This will be quick and I'll try not to spoil anything for those who haven't read the book.  Overall the movie is pretty entertaining.  It is a bit slow to start, but after the first 30-45 minutes the adventure starts to pick up.  For me, the movie was not in the same class as the previous Lord of the Rings movies, although The Hobbit is by far my favorite book.  They did a very good job with keeping the movie coherent with the book from what I can remember (it's been about 5 years since I last read the book).   I think if you read the book you will get more enjoyment out of the movie because my friend went with me, who did not read the book, and he seemed bored at some points in the movie.  It is definitely worth the money though if you want to see it.

 

EDIT:  Just decided to add this because it seems no one really knows it.  The story of "The Hobbit" will end with the second movie "The Desolation of Smaug."  The third movie will fill in gaps in the story and comprise of excerpts from "A History of Middle-Earth" which was put together by Tolkien's son Chris in a twelve book appendix for Middle-Earth.  Last I read though, Peter Jackson did not have rights to use The Silmarillion material which is basically a summary of The History of Middle-Earth.  

It's a must see. My friend ditched me cause I couldn't go on the premiere. But I'll try to convince my GF to go between Christmas and New Year.

Still think the hobbit should of been one whole movie, but I cant wait to see it. Just needs to fix my phone and call some friends :P

Haven't missed a single Jackson movie, not about to start now.

Is it worth paying 24$ for the ticket?

SnakeDrake said: Still think the hobbit should of been one whole movie, but I cant wait to see it. Just needs to fix my phone and call some friends :P

No, there's definitely enough material for 2 movies. But whether 3 will prove to be folly (even with extra material included from the LOTR appendices) remains to be seen. The book is about the same length as FOTR (part 1 of LOTR) and there was a lot left out of the movie adaptation.

I don't understand why he split the book into 3 movies .. there is just way less to work with than with LotR.

well, I'm going to watch part 1 tomorrow in HFR 3D and hope it's worth it..

binary solo said: SnakeDrake said: Still think the hobbit should of been one whole movie, but I cant wait to see it. Just needs to fix my phone and call some friends :P No, there's definitely enough material for 2 movies. But whether 3 will prove to be folly (even with extra material included from the LOTR appendices) remains to be seen. The book is about the same length as FOTR (part 1 of LOTR) and there was a lot left out of the movie adaptation.

Yeah I can see that after viewing the extended addition of the original trilogy.

But is two or three movies justifiable remines to be seen.

As said there is enough in the book for two movies, I was taken back when they wanted to split it into three. And from what I have heard (didn't get to go tonight I had to come into work) they are trying to be true to the book and embellishing parts.

Each of books for the LoTR trilogy could of easily been split into two movies for each book and parts would still be missing. A big piece they took out was the rivalry that Soroman's Ring had with Gandaluf's Ring and Gandaluf "completing" his rings mission by beating Soroman when he invaded the Shire in retaliation to his defeat.

Wait, what? The hobbit is a trilogy now? I'm going sunday (tickets already bought) and I didn't know this lol.