User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2346 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. Aug 24, 2014
    8
    It felt surreal to sit and watch the titles beginning to roll, it really did. The original trilogy (especially "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King") were the top of the hype for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    With all its small problems, I hope the first Hobbit movie will do the same as "The Fellowship of the Ring" did for me and only start the journey. The next two movies might do a lot better. I certainly hope so. The visual effects, the overall story, the air of the film... it's all there, the necessary ingredients; they just need to put it together the right way!
    Expand
  2. Aug 16, 2014
    6
    A bit longer than it needed to be, but I guess when you break up a single book into two movies some parts are going to be longer than required. Ending was great, finally Bilbo has a self-fulfilling act! I about cheered when he and Thorin made up.
    In summary, see it if you liked the LOTR series. Or if you like New Zealand scenery. Or if you like epics. Just go in with the notion it may
    last longer than needed. I bought it but rent if you're a not a Peter Jackson/Tolkien fan. Expand
  3. Aug 14, 2014
    7
    The opening chapter of Peter Jackson's second Middle-earth trilogy is a bit of a mixed bag, but the bag itself is gorgeous. The scenery, the set design and the special effects (mostly) dazzle, and the 48fps theatrical release was, for me, a game-changer of a visual experience (YMMV). The ensemble cast (both old and new) is uniformly good, and Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect in the title role of a thoroughly domesticated hobbit pushing middle-age, who finds himself uncharacteristically swept away on an adventure. The film doesn't precisely follow the beloved children's tale it's adapting (though the first 45 minutes or so is just shy of reverential), but many of the changes are understandable, and work to make the movie more accessible. I have no idea why Jackson decided to change this from a "quest" into a "chase," but Azog makes a pretty decent bad guy.

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

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

    Overall, this is an enjoyable adventure film, and a fun, if flawed, beginning of moviegoers new foray into Middle-earth.
    Expand
  4. 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.
  5. Jul 28, 2014
    5
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is many steps down from the Lord of the Rings. It is, of course, very different as a book, and it is not right to compare it to the previous Middle-Earth installments. The film was marketed as a prequel to Lord of the Rings, though. "The Hobbit" is a children's book and is very good at what it is. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey", however, gets lost while trying to give the story a more "adult" tone, with more violence and more darkness (through extra material and lots of unrealistic CGI). The result is a confusing blend of humour and drama that makes the purpose of the film unclear. There are many enjoyable scenes, of course, but it lacks the quality of both the book and the LotR films.

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

    It is watchable, even enjoyable, but no great film.
    Expand
  6. Jul 15, 2014
    7
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to
    go on an adventure with 13 dwarves to kill a dragon that has destroyed their homeland.
    Now Bilbo, like many Hobbits, does not like to partake in these kind of things. The dangerous world of middle earth is no place for them. But, in a fortunate 30 minutes of screen time, they convince him and we have our journey.
    Right off the bat I just want to say that the Hobbit AUJ is a long film. Just about as long as Fellowship of the Ring. However, in fellowship, a lot more happens. I wont knock The Hobbit down any points for dragging on because, while it does do so, there is plenty of more material to see during these moments. You get to meet the dwarves, who are fun and eccentric. You also get to see Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
    Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen do great, especially Freeman. He makes Bilbo more three dimensional than before.
    And Thorin? He’s a wonderful character with a great back story who really shows leadership over the dwarves.
    Sure there are a few forgettable dwarves in the movie, but for the most part they are interesting characters with colourful personalities.
    If I were to nitpick anything (minus the argument over 40fps) is that this film has a lot more CGI. So much so that it really just takes you out of the experience. There were many scenes where I was like
    “They got over a thousand extras for Helms Deep but had to CGI those 8 guys?”
    It is kinda upsetting and really seems unnecessary at points.
    But other than that, the film is great. It was cool to see the battle at Moria, I love how it’s told, I love the build up, I REALLY love the attention to detail, and I surprisingly love Radagast the Brown.
    and the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ sequence? Yeah, talk about chilling.
    There’s really not much else to say here, if you love LotR you’ll absolutely love The Hobbit AUJ. If you love film in general you will, for the most part, enjoy The Hobbit. Although, you may be annoyed by the FPS and many of the drawn out scenes.
    If you hated LotR and everything it stood for then dude, stay as far away as possible, this will not change your mind. In fact it will most likely strengthen your hatred.
    But for me, I enjoyed it. While I believe it was not perfect, it left me in great anticipation for the sequel.
    Expand
  7. Jun 25, 2014
    10
    A great action, adventure, fantasy film. Improves on the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and is less dark, sad, and violent. It's well balanced between non-exciting moments to exciting moments. Has some good parts for comedy and laughs. Has a rat gripping storyline, jaw-dropping CGI and awesome action scenes. A great film for everyone, and an absolute must see! And must see the sequel!
  8. May 18, 2014
    9
    Some great scenes in this movie, that I will remember for a while. Not as good as the second Hobbit movie though. It started off really well by introducing all of the main characters well as the movies take place before LOTR. There are some great battle scenes in this movie, and a scenes with a song that I really loved. It was a really long movie but I think every scene was needed in it.
  9. May 10, 2014
    2
    My enjoyment of this movie was somewhat marred by the fact that that I was constantly aware that Tolkien's novel was emphatically not supposed to be a fantasy epic. It is a charming book about the development of a group of dysfunctional individuals (thrown together by the machinations of Gandalf) and especially the development of the eponymous character from a homeloving 'respectable' hobbit into a resourceful adventuring hero. The movie was a heavy-handed travesty of the story; Peter Jackson (and presumably his backers) are obviously just interested in a cynical rehashing of the Lord of The Rings trilogy. Of course, that too showed Jackson's leaden touch, especially in the last sixty minutes of The Return of The King. Minas Tirith miraculously rebuilt, instead of showing that the rebuilding was going to happen as a result of those reforged alliances and friendships between dwarves, elves and men begun in The Fellowship Of The Ring. Not quite 'Hollywood' enough, I suppose? And these long, travestic final scenes left no room for the 'Battle of the Shire' at the end of the book where four once commonplace hobbits returned home as seasoned heroes to kick Saruman and Wormtongue out of the Shire. Jackson doesn't pay much attention to character; he seems interested only in action. No doubt Jackson's new trilogy will win lots of Oscars again: money for old rope. I for one cannot, in all conscience, rate An Unexpected Journey any higher than 2 out of 10. Expand
  10. May 10, 2014
    7
    Not the masterwork of the lord of the rings, but resonates enjoyably and amazingly when it needs to be, otherwise 'An Unexpected Journey' unevenly jumps from virtual carelessness to pure brilliance throughout. Luckily it get's better.
  11. May 4, 2014
    3
    Aweful, just plain aweful. one of the most boring movies I have ever seen... and I love lord of the rings so this movie was a huge huge let down. Hobbit 2 and 3? count me out
  12. May 3, 2014
    8
    What did Peter Jackson in this film is no small thing! He was able to make epic a tale for children, and playing with the narrative by inserting the apparitions, in my opinion, very apt and not at all out of place !
    The film lasts about three hours, but not boring in the least , and also distracts from the hassles of 3D ! It 's true , the scene at Bag End is a bit long and slow , but at
    least I have followed with great pleasure , it was also a good way to learn about the dwarves , and not having a blurry image! Many complain that the dwarves are too clumsy and stupid , well Gimli in the previous trilogy did not seem much different , coincidentally the comic he was angry with Pippin and Merry ! Also, it seemed like the right choice to give the film a touch of zing , considering that the story does not have the same magnitude of the previous trilogy ! Yes, because the story is not deep and eclectic as that of the Lord of the Rings , but we say more childish and playful , it is an air of terror and fear, at least not until Bilbo finds the ring !
    The direction of Jackson 's mammoth as always , the same applies to photography and script! To define the beauty of the scenery , maybe there is not even a term that enhances 100% !
    Expand
  13. Apr 2, 2014
    0
    The Hobbit :An unexpected journey is a made for children. It has no plot, the actors are not good and the added comedy makes what might have been a okay movie even worse. I sat through the DVD hoping I would end up liking it. But was disappointed . I hated it.
  14. Mar 29, 2014
    8
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a great film. I enjoyed it very much. I really wish people would see what the trilogy is. I believe that Peter Jackson is making The Hobbit into a Trilogy so that it may live up to The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, not just to make extra money. So while this first movie may only take up a fraction of the small Hobbit book and add things that may seem unnecessary, AUJ was very good. Expand
  15. Mar 4, 2014
    8
    It drags quite considerably, but technically and musically, it's just great. Full to the brim with nostalgic scenes and references and an unsurprisingly great Freeman as the Hobbit. Not as grand and heartfelt overall as the LOTR series, but I felt the same with that first installment too, so here's hoping it improves!
  16. Feb 25, 2014
    5
    These are just not my type of movies. I did enjoy some parts of the Lord of Rings and this one just is not as good. Characters are not as memorable and the journey is not as good as the Lord of the Rings, but maybe this will change in the next two. Something else that annoyed me is that just when we think one or some of them are going to die, they are saved by something ridiculous and makes you wonder why doesn't the wizard just use his powers all the time to protect them? Just a thought. In the end I would have rated this movie lower but due to the incredible special effects I gave it 54.5/100. Expand
  17. Feb 15, 2014
    8
    I don't know why many critics gave this movie a low score. It was long, but it didn't FEEL long. I didn't have a problem with the pacing whatsoever. I wasn't bored at all.

