I saw The Hobbit last Sunday and was very pleased with it. The 48 fps was surprising at first, but I got used to it pretty quick. The movie did not seem too long for me, although some scenes were not as good is I expected, and those were the ones showing events that were added to the book. I'm disappointed, because I really anticipated some of those additions, like the White Council's meeting. However, I liked very much how they showed Erebor and Dale in their golden age. Erebor was impressive, and Jackson managed to depict a pretty decent Dale with its many bells (which is one of the only things we know of that city's architecture). Smaug's onslaught was also very impressive. I don't know why they added Azog, he seems a pretty weak addition. He could not be there and the story would be mostly unchanged. At least for now. And Gandalf's question remains unanswered : how did he know about the dwarves' journey? The riddles in the dark were well played, and in a more dynamic way that is more consistent with the Gollum we know from LotR.
I liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo. As for the the Dwarves, only three get real attention, but it is to be expected when you have thirteen characters to devellop. So Thorin, Balin and Bofur got more attention in this movie. Of the three, I really liked Bofur (especially when he describes the effects of a dragon's breath...). Fili and Kili seems like the Merry and Pippin of the group. They had some attention in this movie, but I bet we will see much more of them since we know they will both die in the Battle of Five Armies. Rhadagast was funny, made to please a younger audience, but the bird poop was a little too much. We should see him again in the next movies, since he's part of the White Council. Hugo Weaving managed to play a far better Elrond than he did in LotR.
So, all in all it was a pretty good flick, that does not deserve some of the lukewarm critics it recieved. Now, I will have to wait 12 long months before the next episode.