Tried to cook an egg and serve it at the same time.

Rating: 5/10 (22 December 2012)

One of the most anticipated movies of the year, The Hobbit attempts to rekindle the glory of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, but falls to mediocrity. Though the same feel was mostly achieved, its reach extended its grasp; simply put, The Hobbit should not have been split into three parts.
As a result of Peter Jackson's decision, The Hobbit suffered from filler-itis, with a large portion of the movie being unneeded back stories and distracting side stories. The backstory of Thorin, the Dwarven leader of the company, was a primitive attempt at characterization and a waste of time, seeing as Thorin's actions and demeanors during the main storyline were enough to give us an idea of the character. The side stories were trying to hard to make The Hobbit a prequel, rather than allowing it to be its own movie. A portion of the movie is devoted to a wizard called Radagast the Brown, who is uncovering a mysteries in the forest of Mirkwood, foreshadowing the return of Sauron in The Fellowship of the Ring. While this was a treat for fans, it was ultimately an annoyance, bouncing back and forth between the story I actually cared about, and a collection of homages that I found slightly amusing. The Hobbit was cooking an egg while trying to serve it at the same time. The result was partially cooked with several raw spots. I found the cooked parts delicious, but gagged on the raw parts.
And the cooked parts were well done. Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo, embodying the peaceful, jolly nature of hobbits with the uncertainty that would be expected with a reluctant adventurer. His story and characterization was interesting and I was upset that there was not more focus on him. In fact, Bilbo's interaction with Gollum has to be one of my favorite parts of the series. The brilliant dialogue and acting prowess of Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman had me bawling with laughter. However, these parts were foolishly left in the shadows of lesser characters. It reminded me much of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, in which the majority of the movie was devoted to teenagers "snogging" instead of the excellently written interactions between Harry and Dumbledore. But I digress.
In addition to the choppy plot, the side stories, confused the theme. Was this supposed to be dark, jolly, in between? It jumped from the dark back story of Thorin, to the awkwardly jolly side story of Radagast the Brown, and then back to the mostly serious main narrative. It was like going through puberty then jumping back and forth.
The Hobbit lacked much of the charm and wonder of the Lord of the Rings. Its lack of focus cost the movie dearly. Though the Lord of the Rings trilogy contained many character side stories, none of them felt like they were getting special treatment, unlike in the Hobbit. They felt united in a common, central idea whereas in The Hobbit, I felt it was for the characters rather than the ideas. And that, is a very effective way to break down a movie into a bedtime story.