a nice attempt, but not good enough

Rating: 3/10 (21 April 2013)

As much as I was looking forward to this film, I have to say it is by no means brilliant. The only thing that kept me in my seat in the cinema was the hope that it would remain as faithful to the book as it does in the beginning for the remainder of the film. Sadly, not so.
Firstly, as exciting as it appears with an introduction of the Lonely Mountain of Erebor by Bilbo, this scene is way too long, as is the scene explaining the rift between Goblins (yes, GOBLINS, definitely not Orcs) and Dwarfs, which is not even accurate. For a book of only 300 pages, "The Hobbit" deserves to be made into one clever portrayal on the big screen without bordering on the inaccuracy and overindulgence that went into the history and fighting scenes of this film. Yes, it is nice to indulge, but that can be decided by the audience, not the film makers.
Secondly, you always get a wonderful sensation from reading the book. It is funny, playful, light hearted and only slightly serious. This film adaptation paints the whole original story completely black, and where there is humour, it is so silly and not even half as witty as Tolkien wrote it. Also, I do not believe the film makers made any real effort in casting the Dwarfs, who are meant to carry the story as well as the title character, so that all you get is a bunch of money loving idiots who are both rude and perfectly ridiculous. I don't like this. These Dwarfs, as Tolkien wrote them, are actually polite and tolerable. On the big screen, however, they are painful to watch, particularly their leader Thorin because he looks so frigging miserable.
Thirdly, I cannot stand ( I repeat, cannot stand) the change in the main antagonist of the story in this film. Instead of it being Smaug, who comes into the story much later than the film suggests, we have an absolutely hideous Orc, Azog the Defiler, who for starters looks completely CG and speaks no English at all that you have to read the subtitles to know what the hell he's saying (and it's not even very interesting). Aside from having a minor role in the battle before the walls of Moria, he brings nothing to the story whatsoever. I really wanted him to die every time he popped up, he makes the story drag, so that most of what you get is BLOODY fighting. Calm down film makers, please.
Fourth, as nice as it is to see a few old faces, Frodo has nothing to add to the story, and all the White Council does is TALK. I suggest taking them out of the story altogether if they pop up again. I think the same should apply to Legolas, it's pretty obvious he's only been cast for the second part as eye candy for the girls, and there is NO romance or anything of that sort in the original story.
If it's called "The Hobbit" it should all be told from Bilbo's point of view as he is the main character. OK, Martin Freeman plays Bilbo fairly well, but he needs a few lessons on the character of Bilbo Baggins. For a start, Bilbo is, although around fifty, a timid, shy, unassuming, unambitious Hobbit who does not want ANY adventures, and it is Gandalf who makes him leave Bag End. Now if that scene had been added in, that would have added to Bilbo's character, and made me laugh for good reason seeing as the rest of the film is trying to make you laugh, and this is just poor.
The visuals aren't too bad; I actually like the stone giants even if they do remind others of "Transformers" or "Power Rangers", the Shire is as fresh and verdant as ever, and perhaps the best scene by far is the "Riddles in the Dark" sequence, which makes me wonder why Serkis wasn't given a Special Award as the only interesting character in the entire film. The music is alright, but it isn't very good either; in the book there is lots of singing and merriment, and to me it's a shame that it isn't expanded on like it was for "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy. Rivendell, sad to say, as gorgeous as it looks, now looks like a pastel painting, particularly when seen in 3D, which is also a shame. 3D may work reasonably well with animation, but not so well with live action, and I have living proof; "The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader" disappointed me with the storyline and the 3D aspect of it, there is too much 3D these days.
My apologies to any who call this film a masterpiece, but it is generally a prequel that takes far more elements from "The Lord Of The Rings" and therefore does not allow for closer examination of the story called "THE HOBBIT". This is why I prefer the book; with the book you can decide whether it is your cup of tea or not, but with the film it forces you to like it. Yes, some films based on books can be alright, but the overall storyline of the film is ruined. I say this as someone who read the book as a child and could read it again much faster and with much more enthusiasm than I could watch this film. I suggest you read the book, don't waste your time or money on such an unfortunate claim to tell the story better than Tolkien. New Line Cinema CAN do better than this.