User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2517 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch 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
  1. Jan 27, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is regarded by many as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy; possibly one of the greatest fantasy franchises ever seen, with 17 Academy Awards won across the trilogy and Return of the King being the 6th highest grossing film of all time Collapse
  2. Feb 12, 2013
    4
    As the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit.
  3. Jan 20, 2013
    4
    Summary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwritersSummary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwriters expanded Tolkien's novel into a Japanese-style tale of warrior honor and revenge. They introduced some new major characters, and they plan to expand on events that the novel only hinted at. And that all would have worked fine, because it would have been difficult to make a movie based on the novel's themes of hunger and fatigue. The Bad: What should be a 90-minute movie is bloated with an hour of meaningless action sequences. The dwarfs fight. The dwarfs run. The dwarfs cling helplessly to a large moving object that threatens to plunge them to their doom (three times!). None of it advances the plot. With LoTR, I looked forward to and enjoyed the extended edition. With this first Hobbit movie, I'll only watch it again if they release a shortened version. I won't sit through those tedious pointless action sequences a second time. Expand
  4. Jan 27, 2015
    4
    Even the extended version leaves me wanting more. This movie could have been so much better. It relied far too heavy on CGI and special effects and not enough on establishing the story and the characters.
  5. Dec 14, 2012
    4
    When I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarvesWhen I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarves in cloaks almost comical characters but serious in wilder ways with a funny disposition toward loving gold (2/10). When I think of mystery and discovery in the Hobbit I think of an imaginative scenery based vision with some encounters along the way (2/10). When I think of the Hobbit in it's emphasis I think about a children's book where the exploration of ideas provoke thoughtful meaningful contemplative and illustrative consideration (1/10).
    When I think of the philosophy of "the Hobbit" I think about the underlying currents and the hidden truths (1/10). When I think of the character interaction I think "Fairies and goblins" (2/10). When I think about "the Hobbit" as a contrast to his later work in LOTR I consider the fact he atempted to remake the hobbit after the 8th chapter and realized it wasn't a good idea to continue. When I think about the religion of the Hobbit" I think meaning exists in the world people have a place and there is a reason to believe but in this interpretation it's all boils down to simple-minded post post modern humanist action flick where the ends justify the bast.ardization of the former. If you look real hard you can see JRR tolkiens classic here, but you will strain your heart and mind to do so.
    Expand
  6. 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 theSomething 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
  7. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    This movie seems more like a children's movie than a LOTR movie. Little Dwarves who sing and drink. The action scenes and characters seem cheesy, and mainly, this should NOT be 3 movies. The next movie better be good.
  8. Dec 14, 2012
    4
    The movie is worse than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.The 48 FPS I didn't note it.The actors are great.Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are great acting.The director didn't do it like Lord of the Rings.
  9. Dec 25, 2012
    4
    The high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stageThe high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stage and do not blend into the movie.

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

    In fact it is like the Phantom Menace in that there is little to story to the movie but instead we are told to watch more special effects and to enjoy it. I'm not going to see the other two movies in this "trilogy" as its just not worth the time or my money.
    Expand
  10. Dec 22, 2012
    4
    Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!
  11. Dec 29, 2012
    4
    The hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see ourThe hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see our characters interact - particularly the scene where Gandalf and Frodo talk in the caves. However, we see none of those heart warming scenes of LOTR and more cliche' dialogues. This movie relies more the production value which is excellent such as the sets and everything and it also banks on people's love for the LOTR movies. I am very die hard fan of LOTR and even if I don't compare Hobbit dazzles but fails to leave an imprint. Expand
  12. 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
    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
  13. 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
  14. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    Contains spoilers.

    If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Although I am loath to admit it, this adaptation of
  15. Dec 20, 2012
    4
    As a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening sceneAs a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening scene shows both Bilbo, and Frodo at a point in time that is supposed to be right before the opening scene in LOTR, The Fellowship of The Ring. The actors, are visibly aged, and not only are they older, but is is apparent to me that the wigs that were used for both of these characters were not even close to the originals. The hair style is not even quite the same. The hair styles aren't even the worst part. It seems to me that they completely strayed from the original conception of the Orc. Not only was the conceptual trashed, but the incredible make-up, masks, and costumes were also scrapped. Most, if not all of the Orcs and Goblins are C.G. The Orcs are greyish, almost white. Some may argue that these were not Orcs, but rather Goblins. I tried to take that into consideration, but in the movie, they are most definitely referred to as Orcs. The beautiful New Zealand scenery is almost entirely non existent. I understand that the production was plagued with financial problems, and countless other issues, but it is an utter disappointment. So many other times in history, movies, their budgets, and other things have almost cost the movie, but after the release, the movie becomes a phenomenal cult hit, ie. Jaws. Unfortunately, The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, will not be one of those cult hits. The final thing that really bothered me about this is that instead of just taking the complete budget, and creating one last epic movie "The Hobbit", they blew the budget on three separate installments of the film: The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, Smaug, and finally, There and Back Again. It was totally unnecessary to create three different movies. They took quite a bit of creative license and wrote more into the story to extend this one book into 3 more movies, which makes the movie drag out more than necessary. In the LOTR, I found myself wanting more, and shocked when the movie ended where it had. I was sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next installment to come out. Not so much with this one. I was actually quite irritated that I now have to wait another two years to see the final installment of The Hobbit. I'm not looking forward to seeing the disaster that awaits, but hopefully, the story will get better, even if the scenery, costumes, and make-up do not. Expand
  16. Dec 21, 2012
    4
    A very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they'reA very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they're stretching it out way too much. Most of the movie was boring, and the few intersting/exciting parts weren't enough to save it. Expand
  17. Dec 30, 2012
    4
    Peter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. Very disappointing.
  18. Jan 1, 2013
    4
    I'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you so far, and to my mind, not nearly far enough to forgive this movie its flaws. Chief among them was the length. The Lord of the Rings movies were allI'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you so far, and to my mind, not nearly far enough to forgive this movie its flaws. Chief among them was the length. The Lord of the Rings movies were all long, but they had the material to justify their length. One movie per book makes sense. By the end of this first Hobbit movie we've covered about 6 chapters worth of source material. The rest is filler. And not good filler at that. If I never see Radagast the Brown again, that'll be fine by me. He rides around on a sleigh pulled by rabbits for god's sake. I like fantasy just fine, but I like it to be at least somewhat grounded. I loved Tolkien's books, but I was glad that the Lord of the Rings movies weren't 100% faithful to them. I didn't need to see Tom Bombadil on the big screen, and I certainly didn't need to see people singing left and right during their epic quest to save the world. Well, they left the singing in this time around. And it does work fairly well in one instance, but the rest of the time it's just odd and distracting. Too much of this movie is odd and distracting. There are moments that work, but they're wedged between so, so many others that don't. I want to say that there's a very good 2 hour movie hidden in what I saw, but I'm not sure that's the case. Absent the filler, I don't think there's enough to string together a coherent, satisfying narrative from this segment of the story. Maybe when all three films are on the table, I'll be better able to see how things could have been readjusted. Bottom line, I really wanted to like this movie, but I just didn't. Watching it was a chore. Expand
  19. Mar 3, 2013
    4
    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. AfterOh 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
  20. Jul 22, 2013
    4
    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
  21. May 19, 2013
    4
    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....
  22. Sep 14, 2013
    4
    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 ai 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
  23. Dec 11, 2013
    4
    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
    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.
    Expand
  24. Jan 5, 2014
    4
    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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
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.