Not as good as Rings but still a lot of fun

Rating: 8/10 (31 December 2013)

The Hobbit was filmed at 48 fps as opposed to the standard 24 fps. In the first Hobbit film I actually didn't notice a difference, but I really did in this one. In fact for the first half of the movie it was still bothering me. It felt like watching British television. Strangely it seemed even more-so during scenes that were filmed on a studio and had no music. For some reason the 48 fps seemed to actually make it feel LESS epic.
The actual story was similar in tone to the book with one calamity after another befalling the dwarfs.
It was the stuff they added that wasn't in the book that really slowed down the pace (Gandalf's investigation into the nature of the necromancer and the love story between Killi and Tauriel). That said I thought putting Legolas in was a great idea.
Smaug was a highlight of the film. Every scene with him was really exciting and they seemed to do a good job of deflecting the story holes, for example, the absurdity of Smaug determining to attack the river city to get back at Bilbo and the Dwarfs.
And then there's the ending I'm of two minds about the ending. In the first two Rings movies and the first Hobbit movie we were sort of lulled towards the end which left you wanting more, but wound down giving a sense of contentment. This one made no such attempts and was very abrupt. It was either a brilliant move or a terrible one, and I haven't decided yet which.