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. Apr 29, 2013
    7
    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.
  2. Apr 28, 2013
    8
    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
  3. Apr 26, 2013
    6
    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
  4. Apr 26, 2013
    10
    I loved every second of it, except for a few shamelessly obvious (i.e., lacking in subtlety) bits. Like Jackson's LOTR trilogy, The Hobbit's CGI is superb (unlike 99% of films that rely on CGI) and its hair/makeup, production design, and visual effects would have been worthy Oscar winners. I also appreciate the film's thematic reverence for nature, which ironically and unfortunately is at odds with the production's real-life abysmal treatment of some of its animal actors.Oh well, nature lovers should definitely see it anyway, but let's hope the production team learned its lesson this time. Highly recommended, and looking forward to the next two installments. Expand
  5. Apr 24, 2013
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An excellent work from both PJ and his Weta which beyond my imagination. Different from LOTR in genre, the Hobbit is an Adventure but not an Epic. While they all rank the top marks in the field of Fantasy Movie! Expand
  6. Apr 23, 2013
    3
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

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

    Is it a 0/10? No. It's okay. Perhaps it was simply not for me. But at 1 hour, I checked the time and was astounded to find that I had not been watching for 2 hours, and that I had 1 hour and 45 minutes left to go. I groaned and turned it off.
    Expand
  7. Apr 23, 2013
    8
    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
  8. Apr 21, 2013
    10
    Yes, this film can be very cheesy at times, but it has some of the most honest emotion and most blatant adventuring that I have seen from a film in a LONG time.
  9. Apr 20, 2013
    9
    I bought this version for my 3-d blu-ray player and I must say that it was impressive to watch in 3-d. The world was alive and had the familiar feelings that The Lord of the Rings had. This movie was a lot of fun to watch and if you are a fan of TLOTR series, you will not be disappointed. The movie did get a bit long, but it was to build the story and provide all of the necessary back story to make the rest of the movie flow. Very good film. Expand
  10. Apr 17, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is another great entry into the Lord of the Rings series. It's lighter than the previous trilogy, but that lightness brings with it a sense of fun and adventure. This is a very promising start to a new trilogy and it sits right alongside Fellowship and Two Towers in the quality department... And several rungs above Return of the King, obviously.
  11. Apr 14, 2013
    8
    First off, THIS IS NOT THE LORD OF THE RINGS!!!!!!!!! You can't compare it to it! Too many times I heard my friends or others walking out of the theater say that it wasn't was good as The Lord of the Rings. That is because it is its own trilogy. Another complaint I heard was that the dwarves looked lame. I watched a documentary of Pete Jackson in pre-production saying that creating the look of the dwarves was the most difficult thing he would have to do. He had to create 13 different looking dwarves so that when one of them was mentioned, you could put a name to a face, not just think, 'I think that's the guy with the beard, but they all have beards...' Appreciate what he did. He was also creating this trilogy knowing that no matter what it was going to be living in the shadow of the LotR trilogy. I was thoroughly entertained and enjoyed it from start to finish. I keep watching it hoping that every time I do, the story will go further. I can't wait for "The Desolation of Smaug" and "There and Back Again". My only big criticism. is the use of CGI instead of actors in makeup and prosthetics. The orcs and goblins in LotR that were actors in costume are far better than the Pale Orc in the Hobbit. But again, that is contradictory to what I said earlier about comparing the two. I just wish they used less CGI and more costumes. But I really like this film. Go watch it! Expand
  12. Apr 10, 2013
    10
    The best movie on earth was called the Hobbit and I recommend everyone this movie and but it and hope you have the chance to read and watch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  13. Apr 8, 2013
    7
    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
  14. Apr 7, 2013
    8
    Personally, I don't understand why the critics were so harsh with this one. The story is captivating, the acting is very good and the art is stunning. Some complained about compugraphics that were too apparent, but to me, telling a story successfully is more important than perfectly credible an utopia compugraphics.
    I read the book very long ago, and from what I remember, the movie
    seems to captivate the spirit of the story.
    In addition, to my pleasure, I did not find some of the annoying weeping scenes (hobbits), the ridiculous comic reliefs (e.g. Legolas skating the shield down the stairs), abusive slow-motion dramas, and fuzzy fight scenes of the LOTR.
    The only complain I have, and that is a major one, is that Jackson decided to make this a movie trilogy, only to make more money with it.
    In addition to unnecessarily making each movie longer, it forces us to wait for the rest year after year.
    Expand
  15. Apr 3, 2013
    5
    To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it? The battles don't feel tense, the themes that the characters espouse don't run through the narrative, and I can think of 3 or 4 scenes that feel as if they've been ripped straight from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films just off the top of my head. Yeah, the acting is all good, and there are a few of those heart warming scenes that we know Peter Jackson for, but there's just not enough good to make up for the bad. Each time I watched this film I liked it less and less. Expand
  16. Apr 2, 2013
    8
    Many things fall flat in this film. The story is thin, the film is too long, but Martin Freeman brings Bilbo to life more than the novel is itself. Sure other performamces from that of McKellan are grand but none compare to his. The visual effects are incredible except for the orks, the sets, costumes, and make-up are astounding. The Hobbit takes a different tone from the of the Rings trilogy which is smart considering the novel is a children's book. It works out by providing humor, emotional depth, and intelligence with ease. Many things should be fixed for the sequels to come to keep my interest, but this is a somewhat solid start to a new trilogy. I give this film 78%. Expand
  17. Apr 1, 2013
    5
    Best 3D effects that I have seen to date! Amazing special effects. But... these 2 things cant save this movie. I found the movie a chore to watch. It dragged on and on. Alot of action, but none were believable nor intresting.
  18. Mar 30, 2013
    9
    Before watching this movie, I had never seen any of the lord of the rings movies. I was totally new to the whole "middle earth" universe, and I loved the hell out of this movie. It's filled with great characters, amazing adventures, beautiful landscapes, and awesome action sequences. Some of the special effects are a little dodgy, but that's one of the only complaints I have. (Note that I watched this at home in 24 FPS and no 3D) Don't listen to the critics. Expand
  19. Mar 30, 2013
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. THE HOBBIT AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
    DIRECTOR PETER JACKSON SCREENPLAY: PETER JACKSON PHILLIPA BOYENS GUILERMO DEL TORO FRAN WALSH

