User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2428 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 2, 2014
    0
    I badly struggled getting through this. The pace is terrible and there's way too much detail, with an uninteresting story and hilariously over the top and illogical action. Avoid at all cost.
  2. 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.
  3. Sep 28, 2014
    1
    The Hobbit: An expected failure. This film is to a good film... what cold leftovers are to a gourmet meal. Even if the meal was originally good, after a few weeks it holds even more maggots than an orc. LOTR was applaused? Just make the same, and pretend it is an adaptation from The hobbit. But this film is just stupid! Nothing to do with the book! It is still better than the secondThe Hobbit: An expected failure. This film is to a good film... what cold leftovers are to a gourmet meal. Even if the meal was originally good, after a few weeks it holds even more maggots than an orc. LOTR was applaused? Just make the same, and pretend it is an adaptation from The hobbit. But this film is just stupid! Nothing to do with the book! It is still better than the second film, but still an insult. Desolation of smaug is more an insult than sh!tting inside Tolkien's tomb. This one is merely as much as peeing inside. Expand
  4. May 10, 2014
    2
    My enjoyment of this movie was somewhat marred by the fact that that I was constantly aware that Tolkien's novel was emphatically not supposed to be a fantasy epic. It is a charming book about the development of a group of dysfunctional individuals (thrown together by the machinations of Gandalf) and especially the development of the eponymous character from a homeloving 'respectable'My enjoyment of this movie was somewhat marred by the fact that that I was constantly aware that Tolkien's novel was emphatically not supposed to be a fantasy epic. It is a charming book about the development of a group of dysfunctional individuals (thrown together by the machinations of Gandalf) and especially the development of the eponymous character from a homeloving 'respectable' hobbit into a resourceful adventuring hero. The movie was a heavy-handed travesty of the story; Peter Jackson (and presumably his backers) are obviously just interested in a cynical rehashing of the Lord of The Rings trilogy. Of course, that too showed Jackson's leaden touch, especially in the last sixty minutes of The Return of The King. Minas Tirith miraculously rebuilt, instead of showing that the rebuilding was going to happen as a result of those reforged alliances and friendships between dwarves, elves and men begun in The Fellowship Of The Ring. Not quite 'Hollywood' enough, I suppose? And these long, travestic final scenes left no room for the 'Battle of the Shire' at the end of the book where four once commonplace hobbits returned home as seasoned heroes to kick Saruman and Wormtongue out of the Shire. Jackson doesn't pay much attention to character; he seems interested only in action. No doubt Jackson's new trilogy will win lots of Oscars again: money for old rope. I for one cannot, in all conscience, rate An Unexpected Journey any higher than 2 out of 10. Expand
  5. May 4, 2014
    3
    Aweful, just plain aweful. one of the most boring movies I have ever seen... and I love lord of the rings so this movie was a huge huge let down. Hobbit 2 and 3? count me out
  6. Apr 2, 2014
    0
    The Hobbit :An unexpected journey is a made for children. It has no plot, the actors are not good and the added comedy makes what might have been a okay movie even worse. I sat through the DVD hoping I would end up liking it. But was disappointed . I hated it.
  7. Jan 15, 2014
    0
    One of the uglier and more bewildering films of our time. I actually laughed when I realized Bilbo's ring-vision actually looks more real than the phoney, almost fully C.G. 'regular' world. Martin Freeman looks visibly uneasy to be in the film during every single, cartoonish scene of this calamity. Peter Jackson should have been put in charge of the J.R.R. Tolkien Theme Park, not the films.
  8. Jan 15, 2014
    0
    It's like Jackson just took a giant bucket of C.G.I., a giant bucket of terrible editing, a giant bucket of terrible dubbing and a giant bucket of incoherency and dumped them all over an awful movie.
  9. Jan 6, 2014
    2
    Ugh!
    As good a job as Peter Jackson did with the rings, I simply cannot believe he is destroying The Hobbit. The Hobbit is the introductory book to the world of Tolkein and he is crapping all over it. This is, however, the best Harry Potter movie to date!
  10. Jan 5, 2014
    4
    Slow, dill and boring. Was so disappointed with this as i loved lord of the rings! The action sequences seemed silly and almost pointless (stone gods anyone??) and hardly built on characters unlike the original. I knew about one of the dwarves names along side the obvious characters (bilbo and gandalf) and you need to build characters a lot more if they are all the same race! The dwarvesSlow, dill and boring. Was so disappointed with this as i loved lord of the rings! The action sequences seemed silly and almost pointless (stone gods anyone??) and hardly built on characters unlike the original. I knew about one of the dwarves names along side the obvious characters (bilbo and gandalf) and you need to build characters a lot more if they are all the same race! The dwarves had so little dialogue too you forgot half of them existed! Not really worth seeing unless you are die hard LOTR fan. Luckily Desolation of smaug was great! Expand
  11. Ogr
    Dec 25, 2013
    3
    The new Hobbit Movie is out for a while, so I tried to watch the old one again, to get into it. I kinda liked the books, even if I don't think that they are as great as everyone says, I prefer darker and more serious fantasy like SoIaF. Still I thought this movie could be pretty nice, as I love the landscape... and yes, New Zealand's landscape is the best of The Hobbit. Singing dwarves andThe new Hobbit Movie is out for a while, so I tried to watch the old one again, to get into it. I kinda liked the books, even if I don't think that they are as great as everyone says, I prefer darker and more serious fantasy like SoIaF. Still I thought this movie could be pretty nice, as I love the landscape... and yes, New Zealand's landscape is the best of The Hobbit. Singing dwarves and a stretched boring story, sometimes it's a real torture to watch this movie. The good thing is that my TV has a mute function and I can enjoy watching the scenery. Sorry, I don't want to troll around here, but this movie is so bad except for it's modern technology, I had to write it down. Expand
