What’s it got in its pocketses? It’s a The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review!



I’m being lenient here because I’m hoping that the upcoming second and third films will offer a complete story when put together.

I wasn’t a fan of the silly tone of this movie, and certain parts really seemed to drag along.


Some of that “silly tone” came about due to the design of some of the characters. I can’t imagine anyone but Martin Freeman playing Bilbo, though.


Still not a fan of CGI characters in live action movies.

Product Placement



Three hours is still way too long for any movie.

49 comments on “What’s it got in its pocketses? It’s a The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review!

  1. Good review. The level of quality is beyond anything else I have seen all year and in a very long time. The wonder, action, storytelling and fantasy are just too beautiful to scathe or cast down upon.

  2. “Still not a fan of CGI characters in live action movies.”

    Haha oh Justin. Welcome to 2012.

  3. I’d still like to catch this soon, but at 3 hours for the first part of a trilogy whose source material is shorter than one book in the other trilogy feels like the very definition of bloated. Will probably still love it when I finally watch it though.

  4. With you on the CGI. Also it’s a joke that the books being split into 3 films in the first place, never mind that the first film is 3 hours long! I might see it on DVD.

  5. Normally I have no problem with CGI but the HFR made it seem cheap. Agree about Freeman, he’s just Bilbo through and through.

  6. That three hour thing is a deal breaker for me too.

  7. I’m with you for the duration. It’s way too long though I enjoyed the movie. My concern is if Jackson doesn’t have good enough material to offer in 2nd and 3rd movie..but maybe it’s just me :P
    Oh, and I love Martin Freeman’s Bilbo. Perfect fit for the role :D

  8. I’m still hesitant about this, to be honest. I loved the LOTR trilogy as much as the next nerd but, I dunno, this just hasn’t done it for me yet. Besides, if I can read the source novel cover to cover in less than half the time it takes to watch the movie, then something just isn’t adding up.

  9. I thought this one was excellent. I actually love the sub plots put into this that tie Hobbit to LOTR. I think this is exactly what TOlkien would have wanted, because he spent the rest of his life writing the ‘history’ of Middle Earth, so getting it all in is something he would have loved to see (IMO).

  10. hey man cool review yo, i do agree with you about the light-hearted tone of the film in places and it did drag in places. But otherwise i thought the film was badass, i loved the characters and the film had such ridiculously high production values. What did you think of Richard Armitage as Thorin?

    also could i pester you to have a look at my review? i would appreaciate it, here it is: http://hypersonic55.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review/

  11. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but have been looking forward to it ever since I heard it was being made. I am a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings (Tolkien’s version and Peter Jacksons”s), but when I saw the way that some of the dwarves looked in the trailer, I was a bit dumbstruck. Bombur – the really fat one – looks ridiculous. Could you please tell me if Peter Jackson is doing this movie as more of a comedy or is it still along the same lines as the previous movies? Also, The Hobbit was written as a children’s book and LOTR wasn’t.

  12. Don’t you think a two for the plot isn’t very much for being lenient? The plot IS expanded quite a bit, but nearly all of it is vital to the story without removing anything. But how does visuals get a 2 also? The cinematography outranks so many films its not even funny. And as far as the CGI, I think they should have stuck with actors for the biggest bit, but the landscapes are just TOO beautiful to pass up as mediocre. Thanks for your review!

  13. I agree that this movie seemed more cartoonish in some places, and was too long by about half an hour. PJ seems to want to cram every little nuance he can in here, like he’s afraid to leave anything at all out. I think the second one be will be my favorite, let’s get to Smaug already!

  14. To be fair, the book has a lighter tone than the lord of the rings trilogy, which may contribute to the silliness. The Hobbit was conceived as a fairy tale, a children’s story as opposed to the epic-like nature of Lord of the Rings. It’s my favorite of Tolkin’s work, but I can’t see how they possibly stretched this into three movies at three hours each. That’s madness. One of the reasons I always liked it was because it WASN’T so heavy on length and content. I don’t know. It’s playing at the 3.00 theatre one town over. I may give it a try….but I’ll probably wait untill it comes out on DVD and borrow it.

  15. MAN, did this movie have a lot of frickin’ HIKING ACROSS MOUNTAINS!!!

  16. I think I agree with you on this ;) I say that cause I read a few comments below, and I think people thought you liked the CGI, but I understood you didn’t, in which case I agree. I think Peter relied way too heavily on it, contrary to Lord of Rings, which he used only to enhance the scenery, or when no other option was available to him. This reminded me of “Blade” the movie, where you couldn’t figure out, who, what, and where, cause everything was moving so fast. Let’s just say I was underwhelmed.

  17. [...] Unexpected Journey (2012) by My Filmviews CinematiCaptions: The Hobbit Edition by My Filmviews What’s it got in its pocketses? by Today I Watched a Movie The Hobbit Lives Up to the Hype by Love Your Movies The Hobbit: An [...]

Today You Left a Comment

%d bloggers like this: