It's nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but still a decent adaptation and a refreshing visit to Middle-Earth.

Rating: 8/10 (3 August 2015)

Yep. Summary says it all. "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a fairly good film, but it has too many problems to live up to the cinematic masterpiece that was "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.
It feels like Jackson and the writers are confused about the direction and the audience of the film. On the one hand, they've tried to imitate the deep, dark tone of "The Lord of the Rings", but they've also shoved in a lot of silly, slapstick humour that appeals to children. It just doesn't work together, and the result is the episodic mishmash that is "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey".
The pros:
Jackson has done it again. With the magnificent scenery of New Zealand and beautiful visual design of - well, just about everything - "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a wonderful return to the beautiful, dangerous, epic world that is Middle-Earth.
The story is adapted generally quite consistently from the book. It deviates a little and adds tons of information like the Battle of Azanulbizar and the White Council's discussion at Rivendell. In my opinion, these ideas were worthy additions to the film as they explore the dwarfs' and Sauron's backstories, but I think they were executed quite poorly, for reasons I'll expand on later.
The actors are well-chosen. Ian Mckellen is amazing in pretty much everything he's in. Martin Freeman brings a bit of comedy and light- heartedness to the film, while Richard Armitage is perfectly proud and austere as the brooding Thorin Oakenshield.
The cons:
Waaaaaaaaaaay too much CGI. The orcs in "The Lord of the Rings" were terrifying because they were real, made-up extras, not some fake- looking computer-generated image. Also, did Azog and his crew need to have so much screen time? We already understand how dangerous the quest is, and how Thorin has many enemies on his trail. The orcs didn't really add anything to the story, which should have been more concentrated on developing the characters of all thirteen dwarfs.
I feel that the main problem in this film was that the filmmakers tried to imitate the slow, grand tone of "The Lord of the Rings". Almost every single line of dialogue is spoken way too slowly, the pacing seems to be held back, and the action has too much slow- motion. What should have been really interesting scenes (like the Council at Rivendell and the Battle of Azanulbizar) are ruined by their overdramatic overtones.
The alright:
Howard Shore returns to score this film. He reuses quite a lot of motifs from "The Lord of the Rings" in all the right places, and new material in the others. However, his new additions are pleasant but mediocre, epic but unmemorable. They don't contain the subtlety that he created in "The Lord of the Rings". Still, the "Misty Mountains" theme is fairly nice, and the music sets the tone well, so I guess it's not all that bad.
The humour is quite subjective. I found most of it quite unfunny, but there were memorable scenes like Bofur and his table-dancing. But undoubtedly, humour is incredibly subjective and differs with everybody.
Look, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is a decent film. It is far from living up to the standard set by Jackson in "The Lord of the Rings", but is a nice return to the visual world of Middle-Earth.