Watch
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Your probable score
?

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

2012
Fantasy, Action
2h 49m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 50.75% from 8882 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(8881)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 15 Dec 2012
50
41st
Whereas the LotR movies differed from the source material mostly by subtraction which made the plot sleek and efficient, The Hobbit is more addition - which slows the plot to a crawl. It seems the temptation of selling three movie tickets and three Blu-Rays won the war over good pacing.
Rated 28 Mar 2016
75
30th
It sounded like a bad idea when Jackson said he was stretching The Hobbit into three films, especially since a 1:1 book-to-movie ratio had served him very well on the LOTR trilogy. Wouldn’t a three-part Hobbit epic feel, you know, padded? Then the first 3-hour entry in the new trilogy arrived - and by the beard of Gandalf, it DID feel padded! Huh! Who (other than everyone) would have guessed?
Rated 15 Dec 2012
70
56th
Peter Jackson probably thinks deus ex machina is Latin for eagles.
Rated 16 Dec 2012
80
72nd
I understand why this would be getting mixed reviews, but I loved the hell out of it. Simply one of the most beautifully shot films I've seen, driven along by another mesmerizing score from Howard Shore. The landscapes are breathtaking, the charm is there, the action is there, and Martin Freeman makes a great Bilbo. Being a big fan of Tolkien and the first trilogy, I'm probably being blinded by my nostalgia and blatant fanboyism. Either way, I thoroughly enjoyed my return visit to Middle-earth.
Rated 17 Dec 2012
75
77th
Something felt completely off at first. But once the rather delightful company (a well-cast but underdeveloped bunch) embarks on their adventure there's plenty of overwhelming action to appreciate. Armitage's Thorin and his nemesis Azog are both very cool. And, as expected, the riddle exchange between Bilbo and Gollum is a highlight. It lacks several of Fellowship of the Ring's gourmet ingredients (notably: heart) but for those who crave another Middle-earth meal, this'll do just fine. For now.
Rated 13 Dec 2012
40
7th
Woody Allen once said a relationship is like a shark, it has to constantly move forward or it dies. The same may be said about a film. Unless either the story or characters are moving forward, the film dies. And unfortunately, 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' is a dead shark, or at the very least a dying one.
Rated 19 Dec 2012
49
36th
Where is all the fucking drama? If I wanted to spend three hours with mindless slow-mo action and half-assed one-liners I would have watched some Michael Bay movie. Granted, Hobbit is an eye candy, but that's the only aspect where it shines. Jackson isn't the same young ambitious director who made LOTR. Too much safe bets makes Hobbit a bland blockbuster, like so many others.
Rated 19 Dec 2012
37
13th
Some person came into the theatre an hour late and asked if she had missed anything. In true Peter Jackson form she had not.
Rated 12 Dec 2012
40
23rd
An unexpected snoozefest. About 90 min. overlong with a dwarf quest that mostly remains uninteresting as the driving force. And, yes, the higher frame rate looks dreadful - and more importantly physically made me sick! Freeman is a great Hobbit, though.
Rated 16 Dec 2012
91
97th
As a huge fan of the book and the mythology I was, obviously, blown away. My biggest complaint is the score, I was expecting to love it but it was completely unremarkable. Aside from that everything else was spot on and even the changes from the book worked in context with the film. Goblin City is easily my favourite set-piece of the year!
Rated 02 Jan 2013
64
68th
Any more aerial shots and Peter Jackson will run out of New Zealand to show. Any more eagles and Americans will wonder where all their freedom went. Any more dwarf beards and ZZ Top will start feeling jealous. Any more Ian McKellen CGI and they'll have so much stock footage that the beknighted actor won't have to actually show up for filming the 2nd & 3rd installments. Any more troll-driven comic relief and I might have to seriously consider whether or not to invest 6 more hours in this series.
Rated 19 Jan 2013
80
62nd
Though it starts off sluggishly with padding drawn from supplemental writings by Tolkein and his son, the film excels once Bilbo gets lost and has his riddle-run-in with Gollum. The final hour is exciting, prepping the viewer for the massive adventure that truly begins in the next installment. A tad less CGI and more character development would benefit the heart of script, but the viewer can take solice in the fact this is merely one part of a whole and a grand intro to the LOTR mythology.
