Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 14, 2012
8.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 2710 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
2,222
Mixed:
318
Negative:
170
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
KimomarudotcomJan 8, 2013
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 lookFell 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
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
2
LokathorDec 28, 2014
Nothing at all like the book. All the action scenes go on for too long and have no element of danger to them. Shame really. However, the saving point of this movie is that (1) it's more Peter Jackson Middle Earth, which means that if youNothing at all like the book. All the action scenes go on for too long and have no element of danger to them. Shame really. However, the saving point of this movie is that (1) it's more Peter Jackson Middle Earth, which means that if you watch all 3 of the extended edition of The Hobbit and all 3 extended Lord Of The Rings then you're getting a huge detailed world, which is cool. (2) The specific characters here (Bilbo+Dwarves), regardless of the rest of the setting or not, are pretty cool. They're not all used, some are just background, but the ones that are have good personality to them. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
DudefromTulsaDec 23, 2012
Over long and over done. While the LOTR trilogy made sense and was, all things considered, faithful to the source material, neither can said for this thing.One absurd action sequence after another. Our heroes can't fight small bands of OrcsOver long and over done. While the LOTR trilogy made sense and was, all things considered, faithful to the source material, neither can said for this thing.One absurd action sequence after another. Our heroes can't fight small bands of Orcs or Goblins - oh no - they have to confronted with an insane number of bad guys. I may - or may not - rent the next two. It is only two more right? Or will they try to back to bank again and again? Expand
8 of 26 users found this helpful818
All this user's reviews
2
speakingsoulJan 2, 2013
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an unexpected movie with an unexpected experience. The movie simply falls flat on its face. It has the best visuals and effects but the sole purpose of technology is to support your script and enhanceThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is an unexpected movie with an unexpected experience. The movie simply falls flat on its face. It has the best visuals and effects but the sole purpose of technology is to support your script and enhance experience but one should know that one might be able to bring people to cinema due to the reputation and expectations but won't be able to keep them sit and watch the complete movie if its not good. Screenplay works in bits and pieces for me. Story build-up is a drag. The most disappointing thing is that it failed to deliver what you expected to see. My friends who have read the book], enjoyed it a lot but even they think that it gets too boring in the middle. Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
2
arielultraMay 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. TheWhy 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! Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
2
fukery3Dec 20, 2012
Where to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and theWhere to even begin... Im by no means a purist and am not opposed to the addition of new material to adaptations if it captures the feel of the source and improves it. That being said, the feel of the journey to the lonely mountain and the plunging into an unknown land is gone. Instead of the adventure and discovery conveyed in the book you have stupid action sequences added over and over for the idiotic modern viewer. The journey is butchered so the audience can enjoy a cheap joke or set up car-chase esque sequence complete with complete ridiculous jump to platform action scenes. The dialogue is terrible and there are none of the wisdom quips that gave LOTR its magic and lasting effect. The ridiculous slapstick humor injected in comes off as annoying, like others have said, makes the movie feel like a Pirates of the Caribean film. This is a bad action movie, nothing more Expand
9 of 25 users found this helpful916
All this user's reviews
2
CmeNOWsoFLYiiDec 15, 2012
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 theI 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
8 of 35 users found this helpful827
All this user's reviews
2
ThemiusDec 22, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. For those who have seen the film...Why it reeked. I was hugely disappointed in "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". Instead of sticking to the children's story, which is very short compared to LOTR, Peter Jackson has added a ton of unnecessary bloat. Many of the scenes were just added to connect it with LOTR, which was not needed, such as all the scenes with Frodo. The movie starts with a huge back story, which would have been better told as the movie progressed. Thorin has a new adversary (he was mentioned in the book, but the party had no interaction with him) ...the strange white orc that slew his father. One of the changes that bothered me the most was that Bilbo is looked down upon throughout the movie, and he has to be a savior in almost every instance to prove he is worthy of the party. In the book the animosity is not nearly as bad. Bilbo does enough in the book without having to, for instance, save Thorin from the white orc. If I remember right the first thing that Bilbo kills with his new short sword in the book is a spider, and Bilbo names the sword Sting. Shouldn't Bilbo have named the sword Fang or Claw in the movie? One of the scenes that doesn't work is when Bilbo escapes from Golum, and Golum just screams instead of running after Bilbo. Why didn't Golum go after Biblo you ask? Well, in the book the goblins are guarding the way out of the mountain, and Golum didn't want to get caught. I was looking forward to see the whole party stuck up in the trees, and the goblins making fun of them with song, but this was not included. Instead of the party being almost burnt up in the trees, the problem is the trees are collapsing. After the long intro, the movie turns into a roller coaster ride. A lot of people compare it to Pirates of the Caribbean, and they are right on. This movie is more Pirate of the Caribbean, than Pirate of the Caribbean could ever be. THREE different instances of having to jump from one place to another to stay alive...The stone giants, the collapsing walkways in the mountain, and the collapsing trees! Speaking of the stone giants, hasn't Peter Jackson learned that some things are better off left for the imagination? In the book the stone giants are mentioned, almost in passing, while in the movie they ride them! It would have been great, if during the storm rocks were falling, you could hear the noise of huge rocks getting smashed...and then through the storm a slight glimpse of something made of rock moves.... Thorin, Thorin, Thorin. He does not hate the elves, he was thankful for their hospitality, and the thing he loves most is gold. In the movie they try to make him a bleeding heart for his homeland, when all he wants is the gold! He IS a dwarf for goodness sake! A new (uneeded) comedy relief was added...Radagast the wizard. Poop. Another new twist is Gandalf hearing about the necromancer. I was almost intrested in this, I think it comes straight from Tokien's notes. However, it does make the movie longer, and is the main reason we have to deal with Radagast the Gastly. The troll incident is changed, for the worst. In the book Biblo is trying to steal something from the trolls, instead of saving the horses. Everyone in the party gets captured except Thorin, who puts up a fight. In the movie, everyone gives up their weapons to save Biblo from getting ripped apart...one person ripped apart, or everyone gets eaten hmmm....This is another time where Biblo basically saves the day, instead of Gandalf. Bilbo keeps the Trolls arguing in the movie, but in the book Gandalf throws his voice, making the Trolls think that they are disagreeing on how to cook the party. The visuals of the movie are descent. More CGI was used, and less animatronics than in LOTR and it shows. I could continue to nitpick very easily, but I think I will leave it there. To sum it up, this is not a movie about a Hobbit, as the book was. It is a movie about the whole of the goings on in middle earth during the story of the Hobbit, and it doesn't work. It tries to be too much like LOTR, instead of the childrens book it was intended to be. Expand
25 of 61 users found this helpful2536
All this user's reviews
2
highland_chargeDec 30, 2012
It was like the "Phantom Menace" all over again. Just like that film, I knew 20 minutes into the movie it was a disaster. Poor editing, poor pacing, poor storytelling. My biggest disappointment of the year.
6 of 13 users found this helpful67
All this user's reviews
2
Qgal5kapFeb 9, 2013
This is a stunning visual experience at times. What ruins it for me is the lack of unique content.
I got the same experience as I did with the first movies. This film also features some of the most ridiculous CG sequences I have ever seen in
This is a stunning visual experience at times. What ruins it for me is the lack of unique content.
I got the same experience as I did with the first movies. This film also features some of the most ridiculous CG sequences I have ever seen in a high budget movie. It looks utterly fake, and it is about time the people who animate these things, take a physics course. At the very least, try to make gravity appear uniform.
Expand
4 of 8 users found this helpful44
All this user's reviews
2
TheloniusFeb 24, 2013
David Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence.David Tolkien fan. Wow, what a disappointment of a movie interpretation by Peter Jackson. He replaced thoughtful plot development and dedication to character development with the easy, cost effective-way out the egregious use of violence. I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit several times each. I loved the Lord of the Rings movies Mr. Jackson produced and expected this to be just as good. It was a terrible interpretation. The dwarves are silly in the movie they are not in the book. There is much more violence in the movie than in the book. And, the violence is largely gratuitous with boring, drawn out scenes that are well over the top. No doubt video-gamers will like it, but this is a movie not a videogame The other Wizard, living in the forest as its caretaker, is made to look a fool in the book he is not. The escape scenes are also much drawn out and absolutely unbelievable as in so completely unbelievable that I thought I was watching a Saturday morning cartoon. Visually the movie looks attractive, but since the plot is so wretchedly twisted the almost three-hours for me was tortuous the last 60 minutes I was twitching so much in my seat that I no doubt bothered my niegbors in the theater. Mr. Jackson did not need to add in the new characters and plot twists. Tolkien's work has very elaborate text and explanations that could easily have been incorporated to make a three-part series without the "new" material. He could have used much more character and plot development, increased the suspense and reduced the violence. I will see the next two chapters in the cinema, but not with nearly as much anticipation as I had for this first chapter and for the three Lord of the Rings movie. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
2
RemJul 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 almostBoring, 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
TimthebuskerMay 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 dysfunctionalMy 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
AaronDWassermanJun 26, 2015
Yes, this movie is that bad. It is soooo boring beyond belief. It is so hard to imagine that Peter Jackson is behind this. And worse yet, there are gonna be 3?! for real!? hell no im out
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
adw55125Jul 3, 2017
This movie sucks. It really does. Worse than the Star Wars Prequels, and I am not trolling. This was so boring and so awkward in its tone. I never went to watch the second and third films because I heard nothing but bad things and I hatedThis movie sucks. It really does. Worse than the Star Wars Prequels, and I am not trolling. This was so boring and so awkward in its tone. I never went to watch the second and third films because I heard nothing but bad things and I hated this movie so much so that's why. The dwarfs were so bad, the story was so uninteresting especially in comparison to Lord of the Rings. This did everything wrong that Lord of the Rings did right. and I think it stems from the idea to split one book into 3 films. Why. other than money, no reason. This book should have been one movie, maybe 2. Maybe. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
David_HDec 17, 2012
I had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. TheI had to give it at least a 1 for the beautiful scenery and the valiant effort by several very good actors. Sadly, it was destined to be a flop ever since Peter Jackson decided to drag a wonderful story out into three separate films. The original Hobbit depending on what publication edition, was roughly 1/5 or less of the number of pages of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This leaves you feeling you not only get to pay three times to see one story, but you also get to wait a full year between each release!
I could wait until all three are out and watch it, but I don't want to sit on my butt for so long in front of a TV that I could have just re-read the original story in paperback.
Expand
9 of 27 users found this helpful918
All this user's reviews
1
ScepticDec 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 DainAll 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
waterwaterwaterJan 13, 2013
If you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking heIf you enjoyed the book you will not like this movie. If you have never read the book you will probably rate the movie higher than I have. I gave it a 1 for the fighting scenes which peter jackson is particularly good at. -9 for thinking he is a better story teller than Tolkien. I went into the movie thinking I would be looking for things that they changed to make the scenes work better on screen, I soon found I was looking for things that were actually in the book. A poop covered wizard that rides a sled pulled by rabbits? REALLY!? The book was about the quest and the JOURNEY! A lot of time was given to feeling homesick, feeling hungry and tired on the road, or toughing it out through rain. When I heard how long the movie was I got excited thinking, "Yes! they actually put all that stuff in". Wrong! The movie takes out the journey and immediately puts the characters where they need to be one scene after another. The white orc was only added in so they could write a storyline that has lots of fighting (even though there was enough in the book) to make Thorin look like the honorable badass hero American audiences/zombiemasses apparently require. The dwarves were not warriors at all in the book (although they did fight), they did not even have weapons until they found them in the troll's cave (another butchered scene). Expand