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

    If you enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, or enjoy fantasy movies in general, this is highly recommended.
    Expand
  18. Feb 14, 2014
    5
    Peter Jackson's new take on the Lord of the Rings like always contains vivid scenes of animation but fails to make the film anymore than a simple adventure story.
  19. Jan 15, 2014
    0
    One of the uglier and more bewildering films of our time. I actually laughed when I realized Bilbo's ring-vision actually looks more real than the phoney, almost fully C.G. 'regular' world. Martin Freeman looks visibly uneasy to be in the film during every single, cartoonish scene of this calamity. Peter Jackson should have been put in charge of the J.R.R. Tolkien Theme Park, not the films.
  20. Jan 15, 2014
    0
    It's like Jackson just took a giant bucket of C.G.I., a giant bucket of terrible editing, a giant bucket of terrible dubbing and a giant bucket of incoherency and dumped them all over an awful movie.
  21. Jan 7, 2014
    7
    It's definitely not at the level of Lord of the Rings, and I"ll admit, there are some lines that I laughed at that I probably wasn't supposed to, but it was still entertaining. It was well-written, and the fact that it's more "childish" than LOTR is just because that's how the books went as well.
  22. Jan 6, 2014
    2
    Ugh!
    As good a job as Peter Jackson did with the rings, I simply cannot believe he is destroying The Hobbit. The Hobbit is the introductory book to the world of Tolkein and he is crapping all over it. This is, however, the best Harry Potter movie to date!
  23. Jan 5, 2014
    4
    Slow, dill and boring. Was so disappointed with this as i loved lord of the rings! The action sequences seemed silly and almost pointless (stone gods anyone??) and hardly built on characters unlike the original. I knew about one of the dwarves names along side the obvious characters (bilbo and gandalf) and you need to build characters a lot more if they are all the same race! The dwarves had so little dialogue too you forgot half of them existed! Not really worth seeing unless you are die hard LOTR fan. Luckily Desolation of smaug was great! Expand
  24. 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.
  25. Dec 31, 2013
    10
    First I like to start with that I am one hell 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy fan freak, it is EPIC to all the EPICS in human history of filmdom. I voted many movies for 10 outa 10 but by far LOTR stays in highest peak point on that list. I never compare HOBBIT to LOTR because the time and technology differentiate both the movie (trilogy) and I request you all not to do that. Another solid reason is that I saw LOTR as plain live action graphic movie but saw HOBBIT a decade later in 3D with advance CGI technics in it.

