User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 2513 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
    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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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. Expand
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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!
  28. 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!
  29. 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! :( :(
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. May 4, 2013
    3
    This movie was just horrible! I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, but this left me with a feeling of a quick cash grab and the more childish tone of the movie did not appeal to me..
  39. Apr 23, 2013
    3
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

    Now, in all fairness, I wasn't the biggest LOTR fan. But I did enjoy the movies. This was painful to watch. For a child, I'd recommend it. It's got silly bits and funny bits that
    Imagine taking a fairly good, fairly beloved book of normal size and shape. Then taking 1/3 of the book, making a movie and still finding you don't have enough material... Then just filling in the blanks.

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

    Is it a 0/10? No. It's okay. Perhaps it was simply not for me. But at 1 hour, I checked the time and was astounded to find that I had not been watching for 2 hours, and that I had 1 hour and 45 minutes left to go. I groaned and turned it off.
    Expand
  40. May 4, 2013
    2
    Why make a story, that could be perfectly told in 90min last twice the time for part 1? I loved the book but the movie felt like a waste of time. Too much stretching, too much nonsense beside the main plot. I'll pass on the next movies. The only real bright spot: Gollum what an awesome performance!
  41. Sep 14, 2013
    4
    i don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it that great of a movie shore it has nice 3D effects what show off the team but its like avatar they have a load of fancy effects on it but the story is ai don't know about the Hobbit... i'm really mixed on it i know its not like the books but i don't care about that really, it was really an Unexpected Journey and i'm not saying that to try to be funny i don't know i just didn't find it that great of a movie shore it has nice 3D effects what show off the team but its like avatar they have a load of fancy effects on it but the story is a load of rubbish, the annoying thing about this film is that they constantly trying to remind us that this story happens in the same world of lord of the rings, one of the scenes i can't stand in the film is the moving rocks when the dwarfs get crushed but there perfectly fine no cuts boozes or broken bones and before some one says "but its not in the book" i don't bloody care it doesn't make sense and it looks stupid i just saw them get crushed I JUST SAW IT! but so i don't complain about a lot of things i have a problem with in this film i'm going to stop here and just say the ending... was rubbish i know its showing there's more to come but its just stupid looking its like ending a episode of eastenders Expand
  42. Mar 22, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Monotonous, dry, bland, unimaginative story telling, as much fun as a trip to the dentist, please deliver us from Peter Jackson. The visuals have been overplayed in the Lord of the Rings and the screen play lands flat and robotic. None of the characters resonate and Richard Armitage looks and acts more like a poor copy of Viggo Mortensen's Aragon than a dwarf royal or not. Huge waste of time and money, this telling lends nothing to Tolkien and appears lifeless even next to the cheesy 1977 animated Hobbit. Jackson only has 2 tools in his tool box, endless sweeps across the landscape of New Zealand and excessive CGI. Both are used to great effect to kill pacing, distract from the story and swallow the characters, not that another whiny hobbit or a band of forgettable dwarves that cannot sing would be missed. The ending is also disappointing, not that I expected any kind of resolution in a film from Jackson, but I really wanted to see Smaug kill off the cast, turn on Jackson and leave us to all live happily ever after in a world free of crappy directors and pretentious film making. Expand
  43. Mar 27, 2013
    3
    I love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at orI love LOTR and the movies, and I understand that different mediums cannot translate to one another perfectly, but many of my issues arise from the technical and storytelling elements. The CG in the film ranges from beautiful to just silly, every single ork and goblin are CG, while most of the time this is not too big of a deal, in combat it is clear that the actors are not swinging at or connecting with a real being. The entire portion with the trolls is difficult to watch, with odd CG, poor "combat", the dialogue can be forgiven (i.e. gross jokes), and a set that clearly looks like a set. Peter Jackson added portions of other Tolkien books and expanded certain sections not covered in The Hobbit, but almost all of them are in odd places, and do not really fit with the story (this could just be bad editing), this is especially so concerning everything revolving around Radagast the Brown. Pacing is very slow, which does not always equal bad, but it takes roughly 45mins for anything to happen in the film. Shooting in 3D was a big mistake, mostly because the lighting has to be so bright that many of the scenes looked odd, especially in Golem's cave, many scenes that should have been dark were oddly bright. I saw both the regular and 3D,48 fps. I did not enjoy the 3D, 48fps version of the film, it made the movie look like one of those 3D films at a theme park, i.e. somewhat cheesy. While there are many continuity issues many viewers will only catch a few. It seems that many of the qualities that Peter Jackson brought to LOTR (which made them great) disappeared in the hobbit. Many other issues include the pointless cameos from old Bilbo and Frodo (who has a 5 o'clock shadow), the long beginning narrative, cliched lines/characters, and odd makeup and props. I hope the next two films are better, but The Hobbit could have been better if Peter Jackson had gone simpler, in the scope and special effects of the movie. Expand
  44. Mar 26, 2013
    10
    Great movie all around! I have no idea why the critic score is so low but this movie is fantastic! This is just as good to me as tlotr. I cant wait to see the other two that Jackson puts out. If you can watch the movie in 3d its some of the best 3d that you will see in movies!
  45. Mar 15, 2013
    3
    This film is a grotesque frankenstien monster of an adaptation. The sections of this movie which follow the book are entertaining and (barely) decently done, however the remaining half is a butchered and chunky concoction, incorporating elements of Tolkien's other works, 'Adam Sandler' style slapstick stupidity (such as a dismembered Goblin-King fat enough to appear on 'The Biggest Loser'This film is a grotesque frankenstien monster of an adaptation. The sections of this movie which follow the book are entertaining and (barely) decently done, however the remaining half is a butchered and chunky concoction, incorporating elements of Tolkien's other works, 'Adam Sandler' style slapstick stupidity (such as a dismembered Goblin-King fat enough to appear on 'The Biggest Loser' falling on top of our gang of dwarfs, much to the delight of my 7yr old brother I should add) and an extra large portion of Peter Jackson's inflated ego. The resulting plot is a grotesque and thinly veiled carbon copy of Jackson's excellent 'The Fellowship of the Ring' to which The Hobbit's plot has been brutally affixed, even going so far as to tediously extrapolate a non-existent prologue to mimic the fellowship's opening scene. The worst part is that there are still two more films to come, and I wouldn't be surprised, given the quality of this one, if the last part were to rival the last film in the Twilight series for its extreme tediousness and fetal-position mind-numbingness. Expand
  46. Jul 21, 2013
    5
    Fails to capture the epicness of the Trilogy. Also, way too much CGI. What happened? Why is everything CGI in this movie? Im not too excited about the other two now. I just love the Trilogy so much.
  47. Mar 24, 2013
    10
    Great movie, great acting and great directing the hobbit once again shows why Peter Jackson is one of the best directors around. I have to admit that I was a little sceptical about splitting the hobbit into three movies, but all I can say that if the next two follow in the footsteps of the first it will be well worth the long three year wait.
  48. Apr 3, 2013
    5
    To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it?To tell the truth, this movie fails, both as a film and as an adaptation of the beloved book. It just isn't good storytelling. Halfway through, it abandons the conventional paradigm of fluctuating between points of high and low action, and from there on out amounts to little more than a roller-coaster ride from CGI spectacle to spectacle. But that's just the tip of the ice burg, isn't it? The battles don't feel tense, the themes that the characters espouse don't run through the narrative, and I can think of 3 or 4 scenes that feel as if they've been ripped straight from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films just off the top of my head. Yeah, the acting is all good, and there are a few of those heart warming scenes that we know Peter Jackson for, but there's just not enough good to make up for the bad. Each time I watched this film I liked it less and less. Expand
  49. Dec 19, 2013
    6
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we haveThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is okay movie, but comparing to Lord of the Rings movies, it's a disappointment. Although the cast and visuals are what we come to expect, the movie feels stretched and somewhat pointless. It also has hard time finding balance between being a bit silly children's story (as in the book) and being epic fantasy movie (as Lord of the Rings movies). Now we have little bit of both. Expand
  50. Sep 10, 2013
    6
    i got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll seei got this on DVD last week, i didn't go to see the movie cause it just didn't appeal. So this was enjoyable to a point my favorite part was the banter between the hobbit and baggins in the cave. But i must say i was a little let down i suppose orks and dwarves and dragons are not my cup of tea, the underground scene with the big fat ogre king was a bit ridiculous. I don't think i'll see the future movies at the cinema but on DVD its a must have for kids to kill time. Expand
  51. Dec 11, 2013
    4
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

    With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure. While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that
    Let me begin by saying that I had high hopes for this film.

