The Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that they added so much random **** ruins the whole trilogy and ruins what the author wrote. i fully understand that The Hobbit is a stand alone book/movie and not apart of the lord of the rings trilogy, which is also why they didn't need the introduction with frodo and an older bilbo, it was annoying to me to think that they ARE in fact linking the trilogy to the hobbit. the needless intro also ruined the immersion and it felt more like a fake story than an immersive movie. if you read this and thought it was a good movie, i would agree it had it's fine moments, the 3D effect were great and the 48 fps was really breath taking. to make this movie a 7/10 (for me at least) all they could have done is cut out the intro. oh well.… Expand

The movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's just not that interesting of a thing to watch. There are some redeemable moments, but despite some good acting and scenery, it's just not all that fun and seems to drag a bit towards the end.… Expand

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.

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 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

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 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

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.

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

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.

Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed

This movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or when oversized eagles save the day and carry all of them for a while. Not to mention when Bilbo saves the dwarf king, in what is yet one of those moments again. Why did they have to walk for three hours (of movie time) only to have Gandalf call the birds in the end? Could they not have used the birds in the beginning? But that is besides the point. And there was this other wizard, I honestly do not even know what to think. That bad. The scene where Bilbo finds the ring is overly long and boring, and for some reason he has to engage in a riddle game with that stupid "my precious" guy. Probably one of the most useless moments in a film I have seen to date. One last cry I have about the movie, apart from the strange cgi characters, is that the dwarfs seem somewhat tall.There is this inconsistency, in some shots they seem taller then in others, and a few of them look, well, human. In conclusion, the Hobbit part1 has plenty of nice moments, but in a complex device, such as a movie, everything has to be done right, not just some of the things.… Expand

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

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

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, it has no ending! It´s definitely not horrible, but it´s far from being good.… Expand

This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though.… Expand

"The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and it's just to epic for it's own good. I cringed as the dwarfs charged into the screen with loud music the second time, not to mention all the pointless action and filler scenes. The movie has an annoying "stop and go" ark of chained together elements that all look great on their own terms, but just don't add up to a great story. It all looks great and the actors are fabulous, but judged by my expectations, a big disappointment.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm apart of the minority that did not like this movie. Really shocked that more people didn't like it. But then again a lot of people never read the book. Just went to see the movie based off all the success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Anyway, I read the book. Twice. Once when I was in the 5th grade and again 2 or 3 weeks before the movie release. I was stunned. Peter Jackson seemed more focused on creating a more visual and beautiful Middle-Earth than we saw in LOTR. This movie was simply, too much of a good thing. Guillermo Del Toro, a fantastic filmmaker in his own right, honestly had ZERO business being apart of the screenplay production. It also seemed as if Peter Jackson wanted The Hobbit to be a comedy because there was, and honestly too much of, comedy in this serious film. Yes, there was comedy in the book, but not to the extent Peter Jackson went. I would rate this movie lower, however there was one scene I found fascinating. And that was the meeting of Gollum and Bilbo. They had an excellent back and forth that I found myself enjoying as it continued. And why did Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the book. Anyway, it could, and SHOULD have been a lot better. It seems as if Peter Jackson watched James Cameron's Avatar one day and looked at the world of Pandora and said, "Hey, forget the script, and character development, and a good story to stay true to the book, I wanna do THAT!" And its exactly what he did. He re-created Middle-Earth with his own vision this time, and not the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Maybe this was just a hit and miss for part 1. A sort of testing the waters if you will. The chapter of Smaug is up next in the trilogy of films that is The Hobbit. I, for one hope that the CGI and lame comedy was all out of Peter Jackson's system because Part 2 is highly critical in if Part 3 can be successful. If Peter Jackson messes up Smaug..... may God help us all.… Expand

The opening sequence of this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is so good that one is immediately optimistic about what is to come. Therefore, it is rather disappointing to report that following this excellent opening we are treated to a film whose first half is so dull and dreary that boredom settles in very quickly. It is definitely not the equal of any of TLOTR films. A perfunctory battle scene and the introduction of the charmless dwarfs do little to up the ante. In fact the real star of the first half of this film is actually the New Zealand scenery and we are treated to quite a lot of it as our intrepid travellers climb up mountain, after mountain, after (yawn yawn) mountain!

Still, it's not all bad news as the second half improves considerably. This turn of events happens at the time we are introduced to the stone giants which is filmed using swooping camera movements that are very effective. It's onwards and upwards from here on. The special effects are variable (again better in the second half). However, the troll sequence is really awful with some extremely lame attempts at humour (the writing does leave a lot to be desired), but with the arrival of the wonderful Gollum we get to enjoy the film's highlight. The Art-Direction also still affords some pleasures, especially in the opening sequence and in the goblin s' town.

Martin Freeman works hard to deliver a fair enough performance as Bilbo Baggins, but one misses Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin and Elijah Wood here. In a role similar to the one that Mortensen played in the earlier films, Richard Armitage doesn't really cut it.

The score occasionally hits familiar notes reminding us of how beautiful that main theme is, but 'The Lonely Mountain' song hasn't the haunting effect of either 'May it be' or 'Into the West'. Overall the film is too long and should never have been planned as a trilogy. The book just isn't dense enough to warrant such indulgence. This error in judgement is the fatal flaw of ' The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.… Expand

An unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come close to silencing the skeptics like his Lord of the Rings films did, and is actually more ill-conceived than expected.

Things that do work well for the most part in The Hobbit are sequences that come directly from the source novel. Iconic scenes, such as the arrival of the dwarfs at Bag End or the encounter with the trolls are handled pretty well, despite being padded out to unnecessary lengths with lame gags and pointless alteration of the original events in the book. Juggling such a massive primary cast is obviously a challenge, and as such the film's best moments involve only one or two characters, with Bilbo's (Martin Freeman) meeting of Gollum (Andy Serkis) and the finding of the ring being a particular stand-out sequence, the only one that seemed like it could have used more time.

However, all of the good work that Jackson & Co do with the direct source material is swamped by the content they felt they had to develop themselves. The great achievement of the LOTR films is how they managed to distill the huge source novels to their most important story beats, only hinting at most of the wider story in a way that brought incredible richness to the world in which they take place. With The Hobbit though, Jackson only has a 300 page novel to start with, and the decision to make three lengthy films, I assume to parallel the first trilogy, is precisely why this first film doesn't work.

The Hobbit should be allowed to stand alone as its own film, but it is structured in such a way, almost identically to the first LOTR entry The Fellowship of the Ring, that it's all but impossible not to compare them. As a side-effect, the much lighter tone will be jarring for a lot of established franchise fans, the very people the film seems to be primarily aimed at. The chase sequence in the goblin tunnels for example is little more than an updated version of the Moria scenes from LOTR. It's exciting enough, but much of the action feels in service of the film- making technology on display rather than the story, and as such none of the stakes of the earlier films are built here.

Where the LOTR films had to keep moving at such a pace to fit everything in, The Hobbit dwells on unnecessary moments which had only the briefest of mentions in the novel to reach its 2 hour 49 minute runtime. Most damaging are the call backs linking the previous trilogy, setting up what is likely to be an almost completely new story bridge between the two trilogies in the third film due in 2014. There is absolutely no reason for Frodo (Elijah Wood), Saruman (Christopher Lee), and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) to appear in this story, yet here they are, taking us away from a perfectly good narrative about a quest to fight a dragon. It reeks of cynical franchise care, and arguably disrespectful to the carefully crafted world that Tolkien created.

There's a good movie somewhere in The Hobbit, and had Jackson shown more restraint we might have seen it. The film could easily lose at least 45 minutes, but it feels as if director feels so beholden to his previous work that he needs to deliver an epic on the scale of LOTR. But that's not what this book is, and we're left with an uneasy balance - the lighter tone to distinguish this as a separate story but a strict adherence to the LOTR structure - but ultimately doesn't fulfill either side.… Expand

This movie lacks character. I went to see it on the premier a few days ago without any expectations; I however have read the book about 15 years ago, and I somewhat liked it. I also have read and seen the LOTR trilogy and liked those movies. However, as I've grown older I've grown to expect some sense of style from movies. This movie had no sense of style, aside from the whatever... fantasy cartoony style. Neither did it tell a compelling story. All I remember now is the boring endless 3D computer animated action scenes with tons of camera movement. Some may say that those visuals of the movie are breathtaking, but I fail to understand what is breathtaking about them. There are better and more beautiful visuals in way older films with way less of a budget. What I disliked most was the pointless amount of action, the charisma lacking dwarves (especially the leader) and the bad pacing / storytelling. What I give it 5/10 for is some funny points, like Radagast, one-liners, and overall no-brains entertainment value. Won't see it again. Also, this movie had no sexual themes what-so-ever. Could count the amount of females shown with one hand probably. Count that as a con as well.… Expand

Good CGI and feeling to the movie. Don't care much for the cartoon-ish style of character design. Falls short on the story compared to the book. A lot of fill between scenes . Guess that's why there's going to be three movies total.

I was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic, great animation. But it's not really much different from Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy films. Several of the same actors, same settings, similar battle scenes. Actually, it's not quite as good as any of the LOTR Trilogy movies. Granted, that's a tough comparison. but it is what it is.

To me, the disappointing part of Hobbit is that nothing really "happens" in this first-of-three. LOTR is a complex, 1,200-page book. I can see "stretching the story out" into a trilogy. Hobbit is a 250-page story written for children. The story could have been told in one 3-hour movie or two tops. To stretch the story into a trilogy smacks of pure Hollywood greed. And, as a result, nothing much really "happens" in the first installment.… Expand

I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it. LOTR whilst obviously being a fantasy setting film, had a sense that everything was realistic within its fantasy setting. The Hobbit throws that feeling away and just goes over the top.… Expand

Honestly, nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Often boring and lagging on, losing interest is obvious. However, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography as well as the score and brief exciting moments, excite the mood. Albeit temporarily.

Overly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from the appendices just makes the film feel uneven and without any coherent tone. A jumbled mess of a movie that doesn't know what it's trying to be - a film adaptation of a kids book, or a dark brooding prequel to LotR - it's all over the place. I'm a huge fan of Jackson, but this is one of his worst movies.

The only truly good scene in the movie is the riddle game with Gollum, it stands head and shoulders above the rest of the film, making it painfully obvious how mediocre the rest of it is. Ultimately forgettable, I just hope the next 2 fare better.… Expand

It's beautifully made, but the 3D let the characters made look like plastic. The biggest downside however was the story. It was cliche and boring. When the movie ended I had the feeling I was only at the half of the movie. Yes, there are coming sequels. Yes, it's based upon a 70 year old book. But that doesn't change my rating. It's so sad that the story really sucks because most other things are just great!… Expand

Initially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of the ring. Considering I've read this book, I think I am pretty sure that the following 2 movies will also follow in the footsteps of two towers and return of the king respectively.… Expand

Set in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon. Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with another trilogy, that serves as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, based on Tolkien’s novel, T The Hobbit, but here’s the question? The novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is longer than The Hobbit but that film was adapted into a two-parter so why make another trilogy, based on one novel, when you can just adapt the novel into one film, or two at most? Oh, of course, money! It’s all about trying to top up the box office success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy for Peter Jackson, and fans don’t seem to realize this. The Hobbit does not match the standard that was set in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. It may not be the same film franchise, as fans keep mentioning all over the internet, but it’s certainly very similar in terms of the film’s setting, characters and visual style. Just like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the movie suffers from a long running time. But without the emotional and engaging storytelling that The Lord of the Rings trilogy has, The Hobbit just seems to drag on and on with its slow pacing. The Hobbit uses a higher frame rate and it’s the first film to use 48 frames per second instead of the standard 24 frames. It may improve 3D footage but it doesn't add any value to the movie viewing experience so is it really necessary? Some scenes looks great, just like Peter Jackson’s many other films, but at times, it looks like the actors are on set rather than a scene. It can be hard to get use to but fans will hardly notice. It just shows that Peter Jackson relies too heavily on visual effects nowadays that his most recent films are lacking. One of which is The Lovely Bones, a film which lacks the majesty of the novel that made it such a huge success. Another is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a film, as mentioned earlier, that’s too similar to but does not match the quality set by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Peter Jackson is still a worthy director, considering every film he has ever directed, but if he keeps this charade up, then he won’t be. The film’s cast are short of any complaints, with standout performances from Sir Ian McKellen, as Gandalf, and Martin Freeman, as Bilbo Baggins. It’s great to see hobbits on a quest across Middle-earth once again but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is no excuse to revive the “Middle-earth franchise”, just like The Bourne Legacy, a film that tries to revive The Bourne franchise, and The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that tries to revive The Spider-Man franchise, though these two films are pretty decent overall. But in the end, all these films are really unnecessary and we can live without it. It just shows that Hollywood have no new ideas, as many people might have speculated, and has to resort into rebuilding the franchise that should have been left alone when it ended satisfactorily. In conclusion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will please fans. For them, the only reason to watch this film is “Hobbits”. The fine performance from its cast does not quite make up for its slow pace, irritating high frame rate and long running time. The film may not have high hopes, and it’s not entirely terrible, but being too similar to The Lord of the Rings, it’s such a disappointment. Hopefully, Peter Jackson will realize what he has done wrong in this film before continuing with the trilogy.… Expand

