The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey


Action / Adventure / Family / Fantasy

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 64%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 83%
IMDb Rating 7.9 10 691562


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 903,877 times
March 01, 2013 at 02:07 AM



Benedict Cumberbatch as Necromancer
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel
Lee Pace as Thranduil
3D.BLU 720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
2.60 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 49 min
P/S 2 / 23
1.30 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 49 min
P/S 32 / 270
2.50 GB
23.976 fps
2hr 49 min
P/S 102 / 579

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by SlyGuy21 8 / 10

The Tolkien Edit

The biggest problem I had with "The Hobbit" trilogy was it's length. Taking a book with a little over 250 pages, and stretching that to three movies that clock in at over 7 hours is a bit too much. So I decided to track down something I've never thought of before: a fan edit. There is a version of this trilogy, that is 4 and a half hours long, removes a lot of the subplots, and tries it's best to tell Tokien's original story. That version is "The Tolkien Edit". In this version, Barad-dûr is all but removed (say for only a couple lines of dialogue), the love triangle is completely removed, action scenes that I felt went on for too long are shortened, the Lake Town scenes are shortened, a lot of foreshadowing to "The Lord of the Rings" is removed, and even cameos like Legolas, Elrond, and Saruman are shortened, if not completely cut in some cases. It feels more true to Tolkien's work, hence the name, but it still has problems. Several major ones, the movie is still 4 and a half hours long, now this wouldn't be a problem, if it didn't feel that long. "The Lord of the Rings" worked for being 3 hours per film. It felt grand and epic, never dragging it's feet, this just feels overly long. A lot of key scenes from the book are there, like the "Riddles in the Dark" section, and the first encounter with Smaug, but it still drags on. Another problem is the CGI, in some cases it works, like with Smaug and Gollum, but otherwise it looks really noticeable. The Battle of the Five Armies scene looks more like a video game than a movie to me, it doesn't have the same thrill as The Mines of Moria, Helms Deep, Minas Tirith, or Pelennor Fields. Strange how the CGI in "The Lord of the Rings" was made over 15 years ago, and it's effects look better than this.

There are positives to this trilogy though, one is Martin Freeman, I think he does a great job as Bilbo in this. It feels like he was made for the character, getting all the little mannerisms down and the dialogue between him and the other characters works. The second is the "Riddles in the Dark" scene, it's taken almost word for word from the book and it's awesome, serious kudos to Andy Serkis for reprising his role here. Another plus is a lot of the sequences being shorter for the first two films in general, it felt less bloated, but the third act did drag on for a bit because of just how long I had been watching. Smaug is probably the single greatest highlight from the movie, his encounter with Bilbo is phenomenal. Again taken almost word for word from the book, and the effects on him look absolutely great, more props to Benedict Cumberbatch for doing a fantastic job. There are a few other good moments, the humor works for the most part, and it is nice to see Middle-earth again, the dwarves also do a good job, if admittedly some of them could've been cut from the film entirely.

At the end of the day, the single greatest flaw with "The Hobbit" trilogy is that it feels like it was made 15 years later than it should've. It lacks a lot of the magic that Peter Jackson was able to capture the first time around, and feels stretched to a trilogy for the sole purpose of trying to make another great trilogy, but the trilogy as a whole isn't worth 4 and a half hours. You don't need to see "The Hobbit" to love "The Lord of the Rings", and while I did enjoy this fan edit a lot more than the theatrical cuts of the films, I wouldn't see this again. In fact, you really don't need to see "The Hobbit" trilogy anyway, because the opening exposition in "The Fellowship of the Ring" sums up the whole trilogy, that had yet to be made, in about 6 minutes. Would you rather watch an 8 hour trilogy, a 4 and a half hour long fan edit, or a 6 minute recap from another movie? Well gee, when you put it like that, it seems fairly obvious which one I'd pick. If you like this trilogy, and think it adds a lot to "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, than that's fine, more power to ya. As for me, this is a one and done, I'll just stick with "The Lord of the Rings".

Reviewed by bigfrog6 1 / 10

Dumb and an embarrassment to Tolkien's legacy.

Dumb and an embarrassment to Tolkien's legacy. There's really not much more to say. It might even be worse than "The Prequels".

Reviewed by jimbo-53-186511 5 / 10

Watchable in its own right, but it's also padded out and far too long

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is selected by Gandalf as the 14th member of his team and is tasked with assisting a group of dwarves to reclaim their home Lonely Mountain. Baggins is initially reluctant to help, but does prove his worth and eventually wins over a group of rather sceptical dwarves...

Many other people have probably eluded to the fact that it was going to be a tough task for Jackson to replicate the success of The Lord Of The Rings. Even going in with expectations of it being not as good (which it wasn't), it still wasn't quite as good as I'd hoped it would be...

The Lord Of The Rings films were long films, but in fairness I didn't really notice the time passing by when watching the original trilogy. Sadly that isn't the case here; the set-up to the story here goes on far too long and starts to grate after a while - I realise that some set-up is necessary, but if I'm not mistaken it's getting close to the hour mark before they even embark on their journey. The whole set-up with the dwarves arriving at Baggins house, goofing around and p***ing him off was mildly amusing, but again it was overdone and dragged on for too long.

Perhaps that's the problem with this film - it felt like Jackson didn't really have the material to stretch the film to its 'epic' length of just under 3 hours so he just torturously padded the whole film out. Another example of this is Bilbo Baggins encounter with Gollum - yes it's necessary to the story, but again their 'riddling' battle of wits and Baggins playing hide and seek with Gollum whilst invisible seemed to be a long-winded and elaborate way of showing how Baggins acquired the ring.

I also felt that the film didn't have much narrative structure or shape and Jackson had a tendency to dart the film in all kinds of directions which at times made the film feel a little muddled - he did this to an extent in LOTR, but it didn't feel as detrimental there as it does here.

The performances by the main cast are a mixed bunch; McKellen is always good value and does an excellent job again. The likes of Hugo Weaving and Christopher Lee are solid in supporting roles. Freeman isn't quite as good as many of the other cast members, but does an OK job.

Overall then The Hobbit is an OK film that is watchable, but by unnecessarily and painfully stretching the film out to nearly 3 hours in length the film does have a lot of dull stretches meaning that a lot of viewer patience will be required in order to endure it in its entirety.

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment