User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2659 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. JMc
    Jan 2, 2013
    2
    I have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeatsI have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeats the purpose. There is a tinny feel to it; I thought I would be getting a voluptuous visual cinematic experience, but far from it. If you can stand the thought of the hours of boredom, at least do yourself the favour of seeing the normal frame rate version. I wish I had. Expand
  2. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An absolutely stunning fantasy adventure. I was enthralled from start to finish. Does it help to know the book, and the mythical background? Maybe, but I can't unknow it, whereas those ignorant of the story of how (and why) a wizard calls in on a homely hobbit to persuade him to go on a quest, have a choice.

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

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

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

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

    Now, to find a cinema where I can watch it again, this time in 48fps and 3D!
    Expand
  3. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    I was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the sourceI was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the source material of the hobbit is not near as good as the LOTR trilogy and I don't know why in the world they decided to turn this into a trilogy creating three movies full of unnecessary fluff, two maybe, three no way. Wait until the dollar theater or redbox and go catch Lincoln, The Perks of being a Wallflower, Wreck it Ralph or Life of Pi. Expand
  4. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    Push the hype aside and ignore the book, this movie is a very good movie. It is clear expectations were super high and I believe that is where some of the negative scores have come from. No movie will make everyone happy, but this movie is not worthy have very low scores. If this had been the first movie released from the series, fans would have thought they found the greatest movie ever.Push the hype aside and ignore the book, this movie is a very good movie. It is clear expectations were super high and I believe that is where some of the negative scores have come from. No movie will make everyone happy, but this movie is not worthy have very low scores. If this had been the first movie released from the series, fans would have thought they found the greatest movie ever. The pace of the movie is a little slower than any of the LOTR movies, but not as bad as some people say. If you must have action every five minutes, yes, you will be disappointed. If you love the book, this should be a great movie for you. If enjoy fantasy films, this should be a good movie for you. The biggest flaw for me was a few of the actions scenes became too cartoon like. One where the heroes are on a bridge that falls down and they ride it like they were glued to it. Not only was that bad, but it looked like something from a 1970s low budget Sci-Fi movie. Not a worthy scene for the movie. I have read some who complain they do not take the time to get the audience familiar with all the dwarfs in the main group. I do not see how they could have done that without making the movie another hour longer. As far as the format choice, it did not bother me. Yes, it does lack some of the slightly warmer feel of film, but it looks very crisp. I think if no one said anything, most people would not have picked up on the unique format. Bottom line, this is worth seeing in theaters if you enjoy fantasy films. If you are looking for an action packed movie, maybe the next Die Hard can help you with that. s it worth going 3-D, that I do not know. Expand
  5. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    I must say that if you must not go in the theater to watch this film with Lord of The Rings in your mind. This film is absolutely different from the previous three films in LOTR trilogy. This film is not based on the victory over evil but it is a film that tells us about the lives of different races in Middle Earth. So,I must surely say that this film is a must-watch for you.
  6. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    It was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR wasIt was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR was a groundbreaking effort that appealed to the "masses" and not just the hard core fans of Tolkien. And a little more than a decade after the film of LotR came Hobbit. For me every little second of the film was a revival of the book, giving picture, sound and life to the fantastic characters of the book. It couldn't have been done in a better way. If you did not like it, you wouldn't probably like the book. There are moments that your backbone shivers by the thrilling scenes, mainly during the singing and fighting of the dwarven company. To wrap it up, Bilbo was the best Bilbo I would expect to see and I wouldn't change a second of the little character's performance in a bit. Really looking forward to the next part(s)! Expand
  7. Dec 20, 2012
    6
    Not close to as well made as the LOTR's trilogy but entertaining. I have to knock it for adding in places that really did not need it. Also, there was no content and there's no reason for this to be a trilogy.
  8. Dec 31, 2012
    8
    I have to say that ignorance is bliss; as someone who has not read the novel I seemed to enjoy it much more than my friends who had read it. Though it has a slow start, it quickly picks up and entertains all the way through, breaking any tedious moments with riveting special effects or brisk action. I would recommend watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy first so you can catch all theI have to say that ignorance is bliss; as someone who has not read the novel I seemed to enjoy it much more than my friends who had read it. Though it has a slow start, it quickly picks up and entertains all the way through, breaking any tedious moments with riveting special effects or brisk action. I would recommend watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy first so you can catch all the subtle (and not-so-subtle) nods to its sister series. Definitely a spectacular film and looking forward to the next movies. Expand
  9. Jan 9, 2013
    9
    The movie is visually beautiful. It's a new opportunity to revisit Middle-Earth through the mastery of Peter Jackson - but it is not The Lord of the Rings, it's another story, so don't expect the same experience. If only the climax had been Goblin town, the movie would've been better. The HFR version is almost perfect.
  10. Dec 23, 2012
    7
    The 3D and high frame rate were amazing, but other than that and that it was my first trip to Middle Earth in a cinema, it was quite okay. Richard Armitage was the best of the cast, along with Martin Freeman and the eternally amazing Sir Ian McKellen. I loved seeing Rivendell, Galadriel and Elrond, and Frodo too, my only true connections in the movie with the LotR trilogy.
    I enjoyed
    The 3D and high frame rate were amazing, but other than that and that it was my first trip to Middle Earth in a cinema, it was quite okay. Richard Armitage was the best of the cast, along with Martin Freeman and the eternally amazing Sir Ian McKellen. I loved seeing Rivendell, Galadriel and Elrond, and Frodo too, my only true connections in the movie with the LotR trilogy.
    I enjoyed seeing Andy Serkis's performance feeling a lot realer and with a lot more of a "Serkis feeling" than in the trilogy. I can't really explain it, you just kind of felt the person in Smeagol more than you did before. I didn't enjoy the kind of humor they put in the script, which was too 21st-century-esque at times when it should be medieval-like, but it was always funny. The visual effects were obviously much easier to notice with the HFR but I'm pretty sure they could have been better even if not seen in HFR.
    It wasn't bad but it wasn't especially good or unique either if not for the uniqueness of the story. I expected better, but, at the same time, I was somewhat disappointed by the Lord of the Rings trilogy compared to the greatness of the books, so I didn't have the highest of hopes for this one either. A nice show but way too long for 1 in 3 movies...
    Expand
  11. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    Let's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst sceneLet's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst scene in the movie, and the beautiful special effects are for naught since the orcs and goblins were completely redesigned to look clean and crisp and not at all scary. So it all balances out (hence the 5 rating). I have a ton of things to say about this movie, but to keep this somewhat short, I'm going to mention one that focuses on the bad writing (of which there was plenty). At the end of The Return of the King, Frodo and Gollum fight each other for the Ring. Both of them fall off the ledge, leaving you to think that Frodo dies. Instead, he's hanging on to a small outcropping with his fingertips. In the special features of RotK, Peter Jackson commented that he hated using something so cliche, but it worked perfectly for that scene. In An Unexpected Journey, there are at least three instances where someone falls off a ledge and hangs on by his fingertips. Expand
  12. Jan 10, 2013
    6
    I saw The Hobbit after having reread the book and found the movie visually spectacular but otherwise somewhat disappointing. Tolkien
  13. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the best movie of 2012, before I watch the movie I thought tha would be not good, because it is inspired in a book that only have 200 pages, but Peter Jackson did a really great job and the 3D it's perfect. The soundtrack is very good. When The movies end I wanted more. And the actors are so good. Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen for me were the bestThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the best movie of 2012, before I watch the movie I thought tha would be not good, because it is inspired in a book that only have 200 pages, but Peter Jackson did a really great job and the 3D it's perfect. The soundtrack is very good. When The movies end I wanted more. And the actors are so good. Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen for me were the best actors of the whole movie Expand
  14. Jan 22, 2013
    7
    The Hobbit is set in the same world as the Lord of the Rings. However, unlike the dynamic storytelling that was in Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit really fails to stand up with the same quality. Many of the characters and bad guys look like plastic CGI characters and fail to bring any amount of believability that Lord of the Rings managed to instill with its costume design. The main DwarfThe Hobbit is set in the same world as the Lord of the Rings. However, unlike the dynamic storytelling that was in Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit really fails to stand up with the same quality. Many of the characters and bad guys look like plastic CGI characters and fail to bring any amount of believability that Lord of the Rings managed to instill with its costume design. The main Dwarf character is an absolute mirror to Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings and even the main plot diversions follow the same schematic that Fellowship had. (Shire -> Rivendell -> Mountain -> Forest (battle with bad guys)) It really was a letdown compared to its predecessors. However, still a good movie if you are not looking for the same dynamacy of the Lord of the Rings Expand
  15. Aug 27, 2015
    8
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" has the look and feel of Peter Jackson's imagination as it did with the Lord Of The Rings trilogy; strap yourselves to relive the magic of the old once again with the new.
  16. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    Absolutely brilliant movie that exceeded expectations. Do not listen to the mainstream critics who would give a piece of crap black and white silent french film commenting about the nature of existence a 10 but rate the Hobbit a 5 (Wtf??). If you like good movies, see this!
  17. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    It is to slow, I fell asleep half way through the film because nothing happened and that isn't an exaggeration. I have no idea why they decided to make a trilogy out of one book that isn't even very long, in fact in the time this trilogy would take to watch, I could have read the book. On top of that everything looks cheaper and fake, I can only come up with the conclusion that the CGI isIt is to slow, I fell asleep half way through the film because nothing happened and that isn't an exaggeration. I have no idea why they decided to make a trilogy out of one book that isn't even very long, in fact in the time this trilogy would take to watch, I could have read the book. On top of that everything looks cheaper and fake, I can only come up with the conclusion that the CGI is just over used where it wasn't so much in LOTR where you often had real people playing monsters that are now CGI. I noticed a lot more sets are CGI too and it just gives off this fake feeling like the Star Wars Prequels. I also do not like the makeup it just all looks like makeup this time around, everything is too bright, there is too much clarity and I feel like I'm watching a play rather than being drawn in. Biggest disappointment since The Phantom Menace. Expand
  18. 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
  19. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit is based around Bilbo Baggins in his prime, where he goes, well, on an unexpected journey. After watching the enitre LoTR series, i found myself to despise Bilbo for his distasteful obsession with the ring. But after watching The Hobbit, i no longer disliked him, but actually began to like him, even more so than Frodo. The whole 48FPS deal was in my opinion, completely brilliant, although not much technical work has to be put into it to bring up the frame rate, it made the movie look much more realistic, and at times I had trouble depicting whether something was CGI or real. The 48fps makes everything much smoother and makes the cgi have life-like movements. The story for The Hobbit was not as strong as the story in the LoTR series, but i felt that it came pretty close, the movie does not contain nearly as much dialogue as the LoTR series but it definitely fulfills why we all love these movies, the fantasy aspect. Overall, i'd have to say that i enjoyed this movie slightly more than the LoTR series, In most aspects. If you are a LoTR fan, GO SEE THIS MOVIE, if you have never seen any of the LoTR movies, GO WATCH THEM, and then GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Expand
  20. Dec 19, 2012
    9
    One question most of you are wondering is: Does the Hobbit live up to the Lord of The Rings. The answer is both yes and no. No in that it is not as epic as LOTR (Lord of The Rings) which is almost impossible to do, but is very close. Yes in that it is an extremely enjoyable movie that does well for the franchise. The pacing of the movie starts off slow (similar to the first LOTR) but itOne question most of you are wondering is: Does the Hobbit live up to the Lord of The Rings. The answer is both yes and no. No in that it is not as epic as LOTR (Lord of The Rings) which is almost impossible to do, but is very close. Yes in that it is an extremely enjoyable movie that does well for the franchise. The pacing of the movie starts off slow (similar to the first LOTR) but it explodes into an amazing adventure after a little more than 30 minutes. It is very similar to LOTR in most aspects except that has a lighter and more humorous side to it. It follows the book very well and overall is one of my favorite movies of the year. It's simple: if you loved LOTR, this movie is for you. If you didn't like LOTR, you will probably not like it. I watched the movie in IMAX 3D and found it to be one of the most entertaining nights at the movie theater ever. My only gripe is the CGI doesn't always work. At times it can make the movie look almost cartoony. I wish it were more like the LOTR trilogy. It had a much more realistic feel to it. P.S. if you were wondering, the 3D was pretty great. I thought it was one of the best, next to Avatar. They didn't just add in one or two scenes in 3D. Expand
  21. 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.
  22. Dec 18, 2012
    9
    "The Hobbit" brought me back to a feeling I've only had once before, in 2001, after watching "The Fellowship of the Ring". I looked forward to December 2002 due to that film, and now I look forward to December 2013 due to "The Hobbit".