    With that out of the way, let's get to the meat of the thing:

    "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" certainly starts off on the right track; a hobbit, knowing nothing of the world at large, is chosen by a wandering wizard as the prime candidate for a great adventure.

    While this beginning is quite faithful to the book, that is where the similarities end.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Answer: Faithfulness to the original book.

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

    In conclusion, I see this adaptation of "The Hobbit" as a way for Peter Jackson and New Line to profit from the LOTR Trilogy all over again. By grafting certain parts of the Trilogy onto "The Hobbit", New Line and Jackson are ensured that at least some of those fans will fork out money to watch three more films. I see this film not as an artistic exercise but as a cash cow. That is all.
    Expand
  52. Apr 2, 2014
    0
    The Hobbit :An unexpected journey is a made for children. It has no plot, the actors are not good and the added comedy makes what might have been a okay movie even worse. I sat through the DVD hoping I would end up liking it. But was disappointed . I hated it.
  53. 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.
  54. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    Beautifully done movie that was filled with goodies from the book, and goodies from dear ol' Peter Jackson. Many people complain that it is not as dark as LOTR and that is true, because the book isn't either. The humor was a nice change of pace for Middle Earth and I couldn't stop laughing during some parts. I loved the scene with the trolls by the camp fire as it was my favorite scene inBeautifully done movie that was filled with goodies from the book, and goodies from dear ol' Peter Jackson. Many people complain that it is not as dark as LOTR and that is true, because the book isn't either. The humor was a nice change of pace for Middle Earth and I couldn't stop laughing during some parts. I loved the scene with the trolls by the camp fire as it was my favorite scene in the whole movie. I also loved the intelligent goblin king who was designed quite well, but his voice and personality felt more like a Harry Potter character than an LOTR one. The music, once again, sweeps you away like it did before almost 10yrs ago; I do believe is was the same composer so expect excellence. Others complain about the use of CGI... well how else do you get hundreds of trolls, orcs, dwarves into the same scene or get a man into a giant troll costume? LOTR had hundreds of animations and it was great! and so was this movie. Expand
  55. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    Its a masterpiece. No sinister "LotR-mood", but that wasnt to expect. It takes as much time, as it needs and all the time is awesome. I just cant believe, that the Metascore is below 60....
  56. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    A decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The actingA decent film but one which feels far too drawn out, with far too many elements added on top of the book's content. The film feels like a cluttered mess towards the middle, with non-stop action scenes growing tiring and distracting from the film's true purpose. The 3D is good, and HFR is an interesting experience if you get the opportunity to experience the film in that format. The acting and effects are also both fantastic, with a late entry from a beloved character being the best of both worlds. Overall, a film with great potential squandered with meandering added storyline and a tiring run-time. Expand
  57. Dec 19, 2012
    6
    So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

    The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action
    So my way of rating a movie: Is it worth the ticket price? In this case, yes, but barely. Sure it's an entertaining movie, but it is NOT "The Hobbit" so if you're a fan of the book, don't show up expecting it.

    The book is pastoral, insightful, thoughtful with shots of excitement and suspense. The movie is none of these things. It has gratuitous violence and formulaic action sequences. I was shocked by how much yelling, screaming and sword fighting and biting there was, since the book has so little of it. Now, I like a violent movie as much as the next guy, and I really enjoyed LOTR, but the Hobbit is different. Unfortunately, Peter Jackson made an LOTR version of the Hobbit. Mostly, I'm disappointed by him and his dumbing-down of the subtleties of the novel.
    The 3d IMAX experience was awesome, but sometimes the characters were CLEARLY plastic (CG). The action sequences also felt very "harry potter-ish" - Incredible, over the top, unsurvivable scenes and characters walk with nary a scratch. I can practically see the roller coaster name branding spilling out of a couple scenes.
    Expand
  58. Dec 27, 2012
    9
    This film is not bad. At least, no where near as bad as critics and some of my friends are making it out to be. If you have read the book, you will notice a lot of changes, some probably unnecessary (I'll never understand why they made Radagast the way they did, let alone include him at all) but you have to consider it in the way that it was intended and originally written; as both aThis film is not bad. At least, no where near as bad as critics and some of my friends are making it out to be. If you have read the book, you will notice a lot of changes, some probably unnecessary (I'll never understand why they made Radagast the way they did, let alone include him at all) but you have to consider it in the way that it was intended and originally written; as both a prequel to The Lord Of The Rings and more importantly, a stand-alone story. If you go into the cinema expecting a continuation of the Lord Of The Rings movies, you would be best to change your attitude, because The Hobbit is a completely different animal. Expand
  59. Mar 10, 2013
    3
    Not enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, andNot enjoyable! Why didn't they do the Hobbit (1 movie) first, then Lord of the Rings (3 movies)?!?! The Hobbit is clearly not meant to be made into 3 movies, what a joke! This movie is a run-on-sentence of a movie, boring. I didn't mind the 48 FPS, everything else is a mess. As one professional reviewer said: The Dwarfs/Hobbit and Gandolf can be thrown against walls, fall down pits, and get up without a scratch and run along. Far too similar to the Fellowship of the Ring, far too boring and redundant. Apparently there aren't even orcs in the Hobbit by Tolkein, but only goblins (and spiders and eagles) instead!! What a laugh.

    Too much like Lord of the Rings. Obviously it's the same Middle Earth/Gandolf/ring/etc... but the Hobbit is not as grand a story as the Lord of the Rings. It is a much shorter/concise story. Watching this movie almost cuts into my enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings. As good as LOTR was, the Hobbit is just as bad. What a mess. They really cared about LOTR and Tolkein for the first 3 movies, I think they just wanted more money with the Hobbit.
    Expand
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. 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!!
  64. 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
  65. 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!
  66. 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.
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    If I could give this movie an 8.8 or 8.9 even, I would. An 8 just seems too low. I saw a midnight showing of the Hobbit in HFR (high frame rate) in a cinema with active shutter glasses. While active shutter adds some intensity to the 3D, the HFR added even more. Yes folks, I felt a little bit of butterflies in my stomach and this was not a bad thing. After seeing this I'm not sure if HFRIf I could give this movie an 8.8 or 8.9 even, I would. An 8 just seems too low. I saw a midnight showing of the Hobbit in HFR (high frame rate) in a cinema with active shutter glasses. While active shutter adds some intensity to the 3D, the HFR added even more. Yes folks, I felt a little bit of butterflies in my stomach and this was not a bad thing. After seeing this I'm not sure if HFR is "better" than shooting in IMAX but it defiantly is the only way to shoot a 3D movie as far as I am concerned. On to the film, this prequel to the Lord of the Rings was not as grim or serious as the first three films. It was more like a roller-coaster as one of my friends put it (the HFR helped with that). I think the Hobbit has done what the Star Wars prequels failed to do. Bring a more lighthearted, kid friendly version of the world to the screen. While this movie won't be winning any oscars for acting or best picture, it will entertain millions and be a front runner for moving the uncertain future of a digital age of film forward in the right direction. Without spoiling any of the plot points of the film, The Hobbit is both a lord of the ring prequel and an adaption of the Hobbit novel. The film captures Bilbo brilliantly. Bilbo was my favorite character growing up, and I find myself reinvigorated in the character after seeing the film in my older age. Expand
  70. Dec 14, 2012
    9
    Way better movie than the Fellowship of the Rings. The only complaint I have is it is a prequel so you have a rough idea what happens. Moved reasonably quickly when you consider the 2 1/2 hour length. Ignore the major critics ratings. The major critics like gay cowboys, southern racists (apparently the only racists who ever lived), and environmentalist heroes and could not care less aboutWay better movie than the Fellowship of the Rings. The only complaint I have is it is a prequel so you have a rough idea what happens. Moved reasonably quickly when you consider the 2 1/2 hour length. Ignore the major critics ratings. The major critics like gay cowboys, southern racists (apparently the only racists who ever lived), and environmentalist heroes and could not care less about a good story or interesting characters. Expand
  71. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    This is easily one of my favourite films of all time. Great story telling, great balance between humour and adventure, and great acting throughout, especially from Andy Serkis. I have no idea how critics have given it such a low score, other than to appear against the grain and not enjoy a phenomenal piece of cinema, but Empire gave it an 8/10 which should speak volumes compared with otherThis is easily one of my favourite films of all time. Great story telling, great balance between humour and adventure, and great acting throughout, especially from Andy Serkis. I have no idea how critics have given it such a low score, other than to appear against the grain and not enjoy a phenomenal piece of cinema, but Empire gave it an 8/10 which should speak volumes compared with other less credited critics. I am tempted to see this film in the cinemas multiple times which I have never done for any other movie. Absolutely Incredible. Expand
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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!
  76. 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.
  77. 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
  78. 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!!
  79. 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.
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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!
  84. 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. Collapse
  85. 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
  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. 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.
  89. 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
  90. Dec 15, 2012
    9
    I've seen it twice, both in 3D and 48 FPS.
    So, let's get this out of the way, there is nothing wrong with it, this is but the beginning of a new era of HD in cinema, critics are being way too harsh on this, and this is the first movie actually worth watching in 3D in a long time.
    Second: yes, it takes a while to get used to 48fPS but if you are a gamer/PC gamer, you should be used to 30+
    I've seen it twice, both in 3D and 48 FPS.
    So, let's get this out of the way, there is nothing wrong with it, this is but the beginning of a new era of HD in cinema, critics are being way too harsh on this, and this is the first movie actually worth watching in 3D in a long time.
    Second: yes, it takes a while to get used to 48fPS but if you are a gamer/PC gamer, you should be used to 30+ FPS (60FPS if you're a PC gamers) so you won't have any problems, like myself
    3-the pacing is sloppy? yes, but then again, a few scenes make the movie way too long, but they are't bad. I mean, the beginning is perfect, as it describes Bilbo's ways and how he's gonna change
    4-a few cliche moments but nohing major enough to make it a 6/10, after all, Gandalf always does this things in the books
    5-Overall the movie is crazy good, and as far as I understand, the movie could've been a bit shorter, but aside from the length and the pacing, I have no problems with this film.

    I say: watch it and ignore the critics, this is one of the moments in which the critics all say one thing while the crowd will say something different, judge it on your own.
    Expand
  91. Dec 15, 2012
    10
    Any fan of the book will be pleased by the perfection Peter Jackson has recreated again. Don't be fooled by the critics, this is not LOTR4 It's The Hobbit. 10/10 going to go see it again.
  92. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    I couldn't agree less with the critics on this one. I'm usually on their side, with the exception of Looper (disliked it). I enjoyed absolutely every second of this film. You can almost fall in love with it.
  93. Dec 16, 2012
    9
    As a book stickler, i have to drop the score to a 9 out of 10. As a movie lover, this film was an entertaining and visually a treat for the eyes. I would highly recommend it and have even higher hopes for the next two hobbit movies.
  94. Dec 16, 2012
    10
    As a long time Lord of the Rings fan, this movie was absolutely perfect. They spent so much time explaining the bits and pieces of where things came from. The acting was extraordinary, and I am so glad this time around, villains and heros are not dead within a matter of minutes, instead they explain the background behind everyone. The Witch King and the Mouth of Sauron for instance in theAs a long time Lord of the Rings fan, this movie was absolutely perfect. They spent so much time explaining the bits and pieces of where things came from. The acting was extraordinary, and I am so glad this time around, villains and heros are not dead within a matter of minutes, instead they explain the background behind everyone. The Witch King and the Mouth of Sauron for instance in the other movies were completely rushed, and died with feeling of little importance. Don't expect that in this movie. To compare this movie to any others of the series, it is much alike the Fellowship. The armies are not as big, and it is not fight after fight the entire time. It is about the story, and the politics of Middle Earth. I was honestly scared to see this movie because I thought they would mess up the series, and goodness was I pleasantly surprised! Please do not make the next movie biased on the fact that critics are naysaying this one. It was so well done. Expand
  95. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    extremely confused by the critics response to this, i would completely disregard most reviews as this is an excellent film. More lighthearted than LOTR, but then if jackson had given it exactly the same approach people would have criticised him for it. The length seems appropriate, as i didn't notice any sections dragging on and was interested throughout. overall it's an excellent film.extremely confused by the critics response to this, i would completely disregard most reviews as this is an excellent film. More lighthearted than LOTR, but then if jackson had given it exactly the same approach people would have criticised him for it. The length seems appropriate, as i didn't notice any sections dragging on and was interested throughout. overall it's an excellent film. IGNORE REVIEWS Expand
  96. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    The Lord of the Rings is one of the best sagas in all time of movies bout the Hobbit its not Lord of the Rings you have to understand this and its different but its very good too.
  97. Dec 14, 2012
    10
    After reading mixed critics I begun to worry.

