Good stand alone film, but falls short of the LOTR trilogy

Rating: 10/10 (22 December 2012)

The dilemma of delivering movies of baronial proportions such as the Lord of The Rings trilogy is that the makers can seldom revivify their own brilliance. The same is the case with The Hobbit. Don't get me wrong, the movie is great, pacy, crisp. Cinematography is at par with the trilogy's predecessor and the 3D effects are an added incentive. However one is left desiring for more due to the absence of a pivotal character such as Aragorn. However given the fact that the book, The Hobbit itself is not as grandiose as the Lord of The Rings, Peter Jackson deserves a good deal of praise for his work. On the other hand, if you're one of the minority who are yet to witness the LOTR trilogy, this movie would be nothing short off breathtaking. The revolutionary 48 RED Epic digital cameras don't disappoint as well. Disregard all those skewed reviews which downplay the cinematography of the film. Martin Freeman just fits perfectly into the character of Bilbo and Ian McKellen is the best of the lot. His personification of Gandalf is as fluid and natural as ever. The only central character that falls behind is that of Thorin portrayed by Richard Armitage. Jackson should have dedicated more screen time, but then again we might get to know him better in the following sequels. Had this been released before the Lord of The Rings trilogy, the film would have received better appreciation. I've been to the theaters twice to see this film and trust me it gets better with each viewing. Probably another show and I might bump it to a 9!!!