I revisit this film occasionally in the hope that I'll come to like it. It seems to me to be a film that ought to be something special and yet it lacks that sense of wonder and amazement that director Peter Jackson managed so brilliantly with his Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Perhaps the originality of those films just cannot be replicated now that the world of Middle-earth has been revealed although I think it's that the sense of realism that was created in the fantasy world of LOTR has somehow not been successfully recreated in The Hobbit series. It is also incredible that Jackson has managed to eek out a trilogy of films from a very slim children's novel and in doing so he has attempted to incorporate the book's child focused narrative and sense of fun with the dark atmosphere and horror aspects of the LOTR book and narrative, and this doesn't work effectively. On the positive side there are flashes of the dark fantasy film that fans hoped for and Martin Freeman is simply superb as the trilogy's titular hero, Bilbo Baggins who is forced into an adventure with a group of disaffected dwarves to reclaim their homeland now occupied by a fearsome dragon whom we shall only glimpse in this first film. This is an accomplished film with some wonderful visual creations that fans will tolerate because of the brilliance of the LOTR series but it's ultimately a disappointment and one only wonders what Guillermo del Toro who was originally to direct this, would have done with it.
I have read The Hobbit many time and I think that it is a simpler, more enjoyable and more readable book than LOTR. To stretch the former into 3 films is a travesty as there are many parts in the film that are obviously there to be padding - as is the major faux pas when they meet with Galadriel. There are *no* female characters in The Hobbit book and Galadriel was in LOTR. Good CGI but the baddies aren't bad enough (yet?) and was I the only one who was rooting for the Wargs in the battles?
This film at its worst is like the tedious 2nd part of Lord of the Rings - with boring battle after boring battle.
However, there is enough story to keep it going - and some really excellent dialogue (from the book or the film), especially by Ian McKellen playing Gandalf. Sylvester McCoy does a good turn as a scatty St-Francis of Assisi-style wizard, with some lovely animals, although the plot points are a bit confusing sometimes.
The dwarfs are good - (yep, it should be dwarfs and NOT dwarves as they use here in the subtitles) - and there is some great British acting talent on display: Christopher Lee (AKA Dracula) is almost 90 and still does a great turn. Plus, I am delighted they use the word 'chips' to mean, well, chips! And not 'fries'. The New Zealand scenery if lovely too.
I would advise use of subtitles to appreciate the dialogue, as with lots of noisy movies these days - unless you are a child who just wants the pictures and noises and bright colours.
All in all, not a bad effort. 3 stars - and would have been 4 if they had shown self-discipline and cut out the flab to make this 2 hours. Really, it is too long - and the orc CGI battles are boring, frankly.
How much you like this movie depends on how much you are in love with elves, wizards, orcs, dwarfs and the whole LOTR schtick.