Decent, but don't weigh it up to Lord of The Rings.

Rating: 6/10 (7 January 2014)

The feeling I got from leaving the cinema after watching this prequel was vaguely reminiscent of the feeling from watching the Star Wars prequels. The difference between those two experiences was that The Hobbit was not actually a bad movie. The reminiscence I felt was the same level of high expectation coming in, and the same level of morbid un-satisfaction I felt upon leaving the cinema three hours later.
To make it absolutely clear, it's not objectively bad. My distaste for it is entirely based on the source material it represents, not it's credibility as a stand-alone work of film production. The film is definitely enjoyable which is why I gave it a 6/10. To give credit where it's due, I will at first mention the things the movie does well.
The most obvious thing the film has going for it, is the visuals. While the CGI use is a bit overbearing (on which I will elaborate on when discussing the film's faults), the wide, sweeping landscape shots of the New Zealand setting warmly invite die-hard fans back into Middle Earth. I didn't see it in 48FPS so I reserve no right to talk about what most of the internet is relaying as a terrible idea, but it deserves mention that 48FPS is now an option.
You also get to witness some amazing set-pieces in Middle Earth that you had already seen in Lord of The Rings, but have now been reformatted for higher definition and quality.
There are some fairly decent performances from this cast. Martin Freeman pays a lot of respect to Tolkien's Bilbo Baggins from the book, and performs him as almost a reflection of audience reaction. He responds and behaves the way perhaps quite a few people in the audience would react in this crazy adventure he's been persuaded into. This makes the character relatable, but not intriguing.
However, the real star of the show is Andy Serkins. He only appears in one long scene, but his rendition of the wretched Gollum is even more frightening and riveting as it was in The Lord of The Rings.
Some of the fight scenes are enjoyable, and there is a reasonable amount of humor in the film. However, this concludes the list of things I liked.
To start off, splitting this story into three parts was a silly move (or brilliant if you view it from a business perspective.) The Lord of The Rings was collectively a 1112 page story that was so densely packed with content that the extended film editions barely came any close to accounting for it all. The Hobbit is 500 page story, dilute of complexity, in which a hobbit and a company of dwarfs embark on a quest. Splitting it into three installments causes serious padding and pacing issues. The parts of the movie that abuse this the most are the first 45 minutes and everything to do with Radagast the Brown.
The Hobbit has lost something that the LOTR trilogy used extremely well: realism. Even in a trilogy of fantastical races uniting against a tyrannical demon lord, the combat was believable, the armour was based off authentic medieval chain-mail design, and the supernatural elements were shrouded in subtlety. Although there were magic and creatures,there wasn't a great deal of it due to the focus on the series being the brotherhood between enemies in the face of war. Right from the prologue, The Hobbit missed this point. Everything looks so digital now, the dwarf kingdom was ludicrously designed, and the combat was so unrealistic the audience was likely to be torn between taking it seriously or not. Sometimes it was child friendly, sometimes it was horrifically violent. No wonder Martin Freeman always looks confused.
However, the biggest issue has to be the liberties taken with the source material, though I can't discuss those on this review. All in all, The Hobbit is a misguided attempt as a film following the incredible LOTR trilogy, but a success as a visual achievement and a piece of entertainment.