I saw it last weekend. At first, I was worried that Peter Jackson was making much more of The Hobbit (three movies, really?) than there was to actually work with, but by bringing in the history of the dwarves under the mountain, and including bits and pieces from The Silmarillion, I think he actually made the story better. I would agree that he was able to upgrade the story to match LotR.

I did find it a bit slow in spots, and watching it in 2D I found it a bit blurry here and there, but that would be the extent of any complaints. Like LotR, the movie is visually breathtaking, and the CGI has certainly improved -- Gollum is amazing.

I thought Martin Freeman was perfect as Bilbo, Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar nomination for his Gollum, Richard Armitage was impressive and dignified as Thorin Oakenshield, and everyone else slipped back into their roles so beautifully it was like visiting old friends.

I plan to see this again, perhaps in 3D, and I will absolutely be purchasing it when it comes to DVD. And I can't wait to see what Benedict Cumberbatch does as Smaug in the next movie.

I haven't seen it yet, but hope to soon. I just wish I had someone to see it with! DH absolutely is NOT interested in this type of movie (but he did go see Lincoln).
I am glad to hear that you enjoyed it, there have been such mixed reviews of it so far.

Pat

I am also anxious to see the movie but just have not had time yet. Hopefully after I return from my Christmas trip it will be possible. I can't wait to see the scenery and hear the music!

I posted this on a FB discussion, but there is not a lot of crossover so I thought I'd post it here as well.

If you live in an area that offers all 4 formats, I would recommend the standard 2D, at least for the first time you see it. That is what Tom and I did. There are three other formats available, though not everywhere: RealD 3D, Imax 3D and the new HFR 3D. For my second viewing I saw HFR 3D because I was curious about the new format. Also, I dislike IMAX because it tends to be blasted so loud that it gives me a headache. I wanted to see the new high frame rate. It has a different appearance which I found to be a bit distracting, but I suppose we'll get used to it in time and may even come to prefer it. The 3D effect is noticeable at times but not overly intrusive.

I'm a bit sorry that I saw it the second time only a few days after the first. I found myself a bit impatient because I remembered too clearly what was coming next. It would have been better to wait a couple of weeks. I did not, because I was not sure that the format I wanted to see would be available when I was ready.

A lot of the material they added came from other Tolkien writings.It was not simply made up. There were a couple of points for which I did not recognize the origin, but that may be my lack of knowledge. Definitely Jackson & Co elevated it from a children's movie to an adult movie (a good thing), made the elves less childlike (a very good thing) and made Rivendell more elaborate (not such a good thing; I found it gaudy, grander but less mysterious). The attitude of the Rivendell elves toward the expedition was quite a bit cooler than I remember it being in the novel. Jackson kept the two most iconic songs and made them work very well, which pleased me, and dropped the others, which also pleased me. In fact the theme song of the whole movie is based on one of them to beautiful effect. Other than that, they recycled a lot of the music from the earlier movies. Mostly that is a good thing because it provides a sense of continuity, but the new music added some needed freshness. I hope there will be more new music in the following two movies.

On the whole, I liked the movie. What it lacked for me is the sense of save-the-world urgency that the LotR movie series had propelling it. Thorin's personal quest does not seem like quite enough, and Bilbo's journey of discovery, also seemed not adequate to the darkness of the tone. Given that the fate of the world is not in peril, I might have liked to see a slightly lighter tone, not as light as the book, but lighter than LotR. I'm surprised to find that for me, it matches too well. Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo Baggins are both brilliantly cast. Having quite genuinely loved Ian Helm as Bilbo, I was surprised to discover that I actually liked Martin Freeman even better!

I do suspect that two as opposed to three movies would have been better, even with the added material. So far it does not feel...

I haven't seen it yet but plan to do so next weekend. I am debating whether to read the book again to refresh my memory before seeing the movie or waiting until afterwards and reading it to regain my original ideas. Any thoughts on this? What would those of you who are Tolkein fans consider?

I ordered the book from Amazon and got it two days ago. I tried the library but there was a huge Hold lineup. It cost only 4.50 from amazon, cheaper than buying it on my ebook, if that helps.

Can't wait to see the movie!

I just saw the film this afternoon. I didn't have a choice of formats as I live in the back of nowhere, but that's okay. I quite enjoyed it. It seems Jackson has really grown as a film maker - this production seems smoother, the acting more sophisticated. Very little scenery-chewing. Lots of connections with the prior films as mentioned, from the music to the 'character' of the ring itself.

IMHO, don't re-read the book before seeing the movie. It might actually be annoying to do so. Again, my opinion only. The plot is very straightforward, and is really quite loosely based on the book.

All right Siobhan. Im putting The Hobbit aside and dragging my dear husband to this film. I love this man (we have been married 30 yrs), he always comes along even though he knows this is probably something he won't like...but he loves seeing me so entranced by a film.

Every time a new "Jane Eyre" comes out, he goes, well I guess we will be seeing this one, won't we? Is this the sixth or seventh version?

Let us know what you think! And your DH too!

I think I will wait until I see the movie then before re-reading the book. I went online to see about getting tickets to see it tomorrow but all the shows are sold out so I guess I will have to wait for the weekend after all.

The movie is noticeably different from the book, Jackson's vision of Tolkien's vision. But almost everything that struck me as not being from the novel was either a result of making the movie for adults rather than children, or taken from the Appendixes and adapted to fit.

Rosefolly

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. There goblin/orc battle scenes were a little long and the rest of my family was a little annoyed at the end when we found out that the reason it ended so abruptly is that Jackson is turning the one book into a trilogy. Daughter: "Just a money grab!"

But I loved seeing my old friends from LOTR, and hearing the music - also how they connected it to the original movies.

Question: DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVENT SEEN MOVIE. At the end, the "thrush" which they intrepreted as a sign, wakes up the dragon by breaking/tapping the snail shell. Now, was that accidental or was the thrush in cahoots with the dragon and was warning it? I thought it was accidental but my husband is convinced it was a warning... What do you think?

I remember the thrush from the book. It does wake up the dragon but it is not in partnership with it.

I just got home from seeing the movie. I agree that the Orc and battle scenes went on a bit too long, but then I don't handle battle scenes well anyway. I loved the music, especially the Misty Mountain song;it's running through my head right now in fact.

Gollum was brilliantly done, with the split personality of Smeagol/Deagol. I agree that Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar for his acting. I also agree that Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage brilliantly cast.

Even though I was on the edge of my seat for a good part of the movie I am eagerly awaiting the next part. (Did I mention that I don't handle tension well? LOL)

I won't be seeing the movie. I might consider getting it on DVD.

I resent being expected to pay for three films, for a story which is really only enough for one, or two at most. Peter Jackson may be telling us that this is his Middle Earth vision, and it includes lots of extra stuff that are not in the book. But the cynic in me knows full well that it's been made into three movies to get us to pay through the nose three times.

If Cloud Atlas can be done in one film, so can The Hobbit.

And it's not as if it's cheap to go to the flicks these days either....thirty five quid for me, my wife and my daughter is plenty. I can buy several DVDs for that money, and watch them in the comfort of my own home, without the smell of popcorn, the noise of kids and the glare of mobile phones distracting me.

OK. Rant over. I feel better now.