User reviews

I was a mere child when I watched LOTR franchise and I still liked it. Ever since, year by year, I grew fonder and fonder of the movies and they remain, and probably forever will, one of my favorite movies of all time. I've read all the books countless times (including Hobit) and when I saw that Hobbit was coming into the cinema, my mind was entirely wiped away from its existence due to excitement that entered me.

Now, movie review.

As expected from Peter - almost flawless masterpiece. Given that he had a lot of material to work with, I imagine it was quite hard to put everything together for the scenery - yet he did it, once more. He captured the feeling of the book and transcended it onto a screen; of course, it was not solely his credit, to not be mistaken. The acting was amazing - perfectly fitting into fantasy style. The chemistry between actors was more than just the obvious - you could actually feel their interactions and live the story. Yes, it was that good.

I have no need to begin writing about camera work and all that comes with it; locations were beautiful, effects and colors were mixed perfect, a soundtrack that followed through pattered with what was going on perfectly ... it is really one of those moments when you simply can't say enough because you know, regardless of how many words you put in, you still won't be able to describe things the way you felt them. I have only one thing to say: congratulations Mr. Jackson and rest of the cast.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will become classic without any doubt; I am just glad that I got to be a part of the generation that witnessed the never-dying franchise of Mr. Tolkien's work.

Now don't get me wrong from the summary, I did enjoy The Hobbit. I enjoyed it in fact more than I expected to especially since I delayed watching them because of certain fears and frustrations I had regarding it.

The Hobbit was the very first book I read back in the mid 80's and I adored it. I simply couldn't figure out how it could be turned into a trilogy! I feared it was being done so to milk the franchise and let's be honest that's exactly why it was done.

The Hobbit has most of the charm of LOTR and all of its beauty. Top that off with a stellar cast and it was destined to do well at the box office (Which it did) However something was different, something was.....off.

Though the film contains the same level of violence as LOTR its overflowing with comedy and goofiness. I expected some, but not to this extent. At one point it felt like I was watching Labyrinth (1986) again, not like that's a bad thing but I didn't expect it here.

It looks great, its scored near perfectly and as mentioned the cast do a great performance and it was nice to see the likes of James Nesbitt and Sylvester McCoy up on the big screen.

Inevitably there was going to be comparison with LOTR, that was inescapable and the comparison just doesn't help it at all. It pales in comparison and with all the silliness I found myself underwhelmed.

The Hobbit is a passable effort but is more like the Mythica series than Lord Of The Rings.

The Good:

Beautiful

Excellent score

Brilliant cast

The Bad:

Some parts go beyond comedic into the realms of silly

Martin Freeman just isn't leading man material

Goblin town song, really?

Stock scream was totally unnecessary

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Someone should never use the term "Mothers glory box" again

The distance Bilbo's sword needs to detect orcs/goblins changes between scenes, any particular reason?

Sure nothing much happens, but It's a relaxing expirience. I think its good.

This was too long... way too long. There is no reason to extend the movie to this length. The only reason I could see is that Peter Jackson doesn't have anybody who could say no to him. The pacing drags way too much in too many places. He tries desperately to add whimsy to this movie. However the slow pace and the hokey characterization really causes a lot of problems.

Of course, this movie has all the Lord of the Ring grand scale... as expected. That and the fact that the characters are likable and the story watchable means it can't get anything lower than 7 out of 10. I certainly hope Peter Jackson will get a better editor next time who has the guts to say no to him. Let's tighten up the story, Peter.

Xarnis's review: It seems I'm in the minority here, but I like this movie. I don't know of its because i've read The Hobbit, the trilogy, and the Silmarillion, or what. And while it's definitely not as good as the original trilogy, it does a fair job of setting up the next few Installments. Unfortunately, at some points, it does feel bloated and uninspired.

The performances are pretty good all around, but the standout is Martin Freeman. With this and Sherlock on BBC (where he plays Watson), Freeman has proved himself as a great actor with some good comedic timing. The effects are spectacular, and the battles are well-choreographed. The score is basically the same as the original trilogy, but it's still enjoyable. The effects, and the performances make you feel like you're back in Middle-Earth again.

One highlight scene happens between Martin Freeman's Bilbo and Andy Serkis' Gollum. I'm not going to spoil it, but it's great and makes you sad that Gollum won't appear in any of the later movies.

