User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2604 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Apr 23, 2013
    3
    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
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

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

    Is it a 0/10? No. It's okay. Perhaps it was simply not for me. But at 1 hour, I checked the time and was astounded to find that I had not been watching for 2 hours, and that I had 1 hour and 45 minutes left to go. I groaned and turned it off.
    Expand
  2. 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 isIt 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
  3. Dec 18, 2012
    3
    I almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't that far through, the magic of Middle Earth was lost amongst waterfalls, mountains and lush forests, and I was assuming what they were searching for whatI almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't that far through, the magic of Middle Earth was lost amongst waterfalls, mountains and lush forests, and I was assuming what they were searching for what was left of the storyline. But apart from that, what also made it worse, because I think other people who disliked this film would repeat that as a criticism, was the humour that was rolled out with each line one after each other, expecting us to laugh uproariously, when it felt forced and just generally unfunny. Much of it was low-brow humour, which was one of the reasons I disliked the dwarves, only really there to please the children. Apart from the visually beautiful scenes, the only element of the LOTR trilogy that was still there and alive was Gollum, who was on perfect form. Martin Freeman could seriously carry this film on his own, as there didn't seem to be much contribution from anyone else - maybe Ian McKellen, if I saw more of him. Expand
  4. Mar 27, 2013
    3
    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 orI 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
  5. Dec 19, 2012
    3
    A big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside BagA big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside Bag End with the plate tossing and especially in the orc caverns were groan worthy. The music sounded like a rehash of the LOTR soundtrack with one additional song. I understand, that they have similar areas -- elves, hobbit(s), wizard(s) but it just wasn't up to LOTR quality to me. The sets, outside of Bag End, seem very small, as if to save money. The cast seemed to be perpetually pressed up next to each other with CGI effects all around them. Almost as if they had a 4ft square piece of plywood to stand on in the middle of a blue screened room. This stood out -a lot-. CGI and 3D were the true stars of this movie. With more screen time given to both of these than any of the other actors. The CGI, which was done as an additional component to the story telling, as Alex Funke said during the making of LOTR, took center stage during this movie. It was rampant and very noticeable. I understand, that it simply impossible to make most or all of the monsters as latex appliances but they did that in the other movies. Why not here? Andy Serkis and Golem's animators were a joy to see. The flash back to Erebor was amazing. The rest of the movie simply wasn't up to the same calibur as those segments. It was more like an old 80's after-school special when compared to LOTR's quality -- and it painfully showed. Many many scenes were homages/repeats of LOTRs camera angles or effects. I could name them, but I don't want to embed them into people's permanent memory. If you have seen LOTR as often as I have, you will spot the same sequences/shots used in this movie as were previously done. That's lazy and it stands out. Also gone are the big sweeping grand panorama shots of LOTR. Lastly the obvious attempts at humor. It felt like George Lucas had directed this movie because PJ had to toss in some kid-friendly elements to make it a family movie instead of just telling the story. Expand
  6. Dec 14, 2012
    3
    Yawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic with this movie. Even Gollum was cheesy and over done. Blah. Stay home and put this in your Netflix queue. We should have known that this was going toYawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic with this movie. Even Gollum was cheesy and over done. Blah. Stay home and put this in your Netflix queue. We should have known that this was going to happen. Jackson went from the Lord of the Rings to King Kong. He has tremendous potential to tell horrible stories and make bad movies. No one should be surprised. Expand
  7. 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
    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
  8. 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 niceWhat 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
  9. 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 battlesThis 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
  10. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    All of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standardAll of these 10 ratings are rather embarrassing. The people responsible behind these posts clearly have no understanding of the beauty of the first three films. The first three films produced stunning combinations of both dialogue, fighting, and plot. These films produced a believable environment that easily brought the viewer within the film itself. The Hobbit was far from the standard set by the first three films. Forced humor in the Hobbit was an active theme throughout with the goblin king, gollum, etc. This humor was forced into the most inappropriate times during the film where in comparison would be as if The king of Rohan cracked a joke as Soroman's army broke through the walls of helms deep in the second film. The introduction of the brown wizard was both uncalled for as well as degrading the the movie itself. The over the top use of computer graphics in this films took its toll on the film, and left the viewers watching another movie such as Narnia from within the theater, instead of drawing the viewer into both the plot and middle earth itself Expand
  11. Dec 29, 2012
    3
    Very disappointing - insanely too long, with a slow, sleep inducing story, and cgi which looked more like a video game. The LOTR films raised the bar for brilliant make-up and great cgi, all within an emotional storyline with breath-taking cinematography and outstanding credibility. The Hobbit is a cynical grab for cash - why did the orcs, goblins and wargs look so cartoonish ? LOTR hadVery disappointing - insanely too long, with a slow, sleep inducing story, and cgi which looked more like a video game. The LOTR films raised the bar for brilliant make-up and great cgi, all within an emotional storyline with breath-taking cinematography and outstanding credibility. The Hobbit is a cynical grab for cash - why did the orcs, goblins and wargs look so cartoonish ? LOTR had a gritty in-camera reality which The Hobbit totally lacked. It should have been 90-120 minutes long but lost its way. Expand
  12. Jan 1, 2013
    3
    A completely forgettable film, practically an insult to the first 3. While the scenery was quite spectacular, there were to many characters to actually care for them. I was almost hoping for some of the characters to die. Some sections just continued to drag on, with almost no point to them then to just flesh out the 2 and a half hour film. Sections became tedious and repetitive, withA completely forgettable film, practically an insult to the first 3. While the scenery was quite spectacular, there were to many characters to actually care for them. I was almost hoping for some of the characters to die. Some sections just continued to drag on, with almost no point to them then to just flesh out the 2 and a half hour film. Sections became tedious and repetitive, with little being done to elaborate on many of the characters. Nothing like the originals, and no where near as entertaining. Expand
  13. Jan 23, 2013
    3
    The hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite theThe hobbit an unexpected journey is the start of a new take on The Lord of the rings. It offers sadly so much less than the other films with scenes that just give the film a very child like look on it. It is said that the hobbit was created as a more child like book. But after showing The Lord of the rings trilogy first, no one would ever want to see it become that way on film. Despite the negative comments, the film does show signs of greatness, but they are usually overcome with incredibly cheesy scenes and characters ( radagast) which takes away any seriousness. I have been a huge fan of The Lord of the rings. Trilogy and I was deeply saddened when I saw this movie. The only thing to be said about it is, hold on to the great scenes and try to endure the more child like ones Expand
  14. Feb 3, 2013
    3
    aunque sigue fiel a los libros the hobbit es una película inferior a las del señor de los anillos y aunque tiene unos momentos interesantes la película aburre a la hora y media y si usted es como yo se quedara dormido y no querrá volverla aver
  15. Feb 14, 2013
    3
    plenty of reviews have already nailed this so ill just say bored the life out of me. watching it i couldn't stop thinking is this one movie stretched into 3 just to line some pockets? really looked forward to this, tried to like it. but... do you give points for prettiness? on substance alone i can only give this a 3....
  16. Nov 9, 2013
    3
    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.
  17. May 7, 2013
    3
    I was disapointed when i left the theater after this movie.
    * The dwarves look absolutely rediculous, i doubt their budget for the costumes were that strained to justify their awfull appearence. They really do look like they fit in at a high school theater production.
    * Who are the dwarves? I dont know really, none of them got to show their personalities to any greater extent. Did they
    I was disapointed when i left the theater after this movie.
    * The dwarves look absolutely rediculous, i doubt their budget for the costumes were that strained to justify their awfull appearence. They really do look like they fit in at a high school theater production.
    * Who are the dwarves? I dont know really, none of them got to show their personalities to any greater extent. Did they even say anyhing? If it was anything important or intresting i guess it was drowned by all the dumb and childish punchlines.
    * They sure like running alot, did they even fight at all? I dont remember, i really dont. After a while it all just felt like watching someone play a computer game.
    * I liked Radagast though, but thats probably because he's just like me :P
    Expand
  18. Mar 10, 2013
    3
    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, andNot enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, and get up without a scratch and run along. Far too similar to the Fellowship of the Ring, far too boring and redundant. Apparently there aren't even orcs in the Hobbit by Tolkein, but only goblins (and spiders and eagles) instead!! What a laugh.

    Too much like Lord of the Rings. Obviously it's the same Middle Earth/Gandolf/ring/etc... but the Hobbit is not as grand a story as the Lord of the Rings. It is a much shorter/concise story. Watching this movie almost cuts into my enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings. As good as LOTR was, the Hobbit is just as bad. What a mess. They really cared about LOTR and Tolkein for the first 3 movies, I think they just wanted more money with the Hobbit.
    Expand
  19. Mar 15, 2013
    3
    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'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
  20. May 4, 2013
    3
    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..
  21. Ogr
    Dec 25, 2013
    3
    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 andThe 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
  22. Jan 5, 2014
    3
    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 dwarvesSlow, 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
  23. May 4, 2014
    3
    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
  24. Jan 9, 2013
    2
    With a horrible ending and stupid fight scenes this film stops exactly when it shouldn't. Maybe with more it will end up like LOTR but at this early stage it doesn't deliver.
  25. Mar 22, 2013
    2
    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
  26. Jan 6, 2014
    2
    Ugh!
    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!
  27. Dec 27, 2012
    2
    "Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and"Hobbit" is a great novel. It's not so serious and dark like "Lord of The Rings" - it's more like a fairy tale. You can easily read it to your 4 or 5 years old kid. The movie on the other hand is like prequel to Jackson's trilogy. It has very little common with Tolkien's book. Sure, it looks great, visuals are stunning but it lacks the spirit. I understand why they make it so long and divided it into parts - to make more money.
    Poor attempt of trying to make a lot of $ using great author's name.
    Expand
  28. 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.
  29. JMc
    Jan 2, 2013
    2
    I have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeatsI have just wasted 40 bucks on tickets to see this film. Even if the story were not so overextended and bloated, the high frame rate filming would still have ruined it. HFR makes it look cheap.There's no other word for it. The atmosphere is reminiscent of a video game screened on an LCD screen in a TV showroom. Explosions and flames look stupid -- amateurish even, which kind of defeats the purpose. There is a tinny feel to it; I thought I would be getting a voluptuous visual cinematic experience, but far from it. If you can stand the thought of the hours of boredom, at least do yourself the favour of seeing the normal frame rate version. I wish I had. Expand
  30. Jan 8, 2013
    2
    Fell asleep in the theatre. Also, watching a film at such a high frame rate (HFR) gives the movie a made-for-PBS look to it. At 48 frames per second, the viewer has difficulty suspending disbelief because the frame rate makes the film look too similar to the real world, fantasy setting notwithstanding. It'll be a while until filmmakers can overcome that challenge of making peopleFell asleep in the theatre. Also, watching a film at such a high frame rate (HFR) gives the movie a made-for-PBS look to it. At 48 frames per second, the viewer has difficulty suspending disbelief because the frame rate makes the film look too similar to the real world, fantasy setting notwithstanding. It'll be a while until filmmakers can overcome that challenge of making people believe in the fantasy world they create if they stick with HFR. Also, the 3D is an annoying gimmick and I would have been happier watching it in HFR without the glasses and effects. Additionally, the movie takes some pretty big departures from the book, none for the best. Expand
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.