Great character development and plot momentum but too much CGI.

Rating: 9/10 (15 December 2012)

This is not a traditional review of The Hobbit, more of a focus on the writing and directorial choices rather than music, acting or high frame rate.
First, I want to make a point about the story itself. This story is the most self-contained of all in the series so far. It has all basic elements, the beginning, the inciting incident, the turning point, the climax just as a regular story structure should. More importantly, it has strong character development. If you compare Frodo from the beginning of "Fellowship of the Ring" to the end, he is certainly a different person, but it's less of a dramatic shift. He wasn't nearly as opposed to going on an adventure in the beginning as Bilbo so you didn't get to see as much of a dramatic change as Frodo warms up to the idea. Frodo's inexperience with fighting and combat wasn't nearly as blatant so when he finally starts fighting, it's insignificant. We don't see him grow or change much. Frankly, in the subsequent films after "Fellowship of the Ring", Frodo doesn't really change a whole lot at all. We pretty much get a love/hate relationship with Frodo towards the Ring for the entire next two movies with a passable character arc regarding his changing feelings towards Sméagol and Sam. In "An Unexpected Journey" we get a much more gripping story of a Hobbit who very clearly did not want to go on an adventure but warms up to the idea of it. He also finds his courage and bravery and wins the heart of Thorin, who undergoes his own character development too. "An Unexpected Journey" has the best character development out of all in the series so far and partially for that same reason, this film works better as a standalone piece than the others.
As for the runtime, it was long. But that was not problematic. I didn't have a problem with the runtime and at no point was I thinking to myself "When is this over?" I attribute that to its storytelling. This film has the best momentum out of all in the series. With the other movies, there was a wave of action, then some downtime and then the action rose again and then it fell again. There was a constant rise and fall of action throughout. With "An Unexpected Journey" you find that the level of action grows consistently as the movie progresses, which helps draw the audience in and bring them along with what's happening on screen. The story built. It didn't just jump right into it like "Fellowship of the Ring" did. It's certainly a more gripping and exciting way to tell a story. In fact, the only things I would consider being cut would be the fight between the Stone Giants or the scene when the Dwarfs do Bilbo's dishes. Other than that, everything has its place.
The large flashback battle sequences with the dwarfs, while I would've preferred to see more use of practical effects, didn't so much bother me because as a flashback, it can be more stylized. The reclaiming of Moria for example looked really cool despite having a lot of CG in it. However, it's when you get into things like Azog or the goblins when I feel like CG was used to excess. The other orc villains we've seen in the series were never digitally rendered. They were done using practical effects and they were very creepy. Even the goblins in Moria in "Fellowship of the Ring" were done with practical effects rather than digital rendering. It's a generally well accepted fact that if you can do something practically, you should do it. Directors who understand this have made masterpieces using practical effects over CGI. In fact during early pre-production of the movie, back when Guillermo Del Toro was on board as director, Del Toro was pushing for the use of more practical effects. Frankly, despite my absolute love for Peter Jackson, I think in this particular instance, Del Toro would've been the better choice. I think Del Toro's vision for creature design was superior to that of Jackson's. But directors these days choose to push the limits of what they can create visually, despite the more realistic factor produced by the alternative. Jackson has simply fallen victim to this trend. However, despite my criticism of the overuse of GCI, I still am not too bothered by it. I've seen worse. And frankly, it's very good CGI. It's not that the movie is throwing too much CGI at once, it's that it's using CG as a substitute or "way out" when it could be doing other things.
The tone of this movie, as expected, is a lot lighter than that of the other Tolkien iterations we've seen. But frankly, that should come as a surprise to no one even vaguely familiar with the story. Yet, Jackson managed to sprinkle some darker elements in there which blend nicely. We get some good foreshadow which will help build "The Hobbit" trilogy into "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I think the way Jackson has set this up will make it especially good as one grand arc encompassing the six movie series. That fact also applies in pacing as well. This movie has a slower pace than all the others. When viewed together, the movies will blend really well from one to the next both in pacing and tone.
All in all, this was a very good movie. Bilbo is a much more interesting character than Frodo. We see a lot of character growth. We see a lot of action, but we still get a smaller scaled story. All in all, I think with the exception of some CG choices which honestly don't bother me too much, this movie was done about as well as it could've been.