Exactly what Peter Jackson said it would be, and more!

Rating: 10/10 (14 December 2012)

I truly don't understand all the hate for this movie. I know there are intentional haters like die-hard Nolan fans (one of my best friends is a HUGE Nolan fan, but not this intense) who are purposely disliking any other movie this year just to let Dark Knight Rises win awards. There are those who are unaware of Peter Jackson including information from the Appendices in Return of The King as extra material (shouldn't really be news, but some people live under a rock) and say that he's adding material just for $$$ when clearly, Jackson has a huge admiration for Tolkien, and then there are those who prefer fancy art films, which is fine.
Don't get me wrong, I like The Dark Knight Rises, and I can appreciate the art films, but when a movie is good, a movie is good. Growing up, The Fellowship of the Ring changed my goals and dreams, and put me on a path to go into film, now, 11 years later, "An Unexpected Journey" continues to drive that passion and desire.
I've read the book 1,000 times over (along with LOTR) and what some people don't seem to understand is that it's a CHILDREN'S book. It was written that way. Professor Tolkien went to re-write it to make it more like LOTR in terms of depth and tone, but never did, thus, the Appendices.
Peter Jackson set out to recreate the magical world, with less of a dark and serious tone, and did so, but at the same time, kept some of the things that made LOTR dark. There is light humour throughout the film sure, and I loved every minute of it, but when it's time to get serious, it does exactly that. The battle sequences are intense, and very large in terms of scale. Not one moment of it was boring.
Another thing I don't understand is that people say it's slow? That's called character development. This isn't a mindless action/adventure movie where things just happen to look cool. If it happens, there's a reason for it, for characters to grow, and for us to feel attached to them. For me, it worked.
I went in expecting to appreciate all of the Dwarfs, but not single anyone out. Turns out, I left loving Thorin, Kili, Balin and Bofur the most. Gandalf is still the sly, intelligent wizard he was in the Lord of The Rings trilogy, and Martin Freeman as Bilbo, is perhaps the single greatest casting decision I've ever witnessed. I was worried, I'll admit it, but having seen the film now, he was perfect to play a younger Ian Holm.
The sets are another great aspect. It's all the same. The Shire, Bag End, Rivendell, and even the exterior of Moria (Won't spoil) A new set piece that was amazing was Dale/Erebor (The Lonely Mountain) which was incredible. The CG/Miniatures for all of the sets too work incredibly well, especially with the 48fps 3D, which brings me to my next point.
I saw it in 48fps, and was blown. Away. Entirely. Oh my. I knew it was different, I heard it was bad, and heard it was good. But I like to form my own opinions. 48fps (or HFR, High Frame Rate) makes the 3D work so well, you forget you're even watching a movie. Every inch of Middle Earth was right there in front of me for 2 hours and 44 minutes, and was it ever gorgeous. I know people aren't fond of it, but for The Hobbit to be the first movie done in 48fps and to look that good, and then to improve on it, is incredible. I really don't know if I could watch this at 24 now because of how much I loved the 48 experience.
The CG wasn't bad either, the HFR adds to it, making it smooth, and less noticeable as CG, which was amazing. The score? Well, it's Howard Shore, so it's obvious that it was perfect for the film.
All in all, if you enjoyed LOTR, you will most likely enjoy The Hobbit. I'm off to my second viewing in a few hours, and it certainly won't be my last before it leaves theatres.