The Hobbit: a mixed bag of good and bad!

Rating: 8/10 (20 December 2012)

Its finally here people, after 9 years of re-watching the epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy over and over again Peter Jackson returns us to Middle Earth in "The Hobbit: An unexpected Journey".
With that being said, my expectations, and the expectations of the world were beyond high and as I sat down in the Sheffield IMAX theatre to pull on my 3D glasses, I was hoping to be blown away. Unfortunately, (and I can't believe I am saying this) after nearly 3 hours, Peter Jackson's return to the world of Tolkien seems rather weak and left me feeling a tad disappointed, but only a tad. Don't get me wrong the film is great and some of the critics slating it need to do one, but in Jacksons attempt to recreate the style of the original films he falls short in some key areas where the LOTR triumphed, and unfortunately the prequels will always be compared to Jacksons LOTR legacy.
Lets start with the biggest debate amongst critics, Jacksons "obsession" with a higher frame rate. This winter, audiences will not only have the choice to see The Hobbit, they'll have the choice to see it in 2D, 3D, or in IMAX 3D at 48 frames-per-second, a speed twice as fast as conventional projection that promises a clearer, more lifelike and sharper image. This is the first time in cinema history that a film has been produced in 48fps and if you can, go and see it in IMAX for this reason.
At first I was against the idea of such a small book being made into a trilogy. I think I still am, which is strange as when it came to the LOTR I longed for 3-hour films and deleted scenes tossed on the cutting room floor to be added to a 5 hour long special edition, but when it comes "The Hobbit", 2 films would definitely have done it justice. By making it into a trilogy I worry quality is being compromised for money's sake, as Peter Jackson doesn't cut The Hobbit, he adds to it with nonsense fan plugs borrowing from LOTR, The Silmarillion, and who knows what else to pointless effect.
For instance, Radagast's involvement is pointless and his bunny sled is ridiculous.. We also get to see Saruman and Galadriel in a boring scene that has absolutely no relevance to the main narrative. Wait, what exactly is "The Hobbit" about again? Apparently Jackson is trying to make connections with LOTR, but "Fellowship of the Ring" already explains past events pretty well. Seriously, all the LOTR fanboy pleasing scenes could have been left out (including Frodo). But no, we need them in order to have enough material for the trilogy, which is what disappointed me about the film.
The bizarre, unfunny, slapstick humor is my last negative about the film. This involves snot jokes, burping, poop hair, and lame one-liners. Most people are saying "well it's based on a children's book", but this is Tolkien's middle earth not an episode of Miranda. Sure, the source material was written for children but I'm talking about the movie. Adding all this stupid humor really messes with the tone; it doesn't feel like it belongs in the LOTR universe that "The Hobbit" is trying hard replicate. The film will go from trying to be epic to pathetic gags.
One of the things that amazed me with the original LOTR films was the fight scenes, how well they were choreographed, and the pace and intensity of the action, the attention to detail, from blood splattered orcs to the scratches and dents in a Gondor chestplate. However, in "The Hobbit", unfortunately this is not the case. Even though the action scenes are stylish and clever, they have been dubbed down, rather than the intense action of the other LOTR films we get pushing, shoving and and slow motion fight scenes that left me wondering is I had missed something. Whether or not this was done to ensure the film received a 12A rating rather than something higher and therefore widening the audience and therefore the prospective profits is beyond me but any of the fight scenes from Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers or The Return of the King would trounce all over all of those from The Hobbit combined.
The best scene in the film BY FAR is the interaction between Bilbo and Gollum. As usual, Andy Serkis steals the show with his Gollum/Smeagol split personality, (someone give that man an Oscar) and Martin Freeman really shows us why Jackson chose him as his Hobbit hero! The finding of the Ring is also significant and is really the only scene that should have any connection with LOTR unlike Galadriel, Frodo, etc.
Having spent the last few paragraphs being a bit negative and picking on every detail that strikes me as a flaw I will say that I did love this film and it had many merits, the casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is perfect, Andy Serkis yet again delivers an outstanding performance as Gollum and Ian Mckellan is every inch the aged but powerful wizard he always was. Also I will say that the film does get better and better as you go through, whether this is due to the fact that for the first 45 minutes of the film you don't once venture outside of Bilbo's home or whether it's due to the audience adjusting to the effects that the new cameras bring, or perhaps a mix of both I don't know but I can say that, despite the impressions that you may have gained from the negativity of this review so far, it was a great film, just in my view it will never be anywhere near as good as the first three LOTR films, and Jacksons attempt to replicate them so far hasn't worked.
Overall rating 7/10.