I actually saw a movie in theaters in a time frame where I can discuss it and still be relevant! I just saw this the other night in 3-D, it was also my first 3-D movie by the way.

Thoughts (may be slightly spoilerish):

I liked it quite a bit, though at times it kind of felt less stirring and epic and "more of the same." It was by no means bad, but there weren't any goosebump-inducing moments like the Balrog's appearance in The Fellowship (well, except maybe when Radagast encounters the necromancer and is nearly killed by the Witch King, I do love the Nazgul...) and while the music was still great, it didn't have the same epic feel a lot of the music from the trilogy had. Like the party's theme music isn't nearly as bombastic and moving as the The Fellowship's theme was. Still, the story was engrossing and I didn't ever check my watch during the three hour run, and I don't think I've ever been to a movie where I didn't check my watch at some point. There were also some scenes that it was an undeniable pleasure to see on big screen, like the trolls and when they're taken by the dawn. I always loved the old Rankin Bass Hobbit cartoon movie as a kid and it was a bit of a thrill to see my favorite scenes from that childhood memory play out in live action with a huge budget so they look fantastic.

The visuals and character/location designs were beautiful as always and some effects definitely benefited from the more advanced current CG compared to the trilogy era effects. The Wargs for example, looked a lot better with smoother fur patterns and reflective eyes. The Goblin King was at once both gross and almost charming, when he bows to Thorin and greets him mockingly as King Under the Mountain is great. He also really reminded me of if Denethor really let himself go, which made me chuckle.

I've heard a lot of negative comments about how Jackson made the movie "too dark." Since the book is supposed to be a more light-hearted story about a band of companions (and after accepting Bilbo, friends) on a grand adventure and that adding the subplot with Azog adds a serious, dark aspect a lot of fans don't like. I've also seen a lot of people complaining about the Azog subplot being in there just to pad the movie and add tension where there isn't any in the book, making it easier to stretch it into three movies. The first argument I just don't see as humor abounds (but thankfully doesn't ever get stale) throughout the movie, while the second I can understand but makes me ask, so what? The movie WOULD have been a lot more boring and shorter without Azog hunting them, but why would you want that? I'm not entirely up to date on all the details of Middle Earth's history, but it's my understanding that Azog DID swear to wipe out Thorin and his bloodline, though somewhat indirectly as I believe in the books he vows to wipe out ALL dwarves and the movie just makes the feud more personal. Seeing as how they weave this subplot pretty seamlessly into the events that actually occur in the book (i.e., the Goblin King mentioning Azog's offer of a reward for the dwarves when they're captured, Azog being the commander of the Warg riders who tree the party towards the end, etc.), I didn't mind it all. Plus it serves as sequel hook because you want to see this score get settled for good.

The acting is pretty great from all the players, but it was so awesome to hear Ian McKellen spouting Gandalfisms again! Kate Blanchett somehow looks even hotter as Galadriel than she did in the trilogy, Christopher Lee chews the scenery while being obviously so very evil, Hugo Weaving is great as always and the way they tied into The Fellowship with a bit of Elijah Wood showing up was a great framing device (I think that's the right term for it.) Really though, Martin Freeman steals the show. I was a little wary when I first saw him in trailers, etc, but he kills throughout his entire performance, he perfectly captures the essence of a Hobbit with adventurous roots fighting with his more comfy, home-bound side and everything from the looks he gets when stuck in a situation he sees no way out of to the way he bravely (yet completely inexperiencedly) fights endears you to the character. The movie probably could have just been three hours of Gandalf and Bilbo quipping back and forth and I still would have loved it, the two have great chemistry.

The dwarves were cool, but they do suffer a little from lack of characterization beyond "the fat one", "the young one", etc. That can be forgiven though as it's just the first of three movies and they were more concerned with fleshing out Thorin and his closest advisers within the party first. Sometimes I'd forget that the majority of characters in the film were dwarves, so during some of the fight scenes I'd be thinking "Wow, those orcs are HUGE!" until I remembered they were normal sized, just fighting short foes. It works though, because they seem all the more intimidating for their difference in size next to the dwarves. I also liked how Azog's prosthetic was essentially a sharpened spike of iron driven into the stump of his arm, a barbed point sticking out near his elbow shows that the procedure to attach it was just as violent as you'd expect orc surgery to be.

Finally, as this was my first 3-D movie, so 3-D thoughts! Most of it was pretty subtle, just enough to give the characters and scenary depth, but the parts that popped out, popped WAY out and I'll admit they caught me a few times. One part that really fooled me was during the beginning exposition on the fall of the Erebor, when the dwarven king is looking out over his treasure room in the background and Thorin (I think?) slips in the foreground from off-screen, I was about to yell at the guy who was walking in front of my view of the screen until I realized it was the 3-D. When the eagles save them at the end, there is a shot where I kinda jumped because it's set up so one of the eagles appears to fly in right over your shoulder. The final 3-D scene that really stuck with me was when Smaug's eye opens at the very end; Before it even opened I was amazed at how pebbly and contoured the closed lid looked, trhen the eye opens and wow. So much detail and so much depth! You can see the depth of the wrinkling in the dragon's iris, it's like actually staring into someone's eye at extremely close range.

Overall, I liked the first section of The Hobbit quite a bit. It has allayed my fears that it would just be a soulless cash grab trying to recapture the first trilogy's thunder and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment, the darkening of Mirkwood should be really cool to see on screen.

Thorton02 wrote:

How the hell did they go from the Trollshaws to ROHAN and then find a hole in the ground that leads them to Rivendell? A treeless plain does not exist west of Rivendell, unless they took some crazy ass route to findthemselves north east of Imladris. It was tough to suspend belief for that scene.

Seriously? The terrain not completely matching Tolkien's map bothered you?