Rated 14 Dec 2012
1
0th
An easy one to pick apart considering the numerous pacing problems (not enough downtime and too much non-stop low-stakes action), overuse of CGI, and convenient plot points-a-plenty, but it's difficult not to enjoy this film just on the charm of Tolkien's world and Martin Freeman. Certainly not a great film, but it is fun, at the very least. Score is not a grade.
Rated 13 Dec 2012
90
96th
Colour me prejudiced because I'm a major fan of the Lord of the Rings movies, but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey does so many things right in my book. While there are some remarks, like a few inconsistencies, the slowpacedness around the 1h30 mark and the feeling of 'over-animation' at some points (augmented by the 48fps parameter), it has some of the best action scenes, humour, background, visuals and music in the game. The soundtrack is simply goosebumps-inducing!
Rated 14 Dec 2012
55
47th
It tried to be everything, but did not excel in anything except boredom. Some outright ridiculous plot decisions: a laughable row between Bilbo and Thorin; also trees falling down like dominoes? Seriously? The Trilogy's scale was tried to be used here, but it was not necessary - The Hobbit is a very different book than LOTR and should be approached as such. The biggest flaw of the film is the lack of character development. For almost 3 hours of run time, you don't get to know them at all.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
90
97th
Okay, my review is biased as I'm a huge Tolkien fan. While the soundtrack, costumes, environment (oh New Zealand), Gollum!, are brilliant, there are many points which could be improved. Excessively weird Radagast, totally messy fight scenes (goblin caves...), too much CGI at times, generic villain (Azog) and slow pace at times. They don't really screw up the movie as it's a great watch, but many things could have been done better. Still, a royal return to Middle-Earth for all fans.
Rated 18 Dec 2012
60
22nd
How do you adapt a 400 page book into a trilogy? by padding it out with all the unnecessary back stories, flash backs and references to LOTR that you can. The acting was fine, the look was pretty nice, but it was just an overlong introduction to two hopefully, much better films. Avoid it and wait for the obligatory 'extended edition' if you really want to see it again. I won't. If anything, its made me appreuciate the other trilogy more.
Rated 16 Dec 2012
79
72nd
Fellowship of the Ring was a revelation for how the writers cut Tolkein's meandering epic and gave us a fast paced narrative. But their success has given them confidence to do their own meandering. The weakest episodes are the ones the writers contributed, followed by the ones they tampered with. The strongest scene is Gollum's confrontation with Bilbo: the "humming-bird" camera at last settles down, and the writers stay out of the way to let us watch some incredible theatre on the big screen.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
59
13th
It begins with a remarkably unnecessary prologue featuring Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, both looking rather waxy. It proceeds, at a sluggish pace, through battles, exposition, and journeying--but rarely becomes very engaging at all. A very few good scenes (the Great Goblin, for example) don't compensate for the shambling script, the passionless direction, or the rather empty characters. In technical terms, it's uneven, with fine effects cheek by jowl with some very poor ones. A massive letdown.
Rated 29 Dec 2012
70
36th
Instead of an exteded cut, a reduced cut might be good for a SE release next year.
Rated 11 Feb 2014
0
2nd
The most annoying character in the Lord of The Rings trilogy was the stupid dwarf. This movie is full of stupid dwarves.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
54
30th
How can a movie this full of scenes that only serve to show off their special effects and foreshadow a trilogy of movies we've already seen still feel stressed? If they'd cut out 3 or 4 pointless scenes and instead focused on the world and the characters they want us to stay interested in for 2 more movies, it wouldn't have hurt. Still, Freeman, McKellen and Lee are good as ever.
Rated 17 Dec 2012
83
88th
I had my knives sharpened, but I needn't of bothered! Jackson's return to Middle-earth turns out to be a welcome one. Surprisingly it didn't feel too long! Certainly the need for three Hobbit movies is very questionable, but with the more interesting chunks of the story still to come, there's reason to be optimistic about the next two. Its format is a bit linier, & it never quite manages to capture the awe of LOTR, but Freeman is an exceptional lead, & I couldn't find too much to bitch about!
Rated 23 Dec 2012
27
18th
Forget about the quality of LOTR. This is overwhelmingly childish, there's a half-dozen action scenes where everyone should have died but they're as resilient as Wile E. Coyote. The enemies aren't threatening, the cast is anonymous (everyone notable is playing caricatures of themselves, including Freeman), and there's so many callbacks to the other movies that this never really feels like its own thing. Jackson went down the Lucas path after ROTK, minus coming up with his own source material.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
7
68th
There are a lot of problems with The Hobbit. There are petty issues like the art direction, CGI dependency, and source material integrity. But I don't really care about those things, not for The Hobbit. However, I do care that the film lacks any form of an emotional or meaningful core. While The Hobbit was thoroughly enjoying, it was a disappointment, a film with no subsistence. Uhhh, Smaug and Azog look breathtaking, but most of the CGI suffers. Kili is really hot; it's weird. Watch in 48 fps.
