User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2532 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 27, 2015
    4
    Even the extended version leaves me wanting more. This movie could have been so much better. It relied far too heavy on CGI and special effects and not enough on establishing the story and the characters.
  2. Sep 1, 2014
    6
    It is clear that Peter Jackson should not stretch the children's book into three Lord of the Rings-length feature films. Nevertheless, Jackson brings an insightful look into Middle Earth once again. An Unexpected Journey is by no means a repeat of the previous trilogy--it's fresh and exciting.
  3. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    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 isPeter 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
  4. 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 lotThe 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
  5. Dec 18, 2012
    6
    The Hobbit is clearly a step down from The Lord of the Rings. Jackson didn't seem to remember how to direct. Editing, pace, acting and even action sequences were off. The movie simply didn't gel. The visuals were stunning, music remember full and some scenes brought back good memories. The Hobbit isn't a bad movie by any means but the length is simply ridiculous.
  6. Dec 23, 2012
    8
    Although the film's first act may seem a bit sluggish to some, in my opinion "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" powers through it with plenty of humor, surprisingly well-developed characters, and an always-stellar amount of visual magnificence.
  7. 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 theGoing 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
  8. Apr 29, 2013
    7
    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.
  9. 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.
  10. Apr 17, 2013
    8
    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.
  11. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    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 theI 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
  12. Apr 21, 2013
    10
    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.
  13. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    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 viewersA 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
  14. 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
    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
  15. Apr 2, 2013
    8
    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 RingsMany 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
  16. Mar 26, 2013
    8
    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 MiddleA 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
  17. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    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
    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
  18. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    The opening sequence of this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is so good that one is immediately optimistic about what is to come. Therefore, it is rather disappointing to report that following this excellent opening we are treated to a film whose first half is so dull and dreary that boredom settles in very quickly. It is definitely not the equal of any of TLOTR films. A perfunctoryThe 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
  19. Jan 2, 2013
    7
    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 givingOverall 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
  20. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    If you liked The Lord of the Rings movies than you'll like this film. The visuals are absolutely incredible and it has that familiar LOTR feel that we all know and love. I couldn't quite give it a 10/10 for a few reasons. For one, there are so many characters that most of them have absolutely zero development whatsoever. Frodo gets more screen time than some of the dwarves and that'sIf 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
  21. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    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 battlesThe 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
  22. Jan 28, 2013
    8
    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. TheI 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
  23. Jan 3, 2013
    5
    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. TheI 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
  24. 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.
  25. Mar 11, 2015
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First off, I do like the movie. Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo. He truly embodies the character. The dwarves are very well cast too. Unfortunately, the script makes arbitrary changes to several key scenes. I was very upset that they almost completely changed the scene with the trolls. Tolkien did it best in the book and why Mr. Jackson and troop of writers changed the scene only seems like they were arrogant enough to believe that they could do better. They didn't. The scene in the movie is crude and not funny at all. it also tries to turn the focus on Bilbo when it was originally meant to show Gandalf as a tricky and wise wizard.

    Otherwise, the visuals, the action scenes, and musical score are excellent. It's not a bad movie, just don't expect book, or you will be sorely disappointed.
    Expand
  26. Mar 24, 2013
    9
    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.
  27. Dec 22, 2012
    4
    Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!
  28. 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 makeHow 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
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. Nov 9, 2014
    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.
  32. 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 solidFirst 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
  33. Apr 23, 2015
    7
    In 2001, only a few months after the fall of the World Trade Center, Peter Jackson swept us away to Middle Earth with The Fellowship of the Ring. It was a wondrous three-hour achievement: the first major attempt at serious, big budget epic fantasy. It succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination ("imagination" being the key term), and Fellowship, along with its follow-ups, The Two TowersIn 2001, only a few months after the fall of the World Trade Center, Peter Jackson swept us away to Middle Earth with The Fellowship of the Ring. It was a wondrous three-hour achievement: the first major attempt at serious, big budget epic fantasy. It succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination ("imagination" being the key term), and Fellowship, along with its follow-ups, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, convinced Hollywood that there was unexplored ore in the fantasy mine. Now, nine years after closing the book on The Lord of the Rings, Jackson has returned to the scene of his greatest success. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment of a three-part adaptation of Tolkien's first Middle Earth adventure, is both more and less of the same. There are numerous concrete reasons why An Unexpected Journey fails to live up to the standard set by The Lord of the Rings, but the most critical is also the most intangible: the magic is gone (or at least muted). An Unexpected Journey is a competent, entertaining effort but it neither enthralls nor amazes in the way its predecessors did. There's no question that Jackson is attempting to recapture something elusive and, although there are stretches when he comes close, he never quite attains that goal. It would be monumentally unfair to label The Hobbit as a "failure," but calling it a "disappointment" would be reasonable. Jackson established expectations with The Lord of the Rings; his inability to fulfill them is perhaps a trap of his own making.

    The Fellowship of the Ring is 400 pages; Jackson adapted it into a three-hour theatrical release. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey covers the first 100 pages of a 270-page book; the movie version runs only 10 minutes shorter than The Fellowship of the Ring. And therein lies this production's Achilles Heel: its long-windedness. An Unexpected Journey does not earn its 168-minute running time. From the beginning, there's a sense of bloating and self-indulgence. Roughly the first half requires a dose of caffeine to stay awake and focused. Things improve considerably during the second half. In fact, the final 45 minutes are tightly paced and riveting. But the strong ending cannot fully compensate for the way the movie meanders and stumbles during its first two hours. I think there's a very good, perhaps even a great, movie contained within An Unexpected Journey, but a ruthless editor was needed to unearth it. Perhaps the DVD Special Edition for this picture should feature less footage rather than more.

    In a sense, it's unfair to assign a final "grade" to The Hobbit until all three parts are available. Perhaps, when viewed as a whole, the movies will provide a smoother, more richly textured experience than what is hinted at by An Unexpected Journey. Maybe some of the secondary characters will come to life. In this first chapter, only Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin show sufficient personality to distinguish themselves.

    Unfortunately, there are also some unforgivably cartoonish moments. The shots of Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) being chased by goblins while riding a rabbit-pulled sleigh look like a video game excerpt. There are other isolated scenes that have a similar problem with the CGI being too apparent. The stone giant battle is impressive but it looks more like an outtake from a Transformers film than something that belongs in The Hobbit. On the other hand, there are some wonderful scenes: a council with Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman, and Galadriel; riddles in dark with the most vivid, detailed Gollum to date; and the climactic stand-off with the White Orc. Jackson does a great job crafting the goblin's underground kingdom. The troll encounter does justice to the book. Rivendell mimics what we saw in The Lord of the Rings. And the glimpses of Smaug make us want to see more.

    Visually, The Hobbit is being released in four different flavors: digital 2-D, 3-D at 24 frames-per-second (fps), 3-D at 48 fps, and 3-D IMAX. Having seen it in the 48 fps version, I have a few comments. First, neither the doubled frame rate nor the 3-D adds much to the overall experience. Both are superfluous. The 3-D does not create a richer environment, although neither does it corrupt the experience. The 48 fps is less noticeable than I expected. There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes. My advice: avoid all the visual flourishes and see this in good, old-fashioned 2-D. The Lord of the Rings didn't need 48 fps or 3-D and there's no conceivable reason why The Hobbit should. It's certainly not better because of it.

    Still, for all of its faults, which are more numerous than those in any of The Lord of the Rings' chapters, Jackson successfully navigates the return to Middle Earth.
    Expand
  34. Sep 26, 2014
    7
    I think "An Unexpected Journey" was a reasonably good start to the soon-to-be Hobbit trilogy. It's exciting, adventurous, and engaging, but it might strain your patience at a running time of nearly three hours because some scenes dragged on for a very long time. Another problem I had was that it tried to connect to The Lord of the Rings way too much such as the addition of a few charactersI think "An Unexpected Journey" was a reasonably good start to the soon-to-be Hobbit trilogy. It's exciting, adventurous, and engaging, but it might strain your patience at a running time of nearly three hours because some scenes dragged on for a very long time. Another problem I had was that it tried to connect to The Lord of the Rings way too much such as the addition of a few characters and an overly long intro scene. It's still a nice first chapter in what I think will be a great series despite those faults. Expand
  35. Dec 9, 2014
    7
    Everything is about money, including this new and unnecessary trilogy.

    This new trilogy is far away when it comes to Middle-earth magic, as we know it. The main issue is that there are three movies on one book that’s only one-third of The Lord of The Rings; this can only result in a worse trilogy than Lord of the Rings. It’s all about money. One result of this is that it took like 25
    Everything is about money, including this new and unnecessary trilogy.

    This new trilogy is far away when it comes to Middle-earth magic, as we know it. The main issue is that there are three movies on one book that’s only one-third of The Lord of The Rings; this can only result in a worse trilogy than Lord of the Rings. It’s all about money. One result of this is that it took like 25 minutes for the movie to really start; there are so much slow scenes in the beginning. There’s also much slow and silly scenes in the film, there’s no LotR-magic. But at the same time are there some highly entertaining and funny things that I totally enjoyed to see, and the action is great, but not as unique as in The Lord of the Rings. The biggest problem with the action is that there’s too much CGI, and by that I mean bad CGI. It doesn’t look real. Some of the villains that are only CGI are superb, but when it comes to other living objects like trees and fires am I not impressed. The movie is overall very entertaining because it gives us a greater backstory of Bilbo’s life, which hasn’t been fully explained before. There are lots of connections between the two trilogies, which I truly love! The extended edition is even greater, so much more material. The last aspect of the film that I really enjoyed is the soundtrack. It’s so touching. But not as epic as The Lord of the Rings.

    This movie gives the audience a greater backstory of Bilbo’s life, before everything in one of the greatest trilogies ever made. Even though Peter Jackson directed this film, it got some flaws. The silliness and a big lack of innovation and dramatic scenes don’t make this film even close to matching The Fellowship of the Ring.

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey gets a 7.5/10.
    Expand
  36. Dec 28, 2012
    7
    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 theMore 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
  37. 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"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
  38. 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.
  39. 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, heI 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
  40. 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
  41. Dec 14, 2012
    8
    The things that struck me about it were one, it
  42. Dec 25, 2012
    9
    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!!!
  43. 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.
  44. Jan 13, 2013
    7
    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, anDon'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
  45. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    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 veryIt'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
  46. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    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 charactersHmm. 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
  47. Dec 14, 2014
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

    Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visual que, digamos, cumple con las expectativas (debido a que las 3 películas de "The Lorg of the Ring" ganaron el Oscar en la categoría de "Mejores Efectos
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

    Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visual que, digamos, cumple con las expectativas (debido a que las 3 películas de "The Lorg of the Ring" ganaron el Oscar en la categoría de "Mejores Efectos Visuales), y que le dan una caracterización bien ilustrada a la tierra media, sin embargo, la película tiene un fallo, y es que sus largos 169 minutos de duración (o 2 horas con 39 minutos, que en general son casi 3 horas de metraje) resultan un tanto pesada o fastidiosa (aunque no todo el tiempo), por lo tanto algunas personas quizá puede resultar un poco, digamos, lenta (aunque no en todo los términos), pero, esa larga duración no hace que la película caiga, así que, logra mantenerse firme durante todo su trayecto y terminando con un espectáculo lleno de buenos efectos visuales, buena ambientación y con un comienzo respetable de esta nueva trilogía de la edad media.
    Expand
  48. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    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'tThis 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
  49. Jan 28, 2013
    6
    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 theAll 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
  50. Jan 13, 2013
    9
    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 differentThe 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
  51. Feb 3, 2013
    6
    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 contrivedA 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
  52. Jan 1, 2013
    9
    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.
  53. Jan 1, 2013
    8
    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
  54. Mar 3, 2013
    4
    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. AfterOh 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
  55. Jan 11, 2013
    8
    Although The Hobbit is not as good as the LOTR it is still better than most films that have come out in 2012
    eg Avengers Assemble, Keith Lemon The Movie.
  56. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    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.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
  57. Dec 29, 2012
    6
    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 II 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
  58. Apr 1, 2013
    5
    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.
  59. Dec 18, 2012
    3
    I almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't that far through, the magic of Middle Earth was lost amongst waterfalls, mountains and lush forests, and I was assuming what they were searching for whatI 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
  60. Jan 1, 2013
    9
    I don't understand why this isn't getting the best of reviews. I loved it, and cannot wait for "Desolation of Smaug" If this looked good to you and you were looking forward to it, then don't be turned away. I loved the LOTR series and I love "Unexpected Journey".
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. Dec 16, 2012
    7
    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 manyTalk 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
  64. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    An extremely well done movie suited both for those familiar with the movies and those new to the series. Being a fan of the Lord of the Rings movies and book trilogy I thoroughly enjoyed this film. To describe the movie I think it is suffice to say that it doesn't feel like a 2 hr 45 min film. The production value is high and it definitely shows in all ways. Plenty of foreshadowing of whatAn 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
  65. Oct 19, 2014
    8
    The adventure follows the journey of title character Bilbo Baggins, who is swept into an epic quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield. Their journey will take them into the Wild;The adventure follows the journey of title character Bilbo Baggins, who is swept into an epic quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield. Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Sorcerers. Although their goal lies to the East and the wastelands of the Lonely Mountain, first they must escape the goblin tunnels, where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever…Gollum. Here, alone with Gollum, on the shores of an underground lake, the unassuming Bilbo Baggins not only discovers depths of ingenuity and courage that surprise even him, he also gains possession of Gollum’s “precious” ring that holds unexpected and useful qualities… A simple, gold ring that is tied to the fate of all Middle-earth in ways Bilbo cannot begin to know. Expand
  66. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    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 threeWas 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
  67. 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
  68. 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.
  69. Jan 21, 2013
    6
    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.
  70. 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.
  71. Jan 5, 2014
    3
    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 dwarvesSlow, 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
  72. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    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.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
  73. Mar 20, 2013
    8
    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'tThis 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
  74. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit - An unexpected journey is a film of 2012 directed by Peter Jackson and based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. The story speaks of the facts prior to "The Lord of the Rings" and tells of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who, together with Gandalf and thirteen dwarves will help to regain the treasure of the latter, guarded by the fearsome dragon Smaug. The film is very faithful toThe 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
  75. 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 withWhile 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
  76. 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.
  77. Jan 6, 2013
    7
    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.
  78. Dec 23, 2012
    6
    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 likeThe 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
  79. 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
  80. Jan 2, 2013
    6
    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. TheI 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
  81. 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 areMost 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
  82. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    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.
  83. 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
  84. Dec 29, 2014
    8
    The pacing is very uneven at times, but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a very well done return to Middle Earth with enough action, heart, and lore to keep people satisfied.
  85. Dec 30, 2012
    8
    Short of expectations. I've read the books and love the whole LOTR world that Tolkien has masterfully created for us all to enjoy. Also thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. That said, I cannot believe they are making a trilogy out of this one book (the shortest of them all!). Talk about milking it for all it's worth. Anyways, I digress... As for the actual movie: I watched this in theShort of expectations. I've read the books and love the whole LOTR world that Tolkien has masterfully created for us all to enjoy. Also thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. That said, I cannot believe they are making a trilogy out of this one book (the shortest of them all!). Talk about milking it for all it's worth. Anyways, I digress... As for the actual movie: I watched this in the normal 24fps since I had heard bad things about the higher framerate. And it was far too long!! Definitely could have been edited and cut down more. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get more time spent in the realm of Middle Earth, but this was simply excessive. I also feel like they were trying too hard to capture the same sense of the first three movies, and while The Hobbit's tale is definitely epic but it is simply not big enough to match the same level of the three main books so their attempts were futile. There were a lot of flashbacks and jumping around all over, so it can feel a bit disjointed. My favorite scene is definitely Gollum's part in the movie. Anyway, other than it being too long, trying too hard, and disjointed, I did like it and was entertained by it. Recommended, but I wouldn't set the bar as high as the first three movies done. ALSO: 3D and IMAX 3D aren't worth the hiked up price. Regular IMAX (if that's offered) or simply a regular cinema screen would be better (unless you're really into that). I barely noticed the 3D and felt it was more of a chance to ripoff than something that would make me enjoy the movie better. Expand
  86. 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
    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
  87. Dec 20, 2012
    10
    For the first time in 9 years, Peter Jackson takes us back to Middle Earth with the premiere of his prequel trilogy, "The Hobbit" - and what a return it is! "An Unexpected Journey" is like a drink of cold water on a hot summer day . . . a wonderfully satisfying romp of a film full of strong characters, top-notch acting, gorgeous special effects and sweeping cinematography. Take all theFor 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
  88. Feb 26, 2013
    9
    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 freshTake 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
  89. Dec 28, 2014
    7
    This movie did not wow or disappoint me. It was a good enough movie to establish the Hobbit trilogy and introduce the characters, for sure. However, the worst problems of this movie were boring scenes and an unnecessarily long running time. But the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is definitely a solid movie and is a great setup for the trilogy. 7/10 (good)
  90. Dec 28, 2012
    7
    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
    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
  91. Jan 4, 2015
    9
    Peter Jackson regresa después de tantos años a la tierra media de una forma épica, espectacular y increíble. Visualmente es Perfecta, en todos los aspectos es magistral. Aunque no este al nivel de "El Señor de Los Anillos" es y sera un clásico por siempre.
  92. 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
    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
  93. Dec 28, 2012
    10
    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 firstThe 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
  94. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    There are moments that make you remember the first three films, and that unfortunately makes you realize how much better those are than this. Perhaps in the next two (God help us) we will see more development but this is a film that is at least 30 minutes too long and too family friendly for its own good.
  95. Jan 28, 2013
    9
    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 comeof 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
  96. 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.
  97. Dec 30, 2012
    8
    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 realThe 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
  98. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed
  99. Dec 18, 2012
    7
    The Hobbit is enjoyable and fun, playing more like a well-performed score with a slow rise into an epic swirl of sonic activity. By itself the movie rates as a 7 for me. No special fanfare scoring or pessimistic knocking. This film serves as a setup for two additional films to come. The biggest drawback to An Unexpected Journey is the film's struggle for meaning and identity early on.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
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.