and they are mostly positive. :)

http://collider.com/hobbit-movie-review/215612/
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-despite-a-self-indulgent-goofy-opening-the-hobbit-rallies-to-become-another-dazzling-action-adventure-epic-20121204
http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-6201.html
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59869

Anybody else excited?

A couple more.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/04/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-hfr-3d-review-peter-jacksons-latest-is-rousing-yet-repetitive/

I'm happy to see the film myself, but I usually enjoy hearing what others think ahead of time. Seems like most have enjoyed the movie, but maybe don't think it's quite as good as LOTR.

I'm very curious about the high-framerate projection. Some of those who have seen it seem to dislike it strongly, claiming that it looks "too realistic", that it breaks the suspension of disbelief and that it makes the visuals look more like television than film. This sounds really interesting to me, so I will make sure to see the movie at a theater that shows it at 48 fps.

I'm also curious about that. I'm not interested in 3D movies (Avatar being the only one I saw in that format). Some people say you adjust to the 48 fps after 10 minutes or so, but I worry about getting a little motion sickness. Plus, I really don't to see it in 3D, and apparently there won't be any "2D" 48 fps prints.

This site is apparently the go-to list for finding 48 fps theaters around the world.

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/

I haven't seen it myself, but this sounds like an odd complaint.

Not necessarily, we watch so many movies that we're conditioned to expect it to look a little unrealistic.

Edit: unrealistic in similar ways.

Cool, only 2 more films to go now! P.J. is milking the middle-earth cow!

I would too. I would say it's actually the studio rather than Peter. I cannot wait.

It does sound odd, but I think I know what they mean. High frame rates eliminate many of the "imperfections" that are responsible for creating the cinematic feel of film as opposed to television, which has been using higher frame rates for some time. I read that 24 fps vs. 48 fps looks kind of like the difference between a normal film and a behind-the-scenes featurette. Apparently, it looks so real and immediate that some people's suspension of disbelief is broken to the point that instead of Hobbits they see actors dressed like Hobbits.

I've only seen trailers, but I can't remember half of that from the book.

The Hobbit was a nice little children book. Not the epic saga LOTR was. The movie will probably be good, but it will not be in the spirit of the book.

I'm excited,but how they could split this book into three different movies?

Since Jackson only has access to material in The Hobbit and LOTR books (apparently the Tolkien estate isn't fond of his LOTR films and fought against him having the rights to other works), I think he's using a lot of information in the Return of the King appendices to fill in the story with things that are mentioned in there.

I'm curious to see how it all fits in.

I'm so nervous. The Hobbit was never intended to be a three part epic. It's a simplistic one part adventure, designed as a childrens story.

How the heck is this going to match that tone? The riddles in the dark scene from the trailer looks horrible too.

I know it will be enjoyable, but the hobbit is my favorite book.

I am concerned that Jackson didn't direct, and in how they can expand a 300 page childrens book into two 3+ hour movies?

Because it's not just the hobbit, they've actually thrown large sections of other works into it, you get the full story of how oakenshield earned his name for example...

Because with quality materials they can?