Great, but completely different from Lord of the Rings

Rating: 10/10 (16 December 2012)

OK, it's 3 days out and I have already seen it twice. And I will definitely see it a third time before the year is over. So, yeah, I am a fan of Tolkien and Peter Jacksons adaptations of his works. And yes, I obviously liked "The Hobbit" - but not instantly. Actually, after the first viewing on Friday, I didn't know what to make of it. It took a second viewing on Saturday for me to really appreciate it. I think the main reason for this is that it is so extremely different from the three LOTR movies. Yes, I read the book so I knew that it was nothing like LOTR, but I wasn't sure if the movie would be like the book or if they would try to make it more like LOTR to not scare away audiences. I was further confused by announcements that they would spice up the story with elements from other Tolkien works. Add to that the fact that they make a trilogy of probably the same length as LOTR out of a book that is about a third as thick and the confusion was complete. I honestly didn't know what to expect from this movie, and after seeing it the first time, as I mentioned already, I really didn't know what I had just seen. A friend of mine saw it without any previous knowledge other than seeing LOTR and without any expectations and he liked it instantly, so having no background on this movie seems to help a lot.
So, but how is it different from LOTR? Well, first and foremost, like the book, it is much more lighthearted and much less epic. There isn't the fate of the world at stake here, there is no desperate race against time and no hopeless battle against evil itself. It's just a dangerous adventure. So the movie naturally is much less emotionally engaging, much less tense and dramatic. Also "The Hobbit" doesn't feature as many strong characters as LOTR does. Whereas in LOTR every member of the fellowship is an interesting character in its own right, in "The Hobbit" only three of the company stick out while the rest are just a blur. And then there's the tempo of the movie that is much much slower than even the extended versions of LOTR. So all those reviews that are complaining about the movie being to long, they are right, in a way. The question is only if you care or not. I myself do not, because as a fan I loved every minute I could spend in this fantastic world with those lovable characters. I see that much of it might seem redundant to casual audiences, but none of it is not good or doesn't add to either the world or the characters. Think of it as a movie made for fans, with a lot of stuff that fans will love but most others will not care much about.
Besides that the movie is what you could expect from the director and much of the same staff from LOTR. It is a movie that is both intimate and larger than live, a movie that is both funny and dramatic. It shows beautiful landscapes and fantastic sets and effect-shots. The score is every bit as great as those of the three LOTR movies and the cast is just perfect. The biggest win here is clearly Martin Freeman as Bilbo. He is nothing short of perfect for the role and plays it with much spirit and charm. Richard Armitage plays his Thorin with charisma and authority and has a really strong presence on screen. Much like Viggo Mortensen did as Aragorn in the LOTR movies. Ian McKellen as Gandalf is even more grumpy than in LOTR, but that only makes him more likable. The other recurring characters from LOTR have only brief appearances but it's still nice to have them in this one. And then there is the scene with Gollum, and I have to say I liked this more than every scene with Gollum from the LOTR movies. It is more scary, more sad and more funny all at once than all his scenes in the other movies. Seriously this is just so great, I almost applauded! But the best bit about "The Hobbit" is the finale. It isn't a great action sequence, but a really dramatic emotional climax that perfectly wraps up the character exposition and development for this first movie.
"The Hobbit" also features some spectacular action, but nothing that can live up to the Moria-sequence of "The Fellowship". You can tell they tried really hard to match up to "The Fellowship", but that movie had the Balrog in it, so naturally they failed. But it doesn't really matter for the "The Hobbit" has many other strengths and really does not need to fear comparison to "Lord of the Rings". It is different, but it is every bit as good.
About 3D and HFR:
I've seen it once in HFR and once at standard frame rate. Both were in 3D. So, does HFR look so horrible as most people say? Well, I would say that it surely is an acquired taste. Objectively it does look fantastic, almost like looking at reality. The clearness and motion sharpness really is fantastic. But that's exactly the problem. We are not used to movies looking like reality. And as ridiculous as it may sound, it makes the movie look cheap. The version i saw at normal frame rate looked much more impressive to me. My opinion here is clear: It's a movie, it isn't meant to look real. So please refrain from using HFR ever again! Luckily the BluRay version will run at 24p, so outside theaters we will be spared HFR for the next few years.
The 3D has impressive depth, but other than that I feel that Jackson has made very poor use of the capabilities of 3D.