The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

6

BshopAug 16, 2014

A bit longer than it needed to be, but I guess when you break up a single book into two movies some parts are going to be longer than required. Ending was great, finally Bilbo has a self-fulfilling act! I about cheered when he and Thorin madeA bit longer than it needed to be, but I guess when you break up a single book into two movies some parts are going to be longer than required. Ending was great, finally Bilbo has a self-fulfilling act! I about cheered when he and Thorin made up.
In summary, see it if you liked the LOTR series. Or if you like New Zealand scenery. Or if you like epics. Just go in with the notion it may last longer than needed. I bought it but rent if you're a not a Peter Jackson/Tolkien fan.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TenaciousTeaDec 17, 2012

This absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements andThis absolutely pains me to do this, as I am such a huge LoTR fan and Return of the King is quite possibly my favourite film of all time. This movie is, plainly put, not great. Its overtly cheesy and hammy, half of the story elements and dialogue is quite literally copy and pasted straight from the LoTR films and the film lacks any real cohesion. I was literally cringing at some of the one liners and the CGI (particularly in HFR) is quite frankly shambolic when compared even to the 11 year old Fellowship of the Ring! The CGI characters, namely Orcs, seem to float when they are travelling, swords do not meet bodies meaning it simply looks like the human characters (dwarves etc) are just swiping at thin air. The music score is largely, again, taken or remixed versions of the LoTR soundtrack and some scenes are pretty much identical to a Lord of the Rings scene. It amazes me how some people on here are claiming that critics and naysayers should not be comparing this to a LoTR film.. This is simply ludicrous. First and foremost this is done by Peter Jackson so of course his influence from the LoTR films are going to pass over to The Hobbit. Secondly, the soundtrack and certain scenes are pretty much taken straight from the LoTR cutting room. And thirdly this is set in the same freaking universe and is treading over old ground so of course comparisons will be made (that's like saying you shouldn't compare Star Wars Ep 1,2,3 to 4,5,6). Don't get me wrong I didn't hate this film, there was elements to like, in particular the scene with Bilbo and Gollum and I think Martin Freeman played a wonderful Bilbo Baggins. I just can't help but feel this film was a missed opportunity, I had such HIGH expectations and these expectations were not met. Stretching the 1 book over 3 films is nothing but a money grab and is simply using the previous success of the original film trilogy to 'cash in' if you will. The film, as a result, suffers and doesn't have that same aura and immersive sentiment of the LoTR trilogy. Needless to say after middling reviews and some fan backlash (and surprisingly the box office returns haven't even been that impressive this weekend) I really hope with baited breath, Peter Jackson comes back into form for the sequel and provides us with what he and everyone else knows he can do. On a final note, DO NOT watch this in HFR. That is all.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

MDawgDec 14, 2012

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 TheThe 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

28 of 56 users found this helpful2828

All this user's reviews

6

secondmoto381Dec 14, 2012

After seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making threeAfter seeing and loving the LOTR movies I was super pumped to see the Hobbit, especially after i had heard that Peter Jackson was directing it. That being said I was unsure of how the movie would play out with a 200 page book making three movies. The 3-D animations are subtle and well played out, never too overpowering or forced. I also greatly enjoyed Martin Freeman as Bilbo, personally I feel that he killed the part as Bilbo. Andy Serkis is as amazing as ever, albeit a little bit corny at times. Richard Armitage also is a great Thorin. Thorin is played really well and is exactly as a Thorin should be. However that being said, most of the other dwarves feel like fillers, never having any lines or really any say in the story. In LOTR it felt like every member of the fellowship had a role and a point and a back-story. In the Hobbit it feels like there is Thorin, Balin, Kili and Fili and a bunch of other dwarves. The way that they blended the old LOTR story to the Hobbit was absolutely superb and was perfect. Ultimately what ruined the movie for me was the action. In LOTR the fight scenes against the trolls and goblins and orcs and whargs seemed dangerous. They felt like the orcs were this rabble, this horde that was bloodthirsty and ruthless. In the Hobbit they felt more like comic relief than actual enemies. The best comparison I can think of was the fight in Balin's Tomb. In this fight the goblins burst through the door and look fearsome and sound like there ready to kill everything. In the Hobbit they feel stupid and mindless and comical. Cheesy stuff like Gandalf decapitating a goblin and instead of a flying head and a spurt of blood, there is nothing but a confused looking goblin whose eyes move worriedly then his head inexplicably pops off. All in all the way they tied the stories and the only four characters that really felt important (Bilbo, Thorin, Balin, and Gandalf.) and the general enjoyment of the story gives the Hobbit its good points, however the corny fight sequences that seem to have lost all of their seriousness, the mind-dead enemies, the loss of that fear factor that was in the LOTR, and the general was that some things that happen just don't seem relevant to the story really hurts this movie. As much as I would prefer to rate it better I can only give it a six.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

6

kylerhudsonDec 15, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Honestly, a really good film. However, if you're looking for the power and intensity of LOTR, it's just not there. It's almost as if they made this one intentionally for little kids, like a Pixar film. WAY too humorous when it shouldn't have been, up to and including, funny one-liners from goblins as they were dying??!!?? Disappointing.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

6

MagsDec 16, 2012

Flat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting byFlat out, is this movie worth the price of a movie ticket? Yes. Is it everything I'd expect from Peter Jackson and the LOTR franchise? No. I enjoyed the light-hearted nature of the film, the aesthetics of the storytelling features, acting by Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and the actors who portrayed the dwarves. I wasn't disturbed by the faster frame pace. What rubs me the wrong way is what upsets me about a lot of recent films: the over-reliance on CGI. Another user commented on how the orcs and goblins are less frightening because they have been "cleaned up". CGI has its place: it would be impossible to display the extensiveness of the dwarves underground kingdom with hand-built sets. However, too many characters and scenery done with CGI make everything less real, less magical and . . . less frightening. The orcs and goblins in "The Fellowship of the Ring" were actors in costume and makeup. The orcs and goblins in "The Hobbit" are CGI and characters in CGI, no matter how much attempted frightening detail, appear cartoonish. A similar example, Jabba in "Return of the Jedi" and the CGI Jabba inserted later into Episode IV. He was more repulsive when the slime was real. Just imagine how much more repulsive the Goblin King would have been if he had been a combination of costume and puppetry.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

TheFamousHammerDec 17, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you read the book, The Hobbit is a wonderfully engaging light-hearted fairy tale set in Middle Earth, full of adventure, magic, faerie folks, monsters, and epic deeds. The Lord of the Rings is a dark, involved tragedy, also set in Middle Earth, with some of the same characters, taking place after the events told in The Hobbit.

Unfortunately, Peter Jackson has recast The Hobbit as a direct prequel of LOTR. He's drawn from his own imagination, and from the various other story sources for Middle Earth like the Appendices of LOTR, and the Silmarillion to flesh out a more suspenseful story line. In short, he changed it, and not for the better. It's lost the wonder and innocence of the original.

The story additions work to fit the tale into the LOTR timeline, and I'm sure are intended to make us want to follow Thorin himself. I found myself thinking at every turn, "I know what's supposed to happen, but I don't know what's going to happen." That fact is about half the reason I wasn't thrilled with this movie. It's like going to a restaurant and expecting steak, but getting chicken.

The changes make the LOTR movies like Episodes 4, 5, and 6 of Star Wars, and now this movie is Episode 1 - the Phantom Menace. It's complete with Jar Jar Binks, aka Radagast the Brown. Radagast is a bumbling fool with a birds nest under his hat and the associated bird pooh dribbling down his face, driving a sled pulled by talking rabbits. It's Stupid. The classic scene are there, of course: the trolls (which aren't distracted by Gandalf but by Bilbo), Rivendell, the goblin cave, the riddle scene (though Bilbo's finding of the ring differs from the one we say in the LOTR movies), and the eagles as the dwarves escape the wargs... and that's where the film ends in a simple fade to black.

And then, there's the 3D... It's a gimmick, used too much throughout the movie. Sure, you get to fly with the eagles, but you also have to deal with vertigo in nearly every shot, and lots of cartoon-ish gags tossed in from plate juggling to a nearly endless cavern battle with roller coaster ride cinematography - all in the name of 3D (and a video game tie-in). Don't bother with the 3D tickets, you'll probably have a less crowded theater, too.

Overall, fun movie for a Saturday night at home with a few glasses of wine and friends to give it the MST3K treatment, but it's NOT The Hobbit I loved. Wait until its available at home with video on-demand services.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

wessdoublesDec 17, 2012

I was very well impressed with the overall movie, but there were some drawbacks, and cuts. It will make you leaving the movie theater happy that you saw it. I will be eager to watch the other two sequels.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

huffmasterDec 22, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First and foremost I enjoyed the movie but when you hold it against the LOTR it just doesn't hold up. For a movie that has come out 10 years after the original trilogy you would think the CGI would look better but it really didn't. The gravity of the story was lacking, in the LOTR their quest held the fate of Middle Earth in the balance while here we were only trying to save the home of some dwarfs who I didn't really feel sorry for. Also, with LOTR their was a definite connection to mankind BUT there are no men in this flick, we deal with dwarfs, hobbits, wizards, orcs, and goblins.

All in all not bad, Peter Jackson and his team just didn't step their game up, it's like they went through the same motions without the same drive to make this as great as the LOTR.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

6

armanferDec 26, 2012

This movie is decent, but I couldn't get the same feelings as with the book. I must admit I am biased as a huge fan of Tolkien and I know that making a movie of "The Hobbit" is very challenging, because the original story is very rich inThis movie is decent, but I couldn't get the same feelings as with the book. I must admit I am biased as a huge fan of Tolkien and I know that making a movie of "The Hobbit" is very challenging, because the original story is very rich in details and it is no subject to the typical constraints of making a movie. Both book and movie start a little slow, while setting all the pieces... but what I watched was an action movie (the special effects are amazing), not a magical and adventurous story.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

CrackerjackDec 27, 2012

While I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard PeterWhile I have missed Middle Earth greatly in the years since Peter Jackson brought us The Lord of the Ring's trilogy, I must say that The Hobbit is rather a let down. The Hobbit is my favorite book of J.R.R. Tolkien and when I heard Peter Jackson would take it on as well I was thrilled. But after seeing the movie I can say that this feels more like a Lord of the Rings spin off then "The Hobbit" that we know and love. Don't get me wrong I love Peter Jackson and I love The Lord of the Rings but the thing that made"The Hobbit" such a great book was it's own sense of cleverness and grand adventure. It shouldn't have been stuffed with CGI and action scenes because the book is full of humanistic themes and heart. The back story parts that foreshadow the events in LOTR were rather nice but felt out of place in the movie. Overall I will say though it is nice to see Peter Jackson at it again and hopefully all of my gripes with the movie can be conquered in the second and third installments.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

DamnedThingDec 29, 2012

Looks fab - in 2D, none of yer 3D muck, please. Lighter in touch than the darker LOTR trilogy, which is as it should be. The characters are as they should be, and although there are a large(ish) number of similar looking Dwarves you do get toLooks fab - in 2D, none of yer 3D muck, please. Lighter in touch than the darker LOTR trilogy, which is as it should be. The characters are as they should be, and although there are a large(ish) number of similar looking Dwarves you do get to know their individual traits. Still, there are problems, mainly the length of time it takes to get going. And when it does get going it seems to do so in a mad rush to fit things in - and yet doesn't feel like much has happened. There are big splendid CGI sets, cities in mountains and goblin lairs and Rivendell and it looks sumptuous and particularly glittery. There are chases and fighting but it never feels like anyone is in danger, which dulls the sense of adventure considerably; there's lots of talk about danger and not enough of it. The trouble with The Hobbit is it's all surface shine and little depth, or, as Smaug would probably agree: all that glistens is not gold.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

N4styP1mpleDec 31, 2012

I watched the 48fps 3D showing and I think with the build up and the enjoyment I got from the LotR movies I walked away feeling a little deflated. There seemed a couple of scenes that would've been best served getting cut during the edit,I watched the 48fps 3D showing and I think with the build up and the enjoyment I got from the LotR movies I walked away feeling a little deflated. There seemed a couple of scenes that would've been best served getting cut during the edit, primarily the scenes with radagast in them. I'm going to watch the standard 24fps 2D version in a few days and see if the whole feel of the film changes for me in that format. On its own it was enjoyable but not great but still looking forward to seeing the remaining movies. Lastly I have that feeling I had after seeing Phantom Menace where it just felt like and didn't have the magic of the original trilogy.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

rafaelpsyJan 1, 2013

Nothing new for a movie... i only saw rocks flying on the screen using a format launched 10 years ago. Maybe, by the reason of this movie being a first part of a trilogy, when the other 2 parts are released this first will be make a littleNothing new for a movie... i only saw rocks flying on the screen using a format launched 10 years ago. Maybe, by the reason of this movie being a first part of a trilogy, when the other 2 parts are released this first will be make a little sense more.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

mo_hamadeJan 11, 2013

Long have I awaited a resemblance of the experience of authentic epicness set by the lord of the rings trilogy! That trilogy was indeed prolonged by a new franchise called

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

6

IlikefilmsJan 11, 2013

Before writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not containBefore writing this I'd like to say I did not watch the 3D version of the film. Not because I'm a member of the anti 3D league but purely because I consider the length of 3D exposure to be a tiny bit excessive. So this review will not contain anything about HFR or the such, or me getting motion sickness and violently vomiting into a pop corn box.

Firstly I'd like to comment on the casting which over all I believe is positive, Ian Mckellen returns as the enigmatic Gandalf the Grey, Hugo Weaving as the noble Elrond and Andy Serkis as the bi-polaresque Gollum. Strangely enough both Christopher Lee as Saruman and Kate Blanchett as Galadriel also return despite not featuring in the book. Elijah Wood is used rather effectively as a screening device for Bilbo to tell his story.

The New editions to the cast are relatively hit and miss. Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins) played the role excellently, portraying the home sick hobbit very well as an audience we can relate to Bilbo who like us is somewhat of a tourist in the fantastic Middle Earth. I'm also going to credit Ian Holm with playing the retired adventurer Bilbo well. Richard Armatige (Thorin Oakenshield) was another rewarding experience as he captured the King in exile exceptionally. Unfortunately with an adventuring party being 14, five more than the fellowship of the ring, many of the cast don't really get enough screen time. Those lucky enough to receive screen time do a very good job. Both Aidan Turner and Dean O'Gorman are blessed with screen time and bring their own quirk and charm to the roles. Ian Mactavish also brings a macho berserker edge to Dwalin. Ken Stott plays the wise Balin incredibly narrating Thorins past very well. The cast the cameras focus on are very agreeable.

The Sets and Locations are much the same as LOTR, which all in all is no problem, the epic New Zealand landscape paired with the incredible sets really give the film the edge over many other fantasy films. The Special effects are also breathtaking as ever, for instance the dragons descent upon the mountain city is incredible. Ok this is where my Gripe begins: As a child my mother read me the Hobbit, it's charm and beauty captured me and I cannot find a fault with its story in anyway. JR Tolkin for some, not all, weaves magic in the pages he writes. Before watching the film, I had heard rumours of the changes, additional sub plots which had no part in the book. I believed I would be able to look past them. I was very wrong. Unfortunately in aid of the 3 film cash cow expansion of middle earth, Peter Jackson or the powers that be have decided to add a few insy winsy major adjustments. Sauron has returned in the form of the Necromancer who is seeking to return, hiding out at some forgotten castle. Thorin Oakensheild has a nemesis of his own called the Pale Orc who he battled outside Moria. This of course is to provide action to stretch the 310 page book to accommodate enough material for 3 films. The Hobbit is not the Lord of The Rings trilogy, it is more child friendly than the much more mature LOTR trilogy, it should have been 2 films at most. The most upsetting thing is that the added story is so contrived it comes across as a caricature of the epic fantasy, this soap opera, cheap imitation that is neither here nor there.

Overall I liked the film. I wish I could have loved it, but I just can't with the commercialism they added. I respect Jackson for bringing LOTR life. However I feel this movie to be akin with king kong in some respects with all the pointless additions to the original. Peter Jackson please be Peter Jackson not George Lucas or Steven Spielberg.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

JustToClarifyJan 11, 2013

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 theA 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

6 of 8 users found this helpful62

All this user's reviews

6

sanyrubFeb 3, 2013

A film with such a big budget and all kinds of spectacular special effects and with a running time of 3 hours on purpose should not feel so long and boring at parts. Maybe it is affected by the previous trilogy, but it feels like we have seenA film with such a big budget and all kinds of spectacular special effects and with a running time of 3 hours on purpose should not feel so long and boring at parts. Maybe it is affected by the previous trilogy, but it feels like we have seen it before. It is still great but without that surprising point it becomes tedious when the film is 1 hour and a half in. It feels like a contrived journey. But it becomes interesting in the last hour again once the most loved creature by the public finally appears and steals the show for a long while.
Many other films with long running-times released in 2012 are way more interesting, impacting, emotive and feel shorter than what they are: Django, Les Miserables, Skyfall, Dark Knight Rises and more.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

braedenDec 19, 2013

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 hardThe 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

dougaussieSep 10, 2013

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 ii 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

Dimitris01Nov 11, 2013

The city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, theThe city of the elves is beautiful, some scenes are impressive (e.g. when Elrond reads the scroll) and the world where the story takes place is huge and varied. Unfortunately, the combination of comedy characters (some of the dwarves, the trolls, Radagast) with monsters (giant spiders and wolves, demonic orcs, the hideous gollum), the characters' illogical decisions (Gandalf and 13 dwarves going to kill a dragon, Gandalf asking Bilbo to join them, Bilbo accepting), the lack of realistic fights (nobody bleeds or dies, the direction during the chase in the goblin lair makes the action seem like the heros are on a luna park train) and several redundant scenes that slow the pacing down (two dinners, the riddles) prevented me from enjoying this movie.
argonautis.eu… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

TiTaToverteefJan 5, 2014

I can't rate this any higher than a 6. The film is deviating from the book just a bit too much for me to enjoy it. For those of you that enjoy a good action movie set in Middle Earth, this is for you. If you care about the lore and anyI can't rate this any higher than a 6. The film is deviating from the book just a bit too much for me to enjoy it. For those of you that enjoy a good action movie set in Middle Earth, this is for you. If you care about the lore and any backstory whatsoever, don't watch it as it has too many details that aren't supposed to be there.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

CherryxldDec 14, 2014

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visualThe Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey es una película de aventuras que nos cuenta la historia detrás de las trilogía de "The Lorg of the Ring", y que resulta bien ambientada pero un poco pesada.

Esta película nos ofrece un espectáculo visual que, digamos, cumple con las expectativas (debido a que las 3 películas de "The Lorg of the Ring" ganaron el Oscar en la categoría de "Mejores Efectos Visuales), y que le dan una caracterización bien ilustrada a la tierra media, sin embargo, la película tiene un fallo, y es que sus largos 169 minutos de duración (o 2 horas con 39 minutos, que en general son casi 3 horas de metraje) resultan un tanto pesada o fastidiosa (aunque no todo el tiempo), por lo tanto algunas personas quizá puede resultar un poco, digamos, lenta (aunque no en todo los términos), pero, esa larga duración no hace que la película caiga, así que, logra mantenerse firme durante todo su trayecto y terminando con un espectáculo lleno de buenos efectos visuales, buena ambientación y con un comienzo respetable de esta nueva trilogía de la edad media.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

thomasljoguesNov 13, 2014

Though the first piece of Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy by no means lives up to the expectations set by the LOTR trilogy, it is worth seeing, as it often times lives up to the book's well-earned famed. A bit sloggish at times and cartoony inThough the first piece of Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy by no means lives up to the expectations set by the LOTR trilogy, it is worth seeing, as it often times lives up to the book's well-earned famed. A bit sloggish at times and cartoony in physics (the main characters go through the ridiculous unscathed) it is a decent film for those not expecting a masterpiece.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

night4Apr 28, 2016

The interpretation of the books was best in this first movie, the others got really, really bad.

My biggest issue is that Martin Freeman was miscast. He's an incredible actor, just not a good Bilbo.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

PikeaxMar 9, 2019

This is based on the trilogy as a whole.
The Hobbit is a wonderful book but it simply doesn't have enough content to be spread between three movies. Each movie doesn't really tell a cohesive story on its own and while I judged the Lord of theThis is based on the trilogy as a whole.
The Hobbit is a wonderful book but it simply doesn't have enough content to be spread between three movies. Each movie doesn't really tell a cohesive story on its own and while I judged the Lord of the Rings as a whole because it improves an already amazing experience, The Hobbit has to be judged as a whole because the movies make no sense in any other method of viewing. Even still they hit middling at best and never truly great.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

SoapNuggetJul 14, 2020

The film leans to far into 3D technology and distracting CGI while trying to stretch a small children's book into a 3 hour long epic while failing spectacularly

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ErgonimicApr 1, 2022

This movie serves as fun entertainment, but the movie is simply boring and forgettable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Fixer84Mar 16, 2023

Obviously if you think that this is a LOTR prequel series it is a product, but inevitably, far inferior. In the end it is none other than The Hobbit. Exactly, The Hobbit.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BikerjamesJan 3, 2013

I saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the RingsI saw "The Hobbit" in Regal's RPX format in 3D with the higher frame rate. The movie looks great in the new high frame rate and the 3D is excellent, but I did think the movie dragged at times, and was too similar to the Lord of the Rings movies. There were way too many scenes of people almost falling off of cliffs, and people taking terrible falls only to survive without a scratch. The character of "Thorin", the leader of the dwarfs, was particularly annoying. Grouchy, skeptical, humorless, and wrong at almost every turn. Also, the entire scene with Gollum was annoying because I can't understand half the things he says. The next installment should be better as they will be battling a dragon instead of the usual evil Orcs and Goblins that we have already seen in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

5

PlushDec 27, 2012

My definition of cheesy is a movie that comes off as silly while taking itself extremely seriously. Gimli was comic relief. A pack of dwarves is grating. This movie tries so hard to be epic that it loses any sense of timing. It's too long andMy definition of cheesy is a movie that comes off as silly while taking itself extremely seriously. Gimli was comic relief. A pack of dwarves is grating. This movie tries so hard to be epic that it loses any sense of timing. It's too long and self-indulgent. 90 minutes would have gotten the job done and left me satisfied and looking forward to the next one. The video game quality of much of the CGI challenged my suspension of disbelief. One example of boredom-inducing Hobbit techs: Let's watch a guy fall from some high place, catch on by his fingertips, then fall again, and catch on again, repeat, repeat, repeat. You'd think gravity was the only danger in Middle Earth Peter Jackson could imagine. And then, ironically, any time people actually do fall from freaking high nobody gets hurt. Cheesy. I don't think I can take six more hours of this.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

5

vajenmrDec 15, 2012

For some reason, during the movie I constantly compared it to "The Goonies." I'm really not sure why. Maybe because "The Goonies" got adventure right, and this didn't. Either way, drawn out, should have been one movie. The end.

4 of 14 users found this helpful410

All this user's reviews

5

Ian277Jan 26, 2013

The Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that theyThe Hobbit was a good movie on it's own but it sort of ruined the trilogy. it adds in too many things that weren't in the book. i think its **** that we have to watch 3 parts to finish the story, and just for money! i think the fact that they added so much random **** ruins the whole trilogy and ruins what the author wrote. i fully understand that The Hobbit is a stand alone book/movie and not apart of the lord of the rings trilogy, which is also why they didn't need the introduction with frodo and an older bilbo, it was annoying to me to think that they ARE in fact linking the trilogy to the hobbit. the needless intro also ruined the immersion and it felt more like a fake story than an immersive movie. if you read this and thought it was a good movie, i would agree it had it's fine moments, the 3D effect were great and the 48 fps was really breath taking. to make this movie a 7/10 (for me at least) all they could have done is cut out the intro. oh well.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

LeftyyJan 16, 2013

The movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like aThe movie's not that bad, but it's certainly not great. It's based off the timeless book, of course, however due to being only a small piece of the overall story, it doesn't really captivate in any way, even at the end. It just felt like a generic fantasy adventure movie or even like a video game world along the lines of The Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age. That would be fine, but it's just not that interesting of a thing to watch. There are some redeemable moments, but despite some good acting and scenery, it's just not all that fun and seems to drag a bit towards the end.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

listenerJan 13, 2013

Bloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save itBloated with extras that don't belong to original story and only works as distractions here-this movie really feels like a rough cut that desperately needs editor.An effective opening sequence and triumphant return of Gollum somehow save it from being complete disaster though.… Expand

4 of 16 users found this helpful412

All this user's reviews

5

AnonymousPalDec 15, 2012

I was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don'tI was so excited when this was first announced. I, as most others, LOVED the Lord of the Rings yet this sadly disappoints. It never quite hooks you like the original trilogy did. The characters for the most part are forgettable and don't stand out. The only parts that provided a positive experience for this fantasy nerd were the scenery and the Gollum/ Bilbo dialogue. To be fair the source material of the hobbit is not near as good as the LOTR trilogy and I don't know why in the world they decided to turn this into a trilogy creating three movies full of unnecessary fluff, two maybe, three no way. Wait until the dollar theater or redbox and go catch Lincoln, The Perks of being a Wallflower, Wreck it Ralph or Life of Pi.… Expand

4 of 12 users found this helpful48

All this user's reviews

5

m_eldersDec 15, 2012

Let's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal andLet's start with what's good about this movie. The 3D and high frame rate look incredible, and the Riddles in the Dark scene is completely flawless. I forget the rest of the good parts, because for each other good part there's an equal and opposite bad part. In fact, the Riddles in the Dark scene is mixed with the dwarves' encounter with the Goblin King, which was by far the worst scene in the movie, and the beautiful special effects are for naught since the orcs and goblins were completely redesigned to look clean and crisp and not at all scary. So it all balances out (hence the 5 rating). I have a ton of things to say about this movie, but to keep this somewhat short, I'm going to mention one that focuses on the bad writing (of which there was plenty). At the end of The Return of the King, Frodo and Gollum fight each other for the Ring. Both of them fall off the ledge, leaving you to think that Frodo dies. Instead, he's hanging on to a small outcropping with his fingertips. In the special features of RotK, Peter Jackson commented that he hated using something so cliche, but it worked perfectly for that scene. In An Unexpected Journey, there are at least three instances where someone falls off a ledge and hangs on by his fingertips.… Expand

13 of 43 users found this helpful1330

All this user's reviews

5

MikefromAngusApr 1, 2013

Best 3D effects that I have seen to date! Amazing special effects. But... these 2 things cant save this movie. I found the movie a chore to watch. It dragged on and on. Alot of action, but none were believable nor intresting.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

enrogae1Jan 12, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I appear to be alone among my friends in my general disappointment with this film. I really feel, after two viewings now, that it was mostly a remorseless money-grab by Peter Jackson and the production company. It doesn't fit the feel of the book to me whatsoever, and instead has the feel and ambiance of the Lord of the Rings movies -- a grandeur and scale that should be much larger than The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, The Hobbit was an epic tale, but next to LotR it is a quaint epic and more character-driven. One of the other user reviews here mentioned that the Hobbit wasn't written the same way as LotR, and people need to stop thinking about the LotR movies when they watch this. Well, I agree on the first point... but it's kind of hard to not think about LotR when he seems to be trying really hard to make these as much like those as he can. The cameos by Frodo, Saruman, and Galadriel, as much as I loved the latter in the original movies, were completely pointless. Also, if you are going to add Saruman pre-Lord of the Rings... he ought to me a much nicer fellow. Jackson didn't get him right in the LotR movies anyway. In the books he was a wordsmith, someone who could use words to affect others... and until he sided with Sauron he did so for good. There is a reason Gandalf considered him the wisest, and it wasn't just because he wore white. The added detail to the story of the pale orc and Radaghast the Brown were equally pointless, except to draw out the length of the film so he could make more than one. That's really my point, I suppose. The Hobbit should've been ONE three hour movie, MAYBE two... but definitely not three. Also, why does Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the books, not until he was mistreated by the Wood Elf King... and even then his attitude was colored by gold lust. There were a few well-done scenes, like the riddles with Gollum, but for every one of those there is another pointless addition to the story or a rewrite that makes little sense. Why did he feel the need to change how Gandalf dealt with the trolls, or have the pale orc trapping them in trees instead of the goblins and waurgs? It just seems like Jackson has gotten the impression that he knows how to tell Tolkien's story better than Tolkien. I'm afraid he is sorely mistaken.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

5

ORANGEoCLOCKDec 24, 2012

I wasn't expecting much since I knew there were coming a three pictures. Money. The movie starts a bit before lotr trilogy does and ends in about 60 hears ago. Operator's work is too modern. New actors aren't good enough. Exept MartinI wasn't expecting much since I knew there were coming a three pictures. Money. The movie starts a bit before lotr trilogy does and ends in about 60 hears ago. Operator's work is too modern. New actors aren't good enough. Exept Martin Freeman, he is a good choice. There could be one good film. But instead of this we got a bad start of a new trilogy. I hope the next part will be better.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

5

AutiTakahashiJan 12, 2013

Let me get things straight first. I enjoyed

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

NevermindJan 8, 2013

This movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make itThis movie seems to depart from the previous LOTR franchise movies in that it is not always all that serious. It is awash with comic relief, and by the end of the movie, in the midst of the battles, you know all the good guys will make it through, somehow. How could you know ? Because such moments as rife within it, such as when Gandalf magically teleports in the midst of a battle or when oversized eagles save the day and carry all of them for a while. Not to mention when Bilbo saves the dwarf king, in what is yet one of those moments again. Why did they have to walk for three hours (of movie time) only to have Gandalf call the birds in the end? Could they not have used the birds in the beginning? But that is besides the point. And there was this other wizard, I honestly do not even know what to think. That bad. The scene where Bilbo finds the ring is overly long and boring, and for some reason he has to engage in a riddle game with that stupid "my precious" guy. Probably one of the most useless moments in a film I have seen to date. One last cry I have about the movie, apart from the strange cgi characters, is that the dwarfs seem somewhat tall.There is this inconsistency, in some shots they seem taller then in others, and a few of them look, well, human. In conclusion, the Hobbit part1 has plenty of nice moments, but in a complex device, such as a movie, everything has to be done right, not just some of the things.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

Random_PersonDec 16, 2012

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. NoHey 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

19 of 39 users found this helpful1920

All this user's reviews

5

lahaine2012Dec 29, 2012

With The Lord of the Rings being my favorite film, doubts about Peter Jackson returning to Middle Earth with the Hobbit and concerns about him turning this relatively concise book into three movies; I had conflicting views upon entering thisWith The Lord of the Rings being my favorite film, doubts about Peter Jackson returning to Middle Earth with the Hobbit and concerns about him turning this relatively concise book into three movies; I had conflicting views upon entering this adventure. The final verdict is… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

mmweissDec 17, 2012

After 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most ofAfter 3 incredible lord of the rings films, your expectations for "the hobbit: an unexpected journey" are high. That why your disappointment is equally high when you see the film. It´s so long, but it has so little content, so most of the scenes don´t contribute to the plot in any way. The 48 fps are distracting and weird and it totally takes you out of the movie. Besides, it has no ending! It´s definitely not horrible, but it´s far from being good.… Expand

10 of 25 users found this helpful1015

All this user's reviews

5

TheDRauchJan 2, 2013

This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power toThis is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

5

Jailhouse_McGeeDec 20, 2012

"The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and"The Hobbit: An unexpected disappointment" is the latest example of a really bad idea but on the big screen. And that idea would be to take a small children's book and blow it up to the size of the LOTR trilogy. It's to much muchness, and it's just to epic for it's own good. I cringed as the dwarfs charged into the screen with loud music the second time, not to mention all the pointless action and filler scenes. The movie has an annoying "stop and go" ark of chained together elements that all look great on their own terms, but just don't add up to a great story. It all looks great and the actors are fabulous, but judged by my expectations, a big disappointment.… Expand

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

5

ClayMerrittJan 18, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm apart of the minority that did not like this movie. Really shocked that more people didn't like it. But then again a lot of people never read the book. Just went to see the movie based off all the success of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Anyway, I read the book. Twice. Once when I was in the 5th grade and again 2 or 3 weeks before the movie release. I was stunned. Peter Jackson seemed more focused on creating a more visual and beautiful Middle-Earth than we saw in LOTR. This movie was simply, too much of a good thing. Guillermo Del Toro, a fantastic filmmaker in his own right, honestly had ZERO business being apart of the screenplay production. It also seemed as if Peter Jackson wanted The Hobbit to be a comedy because there was, and honestly too much of, comedy in this serious film. Yes, there was comedy in the book, but not to the extent Peter Jackson went. I would rate this movie lower, however there was one scene I found fascinating. And that was the meeting of Gollum and Bilbo. They had an excellent back and forth that I found myself enjoying as it continued. And why did Thorin hate the elves so much? He didn't in the book. Anyway, it could, and SHOULD have been a lot better. It seems as if Peter Jackson watched James Cameron's Avatar one day and looked at the world of Pandora and said, "Hey, forget the script, and character development, and a good story to stay true to the book, I wanna do THAT!" And its exactly what he did. He re-created Middle-Earth with his own vision this time, and not the vision of J.R.R. Tolkien. Maybe this was just a hit and miss for part 1. A sort of testing the waters if you will. The chapter of Smaug is up next in the trilogy of films that is The Hobbit. I, for one hope that the CGI and lame comedy was all out of Peter Jackson's system because Part 2 is highly critical in if Part 3 can be successful. If Peter Jackson messes up Smaug..... may God help us all.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

foxgroveDec 17, 2012

The opening sequence of this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is so good that one is immediately optimistic about what is to come. Therefore, it is rather disappointing to report that following this excellent opening we are treated to a filmThe opening sequence of this prequel to The Lord of the Rings is so good that one is immediately optimistic about what is to come. Therefore, it is rather disappointing to report that following this excellent opening we are treated to a film whose first half is so dull and dreary that boredom settles in very quickly. It is definitely not the equal of any of TLOTR films. A perfunctory battle scene and the introduction of the charmless dwarfs do little to up the ante. In fact the real star of the first half of this film is actually the New Zealand scenery and we are treated to quite a lot of it as our intrepid travellers climb up mountain, after mountain, after (yawn yawn) mountain!

Still, it's not all bad news as the second half improves considerably. This turn of events happens at the time we are introduced to the stone giants which is filmed using swooping camera movements that are very effective. It's onwards and upwards from here on. The special effects are variable (again better in the second half). However, the troll sequence is really awful with some extremely lame attempts at humour (the writing does leave a lot to be desired), but with the arrival of the wonderful Gollum we get to enjoy the film's highlight. The Art-Direction also still affords some pleasures, especially in the opening sequence and in the goblin s' town.

Martin Freeman works hard to deliver a fair enough performance as Bilbo Baggins, but one misses Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin and Elijah Wood here. In a role similar to the one that Mortensen played in the earlier films, Richard Armitage doesn't really cut it.

The score occasionally hits familiar notes reminding us of how beautiful that main theme is, but 'The Lonely Mountain' song hasn't the haunting effect of either 'May it be' or 'Into the West'. Overall the film is too long and should never have been planned as a trilogy. The book just isn't dense enough to warrant such indulgence. This error in judgement is the fatal flaw of ' The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.… Expand

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

All this user's reviews

5

shirshasgDec 16, 2012

An unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if theAn unexpected disappointment. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Peter Jackson's return to the world of JRR Tolkien. It's a line that clearly outlines Jackson and his co-writers' intentions, yet it comes off as a veiled apology, as if the film-making team knew that what they have created is going to be problematic for die-hard Middle Earth fans. Sadly, Jackson's new film doesn't come close to silencing the skeptics like his Lord of the Rings films did, and is actually more ill-conceived than expected.

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

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

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

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

There's a good movie somewhere in The Hobbit, and had Jackson shown more restraint we might have seen it. The film could easily lose at least 45 minutes, but it feels as if director feels so beholden to his previous work that he needs to deliver an epic on the scale of LOTR. But that's not what this book is, and we're left with an uneasy balance - the lighter tone to distinguish this as a separate story but a strict adherence to the LOTR structure - but ultimately doesn't fulfill either side.… Expand

12 of 31 users found this helpful1219

All this user's reviews

5

rankkaDec 14, 2012

This movie lacks character. I went to see it on the premier a few days ago without any expectations; I however have read the book about 15 years ago, and I somewhat liked it. I also have read and seen the LOTR trilogy and liked those movies.This movie lacks character. I went to see it on the premier a few days ago without any expectations; I however have read the book about 15 years ago, and I somewhat liked it. I also have read and seen the LOTR trilogy and liked those movies. However, as I've grown older I've grown to expect some sense of style from movies. This movie had no sense of style, aside from the whatever... fantasy cartoony style. Neither did it tell a compelling story. All I remember now is the boring endless 3D computer animated action scenes with tons of camera movement. Some may say that those visuals of the movie are breathtaking, but I fail to understand what is breathtaking about them. There are better and more beautiful visuals in way older films with way less of a budget. What I disliked most was the pointless amount of action, the charisma lacking dwarves (especially the leader) and the bad pacing / storytelling. What I give it 5/10 for is some funny points, like Radagast, one-liners, and overall no-brains entertainment value. Won't see it again. Also, this movie had no sexual themes what-so-ever. Could count the amount of females shown with one hand probably. Count that as a con as well.… Expand

6 of 24 users found this helpful618

All this user's reviews

5

JaevlarDec 19, 2012

Good CGI and feeling to the movie. Don't care much for the cartoon-ish style of character design. Falls short on the story compared to the book. A lot of fill between scenes . Guess that's why there's going to be three movies total.

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

5

mcfDec 26, 2012

I was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic,I was befuddled by the rave User reviews for "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey " relative to the mediocre Critic reviews. So i went to see the movie. Now i kind of understand and will try to explain. The movie is fine--well-acted, dramatic, great animation. But it's not really much different from Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy films. Several of the same actors, same settings, similar battle scenes. Actually, it's not quite as good as any of the LOTR Trilogy movies. Granted, that's a tough comparison. but it is what it is.

To me, the disappointing part of Hobbit is that nothing really "happens" in this first-of-three. LOTR is a complex, 1,200-page book. I can see "stretching the story out" into a trilogy. Hobbit is a 250-page story written for children. The story could have been told in one 3-hour movie or two tops. To stretch the story into a trilogy smacks of pure Hollywood greed. And, as a result, nothing much really "happens" in the first installment.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

5

CuscadenDec 30, 2012

I was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of themI was disappointed with this production of the Hobbit. I have no issue with the story being changed and new stuff that was not in the book being introduced. There was a forced effort to introduce "comic" moments in the film, and most of them failed to elicit a good response from me. The troll encounter should not have been a Benny Hill slap stick moment, and that is how I perceived it. LOTR whilst obviously being a fantasy setting film, had a sense that everything was realistic within its fantasy setting. The Hobbit throws that feeling away and just goes over the top.… Expand

8 of 14 users found this helpful86

All this user's reviews

5

nirishan9Jan 10, 2013

Honestly, nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Often boring and lagging on, losing interest is obvious. However, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography as well as the score and brief exciting moments, excite theHonestly, nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Often boring and lagging on, losing interest is obvious. However, the beauty of the scenery and the cinematography as well as the score and brief exciting moments, excite the mood. Albeit temporarily.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

NilbogJan 4, 2013

Overly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from theOverly long, badly paced, needlessly bloated and full of obvious fan service, Peter Jackson plays it safe. Not a terrible movie, but a huge disappointment. It feels like a cynical Hollywood cash-in on LotR. The inclusion of material from the appendices just makes the film feel uneven and without any coherent tone. A jumbled mess of a movie that doesn't know what it's trying to be - a film adaptation of a kids book, or a dark brooding prequel to LotR - it's all over the place. I'm a huge fan of Jackson, but this is one of his worst movies.

The only truly good scene in the movie is the riddle game with Gollum, it stands head and shoulders above the rest of the film, making it painfully obvious how mediocre the rest of it is. Ultimately forgettable, I just hope the next 2 fare better.… Expand

6 of 11 users found this helpful65

All this user's reviews

5

TheGalaxiaMasteJan 5, 2013

It's beautifully made, but the 3D let the characters made look like plastic. The biggest downside however was the story. It was cliche and boring. When the movie ended I had the feeling I was only at the half of the movie. Yes, there areIt's beautifully made, but the 3D let the characters made look like plastic. The biggest downside however was the story. It was cliche and boring. When the movie ended I had the feeling I was only at the half of the movie. Yes, there are coming sequels. Yes, it's based upon a 70 year old book. But that doesn't change my rating. It's so sad that the story really sucks because most other things are just great!… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

siphrJan 13, 2013

Initially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer isInitially I was surprised that they were going to make 3 movies out of the Hobbit which is a fairly short book. I decided to watch it anyway because it Tolkien after all. It is nothing special. I think the director or the play writer is demonstrating a severe lack of creativity. My main qualm with the movie is that it seems to follow almost exactly the same recipe as the fellowship of the ring. Considering I've read this book, I think I am pretty sure that the following 2 movies will also follow in the footsteps of two towers and return of the king respectively.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

5

baole58Jul 30, 2013

Set in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from SmaugSet in Middle-earth sixty years before The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is about Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, and his journey, accompanies by thirteen dwarves, across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon.

Peter Jackson returns to Middle-earth with another trilogy, that serves as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings, based on Tolkien’s novel, The Hobbit, but here’s the question? The novel Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is longer than The Hobbit but that film was adapted into a two-parter so why make another trilogy, based on one novel, when you can just adapt the novel into one film, or two at most? Oh, of course, money! It’s all about trying to top up the box office success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy for Peter Jackson, and fans don’t seem to realize this.

The Hobbit does not match the standard that was set in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. It may not be the same film franchise, as fans keep mentioning all over the internet, but it’s certainly very similar in terms of the film’s setting, characters and visual style. Just like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the movie suffers from a long running time. But without the emotional and engaging storytelling that The Lord of the Rings trilogy has, The Hobbit just seems to drag on and on with its slow pacing.

The Hobbit uses a higher frame rate and it’s the first film to use 48 frames per second instead of the standard 24 frames. It may improve 3D footage but it doesn't add any value to the movie viewing experience so is it really necessary? Some scenes looks great, just like Peter Jackson’s many other films, but at times, it looks like the actors are on set rather than a scene. It can be hard to get use to but fans will hardly notice.

It just shows that Peter Jackson relies too heavily on visual effects nowadays that his most recent films are lacking. One of which is The Lovely Bones, a film which lacks the majesty of the novel that made it such a huge success. Another is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a film, as mentioned earlier, that’s too similar to but does not match the quality set by The Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Peter Jackson is still a worthy director, considering every film he has ever directed, but if he keeps this charade up, then he won’t be.

The film’s cast are short of any complaints, with standout performances from Sir Ian McKellen, as Gandalf, and Martin Freeman, as Bilbo Baggins. It’s great to see hobbits on a quest across Middle-earth once again but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is no excuse to revive the “Middle-earth franchise”, just like The Bourne Legacy, a film that tries to revive The Bourne franchise, and The Amazing Spider-Man, a film that tries to revive The Spider-Man franchise, though these two films are pretty decent overall. But in the end, all these films are really unnecessary and we can live without it. It just shows that Hollywood have no new ideas, as many people might have speculated, and has to resort into rebuilding the franchise that should have been left alone when it ended satisfactorily.

In conclusion, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will please fans. For them, the only reason to watch this film is “Hobbits”. The fine performance from its cast does not quite make up for its slow pace, irritating high frame rate and long running time. The film may not have high hopes, and it’s not entirely terrible, but being too similar to The Lord of the Rings, it’s such a disappointment. Hopefully, Peter Jackson will realize what he has done wrong in this film before continuing with the trilogy.… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

5

FiddleFeb 7, 2013

Bilbo's story, though not without thrill, is much more lighthearted then "The Lord of The Rings" so don't expect to see a lot of doom and gloom or giant armies slugging it out. Unfortunately the Peter Jackson doesn't strays from the novel aBilbo's story, though not without thrill, is much more lighthearted then "The Lord of The Rings" so don't expect to see a lot of doom and gloom or giant armies slugging it out. Unfortunately the Peter Jackson doesn't strays from the novel a lot in this film which, in my opinion, ruined the story a little.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

spollardFeb 25, 2014

These are just not my type of movies. I did enjoy some parts of the Lord of Rings and this one just is not as good. Characters are not as memorable and the journey is not as good as the Lord of the Rings, but maybe this will change in theThese are just not my type of movies. I did enjoy some parts of the Lord of Rings and this one just is not as good. Characters are not as memorable and the journey is not as good as the Lord of the Rings, but maybe this will change in the next two. Something else that annoyed me is that just when we think one or some of them are going to die, they are saved by something ridiculous and makes you wonder why doesn't the wizard just use his powers all the time to protect them? Just a thought. In the end I would have rated this movie lower but due to the incredible special effects I gave it 54.5/100.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BrosmanJul 21, 2013

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.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

The_BearApr 3, 2013

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, andTo 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

FilmVirtueFeb 14, 2014

Peter Jackson's new take on the Lord of the Rings like always contains vivid scenes of animation but fails to make the film anymore than a simple adventure story.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

NickTheCritickApr 24, 2022

After the (perfectly made) Lord of the Rings trilogy, was this trilogy really needed? No interesting ideas in this Hobbit trilogy which turns out to be tired and slightly heavy.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

sundaygrundleJan 27, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is regarded by many as the prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy; possibly one of the greatest fantasy franchises ever seen, with 17 Academy Awards won across the trilogy and Return of the King being the 6th highest grossing film of all time… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

ThradarFeb 12, 2013

As the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epicAs the beginning of a Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy, it's pretty good. As The Hobbit (translation of the book), it's pretty bad. It's my hope that after all the movies are out and the Blurays are released that someone will do an epic fan edit so I can actually watch The Hobbit.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

LeonidasRexJan 20, 2013

Summary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellentSummary: Half this movie is a pretty good prequel to LoTR. The other half is like watching someone else play a video game. The Good: It's nice to see the old LoTR characters and settings again, and the actor playing Thorin does an excellent job. Andy Serkis does an amazing job as Gollum in his big scene. All the production values are excellent, as you would expect. The LoTR screenwriters expanded Tolkien's novel into a Japanese-style tale of warrior honor and revenge. They introduced some new major characters, and they plan to expand on events that the novel only hinted at. And that all would have worked fine, because it would have been difficult to make a movie based on the novel's themes of hunger and fatigue. The Bad: What should be a 90-minute movie is bloated with an hour of meaningless action sequences. The dwarfs fight. The dwarfs run. The dwarfs cling helplessly to a large moving object that threatens to plunge them to their doom (three times!). None of it advances the plot. With LoTR, I looked forward to and enjoyed the extended edition. With this first Hobbit movie, I'll only watch it again if they release a shortened version. I won't sit through those tedious pointless action sequences a second time.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

imthenoobJan 27, 2015

Even the extended version leaves me wanting more. This movie could have been so much better. It relied far too heavy on CGI and special effects and not enough on establishing the story and the characters.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

LionheartedDec 14, 2012

When I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think ofWhen I think "the Hobbit" I think of a little hobbit who is pulled like a child by a fatherly figure to explore the big world. 7/10 when I think of the Hobbit as introduced I think "In a hole in the ground there lived..." 3/10 When I think of Gandalf in the Hobbit I think wise old wizard with a weather beaten pointy hat and a long pipe. 9/10 When I think of the dwarves I think of dwarves in cloaks almost comical characters but serious in wilder ways with a funny disposition toward loving gold (2/10). When I think of mystery and discovery in the Hobbit I think of an imaginative scenery based vision with some encounters along the way (2/10). When I think of the Hobbit in it's emphasis I think about a children's book where the exploration of ideas provoke thoughtful meaningful contemplative and illustrative consideration (1/10).
When I think of the philosophy of "the Hobbit" I think about the underlying currents and the hidden truths (1/10). When I think of the character interaction I think "Fairies and goblins" (2/10). When I think about "the Hobbit" as a contrast to his later work in LOTR I consider the fact he atempted to remake the hobbit after the 8th chapter and realized it wasn't a good idea to continue. When I think about the religion of the Hobbit" I think meaning exists in the world people have a place and there is a reason to believe but in this interpretation it's all boils down to simple-minded post post modern humanist action flick where the ends justify the bast.ardization of the former. If you look real hard you can see JRR tolkiens classic here, but you will strain your heart and mind to do so.… Expand

2 of 13 users found this helpful211

All this user's reviews

4

TheSquirrelDec 17, 2012

Something like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if heSomething like the Hobbit, by Peter Jackson. Had that been the title I would have come in expecting this poor excuse for a adaptation. I loved the LOTR movies, and could get past most of Jackson's revisions to the story, but it's as if he has since formed a Tolkien Complex and believes himself and his story telling to be superior. The worst example of this is his butchering of the character Radagast, a mushroom munching stoned out hermit. The only balance to this is that there small pieces that are ten out of ten material, particularly riddles in the dark, and they are all that keep me from rating this lower. This story has been stretched thin and exploited so that Jackson can have his second trilogy, and I will not be giving them another theater seat. Renter.
(P.S. Peter-long after your movies are gone, the books will still remain, unless you feel like revising those too.)… Expand

12 of 31 users found this helpful1219

All this user's reviews

4

MattyiceJan 3, 2013

This movie seems more like a children's movie than a LOTR movie. Little Dwarves who sing and drink. The action scenes and characters seem cheesy, and mainly, this should NOT be 3 movies. The next movie better be good.

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

HadrianusDec 14, 2012

The movie is worse than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.The 48 FPS I didn't note it.The actors are great.Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen are great acting.The director didn't do it like Lord of the Rings.

2 of 37 users found this helpful235

All this user's reviews

4

EriasDec 25, 2012

The high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When youThe high frame rate moves too fast and it hurts your eyes. After about 40 minutes into the movie I had to take off the 3D glasses and blink away the problems. The CGI is too clean and crisp looking and it detracts from the movie. When you look at the LOTR the CGI blended in into the background and fit with the movie. Here where you watch everything the actors just seem to be on a stage and do not blend into the movie.

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

In fact it is like the Phantom Menace in that there is little to story to the movie but instead we are told to watch more special effects and to enjoy it. I'm not going to see the other two movies in this "trilogy" as its just not worth the time or my money.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

4

RikiegeDec 22, 2012

Two hours and fifty minutes into the film not knowing what to do! That film more boring!

3 of 10 users found this helpful37

All this user's reviews

4

sidbond1991Dec 29, 2012

The hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movieThe hobbit was highly anticipated movie of 2012 probably right behind Dark Knight rises. However, it was very disappointing to see it fall into all the puddles of cliche' and it was terrible drag. Don't get me wrong - Hobbit is a good movie but the hype around it makes you want something as magical as LOTR. Sadly, it comes no where close to the fellowship of the ring where we see our characters interact - particularly the scene where Gandalf and Frodo talk in the caves. However, we see none of those heart warming scenes of LOTR and more cliche' dialogues. This movie relies more the production value which is excellent such as the sets and everything and it also banks on people's love for the LOTR movies. I am very die hard fan of LOTR and even if I don't compare Hobbit dazzles but fails to leave an imprint.… Expand

5 of 10 users found this helpful55

All this user's reviews

4

Agent314Dec 16, 2012

Technically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making ThorinTechnically disappointing with shockingly poor matte paintings and inconsistent quality of animation, The Hobbit falls flat with gratuitous and contrived battle sequences, a meandering plot trajectory, and a hopeless attempt at making Thorin Oakenshield an Aragorn for a new trilogy. It's one saving grace is a stellar performance by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Bravo!

A great deal of effort was placed on the facial animation of Gollum and the goblin king. So much so that many other aspects of the VFX have suffered greatly. Poor compositing and inconsistent quality of animation are most notable. A lack of inertia in character motion, "floating" digital doubles that do not make ground contact, matte paintings that are so obvious it's worth a laugh, and an odd digital double for Gandalf in the opening sequence were quite disturbing (why???). Despite WETA claims of facial motion capture, a great deal of animator skill was necessary for the sequences that they *did* put an effort into. For example, the goblin king and his awesome goiter. The goiter alone bumps the film from a 3 to a 4.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

4

OlorinDec 17, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. … Expand

8 of 19 users found this helpful811

All this user's reviews

4

Olorin2Dec 20, 2012

Contains spoilers.

If misstepping were an aerobic exercise, Peter Jackson would be in excellent shape. Although I am loath to admit it, this adaptation of

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

4

DaveBrockDec 20, 2012

As a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3DAs a LOTR mega fan, I have to say that "The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey" was utterly, and absolutely a complete disaster. First of all, I would have to say, go see it, but only if you are a fan, and don't watch the 3D version. The 3D version gives the whole movie a strange dynamic that makes EVERYTHING seem as if were totally and completely filmed in a studio. The opening scene shows both Bilbo, and Frodo at a point in time that is supposed to be right before the opening scene in LOTR, The Fellowship of The Ring. The actors, are visibly aged, and not only are they older, but is is apparent to me that the wigs that were used for both of these characters were not even close to the originals. The hair style is not even quite the same. The hair styles aren't even the worst part. It seems to me that they completely strayed from the original conception of the Orc. Not only was the conceptual trashed, but the incredible make-up, masks, and costumes were also scrapped. Most, if not all of the Orcs and Goblins are C.G. The Orcs are greyish, almost white. Some may argue that these were not Orcs, but rather Goblins. I tried to take that into consideration, but in the movie, they are most definitely referred to as Orcs. The beautiful New Zealand scenery is almost entirely non existent. I understand that the production was plagued with financial problems, and countless other issues, but it is an utter disappointment. So many other times in history, movies, their budgets, and other things have almost cost the movie, but after the release, the movie becomes a phenomenal cult hit, ie. Jaws. Unfortunately, The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, will not be one of those cult hits. The final thing that really bothered me about this is that instead of just taking the complete budget, and creating one last epic movie "The Hobbit", they blew the budget on three separate installments of the film: The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey, Smaug, and finally, There and Back Again. It was totally unnecessary to create three different movies. They took quite a bit of creative license and wrote more into the story to extend this one book into 3 more movies, which makes the movie drag out more than necessary. In the LOTR, I found myself wanting more, and shocked when the movie ended where it had. I was sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next installment to come out. Not so much with this one. I was actually quite irritated that I now have to wait another two years to see the final installment of The Hobbit. I'm not looking forward to seeing the disaster that awaits, but hopefully, the story will get better, even if the scenery, costumes, and make-up do not.… Expand

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

4

LexStarwalkerDec 21, 2012

A very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, fallingA very long movie in which not much happens. Unfortunately the PTB of the Hobbit movie seem to be milking the book for all it's worth. They seem to have forgotten that a satisfying story must have exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution. Instead, in almost 3 hours we get a very tedious exposition and rising action. In order to get 3 movies out of this book, they're stretching it out way too much. Most of the movie was boring, and the few intersting/exciting parts weren't enough to save it.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

4

snowdog_ixDec 30, 2012

Peter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. VeryPeter Jackson has gotten addicted to producing endless strings of cheesy battle/chase scenes and has substituted these for an actual story line. This stretched out movie was way too long and is nothing more than B grade pulp at best. Very disappointing.… Expand

8 of 15 users found this helpful87

All this user's reviews

4

casperlasperJan 1, 2013

I'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you soI'm kind of shocked at how forgiving the user reviews have been. This was a very disappointing movie for me. I guess I can understand wanting to like it on account of how great the Lord of the Rings movies were, but that can only take you so far, and to my mind, not nearly far enough to forgive this movie its flaws. Chief among them was the length. The Lord of the Rings movies were all long, but they had the material to justify their length. One movie per book makes sense. By the end of this first Hobbit movie we've covered about 6 chapters worth of source material. The rest is filler. And not good filler at that. If I never see Radagast the Brown again, that'll be fine by me. He rides around on a sleigh pulled by rabbits for god's sake. I like fantasy just fine, but I like it to be at least somewhat grounded. I loved Tolkien's books, but I was glad that the Lord of the Rings movies weren't 100% faithful to them. I didn't need to see Tom Bombadil on the big screen, and I certainly didn't need to see people singing left and right during their epic quest to save the world. Well, they left the singing in this time around. And it does work fairly well in one instance, but the rest of the time it's just odd and distracting. Too much of this movie is odd and distracting. There are moments that work, but they're wedged between so, so many others that don't. I want to say that there's a very good 2 hour movie hidden in what I saw, but I'm not sure that's the case. Absent the filler, I don't think there's enough to string together a coherent, satisfying narrative from this segment of the story. Maybe when all three films are on the table, I'll be better able to see how things could have been readjusted. Bottom line, I really wanted to like this movie, but I just didn't. Watching it was a chore.… Expand

11 of 21 users found this helpful1110

All this user's reviews

4

mds03Mar 3, 2013

Oh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The onlyOh please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How could anyone give it a 10. It's the most boring, tedious, corny, cheesy, and down right stupid movie of 2012! Why on Earth would they make a 300 page book into 3 movies. Talk about a ripoff money grab. The only entertaining part was with Gollum. Too bad that scene only lasted 15 minutes. And why would they make it 3 hours long when it doesn't have to be. After all, it was only like the first 100 pages of the book. Gollum is the only thing that kept my review from a 3. What a major disappointment. I can tell you one thing, I definetly won't be there for part 2 or 3.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

All this user's reviews

4

JmsbppJul 22, 2013

Bilbo definitibamente es poco entretenido y algo estupido a una excepcion la pelicula guarda exclentes efectos y la originalidad al 100 sin embargo solo BLA BLA BLA Y ganas de ZZZzzzzz

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

timo906May 19, 2013

As a big Tolkien fan and LOTR movie fan, I felt betrayed after leaving the movie theater. The moment I heard Del Torro was going to direct it, I was a bit disappointed. And it felt good to know that in the end Peter Jackson was going toAs a big Tolkien fan and LOTR movie fan, I felt betrayed after leaving the movie theater. The moment I heard Del Torro was going to direct it, I was a bit disappointed. And it felt good to know that in the end Peter Jackson was going to direct it. Now that I think of it, I'm sure it would have been a better idea to let Del Torro direct it....… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

Mr_NoFaceSep 14, 2013

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 thati 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

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

Celt1991Dec 11, 2013

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 theLet 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

wiiy71Dec 30, 2017

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

FilipeNetoApr 29, 2018

After the thrilling success of "Lord of the Rings", it is imperative to milk the cow and get more money from the audience. So, the producers decided to make a three movies prequel (much like what happened with "Star Wars") inspired by "TheAfter the thrilling success of "Lord of the Rings", it is imperative to milk the cow and get more money from the audience. So, the producers decided to make a three movies prequel (much like what happened with "Star Wars") inspired by "The Hobbit", the first novel by J.R.R. Tolkien. In this film, the first of this trilogy, young Bilbo Baggins is hired by a group of dwarfs to help them recover their mountain, conquered by a dangerous dragon who watches over a colossal treasure. In the middle of this plot, the film core, is Thorin Oakenshield, heir to the dwarve throne, and Galdalf, the gray wizard who links this plot to another, which develops in parallel and focuses on the struggle against the orks led by Azog, sworn enemy of the dwarfs and a traditional ally of the Dark, who mysteriously work in an abandoned fortress where there lives an evil, without name or physical form.

Anyone who has read the original book may criticize the way the film adapts it, but I'm not the best person to judge it because I did not read the book, I never found it in Portuguese. The actors were fine. Ian McKellen remains impeccable as Gandalf, but brings nothing new to a character we already know from LOTR. In fact, Gandalf does not have as much impact, not to mention that McKellen cannot avoid accusing some fatigue, difficult to swallow in a character who supposedly should look younger in this new trilogy. The film also fails to show us how much time has passed since the arrival of the dragon, especially if we watch characters like Thorin, who seems immune to aging. I say this because there is no difference between this film's Thorin and the one that is represented in some combat scenes, allegedly situated in distant past and shown to the public in a flashback. Martin Freeman made a convincing and credible Bilbo. In the supporting cast, the dwarfs looked good to me, Cate Blanchett always looks good as Galadriel and Sylvester McCoy is very funny in the role of Radagast, a character which could have been introduced in a more elegant way. Cinematography is banal and boring. There are sequences where this is so clearly noted that it removes all emotion from what we're seeing. The special and visual effects are awesome but there is a sense that it has been exaggerated and some scenes are so unrealistic that we simply cannot feel it. Finally, the soundtrack, by Howard Shore, is powerful, impactful and meets the expectations of the public.

The Hobbitt came after the resounding success of LOTR and its difficult to meet expectations. The first film in this new trilogy is not necessarily bad, but its far from the cinematic brilliance of the first trilogy. The sense of danger is rarer, emotion is scarce, everything seems artificial and stagnant.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

merugoAug 28, 2022

An utter yawn. The Hobbit is a children's book in comparison to the LotR trilogy (I believe Tolkien himself said as much). The comparative weight of this film exemplifies that. The acting is fine but this is entirely skippable

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

seniorgatoApr 23, 2013

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'tImagine 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

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

3

TixyLixDec 15, 2012

It is to slow, I fell asleep half way through the film because nothing happened and that isn't an exaggeration. I have no idea why they decided to make a trilogy out of one book that isn't even very long, in fact in the time this trilogyIt is to slow, I fell asleep half way through the film because nothing happened and that isn't an exaggeration. I have no idea why they decided to make a trilogy out of one book that isn't even very long, in fact in the time this trilogy would take to watch, I could have read the book. On top of that everything looks cheaper and fake, I can only come up with the conclusion that the CGI is just over used where it wasn't so much in LOTR where you often had real people playing monsters that are now CGI. I noticed a lot more sets are CGI too and it just gives off this fake feeling like the Star Wars Prequels. I also do not like the makeup it just all looks like makeup this time around, everything is too bright, there is too much clarity and I feel like I'm watching a play rather than being drawn in. Biggest disappointment since The Phantom Menace.… Expand

9 of 32 users found this helpful923

All this user's reviews

3

EssenceOfSugarDec 18, 2012

I almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't thatI almost died of boredom halfway through, because instead of having depth in the beautifully visual scenes like in the LOTR trilogy, it felt pretty empty. I didn't want to see what happened next, I wanted it to end. And seeing it wasn't that far through, the magic of Middle Earth was lost amongst waterfalls, mountains and lush forests, and I was assuming what they were searching for what was left of the storyline. But apart from that, what also made it worse, because I think other people who disliked this film would repeat that as a criticism, was the humour that was rolled out with each line one after each other, expecting us to laugh uproariously, when it felt forced and just generally unfunny. Much of it was low-brow humour, which was one of the reasons I disliked the dwarves, only really there to please the children. Apart from the visually beautiful scenes, the only element of the LOTR trilogy that was still there and alive was Gollum, who was on perfect form. Martin Freeman could seriously carry this film on his own, as there didn't seem to be much contribution from anyone else - maybe Ian McKellen, if I saw more of him.… Expand

5 of 17 users found this helpful512

All this user's reviews

3

EstepaheadMar 27, 2013

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,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 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

SilvermoonDec 19, 2012

A big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3DA big disappointment. I will not see the next one(s) due to this film. The first sequence, the history of the Dwarven home of Erebor, was amazing. It was done right. After that part of the film, the movie relies on the continuing "gag" of 3D tricks. It got tiresome within the first hour of the movie to see shot after shot, set up in layers to justify filming in 3D. The scenes inside Bag End with the plate tossing and especially in the orc caverns were groan worthy. The music sounded like a rehash of the LOTR soundtrack with one additional song. I understand, that they have similar areas -- elves, hobbit(s), wizard(s) but it just wasn't up to LOTR quality to me. The sets, outside of Bag End, seem very small, as if to save money. The cast seemed to be perpetually pressed up next to each other with CGI effects all around them. Almost as if they had a 4ft square piece of plywood to stand on in the middle of a blue screened room. This stood out -a lot-. CGI and 3D were the true stars of this movie. With more screen time given to both of these than any of the other actors. The CGI, which was done as an additional component to the story telling, as Alex Funke said during the making of LOTR, took center stage during this movie. It was rampant and very noticeable. I understand, that it simply impossible to make most or all of the monsters as latex appliances but they did that in the other movies. Why not here? Andy Serkis and Golem's animators were a joy to see. The flash back to Erebor was amazing. The rest of the movie simply wasn't up to the same calibur as those segments. It was more like an old 80's after-school special when compared to LOTR's quality -- and it painfully showed. Many many scenes were homages/repeats of LOTRs camera angles or effects. I could name them, but I don't want to embed them into people's permanent memory. If you have seen LOTR as often as I have, you will spot the same sequences/shots used in this movie as were previously done. That's lazy and it stands out. Also gone are the big sweeping grand panorama shots of LOTR. Lastly the obvious attempts at humor. It felt like George Lucas had directed this movie because PJ had to toss in some kid-friendly elements to make it a family movie instead of just telling the story.… Expand

7 of 20 users found this helpful713

All this user's reviews

3

OroiaelDec 14, 2012

Yawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic withYawn! I guess Jackson thinks he's a better storyteller than Tolkien, in which case he would be mistaken. I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to get three movies out of one book. The movie dragged on and on. There just wasn't any magic with this movie. Even Gollum was cheesy and over done. Blah. Stay home and put this in your Netflix queue. We should have known that this was going to happen. Jackson went from the Lord of the Rings to King Kong. He has tremendous potential to tell horrible stories and make bad movies. No one should be surprised.… Expand

13 of 63 users found this helpful1350

All this user's reviews

3

treedudeDec 16, 2012

I am disappointed in this movie.

Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW. I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie. You want to see the hobbitI am disappointed in this movie.

Peter Jackson wtf did you do, you make a joke about BALLS in a TOLKIEN MOVIE WOW.
I am a longtime fan from all of the books the video games, and the classic 70's cartoon movie.
You want to see the hobbit HAHA VERY **** DISSAPOINTING FOR LONGTIME FANS.

You know how people trim down film during the editing process, well that doesn't happen here, they literally put everything imaginable into the film just to cash out on poor suckers in a 1-3 installment.
You should have heard people saying what the **** after the movie suddenly cut off.

None of the battles were memorable thanks to the terrible framerate blur.

They had to seriously reference songs from the 70's cartoon movie just to make the audience chuckle.

Please don't give this a 10 unless you have reasons, just being a (good) film by beginners standards is not enough.

They could have improved this movie if they included the spiders but they didn't they wanted some goblin king and some orc to be protagonists.

I was waiting the whole time to see some live action enemies orcs, goblins anything but NO I AM DISSAPOINT. ALL ENEMIES WERE CG. GOLLUM LOOKS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE, he is cute wtf! he scared Bilbo in the Cartoon Version, and he scared the hobbits in The Lord of the Rings, but in this he is not scary at all in this version. They didn't even include the part where it was dark down in that cave where he uses the Sting for light they don't even examine the sword called sting no one even heard the word STING muttered WTF WTF!, but in this movie everything was visible.

Music was terrible and the jokes were terrible, half the audience was laughing at unfunny parts and half were laughing during the funny parts.

Bilbo does a terrible job acting around any cg enemy, he literally just smiles and giggles or makes a joke when he encounters an enemy.

The goblin king makes a lame joke, the dwarves can literally mow down any enemies they encounter.

13 Dwarves a wizard and a hobbit are not meant to mow down Millions of Orcs and Goblins in a blink of an eye. Why do they even consider running if after they run they just fight them off. Goblins are supposed to swarm and exhaust the enemy not die 1 by 1.

This film is Peter Jacksons (Phantom Menace) cg overloaded trash.… Expand

11 of 29 users found this helpful1118

All this user's reviews

3

MishavaDec 15, 2012

What i did like is the clever use of silence that made me nervous. Also Gollum part was interesting, and he was the only character that actually had his lines well written. What I didn't like? Everything else. Music, while there are niceWhat i did like is the clever use of silence that made me nervous. Also Gollum part was interesting, and he was the only character that actually had his lines well written. What I didn't like? Everything else. Music, while there are nice compositions, had too much recycled parts from LOTR. Visually too much weight was given to effects. While the light is good and it creates a nice atmosphere, dizzying camera movements and excessive computer graphics put shadow over that. I saw it as 3D, but I do not see the 3D, so i wont comment on that, ill only say that my friends told me that it was supposed to be there only at certain shots. Story is naive, some parts have no reason to be in the movie. Action scenes, well, they remind me of a video game. Rock rolling in the caves that cleans the goblins, trees collapsing like dominos and so on. And the childish humor, punch lines... the list goes on and it makes me wonder why did Jackson do this, behind him he has amazing movies, and this one is really not. And for the end, characters. They are not believable, Bilbo was not so interesting, Gandalf annoyed me with bad written lines and dwarves, well just stupid as **** Picture Gimli from LOTR, and then go back to 13 Santa s helpers. They look like someone gathered a bunch of crazy homeless people, gave them bad lines and a bunch of different medication. Overall it is a movie for 10 years old that don't want to bother to read a book. I did read it a couple of times, and maybe my overall score is affected by my big expectation. I doubt i will watch the movie again, and Im also not sure i will also go to cinema to watch the rest of the trilogy. Shame on you Peter Jackson.… Expand

13 of 43 users found this helpful1330

All this user's reviews

3

BedeDec 15, 2012

This was disappointing. As an avid fan of LotR I had been very much looking forward to this.The Hobbit however has turned out to be an over-long piece of bombast, lacking the magic and charm of the book. There are unforgivable alterations toThis was disappointing. As an avid fan of LotR I had been very much looking forward to this.The Hobbit however has turned out to be an over-long piece of bombast, lacking the magic and charm of the book. There are unforgivable alterations to the story - the humour in the unexpected tea party, or in Gandalf's outwitting the trolls - and at least three very loud, long and unnecessary battles which look like off cuts from LotR. The sets are too familiar also. This film really needed a new vision. That said, the cast is excellent and the quieter parts of the film are worth watching. But, how is Peter Jackson going to spin the story out for three movies? I won't be going to the next two to find out.… Expand

8 of 37 users found this helpful829

All this user's reviews

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

User Reviews