User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2351 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit - An unexpected journey is a film of 2012 directed by Peter Jackson and based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. The story speaks of the facts prior to "The Lord of the Rings" and tells of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who, together with Gandalf and thirteen dwarves will help to regain the treasure of the latter, guarded by the fearsome dragon Smaug. The film is very faithful to the novel and adds some parts that are in the book just mentioned while in the film are expanded and will be key for the next chapters. Excellent choice of cast with actors formidable, fantastic photography and scenery typical of "Lord of the Rings", incredible special effects that digital is very little known and very beautiful music. Perhaps you might find the first part of the film a little bit slow while the second can achieve high moments of action. Expand
  2. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Lots of fun, great action, and very witty. I loved the hobbit. Even though some things were a bit off from the book, it made the movie that much more enjoyable. People need to realize what the hobbit is about before giving it a bad review. Its not about EVIL and BATTLES, its about an adventure from an unlikely fellow.
  3. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    Push the hype aside and ignore the book, this movie is a very good movie. It is clear expectations were super high and I believe that is where some of the negative scores have come from. No movie will make everyone happy, but this movie is not worthy have very low scores. If this had been the first movie released from the series, fans would have thought they found the greatest movie ever. The pace of the movie is a little slower than any of the LOTR movies, but not as bad as some people say. If you must have action every five minutes, yes, you will be disappointed. If you love the book, this should be a great movie for you. If enjoy fantasy films, this should be a good movie for you. The biggest flaw for me was a few of the actions scenes became too cartoon like. One where the heroes are on a bridge that falls down and they ride it like they were glued to it. Not only was that bad, but it looked like something from a 1970s low budget Sci-Fi movie. Not a worthy scene for the movie. I have read some who complain they do not take the time to get the audience familiar with all the dwarfs in the main group. I do not see how they could have done that without making the movie another hour longer. As far as the format choice, it did not bother me. Yes, it does lack some of the slightly warmer feel of film, but it looks very crisp. I think if no one said anything, most people would not have picked up on the unique format. Bottom line, this is worth seeing in theaters if you enjoy fantasy films. If you are looking for an action packed movie, maybe the next Die Hard can help you with that. s it worth going 3-D, that I do not know. Expand
  4. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    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
  5. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Peter Jackson has done it again, with an utterly brilliant adaption of the first third of the classic novel Expand
  6. Dec 17, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. the movie was completely amazing.it has great locations,nice cast and a very nice and simple story.
    martin freeman as bilbo was perfect.the movie was just a 'little' boring in the middle of the first half,rest of it was simply superb.its a must watch...those who didnt like this must be 'ORCS'.
    Expand
  7. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    In 24 fps, 'An Unexpected Journey' felt like a new 'Fellowship of the Rings'; lighter in tone than the succeeding movies, as it sets the narrative foundation upon which the characters, the plot, and the themes can further be developed. It contains a similar mixture of lighter idyllic and comedic moments, balanced against those of a more solemn and thoughtful nature. The same cinematic joy can be found in 'The Hobbit' as in the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, thanks to the artistry of the world that has been built, the set and costume design, and the skillful and respectful work of the writers and actors, bringing Tolkien's world to the big screen in spirit, even if not always in exacting detail.

    In 48 fps, 'An Unexpected Journey' is a vastly different movie. Yes, the high frame rate does distract from the movie itself, but it is a welcome distraction; it calls attention to itself by way of throwing the viewer head-first into a sea of visual stimuli that they have never had opportunity to see before. Every single action sequence was dramatically improved watching it in 48fps; every action, gesture and expression performed by the actors is a discrete and observable action, rather than a blur standing in for that movement. The lucidity brought by this method caught me as a viewer by surprise; at first overwhelming and, by the end of the film, wholly welcome. Hopefully the industry will continue to push for growth and further development in high frame rate film-making, in order to cultivate familiarity with this new presentation style in the audiences to the point where 48fps no longer distracts, but integrates into the rest of the experience to immerse the viewer deeper into every strange new world.
    Expand
  8. Dec 17, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Expand
  9. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    THE HOBBIT is an amazing film. Peter Jackson has made a masterpiece one more time. This film has also humour and makes laugh. We have once more a three hours movie. Great film.
  10. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    A magical movie. nothing new, nothing unexpected but a wonderful epic tale given in the most fascinating fashion. for almost 3 hours you are part of the most worm and magical grandfathers tale. the critics hate it the audience loved it. maybe we have to reevaluate the purpose of cinema.
  11. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    Gandalf,Bilbo,Thorin and other dwarves began an adventure to take back Erebor. Once more Peter Jackson gave us an masterpiece with great acting and humor. We are talking about a three hours film. THE HOBBIT shows us how everything began in LORD OF THE RINGS.
  12. Dec 17, 2012
    10
    After 9 years we are back to middle earth. Gandalf the Grey chose Bilbo Bagins to help Thorin to take back Erebor. One hobbit,one wizard,thirteen dwarves. Peter Jackson delivered us one more epic adventure back in middle earth. It is a three hour masterpiece.
  13. Dec 17, 2012
    9
    It's nice to be back in Middle-Earth. Great actors, cool action scenes, epic soundtrack. It might be a bit slow at times, but it's never boring at all.
  14. 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 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
  15. Dec 17, 2012
    8
    Beautiful HFR and 3d. Many scenes benefit from this where you see action going on in the background and then it moves to the foreground naturally. The movie was very entertaining with many moving moments and a lot of chase scenes. It kinda reminded me of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for a while. All in all I enjoyed it greatly but I was ready for it to end when the credits rolled. Over 3 hours with previews is a little daunting. Expand
  16. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I loved every minute of this movie. I wouldn't have changed a thing. I read the hobbit 20 years ago and I am very happy with the result of this movie.
  17. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is an outstanding movie. I've been waiting for this flick for a long time and it did not disappoint. It had exactly what I was looking for in an adaptation of Tolkien's book. Unfortunately I do not live near a theatre that was showing the HFR version, so I'm unable to comment on that. But from what I've heard from friends it's either hit or miss.
  18. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    CRITICS GOT IT WRONG!!!! And I may have a hard time taking critics seriously ever again. This year, a lot of blockbuster movies were released (e.g. Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers) but The Hobbit surpassed them all and takes the crown as most exciting film of 2012. At first, I wondered at the logic of dividing the book into three parts. But I am a believer as the longer length allows you to fully immerse and appreciate yourself in this wonderful world of middle earth. Wonderful, magical, exciting! You must go watch this film!! Expand
  19. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Gosh, I just saw this with my wife. We just loved it. We're fans of the book versions of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and the original LOTR trilogy. The Hobbit movie just knocked our socks off. It was beautiful, sensational, exciting, and novel. There were fictional embellishments that deviated from the original book, but not from the story of Middle-Earth leading up to the LOTR time - the alterations Jackson and his crew have made to the events of The Hobbit are excellent additions that meet the requirements for a rich fantasy adventure that does not betray the original author's intentions for the goings on of the world around the central characters. Expand
  20. Dec 16, 2012
    3
    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
  21. 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 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
  22. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I couldn't agree less with the critics on this one. I'm usually on their side, with the exception of Looper (disliked it). I enjoyed absolutely every second of this film. You can almost fall in love with it.
  23. 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
    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
  24. Dec 16, 2012
    7
    Talk about a movie that people are going into with preconceived notions. Has there ever been a movie that people have had so much to say about before they even see it? I was no exception to this, I loved the first trilogy and had read all the publicity about directors, how many films would be made, and the format Jackson chose to film in. After finally seeing the movie and reading many reviews I have to say there was very little about this installment to the franchise that disappointed me. Is this film perfect? No, but few film are. Is the pacing leisurely? Yes, but does anyone remember Fellowship. Does some of this feel more child like than the other three movies? Absolutely, just like the source material. I think what I love about this film and a lot of what I love about the original three can be summed up with two words: world building. Jackson does an unbelievable job building this world, every creature feels unique and in its place, every setting the same. The introduction of the dwarfs exemplifies this perfectly, I love how each set of creatures are are prone to certain characteristics but each character within that set have very unique personalities. This is just one example of his world building but can be seen across every element of the story. This of course is not just a testament to Jackson but also Tolkein's source material. I thought this movie had exceptional acting almost across the board. Freeman and McKellan in particular were fantastic. I think Freeman was a better Hobbit then any of the actors in the previous films. Like its predecessors this movie has many lighthearted moments, some stunning visuals, some pretty cool action sequences, and plenty of time to immerse yourself in it all. I for one will be looking forward to the next two films. Expand
  25. Dec 16, 2012
    8
    A great movie that is let down by acouple of pacing problems early on. Fans of the LotR will love this, despite just missing tout on the greatness of that trilogy. No doubt will be improved by the extended cuts and sequels.
  26. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    It's damn good. Let's be honest and give it the respect it deserves without unfairly judging it against it's award-winning predecessors. It's biggest culprit is the length. It's like so many other films these days.....it's just a hair too long. Regardless, I found The Hobbit superbly entertaining, beautifully filmed, and thrillingly action-packed. As an avid Tolkien reader, this is a very fine representation of the book thus far. I can't wait to see what is yet to come. Expand
  27. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Another masterful movie from Peter Jackson that fans of Tolken will fall in love with. Some have said it was to long, i only wished it lasted longer. This is a masterpiece that does the book proud. I look forward to the second and third parts.
  28. Dec 16, 2012
    8
    Although the story coincides with Tolkien 's work, it's slow start seems to keep the story progression from picking up and lingers too long in Middle Earth at times. The visuals are spectacular, and at other moments it can be quite the opposite, as there is a "BBC television" feel to the filming (especially indoor shots). I'm not sure what's to blame for this, whether it's the i-max, 3-D, 48 fps or bad lighting but it is comparable to being on a live set observing a film shoot, which removes you from the sensation of it being a film at times. Despite it's flaws, and all the harsh criticism, the movie is still entertaining and worthy of being seen in theaters (as well as a future blu-ray purchase). There isn't much to the story of the Hobbit, and I think Peter Jackson has done a lot with a short children's story while tying in plot points that lead to the events of Lord of the Rings. The film manages to maintain the same atmosphere of Middle Earth with elaborate sets, creatures, wardrobe and beautiful cinematography. Well done. Expand
  29. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I must have watched a different movie than those other critics with negative reviews. This movie stuck well with the book, it had tons of action with gorgeous visuals. The end of the film transitions well into the second movie. I'm looking forward to the next film with the encounter with Smaug. The first movie would have been too long had they end with the Smaug encounter. Expand
  30. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Most of the writers of negative and mixed reviews must be hopped up.
    I can't understand how people can say this movie is too slow paced or too long. I was kinda sad when the film ended, I could have sit for 3 hours more in the cinemas and that's always a good sign.
    Of course, "The Hobbit" has its weaknesses, but I am gladly willing to accept these if I get brilliant scenes like "Riddles
    in the Dark" on the other hand.
    Can't wait for the next part.
    Expand
  31. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    I found the new Hobbit movie to be a thoroughly enjoyable and engaging journey! I was a huge fan of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, and was hoping that this movie would take me back to that world and allow me to live there for a few more hours. It accomplished that and much more! The 3D was very well done and definitely enhanced the film and made it even more engrossing. The characters were great, I loved Bilbo and Gandalf and the dwarf characters were great fun and felt true to character. The story was well told and kept me interested the whole 3 hours, and waiting for part 2 as soon as it ended. I knock one point off because I felt like the final action sequence was unnecessarily overdone. But that is a small complaint and this film will fit nicely into the awesome legacy the Lord of the Rings. Expand
  32. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is amazing. A perfect adventure. Through excellent characters such as Bilbo, Gollum (very good), Gandalf, among others, the film reveals extremely fun. Do not believe the notes of specialized critics, the film is monumental.
  33. Dec 16, 2012
    7
    I must admit that at first I was skeptical about the claims from movie critics who disliked the high frame rate. However, after watching the 48 frames per second version of the hobbit, I now realize that the critics were correct. Something about the high frame rate is off. It feels like you were watching a soap opera, like you are seeing people dressed up as dwarves reading their lines in front of the camera. It really does hurt the feelings of immersion. However, the 3-D animation, the parts of the movie where incredible beasts or goblins or orca were rendered, those look really nice in the high frame rate. As to the plot and content of the movie, it was mediocre. If you like the Lord of the rings, then you will probably like this movie. It feels fairly familiar and there are not really any surprises, overall it was a decent movie, but it really doesn't match up to the previous works. Expand
  34. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    I like this kind of movie/book, but I actually didn't care for the Lord of the Rings trilogy or this book, when I read it back in my teens. That said, I thought this film was excellent! They changed a lot from the book, which normally would drive me nuts, but it was well needed here and well done. The settings and special effects were first rate, and I really enjoyed escaping our world for this one. Critics say that it was really slow and dragged in the beginning, and I agree, but it was worth the build up, in my opinion. Peter Jackson's best so far! Expand
  35. Dec 16, 2012
    8
    I can't believe that this movie got the reviews that it did. This may be a case where I just love the franchise and I see the movie as being unimpeachable. I still had an amazing time watching it and I was once again sucked into a world that I seriously hope heaven is like when I die. However, I will say that there were some disappointing aspects. There were times where I felt they had taken some liberties with the characters, and I felt they took advantage of the sentimentality and the romanticism that was masterfully utilized in the previous films. Expand
  36. Dec 16, 2012
    4
    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
  37. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Finally, I came out of the theater of the long-awaited Hobbit. I have to write a word , I was thrilled. Excellent actors , design , effects and music with an ingenious plot -centric bridge to the Lord of the Rings . The complaints about the length are generally false, and rather serves as a slur. It is due to misunderstanding of original and above what the creators intended . Absolutely masterpieces are for the fans are mentions of the Silmarillion . PS1: The technical design and administration Gollum actor I could not take my eyes . : PS2: 3D is good, comparable to Avatar, but you can see it is not built for this style of filming - after flybys landscape has blurred. Expand
  38. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Hi, I watched the movie today and I have to say it really is the movie I wanted to see! Both, 3D and HFR were great after 5 or 10 minutes, which it took to get used to the higher frame rate. 3D was cool, because there were many scenes you noticed it but it never was the scene highlight, so the film just got better with the 3D-effect and wasn't only good because of 3D. Jackson didn't really cut the books story and nearly everything mentioned in the book is in the film. Some scenes are a little bit different from the book without changing he story, for example in the troll scene, which happens a little different in the book and is just different in the film to make it easier for the viewer, who maybe not know the book, to understand whats going on. That very exact reproduktion of the book's story leads to a little slower speed of story telling, what you have to like if u want to enjoy the first hour of the movie, otherwise you wil be a little bit bored in the beginning. But once Rivendell is reached and the Shire is left behind the Action starts and you can enjoy great effects, pictures and scenes. The "new Orc-look", which is a little different from the LotR-movies, is a little polarising so again not everyone will like it.
    All in all i conclude that "The Hobbit - An unexpected journey" is a great movie, but different from LotR so if u loved the LotR movies but never really liked the books (and the hobbit novel) u may be disappointed. But if you know the novel and like Tolkien's books this is your film. You will also notice that there are some things not mentioned in the hobbit but in other of Tolkien's texts and books, which are in the movie, what makes it easier to integrate the movie in the whole middleearth history.
    You may have noticed that i am using the word "different" very often. That may show you, that this movie isn't really a prequel to LotR, what would mean it has the same style and epic battles, but the story happening BEFORE LotR, what means it takes place in the same world and is important for the things happening years later and explains why the movie contains more funny and less dark or intimidating moments than LotR.
    I love the film as I love the books and LotR-movies and can't wait to see the second part next year and I am pretty sure I will watch this one once again in the cinema, can't wait to see the movie again till its out on blu-ray.
    Expand
  39. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey is a brilliant movie to start off what will be an amazing trilogy.Now the Director Peter Jackson has not lost his style from The lord of the Rings movies because middle earth still looks excitingly dangerous. Bilbo Baggins played by Martin Freeman from Sherlock owns it as playing Bilbo. He is a brave little Hobbit that goes on a journey with Gandalf and the dwarves to try and reclaim there homeland which was destroyed by the evil Dragon Smaug. When your watching this film you are routing for Bilbo all the time because he is the underdog because the drwarve leader Thorin thinks he has not got what it takes to go on the journey. Also we get to see Gollum again played by Andy Serkis is still a creepy mysterious devil like he was in the Lord of the Rings and that was fantastic to see. I think everybody is going to enjoy this movie and I did not want this film to end. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great way to end the year. Expand
  40. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    If anyone on this earth remembers when talking pictures came out there were aot of people that said it was no good and when color film came out there were alot of people that did not like that either. when flat screen tvs come out I met a lot of old folks that did not like them either. Open you mind. 48fps is an innovation, dont let your old minds be stuck in the past..... Anyway it was a great movie that looked fantastic. Expand
  41. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie has given me a feeling of epic-ness I have not felt since I watched the Lord of the Rings. As always, you will have the butthurt fools who will give actors death threats and complain endlessly due to the most minute changes from the book, as well as the critics who only give good reviews when bribed, or are zealots and like I said earlier, will whine endlessly of the smallest of changes. The movies animation was near-prefect, and the acting was phenomenal, especially during the prologue in Erebor and the White Council. While Radagast's acting was a bit silly, it was still very good in itself. Anyone who does not see this is missing out on so much, I would almost call them foolish. Expand
  42. Dec 16, 2012
    7
    With only a 65% on RT and a rather mixed reaction from the critics, I was quite worried that this movie would turn out disastrously. Fear not, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great movie even if it isn't necessarily as amazing as I expected. That being said, the movie is not without its flaws. There are some scenes that feel a bit too stretched out, and better saved for the extended edition. Also, the CGI feels a bit overused at times. Other than that, everything about this movie is great. The movie keeps the lighthearted tone of the book while also having epic battle sequences and decapitations. The character development is really good, especially with Bilbo. The performances are spot on, and the ending leaves you wanting more. If you're a fan of LOTR, fantasy, or good movies, you should definitely see this--preferably during some time in the day, as it is pretty long. Expand
  43. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    This film's biggest flaw is only that it was put together AFTER the LOTR series. With that series ahead of it, people have preconceived expectations about what to expect. This is NOT LOTR, the Hobbit is a different kind of story. Yes, same world, and a few of the same characters, but this is an adventure story, not a ongoing war epic. It can also be said the movie is not wholly true to the book, but it is to the source material it was drawn from (much from the appendices through the middle earth tales). Note I did not see this in 3D, and that seems to be the biggest difference in how this is being reviewed. Expand
  44. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Beautifully done movie that was filled with goodies from the book, and goodies from dear ol' Peter Jackson. Many people complain that it is not as dark as LOTR and that is true, because the book isn't either. The humor was a nice change of pace for Middle Earth and I couldn't stop laughing during some parts. I loved the scene with the trolls by the camp fire as it was my favorite scene in the whole movie. I also loved the intelligent goblin king who was designed quite well, but his voice and personality felt more like a Harry Potter character than an LOTR one. The music, once again, sweeps you away like it did before almost 10yrs ago; I do believe is was the same composer so expect excellence. Others complain about the use of CGI... well how else do you get hundreds of trolls, orcs, dwarves into the same scene or get a man into a giant troll costume? LOTR had hundreds of animations and it was great! and so was this movie. Expand
  45. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    As a book stickler, i have to drop the score to a 9 out of 10. As a movie lover, this film was an entertaining and visually a treat for the eyes. I would highly recommend it and have even higher hopes for the next two hobbit movies.
  46. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I have read a fair amount of other's reviews on this movie before writing my own. Most of them were negative reviews because I wanted to see why their opinions differed so much from my own. It seems to me that those writing the more negative reviews tend to analyze things on a far deeper level than I ever do. Some talk about how they notice prosthetics on actors, painted scenes, or even even how they thought someone hanging onto the edge of a cliff about ready to fall before being pulled back up was dumb because too many other movies use that. I'm bringing this up because I usually never even notice such things while I am watching movies and I want to set up my perspective. I thought the movie was exciting and humorous. I loved seeing the dwarves story and their history that led to the point of the movie as well as Thorin's personal history. The humor that the dwarves had constantly brought a smile to my face while watching the movie. I also loved seeing Bilbo's own struggle to find his place within the company throughout the movie as he was mostly looked on as a burden by the others. I also saw the movie in the new 48fps HFR format, which many of the preliminary reviews were negative. Almost all of the negativity, that read at least, on this was that the picture looked either too good or weird. I completely don't understand the looking too good part of those reviews so I'm not going into that. As for the weird part I can understand somewhat. For the first 15-20 minutes of the film it almost looked like everyone was moving at a slightly faster speed than normal, such as 1.1x or 1.2x the normal speed reminded me of the creepy jerking motion that is used in scary movies. I think my eyes just had to adjust to it, however, because after that 15-20 minute time frame I didn't notice it anymore and the picture seemed normal to me. Expand
  47. 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
    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
  48. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From the moment the Hobbit started my jaw was on the floor till the end, the whole exsperience, the HFR, 3D still hate it, would prefer just HFR to the amazing scenary, special effects, story obviously is amazing but fleshed out and thank (Tolkein) Jackson chose to do it. this film would have awful plot holes if he didnt. My only quarrel was it was 20 minutes too short, 3 hrs was what I was expecting and that is expected from a Lotrs related movie. They are for people who want to see a long film, in no way what so every did this feel long and over stretch like some early reviews have said, I have come to realise the early reviews are always the one sided ones because a bad review will always stand out over a good one, reading reviews before a movie can actually make alot of people dislike the movie because they believe the review. The Hobbit is an exception, it is already a classic and 11 years from now I can hear people saying The Hobbit trilogy was great than the LOTRs trilogy, we just need the next 2 movies to prove it because The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey beats all three Ring Movies as the best adaptation of Tolkiens work. Expand
  49. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I watched this movie without looking at any reviews before hand, but afterwards I was shocked at how low they were. The movie wasn't perfect but I would say it is just as good as the fellowship, if not better. If you liked the Lord of the Rings, then this is a must see. You won't be disappointed unless you are expecting an exact replica of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
  50. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Ann Hornaday you are an incredibly bad critic, find a new job. This movie turned out to be quite delightful, I was skeptical hence all of the negative reviews. but now i see that the user score speaks a whole lot more than the critic score. GO SEE THIS MOVIE, if you are a fan of lotro, or fantasy in general.
  51. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    As a huge fan of the LotR trilogy my wife and I set out on our own unexpected journey to see The Hobbit, in spite of the myriad of very average reviews. Truth is most of the critics have some valid concerns, pacing is a bit slow at first, CGI seems to be a slight mixed bag. However in the net they dont seem to matter much to me. I had read The Hobbit as a young boy my wife had not and we both came away with a great appreciation with the time spent to develop characters and story in the first part of the movie. The acting is across the board great.

    The movie is by no means without flaws but I think most reviewers are using a filter of perfect or mediocre. The original LotR wasnt perfect either but the sum of all three movies was so great it immediatley lent a free pass to the flaws it did have. I firmly believe that by the end of this new trilogy we will be thinking and viewing The Hobbit in the same way. Its absolutley worth watching, Never before has returning to a fantasy world felt so good and natural. Its like being wrapped in a wamr fuxxy blanket where you know what to expect but its still great all the same.
    Expand
  52. 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 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
  53. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    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
  54. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    As a long time Lord of the Rings fan, this movie was absolutely perfect. They spent so much time explaining the bits and pieces of where things came from. The acting was extraordinary, and I am so glad this time around, villains and heros are not dead within a matter of minutes, instead they explain the background behind everyone. The Witch King and the Mouth of Sauron for instance in the other movies were completely rushed, and died with feeling of little importance. Don't expect that in this movie. To compare this movie to any others of the series, it is much alike the Fellowship. The armies are not as big, and it is not fight after fight the entire time. It is about the story, and the politics of Middle Earth. I was honestly scared to see this movie because I thought they would mess up the series, and goodness was I pleasantly surprised! Please do not make the next movie biased on the fact that critics are naysaying this one. It was so well done. Expand
  55. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    "The Hobbit" was a children's book that has served as a key cornerstone in the fantasy genre and a story held close to many reader's hearts. I felt that Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book has been an extraordinary cinematic experience that reminds me of the magic found in those books of old. The tone of the original novel was translated brilliantly onto the big screen, while some may find this 'journey' to be slightly trivial or child-like to the grand battle scenes of LOTR, I enjoyed the translation regardless. Technically, I enjoyed the new technology a lot (having watched it in 48 frames and 3D) while it does require a slight getting used to, the 48 frames helped create a magnificent 3D viewing that would put other epic films to shame. Another thing that should be pointed out is that the relation to LOTR was immaculately added into the plot, there are plenty nostalgic moments that will fuel the delights of old fans but is computed on a level that will not likely to isolate new ones. There are a couple stranger moments here and there, but overall I feel confident that such a magical story is in the the tender hands of such gifted film makers. I for one, is eagerly waiting for the next segment to Bilbo's tale. (I don't know if this consists of a 'spoiler') Expand
  56. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    It was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR was a groundbreaking effort that appealed to the "masses" and not just the hard core fans of Tolkien. And a little more than a decade after the film of LotR came Hobbit. For me every little second of the film was a revival of the book, giving picture, sound and life to the fantastic characters of the book. It couldn't have been done in a better way. If you did not like it, you wouldn't probably like the book. There are moments that your backbone shivers by the thrilling scenes, mainly during the singing and fighting of the dwarven company. To wrap it up, Bilbo was the best Bilbo I would expect to see and I wouldn't change a second of the little character's performance in a bit. Really looking forward to the next part(s)! Expand
  57. Dec 15, 2012
    8
    OK, I'm rather shocked at the negative official reviews. This film is not the best of Jackson's Tolkien films, but it is certainly not a 60! Part of it may have to do with the frame rate fiasco. I happened to see it in the old-school 2D 24 fps, because I feared the technological fads might mitigate my appreciation for the movie. There is a little bit too much gratuitous combat, but other than that, there are few horrible flaws. Even the press reviews compliment the acting and cinematography. While the scenes added from materials from beyond the book (the LotR appendices) might seem a little arcane to the uninitiated, they made sense given the themes Jackson is trying to emphasize: greed, entitlement, loyalty, and risk. I might not have agreed with all the choices Jackson made, but you can appreciate them as intelligent and researched choices. It strikes me that many press reviews are punishing the film for its technological choices - and, as I said, I'm wary of those choices - but they do not warrant the panning the film is getting. It's a rollicking good time. Don't expect the Return of the King, but you can expect a welcome return to Middle Earth. And as most have said, the Riddle Scene is absolutely perfect. Expand
  58. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Amazing! Don't believe the negative reviews from the critics. If you loved the first trilogy or are a fan of the books, you're going to love, love, love this movie. I saw it in regular 2-D, so I can't speak to the frame rate issues, but if it worries you, just skip it. THE HOBBIT RULED!
  59. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    Purists to the original Hobbit will hate this. Fans of the Lord of the Rings will love this. The Hobbit story is there but is little more than 15% of the movie. Peter Jackson (et al.) have successfully expanded the original book by weaving it through a far larger, more epic story that warrants being a trilogy. Good new characters + good action + laced with humor = a thoroughly enjoyable film!
  60. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Spectacular! Incredible performances by Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis and, of course, Sir Ian McKellen. Critics say it is too long? I completely disagree, time flew by! Yes, Jackson added/expanded some things, but he did an excellent job. What is the most important thing - he stayed true to the book and its atmosphere. "Every good story needs embellishment" says Gandalf in the first quarter of the movie. All in all - a masterpiece worth watching. Expand
  61. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    A great movie all around. I actually enjoyed the light hearted opening to the film contrary to most reviewers. Acting, story and effects/action were very well done. It is a long movie but my only complaint about that was my theater has terrible seats :)
  62. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    As other reviewers have mentioned, I too wonder whether or not the critics are watching the same movies as we do. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is astounding film; the acting is phenomenal, the cinematography is splendid and akin to that of LotR, the soundtrack is jaw-dropping, and as for the reviews of the visual effects - how they aren't that remarkable -; these are complete misconceptions. The movie is well worth your time, and more than deserves a 10 out of 10 rating. Expand
  63. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    People will always be buthurt about things, that is beyond doubt. Sometimes the buthurt has a good reason to be there like the prequels to starwars or all of mass effect 3 but in the case of the Hobbit the buthurt has credible stance to take in the bashing of this glorious film. The Hobbit is made from an earlier book of Tolkien's, a lighthearted approach to Lotr, it is not a carbon copy of the original trilogy nor is it a movie made for children. The film has more concentration over visuals then the previous films yet it does not sacrifice the plot in any way, the actors blend in with the CGI very organically. The film may drag on for a bit but so did the fellowship, two towers and return of the king. The 40 fps looks good and the criticism for it seems a bit unfounded.

    I don't want to sound like I am praising this film too much because it had some minor issues of pacing at the start and the ending made me wish that I would not have to wait a year to get to part 2 of the trilogy.

    Over all its a great film, I think peter Jackson just forgot to bribe the reviewers, To put it into some context the "critic" score for this film is only 2 points higher then that of the first twilight which is very very strange to me.
    Expand
  64. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    Screw the haters, this movie was amazing. The scenery was extraordinary, and it never felt campy at any portion of the film. Some pieces are different from the book and some pieces are a bit drawn out etc. but it's great stuff overall and I enjoyed every minute of the film.
  65. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    I didn't expect the movie to be this good. Seeing Gandalf, Bilbo, and Smeagol/Gollum really bring back old memories from the Lord of the Rings series. The dwarves were awesome too, each dwarves has different personality and characteristics, some were cool and funny. I don't know why but I was more excited about the story in this one than the Lord of the Rings series. The story cover up so much details, some references from LOTR which was cool. Visually, the best looking film I seen so far..breathtaking visuals and effects. Settings were amazing, from pretty looking grasslands to the breathtaking mountain tops and caves. Scenery was just amazing. My only problem with the film was that there were some scene that felt unnecessary, like your wondering why that scene even existed? just a minor complaint. Overall, a great film and for those that are fans of Lord of the Rings, you will love this film. Three words describing this film, EPIC, BREATHTAKING, AND EXCITING. Expand
  66. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    A prime example of when the general consensus of critics get it wrong. Amazing film and beginning to another epic trilogy. 48fps 3D was gorgeous and another evolution of modern cinema.
  67. Dec 15, 2012
    8
    I went in expecting disappointment. One third of a book stretched into a whole movie didn't seem possible. It turns out I was wrong. The first movie turned about to be pretty good. The first forty five minutes dragged a little, but then the movie kept up a pretty good pace. The performances were strong and Peter Jackson's Middle Earth is as beautiful as ever. The only complaint I have is that the 48 fps makes everything seem cgi. Even the practical effects come off as looking fake for some reason. It may take some getting used to. Overall though, The Hobbit is a pleasant surprise. Expand
  68. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    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
  69. Dec 15, 2012
    0
    I have NEVER wrote a review in my life for a movie but felt compelled to write one for this P.O.S. I am a die-hard LOTR movie fan and have spent the better part of five years anticipating this movie; what a waste of time, this is not LORT at all. Peter Jackson and New Line capitalized on their success of LOTR and tried to create a "family fun" movie with slapstick humor and OVER dramatic (poor) visual effects. There is a scene with 3 trolls that sound and act like the 3 stooges...................................In LORT almost every seen was shot with live actors in amazing costumes................every troll, goblin, monster was computer animated and poorly to say the least. There is no depth of character for anyone and the script and storyline lacked...... save your time and money for red box !!!!!! Expand
  70. Dec 15, 2012
    2
    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
  71. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Amazing movie! It perfectly sets the pace for the next two movies and ties it with The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Great sets, beautiful soundtrack and spot on script. Peter Jackson brings us back to Middle Earth! Technically is even better than the LOTR.
  72. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    great movie, those reviewers are like the users in video games. Great special effects, while lighter in humor and not as dark as lord of the rings, its still one amazing achievement. Another by peter jackson who just shows that he knows this very well. Incredible movie. Martin Freeman is amazing and so is everyone else. To no like this and to like LOTR is to be a hypocrite. While maybe not as good it certainly still is an amazing experience. Expand
  73. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Don't let the mixed reviews and preconceived notions of critics and purists deter you from one of the top films of the year: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is an incredibly fun fantasy adventure that is filled with humor and charm. The first of the three prequels to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, this film focuses on the beginning of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) in his adventure with the dwarven company of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). There are several returning cast members from Jackson's prior Lord of the Rings films, but Sir Ian McKellan is front and center as Gandalf the Gray, and Andy Serkis easily makes Gollum one of the film's most enjoyable characters despite the limited screentime. Some of the dwarves outshine the others, but with a total of thirteen dwarves it's understandably difficult to let them shine as individuals. Remember, in "The Fellowship of the Ring," many of the characters were established by the film's midway point, which let the trilogy's other characters develop naturally. I've seen the film twice now, and not once did I find myself wishing that any particular dwarf had more spoken dialogue. The story unfolding on the screen kept my focus on what was occuring, not what could've been.

    The high frame rate (HFR) worked well for me, but it's definately not for everyone. My HDTV is capable of replicating HFR due to its ability to refresh its screenrates at 120 MHz per second, which equals to about 60 HFR. This film was shot at a rate of 48 frames per second (standard cinema is 24 frames per second), which means that each frame has more information encoded. Being a pioneer in this bold venture does mean that there will be issues, as evidenced by a sensation that the film is moving too fast near the beginning prologue. However, I grew used to it pretty quickly, and never really noticed any other issues throughout the film. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can equate the HFR look to a soap opera, as there wasn't a single moment that "soap opera" or anything similar flashed across my mind as I watched the film. Again, it boils down to personal taste, but it's highly recommended if you plan to see the film multiple times to at least try the HFR once. I can only view the HFR in 3D, as there are no HFR 2D showings around me (I live in Columbus, Ohio), so I can't tell you how much of a difference there is between those versions. I did see it in standard 2D and didn't really notice the film looking much better in that version. The 3D is just OK, nothing mind-blowing like "Avatar," but I can say it's the best live action 3D movie I've personally seen since "Avatar," although that's not a tough achievement since the film was shot with 3D cameras. The HFR does add a nice element to the 3D, but it's more about depth perception that stuff popping out at you. Finally, let's get to the plot and storyline itself: if you're a fan of the book, or if you're a fan of "The Lord of the Rings" books and/or films, or if you just happen to like good ol' fantasy adventure films like "Willow," than you' shouldn't have any worries about not enjoying this film. It's a great adventure flick that really encompasses a "journey" quite well. Freeman is absolutely perfect in his role, and the addition of all the new characters really makes this feel less like a nostalgic follow-up to the "Lord of the Rings" than what it really is: a brand new fantasy adventure that proves that faith in Peter Jackson and his team is well-placed. Go see "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey." See it twice even. The early comparisons to "Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace" are utterly ridiculous with no real basis. People are also complaining about the addition of a 3rd movie, and how it affects the film's pacing. Unlike the "Lord of the Ring" films, there is no dire sense of urgency in the overall plotline, so there's no need to rush what is meant to be more of a lighthearted adventure (despite the admittedly gory fight scenes). There isn't many "prequel" films to beloved franchises that are good, but this film is beyond the exception. Ignore the hate, this film lives up to the hype in terms of acting, story, and fun. If there's one negative thing to consider, it's the fact that December 2013 feels that much further away.
    Expand
  74. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Cannot understand the critics. Yes, it is a bit more childish than Lord of the rings, but the book is a bit more childish. On the other hand, The Hobbit has the unique LotR feel to it, beautiful to look at, and engaging from beginning to end. I am a 100% satisfied and believe Jackson made another superb movie!
  75. Dec 15, 2012
    7
    An undoubtedly well-made movie that is characterized by its immersive and enchanting effects. Not only that, the movie is very fast-paced and really gives an enjoyable time. Although there are a few problems in this movie, for instance, the length of the movie can really distinguish itself from other cinematics, due to its enormous length keeping you from going on the toilet - mainly because you are too immovable during the movie. I may not be the only one that finds it disturbing not being able to go on the toilet because of the abovementioned. Anyway, Peter Jackson did a great job on the movie, the 48 frames per second is just remarkable, and not to talk about the 3D, which gave an actual feeling of being in the movie. Since I have not read the book, I have nothing to compare with, except its previous movies (The Lord Of The Rings trilogy). Expand
  76. 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 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
  77. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Perfect film... Amazing 3D... it's slow but I say this as a positive point, savoring the details. The scene with Gollum is superb. The worst thing for me is the soundtrack. I don´t remember any melody and it's very typical, but the film is perfect. I feel sadness about critics who never do nothing but speaks a lot... bla bla bla
  78. 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 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
  79. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    This is a fantastic adaptation of one of my favorite books. I often found myself simply smiling in the theater, overtaken by the same magic that I first found as a child. While not as serious as the Lord of the Rings trilogy (The Hobbit was a Children's book followed 15+ Years later by the more mature Lord of the Rings trilogy) it has it's fantastic fight scenes and dramatic moments that leave you breathless and wanting more. This movie is not perfect and one scene in particular irked me considerably for a while but aside from that, this movie is near perfect. Expand
  80. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    After I finished watching The Hobbit, I was positively surprised and I really loved the movie. 58 out of 100? Even 68 is too low. The movie stayed at the level of Lord of the Rings and deserves the title of a Tolkien based movie. It's a little more cartoonish and less dark than the LotR trilogy, but that doesn't change the epic atmosphere and the overall epicness of Middle-Earth. I'm waiting for the second and third movie and want to see more Jackson's epicness. Expand
  81. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Can't believe the critic score, what the hell is this 58? It is an excellent and brilliant movie, technically and brilliantly directed. The first thing that we need to do is to see this movie without the idea that we are seeing Lord of the Rings because it is based in a novel that was made for child. Evidently it is not a movie for child but it has points of humor and a different essence from the las triology. Personally, I found this film one of the best of the year and I don't understand how films that are completely bullshi* has good punctuations and this one no. Expand
  82. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    I've seen it twice, both in 3D and 48 FPS.
    So, let's get this out of the way, there is nothing wrong with it, this is but the beginning of a new era of HD in cinema, critics are being way too harsh on this, and this is the first movie actually worth watching in 3D in a long time.
    Second: yes, it takes a while to get used to 48fPS but if you are a gamer/PC gamer, you should be used to 30+
    FPS (60FPS if you're a PC gamers) so you won't have any problems, like myself
    3-the pacing is sloppy? yes, but then again, a few scenes make the movie way too long, but they are't bad. I mean, the beginning is perfect, as it describes Bilbo's ways and how he's gonna change
    4-a few cliche moments but nohing major enough to make it a 6/10, after all, Gandalf always does this things in the books
    5-Overall the movie is crazy good, and as far as I understand, the movie could've been a bit shorter, but aside from the length and the pacing, I have no problems with this film.

    I say: watch it and ignore the critics, this is one of the moments in which the critics all say one thing while the crowd will say something different, judge it on your own.
    Expand
  83. Dec 15, 2012
    0
    Peter Jackson reminds me of George W. Bush. He is unforgivably bad at what he does, but it's taken about a decade for people to figure it out. Hopefully this disaster is the last we see of him.

    Peter, it's time to find a hobby. Get lost and stop ruining these gems from the world's collective childhood.
  84. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    This is easily one of my favourite films of all time. Great story telling, great balance between humour and adventure, and great acting throughout, especially from Andy Serkis. I have no idea how critics have given it such a low score, other than to appear against the grain and not enjoy a phenomenal piece of cinema, but Empire gave it an 8/10 which should speak volumes compared with other less credited critics. I am tempted to see this film in the cinemas multiple times which I have never done for any other movie. Absolutely Incredible. Expand
  85. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Peter Jackson has brought Middle-Earth back. Absolutely brilliant, I cannot wait to see it again. I was a little worried about some of the reviews out there, but after seeing it came to the conclusion that they are 100% bull. Don't trust a single one until you have seen this yourself. Absolutely fantastic.
  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. 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
  88. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Any fan of the book will be pleased by the perfection Peter Jackson has recreated again. Don't be fooled by the critics, this is not LOTR4 It's The Hobbit. 10/10 going to go see it again.
  89. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Without any kind of doubts, is the best fantasy movie I have ever seen.
    If you like fantasy, it's an essential movie to watch.
    A new magic world awaits you!
  90. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    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
  91. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    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
  92. Dec 15, 2012
    1
    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
  93. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    This movie is a masterpiece of fantasy adventure filmmaking. I especially recommend the high frame rate (HFR) IMAX 3D presentation--it's worth every penny. I did have some nits to pick regarding how Radagast was brought to the screen, but that aside, it's a wondrous film.
  94. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    As a massive fan of the book I was desperate for all the magic I remembered to be present, I couldn't be happier with how it turned out. An absolute marvel from start to finish, the performances were stunning, the music beautiful and entrancing, the depth and detail of the environments pulled you in and the script was utterly charming. Although some aspects were tweaked they were few and far between and any change made felt right. I didn't notice the length at all, I was so engrossed it just flew by. With any luck I'll be seeing it again...and again. Expand
  95. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Was a bit concerned after seeing the films fairly low score on here and on rotten but the film is absolutely perfect. I'm tempted to say it's even better than the previous 3 films in terms of it's scope, it's beautiful imagery and the special effects. I was enchanted for the entire duration of the movie, not a dull moment. Plenty of action too, probably more action than the other three (not combined of course). Anyone who says the film is too long either doesn't like the film in general (so it seems drawn out) or just has a rubbish attention span. For me it was over in a flash. A masterpiece. Peter Jackson maintains his legendary status in my eyes. Expand
  96. Dec 15, 2012
    2
    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.
  97. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    Whilst a lot lighter in tone this is still a worthy entry into the Lord of the Rings franchise. I saw the movie in old school 24fps 2D and enjoyed it a lot. Ignore the critics, go see it, and make up your own mind.
  98. 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, 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
  99. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    I had very modest expectations coming into this film. I was disappointed by the first two films in the LOTR triology and found them non-memorable and flat. An unexpected Journey is charming from the start, and even though the first half is a little bloated (my primary criticism of the film), the second half is terribly exciting, and I love the characterization of Bilbo Baggins and the way he's ingratiated into the crew of dwarves. I find the characters in the first installment of The Hobbit to be much more relatable and sympathetic than any of them in the LOTR series. I'll take young Bilbo over young Frodo any day as a protagonist. I will say that Gollum injects a special energy into the film that crests all the way to its conclusion. So yes, the film won me over in ways I truly did not expect. Expand
  100. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Amazing movie. I don't see why it's getting bad reviews , the story is great the characters are great the locations are great. If your a fan of lord of the rings you will love it as I did!!
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.