User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2264 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 31, 2012
    9
    I love this movie. The only thing that most Tolkien complain about is that The Hobbit is stretched across 3 movies. Peter Jackson did add things to the story, but the things he added were in perfect alignment to Tolkien's original work. This movie was action-packed and entertaining. The story and actors were superb, and the graphics were without flaw. A must-see.
  2. Dec 31, 2012
    10
    A masterpiece and after seeing it for the second time have to agree it's a bit better than Fellowship of the Ring. Don't be put off by the jaded critics there is a good chance that if you see this you will be dazzled and amazed.
  3. Dec 31, 2012
    9
    Short and sweet: If you are a big fan of Tolkien and/or The Lord of the Rings Films, you will really enjoy this movie. Visually, it is absolutely breathtaking, but I can't recommend that you see it in the 48fps (High frame rate / HFR) 3D version ENOUGH. I saw it in HFR and IMAX and the HFR version absoluely trumped the IMAX version in every way. The story is light-hearted in nature but Jackson does what he can to add some drama and epic emotion to the tale. To that end, he is pretty successful, though the quality of writing in some few scenes is not superb. All in all, I had very high expecatations for The Hobbit, and I was not disappointed. Expand
  4. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    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
  5. Dec 31, 2012
    7
    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
  6. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    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
  7. Dec 31, 2012
    6
    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
  8. Dec 31, 2012
    9
    Those who appreciate attention to detail from the book will love it. It does a great job of touching on all the high points of the book while giving a bit more exposition to certain characters. Yes some things have been embellished upon, but it's tolerable considering the wide berth of people this movie was made to accommodate. I mean, we are talking about what was basically a children's story being turned into a major motion picture. Expand
  9. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    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
  10. Dec 30, 2012
    8
    Why are people reviewing LOTR? This isn't LOTR. It's The Hobbit. Two very different types of storytelling. Don't compare the two and call it a review of one of them. The book was quirky and colorful. The film is no less. I can imagine how it drags on for some people, but I've read the book, and was more interested the page to screen adaptation and timeline of events rather than following a brand new story. I saw the 24 FPS version, and can't say much about the difference between the 24 and 48 FPS versions. It was still gorgeous and exciting. Expand
  11. Dec 30, 2012
    8
    Short of expectations. I've read the books and love the whole LOTR world that Tolkien has masterfully created for us all to enjoy. Also thoroughly enjoyed the original trilogy. That said, I cannot believe they are making a trilogy out of this one book (the shortest of them all!). Talk about milking it for all it's worth. Anyways, I digress... As for the actual movie: I watched this in the normal 24fps since I had heard bad things about the higher framerate. And it was far too long!! Definitely could have been edited and cut down more. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get more time spent in the realm of Middle Earth, but this was simply excessive. I also feel like they were trying too hard to capture the same sense of the first three movies, and while The Hobbit's tale is definitely epic but it is simply not big enough to match the same level of the three main books so their attempts were futile. There were a lot of flashbacks and jumping around all over, so it can feel a bit disjointed. My favorite scene is definitely Gollum's part in the movie. Anyway, other than it being too long, trying too hard, and disjointed, I did like it and was entertained by it. Recommended, but I wouldn't set the bar as high as the first three movies done. ALSO: 3D and IMAX 3D aren't worth the hiked up price. Regular IMAX (if that's offered) or simply a regular cinema screen would be better (unless you're really into that). I barely noticed the 3D and felt it was more of a chance to ripoff than something that would make me enjoy the movie better. Expand
  12. Dec 30, 2012
    2
    It was like the "Phantom Menace" all over again. Just like that film, I knew 20 minutes into the movie it was a disaster. Poor editing, poor pacing, poor storytelling. My biggest disappointment of the year.
  13. Dec 30, 2012
    8
    The Hobbit. Is it worth seeing? Yes. Is it as good as LOTR? No. I think I was just well prepared in that I knew it would be slow at the start and take a while to get going and that its more a kids movie. If you know thats what to expect and love the first trilogy as much as me then I can't see why you wouldn't enjoy this. Martin Freeman is perfect and the return of Gollum is a real highlight. The 3D is brilliant and makes Middle Earth even more beautiful. As with LOTR I'm sure it can only get more epic as the trilogy continues.... Expand
  14. Dec 30, 2012
    0
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey turned out to be an unexpected Christmas turkey. I saw the 2D version because 3D fx don't work for me. As the movie trudged from one prepackaged fight scene to another, I became increasingly bored at the lack of character development and genuinely good storytelling. As it turns out, I was not alone in my assessment of the film. When the credits started to roll, I heard someone behind me exclaim "What a rip off!" Expand
  15. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    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
  16. Dec 30, 2012
    10
    It is an amazing movie with very beautiful regions the mountains of new zeland. Also, peter jackson followed faithfully the book. the scenes seem the same with the story of book. Additionally the actors suit with the roles of story. Generally, it is perfect movie. Thanks Peter Jackson...
  17. Dec 30, 2012
    7
    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
  18. Dec 30, 2012
    10
    Well, I have to start off and say, I found this book in my dad's books one day when I was 10. I had no idea what it was, and it was in a crappy book cover, but the pictures of MiddleEarth in the book, caught my attention. I then found the Fellowship of the Ring, I read that first and went back and read the hobbit. This movie brought back many of those memories from 1979-1980. I truly love what Peter Jackson did, I don't give a F, if they followed the book storyline, or added stuff or borrowed from unfinished tales or Silmarillion, this move IS GREAT! (tmiFyi - Bilbo was in Ali G). I have seen it three times, (after the second, I am gonna pass on 3D - what a gimmick). Love the First HOBBIT movie, please dont drag an Aragorn Love story into this series, please no one cares about Eowyns love of Aragorn, don't ruin this series with that RUBBISH! hehehe. I was so happy when they dropped the "crocket" and "golf", from the books - these parts are delightful. I even laughed at the one liner of the goblin king, it was a good addition to how the goblins were portrayed. I love what they did, although the three hours may have felt long, there should be an intermission for the movie - I N T E R M I S S I O N for any move over 2.5 hours PLEASE MANDATORY THIS! =) Expand
  19. Dec 30, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit...was...amazing! It lives up to its genre name which would be adventure. It was exciting, humorous, interesting,and weird. Part 1 is an extremely good start to what might 2nd most epic trilogy of all time.
  20. Dec 30, 2012
    4
    Peter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. Very disappointing.
  21. Dec 30, 2012
    1
    The movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact it was a prequel to LoTR and remove the elements of what made the Hobbit(the novel) great Expand
  22. Dec 30, 2012
    5
    I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it. LOTR whilst obviously being a fantasy setting film, had a sense that everything was realistic within its fantasy setting. The Hobbit throws that feeling away and just goes over the top. Expand
  23. Dec 29, 2012
    8
    Go into this movie making sure you do NOT expect it to be the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately, the movie's biggest flaw is inviting that comparison (pay close attention and you can take screenshots that will nearly match LOTR exactly). The movie is great for what it is though. Exciting, funny, and adventurous. This is a movie about an adventure, not an epic quest of good versus evil. It also seems to be more Tolkein-ish, more like a fantasy. By that, I mean you see more creatures and they are not just "war things": you see a good amount of goblins and trolls and learn about how the creatures are outside of just using a weapon. There are also foreshadowing minor bits that hint at the events of LOTR 60 years in the future. All in all, this movie was highly enjoyable--especially with such a magnificent cast! Expand
  24. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    I myself really like this movie, yes it was not as good as LOTR but I do not compare 2 totally different movies. The Hobbit is more light than LOTR because The Hobbit is more like a fairy tale and not as dark as LOTR was. I think that this movie and the 2 more to come will be the 'trilogy' for the 21st century generation and kids now will look up to this movie as people from the 20th century looked up to LOTR. So myself being born in 1995 will always like LOTR more than The Hobbit but that's because LOTR is the movie I grew up on and that is how kids now will feel about The Hobbit. I think that this movie did live up to the hype. Plus this is only the first part of 3 and this movie was only an introduction into the next two. So for the people that are still on the fence about watching this movie just give it a chance you will not regret it. Expand
  25. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    Very disappointing - insanely too long, with a slow, sleep inducing story, and cgi which looked more like a video game. The LOTR films raised the bar for brilliant make-up and great cgi, all within an emotional storyline with breath-taking cinematography and outstanding credibility. The Hobbit is a cynical grab for cash - why did the orcs, goblins and wargs look so cartoonish ? LOTR had a gritty in-camera reality which The Hobbit totally lacked. It should have been 90-120 minutes long but lost its way. Expand
  26. Dec 29, 2012
    4
    The hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see our characters interact - particularly the scene where Gandalf and Frodo talk in the caves. However, we see none of those heart warming scenes of LOTR and more cliche' dialogues. This movie relies more the production value which is excellent such as the sets and everything and it also banks on people's love for the LOTR movies. I am very die hard fan of LOTR and even if I don't compare Hobbit dazzles but fails to leave an imprint. Expand
  27. Dec 29, 2012
    10
    PJ struck again in the adaptation of a book by Tolkien, he also managed to make a good connection with "The Lord of the Rings." PJ corrected a flaw in what I believe happened with LOTR actors however were good and he had managed to stay forever in our minds as their characters do not believe that there were great performances (except for Ian and Serkis) as in "The Hobbit "Apart from having back Serkis and Ian now have 13 major actors playing the dwarves (Richard Armitage Highlight as Thorin) and an Oscar-worthy performance by Martin Freeman. For most, I think PJ got something I was too afraid to go wrong and end turned six chapters of the book in two hours and forty minutes of one of the best films of that year. Expand
  28. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    It's important to take into account the fact that The Hobbit was written as a children's novel, and is completely incomparable to The Lord of The Rings Trilogy. There are certain parts that have been chopped and changed to fit the film scene and allow continuity; all of which have been sampled from The Silmarillion, Tolkien's un-tweaked finale to the Middle Earth universe. Generic film critics are void of this knowledge, unfortunately. The Hobbit will most definitely climb aboard the wall of classics to sit beside it's sibling saga. Expand
  29. Dec 29, 2012
    10
    Critics pushed me to write a review. First of all, I must say I haven't read any LOTR or Tolkien books. That being said, I enjoy the world of Tolkien. As a kid I used to play Warhammer countless hours. I am a big fan of the LOTR and the hobbit realy lived up to my expectations. I can somewhat understand why people whine about FPS or "humorous beheading sequences played for cheap laughs" but I gotta say to these people "GET A F**** LIFE*. If you start to complain about little things as such, well I feel sorry for you then. Honestly, I HIGHLY recommend this movie - especially if you like that type of fantasy. I have friend that said this movie was OK but they are more into anime/japanese stuff which I enjoy too. Anyway well done Peter Jackson! Expand
  30. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    Yes, the story might lag a little, but I'm glad it's as long as it is. I really enjoyed the visuals and story setup. Go into this understanding that they are marketing The Hobbit to children on Disney and Nickelodeon, and you'll be satisfied. Thoroughly enjoyed, best movie we've seen this year.
  31. Dec 29, 2012
    10
    When I saw the average score of "Hobbit" I was a astonished and surprised. How could a Peter Jackson's movie, placed in Middle-Earth, be bad? When I came out from the cinema I was mad at critics that gave the film a lower rating than 8. All the negative reviews were written because of conceit. Critics are trying to show how "non-commercial" they are, showing instead, that they are just rag dolls. Everything in the movie was very good. Music, photos, acting, costumes, animation, characterisation. Expand
  32. Dec 29, 2012
    6
    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
  33. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    This movie was another amazing job by Peter Jackson to bring JRR Tolkiens work to the big screen. I thought this movie was amazing however it is cheesier than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, because the book was written that way.
  34. Dec 29, 2012
    6
    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
  35. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    I was taken by quite a surprise by the reviews of The Hobbit (at the very least I would've expected the paid reviews to bump it up into the 70s), but I went to see it anyway, and I don't regret it one bit. I think the problem is that a lot of people came into The Hobbit expecting the intensity and seriousness of the latter two LOTR movies--e.g. another gradual buildup to an "epic battle". Instead it is something more playful, adventurous, and character-driven, and it resembles the beginning of The Fellowship of The Ring more than anything else.

    To me this was an improvement since this is the sort of fantasy I enjoy--where the emphasis is on the thrill of the adventure, the unexpected, and the experience, but for those seeking something serious and of grave, apparent consequence, this is not your movie.
    Expand
  36. Dec 29, 2012
    5
    With The Lord of the Rings being my favorite film, doubts about Peter Jackson returning to Middle Earth with the Hobbit and concerns about him turning this relatively concise book into three movies; I had conflicting views upon entering this adventure. The final verdict is
  37. Dec 29, 2012
    8
    Putting aside the grumblings about making a trilogy from a short enough book, I still found this fourth trip to Jacksons version of middle earth to be really enjoyable. Its beautiful to look at and has a lighter touch than the Rings trilogy. Even the long running time (surely a bit of editing could have been used to tighten it to 2 hours?) doesnt detract too much. I went in with some reservations but left looking forward to part 2. Cant say more than that really. Certainly no Phantom Menace. Expand
  38. Dec 29, 2012
    8
    good film, some comedy and more action, but the whole film is not finished, which probably means the second part will be out a good time from here, like harry potter or twilight, the whole proper end fight is in a different film. But it was good
  39. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    All of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standard set by the first three films. Forced humor in the Hobbit was an active theme throughout with the goblin king, gollum, etc. This humor was forced into the most inappropriate times during the film where in comparison would be as if The king of Rohan cracked a joke as Soroman's army broke through the walls of helms deep in the second film. The introduction of the brown wizard was both uncalled for as well as degrading the the movie itself. The over the top use of computer graphics in this films took its toll on the film, and left the viewers watching another movie such as Narnia from within the theater, instead of drawing the viewer into both the plot and middle earth itself Expand
  40. Dec 28, 2012
    7
    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
  41. Dec 28, 2012
    8
    Unexpectedly good. Martin Freeman is very good, plot simple but fine, special effects good although too many in places. I was getting bored at times in the long middle passages of the LOTR films, but lasted the distance here without checking my watch. Good interplay between characters, and some humour sprinkled here and there. The 48 fps produces beautifully smooth movement and detail, you feel you're really there in the scene. The 3D is fine but I'm now satisfied it really doesn't add much to a film. You stop noticing it after a while, and it doesn't leave any lasting impression, I don't really need it. But there was no motion sickness here, they have fine tuned it well.

    Peter Jackson has done it ! I don't know how he will stretch it out to two more films but on this evidence he has got a good plan.
    Expand
  42. Dec 28, 2012
    0
    To me the most important elements of a movies are the story and character development, and this movie has none of these. The story is virtually non-existent and amounts to a succession of chase/fight/rest rinse and repeat for 3 hours. The supporting characters are completely blank, (save maybe for Thorin, the only half decent supporting character with Gandalf) and Bilbo is also fairly uninteresting (there's being laid back and there's having no presence on screen). And the pacing... this movie is absolutely too long with no real reason to it. I had never seen a 3 hour movie that manages to have no character development, it's quite a feat when you think about it. So yeah in my opinion this movie is very shallow despite its great effects, I also liked the 48 fps format I think it has a lot of potential (especially during action scenes) but when it's all mixed with atrocious pacing, zero story and bland characters then it's just a waste of 3 hours. Expand
  43. Dec 28, 2012
    8
    Balanced and enjoyable. I never read the Hobbit. Saw LOTR. Had zero expectations for this film. I was entertained the entire time. Read the reviews before I went and have to say the critics were pretty far off base. It works, and its good. episode 1 star wars comparison is not even fair. Much better, at least as good as E6 star wars.
  44. Dec 28, 2012
    1
    I found the movie close to unwatchable. The pace was glacial and there were way too many fights scenes in, and some of them felt completely random, adding nothing to the story (The rock giants fight for one). Worse is the fact that the action scenes were so over the top that it was completely unbelievable that all the dwarves came out without a single injury every time.
  45. Dec 28, 2012
    7
    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
  46. Dec 28, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is a truly awesome film, very true to the re-written, darker version of the hobbit, obviously written by J.R.R Tolkien himself. I thought this first part set the trilogy up incredibly well, the way that it started slowly pleased me, because if they they didn't make it start slowly, they'd have to make the other two films 20 minutes shorter. After the first hour had finished, the movie became frantic and incredibly exciting and thrilling to watch, with just incredible stuff going on, it's hard to describe how great the film is after the first hour or so has past. An Unexpected Journey has a distinct feel and charm to it, being similar to the Lord of the Rings, but different at the same time, it manages to catch your emotions in quite a unique way, and that's a good thing... So I rate this movie a... 9.9/10! Expand
  47. Dec 28, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Saw it first time in 2D and enjoyed it, although I kept throwing myself out of the experience by picking out the differences between the film and the book. DO NOT RE-READ THE BOOK BEFORE SEEING THIS MOVIE. It will ruin your experience. The second time I went to see it in 3D HFR and it was awesome. Without the constant inner dialogue of "that's different oh God!" I could actually enjoy the film a lot more. 48fps was a level of immersion I had not experienced before and I loved it. When the next film comes out, I will just see it in 3D HFR instead of 2D first. Can't wait. (It will most certainly not just be walking through the forest in "true tolkien fashion". There's Beorn, spiders, elves, a barrel ride, and if I don't miss my mark, the second film will have the dwarves in Esgaroth and a little taste of Smaug, plus Gandalf in Dol Guldur.) Expand
  48. Dec 28, 2012
    10
    This is the movie of the year for me, I had great expectations for this movie and it delivered everything I wanted. The return to Middle Earth was an amazing experience, and I loved the whole feel of the movie. It is different from LOTR and it should be different, this is pure fantasy at its finest. Critics complain about length, humor and CGI. These are baseless and so far out it annoys me, the CGI is top notch, and it makes everything look fantastical, even though I like makeup and prosthetics, I do find that for fantasy movies, great CGI makes for a great adventure movie, Avatar would never been such a great movie had they used makeup and prosthetics. The only criticism I can give this movie is that it was to short, in contrast to many critics I found the movie to be short, I guess I was just having to much fun with it. The introduction was the perfect length, could have been even longer as it is a long journey and a good buildup is essential. The music and songs really set the mood for the film, to travel on a quest over misty mountains and into dark and dangerous caves.

    This is a 10/10 movie for me, I can't wait to watch it again soon, and I hope for a Extended edition. And the coming year will be hard as I really look forward to the next part of this grand journey. If you like fantasy and are looking for a great adventure movie, then this movie is for you.
    Expand
  49. Dec 28, 2012
    9
    Once you realise that this is not Lord of the Rings and a film which stands on its own two (hairy) feet then you will enjoy the journey. I am going to see this again.
  50. Dec 28, 2012
    10
    I don't know what happened to the official critics to rate this movie so badly. This is one hell of a movie, entertaining, has got the "film" aspect, rouses emotions in you, a has a message. Even better the film will be if you read the book. You can't go wrong when you see how many people rated this movie X>60% (green). Reccommended!
  51. Dec 28, 2012
    9
    Lord of the Rings it's not - and that's the point. The wit and humour present in the book is held true in Jackson's film adaptation. While the deviations are significant from the source material, the addition of the content from appendices and other works in Middle Earth are seamlessly blended together with content from The Hobbit itself. The frame rate will take a few minutes to adjust to, but the result is nothing short of spectacular. If you take this film for what it is - you will find it a thoroughly enjoyable film and an excellent adaptation of the works of Tolkien. Expand
  52. Dec 27, 2012
    9
    The hobbit being shorter than the Lord of the Rings books, it's a common question as to why three movies are made to adapt it. Many of the reviews I've read have mentioned that it drags in order to keep consistent length, and still have three films. I don't agree them. I appreciate the additions to the story, particularly Radaghast. I also feel this will make the "battle of the five armies" quite massive. "An Unexpected Journey" has a good sense of humor, and sense of adventure, and it's nice to see some of the updated technology utilized in the film to bring the creatures and settings to life.

    (I watched in 24fps, non-3d)
    Expand
  53. Dec 27, 2012
    6
    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
  54. Dec 27, 2012
    10
    Saw the movie. I wasnt disapointed, even when i had high expectations. It is just as good as the book.
    I dont understand what the critics hate about this movie. In my opinion the high framerate and the 3d works well with the movie.
  55. Dec 27, 2012
    5
    My definition of cheesy is a movie that comes off as silly while taking itself extremely seriously. Gimli was comic relief. A pack of dwarves is grating. This movie tries so hard to be epic that it loses any sense of timing. It's too long and self-indulgent. 90 minutes would have gotten the job done and left me satisfied and looking forward to the next one. The video game quality of much of the CGI challenged my suspension of disbelief. One example of boredom-inducing Hobbit techs: Let's watch a guy fall from some high place, catch on by his fingertips, then fall again, and catch on again, repeat, repeat, repeat. You'd think gravity was the only danger in Middle Earth Peter Jackson could imagine. And then, ironically, any time people actually do fall from freaking high nobody gets hurt. Cheesy. I don't think I can take six more hours of this. Expand
  56. Dec 27, 2012
    10
    If you liked the Lord of the Rings you'll definitely like The Hobbit.
    It keeps the same beautiful scenery and great acting as the LOTR trilogy but has a more lighthearted feel to it.
    All in all, it's a great movie, I didn't even feel like it was 3 hours long, and I have no idea why critics haven't been giving it better reviews.
  57. Dec 27, 2012
    9
    The film was truly spectacular in many cases, it brought many of the scenes that I had imagined in the book to life, and even refined my perspective on them. Initially the 48 fps was very strange, especially when Bilbo was pottering around his hole, but you got accustomed to it by the end of the film, and it worked really well, especially in the battle of Moria scene between Orks and Dwarves. I was disappointed that the Orks were done entirely in CGI, because it'd be great to see them make a return from the LOTR trilogy, and I felt Radagast the Brown's subplot was detracting to the immersion with the main journey. But these were petty complaints to a film I enjoyed greatly, the atmosphere was spot on, and the acting was excellent, Bilbo was done excellently by Martin Freeman. The Riddles in the Dark was easily the best part of the film and done pretty much perfectly (Extra credit to Andy Serkis for getting back into Gollum without trying to imitate how he played Gollum in LOTR). Peter Jackson has done a great job in capturing the soul of the Hobbit. The only worrying element is how exactly they are going to do the next two films, considering that the second one will almost definitely centre around the trip through the Mirkwood, which is basically, in JRR Tolkien fashion, pages of walking. Expand
  58. Dec 27, 2012
    10
    The Low Metascore is a lie, here is my in depth review, there will be no spoilers so read freely.

    As an avid fan of the Lord of the Rings, I saw all of them the second they hit Cinemas in my town, I was quick to watch this and this gave me so much joy I haven't felt since they announced this movie being made. Now, Lord of the Rings ended on a high note so I entered the Cinema with
    standards not to high but this movie... THIS MOVIE was above standards, this movie contains so many great aspects that I can't even begin to name them. Pure Action, Mixed with Witty Humor and Emotional Back story's. What more could you want from a movie? The lore discovered in this movie about Tolkien's fantasy world will intrigue people who are into 'Fantasy' and these sort of Genre's. The Directing is perfect and it clearly shined in this movie.

    In short. I loved this movie. I cannot wait until the next one hits Cinema's. I was glad to of seen this movie and I will be seeing it again sometime soon.

    The Hobbit was An Unexpected Journey. 10/10 from me.
    Expand
  59. Dec 27, 2012
    7
    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
  60. Dec 27, 2012
    9
    This film is not bad. At least, no where near as bad as critics and some of my friends are making it out to be. If you have read the book, you will notice a lot of changes, some probably unnecessary (I'll never understand why they made Radagast the way they did, let alone include him at all) but you have to consider it in the way that it was intended and originally written; as both a prequel to The Lord Of The Rings and more importantly, a stand-alone story. If you go into the cinema expecting a continuation of the Lord Of The Rings movies, you would be best to change your attitude, because The Hobbit is a completely different animal. Expand
  61. Dec 27, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is a fantastic movie.It is worth watching it, the landscapes are absolutely amazing,it is a masterpiece.People should also try to forget The Lord Of The Rings because this film is something else,you can't compare them!So stay cool and enjoy watching Peter Jackson's The Hobbit!!!
  62. Dec 27, 2012
    2
    "Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and divided it into parts - to make more money.
    Poor attempt of trying to make a lot of $ using great author's name.
    Expand
  63. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    Next to "The Avengers", this is the best movie of all 2012. The critics were way too harsh when reviewing this movie. I saw it, and I really did like it. It is based on the best fantasy book of all time. Well done Peter Jackson, well done.
  64. Dec 26, 2012
    8
    I understand fans have made comments that the start is slow - I loved it - I agree there are some holes in how we get to when the action really begins at about the 1 hour mark - but every minute is worth watching - love this - know its not true to the book - but Jackson owns this world.
  65. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    Absolutely brilliant movie that exceeded expectations. Do not listen to the mainstream critics who would give a piece of crap black and white silent french film commenting about the nature of existence a 10 but rate the Hobbit a 5 (Wtf??). If you like good movies, see this!
  66. Dec 26, 2012
    8
    A must see for all the Middle-Earth aficionados. A great return to a great universe... The movie is a tribute to all the fans, who missed songs, as well as references to the Silmarillion and other Tolkien's works in the LOTR trilogy. The critics may be right when pointing out some tedious moments, but taken as a whole the movie stands out as a really enjoyable work, shot in a spectacular 3D technology... Expand
  67. Dec 26, 2012
    6
    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
  68. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a really good movie, 3D is amazing, don't have a bad special effects, and the history is so much cool than the book, i give 10!
  69. mcf
    Dec 26, 2012
    5
    I was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic, great animation. But it's not really much different from Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy films. Several of the same actors, same settings, similar battle scenes. Actually, it's not quite as good as any of the LOTR Trilogy movies. Granted, that's a tough comparison. but it is what it is.

    To me, the disappointing part of Hobbit is that nothing really "happens" in this first-of-three. LOTR is a complex, 1,200-page book. I can see "stretching the story out" into a trilogy. Hobbit is a 250-page story written for children. The story could have been told in one 3-hour movie or two tops. To stretch the story into a trilogy smacks of pure Hollywood greed. And, as a result, nothing much really "happens" in the first installment.
    Expand
  70. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    I consider myself to have a good taste in movies...knowing what is really bad and really good. Reviewers giving The Hobbit low scores is an error and an insult to their profession. I witnessed the same high quality of filmmaking in this movie as The Lord of the Rings series. Sure, there are things filled in to make a set of 3 additional movies more interesting...but they ARE interesting. Don't listen to the low rating critics on this movie. The visuals, music, acting, and of course...story are amazing! Just go see it and enjoy it and don't listen to bitter people who are picking it apart because they are having a bad day, a bad life, or nothing else better to do but be belligerent. Expand
  71. Dec 26, 2012
    10
    I saw the film in DLP projection 2-D. So I don't think it was in the 5k resolution or 48 fps. Regardless it looked great. The film was an amazing adventure worth seeing by any fan of Tolkien's fantasy realm. I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of the film and honestly never wanted it to end. They captured almost everything from the novel perfectly. I say almost because a few things were changed, or added, for the sake of having three movies I assume. VERY little from the novel is left out in the movie. The Hobbit pt. 1 was packed full of action, thrills, and light-hearted fun that will make you laugh, gasp, cry, and put you on the edge of your seat like many movies fail to do. I recommend seeing this movie 100%(200% if you are a true LOTR fan). Can't wait for parts 2 and 3!!! Expand
  72. Dec 26, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. An Unexpected Journey is a welcome return to Middle-Earth and the most exciting film of the year. I've seen the Avengers and TDKR and while I would say that Avengers is a better film (9/10), The Hobbit had me awe inspired on multiple occasions. It's not as good as LOTR, that's a fact. Those are three 9+/10 films but The Hobbit is still a great film nonetheless and one which makes me eagerly await seeing it again and anticipate it's sequels. The critics' maniacally biased reviews have clearly put a lot of people off and while the film is not without it's flaws, they made mostly nonsensical points. The majority of the negative reviews focused on the frame rate rather than the actual film. Another dumb, ironic criticism is that the critics said they were fans of Tolkien but didn't understand why The Hobbit was light in some places. It's an adaptation of a light book and including information that Tolkien belatedly added to the era in the appendices, the film is one of the most faithful works I've ever seen. Of course Jackson took some liberties but most of them were for the better. The Rivendell scene, whilst I thought that the script was a little lacking, was essential to start recognising and confronting the problem of the Necromancer. Having 13 dwarves and making them all fully fledged characters in one film was an impossible task and as a result many such as Bombur do not even say a word, yet Thorin, Balin, Bofur, Dwalin, Ori, Fili and Kili had a much greater focus. I'm sure that the others shall have their time to shine in the following films. Martin Freeman as Bilbo captured the essence of the character very well and Ian McKellen as Gandalf was as good as ever and brought me back to Fellowship-Gandalf, which was the character's best. After all, Grey has much more personality than White. The prologue showcasing Erebor and Smaug's attack had me immediately filled with a sense of wonder as if I had never left Middle Earth. The brief flashback of the battle outside Moria was another excellent demonstration of PJ's fluency with action scenes and you could literally focus on any one-on-one between the dwarves and orcs and be entertained. Azog was a fantastic addition and made you feel a real sense of danger for the company as well as a feeling of being hunted, adding more gravity and resonance to the group's mission. The stand out scene of the film was Gollum's return to the screen, which was arguably the best we've ever had the character. Whether humorous or dangerous he was just captivating, creating the most memorable scene of the year. The pacing was excellent and the Shire scene, which caused some controversy concerning its length, flew by, ending just at the right time. I was only aware of the length when the film stopped still after they had left the caves and caught their breaths for about 15-20 seconds. What followed was the most unexpected part of the movie; having read the book, I expected the eagles to rescue them pretty quickly, but I was just waiting and waiting, all the while the tension was reaching a climax. Thorin, choosing to die in battle and facing his foe rather than falling off a cliff, charging down to confront Azog was such a powerful moment and made me realise how invested I'd become over the course of the film. By the end, with the Lonely Mountain in sight, I felt the same way that I had at the end of Fellowship; that I had a long way to go before the finish, but so much had happened that I was completely satisfied. I give An Unexpected Journey an 8.5/10. Expand
  73. Dec 26, 2012
    9
    I think that the people that are posting bad reviews just saw the movie listen to some critics and cry about how its gonna be 3movies and how childish it was.
    Let me inform you that the Hobbit (the book) was indeed a bit chilsdish in the beginning with the talking trols and de dishes but thats the book, if that was cut out you would be crying about that.
    And the "meehhhhh why is is in
    threee movieess meehhh''' well beceause most of you **** diden't read the books so now they will show you how sauron was risen beceause you dont read that in the Hobbit. That is why its in 3 movies.

    Sorry for the bad grammar!
    Expand
  74. Dec 25, 2012
    8
    I read the hobbit when I was very young and my imagination was the only escape I could use to go to Middle earth, 20+ years later and my imagination is now realized on the screen... and it looks great!
    There are parts that felt better reading than when realized in the cinema mostly because reading it gives me time to digest more fiction, The hungry golums and the cooking part, the rabbits
    sleigh, Bilbo's house dishes cleaning and some other it felt a little bit I am watching a disney fiction, thank God that didn't last long, and the movie does pickup the pace and Bilbo - Smeagol was comforting and well acted.
    Overall I enjoyed it and wouldn't have missed it and would recommend any old and new Middle Earthern to go back...
    Expand
  75. Dec 25, 2012
    9
    EPIC adventure. Outstanding visuals. Great actors. Nice 3D effects. Solid length. An AAA-class movie. No more, no less. I enjoyed every minute of the movie. Waiting for the next part!!!
  76. Dec 25, 2012
    10
    OK let me get this straight, the critics gave this a 58 and Django blah blah blah an 80? Something is wrong with that picture. I read The Hobbit when I was about 25 years old and loved it. Here I am now 50 and to see the wonder of the book come right of the pages into a BEAUTIFULLY shot movie and was right on line with the book just gave me chills down my back it was so good. Beside the Avengers, this was the best movie that I have seen all year. I saw Batman, Spider-Man, The Avengers, (you can see what kind of movies I like to pay to see) and then I saw The Hobbit. Wow is all I can say about the movie. It had the heart , look, and story of an epic movie. Wow did it deliver. The critics are a bunch of stupid quacks! Take your family to see this EPIC movie. This is a GREAT family movie! Expand
  77. Dec 25, 2012
    10
    I couldn't disagree with the critics more. I love the original trilogy but went into The Hobbit with low expectations because of the reviews. But I thought it was as good if not even better than any of the original films.
  78. Dec 25, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. -MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS- Best Lord of The Rings movie yet. Yeah I said it best YET. The character development is actually pretty good especially considering that there is 14 characters consistently throughout going on a very epic journey to help the remaining of the dwarves who didn't get killed by the army of Orcs reclaim the city of Elaboar (Can't Spell this stuff). The battle scenes are epic especially the one where they are on the bridges getting chased by Goblins which also showcases the great special effects and the 3D is very well done (unfortunately I didn't get to see it at a high frame rate though). Unlike most people say the movie did NOT start out slow you saw some crazy stuff at the beginning. OK some issues at certain battle scenes where swords and stuff are clipping through Orcs ect. but it wasn't that noticeable. The only real complaint is flashbacks can be drawn out until you forget there was a flashback or explanation in the first place so I can get slightly confusing and let's face it the scene with the Golem was too long. But overall it was an AWESOME movie Expand
  79. Dec 25, 2012
    1
    Very boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and on and on.. All a bit cheesy, like a video game. Dwarves badly made up, some having false noses, others not. This film lacked magic and charm. Expand
  80. Dec 25, 2012
    10
    I thought movies were supposed to entertain. If that's the case, then The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a great movie indeed. Maybe the critics were too hyped for the Dec 21 doomsday theme, but the film beautifully portrays bit lighter Middle Earth with much better, in my opinion, scenes(specially battle ones) and not just because of the better CGI. The film exposes some elements that bridge the new trilogy to the LOTR one, but it feels definitely a different quest on it's own albeit in a familiar and very welcomed Middle Earth. Didn't watch the movie in 3d as it has never been my cup of tea, but it you are deliberating on watching it, well, I'm deliberating on going to watch it again! Expand
  81. Dec 25, 2012
    4
    The high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stage and do not blend into the movie.

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

    In fact it is like the Phantom Menace in that there is little to story to the movie but instead we are told to watch more special effects and to enjoy it. I'm not going to see the other two movies in this "trilogy" as its just not worth the time or my money.
    Expand
  82. Dec 24, 2012
    9
    I just loved the movie from start to finish. Of course I loved the original Lord of The Rings trilogy as well. The action sequences are tight and entertaining, the characters are well defined and the loved the light humour here and there. I would recommend this movie to anyone who loved the fantasy or fiction genre. It has superb production value. And amazing scenery.
  83. Dec 24, 2012
    0
    The only unexpected journey was me leaving the cinema when I couldn't stomach any more of this horrible movie. I can't believe there's going to be two sequels to this as well.
  84. Dec 24, 2012
    1
    So boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening so intrascendental and no charismatic characters.
  85. Dec 24, 2012
    8
    While the hobbit is not a perfect movie, it is a fun movie. one thing that brought the hobbit a little bit down was its pacing, some scenes just dragged way to long. Another thing that bought it down was that Peter Jackson tried to expand a children's book narrative int a more complex one that stretched things too long. Ignoring the negatives the hobbit excels in visuals because of the 48fps it was shot in and the fighting scenes in the movie were top notch. The hobbit doesn't feel like LOTR but it makes it's on feel Expand
  86. Dec 24, 2012
    5
    I wasn't expecting much since I knew there were coming a three pictures. Money. The movie starts a bit before lotr trilogy does and ends in about 60 hears ago. Operator's work is too modern. New actors aren't good enough. Exept Martin Freeman, he is a good choice. There could be one good film. But instead of this we got a bad start of a new trilogy. I hope the next part will be better.
  87. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    How wrong the critics were. This is great. I can't remember 3 hours going so quickly. Perhaps, in some ways it is lacking the sheer volume of material in Fellowship but, equally, it covers a lot of ground and was perhaps a little more satisfying.
  88. Dec 23, 2012
    2
    Over long and over done. While the LOTR trilogy made sense and was, all things considered, faithful to the source material, neither can said for this thing.One absurd action sequence after another. Our heroes can't fight small bands of Orcs or Goblins - oh no - they have to confronted with an insane number of bad guys. I may - or may not - rent the next two. It is only two more right? Or will they try to back to bank again and again? Expand
  89. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    First thing first... this is not the lord of the ring trilogy. LOTR was the best trilogy ever in my opinion and I dont think i'll see something as good real soon. The Hobbit is a real nice movie, probably as good and beautiful as LOTR but you need to know that it is completely different too. The movie really look shorter than the 2hour45min it use to be. I see it in 2D and everybody with me was enjoying it as i do. So i recommend you to see it in 2D before and have a clear judgement, then to maybe see it in 3D....not like many critics have seem to do. I really dont understand the 58% average they give... Give the movie a try and youll not be disapointed. Visually stunning and I love the story too. I've read the book long ago and it is as good but a little bit different. For me its a good 9.2/10... a great family fun movie for the holiday. Expand
  90. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    This has to be one of the best movies ever made, and is easily the best of 2012, it fits in perfectly with the LOTR films, but easily stands on its own two hobbit feet. The hfr 3d is beautiful and amazing, the directing, acting, cgi stuff, and other effects are amazing. I am a HUGE Richard Armitage fan, and I think his performance in this film is superb, as is every one else too by the way. A big thank you to Peter Jackson, for this 10 star movie! Expand
  91. Dec 23, 2012
    6
    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
  92. Dec 23, 2012
    7
    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
  93. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    I was shocked when I saw how poorly this movie was rated here, and decided to share my own view on the movie. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is near perfection. The plot is extremely accurate to the book, the acting is wonderful, the soundtrack captures the same feel from Lord of the Rings while providing brand new tracks that fit in perfectly, and the special effects are some of the best to date. From the first scene, until the credits, you are sucked back into the same Middle Earth that the LOTR movies introduced you to. Although it obviously does resemble the Lord of the Rings movies, I don't think it's fair to judge it based on them. While The Lord of the Rings movies tell the tale of a dark voyage with epic battles, The Hobbit aims for (and achieves) a more fun and adventurous tone. Don't get me wrong though, it definitely has it's intense fighting scenes. So, overall, The Hobbit is a movie that anyone can enjoy and one that Tolkien fans will fall in love with. Go see it if you haven't! Expand
  94. Dec 23, 2012
    7
    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
  95. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    Does very well to follow the 3rd edition of the Hobbit which includes Gollum's revised character and the pieces added from the Silmarillion. I thoroughly enjoyed the first half of the film, which is light and much more in style with the feeling of the book. While the second act was quite long, I was never bored and appreciated the addition of Galadriel to give some balance to the cast. Well done, and I look forward to the next one! Expand
  96. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    Endearing characters, well paced, incredibly deep story and action packed.. The hobbit was an amazing movie one fully worthy of standing next to the other three. Whether you're a fan of the book or have never even seen lord of the rings (like my girlfriend) you'll walk away with a filling experience.
  97. Dec 23, 2012
    10
    Please, do not look at the low score critics gave. They compare the hobbit with the lord of the rings. What they do forget is that the hobbit isn't lord of the rings. It's written before lotr and the atmosphere in the book is much lighter. Peter Jackson tries to implement this in his movie, and does it pretty well. I've also seen the high frame rate version, which is great. Never saw a movie technically so good. Expand
  98. Dec 23, 2012
    8
    Although the film's first act may seem a bit sluggish to some, in my opinion "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" powers through it with plenty of humor, surprisingly well-developed characters, and an always-stellar amount of visual magnificence.
  99. Dec 22, 2012
    10
    Is it just my impression or have these critics been drinking a lot lately? Cmon, their low knowledge about the middle earth and Tolkien's works almost freightened everyone i know away from the movie. It's an amazing movie, with plausive adaptions from the book, and just as LOTR it looks like it will get even better on the next movie. Dont you waste your time reading 'noobs' reviews, just go watch the movie. Its worth the money. A lot. 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.