Rated 22 Jun 2019
71
39th
More-of-the-same Tolkien by way of Jackson is over-extended to say the least, but enjoyable enough with Freeman's likable performance keeping everything grounded, along with a welcome shot of energy from Serkis' wonderfully demented Gollum in the final act. Can't shake the feeling that we have been along this same track before, and if the clumsy efforts to tie everything back to LOTR were excised, we might have a sharper, snappier adventure on our hands.
Rated 06 Feb 2014
10
1st
Peter Jackson manages to get so much wrong - the cinematography is nauseating, most characters are scarcely developed, the peril and the villains feel completely inauthentic, the introduction is overlong and the elements added from the extended Tolkien lore are wholly unnecessary. It can't help but feel like a sloppy outing made purely to cash in on the Lord of the Rings success.
Rated 10 Mar 2013
89
92nd
It's about the same quality as the Lord of the Rings films. Freeman does a fantastic job. I also like how they've tried to make each dwarf a bit different so they're easier to remember, but you'll notice a distinctive lack of beard of the dwarfs that are meant to be the "handsome" ones, which sorta irks me. They're exploring things that weren't explored in the books, which makes me excited for the sequels, and the changes they did make to the plot aren't as bad as the ones in the LotR.
Rated 28 Dec 2012
75
74th
About as good as any adaptation of the source material could be, it's a visual triumph despite being pumped full of overly complicated and lengthy action scenes. All of the serious elf stuff linking The Hobbit with the LOTR trilogy seems tonally inconsistent with the dwarves and their goofy humor, but whatever. Pretty good CGI (albeit slightly overused), but the standout set piece is the Game of Riddles between Bilbo and Gollum. Freeman and Serkis are both fantastic in it.
Rated 17 Dec 2012
71
73rd
It drags quite considerably, but technically and musically, it's just great. Full to the brim with nostalgic scenes and references and an unsurprisingly great Freeman as the Hobbit. Not as grand and heartfelt overall as the LOTR series, but I felt the same with that first installment too, so here's hoping it improves!
Rated 18 Dec 2012
66
37th
Not without a significant amount of flaws, and head scratching choices but more than anything I am taken away to the world established in Lord of the Rings. So few movies do that as effectively. Once on screen, Gollum steals the show.
Rated 14 Dec 2012
60
23rd
Peter Jackson's return to middle earth is a visually stunning adventure that feels stretched thin to turn the source material into a trilogy. Often fun in a light-hearted way and full of spectacle, but it lacks the emotion that the Lord of the Rings films had. There are some great set-pieces and thrilling scenes, but there is too much fat that should have been trimmed. Update - Doesn't hold up to repeat viewings at all. Strong action in 2nd half doesn't help the fact that it's way too slow.
Rated 14 Dec 2012
65
46th
First of all let me use some of this precious space to adress those who complain about the new 48 fps format: "HA!" You idiots! You knew it was gonna look like shit and you still paid the extra money for the added "value". Other than that I guess the concerns about whether three hobbit-movies would be a bit of a stretch sadly proved to be rather on the spot. Pacing is a bit slow and a pack of bearded dwarves just isn't nearly as interesting as the Fellowship. I guess the next one will be better.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
60
37th
The biggest complaint I can level is about half the action is either shot in close up or shaky cam which is an abomination considering how great the other action looks. A couple parts were also a bit more dues-ex-machina-ish than the book was or any movie has the right to be. Other than that it had some very good action, a decent pace, some genuine humor, and was beautifully made. Worth watching but don't go in expecting something as good as The Lord of the Rings.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
73
64th
I thought I was about done with the whole Lord of the Rings thing. On top of that, I disliked The Hobbit when I read it ages ago. But damnit, it took mere minutes in the theater for all my wariness to melt away like faces near the Ark of the Covenant. It was a pleasure to revisit Middle Earth once more, and even though content-wise the film is more of the same, I did not mind. I was entertained. I was amused. I was a child once more, giddy and content.
Rated 16 Dec 2012
74
61st
It's way too long. I had a hard time getting into it in the first 30 minutes or so. The rest of the movie is good but it is not great.
Rated 12 Dec 2012
52
38th
An overstuffed, wordy, often tedious and unfocused attempt to visualize Tolkien's book with a keen on box office possibilities. Jackson takes his time in a spectacle of nice CGI, the sort of highly enjoyable RPG-film that is at least fun and catchy. After a promising start -- despite the prequel material and the overlong off narration --, it shortly gets baffled by a lazy and too distracted-with-parallel-stories narrative core. Still manages to be concluded with some guts, but generally fails.
Rated 09 Feb 2013
75
71st
Tolkien had a way of droning on and on about culture, songs, and injecting reams of details into his stories. Jackson gets that middle earth is the sum whole of its parts. The first trilogy was the condensed version and now he has creative control to make something closer to Tolkien. I just wish he just went balls to the wall and made the whole thing a dwarven musical. I was giddy at the singing dinner scene and was hoping that it would continue if just to troll the fans into an internet rage.
Rated 15 Dec 2013
38
13th
A movie about nothing. 14 characters without character and an irrelevant mission. The best things always came up, when the spirit of LotR shined through. Furthermore the special effects and the jokes were annoying. I think my rating is too high.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
56
36th
I can't help but rate this relative to LOTR, and it's because Jackson attempts to imitate the look, mood, and "epic-ness" of his prior trilogy. From the score to the traveling montages, it ends up feeling like LOTR-lite because the Dwarves' quest just isn't as captivating as the Fellowship's. I'll follow Bilbo's tale to the end, but perhaps Del Toro's touch behind the camera could have distinguished The Hobbit as its own trilogy.
Rated 31 Dec 2012
80
75th
Doesn't reach any of the previous LOTR films in strength and mostly coasts by on the goodwill from those films, but you know it is just fun to be back in middle earth. The climax is strong enough to be satisfying without feeling like you're cheated out of an ending, while also feeling like a part of a whole.
Rated 02 Jan 2013
60
89th
A classic attempt at an epic. A lot of CGI, high angle swinging shots and standardized music. No doubt high quality work, but with one great error. It doesn't grip. Or at least as much as it should for an high prestige project as this Tolkien story. In reality it's almost the same movie run 3 or 4 times with the same style battles over and over with various one-dimensional generic computerized monsters. Not the best start for the trilogy. Still there is plenty good parts too, like seeing Gollum.
Rated 22 Apr 2013
75
77th
Despite it's patchwork story, this was far better than expected, primarily because it's just a joy to be back in Middle Earth. The tone is obviously lighter than LOTR, and the dwarfs are a bit hard to tell apart (I'm pretty sure I saw Gwildor from Masters of The Universe in there somewhere), but all in all an enjoyable adventure.
Rated 16 Dec 2012
6
34th
Interrupted by brief waves of spasmodic glee, Jackson and his team of sleep-deprived computer wizards may have gone a tad overboard when designing what's now a unpleasantly looking Middle Earth, with visuals that range from lackluster settings to a shitload of perfectly lit shots of dawn (*eugh*). I also felt sorry for that dwarf and his ineffective slingshot; If you have trouble finding him, he's the slow-witted one.
Rated 28 Dec 2012
69
43rd
Ten years ago Peter Jackson taught me to appreciate craft and efficiency in moviemaking. Today he breaks about half the lessons I took from him. Perhaps he should take a page from his own book and... take some pages out of the book. And learn when to end a goddamn scene. And leave a character for the cutting room floor or the DVD (Bret McKenzie you were pointless, fans or not!). But I'll still take a too-exhausting revisiting of Middle-Earth over most other things. It's no Star Wars prequel.
Rated 17 Dec 2012
75
68th
The sad part about this film is that, other than the first 45 minutes of mind-numbing dwarf humor, Jackson is successful in rekindling the spirit of the LOTR series. I felt the film was constantly trying to live up to its incredibly successful peer films, and in the process, brought us nothing that we didn't already have in the original series. New Zealand is gorgeous as always, but this film is nothing we haven't seen before. Nevertheless, it is worth seeing for a few strong sequences.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
83
75th
Fun, friendly, and warm -- a nice contrast to The Lord of the Rings. Martin Freeman plays Bilbo perfectly, accenting the humor and sincerity of the character. The film is at its worst when delivering dry exposition or alluding to The Lord of the Rings, and, like its predecessors, it likes to get off track (understandable given the source). Thankfully, it's mostly a goofy, happy film. It's also exceedingly gorgeous. If the rest of the trilogy follows this formula, it will surpass the first.
Rated 16 Dec 2012
70
41st
Unfortunately I was underwhelmed, as I knew I would be. Beautiful visuals and music, but as a movie it's just...alright. I didn't care about the dwarves, nor could I tell them apart. I was bored until the members of the LOTR cast showed up. The pacing was really tedious. It also seemed to be needlessly violent and full of gross-out moments. I'll still see the other two films, but I can't say this lives up to the "first" trilogy.
Rated 14 Dec 2012
62
13th
Nice 2 c the Middle Earthers again, but the magic's gone, starting w/ 13 essentially undifferentiated dwarves for us 2 not care about. Overlong, w/ famliarity breeding apathy. Except 4 the underground goblin world, the "new" settings here r indistinguishable from the old. The allegedly wondrous dwarf mountain city feels common - it could've come from any fantasy film. Even the action scenes r steadily uninspired w/ multiple shots of miscellaneous stabbing that rarely feel like much is at stake.
Rated 07 Jan 2013
50
36th
The most common criticism is also the most valid: it's too long and too bloated. The first hour is enjoyable and fun, with Freeman giving an amusingly befuddled performance, but after that it falls into an increasingly tiresome pattern of visually unappealing fights followed by predictable (and implausible) narrow escapes. I wanted to like it a lot more than I actually did.
Rated 18 Dec 2012
80
90th
By the end, I loved it. It was never going to be as good as The Lord of the Rings. I love continuity, so I liked all the callbacks and foreshadowing they did. I wasn't so into it for the first third or so of the film, but I pretty much just had a blast from then on. The entire cast were great. The film looked gorgeous. The motion capture was really good. It was long, but it didn't feel too long to me. I was pretty happy with the movie overall.
Rated 17 Dec 2012
75
60th
I thank the critics/haters for tempering my expectations. The dwarves' story was a bit dull and their plight never resonated with me. I also felt they overdid the comedy; it clashed with the sweeping and epic soundtrack creating a bit of an identity crisis. And, considering the plot is being stretched thin to accommodate a trilogy, there was too much filler. Thankfully, the characters were fun and charismatic and the fantasy world was still rich and vibrant as ever.
Rated 21 May 2013
69
54th
Technically, this film is very impressive, as you would expect. The performances are fine, although the number of characters means that we don't really get to know everyone. There are some finely worked set pieces, and some tantalising hints at promising material to come. The scenes with Gollum are a stand-out, again. This was enjoyable, and I'm glad I watched it, but I didn't really feel connected to or invested in the underlying quest to the extent that I did with the LOTR trilogy.
Rated 07 Jan 2014
52
20th
Ian Holm's atrocious make-up and wig are the perfect visual metaphor for this movie. McKellen looks so tired now and I feel awful for being distracted by him so much. I knew coming in that there was going to be added material to fill 3 whole movies and I accepted that some would be complete fabrication. But the Azog sideplot bullshit was the most cliched and grating "original" addition the writers could've puked up and served on a paper plate.
Rated 29 Dec 2013
73
22nd
LOOOL! i had a really good time watching this film - i really enjoyed it, and had a lot of laughs, though not really for what the film intended. it was mostly just laughing at the ridiculousness of the story and sheer implausibility of the plot devices. the animation was very elementary as well - almost cartoonish. definitely a fluff piece when held up against its lord of the rings counterpart. still though, it was a fun watch and definitely appropriate for its young demographic.
Rated 02 Jan 2013
10
3rd
In terms of storytelling, one of the worst, most bloated films I've ever seen in my life, and even with hours of excess padding, they couldn't be bothered to give part 1 its own complete sub-arc. Then there's HFR, which is a massive technical misstep that (with Avatar on the way) will likely haunt audiences for years to come.
Rated 26 Dec 2012
70
47th
The first 3 & then the next 3 but set before the first trilogy, interchange Orcs with the Empire & the Ring with that guy who flies into the gaping death star. As for the plot, 13 young Palestinian men accompanied by a house-trained Mongol & a wandering prophet try to reclaim land stolen from them by the imperious gold lover, Smaug. The men must overcome Smaug's allies, the sunless British cave dwellers & the Orcs from the west who use Smaugs new encampment as a jump point for the middle-earth.
Rated 20 Dec 2012
85
85th
I only feel comfortable ranking this film as on-par with what I consider to be the worst of the three LotR movies (Two Towers). But that's still high praise. The film is full of investment-worthy characters old and new, beautiful environments (a credit to the cinematography), and lined by a more whimsical & youthful tone (even though at times the film is very dark). I'm not a big fan of the use of supplemental Tolkien material just for the sake of another trilogy. But this movie was excellent.
Rated 27 Dec 2012
70
52nd
Oh so very long. I don't mind long running times normally, but I do when I get a numb arse from it. Far too bloated, which washes away some of the good things about it (Gollum, gollum). A shame, needs to tighten up considerably for the next two and let us watch the extended editions on DVD/Blu-Ray
Rated 16 Dec 2012
64
19th
Visually outstanding, and the action is really good as well. But it's so focused on getting you to the next big action sequence that it forgets things like character development. Outside of Bilbo, Thorin, and Gandalf we really don't get to know anybody. Considering the main cast involves 14 characters this is a big flaw. Loses the human (dwarf) element in favor of spectacle that's entertaining, but a little hollow.
Rated 19 Dec 2012
83
43rd
Peter Jackson's return to middle earth is a good time and a visual treat. This film is mostly accurate to the first half of the novel while it adds on to it a little bit as well. It is very entertaining and it doesn't feel too long. Performances are great and the cinematography and score are beautiful. Worth looking into if you liked the book and if you liked the original trilogy, even though it isn't as good.
Rated 29 Dec 2013
73
60th
They could have cut an hour out of this film and it actually would have been better. I mean really, did we need the introduction to take 50 minutes? What made the LOTR films so great was their pacing AND imagery/acting/plot etc. They made a poor decision in trying to make this book into three films. Regardless, the film is beautiful and the acting and whatnot are solid. I've never been in love with these films, but they always deliver (even if they are far too long).
Rated 20 Dec 2012
30
8th
Non-story. Non-characters. F#$K ugly.
Rated 29 Jan 2013
82
75th
Despite being thin at times, An Unexpected Journey is beautifully told, stunningly shot and filled with content that helps make Tolkien's world live and breathe
Rated 26 Dec 2012
65
38th
While the visuals are great and some serious acting chops are on display, the movie feels like part of a trilogy from the beginning. It's filled with filler, tacked on nonsense, and drags on where a movie really doesn't need drag.
Rated 13 Dec 2012
35
16th
Hmm... If I want to watch a sequel, should I pick part 2 of The Hobbit or the last part of The Twilight Saga...? It's a tough call! Ok, so maybe it's a childish and not too good book. But that's not an excuse for a bad film, with an excessive use of bad jokes. Gandalf: once a great character, now half bad jokes/half wise wizard. A fraction of his old self. Freeman is FINE, Gollum is superb, but this is all in all just a tragical 3D experiment gone wrong and built around a quite bad film.
Rated 21 Dec 2012
63
45th
A goofy fantasy action movie with a few beloved scenes that try to soothe betrayed fans. Most people will call these the boring parts.
Rated 29 Dec 2013
76
56th
Like any unexpected journey, it's marred by way too many stops and boring attempts at conversation and occasionally pretty scenery. Throw in a teacup ride and you've got my family jaunt to Disneyland.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
55
54th
I found the 48fps pleasant and, if anything, an improvement over standard 24fps. I also thought the movie was well put-together, even though they are really stretching the material to make this short book into three feature length movies.
Rated 31 Dec 2012
60
19th
I've not read Tolkien, but enjoyed Jackson's LotR. Looking at reviews for this, my expectations were low, but I was still disappointed. The first hour is insufferably slow (I'd give it a 50 and the rest a 65). The pacing is bad, the plot is subpar and contrived, many of the character portrayals are shallow (Golem is great, though), the humor is juvenile, the moralizing is heavy-handed, the computer graphics for the villains is overused and surprisingly poor looking. See also: http://goo.gl/gvZaG
Rated 15 Dec 2012
55
25th
Contrived, forced and predictable.
Rated 23 Dec 2012
75
40th
The first Hobbit entry is given the same epic treatment as LotR, but the moments I enjoyed most were the more light-hearted and humorous (the trolls, Gollum's riddles) likely because that's the true nature of this story. It's a whole lot of fun but it's much too unnecessarily long and overblown. Freeman is a great comedic actor and I hope they take better advantage of that. If Jackson learns from his mistakes here, the next two entries can be truly great films I think.
Rated 19 May 2013
70
20th
Nothing in this movie is as good as any 30-minute section of any of the LotR trilogy. Stretched out and meandering but with the same high level of craftsmanship.
Rated 18 Dec 2012
67
54th
A painful reminder of how wonderful the original trilogy really was. Turning the shortest book in Tolkien's series into three bloated movies was a terrible idea, and I suspect each film will suffer mightily as a result. This one certainly does, as it takes its sweet time doing basically nothing. It's still very charming, but... a disappointment to be sure. Fellowship proved to the best of the LOTR movies. For the sake of The Hobbit, I hope that doesn't hold true of An Unexpected Journey.
Rated 27 Dec 2012
75
80th
It's doesn't measure up to the Lord of the Rings; the main characters do not have the same force of personality, the Dwarves seem way too thin and agile and neither the script nor the battle scenes are as tight and thrilling. Instead it's got a much lighter mood and humorous approach. Still, as given away by my score, it's a quite entertaining film that passes the time quickly and provides a nice and approved revisit to Middle-Earth
Rated 13 Feb 2013
87
88th
Let me say right off that I liked this film. However, it has some serious issues. If you're expecting something on the level of the "Lord of the Rings" movies, don't. It's not anywhere near as good. The biggest problem is that there's way too much padding. Even exciting battle scenes rely on way too much padding and it gets drawn out to the point where it can get very boring. They added a lot to plot, both to its benefit and detriment. Enjoyable, just don't expect another LotR movie.
Rated 27 Mar 2014
67
52nd
I like the characters, I enjoy the world they've created. If you've seen this then you know about the "path" they have to walk through the mountains. Yet, when they begin walking through the path, the mountains come alive and destroy each other, THEREBY DESTROYING THE PATH. How long have they been dormant? Oh, and how many of the Dwarves are they going to kill this early in a trilogy? None? CGI without suspense is like swimsuits without models.
Rated 24 Dec 2012
37
40th
Main gripes: random musical numbers, 48fps made the whole movie look like a British soap opera, some clunky writing. Positives: Martin Freeman, beautiful design, FUCKING RABBIT SLEDDING
Rated 27 Dec 2012
79
42nd
:( this is Narnia, not Middle-Earth. to be honest, my heart is quite broken
Rated 10 Jan 2013
77
74th
I'm a huge Tolkien an LotR-fan and this didn't do it for me. Were Peter Jackson showed his brilliance making LotR, he screwed some parts of this film up in my opinion. Frodo returns but this is a frame story to link these films with the previous trilogy so no harm there. Even Azog is a nice twist. Otherwise there just wouldn't be enough story for 3 films. But then.. Radagast the brown rushing through the woods with rabbits? Fighting mountains? Plain ridicilous fighting scenes? Shame on you PJ
Rated 10 Feb 2013
90
79th
Okay fellows, it's not Lord of the Rings, but it's so god damn beautiful to be back in middle earth that I honestly give a shit about some letdowns and the fact that the story seems a bit blurred to fill gaps to realize another trilogie. I'm overwhelmed by it's beauty and jackson did a great job again. Í'm looking forward to christmas 2013, which is similar to the feelings I had 10 years ago. Amazing...
Rated 16 Dec 2012
80
65th
I can't say I hated it. It was beautiful, and I thought Jackson did a good job weaving LOTR story threads in better than Tolkien did. ... But it was. JUST. SO. CONTRIVED. All thirteen of the band, plus hobbit, get in all kinds of fantastic scrapes, but they all live and they all stay together. Really? Because I saw a few plot holes with that. Its pacing is a bit too sluggish as well. Can you really make a whole trilogy from one mere book... and do it well? I have my doubts.
Rated 08 Jan 2013
66
34th
The biggest strike against the The Hobbit, and what keeps it from the heights of Lord of the Rings, is that it took a relatively short story, and stretched it out into a long trilogy. As a result, the first Hobbit film moves at a very sluggish pace. Plus, the "epic" tone of the movie does not mesh at all with the kid friendly material. The overdone CGI hurts the look of Middle Earth very much, and the dwarves have no identity of their own. Thankfully, Gollum appears in full form in his sequence.
