User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2440 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a great movie. The modern 3D - technology let us enter the world of Tolkien in a new dimension. Peter Jackson made a movie, which shows once again that the small ones are able to be great heroes. The soundtrack fits perfectly to the movie. I recommend you to watch this masterpiece.
    I also will watch it at least once again.
    P.S.: Please excuse my
    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a great movie. The modern 3D - technology let us enter the world of Tolkien in a new dimension. Peter Jackson made a movie, which shows once again that the small ones are able to be great heroes. The soundtrack fits perfectly to the movie. I recommend you to watch this masterpiece.
    I also will watch it at least once again.

    P.S.: Please excuse my bad english, i'm from Germany ;)
    Expand
  2. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    People need to stop thinking about The Lord of the Rings when they go to watch this film. The Hobbit wasn't even written the same way as LotR by Tolkien. It's not a dark, epic drama that portends the end of an age, ultimate evil, and the tragedy of life lost: not just in battle, but of those who's souls are never the same after the grand journey (Frodo).

    It's a fun adventure featuring
    People need to stop thinking about The Lord of the Rings when they go to watch this film. The Hobbit wasn't even written the same way as LotR by Tolkien. It's not a dark, epic drama that portends the end of an age, ultimate evil, and the tragedy of life lost: not just in battle, but of those who's souls are never the same after the grand journey (Frodo).

    It's a fun adventure featuring the races and monsters that birthed contemporary fantasy. If you go in expecting that, you will be MORE than satisfied by this film. It gets better as it goes along. It was accurate to the book, and gave us just enough of a LotR tie-in without overshadowing the main quest of The Hobbit.
    Expand
  3. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    It has angered me critics are disgusted at the films drawn out length in terms of being a part of the lord of the rings franchise. But at the end of the day the story telling ability in this film and the beauty you find in the scenes makes it a fantastic film which definitely deserves a 10. This is a film review not a business case review!
  4. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    I sometimes wonder whether or not the critics watch the same movies we do.

    The Hobbit is the first in a 3 part story based on the novel of the same name. For those who have read the story we know that The Hobbit is a movie of great grandeur and true to the story it retells. The acting, the script, the visuals, the music... all create a whole that is greater than the sum of their
    I sometimes wonder whether or not the critics watch the same movies we do.

    The Hobbit is the first in a 3 part story based on the novel of the same name. For those who have read the story we know that The Hobbit is a movie of great grandeur and true to the story it retells. The acting, the script, the visuals, the music... all create a whole that is greater than the sum of their parts, delivering to use a great beginning to an unfolding epic story. Don't miss the movie, you'll ask yourself "did I really just sit for nearly 3 hours? It went by so quickly!"
    Expand
  5. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    I hate how the reviewers base their reviews on comparisons between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

    Next time you write a review, focus on the movie itself and not the elements outside of it.
  6. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Can't believe the critic score, what the hell is this 58? It is an excellent and brilliant movie, technically and brilliantly directed. The first thing that we need to do is to see this movie without the idea that we are seeing Lord of the Rings because it is based in a novel that was made for child. Evidently it is not a movie for child but it has points of humor and a different essenceCan't believe the critic score, what the hell is this 58? It is an excellent and brilliant movie, technically and brilliantly directed. The first thing that we need to do is to see this movie without the idea that we are seeing Lord of the Rings because it is based in a novel that was made for child. Evidently it is not a movie for child but it has points of humor and a different essence from the las triology. Personally, I found this film one of the best of the year and I don't understand how films that are completely bullshi* has good punctuations and this one no. Expand
  7. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Best movie since Lord of the Rings: Return of the King! And thats for sure it is so brilliant! Peter Jackson is really the only man to do this! I really look forward to the next chapter!
  8. Nov 30, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit is extremely disappointing coming from a director who has accomplished so much, and knows the material so well. It is still has great moments, and for the most part is easy going adventure to watch, but come on.
  9. Dec 14, 2012
    6
    The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

    Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The
    The Hobbit: A Relatively Expected Journey

    Peter Jackson has submitted his first installment to the highly anticipated Hobbit Trilogy. Though i was not a huge fan of his previous work LOTR included, i was particularly interested in The Hobbit due to its resonance with me as a child. The book is sublime but the film lacked a certain depth that we have seen Jackson produce before. The acting is fantastic with Martin Freeman's performance being fulfilling and most certainly understated yet the other characters were simply unable to recreate the same level of interest and intrigue as those in the book. One can only hope that these characters are explored further in the sequels. As for the 48 FPS it was beautiful with scenery exploding vividly onto the screen and yet i cannot help but think it was just too much as if looking into an oil painting, thus some of the dialogue and action was lost amongst the various stunning backdrops. Finally and most annoyingly i must mention the length. For what is only a relatively short children's book, i cannot see how 3 films of such considerable length will be able to keep the focus of the audience whilst remaining true to the book throughout. So far so good but i expect more can come from this series and i hope that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will not be the unwanted middle child of the trilogy and emulate The Two Towers.
    Expand
  10. 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.
  11. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Wow, i almost didn't go to watch this film, what with all the bad reviews! I'm so glad, i did now! To be honest it was a fantastic film! Welcome back to middle earth, only a year to wait for part 2! :( :(
  12. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly I had doubts about this movie, I thought Peter Jackson could lose the "touch" after all this years, but The Hobbit: An unexpected journey" it's an amazing movie! It brings that nostalgic feeling watching the same actors from ten years ago, the 48fps seems quite nice and easy to adapt to it, good soundtracks from Howard Shore, good acting & setting, they included parts (and will keep including parts) from other Tolkien stories for example The White Council, the investigation of Dol Guldur, etc etc..I LOVED this movie.

    But yes, its not perfect, it have flaws...very slow paced movie (at the first half of the movie) some details were irrelevant and could have been omitted until the Extended Edition release, Radagast felt weak portrayed, there were more-than-necessary cheesy quotes that I hope they avoid in the next films..
    I understand if people didnt like this movie but after reading some reviews most of them have biased "facts" and a 0 score, really? Anyways...it is a great movie, I expected less but it surpassed my expectations, I recommend it.
    Expand
  13. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    First and foremost, I did not, will not and don't suggest you see this film in 3D in any form. Watch it as it was intended. That being said, this was a HELL of a kickoff for the upcoming movies and was just downright great to watch. The beginning prologue with the Fellowship tie-in was a nice addition, and the acting at all levels was superb. I will admit, there were moments where I had toFirst and foremost, I did not, will not and don't suggest you see this film in 3D in any form. Watch it as it was intended. That being said, this was a HELL of a kickoff for the upcoming movies and was just downright great to watch. The beginning prologue with the Fellowship tie-in was a nice addition, and the acting at all levels was superb. I will admit, there were moments where I had to keep myself awake (I'm not a midnight person at all), but that's to be expected in a film that is the first of multiple. It's a pity the Metascore is so low, somewhat shocking; this was a great film and any LOTR fan will recognize every single location in this movie - Jackson did an incredible job recreating Gollum's Cave, Goblin Town, Dale, Hobbiton, Rivendell, etc., etc. Collapse
  14. Dec 22, 2012
    2
    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
  15. Dec 22, 2012
    10
    Is it just my impression or have these critics been drinking a lot lately? Cmon, their low knowledge about the middle earth and Tolkien's works almost freightened everyone i know away from the movie. It's an amazing movie, with plausive adaptions from the book, and just as LOTR it looks like it will get even better on the next movie. Dont you waste your time reading 'noobs' reviews, justIs it just my impression or have these critics been drinking a lot lately? Cmon, their low knowledge about the middle earth and Tolkien's works almost freightened everyone i know away from the movie. It's an amazing movie, with plausive adaptions from the book, and just as LOTR it looks like it will get even better on the next movie. Dont you waste your time reading 'noobs' reviews, just go watch the movie. Its worth the money. A lot. Expand
  16. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    This is a beautiful film. The 3D is the best I have seen, the 48fps help this by reducing blur and making the whole thing appear much more crisp. The little references to the trilogy and the book itself (ie chapter names in the script) show that this was a labour of love and further proof of the respect Peter Jackson has for the source material. Although I would not say it surpasses theThis is a beautiful film. The 3D is the best I have seen, the 48fps help this by reducing blur and making the whole thing appear much more crisp. The little references to the trilogy and the book itself (ie chapter names in the script) show that this was a labour of love and further proof of the respect Peter Jackson has for the source material. Although I would not say it surpasses the Lord of the Rings trilogy this was an incredible film with some truly inspired scene. Needless to say Riddles in the Dark is a joy to behold. Expand
  17. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    I'm certainly not going to tell you to not see this movie. Peter Jackson proves that he's at a higher caliber of production than most filmmakers these days. However, compared to his previous works, especially The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Hobbit is lacking. The pacing is jagged, and flip-flops between fast jumping thst rips you out of the plot and drags in many combat scenes. BeyondI'm certainly not going to tell you to not see this movie. Peter Jackson proves that he's at a higher caliber of production than most filmmakers these days. However, compared to his previous works, especially The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Hobbit is lacking. The pacing is jagged, and flip-flops between fast jumping thst rips you out of the plot and drags in many combat scenes. Beyond that, the writers have taken plenty of liberties with the plot that only weigh it down; keeping track of all the extra info can be frustrating. However, the acting is superb, and it's hard not to invest yourself in the characters as they trek through Middle Earth. It's definitely worth seeing, but don't expect to be blown away like the first three. Expand
  18. Dec 14, 2012
    1
    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 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.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 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
  19. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit is based around Bilbo Baggins in his prime, where he goes, well, on an unexpected journey. After watching the enitre LoTR series, i found myself to despise Bilbo for his distasteful obsession with the ring. But after watching The Hobbit, i no longer disliked him, but actually began to like him, even more so than Frodo. The whole 48FPS deal was in my opinion, completely brilliant, although not much technical work has to be put into it to bring up the frame rate, it made the movie look much more realistic, and at times I had trouble depicting whether something was CGI or real. The 48fps makes everything much smoother and makes the cgi have life-like movements. The story for The Hobbit was not as strong as the story in the LoTR series, but i felt that it came pretty close, the movie does not contain nearly as much dialogue as the LoTR series but it definitely fulfills why we all love these movies, the fantasy aspect. Overall, i'd have to say that i enjoyed this movie slightly more than the LoTR series, In most aspects. If you are a LoTR fan, GO SEE THIS MOVIE, if you have never seen any of the LoTR movies, GO WATCH THEM, and then GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Expand
  20. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    Hey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. No one will complain, as its Peter Jackson and Lord of the rings.

    And judging by the 9 and 10's I guess its worked. The film isn't terrible, its
    Hey guys how can we make as much money as possible?, well we could release three films from the Hobbit. But there's not enough in the book to fill three films, .....don't worry we'll just buff it out with lord of the rings style content. No one will complain, as its Peter Jackson and Lord of the rings.

    And judging by the 9 and 10's I guess its worked.

    The film isn't terrible, its just not great either. Whats completely frustrating about it, is that the parts that follow the book are very good, its just all the filler stuff that ruins it. Seemingly filled with cliche comedy moments and bits that just didn't seem middle earth at all, its kind of insulting to the source material.

    If at some point they heavily edit the movie and leave just the relevant book content in, i think you would have a very good movie, but as it stands at the moment, the hobbit is an overly bloated average film that had potential to be much better ( and less drawn out and boring).
    Expand
  21. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The film is one of the best movie of the last 5 years. The 3D effect is the most wonderful 3d effect i've ever seen. The story is just perfect, it feels like reading the book. Bilbo is amazing, Thorin, Gandalf, Balin, Dwalin Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin Gloin, Fili, KIli. ALL perfect.
    Also Azog and the king of the goblins are just perfect. Andy Serkis (Gollum) did a
    The film is one of the best movie of the last 5 years. The 3D effect is the most wonderful 3d effect i've ever seen. The story is just perfect, it feels like reading the book. Bilbo is amazing, Thorin, Gandalf, Balin, Dwalin Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin Gloin, Fili, KIli. ALL perfect.
    Also Azog and the king of the goblins are just perfect. Andy Serkis (Gollum) did a marvellous work on gollum and the scene of riddles in the dark made me cry.
    Go watching for it, you'll never be sorry for that!
    Expand
  22. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Amazing film, what the critics say is sort of right: bloated story, slow beginning, cartoony, silly action and special effects, but it is minor and you will not notice it as the exciting story and beautiful world keeps coming. Some scenes such as the spectacular Riddles in the dark are straight out of the book, but Jackson has made a few changes and added new material which on a large isAmazing film, what the critics say is sort of right: bloated story, slow beginning, cartoony, silly action and special effects, but it is minor and you will not notice it as the exciting story and beautiful world keeps coming. Some scenes such as the spectacular Riddles in the dark are straight out of the book, but Jackson has made a few changes and added new material which on a large is also great. perfect acting all round. Everything is pretty much amazing. Just don't listen to the critics and watch it! Expand
  23. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    "The Hobbit" was a children's book that has served as a key cornerstone in the fantasy genre and a story held close to many reader's hearts. I felt that Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book has been an extraordinary cinematic experience that reminds me of the magic found in those books of old. The tone of the original novel was translated brilliantly onto the big screen, while some"The Hobbit" was a children's book that has served as a key cornerstone in the fantasy genre and a story held close to many reader's hearts. I felt that Peter Jackson's interpretation of the book has been an extraordinary cinematic experience that reminds me of the magic found in those books of old. The tone of the original novel was translated brilliantly onto the big screen, while some may find this 'journey' to be slightly trivial or child-like to the grand battle scenes of LOTR, I enjoyed the translation regardless. Technically, I enjoyed the new technology a lot (having watched it in 48 frames and 3D) while it does require a slight getting used to, the 48 frames helped create a magnificent 3D viewing that would put other epic films to shame. Another thing that should be pointed out is that the relation to LOTR was immaculately added into the plot, there are plenty nostalgic moments that will fuel the delights of old fans but is computed on a level that will not likely to isolate new ones. There are a couple stranger moments here and there, but overall I feel confident that such a magical story is in the the tender hands of such gifted film makers. I for one, is eagerly waiting for the next segment to Bilbo's tale. (I don't know if this consists of a 'spoiler') Expand
  24. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Going into the theater for the midnight showing I was eager to see the film but afraid. I had been burned by Star Wars Episode 1 some 13 years ago and was worried I would once again feel the harsh sting of disappointment by high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised.

    First off, I must say that it's a miracle that this film was even made, never mind by Peter Jackson and the crew
    Going into the theater for the midnight showing I was eager to see the film but afraid. I had been burned by Star Wars Episode 1 some 13 years ago and was worried I would once again feel the harsh sting of disappointment by high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised.

    First off, I must say that it's a miracle that this film was even made, never mind by Peter Jackson and the crew responsible for the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. After being in "Production Hell" for what felt like years, word got out it was finally being made. I was excited but weary of the director who I have had the misfortune of not seeing any of his films which I hear are great. Then said director bailed on the project completely. All hope seemed lost, but like the great wizard Gandalf, Peter Jackson himself stepped in to save the day and my expectations went through the roof.

    So what happened between that, the trailers, and opening night that got me so worried? Reviews. What did I read? "The CGI makes all the creatures look fake, the cameos are pointless, the movie is too long, too childish etc. So the point being is that this movie is Episode 1 all over again, Peter Jackson has lost his edge and Middle-Earth as we know it has be scared beyond recognition. After seeing the film I can tell you that while I can see the critics points ultimately they are nitpicking an otherwise great film. Never mind unfairly comparing this lone film to an entire trilogy.

    So lets get down to the meat of this review. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a great film. It's fun, exciting, emotional, and all the things I expected from the first installment of a new trilogy set in the LOTR universe. Gandalf the Grey is the old wizard you remember from the Fellowship of the Ring and I found him to be as likable as ever, the same goes for other returning characters such as Old Bilbo, Frodo, Elrond, and even Saruman. Somehow age has not slowed these actors down a bit and aside from a few easily overlooked extra wrinkles these are the exact same characters we met in the original LOTR trilogy.

    As for the new characters, the 13 dwarfs are surprisingly fun to watch. I was so afraid we would have 13 Gimlis on screen at all times and the movie would be crippled by this but instead we get a band of likable characters reminiscent of the fellowship from the first LOTR film. A few dwarves stand out while the rest feel second-tier but that's to be expected with such a large cast and doesn't detract from the film as a whole.

    It wouldn't be Middle-Earth without a few notable bad guys to talk about and this movie has a few. From the dragon Smaug who we only get a glimpse of in the film to the lead dwarf Thorins arch nemesis Azog. This character looks the most artificial of all the CGI creatures in the movie but when I think about it I'm not sure they could convey such emotion (raw hatred) in the wretch any other way. Either way he is the main villain for the first part of this story and is as menacing as any enemy the fellowship came face to face with in LOTR. Speaking of menacing CGI villains I have to talk about Gollum. He is the same creature we all know from The Two Towers and Return of the King but this time he is better portrayed as an evil monster that we should fear rather than the menacing, sometimes comical, creature he was in LOTR. I'm trying to keep this review spoiler free so all Ill say is the movie wastes no time in reminding you that Gollum is not there for a comic relief cameo. He was part of The Hobbit to begin with and is treated as such.

    The movie is around 3 hours long and while any unengaged viewer might find that too long to sit still, any fan will tell you that the film isn't long enough. It's pacing is extremely similar to the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring. Again, not spoiling things, but if you can sit though and enjoy that film you will have no problem with An Unexpected Journey. The adventure proper doesn't start until nearly 45 minutes into the film, leaving plenty of time to introduce you to the characters and the nature of the the main character Bilbo Baggins. Speaking a which...

    Martin Freeman plays him perfectly and not once to you feel like he is either playing a young Ian Holm, playing Bilbo or trying to make the character his own unique entity. Ultimately Freeman's Bilbo is the character we saw in LOTR, read about in the books, and is the ideal image of Bilbo Baggins. If you didn't care for him in LOTR you will develop a new appreciation for him through this new trilogy.

    The Hobbit finally has a proper representation on film and fits almost seamlessly with the LOTR Trilogy. I can easily recommend this film to any fan of the books, movies, or anyone looking for a great action adventure film. I can't wait to see the next two films and plan on seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey again.
    Expand
  25. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Movies are done for FANS not for critics journalists! This is a amzing movie, if you are a Lord Of Rings fan you will fall in love with this one. Peter Jackson is a great director.
  26. Dec 18, 2012
    10
    I've read the books, both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring long years before they started to make movies about them, and I just got at the cinema what i was waiting for. The two books were completely different, so not a great suprise that the films have a different feeling as well. It's not a LOTR 2. The Hobbit is basicly a fairy tale, which was originally written as a fairy tale, forI've read the books, both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring long years before they started to make movies about them, and I just got at the cinema what i was waiting for. The two books were completely different, so not a great suprise that the films have a different feeling as well. It's not a LOTR 2. The Hobbit is basicly a fairy tale, which was originally written as a fairy tale, for the kids of Tolkien. The movie is following this history, and does it well, in my oppinion. It is entertaining, and a much more lighter aproach on Middle Earth, in a time when peace and prosperity are common things, even if evil is not so far away either. It's a simple, linear story, lovable and rich of fantasy - in a fairy tail way. Expand
  27. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    WOW. This movie is amazing. I went into the movie theatre quite worried due to critic scores, but after seeing it myself, I really would like to know what film they watched, because it wasn't The Hobbit. I'm an avid fan of J.R.R Tolkien and have all his books, and thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jacksons LOTR Trilogy. The Hobbit is simply stunning, and will be joining my collection once it comesWOW. This movie is amazing. I went into the movie theatre quite worried due to critic scores, but after seeing it myself, I really would like to know what film they watched, because it wasn't The Hobbit. I'm an avid fan of J.R.R Tolkien and have all his books, and thoroughly enjoyed Peter Jacksons LOTR Trilogy. The Hobbit is simply stunning, and will be joining my collection once it comes out on DVD.

    Now onto the movie. A lot of critics have given this low scores due to its higher framerate, or complaining about the slow start. Seriously, they have never been so wrong. Although I saw it in 3D 24fps (just to be safe) I cannot understand why people are rating the movie DOWN due to the 48fps framerate. Easy option - go see it in 24fps first. The movie is NOT slow. We spend 40 minutes or so in the shire (10 minutes of that we actually enjoy an epic prologue set in Erebor) which is no different to the first LOTR. It gives us a chance to develop some of the characters and understand their motivation. There's not one part of this film which I thought 'this is slow'. It is beautifully paced. The acting is superb, especially Martin Freeman as Bilbo. The first time you see him as Bilbo, you can understand why Peter Jackson chose him. There is so many events in this film that blew me away. The stone giants, the goblin tunnels, Rivendell, the scene with Gollum (which deserves an oscar), the Prologue in Erebor, the white council with gandalf, saruman, galadriel and elrond, dol goldur, and the EAGLES. The eagles look better than ever and really blew me away. This is a lighter and more humoured middle earth, but that's what Tolkien wrote. There is peace in middle earth, so of course the world is a happier place. Thankfully though, it's not as overdosed as I thought it would be. There are maybe 1 or 2 lines which made me cringe, but that is the only downfall to this movie. Everything else is perfect.

    All of the actors do a superb job as I said previously. Radagast the brown, a slightly deranged wizard, also worried me before seeing the film. He is brilliant. He helps move the story along and also sees something I did not expect... fans of LOTR will be happy once they understand who and what he saw. The action pieces and CGI are fantastic also. The ending couldn't have been any better, with a brilliant piece of character development between Thorin and Bilbo (both of which develop brilliantly throughout the entire film) coming to a final climax, and also... I wont spoil the last shot, just go see it yourself. I can not recommend this film enough. I am so happy to have visited middle earth again and couldn't be any happier with what I saw. Do yourself a favour, ignore the critics, and go and enjoy middle earth again, because The Hobbit is one hell of a ride.
    Expand
  28. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    the hobbit is a great movie the story of the movie,the affects,and the 3d for me was good a great movie but i will say that movie was very long 3 hours.so i will give the hobbit an unexpected journey 9/10 and i will recommend to you to see the movie.and i forgot to remind golum(my precious). you know what i regret about the 3 hours i will give it 10/10
  29. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    awsome a great prequel to lord of the ring.very funny,awsome fights,a good story,golum,and amazing 3d.so i think that a great prequel to lord of the rings and i will give it 10/10.
  30. Dec 14, 2012
    0
    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 in Clerks II. http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&v=aSB03lr69iU
  31. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    I quite liked this movie, but it could have been better. The original Lord of the Rings movies did not use CGI unless it was necessary. The orcs were men in costume and makeup, which made Jackson's depiction of middle earth seem more real somehow. In this new film, Jackson uses CGI as a crutch (nearly every creature is computer generated), and it hurts the continuity and flow of the story.I quite liked this movie, but it could have been better. The original Lord of the Rings movies did not use CGI unless it was necessary. The orcs were men in costume and makeup, which made Jackson's depiction of middle earth seem more real somehow. In this new film, Jackson uses CGI as a crutch (nearly every creature is computer generated), and it hurts the continuity and flow of the story. This movie is pretty sweet in its own way, but if the creators had stuck with their original pattern (more make up and costumes, and less CGI) I would have thought it flawless. It's certainly enjoyable, and I'm looking forward to the next two installments, but I don't feel like this can be categorized as a classic. Expand
  32. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    People will always be buthurt about things, that is beyond doubt. Sometimes the buthurt has a good reason to be there like the prequels to starwars or all of mass effect 3 but in the case of the Hobbit the buthurt has credible stance to take in the bashing of this glorious film. The Hobbit is made from an earlier book of Tolkien's, a lighthearted approach to Lotr, it is not a carbon copyPeople will always be buthurt about things, that is beyond doubt. Sometimes the buthurt has a good reason to be there like the prequels to starwars or all of mass effect 3 but in the case of the Hobbit the buthurt has credible stance to take in the bashing of this glorious film. The Hobbit is made from an earlier book of Tolkien's, a lighthearted approach to Lotr, it is not a carbon copy of the original trilogy nor is it a movie made for children. The film has more concentration over visuals then the previous films yet it does not sacrifice the plot in any way, the actors blend in with the CGI very organically. The film may drag on for a bit but so did the fellowship, two towers and return of the king. The 40 fps looks good and the criticism for it seems a bit unfounded.