    I have read the book several times, and I did enjoy Jackson's take on it. When the credits rolled, I was left wishing for more. "The Hobbit" takes its
    "The Hobbit" brought me back to a feeling I've only had once before, in 2001, after watching "The Fellowship of the Ring". I looked forward to December 2002 due to that film, and now I look forward to December 2013 due to "The Hobbit".

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

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

    Peter Jackson has done it again. Even though this adventure may have smaller stakes than "LOTR", the stakes are high enough, with villains sinister enough and heroes humble enough to make a great adventure. I'm not the least worried about "The Hobbit" being three movies, since I felt the novel was too short anyway, especially descriptions of the war of 5 armies.
    Expand
  23. 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
  24. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    I've read the books, both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring long years before they started to make movies about them, and I just got at the cinema what i was waiting for. The two books were completely different, so not a great suprise that the films have a different feeling as well. It's not a LOTR 2. The Hobbit is basicly a fairy tale, which was originally written as a fairy tale, forI've read the books, both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring long years before they started to make movies about them, and I just got at the cinema what i was waiting for. The two books were completely different, so not a great suprise that the films have a different feeling as well. It's not a LOTR 2. The Hobbit is basicly a fairy tale, which was originally written as a fairy tale, for the kids of Tolkien. The movie is following this history, and does it well, in my oppinion. It is entertaining, and a much more lighter aproach on Middle Earth, in a time when peace and prosperity are common things, even if evil is not so far away either. It's a simple, linear story, lovable and rich of fantasy - in a fairy tail way. Expand
  25. Jul 13, 2013
    10
    Wow..........my expectations weren't high enough and honestly i was little scared that it will come out pale repetition of the Lord of The Rings....i enjoyed every second of it and looking forward for the next one....
  26. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    The Hobbit was a very good movie! It could have been perfect, but I thought they used way too much CGI for characters, when they did such a good on costumes and makeup in the Lord of the Rings. Also, I really didn't like the Brown Wizard at all. All his scenes were horribly out of place. They rest of the movie was great! I loved all the dwarf characters and the in depth back story of theirThe Hobbit was a very good movie! It could have been perfect, but I thought they used way too much CGI for characters, when they did such a good on costumes and makeup in the Lord of the Rings. Also, I really didn't like the Brown Wizard at all. All his scenes were horribly out of place. They rest of the movie was great! I loved all the dwarf characters and the in depth back story of their race. Gandalf, Bilbo, and Golem were really good. If they went back to costumes and makeup and edited out the Brown Wizard entirely, my score would of been a perfect 10. Expand
  27. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    I was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, asI was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, as though to remind you it is indeed a movie. Even the makeup, costumes, and animation seemed more "play" like as though you were watching it on a stage rather than it really happening. It was ok.. but I would say it didn't quite stay in the same league as the first three movies. Expand
  28. May 31, 2013
    7
    Way too many gravity defying Disney moments, breaks any immersion film could of had. It's simply over the top and way too cheesy, Middle earth probably has low gravity or something...
  29. Xon
    May 11, 2013
    9
    I was quite weary beforehand knowing that it would be a trilogy. However, all the narrative threats tie together and is pertinent to the wider middle-earth mythos. The vsiual and sound quality is top notch, and the active above reproach. It has neatly set up the story for the next installments and I am definitely looking forward to it.
  30. Jan 22, 2013
    9
    The Hobbit was a fantastic movie that hit all the right notes, while perhaps hitting a couple of bum ones. First things first, the majority of critics did not know what they were on about: the only reason it got as bad reviews as it did was because of the reason that it's a prequel (although the book actually came a long while before) that is split into three parts. I must admit, I wasThe Hobbit was a fantastic movie that hit all the right notes, while perhaps hitting a couple of bum ones. First things first, the majority of critics did not know what they were on about: the only reason it got as bad reviews as it did was because of the reason that it's a prequel (although the book actually came a long while before) that is split into three parts. I must admit, I was very dubious of this film, I was when I heard it was going to be two parts all those moons ago, even more so when I heard it would be three; the film exceeded my expectations by quite a margin. Let's get this out of the way straight away, the acting is great from all involved, with Martin Freeman making quite the splash as Bilbo. At times I felt the film strayed a little too much from the source material, but not enough to not love every second of the (around) three hours of run time, but this was necessary (and interesting enough) to spread the relatively small book over three long films. If you are expecting a very dark tone like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, be warned, this is a lot more light-hearted, Peter Jackson has done a great job at making the Hobbit feel unique at the same time as definitely a part of the Lord of the Rings series. The film is very special effects heavy, perhaps too special effects heavy for some (it was at times), but not to the point of being overly distracting or unnecessary. The film felt nostalgic, new, and magical all at the same time, helped overwhelmingly by the soundtrack, cinematography and acting. It was fantastic to see Middle-Earh again on the big screen, putting a smile on my face for pretty much the whole film. The negatives though, characters returning from the Lord of the Rings trilogy did feel a little forced and unnecessary, as all of their respective scenes lasted too long, old Bilbo and Frodo were there for too long! But, no way near long enough to ruin the film on any level, overall, I'm very pleased the film turned out as well as it did and am very much looking forward to parts two and three. Wonderful: 94/100. Expand
  31. 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.
  32. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    The critics are smoking their socks! I loved this movie, as I did the Trilogy. It obviously has a completely different feel to the LOTR trilogy in the sense that the general atmosphere isn't all doom and gloom. The emphasis is on adventure, and an adventure is exactly what the film delivers. The fact that the book has been split into three films means that the movies are more detailed thanThe critics are smoking their socks! I loved this movie, as I did the Trilogy. It obviously has a completely different feel to the LOTR trilogy in the sense that the general atmosphere isn't all doom and gloom. The emphasis is on adventure, and an adventure is exactly what the film delivers. The fact that the book has been split into three films means that the movies are more detailed than ever. How any of these critics can say that the movie is drawn out I have no idea, I felt the film was well paced and as a result it completely draws you in. Disregard the critics score on this one and substitute it with the user score, simple as that. Expand
  33. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    This film's biggest flaw is only that it was put together AFTER the LOTR series. With that series ahead of it, people have preconceived expectations about what to expect. This is NOT LOTR, the Hobbit is a different kind of story. Yes, same world, and a few of the same characters, but this is an adventure story, not a ongoing war epic. It can also be said the movie is not wholly true to theThis film's biggest flaw is only that it was put together AFTER the LOTR series. With that series ahead of it, people have preconceived expectations about what to expect. This is NOT LOTR, the Hobbit is a different kind of story. Yes, same world, and a few of the same characters, but this is an adventure story, not a ongoing war epic. It can also be said the movie is not wholly true to the book, but it is to the source material it was drawn from (much from the appendices through the middle earth tales). Note I did not see this in 3D, and that seems to be the biggest difference in how this is being reviewed. Expand
  34. Mar 27, 2013
    3
    I love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at orI love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at or connecting with a real being. The entire portion with the trolls is difficult to watch, with odd CG, poor "combat", the dialogue can be forgiven (i.e. gross jokes), and a set that clearly looks like a set. Peter Jackson added portions of other Tolkien books and expanded certain sections not covered in The Hobbit, but almost all of them are in odd places, and do not really fit with the story (this could just be bad editing), this is especially so concerning everything revolving around Radagast the Brown. Pacing is very slow, which does not always equal bad, but it takes roughly 45mins for anything to happen in the film. Shooting in 3D was a big mistake, mostly because the lighting has to be so bright that many of the scenes looked odd, especially in Golem's cave, many scenes that should have been dark were oddly bright. I saw both the regular and 3D,48 fps. I did not enjoy the 3D, 48fps version of the film, it made the movie look like one of those 3D films at a theme park, i.e. somewhat cheesy. While there are many continuity issues many viewers will only catch a few. It seems that many of the qualities that Peter Jackson brought to LOTR (which made them great) disappeared in the hobbit. Many other issues include the pointless cameos from old Bilbo and Frodo (who has a 5 o'clock shadow), the long beginning narrative, cliched lines/characters, and odd makeup and props. I hope the next two films are better, but The Hobbit could have been better if Peter Jackson had gone simpler, in the scope and special effects of the movie. Expand
  35. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    WOW. This movie is amazing. I went into the movie theatre quite worried due to critic scores, but after seeing it myself, I really would like to know what film they watched, because it wasn't The Hobbit. I'm an avid fan of J.R.R Tolkien and have all his books, and thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jacksons LOTR Trilogy. The Hobbit is simply stunning, and will be joining my collection once it comesWOW. This movie is amazing. I went into the movie theatre quite worried due to critic scores, but after seeing it myself, I really would like to know what film they watched, because it wasn't The Hobbit. I'm an avid fan of J.R.R Tolkien and have all his books, and thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jacksons LOTR Trilogy. The Hobbit is simply stunning, and will be joining my collection once it comes out on DVD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Roll on December 2013!
    Expand
  38. Jan 8, 2013
    2
    Fell asleep in the theatre. Also, watching a film at such a high frame rate (HFR) gives the movie a made-for-PBS look to it. At 48 frames per second, the viewer has difficulty suspending disbelief because the frame rate makes the film look too similar to the real world, fantasy setting notwithstanding. It'll be a while until filmmakers can overcome that challenge of making peopleFell asleep in the theatre. Also, watching a film at such a high frame rate (HFR) gives the movie a made-for-PBS look to it. At 48 frames per second, the viewer has difficulty suspending disbelief because the frame rate makes the film look too similar to the real world, fantasy setting notwithstanding. It'll be a while until filmmakers can overcome that challenge of making people believe in the fantasy world they create if they stick with HFR. Also, the 3D is an annoying gimmick and I would have been happier watching it in HFR without the glasses and effects. Additionally, the movie takes some pretty big departures from the book, none for the best. Expand
  39. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This film is easily as good as any of the films in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is a little different in tone, though the difference feels entirely appropriate.
  40. Jun 30, 2013
    10
    I`m surprised how good was that. It`s amazing epic journey, that you enjoy. It`s not as big as LotR was, but surely not disappointing. This movie has everything, what you can expected. It`s a side story, whithout ultimate evil and good, but side stories are very important part of any fantasy world, even the Middle-earth. That`s what all Tolkien`s fan knows very well. Every part of movie isI`m surprised how good was that. It`s amazing epic journey, that you enjoy. It`s not as big as LotR was, but surely not disappointing. This movie has everything, what you can expected. It`s a side story, whithout ultimate evil and good, but side stories are very important part of any fantasy world, even the Middle-earth. That`s what all Tolkien`s fan knows very well. Every part of movie is done well. Expand
  41. Jan 6, 2013
    9
    Such a great movie, I went in with a skeptical mind and came out pleasantly surprised. I think Jackson has a fantastic start to The Hobbit and I look forward to the sequels!
  42. 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
  43. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    I enjoyed it, not as much as any of the LOTR but it's hard to recreated the majesty of the first trilogy. I was hoping we would see more of the spiders and maybe even a peek at Beorn, but it will make it worth the wait for the second movie.
  44. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Amazing movie. I don't see why it's getting bad reviews , the story is great the characters are great the locations are great. If your a fan of lord of the rings you will love it as I did!!
  45. Dec 29, 2012
    10
    Critics pushed me to write a review. First of all, I must say I haven't read any LOTR or Tolkien books. That being said, I enjoy the world of Tolkien. As a kid I used to play Warhammer countless hours. I am a big fan of the LOTR and the hobbit realy lived up to my expectations. I can somewhat understand why people whine about FPS or "humorous beheading sequences played for cheap laughs"Critics pushed me to write a review. First of all, I must say I haven't read any LOTR or Tolkien books. That being said, I enjoy the world of Tolkien. As a kid I used to play Warhammer countless hours. I am a big fan of the LOTR and the hobbit realy lived up to my expectations. I can somewhat understand why people whine about FPS or "humorous beheading sequences played for cheap laughs" but I gotta say to these people "GET A F**** LIFE*. If you start to complain about little things as such, well I feel sorry for you then. Honestly, I HIGHLY recommend this movie - especially if you like that type of fantasy. I have friend that said this movie was OK but they are more into anime/japanese stuff which I enjoy too. Anyway well done Peter Jackson! Expand
  46. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Freaking awesome movie. Saw it in 3D and thought it was beautifully filmed. The story was very tight and you are left wanting more and more. I found the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum chilling. I got goosebumps for the last hour.
  47. Jan 24, 2013
    10
    A great way to spend an evening! There was a nostalgic feel to the movie since we get to revisit some old locations from LOTR. And see some old friends. If you haven't seen it yet go!

