The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Probable Score

Not Enough Info

Your Score

(0 - 100)

A curious Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, journeys to the Lonely Mountain with a vigorous group of Dwarves to reclaim a treasure stolen from them by the dragon Smaug. (imdb)

More Information and Actions

Cast and Information

Directed By: Peter Jackson

Written By: Guillermo del Toro, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, J.R.R. Tolkien

Starring: Christopher Lee, Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Martin Freeman, Andy Serkis, James Nesbitt, Ken Stott, Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner

Genres: Fantasy, Action, Adventure

Franchise: The Lord of the Rings

Country: New Zealand, USA

Where to Stream

Invalid Trailer

Ratings

Collections

Stats

Loading...
loading

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey belongs to 58 collections

1. IMDB Top 250 (public: moderated by ppinocchio - 120 stars)

2. IMDb Top 250 Complete (public: moderated by Jorg - 23 stars)

3. Sword and Sorcery (public: moderated by jeff_h - 13 stars)

4. Films available in HD (public: moderated by kubricksucks - 12 stars)

5. #1 at the US Box Office (public: moderated by BeeDub - 10 stars)

6. Based On Novel (public: moderated by tathiel - 7 stars)

7. Orange & Teal (public: moderated by shalev - 5 stars)

8. List: Empire's 301 Greatest Movies of All Time (public: moderated by KasperL - 5 stars)

9. Magic (public: moderated by Moribunny - 4 stars)

10. Trilogy (public: moderated by frederic_g54 - 3 stars)

11. Worldwide box office over $500,000,000 (public: moderated by djross - 3 stars)

12. 85th Academy Awards: Nominated (public: moderated by Ross - 3 stars)

13. Lord Of The Rings (public: moderated by td888 - 2 stars)

14. Howard Shore (composer) (public: moderated by djross - 2 stars)

15. Worldwide box office over $1,000,000,000 (public: moderated by djross - 2 stars)

16. Worldwide box office top 100 (public: moderated by djross - 2 stars)

17. Cinema Sins (public: moderated by Phantom Nook - 2 stars)

18. Prequel (public: moderated by djross - 1 star)

19. Worldwide box office over $750,000,000 (public: moderated by djross - 1 star)

20. Hollywood Hits, 1920 to present (public: moderated by lisa- - 1 star)

21. film puanlamalarım (public - 1 star)

22. Subgenre: High Fantasyfantastical events in a fantastical world (public: moderated by tipar - 1 star)

23. 4k Ultra HD discs (public: moderated by dumbjaw - 1 star)

24. IMDB - 2013-10-05 (public: moderated by oldestman)

25. Jackson's Tolkien (public: moderated by djross)

26. British Literature at the Movies (public: moderated by Dunstan-xxx)

27. Filmed simultaneously/back-to-back (public: moderated by iconogassed)

28. New Line Cinema (public: moderated by elhenzo)

29. Top 3000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 5 stars)

30. Best by different standards (private: sesito71 - 5 stars)

31. Top 1000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 3 stars)

32. Top 2000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (private: fanfic - 2 stars)

33. AwardsDaily.com's Contender Tracker 2012 (private: Ross - 1 star)

34. Top AlloCiné (private: sianaa - 1 star)

35. Annual top 5 worldwide box office, 1975 - 2021 (private: djross - 1 star)

36. Read the Book and Seen the Movie (private: SirStuckey)

37. Movies I've Seen In Theaters (private: SirStuckey)

38. Top 10 Films of 2012 (private: Cilogy)

39. 2012: Year in Review (private: polanski28)

40. Filmspotting Ratings Project: Week 28 (private: PeaceAnarchy)

41. Owned (private: ribcage)

42. Movies I Own (private: Farzan)

43. Seen in Theater (private: virtualbub)

44. My Movies (private: Thilerion)

45. Force molly to watch these. (private: nauru)

46. YTS Good Films (private: normalman)

47. Complete Theatrical Watchlist (private: SageSledge)

48. Family Bluray Collection (private: SageSledge)

49. The Feels (private: AzulA)

50. Seen, Not Rated (private: SageSledge)

51. Seen, but never ranked (private: gnofs)

52. Laptop (private: Jason212)

53. 2010s Watchlist (private: TraverseTown)

54. seen (private: gamzeknc)

55. Owned on physical (private: Neowulf)

56. SEEN IN CINEMA (private: wicked치킨)

57. My ratings (private: tpbradbury)

58. Middle-Earth (private: LibraLynx98)

Browse the full list of collections

Show:

All Ratings | With Reviews

Order by:

TCI | Percentile | Date Rated | # Stars (Reviews)

Stars	User	Rating
13	naikou	50 _41%
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.
12	BeeDub	75 _30%
Undeniably disappointing. Way too much time is spent spinning wheels, going on pointless tangents, and getting out of trouble via Gandalf ex machina. It's fine if this trilogy is lighter in tone than LOTR, but it still has to MOVE, dammit. This return to Middle-Earth is like going back to Disneyland to find it looking as magical as ever, but with most of the rides closed.
11	SirStuckey	70 _56%
Peter Jackson probably thinks deus ex machina is Latin for eagles.
10	KasperL	75 _77%
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.
10	ewp805	80 _72%
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.
8	chemical404	49 _36%
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.
8	Andrew13	40 _7%
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.
7	Darren	37 _14%
Some person came into the theatre an hour late and asked if she had missed anything. In true Peter Jackson form she had not.
6	joseywales	91 _97%
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!
6	Langelund (CinemaZone.dk)	40 _24%
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.
6	Kojiless	64 _68%
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.
5	DetoxP	1 _0%
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.
5	XakkMaster	80 _62%
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.
5	Swassena	90 _96%
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!
4	walkearth	55 _47%
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.
4	xacviant	59 _14%
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.
4	Tony Irwin	79 _72%
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.
4	WalkenRoll	60 _22%
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.
4	Duco	90 _97%
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.
3	VinegarBob	0 _2%
The most annoying character in the Lord of The Rings trilogy was the stupid dwarf. This movie is full of stupid dwarves.
3	glumpy_99	71 _36%
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.
3	bof	54 _31%
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.
3	calinki	70 _36%
Instead of an exteded cut, a reduced cut might be good for a SE release next year.
3	overrated	27 _18%
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.
3	Okkervil	83 _88%
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!
3	Dunder74	7 _68%
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.
2	mrandersen10	75 _59%
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.
2	FrederikA	75 _77%
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.
2	Cinema_Asia	75 _71%
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.
2	terrymac	69 _54%
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.
2	Beer94	71 _74%
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!
2	MArkjp	65 _46%
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.
2	afx237vi	50 _36%
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.
2	Bagger	69 _43%
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.
2	moraesfelipe	52 _39%
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.
2	damil	80 _90%
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. [Full Review]
2	CMonster	60 _38%
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.
2	SlrSoapbox	70 _41%
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.
2	DougieD	60 _23%
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.
2	NorthSider	75 _68%
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.
2	TheDenizen	75 _74%
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.
2	Maaxwell	10 _1%
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.
2	martryn	89 _92%
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.
2	caocao	70 _56%
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.
2	Anomaly	80 _74%
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.
2	INDYATMN	62 _14%
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.
2	PUNQ	60 _89%
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.
2	darkman	74 _61%
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.
2	frederic_g54	6 _35%
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.
2	Barthalen	73 _64%
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.
2	Detox	38 _13%
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.
2	Zealot185	56 _36%
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.
2	Syntheseizur	83 _75%
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.
1	DesertPunk	65 _38%
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.
1	Newsome92	99 _96%
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.
1	svnhf	70 _53%
The Hobbit is one of my favorite books, in stark contrast to the Lords of the Rings trilogy which is tedious and thin. With that out of the way, I found this to be a perfectly fine movie. It was not, however, a powerful adaption of the book as it was stuffed with scenery porn and drawn out and altered to the point where I fear for the following two parts. However, it had enough enjoyable scenes for me to like it and Freeman was a delightful lead. Verdict; inspired by The Hobbit, not based on it.
1	Feraud	33 _22%
The slaughter of my favourite childhood book. At least the money is flowing in, right Mr.Jackson?!
1	VN1X	55 _25%
Contrived, forced and predictable.
1	teckgecko	60 _19%
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
1	eritsuku	68 _38%
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.
1	nilooravaei	73 _22%
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.
1	auhasarderik	7 _61%
A clear notch below the Lord of the ring features: technique is a bit muddled and careless, the digitized look seems awkward, the dramatic drive and urgency of the previous series is missing, and the overall feeling is of a less inspired retreat of old material on autopilot mode. Still, a fine adventure flick.
1	hologram	70 _21%
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.
1	LookJabba...	8 _76%
An Unexpected Journey is the first instalment in Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. Adapting a relatively small book into three films is undeniably excessive, but I suppose it equals three times the amount of fun. The new characters quickly settle among the returning familiar faces, Freeman is shrewdly cast as Bilbo, McKellen brings real sense of ease and the dwarves in particular are a lot of fun. The addition of many exciting set pieces make this is a thoroughly enjoyable return to Middle Earth.
1	Noam Raz	23 _16%
The kind of thing you should not do with your annoying cousin, even if you do feel like going out, and have no one else to meet with besides him.
1	Moviefan1997	85 _48%
A fun and adventurous return to Middle Earth that thankfully pleased me and satisfied me. Despite being perhaps a little too long, I couldn't help but love it for the amount of detail that was added to the film. It does however, have many issues with dwarves and effects as well as slow pacing at times and ridiculous overuse of CGI at certain points. Nevertheless, the Hobbit felt like a welcome return to Middle Earth and can only get more excited for sequels
1	TheEscapist	95 _99%
A marvellous return to Middle-earth. Great adaptation of the source material and it actually adds a lot of depth to a rather straightforward story. Does it have the same scale and gravitas as the Lord of the Rings trilogy? No, but that's not what The Hobbit is about, it's a completely different story set in the same beautiful world.
1	lex	75 _40%
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.
1	TrixRabbi	64 _19%
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.
1	KramYessev	60 _40%
Tolkein would turn in his grave if he saw this shit.
1	giaguipe	60 _21%
fotografia molto bella...il resto due coglioni allucinanti.in culo il 3d dimmerda
1	bakcheia	73 _60%
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).
1	Dalboz	87 _88%
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.
1	Scorpus	82 _75%
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
1	Leonardis	83 _44%
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.
1	Paxton	67 _50%
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.
1	thorn969	55 _54%
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.
1	talonmalon	66 _34%
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.
1	thehynes	51 _35%
Bored of the Rings
1	Djennik	85 _94%
An expected culmination!
1	d_drudges	40 _44%
A money grab if I ever saw one. There is content for maybe an hour but it's stretched to last three. There are about four distinguishable characters (and that's being very generous) and the screenplay relies on a crazy coincident every ten minutes to keep going. Would never work alone as an independent movie.
1	burkayadalig	63 _23%
LOTR: bunch of stupid hobbits walking The Hobbit: bunch of stupid and disgusting dwarves walking... No real story, stretched too long, forcing so hard to be epic... Some good CGI (but after that many years not better than the LOTR triology)
1	maddog	80 _65%
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.
1	babamots	63 _45%
A goofy fantasy action movie with a few beloved scenes that try to soothe betrayed fans. Most people will call these the boring parts.
1	sophie	80 _81%
It starts really slow and I didn't like those dwarfs singing. That was unnecessary. But apart from that, it was great.
1	BillyShears	65 _42%
Worth the seven hour slog for that Gollum/Bilbo riddle scene.
1	Evolution	73 _45%
After having my expectations significantly lowered upon news of a trilogy and a sneak peak at the party of dwarves (they look ridiculous), I think the film comes together decently as a first installment. Despite the length I felt it kept one engaged, and leaves plenty to look forward to. The script is it's weakest point, and some of the sunrise backgrounds look incredibly fake, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say it's nowhere near LOTR caliber.
1	Wiche	77 _74%
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
1	Snazz	75 _80%
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
1	ktappe	55 _23%
The Hobbit, as written by Tolkien, was not a long battle/chase scene as Jackson has turned it into. It was an ADVENTURE, Peter. There's a difference. This film needs "Phantom Edit" treatment to not only shorten it but take out the ludicrously superfluous fight scenes. The Gollum scene was wonderful though; homerun there.
1	td888	60 _58%
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.
1	Tripwyre	67 _54%
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.
1	NathanDarko	90 _79%
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...
1	nilkynarfy	60 _48%
So... much... padding... it... was... a... movie... filled... with... unnecessary... ellipses... still... was... pretty... but... the... padding... decreased... my... enjoyment.
1	caiman	69 _34%
Lacks the grandness, sense of peril and interesting characters that made LOTR work so well. It also lacks its own identity, feeling like an "extended universe" supplement to LOTR most of the time. And the pacing is just screwed - one superfluous action scene after another, with very little tying it all together. But it also looks beautiful and is admittedly quite entertaining. The effects, locations, sets, costumes and music are all top notch. Too bad it's so shallow and lifeless.
1	AFlickering	1 _4%
jackson's preoccupation with sumptuous set design and visual pyrotechnics pays ideal tribute to tolkien's obsession with worldbuilding at the expense of, y'know, characterisation and emotion and real stakes (gollum is an exception as ever: so much more complex, terrifying and heartbreaking than the movie he's a part of). i'm hardly a GoT acolyte (erikson and bakker are more my bag), but the genre has far exceeded tolkien's sphere of relevance by this point, and become more interesting for that.
1	Carlospro	20 _0%
48 fails per second
1	Difontaine	70 _54%
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
1	gogokain	40 _45%
What a fucking disappointment. The comic relief is horrible, the action drawn out and boring. The unnecessary intro and all the pandering LotR trilogy callbacks are forced and stupid. There's a fucking character with goddamn birdshit in his hair. Pretty sure I don't fucking remember that from the book. Might as well have just put Jar Jar Binks in this shit. The actors excel in spite of the schlocky dialogue they're reading, and the soundtrack is excellent. Fuck you, Jackson.
1	Carpetgiant	91 _89%
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.
1	Ytadel	7 _83%
Is it wonderful to get to spend some more time in Middle-earth? Yes. Are the performances charming? Yes. Are there some gorgeous, painterly visuals? Yes. Are you left with the feeling that you've just watched a third of a movie, depicting in 166 draining minutes a sequence of events that could have fit into 90 minutes? Oh yes. I liked it, but seeing as Fellowship, Towers, and Return are respectively my #1, #4, and #1 movies of 2001, 2002, and 2003, I confess some disappointment.
1	nuotio	60 _67%
It was a tough job following LOTR trilogy and sad to say Jackson doesn't succeed. Root cause is that the much thinner book is split into three parts when there really wasn't any real reason for it - apart from money. Now it's way too long, with some scenes that seem to lag forever. There's more humor (as there is in the book), but it doesn't really work. Middle Earth still looks wonderful and Jackson is occasionally able to capture that old feeling but this is still a major let down.
1	TheRealJ-Ro	85 _84%
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.
1	constantine	60 _22%
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.
1	homosuperior	72 _28%
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.
1	Henrik	30 _8%
Non-story. Non-characters. F#$K ugly.
1	misterlizard	85 _92%
Was previously 75, but the Extended Edition bumps the score by bringing a much more balanced and rounded film, pretty much like the Extended Editions of the LOTR films improved on the originals. I really didn't buy into the film in its original format, but the extended version pastes over a lot of the cracks in the original and adds in a lot of little human moments that make if a much more enjoyable film and more in touch with Jackson's LOTR trilogy.
1	redacted	70 _47%
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.
1	Deadmarsh	80 _89%
Perhaps a bit long in places, quality film in any case.
1	paulin	79 _42%
:( this is Narnia, not Middle-Earth. to be honest, my heart is quite broken
1	AndreasThau	35 _16%
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.
1	CHR1S	75 _72%
Perhaps a bit too long, but it was truly an adventure. The humor was sometimes childish and cheap, even annoying. Nevertheless: highly enjoyable!
1	areels	100 _98%
God damn, forbid the 3D from existence. 3D is ruining all the movies, they're dark and unwatchable.
1	kevinjoseph	71 _77%
I couldn't stop smiling.
1	roofs_runner	65 _27%
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.
1	Stradivarius	10 _3%
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.
1	Nroo	52 _20%
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.
1	Big_Jim	5 _39%
I've not read the book (or the LotR stuff) & I wasn't a huge fan of the previous films, but I wanted to give this a try. This film seems well made, but the trouble is it drags. The story is a simple one, yet the prospect of another two films to conclude it seems mind-numbing! It's also clear that the story is originally aimed at a younger audience than the previous films stories, yet it's shot in the same way, creating a jarring contrast between comedic & violent scenes. One for fans I suspect.
1	bolivar	65 _35%
ouf. vulgar attempt at recreating the success of the lotr trilogy but fails short. pros: riddle and singing-in-front-of-fire-scenes. like bilbo once put it: "like butter scraped over too much bread", only this time its the exact opposite.
1	mwgerb	63 _73%
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.
1	mfidler1	85 _86%
Just saw this in 48 FPS 3D and visually the film is stunning. I hope that one day the 48 FPS format becomes the standard. Otherwise, Peter Jackson's return to the franchise is generally very positive. Perhaps some parts that lagged but never uninteresting. I thought that the ground work being laid to connect the Hobbit to LoTR was done very well. Also, Martin Freeman is very good in his turn as Bilbo.
1	spleen	76 _56%
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.
1	JacoIII	37 _40%
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
1	begoniabol	38 _36%
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
1	graveyardtan	30 _7%
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.
1	vv238	65 _69%
The strain of adapting a book approximately one-sixth the size of the Lord of the Rings into a three-film trilogy was a bad decision. It shows in this installment. It hits many of the same beats as it's much better predecessors but in a much more long-winded and, quite frankly, worse way. The production here is fine but a massive step down from Jackson's true masterpiece trilogy. I do like most of the cast despite the fact there are too many characters who add nothing to the story.

Displaying 1 to 250 of 388 total ratings: Prev | Next

Average Percentile 50.96% from 8468 Ratings