It was a little stretched out and long for me.  I liked it, but I thought my wife was going to pass out from boredom. 

I'm fascinated by everything Tolkien. Haven't seen it yet, waiting for the DVD, but I did read the book when it came out years ago. If like Lord of the Rings, which followed the book very closely, it should be dynamite!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit

"It was published on 21 September 1937"

!!

Uvah is an immortal!

I really liked the 3d, it was very well used. That's the first movie I say that about. Although the old trick of "throwing something at the viewer" to get people to flinch gets old. Hope that doesn't become the new Wilhelm scream.

The movie had a lot of content that was basically filling in the blanks for lord of the rings, that weren't really there in the book. Their encounter with the elves was made a lot worse going from book to movie. That's my only complaint about the freedoms they took with the story, at least in part 1.I mean, in the book, elves are far more mysterious (how they track them in the forest the first times) and practically at war with the dwarves near the end. Now they are just this benevolent presence that really knows all and puts up with all the arrogance of the dwarves without a mutter.

Best scene was without a doubt watching the dwarves fighting the orcs at Moria. Second best Smaug's attack on the Lonely Mountain. They've done dwarves as a culture really well in my opinion. And thank you very much for avoiding the the dreaded funny "Jar Jar Binks" dwarves running around being silly, instead we get dwarves playing pranks on each other and just having a good time. That's how amusing characters should be, not fall over each other with flappy ears.

One complaint was that they threw a lot of names of places around all the time, it was a bit confusing to keep track of, especially for the younger minds in our retinue. That's Tolkien of course, three or four names for every blade of grass, but normally the moviemakers just stick to mentioning the important places where things will actually happen.

I didn't like the whole goblin bit, they were a bit too much like punching bags. What happened to most dwarves not being warriors? The scene with them running through the caves just lasted too long for a good action scene. Not to say it wasn't executed well, it just sort of became mindless violence after a bit.

LOL

I read it when I was about 10 ....that'd be 1964...

I will be seeing it....[not out here yet] and it will NOT be in 3D when I do....

I know

Sorry to hear the 3D effect was distracting...but glad to hear there will be a 2D version as well. Been waiting patiently to see this movie...I watch the last ones often on dvd.

I have read all of Tolkien's Middle Earth books (including Similarion).  But sorry, this one was too long (and I understand we have 6 more hours coming).  The hobbit is an excellent book!  But it is a book, not a trilogy (they perhaps should have given more screen time to the LOTR instead).

I agree with your following assessments:

• The movie could be best described as giving unlimited budget and control to the ultimate Tolkien fan and letting him indulge in that.
• Radagast the Brown will become a meme, particularly with his “sleigh”.

I liked the movie, though i did not like much action scenes. I enjoyed non-actions part mostly - dwarf intro scene, gollum's riddles, trolls, and i have to admit that dragon is depicted brilliantly. Meanwhile battles, running through mines etc. felt kind of forced to me, and very similar to LOR's scenes. It feels like, i have seen it already.... 

I would give it a 7 out of 10 honestly.  I think Peter Jackson is falling victom to George Lucas like folly by doing too much with CGI...even compared to LOTR.  I also feel the use of corny comedy took away from the story...such as it was.  As much as I like Tolkien, too many liberties were taken with the story so they could, IMO, stretch the thing out and ultimately make it a trilogy.  I saw this in 2D and found that some scenes were oddly out of focus, particulary fast moving pans.  Not sure if that is due to the convert from 3D to 2D or not but it was definately there.  I plan on seeing it in 3D as well so I will see if that is any better. 

All in all, I would recommend it if you like high fantasy but it is not LOTR quality.

Bummer...I was really hoping it would be pretty much the same quality as LOTR.

It is the same quality in my opinion, the emotional level is just slightly less mature and the plot structure is less sophisticated (keep in mind The Hobbit was always a children's book). It only falls short of being truly great because it lives in the shadow of LoTR.

I preferred the Hobbit over Return of the King.  

If I had to rate them I'd say:

Fellowship: 10/10

Two Towers: 9/10

Hobbit: 9/10

Return of the King: 8/10

Yes, very much agree with the ratings.Fellowship was a near perfect film.