    You shouldn't. Critics do not like it because they keep comparing it with LOTR, and it is not. This is an adventure written on a kids book. The story is lighter, and the only thing that LOTR and this have in common is the place and the ring. I watched it on 48fps and I really liked it. It made 3d more appealing and everything beautiful.
    After reading mixed critics I begun to worry.

    You shouldn't. Critics do not like it because they keep comparing it with LOTR, and it is not. This is an adventure written on a kids book. The story is lighter, and the only thing that LOTR and this have in common is the place and the ring.

    I watched it on 48fps and I really liked it. It made 3d more appealing and everything beautiful. The only problem of 48fps was that it was so real, that sometimes you could notice cgi.

    But the technology is not the film, just the media and I am reviewing the film (although I liked 48fps)

    The story is faithful to the book and brought me back to a place I thought I would never visit again. Just being back in middle earth is amazing.

    Martin as Bilbo, Richard as Thorin and Ian as Gandalf reprise their roles with excellence. And thanks to the division into three films we get to know more about the other dwarfs and care about them.

    The riddles in the dark scene is outstanding. And Howard Shore's composition is brilliant as ever.

    I could not have wanted more from this film. A fun, and amazing comeback to a great adventure to come.
    Expand
  98. Jan 1, 2013
    7
    The Hobbit is a great book. The movie has great special effects. I knew I would like the movie and I did. I'm not sure I would have chosen all of the scenes that the movie makers did. Some of them were welcome and interesting, some of them were not. My biggest disappointment was that it was somewhat mainstreamed, and it includes some of the canned humor that generic "family" moviesThe Hobbit is a great book. The movie has great special effects. I knew I would like the movie and I did. I'm not sure I would have chosen all of the scenes that the movie makers did. Some of them were welcome and interesting, some of them were not. My biggest disappointment was that it was somewhat mainstreamed, and it includes some of the canned humor that generic "family" movies often have. Most of it was not particularly funny and only took away from the mood. There was only one line out of probably twenty that I found funny. Think the dwarf scenes in LotR. Think the C3PO scenes on the conveyor belt from Star Wars. The delivery was not perfect by the main character, which may have caused problems. Still, it's the Hobbit, it had great special effects, and there are some very well done scenes. There are parts that are definitely worth watching. You definitely ought to see the movie, but it was no masterpiece. Expand
  99. Jan 22, 2013
    9
    The Hobbit was a fantastic movie that hit all the right notes, while perhaps hitting a couple of bum ones. First things first, the majority of critics did not know what they were on about: the only reason it got as bad reviews as it did was because of the reason that it's a prequel (although the book actually came a long while before) that is split into three parts. I must admit, I wasThe Hobbit was a fantastic movie that hit all the right notes, while perhaps hitting a couple of bum ones. First things first, the majority of critics did not know what they were on about: the only reason it got as bad reviews as it did was because of the reason that it's a prequel (although the book actually came a long while before) that is split into three parts. I must admit, I was very dubious of this film, I was when I heard it was going to be two parts all those moons ago, even more so when I heard it would be three; the film exceeded my expectations by quite a margin. Let's get this out of the way straight away, the acting is great from all involved, with Martin Freeman making quite the splash as Bilbo. At times I felt the film strayed a little too much from the source material, but not enough to not love every second of the (around) three hours of run time, but this was necessary (and interesting enough) to spread the relatively small book over three long films. If you are expecting a very dark tone like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, be warned, this is a lot more light-hearted, Peter Jackson has done a great job at making the Hobbit feel unique at the same time as definitely a part of the Lord of the Rings series. The film is very special effects heavy, perhaps too special effects heavy for some (it was at times), but not to the point of being overly distracting or unnecessary. The film felt nostalgic, new, and magical all at the same time, helped overwhelmingly by the soundtrack, cinematography and acting. It was fantastic to see Middle-Earh again on the big screen, putting a smile on my face for pretty much the whole film. The negatives though, characters returning from the Lord of the Rings trilogy did feel a little forced and unnecessary, as all of their respective scenes lasted too long, old Bilbo and Frodo were there for too long! But, no way near long enough to ruin the film on any level, overall, I'm very pleased the film turned out as well as it did and am very much looking forward to parts two and three. Wonderful: 94/100. Expand
  100. Dec 21, 2012
    8
    The hobbit had some big shoes to fill.Not just normal sized shoes, giant, hobbit sized shoes(this is just a metaphor,I know hobbits don't wear shoes).There were some very high expectations from most people when they went to see the hobbit part 1.People wanted it to feel like a lord of the rings movie, they expected great visuals, grade A story telling, great acting, and for it to have aThe hobbit had some big shoes to fill.Not just normal sized shoes, giant, hobbit sized shoes(this is just a metaphor,I know hobbits don't wear shoes).There were some very high expectations from most people when they went to see the hobbit part 1.People wanted it to feel like a lord of the rings movie, they expected great visuals, grade A story telling, great acting, and for it to have a satisfying conclusion(like the other lord of the rings movies)but to still feel like it was going to lead to something more in later films since it is, after all, the begining of a trilogy. Peter Jackson succeeded on most of these fronts except for a few.Namely it feeling like a lord of the ring movie and he somewhat botched the satisfying conclusion.The main reason this movie doesn't feel like a lord of the rings movie is the visuals(everything visual,the special effects,scenery,and costumes don't give off a very "lord of the ringish" vibe).But don't take this to mean I thought it had a bad look though,the hobbit is the most visually beautiful movie I've ever seen.The scenery and special effects are so gorgeous that they just don't seem like they could be real.This is a good and a bad thing.It all looks beautiful, but some of it was just too extreme to fit in with the previous lord of the rings trilogy.In the other trilogy, special effects were more 'gritty".It all looked fantastic but it all looked like it could've existed at some point in the real world.The hobbit,on the other hand, looks like it belongs in a strictly "fantasy only" world.The ending was descent, but not very satisfying.The movie speeds up very fast for the last 40 minutes or so but then comes to a jarring stop in about the last 2 minutes and so,consequently, the whole final scene just seems out of place.But it does kind of still get you excited for the next installmet, it was probably just the adrenaline still in my system from the epicness that had just occurred in the last 40-60 minutes of the movie but I still wanted to see more when the credits rolled(not in a "this only feels like half a movie" kind of way but in more of a "I'm going to see the next one when it gets to theaters"kind of way).Despite these complaints, the movie was very good.The acting from Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, and Andy Serkis is incredible(especially Andy Serkis's acting, he only had one scene as Gollum but it was amazing).The story was good, it was a little slow the first hour or so of the movie but quickly picked up once they set out on the journey.Many people were worried about this being the phantom menace of lord of the rings movies.Have no fear, it's not.This movie is very good,not as good as the previous trilogy, but much better than the phantom menace,which was garbage.This movie isn't without its issues, but overall it is a very good and very unique movie. 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.