Excellent if a little slow in places..

Rating: 8/10 (6 January 2013)

For clarification, this review is based on the UK cinema release of The Hobbit in HFR 3D.
The most talked about aspect of this movie in particular has been the choice of 48 frames per second (fps) High Frame Rate in which to film, aka HFR. It seems sensible to address this aspect first.
I have seen various reviews from complaints of headaches, to the high tech distracting from the story. Despite having a slightly lazy eye myself I suffered no headaches, nor did I feel the HFR 3D detracted from my enjoyment of the movie. Thus on those points I conclude that it is a personal / subjective issue and should not alone detract you from viewing the movie. One aspect I was occasionally aware of was that the edges seemed overly well defined in the 3D areas (in technical terms the anti-aliasing was for me a touch harsh sometimes). Whether this is common to all 3D or only HFR 3D I am unable to say as this was my first foray into 3D. Overall I found that aspect thoroughly enjoyable and actually allowed me to immerse myself *more* in the story than normal rather than detracting.
Now to the film content itself. There will be inevitable comparisons with the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) trilogy, both based on works by the same author, and brought to the cinema by the same director. However there is a major distinction between the two in that the Hobbit was originally conceived as a children's book whereas the LOTR was always intended for an adult audience.
It seems overall this dichotomy presented something of a quandary to the director. Had he aimed The Hobbit at a mainly child audience he would have lost a great many adult cinema-goers. Therefore The Hobbit has a more adult feel to it that the book. However the movie then satisfies the financiers by attaining a 12A certificate (in the UK this means children 12 or under may see it provided they are accompanied by an adult but are not prohibited completely). This coupled with scenes such as the 'washing up' gives a mildly contradictory flavour between that and the gravitas brought to the film by the likes of Armitage and Freeman.
It is ironic that in Tolkien's major work aimed at adults LOTR the sole dwarf present, Gimli, is reduced frequently to the role of comedy dwarf 'dangerous over short distances', yet in the work aimed at children, the dwarfs are presented as Tolkien always intended, a proud, honourable, brave race. The dwarfs of The Hobbit are cast in the latter mould which is a far more authentic role and much more pleasing to those familiar with the original works. I was initially concerned with the publicity photos released with the wide disparity in appearances, however with one or two exceptions - which I will come to in a moment - I have come to really like the variations.
The exceptions come in the form of Fili, Kili, and last but not least, the lead character, Thorin Oakenshield. Dwarfs are as a rule without exception stocky and short, with wide broad features, and of course the ubiquitous 'beard you could hide a badger in'. All three appear to me to be too good-looking to be dwarfs, in the case of the younger ones lacking the mandatory beard.
I have friends who admire Richard Armitage as an actor who take exception to my criticism of him as Thorin. They miss the fact that I am *not* criticising his acting of the role, which is as superb as that which he brings to every role he is given. His mannerisims, behaviour and general aura exude dwarf from every pore. However where I *do* think the ball has been dropped is by the make-up department. Armitage is naturally tall and of slim build, the exact opposite of a dwarf - indeed had he been cast as an elf I would have deemed it a perfect choice. All these issues could have been addressed by the makeup department, yet to my eye he is still unmistakeably Richard Armitage with the same slim facial features which have only received minor attention from prosthetics. Could have been better.
The scenery and sets of course were perfect, Bag End, Hobbiton and Rivendell being the same locations and sets as used in LOTR. New locations were as expected perfectly selected and the new sets such as the Goblin Kingdom were excellently achieved.
Dialogue was 95% good with the occasional Americanism and/or modern usage slipping in.
The pace of the movie has come in for criticism, and at times with good reason. Peter Jackson took 12 hours to portray the 1500 pages of LOTR, which is a rate of 125 pages per hour or two per minute. The Hobbit is approximately 380 pages, and if Jackson sticks to his 3 movie target he will achieve about 9 hours in total, which will be a rate of 42 pages per hours, about 0.6 per minute. He has stated that there will be additional content from Tolkien's appendices; yet he has already squandered a major opportunity in condensing the White Council - which the book gives the impression of being a major event albeit it is not portrayed - into about 15 minutes of screen time. Yet in other places the film felt padded, particularly the length of time it took the party to leave Hobbiton felt a little stretched. Once on the road though the pace increased to an acceptable level.
In summary there is good and bad in The Hobbit but I feel that despite the bad I have highlighted it still merits the high mark I have awarded to it and is a 'Must See' movie.