Quite disappointed in one major way

Rating: 5/10 (29 December 2012)

Here is what really bothers me about this movie: As the movie opens, a birthday party is about to begin. Bilbo Baggins is turning 111 years old (and Frodo is turning 33)... then the story flashes back to when Bilbo set off on his adventure... at that time he was 50 years old (we are talking hobbit years, of course)... and his adventure begins.
Now moving along to "The Lord of the Rings" story... it opens with the same birthday party, with Bilbo turning 111 and Frodo turning 33, and Bilbo disappearing just after he gives Frodo the ring to keep... then the story flashes forward to when Frodo turns 50 and he sets off on his own adventure.
So it is that both Bilbo (in "The Hobbit") and Frodo (in "The Rings") set off on their respective adventures at the age of 50.
BUT... compare the actors used in these movies. Elijah Wood, who played Frodo, was about 20 years old when he made "The Rings" movies, whereas Martin Freeman, who plays Bilbo, is about 40 years old. Elijah Wood seems boyish, whereas Martin Freeman appears almost middle-aged. Yet both of them are playing 50-year-old hobbits.
The difference really jarred me. Still jars me. It doesn't fit. Very inconsistent.
It would've been far better to have used a younger actor for Bilbo in "The Hobbit".
After all, if one is going to tell a story using visual language rather than literary language, then the visual language needs to be as internally coherent, just literary language is coherent within the novels.