User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2327 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. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    Hmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with characters and places, but also costumes, musical score, cinematography, art direction, you just name it. And while the film holds "universal acclaim" with the general audience of metacritic, I'd highly disagree with this. Yes, the acting is rather solid. Technically the film is good too. However, it gives us nothing new. It does not provide any new, deeper connection with these characters, especially not Gandalf, who is surprisingly weakly portrayed by McKellen after his excellent turn in the Lord of the Rings. Honestly, the story of The Hobbit is not as interesting as the one of the Lord of the Rings, for one. That would do the trick on its own, let alone having high expectations and a million comparisons with one of the best trilogies of all time. Overall, The Hobbit is not a bad film at all. But it is just yet another big-budget blockbuster with great technical aspects, but not quite as much substance as its predecessor had. Maybe the second one will be better? 6/10 Expand
  2. Jan 16, 2013
    9
    I saw this in 2D and intend to see it again in HFR 3D
    It was beautifully shot - naturally - and while 3 movies were probably not necessary I don't think it has detracted from the film. Adding the content from the appendices in LTR has allowed Jacko to make another trilogy and IMHO it just extends the Middle Earth Universe further.
    Very good, and looking forward to Smaug in part 2
  3. Jan 16, 2013
    5
    The movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's just not that interesting of a thing to watch. There are some redeemable moments, but despite some good acting and scenery, it's just not all that fun and seems to drag a bit towards the end. Expand
  4. Jan 16, 2013
    9
    I loved the Hobbit. Great casting and well written. A lot of laughs and still quite a bit of action in there for the Adults. While I've never been a 3D fan before at all, the effects in this film were EPIC. Go and See this film. See it in a cinema, and pay the extra for the 3D version. You won't be let down unless you want the film to be word perfect to the book... and that might be asking just a little too much. Expand
  5. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    A plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewers who have not read the novel, the journey itself is conspicuously Expand
  6. Jan 16, 2013
    10
    A book is a book, a movie is a movie. I read the book and saw the movie and i think that Peter Jackson did a great job taking the story to the screenplay, by adding a coherence with the LOTR trilogy.
  7. Jan 15, 2013
    10
    The best movie ever,people will never ever find any other movie like this or the lotr trilogy.
    I recommend this for everyone. i rate this 10/10 because it has the best story.
    The tech and defintion lets us enter a new world as if you were seeing it from your eyes.everyone should know about this,it everything you expect but it goes far over the top amazing very one.people should really
    stop comparing this with lotr,it wasnt even written like it.if u find a better movie i will compare it to this btw all people giving this a low rating are twilight fans Expand
  8. Jan 15, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit was a great movie, the acting was solid and at times exemplary, the visuals were as impressive as the last 3 tolkien movies, the story was gripping. The only complaints i could think of really, were that of length, but really, when you see a Peter Jackson movie, you kind of expect it to be long. I felt that it did seem to stretch out scenes a fair bit, as they spent a very long time in the shire. But over-all, it's no-where near as bad as some critics are making it out to be. Expand
  9. Jan 15, 2013
    8
    The movie is of well above average quality. I liked the characters, but not so much as the sightseeing, the world of "Hobbit...". I was dissapointed in Thorin and his band, as they try hard to be more than a background to Bilbo, but it comes out flat. Didn`t find them that interesting. It is good that Martin Freeman came through and gave a great performance. The movie rests on his actions so thanks to him ir does a good job showing us a great adventure. I really liked the villains, especially Azog, but all of them are excellent, along with their homes. The music I expected to be top notch and I wasn`t disappointed. The bad think in my opinion are some of the action scenes, which are too much over the top, unbelievable. The dialogues are really good for and adventure - genre movie. 3hours of it didn`t bore me a second. All in all it is a must see lick, although a masterpiece I think it is not. Expand
  10. Jan 13, 2013
    8
    A good deal better than I expected. Still too long, a few too many characters, certainly too much in the way of epic computerised interiors of caves, and a bit of pandering to the LOTR tragics in terms of gratuitous cameos from elves and wizards. But the bottom line is that it works. Overall, the Hobbit is warm and funny, and it establishes the link with the LOTR films pretty seamlessly. The film is definitely aimed at a younger crowd than LOTR (just like the book of the Hobbit) and is none the worse for that. Rather a lot of suspension of disbelief is required (no casualties or injuries whatsoever from everybody falling off extremely high cliffs, as well as endless attacks by horrible orcs, trolls, wolves, gigantic stone beings and necromancers? Unless you count the mounds of dismembered orcs) but so what? Sign me up for the next one. Expand
  11. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    Bloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save it from being complete disaster though.
  12. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    Initially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of the ring. Considering I've read this book, I think I am pretty sure that the following 2 movies will also follow in the footsteps of two towers and return of the king respectively. Expand
  13. 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 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
  14. Jan 13, 2013
    7
    Don't believe the critics! It's strange how they seemed to point out a lot of negative things about this pic, when these weaknesses were always prevalent in all of Peter Jackson's previous efforts: slow pace, overlong set pieces, and the bladder inducing run time of 3 hours. Nevertheless, Jackson's strength as a tent pole director is without parallel: great sense sense of scope, an intricate sense of detail, incredible use of practical / digital effects as well as bringing the best out of his actors / actresses. It's not as good as the LOTR trilogy but that's because the material itself was lightweight in comparison. The Hobbit was meant to be a much more simpler adventure yarn. In this department, The Hobbit delivers. Expand
  15. Jan 13, 2013
    9
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was able to give me what I expected from it, even more at times. People should give it a thought that the Hobbit was not written like the Lord of the Rings series, the latter had greater incorporation of darkness, the entire concept of the darkness ruling the world. Therefore it shouldn't be compared to the Hobbit, which is written in a totally different way. Its premise doesn't revolve around the Ring, so that's why it doesn't have that dark soul or something like that. It's actually written in humorous way to keep the entire plot light and make it different from the LoTR series.
    Anyway, I still think that if we judge the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in its entirety, we would love this film. I did it and I love it. Peter Jackson always surprises me with his outstanding direction and his brilliant vision, the way he has visualized the book in the film is phenomenal. The best things about this film are of course its entire 3D experience and the cinematography, the beautiful sceneries and its characters, they are lovable, they make you believe in their mission, and especially the performance of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. I enjoyed it, he makes a good Baggins, his expressions and his dialogues are more funnier than I thought.
    Other things the majority of critics talked about were shooting the film in higher frame rates than the usual 24 FPS and the running time of the movie. Both of these arguments are invalid. Shooting a film in 48 fps is not a problem, the technology is advancing gradually and sooner or later, the filmmakers are gonna have to start doing it. Why blame Peter Jackson? He just utilized a latest technology to give us a new experience and we are doing everything but appreciating his efforts and the challenge he would have face while shooting the film. The second argument is a bit reasonable, the running time is long but why do you want a film like this to be shorter? I am really glad that it is that long so I was getting to experience every frame of the movie and loving it completely. I don't mind films with long running time as long as they don't get boring, and to me, the Hobbit never got boring at all. Everyone has their own opinions, a lot of people found the ending of the film ridiculous and dumb, but that's exactly how the LoTR films were ended especially the Fellowship of the Ring. You can't complain about a film that still has two parts to complete it and maybe your opinion would change after watching the remaining installments.
    Long story short, don't expect this film to be anything like LoTR trilogy, it may have some similarities (i.e. its characters, the locations, and a few sceneries) but it surely doesn't have that dark plot the LoTR films had. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the beginning of a funny, daring, terrifying and a beautiful adventure which might really turn into an epicness in the future when the remaining films come out. It is enjoyable, great to watch and finally gives you the satisfactory feeling of how the middle earth would have looked in 3D and better visual effects.
    Expand
  16. Jan 13, 2013
    10
    This movie was amazing. The storyline was great and if you are a lover of the LOTR then you will definitely love it. the Scenery and the costumes and make up should definitely receive awards as they were incredible. I particularly liked how Peter Jackson did not allow one particular character to completely take over the movie but bought all the characters together and showed the importance of each one. I do however think that there was about 20 mins cut out of the movie at the cinema that I saw it as there were 2 areas where the scene abruptly stopped and then went to an entirely different scene and i am sure that Peter Jackson would not allow such bad editing. The movie was running behind so i believe that the cinema cut it out, but i am going to see it again on weekend (good excuse to see again) and will see if it does it again.
    The music appears to be less in this movie then in LOTR but it also has some of the music especially Concerning Hobbits which is an absolute favourite and parents ringtone. The music is fantastic to listen to and if there was not so much going on on the screen you would be very content to just sit back and close your eyes and listen.
    Although this movies goes for 184 minutes you wouldn't know it as I was enthralled throughout it and could have gone on with more. Absolutely wonderful movie and cannot wait for number 2. GO AND SEE IT!!!!!
    Expand
  17. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed
  18. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I appear to be alone among my friends in my general disappointment with this film. I really feel, after two viewings now, that it was mostly a remorseless money-grab by Peter Jackson and the production company. It doesn't fit the feel of the book to me whatsoever, and instead has the feel and ambiance of the Lord of the Rings movies -- a grandeur and scale that should be much larger than The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, The Hobbit was an epic tale, but next to LotR it is a quaint epic and more character-driven. One of the other user reviews here mentioned that the Hobbit wasn't written the same way as LotR, and people need to stop thinking about the LotR movies when they watch this. Well, I agree on the first point... but it's kind of hard to not think about LotR when he seems to be trying really hard to make these as much like those as he can. The cameos by Frodo, Saruman, and Galadriel, as much as I loved the latter in the original movies, were completely pointless. Also, if you are going to add Saruman pre-Lord of the Rings... he ought to me a much nicer fellow. Jackson didn't get him right in the LotR movies anyway. In the books he was a wordsmith, someone who could use words to affect others... and until he sided with Sauron he did so for good. There is a reason Gandalf considered him the wisest, and it wasn't just because he wore white. The added detail to the story of the pale orc and Radaghast the Brown were equally pointless, except to draw out the length of the film so he could make more than one. That's really my point, I suppose. The Hobbit should've been ONE three hour movie, MAYBE two... but definitely not three. Also, why does Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the books, not until he was mistreated by the Wood Elf King... and even then his attitude was colored by gold lust. There were a few well-done scenes, like the riddles with Gollum, but for every one of those there is another pointless addition to the story or a rewrite that makes little sense. Why did he feel the need to change how Gandalf dealt with the trolls, or have the pale orc trapping them in trees instead of the goblins and waurgs? It just seems like Jackson has gotten the impression that he knows how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien. I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken. Expand
  19. Jan 12, 2013
    9
    I really don't know why this movie gets such bad reviews. A 58? There's the obvious and overused complaint "it's too long" but for anyone who has a half decent attention span it wasn't that bad. It was about the same length of Django Unchained or The Avengers but I never heard anyone complaining about those. The special effects were great, the acting was great, and the story, while still great, was something to be expected because the book had been out for a while. Some people were complaining about the abrupt ending but anyone who knew anything about the movie probably found out that they were making it into multiple movies. And don't complain about "It's the shortest book! Why is IT in three movies?" because Harry Potter did it and no one complained about that. My only complaints about this movie were that it was a bit slow to start (not too long, just slow, it's entirely different) and I wish they showed a bit more of Martin Freeman. They still showed a lot of Martin Freeman as he was still the main character but I really liked him so the scenes that he wasn't in I felt weren't as good. Expand
  20. Jan 12, 2013
    7
    I would rather review the mindset and mentalities of these self proclaimed "critics" that push their unhappy with themselves and/or life it self opinions as fact, rather than being exactly what it is. An opinion. And believe me, not all opinions are created equal, especially the ones that thrive off of negativity and looking at and bringing out the bad in things (which may or may not even be present in the first place, but these unappreciative negative 'critics' always seem to find them no matter hat the subject). Of course the reality of it all is that we should be so appreciative that we even have the option to the many luxuries we have in this country. And beautiful, magical, masterful films are just some of the many. But that doesn't mean "take whatever they throw at you and appreciate that you even get anything at all!" No no no, it is much deeper than that, and anyone that I would even have to go further in depth explaining that fact to has already predetermined negativity in their own mind, and may be already lost. But we all (myself included) nowadays have a tendency to become so self-entitled and judgmental of literally everything we are so lucky to have in the first place. It truly saddens me to see all that negativity and stubborn mindedness draw evil out of such pure and beautiful things. If you could step down off your elevated steeds for just a moment and completely and selflessly observe all this trend of activity as a whole..........you would and should be disgusted with yourself and the way you have the potential to act and think (I sure have). And it is surely nothing short of amazing and freeing once you finally do. Of course I'm not saying you must love this movie in order to be a happy and good person, that is not my point at all. It's the whole aura and mindset of your being and the way that your brain processes things and events that is the root of these problems. And I have hope that we can turn this trend around and become a more positive, enlightened and inspired people as a whole. I wish us all luck on that journey, which may be an unexpected one in itself ;). I hope I did not offend anybody, and that this "review" will be taken as a positive read and not cause people to react in the very way I was wanting us all to detour from in the first place. And I am confident you all are very capable of doing so! Expand
  21. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    A decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The acting and effects are also both fantastic, with a late entry from a beloved character being the best of both worlds. Overall, a film with great potential squandered with meandering added storyline and a tiring run-time. Expand
  22. Jan 11, 2013
    7
    I was very excited for this film to release but disappointed they decided to milk it through three films. I reread The Hobbit and even trudged through The Silmarillion to gain a better understanding of the world's mythology and backstory. When I saw the movie I was disappointed in how much literary genius was sacrificed for action scenes and how much the film was drawn out. Bilbo's wit is underplayed and Gandalf's involvement is overdone. Expand
  23. Jan 11, 2013
    8
    Although The Hobbit is not as good as the LOTR it is still better than most films that have come out in 2012
    eg Avengers Assemble, Keith Lemon The Movie.
