Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2012
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 2688 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
2,208
Mixed:
314
Negative:
166
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
6
smijatovJan 16, 2013
Hmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. WhetherHmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with characters and places, but also costumes, musical score, cinematography, art direction, you just name it. And while the film holds "universal acclaim" with the general audience of metacritic, I'd highly disagree with this. Yes, the acting is rather solid. Technically the film is good too. However, it gives us nothing new. It does not provide any new, deeper connection with these characters, especially not Gandalf, who is surprisingly weakly portrayed by McKellen after his excellent turn in the Lord of the Rings. Honestly, the story of The Hobbit is not as interesting as the one of the Lord of the Rings, for one. That would do the trick on its own, let alone having high expectations and a million comparisons with one of the best trilogies of all time. Overall, The Hobbit is not a bad film at all. But it is just yet another big-budget blockbuster with great technical aspects, but not quite as much substance as its predecessor had. Maybe the second one will be better? 6/10 Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
Forrestgump1Jun 4, 2013
"While not offering much to the beloved fans. The Hobbit is quite the journey indeed. I enjoyed my endevours with our lovable gang. It has some intense moments but the true fact is a 200 page book does not quite add up to a 2hr and 46min"While not offering much to the beloved fans. The Hobbit is quite the journey indeed. I enjoyed my endevours with our lovable gang. It has some intense moments but the true fact is a 200 page book does not quite add up to a 2hr and 46min running time." B Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
JamesLDec 29, 2012
I admit this was not as good as any of the three Lord of the Rings films. However, it was not the disaster that many of the critics labeled it. I actually enjoyed revisiting that world and was entertained and never bored. I get what theI admit this was not as good as any of the three Lord of the Rings films. However, it was not the disaster that many of the critics labeled it. I actually enjoyed revisiting that world and was entertained and never bored. I get what the critics are saying about it being redundant and uninspired. I do not see the need for the 3 D but it was a good time at the theater. I will bet money I will enjoy this more than"Django Unchained" from QT which the critics loved. I will review that after I see it. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
TVJerryDec 17, 2012
Peter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from aPeter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world is visually dazzling and the pacing seldom lags. Fans will surely be thrilled, but there's something hollow and weirdly modern about the spirit that makes it more a spectacle than an expressive adventure. BTW, this is the first movie in HRF (High Frame Rate), shot in 48fps and showing in selected local theatres. Basically, it looks like really clean HD video. I review THE HOBBIT and the new HFR format. Expand
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews
6
ChuckDee33Dec 31, 2012
Here's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't needHere's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but that doesn't make it a good movie. There are other positives and negatives of course. If The Hobbit had been the first Tolkien book that Jackson adapted we'd probably all be amazed and astounded, but it's not. To follow his own LOTR adaptation I'm afraid The Hobbit is trapped in that grey area between mediocrity and greatness. Let me sum it up this way - I watch LOTR once a year or so and love revisiting those worlds. I don't have a strong desire to revisit this one. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
BikerjamesJan 3, 2013
I saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the RingsI saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. The character of "Thorin", the leader of the dwarfs, was particularly annoying. Grouchy, skeptical, humorless, and wrong at almost every turn. Also, the entire scene with Gollum was annoying because I can't understand half the things he says. The next installment should be better as they will be battling a dragon instead of the usual evil Orcs and Goblins that we have already seen in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
5
PlushDec 27, 2012
My definition of cheesy is a movie that comes off as silly while taking itself extremely seriously. Gimli was comic relief. A pack of dwarves is grating. This movie tries so hard to be epic that it loses any sense of timing. It's too long andMy definition of cheesy is a movie that comes off as silly while taking itself extremely seriously. Gimli was comic relief. A pack of dwarves is grating. This movie tries so hard to be epic that it loses any sense of timing. It's too long and self-indulgent. 90 minutes would have gotten the job done and left me satisfied and looking forward to the next one. The video game quality of much of the CGI challenged my suspension of disbelief. One example of boredom-inducing Hobbit techs: Let's watch a guy fall from some high place, catch on by his fingertips, then fall again, and catch on again, repeat, repeat, repeat. You'd think gravity was the only danger in Middle Earth Peter Jackson could imagine. And then, ironically, any time people actually do fall from freaking high nobody gets hurt. Cheesy. I don't think I can take six more hours of this. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
6
JovDec 14, 2012
Let me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to hisLet me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intended it - at 48 FPS, 3D, with Dolby ATMOS surround sound on 4K resolution projectors, but was repeatedly disappointed by the visuals. Peter Jackson seems to have gone the route of George Lucas in replacing actors, puppets, and good old fashioned screen magic with pure CGI. I'm not sure if it was the 48 FPS or what, but the film looked very, very fake. I felt like I was watching an animated film, or a video game at times. A lot of people are complaining about the over-long run time - I'm not one of them. I love a long film, and appreciated it here as well, but I think that it's significant to mention that despite a nearly 3-hour length, there was very little character development. No pauses for pacing. No - this was non-stop action. I felt like I was on "The Hobbit: THE RIDE". But what was I expecting? It was a children's book, and the film is a children's movie. The battles are toned down and pointedly blood-free. If LOTR is a classically painted master-work, then The Hobbit is a caricature. This isn't to say The Hobbit was all bad. It wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it at points. But the comparison to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is apt. The film is woefully over-full of CGI, lacks spirit. This doesn't feel like a labor of love - it feels like a blockbuster made for a younger generation with short-attention spans. Skip the 3D and skip the 48 fps. I look forward to a fan-edit when all three movies are released. It needs one. Expand
3 of 9 users found this helpful36
All this user's reviews
6
TomHugDec 16, 2012
Great characterizations. The dovetailing with the events from the Lord of the Rings movies is artfully done as well. Mr. Freeman's Bilbo is great. We get a chance to see a different aspect of Smeagol/Gollum as well.

