It was the kind of adventure I was looking for. It had the same feel as the Fellowship of the Ring. I'll admit the ending could have been more conclusive as FOTR but I never thought it would make the movie that bad. Maybe I can understand a little how others might dislike it. In my opinion, t was good.

I am a loyal fan of the pre movies and just relating was pretty cool but this was not a really exciting film the Orcs were not as disgusting as before in terms of appearance and it almost appeared to be on stage like a PLAY in other words WE NEED NOT RE EVENT THE WHEEL.

Not as good as any of The Lord of the Rings movies but still a lot of fun. If you go in comparing this film to The Lord of the Rings films it's about a 6 but as a stand alone it deserves an 8.

The idea of producing three films based on a medium-sized book seemed quite absurd at first. However, the amount of detail, accompanied my the beautiful visual works of Peter Jackson, makes this film work and better lays the foundation for there to be more films. Personally, I'm glad to be back in Middle Earth for another adventure!

This is a quick review of the non-3D Blu-ray Disc edition of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. The Blu-ray Combo Pack comes with 2 Blu-rays, 1 DVD, and UltraViolet copy of the film. The Blu-ray resolution at 1080p and 24fps (frames per second) looks really smooth and sharp. The Hobbit was filmed on the Red Epic camera, with widescreen aspect ratio is 2.40:1, and the conversion to Blu-ray could not be better (with the exception of a couple scenes that seem a bit dark). Audio is also really great in DTS-HD Master Audio surround sound. As far as extras, for a quick Blu-ray release the edition does contain quite a few extras including 127 minutes of video blogs (in HD), trailers (in HD), and a 7-minute featurette "New Zealand: Home of Middle-Earth" (also in HD). Overall this is one the best Blu-ray releases so far this year.… Expand

Most critics say that this film does not reach the height of lord of the rings, but the film was not made for it, it just is a lighter version of the previous trilogy, once again uses cutting-edge special effects but with a story focused the diverse world that Tolkien created, ie Lord of the Rings was focused on a single goal, and that much friendlier to clarify the other things that are in the books, and the result is satisfactory.… Expand

Another great job for Peter Jackson, his managed to give The Hobbit charm of LOTR, great storytelling that fits perfectly to one of the best trilogy of all time! The only my problem with it how they portrayed Radagast! Overall it's must own

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Even though I had really enjoyed the original Lord of the Rings trilogy of films, I suspected that this adaptation would feel too similar to those, and could feel like 'money for old rope'. However it felt fresh enough, and actually quite nice to return to Middle Earth. Martin Freeman was magnificent as Bilbo, who is hugely more likeable than Frodo in the original trilogy. The special effects felt familiar, but somewhat improved; the part with the Stone Giants in particular was spectacular. I have to say I did roll my eyes once or twice (Eagles to the rescue...again), but all in all I was captivated for the whole two and a half hours. Roll on the next part!… Expand

I had very modest expectations coming into this film. I was disappointed by the first two films in the LOTR triology and found them non-memorable and flat. An unexpected Journey is charming from the start, and even though the first half is a little bloated (my primary criticism of the film), the second half is terribly exciting, and I love the characterization of Bilbo Baggins and the way he's ingratiated into the crew of dwarves. I find the characters in the first installment of The Hobbit to be much more relatable and sympathetic than any of them in the LOTR series. I'll take young Bilbo over young Frodo any day as a protagonist. I will say that Gollum injects a special energy into the film that crests all the way to its conclusion. So yes, the film won me over in ways I truly did not expect.… Expand

First things first: Although the 48fps improved some smaller aspects of the movie, I would recommend seeing it in plain 24fps 2D.

I greet Peter Jackson's return to Middle Earth with open arms. The types of grand adventures that these films portray are so practically non-existant when it comes to genre and it really is a treat to see the grand scenery of a world more fantastical than our own.

All the actors pulled out wonderful performances. Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, all of the dwarves, Andy Serkis, and everyone else. Not a single one of them breaks character.

As it was apparent during the production journals, the film utilizes a lot of CG. I thought it was used appropriately for the most part, my only problems coming a handful of moments where the effects felt over-the-top or unnecessary.

The film's story is arguably the biggest issue in-that nothing much happens. There's a lot of filler, albeit very enjoyable filler, between action sequences and exposition.

The Hobbit is best advertised as a roller coaster, full of entertainment and well-crafted thrills, but lacking the tension that actual danger would have created.… Expand

The Hobbit is enjoyable and fun, playing more like a well-performed score with a slow rise into an epic swirl of sonic activity. By itself the movie rates as a 7 for me. No special fanfare scoring or pessimistic knocking. This film serves as a setup for two additional films to come. The biggest drawback to An Unexpected Journey is the film's struggle for meaning and identity early on. There's some coolness to it, but really your first hour or so is setup. Not boring, but not totally entertaining either. However, you feel rewarded for sticking with it once the adventure begins, as the pacing and plot blossum with every moment you spend with it. As the movie closes, I felt that I saw something special growing. Peter Jackson will pull in not just The Hobbit, but The Silmarillion as well, bringing some ancient-world lore and backstory into the set peice to keep the trilogy interesting (otherwise this movie could easily be done as a two-parter). Totally worth seeing, but the score I give is for the movie by itself, which could be adjusted and improved assuming the trilogy fares well. Check it out if you enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy or adventure/fantasy films in general.… Expand

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

Overlong and playing a little hard for the kids in some moments, The Hobbit is still a good picture. I understand the source material, but it seems like Jackson couldn't decide between going all for a kid-friendly feel or staying more mature in line with the Rings trilogy. The cgi isn't as effective as the makeup from the great looking orcs from the Rings either, and few scene were hard to sit through for me (particularly a singing sequence) but it has some good qualities. The acting is good and it definitely stays true to the story. The film is beautiful to look at and the movie definitely has some great moments that make up for the lackluster stumbles. I still can't help but wonder if a short book will really need three movies for justice, especially if they're all this length.… Expand

I must admit that at first I was skeptical about the claims from movie critics who disliked the high frame rate. However, after watching the 48 frames per second version of the hobbit, I now realize that the critics were correct. Something about the high frame rate is off. It feels like you were watching a soap opera, like you are seeing people dressed up as dwarves reading their lines in front of the camera. It really does hurt the feelings of immersion. However, the 3-D animation, the parts of the movie where incredible beasts or goblins or orca were rendered, those look really nice in the high frame rate. As to the plot and content of the movie, it was mediocre. If you like the Lord of the rings, then you will probably like this movie. It feels fairly familiar and there are not really any surprises, overall it was a decent movie, but it really doesn't match up to the previous works.… Expand

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

The 3D and high frame rate were amazing, but other than that and that it was my first trip to Middle Earth in a cinema, it was quite okay. Richard Armitage was the best of the cast, along with Martin Freeman and the eternally amazing Sir Ian McKellen. I loved seeing Rivendell, Galadriel and Elrond, and Frodo too, my only true connections in the movie with the LotR trilogy.
I enjoyed seeing Andy Serkis's performance feeling a lot realer and with a lot more of a "Serkis feeling" than in the trilogy. I can't really explain it, you just kind of felt the person in Smeagol more than you did before. I didn't enjoy the kind of humor they put in the script, which was too 21st-century-esque at times when it should be medieval-like, but it was always funny. The visual effects were obviously much easier to notice with the HFR but I'm pretty sure they could have been better even if not seen in HFR.
It wasn't bad but it wasn't especially good or unique either if not for the uniqueness of the story. I expected better, but, at the same time, I was somewhat disappointed by the Lord of the Rings trilogy compared to the greatness of the books, so I didn't have the highest of hopes for this one either. A nice show but way too long for 1 in 3 movies...… Expand

The Hobbit is set in the same world as the Lord of the Rings. However, unlike the dynamic storytelling that was in Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit really fails to stand up with the same quality. Many of the characters and bad guys look like plastic CGI characters and fail to bring any amount of believability that Lord of the Rings managed to instill with its costume design. The main Dwarf character is an absolute mirror to Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings and even the main plot diversions follow the same schematic that Fellowship had. (Shire -> Rivendell -> Mountain -> Forest (battle with bad guys)) It really was a letdown compared to its predecessors. However, still a good movie if you are not looking for the same dynamacy of the Lord of the Rings… Expand

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

More of a new tech demo than an addition of epic saga, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey prioritizes more on the graphic until the point of unnecessity. Fortunately enough, the amazing talents and the nostalgic lore will make the journey worthwhile. The retelling of previous adventure of Bilbo Baggins has myriad of mystical elements, although with 48 fps, the visual is a departure from the earlier trilogy's cinematic feel. It's closer to a video game or documentary than a cinema flick, and it takes a while to get used to. The look definitely smoother, but somewhat too hyper realistic in tandem with 3D which makes it lost that ethereal look.
The story goes that Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is suddenly recruited to a party of thirteen Dwarves and one wizard to be their burglar in a quest to restore Erebor, the lost city of Dwarves that was stolen by a materialistic dragon. The invitation process is terribly awkward, and the fact that the first scenes in his house are excruciatingly long makes it even more so. Nevertheless there he is, trudging the forest and plain of Middle Earth in his spare time while the Dwarves are seriously moody about their fallen kingdom. Bilbo does a give foreign perceptive on the affair, but it feels like he's shoehorned into the party.

Despite the initial slogging opening, Martin Freeman does a very good job on this role. He's not really valiant or witty, just enough to not be killed, and in some way he represents what Frodo did, a normal person in midst of heroes. It's a very relatable role, more pronounced by his flaws, I think audience will respond well to that. Ian McKallen reprises his role as Gandalf, it fits him like the beard and robe. Gandalf is a strong character, yet he accepts his shortcomings and his companions'.

The Dwarves are stubbornly merry, they are more defined as a pack rather than individually. Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) stands out more than the rest, because he has a banished king appearance. His character is brave and bitter, making it the far cry of Bilbo. Andy Serkis as Gollum returns and pretty much steals the show with his unique expression and body language. He is one of the best mixtures of acting and technology to date. Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving return as their respective characters. Though only briefly, they maintain solid performances as if they never left the characters.
The singular most annoying problem of this movie is the dragging pace. It's a too visible attempt to advertise the new 48fps. I seriously doubt that the audience needs to see more than half hour of Dwarves singing while washing dishes in the beginning, or the slightly troubled relative of Gandalf, Radagast The Brown, resuscitating a hedgehog many times over before he rides in his woody cart attached to bunnies. Its writing isn't at the same level as Tolkien's, sometimes it's bordering on bland and expectedly dramatic.

For all the flaws, it's still an impressive visual. How the characters move or their heights' difference is seemingly normal, fast skirmished and action are a treat, although I'm not sure if this is the direction big budget title should go. Music is splendid, counting the nostalgic factor of the theme's soothing hum. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will most likely entertain you, although not in the same league as its predecessors.… Expand

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.

I went to see the movie with my 8 year old son and he seemed to adore all the action. If you're looking for something like LotR then you'll be in for quite the disappointment. Still, if you forget about the book, then the movie is enjoyable in a way, but seeing that this one book is going to be stretched out over 3 movies, you don't need to leave much to the imagination as to why.
The kid loved it, and it wasn't too bad, but don't expect too much. Not much LotR like epic moments, but action and slapstick like silliness, except for the encounter with Gollum, which is the only part really worth watching.… Expand

The Hobbit is, in many ways, the strategic all-age-appealing beast the Lord of the Rings never was. And whilst An Unexpected Journey is not likely to be the best film in the new trilogy, it is riddled (hah!) with many great moments, such as the Riddles in the Dark section, and the Goblin Town. A good if by-the-numbers first installments, which leaves a sweet taste of better things to come in The Desolation of Smaug.… Expand

Very good movie, but I couldn't stop thinking about how most of it was different from the book, as well as how much of the scenes had been milked, long and overdrawn. Some of them, such as the troll scene for example, were disappointing seeing as how they had been turned into a full-blown battle and stretched out. The side plotline of Dol Guldur was interesting to see as well as the return of old characters that weren't in the book such as Radagast the Brown, but the introduction of Azog and his main antagonistic role throughout the film was a bit off-putting and only further derided from the book. Not to mention he's a complete CGI orc (really Jackson? Couldn't you have just found an actor and put him in costume?) The visuals are stunning however (though it's annoying how all of the orcs in one battle scene are all CGI), and Gollum looks better than ever and is voiced perfectly again by Andy Serkis. Overall, if you're a fan of Lord of the Rings this is a must-see! I'm just hoping the second film is even better than this one.… Expand

At times, it drags its feet (especially in the first act) and there is a LOT of padding, but The Hobbit was definitely worth seeing. It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but there was never a moment where I didn't understand what was happening. The newest members of the cast like Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage are fantastic and it was great to see Ian McKellan, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee again. I went with two friends who were big LOTR fans and they adored this movie. I look forward to the next installments, although I'm worried about the padding and there will be lots of it. The Hobbit isn't that long a book and I'm wondering how they're going to make 3 movies out of it. Even though this movie has its flaws, it's still worth seeing for the characters, acting, cinematography, and, well, everything else!… Expand

I quite liked this movie, but it could have been better. The original Lord of the Rings movies did not use CGI unless it was necessary. The orcs were men in costume and makeup, which made Jackson's depiction of middle earth seem more real somehow. In this new film, Jackson uses CGI as a crutch (nearly every creature is computer generated), and it hurts the continuity and flow of the story. This movie is pretty sweet in its own way, but if the creators had stuck with their original pattern (more make up and costumes, and less CGI) I would have thought it flawless. It's certainly enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to the next two installments, but I don't feel like this can be categorized as a classic.… Expand

They stayed like 30 minutes of the film in Bilbo's house. FFS, I almost slept half of the movie until things actually started happening! After that, it turned a bit interesting, and scenes were also ok. About the eagles.... well, I still wonder why didn't they use them from a start... again.