    I did see it in 3d and thought it didn't add much to the experience.
  48. 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
  49. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    It was unexpected when they decided to make this film into a 3 part series, but so far they did justice with the first part. I just hope the the next two parts live up to the book and animated film before it. This movie is worth spending some extra $$ to see it in movie theaters.
  50. May 14, 2013
    9
    A great movie, "official" critics are being too critical as if they never seen prequels in the past... I loved to get back into the LotR universe and highly enjoyed the quality and budget of the movie. Dwarfs storyline is quite interesting. Movie is quite predictable yet not that much to give it score of 4-5.

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

    I'm looking forward to next The Hobbit movie. Also badass ending song, this is probably the only movie in the world that forced me to sit through credits scene.
    Expand
  51. 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
  52. Jan 20, 2013
    4
    Summary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwritersSummary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwriters expanded Tolkien's novel into a Japanese-style tale of warrior honor and revenge. They introduced some new major characters, and they plan to expand on events that the novel only hinted at. And that all would have worked fine, because it would have been difficult to make a movie based on the novel's themes of hunger and fatigue. The Bad: What should be a 90-minute movie is bloated with an hour of meaningless action sequences. The dwarfs fight. The dwarfs run. The dwarfs cling helplessly to a large moving object that threatens to plunge them to their doom (three times!). None of it advances the plot. With LoTR, I looked forward to and enjoyed the extended edition. With this first Hobbit movie, I'll only watch it again if they release a shortened version. I won't sit through those tedious pointless action sequences a second time. Expand
  53. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    It's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so manyIt's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so many scenes and themes explored in his vision of the trilogy that I will never forget, sadly, The Hobbit failed to make that kind of impression on me. It's not a bad movie, it's just not very substantial past it being a suitable adventure film for the entire family. Read the book instead. Expand
  54. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    Definitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than oneDefinitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than one spectacular one, so I was even more worried when I heard they stretched it all the way out to a new trilogy. The Hobbit is such a great story. They really really are stretching it out, though, here. They added a lot that I didn't remember, and seemed to take a lot of liberties, though to be honest it's so long since I read the book I can't be sure what was or wasn't in it. I may be comparing it too much to the cartoon movie version I loved so much as a kid. But, all in all, I just felt that the story is stretched out a bit too long here. It's true that it probably wouldn't have all fit into one movie, but I think two would have been plenty, and then leave a lot of what they put in out for the blu-ray release. Instead, you get an uneven affair here, some of which reaches the familiar heights of greatness Peter Jackson established with the Lord of the Rings, but a lot of which falls short. Expand
  55. Dec 25, 2012
    10
    I couldn't disagree with the critics more. I love the original trilogy but went into The Hobbit with low expectations because of the reviews. But I thought it was as good if not even better than any of the original films.
  56. Jan 24, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I went into it thinking, "is this going to live to the anticipation"? I was sadly disappointed. I guess its still a good a movie. The cast was great, especially the three leads, and the music by Howard Shore was amazing. But the rest of the movie? Meh. The only really good bits were the misty mountains song by the dwarfs, the troll sequence, and the Gollum sequence. I thought the critics were being harsh comparing it to the lord of the rings as the books were very different, so the movies will be too. But now, I can see why. I had so many feelings of deja vu when I was watching this, that it felt like I was watching a recycled version of the fellowship of the ring, and it shouldn't be like that. And the script just dragged everrrryyythhhinnggg oooouuuuttttt soooooo lllloooonnngg. I was almost falling asleep during the white council scene. Which never happened in the book, it was just so they could have Galadriel and Saruman in the movie. Also, the last 10-15 minutes was incredibly melodramatic. Unnecessarily so. I guess it was an OK movie, to be honest I would watch it again, but only if I had nothing better to do. Expand
  57. 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
  58. May 15, 2015
    7
    The enriching tenderness of an unexpected journey settles as another piece to my childhood I will celebrate among that of the former lord of the rings trilogy. The joy of now the hobbit is not it's familiarity, but the wonder of endeavouring a new and refreshing purposeful massage of Peter Jackson's fantastical middle earth quarry. It's a joyfully entertaining film that merely deepens it'sThe enriching tenderness of an unexpected journey settles as another piece to my childhood I will celebrate among that of the former lord of the rings trilogy. The joy of now the hobbit is not it's familiarity, but the wonder of endeavouring a new and refreshing purposeful massage of Peter Jackson's fantastical middle earth quarry. It's a joyfully entertaining film that merely deepens it's subject matter of the original novel by gracefully taking us on a nearly 3 hour long trek where it seems 30 minutes of cutting was needed to make this new epic reach it's full potential in beginning this ambitious vision of turning a very slim novel into a very long trilogy. Expand
  59. 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
  60. Jan 9, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit was by far my most anticipated film of 2012, and whilst it was fantastic it still disappointed me due to my views on the Lord of the Rings trilogy -- a trilogy I view as perfect films. An argument I have seen thrown around a lot is "It is based off a children's book -- lay off!" However films that are based from books can still delve into dark areas, The Hobbit did not. I will fully explain what the film did well first -- the visuals were stunning. There was a big fiasco and outrage about the film being shot in 48FPS but this did not bother me in the slightest and in fact I found the film to look crisper and clearer for the use of it. I should note I did not watch it in 3D though, so perhaps this would have affected the outcome. So the settings and the visuals were stunning, the soundtrack -- while most was re-used from LotR, was still beautiful and fitting. Ian McKellen shows he can still act Gandalf after a decade, his performance was solid and his age did not detriment the film in anyway. (The same cannot be said for Lee's Saruman, however -- he stumbled through his lines and his age was very noticeable.) I feel that Martin Freeman did a solid job as Bilbo, however he came across as a bit jittery and stuttery sometimes. The trolls scene irked me slightly as the CGI came lacking (especially when one of the trolls holds Bilbo in his hands, that effect did not transition onto the screen very well) and the scene was played for laughs. The same thing again in the Goblin's lair as the King came across as comedic design, and when the wooden walkways fell on the dwarves the "You've got to be joking" line had me rolling my eyes. Another scene I had a slight issue with was when Thorin dismounted the tree and walked to face the Pale Orc. This scene has dramatic music playing, a camera focused on Thorin's determined face framed by firelight and sparks -- and then he is almost instantly defeated by a swift blow to the face. I actually laughed out loud in the cinema at this scene -- surely they could have shown him swing his sword a bit first? Though I have listed all these complaints, I still did thoroughly enjoy the film. Rivendell was beautiful and Galadriel and Elrond and their respective actors had great performances and did not feel hamfisted into the film at all. The Gollum scene was by far the best part of the film and indeed I almost felt sorry for the poor wretch when Bilbo decided not to kill him. I concede that all the comedy added to this film was most probably to distinguish it as a kid's book, but alas then, in comparison to LotR it seemed a bit corny and afraid to get "dark" -- the only scene I would consider dark was Gollum's, and that scene was by far the best in the film. In short, no, this film is not as good as the LotR trilogy -- but it comes close and for that I am very grateful. Expand