  24. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Before writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not contain anything about HFR or the such, or me getting motion sickness and violently vomiting into a pop corn box.

    Firstly I'd like to comment on the
    casting which over all I believe is positive, Ian Mckellen returns as the enigmatic Gandalf the Grey, Hugo Weaving as the noble Elrond and Andy Serkis as the bi-polaresque Gollum. Strangely enough both Christopher Lee as Saruman and Kate Blanchett as Galadriel also return despite not featuring in the book. Elijah Wood is used rather effectively as a screening device for Bilbo to tell his story.

    The New editions to the cast are relatively hit and miss. Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins) played the role excellently, portraying the home sick hobbit very well as an audience we can relate to Bilbo who like us is somewhat of a tourist in the fantastic Middle Earth. I'm also going to credit Ian Holm with playing the retired adventurer Bilbo well. Richard Armatige (Thorin Oakenshield) was another rewarding experience as he captured the King in exile exceptionally. Unfortunately with an adventuring party being 14, five more than the fellowship of the ring, many of the cast don't really get enough screen time. Those lucky enough to receive screen time do a very good job. Both Aidan Turner and Dean O'Gorman are blessed with screen time and bring their own quirk and charm to the roles. Ian Mactavish also brings a macho berserker edge to Dwalin. Ken Stott plays the wise Balin incredibly narrating Thorins past very well. The cast the cameras focus on are very agreeable.

    The Sets and Locations are much the same as LOTR, which all in all is no problem, the epic New Zealand landscape paired with the incredible sets really give the film the edge over many other fantasy films. The Special effects are also breathtaking as ever, for instance the dragons descent upon the mountain city is incredible. Ok this is where my Gripe begins: As a child my mother read me the Hobbit, it's charm and beauty captured me and I cannot find a fault with its story in anyway. JR Tolkin for some, not all, weaves magic in the pages he writes. Before watching the film, I had heard rumours of the changes, additional sub plots which had no part in the book. I believed I would be able to look past them. I was very wrong. Unfortunately in aid of the 3 film cash cow expansion of middle earth, Peter Jackson or the powers that be have decided to add a few insy winsy major adjustments. Sauron has returned in the form of the Necromancer who is seeking to return, hiding out at some forgotten castle. Thorin Oakensheild has a nemesis of his own called the Pale Orc who he battled outside Moria. This of course is to provide action to stretch the 310 page book to accommodate enough material for 3 films. The Hobbit is not the Lord of The Rings trilogy, it is more child friendly than the much more mature LOTR trilogy, it should have been 2 films at most. The most upsetting thing is that the added story is so contrived it comes across as a caricature of the epic fantasy, this soap opera, cheap imitation that is neither here nor there.

    Overall I liked the film. I wish I could have loved it, but I just can't with the commercialism they added. I respect Jackson for bringing LOTR life. However I feel this movie to be akin with king kong in some respects with all the pointless additions to the original. Peter Jackson please be Peter Jackson not George Lucas or Steven Spielberg.
    Expand
  25. Jan 11, 2013
    9
    Far over the misty mountains cold... 4 points just for this and the end-titles song. Another 5 points for the Tolkien experience. I save the last point to give it to the next two parts of the trilogy. For all those who gave bad reviews, I wish they are eaten alive by Smaug !!
  26. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Long have I awaited a resemblance of the experience of authentic epicness set by the lord of the rings trilogy! That trilogy was indeed prolonged by a new franchise called
  27. Jan 10, 2013
    5
    Honestly, nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Often boring and lagging on, losing interest is obvious. However, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography as well as the score and brief exciting moments, excite the mood. Albeit temporarily.
  28. Jan 10, 2013
    6
    I saw The Hobbit after having reread the book and found the movie visually spectacular but otherwise somewhat disappointing. Tolkien
  29. Jan 10, 2013
    7
    The fact that this not LOTR immediately undermines the Hobbit; a smaller children's book that lacks the serious themes of Rings but makes for it with a much lighter tone, amazing creatures and action. Whether Peter Jackson's vision for this new trilogy works and is vindicated is yet to be seen but there is plenty to look forward to with this film. Great performances if not all the characters are developed but there is an overriding sense of fun and adventure which Rings sometimes lacked. HFR isn't successful I'm afraid and some of the CG characters don't feel real but this is a well made film with stunning visuals and a final scene that makes thus first film satisfying whilst setting up a seemingly more epic second film. Expand
  30. Jan 10, 2013
    8
    I went to see this movie with many family members, the oldest being 57 and youngest aged 10. I am the only Tolkiendili in the family although my 17yo sister read The Hobbit. We all saw Lord of the Rings prior to this. Our overall reaction after the movie was that it wasn't as long as the critics claimed but to our surprise we found out that it was indeed a long movie - it simply was far too entertaining for us to see time go by. I don't understand reviewers, especially the pros who "read the book". How could you expect The Hobbit to be more epic and superior in emotion than Lord of the Rings whileobbit, as a novel, is inferior in both content and quality to the Lord of the Rings? It was an impossible task for Peter Jackson even if the trilogy was made into one single movie. The Hobbit as a novel is a light, contemporary fairy tale with plenty of cartoony events and surprising characters. The Hobbit as a movie is the exact same thing and for this reason I applaud Peter Jackson for preserving the innocence that makes The Hobbit a charming story. The visuals are superior to any I have seen, even better than Avatar. The crystalline details and top-notch focus on the characters, scenery and landscapes is simply unsurpassed. Many additional details made up for the sake of the trilogy still remain canonical, such as the meeting for Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf. As for the others, they never go very far from the original thing and it makes the story more interesting for the viewer. The actors were well chosen and while Thorïn is a lot more polite and friendly in the book, he is still a fascinating character in the movie. The fight scenes are indeed over the top, all sorts of things that you see contrast from the darker Lord of the Rings, but listen, this is not Lord of the Rings. It is the Hobbit. Even for Tolkien, The Hobbit is in a different category compared to Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. The childish spirit of the Hobbit remained untouched and this is how the movie was supposed to be made. The only bad thing about this movie is the fact that there is very little original music, most songs you will hear are from the previous trilogy which makes The Hobbit sound lesser than it actually is. Other than that. this movie is as entertaining as it gets and it respects Tolkien's will, no matter how many of the Tolkien fans or members of the Tolkien estate are against it. Expand
  31. Jan 10, 2013
    9
    I saw this movie and i was very pleased with what peter did. I didn't go to see Lord of the Rings, i went to see the hobbit. People who expected a new lord of the rings were obviously disappointed. Looking forward for the next 2.
  32. Jan 9, 2013
    9
    The movie is visually beautiful. It's a new opportunity to revisit Middle-Earth through the mastery of Peter Jackson - but it is not The Lord of the Rings, it's another story, so don't expect the same experience. If only the climax had been Goblin town, the movie would've been better. The HFR version is almost perfect.
  33. Jan 9, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit was by far my most anticipated film of 2012, and whilst it was fantastic it still disappointed me due to my views on the Lord of the Rings trilogy -- a trilogy I view as perfect films. An argument I have seen thrown around a lot is "It is based off a children's book -- lay off!" However films that are based from books can still delve into dark areas, The Hobbit did not. I will fully explain what the film did well first -- the visuals were stunning. There was a big fiasco and outrage about the film being shot in 48FPS but this did not bother me in the slightest and in fact I found the film to look crisper and clearer for the use of it. I should note I did not watch it in 3D though, so perhaps this would have affected the outcome. So the settings and the visuals were stunning, the soundtrack -- while most was re-used from LotR, was still beautiful and fitting. Ian McKellen shows he can still act Gandalf after a decade, his performance was solid and his age did not detriment the film in anyway. (The same cannot be said for Lee's Saruman, however -- he stumbled through his lines and his age was very noticeable.) I feel that Martin Freeman did a solid job as Bilbo, however he came across as a bit jittery and stuttery sometimes. The trolls scene irked me slightly as the CGI came lacking (especially when one of the trolls holds Bilbo in his hands, that effect did not transition onto the screen very well) and the scene was played for laughs. The same thing again in the Goblin's lair as the King came across as comedic design, and when the wooden walkways fell on the dwarves the "You've got to be joking" line had me rolling my eyes. Another scene I had a slight issue with was when Thorin dismounted the tree and walked to face the Pale Orc. This scene has dramatic music playing, a camera focused on Thorin's determined face framed by firelight and sparks -- and then he is almost instantly defeated by a swift blow to the face. I actually laughed out loud in the cinema at this scene -- surely they could have shown him swing his sword a bit first? Though I have listed all these complaints, I still did thoroughly enjoy the film. Rivendell was beautiful and Galadriel and Elrond and their respective actors had great performances and did not feel hamfisted into the film at all. The Gollum scene was by far the best part of the film and indeed I almost felt sorry for the poor wretch when Bilbo decided not to kill him. I concede that all the comedy added to this film was most probably to distinguish it as a kid's book, but alas then, in comparison to LotR it seemed a bit corny and afraid to get "dark" -- the only scene I would consider dark was Gollum's, and that scene was by far the best in the film. In short, no, this film is not as good as the LotR trilogy -- but it comes close and for that I am very grateful. Expand
  34. Jan 9, 2013
    9
    I'm not sure how The Hobbit has a metacritic rating of 58, my friends and I all loved it. I have not read the Lord of the Rings books or seen the past movies, so the first few minutes of the movie I was a bit lost. After I understood more of what was going on, I quickly warmed up to this movie and loved it.
  35. 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.
  36. 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 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
  37. Jan 8, 2013
    8
    I disagree with the hard critic scores... While "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" does not necessarily surpass the movies from the "lord of the rings" it tells a great tale with the same high quality you come to expect from these movies. But there is also more humor and the tale is told in a little different way than in the previous movies from this world... I was not disappointed.
  38. Jan 8, 2013
    10
    An absolutely wonderful film (though too short for me!), which I've seen three times already, and will see again tomorrow, again in the 3D 48 HFR format. The casting and acting of Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin was absolutely right, and all the Dwarves were also well cast, though of necessity their roles were not huge (similarly to in the book). Balin, played so well by Ken Stott, is my next favourite Dwarf after Thorin. I loved the way the music made references to LOTR, and Thorin's song was just lovely. The visuals, also, were absolutely brilliant: the sweeping shots of the mountain scenery; Erebor; waterfalls in moonlight at Rivendell; the eagles at the end; the Stone Giants fighting while ignoring the little beings below them. I think I like this film more, even, than FOTR (my favourite of the LOTR films), mainly because the casting and acting is generally better, and because of the incredible visuals. My thanks and warmest congratulations to PJ, and I cannot wait for the next two films.

    As for the critics who left poor reviews for this film, I really don't know what their problem was. Don't like fantasy? Don't like films creatively not made by Americans perhaps? Well done, though, to Total Film and Empire, who always give fair and insightful reviews of films. I registered here specifically to comment on this film because I was so disgusted with the negative reviews of something that plainly does not deserve it. Thank goodness I generally do not read the opinions of critics before seeing a film, since I prefer to make up my own mind.
    Expand
  39. Jan 8, 2013
    9
    Many people forget that this is going to part of a much longer film franchise, expecting around about at least another few films coming out from it, the humor aspect which some people tend to claim poor or childish need to be reminded that in the book, it was to be known to be childish, due to the Dwarves happy go lucky nature, as well as a serious side for their people and the task they have at hand. Again perhaps the critics should take into account that this is part of one, many people we're disappointed with the ending of the first LOTR film, then found the following 2 films to be an exceptional ending to the film franchise. The only thing i can fault this film for is possibly not covering all of the detail, this is unavoidable however, before the film becomes to dragged out to those that may not know the full story Expand
  40. Jan 8, 2013
    10
    To be honest i have a suspicion that a lot of folk might just be jumping on the bandwagon to criticise "The Hobbit, An unexpected journey". I've seen it a couple of times now. Yes in the controversial HFR 3D. Yes it does take a few minutes to get used too but the rewards are huge. So it doesn't follow the book page by page. If that's what you want then read the book. Peter Jackson is a film maker... and one of the best too. I found the Hobbit both spectacular and charming for all the right reasons. The casting was perfect, the special effects were incredible and the film flew by for me. Yes some of it does feel familiar but Im not complaining. I really have no idea why the score is so low. Especially seeing as it seems to be mostly professional critics with a negative review. Everybody i know who's seen it loved it. I can't wait for the next one. Expand
  41. Jan 8, 2013
    9
    Superb imagining of a well-loved book. Visual excellence along with a cracking good tale.
    Although Jackson has certainly taken some liberties, most work very well and aid or
    enhance the whole experience. I was concerned it might be a touch too twee for my tastes, but this was not the case. Worth noting that I did not watch the high frame rate or 3D version of this film - just the
    standard 2D showing. I'm also giving this a 9 rather than a 10 because I was niggled
    at 2 mediocre effects amongst over 2.5 hours of an otherwise permanently impressive viewing treat, and I struggle at the best of times to be kind. And if Gollum was fantastic before, he's gone up a notch now! Watching that face trying to work out riddles was a highlight. Almost as funny as seeing the majority of user reviews being at complete odds with 'critics'. Do they actually get paid for being pointless and confused?
    Expand
  42. Jan 8, 2013
    9
    I honestly don't see why so many of you goobers think this movie sucks. Critics seem to be going psycho about it such as crap like the 48-fps camera setup they went with. I'm gonna get to that first. When I watched The Hobbit @ 48fps, it was a little choppy initially, but it became smooth later on. It feels thousands of times more pure than traditional 24fps footage we're used to. All of you gooblings **** about that format need to lay off tha **** cus this new format is totally kicks ass. As for the movie, it's got a different feeling than that of the LOTR trilogy released a decade ago. It's less geeky and more entertaining, so us normal people will be able to get into it a lot easier. Expand
  43. Jan 8, 2013
    10
    ESPECTACULAR!! recomendable 100% si no la as visto vete al cine a verla merece la pena verla en 3D muchos criticos la criticaron mal, y que el 3d a 48 fotogramas por segundo no valia la pena y que no se notaba, y toda la gente que a ido le a encantado, me daria verguenza ser critico de cine ahora mismo, la criticaron tan mal solo por quedar mas profesionales o algo pero no tienen ni idea
  44. Jan 8, 2013
    5
    This movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or when oversized eagles save the day and carry all of them for a while. Not to mention when Bilbo saves the dwarf king, in what is yet one of those moments again. Why did they have to walk for three hours (of movie time) only to have Gandalf call the birds in the end? Could they not have used the birds in the beginning? But that is besides the point. And there was this other wizard, I honestly do not even know what to think. That bad. The scene where Bilbo finds the ring is overly long and boring, and for some reason he has to engage in a riddle game with that stupid "my precious" guy. Probably one of the most useless moments in a film I have seen to date. One last cry I have about the movie, apart from the strange cgi characters, is that the dwarfs seem somewhat tall.There is this inconsistency, in some shots they seem taller then in others, and a few of them look, well, human. In conclusion, the Hobbit part1 has plenty of nice moments, but in a complex device, such as a movie, everything has to be done right, not just some of the things. Expand
  45. Jan 7, 2013
    7
    Tolkien fans will know the story well. Many years before Frodo travels to Mordor in Lord of the Rings, Bilbo Baggins embarks on an adventure of his own. Hired as a
  46. Jan 7, 2013
    9
    Review based on 48fps non-3d edition as 3d gives me headaches.
    I was very impressed with the LOTR trilogy by Peter Jackson, after being worried after seeing his earlier works...but then as now faith has been rewarded. The Hobbit is pretty much as I would have expected it, it matches most of the previous 3 movies high standards without too many shortcummings to stretch a short kids book
    into another 3 part epic. Lets not forget there is more story and background stuff in "The Hobbit" than all the Harry Potter series put together, so lets look at the main things Jackson got right. 1. 48fps is fantastic and whingers should shut up crying about out of date 24fps formats, though I agree 3d sucks and needs to die quickly.
    2. The story is pretty faithful to the book, and actually improves on some duller bits with some awesome special fx action sequences to pad it out in such a way it feels right at home with the lore.
    3. The acting is fantastic, Martin freeman was the perfect choice, and to have a lot of the original cast show up is also and linking it seemlessly to the LOTR movies is very welcome...
    4. The dwarves... okay they are there to carry the humour, they were written with next to no personality and stereotypical, but it's a kids book remember.

    So why did I only give it 9/10, well some places didn't really need to be in there (Mountain Giants) but they were nice additions for nothing I guess... nobody would really miss having it when the movie is over 2:30hrs long... but I bought the extended LOTR so I want the lot...warts n all lol. So in essence it's a little long for kids to sit through but ideal for the nippers once it's out on Bluray.
    Expand
  47. Jan 7, 2013
    10
    The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is yet another Peter Jackson work of art. I am also a massive fan of the LOTR trilogy, although this film has a different air to it, anyone who like LOTRs should also like this.
    The film is shot in HFR (High frame rate) 3D, meaning that it is shot in 48 fps rather than 24. This initially takes a bit of getting used to but overall makes the movement on
    screen seem more fluid.
    I think the 3D wasn't great, but I think that of nearly every 3D film I have seen, It certainly wasn't detrimental to the film so is still deserving its 10/10.
    Expand
  48. Jan 7, 2013
    9
    Gollum looked better than ever, and after my third viewing the Pale Orc Azog finally grew on me. It's always disappointing when main characters are CG-- these were the best I've ever seen, but it still leaves one wanting. Overall, a wonderful adventure film that I absolutely loved.
  49. Jan 7, 2013
    9
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a prequel to Peter Jackson's The Lord of The Rings Trilogy, probably my favourite film series of all time. This film starred Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Gandalf enlists Bilbo to go on an adventure with a company of Dwarves to reclaim their gold and treasure from the Dragon Smaug. This movie had some great stars, with Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage (Thorin Oakenshield) and Sylvester McCoy (Radagast the Brown). The plot of the film drew you in with twist and turns along the way, with Gollum and the ring both showing up in this installment. Overall I do not think this film was as good as any of The Lord of the Rings trilogy but it was still a great return to Middle Earth and recommended. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will be released 13th December 2013, with the final installment The Hobbit: There and Back Again coming 8th July 2014. Expand
  50. Jan 6, 2013
    9
    Such a great movie, I went in with a skeptical mind and came out pleasantly surprised. I think Jackson has a fantastic start to The Hobbit and I look forward to the sequels!
  51. Jan 6, 2013
    8
    Great movie! I enjoyed the way the story was told and there was almost nothing left out. It is a movie worth seeing. The CGI is great, for the most part, there are one or two scenes where the CGI looks a little poor to me.
  52. Jan 6, 2013
    9
    Everything that I expected and wanted! A movie made for people who love the books. I don't like how the critics say that the movie is drawn out because they are the same ones commending the LOTR movies for their ability to tell a detailed story. The cast of dwarves is perfect, they portray the characters exactly the way Tolkien wrote. I'd argue that Freeman played the role of Bilbo better than Wood ever played Frodo; s always Sir McKellen was superb. The only criticism i have is Jackson's decision to change the orcs to CGI. Expand
  53. Jan 6, 2013
    9
    'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' beautifully showcases Tolkien's magical world of fantasy creatures, lands, and adventures. The effects might just be the best ones I have ever seen in a movie, the plot is bold and simple while remaining enjoyable and gripping, the characters are beautifully presented and overall I have almost no negative comments on this movie.
  54. Jan 6, 2013
    9
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not what I 'expected', it was indeed an 'unexpected journey' I went on when I saw the film. As a big fan of The Lord of the Rings I forgot that the books were maybe written by the same Writer but where not meant for the same audience. I was expecting an en epic fight with the same dramatic quest to save the world but what I saw were (like in the book) just the beginning and the base of what will become my favourite movies and books. The Hobbit is a good movie and I thank God that they decided to include several other story's from Tolkiens Middle-Earth into it but this movie is not always appropriate for children (like the book), Peter Jackson also tried to make it appealing for teenagers and young adults and to be quit honest he failed on that part. He should have gone one way or the other but not try to mix a children's book with the style from LOTR. Still, the visuals are perfect, I saw the movie in 3D/HFR and was blown away by it! I saw Middle-Earth as I never saw it before and I can't wait to see the next part(s)! The Score was epic and I loved how they brought some elements from the LOTR score into the score of The Hobbit to give us this nostalgic feeling. Expand
  55. Jan 6, 2013
    7
    It was good but lacked the structure and epic feeling of the Lord of the Rings. It was too long with enough songs to be classified as a musical. Half of this movie could be gone and it would be ten times better. It is a classic representation of how good Peter Jackson's storytelling ability and the Ian Mckellen's acting ability.
  56. Jan 5, 2013
    9
    Amazing movie, don't listen to the snot-nosed, pretentious critics. I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the Fellowship of the Ring. There are some liberties taken with the source material but it is for the better as it makes a more entertaining movie.
  57. Jan 5, 2013
    8
    First of all, I think if you are not a fan of Tolkien or fantasy in general, you won't like this movie. That being said, I thought the Hobbit was great, better than the first movie of LOTR in my opinion. I really don't think this needed to be 3 movies but more is always good and I think Jackson did in fact make this for fans and had fun doing it. I don't think he intended this for the average movie-goer who eats up the "Saw" franchise or anything with Adam Sandler or Will Farrel in it. Movie snobs will hate this movie too... bottom line is if you are a fan of Tolkien, go in with an open mind and just enjoy it because there was a lot of attention to detail and faithfulness to the book. Expand
  58. Jan 5, 2013
    7
    Critics wants Lord of Darkness melodrama, with a pre-pubescent choir chanting to a Sauron montage. Hobbit isn't that, but it's still fun. It's a kids movie. And you'll probably like it.
  59. Jan 5, 2013
    5
    It's beautifully made, but the 3D let the characters made look like plastic. The biggest downside however was the story. It was cliche and boring. When the movie ended I had the feeling I was only at the half of the movie. Yes, there are coming sequels. Yes, it's based upon a 70 year old book. But that doesn't change my rating. It's so sad that the story really sucks because most other things are just great! Expand
  60. Jan 4, 2013
    5
    Overly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from the appendices just makes the film feel uneven and without any coherent tone. A jumbled mess of a movie that doesn't know what it's trying to be - a film adaptation of a kids book, or a dark brooding prequel to LotR - it's all over the place. I'm a huge fan of Jackson, but this is one of his worst movies.

    The only truly good scene in the movie is the riddle game with Gollum, it stands head and shoulders above the rest of the film, making it painfully obvious how mediocre the rest of it is. Ultimately forgettable, I just hope the next 2 fare better.
    Expand
  61. Jan 4, 2013
    9
    I have to agree with what a lot of the other "user" reviews are saying about the "critic" reviews. This movie is a LOT better than the scores the critics gave and it feels almost as though the review was centering around HFR and not the film itself in most cases. And as far as the film itself goes, I felt right back at home in Middle Earth. In fact it was even MORE fun because I felt as though I was *really* back in Middle Earth due to the amazing 3D filming. This is the first 3D film I've seen where I actually liked the fact that the film was in 3D. It was comfortable to watch really engaging. I watched it in IMAX 3D, had a great time and would recommend it to anyone who was a fan of the originals, a fan of the books, or is just looking for a reason to see a movie in theatres that doesn't suck. The critic reviews are wrong on this one. Expand
  62. Jan 4, 2013
    10
    I'm DON'T the hell understand why the Metascore so low... The movie is AWESOME. I enjoy every minute, every second. It's the best film I ever watch. 3D technology... it's magic. Thanks Warner Bros. you let us see a Tolkien's world!
  63. 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 the sequels. Expand
  64. Jan 4, 2013
    9
    This is nothing short of the beginning of new Lord of the Rings trilogy, and that's basically the best fact ever, and a total reward to those who love TLOTR. It's all here: the music, the spectacle, and a few returning characters of course. My gripe is that the story isn't pushed along fast enough by the action. Meaning, after a battle not much has changed, and on to the next battle. But enough complaints! I'm back in the world of TLOTR! Expand
  65. Jan 4, 2013
    6
    Overall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense at all... and are entirely unneccesary.

    Then there is the fact that this was SUPPOSED to be a 2 movie deal until the Studio decided it wanted to make
    more money and stretch it into 3 !@#$% movies! This is why the film is overlong with bloat, bloat, and more bloat! The LOTR was three 3 hour movies from about 1100 pages of source material... The Hobbit films are going to be three 3 hour movies from a little over 300 pages of source material (!?) expanded with additions from the LOTR Appendices. Expand
  66. Jan 4, 2013
    7
    "The Hobbit" is a nice movie to watch if you want to fall asleep. Personally I've in it when it was released and I almost fell asleep. The action and everything else is pushed to the limit, in other words they should have made only a movie from the book and not 3. I do not think it is normal to take you less to read the book than see the movies. Of course it may be my fault for expecting too much from the movie and I was disappointed. Although it is quite boring, "The Hobbit" has some scenes that are worth seeing for the lovers of Tolkien's books as I am. Expand
  67. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    The critics are smoking their socks! I loved this movie, as I did the Trilogy. It obviously has a completely different feel to the LOTR trilogy in the sense that the general atmosphere isn't all doom and gloom. The emphasis is on adventure, and an adventure is exactly what the film delivers. The fact that the book has been split into three films means that the movies are more detailed than ever. How any of these critics can say that the movie is drawn out I have no idea, I felt the film was well paced and as a result it completely draws you in. Disregard the critics score on this one and substitute it with the user score, simple as that. Expand
  68. Jan 3, 2013
    7
    The quality of the film is a far cry from that of "The Lord of the Rings"; but for the novel 3D format, the film would be insipid; so many sections of the film are predictable. The script and direction are ordinary, as is the dialogue which is bereft of all poetic quality and thus utterly generic; since this isn't a silent film, it affects the very feel of the film.
  69. 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.
  70. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    Saw the movie tonight. After reading the first reviews here on MC and seeing a trailer I was worried if I would dig it, but now I can say I enjoyed almost every minute of it! The relatively slow pacing in the beginning made it even more enjoyable as a whole for me. If you like the material and take time, it's definitely worth it.
  71. Jan 3, 2013
    8
    Now, you're probably pretty skeptical about this movie, it's too long, will you get bored? Is it even that great to watch, it's so long! The answer is yes, it's worth it. The Hobbit does a fantastic job and keeping you entertained despite being so long. There are many great performances and new features in this film to keep you entertained- even though it is a prelude and these new scenes result in a problem as it sometimes goes off track by not following the book well enough. Despite this, it's a great movie overall and you'd want to see it again- in theatures. Now where's my ticket? Expand
  72. Jan 3, 2013
    5
    I saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. The character of "Thorin", the leader of the dwarfs, was particularly annoying. Grouchy, skeptical, humorless, and wrong at almost every turn. Also, the entire scene with Gollum was annoying because I can't understand half the things he says. The next installment should be better as they will be battling a dragon instead of the usual evil Orcs and Goblins that we have already seen in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Expand
  73. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    After so many years in production hell at MGM with serious doubt over these films happening at all, The Hobbit finally hit our screens, and quite a hit it was.
    If it is at all possible NOT to see Lord of the Rings before you see the new prequel trilogy then do so, because as enjoyable and entertaining as the Hobbit was, it simply wasn't LOTR.
    We clearly see from the beginning of the
    "Unexpected Journey" that these are much simpler times in middle earth, set sixty years prior to LOTR, we see Bilbo almost unwittingly setting out with a set of dwarves led by their King, Thorin Oakenshield, to reclaim the Lonely Mountain, forcibly taken from them years before from the dragon, Smaug.
    An unneccesary forty minutes or so of introduction classes involving the dwarves, Bilbo and the welcome return of Ian McKellan as Gandalf the Grey did seem long-winded, but thats what happens when you split a 310 page book into three films.
    What enticed me about this film, as i was watching the LOTR trilogy a few weeks later, is how Jackson has beautifully bounced them off each other to create an almost parallel world with no stone left unturned, little things such as the orc sword given to Frodo by bilbo makes an appearance, the trolls which are briefly seen in LOTR, simple little devices like this which take us down memory lane that can be effortlessly entertaining without relying too much on the past.
    This is exactly why The Hobbit is so different, it was an attempt to rely on itself and not the massive cultural impact of the LOTR trilogy, something which Jackson succeeded greatly on. It's light-hearted, often humorous and exceptionally beautiful to watch. 48 fps took a little adjusting to, but where this HFR really shines are the action scenes in "Goblin City". A particular scene involving Bilbo and the dwarves find them trying to escape a duel between two stone giants, which is simply breathtaking to watch.
    Arguably the greatest part of the film is the brief return of Gollum, who engages in a battle of riddles with Bilbo, and without any spoilers, a predictable but smile-on-your-face discovery is made from our dear Hobbit.
    Excellent performances from Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Martin Freeman as a young bilbo, Richard Armitage as the miserable and brooding King Thorin as the the head of the dwarves, and the dwarves in general, its no secret the rigorous time in effort which goes into creating these creatures so bravo to all involved.
    With brief appearances from Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving and Christopher Lee reprising their roles of Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman the White respectively, its wonderful to see familiar faces so utilized so brilliantly, but expertly placed to set up their own stories which we see in the LOTR. I thought Elijah Wood's appearance as Frodo, while cool to see, was simply unnecessary and to simple a paycheck to earn on Wood's part.
    Light-hearted, humorous, and excellent action scenes make this a stand alone film to be reckoned with, while not as engrossing and spectacular as its predecessors, this prequel stands on its own two feet and has set up what could be a roller coaster of a trilogy on an epic scale.
    Expand
  74. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    All I came here to write, is that to ignore the critic reviews on the left of the page, go see it yourself and judge from there. Sadly the movie has been slandered by the critics for god only knows. In my opinion, the movie falls more accurate to that of the user score.
  75. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    The one thing the most reviewers dislike about the movie, it is that its longer than it should be, that its too long, that its watered down or that it has scenes that never happened in the book or that the scenes them selves are too long. For me however, it was the thing I enjoyed the most. I decided to avoid reviews for once, as reviewers and critics do not make movies them selves or not are the creative type to the height of someone like Peter Jackson. And I am glad. Its the experience that you take it in a small spoon at a time. Not like greedy ADD children that has to eat all the candy at once. More movies (in my opinion) should be made like this, to take in better the environments, the places, the characters, the setting, and the ambience like it should. Instead of having movies that flicker scenes as fast as a disco with drumb base music. Bravo! There is no better reviewer than your self, and you should also always learn to not hype your self like this critics have before watching, reading or playing anything. Expand
  76. Jan 3, 2013
    10
    This movie is an amazing adventure! Peter Jackson put 100% in this movie. i don't whats with the low rating.. but that's just the critics. this movie is a must see!
  77. Jan 3, 2013
    9
    After reading the strangely up and down reviews for this movie, I was very pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed this movie, and honestly haven't felt such a full movie-going experience since seeing the original trilogy in theaters. My biggest complaint was the insane HD look when seeing it in IMAX, I find that it looks way too real, stealing magic and warmth from the overall look and feel of the movie. Though the special effects were quite impressively real looking to fit in with hyper-real look. Otherwise, I found the story, acting, script, and overall film to be truly excellent. Certainly not perfect, but neither were those LOTR films, people. Expand
  78. 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 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
  79. Jan 2, 2013
    7
    Overall I liked the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The scenes from the book are done really well better than in Hunger Games or the later Harry Potter films. There is some great acting, camera work, music, and sets. The scenes are really given time to flesh out. The added scenes cause the movie to drag. If some of the scenes were cut out and/or this was one or two movies I would be giving this a higher score. Unfortunately Peter Jackson tries a little to hard to incorporate Middle Earth lore that while cool often is not that interesting and slows the movie down. Its like he was trying to create his own beginning, middle, and end. Despite these flaws though I really enjoyed this movie its flaws are not because the director did not try hard to make a good story but tried too hard, which I appreciate. Maybe if I see it again knowing where its going I Expand
  80. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though. Expand
  81. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit was actually better than I thought it'd be. My bf told me that he had heard that people who didn't like the fist 3 movies actually enjoyed this one. I, on the other hand, actually liked the first 3 movies and thought this one was good but not as up to par with the others. It was very intense on character development and I can't wait for the next one to come out. I enjoyed The Hobbit.
  82. Jan 2, 2013
    6
    I saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the CGI was (mostly) great. The movie is slow-paced at times. Other times it is too fast-paced. Some scenes are longer than they need to be, but I guess that's what happens when you take a single book story and stretch it out to a 3 part movie trilogy. I get the impression that this movie might possibly be targeted at children more than adults, I think a young child would definitely enjoy it more. For an adult, it is alright but just alright. But after some online investigation, I found a reference to letters stating that The Hobbit book was written for children, while the LOTR book trilogy was written for an older audience, so I'll assume the movie is being true to the book in targeting a younger audience. A plot hole I noticed is why don't they just fly on the eagles from the Shire to the Dwarf city/mountain they are trying to get to? Well, this plot hole apparently exists in the book too so I can't hold it against the movie. And what the heck is a dragon going to do with a pile of gold? Well, according to some online blogs male dragons are like bowerbirds that make nests out of shiny objects to attract a mate, so that resolves that question I had that wasn't explained by this movie. This movie mostly reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean although it is nowhere good as the first POC movie, nor is it horrible like some of the later POC sequels. All of the focus seems to be on the special effects and (mostly) failed attempts at humour rather than focusing on decent story telling or character development. I rate it as average since it lacks the Je ne c'est quoi to make it an epic movie (pacing? plot-deviations from book? not sure what went wrong exactly...) and I can't honestly say that I even liked the film. It does not live up to the quality of the LOTR trilogy at all (except for the CGI of Gollum which is still great in this movie as it was in the LOTR trilogy). It's been 25 years since I read the book, but I think I might go pick it up and read it again rather than wait for the next two movies... Expand
  83. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    I enjoyed it, not as much as any of the LOTR but it's hard to recreated the majesty of the first trilogy. I was hoping we would see more of the spiders and maybe even a peek at Beorn, but it will make it worth the wait for the second movie.
  84. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    It was unexpected when they decided to make this film into a 3 part series, but so far they did justice with the first part. I just hope the the next two parts live up to the book and animated film before it. This movie is worth spending some extra $$ to see it in movie theaters.
  85. Jan 2, 2013
    9
    After almost a decade since the last adventure in Middle Earth, Peter Jackson shows us that he's still got it with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. While I do not consider this to be as good as the almighty Lord Of The Rings trilogy, it's not trying to be, it's not trying to be another Lord Of The Rings film. The Hobbit is essentially a children's book that is more focused on fun and humour than the LOTR, and Jackson has translated that brilliantly into this film by staying incredibly faithful to the source material (even down to the songs the dwarves sing) and with a very strong script that has many laughs and sustains more of a lighter tone for the most part. Make no mistake though, this is definitely an epic fantasy film full of intense action, brilliant set pieces and great characters. The Hobbit himself : Bilbo Baggins is definitely the stand out due mainly to Martin Freeman's fantastic performance as the character, he completely nails Bilbo by brilliantly portraying the character's journey from the "playing it safe and avoiding trouble" attitude to the determined and adventure craving Bilbo we see in TLOTR, and I looking forward to see this continue in the next two films. The rest of the cast are also very impressive with Sir Ian Mckellan giving a brilliant performance once again as Gandalf the Grey and ofcourse there are the 13 dwarves who are all played well, look great and are great fun to watch on screen. The presentation of this film is incredible, I watched this in 2d and with the normal frame rate and I thought the film looked gorgeous, the direction, the cinematography and the special effects all came together to make this film beautiful and the soundtrack is also fantastic. However while watching it, I did feel that too much CGI was used at some points, I understand that they are not trying to make this film as gritty as TLOTR but there were times when I thought that practical effects would have looked better on screen, nonetheless the film looks incredible. The main problem with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey for me is it's length. 2 hours and 45 minutes is a hell of a long time to show just one third of the story in the book and while I understand that Peter Jackson is using more source material than just The Hobbit book but I just felt that there could be half an hour in this film that could be cut for time. The beginning is where the film is at it's slowest, and while it delivers it's exposition very well, and the main characters are introduced in great fashion, by about half an hour into the film I felt like we've been spending a little too much time in the shire and it was time to get on with the adventure. There is also a seen featuring Ian Holm and Elijha Wood as older Bilbo and Frodo, while it was great to see Frodo again, there was no point to that scene and it just made the beginning of the film feel to drawn out. There are other scenes throughout the film that feel like they could have been cut and these scenes make this seem almost like a directors cut rather than the theatrical version of The Hobbit, and I think it's a case of Peter Jackson over indulging in this world. Once the film gets going, it reaches brilliance, the scenes involving Bilbo meeting Gollum were absolutely incredible and it's just things like that that made me feel like I am experiencing entertainment of the highest class. It has it's issues that are hard to overlook but overall, this is an excellent film that I highly recommend. Expand
  86. Jan 2, 2013
    9
    I've waited so long for this movie, and there it finally is. The special effects are even better than the LoTR. And it has an even warmer feeling then the Lord of the Rings-trilogy. But I've to admit that there are some negative sides. The prologue has for a example a bit childish feeling. The humor and the characters sometimes feeling as they are picked from a Disney-movie. And secondly (an expected argument) is that the story less epic than the first trilogy. Over all is the movie very entertaining and I would recommend it to every LoTR fan Expand
  87. 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 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
  88. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    It is hard to ignore the vast stylized differences between "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" and the Lord of the Ring Trilogy, but if you look past that and make this film its own you will be immersed in a truly imaginative and mesmerizing world.
  89. atc
    Jan 2, 2013
    10
    Beautiful. Funny. Vast.

    It was frustrating to see such low reviews on what I found was a fantastic recreation of a much-loved book. Visually more stunning than LoTR: sunrise pans, beautiful landscapes, fantastic props; unrivaled fantasy effects. Take the Rivendell: a stunning expanse with almost photo-like realism. The pace was well structured. A slower start to introduce the lore and
    the characters. Once that's done? It races much like an action movie. The fight scenes are always fantastic: well choreographed, weaponry of great detail. The beasts equally so.

    I think what really "does it" for me is the fact that having read the fantastic books themselves and while musing away the hours imagining the artefacts -- from weapons to beasts, characters to landscapes -- the films live up to that wonderous world held inside my head. They are visually stunning, fantastically acted -- the two comical dwarves whose names escape me were not actually annoying and they were really well casted -- and well worth your money.
    Expand
  90. 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, with little being done to elaborate on many of the characters. Nothing like the originals, and no where near as entertaining. Expand
  91. Jan 1, 2013
    8
    To be honest, at first I was a little reluctant to spend almost three hours to see thiz movie but I know I will go anyway, just for curiosity
  92. Jan 1, 2013
    9
    Is visually beautiful, strong and powerful, returning us to the Middle Ages so high, reigniting the flame of adventure as only Peter Jackson knows how to do, in the sense weak argument because I miss the thrill of a well-made ​​plot and only be a traveling group of dwarfs to return to rule their land.
  93. 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 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
  94. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    I don't understand why so many critics gave this movie such a bad rating. It is a fun, enjoyable, exciting, movie. Filled with amazing scenes, including one particularly long and elaborate action scene and a very emotional scene at the end, this is a GREAT movie. Does not quite live up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but is amazing nonetheless. Completely lived up to my expectations, especially since it got such bad reviews. I saw it in 48 fps, and 3D, and I found the visuals to be great- not nauseating at all. I did not see it in i-max, and if i were to see it again, which i am considering, i will definitely see it in i-max, 48 fps, and 3D all in one. anyway, if you have not seen it yet, do not be scared off b/c of the bad critic reviews- SEE IT. Expand
  95. Jan 1, 2013
    9
    I don't understand why this isn't getting the best of reviews. I loved it, and cannot wait for "Desolation of Smaug" If this looked good to you and you were looking forward to it, then don't be turned away. I loved the LOTR series and I love "Unexpected Journey".
  96. 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.
  97. Jan 1, 2013
    7
    The Hobbit is a great book. The movie has great special effects. I knew I would like the movie and I did. I'm not sure I would have chosen all of the scenes that the movie makers did. Some of them were welcome and interesting, some of them were not. My biggest disappointment was that it was somewhat mainstreamed, and it includes some of the canned humor that generic "family" movies often have. Most of it was not particularly funny and only took away from the mood. There was only one line out of probably twenty that I found funny. Think the dwarf scenes in LotR. Think the C3PO scenes on the conveyor belt from Star Wars. The delivery was not perfect by the main character, which may have caused problems. Still, it's the Hobbit, it had great special effects, and there are some very well done scenes. There are parts that are definitely worth watching. You definitely ought to see the movie, but it was no masterpiece. Expand
  98. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    I must say that if you must not go in the theater to watch this film with Lord of The Rings in your mind. This film is absolutely different from the previous three films in LOTR trilogy. This film is not based on the victory over evil but it is a film that tells us about the lives of different races in Middle Earth. So,I must surely say that this film is a must-watch for you.
  99. Jan 1, 2013
    6
    Nothing new for a movie... i only saw rocks flying on the screen using a format launched 10 years ago. Maybe, by the reason of this movie being a first part of a trilogy, when the other 2 parts are released this first will be make a little sense more.
  100. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    I am utterly speechless, this is without doubt, a masterpiece. I cannot for the life of me understand the criticisms aired against The Hobbit. These 'critics' have completely lost my faith in them to review a film in an objective and unbiased manner. Jackson has made his Picasso, do yourself a favor and go see it.
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.