‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ Review

Published 1 year ago by , Updated September 11th, 2014 at 2:33 am,

Martin Freeman Bilbo The Hobbit The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first installment in Peter Jackson’s new Middle-earth trilogy – once again based on the beloved fantasy world created by author J.R.R. Tolkien. After director Guillermo del Toro left the project, Jackson returned to the director’s chair and expanded the would-be film series – originally conceived as a two-part adaptation of The Hobbit storyline – into a full-on Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy.

While the plot of Part 1, An Unexpected Journey, and Part 2, The Desolation of Smaug, offer a relatively straightforward storyline, the mystery surrounding Part 3, There and Back Again, has left many fans wondering if Jackson and New Line Cinema sacrificed a quality Hobbit adaptation in favor of a third opportunity for box office earnings.

There and Back Again is set for release in summer 2014, so it’ll be awhile before we can definitively weigh in on that trilogy decision; however, if The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is any indication of what’s to come, Lord of the Rings faithfuls have reason to be hopeful that the director will create another captivating round of adventures in Middle-earth. An Unexpected Journey does not match the scale established in Lord of the Rings, but there are still plenty of eye-popping visuals, enchanting action set-pieces, and intriguing character cameos, to prevent the film from being the underwhelming (and cheesy) experience that some skeptics were anticipating. In fact, the more intimate storyline, centered around reluctant/adventure-loving hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), his thirteen dwarf companions, and the renowned Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), often outshines similar plot beats from The Fellowship of the Ring.

Richard Armitage The Hobbit The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), son of Thráin, son of Thrór, ready to reclaim the Lonely Mountain.

In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a pre-Lord of the Rings Bilbo Baggins has abandoned his thirst for adventure in favor of a safe and comfortable life in The Shire. For years, Bilbo has preferred the quiet of Bag End, his Hobbit-hole, a well-stocked pantry, and the warmth of his fireplace to the beauty and terrors of the lands beyond his home – until Gandalf the Grey knocks on his door.

The wizard invites the hobbit on a quest to help a band of dwarves retake their homeland, The Lonely Mountain, from a ruthless and dangerous dragon, Smaug. Unwilling to resist the chance for adventure, Bilbo agrees to accompany the group, which is led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), heir to the King Under the Mountain crown. The company faces challenge after challenge, and – unbeknownst to even the wise Gandalf – bears first witness to a dangerous sequence of events that will haunt the next generation of hobbits, dwarves, elves, and men.

Unsurprisingly, there are several similarities between An Unexpected Journey and The Fellowship of the Ring, most notably the core premise (a ragtag group of heroes on a life-or-death quest through the wilds of Middle-earth); however, Jackson’s latest installment is differentiated by a number of smart filmmaking choices and solid character dynamics that were present in the Tolkien source material – especially the multifaceted Bilbo Baggins.

Ian McKellan Gandalf The Hobbit Movie The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

Kili, Bifur, Gandalf, Dwalin, Dori, and Bilbo in ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’

Freeman gives a sharp and charming performance as the brave hobbit – adding nuance to a role that draws stark contrast to Elijah Wood’s turn as Frodo (who enjoys an especially light-hearted cameo return). Unlike the Lord of the Rings protagonist, Bilbo revels in his adventure – even when he’s in over his head – with a solid balance of wit, humor, and bravery that translates into genuinely entertaining (as well as emotionally impactful) scenes. Even though the tone of The Hobbit novel is a bit lighter compared to Lord of the Rings, the film version of Bilbo easily fits into Jackson’s darker overarching movie universe – which should be a relief to viewers that were put-off by the rowdy dwarf antics that have dominated the movie adaptation’s marketing.

In fact, the dwarves successfully walk a very fine line between jolly goofballs and downright tough-as-nails warriors. Many of their respective combat sequences aren’t just exciting, they include unique action beats that are especially impressive when you take into consideration the blend of camera tricks, CGI, and practical prosthetics used to make onscreen interactions look believable when dwarf, goblin, hobbit, and wizard parts all collide in battle. A flashback sequence that establishes Thorin as the leader of the dwarf company is especially impressive, and could rival fan-favorite battles from Return of the King – cementing the character as one of the toughest brawlers in Middle-earth.

