User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2533 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 11, 2013
    7
    I was very excited for this film to release but disappointed they decided to milk it through three films. I reread The Hobbit and even trudged through The Silmarillion to gain a better understanding of the world's mythology and backstory. When I saw the movie I was disappointed in how much literary genius was sacrificed for action scenes and how much the film was drawn out. Bilbo's wit isI was very excited for this film to release but disappointed they decided to milk it through three films. I reread The Hobbit and even trudged through The Silmarillion to gain a better understanding of the world's mythology and backstory. When I saw the movie I was disappointed in how much literary genius was sacrificed for action scenes and how much the film was drawn out. Bilbo's wit is underplayed and Gandalf's involvement is overdone. Expand
  2. Jan 12, 2013
    7
    I would rather review the mindset and mentalities of these self proclaimed "critics" that push their unhappy with themselves and/or life it self opinions as fact, rather than being exactly what it is. An opinion. And believe me, not all opinions are created equal, especially the ones that thrive off of negativity and looking at and bringing out the bad in things (which may or may not evenI would rather review the mindset and mentalities of these self proclaimed "critics" that push their unhappy with themselves and/or life it self opinions as fact, rather than being exactly what it is. An opinion. And believe me, not all opinions are created equal, especially the ones that thrive off of negativity and looking at and bringing out the bad in things (which may or may not even be present in the first place, but these unappreciative negative 'critics' always seem to find them no matter hat the subject). Of course the reality of it all is that we should be so appreciative that we even have the option to the many luxuries we have in this country. And beautiful, magical, masterful films are just some of the many. But that doesn't mean "take whatever they throw at you and appreciate that you even get anything at all!" No no no, it is much deeper than that, and anyone that I would even have to go further in depth explaining that fact to has already predetermined negativity in their own mind, and may be already lost. But we all (myself included) nowadays have a tendency to become so self-entitled and judgmental of literally everything we are so lucky to have in the first place. It truly saddens me to see all that negativity and stubborn mindedness draw evil out of such pure and beautiful things. If you could step down off your elevated steeds for just a moment and completely and selflessly observe all this trend of activity as a whole..........you would and should be disgusted with yourself and the way you have the potential to act and think (I sure have). And it is surely nothing short of amazing and freeing once you finally do. Of course I'm not saying you must love this movie in order to be a happy and good person, that is not my point at all. It's the whole aura and mindset of your being and the way that your brain processes things and events that is the root of these problems. And I have hope that we can turn this trend around and become a more positive, enlightened and inspired people as a whole. I wish us all luck on that journey, which may be an unexpected one in itself ;). I hope I did not offend anybody, and that this "review" will be taken as a positive read and not cause people to react in the very way I was wanting us all to detour from in the first place. And I am confident you all are very capable of doing so! Expand
  3. 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 seeI 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
  4. 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 ofThis 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
  5. May 27, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. now just to be clear i haven't read the book and i have no intention to do that so i wouldn't know what the story should be.
    i do think that some of the scenes were a little bit too long it's like watching the extended edition when you're NOT.
    however i think the bad reviews are related to not following the book
    also the big hype and the fact that everyone was expecting an epic battle at the end just like the trilogy
    NOW leaving all that aside you can see that you have another great movie by Peter Jackson with spectacular contents and i think that the vision will improve A LOT after watching the rest of the series.
    even so the movie still solid and earn my spot for top 5 best movies of 2012.
    Expand
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 runCapturing 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
  9. Jul 25, 2013
    7
    I am a huge LotR fan, just putting it out there, and when I heard there would be a Hobbit movie I was so happy, but that came with a grain of salt. I had doubts that Peter could present us this children's book in the same style, tone and mood that he did with LotR, and he didn't. This movie was trying so hard to be a fun kid's adventure movie but every time a scene from the SilmarillionI am a huge LotR fan, just putting it out there, and when I heard there would be a Hobbit movie I was so happy, but that came with a grain of salt. I had doubts that Peter could present us this children's book in the same style, tone and mood that he did with LotR, and he didn't. This movie was trying so hard to be a fun kid's adventure movie but every time a scene from the Silmarillion and Tolkien's reimagined Hobbit occurred it was so distant from the merry old adventures of the dwarves. Anyhow onto the good, this film is a visual treat, the acting is superb and I really felt like I was back in middle-earth only it was much happier and more colourful! Gollum/Smeagol was incredible to watch and I loved seeing all the nods to Fellowship and the rest of the trilogy. Totally worth a watch! Expand
  10. Apr 30, 2013
    7
    I really have enjoyed the LOTR movies; having read the books first though, I can't offer more than a 7. It's a good adaptation, but some add-ons are kinda meh while some things left out are making me go The Heck??? All in all, a decent movie, but if you have to have it right, be ready for some weird crap.
  11. Jun 29, 2013
    7
    Exciting film with good action and acting, however, parts of the storyline seem pointless and I think the film drags more than it needs too. As a Lord of the Rings fan I was let down a bit by this film, but definitely worth a watch.
  12. Dec 13, 2014
    7
    Comparisons to The Lord of the Rings are inevitable, but these comparisons certainly won't make The Hobbit look weak. It can at times feel stretched too thin, because adapting one book into a trilogy of 2+ hour films was always going to be ambitious. The lack of a decent quantity of source material can make the film feel needlessly dragged out at times to, but, we are back in Middle-Earth!Comparisons to The Lord of the Rings are inevitable, but these comparisons certainly won't make The Hobbit look weak. It can at times feel stretched too thin, because adapting one book into a trilogy of 2+ hour films was always going to be ambitious. The lack of a decent quantity of source material can make the film feel needlessly dragged out at times to, but, we are back in Middle-Earth! The Hobbit tells the story of Bilbo Baggins, a cautious yet caring hobbit, who I like more than Frodo. Perhaps due to Martin Freeman's on-screen brilliance. I found the characters in the story much more admirable and realistic than those in the first LOTR outing, Fellowship. This meant I truly cared more about the fate of the characters and as a result, felt more involved during their dangerous encounters. This is a very introductory film in terms of the plot, but, we do learn things. How Smaug claimed Erebor. How Bilbo acquired the ring from Gollum which is one of the film's best scenes. The conflicts and history between the secondary antagonist Azog and the dwarves. The Hobbit also sees the return of many classic LOTR locations, which brought a smile to my face. The music is gripping which only enhances true feelings. An Unexpected Journey is a steady yet strong film that sets the trilogy on the right path through great characters, great history and most of all, great anticipation. Expand
  13. Jun 18, 2013
    7
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to go on an adventure with 13 dwarves to kill a dragon that has destroyed their homeland.
    Now Bilbo, like many Hobbits, does not like to partake in these kind of things. The dangerous world of middle earth is no place for them. But, in a fortunate 30 minutes of screen time, they convince him and we have our journey.
    Right off the bat I just want to say that the Hobbit AUJ is a long film. Just about as long as Fellowship of the Ring. However, in fellowship, a lot more happens. I wont knock The Hobbit down any points for dragging on because, while it does do so, there is plenty of more material to see during these moments. You get to meet the dwarves, who are fun and eccentric. You also get to see Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
    Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen do great, especially Freeman. He makes Bilbo more three dimensional than before.
    And Thorin? He’s a wonderful character with a great back story who really shows leadership over the dwarves.
    Sure there are a few forgettable dwarves in the movie, but for the most part they are interesting characters with colourful personalities.
    If I were to nitpick anything (minus the argument over 40fps) is that this film has a lot more CGI. So much so that it really just takes you out of the experience. There were many scenes where I was like
    “They got over a thousand extras for Helms Deep but had to CGI those 8 guys?”
    It is kinda upsetting and really seems unnecessary at points.
    But other than that, the film is great. It was cool to see the battle at Moria, I love how it’s told, I love the build up, I REALLY love the attention to detail, and I surprisingly love Radagast the Brown.
    and the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ sequence? Yeah, talk about chilling.
    There’s really not much else to say here, if you love LotR you’ll absolutely love The Hobbit AUJ. If you love film in general you will, for the most part, enjoy The Hobbit. Although, you may be annoyed by the FPS and many of the drawn out scenes.
    If you hated LotR and everything it stood for then dude, stay as far away as possible, this will not change your mind. In fact it will most likely strengthen your hatred.
    But for me, I enjoyed it. While I believe it was not perfect, it left me in great anticipation for the sequel.
    Expand
  14. Jul 10, 2013
    7
    Despite being a visual masterpiece the Hobbit suffers from side plots which draw us away from the main objective.

    The casting was spot on. I couldn't find fault with any of the choices but there was very little depth in many of the characters because so much else was going on. I do like the way we see Bilbo's character grow from start to finish and his relationship with Gandalf. Not
    Despite being a visual masterpiece the Hobbit suffers from side plots which draw us away from the main objective.

    The casting was spot on. I couldn't find fault with any of the choices but there was very little depth in many of the characters because so much else was going on. I do like the way we see Bilbo's character grow from start to finish and his relationship with Gandalf.

    Not a failure by any means but there's a lesson to be learnt here that less is more.
    Expand
  15. Jul 15, 2013
    7
    While it may have some great performances in there, along with some visually dazzling sequences, this film still feels overly long and stretched out. It does not come close to matching with Lord of the Rings, it still is a enjoyable film. The action is fun, the story (once it gets going) is fun and the scenes with Radagast the Brown were my favorite. The music is done well along withWhile it may have some great performances in there, along with some visually dazzling sequences, this film still feels overly long and stretched out. It does not come close to matching with Lord of the Rings, it still is a enjoyable film. The action is fun, the story (once it gets going) is fun and the scenes with Radagast the Brown were my favorite. The music is done well along with the cinematography. This film is enjoyable, but lacks in originality and the timing should have been trimmed down a bit. Expand
  16. Dec 9, 2014
    7
    Everything is about money, including this new and unnecessary trilogy.

    This new trilogy is far away when it comes to Middle-earth magic, as we know it. The main issue is that there are three movies on one book that’s only one-third of The Lord of The Rings; this can only result in a worse trilogy than Lord of the Rings. It’s all about money. One result of this is that it took like 25
    Everything is about money, including this new and unnecessary trilogy.

    This new trilogy is far away when it comes to Middle-earth magic, as we know it. The main issue is that there are three movies on one book that’s only one-third of The Lord of The Rings; this can only result in a worse trilogy than Lord of the Rings. It’s all about money. One result of this is that it took like 25 minutes for the movie to really start; there are so much slow scenes in the beginning. There’s also much slow and silly scenes in the film, there’s no LotR-magic. But at the same time are there some highly entertaining and funny things that I totally enjoyed to see, and the action is great, but not as unique as in The Lord of the Rings. The biggest problem with the action is that there’s too much CGI, and by that I mean bad CGI. It doesn’t look real. Some of the villains that are only CGI are superb, but when it comes to other living objects like trees and fires am I not impressed. The movie is overall very entertaining because it gives us a greater backstory of Bilbo’s life, which hasn’t been fully explained before. There are lots of connections between the two trilogies, which I truly love! The extended edition is even greater, so much more material. The last aspect of the film that I really enjoyed is the soundtrack. It’s so touching. But not as epic as The Lord of the Rings.

    This movie gives the audience a greater backstory of Bilbo’s life, before everything in one of the greatest trilogies ever made. Even though Peter Jackson directed this film, it got some flaws. The silliness and a big lack of innovation and dramatic scenes don’t make this film even close to matching The Fellowship of the Ring.

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey gets a 7.5/10.
    Expand
  17. Oct 27, 2013
    7
    altought it isn´t in the level of the lord of the rings trilogy,it is still a good film,for an prequel this movie have a great story,the special effects are great and it can be a revolution just like the lord of the rings were.
  18. Jan 7, 2014
    7
    It's definitely not at the level of Lord of the Rings, and I"ll admit, there are some lines that I laughed at that I probably wasn't supposed to, but it was still entertaining. It was well-written, and the fact that it's more "childish" than LOTR is just because that's how the books went as well.
  19. Jul 15, 2014
    7
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to
    Welcome back to middle earth my friends.
    The Hobbit is the long anticipated film that takes place 60 years before Lord of the Rings, the acclaimed trilogy directed by Peter Jackson.
    In The Hobbit we follow Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit who lives in the Shire, a mystic place where people sit around smoking pipes and eating food. Bilbo is visited by Gandalf the Grey, a wizard who invites him to go on an adventure with 13 dwarves to kill a dragon that has destroyed their homeland.
    Now Bilbo, like many Hobbits, does not like to partake in these kind of things. The dangerous world of middle earth is no place for them. But, in a fortunate 30 minutes of screen time, they convince him and we have our journey.
    Right off the bat I just want to say that the Hobbit AUJ is a long film. Just about as long as Fellowship of the Ring. However, in fellowship, a lot more happens. I wont knock The Hobbit down any points for dragging on because, while it does do so, there is plenty of more material to see during these moments. You get to meet the dwarves, who are fun and eccentric. You also get to see Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
    Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen do great, especially Freeman. He makes Bilbo more three dimensional than before.
    And Thorin? He’s a wonderful character with a great back story who really shows leadership over the dwarves.
    Sure there are a few forgettable dwarves in the movie, but for the most part they are interesting characters with colourful personalities.
    If I were to nitpick anything (minus the argument over 40fps) is that this film has a lot more CGI. So much so that it really just takes you out of the experience. There were many scenes where I was like
    “They got over a thousand extras for Helms Deep but had to CGI those 8 guys?”
    It is kinda upsetting and really seems unnecessary at points.
    But other than that, the film is great. It was cool to see the battle at Moria, I love how it’s told, I love the build up, I REALLY love the attention to detail, and I surprisingly love Radagast the Brown.
    and the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ sequence? Yeah, talk about chilling.
    There’s really not much else to say here, if you love LotR you’ll absolutely love The Hobbit AUJ. If you love film in general you will, for the most part, enjoy The Hobbit. Although, you may be annoyed by the FPS and many of the drawn out scenes.
    If you hated LotR and everything it stood for then dude, stay as far away as possible, this will not change your mind. In fact it will most likely strengthen your hatred.
    But for me, I enjoyed it. While I believe it was not perfect, it left me in great anticipation for the sequel.
    Expand
  20. Aug 14, 2014
    7
    The opening chapter of Peter Jackson's second Middle-earth trilogy is a bit of a mixed bag, but the bag itself is gorgeous. The scenery, the set design and the special effects (mostly) dazzle, and the 48fps theatrical release was, for me, a game-changer of a visual experience (YMMV). The ensemble cast (both old and new) is uniformly good, and Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect in theThe opening chapter of Peter Jackson's second Middle-earth trilogy is a bit of a mixed bag, but the bag itself is gorgeous. The scenery, the set design and the special effects (mostly) dazzle, and the 48fps theatrical release was, for me, a game-changer of a visual experience (YMMV). The ensemble cast (both old and new) is uniformly good, and Martin Freeman is absolutely perfect in the title role of a thoroughly domesticated hobbit pushing middle-age, who finds himself uncharacteristically swept away on an adventure. The film doesn't precisely follow the beloved children's tale it's adapting (though the first 45 minutes or so is just shy of reverential), but many of the changes are understandable, and work to make the movie more accessible. I have no idea why Jackson decided to change this from a "quest" into a "chase," but Azog makes a pretty decent bad guy.

    There are really only two issues that keep this film from getting a higher score from me, and they're both hard to ignore. First, of course, is the length. When I heard that Jackson was turning this slim novel into a trilogy, I still never imagined that each film would be pushing 3 hours long. The LOTR movies could get away with this, because they had so much story to tell, but this one feels a bit padded.

    The second problem, which runs throughout the film, at least after it leaves Bag End, is the overwhelming about of computer graphics. One reason the first trilogy was so well accepted, even by non-fantasy fans, is how grounded it felt, with lots of real locations and practical effects. This film moves away from that trend, perhaps because Jackson has a substantially larger war chest to play with. Goblin-town is particularly egregious. The Great Goblin looks fantastic, and so does Gollum, (who continues to steal all his scenes), but the rest of it just feels fake, more like a video game than a movie, especially the escape.

    Overall, this is an enjoyable adventure film, and a fun, if flawed, beginning of moviegoers new foray into Middle-earth.
    Expand
  21. Feb 20, 2015
    7
    Let's get this out of the way first. The Hobbit is not in any way, shape, or form as good as Lord of the Rings. However, when compared to such incredible films, very few movies are great. When looking at it from an unbiased standpoint, I found there was much enjoyment to be had in this fun fantasy romp, even if its clumsy pace and overabundance of CGI bring it down a few notches.

    7.2/10
  22. Jan 16, 2015
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After the brilliant Lord of the Rings films, I was expecting big things from this film. Unfortunately, I was found myself a little let down by it. It seems that Peter Jackson may have lost his touch a little.
    The rings films were huge, epic and rivetting pieces of film making. This is still in evidence in ''an unexpected journey''; superbly filmed backdrops and scenery throughout and a real sense of adventure are both still there. However, it has to be remember that Tolkien's original book was a reasonably simplistic and straightforward children's story, with a few darker undertones thrown in for us older readers. Peter Jackson has chosen to expand upon these darker undertones, and indeed the film feels much more like a prequel to the Fellowship of the Ring than an actual adaptation of the Hobbit.
    That said, it generally succeeds in what in trying to achieve this status, though in doing so sacrifices much of the original matter of Tolkien's book.
    New and often seemingly unnecessary scenes have been added, including Gandalf's co-wizard Radagast escaping from a pack of Wargs on a sled pulled by giant bunnies (I'm not making that up...), and a cringeworthy scene involving the Hobbit and Dwarves attempting to evade the battling ''storm giants'' of the mountains. The script is also not perfect and often questionable, and characters who had little or no place in the book appear prominently in certain scenes. However, unlike many reviewers (!) I often found their additions quite interesting. However, in choosing to focus on characters such as Azog the Defiler and Sauron, Peter Jackson has perhaps unwittingly placed lesser importance on the real baddie of the book; Smaug. This is a shame.
    In terms of effects, I found this film difficult to stomach at times. Though the animation is fantastic in places, in other scenes the camera angle jerks around constantly and is extremely irritating.
    Character acting is also variable. I wasn't actually particularly keen on Martin Freeman as Bilbo (though I know he was poplular with others), and some of the Dwarves could have had bigger parts in the film.
    Generally, a good film; entertaining and dark. But not quite what I was expecting; an unexpected journey, no less.
    Expand
  23. Sep 26, 2014
    7
    I think "An Unexpected Journey" was a reasonably good start to the soon-to-be Hobbit trilogy. It's exciting, adventurous, and engaging, but it might strain your patience at a running time of nearly three hours because some scenes dragged on for a very long time. Another problem I had was that it tried to connect to The Lord of the Rings way too much such as the addition of a few charactersI think "An Unexpected Journey" was a reasonably good start to the soon-to-be Hobbit trilogy. It's exciting, adventurous, and engaging, but it might strain your patience at a running time of nearly three hours because some scenes dragged on for a very long time. Another problem I had was that it tried to connect to The Lord of the Rings way too much such as the addition of a few characters and an overly long intro scene. It's still a nice first chapter in what I think will be a great series despite those faults. Expand
  24. Dec 28, 2014
    7
    This movie did not wow or disappoint me. It was a good enough movie to establish the Hobbit trilogy and introduce the characters, for sure. However, the worst problems of this movie were boring scenes and an unnecessarily long running time. But the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is definitely a solid movie and is a great setup for the trilogy. 7/10 (good)
  25. Feb 22, 2015
    7
    The first hour of this movie or so is really long and tedious. I watched this with my brother and he fell asleep. But after the first hour the pace did pick up somewhat. There is a lot of CGI in this film, something that I was rather disappointed with, I wish they had used real life actors instead. Do NOT watch this film in 3D, my eyes could not adjust to the 3D so I had the watch theThe first hour of this movie or so is really long and tedious. I watched this with my brother and he fell asleep. But after the first hour the pace did pick up somewhat. There is a lot of CGI in this film, something that I was rather disappointed with, I wish they had used real life actors instead. Do NOT watch this film in 3D, my eyes could not adjust to the 3D so I had the watch the movie with my 3D glasses off. Expand
  26. Mar 11, 2015
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First off, I do like the movie. Martin Freeman is excellent as Bilbo. He truly embodies the character. The dwarves are very well cast too. Unfortunately, the script makes arbitrary changes to several key scenes. I was very upset that they almost completely changed the scene with the trolls. Tolkien did it best in the book and why Mr. Jackson and troop of writers changed the scene only seems like they were arrogant enough to believe that they could do better. They didn't. The scene in the movie is crude and not funny at all. it also tries to turn the focus on Bilbo when it was originally meant to show Gandalf as a tricky and wise wizard.

    Otherwise, the visuals, the action scenes, and musical score are excellent. It's not a bad movie, just don't expect book, or you will be sorely disappointed.
    Expand
  27. Apr 23, 2015
    7
    In 2001, only a few months after the fall of the World Trade Center, Peter Jackson swept us away to Middle Earth with The Fellowship of the Ring. It was a wondrous three-hour achievement: the first major attempt at serious, big budget epic fantasy. It succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination ("imagination" being the key term), and Fellowship, along with its follow-ups, The Two TowersIn 2001, only a few months after the fall of the World Trade Center, Peter Jackson swept us away to Middle Earth with The Fellowship of the Ring. It was a wondrous three-hour achievement: the first major attempt at serious, big budget epic fantasy. It succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination ("imagination" being the key term), and Fellowship, along with its follow-ups, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, convinced Hollywood that there was unexplored ore in the fantasy mine. Now, nine years after closing the book on The Lord of the Rings, Jackson has returned to the scene of his greatest success. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment of a three-part adaptation of Tolkien's first Middle Earth adventure, is both more and less of the same. There are numerous concrete reasons why An Unexpected Journey fails to live up to the standard set by The Lord of the Rings, but the most critical is also the most intangible: the magic is gone (or at least muted). An Unexpected Journey is a competent, entertaining effort but it neither enthralls nor amazes in the way its predecessors did. There's no question that Jackson is attempting to recapture something elusive and, although there are stretches when he comes close, he never quite attains that goal. It would be monumentally unfair to label The Hobbit as a "failure," but calling it a "disappointment" would be reasonable. Jackson established expectations with The Lord of the Rings; his inability to fulfill them is perhaps a trap of his own making.

    The Fellowship of the Ring is 400 pages; Jackson adapted it into a three-hour theatrical release. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey covers the first 100 pages of a 270-page book; the movie version runs only 10 minutes shorter than The Fellowship of the Ring. And therein lies this production's Achilles Heel: its long-windedness. An Unexpected Journey does not earn its 168-minute running time. From the beginning, there's a sense of bloating and self-indulgence. Roughly the first half requires a dose of caffeine to stay awake and focused. Things improve considerably during the second half. In fact, the final 45 minutes are tightly paced and riveting. But the strong ending cannot fully compensate for the way the movie meanders and stumbles during its first two hours. I think there's a very good, perhaps even a great, movie contained within An Unexpected Journey, but a ruthless editor was needed to unearth it. Perhaps the DVD Special Edition for this picture should feature less footage rather than more.

    In a sense, it's unfair to assign a final "grade" to The Hobbit until all three parts are available. Perhaps, when viewed as a whole, the movies will provide a smoother, more richly textured experience than what is hinted at by An Unexpected Journey. Maybe some of the secondary characters will come to life. In this first chapter, only Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin show sufficient personality to distinguish themselves.

    Unfortunately, there are also some unforgivably cartoonish moments. The shots of Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) being chased by goblins while riding a rabbit-pulled sleigh look like a video game excerpt. There are other isolated scenes that have a similar problem with the CGI being too apparent. The stone giant battle is impressive but it looks more like an outtake from a Transformers film than something that belongs in The Hobbit. On the other hand, there are some wonderful scenes: a council with Gandalf, Elrond, Saruman, and Galadriel; riddles in dark with the most vivid, detailed Gollum to date; and the climactic stand-off with the White Orc. Jackson does a great job crafting the goblin's underground kingdom. The troll encounter does justice to the book. Rivendell mimics what we saw in The Lord of the Rings. And the glimpses of Smaug make us want to see more.

    Visually, The Hobbit is being released in four different flavors: digital 2-D, 3-D at 24 frames-per-second (fps), 3-D at 48 fps, and 3-D IMAX. Having seen it in the 48 fps version, I have a few comments. First, neither the doubled frame rate nor the 3-D adds much to the overall experience. Both are superfluous. The 3-D does not create a richer environment, although neither does it corrupt the experience. The 48 fps is less noticeable than I expected. There are scenes when it causes the images to be crisper and brighter but, especially in instances of high CGI content, it creates a non-cinematic picture. That may be the primary reason why isolated moments feel like video game outtakes. My advice: avoid all the visual flourishes and see this in good, old-fashioned 2-D. The Lord of the Rings didn't need 48 fps or 3-D and there's no conceivable reason why The Hobbit should. It's certainly not better because of it.

    Still, for all of its faults, which are more numerous than those in any of The Lord of the Rings' chapters, Jackson successfully navigates the return to Middle Earth.
    Expand
  28. Jun 10, 2015
    7
    The first instalment of the Hobbit series succeeds, by the most part, to take its viewers back to Middle Earth. Whilst the film is visually stunning at times and demonstrates a magical proportion of promise, it does not provide the movie going experience of the Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson swerves from the winning formula that brought him so much love from fans. An over reliance on CGIThe first instalment of the Hobbit series succeeds, by the most part, to take its viewers back to Middle Earth. Whilst the film is visually stunning at times and demonstrates a magical proportion of promise, it does not provide the movie going experience of the Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson swerves from the winning formula that brought him so much love from fans. An over reliance on CGI effects and comedic and at times kiddish humour is prevalent throughout the film. Although I urge Lord of the Rings fans to steady their expectations, the return to Middle Earth provides some spectacular moments and presents clear promise for the next two films. Expand
  29. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    Hmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with charactersHmm. The Hobbit. I find it somewhat ironic that the little Hobbits and Dwarfs got their film dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings. There we go - enough of silly jokes. But indeed, The Hobbit is just not as good as the Lord of the Rings. Whether we should be making those comparisons or not is irrelevant, they happen either way. And how could they not? There is so much overlap with characters and places, but also costumes, musical score, cinematography, art direction, you just name it. And while the film holds "universal acclaim" with the general audience of metacritic, I'd highly disagree with this. Yes, the acting is rather solid. Technically the film is good too. However, it gives us nothing new. It does not provide any new, deeper connection with these characters, especially not Gandalf, who is surprisingly weakly portrayed by McKellen after his excellent turn in the Lord of the Rings. Honestly, the story of The Hobbit is not as interesting as the one of the Lord of the Rings, for one. That would do the trick on its own, let alone having high expectations and a million comparisons with one of the best trilogies of all time. Overall, The Hobbit is not a bad film at all. But it is just yet another big-budget blockbuster with great technical aspects, but not quite as much substance as its predecessor had. Maybe the second one will be better? 6/10 Expand
  30. Jun 4, 2013
    6
    "While not offering much to the beloved fans. The Hobbit is quite the journey indeed. I enjoyed my endevours with our lovable gang. It has some intense moments but the true fact is a 200 page book does not quite add up to a 2hr and 46min running time." B
  31. 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 II 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
  32. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    Peter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world isPeter Jackson presents the first installment in this popular book with a full tilt vision. After the setup and a lengthy introduction of the characters; Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf set out to help 12 dwarves reclaim their kingdom from a sleeping dragon. Two hours of this three-hour film feels like a massive, frantic video game: lots of action and mayhem on a grand scale. The fantasy world is visually dazzling and the pacing seldom lags. Fans will surely be thrilled, but there's something hollow and weirdly modern about the spirit that makes it more a spectacle than an expressive adventure. BTW, this is the first movie in HRF (High Frame Rate), shot in 48fps and showing in selected local theatres. Basically, it looks like really clean HD video. I review THE HOBBIT and the new HFR format. Expand
  33. 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 thatHere'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
  34. Jov
    Dec 14, 2012
    6
    Let me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intendedLet me preface this by saying that I'm a moderate fan of the LOTR books and movies, but more-so a big Peter Jackson fan, with my favorites being his early work. Somehow, with The Hobbit, Peter Jackson has fumbled. Thinking back to his fantastic Production Diaries: it's an odd thing when the behind the scenes shorts are better than the film itself. I watched the film exactly as PJ intended it - at 48 FPS, 3D, with Dolby ATMOS surround sound on 4K resolution projectors, but was repeatedly disappointed by the visuals. Peter Jackson seems to have gone the route of George Lucas in replacing actors, puppets, and good old fashioned screen magic with pure CGI. I'm not sure if it was the 48 FPS or what, but the film looked very, very fake. I felt like I was watching an animated film, or a video game at times. A lot of people are complaining about the over-long run time - I'm not one of them. I love a long film, and appreciated it here as well, but I think that it's significant to mention that despite a nearly 3-hour length, there was very little character development. No pauses for pacing. No - this was non-stop action. I felt like I was on "The Hobbit: THE RIDE". But what was I expecting? It was a children's book, and the film is a children's movie. The battles are toned down and pointedly blood-free. If LOTR is a classically painted master-work, then The Hobbit is a caricature. This isn't to say The Hobbit was all bad. It wasn't. I thoroughly enjoyed it at points. But the comparison to Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace is apt. The film is woefully over-full of CGI, lacks spirit. This doesn't feel like a labor of love - it feels like a blockbuster made for a younger generation with short-attention spans. Skip the 3D and skip the 48 fps. I look forward to a fan-edit when all three movies are released. It needs one. Expand
  35. Dec 16, 2012
    6
    Great characterizations. The dovetailing with the events from the Lord of the Rings movies is artfully done as well. Mr. Freeman's Bilbo is great. We get a chance to see a different aspect of Smeagol/Gollum as well.

    However, there are a lot of non-canon scenes and sub-plots that have been injected to a) stretch the plot material to last for three movies and b) show off the 3D
    Great characterizations. The dovetailing with the events from the Lord of the Rings movies is artfully done as well. Mr. Freeman's Bilbo is great. We get a chance to see a different aspect of Smeagol/Gollum as well.

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

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

    In hindsight though, I think making only 2 movies and sticking more closely to the book would have been best.
    Expand
  36. 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 moreThe 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
  37. Jan 4, 2013
    6
    Overall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense at all... and are entirely unneccesary.

    Then there is the fact that this was SUPPOSED to be a 2 movie deal until the Studio decided it wanted to make
    Overall, I enjoyed the film... BUT, why on Earth does Peter Jackson make some of the changes he does to the story is beyond me! Obviously, some alteration was going to be neccesary... however, some of the changes make little to no sense at all... and are entirely unneccesary.

    Then there is the fact that this was SUPPOSED to be a 2 movie deal until the Studio decided it wanted to make more money and stretch it into 3 !@#$% movies! This is why the film is overlong with bloat, bloat, and more bloat! The LOTR was three 3 hour movies from about 1100 pages of source material... The Hobbit films are going to be three 3 hour movies from a little over 300 pages of source material (!?) expanded with additions from the LOTR Appendices.
    Expand
  38. Dec 20, 2012
    6
    Not close to as well made as the LOTR's trilogy but entertaining. I have to knock it for adding in places that really did not need it. Also, there was no content and there's no reason for this to be a trilogy.
  39. Jan 10, 2013
    6
    I saw The Hobbit after having reread the book and found the movie visually spectacular but otherwise somewhat disappointing. Tolkien
  40. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    I was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, asI was greatly anticipating this movie since I first heard that it was going to be made. What did I think of it now that I've seen it? I'll put it this way... it wasn't bad, but having been a big fan of the books and previous LOTR movies, I was expecting more. I can't exactly put a finger on it just yet.. but something about this film compared to the previous 3 seemed slightly off, as though to remind you it is indeed a movie. Even the makeup, costumes, and animation seemed more "play" like as though you were watching it on a stage rather than it really happening. It was ok.. but I would say it didn't quite stay in the same league as the first three movies. Expand
  41. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    It's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so manyIt's alright. Just alright. It's a spectacle for sure, complete with the great music and atmosphere. It's a big adventure that would be great to watch with a date or your family... it's kind of a movie for everyone in that sense. I found myself entertained, but once it ended, I realized it was lacking what I cherished about Jackson's LOTR movies: a lasting impression. There are so many scenes and themes explored in his vision of the trilogy that I will never forget, sadly, The Hobbit failed to make that kind of impression on me. It's not a bad movie, it's just not very substantial past it being a suitable adventure film for the entire family. Read the book instead. Expand
  42. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    Definitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than oneDefinitely lower your expectations if you are a huge fan of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy before going to see the first installment of The Hobbit. If you loved the theater versions, but felt that the extended editions on dvd were a little tedious, then you will have that familiar feeling here. I was worried when they first decided to stretch it out into two movies, rather than one spectacular one, so I was even more worried when I heard they stretched it all the way out to a new trilogy. The Hobbit is such a great story. They really really are stretching it out, though, here. They added a lot that I didn't remember, and seemed to take a lot of liberties, though to be honest it's so long since I read the book I can't be sure what was or wasn't in it. I may be comparing it too much to the cartoon movie version I loved so much as a kid. But, all in all, I just felt that the story is stretched out a bit too long here. It's true that it probably wouldn't have all fit into one movie, but I think two would have been plenty, and then leave a lot of what they put in out for the blu-ray release. Instead, you get an uneven affair here, some of which reaches the familiar heights of greatness Peter Jackson established with the Lord of the Rings, but a lot of which falls short. Expand
  43. 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
  44. Oct 14, 2013
    6
    All the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in anotherAll the parts that were supposed to be adventurous were rushed. All the parts that were supposed to be thrilling were bombastic, exposed action. The dark and intimate parts were made grand and epic. Who's to blame? Probably the financial ties behind the production. I fear Hollywood has a manipulative motivation for making another huge "good guys go out and fight bad guys in another country", because watching the movie it just felt like a propagandistic lesson in patriotism and violence. All the grace of Tolkien's writing is gone. Expand
  45. Jan 16, 2013
    6
    A plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewersA plain 2D version at the local multiplex, culminating my not-so-frenetic film-viewing activity of 2012. The first chapter of this contentiously extended THE HOBBIT trilogy from Peter Jackson revisits the familiar ground in New Zealand, with Bilbo recounts his tall-tale with Gandolf and thirteen dwarfs (strangely their purpose of their journey seems to be deliberately dodged, for viewers who have not read the novel, the journey itself is conspicuously Expand
  46. 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.
  47. Sep 1, 2014
    6
    It is clear that Peter Jackson should not stretch the children's book into three Lord of the Rings-length feature films. Nevertheless, Jackson brings an insightful look into Middle Earth once again. An Unexpected Journey is by no means a repeat of the previous trilogy--it's fresh and exciting.
  48. Dec 18, 2012
    6
    The Hobbit is clearly a step down from The Lord of the Rings. Jackson didn't seem to remember how to direct. Editing, pace, acting and even action sequences were off. The movie simply didn't gel. The visuals were stunning, music remember full and some scenes brought back good memories. The Hobbit isn't a bad movie by any means but the length is simply ridiculous.
  49. Nov 30, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit is extremely disappointing coming from a director who has accomplished so much, and knows the material so well. It is still has great moments, and for the most part is easy going adventure to watch, but come on.
  50. 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 goingThe 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
  51. 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 EarthOh 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
  52. Dec 19, 2012
    6
    So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

    The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action
    So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

    The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action sequences. I was shocked by how much yelling, screaming and sword fighting and biting there was, since the book has so little of it. Now, I like a violent movie as much as the next guy, and I really enjoyed LOTR, but the Hobbit is different. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson made an LOTR version of the Hobbit. Mostly, I'm disappointed by him and his dumbing-down of the subtleties of the novel.
    The 3d IMAX experience was awesome, but sometimes the characters were CLEARLY plastic (CG). The action sequences also felt very "harry potter-ish" - Incredible, over the top, unsurvivable scenes and characters walk with nary a scratch. I can practically see the roller coaster name branding spilling out of a couple scenes.
    Expand
  53. 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.
  54. 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 theAll 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
  55. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    There are moments that make you remember the first three films, and that unfortunately makes you realize how much better those are than this. Perhaps in the next two (God help us) we will see more development but this is a film that is at least 30 minutes too long and too family friendly for its own good.
  56. 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 battlesThe 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
  57. Jan 2, 2013
    6
    I saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. TheI saw this in 2D last night, I have mixed feelings about it. While I didn't hate it, I didn't love it either. I saw it for half price on cheap movie night, I think if I paid full price I might feel like I wasted my money. I can't really say that it was a bad movie though, it just seemed to lack that Je ne c'est quoi that makes you go WOW! when you see an epic, ground-breaking movie. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the CGI was (mostly) great. The movie is slow-paced at times. Other times it is too fast-paced. Some scenes are longer than they need to be, but I guess that's what happens when you take a single book story and stretch it out to a 3 part movie trilogy. I get the impression that this movie might possibly be targeted at children more than adults, I think a young child would definitely enjoy it more. For an adult, it is alright but just alright. But after some online investigation, I found a reference to letters stating that The Hobbit book was written for children, while the LOTR book trilogy was written for an older audience, so I'll assume the movie is being true to the book in targeting a younger audience. A plot hole I noticed is why don't they just fly on the eagles from the Shire to the Dwarf city/mountain they are trying to get to? Well, this plot hole apparently exists in the book too so I can't hold it against the movie. And what the heck is a dragon going to do with a pile of gold? Well, according to some online blogs male dragons are like bowerbirds that make nests out of shiny objects to attract a mate, so that resolves that question I had that wasn't explained by this movie. This movie mostly reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean although it is nowhere good as the first POC movie, nor is it horrible like some of the later POC sequels. All of the focus seems to be on the special effects and (mostly) failed attempts at humour rather than focusing on decent story telling or character development. I rate it as average since it lacks the Je ne c'est quoi to make it an epic movie (pacing? plot-deviations from book? not sure what went wrong exactly...) and I can't honestly say that I even liked the film. It does not live up to the quality of the LOTR trilogy at all (except for the CGI of Gollum which is still great in this movie as it was in the LOTR trilogy). It's been 25 years since I read the book, but I think I might go pick it up and read it again rather than wait for the next two movies... Expand
  58. Dec 16, 2012
    6
    Too many time-filling gimmicks. The Dwarves are uninteresting in the movie. Some CGI effects actually look pretty terrible. Very far from the artistic looks of LOTR (for the most part, environments seem generic). Maybe the budget for the film was too small, maybe Peter Jackson went nuts, but I truly feel there is not a single aspect of the movie that is outstanding. Directing and editingToo many time-filling gimmicks. The Dwarves are uninteresting in the movie. Some CGI effects actually look pretty terrible. Very far from the artistic looks of LOTR (for the most part, environments seem generic). Maybe the budget for the film was too small, maybe Peter Jackson went nuts, but I truly feel there is not a single aspect of the movie that is outstanding. Directing and editing were bad. Acting was really good. There were some great action scenes after the first 1h30min. Sound effects and original score were good (very nice theme song, though still far from LOTR themes...). I watched it in 2D. Expand
  59. 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 likeThe 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
  60. Aug 16, 2014
    6
    A bit longer than it needed to be, but I guess when you break up a single book into two movies some parts are going to be longer than required. Ending was great, finally Bilbo has a self-fulfilling act! I about cheered when he and Thorin made up.
    In summary, see it if you liked the LOTR series. Or if you like New Zealand scenery. Or if you like epics. Just go in with the notion it may
    A bit longer than it needed to be, but I guess when you break up a single book into two movies some parts are going to be longer than required. Ending was great, finally Bilbo has a self-fulfilling act! I about cheered when he and Thorin made up.
    In summary, see it if you liked the LOTR series. Or if you like New Zealand scenery. Or if you like epics. Just go in with the notion it may last longer than needed. I bought it but rent if you're a not a Peter Jackson/Tolkien fan.
    Expand
  61. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the oneThis absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the one liners and the CGI (particularly in HFR) is quite frankly shambolic when compared even to the 11 year old Fellowship of the Ring! The CGI characters, namely Orcs, seem to float when they are travelling, swords do not meet bodies meaning it simply looks like the human characters (dwarves etc) are just swiping at thin air. The music score is largely, again, taken or remixed versions of the LoTR soundtrack and some scenes are pretty much identical to a Lord of the Rings scene. It amazes me how some people on here are claiming that critics and naysayers should not be comparing this to a LoTR film.. This is simply ludicrous. First and foremost this is done by Peter Jackson so of course his influence from the LoTR films are going to pass over to The Hobbit. Secondly, the soundtrack and certain scenes are pretty much taken straight from the LoTR cutting room. And thirdly this is set in the same freaking universe and is treading over old ground so of course comparisons will be made (that's like saying you shouldn't compare Star Wars Ep 1,2,3 to 4,5,6). Don't get me wrong I didn't hate this film, there was elements to like, in particular the scene with Bilbo and Gollum and I think Martin Freeman played a wonderful Bilbo Baggins. I just can't help but feel this film was a missed opportunity, I had such HIGH expectations and these expectations were not met. Stretching the 1 book over 3 films is nothing but a money grab and is simply using the previous success of the original film trilogy to 'cash in' if you will. The film, as a result, suffers and doesn't have that same aura and immersive sentiment of the LoTR trilogy. Needless to say after middling reviews and some fan backlash (and surprisingly the box office returns haven't even been that impressive this weekend) I really hope with baited breath, Peter Jackson comes back into form for the sequel and provides us with what he and everyone else knows he can do. On a final note, DO NOT watch this in HFR. That is all. Expand
  62. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

    Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The
    The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

    Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The acting is fantastic with Martin Freeman's performance being fulfilling and most certainly understated yet the other characters were simply unable to recreate the same level of interest and intrigue as those in the book. One can only hope that these characters are explored further in the sequels. As for the 48 FPS it was beautiful with scenery exploding vividly onto the screen and yet i cannot help but think it was just too much as if looking into an oil painting, thus some of the dialogue and action was lost amongst the various stunning backdrops. Finally and most annoyingly i must mention the length. For what is only a relatively short children's book, i cannot see how 3 films of such considerable length will be able to keep the focus of the audience whilst remaining true to the book throughout. So far so good but i expect more can come from this series and i hope that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will not be the unwanted middle child of the trilogy and emulate The Two Towers.
    Expand
  63. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    After seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally IAfter seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally I feel that he killed the part as Bilbo. Andy Serkis is as amazing as ever, albeit a little bit corny at times. Richard Armitage also is a great Thorin. Thorin is played really well and is exactly as a Thorin should be. However that being said, most of the other dwarves feel like fillers, never having any lines or really any say in the story. In LOTR it felt like every member of the fellowship had a role and a point and a back-story. In the Hobbit it feels like there is Thorin, Balin, Kili and Fili and a bunch of other dwarves. The way that they blended the old LOTR story to the Hobbit was absolutely superb and was perfect. Ultimately what ruined the movie for me was the action. In LOTR the fight scenes against the trolls and goblins and orcs and whargs seemed dangerous. They felt like the orcs were this rabble, this horde that was bloodthirsty and ruthless. In the Hobbit they felt more like comic relief than actual enemies. The best comparison I can think of was the fight in Balin's Tomb. In this fight the goblins burst through the door and look fearsome and sound like there ready to kill everything. In the Hobbit they feel stupid and mindless and comical. Cheesy stuff like Gandalf decapitating a goblin and instead of a flying head and a spurt of blood, there is nothing but a confused looking goblin whose eyes move worriedly then his head inexplicably pops off. All in all the way they tied the stories and the only four characters that really felt important (Bilbo, Thorin, Balin, and Gandalf.) and the general enjoyment of the story gives the Hobbit its good points, however the corny fight sequences that seem to have lost all of their seriousness, the mind-dead enemies, the loss of that fear factor that was in the LOTR, and the general was that some things that happen just don't seem relevant to the story really hurts this movie. As much as I would prefer to rate it better I can only give it a six. Expand
  64. Dec 15, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, a really good film. However, if you're looking for the power and intensity of LOTR, it's just not there. It's almost as if they made this one intentionally for little kids, like a Pixar film. WAY too humorous when it shouldn't have been, up to and including, funny one-liners from goblins as they were dying??!!?? Disappointing. Expand
  65. Dec 16, 2012
    6
    Flat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and the actors who portrayed the dwarves. I wasn't disturbed by the faster frame pace. What rubs me the wrong way isFlat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and the actors who portrayed the dwarves. I wasn't disturbed by the faster frame pace. What rubs me the wrong way is what upsets me about a lot of recent films: the over-reliance on CGI. Another user commented on how the orcs and goblins are less frightening because they have been "cleaned up". CGI has its place: it would be impossible to display the extensiveness of the dwarves underground kingdom with hand-built sets. However, too many characters and scenery done with CGI make everything less real, less magical and . . . less frightening. The orcs and goblins in "The Fellowship of the Ring" were actors in costume and makeup. The orcs and goblins in "The Hobbit" are CGI and characters in CGI, no matter how much attempted frightening detail, appear cartoonish. A similar example, Jabba in "Return of the Jedi" and the CGI Jabba inserted later into Episode IV. He was more repulsive when the slime was real. Just imagine how much more repulsive the Goblin King would have been if he had been a combination of costume and puppetry. Expand
  66. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you read the book, The Hobbit is a wonderfully engaging light-hearted fairy tale set in Middle Earth, full of adventure, magic, faerie folks, monsters, and epic deeds. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, involved tragedy, also set in Middle Earth, with some of the same characters, taking place after the events told in The Hobbit.

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

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

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

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

    Overall, fun movie for a Saturday night at home with a few glasses of wine and friends to give it the MST3K treatment, but it's NOT The Hobbit I loved. Wait until its available at home with video on-demand services.
    Expand
  67. Dec 17, 2012
    6
    I was very well impressed with the overall movie, but there were some drawbacks, and cuts. It will make you leaving the movie theater happy that you saw it. I will be eager to watch the other two sequels.
  68. Dec 22, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First and foremost I enjoyed the movie but when you hold it against the LOTR it just doesn't hold up. For a movie that has come out 10 years after the original trilogy you would think the CGI would look better but it really didn't. The gravity of the story was lacking, in the LOTR their quest held the fate of Middle Earth in the balance while here we were only trying to save the home of some dwarfs who I didn't really feel sorry for. Also, with LOTR their was a definite connection to mankind BUT there are no men in this flick, we deal with dwarfs, hobbits, wizards, orcs, and goblins.

    All in all not bad, Peter Jackson and his team just didn't step their game up, it's like they went through the same motions without the same drive to make this as great as the LOTR.
    Expand
  69. 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... butThis 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
  70. 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 "TheWhile 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
  71. 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 doLooks 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
  72. 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 changesI 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
  73. Jan 1, 2013
    6
    Nothing new for a movie... i only saw rocks flying on the screen using a format launched 10 years ago. Maybe, by the reason of this movie being a first part of a trilogy, when the other 2 parts are released this first will be make a little sense more.
  74. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Long have I awaited a resemblance of the experience of authentic epicness set by the lord of the rings trilogy! That trilogy was indeed prolonged by a new franchise called
  75. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Before writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not contain anything about HFR or the such, or me getting motion sickness and violently vomiting into a pop corn box.

    Firstly I'd like to comment on the
    Before writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not contain anything about HFR or the such, or me getting motion sickness and violently vomiting into a pop corn box.

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

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

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

    Overall I liked the film. I wish I could have loved it, but I just can't with the commercialism they added. I respect Jackson for bringing LOTR life. However I feel this movie to be akin with king kong in some respects with all the pointless additions to the original. Peter Jackson please be Peter Jackson not George Lucas or Steven Spielberg.
    Expand
  76. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    A decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The actingA decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The acting and effects are also both fantastic, with a late entry from a beloved character being the best of both worlds. Overall, a film with great potential squandered with meandering added storyline and a tiring run-time. Expand
  77. 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 contrivedA 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
  78. Dec 19, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we haveThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we have little bit of both. Expand
  79. Sep 10, 2013
    6
    i got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll seei got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll see the future movies at the cinema but on DVD its a must have for kids to kill time. Expand
  80. Nov 11, 2013
    6
    The city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, the trolls, Radagast) with monsters (giant spiders and wolves, demonic orcs, the hideous gollum), the characters' illogical decisions (Gandalf and 13 dwarvesThe city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, the trolls, Radagast) with monsters (giant spiders and wolves, demonic orcs, the hideous gollum), the characters' illogical decisions (Gandalf and 13 dwarves going to kill a dragon, Gandalf asking Bilbo to join them, Bilbo accepting), the lack of realistic fights (nobody bleeds or dies, the direction during the chase in the goblin lair makes the action seem like the heros are on a luna park train) and several redundant scenes that slow the pacing down (two dinners, the riddles) prevented me from enjoying this movie.
    argonautis.eu
    Expand
  81. Jan 5, 2014
    6
    I can't rate this any higher than a 6. The film is deviating from the book just a bit too much for me to enjoy it. For those of you that enjoy a good action movie set in Middle Earth, this is for you. If you care about the lore and any backstory whatsoever, don't watch it as it has too many details that aren't supposed to be there.
  82. Dec 14, 2014
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

    Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visual que, digamos, cumple con las expectativas (debido a que las 3 películas de "The Lorg of the Ring" ganaron el Oscar en la categoría de "Mejores Efectos
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

    Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visual que, digamos, cumple con las expectativas (debido a que las 3 películas de "The Lorg of the Ring" ganaron el Oscar en la categoría de "Mejores Efectos Visuales), y que le dan una caracterización bien ilustrada a la tierra media, sin embargo, la película tiene un fallo, y es que sus largos 169 minutos de duración (o 2 horas con 39 minutos, que en general son casi 3 horas de metraje) resultan un tanto pesada o fastidiosa (aunque no todo el tiempo), por lo tanto algunas personas quizá puede resultar un poco, digamos, lenta (aunque no en todo los términos), pero, esa larga duración no hace que la película caiga, así que, logra mantenerse firme durante todo su trayecto y terminando con un espectáculo lleno de buenos efectos visuales, buena ambientación y con un comienzo respetable de esta nueva trilogía de la edad media.
    Expand
  83. Nov 13, 2014
    6
    Though the first piece of Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy by no means lives up to the expectations set by the LOTR trilogy, it is worth seeing, as it often times lives up to the book's well-earned famed. A bit sloggish at times and cartoony in physics (the main characters go through the ridiculous unscathed) it is a decent film for those not expecting a masterpiece.
  84. Jan 3, 2013
    5
    I saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. TheI saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. The character of "Thorin", the leader of the dwarfs, was particularly annoying. Grouchy, skeptical, humorless, and wrong at almost every turn. Also, the entire scene with Gollum was annoying because I can't understand half the things he says. The next installment should be better as they will be battling a dragon instead of the usual evil Orcs and Goblins that we have already seen in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Expand
  85. 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 muchMy 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
  86. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    For some reason, during the movie I constantly compared it to "The Goonies." I'm really not sure why. Maybe because "The Goonies" got adventure right, and this didn't. Either way, drawn out, should have been one movie. The end.
  87. 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 andThe 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
  88. Jan 16, 2013
    5
    The movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's justThe movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's just not that interesting of a thing to watch. There are some redeemable moments, but despite some good acting and scenery, it's just not all that fun and seems to drag a bit towards the end. Expand
  89. Jan 13, 2013
    5
    Bloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save it from being complete disaster though.
  90. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    I was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the sourceI was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the source material of the hobbit is not near as good as the LOTR trilogy and I don't know why in the world they decided to turn this into a trilogy creating three movies full of unnecessary fluff, two maybe, three no way. Wait until the dollar theater or redbox and go catch Lincoln, The Perks of being a Wallflower, Wreck it Ralph or Life of Pi. Expand
  91. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    Let's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst sceneLet's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst scene in the movie, and the beautiful special effects are for naught since the orcs and goblins were completely redesigned to look clean and crisp and not at all scary. So it all balances out (hence the 5 rating). I have a ton of things to say about this movie, but to keep this somewhat short, I'm going to mention one that focuses on the bad writing (of which there was plenty). At the end of The Return of the King, Frodo and Gollum fight each other for the Ring. Both of them fall off the ledge, leaving you to think that Frodo dies. Instead, he's hanging on to a small outcropping with his fingertips. In the special features of RotK, Peter Jackson commented that he hated using something so cliche, but it worked perfectly for that scene. In An Unexpected Journey, there are at least three instances where someone falls off a ledge and hangs on by his fingertips. Expand
  92. 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.
  93. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I appear to be alone among my friends in my general disappointment with this film. I really feel, after two viewings now, that it was mostly a remorseless money-grab by Peter Jackson and the production company. It doesn't fit the feel of the book to me whatsoever, and instead has the feel and ambiance of the Lord of the Rings movies -- a grandeur and scale that should be much larger than The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, The Hobbit was an epic tale, but next to LotR it is a quaint epic and more character-driven. One of the other user reviews here mentioned that the Hobbit wasn't written the same way as LotR, and people need to stop thinking about the LotR movies when they watch this. Well, I agree on the first point... but it's kind of hard to not think about LotR when he seems to be trying really hard to make these as much like those as he can. The cameos by Frodo, Saruman, and Galadriel, as much as I loved the latter in the original movies, were completely pointless. Also, if you are going to add Saruman pre-Lord of the Rings... he ought to me a much nicer fellow. Jackson didn't get him right in the LotR movies anyway. In the books he was a wordsmith, someone who could use words to affect others... and until he sided with Sauron he did so for good. There is a reason Gandalf considered him the wisest, and it wasn't just because he wore white. The added detail to the story of the pale orc and Radaghast the Brown were equally pointless, except to draw out the length of the film so he could make more than one. That's really my point, I suppose. The Hobbit should've been ONE three hour movie, MAYBE two... but definitely not three. Also, why does Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the books, not until he was mistreated by the Wood Elf King... and even then his attitude was colored by gold lust. There were a few well-done scenes, like the riddles with Gollum, but for every one of those there is another pointless addition to the story or a rewrite that makes little sense. Why did he feel the need to change how Gandalf dealt with the trolls, or have the pale orc trapping them in trees instead of the goblins and waurgs? It just seems like Jackson has gotten the impression that he knows how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien. I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken. Expand
  94. 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.
  95. Jan 12, 2013
    5
    Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed
  96. Jan 8, 2013
    5
    This movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or whenThis movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or when oversized eagles save the day and carry all of them for a while. Not to mention when Bilbo saves the dwarf king, in what is yet one of those moments again. Why did they have to walk for three hours (of movie time) only to have Gandalf call the birds in the end? Could they not have used the birds in the beginning? But that is besides the point. And there was this other wizard, I honestly do not even know what to think. That bad. The scene where Bilbo finds the ring is overly long and boring, and for some reason he has to engage in a riddle game with that stupid "my precious" guy. Probably one of the most useless moments in a film I have seen to date. One last cry I have about the movie, apart from the strange cgi characters, is that the dwarfs seem somewhat tall.There is this inconsistency, in some shots they seem taller then in others, and a few of them look, well, human. In conclusion, the Hobbit part1 has plenty of nice moments, but in a complex device, such as a movie, everything has to be done right, not just some of the things. Expand
  97. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    Hey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. No one will complain, as its Peter Jackson and Lord of the rings.

    And judging by the 9 and 10's I guess its worked. The film isn't terrible, its
    Hey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. No one will complain, as its Peter Jackson and Lord of the rings.

    And judging by the 9 and 10's I guess its worked.

    The film isn't terrible, its just not great either. Whats completely frustrating about it, is that the parts that follow the book are very good, its just all the filler stuff that ruins it. Seemingly filled with cliche comedy moments and bits that just didn't seem middle earth at all, its kind of insulting to the source material.

    If at some point they heavily edit the movie and leave just the relevant book content in, i think you would have a very good movie, but as it stands at the moment, the hobbit is an overly bloated average film that had potential to be much better ( and less drawn out and boring).
    Expand
  98. 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
  99. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    After 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, itAfter 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, it has no ending! It´s definitely not horrible, but it´s far from being good. Expand
  100. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren'tThis is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though. Expand
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.