Rated 10 May 2013
99
96th
Perfect film. Songs were awesome, costume, score, action, special effects, all aspects of this film are just soo awesome. Martin Freeman was born for this role and the 13 dwarves are just brilliant. It was just so nice to see things from the world that wasn't in the book like the white council (omfg SARUMAN), Radagast, Azog, Dol Guldur and the flash forward to just before the long expected party. Cannot find a single fault with this film. Loses 1 point for burp and fart jokes.
Rated 16 Sep 2014
68
38th
For a film and story designed to really transport you to a different world, it was disappointing to see how contrived the comprising elements were, to wit: Hollywood film sets were easily discerned from real locations as being fake; characters' make-up and costumes were equally ho-hum. The script and directing appear to better belong in the 80s, or better yet, in an SNL skit.
Rated 12 Dec 2012
80
89th
Perhaps a bit long in places, quality film in any case.
Rated 05 Apr 2013
38
36th
Ofcourse, high expectations and hard not to compare this to LOTR. Very dissappointing really. I read the book when I was about 13 and I didn't like it. Still, not a reason not to watch it. I thought the CGI wasn't good, annoying characters, awkward singing, the comic relief felt too forced, story looks way too much like LOTR so there's nothing new. Was great to hear the Wilhelm scream coming from a Goblin though + happy to say this movie got me laid. Gotta give that some credit
Rated 06 Jul 2013
30
7th
There are a few stand-out moments, but The Hobbit mostly comes across as a non-essential cousin to the Lord of the Rings series, stuffed with deus ex machinas, sweeping cameras, and rising scores, making for a hollow epic indeed.
Rated 07 Jan 2013
20
0th
48 fails per second
Rated 16 Dec 2012
60
22nd
Dear P. Jackson, although I'm very happy to be in Middle Earth again, I can't say this was the journey I expected. I'm not trying to compare with LOTR triology which surely opened a new phase in cinematic history. However, is it too much to expect you to exceed what you did 12 years ago? At least visually? I'm ok with 3 movies but you could easily make each of them 120 min. long and keep viewers entertained. Sorry but everything in this move was too forced and narrated overlong.
Rated 01 Jan 2013
65
42nd
Worth the seven hour slog for that Gollum/Bilbo riddle scene.
Rated 08 Jan 2013
65
27th
Well, it was nice to come back to Middleearth with all that stunning and picturesque scenes. But I did not enjoy the extreme stretching of the humble, childish story. Basically, it is only 40 percent a Tolkien story.
Rated 12 Dec 2012
85
94th
An expected culmination!
Rated 05 Jan 2013
60
57th
It is a nice watch but unacceptable too long. The whole plot line with Catweasel could have been ripped out. He was annoying to watch anyway. Also there are lots of inconsistencies regarding they way they travel and how they get at certain locations. Especially because this is a fantasy movie this shouldn't have been a problem at all. Also casting Hugo Weaving as an elf is still a big glitch in the matrix to me as well.
Rated 20 Dec 2012
63
73rd
Brings back much of the Lord of the Rings trilogy's greatness, including the beautiful panoramas, epic scores, fun characters, and Tolkien's amazing fantasy world. The number of digressions from the main plot means that it has trouble establishing an overall tone, building tension, and providing a satisfying conclusion, but it's still a really enjoyable movie, if not as masterful as the first three.
Rated 17 Aug 2013
51
35th
Bored of the Rings
Rated 05 Mar 2013
72
54th
Peter Jackson's tendency to bowdlerize high fantasy, as he did with a large portion of his LOTR adaptation, ostensibly works better for this children's novel, before Tolkien himself had made the move. But, for those who've watched the trilogy, which means most of us, this is all tediously familiar, from the CGI-dominated battle sequences to a young hobbit's proving himself. Only the scene with Gollum carries any moral weight, and the book does it better and funnier.
Rated 15 Dec 2012
100
98th
God damn, forbid the 3D from existence. 3D is ruining all the movies, they're dark and unwatchable.
Rated 24 Dec 2012
60
21st
fotografia molto bella...il resto due coglioni allucinanti.in culo il 3d dimmerda
Rated 26 Dec 2012
91
89th
I know dwarves are smaller than humans, but I would feel really uncomfortable standing around in a group of them like they are arranged in the poster. What is the context for this? Like, a group photo? Ok, guys, squeeze in closer ... what? Landscape would work better? No way! It's going to be portrait style. We're doing this right.

Collections

(58)
Compact view
Showing 1 - 24 of 58 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...