    RATING PG-13

    MUSIC : HOWARD SHORE MOVIE GRADE A+

    Often analyzing a movie of one’s beloved franchise is quite difficult. Hence this review is written months after its release. Peter Jackson’s new installment has already rained box office with a whopping $1.02 billion despite several division between film critics and the series of controversies that dwelled around this movie right from the beginning from bankruptcy of MGM to PETA accusations of Animal mistreatment. One would have to say from a critics point of view Jackson is the perfect Talisman and he has pulled through an amazing cinematic display that he has done thrice before. The movie begins with the familiar notes of Howard Shore that has now if not earlier embedded itself in the world of Middle Earth. Our first glimpse of the Hobbit comes with seeing Bilbo in the present age on the day of arrival of Gandalf. Deciding to write a book on his entire adventure that he had sixty years ago he gave an account of the once epic dwarven kingdom of Erebor before it was smothered by the dragon Smaug. Following the prologue we see Bag End and Frodo talking with Bilbo about the Party Invitations. Later on Bilbo recollects the days when he was young.
    The scene moves now to 60 years earlier and it now shows Young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) letting out smoke rings before being stopped unwarily by Gandalf. The story moves at a slow pace where Gandalf invites thirteen dwarves to Bilbo’s place where they begin the planning of a quest to reclaim Erebor. After much negations Bilbo finally agrees and he decides to join the dwarves. There adventure begins with an account of Thorin’s past with the Orc Leader Azog after which they encounter trolls, orcs and wargs before they reach the Elven Kingdom.
    In Rivendell we see some of the lord of the rings characters in unity as the White council takes place with issues discussed of a unseen power in the forest of Mirkwood which was seen by Radagast, the brown wizard. The dwarves then leave Rivendell and takes the road of the misty mountains where they fall in a thunder battle between the mountain sized Stone Giants. Bilbo gets separated from the dwarves as the latter are caught by the mountain goblins and they face the Goblin king. Bilbo on his account meets Gollum and discovers a ring that in due course of time would change the fate of all in middle earth but is all unknown to Bilbo at that time. Escaping the mountains they are being chased by Orcs lead by Azog when the Eagles rescue them The film ends in the company seeing the lonely mountain from a distance and waking of the dragon.
    Although the film contains 1/3 of the content of the book “The Hobbit” it none the less expands the chapters beautifully as well as adding some extra scenes that took place that time but where not included in the book. The film is as enchanting as it can be and more than anything else is a perfect blend between cinematic sequences and music The epic features of the movie are being shown exceptionally and one can say confidently that we cannot imagine middle earth without Peter Jackson now. The small children’s classic tale being turned into an epic journey that asks for less but sure delivers a lot. Despite being on the slower side the pace gradually picks up and ends in a blast much the fireworks of Gandalf. This is a must watch for all movie goers as it is filled with literary artistic and entertainment values.
    Expand
  20. Mar 29, 2013
    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!
  21. Mar 28, 2013
    10
    I don't see how this awesome movie can get a "58". You can't expect this movie to have the same feel of the previous installments because the book had a whole entire different feel to it. This was a very good movie, but the critics seem to have glass up their ass or something when it comes to this movie.
  22. Mar 27, 2013
    3
    I love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at or connecting with a real being. The entire portion with the trolls is difficult to watch, with odd CG, poor "combat", the dialogue can be forgiven (i.e. gross jokes), and a set that clearly looks like a set. Peter Jackson added portions of other Tolkien books and expanded certain sections not covered in The Hobbit, but almost all of them are in odd places, and do not really fit with the story (this could just be bad editing), this is especially so concerning everything revolving around Radagast the Brown. Pacing is very slow, which does not always equal bad, but it takes roughly 45mins for anything to happen in the film. Shooting in 3D was a big mistake, mostly because the lighting has to be so bright that many of the scenes looked odd, especially in Golem's cave, many scenes that should have been dark were oddly bright. I saw both the regular and 3D,48 fps. I did not enjoy the 3D, 48fps version of the film, it made the movie look like one of those 3D films at a theme park, i.e. somewhat cheesy. While there are many continuity issues many viewers will only catch a few. It seems that many of the qualities that Peter Jackson brought to LOTR (which made them great) disappeared in the hobbit. Many other issues include the pointless cameos from old Bilbo and Frodo (who has a 5 o'clock shadow), the long beginning narrative, cliched lines/characters, and odd makeup and props. I hope the next two films are better, but The Hobbit could have been better if Peter Jackson had gone simpler, in the scope and special effects of the movie. Expand
  23. Mar 26, 2013
    8
    A lot of fans, including myself, were taken by surprise when reviews of An Unexpected Journey were mixed to positive at best. People questioned Jackson's decision to return to Middle Earth, and even more questioned the decision to expand the film into 3 films. Now that I've seen the film multiple times, I am confident that Peter Jackson is the only person I trust that can bring Middle Earth to life on the screen. An Unexpected Journey is a highly entertaining and satisfying tale but not without a few flaws. Two of the big problems I had with the film were the slow beginning and heavy use of CGI. This film takes its time in the early moments, but the film as a whole doesn't drag. The Hobbit relies heavily on computer generated orcs/creatures unlike LotR; I personally found the CGI to be poor at times, it really takes you out of the film during certain scenes.

    Flaws aside, this is an entertaining adventure and fully satisfying return to Middle Earth. Jackson's vision remains the same, Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Hugo Weaving, and Andy Serkis return, New Zealand's beauty shines, and Howard Shore's (excellent) musical score ties everything together by reminding us that we have in fact returned to ME. On top of that, Martin Freeman joins as Bilbo and we have a dozen dwarves to meet; not all of the dwarves are fully realized characters, but they're very entertaining and we have two more films to get to know them better. Freeman is the heart and soul of this film, I really could not have imagined a better fit for Bilbo.

    2 films would have sufficed to tell this story, imo. As a fan of Tolkien, I enjoyed all the additions to the film, it really makes it obvious where the trilogy is going, but this first film suffers a bit because it lacks its own real narrative, but I am beyond excited for where the next films are going to go.

    In short, The Hobbit 1 is not as good as LotR. It feels bloated at times in the beginning due to a lot of backstory/additions to the story and a strange dependence on cg effects, but it is a wonderful return to Middle Earth and will satisfy fans of the original trilogy.
    Expand
  24. Mar 26, 2013
    10
    Great movie all around! I have no idea why the critic score is so low but this movie is fantastic! This is just as good to me as tlotr. I cant wait to see the other two that Jackson puts out. If you can watch the movie in 3d its some of the best 3d that you will see in movies!
  25. Mar 25, 2013
    7
    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
  26. Mar 24, 2013
    10
    Great movie, great acting and great directing the hobbit once again shows why Peter Jackson is one of the best directors around. I have to admit that I was a little sceptical about splitting the hobbit into three movies, but all I can say that if the next two follow in the footsteps of the first it will be well worth the long three year wait.
  27. Mar 24, 2013
    9
    The first Hobbit movie in the franchise is not only exciting, it takes you on a thrill ride with not only some new creatures, but some old memorable character such as Gollum. At times, the story is distracted some cheesy humor, mostly caused by the dwarfs. But other than that it's a great start to the Hobbit trilogy.
  28. Mar 24, 2013
    8
    saw it loved it. but if there wasn't any of the other movies i think this would bite the dust. i have seen twice and i don´t remember any of the dwarfs names. then again it has nice scenery and shots overall a great movie but it has its downfalls. but really 58/100
  29. Mar 23, 2013
    10
    This is one of the few movies I wanted to see in the theatre, but skipped it cuz I was just too busy..and now after watching it on blu ray with all the hype gone I must say, best movie I've seen all year..hype kills movies these days..every movie I've waited to watch on blu ray has allowed me to view it on its own merits instead of stacking it up against hundreds of other big budget movies we've seen in the past 20 years..same thing happened when i watched Total Recall and Lincoln Vampire Hunter..critics and fans alike all seem to hate movies that don't innovate to the point of reinventing the wheel..what about just being a well executed and fun movie Expand
  30. Mar 22, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Monotonous, dry, bland, unimaginative story telling, as much fun as a trip to the dentist, please deliver us from Peter Jackson. The visuals have been overplayed in the Lord of the Rings and the screen play lands flat and robotic. None of the characters resonate and Richard Armitage looks and acts more like a poor copy of Viggo Mortensen's Aragon than a dwarf royal or not. Huge waste of time and money, this telling lends nothing to Tolkien and appears lifeless even next to the cheesy 1977 animated Hobbit. Jackson only has 2 tools in his tool box, endless sweeps across the landscape of New Zealand and excessive CGI. Both are used to great effect to kill pacing, distract from the story and swallow the characters, not that another whiny hobbit or a band of forgettable dwarves that cannot sing would be missed. The ending is also disappointing, not that I expected any kind of resolution in a film from Jackson, but I really wanted to see Smaug kill off the cast, turn on Jackson and leave us to all live happily ever after in a world free of crappy directors and pretentious film making. Expand
  31. Mar 22, 2013
    9
    Rewritten review. After watching the video. I have to say this movie is just plain fun. The over the top action sequences are short and even though when I saw the movie in the theatre the late movie action seemed like the Bridge at Khazad Dum scene repeated, after watching the video they are not out of place. Just a little indulgent. Some parts deserve a ten but overall a 9.
  32. Mar 21, 2013
    10
    58 are you kidding me. The Hobbit was almost as good as The Fellowship of the Ring. If I could I would give this a 12 and LOTR a 20. Thats how much I love Middle-Earth.
  33. Mar 21, 2013
    7
    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
  34. Mar 20, 2013
    8
    This movie is really good. If you're expecting a lot of action sequences, then I recommend you stay away for now. This one is charming, looks beautiful, is well acted, and has great cinematography. I'm excited to see where they go with the next two movies (and yes, I've read the book). I think the heightened expectations because of LotR caused the critics to be against it some, so don't let the sway you. Expand
  35. Mar 19, 2013
    7
    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.
  36. Mar 17, 2013
    9
    great movie, that is length wise the same as lord of the rings. focusing more on a character and his well adventures. but the overall story seems more about dwarves trying to reclaim their lost kingdom...sometimes i get confused to who is the main character, thorin or bilbo. do the characters seem overpowered..or the orcs ARE overwhelmingly stupid as they were made to be. the fight scene between the dwarf and that orc leader was hilarious fail. gandalf does nothing in the early parts so just an old guy walking around with a stick basically. there are some familiar faces in this movie from the lord of the ring movie series. the movie is a bit long, but fills up time with great visuals. it doesn't have that dark antagonist, like smeegul in the lord of the ring series, that would add some nice twists to it. Expand
  37. Mar 15, 2013
    3
    This film is a grotesque frankenstien monster of an adaptation. The sections of this movie which follow the book are entertaining and (barely) decently done, however the remaining half is a butchered and chunky concoction, incorporating elements of Tolkien's other works, 'Adam Sandler' style slapstick stupidity (such as a dismembered Goblin-King fat enough to appear on 'The Biggest Loser' falling on top of our gang of dwarfs, much to the delight of my 7yr old brother I should add) and an extra large portion of Peter Jackson's inflated ego. The resulting plot is a grotesque and thinly veiled carbon copy of Jackson's excellent 'The Fellowship of the Ring' to which The Hobbit's plot has been brutally affixed, even going so far as to tediously extrapolate a non-existent prologue to mimic the fellowship's opening scene. The worst part is that there are still two more films to come, and I wouldn't be surprised, given the quality of this one, if the last part were to rival the last film in the Twilight series for its extreme tediousness and fetal-position mind-numbingness. Expand
  38. Mar 12, 2013
    10
    A funny, witty, and imaginative film that is a cheerful experience and fun to watch. Maybe while not on the epic scope as the original Lord Of The Rings trilogy, I found it to be incredibly entertaining as well as visually beautiful. I would watch this again and will buy it on dvd or blu ray.
  39. Mar 10, 2013
    10
    Like so many other people I can't believe the critic's score.

    I watched this in iMax with my 10 year old son and both of us were utterly enthralled from start to finish. Yes, the HFR cinematography takes a little getting used to, but once you are acclimatised then you find yourself sucked into the Middle Earth universe hook, line and sinker.

    So lush are the visuals, the storytelling
    and the attention to detail that you can't help but devour every second. Despite the length of the movie I was left begging for more when it ended.

    Roll on December 2013!
    Expand
  40. Mar 10, 2013
    3
    Not enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, and get up without a scratch and run along. Far too similar to the Fellowship of the Ring, far too boring and redundant. Apparently there aren't even orcs in the Hobbit by Tolkein, but only goblins (and spiders and eagles) instead!! What a laugh.

    Too much like Lord of the Rings. Obviously it's the same Middle Earth/Gandolf/ring/etc... but the Hobbit is not as grand a story as the Lord of the Rings. It is a much shorter/concise story. Watching this movie almost cuts into my enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings. As good as LOTR was, the Hobbit is just as bad. What a mess. They really cared about LOTR and Tolkein for the first 3 movies, I think they just wanted more money with the Hobbit.
    Expand
  41. Mar 9, 2013
    6
    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.
  42. Mar 8, 2013
    9
    Great movie! I miss a bit of the Lord Of The Rings atmosphere because it plays in the same universe. But ok, this movie is better to watch for kids. Lord Of The Rings was much more complex. Iam fine with this the movie was awesome on its own, the humor (especially the dwarfs and ogre). I also must say that the movie is not to long it runs like 2,5h. Its interesting until the end.
  43. Mar 8, 2013
    9
    The great first part of the trilogy. What a wonderful movie. You'll kidnap in this world and you won't want to get out. HFR is perfect for this film it shows this world so beautiful and dangerous,so real. 9/10 because sometimes it is a bit illogical that the dwarfs always escape from every dangerous situation without that one hurts or one dies.
  44. Mar 4, 2013
    0
    I'm a big fan of the Tolkien books. I mean BIG. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. After about 30 minutes my wife woke me up! I've never fallen asleep in a cinema before. Sitting there watching this bizarely paced movie, way too much CG, not enough acting, I felt myself wishing for the end. Will NOT be seeing the other 2, it is only 2 isn't it?
  45. Mar 3, 2013
    4
    Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. After all, it was only like the first 100 pages of the book. Gollum is the only thing that kept my review from a 3. What a major disappointment. I can tell you one thing, I definetly won't be there for part 2 or 3. Expand
  46. Mar 2, 2013
    9
    I found that if you decide to view the movie as a movie, of itself, and not compare it to the novel or the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, you will get a lot out of it. I did that and was able to realize that I’ve never seen a more believable fantasy world. I’m 19 but when sitting in front of the big screen I got to feel like I was ten years old again, like watching the dark crystal or star wars for the first time. This movie is the most beautiful movie I’ve ever seen. It has an applicable, sentimental message coupled with a classic fantasy-adventure premise, fun, new characters, familiar old ones, a beautiful original soundtrack, exiting action, and bold, impressive visuals that made me question the value of CGI. This is one of those rare films that has the power to bring you a little out of your depression, a little like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off or the Goonies. It has enough movie magic to feel timeless I’m sure that after people’s biases wear down a little over the years it will be recognized for what it is; an imaginative masterpiece epic that’s never quite been captured this believably or beautifully before in cinema history. It’s so finely made, it seems to make some people uncomfortable. I absolutely loved it. It is one of those films that if it plays on a screen in the corner of a crowded public area, it still somehow absorbs your attention, and you have to at least stop and watch it for a few seconds, whenever it’s on in my home, that’s exactly what I do, I can’t help it. Critics have done it a severe injustice, I can detect no outright flaws with this film, if there are flaws, they’re so inconsequential to the films strengths they’re not worth mentioning. People who dislike this movie fly first class to Hawaii for free and complain about the expiration date on the peanut packages. There’s no shame in admitting beauty, it isn’t over-hyped, it’s fantastic and deserving of all praise. People who dislike this film are not at one with their inner child and probably hate Disneyland and don’t have kids or have altogether forgotten what it was like to be a kid, that’s how I feel about people who talk bad about this movie. Movies don’t get more magical than this, it’s perfect for kids, and the inner-child in everyone. Expand
  47. Mar 2, 2013
    10
    this movie is fun, FUN. way, way better than LOTR. Actors are natural, music is strong, with nice memorable dwarf-theme overall feeling of the movie is just right simply amazing! I do not mind CGI at all. At least when they walk they are really belong to the landscape, in opposite to LOTR where you get feeling that actors were filmed inside studio and then were placed digitally over images of raging snow or some other backgrounds.