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

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

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

    Overall an excellent standard movie, must see in big screen with 3D version specially if you are a film freak you should not miss it, some people might have not get satisfied with movie but all I can say is still another two is yet to come so it will make difference at least then. Now all we can do is wait.....
    Expand
  26. Dec 28, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit: and Unexpected Journey was everything that i had hoped for. I'm a a very big Tolkien fan and i have read a lot of his books, and i gotta say: this was amazing! a lot of Tolkien fans did not like it but that is probably because they expected WAY to much and wanted everything to be JUST like the book... well you just can't expect that from a movie adapted from a book, their need to be changes. the acting delivered was perfect especially from Martin Freeman. Expand
  27. Ogr
    Dec 25, 2013
    3
    The new Hobbit Movie is out for a while, so I tried to watch the old one again, to get into it. I kinda liked the books, even if I don't think that they are as great as everyone says, I prefer darker and more serious fantasy like SoIaF. Still I thought this movie could be pretty nice, as I love the landscape... and yes, New Zealand's landscape is the best of The Hobbit. Singing dwarves and a stretched boring story, sometimes it's a real torture to watch this movie. The good thing is that my TV has a mute function and I can enjoy watching the scenery. Sorry, I don't want to troll around here, but this movie is so bad except for it's modern technology, I had to write it down. Expand
  28. Dec 23, 2013
    7
    An Unexpected Journey is an overlong film, which seems to buckle under its own weight. The journey is beautifully imagined, but no so beautifully realized. There is some of the Middle-earth magic we have come to love (Riddles in the Dark), but it mostly falls flat.
  29. Dec 21, 2013
    1
    All was well until about an hour into the movie and then...BAM!,the text is thrown out the window and the writers are given so-called creative license to write whatever crap they feel will bring in more cash.Azog is dead...Killed by Dain Ironfoot who should appear by the ridiculous 3rd movie) over 140 years before the time of this movie and not by Thorin.That fat goblin is meant to be Azog's son Bolg.The original story covers Bilbo and company escaping from trolls,escaping from goblins,escaping from wargs,escaping from spiders,escaping from elves and that's just before they reach lake town.What's with all the violence?Peter Jackson has gone the way of Lucas,Cameron and Spielberg...So in love with CGI and over-choreographed 'action' sequences that they have forgotten how to make a decent movie.Utter trash. Expand
  30. Dec 19, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we have little bit of both. Expand
  31. Dec 16, 2013
    5
    Nothing at all like the book. All the action scenes go on for too long and have no element of danger to them. Shame really. However, the saving point of this movie is that (1) it's more Peter Jackson Middle Earth, which means that if you watch all 3 of the extended edition of The Hobbit and all 3 extended Lord Of The Rings then you're getting a huge detailed world, which is cool. (2) The specific characters here (Bilbo+Dwarves), regardless of the rest of the setting or not, are pretty cool. They're not all used, some are just background, but the ones that are have good personality to them. Expand
  32. 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 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
  33. Dec 13, 2013
    8
    The first installment of the Hobbit franchise spends a lot of time laying its foundations then uses it to create an immersive experience for its audience.
  34. Dec 13, 2013
    10
    A very nice movie with a great epic battle,a cast of different characters and a lot of lighthearted and funny scenes.I watched it because every friend of mine told me that it was better than the Lord of the Rings and they were right.This movie is way better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
  35. Dec 13, 2013
    8
    The Film was good, not amazingly spectacularly great, the films rather boring in parts yet overall is fun and entertaining, i love the new characters for example the dwafs and seeing the adventure of Bilbo giving us the viewer a better understanding of how he come in position of the ring

    8/10, probably more like a 7 but im too lazy, then again i did write a review
  36. Dec 12, 2013
    8
    Peter Jackson combine with j r tollkien makes a very good imaginative partnership though un expected journey is the first chapter before Lord of the rings to tollkien fans the movie brings far more imagination in the middle earth
  37. Dec 12, 2013
    0
    This film broke my heart, in more ways than one. Firstly the animal cruelty & death issues that arose during the making of it and secondly the fact it is absolutely nothing like the book. This piece of Hollywood trash is just a cheap cash in on Tolkien's masterpiece. The book is a beautifully written exciting and sometimes sad adventure that you really immerse yourself in fully. This movie? My gods! This movie just sucks, big time and what Mr Jackson has done is just made a no-brained action movie from a book he had no right to touch. After watching this I just wonder if he just flicked through the pages and just circled the semi action orientated parts. Jackson, you have proved yourself to be a pathetic director and with this rubbish you have done a 'Lucas'. I just hope someone (like Ridley Scott) in the future is allowed to remake it the way it should be. This Tolkien fan is sad and totally disappointed. Expand
  38. 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 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
  39. Dec 6, 2013
    8
    Perhaps not as breathtaking as the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, but "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is still an exciting and adventurous journey that you will embark on. It's an elegantly shot film and the use of 3D is brilliant. It really makes us forget that we're watching a movie, as though we, ourselves, are part of this unexpected journey.
  40. Dec 3, 2013
    10
    Perfect movie. The cast was awesome, the dwarves were hilarious, Thorin was awesome, the fight scenes were intense, and the ending was emotionally satisfying. It wasn't slow or boring at all. All in all, this was an amazing, entertaining, funny, exciting film. Great job, Peter Jackson!
  41. Nov 30, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit is extremely disappointing coming from a director who has accomplished so much, and knows the material so well. It is still has great moments, and for the most part is easy going adventure to watch, but come on.
  42. Nov 27, 2013
    9
    I kept delaying watching it for months, maybe because I was intimidated by the length. Who wouldn't be? Expanding a three hundred page book into a trilogy made me think Peter Jackson was having a hard time letting go of Middle Earth. And if all of the three movies were to be this long, he was at a risk of ridicule for over ambition. But if the first instalment is any indication, he succeeded in creating a fulfilling beginning to this new adventure fairly well.

    This time we follow a group of dwarves and a young Bilbo. Gandalf is the only major character from The Lord of the Rings to feature in this movie. Thorin the dwarf king replaces Aragorn as the thick skinned leader of the group.

    The cinematography was up at the same standard as from the previous movies. It was shot with the Red One digital camera, with a frame rate per second of 48. It looked different and dare I say better than the previous trilogy.

    The pacing was controlled with ingenuity and never for a moment did the movie drag. It was a constant shuffle between action pieces, dialogue, imagery and visual back story. But between some of the major plot points, I sensed that there was a lack of direction. It was like Jackson was trying to show us how these creatures lived instead of telling us a cohesive story as he did previously.

    Martin Freeman is a much better actor than Elijah Wood and this works in favour of The Hobbit. Bilbo is much more engaging as the lead adventure seeker. Orcs and even Trolls seem to be more than just the cannon fodder as portrayed previously. They actually form some kind of societies and hold prolonged conversations, and display that they are capable of rudimentary intelligence. Thankfully Jackson dispenses with the stereotypes associated with these species to a certain degree.

    The lost kingdom of the dwarves, Rivendale and the underground Orc city were created splendidly. The camera pans though the environment and gives you a sense of the enormity and beauty of these places. The sheer scope of this CGI is mind boggling. The amount of money spent on the movie is quite palpable. The score was refreshing and kept the tone light.

    Lord of the Rings is simply a much better story than The Hobbit. The best was the Fellowship in my opinion. But The Hobbit still is better made than The Two Towers. It may be because the Fellowship was a much more interesting story to film, or because it was a realist tale, but I decided that The Hobbit lags behind the former in nearly every aspect. They are not even in the same league. But this is the mistake right here. These stories should not be compared at all, for they belong to almost different genres. LOTR was a mature tale about war and suffering it brings while The Hobbit is more of a children's adventure fairy tale with a fair amount of humour, where no one dies and everything sorts out in the end, almost Deus Ex Machina-style.
    Expand
  43. 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 Peter Jackson's legacy. Expand
  44. Nov 20, 2013
    10
    Fantastic film. The perfect adaptation of a beloved children's book. Top notch acting, great special effects, tons of fan service from Peter Jackson, brilliant scenery and atmosphere. You really feel like you are in Middle Earth taking this epic journey. I cannot wait for 'The Desolation Of Smaug' and then 'There and Back Again'. Do not let the naysayers and foolish critics put you off this amazing film and soon to be, amazing trilogy. There main complaints are about the length and the beginning (which is fine and actually breezes past because of how awesome and loyal to the book it is). Some people just have the attention span of a spoon I tell you. Expand
  45. Nov 17, 2013
    7
    Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I knew that it was a tale originally written for children, but the Lord of The Rings trilogy was so well done, that I fully expected the first Hobbit movie to be just as masterful. It was a pretty good film, however it didn't have the luster that Lord of The Rings had. The trilogy was magical, it's the reason people go to the movies, but the Hobbit, seemed to be playing off the fame of the Lord of The Rings and at times was directionless. For those who don't know the story, it starts to tell the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his original journey with Gandalf. In the Lord of The Rings, they go on this impossible journey in order to save Middle Earth, but here, the journey is about saving the dwarfs gold from a dragon. It really doesn't have the intensity or the urgency require to make a film like this work. Nothing had changed for over two hundred years, but all of a sudden, now is the time to stop the dragon, why? The film was not bad, but it doesn't come off as this great adventure and that could have something to do with the childish elements. This is a PG-13 film with fighting and beheadings, yet it's also a film with singing dwarfs, drunk gnomes, and a wizard with Alzheimer who is covered in bird I feel these things really hurt the film. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf and finally seemed to be showing his age. McKellen is tired and slow in this film, Gandalf is not the same great warrior. Finally, this film is different because we know it's a prequel. Even if you didn't read the book, you know who lives and who dies, taking a major play away from the screenwriters. Overall the Hobbit is somewhat entertaining, but it's not The Lord of The Rings. It's directionless at times, lacks the urgency needed for an epic, and has a cast that really doesn't excite. I was hoping for a lot, but all I got was a little. The only thing I can do now is try and forget about it as I wait for the next film with anticipation. Expand
  46. Nov 14, 2013
    8
    A gorgeous movie delivering an unforgettable adventure! It impresses with it's huge scale of breathtaking forests and mountains. While the story is slightly predictable, it stays fresh with the great dialogue, well-developed characters and superb voice acting.
    The plot sometimes doesn't quite excite with it's slight predictability, but The Hobbit it's still an immersive and a deeply
    enjoyable film (Final Score: 8.55) Expand
  47. Nov 11, 2013
    6
    The city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, the trolls, Radagast) with monsters (giant spiders and wolves, demonic orcs, the hideous gollum), the characters' illogical decisions (Gandalf and 13 dwarves going to kill a dragon, Gandalf asking Bilbo to join them, Bilbo accepting), the lack of realistic fights (nobody bleeds or dies, the direction during the chase in the goblin lair makes the action seem like the heros are on a luna park train) and several redundant scenes that slow the pacing down (two dinners, the riddles) prevented me from enjoying this movie.
    argonautis.eu
    Expand
  48. Nov 9, 2013
    3
    The problem with 'The Hobbit' is that he tries to show an epic movie with the passing of the minutes, but forgets that not strong enough for that and reveals nothing less than purely commercial.
  49. Nov 2, 2013
    7
    It starts out slow with some story telling, but don`t give up on it cause it picks up, and takes you into the adventure you probably expected.The thing is when I ask myself if I was really amazed, the answer is no for the most part, but it was a good watch.
  50. Oct 30, 2013
    10
    A perfect recreation of the Tolkien's world. It's excelent in all the aspects: direction, interpretation, script, soundtrack, etc. And the "guess game" with Bilbo and Gollum is a masterpiece.
  51. Oct 27, 2013
    7
    altought it isn´t in the level of the lord of the rings trilogy,it is still a good film,for an prequel this movie have a great story,the special effects are great and it can be a revolution just like the lord of the rings were.
  52. Oct 23, 2013
    5
    The brilliant settings and action spectacles of "An Unexpected Journey" do not make up for its lack of characterization, thematic unity, and emotional force. From the protagonist, the plot demands a sense of initial self-alienation which should eventually lead to the recovery of the self in others; while present, this seemed more like an afterthought than something gluing the film together.
  53. Oct 14, 2013
    6
    All the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in another country", because watching the movie it just felt like a propagandistic lesson in patriotism and violence. All the grace of Tolkien's writing is gone. Expand
  54. Oct 6, 2013
    5
    You can see its high production right away but this first part of the story was kinda boring I mean there is not that much going on and the dwarfs have no personality or depth to them (was it really necessary to put that many dwarfs in the movie?). Well I hope the next part is better.
  55. Oct 5, 2013
    7
    Sure, this movie isn't perfect. It's not as good as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy. However, to say that this film is bad is like saying that The Godfather isn't a good movie, or Lawrence of Arabia, or Ben-Hur. This film is good, though not exceptional. The Dwarves break into a musical number at one point for no real reason whatsoever, probably to appeal to kids. I heard people laughing in the cinema when I watched this. I liked Lord of the Rings a LOT, and If I heard the audiences laughing AT ALL apart from the occasional moment between Merry and Pippin, or with Gimli, I would probably murder some of them, if not all of them.

    However, if you consider this film on it's own, you will find that it is a very, VERY good film, and, though it definitely doesn't live up to The Lord of the Rings, it's undeniably worth watching. It doesn't have as much depth, it doesn't have as much emotion, it doesn't have four hundred hours of special thanks at the end, and it doesn't have the cast of the previous films (bar Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm and Elijah Wood), but it does have the ability to carry itself, and it's great.
    Expand
  56. Oct 1, 2013
    10
    Why are half of the film's reviews complaining about running time?
    You don't watch a movie for the purpose of seeing it end.
    If you have that kind of mindset, obviously you're going to "fall asleep" yeah, I'm looking at the fool(s) who gave this film a 0.
    A score of 0 is more deserving for actual terrible movies like Jack Black's "Year One". Reviewer Peter Travers is obviously
    uninformed and had the gall to state:

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

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

    "The Hobbit" is an example of movie-making at its finest executing an adventurous atmosphere and a defining script. Coupled with its various environments, familiar faces and its set of new ones, the film stands as an artwork of its own; one many other movie-makers should aspire to do. It's witty, epic and innovative; a movie worth watching again and again...
    Expand
  57. Sep 14, 2013
    4
    i don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it that great of a movie shore it has nice 3D effects what show off the team but its like avatar they have a load of fancy effects on it but the story is a load of rubbish, the annoying thing about this film is that they constantly trying to remind us that this story happens in the same world of lord of the rings, one of the scenes i can't stand in the film is the moving rocks when the dwarfs get crushed but there perfectly fine no cuts boozes or broken bones and before some one says "but its not in the book" i don't bloody care it doesn't make sense and it looks stupid i just saw them get crushed I JUST SAW IT! but so i don't complain about a lot of things i have a problem with in this film i'm going to stop here and just say the ending... was rubbish i know its showing there's more to come but its just stupid looking its like ending a episode of eastenders Expand
  58. Sep 10, 2013
    6
    i got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll see the future movies at the cinema but on DVD its a must have for kids to kill time. Expand
  59. Aug 31, 2013
    10
    Epic!!! I have to say that I liked it more than The Lord Of The Rings. Actually, I prefer Bilbo. Frodo was not as good as his father. I am waiting like crazy for the next chapter of the trilogy.
  60. Aug 26, 2013
    0
    This movie is a snooze fest. I fell asleep, that was how absolutely boring that movie was. It is three hours of a hobbit traveling around magical fairy land. Boring.
  61. Aug 18, 2013
    10
    Being a fan is irrelevant. There is nothing about this movie that doesn't excite anyone. The script was well-written, humorous and fresh. The movie was visually pleasing. The characters were interesting and unique. The soundtrack brought tears to my eyes. Again, there is nothing not to love. Everything Peter Jackson touches turns to gold, in the form of an Oscar!
  62. Aug 1, 2013
    8
    A very well done adaption of a classic book. Not as good as LOTR but still very enjoyable, Although it may be a little to childish for some people, But I personally can't wait for the sequels.
  63. Jul 30, 2013
    5
    Set in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon.

    Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with another trilogy, that serves as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, based on Tolkien’s
    novel, The Hobbit, but here’s the question? The novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is longer than The Hobbit but that film was adapted into a two-parter so why make another trilogy, based on one novel, when you can just adapt the novel into one film, or two at most? Oh, of course, money! It’s all about trying to top up the box office success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy for Peter Jackson, and fans don’t seem to realize this.

    The Hobbit does not match the standard that was set in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. It may not be the same film franchise, as fans keep mentioning all over the internet, but it’s certainly very similar in terms of the film’s setting, characters and visual style. Just like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the movie suffers from a long running time. But without the emotional and engaging storytelling that The Lord of the Rings trilogy has, The Hobbit just seems to drag on and on with its slow pacing.

    The Hobbit uses a higher frame rate and it’s the first film to use 48 frames per second instead of the standard 24 frames. It may improve 3D footage but it doesn't add any value to the movie viewing experience so is it really necessary? Some scenes looks great, just like Peter Jackson’s many other films, but at times, it looks like the actors are on set rather than a scene. It can be hard to get use to but fans will hardly notice.

    It just shows that Peter Jackson relies too heavily on visual effects nowadays that his most recent films are lacking. One of which is The Lovely Bones, a film which lacks the majesty of the novel that made it such a huge success. Another is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a film, as mentioned earlier, that’s too similar to but does not match the quality set by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Peter Jackson is still a worthy director, considering every film he has ever directed, but if he keeps this charade up, then he won’t be.

    The film’s cast are short of any complaints, with standout performances from Sir Ian McKellen, as Gandalf, and Martin Freeman, as Bilbo Baggins. It’s great to see hobbits on a quest across Middle-earth once again but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is no excuse to revive the “Middle-earth franchise”, just like The Bourne Legacy, a film that tries to revive The Bourne franchise, and The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that tries to revive The Spider-Man franchise, though these two films are pretty decent overall. But in the end, all these films are really unnecessary and we can live without it. It just shows that Hollywood have no new ideas, as many people might have speculated, and has to resort into rebuilding the franchise that should have been left alone when it ended satisfactorily.