  61. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I appear to be alone among my friends in my general disappointment with this film. I really feel, after two viewings now, that it was mostly a remorseless money-grab by Peter Jackson and the production company. It doesn't fit the feel of the book to me whatsoever, and instead has the feel and ambiance of the Lord of the Rings movies -- a grandeur and scale that should be much larger than The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, The Hobbit was an epic tale, but next to LotR it is a quaint epic and more character-driven. One of the other user reviews here mentioned that the Hobbit wasn't written the same way as LotR, and people need to stop thinking about the LotR movies when they watch this. Well, I agree on the first point... but it's kind of hard to not think about LotR when he seems to be trying really hard to make these as much like those as he can. The cameos by Frodo, Saruman, and Galadriel, as much as I loved the latter in the original movies, were completely pointless. Also, if you are going to add Saruman pre-Lord of the Rings... he ought to me a much nicer fellow. Jackson didn't get him right in the LotR movies anyway. In the books he was a wordsmith, someone who could use words to affect others... and until he sided with Sauron he did so for good. There is a reason Gandalf considered him the wisest, and it wasn't just because he wore white. The added detail to the story of the pale orc and Radaghast the Brown were equally pointless, except to draw out the length of the film so he could make more than one. That's really my point, I suppose. The Hobbit should've been ONE three hour movie, MAYBE two... but definitely not three. Also, why does Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the books, not until he was mistreated by the Wood Elf King... and even then his attitude was colored by gold lust. There were a few well-done scenes, like the riddles with Gollum, but for every one of those there is another pointless addition to the story or a rewrite that makes little sense. Why did he feel the need to change how Gandalf dealt with the trolls, or have the pale orc trapping them in trees instead of the goblins and waurgs? It just seems like Jackson has gotten the impression that he knows how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien. I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken. Expand
  62. 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
  63. Jan 5, 2013
    7
    Critics wants Lord of Darkness melodrama, with a pre-pubescent choir chanting to a Sauron montage. Hobbit isn't that, but it's still fun. It's a kids movie. And you'll probably like it.
  64. 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
  65. Dec 31, 2012
    7
    I went to see the movie with my 8 year old son and he seemed to adore all the action. If you're looking for something like LotR then you'll be in for quite the disappointment. Still, if you forget about the book, then the movie is enjoyable in a way, but seeing that this one book is going to be stretched out over 3 movies, you don't need to leave much to the imagination as to why.
    The kid
    I went to see the movie with my 8 year old son and he seemed to adore all the action. If you're looking for something like LotR then you'll be in for quite the disappointment. Still, if you forget about the book, then the movie is enjoyable in a way, but seeing that this one book is going to be stretched out over 3 movies, you don't need to leave much to the imagination as to why.
    The kid loved it, and it wasn't too bad, but don't expect too much. Not much LotR like epic moments, but action and slapstick like silliness, except for the encounter with Gollum, which is the only part really worth watching.
    Expand
  66. Dec 31, 2012
    10
    The hobbit is a great beggining to what looks like another great trilogy from jackson. It has everything in it that made the lord of the rings trilogy great story, action, drama, thrills and spills. the new and returning actors are all good and play there parts right and this should be watched by all lotr fans and everyone else and once again the critics have got it wrong. my onlyThe hobbit is a great beggining to what looks like another great trilogy from jackson. It has everything in it that made the lord of the rings trilogy great story, action, drama, thrills and spills. the new and returning actors are all good and play there parts right and this should be watched by all lotr fans and everyone else and once again the critics have got it wrong. my only critisism is that not that much has changed since lotr. Expand
  67. Dec 29, 2012
    10
    PJ struck again in the adaptation of a book by Tolkien, he also managed to make a good connection with "The Lord of the Rings." PJ corrected a flaw in what I believe happened with LOTR actors however were good and he had managed to stay forever in our minds as their characters do not believe that there were great performances (except for Ian and Serkis) as in "The Hobbit "Apart from havingPJ struck again in the adaptation of a book by Tolkien, he also managed to make a good connection with "The Lord of the Rings." PJ corrected a flaw in what I believe happened with LOTR actors however were good and he had managed to stay forever in our minds as their characters do not believe that there were great performances (except for Ian and Serkis) as in "The Hobbit "Apart from having back Serkis and Ian now have 13 major actors playing the dwarves (Richard Armitage Highlight as Thorin) and an Oscar-worthy performance by Martin Freeman. For most, I think PJ got something I was too afraid to go wrong and end turned six chapters of the book in two hours and forty minutes of one of the best films of that year. Expand
  68. Dec 26, 2012
    8
    A must see for all the Middle-Earth aficionados. A great return to a great universe... The movie is a tribute to all the fans, who missed songs, as well as references to the Silmarillion and other Tolkien's works in the LOTR trilogy. The critics may be right when pointing out some tedious moments, but taken as a whole the movie stands out as a really enjoyable work, shot in a spectacularA must see for all the Middle-Earth aficionados. A great return to a great universe... The movie is a tribute to all the fans, who missed songs, as well as references to the Silmarillion and other Tolkien's works in the LOTR trilogy. The critics may be right when pointing out some tedious moments, but taken as a whole the movie stands out as a really enjoyable work, shot in a spectacular 3D technology... Expand
  69. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    Please, do not look at the low score critics gave. They compare the hobbit with the lord of the rings. What they do forget is that the hobbit isn't lord of the rings. It's written before lotr and the atmosphere in the book is much lighter. Peter Jackson tries to implement this in his movie, and does it pretty well. I've also seen the high frame rate version, which is great. Never saw aPlease, do not look at the low score critics gave. They compare the hobbit with the lord of the rings. What they do forget is that the hobbit isn't lord of the rings. It's written before lotr and the atmosphere in the book is much lighter. Peter Jackson tries to implement this in his movie, and does it pretty well. I've also seen the high frame rate version, which is great. Never saw a movie technically so good. Expand
  70. 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
  71. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    The Hobbit is, in many ways, the strategic all-age-appealing beast the Lord of the Rings never was. And whilst An Unexpected Journey is not likely to be the best film in the new trilogy, it is riddled (hah!) with many great moments, such as the Riddles in the Dark section, and the Goblin Town. A good if by-the-numbers first installments, which leaves a sweet taste of better things to comeThe Hobbit is, in many ways, the strategic all-age-appealing beast the Lord of the Rings never was. And whilst An Unexpected Journey is not likely to be the best film in the new trilogy, it is riddled (hah!) with many great moments, such as the Riddles in the Dark section, and the Goblin Town. A good if by-the-numbers first installments, which leaves a sweet taste of better things to come in The Desolation of Smaug. Expand
  72. Oct 14, 2013
    6
    All the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in anotherAll the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in another country", because watching the movie it just felt like a propagandistic lesson in patriotism and violence. All the grace of Tolkien's writing is gone. Expand
  73. Jan 20, 2013
    7
    Very good movie, but I couldn't stop thinking about how most of it was different from the book, as well as how much of the scenes had been milked, long and overdrawn. Some of them, such as the troll scene for example, were disappointing seeing as how they had been turned into a full-blown battle and stretched out. The side plotline of Dol Guldur was interesting to see as well as the returnVery good movie, but I couldn't stop thinking about how most of it was different from the book, as well as how much of the scenes had been milked, long and overdrawn. Some of them, such as the troll scene for example, were disappointing seeing as how they had been turned into a full-blown battle and stretched out. The side plotline of Dol Guldur was interesting to see as well as the return of old characters that weren't in the book such as Radagast the Brown, but the introduction of Azog and his main antagonistic role throughout the film was a bit off-putting and only further derided from the book. Not to mention he's a complete CGI orc (really Jackson? Couldn't you have just found an actor and put him in costume?) The visuals are stunning however (though it's annoying how all of the orcs in one battle scene are all CGI), and Gollum looks better than ever and is voiced perfectly again by Andy Serkis. Overall, if you're a fan of Lord of the Rings this is a must-see! I'm just hoping the second film is even better than this one. Expand
  74. 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
  75. Zal
    Dec 14, 2012
    7
    At times, it drags its feet (especially in the first act) and there is a LOT of padding, but The Hobbit was definitely worth seeing. It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but there was never a moment where I didn't understand what was happening. The newest members of the cast like Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage are fantastic and it was great to see Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett,At times, it drags its feet (especially in the first act) and there is a LOT of padding, but The Hobbit was definitely worth seeing. It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but there was never a moment where I didn't understand what was happening. The newest members of the cast like Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage are fantastic and it was great to see Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee again. I went with two friends who were big LOTR fans and they adored this movie. I look forward to the next installments, although I'm worried about the padding and there will be lots of it. The Hobbit isn't that long a book and I'm wondering how they're going to make 3 movies out of it. Even though this movie has its flaws, it's still worth seeing for the characters, acting, cinematography, and, well, everything else! Expand
  76. Dec 24, 2012
    5
    I wasn't expecting much since I knew there were coming a three pictures. Money. The movie starts a bit before lotr trilogy does and ends in about 60 hears ago. Operator's work is too modern. New actors aren't good enough. Exept Martin Freeman, he is a good choice. There could be one good film. But instead of this we got a bad start of a new trilogy. I hope the next part will be better.
  77. Mar 22, 2013
    9
    Rewritten review. After watching the video. I have to say this movie is just plain fun. The over the top action sequences are short and even though when I saw the movie in the theatre the late movie action seemed like the Bridge at Khazad Dum scene repeated, after watching the video they are not out of place. Just a little indulgent. Some parts deserve a ten but overall a 9.
  78. 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.
  79. Oct 8, 2014
    0
    I remember being so diappointed after watching this film in the cinema. As a Tolkien fan who knows the books,, I can say that this movie (just like every other Hobbit movie) is a horrible piece of fan fiction.
  80. Dec 17, 2012
    9
    Totally entertaining. I was worried given the critic reviews, but we really enjoyed it. First hour was sort of slow, but the next two were total action (other than the amusing gollum interlude.
  81. 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
  82. Mar 9, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit is a dazzling film, with almost every other frame gleaming with extravagant special effects. But its deliberately tedious pacing makes it little more than a curtain raiser for the future films in the franchise to follow.
  83. Dec 28, 2012
    0
    To me the most important elements of a movies are the story and character development, and this movie has none of these. The story is virtually non-existent and amounts to a succession of chase/fight/rest rinse and repeat for 3 hours. The supporting characters are completely blank, (save maybe for Thorin, the only half decent supporting character with Gandalf) and Bilbo is also fairlyTo me the most important elements of a movies are the story and character development, and this movie has none of these. The story is virtually non-existent and amounts to a succession of chase/fight/rest rinse and repeat for 3 hours. The supporting characters are completely blank, (save maybe for Thorin, the only half decent supporting character with Gandalf) and Bilbo is also fairly uninteresting (there's being laid back and there's having no presence on screen). And the pacing... this movie is absolutely too long with no real reason to it. I had never seen a 3 hour movie that manages to have no character development, it's quite a feat when you think about it. So yeah in my opinion this movie is very shallow despite its great effects, I also liked the 48 fps format I think it has a lot of potential (especially during action scenes) but when it's all mixed with atrocious pacing, zero story and bland characters then it's just a waste of 3 hours. Expand
  84. Dec 19, 2012
    10
    Bilbo is simply the most likeable Hobbit! HFR is gorgeous! Gollum is real! My expectations for 3D-movies have definitly changed with this movie! First thought after seeing it: "I got to see it again!"
  85. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is a great movie.The story it told,the battles, even the way it showed thing that explain more of the lord of the rings. For a prequel(and the first book) it was pretty good. some parts did start to slow things down but with a story this big things have to be mentioned in the first movie.If you have seen the lord of the rings or read any of the books,see this movie.If youThe Hobbit is a great movie.The story it told,the battles, even the way it showed thing that explain more of the lord of the rings. For a prequel(and the first book) it was pretty good. some parts did start to slow things down but with a story this big things have to be mentioned in the first movie.If you have seen the lord of the rings or read any of the books,see this movie.If you haven't then you can still go see this movie. Expand
  86. Dec 14, 2012
    4
    When I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarvesWhen I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarves in cloaks almost comical characters but serious in wilder ways with a funny disposition toward loving gold (2/10). When I think of mystery and discovery in the Hobbit I think of an imaginative scenery based vision with some encounters along the way (2/10). When I think of the Hobbit in it's emphasis I think about a children's book where the exploration of ideas provoke thoughtful meaningful contemplative and illustrative consideration (1/10).
    When I think of the philosophy of "the Hobbit" I think about the underlying currents and the hidden truths (1/10). When I think of the character interaction I think "Fairies and goblins" (2/10). When I think about "the Hobbit" as a contrast to his later work in LOTR I consider the fact he atempted to remake the hobbit after the 8th chapter and realized it wasn't a good idea to continue. When I think about the religion of the Hobbit" I think meaning exists in the world people have a place and there is a reason to believe but in this interpretation it's all boils down to simple-minded post post modern humanist action flick where the ends justify the bast.ardization of the former. If you look real hard you can see JRR tolkiens classic here, but you will strain your heart and mind to do so.
    Expand
  87. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was is a great film. Not a perfect film mind you, but a damn great one. I have a feeling my admiration of the fim comes from the fact that I love everything Tolkien, and the fact that I went into the theater last night with low expectations, because I knew it would be hard for Peter Jackson to match the perfection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In any case, I was impressed by the level of detail in the film (and I didn't even see it in 48fps!) and the beauty of every shot. I was equally impressed by the writer's ability to incorporate material from the appendices into the story and fashion the film to not only stay fairly faithful to Tolkien, but to also make the film exciting, breathtaking, funny, and magical. I thoroughly enjoyed the flashbacks to Dale and the destruction of Erebor, the fight between the orcs and the dwarves, and the inclusion of Radagast the Brown and the White Council (though as I said before, I am a Tolkien aficionado so more detail and more Middle Earth in general is better for me). While I did like the addition of Azog and the vendetta between him and Thorin, I didn't like the fact that the orc was completely CGI; it detracted from the personal feeling of the relationship between himself and Thorin. I think it would have been entirely possible to have an actual person play the role, which would have given the chase and vengeance a more intimate feel (ex: Witch King and Lurtz). Ultimately though, the film was amazing. The acting was top notch, especially from Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis, and Ian McKellen. I have yet to see the film in its intended format, 48 fps, so I don't anything to gripe about in that department yet. I strongly encourage everyone to see this great piece of cinema, and yes, its seems long at parts and slightly bloated, but if you're a fan of Lord of the Rings and Tolkien like myself, then it shouldn't be a deterrent. Expand
  88. 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! Collapse
  89. Dec 28, 2014
    2
    Nothing at all like the book. All the action scenes go on for too long and have no element of danger to them. Shame really. However, the saving point of this movie is that (1) it's more Peter Jackson Middle Earth, which means that if you watch all 3 of the extended edition of The Hobbit and all 3 extended Lord Of The Rings then you're getting a huge detailed world, which is cool. (2) TheNothing at all like the book. All the action scenes go on for too long and have no element of danger to them. Shame really. However, the saving point of this movie is that (1) it's more Peter Jackson Middle Earth, which means that if you watch all 3 of the extended edition of The Hobbit and all 3 extended Lord Of The Rings then you're getting a huge detailed world, which is cool. (2) The specific characters here (Bilbo+Dwarves), regardless of the rest of the setting or not, are pretty cool. They're not all used, some are just background, but the ones that are have good personality to them. Expand
  90. Feb 10, 2013
    8
    Yeah a bit late in watching this one. Despite all the mixed reviews about this film, I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the awesome soundtrack. Neil Finn's credits track which is based off the Dwarves' Misty Mountains song is a particular favourite of mine. It took me awhile to get used to the 48fps especially at the start of the film but after that it was fine. True the movie isn't asYeah a bit late in watching this one. Despite all the mixed reviews about this film, I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the awesome soundtrack. Neil Finn's credits track which is based off the Dwarves' Misty Mountains song is a particular favourite of mine. It took me awhile to get used to the 48fps especially at the start of the film but after that it was fine. True the movie isn't as epic as Lord of the Rings but it's not meant to be as it's a precursor to the dark times ahead. Dwarven history and culture is fleshed out more in this movie along with Bilbo discovering the courage he thought he never had. Now we just have two more movies to go! Expand
  91. Mar 26, 2013
    10
    Great movie all around! I have no idea why the critic score is so low but this movie is fantastic! This is just as good to me as tlotr. I cant wait to see the other two that Jackson puts out. If you can watch the movie in 3d its some of the best 3d that you will see in movies!
  92. Dec 22, 2012
    9
    Only goes to show just how pointless being a movie reviewer is. Movie reviews are very subjective. The critics that bashes this movie, comparing it to the milestone that was LOTR, should go find a real job.

    Its an excellent movie, by all standards. Only minus is the overuse of CG, wich im not that much of a fan of, but it was still well done.
  93. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    So, I've just seen the Hobbit. And I can honestly say that I am blown away by how good it was. I can see why the long introduction would be a problem for some people, but if you are a fan, you will appreciate it very much. Its very descriptive and atmospheric. Once you are past the 40 minute introductory mark, the fun begins, and since then, its pretty much action packed. The humor isSo, I've just seen the Hobbit. And I can honestly say that I am blown away by how good it was. I can see why the long introduction would be a problem for some people, but if you are a fan, you will appreciate it very much. Its very descriptive and atmospheric. Once you are past the 40 minute introductory mark, the fun begins, and since then, its pretty much action packed. The humor is excellent, and the actors put an awesome performance. Not to mention how beautiful the landscapes and effects are. The music is another strong side of the movie, and does not fail to bring you closer to Middle Earth.

    My final verdict 10/10.
    Expand
  94. Mar 2, 2013
    10
    this movie is fun, FUN. way, way better than LOTR. Actors are natural, music is strong, with nice memorable dwarf-theme overall feeling of the movie is just right simply amazing! I do not mind CGI at all. At least when they walk they are really belong to the landscape, in opposite to LOTR where you get feeling that actors were filmed inside studio and then were placed digitally overthis movie is fun, FUN. way, way better than LOTR. Actors are natural, music is strong, with nice memorable dwarf-theme overall feeling of the movie is just right simply amazing! I do not mind CGI at all. At least when they walk they are really belong to the landscape, in opposite to LOTR where you get feeling that actors were filmed inside studio and then were placed digitally over images of raging snow or some other backgrounds.

    Anyway, this movie is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
    Expand
  95. Dec 19, 2012
    3
    A big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside BagA big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside Bag End with the plate tossing and especially in the orc caverns were groan worthy. The music sounded like a rehash of the LOTR soundtrack with one additional song. I understand, that they have similar areas -- elves, hobbit(s), wizard(s) but it just wasn't up to LOTR quality to me. The sets, outside of Bag End, seem very small, as if to save money. The cast seemed to be perpetually pressed up next to each other with CGI effects all around them. Almost as if they had a 4ft square piece of plywood to stand on in the middle of a blue screened room. This stood out -a lot-. CGI and 3D were the true stars of this movie. With more screen time given to both of these than any of the other actors. The CGI, which was done as an additional component to the story telling, as Alex Funke said during the making of LOTR, took center stage during this movie. It was rampant and very noticeable. I understand, that it simply impossible to make most or all of the monsters as latex appliances but they did that in the other movies. Why not here? Andy Serkis and Golem's animators were a joy to see. The flash back to Erebor was amazing. The rest of the movie simply wasn't up to the same calibur as those segments. It was more like an old 80's after-school special when compared to LOTR's quality -- and it painfully showed. Many many scenes were homages/repeats of LOTRs camera angles or effects. I could name them, but I don't want to embed them into people's permanent memory. If you have seen LOTR as often as I have, you will spot the same sequences/shots used in this movie as were previously done. That's lazy and it stands out. Also gone are the big sweeping grand panorama shots of LOTR. Lastly the obvious attempts at humor. It felt like George Lucas had directed this movie because PJ had to toss in some kid-friendly elements to make it a family movie instead of just telling the story. Expand
  96. Oct 5, 2013
    7
    Sure, this movie isn't perfect. It's not as good as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy. However, to say that this film is bad is like saying that The Godfather isn't a good movie, or Lawrence of Arabia, or Ben-Hur. This film is good, though not exceptional. The Dwarves break into a musical number at one point for no real reason whatsoever, probably to appeal to kids. I heard peopleSure, this movie isn't perfect. It's not as good as Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy. However, to say that this film is bad is like saying that The Godfather isn't a good movie, or Lawrence of Arabia, or Ben-Hur. This film is good, though not exceptional. The Dwarves break into a musical number at one point for no real reason whatsoever, probably to appeal to kids. I heard people laughing in the cinema when I watched this. I liked Lord of the Rings a LOT, and If I heard the audiences laughing AT ALL apart from the occasional moment between Merry and Pippin, or with Gimli, I would probably murder some of them, if not all of them.

    However, if you consider this film on it's own, you will find that it is a very, VERY good film, and, though it definitely doesn't live up to The Lord of the Rings, it's undeniably worth watching. It doesn't have as much depth, it doesn't have as much emotion, it doesn't have four hundred hours of special thanks at the end, and it doesn't have the cast of the previous films (bar Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Ian Holm and Elijah Wood), but it does have the ability to carry itself, and it's great.
    Expand
  97. Jan 3, 2013
    8
    Saw the movie tonight. After reading the first reviews here on MC and seeing a trailer I was worried if I would dig it, but now I can say I enjoyed almost every minute of it! The relatively slow pacing in the beginning made it even more enjoyable as a whole for me. If you like the material and take time, it's definitely worth it.
  98. Dec 28, 2012
    9
    Lord of the Rings it's not - and that's the point. The wit and humour present in the book is held true in Jackson's film adaptation. While the deviations are significant from the source material, the addition of the content from appendices and other works in Middle Earth are seamlessly blended together with content from The Hobbit itself. The frame rate will take a few minutes to adjustLord of the Rings it's not - and that's the point. The wit and humour present in the book is held true in Jackson's film adaptation. While the deviations are significant from the source material, the addition of the content from appendices and other works in Middle Earth are seamlessly blended together with content from The Hobbit itself. The frame rate will take a few minutes to adjust to, but the result is nothing short of spectacular. If you take this film for what it is - you will find it a thoroughly enjoyable film and an excellent adaptation of the works of Tolkien. Expand
  99. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    People will always be buthurt about things, that is beyond doubt. Sometimes the buthurt has a good reason to be there like the prequels to starwars or all of mass effect 3 but in the case of the Hobbit the buthurt has credible stance to take in the bashing of this glorious film. The Hobbit is made from an earlier book of Tolkien's, a lighthearted approach to Lotr, it is not a carbon copyPeople will always be buthurt about things, that is beyond doubt. Sometimes the buthurt has a good reason to be there like the prequels to starwars or all of mass effect 3 but in the case of the Hobbit the buthurt has credible stance to take in the bashing of this glorious film. The Hobbit is made from an earlier book of Tolkien's, a lighthearted approach to Lotr, it is not a carbon copy of the original trilogy nor is it a movie made for children. The film has more concentration over visuals then the previous films yet it does not sacrifice the plot in any way, the actors blend in with the CGI very organically. The film may drag on for a bit but so did the fellowship, two towers and return of the king. The 40 fps looks good and the criticism for it seems a bit unfounded.

    I don't want to sound like I am praising this film too much because it had some minor issues of pacing at the start and the ending made me wish that I would not have to wait a year to get to part 2 of the trilogy.

    Over all its a great film, I think peter Jackson just forgot to bribe the reviewers, To put it into some context the "critic" score for this film is only 2 points higher then that of the first twilight which is very very strange to me.
    Expand
  100. Jan 2, 2013
    9
    After almost a decade since the last adventure in Middle Earth, Peter Jackson shows us that he's still got it with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. While I do not consider this to be as good as the almighty Lord Of The Rings trilogy, it's not trying to be, it's not trying to be another Lord Of The Rings film. The Hobbit is essentially a children's book that is more focused on fun andAfter almost a decade since the last adventure in Middle Earth, Peter Jackson shows us that he's still got it with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. While I do not consider this to be as good as the almighty Lord Of The Rings trilogy, it's not trying to be, it's not trying to be another Lord Of The Rings film. The Hobbit is essentially a children's book that is more focused on fun and humour than the LOTR, and Jackson has translated that brilliantly into this film by staying incredibly faithful to the source material (even down to the songs the dwarves sing) and with a very strong script that has many laughs and sustains more of a lighter tone for the most part. Make no mistake though, this is definitely an epic fantasy film full of intense action, brilliant set pieces and great characters. The Hobbit himself : Bilbo Baggins is definitely the stand out due mainly to Martin Freeman's fantastic performance as the character, he completely nails Bilbo by brilliantly portraying the character's journey from the "playing it safe and avoiding trouble" attitude to the determined and adventure craving Bilbo we see in TLOTR, and I looking forward to see this continue in the next two films. The rest of the cast are also very impressive with Sir Ian Mckellan giving a brilliant performance once again as Gandalf the Grey and ofcourse there are the 13 dwarves who are all played well, look great and are great fun to watch on screen. The presentation of this film is incredible, I watched this in 2d and with the normal frame rate and I thought the film looked gorgeous, the direction, the cinematography and the special effects all came together to make this film beautiful and the soundtrack is also fantastic. However while watching it, I did feel that too much CGI was used at some points, I understand that they are not trying to make this film as gritty as TLOTR but there were times when I thought that practical effects would have looked better on screen, nonetheless the film looks incredible. The main problem with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for me is it's length. 2 hours and 45 minutes is a hell of a long time to show just one third of the story in the book and while I understand that Peter Jackson is using more source material than just The Hobbit book but I just felt that there could be half an hour in this film that could be cut for time. The beginning is where the film is at it's slowest, and while it delivers it's exposition very well, and the main characters are introduced in great fashion, by about half an hour into the film I felt like we've been spending a little too much time in the shire and it was time to get on with the adventure. There is also a seen featuring Ian Holm and Elijha Wood as older Bilbo and Frodo, while it was great to see Frodo again, there was no point to that scene and it just made the beginning of the film feel to drawn out. There are other scenes throughout the film that feel like they could have been cut and these scenes make this seem almost like a directors cut rather than the theatrical version of The Hobbit, and I think it's a case of Peter Jackson over indulging in this world. Once the film gets going, it reaches brilliance, the scenes involving Bilbo meeting Gollum were absolutely incredible and it's just things like that that made me feel like I am experiencing entertainment of the highest class. It has it's issues that are hard to overlook but overall, this is an excellent film that I highly recommend. Expand
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.