6 of 13 users found this helpful67
All this user's reviews
1
ngudav15Dec 30, 2012
The movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year oldThe movie was plain awful. The director Peter Jackass made the novel look bad, hell there was so much from the novel that wasn't in the bloody movie. It just seem plain and flat and the script feels like it was written by a twelve year old with down syndrome. Absolutely appalling and it amazes me how much people enjoy this and that it seems like Peter Jackasss was focusing on the fact it was a prequel to LoTR and remove the elements of what made the Hobbit(the novel) great Expand
5 of 11 users found this helpful56
All this user's reviews
1
BillD13Dec 14, 2012
Dreadful film. I saw the HFR presentation and I could not believe how terrible the live action elements looked. The look of the characters were like a bad BBC Shakespeare television program. The film, dragged on and on, while the CG wasDreadful film. I saw the HFR presentation and I could not believe how terrible the live action elements looked. The look of the characters were like a bad BBC Shakespeare television program. The film, dragged on and on, while the CG was done very well (Weta is great) Golum was terrific, the rest of the picture as a whole was awful. Think Phantom Menace. Peter Jackson has lost it. Sorry, it is sad but true, Dreadful, waste of 3 hours. Expand
20 of 76 users found this helpful2056
All this user's reviews
1
YurapisaSchitteDec 14, 2012
It's looks like "Peter Jackson's LOTR fanboys" have got this film pumped up higher than a worthless penny -stock. But that's what this movie is, the film equivalent of a penny-stock. It's value in relation to Tolkien's original story isIt's looks like "Peter Jackson's LOTR fanboys" have got this film pumped up higher than a worthless penny -stock. But that's what this movie is, the film equivalent of a penny-stock. It's value in relation to Tolkien's original story is bankrupt. I hope the Tolkien estate sues MGM and Jackson and pulls this trip from the market, along with the Denny's "Hobbit Breakfast," and all the other marketing minutia that sullies the image of J.R.R. Tolkien and his wonderful literary accomplishments. Expand
10 of 64 users found this helpful1054
All this user's reviews
1
nickrab24Dec 15, 2012
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. OftenThis 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
7 of 24 users found this helpful717
All this user's reviews
1
bruixotsDec 24, 2012
So boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening soSo boring, I left the cinema after 1 hour 30 minutes of watching the film. The first 50 minutes sleeping some times. I can not say more things because the rest of the film I was watching the screen but without care what was happening so intrascendental and no charismatic characters. Expand
6 of 16 users found this helpful610
All this user's reviews
1
marzipanDec 25, 2012
Very boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemedVery boring. Little character development. Pointless sections - eg the wizard in the woods, and the elven section, both of which were pointless to the plot. Corny acting in parts, but not Bilbo though who I thought was good. Just seemed like a repeating sequence of travel, fighting nasty orcs, travel some more, fight again, travel some more, fight some attackers again, ....on and on and on.. All a bit cheesy, like a video game. Dwarves badly made up, some having false noses, others not. This film lacked magic and charm. Expand
3 of 7 users found this helpful34
All this user's reviews
1
KCriticJan 4, 2013
A high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantlyA high budget has created a somewhat visually pleasing film in regards to set pieces and scenery but still manages to fail to bring me into their world. I would describe the film as being similar to a yo-yo, the characters are constantly going from moments of safety to moments of extreme danger and quite frankly it's just plain boring. The film left me with no incentive to watch any of the sequels. Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews
1
pierremSep 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 theThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
AaronWasserman1Mar 26, 2016
I need to be honest. I HATE this movie. So much that I never finished the trilogy. Such a downgrade from Lord of the Rings. Yes I know The Hobbit book came first and it was much more kid friendly, but the movie was slow and long, and dull andI need to be honest. I HATE this movie. So much that I never finished the trilogy. Such a downgrade from Lord of the Rings. Yes I know The Hobbit book came first and it was much more kid friendly, but the movie was slow and long, and dull and boring. Complete pile of CRAP. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
KnarfensteinDec 14, 2012
I wanted something closer to Pan's Labyrinth and instead got another Jackson turd. If only del Toro had stayed on to do this properly. The more time that passes since the LOTR the more I grow to dislike them. Randall Graves had it right inI wanted something closer to Pan's Labyrinth and instead got another Jackson turd. If only del Toro had stayed on to do this properly. The more time that passes since the LOTR the more I grow to dislike them. Randall Graves had it right in Clerks II. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&v=aSB03lr69iU Expand
16 of 103 users found this helpful1687
All this user's reviews
0
Brian_McInnisJan 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 theOne 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. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
0
A_GamerOct 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.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews