The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Reviews

Page 1 of 1070
jamrcla
Super Reviewer
September 23, 2017
A brilliant prequel, Visually stunning, The 3D was ok only the odd bit was impressive, All the cast were very good, It's not as good as The Lord of the Rings maybe just slightly under due to the amount of effects used but still great, I was worried the first hour was going to be very boring from what I read but it wasn't too bad it was a little slow but like the rest of this movie when it is slow it's still good, My only downfall was they made it too kid friendly and the effects of the eagles were not great and it didn't have the dark grittiness that The Lord of the Rings had, Overall a must watch film and 2 hours 45 minutes goes by smoothly-ish.
September 10, 2017
After The Lord of the Rings set such a high standard for fantasy films and Peter Jackson has proved himself to be a masterful director this film is a complete an utter disappointment. The book, The Hobbit, is a short, light hearted adventure and in choosing to try and convert it to an epic trilogy, it is turned into a bloated, ridiculous story that crawls along at a snail's pace. This is the first time I've been brought to Middle Earth and been unutterably bored and impatient with what's unfolding. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey takes a long time to get started and tries desperately to add elements that aren't in the book to tie it to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The only memorable characters in it are Bilbo and Gandalf, that Ian Mckellen and Martin Freeman play quite well, and the group of dwarves that we are supposed to invest almost 3 hours of our time into are so bland and similar to one another you find yourself just waiting for the film to be over. The part of the story I was actually looking forward to, where Bilbo meets Gollum, is thrown away so quickly and with such little thought that I considered just walking out of the cinema altogether. Not worth anyone's time, I do not look forward to watching the rest of the disaster trilogy.
½ August 27, 2017
It followed the book except for Azog however Azog was a well developed character that did complement this movie and the story by giving it a good villain. There were good things about this movie but it was a little boring to tell the truth. It didnt get fun and exciting untill goblin town but at least the movie left off on a satisfying note.
½ August 15, 2017
Sooooo different than the book. Too many elements from the Lord of the Rings. Disappointing.
½ August 14, 2017
An unexpected journey has some interesting bits, nice songs and soundtrack, but is a poor follow up to its predecessor LOTR triology. As a whole, Hobbit triology is puke and don't even think about watching the extended edition, even more disappointing.
August 11, 2017
The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey Is Unexpectedly Bad

For those who loved the acclaimed The Lord of the Rings film trilogy directed by Peter Jackson, we are surprised at Jackson's disappointing production of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (a prequel to LotR). This first installment is repetitive, unrealistic, and difficult to connect with.
A huge problem concerning The Hobbit trilogy is Jackson's decision to extend the short book into 3 long films, the first being 169 minutes. As a result, we have scenes that go on far too long. For example, Bilbo's (Martin Freeman) call to action takes 40 minutes, including a ridiculous, but unfunny, dinner scene with the dwarves. Afterwards, Bilbo rejects the dwarves' job offer of burglar, and it is truly unexpected when he wakes up the following morning and runs after them.
The rest of the movie follows Gandalf (Ian McKellen), Bilbo, and the dwarves as they travel partway to The Lonely Mountain, the dwarven home. There, the dwarves hope to slay the dragon Smaug and reclaim a large hoard of treasure. On their journey they encounter trolls, goblins, orcs, and the peculiar wizard Radagast who drives a sleigh pulled by bunnies. Yes, I said he drives a sleigh pulled by bunnies.
In LotR, there was a feeling of danger and suspense when unskilled hobbits encounter a single orc or evade galloping horses that could trample them in an instant. In The Hobbit, the adventurers fight hundreds of goblins, go careening down a deep cavern on a rickety, wooden bridge (without receiving any wounds), and the old wizard Gandalf hangs, with a single hand, from a tree branch above a fatal plummet, holding two dwarves, for two long minutes. Was this supposed to be dramatic? The music may indicate so, but these scenes, among others, were only silly.
The Hobbit's appearances are sometimes as unrealistic as its story. Although The Hobbit has high quality Computer Generated Imagery, the quantity of CGI makes the movie look unrealistic. In LotR, orcs look like an actual living species, whereas in The Hobbit they look like animation.
Additionally, in LotR, there was intra-party drama: Legolas and Gimli's progression from a hatred between elves and dwarves to competitive friendship, Boromir's duty to the fellowship versus his lust for the ring, and the ring's slow corruption of Frodo against his loyal friend Sam. Out of the 14 party members in The Hobbit, only Bilbo, Thorin (Richard Armitage), and Gandalf show depth of character, and their entire intra-party drama could be summarized as such:

Thorin: "You don't belong here, Bilbo. You are nothing but a burden."
Bilbo: "You are right; I never should have come, but for some reason I did."
Thorin: "I was wrong, Bilbo. After you saved my life, I realized that you are useful to the company."
Bilbo: "Thanks, Thorin. I miss my home, but I realize that you don't have a home, and I want you to have a home, so I'll stay and help you fight a dragon."

Now, there were a few good parts in The Hobbit. The visual scenery was incredible. Martin Freeman's portrayal of the reluctant yet courageous Bilbo was excellent. I loved the scene where Bilbo obtains the one ring and has a riddle match with Gollum (Andy Serkes). There I could focus on two fantastic characters without being distracted by the violent, noisy dwarves.
The Hobbit was far too extreme in graphics and in length, which did not make the film epic, but long winded. If you like ridiculous, pointless, and far fetched fight sequences, go ahead and watch The Hobbit; otherwise, stick to the book.
August 8, 2017
Shockingly different from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The tone is much more light hearted and fun, compared to the previously dark and edgier films. This isn't a bad thing, just a shock from what I was expecting. The chemistry between the travellers is remarkable. I found myself smiling as the band of adventurers were talking amongst themselves and interacting with one another. The scene in Bilbo's home where he meets the dwarves for the first time is so enjoyable. Just watching them give Bilbo a hard time was so fun and light hearted. It had me smiling and enjoying every second of it. The tone is the problem at some points of the film however. The film is a pendulum. It swings from complete fun and happiness to total dread. There is no in between at all. It is jarring to see this shift. All in all its a good movie that is worth multiple viewings
August 6, 2017
Well...it's been a long-time coming, and I wasn't disappointed. Seeing in 3D helped and hindered the film, adding depth.. but making some parts noticeably CGI. Hooked from the start though, and 3hrs flew by. A slow start, but soon built some pace.. and the excitement stayed with me for all of the second half. Some awesome action dotted throughout, and I loved the comic tone that Jackson has maintained. Loving the Brit heavy cast too, and Martin Freeman does a brilliant Bilbo. Bring on the next two!!
July 28, 2017
Even BETTER than the theatrical cut. The extended sequences really help flesh out the character of the dwarves, and allows more time to develop Bilbo's persona. Not to mention the extra exposition regarding Sauron and The Ruling Ring/Rings of Power by the White Council.
½ July 25, 2017
Peter Jackson's visual style is evident, and that is all and well, but The Hobbit has quite a few flaws regarding pacing, thus staining an otherwise solid origin tale.
July 24, 2017
There's a lot more to enjoy than carp about with Peter Jackson's first part of the prequel to Lord of the Rings. It's gorgeously designed and photographed, has a brace of very good performances (although McKellen's strangely top-billed Gandalf is pure parboiled gammon), and, considering its inordinate length, moves at a clip. Martin Freeman is a terrific Bilbo - genuinely charming and funny. Very enjoyable.
½ July 18, 2017
Excited about this one.
July 14, 2017
This movie is awesome. I think it's underrated. The acting is great, the cinematography is of course fantastic as it is in all of these movies. The special effects are incredible. I was riveted the whole entire time. This is a must watch.
½ July 9, 2017
I might be alone, but I thought that the 3D effects were fine.
June 29, 2017
Khaled HFR 3D VO
Gaumont Marignan 26/12 20h45
June 28, 2017
Peter Jackson returns to Middle-Earth with action-packed battle sequences, perfectly written characters, and a nearly flawless plot, but doesn't provide many major similarities to the book.
June 25, 2017
Beautiful movie, alongside lotr. I would change nothing about it and would be really happy to see another one made. Huge fan! I think they did an incredible job with the movies everything was just right! I watch it over and over again, it's that amazing
½ June 15, 2017
While the greed of turning a 300 page book to a 9 hour trilogy is clear, Jackson's return to Middle- Earth is spectacular and entertaining.
June 9, 2017
There is no denying the majesty in Peter Jackson's visuals but nothing to compare with the Lord of The Rings Trilogy
June 9, 2017
I am a big fan of the hobbit can you put it on



???
Page 1 of 1070