It's no LotR, but...

Rating: 7/10 (18 December 2012)

I've been looking forward to seeing this film since I first heard it was being made. I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy and have read The Hobbit hundreds of times. I had unbelievably high expectations, which I'm a little sad to say weren't met. That said, The Hobbit is not a bad film, it just doesn't quite live up to the hype.
I'll get the negatives out of the way first. To start with, it really is too long. The addition of extra material from other Tolkien sources may well warrant a trilogy, but there isn't really any reason for this film to be as long as it is. Radagast is a lovely character but his scenes felt tacked in and just distracted from the main action. Unnecessary cameos from LotR cast members adds to the length of the film and little else. The CGI, whilst impressive, doesn't work either. I know the technology is amazing, but actors would've made the villains actually seem like a threat (think Uruk Hai). Granted, it is necessary in some scenes but Jackson relies on it a little too much here.
Other than those negatives, I liked it. The acting is great, with special mentions going to Martin Freeman and James Nesbitt. Freeman is perfect for Bilbo and Nesbitt adds some much needed comedy. Dwarfs aren't as naturally charismatic as other Middle Earth characters (if Gimli wasn't your thing, you'll really hate this movie) but they're given warmth and charm throughout the film. However, Andy Serkis steals the whole film in the riddles in the dark scene (CGI works well here, proof that Jackson can do it nicely sometimes).
Overall, the film is an enjoyable watch. It's fun but frothy, which was inevitable with the source material being a short children's book. I just wish Jackson had been a little more discerning when editing the film as it would've improved ten fold with better pacing.