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

    Over all its a great film, I think peter Jackson just forgot to bribe the reviewers, To put it into some context the "critic" score for this film is only 2 points higher then that of the first twilight which is very very strange to me.
    Expand
  33. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    So, I've just seen the Hobbit. And I can honestly say that I am blown away by how good it was. I can see why the long introduction would be a problem for some people, but if you are a fan, you will appreciate it very much. Its very descriptive and atmospheric. Once you are past the 40 minute introductory mark, the fun begins, and since then, its pretty much action packed. The humor isSo, I've just seen the Hobbit. And I can honestly say that I am blown away by how good it was. I can see why the long introduction would be a problem for some people, but if you are a fan, you will appreciate it very much. Its very descriptive and atmospheric. Once you are past the 40 minute introductory mark, the fun begins, and since then, its pretty much action packed. The humor is excellent, and the actors put an awesome performance. Not to mention how beautiful the landscapes and effects are. The music is another strong side of the movie, and does not fail to bring you closer to Middle Earth.

    My final verdict 10/10.
    Expand
  34. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    First of all, the professional critics who gave this movie below a 65, you are shortsighted whining idiots. I've seen The Hobbit in IMAX 3D HFR and it was awesome. Okay the HFR is something to get used to, especially when the camera is moving it looks like it is played in fast forward. But the images itself look beautiful sharp. The CG looked pitch perfect, so i don't know if i wanna seeFirst of all, the professional critics who gave this movie below a 65, you are shortsighted whining idiots. I've seen The Hobbit in IMAX 3D HFR and it was awesome. Okay the HFR is something to get used to, especially when the camera is moving it looks like it is played in fast forward. But the images itself look beautiful sharp. The CG looked pitch perfect, so i don't know if i wanna see every movie in HFR but i can see a bright future for all high end CG movies like Avatar in 48fps. A lot of critics are complaining about the slow pace in the beginning, but that is exaggerated, it is entertaining from start to finish. After 25 minutes you are thrown in the adventure and it doesn't let go of you, foregoing from the funny scene's with the drarves in the beginning.The story is great and characters are all very good and very likeable. Martin Freeman as Jong Bilbo is the more then perfect person for the role. The cinematography is top notch, Andrew Lesnie you are legend. The scène riddles in the dark was awesome and Gollum OMG does CG ever gonna get better. Everyone go see this film and Peter Jackson and crew thank you for letting us visit beautiful Middle Earth again. Expand
  35. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Just Excellent! Pure Brilliance... Definitely movie of the year! The cast are just spot on [Gotta love Radagast the Brown] and music is as ethereal as ever; simply pure genius.
  36. Jun 25, 2013
    10
    The long beginning the critics oucked on is obviously there to introduce us to the family of dwarves, something peter jackson couldnt do once the action kicks in and without it we wouldn't care for the characters. After repeated viewings nearly all the dwarves get their moment except one or two, plus the beginning isn't as long as lord if the rings which was universally praised for doingThe long beginning the critics oucked on is obviously there to introduce us to the family of dwarves, something peter jackson couldnt do once the action kicks in and without it we wouldn't care for the characters. After repeated viewings nearly all the dwarves get their moment except one or two, plus the beginning isn't as long as lord if the rings which was universally praised for doing the same thing and introducing us to the hobbits.

    Anyway this is a great thrill ride, the added bits add greatly to the story, I loved the rivendell scenes, which tied in lovely with the LOTR and azog was a good character.

    There's a couple of instances that stumble, the last bit of dialogue from the goblin king was a touch too much and radaghast whilst you warm to him on repeated viewings was a bit silly when he first meets up with the gang.

    Anyway these minor quibbles don't stop this being a full marks movie and I can't wait for the second one.
    Expand
  37. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I loved every minute of this movie. I wouldn't have changed a thing. I read the hobbit 20 years ago and I am very happy with the result of this movie.
  38. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    I waited long and hard for this movie, and boy did they deliver! I had chills as I watched this grand adventure unfold, and this is only the beginning! They couldn't have picked a better Bilbo, very charming. The only minor things that bothered me were trying to remember the names of the dwarfs, and the fact that when ever their was a different language being spoken, they used subtitles.I waited long and hard for this movie, and boy did they deliver! I had chills as I watched this grand adventure unfold, and this is only the beginning! They couldn't have picked a better Bilbo, very charming. The only minor things that bothered me were trying to remember the names of the dwarfs, and the fact that when ever their was a different language being spoken, they used subtitles. Other than those very minor things, great movie, and i simply can't wait for the next two, and it can only get better. Expand
  39. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Truly awesome, on par with fellowship! Brilliant acting from all cast members. Bilbo, Gollum, Gandalf and Thorin and absolutely perfect. The ending will have you leaning forward out of your screen as Tolkein's Novel and Jackson's new material come crashing together in an awesome finale!
  40. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Simply put, this was an amazing movie to look at. Like anything else it had it's flaws, but the 48FPS is visually stunning. Like Avatar and 3D, this movie sets a new standard for movie making.
  41. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    Let's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst sceneLet's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst scene in the movie, and the beautiful special effects are for naught since the orcs and goblins were completely redesigned to look clean and crisp and not at all scary. So it all balances out (hence the 5 rating). I have a ton of things to say about this movie, but to keep this somewhat short, I'm going to mention one that focuses on the bad writing (of which there was plenty). At the end of The Return of the King, Frodo and Gollum fight each other for the Ring. Both of them fall off the ledge, leaving you to think that Frodo dies. Instead, he's hanging on to a small outcropping with his fingertips. In the special features of RotK, Peter Jackson commented that he hated using something so cliche, but it worked perfectly for that scene. In An Unexpected Journey, there are at least three instances where someone falls off a ledge and hangs on by his fingertips. Expand
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey manages to maintain the feeling that you are watching a film set in Middle Earth while being different enough to stand on it's own. The main difference is that the story is much lighter than The Lord of the Rings, much like the book. This allows for a more humourous tone throughout the film and a little more free rein for the writers to adapt it to aThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey manages to maintain the feeling that you are watching a film set in Middle Earth while being different enough to stand on it's own. The main difference is that the story is much lighter than The Lord of the Rings, much like the book. This allows for a more humourous tone throughout the film and a little more free rein for the writers to adapt it to a full feature length movie(s).

