User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 2390 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. Oct 8, 2014
    I remember being so diappointed after watching this film in the cinema. As a Tolkien fan who knows the books,, I can say that this movie (just like every other Hobbit movie) is a horrible piece of fan fiction.
  2. Sep 28, 2014
    The Hobbit: An expected failure. This film is to a good film... what cold leftovers are to a gourmet meal. Even if the meal was originally good, after a few weeks it holds even more maggots than an orc. LOTR was applaused? Just make the same, and pretend it is an adaptation from The hobbit. But this film is just stupid! Nothing to do with the book! It is still better than the second film, but still an insult. Desolation of smaug is more an insult than sh!tting inside Tolkien's tomb. This one is merely as much as peeing inside. Expand
  3. May 10, 2014
    My enjoyment of this movie was somewhat marred by the fact that that I was constantly aware that Tolkien's novel was emphatically not supposed to be a fantasy epic. It is a charming book about the development of a group of dysfunctional individuals (thrown together by the machinations of Gandalf) and especially the development of the eponymous character from a homeloving 'respectable' hobbit into a resourceful adventuring hero. The movie was a heavy-handed travesty of the story; Peter Jackson (and presumably his backers) are obviously just interested in a cynical rehashing of the Lord of The Rings trilogy. Of course, that too showed Jackson's leaden touch, especially in the last sixty minutes of The Return of The King. Minas Tirith miraculously rebuilt, instead of showing that the rebuilding was going to happen as a result of those reforged alliances and friendships between dwarves, elves and men begun in The Fellowship Of The Ring. Not quite 'Hollywood' enough, I suppose? And these long, travestic final scenes left no room for the 'Battle of the Shire' at the end of the book where four once commonplace hobbits returned home as seasoned heroes to kick Saruman and Wormtongue out of the Shire. Jackson doesn't pay much attention to character; he seems interested only in action. No doubt Jackson's new trilogy will win lots of Oscars again: money for old rope. I for one cannot, in all conscience, rate An Unexpected Journey any higher than 2 out of 10. Expand
  4. May 4, 2014
    Aweful, just plain aweful. one of the most boring movies I have ever seen... and I love lord of the rings so this movie was a huge huge let down. Hobbit 2 and 3? count me out
  5. Apr 2, 2014
    The Hobbit :An unexpected journey is a made for children. It has no plot, the actors are not good and the added comedy makes what might have been a okay movie even worse. I sat through the DVD hoping I would end up liking it. But was disappointed . I hated it.
  6. Jan 15, 2014
    One of the uglier and more bewildering films of our time. I actually laughed when I realized Bilbo's ring-vision actually looks more real than the phoney, almost fully C.G. 'regular' world. Martin Freeman looks visibly uneasy to be in the film during every single, cartoonish scene of this calamity. Peter Jackson should have been put in charge of the J.R.R. Tolkien Theme Park, not the films.
  7. Jan 15, 2014
    It's like Jackson just took a giant bucket of C.G.I., a giant bucket of terrible editing, a giant bucket of terrible dubbing and a giant bucket of incoherency and dumped them all over an awful movie.
  8. Jan 6, 2014
    As good a job as Peter Jackson did with the rings, I simply cannot believe he is destroying The Hobbit. The Hobbit is the introductory book to the world of Tolkein and he is crapping all over it. This is, however, the best Harry Potter movie to date!
  9. Jan 5, 2014
    Slow, dill and boring. Was so disappointed with this as i loved lord of the rings! The action sequences seemed silly and almost pointless (stone gods anyone??) and hardly built on characters unlike the original. I knew about one of the dwarves names along side the obvious characters (bilbo and gandalf) and you need to build characters a lot more if they are all the same race! The dwarves had so little dialogue too you forgot half of them existed! Not really worth seeing unless you are die hard LOTR fan. Luckily Desolation of smaug was great! Expand
  10. Ogr
    Dec 25, 2013
    The new Hobbit Movie is out for a while, so I tried to watch the old one again, to get into it. I kinda liked the books, even if I don't think that they are as great as everyone says, I prefer darker and more serious fantasy like SoIaF. Still I thought this movie could be pretty nice, as I love the landscape... and yes, New Zealand's landscape is the best of The Hobbit. Singing dwarves and a stretched boring story, sometimes it's a real torture to watch this movie. The good thing is that my TV has a mute function and I can enjoy watching the scenery. Sorry, I don't want to troll around here, but this movie is so bad except for it's modern technology, I had to write it down. Expand
  11. Dec 21, 2013
    All was well until about an hour into the movie and then...BAM!,the text is thrown out the window and the writers are given so-called creative license to write whatever crap they feel will bring in more cash.Azog is dead...Killed by Dain Ironfoot who should appear by the ridiculous 3rd movie) over 140 years before the time of this movie and not by Thorin.That fat goblin is meant to be Azog's son Bolg.The original story covers Bilbo and company escaping from trolls,escaping from goblins,escaping from wargs,escaping from spiders,escaping from elves and that's just before they reach lake town.What's with all the violence?Peter Jackson has gone the way of Lucas,Cameron and Spielberg...So in love with CGI and over-choreographed 'action' sequences that they have forgotten how to make a decent movie.Utter trash. Expand
  12. Dec 12, 2013
    This film broke my heart, in more ways than one. Firstly the animal cruelty & death issues that arose during the making of it and secondly the fact it is absolutely nothing like the book. This piece of Hollywood trash is just a cheap cash in on Tolkien's masterpiece. The book is a beautifully written exciting and sometimes sad adventure that you really immerse yourself in fully. This movie? My gods! This movie just sucks, big time and what Mr Jackson has done is just made a no-brained action movie from a book he had no right to touch. After watching this I just wonder if he just flicked through the pages and just circled the semi action orientated parts. Jackson, you have proved yourself to be a pathetic director and with this rubbish you have done a 'Lucas'. I just hope someone (like Ridley Scott) in the future is allowed to remake it the way it should be. This Tolkien fan is sad and totally disappointed. Expand
  13. Dec 11, 2013
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film. With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure. While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that is where the similarities end.

    I can truthfully say that just moments after the introduction, my facial expression changed from one of joy to one of disappointment and scorn.

    While it is true that Bilbo Baggins was a somewhat 'reluctant' burglar, the dwarves and wizard did not simply cast him off as if he were not needed. They knew the importance of having a burglar to steal inside the Lonely Mountain, and Gandalf had very high hopes for Bilbo. In the Jackson adaption, we are shown that, while the company would prefer to have Bilbo be a part of their quest, they could do fine without him.

    After Bilbo chases the dwarves down and convinces them that he wants to accompany them, Jackson strays further off the beaten path; he actually ruins two chapters at once.

    Instead of sending Bilbo to scout the troll camp and possibly hone his burgling skills, he is sent to retrieve the company's ponies, which the trolls have captured. Now, this is a very important deviation from the book, as it changes the motivation of the goblins' capture of the dwarves and hobbit.

    After the episode with the trolls and a quick stay at Rivendell, the dwarves begin their way through the Misty Mountains. After nearly being killed in a fight between Stone Giants, they make camp in a small cave. Instead of attempting to steal the dwarves' ponies, the goblins steal the dwarves.

    This is where the worst deviation from the book occurs; instead of capturing the dwarves as they struggled to free their ponies, the goblins capture the dwarves because an ancient Orc named Azog has put out a bounty on them.

    Now, according to both "The Hobbit" and the appendices of the "Lord of the Rings", Azog was killed by Dain Ironfoot years before the events of "The Hobbit" took place. Now, this may not seem like a serious problem, as Azog was a minor character, but in bringing him back as the main antagonist Jackson has derailed the entire film series. Instead of the quest being "reclaim the treasure of Lonely Mountain", the quest is now "defeat an ancient Orc and reclaim the Lonely Mountain itself". Jackson, in an attempt to stretch the story, has destroyed the original premise of the dwarves' journey. In making Azog a main antagonist, he takes the focus away from Smaug the Great, a much more deadly adversary, and changes the dwarves from artisans to warriors.

    The feel of the book is gone. Instead of crafting sequences around the events of the book, Jackson creates a jigsaw puzzle, half book/half script.

    While many may argue that this is a plot device to build Bilbo's character, that can be disputed.

    In the original book, Bilbo Baggins gradually changed into a stronger person. In the films, he is portrayed as always being of a strong will, and just never having the chance to show it. By going this route, much of Bilbo's ongoing growth is lost, and his character suffers for it.

    Jackson obviously did not trust this film to register with audiences familiar with the source material, and, with that in mind, changed the story to suit those only familiar with his previous films. By inserting Galadriel, Frodo, Radagast, and the 'cute' Sméagol, he gains the support of Trilogy fans, but at what cost?

    Answer: Faithfulness to the original book.

    While the scene with Galadriel could be seen as an adaptation of events from the LOTR appendices, the 'cute' Sméagol cannot. Gollum/Sméagol is meant to be seen as a frightening, wretched creature; the book again and again explains that Bilbo feared for his life during the riddle competition. Why then did Jackson include the 'tame' Sméagol from the LOTR Trilogy? Because he knew it would register with fans of those films.

    In conclusion, I see this adaptation of "The Hobbit" as a way for Peter Jackson and New Line to profit from the LOTR Trilogy all over again. By grafting certain parts of the Trilogy onto "The Hobbit", New Line and Jackson are ensured that at least some of those fans will fork out money to watch three more films. I see this film not as an artistic exercise but as a cash cow. That is all.
  14. Nov 9, 2013
    The problem with 'The Hobbit' is that he tries to show an epic movie with the passing of the minutes, but forgets that not strong enough for that and reveals nothing less than purely commercial.
  15. Sep 14, 2013
    i don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it that great of a movie shore it has nice 3D effects what show off the team but its like avatar they have a load of fancy effects on it but the story is a load of rubbish, the annoying thing about this film is that they constantly trying to remind us that this story happens in the same world of lord of the rings, one of the scenes i can't stand in the film is the moving rocks when the dwarfs get crushed but there perfectly fine no cuts boozes or broken bones and before some one says "but its not in the book" i don't bloody care it doesn't make sense and it looks stupid i just saw them get crushed I JUST SAW IT! but so i don't complain about a lot of things i have a problem with in this film i'm going to stop here and just say the ending... was rubbish i know its showing there's more to come but its just stupid looking its like ending a episode of eastenders Expand
  16. Aug 26, 2013
    This movie is a snooze fest. I fell asleep, that was how absolutely boring that movie was. It is three hours of a hobbit traveling around magical fairy land. Boring.
  17. Jul 22, 2013
    Bilbo definitibamente es poco entretenido y algo estupido a una excepcion la pelicula guarda exclentes efectos y la originalidad al 100 sin embargo solo BLA BLA BLA Y ganas de ZZZzzzzz
  18. Rem
    Jul 21, 2013
    Boring, not funny, and plain too long, this is a departure from the well loved franchise and an insult as it only serves to appeal to a younger audience and those who favor 3-D. With absolutely no real effects as CG takes over, it almost becomes painful to think this comes from the flagship franchise that earned 30 Oscar nominations.
  19. Jun 13, 2013
    What am I a child? I wasted my time watching this pile of junk that was neither interesting or entertaining. Since I was a fan of LOTR I expected Jackson to deliver. A waste of money it was to sit through this stupid cartoon-ish looking movie.
  20. May 19, 2013
    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....
  21. May 7, 2013
    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
  22. May 4, 2013
    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!
  23. May 4, 2013
    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..
  24. Apr 23, 2013
    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.
  25. Mar 27, 2013
    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
  26. Mar 22, 2013
    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
  27. Mar 15, 2013
    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
  28. Mar 10, 2013
    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.
  29. Mar 4, 2013
    I'm a big fan of the Tolkien books. I mean BIG. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. After about 30 minutes my wife woke me up! I've never fallen asleep in a cinema before. Sitting there watching this bizarely paced movie, way too much CG, not enough acting, I felt myself wishing for the end. Will NOT be seeing the other 2, it is only 2 isn't it?
  30. Mar 3, 2013
    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

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
    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
    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
    It's a bloated, shockingly tedious trudge that manages to look both overproduced and unforgivably cheesy.