Several subtle (and some not-so subtle) changes lead to tense and exciting action sequences, complete with imaginative visual spectacle, helping to ratchet up the relatively modest Hobbit source material storyline – and produce a film experience that matches the thrill and breadth of the original film trilogy. That said, franchise fans will also appreciate many iconic character moments in An Unexpected Journey – notably the fateful game of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis). Jackson manages to provide even the quietest scenes with weight – as certain developments carry impact far beyond the short-term Hobbit-centric storyline.

Gollum Andy Serkis The Hobbit Movie The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Review

Gollum (Andy Serkis), Sméagol, ‘Riddles in the Dark’ fanatic.

Unfortunately, not all of the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings bridging serves the story at hand – resulting in a lengthy film (169 minutes) that contains a few overlong or disjointed scenes. All of the Lord of the Rings foreshadowing is interesting, but at times it undercuts the importance of the current objective (Smaug and the Lonely Mountain). It’s clear that The Hobbit story could have likely been told in two films and, as a result, viewers will probably be mixed on the success of the bridging scenes in An Unexpected Journey, The Desolation of Smaug, as well as There and Back Again; however, the extra content hardly undermines the quality of Jackson’s latest effort – even for especially cynical moviegoers.

Adding to the controversy is the director’s choice to shoot in 48 frames-per-second – a format that results in hyper-realistic visuals but, as many filmmakers argue, is so true-to-life that it can actually be a distraction – depriving filmgoers of immersion. We’ve put together a separate editorial discussing the successes and shortcomings of The Hobbit in 48fps but, with regard to a review recommendation, without question the format is worth experiencing – if for no other reason than to form your own opinion (assuming there’s a HFR 3D-ready theater near you). 48fps can be disorienting at first, but An Unexpected Journey makes smart use of the presentation – delivering a number of jaw-dropping visual set pieces. There are plenty of movies that we would not want to see in 48fps and, much like 3D, filmmakers should be smart about when to use and avoid the format, but Jackson’s Hobbit movie is a worthy (and encouraging) trial run.

In the long run, The Hobbit prequels could be weakened by Jackson’s expanded three film plan, but if Part 2 and Part 3 are as enjoyable as An Unexpected Journey, it’ll be hard for moviegoers to complain. The film includes everything that made the original Lord of the Rings trilogy so memorable – action-adventure, charm, humor, and breath-taking fantasy battles. Sure, a few extemporaneous Lord of the Rings elements slow things down and distract from the core Hobbit storyline, but overall, the director has once again presented audiences with a captivating and exciting trip to Middle-earth.

If you’re still on the fence about The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, check out the trailer below:

-

[poll id="477"]

-

Let us know what you thought of the film in the comment section below. If you’ve seen the movie and want to discuss details about the film without worrying about spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, please head over to our Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Spoilers Discussion.

For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant editors check out our Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey episode of the SR Underground podcast.

Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick for future reviews, as well as movie, TV, and gaming news.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images. Now playing in 2D, 3D, IMAX, and 48fps theaters.

Our Rating:

4 out of 5
(Excellent)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: the hobbit

178 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I loved it. The movie is long though. I think maybe 30-45 minutes of the beginning could have been cut down but overall once you get past the beginning portion of the movie it is awesome. The movie follows paths of the LOTR but by all means does it mean it’s as epic(so far). Freeman is tremendous as Bilbo. I had some reserves about the dwarves before the movie but after watching it I have grown to love the characters as they were shown. On to the HFR. The good is that the scenery is just epic especially in 3D. Everything shown was very smooth and lifelike. The part where Bilbo, dwarves, and Gandalf are at his place is awesome because you feel like you are actually there. The fight scenes are smooth and the blur factor is very slim. The 3D is done rather well with the exception of some things could have been done better but overall I would say it’s the best 3D experience I have had since Avatar/Tron 2. The bad thing is that if you are not used to this HFR(TV’s at 240hz,480hz) then you will most likely feel like you are at a play. It does take about a couple of minutes to get used to the HFR in 3D. The clarity is very high and you will be able to see things like some of the props done inside a studio rather than the outdoor side of NZ along with some of the makeup. Some of the fight scenes still has the same “blur” factor that would be in 24fps but overall it’s a great experience. I do see this as being the future of filming just like how 3D took off.
    For people who are skeptical of the HFR I would recommend watching the 24fps 3D first. Watching the movie at regular will give people the movie experience that is normally done and then check out the HFR in 3D. One person last said it best, “This was like watching standard television for soo long and then being introduced to HDTV. I expected some kinks to be here and there but the clarity of the movie was just amazing”.

  2. Saw it last night at the midnight showing. I am a huge Tolkien fan so I had high hopes. I must say that I was not idisappointed. I thought it was an amazing film that did a good conveying the lighter tones of the Hobbit while still providing a major dose of action and plot. This movie went farther tha I thought it would leading metro be a little skeptical of having three movies. There is going to have to be a lot of bridge material if they keep the same run times for the other two movies. I agree with the reviewer that some of the extra content took away from the main plot,but it all felt like a natural part of the events of the time.

    I saw the movie in 2D so I can comment on the higher frame rate or 3D quality. However, I can say that it is worth the price to go see it this Christmas season. Overall it was a great return to Middle Earth and has me anxiously waiting for next year.

  3. Yep…. you’re right Ben.

    It’s a WB cash grab to make The Hobbit into three movies. It should have been one movie. At most two. Tolkien’s Hobbit is a short book. Much shorter than any one of the Lord of the Rings trilogy books.

    I don’t know if Jackson is at fault. I blame WB. They weren’t driving the bus for Jackson’s LOTR movies. New Line Cinema was behind the Rings trio. WB bought New Line later and absorbed them into their zombie corporate flesh.

    • I’ve actually read in interviews that a lot of the appendixes and additional stuff that Tolkien wrote is being included in these films so I’d say that’s why they thought they could stretch it to two films (or three as the case is now).

      I’m not saying it isn’t a cash grab, etc. by WB (remember when they pushed the HP7 release back 6 months to have it be a summer film? Bastards) I just don’t think the third film will be boring. It will probably be used to bridge between The Hobbit and LoTR times.

      • Going by the names of the next two films, the story from the hobbit book should provide plentiful resource for the films. What people forget is that most of the lord of the rings books were actually cut out for the films and lots of characters were not included, like Tom Bombadil, Radagast, Thranduil, etc. If the lord of the rings were used to the fullest they would have been able to provide another film or two. Within giving away any spoilers for the Hobbit, there are still two major events that occur. One can assume that with the title of the 2nd Hobbit film one of those events happens there, and then the main event in the third. There are also main characters yet to be introduced.

        People saying he could fit the whole book into one film obviously have not read the books. Just my 2 cents…

        • I have read the books.

          Jackson made Fellowship of the Ring into one movie.

          He made The Two Towers into one movie.

          And he made Return of the King one also.

          All three of these books are much longer than The Hobbit. I always considered The Hobbit a children’s book….. or young adult maybe.

          Cash Grab. Just my 2 cents…

          • So you think he should have made one film with the Trolls Smaug and the battle of 5 armies all in one film?? Also on top of that expect to have character development of all the Dwarfs with enough screen time for them all and also Radagast, Bard, Bilbo, Dain, Thranduil and the enemies? The film would be end up dreadful and rushed.

            • I wholeheartedly agree Oli.
              Maybe we shouldn’t judge whether it was a cash grab until we’ve actually seen all three movies…

            • If fleshed our dwarfs are whats intended he failed. Yeah you got 2 more films bht only thorin and kili shined. Everyone else blends together and i cant see ot changing much.

              • So you want a longer movie? People need to make up their minds.

            • dont forget Beorn!

            • I agree, too, Oli. I never felt like I really knew the dwarves from The Hobbit, and 3 films to broaden their roles and personalities, I’m all for that.

            • Oli, would I want the story in one film… in a word, YES!

              Heustis is absolutely right, Jackson was more than able to adapt each of the LOTR books into single films, so why not the same treatment with ‘The Hobbit’, a book much shorter and brisker than it’s sequel(s), he unnecessarily expanded mere lines of the novel into entire scenes where none existed, and incorporated the appendices into the story, something that Tolkien himself never intended – he abandoned a comprehensive revision of the novel after only three chapters, preferring to leave it as was – had they faithfully ADAPTED the novel to the screen, it would, could, and indeed should have made for one amazing 200-minute movie, but alas, between Jackson’s indulgences and the studios’ dollar fixation, we’ll never get that great single movie…

              And a single movie would not have been rushed, you just wouldn’t include every last comma, full stop, and punctuation mark from the novel, you would adapt it like you would any other novel… was ‘The Return of the King’ rushed (?), that was a 624-page book adapted into a 201-minute film which flowed beautifully and had proper pace and rhythm, so likewise should have been done with ‘The Hobbit’, not everyone is a Tolkien fanboy, and not everyone wants to spend nine hours watching a story that should rightly take no more than just over three hours to tell.

            • Yes. One movie would have been better. There was too much disjointed material pulled in from other ‘apocryphal’ sources, and too much sheer fabrication and – worse – misrepresentation of the true text and spirit of ‘The Hobbit.’ As an example, it was Saruman who referred to Radagast as ‘the fool’ in LOTR, but Jackson and Boyens seem to have taken that comment as canonical truth rather than as a reflection of Saruman’s twisted and perverted values of machine over nature. But many, many more examples could be cited.

          • Each Lord of the rings book was actually made up of two separate books, they were just published as either three or one large one.

            The hobbit is actually the longest book he wrote.
            Also the hobbit is split into three movies but the third is NOT just the hobbit.

          • You also need to remember that the original trilogy was a HUGE gamble by WB; investing a sizable chunk of cash not to mention green lighting multiple films even before they began. I would be you that if Jackson and WB had it to do over again NOW, they would have probably expanded it to six movies…..If Harry Potter can have 7 movies, why not?

            • WB had nothing to do with LOTR……. New Line Cinema was bought by WB afterwards.

              • The Hobbit is only 2 films, the 3rd will be the 100 or so pages that Tolkien never published, i think it’s perfectly fine doing that, this film would of been like nearly 4 hours as opposed to 2.5 hours if it was 1 film and would of just been so convoluted. Very happy for 2 films.

                This film was great honestly, i also expect every one of the trilogy to get progressively better, if that does indeed happen, how could ANYONE say they didn’t appreciate it as a trilogy?

      • It’s also about the huge battle that Tolkien describes in about three or four pages in the book. The popular idea that the Hobbit is a short story is laughable. Page wise it’s pretty short. But the story takes place over a huge period of time (1 year), and in no way is content deprived.

    • Its not like peter jackson is rejecting the

    • Its not like peter jackson is rejecting the
      Idea of 3 films…. it was his idea probably

  4. I am glad they divided it up into three movies because there is a lot that takes place in the Hobbit that would get shortened or excluded if it was just one movie. Maybe as a two parter it would work better but I am excited to see it this afternoon.

    Ben, It seems that most criticism I’ve read that’s against the film is the 48fps and the length of the movie with the side stories. You’re review suggests those are the weaker parts of the film but do not take away from your review of the story as a whole and I appreciate that.

    • Yah, I think Jackson made some controversial choices that people are either going to appreciate or, in some cases, hate but (and I’m sure others might disagree) that neither detracted from my overall enjoyment. It merely detracted from the very high bar the director set in the original trilogy.

      • Jackson made LOTR and had to cut things from the source material. Leaving the essentials in. He did a great job in my opinion.

        Jackson’s Hobbit on the other hand has added characters, added sub-plots, additional scenes that were not in the book.

        I know these books. I can’t go into detail here without spoilers.

        Hopefully the Hobbit trilogy will work out…… Jackson is playing fast and loose with Tolkien’s much loved work.

        I especially fear for the third movie……

        • Well-said, Heustis. He’s playing fast and loose with a much loved work. Another way of saying this: do Jackson and Boyens really think they are better storytellers than Tolkien? I understand that books have to be adapted for the screen. But adapting is one thing; caricaturing is another.

          • I’m trying to reply to this as many times as i can, but the Hobbit is 2 films, the 3rd part of the trilogy is based off work that Tolkien never published, so i find 2 films to be a perfect compromise. I enjoyed the sub plots a lot in this film, i also expect the next film to be more focused, because as usual first films in trilogies generally have a lot of introductions to make that the sequels don’t have to deal with, and usually leads to better films because of it.

  5. Haven’t seen it yet. But I have one question, as a huge LOTR fan, I just enjoy being immersed in the world, love the extended cuts of the first movies. Is this movie still too long for people who love the world?

    • Yes and no. The beginning felt more like a summary/intro. I think the biggest issue is the beginning portion of the movie, IMO. Once they are start, eh, “moving” lol, it gets really good.

      • In my opinion fans should like it more simply cause jackson relys on nostalgia and nods to the other films to please you. Which doesnt work for me (the average moviegoer)

    • I would say no. I think fans of the world will appreciate the inter-connections and bridging. It’s just that, at times, it does distract from the primary journey/story of this Hobbit. As a result, it’s not as tight as it could be but that didn’t undercut my enjoyment.

  6. Fans of Tolkien and the previous trilogies will love The Hobbit. Loved it

  7. So here’s my question:

    I am sure it’s different from theater to theater but typically which screen is better? Imax 3d w/ HFR or 3d w/ HFR?
    I want to go to 3d w/ HFR but I am afraid imax screen will be bigger and better.. But then Imax has been around.. do you thin they are building new 3d w/ HFR(and therefore better than imax w/ 3d w/ HFR?)

    • I think either one will be fine – I’d probably hit an IMAX (for the sound) but I doubt many 48fps-ready theaters are going to be a misfire (unless of course you know a theater near you is already notorious for poor presentation, dim bulbs, etc).

  8. saw it last night and it was f****** amazing. Not as good as LOTR but pretty damn good

  9. People are jumping the gun here when they think the third movie will be a about just the hobbit, the title even suggests that it’s a tie in between the hobbit and the fellowship of the ring.

    Smaug dies in the second movie, and the journey back to the shire is what the third movie will most likely be about, along side with important lore that will lead into the actual lord of the rings books.
    It’s pretty clear that Jackson put in a lot of filler to make the movies plots bleed into one another, gandolf’s involvement with the adventure is revealed that he is only going to rid a evil because he knows another is on the rise, the necromancer, who later becomes sauron.

    The movie itself seemed fun and full of adventure, the way it is supposed to be, but as the end of the first movie even hints to it’s nothing but gloomy days to come for middle earth, bringing back the Lord Of the Rings feel to the cinema.

  10. Saw it last night, was not very goos in my opinion. A abundence of special effects that were quite poor, terrible additions and an overly bloated film. The gollum scene was the only highlight and it was phenomenal.

    • I agree, Trey. The single best scene in the movie (possibly the only one I really liked, too, because it stayed quite faithful to the book) was IMO the riddles scene between Gollum and Bilbo.

  11. I saw it on Wednesday and I can’t wait to see it again.
    It was such a great film!
    9 out of 10.

  12. I saw it….kinda boring….no not boring but definitely tedious.

    • Tedious yes indeed.

  13. The movie was AMAZING. For those of you who say that the beginning was too long, I can’t say I agree. This might be due to the fact that I have not seen the other movies or read the books. I found all of the background information helpful and an asset to the movie. Furthermore, I adore the actor who portrays bilbo. He truly deserves some sort of award and was a delight to watch. In fact, the whole movie was very enjoyable.
    The battle scenes were intensely thrilling, the shire was downright charming, etc.
    I didn’t even realize the film was shot differently with the frames. I thought the cinametography was appealing and not at all “cheesy” or anything of the sort! I am sure it would have been a thrill to see it in 3D as well.

    I don’t think this movie could’ve been done any better :)

  14. In second grade, my mom suggested I read the Hobbit after completing the Chronicles of Narnia, and ever since then I’ve been a fan of Tolkien. The Hobbit and LOTR are my favorite books, and since grade school I’ve almost perpetually reread the material.

    Needless to say, I went to the midnight showings of all three LOTR movies, and I couldn’t wait to see The Hobbit.

    I really think this movie is amazing. It’s truer to the source material than any of the three LOTR movies, which was a major problem for most of the die-hard Tolkien fans, especially concerning Two Towers. Not only that, PJ has definitely shown maturity in directing since his last trip through Middle Earth.

    A smart choice (spoiler-ish) that was made which I think will appease both the die-harders and casual fans are the singing of the songs from the novel. I enjoyed a fan-boyish moment when the dwarves sang “Crack the Teapots, Smash the Plates, That’s What Bilbo Baggins Hates.” And when they chanted by the fireplace, I thought I was really watching grade-A cinema. How many movies have successfully conveyed deep emotion through the mechanism of short-people with crazy braided facial hair singing and humming? Perhaps none – which made that moment particularly special.

    I also see no problem with the connections made to the LOTR storyline. As a child I remember wondering why Gandalf (my favorite character – I mean, come on – G-Gray is far badder than G-White) made a habit of disappearing and reappearing. The story of the Necromancer was also something a reader of the Hobbit would not totally understand without reading more of Tolkien’s lore.

    Anyway – I’m of the opinion that the movies could be four hours each as long as the characters and stories are true. So yeah, I’m crazy! PS – I saw the regular 24fps version – 3D tends to give me headaches.

    So again, I loved it. 5 stars from my inner fanboy – 4 from the inner cinemaphile. Go see it!