    Yes, it is a long movie which could be shorter. Does it need to be shorter? For me the answer is no. I've always loved the world that Tolkien created and I was a little worried before watching it as to whether it would be too long or, more importantly, lose the magic of the first three films. If anything, it has reinvigorated my love for it. Have you ever watched something you loved and wish you could see it again as if you've never seen it before? Well if you felt that way about The Lord of the Rings then this is the closest you'll come to that experience. It is a wonderful film. Fans will love it and if those who are a little skeptical just approach it with an open mind, they'll love it too.
    Expand
  45. Dec 14, 2012
    7
    I had very modest expectations coming into this film. I was disappointed by the first two films in the LOTR triology and found them non-memorable and flat. An unexpected Journey is charming from the start, and even though the first half is a little bloated (my primary criticism of the film), the second half is terribly exciting, and I love the characterization of Bilbo Baggins and theI had very modest expectations coming into this film. I was disappointed by the first two films in the LOTR triology and found them non-memorable and flat. An unexpected Journey is charming from the start, and even though the first half is a little bloated (my primary criticism of the film), the second half is terribly exciting, and I love the characterization of Bilbo Baggins and the way he's ingratiated into the crew of dwarves. I find the characters in the first installment of The Hobbit to be much more relatable and sympathetic than any of them in the LOTR series. I'll take young Bilbo over young Frodo any day as a protagonist. I will say that Gollum injects a special energy into the film that crests all the way to its conclusion. So yes, the film won me over in ways I truly did not expect. Expand
  46. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Once again the critics get it wrong. When was the last time a critic called a good movie right. I read this book many times growing up and the movie was everything I could have wanted and more. Faithful to the book and translated well onto the screen. You won't be disappointed.
  47. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Well, did it live up to the hype? In most instances, yes it did. However, there were a few things that could have been changed or made better in this first installment of The Hobbit. I happened to see it in IMAX 3D, and the IMAX part was phenomal, as it always is, but the 3D i felt like was more of a gimmick, and just wasn't really needed. It definitely looked a lot better than most 3D'sWell, did it live up to the hype? In most instances, yes it did. However, there were a few things that could have been changed or made better in this first installment of The Hobbit. I happened to see it in IMAX 3D, and the IMAX part was phenomal, as it always is, but the 3D i felt like was more of a gimmick, and just wasn't really needed. It definitely looked a lot better than most 3D's have, it was shot with those 3D cameras, so I would expect that it would look better, but I could have easily watched it in 2D and had the same experience. I might go back and try out the higher framerate, although this may make it seem even more gimmicky and less immersive. The acting was mostly top-notch, with Martin Freeman as Bilbo, Ian Mckellen as Gandalf (of course), Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, and Andy Serkis as Gollum (once again, of course) really standing out. The other dwarves were very good, but almost just seemed like background characters, rather than characters you felt more emotionally attached to. (ie, the 4 hobbits in LOTR). The action sequences were wonderful, however the CGI made it feel almost fake and more like a video game than a movie. Basically anything non-human in this movie was animated, and it was evident that some of the dwarves and Bilbo were just swinging at thin-air rather than an enemy in some instances. While the animation gave the producers more freedom and creativity, it made the movie feel less real and organic, as the LOTR trilogy had because they had used live actors to portray the orcs, and some other creatures. Granted, I know the trolls and gollum, and other creatures like that have to be animated, but the orcs and goblins in this movie could have been live actors. It almost seems as if it was a bit rushed. Well, at least that aspect of it. While some complained that the beginning of the movie was too long, and took forever to work into the story, I did not feel that as I watched it. I enjoyed the fleshing out of the back story because I feel like the LOTR trilogy could have had more backstory (I know the films were very long, and this was the reason for less backstory), but I enjoyed hearing everything about The Hobbit. Overall though, this movie was outstanding. It had it's great moments, where you felt emotionally attached to a character, or that superb soundtrack kicked in at the perfect time, and how can i forget, the best part of the movie, the riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum. Also, it had quite a few more laughs than the original 3, which was very welcome. So, I say go see it! While it doesnt recapture the brilliance of the FOTR, it is still a film that is very worth your time and money. Thus, I give it a 9. Expand
  48. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    I was hesitant because of some of the negative reviews, but they were easily set aside within the first half hour. This is a fantastic film. I sincerely think the "professional' reviewers are seeing a different film than I saw, because the one I saw kept me glued in my seat from beginning to end. It was surpassed Fellowship in a lot of ways: better pacing, tighter story, more action, a bitI was hesitant because of some of the negative reviews, but they were easily set aside within the first half hour. This is a fantastic film. I sincerely think the "professional' reviewers are seeing a different film than I saw, because the one I saw kept me glued in my seat from beginning to end. It was surpassed Fellowship in a lot of ways: better pacing, tighter story, more action, a bit more whimsical, and the characters! I'm a huge LOTR fan, but the dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf all really shine here. They have much more personality than was presented in Fellowship (and I do love Fellowship).

    Overall, don't listen to the negative reviews a lot of sites are posting. This is one of the best fantasy movies I've ever seen.
    Expand
  49. 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
  50. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    An unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come closeAn unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come close to silencing the skeptics like his Lord of the Rings films did, and is actually more ill-conceived than expected.

    Things that do work well for the most part in The Hobbit are sequences that come directly from the source novel. Iconic scenes, such as the arrival of the dwarfs at Bag End or the encounter with the trolls are handled pretty well, despite being padded out to unnecessary lengths with lame gags and pointless alteration of the original events in the book. Juggling such a massive primary cast is obviously a challenge, and as such the film's best moments involve only one or two characters, with Bilbo's (Martin Freeman) meeting of Gollum (Andy Serkis) and the finding of the ring being a particular stand-out sequence, the only one that seemed like it could have used more time.

    However, all of the good work that Jackson & Co do with the direct source material is swamped by the content they felt they had to develop themselves. The great achievement of the LOTR films is how they managed to distill the huge source novels to their most important story beats, only hinting at most of the wider story in a way that brought incredible richness to the world in which they take place. With The Hobbit though, Jackson only has a 300 page novel to start with, and the decision to make three lengthy films, I assume to parallel the first trilogy, is precisely why this first film doesn't work.

    The Hobbit should be allowed to stand alone as its own film, but it is structured in such a way, almost identically to the first LOTR entry The Fellowship of the Ring, that it's all but impossible not to compare them. As a side-effect, the much lighter tone will be jarring for a lot of established franchise fans, the very people the film seems to be primarily aimed at. The chase sequence in the goblin tunnels for example is little more than an updated version of the Moria scenes from LOTR. It's exciting enough, but much of the action feels in service of the film- making technology on display rather than the story, and as such none of the stakes of the earlier films are built here.

    Where the LOTR films had to keep moving at such a pace to fit everything in, The Hobbit dwells on unnecessary moments which had only the briefest of mentions in the novel to reach its 2 hour 49 minute runtime. Most damaging are the call backs linking the previous trilogy, setting up what is likely to be an almost completely new story bridge between the two trilogies in the third film due in 2014. There is absolutely no reason for Frodo (Elijah Wood), Saruman (Christopher Lee), and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) to appear in this story, yet here they are, taking us away from a perfectly good narrative about a quest to fight a dragon. It reeks of cynical franchise care, and arguably disrespectful to the carefully crafted world that Tolkien created.

