Before I get into the article proper and in order to waylay immediate offense from a certain internet archetype, a disclaimer: it is entirely reasonable to consider Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies as "good films." It is, as it always is, a matter of opinion. My intent is not to communicate my opinions as fact; rather, I seek to point out a number of things I appreciated about "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" (with additional points gathered from recent promotional material regarding "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug") and then compare these positive aspects with an apt reciprocal€”explaining, with my own opinionated bias, why the negative outweighs the positive. If you like, my bias is largely concerned with "adaptation," but some of the following points will also bring up other avenues of criticism.
5. The Casting
Martin Freeman is an utterly brilliant Bilbo Baggins. Richard Armitage (who has been a favourite of mine since BBC's "Robin Hood") has enough charisma and broiling fury to feed the five hundred, and the rest of the dwarf company was aptly and admirably cast. The fact that Peter Jackson managed to bring back Sir Ian McKellen, Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Christopher Lee, and Cate Blanchett (though I'll get into why the cameos of these final four were painfully unnecessary in a later point) is also an admirable casting success. (An honourary mention for great casting goes to bringing back Bret McKenzie as Figwit the elf). However, Peter Jackson also cast my all time least favourite actor in just about all of the remaining parts. The actor in question is so painfully lousy that he doesn't even have an IMDb page, even though he has a part in so many films. This actor shows up on screen in all of his films and manages to not only look and perform terribly, but also brings down the performances of many talented actors around him. Who is this cinematic travesty? Poor CGI.