"Prequel" That Stands on its Own

Rating: 8/10 (17 December 2012)

It's hard to review a film of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey without considering the source. This is, of course, unfair, in many respects because books and movies are not the same media and thus bear different requirements and parameters for story telling. Of course, this - the first of three Hobbit movies - gets a second critical scan from a second arena that most other book-to-movie titles don't normally have as baggage - that is, it is nearly impossible to avoid comparing this to Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy of which this is - at least in theory and by some measures marketing inference - a "prequel". I think, however, that a fair shake can be made for this movie alone. Here's my take: The movie is splendid! Period. Regardless of it's roots and any of the Middle-earth history and detail, from an entertainment standpoint and from a movie making standpoint, this first part of The Hobbit trilogy is well done.
I could quibble about some of the minor changes between the book and the movie or perhaps the handling of some of the scenes, the pacing in a few areas, or characters that seemed esoteric, but the truth is I didn't notice as many of those sorts of details as many reviewers lead me to believe are present. More importantly, I never felt bored with the story or in need or more information. This Hobbit chapter kept me interested throughout the entire three plus hours and I never once felt overly lost in the details. I actually told a friend that unlike The Lord of the Rings, which I feel benefit as a movie by reading the books, this rendition of the first part The Hobbit movie will make sense to most who never touch another Tolkien work. As a story, it flows fine on it's own without the need for the viewer to reach back into history to understand some presented character or plot point.
Don't get me wrong - I love the Tolkien mythology and have studied mythology and ancient history for a long time and love the detail in Tolkien's world. I for one certainly appreciated the little details and treats Peter Jackson put into this movie for those of us who know the Tolkien myth well, but none of those details are particularly necessary to advance the plot or understand who is who. The story is really all right there in the manual (to steal a phrase from TV Tropes).
I would offer a criticism or two, but the truth is the ones that come to mind are petty or opinion-based. For instance, I'm not a big fan of the portrayal of the Goblin King and Radagast the Brown comes across as far more esoteric then I envisioned, but then both those complaints are matters of taste. Your mileage may vary. About the only objective criticism I can offer is that while we do get a nice intro for a few of the dwarfs at the beginning of the movie, keeping track of all thirteen and understanding who is who throughout the film is impossible - even, I might add, for someone who knows these characters from rereading the book far too much. However as many folks have noted, this movie is equivalent to an "origin" movie and as such much of each character's personality has yet to be developed and their individualities and identities will likely become more apparent and familiar in the second installation.
It's quite a large scope of a story and it won't be all told or well-understood until the credits roll at the end of the third installation come December 2014. Until then, this particular installment makes a fine appetizer.