Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2012
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 2689 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
2,207
Mixed:
315
Negative:
167
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
MDawgDec 14, 2012
The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The
The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The acting is fantastic with Martin Freeman's performance being fulfilling and most certainly understated yet the other characters were simply unable to recreate the same level of interest and intrigue as those in the book. One can only hope that these characters are explored further in the sequels. As for the 48 FPS it was beautiful with scenery exploding vividly onto the screen and yet i cannot help but think it was just too much as if looking into an oil painting, thus some of the dialogue and action was lost amongst the various stunning backdrops. Finally and most annoyingly i must mention the length. For what is only a relatively short children's book, i cannot see how 3 films of such considerable length will be able to keep the focus of the audience whilst remaining true to the book throughout. So far so good but i expect more can come from this series and i hope that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will not be the unwanted middle child of the trilogy and emulate The Two Towers.
Expand
28 of 55 users found this helpful2827
All this user's reviews
5
Random_PersonDec 16, 2012
Hey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. NoHey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. No one will complain, as its Peter Jackson and Lord of the rings.

And judging by the 9 and 10's I guess its worked.

The film isn't terrible, its just not great either. Whats completely frustrating about it, is that the parts that follow the book are very good, its just all the filler stuff that ruins it. Seemingly filled with cliche comedy moments and bits that just didn't seem middle earth at all, its kind of insulting to the source material.

If at some point they heavily edit the movie and leave just the relevant book content in, i think you would have a very good movie, but as it stands at the moment, the hobbit is an overly bloated average film that had potential to be much better ( and less drawn out and boring).
Expand
19 of 38 users found this helpful1919
All this user's reviews
6
Trev29Nov 30, 2013
The Hobbit is extremely disappointing coming from a director who has accomplished so much, and knows the material so well. It is still has great moments, and for the most part is easy going adventure to watch, but come on.
29 of 71 users found this helpful2942
All this user's reviews
4
Mr_NoFaceSep 14, 2013
i don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it thati don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it that great of a movie shore it has nice 3D effects what show off the team but its like avatar they have a load of fancy effects on it but the story is a load of rubbish, the annoying thing about this film is that they constantly trying to remind us that this story happens in the same world of lord of the rings, one of the scenes i can't stand in the film is the moving rocks when the dwarfs get crushed but there perfectly fine no cuts boozes or broken bones and before some one says "but its not in the book" i don't bloody care it doesn't make sense and it looks stupid i just saw them get crushed I JUST SAW IT! but so i don't complain about a lot of things i have a problem with in this film i'm going to stop here and just say the ending... was rubbish i know its showing there's more to come but its just stupid looking its like ending a episode of eastenders Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
imthenoobJan 27, 2015
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.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
BrosmanJul 21, 2013
Fails to capture the epicness of the Trilogy. Also, way too much CGI. What happened? Why is everything CGI in this movie? Im not too excited about the other two now. I just love the Trilogy so much.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
The_BearApr 3, 2013
To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, andTo tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it? The battles don't feel tense, the themes that the characters espouse don't run through the narrative, and I can think of 3 or 4 scenes that feel as if they've been ripped straight from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films just off the top of my head. Yeah, the acting is all good, and there are a few of those heart warming scenes that we know Peter Jackson for, but there's just not enough good to make up for the bad. Each time I watched this film I liked it less and less. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
braedenDec 19, 2013
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hardThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we have little bit of both. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
dougaussieSep 10, 2013
i got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down ii got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll see the future movies at the cinema but on DVD its a must have for kids to kill time. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
Celt1991Dec 11, 2013
Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the
Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing:

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure.

While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that is where the similarities end.

I can truthfully say that just moments after the introduction, my facial expression changed from one of joy to one of disappointment and scorn.

While it is true that Bilbo Baggins was a somewhat 'reluctant' burglar, the dwarves and wizard did not simply cast him off as if he were not needed. They knew the importance of having a burglar to steal inside the Lonely Mountain, and Gandalf had very high hopes for Bilbo. In the Jackson adaption, we are shown that, while the company would prefer to have Bilbo be a part of their quest, they could do fine without him.

After Bilbo chases the dwarves down and convinces them that he wants to accompany them, Jackson strays further off the beaten path; he actually ruins two chapters at once.

Instead of sending Bilbo to scout the troll camp and possibly hone his burgling skills, he is sent to retrieve the company's ponies, which the trolls have captured. Now, this is a very important deviation from the book, as it changes the motivation of the goblins' capture of the dwarves and hobbit.

After the episode with the trolls and a quick stay at Rivendell, the dwarves begin their way through the Misty Mountains. After nearly being killed in a fight between Stone Giants, they make camp in a small cave. Instead of attempting to steal the dwarves' ponies, the goblins steal the dwarves.

This is where the worst deviation from the book occurs; instead of capturing the dwarves as they struggled to free their ponies, the goblins capture the dwarves because an ancient Orc named Azog has put out a bounty on them.