    There's a good movie somewhere in The Hobbit, and had Jackson shown more restraint we might have seen it. The film could easily lose at least 45 minutes, but it feels as if director feels so beholden to his previous work that he needs to deliver an epic on the scale of LOTR. But that's not what this book is, and we're left with an uneasy balance - the lighter tone to distinguish this as a separate story but a strict adherence to the LOTR structure - but ultimately doesn't fulfill either side.
    Expand
  51. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    These critics who panned The Hobbit wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face. It was EXCELLENT, and I'm a true Tolkien fan. The film was definitely geared towards the fans, but had enough action and storyline to please non-fans. It is a prequel worthy of Jackson's Thrilling and Successful LOTR Trilogy. So what if you have absolutely no idea where Gondolin is or whoThese critics who panned The Hobbit wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face. It was EXCELLENT, and I'm a true Tolkien fan. The film was definitely geared towards the fans, but had enough action and storyline to please non-fans. It is a prequel worthy of Jackson's Thrilling and Successful LOTR Trilogy. So what if you have absolutely no idea where Gondolin is or who Ungoliant was? Jackson is a true Tolkien fan and I thank him for leaving in songs and words which trigger countless meanings and thrilling stories in the hearts of Tolkien fans. Stories which I hope to one day see on the big screen = ) Expand
  52. Dec 21, 2012
    9
    The Hobbit what I heard about it is it was suppose to be long and boring. The Hobbit was not a let but gives us a hell of a ride and is worth your money for 3 hours of your life. I haven't seen such a good movie in a long time. All I can say now is well done Peter Jackson and looking forward to the next chapter. The Hobbit 9.1/10
  53. Dec 2, 2014
    0
    I badly struggled getting through this. The pace is terrible and there's way too much detail, with an uninteresting story and hilariously over the top and illogical action. Avoid at all cost.
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    Purists to the original Hobbit will hate this. Fans of the Lord of the Rings will love this. The Hobbit story is there but is little more than 15% of the movie. Peter Jackson (et al.) have successfully expanded the original book by weaving it through a far larger, more epic story that warrants being a trilogy. Good new characters + good action + laced with humor = a thoroughly enjoyable film!
  57. Dec 14, 2012
    8
    Saw this in 2D/24FPS. I enjoyed myself. The movie doles out the quirky charm like nothing else. I would say the cuts against it would be it's somewhat bloated, which causes some repetition (very frequent fights/chases). I believe two movies, rather than three, was the way to go and would have trimmed down some of the fat but what we got is still pretty good.
  58. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    If you're going to put this a 0 just because this was not return of the king in epicness you will get a no this review was not helpful from me. I really enjoyed this movie I think it was my favorite movie of this year. I have seen all the big hit movies and this type of movie just spoke to me. Yes this is not LotR but this is a separate story that collides with LotR. There really wasIf you're going to put this a 0 just because this was not return of the king in epicness you will get a no this review was not helpful from me. I really enjoyed this movie I think it was my favorite movie of this year. I have seen all the big hit movies and this type of movie just spoke to me. Yes this is not LotR but this is a separate story that collides with LotR. There really was nothing I can say that was wrong with this movie. Expand
  59. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The best movie of this year. Martin born to Bilbo like Ian McKellen born to Gandalf. 48fps are awesome and CGI effect are masterpiece. This movie is great!
  60. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    I felt home again. Everything was perfect. Thank you for bringing just a little bit more beauty to this world, cast and crew of The Hobbit. There is not a single complaint I can come up with for this film. By all means, I don't want to.
  61. May 31, 2013
    8
    How do you portray magic in a medium that is all magic? Get a cast made up of Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Dave Franco, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Isla Fisher, Melanie Laurent, Jose Garcia and Commons and add a lot of razzle-dazzle. “Now You See Me” delivers on both counts. The ending may not quite make sense and may have to be listened to a second time or might makeHow do you portray magic in a medium that is all magic? Get a cast made up of Woody Harrelson, Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Dave Franco, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Isla Fisher, Melanie Laurent, Jose Garcia and Commons and add a lot of razzle-dazzle. “Now You See Me” delivers on both counts. The ending may not quite make sense and may have to be listened to a second time or might make you think of seeing the movie over again to follow if the ending is as logical as the screenwriter says it is.

    There are spectacular magic tricks, most explained, foot chases, a car chase and a couple of heists that are explained to such an extent that it adds to the puzzlement. This is not a movie to see for character development because a love story between 2 of the stars only slows everything down while another couple is handled in a sort of throwaway manner and makes more sense.

    Mark Ruffalo as an FBI agent needs a shave while his partner on loan from Interpol, Melanie Laurent, adds a foreign interest leading to a bridge in Paris with a fence filled with locks. (Always learning things from movies--didn’t know this was a widespread craze--had to google it for more information!) The team of four with Woody Harrelson as a mentalist, Jesse Eisenberg as an illusionist, Isla Fisher as an escape artist and Dave Franco as a pickpocket, who was really impressive, make their roles of magicians realistic while Michael Caine as a rich man who sponsors their act, and for some unexplained reason disappears from the movie while Morgan Freeman is a man who exposes magicians and their tricks, are always entertaining to watch.

    The screenplay by Ed Solomon, Boaz Yakin and Edward Ricourt, along with direction by Louis Leterrier, photography by Larry Fong and Mitchell Amundsen plus the eye catching production design by Peter Wenham and visual effects supervisor Nicholas Brooks make “Now You See Me” a pleasant diversion. The music by Brian Tyler is loud, as most musical soundtracks are in action films, and Ruffalo needing that shave, along with the explanation at the end having to be heard again, are minor complaints regarding a film about magic that you can just sit back and enjoy the actors, scenery and razzamatazz!
    Expand
  62. Dec 17, 2012
    5
    After 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, itAfter 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, it has no ending! It´s definitely not horrible, but it´s far from being good. Expand
  63. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This film has a different feel than the Lord of the Rings trilogy but you have to remember it IS a different trilogy and the source material has a different feel too. The story was fleshed out nicely with several tie-ins to the Lord of the Rings that made it truly feel like part of the same world from another time. The story is much lighter with a lot more humor and a bit lessThis film has a different feel than the Lord of the Rings trilogy but you have to remember it IS a different trilogy and the source material has a different feel too. The story was fleshed out nicely with several tie-ins to the Lord of the Rings that made it truly feel like part of the same world from another time. The story is much lighter with a lot more humor and a bit less intensity/impending doom. Remember, the heroes are only trying to recover something, not save the world as in LOTR. The action sequences are mind bogglingly epic. Though I found myself enjoying the dialog more than the action. Yes the sets are computer generated instead of models but this gave the creators more freedom. I would rate the CG as the best I have seen and the way they blended it with the live actors was very atmospheric and mostly felt natural. Non-fans will have a hard time sitting through the entire movie. It IS long, but if you aren't a fan what are you doing at the movie? Really. Wait for the DVD and fast forward if it's too slow for you. Even when it comes to movies I don't enjoy I hate it when people complain about a movie being too long. I never understood that mindset. Books are never too long, neither are video games; no one is making you finish a movie you are bored of. I say create as much content as possible and let people watch if they enjoy it. Expand
  64. Dec 14, 2012
    1
    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 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 otherIt'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
  65. Dec 20, 2012
    10
    I am giving this film a perfect score. Because I have read LOTR and the Hobbit, I knew I should have different expectations (not lower expectations). The move impressed me most with its creativity in presenting something I had only imagined from reading the book. Peter Jackson is great with making long films for 2 reasons. Firstly, I am never wondering why something is being filmedI am giving this film a perfect score. Because I have read LOTR and the Hobbit, I knew I should have different expectations (not lower expectations). The move impressed me most with its creativity in presenting something I had only imagined from reading the book. Peter Jackson is great with making long films for 2 reasons. Firstly, I am never wondering why something is being filmed because there is always subject matter being presented (I can never imagine the actors in a scene asking for his lines). Secondly, the attention to detail not just visual but also with overall feeling in mind, because the Hobbit seemed more childish to me as a book I expected the movie to be less serious and more lighthearted, without losing the middle earth action style. I saw this film in IMAX 3D, and I was amazed by how I was able to focus so well even though general 3D makes me feel ill and upset. I have seen other critics saying the most harsh things about this film but I can't help but wonder what they are actually saying about the film that is "bad". I give the movie two thumbs up and the negative critics two thumbs down. Expand
  66. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Was a bit concerned after seeing the films fairly low score on here and on rotten but the film is absolutely perfect. I'm tempted to say it's even better than the previous 3 films in terms of it's scope, it's beautiful imagery and the special effects. I was enchanted for the entire duration of the movie, not a dull moment. Plenty of action too, probably more action than the other threeWas a bit concerned after seeing the films fairly low score on here and on rotten but the film is absolutely perfect. I'm tempted to say it's even better than the previous 3 films in terms of it's scope, it's beautiful imagery and the special effects. I was enchanted for the entire duration of the movie, not a dull moment. Plenty of action too, probably more action than the other three (not combined of course). Anyone who says the film is too long either doesn't like the film in general (so it seems drawn out) or just has a rubbish attention span. For me it was over in a flash. A masterpiece. Peter Jackson maintains his legendary status in my eyes. Expand
  67. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Better than the book, again. While many purist fans do not agree, I must say Peter Jackson did a wonderful job. To those who say it's different from the book, well, I must say that it's the closest a movie can get to it. The main difference is that Peter Jackson tied The Hobbit well with The Lord of the Rings. It is already a challenge to transport the book to the movie but it's evenBetter than the book, again. While many purist fans do not agree, I must say Peter Jackson did a wonderful job. To those who say it's different from the book, well, I must say that it's the closest a movie can get to it. The main difference is that Peter Jackson tied The Hobbit well with The Lord of the Rings. It is already a challenge to transport the book to the movie but it's even harder if you want to tie something that was written for children with something darker. Why do I give it a 10? Because this time Peter Jackson explored things not even present in the book, it's a plus you get. Do yourself a favor and enjoy this movie. If you liked The Lord of The Rings trilogy, you will definitely love The Hobbit. Expand
  68. Dec 17, 2012
    1
    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. 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 youI 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
  69. 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
  70. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Amazing movie. I don't see why it's getting bad reviews , the story is great the characters are great the locations are great. If your a fan of lord of the rings you will love it as I did!!
  71. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    If you are a fan of "The Lord of the Rings" or just a fan of good movies in general, then this is a must see. Critics need to stop comparing it to the original trilogy and take it for what it is, a fun adventure with lots of humor that sets the stage for the ring and the shadow growing in Mordor.
  72. Dec 20, 2012
    2
    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 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 overWhere 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
  73. Dec 27, 2012
    9
    The film was truly spectacular in many cases, it brought many of the scenes that I had imagined in the book to life, and even refined my perspective on them. Initially the 48 fps was very strange, especially when Bilbo was pottering around his hole, but you got accustomed to it by the end of the film, and it worked really well, especially in the battle of Moria scene between Orks andThe film was truly spectacular in many cases, it brought many of the scenes that I had imagined in the book to life, and even refined my perspective on them. Initially the 48 fps was very strange, especially when Bilbo was pottering around his hole, but you got accustomed to it by the end of the film, and it worked really well, especially in the battle of Moria scene between Orks and Dwarves. I was disappointed that the Orks were done entirely in CGI, because it'd be great to see them make a return from the LOTR trilogy, and I felt Radagast the Brown's subplot was detracting to the immersion with the main journey. But these were petty complaints to a film I enjoyed greatly, the atmosphere was spot on, and the acting was excellent, Bilbo was done excellently by Martin Freeman. The Riddles in the Dark was easily the best part of the film and done pretty much perfectly (Extra credit to Andy Serkis for getting back into Gollum without trying to imitate how he played Gollum in LOTR). Peter Jackson has done a great job in capturing the soul of the Hobbit. The only worrying element is how exactly they are going to do the next two films, considering that the second one will almost definitely centre around the trip through the Mirkwood, which is basically, in JRR Tolkien fashion, pages of walking. Expand
  74. Mar 24, 2013
    9
    The first Hobbit movie in the franchise is not only exciting, it takes you on a thrill ride with not only some new creatures, but some old memorable character such as Gollum. At times, the story is distracted some cheesy humor, mostly caused by the dwarfs. But other than that it's a great start to the Hobbit trilogy.
  75. Dec 14, 2012
    8
    The things that struck me about it were one, it
  76. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Marked it down a point for two very ropey effects (spotted), an inappropriate Joss Whedon-esque line of dialogue courtesy of the Goblin King and a **** Wilhelm Scream.

