Yes, this film can be very cheesy at times, but it has some of the most honest emotion and most blatant adventuring that I have seen from a film in a LONG time.

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.

I had very modest expectations coming into this film. I was disappointed by the first two films in the LOTR triology and found them non-memorable and flat. An unexpected Journey is charming from the start, and even though the first half is a little bloated (my primary criticism of the film), the second half is terribly exciting, and I love the characterization of Bilbo Baggins and the way he's ingratiated into the crew of dwarves. I find the characters in the first installment of The Hobbit to be much more relatable and sympathetic than any of them in the LOTR series. I'll take young Bilbo over young Frodo any day as a protagonist. I will say that Gollum injects a special energy into the film that crests all the way to its conclusion. So yes, the film won me over in ways I truly did not expect.… Expand

Peter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world is visually dazzling and the pacing seldom lags. Fans will surely be thrilled, but there's something hollow and weirdly modern about the spirit that makes it more a spectacle than an expressive adventure. BTW, this is the first movie in HRF (High Frame Rate), shot in 48fps and showing in selected local theatres. Basically, it looks like really clean HD video. I review THE HOBBIT and the new HFR format.… Expand

Many things fall flat in this film. The story is thin, the film is too long, but Martin Freeman brings Bilbo to life more than the novel is itself. Sure other performamces from that of McKellan are grand but none compare to his. The visual effects are incredible except for the orks, the sets, costumes, and make-up are astounding. The Hobbit takes a different tone from the of the Rings trilogy which is smart considering the novel is a children's book. It works out by providing humor, emotional depth, and intelligence with ease. Many things should be fixed for the sequels to come to keep my interest, but this is a somewhat solid start to a new trilogy. I give this film 78%.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The bad Some of the make up designs annoy me, Such as Bilbo's overly large feet, The bird poop on the brown wizard's face, and the large noses on the dwarfs that look painfully fake. Also, I didn't care for how limited Bilbo was in this film. He really only had 4 parts where he was actually the main guy The dwarf party, the Trolls part, the part with Gollum, and reuniting with the dwarfs. The rest of the film revolves around Gandolf and Thorin, Both are enjoyable characters but the Hobbit is suppose to be Bilbo's story. Azog is a lame villain. The last 20 mins are a little corny. The good Martin Freeman is an amazing Bilbo, He steals the show any times he takes center stage, Bilbo's little back and forth with Gandalf in the begining of the film made me convinced that he was made for this part. Richard Armitage is a great pick for Thorin as well. The special effects are good as well. Gollum definently steals the show imo, He made watching this movie worth it. Overall, It's a little rough in the first hour but as soon as they meet the trolls, The movie takes a turn for the better and actually becomes a solid watch.… Expand

For a movie that lasted almost 3 hours so little seemed to be accomplished, but this is truly the least of the problems. To sum it up, everything that was so magical and wonderful about Middle Earth seemed to be gone. The scenes seemed staged, the pacing was bizarre, the action wasn't unique, and there seemed to be not center plot in sight. The biggest flaw above all is how this movie felt so emotionless, contrived, and anything from genuine, which is something that made his previous trilogy so beloved. With a movie with dozens of characters only about 3 of them receive any worthy character time. There were very brief moments that reminded me of what this film could have amounted too, but those don't compensate for everything else. Not just a disappointing film, but for the most part, a pretty bad one too.… Expand

A lot of fans, including myself, were taken by surprise when reviews of An Unexpected Journey were mixed to positive at best. People questioned Jackson's decision to return to Middle Earth, and even more questioned the decision to expand the film into 3 films. Now that I've seen the film multiple times, I am confident that Peter Jackson is the only person I trust that can bring Middle Earth to life on the screen. An Unexpected Journey is a highly entertaining and satisfying tale but not without a few flaws. Two of the big problems I had with the film were the slow beginning and heavy use of CGI. This film takes its time in the early moments, but the film as a whole doesn't drag. The Hobbit relies heavily on computer generated orcs/creatures unlike LotR; I personally found the CGI to be poor at times, it really takes you out of the film during certain scenes.

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

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

In short, The Hobbit 1 is not as good as LotR. It feels bloated at times in the beginning due to a lot of backstory/additions to the story and a strange dependence on cg effects, but it is a wonderful return to Middle Earth and will satisfy fans of the original trilogy.… Expand

Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is another great entry into the Lord of the Rings series. It's lighter than the previous trilogy, but that lightness brings with it a sense of fun and adventure. This is a very promising start to a new trilogy and it sits right alongside Fellowship and Two Towers in the quality department... And several rungs above Return of the King, obviously.

The two things that make "An Unexpected Journey" not that good as we all have hoped are its length and the inappropriate funny stuff Jackson mixes into it. The dwarfs and their burping and quaffing destroy the mystic feeling of Middle-earth and turn the movie into a unfunny comedy. Luckily, only the first third of the film is ruled by the dwarfs, the rest is focused on the great battles and the wonderful views of Tolkien's world. But Peter Jackson's habit to turn every little story, as tiny as it may be, into a three-hour-picture is really pesky. Less dwarfs, less battles, less pseudo-humorous talk and we would've got a much better film. But after all, the first part of The Hobbit is dominated by the Oscar-deserving visuals and acoustics, a mostly felicitous cast and fantasy stuff, that is simply amazing to see. Just because of the 3D, the cinema ticket is worth its price. Eventually, you have to keep in mind that this is only the initiation to a hopefully marvelous journey.… Expand

I saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. The character of "Thorin", the leader of the dwarfs, was particularly annoying. Grouchy, skeptical, humorless, and wrong at almost every turn. Also, the entire scene with Gollum was annoying because I can't understand half the things he says. The next installment should be better as they will be battling a dragon instead of the usual evil Orcs and Goblins that we have already seen in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.… Expand

A plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewers who have not read the novel, the journey itself is conspicuously … Expand

It's damn good. Let's be honest and give it the respect it deserves without unfairly judging it against it's award-winning predecessors. It's biggest culprit is the length. It's like so many other films these days.....it's just a hair too long. Regardless, I found The Hobbit superbly entertaining, beautifully filmed, and thrillingly action-packed. As an avid Tolkien reader, this is a very fine representation of the book thus far. I can't wait to see what is yet to come.… Expand

After so many years in production hell at MGM with serious doubt over these films happening at all, The Hobbit finally hit our screens, and quite a hit it was.
If it is at all possible NOT to see Lord of the Rings before you see the new prequel trilogy then do so, because as enjoyable and entertaining as the Hobbit was, it simply wasn't LOTR.
We clearly see from the beginning of the "Unexpected Journey" that these are much simpler times in middle earth, set sixty years prior to LOTR, we see Bilbo almost unwittingly setting out with a set of dwarves led by their King, Thorin Oakenshield, to reclaim the Lonely Mountain, forcibly taken from them years before from the dragon, Smaug.
An unneccesary forty minutes or so of introduction classes involving the dwarves, Bilbo and the welcome return of Ian McKellan as Gandalf the Grey did seem long-winded, but thats what happens when you split a 310 page book into three films.
What enticed me about this film, as i was watching the LOTR trilogy a few weeks later, is how Jackson has beautifully bounced them off each other to create an almost parallel world with no stone left unturned, little things such as the orc sword given to Frodo by bilbo makes an appearance, the trolls which are briefly seen in LOTR, simple little devices like this which take us down memory lane that can be effortlessly entertaining without relying too much on the past.
This is exactly why The Hobbit is so different, it was an attempt to rely on itself and not the massive cultural impact of the LOTR trilogy, something which Jackson succeeded greatly on. It's light-hearted, often humorous and exceptionally beautiful to watch. 48 fps took a little adjusting to, but where this HFR really shines are the action scenes in "Goblin City". A particular scene involving Bilbo and the dwarves find them trying to escape a duel between two stone giants, which is simply breathtaking to watch.
Arguably the greatest part of the film is the brief return of Gollum, who engages in a battle of riddles with Bilbo, and without any spoilers, a predictable but smile-on-your-face discovery is made from our dear Hobbit.
Excellent performances from Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Martin Freeman as a young bilbo, Richard Armitage as the miserable and brooding King Thorin as the the head of the dwarves, and the dwarves in general, its no secret the rigorous time in effort which goes into creating these creatures so bravo to all involved.
With brief appearances from Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving and Christopher Lee reprising their roles of Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman the White respectively, its wonderful to see familiar faces so utilized so brilliantly, but expertly placed to set up their own stories which we see in the LOTR. I thought Elijah Wood's appearance as Frodo, while cool to see, was simply unnecessary and to simple a paycheck to earn on Wood's part.
Light-hearted, humorous, and excellent action scenes make this a stand alone film to be reckoned with, while not as engrossing and spectacular as its predecessors, this prequel stands on its own two feet and has set up what could be a roller coaster of a trilogy on an epic scale.… Expand

Hmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with characters and places, but also costumes, musical score, cinematography, art direction, you just name it. And while the film holds "universal acclaim" with the general audience of metacritic, I'd highly disagree with this. Yes, the acting is rather solid. Technically the film is good too. However, it gives us nothing new. It does not provide any new, deeper connection with these characters, especially not Gandalf, who is surprisingly weakly portrayed by McKellen after his excellent turn in the Lord of the Rings. Honestly, the story of The Hobbit is not as interesting as the one of the Lord of the Rings, for one. That would do the trick on its own, let alone having high expectations and a million comparisons with one of the best trilogies of all time. Overall, The Hobbit is not a bad film at all. But it is just yet another big-budget blockbuster with great technical aspects, but not quite as much substance as its predecessor had. Maybe the second one will be better? 6/10… Expand

To be honest, at first I was a little reluctant to spend almost three hours to see thiz movie but I know I will go anyway, just for curiosity

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was able to give me what I expected from it, even more at times. People should give it a thought that the Hobbit was not written like the Lord of the Rings series, the latter had greater incorporation of darkness, the entire concept of the darkness ruling the world. Therefore it shouldn't be compared to the Hobbit, which is written in a totally different way. Its premise doesn't revolve around the Ring, so that's why it doesn't have that dark soul or something like that. It's actually written in humorous way to keep the entire plot light and make it different from the LoTR series.
Anyway, I still think that if we judge the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in its entirety, we would love this film. I did it and I love it. Peter Jackson always surprises me with his outstanding direction and his brilliant vision, the way he has visualized the book in the film is phenomenal. The best things about this film are of course its entire 3D experience and the cinematography, the beautiful sceneries and its characters, they are lovable, they make you believe in their mission, and especially the performance of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. I enjoyed it, he makes a good Baggins, his expressions and his dialogues are more funnier than I thought.
Other things the majority of critics talked about were shooting the film in higher frame rates than the usual 24 FPS and the running time of the movie. Both of these arguments are invalid. Shooting a film in 48 fps is not a problem, the technology is advancing gradually and sooner or later, the filmmakers are gonna have to start doing it. Why blame Peter Jackson? He just utilized a latest technology to give us a new experience and we are doing everything but appreciating his efforts and the challenge he would have face while shooting the film. The second argument is a bit reasonable, the running time is long but why do you want a film like this to be shorter? I am really glad that it is that long so I was getting to experience every frame of the movie and loving it completely. I don't mind films with long running time as long as they don't get boring, and to me, the Hobbit never got boring at all. Everyone has their own opinions, a lot of people found the ending of the film ridiculous and dumb, but that's exactly how the LoTR films were ended especially the Fellowship of the Ring. You can't complain about a film that still has two parts to complete it and maybe your opinion would change after watching the remaining installments.
Long story short, don't expect this film to be anything like LoTR trilogy, it may have some similarities (i.e. its characters, the locations, and a few sceneries) but it surely doesn't have that dark plot the LoTR films had. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the beginning of a funny, daring, terrifying and a beautiful adventure which might really turn into an epicness in the future when the remaining films come out. It is enjoyable, great to watch and finally gives you the satisfactory feeling of how the middle earth would have looked in 3D and better visual effects.… Expand

I find that allot of the criticism that this movie receives is very unjust. The Lord of the Rings trilogy set an extremely high standard that very few fantasy films could ever hope to achieve. The High Frame Rate might have been a little bit of a blunder, but the film itself is exactly what it set out to be: The story that happened before LOTR. It's not meant to be as epic or grand. The hobbit is a fantasy adventure story and it succeeds in that completely. If I had to criticize, I would say that it might not have been a bad idea to cut a few of the Dwarves from the cast. Most of them feel like they're there just to form a crowd. Overall: I thoroughly enjoyed it and loved every minute of it. It didn't wow me the same way Fellowship of the ring did, but it kept me enthrall just the same. I can't wait to see the next movie.… Expand

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. After all, it was only like the first 100 pages of the book. Gollum is the only thing that kept my review from a 3. What a major disappointment. I can tell you one thing, I definetly won't be there for part 2 or 3.… Expand

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

The things that struck me about it were one, it

Is visually beautiful, strong and powerful, returning us to the Middle Ages so high, reigniting the flame of adventure as only Peter Jackson knows how to do, in the sense weak argument because I miss the thrill of a well-made ​​plot and only be a traveling group of dwarfs to return to rule their land.

Talk about a movie that people are going into with preconceived notions. Has there ever been a movie that people have had so much to say about before they even see it? I was no exception to this, I loved the first trilogy and had read all the publicity about directors, how many films would be made, and the format Jackson chose to film in. After finally seeing the movie and reading many reviews I have to say there was very little about this installment to the franchise that disappointed me. Is this film perfect? No, but few film are. Is the pacing leisurely? Yes, but does anyone remember Fellowship. Does some of this feel more child like than the other three movies? Absolutely, just like the source material. I think what I love about this film and a lot of what I love about the original three can be summed up with two words: world building. Jackson does an unbelievable job building this world, every creature feels unique and in its place, every setting the same. The introduction of the dwarfs exemplifies this perfectly, I love how each set of creatures are are prone to certain characteristics but each character within that set have very unique personalities. This is just one example of his world building but can be seen across every element of the story. This of course is not just a testament to Jackson but also Tolkein's source material. I thought this movie had exceptional acting almost across the board. Freeman and McKellan in particular were fantastic. I think Freeman was a better Hobbit then any of the actors in the previous films. Like its predecessors this movie has many lighthearted moments, some stunning visuals, some pretty cool action sequences, and plenty of time to immerse yourself in it all. I for one will be looking forward to the next two films.… Expand

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

Not as good as any of The Lord of the Rings movies but still a lot of fun. If you go in comparing this film to The Lord of the Rings films it's about a 6 but as a stand alone it deserves an 8.

This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though.… Expand

Not horrible, but rather disappointing. Jackson captures the visual appeal of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy but the story feels much too bloated. The ending was satisfying, though.

I admit this was not as good as any of the three Lord of the Rings films. However, it was not the disaster that many of the critics labeled it. I actually enjoyed revisiting that world and was entertained and never bored. I get what the critics are saying about it being redundant and uninspired. I do not see the need for the 3 D but it was a good time at the theater. I will bet money I will enjoy this more than"Django Unchained" from QT which the critics loved. I will review that after I see it.… Expand

Don't believe the critics! It's strange how they seemed to point out a lot of negative things about this pic, when these weaknesses were always prevalent in all of Peter Jackson's previous efforts: slow pace, overlong set pieces, and the bladder inducing run time of 3 hours. Nevertheless, Jackson's strength as a tent pole director is without parallel: great sense sense of scope, an intricate sense of detail, incredible use of practical / digital effects as well as bringing the best out of his actors / actresses. It's not as good as the LOTR trilogy but that's because the material itself was lightweight in comparison. The Hobbit was meant to be a much more simpler adventure yarn. In this department, The Hobbit delivers.… Expand

The new 3 part, three hour each, series of films, which is a prequel to

The first Hobbit movie in the franchise is not only exciting, it takes you on a thrill ride with not only some new creatures, but some old memorable character such as Gollum. At times, the story is distracted some cheesy humor, mostly caused by the dwarfs. But other than that it's a great start to the Hobbit trilogy.

It was good but lacked the structure and epic feeling of the Lord of the Rings. It was too long with enough songs to be classified as a musical. Half of this movie could be gone and it would be ten times better. It is a classic representation of how good Peter Jackson's storytelling ability and the Ian Mckellen's acting ability.

I quite liked this movie, but it could have been better. The original Lord of the Rings movies did not use CGI unless it was necessary. The orcs were men in costume and makeup, which made Jackson's depiction of middle earth seem more real somehow. In this new film, Jackson uses CGI as a crutch (nearly every creature is computer generated), and it hurts the continuity and flow of the story. This movie is pretty sweet in its own way, but if the creators had stuck with their original pattern (more make up and costumes, and less CGI) I would have thought it flawless. It's certainly enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to the next two installments, but I don't feel like this can be categorized as a classic.… Expand

This movie is really good. If you're expecting a lot of action sequences, then I recommend you stay away for now. This one is charming, looks beautiful, is well acted, and has great cinematography. I'm excited to see where they go with the next two movies (and yes, I've read the book). I think the heightened expectations because of LotR caused the critics to be against it some, so don't let the sway you.… Expand

I saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the CGI was (mostly) great. The movie is slow-paced at times. Other times it is too fast-paced. Some scenes are longer than they need to be, but I guess that's what happens when you take a single book story and stretch it out to a 3 part movie trilogy. I get the impression that this movie might possibly be targeted at children more than adults, I think a young child would definitely enjoy it more. For an adult, it is alright but just alright. But after some online investigation, I found a reference to letters stating that The Hobbit book was written for children, while the LOTR book trilogy was written for an older audience, so I'll assume the movie is being true to the book in targeting a younger audience. A plot hole I noticed is why don't they just fly on the eagles from the Shire to the Dwarf city/mountain they are trying to get to? Well, this plot hole apparently exists in the book too so I can't hold it against the movie. And what the heck is a dragon going to do with a pile of gold? Well, according to some online blogs male dragons are like bowerbirds that make nests out of shiny objects to attract a mate, so that resolves that question I had that wasn't explained by this movie. This movie mostly reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean although it is nowhere good as the first POC movie, nor is it horrible like some of the later POC sequels. All of the focus seems to be on the special effects and (mostly) failed attempts at humour rather than focusing on decent story telling or character development. I rate it as average since it lacks the Je ne c'est quoi to make it an epic movie (pacing? plot-deviations from book? not sure what went wrong exactly...) and I can't honestly say that I even liked the film. It does not live up to the quality of the LOTR trilogy at all (except for the CGI of Gollum which is still great in this movie as it was in the LOTR trilogy). It's been 25 years since I read the book, but I think I might go pick it up and read it again rather than wait for the next two movies...… Expand

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

The movie has its share of flaws. Number one being that the first 20 minutes of the movie are painfully drawn out much too long. While it was true to the book (any maybe the book was really at fault) it did get better. The movie isn't oustanding. I, personally, sat next to a good friend who LOVES, LOVES, LOVES LOTR. She, of course, was so happy about seeing it. Don't get me wrong. I like the series, but I feel the next two will be much better. Eh, it was okay in the end.… Expand

The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey is a masterpiece just like lord of the rings fellowship of the ring but better. Bilbo Baggins is one of the best actors to date. way better then frodo was. Smeagle making a suprising return was amazing and at the end of this movie Bilbo now has the ring.. I can't wait to see how this goes in the next 2 installments.. This is a fantastic story.. better then the entire lord of the rings trilogy! It seems Peter Jackson is making better movies every time! this movie is a 10/10 just like the last 3.… Expand

First things first: Although the 48fps improved some smaller aspects of the movie, I would recommend seeing it in plain 24fps 2D.

I greet Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth with open arms. The types of grand adventures that these films portray are so practically non-existant when it comes to genre and it really is a treat to see the grand scenery of a world more fantastical than our own.

All the actors pulled out wonderful performances. Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, all of the dwarves, Andy Serkis, and everyone else. Not a single one of them breaks character.

As it was apparent during the production journals, the film utilizes a lot of CG. I thought it was used appropriately for the most part, my only problems coming a handful of moments where the effects felt over-the-top or unnecessary.

The film's story is arguably the biggest issue in-that nothing much happens. There's a lot of filler, albeit very enjoyable filler, between action sequences and exposition.

The Hobbit is best advertised as a roller coaster, full of entertainment and well-crafted thrills, but lacking the tension that actual danger would have created.… Expand

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

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

If not for the action packed final hour of this film,

Overall I liked the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The scenes from the book are done really well better than in Hunger Games or the later Harry Potter films. There is some great acting, camera work, music, and sets. The scenes are really given time to flesh out. The added scenes cause the movie to drag. If some of the scenes were cut out and/or this was one or two movies I would be giving this a higher score. Unfortunately Peter Jackson tries a little to hard to incorporate Middle Earth lore that while cool often is not that interesting and slows the movie down. Its like he was trying to create his own beginning, middle, and end. Despite these flaws though I really enjoyed this movie its flaws are not because the director did not try hard to make a good story but tried too hard, which I appreciate. Maybe if I see it again knowing where its going I… Expand

of course it's good. it's primarily good because it makes all the right choices at the right places. the book is much lighter than the lord of the rings in terms of content, so the movie must be too. where the lord of the rings fills up the holes between it's moments of epicness with more epicness, the hobbit fills it up mostly with humour. also, the modern technology helps the world come even more alive.… Expand

Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed

The Hobbit. Is it worth seeing? Yes. Is it as good as LOTR? No. I think I was just well prepared in that I knew it would be slow at the start and take a while to get going and that its more a kids movie. If you know thats what to expect and love the first trilogy as much as me then I can't see why you wouldn't enjoy this. Martin Freeman is perfect and the return of Gollum is a real highlight. The 3D is brilliant and makes Middle Earth even more beautiful. As with LOTR I'm sure it can only get more epic as the trilogy continues....… Expand

Take note George Lucas, this is how you start a prequel trilogy. Fat gags aside, The Hobbit is everything the Lord of the Rings was: personal, stylish and charming yet simultaneously epic. Jackson includes enough familiarity, in the form of phenomenal cast, location and soundtrack, so fans can settle right back into Middle Earth as though they never left. Yet he also brings enough fresh material to give the film a good pace and structure.… Expand

Was a bit concerned after seeing the films fairly low score on here and on rotten but the film is absolutely perfect. I'm tempted to say it's even better than the previous 3 films in terms of it's scope, it's beautiful imagery and the special effects. I was enchanted for the entire duration of the movie, not a dull moment. Plenty of action too, probably more action than the other three (not combined of course). Anyone who says the film is too long either doesn't like the film in general (so it seems drawn out) or just has a rubbish attention span. For me it was over in a flash. A masterpiece. Peter Jackson maintains his legendary status in my eyes.… Expand

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

Best 3D effects that I have seen to date! Amazing special effects. But... these 2 things cant save this movie. I found the movie a chore to watch. It dragged on and on. Alot of action, but none were believable nor intresting.

I don't get why everyone is so negative about this movie. This movie is really a great one, not so good as the Lord of the Rings-trilogy, but Peter Jackson did again excellent work. It's a good and sometimes funny movie. This is a must-see-movie for the whole family. Peter Jackson never disappoints me by far. I am really looking forward to the next movie, I'm very curious about the outer movies of the trilogy.… Expand

The Hobbit...was...amazing! It lives up to its genre name which would be adventure. It was exciting, humorous, interesting,and weird. Part 1 is an extremely good start to what might 2nd most epic trilogy of all time.

The Hobbit was a fantastic movie that hit all the right notes, while perhaps hitting a couple of bum ones. First things first, the majority of critics did not know what they were on about: the only reason it got as bad reviews as it did was because of the reason that it's a prequel (although the book actually came a long while before) that is split into three parts. I must admit, I was very dubious of this film, I was when I heard it was going to be two parts all those moons ago, even more so when I heard it would be three; the film exceeded my expectations by quite a margin. Let's get this out of the way straight away, the acting is great from all involved, with Martin Freeman making quite the splash as Bilbo. At times I felt the film strayed a little too much from the source material, but not enough to not love every second of the (around) three hours of run time, but this was necessary (and interesting enough) to spread the relatively small book over three long films. If you are expecting a very dark tone like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, be warned, this is a lot more light-hearted, Peter Jackson has done a great job at making the Hobbit feel unique at the same time as definitely a part of the Lord of the Rings series. The film is very special effects heavy, perhaps too special effects heavy for some (it was at times), but not to the point of being overly distracting or unnecessary. The film felt nostalgic, new, and magical all at the same time, helped overwhelmingly by the soundtrack, cinematography and acting. It was fantastic to see Middle-Earh again on the big screen, putting a smile on my face for pretty much the whole film. The negatives though, characters returning from the Lord of the Rings trilogy did feel a little forced and unnecessary, as all of their respective scenes lasted too long, old Bilbo and Frodo were there for too long! But, no way near long enough to ruin the film on any level, overall, I'm very pleased the film turned out as well as it did and am very much looking forward to parts two and three. Wonderful: 94/100.… Expand

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

Lord of the Rings it's not - and that's the point. The wit and humour present in the book is held true in Jackson's film adaptation. While the deviations are significant from the source material, the addition of the content from appendices and other works in Middle Earth are seamlessly blended together with content from The Hobbit itself. The frame rate will take a few minutes to adjust to, but the result is nothing short of spectacular. If you take this film for what it is - you will find it a thoroughly enjoyable film and an excellent adaptation of the works of Tolkien.… Expand

With The Lord of the Rings being my favorite film, doubts about Peter Jackson returning to Middle Earth with the Hobbit and concerns about him turning this relatively concise book into three movies; I had conflicting views upon entering this adventure. The final verdict is

Beautiful HFR and 3d. Many scenes benefit from this where you see action going on in the background and then it moves to the foreground naturally. The movie was very entertaining with many moving moments and a lot of chase scenes. It kinda reminded me of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for a while. All in all I enjoyed it greatly but I was ready for it to end when the credits rolled. Over 3 hours with previews is a little daunting.… Expand

Yawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic with this movie. Even Gollum was cheesy and over done. Blah. Stay home and put this in your Netflix queue. We should have known that this was going to happen. Jackson went from the Lord of the Rings to King Kong. He has tremendous potential to tell horrible stories and make bad movies. No one should be surprised.… Expand

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

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.

The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is a truly awesome film, very true to the re-written, darker version of the hobbit, obviously written by J.R.R Tolkien himself. I thought this first part set the trilogy up incredibly well, the way that it started slowly pleased me, because if they they didn't make it start slowly, they'd have to make the other two films 20 minutes shorter. After the first hour had finished, the movie became frantic and incredibly exciting and thrilling to watch, with just incredible stuff going on, it's hard to describe how great the film is after the first hour or so has past. An Unexpected Journey has a distinct feel and charm to it, being similar to the Lord of the Rings, but different at the same time, it manages to catch your emotions in quite a unique way, and that's a good thing... So I rate this movie a... 9.9/10!… Expand

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

At times, it drags its feet (especially in the first act) and there is a LOT of padding, but The Hobbit was definitely worth seeing. It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but there was never a moment where I didn't understand what was happening. The newest members of the cast like Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage are fantastic and it was great to see Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee again. I went with two friends who were big LOTR fans and they adored this movie. I look forward to the next installments, although I'm worried about the padding and there will be lots of it. The Hobbit isn't that long a book and I'm wondering how they're going to make 3 movies out of it. Even though this movie has its flaws, it's still worth seeing for the characters, acting, cinematography, and, well, everything else!… Expand

More of a new tech demo than an addition of epic saga, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey prioritizes more on the graphic until the point of unnecessity. Fortunately enough, the amazing talents and the nostalgic lore will make the journey worthwhile. The retelling of previous adventure of Bilbo Baggins has myriad of mystical elements, although with 48 fps, the visual is a departure from the earlier trilogy's cinematic feel. It's closer to a video game or documentary than a cinema flick, and it takes a while to get used to. The look definitely smoother, but somewhat too hyper realistic in tandem with 3D which makes it lost that ethereal look.
The story goes that Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is suddenly recruited to a party of thirteen Dwarves and one wizard to be their burglar in a quest to restore Erebor, the lost city of Dwarves that was stolen by a materialistic dragon. The invitation process is terribly awkward, and the fact that the first scenes in his house are excruciatingly long makes it even more so. Nevertheless there he is, trudging the forest and plain of Middle Earth in his spare time while the Dwarves are seriously moody about their fallen kingdom. Bilbo does a give foreign perceptive on the affair, but it feels like he's shoehorned into the party.

