Satisfies the Tolkien fan, but could have been better.

Rating: 8/10 (22 December 2012)

First off, I'd like to begin the review by saying that I've watched it in 24 fps without 3D, and I'm VERY happy I had decided so. I had read beforehand horrible, horrible things about 48 fps, and 3D just isn't my style. WARNING this review contains spoilers, but come on! : hasn't everyone read the book? I myself have read it 4 times with great pleasure.
Overall, the movie stays very close to the book, with the exception of subtle or sometimes not-so-subtle additions there and here. For the most part, they didn't work out well. There are 2 main reasons why, at least to me, these moments have failed. 1) I understand The Hobbit was written in a very different style than LOTR. Some even call it "a children's book". I agree that it has a few comic moments, but I have always pictured the book as an epic journey rather than a crazy romp that has the audience laughing. Sometimes, the jokes were witty and the original humour is well delivered. However, some humour stank of the nasty cheap crowd-pleaser. It's like Jackson forgot about the Oscars and headed for the money (if you catch my drift). The Goblin King and Radagast are a great example of this. The book was already funny, they didn't have to try and make it even funnier. 2) In the book, the dwarfs encounter many perilous situations and barely escape, but each escape is believable. The danger is still there. You can still feel like it's just perfect timing. In the movie, the dwarfs are just god-like. For instance, in the original, in the goblin tunnels, the company is barely running fast enough from death. In the adaptation, this becomes a real goblin-slaying fest. With the addition of the stone giants' scene, the company seems invincible. There is NO MORE DANGER! They survived so many falls and blows I could barely feel concerned when another "danger" surged forth.
Another moment I didn't appreciate is the visual style. It looks too perfect. From what I understand, the post-production unit sort of photo shopped the takes. You know a highlight there, a lighting adjustment here etc. In LOTR, the takes felt beautiful, but yet they didn't look fake. It was easier to immerse into this world, if after all, it looks like ours. The Hobbit looks like a dreamland. From the surreal colour palette to the unnatural contrasts, it looks too fake, even in 24 fps. Oh, and Frodo's cameo appearance was completely unjustified, which makes me recall that due to the excessive editing of the takes, the Shire of The Hobbit looks so different from the one in LOTR.
Another problem was Azog and other occasional CGI-fails. Why couldn't they choose to bring Azog to life the same way they used for the Uruk- Hai captain in Two Towers. Azog was painful to watch. It looked as if he popped out from an Xbox 360 game.
Of course, having read this, you might think that I absolutely hated this movie. I just kept the worst for the start. Now, onto the good side of An Unexpected Journey: 1) The dwarfs look awesome! At first, they look completely silly, but isn't that what they are? The book didn't do much in the sense of characterization, so I think Jackson definitely deserves praise for making every dwarf unique and distinguishable. By the end of the movie, you'll discern each of them, and that's not something the book had achieved. 2) It's much more loyal to the book than I ever expected it to be! That's not something you hear often. 3) Martin Freeman is awesome as Bilbo! 4) Overall, I think this is a very enjoyable movie, especially for the Tolkien fan. 5) I'm just very critical when it comes to the adaptation of one of my favorite books.