Bilbo's story, though not without thrill, is much more lighthearted then "The Lord of The Rings" so don't expect to see a lot of doom and gloom or giant armies slugging it out. Unfortunately the Peter Jackson doesn't strays from the novel a lot in this film which, in my opinion, ruined the story a little.

To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it? The battles don't feel tense, the themes that the characters espouse don't run through the narrative, and I can think of 3 or 4 scenes that feel as if they've been ripped straight from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films just off the top of my head. Yeah, the acting is all good, and there are a few of those heart warming scenes that we know Peter Jackson for, but there's just not enough good to make up for the bad. Each time I watched this film I liked it less and less.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is regarded by many as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy; possibly one of the greatest fantasy franchises ever seen, with 17 Academy Awards won across the trilogy and Return of the King being the 6th highest grossing film of all time… Expand

As the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit.

Summary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwriters expanded Tolkien's novel into a Japanese-style tale of warrior honor and revenge. They introduced some new major characters, and they plan to expand on events that the novel only hinted at. And that all would have worked fine, because it would have been difficult to make a movie based on the novel's themes of hunger and fatigue. The Bad: What should be a 90-minute movie is bloated with an hour of meaningless action sequences. The dwarfs fight. The dwarfs run. The dwarfs cling helplessly to a large moving object that threatens to plunge them to their doom (three times!). None of it advances the plot. With LoTR, I looked forward to and enjoyed the extended edition. With this first Hobbit movie, I'll only watch it again if they release a shortened version. I won't sit through those tedious pointless action sequences a second time.… Expand

When I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarves in cloaks almost comical characters but serious in wilder ways with a funny disposition toward loving gold (2/10). When I think of mystery and discovery in the Hobbit I think of an imaginative scenery based vision with some encounters along the way (2/10). When I think of the Hobbit in it's emphasis I think about a children's book where the exploration of ideas provoke thoughtful meaningful contemplative and illustrative consideration (1/10).
When I think of the philosophy of "the Hobbit" I think about the underlying currents and the hidden truths (1/10). When I think of the character interaction I think "Fairies and goblins" (2/10). When I think about "the Hobbit" as a contrast to his later work in LOTR I consider the fact he atempted to remake the hobbit after the 8th chapter and realized it wasn't a good idea to continue. When I think about the religion of the Hobbit" I think meaning exists in the world people have a place and there is a reason to believe but in this interpretation it's all boils down to simple-minded post post modern humanist action flick where the ends justify the bast.ardization of the former. If you look real hard you can see JRR tolkiens classic here, but you will strain your heart and mind to do so.… Expand

Something like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of the character Radagast, a mushroom munching stoned out hermit. The only balance to this is that there small pieces that are ten out of ten material, particularly riddles in the dark, and they are all that keep me from rating this lower. This story has been stretched thin and exploited so that Jackson can have his second trilogy, and I will not be giving them another theater seat. Renter.
(P.S. Peter-long after your movies are gone, the books will still remain, unless you feel like revising those too.)… Expand

This movie seems more like a children's movie than a LOTR movie. Little Dwarves who sing and drink. The action scenes and characters seem cheesy, and mainly, this should NOT be 3 movies. The next movie better be good.

If not for the action packed final hour of this film,

The movie is worse than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.The 48 FPS I didn't note it.The actors are great.Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are great acting.The director didn't do it like Lord of the Rings.

The high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stage and do not blend into the movie.

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

In fact it is like the Phantom Menace in that there is little to story to the movie but instead we are told to watch more special effects and to enjoy it. I'm not going to see the other two movies in this "trilogy" as its just not worth the time or my money.… Expand

Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!

The hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see our characters interact - particularly the scene where Gandalf and Frodo talk in the caves. However, we see none of those heart warming scenes of LOTR and more cliche' dialogues. This movie relies more the production value which is excellent such as the sets and everything and it also banks on people's love for the LOTR movies. I am very die hard fan of LOTR and even if I don't compare Hobbit dazzles but fails to leave an imprint.… Expand

Technically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making Thorin Oakenshield an Aragorn for a new trilogy. It's one saving grace is a stellar performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Bravo!

A great deal of effort was placed on the facial animation of Gollum and the goblin king. So much so that many other aspects of the VFX have suffered greatly. Poor compositing and inconsistent quality of animation are most notable. A lack of inertia in character motion, "floating" digital doubles that do not make ground contact, matte paintings that are so obvious it's worth a laugh, and an odd digital double for Gandalf in the opening sequence were quite disturbing (why???). Despite WETA claims of facial motion capture, a great deal of animator skill was necessary for the sequences that they *did* put an effort into. For example, the goblin king and his awesome goiter. The goiter alone bumps the film from a 3 to a 4.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. … Expand

Contains spoilers.

If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Although I am loath to admit it, this adaptation of

As a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening scene shows both Bilbo, and Frodo at a point in time that is supposed to be right before the opening scene in LOTR, The Fellowship of The Ring. The actors, are visibly aged, and not only are they older, but is is apparent to me that the wigs that were used for both of these characters were not even close to the originals. The hair style is not even quite the same. The hair styles aren't even the worst part. It seems to me that they completely strayed from the original conception of the Orc. Not only was the conceptual trashed, but the incredible make-up, masks, and costumes were also scrapped. Most, if not all of the Orcs and Goblins are C.G. The Orcs are greyish, almost white. Some may argue that these were not Orcs, but rather Goblins. I tried to take that into consideration, but in the movie, they are most definitely referred to as Orcs. The beautiful New Zealand scenery is almost entirely non existent. I understand that the production was plagued with financial problems, and countless other issues, but it is an utter disappointment. So many other times in history, movies, their budgets, and other things have almost cost the movie, but after the release, the movie becomes a phenomenal cult hit, ie. Jaws. Unfortunately, The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, will not be one of those cult hits. The final thing that really bothered me about this is that instead of just taking the complete budget, and creating one last epic movie "The Hobbit", they blew the budget on three separate installments of the film: The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, Smaug, and finally, There and Back Again. It was totally unnecessary to create three different movies. They took quite a bit of creative license and wrote more into the story to extend this one book into 3 more movies, which makes the movie drag out more than necessary. In the LOTR, I found myself wanting more, and shocked when the movie ended where it had. I was sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next installment to come out. Not so much with this one. I was actually quite irritated that I now have to wait another two years to see the final installment of The Hobbit. I'm not looking forward to seeing the disaster that awaits, but hopefully, the story will get better, even if the scenery, costumes, and make-up do not.… Expand

A very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they're stretching it out way too much. Most of the movie was boring, and the few intersting/exciting parts weren't enough to save it.… Expand

Peter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. Very disappointing.

I'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you so far, and to my mind, not nearly far enough to forgive this movie its flaws. Chief among them was the length. The Lord of the Rings movies were all long, but they had the material to justify their length. One movie per book makes sense. By the end of this first Hobbit movie we've covered about 6 chapters worth of source material. The rest is filler. And not good filler at that. If I never see Radagast the Brown again, that'll be fine by me. He rides around on a sleigh pulled by rabbits for god's sake. I like fantasy just fine, but I like it to be at least somewhat grounded. I loved Tolkien's books, but I was glad that the Lord of the Rings movies weren't 100% faithful to them. I didn't need to see Tom Bombadil on the big screen, and I certainly didn't need to see people singing left and right during their epic quest to save the world. Well, they left the singing in this time around. And it does work fairly well in one instance, but the rest of the time it's just odd and distracting. Too much of this movie is odd and distracting. There are moments that work, but they're wedged between so, so many others that don't. I want to say that there's a very good 2 hour movie hidden in what I saw, but I'm not sure that's the case. Absent the filler, I don't think there's enough to string together a coherent, satisfying narrative from this segment of the story. Maybe when all three films are on the table, I'll be better able to see how things could have been readjusted. Bottom line, I really wanted to like this movie, but I just didn't. Watching it was a chore.… Expand

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. After all, it was only like the first 100 pages of the book. Gollum is the only thing that kept my review from a 3. What a major disappointment. I can tell you one thing, I definetly won't be there for part 2 or 3.… Expand

As a big Tolkien fan and LOTR movie fan, I felt betrayed after leaving the movie theater. The moment I heard Del Torro was going to direct it, I was a bit disappointed. And it felt good to know that in the end Peter Jackson was going to direct it. Now that I think of it, I'm sure it would have been a better idea to let Del Torro direct it....

Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

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

Is it a 0/10? No. It's okay. Perhaps it was simply not for me. But at 1 hour, I checked the time and was astounded to find that I had not been watching for 2 hours, and that I had 1 hour and 45 minutes left to go. I groaned and turned it off.… Expand

It is to slow, I fell asleep half way through the film because nothing happened and that isn't an exaggeration. I have no idea why they decided to make a trilogy out of one book that isn't even very long, in fact in the time this trilogy would take to watch, I could have read the book. On top of that everything looks cheaper and fake, I can only come up with the conclusion that the CGI is just over used where it wasn't so much in LOTR where you often had real people playing monsters that are now CGI. I noticed a lot more sets are CGI too and it just gives off this fake feeling like the Star Wars Prequels. I also do not like the makeup it just all looks like makeup this time around, everything is too bright, there is too much clarity and I feel like I'm watching a play rather than being drawn in. Biggest disappointment since The Phantom Menace.… Expand

I almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't that far through, the magic of Middle Earth was lost amongst waterfalls, mountains and lush forests, and I was assuming what they were searching for what was left of the storyline. But apart from that, what also made it worse, because I think other people who disliked this film would repeat that as a criticism, was the humour that was rolled out with each line one after each other, expecting us to laugh uproariously, when it felt forced and just generally unfunny. Much of it was low-brow humour, which was one of the reasons I disliked the dwarves, only really there to please the children. Apart from the visually beautiful scenes, the only element of the LOTR trilogy that was still there and alive was Gollum, who was on perfect form. Martin Freeman could seriously carry this film on his own, as there didn't seem to be much contribution from anyone else - maybe Ian McKellen, if I saw more of him.… Expand

I love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at or connecting with a real being. The entire portion with the trolls is difficult to watch, with odd CG, poor "combat", the dialogue can be forgiven (i.e. gross jokes), and a set that clearly looks like a set. Peter Jackson added portions of other Tolkien books and expanded certain sections not covered in The Hobbit, but almost all of them are in odd places, and do not really fit with the story (this could just be bad editing), this is especially so concerning everything revolving around Radagast the Brown. Pacing is very slow, which does not always equal bad, but it takes roughly 45mins for anything to happen in the film. Shooting in 3D was a big mistake, mostly because the lighting has to be so bright that many of the scenes looked odd, especially in Golem's cave, many scenes that should have been dark were oddly bright. I saw both the regular and 3D,48 fps. I did not enjoy the 3D, 48fps version of the film, it made the movie look like one of those 3D films at a theme park, i.e. somewhat cheesy. While there are many continuity issues many viewers will only catch a few. It seems that many of the qualities that Peter Jackson brought to LOTR (which made them great) disappeared in the hobbit. Many other issues include the pointless cameos from old Bilbo and Frodo (who has a 5 o'clock shadow), the long beginning narrative, cliched lines/characters, and odd makeup and props. I hope the next two films are better, but The Hobbit could have been better if Peter Jackson had gone simpler, in the scope and special effects of the movie.… Expand

A big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside Bag End with the plate tossing and especially in the orc caverns were groan worthy. The music sounded like a rehash of the LOTR soundtrack with one additional song. I understand, that they have similar areas -- elves, hobbit(s), wizard(s) but it just wasn't up to LOTR quality to me. The sets, outside of Bag End, seem very small, as if to save money. The cast seemed to be perpetually pressed up next to each other with CGI effects all around them. Almost as if they had a 4ft square piece of plywood to stand on in the middle of a blue screened room. This stood out -a lot-. CGI and 3D were the true stars of this movie. With more screen time given to both of these than any of the other actors. The CGI, which was done as an additional component to the story telling, as Alex Funke said during the making of LOTR, took center stage during this movie. It was rampant and very noticeable. I understand, that it simply impossible to make most or all of the monsters as latex appliances but they did that in the other movies. Why not here? Andy Serkis and Golem's animators were a joy to see. The flash back to Erebor was amazing. The rest of the movie simply wasn't up to the same calibur as those segments. It was more like an old 80's after-school special when compared to LOTR's quality -- and it painfully showed. Many many scenes were homages/repeats of LOTRs camera angles or effects. I could name them, but I don't want to embed them into people's permanent memory. If you have seen LOTR as often as I have, you will spot the same sequences/shots used in this movie as were previously done. That's lazy and it stands out. Also gone are the big sweeping grand panorama shots of LOTR. Lastly the obvious attempts at humor. It felt like George Lucas had directed this movie because PJ had to toss in some kid-friendly elements to make it a family movie instead of just telling the story.… Expand

For a movie that lasted almost 3 hours so little seemed to be accomplished, but this is truly the least of the problems. To sum it up, everything that was so magical and wonderful about Middle Earth seemed to be gone. The scenes seemed staged, the pacing was bizarre, the action wasn't unique, and there seemed to be not center plot in sight. The biggest flaw above all is how this movie felt so emotionless, contrived, and anything from genuine, which is something that made his previous trilogy so beloved. With a movie with dozens of characters only about 3 of them receive any worthy character time. There were very brief moments that reminded me of what this film could have amounted too, but those don't compensate for everything else. Not just a disappointing film, but for the most part, a pretty bad one too.… Expand

Yawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic with this movie. Even Gollum was cheesy and over done. Blah. Stay home and put this in your Netflix queue. We should have known that this was going to happen. Jackson went from the Lord of the Rings to King Kong. He has tremendous potential to tell horrible stories and make bad movies. No one should be surprised.… Expand

I am disappointed in this movie. Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW. I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie. You want to see the hobbit HAHA VERY **** DISSAPOINTING FOR LONGTIME FANS. You know how people trim down film during the editing process, well that doesn't happen here, they literally put everything imaginable into the film just to cash out on poor suckers in a 1-3 installment.
You should have heard people saying what the **** after the movie suddenly cut off.

None of the battles were memorable thanks to the terrible framerate blur.

They had to seriously reference songs from the 70's cartoon movie just to make the audience chuckle.

Please don't give this a 10 unless you have reasons, just being a (good) film by beginners standards is not enough.

They could have improved this movie if they included the spiders but they didn't they wanted some goblin king and some orc to be protagonists.

I was waiting the whole time to see some live action enemies orcs, goblins anything but NO I AM DISSAPOINT. ALL ENEMIES WERE CG. GOLLUM LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE, he is cute wtf! he scared Bilbo in the Cartoon Version, and he scared the hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, but in this he is not scary at all in this version. They didn't even include the part where it was dark down in that cave where he uses the Sting for light they don't even examine the sword called sting no one even heard the word STING muttered WTF WTF!, but in this movie everything was visible.

Music was terrible and the jokes were terrible, half the audience was laughing at unfunny parts and half were laughing during the funny parts.

Bilbo does a terrible job acting around any cg enemy, he literally just smiles and giggles or makes a joke when he encounters an enemy.

The goblin king makes a lame joke, the dwarves can literally mow down any enemies they encounter.

13 Dwarves a wizard and a hobbit are not meant to mow down Millions of Orcs and Goblins in a blink of an eye. Why do they even consider running if after they run they just fight them off. Goblins are supposed to swarm and exhaust the enemy not die 1 by 1.

This film is Peter Jacksons (Phantom Menace) cg overloaded trash.… Expand

What i did like is the clever use of silence that made me nervous. Also Gollum part was interesting, and he was the only character that actually had his lines well written. What I didn't like? Everything else. Music, while there are nice compositions, had too much recycled parts from LOTR. Visually too much weight was given to effects. While the light is good and it creates a nice atmosphere, dizzying camera movements and excessive computer graphics put shadow over that. I saw it as 3D, but I do not see the 3D, so i wont comment on that, ill only say that my friends told me that it was supposed to be there only at certain shots. Story is naive, some parts have no reason to be in the movie. Action scenes, well, they remind me of a video game. Rock rolling in the caves that cleans the goblins, trees collapsing like dominos and so on. And the childish humor, punch lines... the list goes on and it makes me wonder why did Jackson do this, behind him he has amazing movies, and this one is really not. And for the end, characters. They are not believable, Bilbo was not so interesting, Gandalf annoyed me with bad written lines and dwarves, well just stupid as **** Picture Gimli from LOTR, and then go back to 13 Santa s helpers. They look like someone gathered a bunch of crazy homeless people, gave them bad lines and a bunch of different medication. Overall it is a movie for 10 years old that don't want to bother to read a book. I did read it a couple of times, and maybe my overall score is affected by my big expectation. I doubt i will watch the movie again, and Im also not sure i will also go to cinema to watch the rest of the trilogy. Shame on you Peter Jackson.… Expand

This was disappointing. As an avid fan of LotR I had been very much looking forward to this.The Hobbit however has turned out to be an over-long piece of bombast, lacking the magic and charm of the book. There are unforgivable alterations to the story - the humour in the unexpected tea party, or in Gandalf's outwitting the trolls - and at least three very loud, long and unnecessary battles which look like off cuts from LotR. The sets are too familiar also. This film really needed a new vision. That said, the cast is excellent and the quieter parts of the film are worth watching. But, how is Peter Jackson going to spin the story out for three movies? I won't be going to the next two to find out.… Expand

All of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standard set by the first three films. Forced humor in the Hobbit was an active theme throughout with the goblin king, gollum, etc. This humor was forced into the most inappropriate times during the film where in comparison would be as if The king of Rohan cracked a joke as Soroman's army broke through the walls of helms deep in the second film. The introduction of the brown wizard was both uncalled for as well as degrading the the movie itself. The over the top use of computer graphics in this films took its toll on the film, and left the viewers watching another movie such as Narnia from within the theater, instead of drawing the viewer into both the plot and middle earth itself… Expand

Very disappointing - insanely too long, with a slow, sleep inducing story, and cgi which looked more like a video game. The LOTR films raised the bar for brilliant make-up and great cgi, all within an emotional storyline with breath-taking cinematography and outstanding credibility. The Hobbit is a cynical grab for cash - why did the orcs, goblins and wargs look so cartoonish ? LOTR had a gritty in-camera reality which The Hobbit totally lacked. It should have been 90-120 minutes long but lost its way.… Expand

A completely forgettable film, practically an insult to the first 3. While the scenery was quite spectacular, there were to many characters to actually care for them. I was almost hoping for some of the characters to die. Some sections just continued to drag on, with almost no point to them then to just flesh out the 2 and a half hour film. Sections became tedious and repetitive, with little being done to elaborate on many of the characters. Nothing like the originals, and no where near as entertaining.… Expand

The hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite the negative comments, the film does show signs of greatness, but they are usually overcome with incredibly cheesy scenes and characters ( radagast) which takes away any seriousness. I have been a huge fan of The Lord of the rings. Trilogy and I was deeply saddened when I saw this movie. The only thing to be said about it is, hold on to the great scenes and try to endure the more child like ones… Expand

aunque sigue fiel a los libros the hobbit es una película inferior a las del señor de los anillos y aunque tiene unos momentos interesantes la película aburre a la hora y media y si usted es como yo se quedara dormido y no querrá volverla aver

plenty of reviews have already nailed this so ill just say bored the life out of me. watching it i couldn't stop thinking is this one movie stretched into 3 just to line some pockets? really looked forward to this, tried to like it. but... do you give points for prettiness? on substance alone i can only give this a 3....

I was disapointed when i left the theater after this movie.
* The dwarves look absolutely rediculous, i doubt their budget for the costumes were that strained to justify their awfull appearence. They really do look like they fit in at a high school theater production.
* Who are the dwarves? I dont know really, none of them got to show their personalities to any greater extent. Did they even say anyhing? If it was anything important or intresting i guess it was drowned by all the dumb and childish punchlines.
* They sure like running alot, did they even fight at all? I dont remember, i really dont. After a while it all just felt like watching someone play a computer game.
* I liked Radagast though, but thats probably because he's just like me :P… Expand

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

Too much like Lord of the Rings. Obviously it's the same Middle Earth/Gandolf/ring/etc... but the Hobbit is not as grand a story as the Lord of the Rings. It is a much shorter/concise story. Watching this movie almost cuts into my enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings. As good as LOTR was, the Hobbit is just as bad. What a mess. They really cared about LOTR and Tolkein for the first 3 movies, I think they just wanted more money with the Hobbit.… Expand

This film is a grotesque frankenstien monster of an adaptation. The sections of this movie which follow the book are entertaining and (barely) decently done, however the remaining half is a butchered and chunky concoction, incorporating elements of Tolkien's other works, 'Adam Sandler' style slapstick stupidity (such as a dismembered Goblin-King fat enough to appear on 'The Biggest Loser' falling on top of our gang of dwarfs, much to the delight of my 7yr old brother I should add) and an extra large portion of Peter Jackson's inflated ego. The resulting plot is a grotesque and thinly veiled carbon copy of Jackson's excellent 'The Fellowship of the Ring' to which The Hobbit's plot has been brutally affixed, even going so far as to tediously extrapolate a non-existent prologue to mimic the fellowship's opening scene. The worst part is that there are still two more films to come, and I wouldn't be surprised, given the quality of this one, if the last part were to rival the last film in the Twilight series for its extreme tediousness and fetal-position mind-numbingness.… Expand

This movie was just horrible! I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but this left me with a feeling of a quick cash grab and the more childish tone of the movie did not appeal to me..

With a horrible ending and stupid fight scenes this film stops exactly when it shouldn't. Maybe with more it will end up like LOTR but at this early stage it doesn't deliver.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Monotonous, dry, bland, unimaginative story telling, as much fun as a trip to the dentist, please deliver us from Peter Jackson. The visuals have been overplayed in the Lord of the Rings and the screen play lands flat and robotic. None of the characters resonate and Richard Armitage looks and acts more like a poor copy of Viggo Mortensen's Aragon than a dwarf royal or not. Huge waste of time and money, this telling lends nothing to Tolkien and appears lifeless even next to the cheesy 1977 animated Hobbit. Jackson only has 2 tools in his tool box, endless sweeps across the landscape of New Zealand and excessive CGI. Both are used to great effect to kill pacing, distract from the story and swallow the characters, not that another whiny hobbit or a band of forgettable dwarves that cannot sing would be missed. The ending is also disappointing, not that I expected any kind of resolution in a film from Jackson, but I really wanted to see Smaug kill off the cast, turn on Jackson and leave us to all live happily ever after in a world free of crappy directors and pretentious film making.… Expand

"Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and divided it into parts - to make more money.
Poor attempt of trying to make a lot of $ using great author's name.… Expand

If what you crave is a Lord of the Rings sequel featuring a sight gag wizard with bird poop in his hair who rides a rabbit sleigh, orcs (or like creatures) who deliver one-liners after being disemboweled, humorous beheading sequences played for cheap laughs, extended dish-cleaning footage, and lots of fight-scene ideas lifted straight out of Pirates of the Caribbean...this is your movie.

I have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeats the purpose. There is a tinny feel to it; I thought I would be getting a voluptuous visual cinematic experience, but far from it. If you can stand the thought of the hours of boredom, at least do yourself the favour of seeing the normal frame rate version. I wish I had.… Expand

Fell asleep in the theatre. Also, watching a film at such a high frame rate (HFR) gives the movie a made-for-PBS look to it. At 48 frames per second, the viewer has difficulty suspending disbelief because the frame rate makes the film look too similar to the real world, fantasy setting notwithstanding. It'll be a while until filmmakers can overcome that challenge of making people believe in the fantasy world they create if they stick with HFR. Also, the 3D is an annoying gimmick and I would have been happier watching it in HFR without the glasses and effects. Additionally, the movie takes some pretty big departures from the book, none for the best.… Expand

Over long and over done. While the LOTR trilogy made sense and was, all things considered, faithful to the source material, neither can said for this thing.One absurd action sequence after another. Our heroes can't fight small bands of Orcs or Goblins - oh no - they have to confronted with an insane number of bad guys. I may - or may not - rent the next two. It is only two more right? Or will they try to back to bank again and again?… Expand

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an unexpected movie with an unexpected experience. The movie simply falls flat on its face. It has the best visuals and effects but the sole purpose of technology is to support your script and enhance experience but one should know that one might be able to bring people to cinema due to the reputation and expectations but won't be able to keep them sit and watch the complete movie if its not good. Screenplay works in bits and pieces for me. Story build-up is a drag. The most disappointing thing is that it failed to deliver what you expected to see. My friends who have read the book], enjoyed it a lot but even they think that it gets too boring in the middle.… Expand

Why make a story, that could be perfectly told in 90min last twice the time for part 1? I loved the book but the movie felt like a waste of time. Too much stretching, too much nonsense beside the main plot. I'll pass on the next movies. The only real bright spot: Gollum what an awesome performance!

Where to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and over for the idiotic modern viewer. The journey is butchered so the audience can enjoy a cheap joke or set up car-chase esque sequence complete with complete ridiculous jump to platform action scenes. The dialogue is terrible and there are none of the wisdom quips that gave LOTR its magic and lasting effect. The ridiculous slapstick humor injected in comes off as annoying, like others have said, makes the movie feel like a Pirates of the Caribean film. This is a bad action movie, nothing more… Expand

I absolutely love LOTR along with the Hobbit books, but this film is painfully bad, it seems like LOTR for 3 year olds. The film gets good when Gollum is introduced but that's only the last 20-30 minutes. It's slow, painful & pointless as the main story is very rarely addressed in all the dialogue. The acting & directing was very poor which is unusual considering I personally feel that most of the actors are really good & I'm a fan of Jackson's work. This was the worst film I've seen at the cinema, EVER! To sum it up I will use Bilbo's final line in the film "Let's hope the worst is behind us"… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For those who have seen the film...Why it reeked. I was hugely disappointed in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". Instead of sticking to the children's story, which is very short compared to LOTR, Peter Jackson has added a ton of unnecessary bloat. Many of the scenes were just added to connect it with LOTR, which was not needed, such as all the scenes with Frodo. The movie starts with a huge back story, which would have been better told as the movie progressed. Thorin has a new adversary (he was mentioned in the book, but the party had no interaction with him) ...the strange white orc that slew his father. One of the changes that bothered me the most was that Bilbo is looked down upon throughout the movie, and he has to be a savior in almost every instance to prove he is worthy of the party. In the book the animosity is not nearly as bad. Bilbo does enough in the book without having to, for instance, save Thorin from the white orc. If I remember right the first thing that Bilbo kills with his new short sword in the book is a spider, and Bilbo names the sword Sting. Shouldn't Bilbo have named the sword Fang or Claw in the movie? One of the scenes that doesn't work is when Bilbo escapes from Golum, and Golum just screams instead of running after Bilbo. Why didn't Golum go after Biblo you ask? Well, in the book the goblins are guarding the way out of the mountain, and Golum didn't want to get caught. I was looking forward to see the whole party stuck up in the trees, and the goblins making fun of them with song, but this was not included. Instead of the party being almost burnt up in the trees, the problem is the trees are collapsing. After the long intro, the movie turns into a roller coaster ride. A lot of people compare it to Pirates of the Caribbean, and they are right on. This movie is more Pirate of the Caribbean, than Pirate of the Caribbean could ever be. THREE different instances of having to jump from one place to another to stay alive...The stone giants, the collapsing walkways in the mountain, and the collapsing trees! Speaking of the stone giants, hasn't Peter Jackson learned that some things are better off left for the imagination? In the book the stone giants are mentioned, almost in passing, while in the movie they ride them! It would have been great, if during the storm rocks were falling, you could hear the noise of huge rocks getting smashed...and then through the storm a slight glimpse of something made of rock moves.... Thorin, Thorin, Thorin. He does not hate the elves, he was thankful for their hospitality, and the thing he loves most is gold. In the movie they try to make him a bleeding heart for his homeland, when all he wants is the gold! He IS a dwarf for goodness sake! A new (uneeded) comedy relief was added...Radagast the wizard. Poop. Another new twist is Gandalf hearing about the necromancer. I was almost intrested in this, I think it comes straight from Tokien's notes. However, it does make the movie longer, and is the main reason we have to deal with Radagast the Gastly. The troll incident is changed, for the worst. In the book Biblo is trying to steal something from the trolls, instead of saving the horses. Everyone in the party gets captured except Thorin, who puts up a fight. In the movie, everyone gives up their weapons to save Biblo from getting ripped apart...one person ripped apart, or everyone gets eaten hmmm....This is another time where Biblo basically saves the day, instead of Gandalf. Bilbo keeps the Trolls arguing in the movie, but in the book Gandalf throws his voice, making the Trolls think that they are disagreeing on how to cook the party. The visuals of the movie are descent. More CGI was used, and less animatronics than in LOTR and it shows. I could continue to nitpick very easily, but I think I will leave it there. To sum it up, this is not a movie about a Hobbit, as the book was. It is a movie about the whole of the goings on in middle earth during the story of the Hobbit, and it doesn't work. It tries to be too much like LOTR, instead of the childrens book it was intended to be.… Expand

It was like the "Phantom Menace" all over again. Just like that film, I knew 20 minutes into the movie it was a disaster. Poor editing, poor pacing, poor storytelling. My biggest disappointment of the year.

This is a stunning visual experience at times. What ruins it for me is the lack of unique content.
I got the same experience as I did with the first movies. This film also features some of the most ridiculous CG sequences I have ever seen in a high budget movie. It looks utterly fake, and it is about time the people who animate these things, take a physics course. At the very least, try to make gravity appear uniform.… Expand

David Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this to be just as good. It was a terrible interpretation. The dwarves are silly in the movie they are not in the book. There is much more violence in the movie than in the book. And, the violence is largely gratuitous with boring, drawn out scenes that are well over the top. No doubt video-gamers will like it, but this is a movie not a videogame The other Wizard, living in the forest as its caretaker, is made to look a fool in the book he is not. The escape scenes are also much drawn out and absolutely unbelievable as in so completely unbelievable that I thought I was watching a Saturday morning cartoon. Visually the movie looks attractive, but since the plot is so wretchedly twisted the almost three-hours for me was tortuous the last 60 minutes I was twitching so much in my seat that I no doubt bothered my niegbors in the theater. Mr. Jackson did not need to add in the new characters and plot twists. Tolkien's work has very elaborate text and explanations that could easily have been incorporated to make a three-part series without the "new" material. He could have used much more character and plot development, increased the suspense and reduced the violence. I will see the next two chapters in the cinema, but not with nearly as much anticipation as I had for this first chapter and for the three Lord of the Rings movie.… Expand

I had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. The original Hobbit depending on what publication edition, was roughly 1/5 or less of the number of pages of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This leaves you feeling you not only get to pay three times to see one story, but you also get to wait a full year between each release!
I could wait until all three are out and watch it, but I don't want to sit on my butt for so long in front of a TV that I could have just re-read the original story in paperback.… Expand

I found the movie close to unwatchable. The pace was glacial and there were way too many fights scenes in, and some of them felt completely random, adding nothing to the story (The rock giants fight for one). Worse is the fact that the action scenes were so over the top that it was completely unbelievable that all the dwarves came out without a single injury every time.

If you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking he is a better story teller than Tolkien. I went into the movie thinking I would be looking for things that they changed to make the scenes work better on screen, I soon found I was looking for things that were actually in the book. A poop covered wizard that rides a sled pulled by rabbits? REALLY!? The book was about the quest and the JOURNEY! A lot of time was given to feeling homesick, feeling hungry and tired on the road, or toughing it out through rain. When I heard how long the movie was I got excited thinking, "Yes! they actually put all that stuff in". Wrong! The movie takes out the journey and immediately puts the characters where they need to be one scene after another. The white orc was only added in so they could write a storyline that has lots of fighting (even though there was enough in the book) to make Thorin look like the honorable badass hero American audiences/zombiemasses apparently require. The dwarves were not warriors at all in the book (although they did fight), they did not even have weapons until they found them in the troll's cave (another butchered scene).… Expand

The movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact it was a prequel to LoTR and remove the elements of what made the Hobbit(the novel) great… Expand

Dreadful film. I saw the HFR presentation and I could not believe how terrible the live action elements looked. The look of the characters were like a bad BBC Shakespeare television program. The film, dragged on and on, while the CG was done very well (Weta is great) Golum was terrific, the rest of the picture as a whole was awful. Think Phantom Menace. Peter Jackson has lost it. Sorry, it is sad but true, Dreadful, waste of 3 hours.… Expand

It's looks like "Peter Jackson's LOTR fanboys" have got this film pumped up higher than a worthless penny -stock. But that's what this movie is, the film equivalent of a penny-stock. It's value in relation to Tolkien's original story is bankrupt. I hope the Tolkien estate sues MGM and Jackson and pulls this trip from the market, along with the Denny's "Hobbit Breakfast," and all the other marketing minutia that sullies the image of J.R.R. Tolkien and his wonderful literary accomplishments.… Expand

This movie is terrible for five reasons. First, the pacing is awful. It seemed so very long and it truly felt like chapters in a book instead of a real movie. Second, the dialog is so cheesy. There was a lot of talking and voice overs. Often the film told us the action instead of showing it. Third, the CGI was not very good. It looked fake, as if nothing progressed since LOTR came out. Fourth, scenes were too long and could have easily been edited down. There is a part where riddles are thrown back and forth for legit 15 minutes. We don't need the best 2 out of 3 give us one. Fifth, by the 1000th unrealistic escape it starts to feel like a dumb joke.… Expand

So boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening so intrascendental and no charismatic characters.

Very boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and on and on.. All a bit cheesy, like a video game. Dwarves badly made up, some having false noses, others not. This film lacked magic and charm.… Expand

A high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantly going from moments of safety to moments of extreme danger and quite frankly it's just plain boring. The film left me with no incentive to watch any of the sequels.… Expand

I wanted something closer to Pan's Labyrinth and instead got another Jackson turd. If only del Toro had stayed on to do this properly. The more time that passes since the LOTR the more I grow to dislike them. Randall Graves had it right in Clerks II. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&v=aSB03lr69iU

To me the most important elements of a movies are the story and character development, and this movie has none of these. The story is virtually non-existent and amounts to a succession of chase/fight/rest rinse and repeat for 3 hours. The supporting characters are completely blank, (save maybe for Thorin, the only half decent supporting character with Gandalf) and Bilbo is also fairly uninteresting (there's being laid back and there's having no presence on screen). And the pacing... this movie is absolutely too long with no real reason to it. I had never seen a 3 hour movie that manages to have no character development, it's quite a feat when you think about it. So yeah in my opinion this movie is very shallow despite its great effects, I also liked the 48 fps format I think it has a lot of potential (especially during action scenes) but when it's all mixed with atrocious pacing, zero story and bland characters then it's just a waste of 3 hours.… Expand

The new 3 part, three hour each, series of films, which is a prequel to

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey turned out to be an unexpected Christmas turkey. I saw the 2D version because 3D fx don't work for me. As the movie trudged from one prepackaged fight scene to another, I became increasingly bored at the lack of character development and genuinely good storytelling. As it turns out, I was not alone in my assessment of the film. When the credits started to roll, I heard someone behind me exclaim "What a rip off!"… Expand