    Otherwise pure brilliance
  77. Dec 14, 2012
    8
    "The Hobbit" was great, of course. The only complaint I have is the same one that critics said about the first three (that I disagree with in respect to those films): It
  78. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is an amazing movie that serves as a prequel to the Lord of the Rings. I can write pages dedicated towards a summary, strengths, and personal thoughts but they all add up to one sentence: "The Hobbit is the best film to come out in 2012 for any fan of fantasy or Tolkien's novels." The film looks beautiful, characters are fun and memorable, and the special effects look amazing.The Hobbit is an amazing movie that serves as a prequel to the Lord of the Rings. I can write pages dedicated towards a summary, strengths, and personal thoughts but they all add up to one sentence: "The Hobbit is the best film to come out in 2012 for any fan of fantasy or Tolkien's novels." The film looks beautiful, characters are fun and memorable, and the special effects look amazing. The Hobbit has everything that made the Lord of the Rings great. If you enjoyed entering Middle Earth over a decade ago, then I highly suggest watching the Hobbit.

    10/10 Great movie.
    Expand
  79. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This film is easily as good as any of the films in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is a little different in tone, though the difference feels entirely appropriate.
  80. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Freaking awesome movie. Saw it in 3D and thought it was beautifully filmed. The story was very tight and you are left wanting more and more. I found the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum chilling. I got goosebumps for the last hour.
  81. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Hobbit is a great movie.The story it told,the battles, even the way it showed thing that explain more of the lord of the rings. For a prequel(and the first book) it was pretty good. some parts did start to slow things down but with a story this big things have to be mentioned in the first movie.If you have seen the lord of the rings or read any of the books,see this movie.If youThe Hobbit is a great movie.The story it told,the battles, even the way it showed thing that explain more of the lord of the rings. For a prequel(and the first book) it was pretty good. some parts did start to slow things down but with a story this big things have to be mentioned in the first movie.If you have seen the lord of the rings or read any of the books,see this movie.If you haven't then you can still go see this movie. Expand
  82. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was is a great film. Not a perfect film mind you, but a damn great one. I have a feeling my admiration of the fim comes from the fact that I love everything Tolkien, and the fact that I went into the theater last night with low expectations, because I knew it would be hard for Peter Jackson to match the perfection of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In any case, I was impressed by the level of detail in the film (and I didn't even see it in 48fps!) and the beauty of every shot. I was equally impressed by the writer's ability to incorporate material from the appendices into the story and fashion the film to not only stay fairly faithful to Tolkien, but to also make the film exciting, breathtaking, funny, and magical. I thoroughly enjoyed the flashbacks to Dale and the destruction of Erebor, the fight between the orcs and the dwarves, and the inclusion of Radagast the Brown and the White Council (though as I said before, I am a Tolkien aficionado so more detail and more Middle Earth in general is better for me). While I did like the addition of Azog and the vendetta between him and Thorin, I didn't like the fact that the orc was completely CGI; it detracted from the personal feeling of the relationship between himself and Thorin. I think it would have been entirely possible to have an actual person play the role, which would have given the chase and vengeance a more intimate feel (ex: Witch King and Lurtz). Ultimately though, the film was amazing. The acting was top notch, especially from Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis, and Ian McKellen. I have yet to see the film in its intended format, 48 fps, so I don't anything to gripe about in that department yet. I strongly encourage everyone to see this great piece of cinema, and yes, its seems long at parts and slightly bloated, but if you're a fan of Lord of the Rings and Tolkien like myself, then it shouldn't be a deterrent. Expand
  83. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Peter Jackson has brought Middle-Earth back. Absolutely brilliant, I cannot wait to see it again. I was a little worried about some of the reviews out there, but after seeing it came to the conclusion that they are 100% bull. Don't trust a single one until you have seen this yourself. Absolutely fantastic.
  84. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    It is an awesome FAN movie made by a true fan; If you didn't like the Lord of the Rings previous movies... Then this movie is NOT for you. 10/10 The image, the music, the characters everything is great!!
  85. Dec 23, 2012
    2
    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 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? OrOver 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
  86. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Writing this at 4 in the morning after sitting in line for 7 hours isn't easy but I can assure you it was worth the wait. Ignore the critics if you're a fan of the books or at least the movies you'll love every second.
  87. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    While the pacing drags for the first portion of the movie, particularly in the Radagast sequences, Peter Jackson once again brings us a Middle-Earth well worthy of Tolkien's novels and histories. Cate Blanchett particularly shines when she reprises her role from the LotR trilogy as Galadriel, exuding a power that positively sends shivers down the spine. Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage asWhile the pacing drags for the first portion of the movie, particularly in the Radagast sequences, Peter Jackson once again brings us a Middle-Earth well worthy of Tolkien's novels and histories. Cate Blanchett particularly shines when she reprises her role from the LotR trilogy as Galadriel, exuding a power that positively sends shivers down the spine. Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield are both perfectly cast, and their dynamic as characters is absolutely excellent.