    In conclusion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will please fans. For them, the only reason to watch this film is “Hobbits”. The fine performance from its cast does not quite make up for its slow pace, irritating high frame rate and long running time. The film may not have high hopes, and it’s not entirely terrible, but being too similar to The Lord of the Rings, it’s such a disappointment. Hopefully, Peter Jackson will realize what he has done wrong in this film before continuing with the trilogy.
    Expand
  64. Jul 25, 2013
    7
    I am a huge LotR fan, just putting it out there, and when I heard there would be a Hobbit movie I was so happy, but that came with a grain of salt. I had doubts that Peter could present us this children's book in the same style, tone and mood that he did with LotR, and he didn't. This movie was trying so hard to be a fun kid's adventure movie but every time a scene from the Silmarillion and Tolkien's reimagined Hobbit occurred it was so distant from the merry old adventures of the dwarves. Anyhow onto the good, this film is a visual treat, the acting is superb and I really felt like I was back in middle-earth only it was much happier and more colourful! Gollum/Smeagol was incredible to watch and I loved seeing all the nods to Fellowship and the rest of the trilogy. Totally worth a watch! Expand
  65. Jul 24, 2013
    8
    This movie is exiting as well as action-packed. It does take around 30-40 minutes for the adventure to actually begin which can be annoying. However it is worth the wait as the "unexpected journey" is great and worth watching. This movie doesn't exactly follow the book but I would still recommend it to fans of the book
  66. Jul 22, 2013
    4
    Bilbo definitibamente es poco entretenido y algo estupido a una excepcion la pelicula guarda exclentes efectos y la originalidad al 100 sin embargo solo BLA BLA BLA Y ganas de ZZZzzzzz
  67. Rem
    Jul 21, 2013
    2
    Boring, not funny, and plain too long, this is a departure from the well loved franchise and an insult as it only serves to appeal to a younger audience and those who favor 3-D. With absolutely no real effects as CG takes over, it almost becomes painful to think this comes from the flagship franchise that earned 30 Oscar nominations.
  68. Jul 21, 2013
    5
    Fails to capture the epicness of the Trilogy. Also, way too much CGI. What happened? Why is everything CGI in this movie? Im not too excited about the other two now. I just love the Trilogy so much.
  69. Jul 18, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit does suffer from some pretty severe pacing issues, but (apart from its opening 45 minutes) is a gripping and welcome return to middle earth, that will definitely improve as we adjust to the new tone and feel of 'The Hobbit.'
  70. Jul 17, 2013
    10
    Loved it. It captured the essence of the Novel well. I loved how they had some dialouge practically (if not exactly) verbatim from the book (The Exchange between Gandalf and Bilbo in the Beginning). Young Bilbo ws cast perfectly with Freeman and I adore all the dwarves At your Service I absolutely cannot wait for the next installments. The Hobbit was more light hearted than the LOTR but was in no was a Children's Book as some negative reviewers said. Also the "Bloat" that was not in the novel was from the appendices. It irks me when reviewers have utterly no idea what they are talking about when it comes to plot. Expand
  71. Jul 15, 2013
    7
    While it may have some great performances in there, along with some visually dazzling sequences, this film still feels overly long and stretched out. It does not come close to matching with Lord of the Rings, it still is a enjoyable film. The action is fun, the story (once it gets going) is fun and the scenes with Radagast the Brown were my favorite. The music is done well along with the cinematography. This film is enjoyable, but lacks in originality and the timing should have been trimmed down a bit. Expand
  72. Jul 13, 2013
    10
    Wow..........my expectations weren't high enough and honestly i was little scared that it will come out pale repetition of the Lord of The Rings....i enjoyed every second of it and looking forward for the next one....
  73. Jul 10, 2013
    7
    Despite being a visual masterpiece the Hobbit suffers from side plots which draw us away from the main objective.

    The casting was spot on. I couldn't find fault with any of the choices but there was very little depth in many of the characters because so much else was going on. I do like the way we see Bilbo's character grow from start to finish and his relationship with Gandalf.

    Not
    a failure by any means but there's a lesson to be learnt here that less is more. Expand
  74. Jul 5, 2013
    10
    I am addressing the following post to all those who hated The Hobbit. Die. Go and die a horrible, horrible death. I can understand that some people aren't into fantasy and the Middle Earth universe, but that is no excuse for hating such an excellent film. A big complaint about the film is that it's being dragged out, and that a 300 page book is to small for three 2.5h+ films. They are making them this long because they want to include the appendices from The Silmarillion, so that it's explained better for someone who hasn't read the books. Another big complaint was that there was too much CGI. And to this I say, some films are made of nothing but CGI, and yet nobody bats an eyelid at them. Also, the CGI gives a lot more potential to the films, in the fact that you couldn't have a giant goblin with a scrotum beard without CGI. Everything looks a load more like you're in a place where not everything looks like a human, and that the other races in middle earth don't have to have the same features as man. Also, the complaint about all the gimmicks, to do with 48fps and things, that's understandable, but don't hate the film over it! It's like if a game released a below average DLC, and someone stopped playing the game over it. Just don't use it if you don't like it! Also, some people complained that it is too slow, and to that I say this. Django: Unchained had a runtime of 180 minutes, WHICH IS LONGER THAN THE HOBBIT. And for me, Django dragged on, The Hobbit FLEW by. And the final complaint was that it wasn't as good as Lord of the Rings. Just to clarify, The Lord of the Rings has been considered as one of the greatest cinematic achievements of man, and The Hobbit hasn't even had the other two films in the series released yet. So, if you see anyone online, or in real life, who is debunking or saying this film is terrible, just send 'em this post. And tell them that "Gay" Isn't a valid criticism. Thank you for your time. Expand
  75. Jun 30, 2013
    10
    I`m surprised how good was that. It`s amazing epic journey, that you enjoy. It`s not as big as LotR was, but surely not disappointing. This movie has everything, what you can expected. It`s a side story, whithout ultimate evil and good, but side stories are very important part of any fantasy world, even the Middle-earth. That`s what all Tolkien`s fan knows very well. Every part of movie is done well. Expand
  76. Jun 29, 2013
    7
    Exciting film with good action and acting, however, parts of the storyline seem pointless and I think the film drags more than it needs too. As a Lord of the Rings fan I was let down a bit by this film, but definitely worth a watch.
  77. Jun 28, 2013
    8
    The prequel story to the fantastic Lord of the Rings is here, and it is a great one. It has a different tone than the Lord of the Rings movies, featuring more humor and crazier over the top action. Awesome characters new and old mixed with fantastic writing helped pull me in. It's a enjoyable return trip to Middle Earth, and seeing the events that lead up to The Lord of the Rings is a lot of fun. The action scenes are more absurd than you would expect, featuring impossible odds and goofy set pieces, and the humor is shocking at first, but the fact that this movie has a more light-hearted tone helps it feel more like an adventure. Honestly the movie is awesome and it's the little things that help make it enjoyable. All in all I really enjoyed this movie and I fell that all fans of Tolkien's world of Middle Earth will as well. Expand
  78. Jun 25, 2013
    10
    The long beginning the critics oucked on is obviously there to introduce us to the family of dwarves, something peter jackson couldnt do once the action kicks in and without it we wouldn't care for the characters. After repeated viewings nearly all the dwarves get their moment except one or two, plus the beginning isn't as long as lord if the rings which was universally praised for doing the same thing and introducing us to the hobbits.

    Anyway this is a great thrill ride, the added bits add greatly to the story, I loved the rivendell scenes, which tied in lovely with the LOTR and azog was a good character.

    There's a couple of instances that stumble, the last bit of dialogue from the goblin king was a touch too much and radaghast whilst you warm to him on repeated viewings was a bit silly when he first meets up with the gang.

    Anyway these minor quibbles don't stop this being a full marks movie and I can't wait for the second one.
    Expand
  79. Jun 18, 2013
    7
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to
    go on an adventure with 13 dwarves to kill a dragon that has destroyed their homeland.
    Now Bilbo, like many Hobbits, does not like to partake in these kind of things. The dangerous world of middle earth is no place for them. But, in a fortunate 30 minutes of screen time, they convince him and we have our journey.
    Right off the bat I just want to say that the Hobbit AUJ is a long film. Just about as long as Fellowship of the Ring. However, in fellowship, a lot more happens. I wont knock The Hobbit down any points for dragging on because, while it does do so, there is plenty of more material to see during these moments. You get to meet the dwarves, who are fun and eccentric. You also get to see Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
    Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen do great, especially Freeman. He makes Bilbo more three dimensional than before.
    And Thorin? He’s a wonderful character with a great back story who really shows leadership over the dwarves.
    Sure there are a few forgettable dwarves in the movie, but for the most part they are interesting characters with colourful personalities.
    If I were to nitpick anything (minus the argument over 40fps) is that this film has a lot more CGI. So much so that it really just takes you out of the experience. There were many scenes where I was like
    “They got over a thousand extras for Helms Deep but had to CGI those 8 guys?”
    It is kinda upsetting and really seems unnecessary at points.
    But other than that, the film is great. It was cool to see the battle at Moria, I love how it’s told, I love the build up, I REALLY love the attention to detail, and I surprisingly love Radagast the Brown.
    and the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ sequence? Yeah, talk about chilling.
    There’s really not much else to say here, if you love LotR you’ll absolutely love The Hobbit AUJ. If you love film in general you will, for the most part, enjoy The Hobbit. Although, you may be annoyed by the FPS and many of the drawn out scenes.
    If you hated LotR and everything it stood for then dude, stay as far away as possible, this will not change your mind. In fact it will most likely strengthen your hatred.
    But for me, I enjoyed it. While I believe it was not perfect, it left me in great anticipation for the sequel.
    Expand
  80. Jun 17, 2013
    10
    I hear a lot of people complaining over and over again about the length of these movies and how they are split up. If any one has read this book, including the majority of Tolkien's work, especially The Silmarillion. You would understand that Peter Jackson is doing this the best way for people who haven't read it. He is trying to explain as much as he can in 3 films. As for the film itself, it was amazing. Elements of the animated film were seen which was a nice touch, just like in the LOTR and the characters were phenomenal. All the acting was just as good as the The Lord of the Rings, if not better. As such, Peter Jackson has done right by the books, and I think if Tolkien were alive today, he would be proud to have seen this movie. Can't wait to see the last two. Expand
  81. Jun 13, 2013
    0
    What am I a child? I wasted my time watching this pile of junk that was neither interesting or entertaining. Since I was a fan of LOTR I expected Jackson to deliver. A waste of money it was to sit through this stupid cartoon-ish looking movie.
  82. Jun 11, 2013
    8
    This film was epic. I liked it much more than the first Lord of the rings and Peter Jackson did a great job in this one. Great photography and make-up. Should have won that oscar. You will like it if you liked the trilogy of The Lord of the rings
  83. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    It's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so many scenes and themes explored in his vision of the trilogy that I will never forget, sadly, The Hobbit failed to make that kind of impression on me. It's not a bad movie, it's just not very substantial past it being a suitable adventure film for the entire family. Read the book instead. Expand
  84. Jun 7, 2013
    9
    People my hate me but i loved this film much more than lord of the rings. If you loved lord of the rings and haven't seen the hobbit yet please give it ago because its awesome!
  85. Jun 6, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. (contains minor spoilers) It was a good film. Ian McKellen, as always, was great as Gandalf. The dwarves, while not really expanded on at the individual level besides Thorin, were enjoyable. I liked how they added the White Council and the looming return of Sauron. Also solid was the performance of Martin Freeman as Bilbo. However, the villains were sub-par in this film. I did like the trolls and goblins, but the CGI orcs were just bad. The LoTR orcs were wonderfully done, but these were terrible to look at. On the plus, Andy Serkis stole the show as Gollum in his brief appearance. It's a very good movie, though not on the level of its predecessors, and the ending set up nicely for the next installment. Expand
  86. Jun 6, 2013
    10
    Do NOT compare this film to LOTR. It is entirely a different story and a different meaning. LOTR is about the ultimate Good vs. Evil Battle. This is a journey that isn't as severe. This film excels. Peter Jackson's long awaited return to Middle Earth does not disappoint.
  87. Jun 4, 2013
    6
    "While not offering much to the beloved fans. The Hobbit is quite the journey indeed. I enjoyed my endevours with our lovable gang. It has some intense moments but the true fact is a 200 page book does not quite add up to a 2hr and 46min running time." B
  88. Jun 3, 2013
    10
    The Hobbit was the best movie of 2012. It was simply perfect! Packed with memorable characters, plenty of laughs, action packed battles, and plenty of heart, The Hobbit is 3 hours of non stop fun! The music is also amazing, and the Misty Mountains Theme is superb.
    The acting is top notch- Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellan, and Richard Armitage particularly stand out. Among the dwarves, Ken
    Stott as Balin and James Nebitt as Bofur do terrific performances. Nesbitt's charm, wit, and accent lend Bofur a great character! I also loved Graham McTavish's portrayal of Dwalin as a tough, Scottish, ass kicking warrior.
    The Hobbit also had the best action scenes of 2012. The battle of Moria was superb, and goblin town was a roller coaster of excitement and horror. I also really enjoyed Radagast and thought he was a great edition to the story!
    The Hobbit was a cinematic masterpiece, and was in my opinion completely on par with LOTR!
    Expand
  89. May 31, 2013
    8
    How do you portray magic in a medium that is all magic? Get a cast made up of Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Dave Franco, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Isla Fisher, Melanie Laurent, Jose Garcia and Commons and add a lot of razzle-dazzle. “Now You See Me” delivers on both counts. The ending may not quite make sense and may have to be listened to a second time or might make you think of seeing the movie over again to follow if the ending is as logical as the screenwriter says it is.

    There are spectacular magic tricks, most explained, foot chases, a car chase and a couple of heists that are explained to such an extent that it adds to the puzzlement. This is not a movie to see for character development because a love story between 2 of the stars only slows everything down while another couple is handled in a sort of throwaway manner and makes more sense.

    Mark Ruffalo as an FBI agent needs a shave while his partner on loan from Interpol, Melanie Laurent, adds a foreign interest leading to a bridge in Paris with a fence filled with locks. (Always learning things from movies--didn’t know this was a widespread craze--had to google it for more information!) The team of four with Woody Harrelson as a mentalist, Jesse Eisenberg as an illusionist, Isla Fisher as an escape artist and Dave Franco as a pickpocket, who was really impressive, make their roles of magicians realistic while Michael Caine as a rich man who sponsors their act, and for some unexplained reason disappears from the movie while Morgan Freeman is a man who exposes magicians and their tricks, are always entertaining to watch.

    The screenplay by Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin and Edward Ricourt, along with direction by Louis Leterrier, photography by Larry Fong and Mitchell Amundsen plus the eye catching production design by Peter Wenham and visual effects supervisor Nicholas Brooks make “Now You See Me” a pleasant diversion. The music by Brian Tyler is loud, as most musical soundtracks are in action films, and Ruffalo needing that shave, along with the explanation at the end having to be heard again, are minor complaints regarding a film about magic that you can just sit back and enjoy the actors, scenery and razzamatazz!
    Expand
  90. May 31, 2013
    7
    Way too many gravity defying Disney moments, breaks any immersion film could of had. It's simply over the top and way too cheesy, Middle earth probably has low gravity or something...
  91. May 27, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. now just to be clear i haven't read the book and i have no intention to do that so i wouldn't know what the story should be.
    i do think that some of the scenes were a little bit too long it's like watching the extended edition when you're NOT.
    however i think the bad reviews are related to not following the book
    also the big hype and the fact that everyone was expecting an epic battle at the end just like the trilogy
    NOW leaving all that aside you can see that you have another great movie by Peter Jackson with spectacular contents and i think that the vision will improve A LOT after watching the rest of the series.
    even so the movie still solid and earn my spot for top 5 best movies of 2012.
    Expand
  92. May 23, 2013
    8
    Hobbit is a very interesting and enjoyable film from start till end and any Lord of the ring fan would not want to miss this charming and mesmerizing journey.
  93. May 21, 2013
    8
    Another great job for Peter Jackson, his managed to give The Hobbit charm of LOTR, great storytelling that fits perfectly to one of the best trilogy of all time! The only my problem with it how they portrayed Radagast! Overall it's must own
  94. May 19, 2013
    8
    Most critics say that this film does not reach the height of lord of the rings, but the film was not made for it, it just is a lighter version of the previous trilogy, once again uses cutting-edge special effects but with a story focused the diverse world that Tolkien created, ie Lord of the Rings was focused on a single goal, and that much friendlier to clarify the other things that are in the books, and the result is satisfactory. Expand
  95. May 19, 2013
    4
    As a big Tolkien fan and LOTR movie fan, I felt betrayed after leaving the movie theater. The moment I heard Del Torro was going to direct it, I was a bit disappointed. And it felt good to know that in the end Peter Jackson was going to direct it. Now that I think of it, I'm sure it would have been a better idea to let Del Torro direct it....
  96. 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
    probably the only movie in the world that forced me to sit through credits scene. Expand
  97. Xon
    May 11, 2013
    9
    I was quite weary beforehand knowing that it would be a trilogy. However, all the narrative threats tie together and is pertinent to the wider middle-earth mythos. The vsiual and sound quality is top notch, and the active above reproach. It has neatly set up the story for the next installments and I am definitely looking forward to it.
  98. May 8, 2013
    9
    Please don't pay any attention to the idiot critics over there on the left.. This movie was amazing, and as a LotR fan myself, I was pretty impressed by how it exceeded my expectations. The different fascinating locations, the interesting characters, the intriguing plot, it all comes together to form a great retelling of part of Tolkien's book. I began watching the Hobbit with slight caution as I wasn't sure it would meet my expectations, but boy, was I in for a surprise. And so will anyone else who isn't sure whether to pick this one up or not, but all I have to say is: Whether you're a Lord of The Rings fan or not, watch this, NOW. Expand
  99. 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
    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
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.