Just saw it in 2D. I absolutely LOVED it. I really didn't know what to feel about it Thursday night, but seeing it in 2D made a massive difference. It's amazing what dropping a dimension does for the movie. I've never been a fan of 3D, but I wanted to give The Hobbit a chance. I'm now officially in Christopher Nolan's camp. 3D sucks. It's more immersive, yet somehow pulls you out of the story. Maybe some day they'll come up with a better way to do it, but for now, I'll stick to 2D when I can.

Of course the movie wasn't perfect, but now I'm really excited to see the next two.

I actually really disagree RedXavier. Especially with the Helm's Deep battle, I always hold that up as a gold-standard of battle editing and geography. Considering how much crap is going on, I almost always have a clear idea of where all the main characters are, what the flow of battle is, where the enemies are, etc.

Most movies with big battles really fuck this kind of thing up, see something like the 13th Warrior, which has major continuity and geography issues, or Gladiator.

In fact, the only real example that I can think of off the top of my head that did it equally well is the end battle of Saving Private Ryan, where we get a clear picture of the layout of the town, what the fall-back points are, and have a good idea of where the different squad-members are as the nazis are rolling in.

I just saw it and liked it a lot. I think they fuckin nailed the Riddles in the Dark sequence.

And I also don't have any major complaints. I'm just happy to see another adventure in Middle Earth.

Just came back from IMAX 24fps (after first seeing it elsewhere at 48fps) and there's a world of difference with the panning shots. The sequences where (1) Randagast leads the orcs away, and (2) the breaking out of the mines escape action sequence are MUCH clearer at 48fps. Frenetic action in 24fps 3D is blurry.

Spoilers:
The humour is just as flat in both. The combination of Martin Freeman's understated (even bland) performance combined with the camera lingering on him doesn't work. Four examples: (1) the fainting scene needs to shortened - it's not funny, (2) the scene where Bilbo changes his mind in the morning about joining the adventure is done without any emotion,  (3) the reaction to 'if we win we eats it?' is too long (3) and the scene where Bilbo pulls the sword out of the dead warg and stares expressionless (forever) at the charging wargs. All four scenes need a trim or better take. They could have almost cast Sam Worthington. Perhaps blandness works better for international box office - as its not culturally specific.

Wrote this for Facebook, I'll repost it here.

I just got out of The Hobbit in 48 fps. I HATED HATED HATED it. Totally distracting, tacky, and unnecessary. There's nothing this format offers that IMAX doesn't already provide, and better. It is heinous to behold, an embarrassment to cinema. I had to walk into another screening afterwards for a few minutes just to wash the bad taste out of my mouth. An hour in I contemplated leaving altogether. It was a horrendous experience. It was like I was watching it on TV. It actually made me tune out of the movie, like I could go on Facebook and just let it play in the background. HFR 3D is an interesting idea, but in execution it is a complete and total failure. Don't waste your time or your money.

There you go. We're had the full gamut of reactions to HFR on DIF - from vehemently against to 'meh' to 'road to Damascus conversion'

The box office is going to be huge on this movie as all of us film nerds will be paying double or triple to see a movie that probably doesn't deserve multiple viewing on its own merits.

The action scenes were the parts that I least hated the HFR. But let's be honest, there aren't really all that many of those. This is a pretty talky movie, to the point that Jackson inserts big epic battles for really no reason. Did we really need that Azog flashback? No. That's something that should have gone in an extended edition.

I mean, I liked Azog as a character and as a foe for Thorin and the gang, I guess. I hated the CGI on him, though. His skin was too smooth, so it looked like there wasn't much detail on him. Made him look like a video game character.

I guess Azog is like the Saruman of this franchise. But is he enough of a presence to sustain it? Maybe the Necromancer will take some of that in Part II.