However, there are a
Great characterizations. The dovetailing with the events from the Lord of the Rings movies is artfully done as well. Mr. Freeman's Bilbo is great. We get a chance to see a different aspect of Smeagol/Gollum as well.

However, there are a lot of non-canon scenes and sub-plots that have been injected to a) stretch the plot material to last for three movies and b) show off the 3D technology. There are many action scenes that are frenetic and pointless.

It's all well -done and I can't think of anyone who could have done a better job with the story than Mr. Jackson.

In hindsight though, I think making only 2 movies and sticking more closely to the book would have been best.
Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
6
matroycemApr 26, 2013
The Hobbit has a difficult act to follow. Having already seen the Lord of the Rings Trilogy which is a lot darker and heavier (Like the books), the Hobbit does not feel as gripping. The book of the Hobbit was written before the LOTR and wasThe Hobbit has a difficult act to follow. Having already seen the Lord of the Rings Trilogy which is a lot darker and heavier (Like the books), the Hobbit does not feel as gripping. The book of the Hobbit was written before the LOTR and was written for a young audience and I think it shows. The film is trying to be accurate to the text and seems to have a lot of padding to make it more friendly. The opening sequences to me seemed pointless and if they were cut would not have affected the film other than to reduce the run time to something more reasonable. the same can be said for other parts of the film which seem to ramble on rather than actually go anywhere. This not to say the film is poor because it isn't. Overall the casting was good and the acting likewise. Martin Freeman as Bilbo was surprisingly well cast as he got the balance right for the character. One of the issues with the film was a bit like the Star Wars Prequels. You know certain people are going to be okay and also some of the plot if you have seen the later films. This does cross off a few questions raised in the LOTR trilogy but does again make the film have another problem to solve.
Having Peter Jackson back on board to direct has at least made the universe feel consistent and the camera work is very familiar. The film is not a bad one and I am sure the new Trilogy will be overall good but I can't help feeling that I was not blown away and also that they could have made Two films rather than Three to tell the story.
I did not see the 3D showing due to not being able to watch 3D so cannot comment on whether this added to the experience. But the world still looks vivid in 2D and maybe even more alive than in the LOTR films.
Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
5
vajenmrDec 15, 2012
For some reason, during the movie I constantly compared it to "The Goonies." I'm really not sure why. Maybe because "The Goonies" got adventure right, and this didn't. Either way, drawn out, should have been one movie. The end.
4 of 14 users found this helpful410
All this user's reviews
4
sundaygrundleJan 27, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is regarded by many as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy; possibly one of the greatest fantasy franchises ever seen, with 17 Academy Awards won across the trilogy and Return of the King being the 6th highest grossing film of all time Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
Ian277Jan 26, 2013
The Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that theyThe Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that they added so much random **** ruins the whole trilogy and ruins what the author wrote. i fully understand that The Hobbit is a stand alone book/movie and not apart of the lord of the rings trilogy, which is also why they didn't need the introduction with frodo and an older bilbo, it was annoying to me to think that they ARE in fact linking the trilogy to the hobbit. the needless intro also ruined the immersion and it felt more like a fake story than an immersive movie. if you read this and thought it was a good movie, i would agree it had it's fine moments, the 3D effect were great and the 48 fps was really breath taking. to make this movie a 7/10 (for me at least) all they could have done is cut out the intro. oh well. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
LeftyyJan 16, 2013
The movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like aThe movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's just not that interesting of a thing to watch. There are some redeemable moments, but despite some good acting and scenery, it's just not all that fun and seems to drag a bit towards the end. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
6
Grim13Jan 4, 2013
Overall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense atOverall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense at all... and are entirely unneccesary.

Then there is the fact that this was SUPPOSED to be a 2 movie deal until the Studio decided it wanted to make more money and stretch it into 3 !@#$% movies! This is why the film is overlong with bloat, bloat, and more bloat! The LOTR was three 3 hour movies from about 1100 pages of source material... The Hobbit films are going to be three 3 hour movies from a little over 300 pages of source material (!?) expanded with additions from the LOTR Appendices.
Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
ThradarFeb 12, 2013
As the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epicAs the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
listenerJan 13, 2013
Bloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save itBloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save it from being complete disaster though. Expand
4 of 16 users found this helpful412
All this user's reviews
5
AnonymousPalDec 15, 2012
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'tI 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 of 12 users found this helpful48
All this user's reviews
6
blackwolf07Dec 20, 2012
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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
m_eldersDec 15, 2012
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 andLet'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
13 of 43 users found this helpful1330
All this user's reviews
6
RenzomaloJan 10, 2013
I saw The Hobbit after having reread the book and found the movie visually spectacular but otherwise somewhat disappointing. Tolkien
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
5
MikefromAngusApr 1, 2013
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.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
LivingonairDec 14, 2012
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, II 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
3 of 7 users found this helpful34
All this user's reviews
4
LeonidasRexJan 20, 2013
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 excellentSummary: 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
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
6
Sevvy88Jun 7, 2013
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 foundIt'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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
thedude74Dec 17, 2012
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 aDefinitely 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
SayCHeese256Jan 24, 2013
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
enrogae1Jan 12, 2013
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
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
6
mrniceOct 14, 2013
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 tiesAll 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
lasttimeisawJan 16, 2013
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, withA 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews