Review The Hobbit: Positive vs Negative

Rating: 9/10 (11 December 2013)

I would first like to say that I am a huge fan of LOTR, but this does not mean that I can't be critically.
I have given this movie an 7.3 out of 10 because,
Positive: I love the wonderful landscapes, they give a miraculous appearance on the movie. They ship a magical atmosphere that really touch you. The landscapes really bring you back to the magic of the LOTR. That is where Peter Jackson is good at. He creates this marvelous world that make's the movie looks fantastic, for the shot of the nature i love his choice for the HFR(48fps). They let it become real and it works amazingly impressive.
The shot of Rivendell were much more exuberant than in the LOTR, that was also an improvement. The Gollum scene was even better than in the LOTR, he looked even more realistic than the old one. I want to thank Andy Serkis for his impressive acting work. He did an incredible job there. Peter Jackson did a good casting job. The role of Bilbo and Gandalf were played flawless by Martin Freeman and Ian McKellen . I like the more lightly feeling above the movie, it isn't as dark but it doesn't need to be. It got its benefits too.
Negative: The story was too long to be good or contradicted too short to be good.
Why too long?: The introduction was not bad but also not impressive. I liked the humor that was introduced there but the scene's took too long. It kept like forever before the movie really starts. You don't got enough action in the first movie to satisfy the action fan of the movie. Who were waiting the hole movie for the stereotype fight scenes. The fans of the books were not pleased with the adaptation on the book, so peter couldn't please them either. Because of the long intro you were waiting the hole movie for a story that would never come.
Why too short?: For the real LOTR fans and the value seekers was the movie to short. The film was too short to dig out every single character in the film. So there wasn't much draft in the characters and you don't got those intensive conversations between the characters in the movie. You don't got a good ending on the movie it was too early for a cliff hanger. So you didn't really got the intention that you must see the next movie. What you did had was the feeling that you need to know more, but the ending wasn't spectacular. I also missed some wide shot of Middle-earth and more shots of the landscapes.
I was also disappointed in the look of the "new" Orks. They were less impressive than the old one, they were much more computer generated than the old ones. Because of that the magic touch was a bit lost. Peter wanted to be different from his LOTR movies but because of that it was often more disappointing than it was innovating. The 48fps did a bit of the magical feeling go lost. But it also has got its benefits.
Finely, it didn't match the magnificence of the original LOTR but it wasn't bad. The magic touch wasn't optimal. The CG was impressive but not always in the right time, the landscapes were astonishing. But the film was like butter spread over too much bread. Not as fluent as the LOTR but after all it was a wonderful movie with great possibility to improve further in the trilogy .