Despite the initial slogging opening, Martin Freeman does a very good job on this role. He's not really valiant or witty, just enough to not be killed, and in some way he represents what Frodo did, a normal person in midst of heroes. It's a very relatable role, more pronounced by his flaws, I think audience will respond well to that. Ian McKallen reprises his role as Gandalf, it fits him like the beard and robe. Gandalf is a strong character, yet he accepts his shortcomings and his companions'.

The Dwarves are stubbornly merry, they are more defined as a pack rather than individually. Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) stands out more than the rest, because he has a banished king appearance. His character is brave and bitter, making it the far cry of Bilbo. Andy Serkis as Gollum returns and pretty much steals the show with his unique expression and body language. He is one of the best mixtures of acting and technology to date. Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving return as their respective characters. Though only briefly, they maintain solid performances as if they never left the characters.
The singular most annoying problem of this movie is the dragging pace. It's a too visible attempt to advertise the new 48fps. I seriously doubt that the audience needs to see more than half hour of Dwarves singing while washing dishes in the beginning, or the slightly troubled relative of Gandalf, Radagast The Brown, resuscitating a hedgehog many times over before he rides in his woody cart attached to bunnies. Its writing isn't at the same level as Tolkien's, sometimes it's bordering on bland and expectedly dramatic.

For all the flaws, it's still an impressive visual. How the characters move or their heights' difference is seemingly normal, fast skirmished and action are a treat, although I'm not sure if this is the direction big budget title should go. Music is splendid, counting the nostalgic factor of the theme's soothing hum. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will most likely entertain you, although not in the same league as its predecessors.… Expand

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.

Though it packs visual grandeur beyond our greatest imaginations, it is a film whose pace is deathly slow and indolent - it slogs on painfully, resulting in the bloated, overlong film that it is. 'The Hobbit' has its resplendent moments which remind you that Peter Jackson is the director, but these moments are too seldom found in the film. Furthermore, the conflicting forces of a demeanor of innocence (which is derived from the fact the book was written for children) and the epic tone that is attempted to be carried on from the Lord of the Rings trilogy results in an overall effect of inconsistency and general lack of acuity in the tone of the film. "The Hobbit" is satisfying because of the power of the on-screen spectacles and the near-hymnic power of the sound track, despite its obvious inability to even loiter in the same league as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.… Expand

This is nothing short of the beginning of new Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that's basically the best fact ever, and a total reward to those who love TLOTR. It's all here: the music, the spectacle, and a few returning characters of course. My gripe is that the story isn't pushed along fast enough by the action. Meaning, after a battle not much has changed, and on to the next battle. But enough complaints! I'm back in the world of TLOTR!… Expand

A must see for all the Middle-Earth aficionados. A great return to a great universe... The movie is a tribute to all the fans, who missed songs, as well as references to the Silmarillion and other Tolkien's works in the LOTR trilogy. The critics may be right when pointing out some tedious moments, but taken as a whole the movie stands out as a really enjoyable work, shot in a spectacular 3D technology...… Collapse

"The Hobbit" was great, of course. The only complaint I have is the same one that critics said about the first three (that I disagree with in respect to those films): It

Next to "The Avengers", this is the best movie of all 2012. The critics were way too harsh when reviewing this movie. I saw it, and I really did like it. It is based on the best fantasy book of all time. Well done Peter Jackson, well done.

The fact that this not LOTR immediately undermines the Hobbit; a smaller children's book that lacks the serious themes of Rings but makes for it with a much lighter tone, amazing creatures and action. Whether Peter Jackson's vision for this new trilogy works and is vindicated is yet to be seen but there is plenty to look forward to with this film. Great performances if not all the characters are developed but there is an overriding sense of fun and adventure which Rings sometimes lacked. HFR isn't successful I'm afraid and some of the CG characters don't feel real but this is a well made film with stunning visuals and a final scene that makes thus first film satisfying whilst setting up a seemingly more epic second film.… Expand

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.

All the major critics of this film relate this film to Lord of the Rings and say how it was not near as epic as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Let me first say that no it isn't but The Hobbit is no epic and so you shouldn't expect it to be. The Hobbit is a short, goofy heart-warming prequel to an epic. Sure, it has it's epic moments but out rightly comparing this movie to Lord of the Rings is unfair. So, if that's not my complaint why did I give this movie a 6? The problem is that the Hobbit is a short book and it's ending up being stretched into 3 LONG movies. Since the Hobbit book is even shorter than a single Lord of the Rings book this is a problem and this lead to Jackson looking to the appendices to put more content into the film. This leads to a drawn out film that doesn't seem to want to end. There are definitely scenes that should have been saved for the extended addition and other parts that should have plainly been cut. Anther problem is that the film seems to want to spend more times making ties to Lord of the Rings than developing it's own characters (all of which did great jobs in there respective roles.) This leads to cameos by characters not previously in the Hobbit which while cool is something that makes the movie even more long. If Jackson trims the fat of the movie down just a bit more in the next two films the could be great but he has to learn that he must do that first. If you're a big LOTR fan you will love this movie but if you're indifferent to the series you'll find it to be mediocre. Yeah I enjoyed it and yeah I'm extremely excited for the next two movies. I just hope it's an improvement to this film.… Expand

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is Peter Jackson's epic prequel to The Lord of the Rings films, and after seeing this adaption of the first part of J.R.R. Tolkien's book, I can honestly say I am excited to see the future films. I was scared to see what they would do with this film because there is so much hype leading up to it and we expect something as great as the The Fellowship of the Ring, but now I can take a deep breath and relax because I actually was given a really fun movie. I didn't feel it matched the Fellowship in terms of of its storytelling, but what I think most people need to realize is that The Hobbit book was not as dark and as The Lord of the Rings books, so I always expected that this wouldn't match the other films. Most people were scared that this film would become the next "Phantom Menace" and ruin the legacy of The Lord of the Rings, but in my opinion this movie only adds on to the enjoyment of the old movies and also gives us a new trilogy to be excited for. That being said, this movie did have some issues that I had a problem with. Most of it was the little things such as the overdose of CGI, the slow start, and even making Radagast the Brown a really embarassing person to watch. All this were not big problems and th movie is still great, I just personally would've done it differently. Peter Jackson has returned to Middle-Earth and has shown me that he still knows exactly what he is doing. He has a vision for this film and I was glad that he gave it a lighter and happier tone like the book. The action of this movie will bring back some great memories because you can feel the grand scale of the battles and brilliant cinematography just like in the Lord of the Rings. The final hour of this movie is filled with some great action and memorable heartfelt moments that Peter Jackson is a genius at presenting. The Lord of the Rings trilogy are my favorite films ever made, so you can only imagine how excited I was to see this. So after seeing An Unexpected Journey, all I can say is that this is one great film that has me excited to see the rest of its trilogy.… Expand

aunque sigue fiel a los libros the hobbit es una película inferior a las del señor de los anillos y aunque tiene unos momentos interesantes la película aburre a la hora y media y si usted es como yo se quedara dormido y no querrá volverla aver

The movie is of well above average quality. I liked the characters, but not so much as the sightseeing, the world of "Hobbit...". I was dissapointed in Thorin and his band, as they try hard to be more than a background to Bilbo, but it comes out flat. Didn`t find them that interesting. It is good that Martin Freeman came through and gave a great performance. The movie rests on his actions so thanks to him ir does a good job showing us a great adventure. I really liked the villains, especially Azog, but all of them are excellent, along with their homes. The music I expected to be top notch and I wasn`t disappointed. The bad think in my opinion are some of the action scenes, which are too much over the top, unbelievable. The dialogues are really good for and adventure - genre movie. 3hours of it didn`t bore me a second. All in all it is a must see lick, although a masterpiece I think it is not.… Expand

"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

Storyline: The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is coerced into going on a fantastical adventure with Gandalf the wizard and 13 Dwarfs. In there travels they meet an assortment of creatures. This is only the first of a planned trilogy although the book 'The Hobbit' is quite short. For Ring fans, we finally get to see a Dwarf woman and we learn why Dwarfs hate Elves.

Acting: Martin Freeman did a decent job playing a younger Bilbo who all Ring fans have become so familiar with. Richard Armitage as Thorin was also worthy of mention. Andy Serkis played Gollum once more and did exceptional work. There were a few surprise cameos as well and all the supporting cast were good.

Direction: Peter Jackson has outdone himself with this one and must surely get an Oscar nod.

Production: This film is one of those examples where you can really see where all of the $180 million went. Almost every scene is filled with spectacular detail. This has to be watched 2-3 times to take it all in. There seems to be a decent enough effort to use real world action where possible which helped with authenticity.

Conclusion: The complete cinematic experience. This film should be universally accessible and covers so many topics. I can't recommend this more highly.

Score: 10/10… Expand

Review based on 48fps non-3d edition as 3d gives me headaches.
I was very impressed with the LOTR trilogy by Peter Jackson, after being worried after seeing his earlier works...but then as now faith has been rewarded. The Hobbit is pretty much as I would have expected it, it matches most of the previous 3 movies high standards without too many shortcummings to stretch a short kids book into another 3 part epic. Lets not forget there is more story and background stuff in "The Hobbit" than all the Harry Potter series put together, so lets look at the main things Jackson got right. 1. 48fps is fantastic and whingers should shut up crying about out of date 24fps formats, though I agree 3d sucks and needs to die quickly.
2. The story is pretty faithful to the book, and actually improves on some duller bits with some awesome special fx action sequences to pad it out in such a way it feels right at home with the lore.
3. The acting is fantastic, Martin freeman was the perfect choice, and to have a lot of the original cast show up is also and linking it seemlessly to the LOTR movies is very welcome...
4. The dwarves... okay they are there to carry the humour, they were written with next to no personality and stereotypical, but it's a kids book remember.

So why did I only give it 9/10, well some places didn't really need to be in there (Mountain Giants) but they were nice additions for nothing I guess... nobody would really miss having it when the movie is over 2:30hrs long... but I bought the extended LOTR so I want the lot...warts n all lol. So in essence it's a little long for kids to sit through but ideal for the nippers once it's out on Bluray.… Expand

Putting aside the grumblings about making a trilogy from a short enough book, I still found this fourth trip to Jacksons version of middle earth to be really enjoyable. Its beautiful to look at and has a lighter touch than the Rings trilogy. Even the long running time (surely a bit of editing could have been used to tighten it to 2 hours?) doesnt detract too much. I went in with some reservations but left looking forward to part 2. Cant say more than that really. Certainly no Phantom Menace.… Expand

Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (or The Hobbit, as I will refer to it for the purpose of this review) I had very low expectations. When Peter Jackson announced it would be three movies, let alone two movies where I had already felt the source material was being stretched, I cringed. I knew no matter what the reviews were, I

A film with such a big budget and all kinds of spectacular special effects and with a running time of 3 hours on purpose should not feel so long and boring at parts. Maybe it is affected by the previous trilogy, but it feels like we have seen it before. It is still great but without that surprising point it becomes tedious when the film is 1 hour and a half in. It feels like a contrived journey. But it becomes interesting in the last hour again once the most loved creature by the public finally appears and steals the show for a long while.
Many other films with long running-times released in 2012 are way more interesting, impacting, emotive and feel shorter than what they are: Django, Les Miserables, Skyfall, Dark Knight Rises and more.… Expand

I don't know what happened to the official critics to rate this movie so badly. This is one hell of a movie, entertaining, has got the "film" aspect, rouses emotions in you, a has a message. Even better the film will be if you read the book. You can't go wrong when you see how many people rated this movie X>60% (green). Reccommended!

Bloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save it from being complete disaster though.

I'm not a big fan of Tolkien and the original trilogy and I've read the book a very long time ago, so guess I'm being impartial here. I've definitely enjoyed the movie, it's well-filmed (no wonder in that), but it suffers from one thing, and that'd be the book being split into three separate movies. Not just that, but three two-and-half-hour-long movies. As a result, the story gains a bunch of unnecessary and often uninteresting details and the beginning feels awkwardly slow, the first half an hour of the film could easily be shortened thrice or so. But once the beginning's over, you'll get immersed in the world of Middle Earth. Another thing is I think that Bilbo is actually a better protagonist than Frodo - he's brave, modest and funny, another great performance by Martin Freeman. Anyway, it's a really good fantasy movie you definitely wouldn't wanna miss.… Expand

"The Hobbit" is a spectacle, grand and beautiful, the Middle-Earth we have all grown to love. Though it doesn't reach the majesty of the LOTR, it is nonetheless a welcome return.

plenty of reviews have already nailed this so ill just say bored the life out of me. watching it i couldn't stop thinking is this one movie stretched into 3 just to line some pockets? really looked forward to this, tried to like it. but... do you give points for prettiness? on substance alone i can only give this a 3....

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

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

The movie is worse than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.The 48 FPS I didn't note it.The actors are great.Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are great acting.The director didn't do it like Lord of the Rings.

After almost a decade since the last adventure in Middle Earth, Peter Jackson shows us that he's still got it with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. While I do not consider this to be as good as the almighty Lord Of The Rings trilogy, it's not trying to be, it's not trying to be another Lord Of The Rings film. The Hobbit is essentially a children's book that is more focused on fun and humour than the LOTR, and Jackson has translated that brilliantly into this film by staying incredibly faithful to the source material (even down to the songs the dwarves sing) and with a very strong script that has many laughs and sustains more of a lighter tone for the most part. Make no mistake though, this is definitely an epic fantasy film full of intense action, brilliant set pieces and great characters. The Hobbit himself : Bilbo Baggins is definitely the stand out due mainly to Martin Freeman's fantastic performance as the character, he completely nails Bilbo by brilliantly portraying the character's journey from the "playing it safe and avoiding trouble" attitude to the determined and adventure craving Bilbo we see in TLOTR, and I looking forward to see this continue in the next two films. The rest of the cast are also very impressive with Sir Ian Mckellan giving a brilliant performance once again as Gandalf the Grey and ofcourse there are the 13 dwarves who are all played well, look great and are great fun to watch on screen. The presentation of this film is incredible, I watched this in 2d and with the normal frame rate and I thought the film looked gorgeous, the direction, the cinematography and the special effects all came together to make this film beautiful and the soundtrack is also fantastic. However while watching it, I did feel that too much CGI was used at some points, I understand that they are not trying to make this film as gritty as TLOTR but there were times when I thought that practical effects would have looked better on screen, nonetheless the film looks incredible. The main problem with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for me is it's length. 2 hours and 45 minutes is a hell of a long time to show just one third of the story in the book and while I understand that Peter Jackson is using more source material than just The Hobbit book but I just felt that there could be half an hour in this film that could be cut for time. The beginning is where the film is at it's slowest, and while it delivers it's exposition very well, and the main characters are introduced in great fashion, by about half an hour into the film I felt like we've been spending a little too much time in the shire and it was time to get on with the adventure. There is also a seen featuring Ian Holm and Elijha Wood as older Bilbo and Frodo, while it was great to see Frodo again, there was no point to that scene and it just made the beginning of the film feel to drawn out. There are other scenes throughout the film that feel like they could have been cut and these scenes make this seem almost like a directors cut rather than the theatrical version of The Hobbit, and I think it's a case of Peter Jackson over indulging in this world. Once the film gets going, it reaches brilliance, the scenes involving Bilbo meeting Gollum were absolutely incredible and it's just things like that that made me feel like I am experiencing entertainment of the highest class. It has it's issues that are hard to overlook but overall, this is an excellent film that I highly recommend.… Expand

This movie seems more like a children's movie than a LOTR movie. Little Dwarves who sing and drink. The action scenes and characters seem cheesy, and mainly, this should NOT be 3 movies. The next movie better be good.

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

EPIC adventure. Outstanding visuals. Great actors. Nice 3D effects. Solid length. An AAA-class movie. No more, no less. I enjoyed every minute of the movie. Waiting for the next part!!!

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm apart of the minority that did not like this movie. Really shocked that more people didn't like it. But then again a lot of people never read the book. Just went to see the movie based off all the success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Anyway, I read the book. Twice. Once when I was in the 5th grade and again 2 or 3 weeks before the movie release. I was stunned. Peter Jackson seemed more focused on creating a more visual and beautiful Middle-Earth than we saw in LOTR. This movie was simply, too much of a good thing. Guillermo Del Toro, a fantastic filmmaker in his own right, honestly had ZERO business being apart of the screenplay production. It also seemed as if Peter Jackson wanted The Hobbit to be a comedy because there was, and honestly too much of, comedy in this serious film. Yes, there was comedy in the book, but not to the extent Peter Jackson went. I would rate this movie lower, however there was one scene I found fascinating. And that was the meeting of Gollum and Bilbo. They had an excellent back and forth that I found myself enjoying as it continued. And why did Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the book. Anyway, it could, and SHOULD have been a lot better. It seems as if Peter Jackson watched James Cameron's Avatar one day and looked at the world of Pandora and said, "Hey, forget the script, and character development, and a good story to stay true to the book, I wanna do THAT!" And its exactly what he did. He re-created Middle-Earth with his own vision this time, and not the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Maybe this was just a hit and miss for part 1. A sort of testing the waters if you will. The chapter of Smaug is up next in the trilogy of films that is The Hobbit. I, for one hope that the CGI and lame comedy was all out of Peter Jackson's system because Part 2 is highly critical in if Part 3 can be successful. If Peter Jackson messes up Smaug..... may God help us all.… Expand

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