  15. I had a lot of small problems with the film, but overall enjoyed it. For stream-of-consciousness bullet-point review, check this out:

    http://www.alexcoulombe.com/theatre/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-mini-review/

    • You COULD have always just posted your comments here instead of trying to pull readers away from this site.

      • I did in other posts here. But the review I wrote is far too long to post in a comment thread.

  16. Looking very forward to it. The first three were captivating and a periscope into a realm that everyone wants to go. It’s great to see this follows suit! Counting the hours down to tomorrow PM!

  17. I want to go on the record as saying I believe PJ upped the bar with this film in terms of adaptation. It’s far truer to the story than any of the LOTR movies – look no further than TT for proof of that.

    Also to reiterate what a previous poster wrote, “The Hobbit” really is the longest book in the series and also the broadest. Each one of the LOTR novels was originally written as two books, and are published in that format. Return of the King’s books are actually really short.

    I can totally see why people question the movie’s length, but I also recommend suspending the notion that this movie ought to be short for the reason that the book seems relatively short (key word being relative).

    I mean, if you saw the movie and were legitimately bored, then I totally get why you would say it’s too long – but if you were entertained (which I was!) then who cares if the movies are three hours? Let it take you away, baby…

  18. Just got back from the film… I loved it. Everything was perfect as it. (2D version)

  19. Strangely, I feel like the only one who completely ADORED this film. I was completely loving the film from start to finish, a true masterpeice.

    Usually I end up agreeing with reviews, but not in this case. Every scene I felt was important and had a purpose (character development, story development). I also think each dwarf had enough screen time, you could tell who is who, what their roles are.

    I’d honestly hand on heart encounrage you to see this. I was impressed and blown away from start to finish, especially the soundtrack on all the rescue themed fight scenes (instrumental of Misty Mountains (what is this track called, can’t find it on itunes?).

    Go see it!

  20. They disposed with Tom Bombadil in TLOTR, but are they /have they done the same with Beorn from “The Hobbit”? I was looking forward to seeing him on screen.

    • No, they haven’t disposed of Beorn…he’ll be in the second one. They haven’t gotten to him yet.

  21. I’m gonna see it in 3D-IMAX @THE GREENE cineplex here in Ohio this saturday,looking forward to it, unfortunatly we dont have a theater thats showing The Hobbit in the 48fps format but our IMAX screen is of very good quality so it still should be epic looking.

  22. Maybe a fourth movie at a later date depicting my favourite character from Lord of the Rings Tom Bombadil, and the Barrow Wrights

  23. I just saw this 48fps, it was one of the most incredible movie experiences I’ve ever had in my life. The CGI was soo polished it’s breathtaking. 5 stars all the way!

  24. couple of things:

    1 – what’s a well stockEND pantry? I guess you mean stocked?

    2 – for people commenting, please don’t post any spoiler info. Some of us read these reviews to decide if we’re going to brave the theatre to see the film!

    Otherwise, thanks for a good review Ben, I’ve noticed you tend to be bang-on with my likes/dislikes about movies.

    • I’m sure it was typo! I’ll get it fixed. Glad the reviews have been helpful!

      • On second thought… maybe it was a well-stocked pantry in Bag End? A Stockend pantry. Get it? Right, probably a typo.

    • I guess you better not read the book then if you don’t want any spoilers.

  25. I loved it. I just got home form seeing it in 3D. It was simply amazing. I didn’t want it to end!!!

  26. I just saw the Hobbit with a friend. I’m a casual fan of the book and I went in expecting changes. I thought it was good…. However, my friend has read the Hobbit dozens of times. She was very upset at all the changes and stormed out angry at the end.

  27. Still gonna hate the liberties taken with Thorin’s age and turning Kili into an Aragorn look a like but…..

    • Yeah, and I kinda wondered why Thorin and a couple of the dwarves had decidedly… human facial features.

  28. Judging from the trailers and these pictures, the lighting looks weird, the colors are way too bright, and the world looks much more manufactured (fake) than the other movies. I still have to see this movie though…

  29. The movie was long, and the beginning of the film was also long, but for good reason. I believe it had to be stretched out in film that way in order to do the book justice. Movies just seem too short anymore and they disappoint when they rip through the scenes so casually especially the first scenes which are the foundation of the entire Tolkien world. It was an amazing film for sure and I was definitely not disappointed in the way everything unfolded.

Be Social, Follow Us!!