The response so far to The Hobbit has been decidedly mixed. Criticised for its long running time and absence of sustained dramatic pacing, it has languished to a status of disappointing mediocrity by many film critics and theatregoers. Though these responses are valid, this prequel to the Lord of the Rings trilogy is actually a very successful attempt at recreating Tolkien’s world.
Peter Jackson manages to establish himself as a fine exponent of the fantasy epic genre in ways that a director such as David Yates of Harry Potter fame always failed. Where Yates would be concerned with plot moving centrepieces, Jackson takes a clear interest in the minute detail of Tolkien’s imagination. The way the camera dances through the ork’s lair, for example, shows he is more interested in Middle Earth itself rather than just the quest of our protagonists. While this leads to a slow and delicate pace, the film’s reality becomes stronger and it is inevitable for the audience to become overwhelmed at the sheer depth of the creatures and buildings present in the film. You can tell Jackson is the sort of person more interested in the history of the characters and the politics of Middle Earth rather than the main storyline.
Where this becomes a problem, though, is with the somewhat strained characterisation, especially of the 13 dwarves on the quest. Despite meeting them all at The Shire for a good half hour at the beginning, we are still unsure of what each dwarf’s personality traits are. They seem to mould themselves into, more or less, one singular entity, except for the leader, Thorin. This was never as much of a problem in The Lord of the Rings because we only had the likes of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli travelling with the hobbits. Added to that, they were defined by their weapons and were of different species so were instantly identifiable. It’s never a good sign when you define a dwarf as “the fat one” or as “the James Nesbitt one” but none of them were really given enough screen-time to be able to become relatable. Jackson chose to concentrate more on legitimising the quest and of how the dwarves ended up losing their city in the first place. This is definitely a failing, as the audience won’t mind as much if harm was to befall one of the dwarves.
The storyline also suffers from occasional problems due to Jackson’s habits of going off on tangents to explore another facet of Tolkien’s universe. We spend some time with Radagast, who discovers something amiss at the ruins of Dol Guldur. Radagast is barely mentioned in the novels but has a greatly expanded role in the film, which is both good and bad. On one hand, he is a fine comic creation with a sleigh run by rabbits, birds living in his hair and being capable of reviving dead hedgehogs. Rather like a fine Disney character, he charms the audience with ease and is wonderfully portrayed by Sylvester McCoy. However, he often distracts from Bilbo’s journey and is not really entirely necessary to anything that goes on. There are many examples of this, which never really plagued the initial Lord of the Rings saga. It demonstrates the challenges of making six hours of film from a relatively short book such as The Hobbit.
Having said that, it is rather unfair on Jackson to concentrate so much on the negatives. He has clearly chosen to make a film for a certain type of viewer, the one that is interested in the dazzling scope of history present between the lines. What makes series like Harry Potter, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings so popular is not the storyline but the world in which the authors create. Jackson is clearly trying to portray the world rather than the bare essentials of the plot. This noble aim has been achieved in an immensely satisfying way and it is easy to become absorbed in the hobbits’ journey. Perhaps the reason so many people have been as quick to charge The Hobbit with crimes against pacing is because they aren’t used to the brazen nature of his pondering amusement of the subject. This is a fine companion piece to the original trilogy and does not deserve to be relegated to the Star Wars Episode I lists of disappointing prequels. It is a fine film that has been unfairly overlooked.
Verdict: 
Great review, i concur with all of whats said in this article. I think four stars is the ideal amount of stars in which the quality of this film amounts to.