Unfortunately, the film has quite a few faults that cannot be dismissed. It's length could've easily been cut down to 2 hours, and the early portions of the film (especially a scene featuring actors from the previous trilogy) are fairly boring. The Dwarfs introductions were especially painful, but said dwarfs (the first five or so) have important roles to play later in the story. The ending is questionable as well, as is much unneeded content.

Overall, I found The Hobbit enjoyable. Maybe I'm giving too much credit because I'm a fan of the books, and can appreciate some of the extra content. I still liked the film on second watch, and I hope the next installments will make up for this one's faults.

Never managed to read the books but overall I enjoyed the Lord Of The Rings film trilogy with its relentless use of cgi cartoonery taken to its limits in furtherance of the story. So I was also looking forward to seeing this, the prequel being also a trilogy. Some people may want to call it Art, I call it maximising the potentialities of this particular revenue stream. After director Jackson has done with it maybe he'll find a way to continue the saga, in the same way that Dune, Shannara and other tales have been resurrected in print more times than Frankenstein.

Band of ragtag dwarfs looking for a home come unbidden in Bilbo Baggins the anti-hero's home to devise a way with Gandalf the hairy wiz to get their home in the Lonely Mountain back from the clutches of the Smaug dragon. Who unaccountably loves gold. One tedious chase or flight leads to another, however I suppose the tension does alternate between the tedious and the tiresome. The story development is almost nil because of the screenplay elongation and repetition in the real Quest to get money from the hordes of Smaugheads. The cutting edge cartoonery is used to the max, this alternating between impressive and laughable. Repetitive, complete and devastating mayhem rules yet there is no doubt there will be no casualties (except in the game version): vast mountain ranges thumping one another over their heads, half a million goblin-shapes against 14 are great odds, and falling miles into jagged ravines the brave band is as indestructible as Captain Scarlet would've been. Sometimes from a distance it looks like millions of hieroglyphics zanily slipping and sliding about a page. Gollum looked more like an old fashioned cartoon in this outing though, methinks someone was trying to save a few bob on him. I love all kinds of cartoons but this is unlovely. This was a motion picture I've just watched passively, not a game or I'm missing the controls.

Most kids under 20 years old will be entranced by it, older kids will face an increasing problem: they've seen it all before, and in this case within the same film too. It's incredibly well made in most visual departments and I enjoyed it to a point but along with most other ordinary films I've watched will never ever watch it again. My problem now is do I still bother with the next 3 hour instalment: The Hobbit – The Expected Flogging Of A Dead Horse.

Returning to Middle Earth felt a bit like a school reunion. I was pleased to be back, but slightly embarrassed and curiously unconcerned about former acquaintances. Two screenings caused me to wish they had left Tolkien's book well alone.

Peter Jackson can't be blamed. Or maybe he can be. He adapts the book so faithfully (or at least the first 50 pages I've read) that you wonder why he bothered.

The truth is The Hobbit is an inferior story to the Lord of the Rings. It's that simple. Compared with the grave prospect of the race of Men's extinction in Rings, this is kids' stuff – as Gandalf says, 'an adventure'. I could not watch it as a separate, distinct film. I saw it, and I'm sure others did too, as a direct prequel to Rings.

Why didn't Jackson make The Hobbit first? That he didn't, I think, is significant. Perhaps 15 years ago he didn't feel it was worth putting on the screen. Perhaps he didn't then feel the story was epic enough. Perhaps three billion reasons forced him to reconsider.

Whilst my second viewing (from a better vantage point) impressed me slightly more, nothing is new or improved. That's the paradox. How many sequels and prequels do we rue because of their deviance from the original? My complaint isn't that Jackson doesn't give us what we want; it's that he gives us what HE wants. Is this a director at the height of his creative ability producing something just because he can? The 1:3 book-to-film ratio would indeed suggest so.

Yes, the Orcs are scarier; yes, some of the fighting is bloodier; and yes, the Pale Orc Azog is truly menacing, especially with his improvised left arm, but compare these things to what's not so good. All 13 dwarfs are bereft of any character. At least Gimley was funny. The film felt desperately dragged out, despite some stunning sequences, including an exhilarating fight with goblins and a stunning bout between rocky mountains! The often dubious CGI cannot, however, be excused.

