Taking a whole day to comprehend a film may be a hobby of mine, but taking a whole day to determine if I liked one or not isn't. And that's how it went with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. When it ended and the credits rolled and the midnight audience clapped, I was lost in what to do. I didn't want to clap. I didn't have that feeling of awe I was so looking forward to. The film just didn't impress me; I tried so hard to like it, but things just kept going east to Mordor. I waited six months to see it again, and I've decided to record my thoughts this time around.

I don't even know where to begin. Every time I try to explain why I didn't like it to someone who did, I always seem to be the weak point of the argument. I guess it's the base of how much of a fan you are. I've read The Hobbit. I have yet to read The Lord of the Rings. However, when I watch a film based on a book, I leave out the whole aspect that it's an adaptation. That part doesn't matter. It's how good the film is as itself. I went into the movie making myself forget the 13 dwarves and the riddles in the dark and Smaug. I looked at it as if someone wrote everything uniquely for the screen. I don't forget Tolkien – he's brilliant – but film works differently in my mind.

I'm a giant Lord of the Rings fan – I guess I can only say 'of the film trilogy' since I haven't read the epic itself. Watching The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The Return of the King (2003) for ten years, the expectations and pressure surrounding this film were unhealthily high. How could you follow the perfection of the original trilogy? Could Peter Jackson pull it off again (and two more times after)? Comparing The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings may seem foolish, but it's almost impossible not to. Yes, they're practically different genres – Hobbit as a light-hearted adventure about dwarves getting back their homeland and LOTR as an epic adventure about hobbits saving the entire world (and a bunch of other things) – but they still take place in Middle-Earth. And the fact that The Hobbit directly ties into the beginning of Fellowship makes comparing the two seem okay and perhaps needed. Jackson is setting up this new trilogy as something that can be watched along with LOTR. That was obvious, but he directly brought in same scenes from Fellowship, just literally seconds before. I'm not complaining about this – it was wonderfully done – it's just a shame that the rest of the film doesn't hold up.

I will try not to compare The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings because that's not why I'm writing this. There is no reason to; LOTR is a whole other country. However, if I do compare the two, don't hold me to it.

I had so much hope for this movie. Peter Jackson was returning to write and direct (I didn't see his cameo, but it must've been somewhere). Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens returned to writing as well. Howard Shore with music and Andrew Lesnie with cinematography. It was all there. Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis and Cate Blanchett (those cheeckbone gah) and Hugo Weaving and Elijah Wood and Christopher Lee and Ian Holm all returned and reprised their original roles (this isn't comparing, I'm just stating similarities). There was SO much going for the film. Jackson's production diaries provided a behind-the-scenes look that just took my breath away. I had been waiting for this film for five years. Perhaps all that time had made my expectations way too big.

The Hobbit's lighter tone makes its way throughout the film. I didn't mind this at all; there needed to be some good. I laughed occasionally and smiled at the characters. Martin Freeman as Bilbo was perfectly casted, and the dwarves were all like I imagined. Out of the entire film, the “Riddles in the Dark” scene was by far my favorite. It was beautiful. Andy Serkis as Gollum is a wonder I will never get over. The scene was insane and artful and completely perfect.

The Dwarves sing twice in the beginning, which was both great and refreshing. The trolls scene was another part that was simply awesome. So why...WHY was the rest of the movie so mediocre and practically shitty?

Starting with the oliphant in the room...the amount of CGI. It's an overwhelming amount. Even the trees at the end looked computer generated. The thing that will draw an immediate difference between both trilogies will be how much was real and how much wasn't. There's a lot of CGI in LOTR but not so much that it actually distracts you. The film does not have bad CGI – did you see Gollum??? – it's just a little too much for my taste. Thranduil, the Elvenking, rides this completely visual stag in the beginning and it looks so out of place. There were so many miniatures used in LOTR. So many extras. So much makeup. So much passion. It just felt absent here.

The movie is also really long, clocking in to about 2.85 hours. It's not LOTR length, but those movies never feel long. I've seen An Unexpected Journey twice now and both times I had thoughts about when it was going to end. And I HATE that I thought that. I was so happy to be back in Middle-Earth, and all of a sudden I wanted to leave it? It pissed me off, but that was not my fault; it was the film's. There are so many things that could be cut out, and the movie would be a hundred times better off. There is this whole battle between two huge-ass stone giants that wasn't needed at all (don't care if it was in the book, it was dumb anyway). The damn pale Orc dude was just pathetic and stupid. The second ending (you know with the eagles) was so unneeded that I wanted to vomit. Peter Jackson, learn how to cut down your movies and not drag them out to death!!!

Another thing that took me out were the over-the-top action sequences. I loved the scenes on their own, but seriously, when the dwarves get out of Moria after fighting all those goblins, they don't have a scratch on them. And that's also after they fell hundreds of feet on this stupid wooden bridge that would've easily killed them. I get it, The Hobbit is a lighter, more kid-friendly film, but even that was ridiculous. And making the wizard Radagast completely stupid and 'funny' did not work either. I hated him, I hated the actor and I hated every scene he was in. He killed my enjoyment (which was actually present in the first quarter of the film).

The last line to this movie is: Yes, I do believe the worst is behind us now. I hope, Bilbo Baggins. I hope.

This was definitely more of a rant than I hoped, but at this point I don't care. Peter Jackson disappointed me. That is a horrible sentence that I wish I never had to write, but it's true. If the next two follow the footsteps of this one, I will be devastated.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a drawn-out, annoyingly wasted adaptation that contains a depressing amount of greatness. Instead of an extended cut, Mr. Jackson, I suggest a revised cut and save what could have been an amazing film.

True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one.

This was originally written in June 2013