Alex Funke said during the making of LOTR, took center stage during this movie. It was rampant and very noticeable. I understand, that it simply impossible to make most or all of the monsters as latex appliances but they did that in the other movies. Why not here? Andy Serkis and Golem's animators were a joy to see. The flash back to Erebor was amazing. The rest of the movie simply wasn't up to the same calibur as those segments. It was more like an old 80's after-school special when compared to LOTR's quality -- and it painfully showed. Many many scenes were homages/repeats of LOTRs camera angles or effects. I could name them, but I don't want to embed them into people's permanent memory. If you have seen LOTR as often as I have, you will spot the same sequences/shots used in this movie as were previously done. That's lazy and it stands out. Also gone are the big sweeping grand panorama shots of LOTR. Lastly the obvious attempts at humor. It felt like George Lucas had directed this movie because PJ had to toss in some kid-friendly elements to make it a family movie instead of just telling the story. Expand
  45. Dec 19, 2012
    5
    Good CGI and feeling to the movie. Don't care much for the cartoon-ish style of character design. Falls short on the story compared to the book. A lot of fill between scenes . Guess that's why there's going to be three movies total.
  46. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    Bilbo is simply the most likeable Hobbit! HFR is gorgeous! Gollum is real! My expectations for 3D-movies have definitly changed with this movie! First thought after seeing it: "I got to see it again!"
  47. 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
  48. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    This is a awesome movie. I think people were expecting something better than the LOTR, and when it did not achieve that, gave it super low scores instead. Which is ridiculuis. I can see how some might be bored by the first hour of the movie, which does not have much action, but the next two hours have SO MANY fighting scenes it is amazing. especially 48fps. This movies score i think should be high 80s, and i am putting 10 to counteract the trolls. Expand
  49. 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
  50. Dec 19, 2012
    8
    The Hobbit was a great film, it seems that people are complaining about the 48fps however i never found it to be a problem. "best movie I've ever seen about dwarves" - Simon Lane. I would have to agree. Watch the Hobbit now!
  51. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    This movie is clearly worth seeing again and again. If you liked LOTR, you'll love "The Hobbit". It stays with the same universe, the same story and the same idea.
    I was afraid that it could be disappointing from LOTR but it is the contrary, it is maybe even better than LOTR.
    Peter Jackson didn't only use the book "Bilbo" but also the appendices of the third LOTR book which is a
    fantastic idea. It makes the wonderful world made by Tolkien get into movie.
    The landscape are extraordinary, the 3D is the best I have ever seen, very well used and HFR makes action easier to follow.
    Expand
  52. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    Perfect. Film of the year. I can think of no way that its pace, effects, acting and its use of the larger Tolkien world could be improved upon. I will never trust mark kermode again
  53. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    "The Hobbit" brought me back to a feeling I've only had once before, in 2001, after watching "The Fellowship of the Ring". I looked forward to December 2002 due to that film, and now I look forward to December 2013 due to "The Hobbit".

    I have read the book several times, and I did enjoy Jackson's take on it. When the credits rolled, I was left wishing for more. "The Hobbit" takes its
    time. We don't leave Bilbo's house until 40 minutes have passed. But I had the same experience when reading the novel. It starts awfully slow and then picks up and gives you the wildest adventures imaginable. It is actually refreshing to have a movie that takes its time to develop and move forward. It even takes some pauses from the forward moving action, and gives the audience some time to breath, and enjoy the world of Tolkien and Jackson without worrying about plot details the whole time.

    The professional level of the movie is the same as with "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. It's all superb. The 3D experience is the first "clear" and fresh 3D experience I've had. It probably has something to do with the 48 frames per second.

    Peter Jackson has done it again. Even though this adventure may have smaller stakes than "LOTR", the stakes are high enough, with villains sinister enough and heroes humble enough to make a great adventure. I'm not the least worried about "The Hobbit" being three movies, since I felt the novel was too short anyway, especially descriptions of the war of 5 armies.
    Expand
  54. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What should I say about this movie? I should say that it was epic, the effects, the cast, the action, this wonderful movie has invade me the whole week that I'm thinking on watch it another 3 times, Peter Jackson, you have never lost your touch of direct a movie, and this is another example of success. Expand
  55. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    In short, it follows the book to apex, some of the lines in the movie is taken directly from the book itself, while it is extremely good at using the book as a source its also using alot of themes from other Tolkien books. Nothing wrong with that, the things that aint in the book is described in other fictions by Ser Tolkien and they do a excellent work at blending it all together
  56. Dec 18, 2012
    8
    To rate this film, the reviewer has to fit the demographic. This may be a prequel, and in sequence to its related films, would be #1 of 6 total, but it is ultimately the first of 3 parts of one story. It is a lighter, less gritty story than The Lord of the Rings, and should be rated as such, and not in comparison. In all honesty, a non-LOTR fan has no business watching this film. If you like LOTR, you're going to like The Hobbit, and if you don't like LOTR, you most likely won't like The Hobbit. The only con I can honestly pick out is the fact that the theatrical rendition feels like an extended edition with some unnecessary scenes, but a LOTR fan is going to love that anyway. The negative reviews are all based off of the story being "padded" and "unfinished". The sad news flash is that this film, in structure, follows suit of the first LOTR film: "The Fellowship of the Ring", where it isn't a full story, but reviewers rate it as its own self containing story. An Unexpected Journey and Fellowship both get their 3-film story going, and are both respective to the overall tone that will be presented. Fellowship is a more epic movie, because it is setting up a more epic 3-film storyline. An Unexpected Journey is a lighter adventure story in comparison, because it is setting up a lighter 3-film storyline. Everything is respective to what it should be, and while I admit this film could have been better if the Hobbit franchise was its original 2 film setup as apposed to the 3 films that Warner Bros stretched it to, it still satisfies the demographic it is aimed at: LOTR fans (which are already a very wide and large fan-base as it is).

    Notes on the 48 frames per second 3D version:

    I am a filmmaker, so I wanted to see what Peter Jackson's intended vision would look like, being the 48fps in native 3D. Post processed 3D always looks like a pop up book to me, so I only see films if they were filmed in 3D because depth is much more convincing and captured more realistically. All 3 Hobbit movies were filmed in 3D and at an unprecedented 48fps. Anyone who's not a filmmaker isn't able to picture what that looks like, and when they do, they say it looks like a soap opera because it is the only kind of watchable entertainment they have witnessed higher amounts of fields displayed on screen. The best way to describe it, is the 48fps with 3D (only presented together) looking more like something really happening in front of you, and not a movie. Motion blur is almost completely eliminated since frames that would normally be nonexistent, causing that blur, are actually there. The 48fps without 3D would look really hokey, but with the 3D it is an interesting experience that is not very hard to get used to. I saw it twice this way already, and I had no eyestrain. As long as you drink lots of water (not soda or sports drinks) before a 3D movie, your eyes will stay moist enough that you will not suffer eyestrain. So that argument is out of the picture if proper movie-watching precautions are taken.
    I personally prefer the 24fps version (normal movie frame rate and look) because that is traditional and seems the least distracting while watching, but the 48fps 3D is worth trying out at least once. The CGI actually looks more convincing in 48fps 3D as well.
    Expand
  57. 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.
  58. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    The hobbit an unexpected journey