  12. Dec 21, 2013
    1
    All was well until about an hour into the movie and then...BAM!,the text is thrown out the window and the writers are given so-called creative license to write whatever crap they feel will bring in more cash.Azog is dead...Killed by Dain Ironfoot who should appear by the ridiculous 3rd movie) over 140 years before the time of this movie and not by Thorin.That fat goblin is meant to beAll was well until about an hour into the movie and then...BAM!,the text is thrown out the window and the writers are given so-called creative license to write whatever crap they feel will bring in more cash.Azog is dead...Killed by Dain Ironfoot who should appear by the ridiculous 3rd movie) over 140 years before the time of this movie and not by Thorin.That fat goblin is meant to be Azog's son Bolg.The original story covers Bilbo and company escaping from trolls,escaping from goblins,escaping from wargs,escaping from spiders,escaping from elves and that's just before they reach lake town.What's with all the violence?Peter Jackson has gone the way of Lucas,Cameron and Spielberg...So in love with CGI and over-choreographed 'action' sequences that they have forgotten how to make a decent movie.Utter trash. Expand
  13. Dec 12, 2013
    0
    This film broke my heart, in more ways than one. Firstly the animal cruelty & death issues that arose during the making of it and secondly the fact it is absolutely nothing like the book. This piece of Hollywood trash is just a cheap cash in on Tolkien's masterpiece. The book is a beautifully written exciting and sometimes sad adventure that you really immerse yourself in fully. ThisThis film broke my heart, in more ways than one. Firstly the animal cruelty & death issues that arose during the making of it and secondly the fact it is absolutely nothing like the book. This piece of Hollywood trash is just a cheap cash in on Tolkien's masterpiece. The book is a beautifully written exciting and sometimes sad adventure that you really immerse yourself in fully. This movie? My gods! This movie just sucks, big time and what Mr Jackson has done is just made a no-brained action movie from a book he had no right to touch. After watching this I just wonder if he just flicked through the pages and just circled the semi action orientated parts. Jackson, you have proved yourself to be a pathetic director and with this rubbish you have done a 'Lucas'. I just hope someone (like Ridley Scott) in the future is allowed to remake it the way it should be. This Tolkien fan is sad and totally disappointed. Expand
  14. Dec 11, 2013
    4
    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
    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
  15. Nov 9, 2013
    3
    The problem with 'The Hobbit' is that he tries to show an epic movie with the passing of the minutes, but forgets that not strong enough for that and reveals nothing less than purely commercial.
  16. Sep 14, 2013
    4
    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 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 ai 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
  17. Aug 26, 2013
    0
    This movie is a snooze fest. I fell asleep, that was how absolutely boring that movie was. It is three hours of a hobbit traveling around magical fairy land. Boring.
  18. Jul 22, 2013
    4
    Bilbo definitibamente es poco entretenido y algo estupido a una excepcion la pelicula guarda exclentes efectos y la originalidad al 100 sin embargo solo BLA BLA BLA Y ganas de ZZZzzzzz
  19. Rem
    Jul 21, 2013
    2
    Boring, not funny, and plain too long, this is a departure from the well loved franchise and an insult as it only serves to appeal to a younger audience and those who favor 3-D. With absolutely no real effects as CG takes over, it almost becomes painful to think this comes from the flagship franchise that earned 30 Oscar nominations.
  20. Jun 13, 2013
    0
    What am I a child? I wasted my time watching this pile of junk that was neither interesting or entertaining. Since I was a fan of LOTR I expected Jackson to deliver. A waste of money it was to sit through this stupid cartoon-ish looking movie.
  21. May 19, 2013
    4
    As a big Tolkien fan and LOTR movie fan, I felt betrayed after leaving the movie theater. The moment I heard Del Torro was going to direct it, I was a bit disappointed. And it felt good to know that in the end Peter Jackson was going to direct it. Now that I think of it, I'm sure it would have been a better idea to let Del Torro direct it....
  22. May 7, 2013
    3
    I was disapointed when i left the theater after this movie.
    * The dwarves look absolutely rediculous, i doubt their budget for the costumes were that strained to justify their awfull appearence. They really do look like they fit in at a high school theater production.
    * Who are the dwarves? I dont know really, none of them got to show their personalities to any greater extent. Did they
    I was disapointed when i left the theater after this movie.
    * The dwarves look absolutely rediculous, i doubt their budget for the costumes were that strained to justify their awfull appearence. They really do look like they fit in at a high school theater production.
    * Who are the dwarves? I dont know really, none of them got to show their personalities to any greater extent. Did they even say anyhing? If it was anything important or intresting i guess it was drowned by all the dumb and childish punchlines.
    * They sure like running alot, did they even fight at all? I dont remember, i really dont. After a while it all just felt like watching someone play a computer game.
    * I liked Radagast though, but thats probably because he's just like me :P
    Expand
  23. May 4, 2013
    2
    Why make a story, that could be perfectly told in 90min last twice the time for part 1? I loved the book but the movie felt like a waste of time. Too much stretching, too much nonsense beside the main plot. I'll pass on the next movies. The only real bright spot: Gollum what an awesome performance!
  24. May 4, 2013
    3
    This movie was just horrible! I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but this left me with a feeling of a quick cash grab and the more childish tone of the movie did not appeal to me..
  25. Apr 23, 2013
    3
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

    Now, in all fairness, I wasn't the biggest LOTR fan. But I did enjoy the movies. This was painful to watch. For a child, I'd recommend it. It's got silly bits and funny bits that
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

    Now, in all fairness, I wasn't the biggest LOTR fan. But I did enjoy the movies. This was painful to watch. For a child, I'd recommend it. It's got silly bits and funny bits that I would have loved as a child. But I'm old, and crotchety.... And was expecting/hoping for a neat story in the line of LOTR. Instead I got slapstick humor with filler. Lots and lots of filler.

    Is it a 0/10? No. It's okay. Perhaps it was simply not for me. But at 1 hour, I checked the time and was astounded to find that I had not been watching for 2 hours, and that I had 1 hour and 45 minutes left to go. I groaned and turned it off.
    Expand
  26. 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
  27. Mar 22, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Monotonous, dry, bland, unimaginative story telling, as much fun as a trip to the dentist, please deliver us from Peter Jackson. The visuals have been overplayed in the Lord of the Rings and the screen play lands flat and robotic. None of the characters resonate and Richard Armitage looks and acts more like a poor copy of Viggo Mortensen's Aragon than a dwarf royal or not. Huge waste of time and money, this telling lends nothing to Tolkien and appears lifeless even next to the cheesy 1977 animated Hobbit. Jackson only has 2 tools in his tool box, endless sweeps across the landscape of New Zealand and excessive CGI. Both are used to great effect to kill pacing, distract from the story and swallow the characters, not that another whiny hobbit or a band of forgettable dwarves that cannot sing would be missed. The ending is also disappointing, not that I expected any kind of resolution in a film from Jackson, but I really wanted to see Smaug kill off the cast, turn on Jackson and leave us to all live happily ever after in a world free of crappy directors and pretentious film making. Expand
  28. Mar 15, 2013
    3
    This film is a grotesque frankenstien monster of an adaptation. The sections of this movie which follow the book are entertaining and (barely) decently done, however the remaining half is a butchered and chunky concoction, incorporating elements of Tolkien's other works, 'Adam Sandler' style slapstick stupidity (such as a dismembered Goblin-King fat enough to appear on 'The Biggest Loser'This film is a grotesque frankenstien monster of an adaptation. The sections of this movie which follow the book are entertaining and (barely) decently done, however the remaining half is a butchered and chunky concoction, incorporating elements of Tolkien's other works, 'Adam Sandler' style slapstick stupidity (such as a dismembered Goblin-King fat enough to appear on 'The Biggest Loser' falling on top of our gang of dwarfs, much to the delight of my 7yr old brother I should add) and an extra large portion of Peter Jackson's inflated ego. The resulting plot is a grotesque and thinly veiled carbon copy of Jackson's excellent 'The Fellowship of the Ring' to which The Hobbit's plot has been brutally affixed, even going so far as to tediously extrapolate a non-existent prologue to mimic the fellowship's opening scene. The worst part is that there are still two more films to come, and I wouldn't be surprised, given the quality of this one, if the last part were to rival the last film in the Twilight series for its extreme tediousness and fetal-position mind-numbingness. Expand
  29. Mar 10, 2013
    3
    Not enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, andNot enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, and get up without a scratch and run along. Far too similar to the Fellowship of the Ring, far too boring and redundant. Apparently there aren't even orcs in the Hobbit by Tolkein, but only goblins (and spiders and eagles) instead!! What a laugh.

    Too much like Lord of the Rings. Obviously it's the same Middle Earth/Gandolf/ring/etc... but the Hobbit is not as grand a story as the Lord of the Rings. It is a much shorter/concise story. Watching this movie almost cuts into my enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings. As good as LOTR was, the Hobbit is just as bad. What a mess. They really cared about LOTR and Tolkein for the first 3 movies, I think they just wanted more money with the Hobbit.
    Expand
  30. Mar 4, 2013
    0
    I'm a big fan of the Tolkien books. I mean BIG. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. After about 30 minutes my wife woke me up! I've never fallen asleep in a cinema before. Sitting there watching this bizarely paced movie, way too much CG, not enough acting, I felt myself wishing for the end. Will NOT be seeing the other 2, it is only 2 isn't it?
  31. Mar 3, 2013
    4
    Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. AfterOh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. After all, it was only like the first 100 pages of the book. Gollum is the only thing that kept my review from a 3. What a major disappointment. I can tell you one thing, I definetly won't be there for part 2 or 3. Expand
  32. Feb 24, 2013
    2
    David Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this toDavid Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this to be just as good. It was a terrible interpretation. The dwarves are silly in the movie they are not in the book. There is much more violence in the movie than in the book. And, the violence is largely gratuitous with boring, drawn out scenes that are well over the top. No doubt video-gamers will like it, but this is a movie not a videogame The other Wizard, living in the forest as its caretaker, is made to look a fool in the book he is not. The escape scenes are also much drawn out and absolutely unbelievable as in so completely unbelievable that I thought I was watching a Saturday morning cartoon. Visually the movie looks attractive, but since the plot is so wretchedly twisted the almost three-hours for me was tortuous the last 60 minutes I was twitching so much in my seat that I no doubt bothered my niegbors in the theater. Mr. Jackson did not need to add in the new characters and plot twists. Tolkien's work has very elaborate text and explanations that could easily have been incorporated to make a three-part series without the "new" material. He could have used much more character and plot development, increased the suspense and reduced the violence. I will see the next two chapters in the cinema, but not with nearly as much anticipation as I had for this first chapter and for the three Lord of the Rings movie. Expand
  33. Feb 14, 2013
    3
    plenty of reviews have already nailed this so ill just say bored the life out of me. watching it i couldn't stop thinking is this one movie stretched into 3 just to line some pockets? really looked forward to this, tried to like it. but... do you give points for prettiness? on substance alone i can only give this a 3....
  34. Feb 12, 2013
    4
    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 epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit.
  35. Feb 9, 2013
    2
    This is a stunning visual experience at times. What ruins it for me is the lack of unique content.
    I got the same experience as I did with the first movies. This film also features some of the most ridiculous CG sequences I have ever seen in a high budget movie. It looks utterly fake, and it is about time the people who animate these things, take a physics course. At the very least, try
    This is a stunning visual experience at times. What ruins it for me is the lack of unique content.
    I got the same experience as I did with the first movies. This film also features some of the most ridiculous CG sequences I have ever seen in a high budget movie. It looks utterly fake, and it is about time the people who animate these things, take a physics course. At the very least, try to make gravity appear uniform.
    Expand
  36. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    aunque sigue fiel a los libros the hobbit es una película inferior a las del señor de los anillos y aunque tiene unos momentos interesantes la película aburre a la hora y media y si usted es como yo se quedara dormido y no querrá volverla aver
  37. Jan 27, 2013
    4
    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
  38. Jan 23, 2013
    3
    The hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite theThe hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite the negative comments, the film does show signs of greatness, but they are usually overcome with incredibly cheesy scenes and characters ( radagast) which takes away any seriousness. I have been a huge fan of The Lord of the rings. Trilogy and I was deeply saddened when I saw this movie. The only thing to be said about it is, hold on to the great scenes and try to endure the more child like ones Expand
  39. 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
  40. Jan 13, 2013
    1
    If you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking he is a better story teller than Tolkien. I went into the movie thinking I would be looking for things that they changed to make the scenes work better onIf you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking he is a better story teller than Tolkien. I went into the movie thinking I would be looking for things that they changed to make the scenes work better on screen, I soon found I was looking for things that were actually in the book. A poop covered wizard that rides a sled pulled by rabbits? REALLY!? The book was about the quest and the JOURNEY! A lot of time was given to feeling homesick, feeling hungry and tired on the road, or toughing it out through rain. When I heard how long the movie was I got excited thinking, "Yes! they actually put all that stuff in". Wrong! The movie takes out the journey and immediately puts the characters where they need to be one scene after another. The white orc was only added in so they could write a storyline that has lots of fighting (even though there was enough in the book) to make Thorin look like the honorable badass hero American audiences/zombiemasses apparently require. The dwarves were not warriors at all in the book (although they did fight), they did not even have weapons until they found them in the troll's cave (another butchered scene). Expand
  41. Jan 9, 2013
    2
    With a horrible ending and stupid fight scenes this film stops exactly when it shouldn't. Maybe with more it will end up like LOTR but at this early stage it doesn't deliver.
  42. 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
  43. Jan 4, 2013
    1
    A high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantly going from moments of safety to moments of extreme danger and quite frankly it's just plain boring. The film left me with no incentive to watch any of theA high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantly going from moments of safety to moments of extreme danger and quite frankly it's just plain boring. The film left me with no incentive to watch any of the sequels. Expand
  44. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    This movie seems more like a children's movie than a LOTR movie. Little Dwarves who sing and drink. The action scenes and characters seem cheesy, and mainly, this should NOT be 3 movies. The next movie better be good.
  45. 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
  46. Jan 2, 2013
    2
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an unexpected movie with an unexpected experience. The movie simply falls flat on its face. It has the best visuals and effects but the sole purpose of technology is to support your script and enhance experience but one should know that one might be able to bring people to cinema due to the reputation and expectations but won't be able to keep them sitThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an unexpected movie with an unexpected experience. The movie simply falls flat on its face. It has the best visuals and effects but the sole purpose of technology is to support your script and enhance experience but one should know that one might be able to bring people to cinema due to the reputation and expectations but won't be able to keep them sit and watch the complete movie if its not good. Screenplay works in bits and pieces for me. Story build-up is a drag. The most disappointing thing is that it failed to deliver what you expected to see. My friends who have read the book], enjoyed it a lot but even they think that it gets too boring in the middle. Expand
  47. Jan 1, 2013
    3
    A completely forgettable film, practically an insult to the first 3. While the scenery was quite spectacular, there were to many characters to actually care for them. I was almost hoping for some of the characters to die. Some sections just continued to drag on, with almost no point to them then to just flesh out the 2 and a half hour film. Sections became tedious and repetitive, withA completely forgettable film, practically an insult to the first 3. While the scenery was quite spectacular, there were to many characters to actually care for them. I was almost hoping for some of the characters to die. Some sections just continued to drag on, with almost no point to them then to just flesh out the 2 and a half hour film. Sections became tedious and repetitive, with little being done to elaborate on many of the characters. Nothing like the originals, and no where near as entertaining. Expand
  48. Jan 1, 2013
    4
    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 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 allI'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
  49. Jan 1, 2013
    0
    Wow, there is such a thing as too much artistic license. It's sad when you try to "improve" things and they come up so pathetically short of the original. Peter Jackson has done to the LOTR what George Lucas did to Star Wars. Except Lucas ruined his own work. Garbage. This is SpiderMan 3 level of disgust.
  50. Dec 30, 2012
    2
    It was like the "Phantom Menace" all over again. Just like that film, I knew 20 minutes into the movie it was a disaster. Poor editing, poor pacing, poor storytelling. My biggest disappointment of the year.
  51. Dec 30, 2012
    0
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey turned out to be an unexpected Christmas turkey. I saw the 2D version because 3D fx don't work for me. As the movie trudged from one prepackaged fight scene to another, I became increasingly bored at the lack of character development and genuinely good storytelling. As it turns out, I was not alone in my assessment of the film. When the credits started toThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey turned out to be an unexpected Christmas turkey. I saw the 2D version because 3D fx don't work for me. As the movie trudged from one prepackaged fight scene to another, I became increasingly bored at the lack of character development and genuinely good storytelling. As it turns out, I was not alone in my assessment of the film. When the credits started to roll, I heard someone behind me exclaim "What a rip off!" Expand
  52. Dec 30, 2012
    4
    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. Very disappointing.
  53. Dec 30, 2012
    1
    The movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact itThe movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact it was a prequel to LoTR and remove the elements of what made the Hobbit(the novel) great Expand
  54. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    Very disappointing - insanely too long, with a slow, sleep inducing story, and cgi which looked more like a video game. The LOTR films raised the bar for brilliant make-up and great cgi, all within an emotional storyline with breath-taking cinematography and outstanding credibility. The Hobbit is a cynical grab for cash - why did the orcs, goblins and wargs look so cartoonish ? LOTR hadVery disappointing - insanely too long, with a slow, sleep inducing story, and cgi which looked more like a video game. The LOTR films raised the bar for brilliant make-up and great cgi, all within an emotional storyline with breath-taking cinematography and outstanding credibility. The Hobbit is a cynical grab for cash - why did the orcs, goblins and wargs look so cartoonish ? LOTR had a gritty in-camera reality which The Hobbit totally lacked. It should have been 90-120 minutes long but lost its way. Expand
  55. Dec 29, 2012
    4
    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 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 ourThe 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
  56. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    All of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standardAll of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standard set by the first three films. Forced humor in the Hobbit was an active theme throughout with the goblin king, gollum, etc. This humor was forced into the most inappropriate times during the film where in comparison would be as if The king of Rohan cracked a joke as Soroman's army broke through the walls of helms deep in the second film. The introduction of the brown wizard was both uncalled for as well as degrading the the movie itself. The over the top use of computer graphics in this films took its toll on the film, and left the viewers watching another movie such as Narnia from within the theater, instead of drawing the viewer into both the plot and middle earth itself Expand
  57. 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
  58. Dec 27, 2012
    2
    "Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and"Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and divided it into parts - to make more money.
    Poor attempt of trying to make a lot of $ using great author's name.
    Expand
  59. Dec 25, 2012
    1
    Very boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and onVery boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and on and on.. All a bit cheesy, like a video game. Dwarves badly made up, some having false noses, others not. This film lacked magic and charm. Expand
  60. Dec 25, 2012
    4
    The high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stageThe high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stage and do not blend into the movie.