    Anyway, this movie is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
    Expand
  48. Feb 26, 2013
    9
    Take note George Lucas, this is how you start a prequel trilogy. Fat gags aside, The Hobbit is everything the Lord of the Rings was: personal, stylish and charming yet simultaneously epic. Jackson includes enough familiarity, in the form of phenomenal cast, location and soundtrack, so fans can settle right back into Middle Earth as though they never left. Yet he also brings enough fresh material to give the film a good pace and structure. Expand
  49. Feb 25, 2013
    10
    Despite the critics opinions The Hobbit is the start of another excellent trilogy from the visionary director peter jackson. the problem with the critics unjust opinions is that rather then see the film as a prelude to the Lord of the Rings, they view it as an equal. this is an obvious mistake since the source material that made the hit LOTR films was so large in scale and robust compared to the Hobbit (a story meant for bedtime stories) when you look at what Jackson has created through lesser source material, you can really appreciate the Hobbit and see how excellent of a film it is. The film captures the mood of the story flawlessly leaving the story mostly in its original form, with the only big change being the extension of Azog the orcs character.... In the end The Hobbits a near flawless fantasy film and should be seen by anyone with an appreciation to the literature or the genre. Expand
  50. Feb 24, 2013
    2
    David Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this to be just as good. It was a terrible interpretation. The dwarves are silly in the movie they are not in the book. There is much more violence in the movie than in the book. And, the violence is largely gratuitous with boring, drawn out scenes that are well over the top. No doubt video-gamers will like it, but this is a movie not a videogame The other Wizard, living in the forest as its caretaker, is made to look a fool in the book he is not. The escape scenes are also much drawn out and absolutely unbelievable as in so completely unbelievable that I thought I was watching a Saturday morning cartoon. Visually the movie looks attractive, but since the plot is so wretchedly twisted the almost three-hours for me was tortuous the last 60 minutes I was twitching so much in my seat that I no doubt bothered my niegbors in the theater. Mr. Jackson did not need to add in the new characters and plot twists. Tolkien's work has very elaborate text and explanations that could easily have been incorporated to make a three-part series without the "new" material. He could have used much more character and plot development, increased the suspense and reduced the violence. I will see the next two chapters in the cinema, but not with nearly as much anticipation as I had for this first chapter and for the three Lord of the Rings movie. Expand
  51. Feb 24, 2013
    8
    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.
  52. Feb 22, 2013
    9
    I was really afraid this 3-movie concept multiplied by Hollywood standards of moviemaking will ruin the ideas and concepts of the book. Yet it was awesome! I could nip-pick a bit, but in fact every scene or event from "There and back again" is in place and they DO work with "injected" Necromancer plot (which existed before that only in additions to LOTR books and was mentioned in two lines at the book itself). So, great job. It could be better but it is still awesome! 9/10. Expand
  53. Feb 19, 2013
    10
    The Hobbit was epic, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson did a great job in the adaption, I thought it was gonna be really short and have some absurd adaptation because how could they make a book of 320apr, pages long into 3 films that will last about 2hours each? Dont listen to the absurd critics that gave it a less then 8, because I dont really get how people dont like this movie, I mean, it had great effects, a perfect cast(I think Bilbo is now my favourite hobbit) amazing soundtrack and an flaw-less masterpiece that Tolkien wrote.
    Thats all I got to say.
    Expand
  54. Feb 15, 2013
    10
    This is a must see. The critics have no idea what they are talking about. If you liked the Lord of the Rings movies, you'll love this. If you didn't see the Lord of the Rings movies, you'll still love this.

    Case in point My GF has never seen the Lord of the Rings movies, hates fantasy stuff with a passion; I took her to see the hobbit, and she gives it a 10 score simply based on the story.
  55. Feb 14, 2013
    3
    plenty of reviews have already nailed this so ill just say bored the life out of me. watching it i couldn't stop thinking is this one movie stretched into 3 just to line some pockets? really looked forward to this, tried to like it. but... do you give points for prettiness? on substance alone i can only give this a 3....
  56. Feb 13, 2013
    6
    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
  57. Feb 12, 2013
    4
    As the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit.
  58. Feb 12, 2013
    8
    This is just one of those movies that may not meet expectations of previous non-fans. I have read "The Hobbit" around 10 times in my life and I knew going in that this was not going to be as serious of a movie as The Lord of the Rings films, and I was OK with that. I felt this movie captured the book successfully and I'm excited about the future movies (which I believe will be more serious in nature). It is unfair to compare this movie with The Lord of the Rings. As a life-long Tolkien fan, I was pleased with this film. Expand
  59. Feb 10, 2013
    8
    Yeah a bit late in watching this one. Despite all the mixed reviews about this film, I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially the awesome soundtrack. Neil Finn's credits track which is based off the Dwarves' Misty Mountains song is a particular favourite of mine. It took me awhile to get used to the 48fps especially at the start of the film but after that it was fine. True the movie isn't as epic as Lord of the Rings but it's not meant to be as it's a precursor to the dark times ahead. Dwarven history and culture is fleshed out more in this movie along with Bilbo discovering the courage he thought he never had. Now we just have two more movies to go! Expand
  60. sLm
    Feb 9, 2013
    7
    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.
  61. Feb 9, 2013
    2
    This is a stunning visual experience at times. What ruins it for me is the lack of unique content.
    I got the same experience as I did with the first movies. This film also features some of the most ridiculous CG sequences I have ever seen in a high budget movie. It looks utterly fake, and it is about time the people who animate these things, take a physics course. At the very least, try
    to make gravity appear uniform. Expand
  62. Feb 8, 2013
    10
    The Hobbit was an incredible film. It was beautifully done and expertly crafted. So I will adress the complaints I have been reading.
    Action Sequences like Pirates of the Caribbean: Yes, this movie was chock full of action, but what do you expect from a Jackson movie. The man loves a good fight scene. However, I do no think these were like the scenes from Pirates There are a number of
    exciting battle sequences and they are actually scenes that will leave you on the edge of your seat, unlike the happy go lucky Pirates movies. Return to middle earth: For those that were not properly prepared for the movie, Jackson made it clear that this movie would be incorporating much of the simmarilion and other Tolkien works. He is trying to flesh out the world more than he could with the original trilogy. That being said, he wants to introduce people to the world around them and tie it together. Hence the cameo by frodo in the beginning.
    My only problem was with the goblin king- far too comical. In the book he seemed quite ruthless and downright scary. Not in the movie.
    But overall, two thumbs way up for a happy return to middle earth on the big screen.
    Expand
  63. Feb 7, 2013
    5
    Bilbo's story, though not without thrill, is much more lighthearted then "The Lord of The Rings" so don't expect to see a lot of doom and gloom or giant armies slugging it out. Unfortunately the Peter Jackson doesn't strays from the novel a lot in this film which, in my opinion, ruined the story a little.
  64. Feb 7, 2013
    6
    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
  65. Feb 6, 2013
    10
    Peter Jackson has taken his liberties with Tolkien's works before, but it is hard to hate this movie, despite the little things that drive Tolkien purists crazy. I am curious to see what is going to be added for the Bluray release...
  66. Feb 5, 2013
    8
    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.
  67. Feb 4, 2013
    10
    People got what they wanted. A Peter Jackson directed Tolkien film. The fact that so many critics are bagging on this fun adventure is incredibly weak.
    Does no one have a sense of Fantasy these days?
  68. Feb 3, 2013
    6
    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
  69. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    aunque sigue fiel a los libros the hobbit es una película inferior a las del señor de los anillos y aunque tiene unos momentos interesantes la película aburre a la hora y media y si usted es como yo se quedara dormido y no querrá volverla aver
  70. Feb 3, 2013
    8
    Great movie! The problem is that all those possibilities the movie had in the buildup, really didn't make it to the end of the movie. Also the physics were pretty unrealistic. They should've added some more realism to that.

    Maybe the buildup for the movie will have a reason when I watch LoTR
  71. Jan 31, 2013
    10
    I went to this movie thinking that I would be bored half way through. I really liked the first three but I thought it would just be more of the same. But to my surprise I ended up thoroughly entertained. Peter Jackson was able to take what made the first three so awesome and greatly improve upon that formula. Not only that I thought the actors in this movie did a much better job especially the actor who played bilbo baggins. I can't wait to see the other two coming out I am more excited about their release than I was the original trilogy. Expand
  72. Jan 30, 2013
    6
    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
  73. Jan 30, 2013
    10
    Storyline: The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is coerced into going on a fantastical adventure with Gandalf the wizard and 13 Dwarfs. In there travels they meet an assortment of creatures. This is only the first of a planned trilogy although the book 'The Hobbit' is quite short. For Ring fans, we finally get to see a Dwarf woman and we learn why Dwarfs hate Elves.

    Acting: Martin Freeman did a
    decent job playing a younger Bilbo who all Ring fans have become so familiar with. Richard Armitage as Thorin was also worthy of mention. Andy Serkis played Gollum once more and did exceptional work. There were a few surprise cameos as well and all the supporting cast were good.

    Direction: Peter Jackson has outdone himself with this one and must surely get an Oscar nod.

    Production: This film is one of those examples where you can really see where all of the $180 million went. Almost every scene is filled with spectacular detail. This has to be watched 2-3 times to take it all in. There seems to be a decent enough effort to use real world action where possible which helped with authenticity.

    Conclusion: The complete cinematic experience. This film should be universally accessible and covers so many topics. I can't recommend this more highly.

    Score: 10/10
    Collapse
  74. Jan 30, 2013
    8
    Obviously, if you're a die-hard LOTR fan, you wouldn't love this movie. If you're not, it's still an enjoyable movie. It's easier to understand (since it is the prelude to the LOTR series) and it's action-packed, heart-felt, and comedic. It has all the necessities to be a hit at the box office. It's worth the watch.
  75. Jan 28, 2013
    9
    of course it's good. it's primarily good because it makes all the right choices at the right places. the book is much lighter than the lord of the rings in terms of content, so the movie must be too. where the lord of the rings fills up the holes between it's moments of epicness with more epicness, the hobbit fills it up mostly with humour. also, the modern technology helps the world come even more alive. Expand
  76. Jan 28, 2013
    6
    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
  77. Jan 28, 2013
    8
    I find that allot of the criticism that this movie receives is very unjust. The Lord of the Rings trilogy set an extremely high standard that very few fantasy films could ever hope to achieve. The High Frame Rate might have been a little bit of a blunder, but the film itself is exactly what it set out to be: The story that happened before LOTR. It's not meant to be as epic or grand. The hobbit is a fantasy adventure story and it succeeds in that completely. If I had to criticize, I would say that it might not have been a bad idea to cut a few of the Dwarves from the cast. Most of them feel like they're there just to form a crowd. Overall: I thoroughly enjoyed it and loved every minute of it. It didn't wow me the same way Fellowship of the ring did, but it kept me enthrall just the same. I can't wait to see the next movie. Expand
  78. Jan 27, 2013
    10
    The movie is a masterpiece. The "new additions" makes the classic story even better! People complaining 'cause its 3 parts? Really? Who wouldnt like to have more running time from 'Lord of The Rings' saga? I'm starting to think people just don't like prequels at all, even if it as good as the originals.
  79. Jan 27, 2013
    9
    A great looking movie, but more importantly it keeps the feel of the Lord of the Rings trilogy while putting in some of the musical elements which reminds me of the animated film. It has some added plot elements on top of the original story, probably to help them milk a rather short story into multiple films, but since I enjoyed it so much I'm not complaining.

    If you enjoyed the LOTR
    trilogy you will most likely enjoy this as well, unless you're a purist about the original plot from the books or don't really want to watch long, drawn out action sequences. Expand
  80. Jan 27, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is regarded by many as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy; possibly one of the greatest fantasy franchises ever seen, with 17 Academy Awards won across the trilogy and Return of the King being the 6th highest grossing film of all time Expand
  81. Jan 26, 2013
    5
    The Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that they added so much random **** ruins the whole trilogy and ruins what the author wrote. i fully understand that The Hobbit is a stand alone book/movie and not apart of the lord of the rings trilogy, which is also why they didn't need the introduction with frodo and an older bilbo, it was annoying to me to think that they ARE in fact linking the trilogy to the hobbit. the needless intro also ruined the immersion and it felt more like a fake story than an immersive movie. if you read this and thought it was a good movie, i would agree it had it's fine moments, the 3D effect were great and the 48 fps was really breath taking. to make this movie a 7/10 (for me at least) all they could have done is cut out the intro. oh well. Expand
  82. Jan 26, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit is a great nostalgic ride and a brilliant movie, it delivered at the level of quality i expected it too and it does leave a great desire for more after watching it. Many critics are complaining too much, most expected it to be like LOTR and now that it was they ponder in regret and disappointment, talk about a double sided sword situation. We all know one single movie wont satisfied most us fans but i do believe a trilogy is stretching the boundaries of the plot, two would be the perfect mark but who am i kidding i loved LOTR and i want that same journey again for my selfish needs. So Mr. Peter Jackson is now going to attempt to do just that with The Hobbit Series, hoping we can get that same feeling we had when LOTR was delivered to us and damn he sure did a good job. In my honest opinion i felt this was the beginning of hopefully another great adventure, the best thing for me about this movie was the Score, the playing of "Old Friends" reminded me of "Concerning Hobbit" and sent nostalgic waves through my mind and was utterly soothing when revisiting The Shire, it was like meeting a old friend ironically. Like always the music was done to a perfection and they carefully bought back some renewed LOTR music at key moments throughout the movie, another great mention was the track "Misty Mountain" it sent chills down my spine giving me that "Skyrim" feel to the movie which was brilliant. Howard Shore sure knows how to deliver a prestige score.

    The locations were perfectly chosen, showing the world another view of beautiful scenery in NZ as well as revisiting some of LOTRs most memorable and beloved places like The Shire & Rivendale. But what really got my attention was the beautiful scenes of where our main cast were shown traveling on beautiful but daunting mountains and warm homely forests. The Goblins home was a grimy location and i felt like it was another nostalgic moment reminding me of the chase in Moria from The Fellowship of the Ring.

    We are spoiled with the amount of characters in this one, starting with the 13 dwarfs who all have their own unique personalities but i felt some out shined others due to the lack of depth & screen time moments (besides the introductions). The re-occurring roles in the movie were great moments for LOTR fans and a young Bilbo sure keeps standards high from where Frodo left off as the helm of the cast. The villains played a big part for the plot, from a unknown & unsettling Necromancer to the scary & ruthless Pale Orc known as Azog the Defiler. Radegast was a clever character but i felt the his appearance was a major disappointment in terms of presentation as well as his depth which i felt was barely justified in the movie. The return of Gollum sure lead to one of the best scenes in the movie, a funny but charismatic riddles challenge with Bilbo which also shows a more aggressive and surprisingly more hostile Gollum, similar to the Gollum we witnessed at the end of Return of the King.

    The first hour of The Hobbit is obscurely slow and felt it dragged some unnecessary scenes but the next two hours surely picked up the pace and was what we all came to expect, a well oiled journey fueled by short sweet humor and cluttered action scenes. Some scenes are breath taking like the revisiting of Rivendale to the unforgettable scene between Gollum & Bilbo and some scenes just felt dragged. The fps was surely odd, it felt some scenes were too sharp and felt like i was watching a TV Movie, some scenes were also outrageous like the battle between stone giants which i felt was breath taking but a bit over the top & ridiculous. But all in all The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is sure a great first step to hopefully another promising trilogy. 8/10
    Expand
  83. Jan 25, 2013
    10
    One of the best movies i've watched in my life as I am a huge LOTR fan. Peter Jackson made this movie in New Zealand which brings out the lovely nature and hills in the movie. It is a fun movie to watch and is an absolute masterpiece.
  84. Jan 24, 2013
    6
    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
  85. Jan 24, 2013
    10
    A great way to spend an evening! There was a nostalgic feel to the movie since we get to revisit some old locations from LOTR. And see some old friends. If you haven't seen it yet go!

    I did see it in 3d and thought it didn't add much to the experience.
  86. Jan 24, 2013
    8
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is Peter Jackson's epic prequel to The Lord of the Rings films, and after seeing this adaption of the first part of J.R.R. Tolkien's book, I can honestly say I am excited to see the future films. I was scared to see what they would do with this film because there is so much hype leading up to it and we expect something as great as the The Fellowship of the Ring, but now I can take a deep breath and relax because I actually was given a really fun movie. I didn't feel it matched the Fellowship in terms of of its storytelling, but what I think most people need to realize is that The Hobbit book was not as dark and as The Lord of the Rings books, so I always expected that this wouldn't match the other films. Most people were scared that this film would become the next "Phantom Menace" and ruin the legacy of The Lord of the Rings, but in my opinion this movie only adds on to the enjoyment of the old movies and also gives us a new trilogy to be excited for. That being said, this movie did have some issues that I had a problem with. Most of it was the little things such as the overdose of CGI, the slow start, and even making Radagast the Brown a really embarassing person to watch. All this were not big problems and th movie is still great, I just personally would've done it differently. Peter Jackson has returned to Middle-Earth and has shown me that he still knows exactly what he is doing. He has a vision for this film and I was glad that he gave it a lighter and happier tone like the book. The action of this movie will bring back some great memories because you can feel the grand scale of the battles and brilliant cinematography just like in the Lord of the Rings. The final hour of this movie is filled with some great action and memorable heartfelt moments that Peter Jackson is a genius at presenting. The Lord of the Rings trilogy are my favorite films ever made, so you can only imagine how excited I was to see this. So after seeing An Unexpected Journey, all I can say is that this is one great film that has me excited to see the rest of its trilogy. Expand
  87. Jan 24, 2013
    7
    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
  88. Jan 23, 2013
    7
    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
  89. Jan 23, 2013
    3
    The hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite the negative comments, the film does show signs of greatness, but they are usually overcome with incredibly cheesy scenes and characters ( radagast) which takes away any seriousness. I have been a huge fan of The Lord of the rings. Trilogy and I was deeply saddened when I saw this movie. The only thing to be said about it is, hold on to the great scenes and try to endure the more child like ones Expand
  90. Jan 23, 2013
    10
    It was a great movie. Not as dark and not as serious as LotR, and Martin Freeman is a brilliant and humorous Bilbo. I liked this first part, Peter Jackson's take on Thorin was good and as for Bilbo, we can see the transition from respectable country esquire to adventuring burglar. Top notch, clearly, and looking forward to the next instalment.
  91. Jan 23, 2013
    10
    Peter Jackson is a master of direction. His cinematography is colorful and artistic, the effects by Weta Digital are great as always and the score has that same wonder and excitement as the LOTR films did. It was a refreshing movie to watch after seeing Red Dawn last and wanting something actually above average and if I'm to believe the movies are to be like the books then Hobbits 2 is going to be even better then the first. Expand
  92. Jan 22, 2013
    8
    I'm not a big fan of Tolkien and the original trilogy and I've read the book a very long time ago, so guess I'm being impartial here. I've definitely enjoyed the movie, it's well-filmed (no wonder in that), but it suffers from one thing, and that'd be the book being split into three separate movies. Not just that, but three two-and-half-hour-long movies. As a result, the story gains a bunch of unnecessary and often uninteresting details and the beginning feels awkwardly slow, the first half an hour of the film could easily be shortened thrice or so. But once the beginning's over, you'll get immersed in the world of Middle Earth. Another thing is I think that Bilbo is actually a better protagonist than Frodo - he's brave, modest and funny, another great performance by Martin Freeman. Anyway, it's a really good fantasy movie you definitely wouldn't wanna miss. Expand
  93. Jan 22, 2013
    7
    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
  94. Jan 22, 2013
    9
    The Hobbit was a fantastic movie that hit all the right notes, while perhaps hitting a couple of bum ones. First things first, the majority of critics did not know what they were on about: the only reason it got as bad reviews as it did was because of the reason that it's a prequel (although the book actually came a long while before) that is split into three parts. I must admit, I was very dubious of this film, I was when I heard it was going to be two parts all those moons ago, even more so when I heard it would be three; the film exceeded my expectations by quite a margin. Let's get this out of the way straight away, the acting is great from all involved, with Martin Freeman making quite the splash as Bilbo. At times I felt the film strayed a little too much from the source material, but not enough to not love every second of the (around) three hours of run time, but this was necessary (and interesting enough) to spread the relatively small book over three long films. If you are expecting a very dark tone like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, be warned, this is a lot more light-hearted, Peter Jackson has done a great job at making the Hobbit feel unique at the same time as definitely a part of the Lord of the Rings series. The film is very special effects heavy, perhaps too special effects heavy for some (it was at times), but not to the point of being overly distracting or unnecessary. The film felt nostalgic, new, and magical all at the same time, helped overwhelmingly by the soundtrack, cinematography and acting. It was fantastic to see Middle-Earh again on the big screen, putting a smile on my face for pretty much the whole film. The negatives though, characters returning from the Lord of the Rings trilogy did feel a little forced and unnecessary, as all of their respective scenes lasted too long, old Bilbo and Frodo were there for too long! But, no way near long enough to ruin the film on any level, overall, I'm very pleased the film turned out as well as it did and am very much looking forward to parts two and three. Wonderful: 94/100. Expand
  95. Jan 21, 2013
    7
    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
  96. Jan 21, 2013
    6
    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.
  97. Jan 21, 2013
    7
    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
  98. Jan 20, 2013
    7
    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
  99. Jan 20, 2013
    4
    Summary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwriters expanded Tolkien's novel into a Japanese-style tale of warrior honor and revenge. They introduced some new major characters, and they plan to expand on events that the novel only hinted at. And that all would have worked fine, because it would have been difficult to make a movie based on the novel's themes of hunger and fatigue. The Bad: What should be a 90-minute movie is bloated with an hour of meaningless action sequences. The dwarfs fight. The dwarfs run. The dwarfs cling helplessly to a large moving object that threatens to plunge them to their doom (three times!). None of it advances the plot. With LoTR, I looked forward to and enjoyed the extended edition. With this first Hobbit movie, I'll only watch it again if they release a shortened version. I won't sit through those tedious pointless action sequences a second time. Expand
  100. Jan 18, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm apart of the minority that did not like this movie. Really shocked that more people didn't like it. But then again a lot of people never read the book. Just went to see the movie based off all the success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Anyway, I read the book. Twice. Once when I was in the 5th grade and again 2 or 3 weeks before the movie release. I was stunned. Peter Jackson seemed more focused on creating a more visual and beautiful Middle-Earth than we saw in LOTR. This movie was simply, too much of a good thing. Guillermo Del Toro, a fantastic filmmaker in his own right, honestly had ZERO business being apart of the screenplay production. It also seemed as if Peter Jackson wanted The Hobbit to be a comedy because there was, and honestly too much of, comedy in this serious film. Yes, there was comedy in the book, but not to the extent Peter Jackson went. I would rate this movie lower, however there was one scene I found fascinating. And that was the meeting of Gollum and Bilbo. They had an excellent back and forth that I found myself enjoying as it continued. And why did Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the book. Anyway, it could, and SHOULD have been a lot better. It seems as if Peter Jackson watched James Cameron's Avatar one day and looked at the world of Pandora and said, "Hey, forget the script, and character development, and a good story to stay true to the book, I wanna do THAT!" And its exactly what he did. He re-created Middle-Earth with his own vision this time, and not the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Maybe this was just a hit and miss for part 1. A sort of testing the waters if you will. The chapter of Smaug is up next in the trilogy of films that is The Hobbit. I, for one hope that the CGI and lame comedy was all out of Peter Jackson's system because Part 2 is highly critical in if Part 3 can be successful. If Peter Jackson messes up Smaug..... may God help us all. Expand
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.