Not as good as LOTR but welcome back Jackson's Middle-Earth

Rating: 9/10 (14 December 2012)

The Hobbit may not be as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy but then that is because it is inherently a weaker story. I would like to address certain criticisms I have often read:
(a) Length: Part of the reason for the length of the film is for scenes between characters that strengthen relationships, something mostly lacking from the book. If The Hobbit was done as one film, it would have to be 3 hours to remotely capture everything and even then it would be forced to leave out character for the sake of plot and pace. You would not get a ten minute Riddles in the Dark, you would get a four minute Riddles in the Dark, which would not be anywhere near as good (6 minutes less of Andy Serkis' Gollum). The structuring is more about character, showing how Bilbo becomes a hero and part of the Company for real. There is Thorin's back story, which gives a reason for the quest and more emotion to his character than the book. This may seem to hold the film up but in the long term, it serves the characters and overall story better as well as giving Richard Armitage something to sink his teeth into. One thing you can say about the Harry Potter films is they don't leave much time to take in the supporting roles played by Britain's best actors. By having the Necromancer storyline as well as more time to dwell on the dwarfs and Bilbo (played to perfection by Martin Freeman) across three films rather than one or two, it gives these actors more to do, which is worth the running time. Would you rather have a brisk 3-hour film with little character development or 3 films that give this story an epic scale and pathos as well as bridging to the Rings trilogy, taking in the wider ramifications for Middle-Earth of the quest?
(b)Humour: Personally I had no issue with the humour in this film. They weren't exactly laugh-out-loud moments but there were plenty of chuckles. Burping dwarfs are only to be expected (they are a rowdy bunch after all) and this is NOT a kid's film, despite the fact that it's based on a kid's book. Radagast the Brown is NOT the Tolkien equivalent of Jar Jar Binks, he isn't even in the film that much. The bunny sled might seem a tad over the top but I want oneThe trolls are amusing and stupid in the book and they are the same here, although this scene plays out quite differently to the book but keeps the silly humour of it and if anything, makes it funnier.
(c) Takes 40 minutes for them to leave Hobbiton: This is true but I was actually surprised at how quickly this opening section went. The prologue establishes Smaug's taking of Erebor and the Ian Holm-Elijah Wood prologue ties into the opening of Fellowship and leads very neatly into the beginning of the Hobbit. As the familiar music washes over you, it settles you back into the world of Middle-Earth and establishes older Bilbo as he prepares to leave Bag End again, stating that in many ways he is the same hobbit that set out all those years ago: one secretly craving adventure. Both dwarf songs are from the book, with 'Blunt the Knives' energetically performed as the dwarfs do the washing up and 'Misty Mountains' creating a quiet moment for the dwarfs to reflect on their journey and Bilbo to experience the moment as described in the book. It gives time for the dwarfs to establish their characters, although the first few who arrive individually come across more strongly than the final pile-up group but again, more character than the book dwarfs, some of whom are barely mentioned across the story. I found parts of the immediate section after leaving Hobbiton to be slower but not mind-numbingly boring slowness.
(d) Overuse of CGI: The Rings trilogy wasn't exactly light on CGI, was it? It is extremely impressive CGI, there were only a few moments, mainly when interacting with the real New Zealand environment that looked fake. The Goblin City is great to experience in 3D and the goblins are all mostly CGI but they're still being slain in variously cool styles, depending on the dwarf weaponry on display. The stone giants battle was one of the 'wow' moments in the film and Azog is motion capture, not just CGI. The Wargs are better than their Two Towers counterparts and there are some Orcs that are real, as there will be in the other two films based on behind the scenes footage.
(e) 3D: I haven't yet seen the 48fps but the IMAX 3D was generally impressive, although some parts, mainly sweeping shots were a bit blurred (this may have been the projectors however).
This is very much a film for the fans, with Howard Shore using plenty of old music as well as creating new pieces. The film is long but when you reach the end of it, you will find yourself surprised at how fast it goes and you'll be wanting the next film. This will probably be one of the most faithful adaptations of a book by the time the third film is done and the story of the Hobbit will be all the better for it. Tolkien wrote the extra stuff himself, even if he didn't put it into the book and Jackson, Walsh and Boyens have already added stuff to Lord of the Rings (Aragorn and Arwen) and how much better did that make the trilogy in terms of Aragorn's character? Critics need to stop moaning about the length of movies that are actually filling their running time with stuff worth watching.