    It is a three hour movie where nothing happens at all in it. This is partly due to the material of the Hobbit being only one book and they are trying to milk it into a 9-hr movie. You never really get to understand who the characters are in the movie. It is always person X son of person Y keeper of Z. Who cares. It is very weak character development for sure in this movie. I couldn't tell you who the main character was in this movie.

    In fact it is like the Phantom Menace in that there is little to story to the movie but instead we are told to watch more special effects and to enjoy it. I'm not going to see the other two movies in this "trilogy" as its just not worth the time or my money.
    Expand
  61. Dec 24, 2012
    0
    The only unexpected journey was me leaving the cinema when I couldn't stomach any more of this horrible movie. I can't believe there's going to be two sequels to this as well.
  62. Dec 24, 2012
    1
    So boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening so intrascendental and no charismatic characters.
  63. Dec 23, 2012
    2
    Over long and over done. While the LOTR trilogy made sense and was, all things considered, faithful to the source material, neither can said for this thing.One absurd action sequence after another. Our heroes can't fight small bands of Orcs or Goblins - oh no - they have to confronted with an insane number of bad guys. I may - or may not - rent the next two. It is only two more right? OrOver long and over done. While the LOTR trilogy made sense and was, all things considered, faithful to the source material, neither can said for this thing.One absurd action sequence after another. Our heroes can't fight small bands of Orcs or Goblins - oh no - they have to confronted with an insane number of bad guys. I may - or may not - rent the next two. It is only two more right? Or will they try to back to bank again and again? Expand
  64. Dec 22, 2012
    4
    Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!
  65. Dec 22, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For those who have seen the film...Why it reeked. I was hugely disappointed in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". Instead of sticking to the children's story, which is very short compared to LOTR, Peter Jackson has added a ton of unnecessary bloat. Many of the scenes were just added to connect it with LOTR, which was not needed, such as all the scenes with Frodo. The movie starts with a huge back story, which would have been better told as the movie progressed. Thorin has a new adversary (he was mentioned in the book, but the party had no interaction with him) ...the strange white orc that slew his father. One of the changes that bothered me the most was that Bilbo is looked down upon throughout the movie, and he has to be a savior in almost every instance to prove he is worthy of the party. In the book the animosity is not nearly as bad. Bilbo does enough in the book without having to, for instance, save Thorin from the white orc. If I remember right the first thing that Bilbo kills with his new short sword in the book is a spider, and Bilbo names the sword Sting. Shouldn't Bilbo have named the sword Fang or Claw in the movie? One of the scenes that doesn't work is when Bilbo escapes from Golum, and Golum just screams instead of running after Bilbo. Why didn't Golum go after Biblo you ask? Well, in the book the goblins are guarding the way out of the mountain, and Golum didn't want to get caught. I was looking forward to see the whole party stuck up in the trees, and the goblins making fun of them with song, but this was not included. Instead of the party being almost burnt up in the trees, the problem is the trees are collapsing. After the long intro, the movie turns into a roller coaster ride. A lot of people compare it to Pirates of the Caribbean, and they are right on. This movie is more Pirate of the Caribbean, than Pirate of the Caribbean could ever be. THREE different instances of having to jump from one place to another to stay alive...The stone giants, the collapsing walkways in the mountain, and the collapsing trees! Speaking of the stone giants, hasn't Peter Jackson learned that some things are better off left for the imagination? In the book the stone giants are mentioned, almost in passing, while in the movie they ride them! It would have been great, if during the storm rocks were falling, you could hear the noise of huge rocks getting smashed...and then through the storm a slight glimpse of something made of rock moves.... Thorin, Thorin, Thorin. He does not hate the elves, he was thankful for their hospitality, and the thing he loves most is gold. In the movie they try to make him a bleeding heart for his homeland, when all he wants is the gold! He IS a dwarf for goodness sake! A new (uneeded) comedy relief was added...Radagast the wizard. Poop. Another new twist is Gandalf hearing about the necromancer. I was almost intrested in this, I think it comes straight from Tokien's notes. However, it does make the movie longer, and is the main reason we have to deal with Radagast the Gastly. The troll incident is changed, for the worst. In the book Biblo is trying to steal something from the trolls, instead of saving the horses. Everyone in the party gets captured except Thorin, who puts up a fight. In the movie, everyone gives up their weapons to save Biblo from getting ripped apart...one person ripped apart, or everyone gets eaten hmmm....This is another time where Biblo basically saves the day, instead of Gandalf. Bilbo keeps the Trolls arguing in the movie, but in the book Gandalf throws his voice, making the Trolls think that they are disagreeing on how to cook the party. The visuals of the movie are descent. More CGI was used, and less animatronics than in LOTR and it shows. I could continue to nitpick very easily, but I think I will leave it there. To sum it up, this is not a movie about a Hobbit, as the book was. It is a movie about the whole of the goings on in middle earth during the story of the Hobbit, and it doesn't work. It tries to be too much like LOTR, instead of the childrens book it was intended to be. Expand
  66. Dec 21, 2012
    4
    A very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they'reA very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they're stretching it out way too much. Most of the movie was boring, and the few intersting/exciting parts weren't enough to save it. Expand
  67. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    As a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening sceneAs a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening scene shows both Bilbo, and Frodo at a point in time that is supposed to be right before the opening scene in LOTR, The Fellowship of The Ring. The actors, are visibly aged, and not only are they older, but is is apparent to me that the wigs that were used for both of these characters were not even close to the originals. The hair style is not even quite the same. The hair styles aren't even the worst part. It seems to me that they completely strayed from the original conception of the Orc. Not only was the conceptual trashed, but the incredible make-up, masks, and costumes were also scrapped. Most, if not all of the Orcs and Goblins are C.G. The Orcs are greyish, almost white. Some may argue that these were not Orcs, but rather Goblins. I tried to take that into consideration, but in the movie, they are most definitely referred to as Orcs. The beautiful New Zealand scenery is almost entirely non existent. I understand that the production was plagued with financial problems, and countless other issues, but it is an utter disappointment. So many other times in history, movies, their budgets, and other things have almost cost the movie, but after the release, the movie becomes a phenomenal cult hit, ie. Jaws. Unfortunately, The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, will not be one of those cult hits. The final thing that really bothered me about this is that instead of just taking the complete budget, and creating one last epic movie "The Hobbit", they blew the budget on three separate installments of the film: The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, Smaug, and finally, There and Back Again. It was totally unnecessary to create three different movies. They took quite a bit of creative license and wrote more into the story to extend this one book into 3 more movies, which makes the movie drag out more than necessary. In the LOTR, I found myself wanting more, and shocked when the movie ended where it had. I was sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next installment to come out. Not so much with this one. I was actually quite irritated that I now have to wait another two years to see the final installment of The Hobbit. I'm not looking forward to seeing the disaster that awaits, but hopefully, the story will get better, even if the scenery, costumes, and make-up do not. Expand
  68. Dec 20, 2012
    2
    Where to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and overWhere to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and over for the idiotic modern viewer. The journey is butchered so the audience can enjoy a cheap joke or set up car-chase esque sequence complete with complete ridiculous jump to platform action scenes. The dialogue is terrible and there are none of the wisdom quips that gave LOTR its magic and lasting effect. The ridiculous slapstick humor injected in comes off as annoying, like others have said, makes the movie feel like a Pirates of the Caribean film. This is a bad action movie, nothing more Expand
  69. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Dec 17, 2012
    1
    I had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. The original Hobbit depending on what publication edition, was roughly 1/5 or less of the number of pages of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This leaves youI had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. The original Hobbit depending on what publication edition, was roughly 1/5 or less of the number of pages of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This leaves you feeling you not only get to pay three times to see one story, but you also get to wait a full year between each release!
    I could wait until all three are out and watch it, but I don't want to sit on my butt for so long in front of a TV that I could have just re-read the original story in paperback.
    Expand
  73. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    Something like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of theSomething like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of the character Radagast, a mushroom munching stoned out hermit. The only balance to this is that there small pieces that are ten out of ten material, particularly riddles in the dark, and they are all that keep me from rating this lower. This story has been stretched thin and exploited so that Jackson can have his second trilogy, and I will not be giving them another theater seat. Renter.
    (P.S. Peter-long after your movies are gone, the books will still remain, unless you feel like revising those too.)
    Expand
  74. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Expand
  75. Dec 16, 2012
    3
    I am disappointed in this movie.

    Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW. I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie. You want to see the hobbit HAHA VERY **** DISSAPOINTING FOR LONGTIME FANS. You know how people trim down film during the editing process, well that doesn't happen here, they
    I am disappointed in this movie.

    Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW.
    I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie.
    You want to see the hobbit HAHA VERY **** DISSAPOINTING FOR LONGTIME FANS.

    You know how people trim down film during the editing process, well that doesn't happen here, they literally put everything imaginable into the film just to cash out on poor suckers in a 1-3 installment.
    You should have heard people saying what the **** after the movie suddenly cut off.

    None of the battles were memorable thanks to the terrible framerate blur.

    They had to seriously reference songs from the 70's cartoon movie just to make the audience chuckle.

    Please don't give this a 10 unless you have reasons, just being a (good) film by beginners standards is not enough.

    They could have improved this movie if they included the spiders but they didn't they wanted some goblin king and some orc to be protagonists.

    I was waiting the whole time to see some live action enemies orcs, goblins anything but NO I AM DISSAPOINT. ALL ENEMIES WERE CG. GOLLUM LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE, he is cute wtf! he scared Bilbo in the Cartoon Version, and he scared the hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, but in this he is not scary at all in this version. They didn't even include the part where it was dark down in that cave where he uses the Sting for light they don't even examine the sword called sting no one even heard the word STING muttered WTF WTF!, but in this movie everything was visible.

    Music was terrible and the jokes were terrible, half the audience was laughing at unfunny parts and half were laughing during the funny parts.

    Bilbo does a terrible job acting around any cg enemy, he literally just smiles and giggles or makes a joke when he encounters an enemy.

    The goblin king makes a lame joke, the dwarves can literally mow down any enemies they encounter.

    13 Dwarves a wizard and a hobbit are not meant to mow down Millions of Orcs and Goblins in a blink of an eye. Why do they even consider running if after they run they just fight them off. Goblins are supposed to swarm and exhaust the enemy not die 1 by 1.

    This film is Peter Jacksons (Phantom Menace) cg overloaded trash.
    Collapse
  76. Dec 16, 2012
    4
    Technically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making Thorin Oakenshield an Aragorn for a new trilogy. It's one saving grace is a stellar performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Bravo!

    A great deal
    Technically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making Thorin Oakenshield an Aragorn for a new trilogy. It's one saving grace is a stellar performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Bravo!

    A great deal of effort was placed on the facial animation of Gollum and the goblin king. So much so that many other aspects of the VFX have suffered greatly. Poor compositing and inconsistent quality of animation are most notable. A lack of inertia in character motion, "floating" digital doubles that do not make ground contact, matte paintings that are so obvious it's worth a laugh, and an odd digital double for Gandalf in the opening sequence were quite disturbing (why???). Despite WETA claims of facial motion capture, a great deal of animator skill was necessary for the sequences that they *did* put an effort into. For example, the goblin king and his awesome goiter. The goiter alone bumps the film from a 3 to a 4.
    Expand
  77. 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
  78. Dec 15, 2012
    0
    I have NEVER wrote a review in my life for a movie but felt compelled to write one for this P.O.S. I am a die-hard LOTR movie fan and have spent the better part of five years anticipating this movie; what a waste of time, this is not LORT at all. Peter Jackson and New Line capitalized on their success of LOTR and tried to create a "family fun" movie with slapstick humor and OVER dramaticI have NEVER wrote a review in my life for a movie but felt compelled to write one for this P.O.S. I am a die-hard LOTR movie fan and have spent the better part of five years anticipating this movie; what a waste of time, this is not LORT at all. Peter Jackson and New Line capitalized on their success of LOTR and tried to create a "family fun" movie with slapstick humor and OVER dramatic (poor) visual effects. There is a scene with 3 trolls that sound and act like the 3 stooges...................................In LORT almost every seen was shot with live actors in amazing costumes................every troll, goblin, monster was computer animated and poorly to say the least. There is no depth of character for anyone and the script and storyline lacked...... save your time and money for red box !!!!!! Expand
  79. Dec 15, 2012
    2
    I absolutely love LOTR along with the Hobbit books, but this film is painfully bad, it seems like LOTR for 3 year olds. The film gets good when Gollum is introduced but that's only the last 20-30 minutes. It's slow, painful & pointless as the main story is very rarely addressed in all the dialogue. The acting & directing was very poor which is unusual considering I personally feel thatI absolutely love LOTR along with the Hobbit books, but this film is painfully bad, it seems like LOTR for 3 year olds. The film gets good when Gollum is introduced but that's only the last 20-30 minutes. It's slow, painful & pointless as the main story is very rarely addressed in all the dialogue. The acting & directing was very poor which is unusual considering I personally feel that most of the actors are really good & I'm a fan of Jackson's work. This was the worst film I've seen at the cinema, EVER! To sum it up I will use Bilbo's final line in the film "Let's hope the worst is behind us" Expand
  80. Dec 15, 2012
    0
    Peter Jackson reminds me of George W. Bush. He is unforgivably bad at what he does, but it's taken about a decade for people to figure it out. Hopefully this disaster is the last we see of him.

    Peter, it's time to find a hobby. Get lost and stop ruining these gems from the world's collective childhood.
  81. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    This was disappointing. As an avid fan of LotR I had been very much looking forward to this.The Hobbit however has turned out to be an over-long piece of bombast, lacking the magic and charm of the book. There are unforgivable alterations to the story - the humour in the unexpected tea party, or in Gandalf's outwitting the trolls - and at least three very loud, long and unnecessary battlesThis was disappointing. As an avid fan of LotR I had been very much looking forward to this.The Hobbit however has turned out to be an over-long piece of bombast, lacking the magic and charm of the book. There are unforgivable alterations to the story - the humour in the unexpected tea party, or in Gandalf's outwitting the trolls - and at least three very loud, long and unnecessary battles which look like off cuts from LotR. The sets are too familiar also. This film really needed a new vision. That said, the cast is excellent and the quieter parts of the film are worth watching. But, how is Peter Jackson going to spin the story out for three movies? I won't be going to the next two to find out. Expand
  82. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    What i did like is the clever use of silence that made me nervous. Also Gollum part was interesting, and he was the only character that actually had his lines well written. What I didn't like? Everything else. Music, while there are nice compositions, had too much recycled parts from LOTR. Visually too much weight was given to effects. While the light is good and it creates a niceWhat i did like is the clever use of silence that made me nervous. Also Gollum part was interesting, and he was the only character that actually had his lines well written. What I didn't like? Everything else. Music, while there are nice compositions, had too much recycled parts from LOTR. Visually too much weight was given to effects. While the light is good and it creates a nice atmosphere, dizzying camera movements and excessive computer graphics put shadow over that. I saw it as 3D, but I do not see the 3D, so i wont comment on that, ill only say that my friends told me that it was supposed to be there only at certain shots. Story is naive, some parts have no reason to be in the movie. Action scenes, well, they remind me of a video game. Rock rolling in the caves that cleans the goblins, trees collapsing like dominos and so on. And the childish humor, punch lines... the list goes on and it makes me wonder why did Jackson do this, behind him he has amazing movies, and this one is really not. And for the end, characters. They are not believable, Bilbo was not so interesting, Gandalf annoyed me with bad written lines and dwarves, well just stupid as **** Picture Gimli from LOTR, and then go back to 13 Santa s helpers. They look like someone gathered a bunch of crazy homeless people, gave them bad lines and a bunch of different medication. Overall it is a movie for 10 years old that don't want to bother to read a book. I did read it a couple of times, and maybe my overall score is affected by my big expectation. I doubt i will watch the movie again, and Im also not sure i will also go to cinema to watch the rest of the trilogy. Shame on you Peter Jackson. Expand
  83. Dec 15, 2012
    1
    This movie is terrible for five reasons. First, the pacing is awful. It seemed so very long and it truly felt like chapters in a book instead of a real movie. Second, the dialog is so cheesy. There was a lot of talking and voice overs. Often the film told us the action instead of showing it. Third, the CGI was not very good. It looked fake, as if nothing progressed since LOTR came out.This movie is terrible for five reasons. First, the pacing is awful. It seemed so very long and it truly felt like chapters in a book instead of a real movie. Second, the dialog is so cheesy. There was a lot of talking and voice overs. Often the film told us the action instead of showing it. Third, the CGI was not very good. It looked fake, as if nothing progressed since LOTR came out. Fourth, scenes were too long and could have easily been edited down. There is a part where riddles are thrown back and forth for legit 15 minutes. We don't need the best 2 out of 3 give us one. Fifth, by the 1000th unrealistic escape it starts to feel like a dumb joke. Expand
  84. Dec 15, 2012
    2
    If what you crave is a Lord of the Rings sequel featuring a sight gag wizard with bird poop in his hair who rides a rabbit sleigh, orcs (or like creatures) who deliver one-liners after being disemboweled, humorous beheading sequences played for cheap laughs, extended dish-cleaning footage, and lots of fight-scene ideas lifted straight out of Pirates of the Caribbean...this is your movie.
  85. Dec 14, 2012
    1
    It's looks like "Peter Jackson's LOTR fanboys" have got this film pumped up higher than a worthless penny -stock. But that's what this movie is, the film equivalent of a penny-stock. It's value in relation to Tolkien's original story is bankrupt. I hope the Tolkien estate sues MGM and Jackson and pulls this trip from the market, along with the Denny's "Hobbit Breakfast," and all the otherIt's looks like "Peter Jackson's LOTR fanboys" have got this film pumped up higher than a worthless penny -stock. But that's what this movie is, the film equivalent of a penny-stock. It's value in relation to Tolkien's original story is bankrupt. I hope the Tolkien estate sues MGM and Jackson and pulls this trip from the market, along with the Denny's "Hobbit Breakfast," and all the other marketing minutia that sullies the image of J.R.R. Tolkien and his wonderful literary accomplishments. Expand
  86. Dec 14, 2012
    1
    Dreadful film. I saw the HFR presentation and I could not believe how terrible the live action elements looked. The look of the characters were like a bad BBC Shakespeare television program. The film, dragged on and on, while the CG was done very well (Weta is great) Golum was terrific, the rest of the picture as a whole was awful. Think Phantom Menace. Peter Jackson has lost it.Dreadful film. I saw the HFR presentation and I could not believe how terrible the live action elements looked. The look of the characters were like a bad BBC Shakespeare television program. The film, dragged on and on, while the CG was done very well (Weta is great) Golum was terrific, the rest of the picture as a whole was awful. Think Phantom Menace. Peter Jackson has lost it. Sorry, it is sad but true, Dreadful, waste of 3 hours. Expand
  87. Dec 14, 2012
    3
    Yawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic with this movie. Even Gollum was cheesy and over done. Blah. Stay home and put this in your Netflix queue. We should have known that this was going toYawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic with this movie. Even Gollum was cheesy and over done. Blah. Stay home and put this in your Netflix queue. We should have known that this was going to happen. Jackson went from the Lord of the Rings to King Kong. He has tremendous potential to tell horrible stories and make bad movies. No one should be surprised. Expand
  88. 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
  89. Dec 14, 2012
    0
    I wanted something closer to Pan's Labyrinth and instead got another Jackson turd. If only del Toro had stayed on to do this properly. The more time that passes since the LOTR the more I grow to dislike them. Randall Graves had it right in Clerks II. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&v=aSB03lr69iU
  90. Dec 14, 2012
    4
    The movie is worse than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.The 48 FPS I didn't note it.The actors are great.Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are great acting.The director didn't do it like Lord of the Rings.
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.