I personally thought it was a very good film, but I do understand the complaints

Rating: 8/10 (26 December 2012)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was the most anticipated movie of the year in our family. I for one admire many of the actors in the cast, and I love the Lord of the Rings films and Tolkein's writing. The Hobbit as a book is great, an exciting and very well-written one with identifiable character, though the story is noticeably more slight than Lord of the Rings. Seeing it in the cinema as a whole family and with friends, every single one of us left the film with smiles on our faces, expectations met. As of now, I still think The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a very good film in many ways, but I do understand some of the complaints directed towards it(well apart from the unnecessary vitriol on both sides).
Of the complaints, there are those that I agree with. I do think the film is too long, as was the introduction of the dwarfs(around 20-30 minutes when it could have easily been half of that). People have picked up on the dangerous parts not looking dangerous enough, considering what happens to them it was odd to see everybody coming out of those scenes unscathed. As well as some of the dwarfs not having enough development and coming and going, which is also valid( their personalities really shine this said), hopefully the next two films will rectify this. And I also agree that Azog is a very one-dimensional character, whose purpose seemed to be to give further conflict and some kind of character development for Thorin. Understandable, but I don't think it was needed as such.
There are also a couple that I can understand, but personally don't agree with. The ending was abrupt yes, but instead of having a that's it? feel it did leave me highly anticipating the next instalment. The pacing has often been criticised as plodding, I thought the pacing did match the pacing of the Lord of the Rings films very well, it probably feels plodding because it doesn't have as much going on.
A couple of assets I was mixed on too. On the most part, I thought the special effects were great. The eagles, stone giants and the trolls really stood out, but Gollum as in Lord of the Rings was the masterstroke. The two exceptions were Azog, who looks more at home in a horror movie, and the Goblin King, reminiscent of a small-ish head on a huge body, it did look rather ridiculous to me. The screenplay did have moments where it was juvenile(like in the dinner scene in Rivendell) and clichéd(Thorin being angry at Bilbo for his intervention then being accepting of him), but there were spots where it was also humorous like with Bilbo and Gandalf and thought-provoking like the Council scene at Rivendell.
Everything else though I cannot fault. It looks fantastic visually. The cinematography positively sweeps and some of the most stunningly epic scenery I've ever seen is in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. In style and look, it is true to the Lord of the Rings films I feel. I also love Howard Shore's music. It brought so much soul to the Lord of the Rings films, and it is the same here. It has been criticised for being a re-hash, and I'll be honest here and say if there is one complaint for this film that I don't agree with it's this. It still is hauntingly-beautiful, and while there are some recognisable nods it really is a wonderfully orchestrated and atmospheric score. Misty Mountains is a wonderful song too.
Initially I was worried about the story being too padded out, considering it being three 2 1/2- 3 hour adaptations of a 300-or so page book. Many people did, I didn't see it too much of one personally. While the introduction of the dwarfs was overlong and the battle between the dwarfs and Azog was the least effective set-piece, I loved the story-book nature of the prologue and the Hobbiton scenes had a lot of warmth and nostalgia. As with Lord of the Rings, many of the set pieces are extraordinary, the stone giants and the eagles were very well done, the troll scene was amusing and the goblin scene did have a lot of very impressive scope complete with some very efficiently choreographed action. But the highlight of the film was the encounter between Bilbo and Gollum, funny, terrifying and moving all at once.
Looking at the cast on paper, you'd think immediately that this is a strong cast. On film it is exactly the same. Martin Freeman plays Bilbo with a lot of curmudgeonly charm- Ian Holm is similarly excellent as his older self-, while Ian McKellen is perfectly cast as Gandalf, knowing and wise with a bit of subtle humour about him. You'd think that Richard Armitage's Thorin is a bit of typecasting, his performance here makes you not mind that too much, as mean and brooding is what Armitage does best and it suits Thorin to a tee. Of the dwarfs the most well-developed are Balin and Bofur, and they are very well played by Ken Stott and James Nesbitt, actors I do respect and have liked a lot of their projects.
Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett are also to be seen as Sarouman and Galadriel and they do typically fine jobs, and I will say the same for the Elrond of Hugo Weaving. Randagast is a fun additional character, and played amusingly by Sylvester McCoy, while Barry Humphries seems to be having fun with the Goblin King. Though if there was an award for the film's best performance, I'd without hesitation give it to Andy Serkis. It is an incredibly vivid performance, full of humour, intensity and pathos, a large part of why his encounter with Bilbo was the film's highlight.
All in all, a very good film that could've been even better. 8/10 Bethany Cox