I am not optimistic about the next two films. Sure, I'll see them. I don't mind being proved wrong. But if this is to happen, some serious tweaking needs to be done before December. At the very least they ought to make Smaug look like he isn't from Mike the Knight.

The Hobbit is an extraordinary movie and deserves a lot more than it is getting. For some reason critics are giving the movie "average" reviews which doesn't make sense. The reason for this is because of expectations. Critics expected the movie to be like The Lord of the Rings and they didn't get that. They got something a little bit different. But that is not a bad thing because The Hobbit is a really good movie.

So to clear things up expect something different than the Lord of the Rings. You will notice some similar elements but you will also notice some changes and this is because The Hobbit (book) was a lot more lighthearted than The Lord Of The Rings. The Hobbit is an adventure, the Lord of the Rings is an epic. This is what the movie does great at: it feels like the book The Hobbit and doesn't try to act like The Lord of The Rings. And it shouldn't try to be The Lord of The Rings because IT ISN'T!

One of the things that I loved about this movie that stood out the most to me was its great sense of humor and dialogue. The character interaction is very good and each character has their own specific traits and characteristics. I give two thumbs up to Martin Freeman for playing the perfect Bilbo Baggins. He truly mastered the role and I couldn't have asked it to be any other way. Back to humor, there were many (a LOT) of moments where the theater burst out into laughter. The movie is genuinely funny which is one of its greater aspects. Now don't get me wrong, the rest of the movie is great but I just wanted to point out that the movie is funny and the characters are very well made.

A lot of people have been bickering about the whole 48 frames per second thing (it was 48, right?) and I just wanted to say that you shouldn't worry. I heard a lot of problems and complaints about it but honestly if Peter Jackson had NEVER said that it was in 48 fps no one would've cared or even noticed. It looks great and really smooth. It didn't take away from the experience at all and I'm glad Peter Jackson filmed it in 48 fps.

For those of you concerned about plot changes you shouldn't worry too much. There are some plot changes and I wouldn't say that they were necessarily for the better but they didn't harm the plot. The changes were mainly to explain the Middle Earth universe better and to explain some things that are important to know but weren't in the Lord of The Rings (I'm looking at you Radagast The Brown) and I can say that Radagast was well done even though he wasn't entirely necessary. He was in The Lord of The Rings book but not movie so he had to be shown eventually.

The visual effects are very good and I recommend 3D but everyone has their own preferences. The CGI was very good and is , of course, well ahead of its time. If there is one gripe (and this is my only real gripe for the movie) it is that the movie uses CGI way too much. The movie was a CGI feast and didn't rely on the standard special effects of The Lord of The Rings. Why is this a problem? Because in 10 years CGI will look outdated but high quality special effects will never look outdated which The Lord of The Rings has proved. Also I would say that the animators got a little carried away with the King Goblin and his horde. It wasn't terrible but it was a lot less serious and didn't seem too threatening, but that is more accurate to the book.

Oh yeah and good job Andy Serkis! The scene with Gollum was priceless and very very well done. I was surprised with how well it came out and I was also shocked out how Gollum was lovable and scary at the same time. It was really good.

Overall The Hobbit was a really good movie. The acting was top notch, the humor was great, it followed the spirit of the book well and kept itself lighthearted at all times and it has an awesome soundtrack (though a lot of reused tracks). The only gripes for the movie is the use of too much CGI and a couple of distracting side plots which changed the pace of the movie randomly. Still an excellent movie. Go see it for yourself!

As of 2012 and 2013, the initial reaction is to compare the fantasy journey among noble dwarfs and elves, and ignoble orcs and trolls, to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which technically occurs after this adventure.

Director Jackson did a supreme job on the trilogy, but no matter what you do, you can't please everyone, and he too unprovoked heat from both sides of the fence. Some purists insist on using everything from the book, including Bombadil and his overly blond Hitler idealism. While the dorks wanted less character and the sort of goofy arcade room look in special effects that make the crack heads happy.

Jackson goes out to appease the dorks in this one. Not a bad move, but certainly lacking in originality. Here, we get a bit more "formula" than what we would want.

The abuse of effects enhance the comic nature of this story. The three trolls act so much like the Three Stooges that it is obvious Jackson was alluding to them. One of Jackson's signature stamps is the way he alludes to classics, high brow and low brow.

The fellowship of nine from the trilogy includes Gandalf, Frodo, and seven others. This one includes Gandalf, Bilbo, and 13 others.

With 12 serving under the one, it's not as easy to keep tabs on the characters.

Since "The Hobbit" is done in trilogy format, Jackson appears to be comfortable to gradually let us learn about the 12 minor dwarfs. Here, 3 of them take center stage a lot, and 2 others a bit less. The other 7 are very anonymous.

Most of us won't hold that against Jackson, so long as he does more character development in the next film.

However, it's one thing to sacrifice the rapport for action, but quite another to sacrifice it for mindless drivel.

However, as it is part of a trilogy, one looks at this as a third of a film, or a third of a story. It is often the comedy that brings out the pathos of tragedy. Wen we live and laugh with a group of characters, we are filled with even more sadness when some die.

The accents are very thick, good for purists, but not for viewers. We rarely know what is being said, so while the big screen is great for the spectacle, it will be better with the closed captioning on a small TV screen.

Not all of the detriments are Jackson's fault. Remember that Tolkien wrote the Middle Earth saga with some inconsistencies. The orcs look bigger, more like the Uruk Hai, but perhaps that is because they are compared to dwarfs and hobbits. The contrasts in size don't appear to be correct at times. And the orcs look much more muscular than Tolkien intended.

Now, that was the problem with the film. Not much of a problem, is it? More like a nit pick.

My rating shows that it is indeed a nit pick. First of all, the film lasts well over two hours, but you come away from it thinking you spent less than an hour watching. That's the sign of a top director. It flows and moves effortlessly.

Next, Bilbo himself is a great character here. He is a throwback to old style films, of the golden age, the forties, fifties, and sixties.

Like the ring trilogy, the hobbit begins with the status quo, which changes. That's what makes this sort of story so magical. You begin in a shire, and wind up facing trolls, goblins, and dragons.

Jackson makes the climactic point of the saga, the point which fits into his entire Middle Earth legend, a point to remember. It is, of course, the point of Bilbo's mercy towards Gollum, which is done quite dramatically. This is the part of the film that is the classic moment, and Jackson knows this.

Not that there aren't other great moments. There are. When we do get to characters, Jackson shows us what a great director he is.

One of the great questions to be answered, since we know the Necromancer is Sauron, is whether Saruman is already duped by Sauron. It looks pretty evident that Saruman is already against the forces of good.

This takes us to the "breath of fresh air", the character that makes this film quite unique, and gives Jackson a stamp of originality. There has to be at least one "cool" character in a saga of this magnitude.

Enter RADAGAST THE BROWN, another wizard, like Gandalf. With him, Jackson has literary license, as Radagast is merely a name in the book, a name for a good wizard, but still mostly a name.

Radagast becomes the cool cat of this story. His presence is not of our era, but one for the past and for the future. As Gandalf puts it, one with a great heart, and of great power, although he scarcely looks the mighty wizard.

Radagast, Gandalf, Bilbo, and the dwarfs give us a great group of characters.

This looks like it shapes up to be part of a great trilogy, but is lacking on its own. It still needs the next two parts to justify it. I would rather the film stand on its own as a film, but it doesn't. It leaves you hanging, much like "The Empire Strikes Back" did. Many people like "Empire" films the best. To me, they are the least. In either case, they are necessary if you want to watch the entire trilogy.

I went in with an open mind despite being one of those who follows critics most of the time. To my surprise this turned out to be one of my favorite movies. It truly was a joy to watch this movie. I don't want to say much, I am mainly writing this (not much of a review) for those who follow the critics and may probably end up not seeing this on the big screen, well, please do watch it or you might regret it. There is not one single scene in this movie that I would take out, I think the length of the movie is totally justifiable with the content provided, I thought the pace was perfect. The casting of this movie and the voice acting for CGI characters are absolutely spot on. How often do we come across fantasy movies? Rarely. Fantasy or not, for those who love movies do yourself a favor and watch this as I am definitely going to watch it again.

Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" is a mighty epic fantasy, well over a thousand pages in length in most editions. Although Tolkien intended it to be a single novel, his publishers, for commercial reasons, issued it as a trilogy. (It is still often published in this form). When Peter Jackson adapted the work for the cinema, therefore, it made both commercial and artistic sense for him to make three separate films, "The Fellowship of the Ring", "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King", each based on one of the elements of the trilogy.

Tolkien's "The Hobbit", by contrast, is a relatively short book, in my edition only some two hundred pages long, much shorter than any of the three elements of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. It was originally intended for children (although it is the sort of children's book that can easily be enjoyed by adults) and is much less complex in terms of its plot and in terms of its themes than "The Lord of the Rings". It could easily have been made into a single film of around the standard two hours duration. I was therefore dubious when I heard that Jackson intended to turn the book into another trilogy, rivalling "The Lord of the Rings" in length.

Tolkien's story tells of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins and of his companions, a group of thirteen dwarfs and the wizard Gandalf, as they set out to rescue a hoard of stolen gold from a fierce dragon. It also tells of their various adventures at the hands of the other inhabitants of Tolkien's imagined realm of Middle Earth- trolls, goblins, elves and animals. The book can be read as an introduction to "The Lord of the Rings", which is supposed to take place some sixty years later, because it introduces characters such as Gollum and Gandalf, who will play an important role in the later work, and because it tells of the earlier history of the Ring, which it will later fall to Bilbo's nephew Frodo to destroy.

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is the first part of Jackson's second trilogy. Although it is nearly three hours in length, it only covers the first few chapters of Tolkien's book, which means that the original story has had to be padded out a lot. This is done by showing in great detail matters which are only briefly described in the book (such as how the dragon Smaug obtained the gold from the dwarfs in the first place) and even by introducing events which do not occur, and characters which do not appear, in the book at all. Some characters from "Lord of the Rings", such as Galadriel and the wizards Saruman the White and Radagast the Brown appear in the film, although they do not actually appear in Tolkien's "The Hobbit". (Radagast, who only plays a minor role in the later book, was omitted from the film version).

I have given this film a relatively high mark, because it has many virtues, most of them shared with the first trilogy. Visually the film is very attractive, with a brilliantly imagined world of Middle Earth, set against some striking photography of the New Zealand landscapes. The various malevolent beings of Tolkien's mythology, the trolls, goblins and wargs (huge, ferocious wolf-like creatures) are all successfully realised; the vulgar and stupid trolls largely serve as the film's main comic relief. The very talented composer Howard Shore again provides the musical score, as he did for the first trilogy. Several of the actors from the earlier films, notably Ian McKellen as the wise, kindly Gandalf and Andy Serkis as the wretched Gollum, successfully reprise their roles, and there are good performances from newcomers Martin Freeman as the young Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm returns as the older Bilbo) and Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, the determined and headstrong leader of the dwarfs. The other dwarfs, on the other hand, apart from the fat, lazy Bombur, do not really come across as sharply-defined individuals, but this was also a weakness in Tolkien's book.

I will reserve my final judgement on the wisdom of turning "The Hobbit" into a trilogy when I have seen the other two instalments, "The Desolation of Smaug" and "There and Back Again", but "An Unexpected Journey" has confirmed my initial suspicion that this lighter, shorter book was not really a suitable candidate for the full heroic fantasy treatment given to "The Lord of the Rings". Too often Jackson and his scriptwriters seemed to be guilty of padding out a very slight text in order to produce something inappropriately grandiose, and I found myself wishing that he could have found an alternative format for filming "The Hobbit". 7/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first part of the movie adaption of J.R.R. Tolkiens "The Hobbit". It was written years before "The Lord of the Rings" and intended for a younger audience. Making it into a movie after "The Lord of the Rings", is a very difficult task. The Hobbit's tone is quite light hearted and it's literarily somewhat inferior to its sequel. Also, for consistency some changes to the story would have to be made. Thus I was a little skeptical before I saw it.

After seeing the first part now, I can say the result is very good so far. It's not a perfect movie, but far from bad. There are some problems with Tolkiens book and as far as the story was told, they were handled very well. It went by the book where it should have and went different ways where it was necessary.

One of the greatest weaknesses is probably Radagast. Most of the parts involving him were way too goofy for my taste. Another problem was the story telling rhythm. Some scenes felt jumpy, others felt stretched too thin.

Anyway: Prepare to see a more humorous and playful movie than the Lord of the Rings films. I'm definitely looking forward to the next parts.

Years after the groundbreaking Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Peter Jackson returned to Middle Earth by adapting the prequel, The Hobbit. The first sign of just how controversial the films would become was the revelation that the book, which runs about 230 pages, would be split into three films. Now, with the Lord of the Rings, it makes sense: three books, three movies. However, The Hobbit was just one book. And suffice it to say, the signs of just how much padding it would take to split the book into three films is there from Part One. The film takes a full 40 minutes to get to the titular journey. Granted, Fellowship of the Ring took that long to get there too. But, it had to establish the setting, the characters, and the massive stakes. The stakes aren't that massive here, despite attempts to make them seem so. And sure, it has an almost entirely new cast, but we'll get to that. The point is they could have trimmed the fat and gotten to the fun stuff quicker. With that said, when we actually get to the fun stuff, it moves at a reasonable pace and perfectly showcases all the stuff we only heard about in the original films, like the trolls and the encounter with Gollum, as well as cool new stuff, like Azog, the goblins, and Radagast.

The biggest problem with the film, in my opinion, is that, unlike the Fellowship before it, the main cast, with a few exceptions, doesn't have enough differences to distinguish from each other. The Dwarfs aren't lacking in personality (they provide some of the biggest laughs) or creative design, but they look too similar and the film (and indeed the sequels) never takes the time to properly introduce most of them or even make it easier to know who is who. Then again, this problem originates from the book, so it's hard to lay the blame squarely on the film. However, they could have at least replaced all the filler with establishing the characters better. With all that said, the characters that do get established are enjoyable and well acted. Thorin is a cool leader who you do NOT want to mess with. And Bilbo and Gandalf are great as always, as are the other returning characters.

From a technical standpoint, the film is as awesome as you'd expect. It's great to see the Shire and Rivendell again, and the new places, like Erebor and the Goblin Kingdom, look good. The effects, both practical and CG, are impressive as usual. The music has some great beats, both old and new. And the action scenes are a ton of fun, especially when the Dwarfs fight, showcasing their different weapons and the various ways they use them.

Overall, is An Unexpected Journey anywhere near as good as the previous films? Absolutely not, not even close. But, is it terrible or even bad? I refer you to the answer to my first question. It's a decent start to a decent trilogy, for what that's worth.

Traveling back to Middle Earth is always a treat. If you take the approach of soaking in the lore and marveling in Tolkien's world, there is much more to enjoy about this film. That being said, many of the scenes are over-long and the story is drawn out, which makes the original version feel like the extended edition.

As someone who loves the atmosphere of the Shire, spending the first 40 minutes in the hobbit village is wonderful. However, the pacing of the story definitely is on the slower side. So much happens, and at the same time nothing happens. While the film is not as eloquent as the "golden trilogy", the score is brilliant, the acting is strong and Middle Earth is visually beautiful.

Best Character: Bilbo Best Quote: "I've found it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay." - Gandalf Best Scene: "I Miss My Books" scene Best Piece of Score: "Old Friends" Best Song: "Misty Mountains"

The expectations of "The Hobbit" were extremely high right from the start. While "Lord of the Rings" is already one of the greatest movies of all time, that's where you have to put the movie. Freed from all prejudices, Peter Jackson was able to empathize with the world of Tolkien with his first part of The Hobbit. However, the film suffers from its enormous length and thus tension holes. All three parts could have been cut into two parts, if not one part. Nevertheless, the film is worthwhile for its great camera work alone.

Originally Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct the Hobbit series. Whether he had two or three films at the time he was in pre-production is uncertain, but he still retains a co-writing credit on the scripts. His presence, I think, can be most felt in this film, An Unexpected Journey, which also takes the most from JRR Tolkien's original book of the title. His sense of grandeur and love for creatures - unique, big, small, darker and more disgusting and 'out-there', the better, which I'm sure jived with Peter Jackson's tastes - is there big and large here, and it helps in moments... and perhaps detracts in others when things go on, and on, and on.

Now that the trilogy is complete, I can look back on this first film and see that there was actually a lot that was good about it, at least in the sense of kicking off this new series of films starring that Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, arguably the reason if nothing else to see the movie as it's a tremendous performance for all of the little moments and gestures he gets right). Bilbo is a stubborn little guy, though not as much as the dwarfs who crash his house to eat and inform him - via Gandalf the Grey and Thorin Oakenshield, a son of a departed king - that he is to go on a journey to help them get back their gold and kingdom from a diabolical dragon named Smaug.

Of course, this was originally a children's book - not three separate ones like LOTR, just one, and the first version was not as complex as it later became with rewrites and reissues - and here it gets puffed up to unimaginable heights. Though shortened and imperfect, a 1977 animated film got the whole story in under 90 minutes. Ironic that Jackson's 'Rings' series was the best criticism of the Bakshi adaptation, where now it's reversed. His film is loaded with action and adventure, some of it well choreographed, scary, exciting, deranged, and just... long. And, as with a lot of franchises (including Star Wars) things have to tie together, even if inorganically. Hence you get appearances from Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett (albeit as actors they're never unwelcome, just sad it's this dragging material) as characters not in the book, only to serve as connecting tissue for the "Larger" threat that is really in the background of a tale of a little hobbit and the dwarfs.

The film is the definition of hit or miss, and when it misses, such as an overbearing climax that just feels too BIG for its britches, giving a massive dose of epic battle to something that isn't that big, it's a lot to bear. But when it hits, I hasten to say it was almost (not quite, but almost) worth it for Jackson to come back to this series. The highlight above all else is Bilbo's 'Riddles in the Dark' with Gollum. Though the visual effects were astonishing and groundbreaking with him years ago, here they've gotten *better* and, in just once scene, we get so much from this character all over again - a showstopper, naturally for Andy Serkis in the best possible way, playing it for comedy, tragedy, horror, everything you dig about this character - that it's a reminder how much character is paramount in these types of films. You can have all the sweeping shots of New Zealand and characters running this way and that and CGI monsters and peril... but two people having a conflict over a piece of gold is much, much more intriguing.

Indeed that one scene is a 10/10. But there's too much 'filler', so to speak, scenes that drag and characters who either have too much backstory (Thorin, the a-hole of the series and the kind of co-protagonist with Bilbo) or not enough. I enjoyed Unexpected Journey, maybe, just barely, the most out of all these new releases. But the lack of a consistent tone - some things played for much broader comedy than anything in Lord of the Rings, some things so dark that they nearly become comical, and action that feels like it's still going even after the movie ends - I don't know. It's a film where you can feel brilliance and mediocrity fighting one another.

This is my first time reviewing a movie here on IMDb, and the main reason is this: Though overall a good movie, some aspects of it left me deeply unsatisfied. I just want to share a little bit of why I was disappointed. Even though it is extremely unlikely that my opinion have any influence over the two following installments, being silent completely eliminates the possibility. The review may contain minor spoilers, so read at your own risk.

So, let's start with the good things about this movie: It is extremely well done technically and artistically. The landscapes, props, costumes and camera work is absolutely fantastic. The movie delivers absolutely stunning environments, way more realistic and detailed than LOTR. The music is good and the overall feeling is great. The acting was good in my opinion, and the dwarfs were humorous, yet not to the extent of becoming silly. This was one of the big reliefs for me, as I expected all dwarfs except Thorin to be clowns - After all, we all saw what Peter Jackson did to Gimli in LOTR. If it weren't for the criticism I am going to post below, I would give this movie a 9/10.

And here are the things that I disliked: The movie started good, but during the second half, things turned ugly. - The situations sometimes become totally absurd. The characters falls down great heights, get trapped on a rock giants leg and gets stuck in a "rain of boulders". And no one gets hurt. It seems like all of this is only created to maximize the use of special effects. It adds nothing to the story. The result, for me, was a total lack of tension, as I got the impression that the characters were immortal anyway, so why worry? The amount of impossible action sequences was just too large for this movie to be taken seriously. And then, in the middle of all this, the cheesiest comic relief I have ever seen is delivered. Embarrassing. Also I have a great problem with the way small things in scenes are changed, only making the movie worse than the book. The LOTR was also filled with these changes, which ruined parts of the last two movies for me, as I had the bad judgment of reading the books first. I also think that the movie was too long. If some of the pointless action scenes were removed, it would have been a much better movie overall.

Hopefully the upcoming two movies will be better. An Unexpected Journey had the potential of becoming a fantastic movie. In my opinion it failed. So please, regarding the following movies, lets not ruin them with idiotic action sequences like "legolas skating down a stair on a shield while shooting his bow" in The Two Towers, or "Trolls delivering cheesy one-liners before dying" in The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey.

And yes, I have read the books, several times.

7/10