The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a series of three books that were 400+ pages each. the Hobbit is a series of three movies based on a single book that was 310 pages. That means that Peter Jackson had to split this scant source material into three movies covering roughly 100 pages each. The fact is, this kind of thing has been done to great effect before. The Shawshank Redemption was a short story of 94 pages and Justified was entirely based on a scant 60 pages.
Here's the problem with forced perspective - it's inconsistent. See, the way they get the hobbits and dwarfs to look smaller than humans is to mess with perspective. It's a difficult and time-consuming process that give a fantastic result when it's done right. Unfortunately, it's hard to do right all the time. So, we have a giant Ian McKellen when he's in the hobbit hole, but then he's only pretty tall when we're outside. And what size are goblins supposed to be? Are they bigger than hobbits? Not in the Great Hall, they aren't.
I'm not going to do my normal review and tell you how each of the actors does in their job - they are all fantastic. From the reprized roles of Ian McKellen and Hugo Weaving, and Elijah Wood to the new guys like Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, and Benedict Cumberbatch, there isn't a stinker in the lot.
Likewise, production quality and effects are tremendous. Yes, there is the aforementioned little niggle with the forced perspective, but it's probably just me being picky. Also, there is a Wilhelm scream. When is that going to die? There are continuity and pure chance problems that you pretty much have to overlook, and it's not too hard to.
The fact that it is over 20 minutes before we leave The Shire is a good indication that this is going to be a long movie. At over two and a half hours, it is indeed long. The most obvious thoughts on this journey is to question why Gandalf didn't just summon his giant birds right off the bat. It would have really destroyed the movie in general, I guess, but you can't have a massive power that you never use without explanation.
I remember reading The Hobbit and skipping over the dwarf songs, as they were tedious and did little to advance the story. Well, in the expended movie, we get two damn dwarf songs before they leave the hobbit hole. The low, dark song is familiar, and it still doesn't interest me in the slightest. The one that they sing while they are doing the dishes was idiotic. And the CG dishes just made no sense - they didn't follow the rules of physics, and we never again saw the dwarfs show that kind of alacrity and dexterity.
In all, this isn't a bad movie, but it is so damn stretched out that even a fan of Tolkien such as myself really thought that the movie should kick it into gear. It's a natural consequence of stretching the source material, I think. If they would have even seperated it into two instead of three movies, it would have been WAY better. The Hobbit: There and The Hobbit: Back Again. Problem solved.
Cinematography was excellent
Effects were excellent
Story was great
Pacing was horrible
Acting was fantastic
3.75/5