Not a bad movie by any means...but it felt a wee bit bloated with filler and some out of place comedic bits. I saw the high frame version and while some of it looked awesome, others it looked like the characters were moving at 1.5 or 2 times speed and looked unnatural. Peter Jackson has two sequels to sort the tech out...

Talk about a movie that people are going into with preconceived notions. Has there ever been a movie that people have had so much to say about before they even see it? I was no exception to this, I loved the first trilogy and had read all the publicity about directors, how many films would be made, and the format Jackson chose to film in. After finally seeing the movie and reading many reviews I have to say there was very little about this installment to the franchise that disappointed me. Is this film perfect? No, but few film are. Is the pacing leisurely? Yes, but does anyone remember Fellowship. Does some of this feel more child like than the other three movies? Absolutely, just like the source material. I think what I love about this film and a lot of what I love about the original three can be summed up with two words: world building. Jackson does an unbelievable job building this world, every creature feels unique and in its place, every setting the same. The introduction of the dwarfs exemplifies this perfectly, I love how each set of creatures are are prone to certain characteristics but each character within that set have very unique personalities. This is just one example of his world building but can be seen across every element of the story. This of course is not just a testament to Jackson but also Tolkein's source material. I thought this movie had exceptional acting almost across the board. Freeman and McKellan in particular were fantastic. I think Freeman was a better Hobbit then any of the actors in the previous films. Like its predecessors this movie has many lighthearted moments, some stunning visuals, some pretty cool action sequences, and plenty of time to immerse yourself in it all. I for one will be looking forward to the next two films.… Expand

Standalone review (ignoring lotr) - good although the way the film was set up, the humour was an essential factor to capturing the viewer imo, in my viewing many of the clearly "funny" bits were very awkward and not quite sure if they were meant to be funny, for example the bit where boffur tossed bombur a sausage and for no apparent reason the table broke. the thing is, the book was pretty weird, didn't really stick together like lotr, it was a very all over the place novel with barely any constant descriptions of characters especially the dwarves. i think that's where this film fell short, it had brilliant fight scenes, good character development and good back story but the characters themselves sucked and felt very transparent. they felt genuine and reused. gollum was the only beacon of hope, personally my favourite scene in the whole film, it managed to make me laugh properly and really built bilbo as being brave and humorous at the same time instead of being a bumbling coward. all in all, good little film, although it had no inspiration apart from lotr, lotr clearly took a lot of inspiration from shakespeare and some other films, this film clearly had none of that. think about the way the characters talked in lotr, it was much more medieval, at one point in the hobbit one of the dwarves ASKED FOR CHIPS?? REALLY? CHIPS? IN MIDDLE EARTH? YOU WANT CHIPS?! YOU THINK THEY HAVE DEEP FAT FRIARS IN MIDDLE EARTH????… Expand

Though it packs visual grandeur beyond our greatest imaginations, it is a film whose pace is deathly slow and indolent - it slogs on painfully, resulting in the bloated, overlong film that it is. 'The Hobbit' has its resplendent moments which remind you that Peter Jackson is the director, but these moments are too seldom found in the film. Furthermore, the conflicting forces of a demeanor of innocence (which is derived from the fact the book was written for children) and the epic tone that is attempted to be carried on from the Lord of the Rings trilogy results in an overall effect of inconsistency and general lack of acuity in the tone of the film. "The Hobbit" is satisfying because of the power of the on-screen spectacles and the near-hymnic power of the sound track, despite its obvious inability to even loiter in the same league as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.… Expand

"The Hobbit" is a spectacle, grand and beautiful, the Middle-Earth we have all grown to love. Though it doesn't reach the majesty of the LOTR, it is nonetheless a welcome return.

Going into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (or The Hobbit, as I will refer to it for the purpose of this review) I had very low expectations. When Peter Jackson announced it would be three movies, let alone two movies where I had already felt the source material was being stretched, I cringed. I knew no matter what the reviews were, I

Despite the harsh criticism about how, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" did not live up to expectations and how it was not nearly as good as "The Lord of the Rings", "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" should be looked upon based on its morals, and not purely on comparison. It is simply not fair to base a movie on its sequels or prequels. A film should be based on how it stands as a film alone, nothing else.

This film is full of amazing set pieces and epic battle scenes that provide great entertainment. While nothing is R-Rated, there are some nasty bits of arm-cutting and head-rolling, but nothing too gruesome. After all, this movie is mainly a kids movie. The film has a much lighter side to it than the Lord of the Rings films did, rightly so.

The character performances in this film are mostly superb, even though some may be a bit corny. The CGI is great for the most part, and are surprisingly detailed. However, the best and most entertaining scene in this film is when Smeagol comes in. The game of riddles is highly entertaining and was one of the highlights of the movie. Sometimes, Smeagol can appear a little too real.

One thing that I did notice with this film, is that Peter Jackson decided to create it with the future in mind. Meaning that everything in this movie is designed to fit what is to come. I can't really give examples without spoiling anything, but when or if you've watched it, you'll probably know what I mean.

Overall, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is an unexpected joy to watch, especially for fans of the book. Even for those who aren't, there is still much to enjoy. While not a masterpiece and while it does suffer from some stupid scenes (SPOILERS), such as trolls dangling the dwarves and the hobbit from their fingers and for some reason deciding not to kill them... and Gandalf always popping in to save everyone last second, this movie is mainly a building block for what is to come. I would still watch this movie again just for Smeagol.… Expand

If you go in thinking, Lord of the Rings, prepare to be disappointed because The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is inferior to all three of the LotR flicks. That said, it's still a well-composed, fun, beautiful and exciting film full of light-hearted whimsy, which is refreshing for a fantasy film. The plot just lacks the stakes of apocalyptic doom, which is more of a downfall of 'The Hobbit' being primarily a children's story as opposed to Lord of the Rings deeper, darker, more symbolic narrative.… Expand

Peter Jackson tried with this movie to satisfied all the TLOTR fans, without paying attention to the other people who don´t have any idea about what this movie is about. And because of that, if you haven´t seen the other movies or if you don´t enjoy them, this movie would dislike you. The first half an hour of the film is a bit stopped, without action nor battles. The problem of the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is that all the fantasy of the other movies and all the special senses comes at the end of the film, and the other 2 hours are a bit disappointing. I enjoyed so much this movie, ´cause I´m fan of the others and I love the movies. If you liked the others, you´ll enjoy this one.… Expand

I'm certainly not going to tell you to not see this movie. Peter Jackson proves that he's at a higher caliber of production than most filmmakers these days. However, compared to his previous works, especially The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Hobbit is lacking. The pacing is jagged, and flip-flops between fast jumping thst rips you out of the plot and drags in many combat scenes. Beyond that, the writers have taken plenty of liberties with the plot that only weigh it down; keeping track of all the extra info can be frustrating. However, the acting is superb, and it's hard not to invest yourself in the characters as they trek through Middle Earth. It's definitely worth seeing, but don't expect to be blown away like the first three.… Expand

And epic adventure of 13 unlikely heroes, The Hobbit is a great movie worthy of Tolkien's work, and one of Jackson's best movies to date. Watching in awe as the camera flies through the majestic mountain kingdom of Erebor was enough for me to be satisfied with the film... and that was only the first scene!

An undoubtedly well-made movie that is characterized by its immersive and enchanting effects. Not only that, the movie is very fast-paced and really gives an enjoyable time. Although there are a few problems in this movie, for instance, the length of the movie can really distinguish itself from other cinematics, due to its enormous length keeping you from going on the toilet - mainly because you are too immovable during the movie. I may not be the only one that finds it disturbing not being able to go on the toilet because of the abovementioned. Anyway, Peter Jackson did a great job on the movie, the 48 frames per second is just remarkable, and not to talk about the 3D, which gave an actual feeling of being in the movie. Since I have not read the book, I have nothing to compare with, except its previous movies (The Lord Of The Rings trilogy).… Expand

I'm too tired to write a full blown review for this one. S if you're interested in whether you should see this movie or not. I will tell you this. This is NOT the Lord of the Rings. Do not expect a starting film of the same proportions. Go into this movie expecting an adventure (Unlike Bilbo :D) Go into it, snuggle up and watch some really cool action sequences, some great dialogue between some of your favorite characters and see some great villains and plot points unfold. If you're coming from the book, you will be pleased to know it does an absolutely terrific job of displaying Tolkiens vision. It's a good watch and I'm sure the next two will be even better 7/10… Expand

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a revolutionary film that has now expanded how film can be shot. Using the new 48-frames per second with stunning 3-D we get an absolutely beautiful picture that shows how real a movie can look. While this is all great, I found that I really enjoyed the way Peter Jackson shot and filmed his original trilogy, with lots of makeup, huge sets, and limited CGI(Computer Graphic Images). I found that while this film is beautiful, I could tell when a creature was CGI and I found it heavily distracting. The original trilogy got Oscars for makeup! and now they were using CGI for most of their characters and back sets. I give it a seven because while it was very cool to look at, I found it to be merely entertaining;a good way to spend three-hours at movies.… Expand

Lighter in tone than Lotr, the hobbit tries hard to remain recognisable within the screen world established so well in the first trilogy. And on the whole, it succeeds. It is, however, a weaker film. Martin freeman is no Elijah wood, he is simply not as strong an actor, although us likeable in the role. The story does not consistently revolve around his viewpoint. There is cgi overload, and although thrilling at times, too many action scenes in the second half with our heroes in perilous situations where we all know gandalf will turn up at the last minute and rescue them. Or eagles. Again. The story feels padded at times, and over stretched like butter over bread. Highlights were the shire opening, the trolls, and gollum. Some solid performances too from previous actors, as well as several strong newcomers. I suspect and hope this will be the weakest of the three films, overall enjoyable, not as hood as Lotr and unlike that trilogy, I found it left me cold, but hopeful.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When it comes to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey most of my knowledge came from what I remembered from the ZX Spectrum game released in 1982. Like every book-to-film adaption, apart from 1984 which I was forced to read while at school, I have never read the book and rely on the movie to tell the story. I just don… Expand

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.

"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

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.

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

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

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

I don't think there's another way to describe this film than as sweet. Jackson has once more come back to our screens, reviving Tolkien's first dabble into Middle Earth with The Hobbit. The first film in the upcoming full trilogy delivers a wholly different perspective of Middle Earth; one where returning fans can see a distinct rose-tinted view of Middle Earth, whilst new viewers will see a pretty landscape with comic and lovable characters. The film's plot centres around a quest, where once more it is not as simple as it seems; with the mishaps and adventures along the way affording maximum enjoyment and drama for the audience, whilst providing an insight into how things in LOTR came to pass. The film will attract viewers of all ages and though fans of the LOTR series who have not read any of the books, may find this film more simplistic and light-hearted, I must remind them that Tolkien's Hobbit was aimed at children and so the film remains more in-keeping with its original premise, as can be seen from the general feel of the film- it does just make you smile! Peter Jackson's Hobbit is everything it should be; didactic to youngsters and older viewers alike, entertaining and really good fun.… Expand

This film was visually stunning, but the plot was a little weak and as well as the overall choice of dialogue. The introduction was well paced. I didn't think it was too fast or slow. But it seems like the dwarves were saved at the last minute every time: the eagles, the elves when heading to rivendale, and Gandalf after being captured by the goblin king. Additionally, the presence of random humor used by the goblin king as pointless.… Expand

It's one of those hyped movies that I might only remember because of the hype. If this story wasn't written by Tolkien, and Gandalf wasn't in it, this movie would've passed by as 'a better than average movie'.

Quite a good movie i certainly did enjoy- but somewhat slow.

Capturing the mood of the Story is very important and Peter Jackson isn't spot on this time. 'The Hobbit' is not a very serious highly complicated story. The Lord of the Rings was one. The Hobbit is not. Peter Jackson tried to make the movie sound like it's a very serious movie. It is not. The Hobbit is like an excursion that is rather dangerous and a burglary, exciting feel should run throughout the movie. Peter Jackson, on the contrary, tried to make it serious high fantasy. It's high fantasy, all right, but it's seriousness is not something to be openly exposed.… Expand

I really have enjoyed the LOTR movies; having read the books first though, I can't offer more than a 7. It's a good adaptation, but some add-ons are kinda meh while some things left out are making me go The Heck??? All in all, a decent movie, but if you have to have it right, be ready for some weird crap.

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

I admit this was not as good as any of the three Lord of the Rings films. However, it was not the disaster that many of the critics labeled it. I actually enjoyed revisiting that world and was entertained and never bored. I get what the critics are saying about it being redundant and uninspired. I do not see the need for the 3 D but it was a good time at the theater. I will bet money I will enjoy this more than"Django Unchained" from QT which the critics loved. I will review that after I see it.… Expand

Peter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world is visually dazzling and the pacing seldom lags. Fans will surely be thrilled, but there's something hollow and weirdly modern about the spirit that makes it more a spectacle than an expressive adventure. BTW, this is the first movie in HRF (High Frame Rate), shot in 48fps and showing in selected local theatres. Basically, it looks like really clean HD video. I review THE HOBBIT and the new HFR format.… Expand

Here's my main issue w/ the film. Jackson tried to make it too much like LOTR when The Hobbit as a book has quite a different tone and story. It didn't need to be so long, it didn't need to have winking references to LOTR and it didn't need to recycle LOTR's musical themes. It should have been kept at two films max. The production design and camera work are tops of course but that doesn't make it a good movie. There are other positives and negatives of course. If The Hobbit had been the first Tolkien book that Jackson adapted we'd probably all be amazed and astounded, but it's not. To follow his own LOTR adaptation I'm afraid The Hobbit is trapped in that grey area between mediocrity and greatness. Let me sum it up this way - I watch LOTR once a year or so and love revisiting those worlds. I don't have a strong desire to revisit this one.… Expand

Let me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intended it - at 48 FPS, 3D, with Dolby ATMOS surround sound on 4K resolution projectors, but was repeatedly disappointed by the visuals. Peter Jackson seems to have gone the route of George Lucas in replacing actors, puppets, and good old fashioned screen magic with pure CGI. I'm not sure if it was the 48 FPS or what, but the film looked very, very fake. I felt like I was watching an animated film, or a video game at times. A lot of people are complaining about the over-long run time - I'm not one of them. I love a long film, and appreciated it here as well, but I think that it's significant to mention that despite a nearly 3-hour length, there was very little character development. No pauses for pacing. No - this was non-stop action. I felt like I was on "The Hobbit: THE RIDE". But what was I expecting? It was a children's book, and the film is a children's movie. The battles are toned down and pointedly blood-free. If LOTR is a classically painted master-work, then The Hobbit is a caricature. This isn't to say The Hobbit was all bad. It wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it at points. But the comparison to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is apt. The film is woefully over-full of CGI, lacks spirit. This doesn't feel like a labor of love - it feels like a blockbuster made for a younger generation with short-attention spans. Skip the 3D and skip the 48 fps. I look forward to a fan-edit when all three movies are released. It needs one.… Expand

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

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

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

In hindsight though, I think making only 2 movies and sticking more closely to the book would have been best.… Expand

The Hobbit has a difficult act to follow. Having already seen the Lord of the Rings Trilogy which is a lot darker and heavier (Like the books), the Hobbit does not feel as gripping. The book of the Hobbit was written before the LOTR and was written for a young audience and I think it shows. The film is trying to be accurate to the text and seems to have a lot of padding to make it more friendly. The opening sequences to me seemed pointless and if they were cut would not have affected the film other than to reduce the run time to something more reasonable. the same can be said for other parts of the film which seem to ramble on rather than actually go anywhere. This not to say the film is poor because it isn't. Overall the casting was good and the acting likewise. Martin Freeman as Bilbo was surprisingly well cast as he got the balance right for the character. One of the issues with the film was a bit like the Star Wars Prequels. You know certain people are going to be okay and also some of the plot if you have seen the later films. This does cross off a few questions raised in the LOTR trilogy but does again make the film have another problem to solve.
Having Peter Jackson back on board to direct has at least made the universe feel consistent and the camera work is very familiar. The film is not a bad one and I am sure the new Trilogy will be overall good but I can't help feeling that I was not blown away and also that they could have made Two films rather than Three to tell the story.
I did not see the 3D showing due to not being able to watch 3D so cannot comment on whether this added to the experience. But the world still looks vivid in 2D and maybe even more alive than in the LOTR films.… Expand

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

Not close to as well made as the LOTR's trilogy but entertaining. I have to knock it for adding in places that really did not need it. Also, there was no content and there's no reason for this to be a trilogy.

I saw The Hobbit after having reread the book and found the movie visually spectacular but otherwise somewhat disappointing. Tolkien

I was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, as though to remind you it is indeed a movie. Even the makeup, costumes, and animation seemed more "play" like as though you were watching it on a stage rather than it really happening. It was ok.. but I would say it didn't quite stay in the same league as the first three movies.… Expand

Definitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than one spectacular one, so I was even more worried when I heard they stretched it all the way out to a new trilogy. The Hobbit is such a great story. They really really are stretching it out, though, here. They added a lot that I didn't remember, and seemed to take a lot of liberties, though to be honest it's so long since I read the book I can't be sure what was or wasn't in it. I may be comparing it too much to the cartoon movie version I loved so much as a kid. But, all in all, I just felt that the story is stretched out a bit too long here. It's true that it probably wouldn't have all fit into one movie, but I think two would have been plenty, and then leave a lot of what they put in out for the blu-ray release. Instead, you get an uneven affair here, some of which reaches the familiar heights of greatness Peter Jackson established with the Lord of the Rings, but a lot of which falls short.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I went into it thinking, "is this going to live to the anticipation"? I was sadly disappointed. I guess its still a good a movie. The cast was great, especially the three leads, and the music by Howard Shore was amazing. But the rest of the movie? Meh. The only really good bits were the misty mountains song by the dwarfs, the troll sequence, and the Gollum sequence. I thought the critics were being harsh comparing it to the lord of the rings as the books were very different, so the movies will be too. But now, I can see why. I had so many feelings of deja vu when I was watching this, that it felt like I was watching a recycled version of the fellowship of the ring, and it shouldn't be like that. And the script just dragged everrrryyythhhinnggg oooouuuuttttt soooooo lllloooonnngg. I was almost falling asleep during the white council scene. Which never happened in the book, it was just so they could have Galadriel and Saruman in the movie. Also, the last 10-15 minutes was incredibly melodramatic. Unnecessarily so. I guess it was an OK movie, to be honest I would watch it again, but only if I had nothing better to do.… Expand

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

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The bad Some of the make up designs annoy me, Such as Bilbo's overly large feet, The bird poop on the brown wizard's face, and the large noses on the dwarfs that look painfully fake. Also, I didn't care for how limited Bilbo was in this film. He really only had 4 parts where he was actually the main guy The dwarf party, the Trolls part, the part with Gollum, and reuniting with the dwarfs. The rest of the film revolves around Gandolf and Thorin, Both are enjoyable characters but the Hobbit is suppose to be Bilbo's story. Azog is a lame villain. The last 20 mins are a little corny. The good Martin Freeman is an amazing Bilbo, He steals the show any times he takes center stage, Bilbo's little back and forth with Gandalf in the begining of the film made me convinced that he was made for this part. Richard Armitage is a great pick for Thorin as well. The special effects are good as well. Gollum definently steals the show imo, He made watching this movie worth it. Overall, It's a little rough in the first hour but as soon as they meet the trolls, The movie takes a turn for the better and actually becomes a solid watch.… Expand

The Hobbit is a dazzling film, with almost every other frame gleaming with extravagant special effects. But its deliberately tedious pacing makes it little more than a curtain raiser for the future films in the franchise to follow.

The Hobbit is clearly a step down from The Lord of the Rings. Jackson didn't seem to remember how to direct. Editing, pace, acting and even action sequences were off. The movie simply didn't gel. The visuals were stunning, music remember full and some scenes brought back good memories. The Hobbit isn't a bad movie by any means but the length is simply ridiculous.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a movie best described as "unexpected". A decade ago, nobody expected that Peter Jackson would come around and even make The Hobbit. A year ago, nobody expected that Peter Jackson would split it across three movies. A month or two ago, nobody expected that HFR would bring with it a huge dinner party of new problems for visual effects staff. And going into the theater, despite all of the warnings I'd received, I still didn't really expect what I got.

It's not that I didn't LIKE The Hobbit -- I very much did, though many of my friends didn't -- the problem is that strictly speaking, it's not a good movie. It would, however, make a very good TV mini-series.

A movie brings with it certain demands of pacing and condensation; you've got your audience for a set length of time with no intermissions or breaks, and you've got to hold their attention and entertain them for that entire time, which means that the longer your movie runs, the less added fluff you can afford to have in your movie (conversely, shorter movies can afford a lot more fluff, simply because the audience won't get tired of a 90 minute movie unless the whole thing is just unspeakably dull). With a mini-series, on the other hand, you can break the story up into 1-hour chunks, show one a week, move the story along at whatever pace you damn well like and as long as you don't turn into The Walking Dead Season Two you can flesh out the world as much as you want.

Peter Jackson's heart is in the right place with this movie: he wants to show Middle-Earth in all its glory. He wants to show not only what you read in the book The Hobbit, but also everything important that was happening at the same time anywhere in the world, as well as give some of the otherwise-flat dwarves arcs. All of this would be completely forgiven on TV, and it would be hailed as one of the best shows on the airwaves for its dedication to bringing its setting to full, vibrant life. However, doing this in cinema just means that people are going to get cramps in their asses from sitting in the theater seats for three hours straight once a year three years in a row.

The problem with the movie isn't with the dialogue, the acting, the visual effects (though I will be discussing the unexpected technical issues later; I just consider them petty quibbles rather than major problems), the cinematography, the sound, or any of that; the problem is pretty much just the decision to make the movie as incredibly long as it is. All the scenes themselves are individually very nice, and are at the very least atmospheric if not essential to the plot, but at a running time like this, anything unessential to the plot feels like it's wasting the viewers' time and padding the movie rather than actually giving you anything good, which is a real pity because this movie clearly put a great deal of love and work into everything in it. The good news is that the movie's pace ramps up constantly, until it's moving at full steam by the end, and it never slows down once it's gained speed.

If I had to change one thing about the movie to make it better, there's one thing I would do: cut the entire chase scene that leads into Rivendell. Have Gandalf simply browbeat Thorin into going to Rivendell in a three or four minute conversation, cut to Rivendell, and have Gandalf meet Radagast there before the whole wizard council, moving Radagast's conversation with Gandalf to that meeting. It cuts out a huge padded chase scene that isn't nice to watch (it breaks the "only provide the illusion of depth; never pop out of the screen" rule that all 3D movies should follow), adds nothing to the story, dilutes Radagast's character, and introduces the Azog subplot much too early. In fact, Azog and his orcs shouldn't have come into the movie at all until Thorin gets a chance to finally see them at the end; this way, the audience feels his same surprise and the scene has that much more emotional impact. It also shortens the movie, which is one of the things that needs to be done with this movie. Moving Radagast to the Council also allows him to play off the other wizards, giving Sylvester McCoy much-deserved screentime to be entertaining while also giving him a chance to show that his character isn't just an insane stoner in the woods. It's shorter and has a better overall effect.

On the technical side of the movie, HFR is a technology that shows promise, but still has a few kinks to work out. It makes the entire movie look too smoothly animated, like a Final Fantasy XIII cinematic, until you adjust to it, which takes about the first half hour. Once you acclimate, it looks gorgeous, but another problem arises: the greater detail means that costumes (and most noticeably, beards) look less realistic, which means that HFR won't develop further until costuming gets MUCH better. A lower framerate, something like 30, might be easier to work with.

Hoping the sequel will be better.… Expand

Oh dear. This is the biggest disappointment in a movie I've ever had. I'm a HUGE Lord of the Rings fan (like a lot of people claim they are), the Lord of the Rings truly changed my childhood. Now more than 10 years later The Hobbit is released. This has been my most anticipated movie since heard it was going to be made in 2008. I couldn't believe I was going on another Middle Earth adventure! And after finally watching The Hobbit I was really let down. So what was wrong with The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey? It's hard to place, but it wasn't intriguing at all. The story felt really flat, the characters didn't develop well, it was too childish and it was trying too hard to be something it's not. At least don't make the goblins damn CGI! The Goblin King was a joke, the viewer can't connect to the dwarfs all, there wasn't a sense of real danger. Even the script was pretty bad! The movie started off pretty good, you felt like you were back in Middle Earth after 10 years but then it turns into a silly Narnia adventure. 6/10… Expand

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

The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action sequences. I was shocked by how much yelling, screaming and sword fighting and biting there was, since the book has so little of it. Now, I like a violent movie as much as the next guy, and I really enjoyed LOTR, but the Hobbit is different. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson made an LOTR version of the Hobbit. Mostly, I'm disappointed by him and his dumbing-down of the subtleties of the novel.
The 3d IMAX experience was awesome, but sometimes the characters were CLEARLY plastic (CG). The action sequences also felt very "harry potter-ish" - Incredible, over the top, unsurvivable scenes and characters walk with nary a scratch. I can practically see the roller coaster name branding spilling out of a couple scenes.… Expand

Not horrible, but rather disappointing. Jackson captures the visual appeal of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy but the story feels much too bloated. The ending was satisfying, though.

All the major critics of this film relate this film to Lord of the Rings and say how it was not near as epic as Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Let me first say that no it isn't but The Hobbit is no epic and so you shouldn't expect it to be. The Hobbit is a short, goofy heart-warming prequel to an epic. Sure, it has it's epic moments but out rightly comparing this movie to Lord of the Rings is unfair. So, if that's not my complaint why did I give this movie a 6? The problem is that the Hobbit is a short book and it's ending up being stretched into 3 LONG movies. Since the Hobbit book is even shorter than a single Lord of the Rings book this is a problem and this lead to Jackson looking to the appendices to put more content into the film. This leads to a drawn out film that doesn't seem to want to end. There are definitely scenes that should have been saved for the extended addition and other parts that should have plainly been cut. Anther problem is that the film seems to want to spend more times making ties to Lord of the Rings than developing it's own characters (all of which did great jobs in there respective roles.) This leads to cameos by characters not previously in the Hobbit which while cool is something that makes the movie even more long. If Jackson trims the fat of the movie down just a bit more in the next two films the could be great but he has to learn that he must do that first. If you're a big LOTR fan you will love this movie but if you're indifferent to the series you'll find it to be mediocre. Yeah I enjoyed it and yeah I'm extremely excited for the next two movies. I just hope it's an improvement to this film.… Expand

There are moments that make you remember the first three films, and that unfortunately makes you realize how much better those are than this. Perhaps in the next two (God help us) we will see more development but this is a film that is at least 30 minutes too long and too family friendly for its own good.

The two things that make "An Unexpected Journey" not that good as we all have hoped are its length and the inappropriate funny stuff Jackson mixes into it. The dwarfs and their burping and quaffing destroy the mystic feeling of Middle-earth and turn the movie into a unfunny comedy. Luckily, only the first third of the film is ruled by the dwarfs, the rest is focused on the great battles and the wonderful views of Tolkien's world. But Peter Jackson's habit to turn every little story, as tiny as it may be, into a three-hour-picture is really pesky. Less dwarfs, less battles, less pseudo-humorous talk and we would've got a much better film. But after all, the first part of The Hobbit is dominated by the Oscar-deserving visuals and acoustics, a mostly felicitous cast and fantasy stuff, that is simply amazing to see. Just because of the 3D, the cinema ticket is worth its price. Eventually, you have to keep in mind that this is only the initiation to a hopefully marvelous journey.… Expand

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

Too many time-filling gimmicks. The Dwarves are uninteresting in the movie. Some CGI effects actually look pretty terrible. Very far from the artistic looks of LOTR (for the most part, environments seem generic). Maybe the budget for the film was too small, maybe Peter Jackson went nuts, but I truly feel there is not a single aspect of the movie that is outstanding. Directing and editing were bad. Acting was really good. There were some great action scenes after the first 1h30min. Sound effects and original score were good (very nice theme song, though still far from LOTR themes...). I watched it in 2D.… Expand

The movie has its share of flaws. Number one being that the first 20 minutes of the movie are painfully drawn out much too long. While it was true to the book (any maybe the book was really at fault) it did get better. The movie isn't oustanding. I, personally, sat next to a good friend who LOVES, LOVES, LOVES LOTR. She, of course, was so happy about seeing it. Don't get me wrong. I like the series, but I feel the next two will be much better. Eh, it was okay in the end.… Expand

This absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the one liners and the CGI (particularly in HFR) is quite frankly shambolic when compared even to the 11 year old Fellowship of the Ring! The CGI characters, namely Orcs, seem to float when they are travelling, swords do not meet bodies meaning it simply looks like the human characters (dwarves etc) are just swiping at thin air. The music score is largely, again, taken or remixed versions of the LoTR soundtrack and some scenes are pretty much identical to a Lord of the Rings scene. It amazes me how some people on here are claiming that critics and naysayers should not be comparing this to a LoTR film.. This is simply ludicrous. First and foremost this is done by Peter Jackson so of course his influence from the LoTR films are going to pass over to The Hobbit. Secondly, the soundtrack and certain scenes are pretty much taken straight from the LoTR cutting room. And thirdly this is set in the same freaking universe and is treading over old ground so of course comparisons will be made (that's like saying you shouldn't compare Star Wars Ep 1,2,3 to 4,5,6). Don't get me wrong I didn't hate this film, there was elements to like, in particular the scene with Bilbo and Gollum and I think Martin Freeman played a wonderful Bilbo Baggins. I just can't help but feel this film was a missed opportunity, I had such HIGH expectations and these expectations were not met. Stretching the 1 book over 3 films is nothing but a money grab and is simply using the previous success of the original film trilogy to 'cash in' if you will. The film, as a result, suffers and doesn't have that same aura and immersive sentiment of the LoTR trilogy. Needless to say after middling reviews and some fan backlash (and surprisingly the box office returns haven't even been that impressive this weekend) I really hope with baited breath, Peter Jackson comes back into form for the sequel and provides us with what he and everyone else knows he can do. On a final note, DO NOT watch this in HFR. That is all.… Expand

The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The acting is fantastic with Martin Freeman's performance being fulfilling and most certainly understated yet the other characters were simply unable to recreate the same level of interest and intrigue as those in the book. One can only hope that these characters are explored further in the sequels. As for the 48 FPS it was beautiful with scenery exploding vividly onto the screen and yet i cannot help but think it was just too much as if looking into an oil painting, thus some of the dialogue and action was lost amongst the various stunning backdrops. Finally and most annoyingly i must mention the length. For what is only a relatively short children's book, i cannot see how 3 films of such considerable length will be able to keep the focus of the audience whilst remaining true to the book throughout. So far so good but i expect more can come from this series and i hope that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will not be the unwanted middle child of the trilogy and emulate The Two Towers.… Expand

After seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally I feel that he killed the part as Bilbo. Andy Serkis is as amazing as ever, albeit a little bit corny at times. Richard Armitage also is a great Thorin. Thorin is played really well and is exactly as a Thorin should be. However that being said, most of the other dwarves feel like fillers, never having any lines or really any say in the story. In LOTR it felt like every member of the fellowship had a role and a point and a back-story. In the Hobbit it feels like there is Thorin, Balin, Kili and Fili and a bunch of other dwarves. The way that they blended the old LOTR story to the Hobbit was absolutely superb and was perfect. Ultimately what ruined the movie for me was the action. In LOTR the fight scenes against the trolls and goblins and orcs and whargs seemed dangerous. They felt like the orcs were this rabble, this horde that was bloodthirsty and ruthless. In the Hobbit they felt more like comic relief than actual enemies. The best comparison I can think of was the fight in Balin's Tomb. In this fight the goblins burst through the door and look fearsome and sound like there ready to kill everything. In the Hobbit they feel stupid and mindless and comical. Cheesy stuff like Gandalf decapitating a goblin and instead of a flying head and a spurt of blood, there is nothing but a confused looking goblin whose eyes move worriedly then his head inexplicably pops off. All in all the way they tied the stories and the only four characters that really felt important (Bilbo, Thorin, Balin, and Gandalf.) and the general enjoyment of the story gives the Hobbit its good points, however the corny fight sequences that seem to have lost all of their seriousness, the mind-dead enemies, the loss of that fear factor that was in the LOTR, and the general was that some things that happen just don't seem relevant to the story really hurts this movie. As much as I would prefer to rate it better I can only give it a six.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, a really good film. However, if you're looking for the power and intensity of LOTR, it's just not there. It's almost as if they made this one intentionally for little kids, like a Pixar film. WAY too humorous when it shouldn't have been, up to and including, funny one-liners from goblins as they were dying??!!?? Disappointing.… Expand

Flat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and the actors who portrayed the dwarves. I wasn't disturbed by the faster frame pace. What rubs me the wrong way is what upsets me about a lot of recent films: the over-reliance on CGI. Another user commented on how the orcs and goblins are less frightening because they have been "cleaned up". CGI has its place: it would be impossible to display the extensiveness of the dwarves underground kingdom with hand-built sets. However, too many characters and scenery done with CGI make everything less real, less magical and . . . less frightening. The orcs and goblins in "The Fellowship of the Ring" were actors in costume and makeup. The orcs and goblins in "The Hobbit" are CGI and characters in CGI, no matter how much attempted frightening detail, appear cartoonish. A similar example, Jabba in "Return of the Jedi" and the CGI Jabba inserted later into Episode IV. He was more repulsive when the slime was real. Just imagine how much more repulsive the Goblin King would have been if he had been a combination of costume and puppetry.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you read the book, The Hobbit is a wonderfully engaging light-hearted fairy tale set in Middle Earth, full of adventure, magic, faerie folks, monsters, and epic deeds. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, involved tragedy, also set in Middle Earth, with some of the same characters, taking place after the events told in The Hobbit.

Unfortunately, Peter Jackson has recast The Hobbit as a direct prequel of LOTR. He's drawn from his own imagination, and from the various other story sources for Middle Earth like the Appendices of LOTR, and the Silmarillion to flesh out a more suspenseful story line. In short, he changed it, and not for the better. It's lost the wonder and innocence of the original.

The story additions work to fit the tale into the LOTR timeline, and I'm sure are intended to make us want to follow Thorin himself. I found myself thinking at every turn, "I know what's supposed to happen, but I don't know what's going to happen." That fact is about half the reason I wasn't thrilled with this movie. It's like going to a restaurant and expecting steak, but getting chicken.

The changes make the LOTR movies like Episodes 4, 5, and 6 of Star Wars, and now this movie is Episode 1 - the Phantom Menace. It's complete with Jar Jar Binks, aka Radagast the Brown. Radagast is a bumbling fool with a birds nest under his hat and the associated bird pooh dribbling down his face, driving a sled pulled by talking rabbits. It's Stupid. The classic scene are there, of course: the trolls (which aren't distracted by Gandalf but by Bilbo), Rivendell, the goblin cave, the riddle scene (though Bilbo's finding of the ring differs from the one we say in the LOTR movies), and the eagles as the dwarves escape the wargs... and that's where the film ends in a simple fade to black.

And then, there's the 3D... It's a gimmick, used too much throughout the movie. Sure, you get to fly with the eagles, but you also have to deal with vertigo in nearly every shot, and lots of cartoon-ish gags tossed in from plate juggling to a nearly endless cavern battle with roller coaster ride cinematography - all in the name of 3D (and a video game tie-in). Don't bother with the 3D tickets, you'll probably have a less crowded theater, too.

Overall, fun movie for a Saturday night at home with a few glasses of wine and friends to give it the MST3K treatment, but it's NOT The Hobbit I loved. Wait until its available at home with video on-demand services.… Expand

I was very well impressed with the overall movie, but there were some drawbacks, and cuts. It will make you leaving the movie theater happy that you saw it. I will be eager to watch the other two sequels.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First and foremost I enjoyed the movie but when you hold it against the LOTR it just doesn't hold up. For a movie that has come out 10 years after the original trilogy you would think the CGI would look better but it really didn't. The gravity of the story was lacking, in the LOTR their quest held the fate of Middle Earth in the balance while here we were only trying to save the home of some dwarfs who I didn't really feel sorry for. Also, with LOTR their was a definite connection to mankind BUT there are no men in this flick, we deal with dwarfs, hobbits, wizards, orcs, and goblins.

All in all not bad, Peter Jackson and his team just didn't step their game up, it's like they went through the same motions without the same drive to make this as great as the LOTR.… Expand

This movie is decent, but I couldn't get the same feelings as with the book. I must admit I am biased as a huge fan of Tolkien and I know that making a movie of "The Hobbit" is very challenging, because the original story is very rich in details and it is no subject to the typical constraints of making a movie. Both book and movie start a little slow, while setting all the pieces... but what I watched was an action movie (the special effects are amazing), not a magical and adventurous story.… Expand

While I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "The Hobbit" that we know and love. Don't get me wrong I love Peter Jackson and I love The Lord of the Rings but the thing that made"The Hobbit" such a great book was it's own sense of cleverness and grand adventure. It shouldn't have been stuffed with CGI and action scenes because the book is full of humanistic themes and heart. The back story parts that foreshadow the events in LOTR were rather nice but felt out of place in the movie. Overall I will say though it is nice to see Peter Jackson at it again and hopefully all of my gripes with the movie can be conquered in the second and third installments.… Expand

Looks fab - in 2D, none of yer 3D muck, please. Lighter in touch than the darker LOTR trilogy, which is as it should be. The characters are as they should be, and although there are a large(ish) number of similar looking Dwarves you do get to know their individual traits. Still, there are problems, mainly the length of time it takes to get going. And when it does get going it seems to do so in a mad rush to fit things in - and yet doesn't feel like much has happened. There are big splendid CGI sets, cities in mountains and goblin lairs and Rivendell and it looks sumptuous and particularly glittery. There are chases and fighting but it never feels like anyone is in danger, which dulls the sense of adventure considerably; there's lots of talk about danger and not enough of it. The trouble with The Hobbit is it's all surface shine and little depth, or, as Smaug would probably agree: all that glistens is not gold.… Expand

I watched the 48fps 3D showing and I think with the build up and the enjoyment I got from the LotR movies I walked away feeling a little deflated. There seemed a couple of scenes that would've been best served getting cut during the edit, primarily the scenes with radagast in them. I'm going to watch the standard 24fps 2D version in a few days and see if the whole feel of the film changes for me in that format. On its own it was enjoyable but not great but still looking forward to seeing the remaining movies. Lastly I have that feeling I had after seeing Phantom Menace where it just felt like and didn't have the magic of the original trilogy.… Expand

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.

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

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

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

A film with such a big budget and all kinds of spectacular special effects and with a running time of 3 hours on purpose should not feel so long and boring at parts. Maybe it is affected by the previous trilogy, but it feels like we have seen it before. It is still great but without that surprising point it becomes tedious when the film is 1 hour and a half in. It feels like a contrived journey. But it becomes interesting in the last hour again once the most loved creature by the public finally appears and steals the show for a long while.
Many other films with long running-times released in 2012 are way more interesting, impacting, emotive and feel shorter than what they are: Django, Les Miserables, Skyfall, Dark Knight Rises and more.… Expand