    Gollum, once again, brings a twisted sort of fun in the Riddles in the Dark sequence, and the Ring still bears that soft power to it that seduces and twists. Meanwhile, the hobbit sensibility of Bilbo Baggins is exceptionally relatable even as I sit here with my laptop and mug of tea, reflecting on adventure and home and everything it means to go out your door.

    Many of Tolkien's songs also appear in the movie, lending both light-heartedness and emotional resonance. I actually felt tears in my eyes during the "Far over the Misty Mountains" song, and was pleasantly surprised by the darkly funny "Goblintown." If this movie does not receive an Oscar nomination for its score, I will be deeply disappointed and most offended.

    The 3D was subtle, too, and I am glad of that. Jackson once again shows restraint with the temptation of overusing special effects -- what few there were did not intrude on the story so as to throw me out of it. Once again, Middle-Earth feels as real as the floor under my feet, and for that, I am deeply, deeply thankful.
    Expand
  88. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am a Tolkien fan since I was 9 when I read The Hobbit. After I read The Lord of the Rings couple of years later I was forever hooked to the great storytelling of Tolkien. Then came The Silmarillion and all the other books related to the lore. I couldn't get enough. I'm a Tolkien lore nut, not elvish speaking but a nut none the less. I heard complaints about the first hour of the movie, too long, unnecessary and whatnot, but for me it was grand, seeing how Thorin gets his last name, Bilbo's pantry getting ravaged and the dwarfs singing. Also the appearance of Radagast the Brown (I heard someone wrote that he's like Jar Jar Binks, I mean really?) and mention of the Blue wizards works well. Not to mention the Golum creature and the riddle game displayed in full. Peter Jackson draws from other sources not just The Hobbit but from all of the Tolkien lore and, as in the first trilogy he takes liberties to get us closer to the story and he is on the spot. If you are a fan of Tolkien you will see this movie, Jackson doesn't destroy anything of the Tolkien's vision, if I'm allowed to say (and may the Valar forgive me) he improves it in parts. Expand
  89. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    After I finished watching The Hobbit, I was positively surprised and I really loved the movie. 58 out of 100? Even 68 is too low. The movie stayed at the level of Lord of the Rings and deserves the title of a Tolkien based movie. It's a little more cartoonish and less dark than the LotR trilogy, but that doesn't change the epic atmosphere and the overall epicness of Middle-Earth. I'mAfter I finished watching The Hobbit, I was positively surprised and I really loved the movie. 58 out of 100? Even 68 is too low. The movie stayed at the level of Lord of the Rings and deserves the title of a Tolkien based movie. It's a little more cartoonish and less dark than the LotR trilogy, but that doesn't change the epic atmosphere and the overall epicness of Middle-Earth. I'm waiting for the second and third movie and want to see more Jackson's epicness. Expand
  90. Dec 15, 2012
    3
    This was disappointing. As an avid fan of LotR I had been very much looking forward to this.The Hobbit however has turned out to be an over-long piece of bombast, lacking the magic and charm of the book. There are unforgivable alterations to the story - the humour in the unexpected tea party, or in Gandalf's outwitting the trolls - and at least three very loud, long and unnecessary 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
  91. Dec 15, 2012
    0
    Peter Jackson reminds me of George W. Bush. He is unforgivably bad at what he does, but it's taken about a decade for people to figure it out. Hopefully this disaster is the last we see of him.

    Peter, it's time to find a hobby. Get lost and stop ruining these gems from the world's collective childhood.
  92. Dec 15, 2012
    2
    I absolutely love LOTR along with the Hobbit books, but this film is painfully bad, it seems like LOTR for 3 year olds. The film gets good when Gollum is introduced but that's only the last 20-30 minutes. It's slow, painful & pointless as the main story is very rarely addressed in all the dialogue. The acting & directing was very poor which is unusual considering I personally feel thatI 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
  93. 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
  94. Dec 30, 2012
    5
    I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it.I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it. LOTR whilst obviously being a fantasy setting film, had a sense that everything was realistic within its fantasy setting. The Hobbit throws that feeling away and just goes over the top. Expand
  95. 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.
  96. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    I believe this to be another situation where the movie critics are out of touch with what people actually enjoy. The scenery was spot on, the acting was very good, and the script had a lot of development in it; granted three movies might be a stretch(primary reason it gets a 9 instead of a 10). As a parent who's kid just finished reading the Hobbit and will soon be finished the Lord ofI believe this to be another situation where the movie critics are out of touch with what people actually enjoy. The scenery was spot on, the acting was very good, and the script had a lot of development in it; granted three movies might be a stretch(primary reason it gets a 9 instead of a 10). As a parent who's kid just finished reading the Hobbit and will soon be finished the Lord of the Rings book; she's hardly put them down over the last couple weeks. These movies are a boon: Expand
  97. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. From the moment the Hobbit started my jaw was on the floor till the end, the whole exsperience, the HFR, 3D still hate it, would prefer just HFR to the amazing scenary, special effects, story obviously is amazing but fleshed out and thank (Tolkein) Jackson chose to do it. this film would have awful plot holes if he didnt. My only quarrel was it was 20 minutes too short, 3 hrs was what I was expecting and that is expected from a Lotrs related movie. They are for people who want to see a long film, in no way what so every did this feel long and over stretch like some early reviews have said, I have come to realise the early reviews are always the one sided ones because a bad review will always stand out over a good one, reading reviews before a movie can actually make alot of people dislike the movie because they believe the review. The Hobbit is an exception, it is already a classic and 11 years from now I can hear people saying The Hobbit trilogy was great than the LOTRs trilogy, we just need the next 2 movies to prove it because The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey beats all three Ring Movies as the best adaptation of Tolkiens work. Expand
  98. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    It was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR wasIt was 1987 when I first read the Hobbit... Most of you were not even born at the time. Bilbo was my favorite character of all times and I always wanted to live a life similar to my little hobbit's one. Having said that, I admit that over the years technology and fantasy worlds have been developed, setting expectations high to what is delivered by the genre (i.e. Game of Thrones). LotR was a groundbreaking effort that appealed to the "masses" and not just the hard core fans of Tolkien. And a little more than a decade after the film of LotR came Hobbit. For me every little second of the film was a revival of the book, giving picture, sound and life to the fantastic characters of the book. It couldn't have been done in a better way. If you did not like it, you wouldn't probably like the book. There are moments that your backbone shivers by the thrilling scenes, mainly during the singing and fighting of the dwarven company. To wrap it up, Bilbo was the best Bilbo I would expect to see and I wouldn't change a second of the little character's performance in a bit. Really looking forward to the next part(s)! Expand
  99. 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
  100. Dec 15, 2012
    1
    This movie is terrible for five reasons. First, the pacing is awful. It seemed so very long and it truly felt like chapters in a book instead of a real movie. Second, the dialog is so cheesy. There was a lot of talking and voice overs. Often the film told us the action instead of showing it. Third, the CGI was not very good. It looked fake, as if nothing progressed since LOTR came out.This movie is terrible for five reasons. First, the pacing is awful. It seemed so very long and it truly felt like chapters in a book instead of a real movie. Second, the dialog is so cheesy. There was a lot of talking and voice overs. Often the film told us the action instead of showing it. Third, the CGI was not very good. It looked fake, as if nothing progressed since LOTR came out. Fourth, scenes were too long and could have easily been edited down. There is a part where riddles are thrown back and forth for legit 15 minutes. We don't need the best 2 out of 3 give us one. Fifth, by the 1000th unrealistic escape it starts to feel like a dumb joke. Expand
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.