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

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

    In short, despite my worries how could I ever doubt Peter Jackson skill as a director when handling one of the greatest stories ever written, excellent, bring on part 2!
    Expand
  59. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    I read 7 reviews and they were all negative. Because ofthem, I held off and didn't go on Friday or Saturday to see it - crass mistake. On Sunday I decided to take a chance and went with very low expectations. The movie is great. If you loved the LR you are going to like this one. It's very long so don't drink a lot or you'll have to visit the restromm in the middle of the show.
  60. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a brilliant film. If people are expecting another Lord Of The Rings film, they wont get it. The Hobbit stays true to Tolkiens original book which was written for children. It has comical aspects and also a couple of songs; neither of which are out of place. It adds to the original book's story which only makes the film better. Can not wait for the next installment! Expand
  61. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    This Film is an epic masterpiece. Peter Jackson has absolutely smashed it again with the superb adaptation. In this films first weekend box-office it has the highest record earning of any film produced worldwide. While this adaptation is from a 300 odd paged graphic children's novel, so yes it has been expanded to be made as a prequel saga for LOTR. I sincerely believe with no real offence to the original novel. I am sure Tolkien would be smiling at this recreation and to relive his work, God rest his soul. What a wonderfully made film, and while watching was as if in middle earth itself, with each scene and character their splendour and charms. Great detail, dialogue, and acting. The Bilbo Baggins, Gollum scene was my favourite being witty, funny, and dynamic. I wasn't bored at all for a second throughout it's lengthy duration the backgrounds and characters the adventure provided was plenty of sufficient entertainment to keep my attention throughout. It started with a great introduction and continued throughout with plenty of adventure while finishing well in line with a return, instead of just an abrupt ending. I can hardly for its return with much anticipation for the rest of this wonderful story.
    I cannot understand for a second why critic's gave this epic masterpiece a box-office smashing sensation the bad press they have done. Honestly what do they know? Please watch this film for yourselves before making any opinions. Although obviously with them rating higher worse films this year it has been questionable as to their motives. Weren't they paid, HaHa.
    Expand
  62. Dec 18, 2012
    7
    The Hobbit is enjoyable and fun, playing more like a well-performed score with a slow rise into an epic swirl of sonic activity. By itself the movie rates as a 7 for me. No special fanfare scoring or pessimistic knocking. This film serves as a setup for two additional films to come. The biggest drawback to An Unexpected Journey is the film's struggle for meaning and identity early on. There's some coolness to it, but really your first hour or so is setup. Not boring, but not totally entertaining either. However, you feel rewarded for sticking with it once the adventure begins, as the pacing and plot blossum with every moment you spend with it. As the movie closes, I felt that I saw something special growing. Peter Jackson will pull in not just The Hobbit, but The Silmarillion as well, bringing some ancient-world lore and backstory into the set peice to keep the trilogy interesting (otherwise this movie could easily be done as a two-parter). Totally worth seeing, but the score I give is for the movie by itself, which could be adjusted and improved assuming the trilogy fares well. Check it out if you enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy or adventure/fantasy films in general. Expand
  63. Dec 18, 2012
    6
    The Hobbit is clearly a step down from The Lord of the Rings. Jackson didn't seem to remember how to direct. Editing, pace, acting and even action sequences were off. The movie simply didn't gel. The visuals were stunning, music remember full and some scenes brought back good memories. The Hobbit isn't a bad movie by any means but the length is simply ridiculous.
  64. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    I saw the 2D version--which I highly recommend to do. There is no good reason that this movie is getting such low reviews. Is it as good as The Return of the King? No. As my opinion goes, there are between 5 and 10 other movies including the first two LOTR, The Avengers, Iron Man, and SW: RotS and SW: RotJ that are THAT good, perfect 10/10. Is it as good The Hobbit as written in the novel exactly word for word? No. The added one armed orc is forced and his dialogue is bad and unoriginal ("get the dwarven scum") and the whole orc chase scene after them mines is total overkill (as is them surviving a fall on the timber bridge--there is much more suspension of disbelief required in this film). But my goodness people, the other two hours are really, really great. People complained of there being no great characters to identify with. This film has THEMES. An unexpected journey. Stepping out your front door and out of your comfort zone. HELPING homeless people regain a HOME. This is 10/10 stuff. The only reason I give it a 9 is because of the little campy stuff that was added in. I would watch this movie again in a second, and I just might. Expand
  65. Dec 18, 2012
    3
    I almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't that far through, the magic of Middle Earth was lost amongst waterfalls, mountains and lush forests, and I was assuming what they were searching for what was left of the storyline. But apart from that, what also made it worse, because I think other people who disliked this film would repeat that as a criticism, was the humour that was rolled out with each line one after each other, expecting us to laugh uproariously, when it felt forced and just generally unfunny. Much of it was low-brow humour, which was one of the reasons I disliked the dwarves, only really there to please the children. Apart from the visually beautiful scenes, the only element of the LOTR trilogy that was still there and alive was Gollum, who was on perfect form. Martin Freeman could seriously carry this film on his own, as there didn't seem to be much contribution from anyone else - maybe Ian McKellen, if I saw more of him. Expand
  66. Dec 18, 2012
    8
    I seen the hobbit movie and i like it , and there something that i don't understand , in the lord of the rings ,we see Ian Holm as Bilbo gets the ring.
  67. Dec 18, 2012
    8
    I must say, my expectations were not too high going into the movie because so much time had passed between The Lord Of The Rings movies and the Hobbit series. I was not disappointed at all. I enjoyed the movie a lot. It started off with quick intros to characters and moved along at a decent pace. For a popcorn movie, i say if you enjoyed the Ring movies you'll love this one too.
  68. 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
  69. Dec 18, 2012
    8
    Marvelous! It felt like we never left middle earth! Directing is remarkable, acting, visual effects, 3D effects, make-up, costumes, cinematography and the music are spectacular as expected.There's only one bad thing about the movie: We will wait a year to see next.
  70. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    I've read the books, both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring long years before they started to make movies about them, and I just got at the cinema what i was waiting for. The two books were completely different, so not a great suprise that the films have a different feeling as well. It's not a LOTR 2. The Hobbit is basicly a fairy tale, which was originally written as a fairy tale, for the kids of Tolkien. The movie is following this history, and does it well, in my oppinion. It is entertaining, and a much more lighter aproach on Middle Earth, in a time when peace and prosperity are common things, even if evil is not so far away either. It's a simple, linear story, lovable and rich of fantasy - in a fairy tail way. Expand
  71. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    This is a fantastic movie that pushes the self-imposed ceiling which filmmakers and critics have embraced for far too long. Yes, 48 frames per second is very different, but it marks an improvement in cinema. Those critics who have, their entire lives, only watched 24 fps movies are not only resistive to change, but obtusely against anything that they are unfamiliar with. There is a reason that this film has an "A" rating with CinemaScore, which measures actual audiences and their thoughts, not cranky critics. Expand
  72. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    I was very well impressed with the overall movie, but there were some drawbacks, and cuts. It will make you leaving the movie theater happy that you saw it. I will be eager to watch the other two sequels.
  73. Dec 17, 2012
    9
    Totally entertaining. I was worried given the critic reviews, but we really enjoyed it. First hour was sort of slow, but the next two were total action (other than the amusing gollum interlude.
  74. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    When I see this film, I see exactly what I imagine Middle Earth would look like. "An Unexpected Journey" is an amazing film that, for the most part, remains true to the story. Not only that, but it incorporates elements of the story that aren't present in the Red Book -- where do you think Gandalf disappears to all the time? -- the appendices hold the answers! Do not expect the Hobbit to be the same as the Lord of the Rings; if you do, you will be disappointed. The Hobbit is an all together different type of Fantastic tale that stands alone - not as a prequel, but as a story in its own right. The critics are way off on this one. If you love Adventure, Humorous Warrior Dwarves, Wizards, and the Necromancer, then this film will pull you in again and again! Expand
  75. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    Definitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than one spectacular one, so I was even more worried when I heard they stretched it all the way out to a new trilogy. The Hobbit is such a great story. They really really are stretching it out, though, here. They added a lot that I didn't remember, and seemed to take a lot of liberties, though to be honest it's so long since I read the book I can't be sure what was or wasn't in it. I may be comparing it too much to the cartoon movie version I loved so much as a kid. But, all in all, I just felt that the story is stretched out a bit too long here. It's true that it probably wouldn't have all fit into one movie, but I think two would have been plenty, and then leave a lot of what they put in out for the blu-ray release. Instead, you get an uneven affair here, some of which reaches the familiar heights of greatness Peter Jackson established with the Lord of the Rings, but a lot of which falls short. Expand
  76. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    There are moments that make you remember the first three films, and that unfortunately makes you realize how much better those are than this. Perhaps in the next two (God help us) we will see more development but this is a film that is at least 30 minutes too long and too family friendly for its own good.
  77. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the best movie of 2012, before I watch the movie I thought tha would be not good, because it is inspired in a book that only have 200 pages, but Peter Jackson did a really great job and the 3D it's perfect. The soundtrack is very good. When The movies end I wanted more. And the actors are so good. Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen for me were the best actors of the whole movie Expand
  78. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    After 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, it has no ending! It´s definitely not horrible, but it´s far from being good. Expand
  79. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    The opening sequence of this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is so good that one is immediately optimistic about what is to come. Therefore, it is rather disappointing to report that following this excellent opening we are treated to a film whose first half is so dull and dreary that boredom settles in very quickly. It is definitely not the equal of any of TLOTR films. A perfunctory battle scene and the introduction of the charmless dwarfs do little to up the ante. In fact the real star of the first half of this film is actually the New Zealand scenery and we are treated to quite a lot of it as our intrepid travellers climb up mountain, after mountain, after (yawn yawn) mountain!

    Still, it's not all bad news as the second half improves considerably. This turn of events happens at the time we are introduced to the stone giants which is filmed using swooping camera movements that are very effective. It's onwards and upwards from here on. The special effects are variable (again better in the second half). However, the troll sequence is really awful with some extremely lame attempts at humour (the writing does leave a lot to be desired), but with the arrival of the wonderful Gollum we get to enjoy the film's highlight. The Art-Direction also still affords some pleasures, especially in the opening sequence and in the goblin s' town.

    Martin Freeman works hard to deliver a fair enough performance as Bilbo Baggins, but one misses Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin and Elijah Wood here. In a role similar to the one that Mortensen played in the earlier films, Richard Armitage doesn't really cut it.

    The score occasionally hits familiar notes reminding us of how beautiful that main theme is, but 'The Lonely Mountain' song hasn't the haunting effect of either 'May it be' or 'Into the West'. Overall the film is too long and should never have been planned as a trilogy. The book just isn't dense enough to warrant such indulgence. This error in judgement is the fatal flaw of ' The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
    Expand
  80. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Critics, proving once again that they are out of touch with the real world.

    I'm sad to say I'm not surprised by the "professional" reviews of this movie. I expected this when I first heard The Hobbit was being made as it has a different pace and feel than LOTR. I've seen this movie twice and I can say without a doubt that if you're a fan of the LOTR trilogy then you will enjoy this
    greatly. Whilst it may not be as well paced as The Fellowship of The Ring, it's certainly just as memorable. The set pieces, the vistas, the acting, the script, this movie has it all in top form. I was slightly worried by the time length but after the first hour the movie just seemed to be over way too fast. The movie was incredible, the sense of wonder I have only ever experienced from the LOTR trilogy came back. My only real complaint about this movie would be the amount of time spent in Bilbo's home near the beginning and Radagast, he was far too eccentric I thought. Overall though this movie is brilliant, a must buy for fantasy fans. Expand
  81. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Fantastic and very well done movie. The critics were/are, as usual, insignificant in their stupidity and love of Hollywoods current obsession with dark depressing ideas. Here's a movie that is beautiful to watch, well scripted, well acted, incredibly grand in scope, meaningful, family friendly yet not boring, and in truth, more exactly fitting to Tolkien's book than was Jackson's previous adaptation of The Lord of The Rings. Expand
  82. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the one liners and the CGI (particularly in HFR) is quite frankly shambolic when compared even to the 11 year old Fellowship of the Ring! The CGI characters, namely Orcs, seem to float when they are travelling, swords do not meet bodies meaning it simply looks like the human characters (dwarves etc) are just swiping at thin air. The music score is largely, again, taken or remixed versions of the LoTR soundtrack and some scenes are pretty much identical to a Lord of the Rings scene. It amazes me how some people on here are claiming that critics and naysayers should not be comparing this to a LoTR film.. This is simply ludicrous. First and foremost this is done by Peter Jackson so of course his influence from the LoTR films are going to pass over to The Hobbit. Secondly, the soundtrack and certain scenes are pretty much taken straight from the LoTR cutting room. And thirdly this is set in the same freaking universe and is treading over old ground so of course comparisons will be made (that's like saying you shouldn't compare Star Wars Ep 1,2,3 to 4,5,6). Don't get me wrong I didn't hate this film, there was elements to like, in particular the scene with Bilbo and Gollum and I think Martin Freeman played a wonderful Bilbo Baggins. I just can't help but feel this film was a missed opportunity, I had such HIGH expectations and these expectations were not met. Stretching the 1 book over 3 films is nothing but a money grab and is simply using the previous success of the original film trilogy to 'cash in' if you will. The film, as a result, suffers and doesn't have that same aura and immersive sentiment of the LoTR trilogy. Needless to say after middling reviews and some fan backlash (and surprisingly the box office returns haven't even been that impressive this weekend) I really hope with baited breath, Peter Jackson comes back into form for the sequel and provides us with what he and everyone else knows he can do. On a final note, DO NOT watch this in HFR. That is all. Expand
  83. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Idiot critics that give high rates to movies like Twilight cannot be taken serious. The Hobbit is amazing, spectacular, EPIC!!! it has heart, it has splendor, it has visuals, it has character, everything you love about movies is here. By the time I was done watching it I had no idea it had already been close to 3 hrs, it went by so quick, and I wanted to watch more! I cant wait for part 2 and 3. Peter J is a movie maker master Expand
  84. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    If you love LOTR you will love this....ignore the majority of the press this film is a masterpiece ! .The length of it seems to be an issue ,all i will say is if you are a fan of tolkien and the idea of spending another 3hrs in middle earth fires your imagination then you will not be dissapointed....this film is awesome.
  85. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Before going to watch The Hobbit wipe all preconceptions based on LOTR out of your mind. The Hobbit is much more 'fun', it's not afraid to crack a joke or two and creates a much more upbeat (but with serious undertones) movie. The scenery is spectacular, the special effects awesome and the make up beautiful - but else did you expect? It's also silly, amusing and slightly childish (in a good way!) and the almost 3 hours past in no time, also the HFM did nothing but enhance the gorgeous landscape in my view. Overall a really interesting movie and really looking forward to the next instalments! Expand
  86. 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 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
  87. Dec 17, 2012
    1
    I had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. The original Hobbit depending on what publication edition, was roughly 1/5 or less of the number of pages of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This leaves you feeling you not only get to pay three times to see one story, but you also get to wait a full year between each release!
    I could wait until all three are out and watch it, but I don't want to sit on my butt for so long in front of a TV that I could have just re-read the original story in paperback.
    Expand
  88. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you read the book, The Hobbit is a wonderfully engaging light-hearted fairy tale set in Middle Earth, full of adventure, magic, faerie folks, monsters, and epic deeds. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, involved tragedy, also set in Middle Earth, with some of the same characters, taking place after the events told in The Hobbit.

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

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

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

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

    Overall, fun movie for a Saturday night at home with a few glasses of wine and friends to give it the MST3K treatment, but it's NOT The Hobbit I loved. Wait until its available at home with video on-demand services.
    Expand
  89. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    I don't know where the critics get off giving this film moderate reviews, the film is incredible. The critics are clearly desperate to pick holes in The Hobbit after The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was so perfect, but anyone that's seen it will tell you that the film is amazing. Best film of the year by far.
  90. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    The Hobbit was a very good movie! It could have been perfect, but I thought they used way too much CGI for characters, when they did such a good on costumes and makeup in the Lord of the Rings. Also, I really didn't like the Brown Wizard at all. All his scenes were horribly out of place. They rest of the movie was great! I loved all the dwarf characters and the in depth back story of their race. Gandalf, Bilbo, and Golem were really good. If they went back to costumes and makeup and edited out the Brown Wizard entirely, my score would of been a perfect 10. Expand
  91. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    This movie was perfect, and all of the critics were wrong. It was extremely close to the book, and I loved how they took things out of the Silmarillion to build up the plot in the film. This movie brought back so many memories of me and my LotR action figures, and I hope my little brother will have the same experience with this trilogy. Thank you Peter Jackson!
  92. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The acting, the action, the 3D graphics - everything was absolutely outstanding and I have NO idea why there are so many negative reviews. You guys need to open your eyes and realize what a good film this is.
  93. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit - An unexpected journey is a film of 2012 directed by Peter Jackson and based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. The story speaks of the facts prior to "The Lord of the Rings" and tells of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who, together with Gandalf and thirteen dwarves will help to regain the treasure of the latter, guarded by the fearsome dragon Smaug. The film is very faithful to the novel and adds some parts that are in the book just mentioned while in the film are expanded and will be key for the next chapters. Excellent choice of cast with actors formidable, fantastic photography and scenery typical of "Lord of the Rings", incredible special effects that digital is very little known and very beautiful music. Perhaps you might find the first part of the film a little bit slow while the second can achieve high moments of action. Expand
  94. 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.
  95. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    Push the hype aside and ignore the book, this movie is a very good movie. It is clear expectations were super high and I believe that is where some of the negative scores have come from. No movie will make everyone happy, but this movie is not worthy have very low scores. If this had been the first movie released from the series, fans would have thought they found the greatest movie ever. The pace of the movie is a little slower than any of the LOTR movies, but not as bad as some people say. If you must have action every five minutes, yes, you will be disappointed. If you love the book, this should be a great movie for you. If enjoy fantasy films, this should be a good movie for you. The biggest flaw for me was a few of the actions scenes became too cartoon like. One where the heroes are on a bridge that falls down and they ride it like they were glued to it. Not only was that bad, but it looked like something from a 1970s low budget Sci-Fi movie. Not a worthy scene for the movie. I have read some who complain they do not take the time to get the audience familiar with all the dwarfs in the main group. I do not see how they could have done that without making the movie another hour longer. As far as the format choice, it did not bother me. Yes, it does lack some of the slightly warmer feel of film, but it looks very crisp. I think if no one said anything, most people would not have picked up on the unique format. Bottom line, this is worth seeing in theaters if you enjoy fantasy films. If you are looking for an action packed movie, maybe the next Die Hard can help you with that. s it worth going 3-D, that I do not know. Expand
  96. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    Something like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of the character Radagast, a mushroom munching stoned out hermit. The only balance to this is that there small pieces that are ten out of ten material, particularly riddles in the dark, and they are all that keep me from rating this lower. This story has been stretched thin and exploited so that Jackson can have his second trilogy, and I will not be giving them another theater seat. Renter.
    (P.S. Peter-long after your movies are gone, the books will still remain, unless you feel like revising those too.)
    Expand
  97. 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
  98. Dec 17, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. the movie was completely amazing.it has great locations,nice cast and a very nice and simple story.
    martin freeman as bilbo was perfect.the movie was just a 'little' boring in the middle of the first half,rest of it was simply superb.its a must watch...those who didnt like this must be 'ORCS'.
    Expand
  99. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    In 24 fps, 'An Unexpected Journey' felt like a new 'Fellowship of the Rings'; lighter in tone than the succeeding movies, as it sets the narrative foundation upon which the characters, the plot, and the themes can further be developed. It contains a similar mixture of lighter idyllic and comedic moments, balanced against those of a more solemn and thoughtful nature. The same cinematic joy can be found in 'The Hobbit' as in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, thanks to the artistry of the world that has been built, the set and costume design, and the skillful and respectful work of the writers and actors, bringing Tolkien's world to the big screen in spirit, even if not always in exacting detail.

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