Well Done

Rating: 9/10 (24 December 2012)

Still remember walking out of the first LOTR movie feeling a little disappointed although knowing 'movie' retelling needs to appeal to a wider audience, I can say I was not disappointed in the first Hobbit movie, a book I have read more than 20 times. A lot of action and humor as expected while keeping the general storyline. For better or worse, an entire new story was added and much of the charm of the book is lost, but keeping in mind The Hobbit was a children's book written in the 1920s. Today's audience seems less interested in overcoming adversity using wit and cunning but rather force. This was taken to its limit, making the often hapless hobbit and dwarfs from the book into the sword-wielding protagonists we cheer for. Specifically I was happy they added at least two-thirds of the Riddles in the Dark chapter, that would have been an easy cut for the director but to me an absolute necessity to keep at least part of the story's integrity.
While I could not help but notice every difference in the movie versus the book, I think the most nit-picky I felt was only in wishing Bilbo was a little heavier to start, and Thorin a little older. I'd heard it was divided into three parts, and kept wondering where they would stop. The first film actually goes to nearly half of the book, even with the added story lines, so was completely satisfied with how far they had progressed before the credits. Is it a must see? Yes, if only for the simple reason that The Hobbit, arguably the most beloved children's book ever, had not had a feature film ever made of it (heck, they made a Cat in the Hat movie).