Now, according to both "The Hobbit" and the appendices of the "Lord of the Rings", Azog was killed by Dain Ironfoot years before the events of "The Hobbit" took place. Now, this may not seem like a serious problem, as Azog was a minor character, but in bringing him back as the main antagonist Jackson has derailed the entire film series. Instead of the quest being "reclaim the treasure of Lonely Mountain", the quest is now "defeat an ancient Orc and reclaim the Lonely Mountain itself". Jackson, in an attempt to stretch the story, has destroyed the original premise of the dwarves' journey. In making Azog a main antagonist, he takes the focus away from Smaug the Great, a much more deadly adversary, and changes the dwarves from artisans to warriors.

The feel of the book is gone. Instead of crafting sequences around the events of the book, Jackson creates a jigsaw puzzle, half book/half script.

While many may argue that this is a plot device to build Bilbo's character, that can be disputed.

In the original book, Bilbo Baggins gradually changed into a stronger person. In the films, he is portrayed as always being of a strong will, and just never having the chance to show it. By going this route, much of Bilbo's ongoing growth is lost, and his character suffers for it.

Jackson obviously did not trust this film to register with audiences familiar with the source material, and, with that in mind, changed the story to suit those only familiar with his previous films. By inserting Galadriel, Frodo, Radagast, and the 'cute' Sméagol, he gains the support of Trilogy fans, but at what cost?

Answer: Faithfulness to the original book.

While the scene with Galadriel could be seen as an adaptation of events from the LOTR appendices, the 'cute' Sméagol cannot. Gollum/Sméagol is meant to be seen as a frightening, wretched creature; the book again and again explains that Bilbo feared for his life during the riddle competition. Why then did Jackson include the 'tame' Sméagol from the LOTR Trilogy? Because he knew it would register with fans of those films.

In conclusion, I see this adaptation of "The Hobbit" as a way for Peter Jackson and New Line to profit from the LOTR Trilogy all over again. By grafting certain parts of the Trilogy onto "The Hobbit", New Line and Jackson are ensured that at least some of those fans will fork out money to watch three more films. I see this film not as an artistic exercise but as a cash cow. That is all.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
JustToClarifyJan 11, 2013
A decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from theA decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The acting and effects are also both fantastic, with a late entry from a beloved character being the best of both worlds. Overall, a film with great potential squandered with meandering added storyline and a tiring run-time. Expand
6 of 8 users found this helpful62
All this user's reviews
5
CuscadenDec 30, 2012
I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of themI was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it. LOTR whilst obviously being a fantasy setting film, had a sense that everything was realistic within its fantasy setting. The Hobbit throws that feeling away and just goes over the top. Expand
8 of 13 users found this helpful85
All this user's reviews
6
secondmoto381Dec 14, 2012
After seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making threeAfter seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally I feel that he killed the part as Bilbo. Andy Serkis is as amazing as ever, albeit a little bit corny at times. Richard Armitage also is a great Thorin. Thorin is played really well and is exactly as a Thorin should be. However that being said, most of the other dwarves feel like fillers, never having any lines or really any say in the story. In LOTR it felt like every member of the fellowship had a role and a point and a back-story. In the Hobbit it feels like there is Thorin, Balin, Kili and Fili and a bunch of other dwarves. The way that they blended the old LOTR story to the Hobbit was absolutely superb and was perfect. Ultimately what ruined the movie for me was the action. In LOTR the fight scenes against the trolls and goblins and orcs and whargs seemed dangerous. They felt like the orcs were this rabble, this horde that was bloodthirsty and ruthless. In the Hobbit they felt more like comic relief than actual enemies. The best comparison I can think of was the fight in Balin's Tomb. In this fight the goblins burst through the door and look fearsome and sound like there ready to kill everything. In the Hobbit they feel stupid and mindless and comical. Cheesy stuff like Gandalf decapitating a goblin and instead of a flying head and a spurt of blood, there is nothing but a confused looking goblin whose eyes move worriedly then his head inexplicably pops off. All in all the way they tied the stories and the only four characters that really felt important (Bilbo, Thorin, Balin, and Gandalf.) and the general enjoyment of the story gives the Hobbit its good points, however the corny fight sequences that seem to have lost all of their seriousness, the mind-dead enemies, the loss of that fear factor that was in the LOTR, and the general was that some things that happen just don't seem relevant to the story really hurts this movie. As much as I would prefer to rate it better I can only give it a six. Expand
6 of 10 users found this helpful64
All this user's reviews
5
NilbogJan 4, 2013
Overly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from theOverly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from the appendices just makes the film feel uneven and without any coherent tone. A jumbled mess of a movie that doesn't know what it's trying to be - a film adaptation of a kids book, or a dark brooding prequel to LotR - it's all over the place. I'm a huge fan of Jackson, but this is one of his worst movies.

The only truly good scene in the movie is the riddle game with Gollum, it stands head and shoulders above the rest of the film, making it painfully obvious how mediocre the rest of it is. Ultimately forgettable, I just hope the next 2 fare better.
Expand
6 of 10 users found this helpful64
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
hugethornDec 19, 2012
So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

The book is pastoral,
So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action sequences. I was shocked by how much yelling, screaming and sword fighting and biting there was, since the book has so little of it. Now, I like a violent movie as much as the next guy, and I really enjoyed LOTR, but the Hobbit is different. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson made an LOTR version of the Hobbit. Mostly, I'm disappointed by him and his dumbing-down of the subtleties of the novel.
The 3d IMAX experience was awesome, but sometimes the characters were CLEARLY plastic (CG). The action sequences also felt very "harry potter-ish" - Incredible, over the top, unsurvivable scenes and characters walk with nary a scratch. I can practically see the roller coaster name branding spilling out of a couple scenes.
Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
5
siphrJan 13, 2013
Initially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer isInitially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of the ring. Considering I've read this book, I think I am pretty sure that the following 2 movies will also follow in the footsteps of two towers and return of the king respectively. Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
4
snowdog_ixDec 30, 2012
Peter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. VeryPeter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. Very disappointing. Expand
8 of 14 users found this helpful86
All this user's reviews
5
TheDRauchJan 2, 2013
This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power toThis is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though. Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
5
mcfDec 26, 2012
I was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic,I was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic, great animation. But it's not really much different from Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy films. Several of the same actors, same settings, similar battle scenes. Actually, it's not quite as good as any of the LOTR Trilogy movies. Granted, that's a tough comparison. but it is what it is.

To me, the disappointing part of Hobbit is that nothing really "happens" in this first-of-three. LOTR is a complex, 1,200-page book. I can see "stretching the story out" into a trilogy. Hobbit is a 250-page story written for children. The story could have been told in one 3-hour movie or two tops. To stretch the story into a trilogy smacks of pure Hollywood greed. And, as a result, nothing much really "happens" in the first installment.
Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
6
mo_hamadeJan 11, 2013
Long have I awaited a resemblance of the experience of authentic epicness set by the lord of the rings trilogy! That trilogy was indeed prolonged by a new franchise called
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
4
mds03Mar 3, 2013
Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The onlyOh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. After all, it was only like the first 100 pages of the book. Gollum is the only thing that kept my review from a 3. What a major disappointment. I can tell you one thing, I definetly won't be there for part 2 or 3. Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
4
sidbond1991Dec 29, 2012
The hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movieThe hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see our characters interact - particularly the scene where Gandalf and Frodo talk in the caves. However, we see none of those heart warming scenes of LOTR and more cliche' dialogues. This movie relies more the production value which is excellent such as the sets and everything and it also banks on people's love for the LOTR movies. I am very die hard fan of LOTR and even if I don't compare Hobbit dazzles but fails to leave an imprint. Expand
5 of 9 users found this helpful54
All this user's reviews
4
casperlasperJan 1, 2013
I'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you soI'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you so far, and to my mind, not nearly far enough to forgive this movie its flaws. Chief among them was the length. The Lord of the Rings movies were all long, but they had the material to justify their length. One movie per book makes sense. By the end of this first Hobbit movie we've covered about 6 chapters worth of source material. The rest is filler. And not good filler at that. If I never see Radagast the Brown again, that'll be fine by me. He rides around on a sleigh pulled by rabbits for god's sake. I like fantasy just fine, but I like it to be at least somewhat grounded. I loved Tolkien's books, but I was glad that the Lord of the Rings movies weren't 100% faithful to them. I didn't need to see Tom Bombadil on the big screen, and I certainly didn't need to see people singing left and right during their epic quest to save the world. Well, they left the singing in this time around. And it does work fairly well in one instance, but the rest of the time it's just odd and distracting. Too much of this movie is odd and distracting. There are moments that work, but they're wedged between so, so many others that don't. I want to say that there's a very good 2 hour movie hidden in what I saw, but I'm not sure that's the case. Absent the filler, I don't think there's enough to string together a coherent, satisfying narrative from this segment of the story. Maybe when all three films are on the table, I'll be better able to see how things could have been readjusted. Bottom line, I really wanted to like this movie, but I just didn't. Watching it was a chore. Expand
11 of 20 users found this helpful119
All this user's reviews
5
Jailhouse_McGeeDec 20, 2012
"The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and"The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and it's just to epic for it's own good. I cringed as the dwarfs charged into the screen with loud music the second time, not to mention all the pointless action and filler scenes. The movie has an annoying "stop and go" ark of chained together elements that all look great on their own terms, but just don't add up to a great story. It all looks great and the actors are fabulous, but judged by my expectations, a big disappointment. Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
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
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
4
Olorin2Dec 20, 2012
Contains spoilers.

If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Although I am loath to admit it, this adaptation of
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
5
baole58Jul 30, 2013
Set in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from SmaugSet in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon.

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will please fans. For them, the only reason to watch this film is “Hobbits”. The fine performance from its cast does not quite make up for its slow pace, irritating high frame rate and long running time. The film may not have high hopes, and it’s not entirely terrible, but being too similar to The Lord of the Rings, it’s such a disappointment. Hopefully, Peter Jackson will realize what he has done wrong in this film before continuing with the trilogy.
Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews