Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Riddles in the Dark

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Riddles in the Dark Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 19/12/2012 11:59:42 AM   
ArseOfSauron


Posts: 51
Joined: 30/9/2005
It would have been dull if the eagles had dropped them off and they'd just hung about chatting until Durin's Day.

_____________________________

I ... hate this place; this zoo, this prison, this ... reality. Whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell. If there is such a thing. I feel ... saturated by it. I can taste your stink.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 181
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 19/12/2012 1:28:33 PM   
pauljthomas


Posts: 726
Joined: 15/11/2006
From: a more wretched hive of scum & villainy
Absolutely loved this film, but then I am a huge Tolkien fan. PJ could've had 3 hours footage of Gandalf sat on a toilet & I'd have watched it-as long as it was a toilet in Middle Earth

_____________________________

You know how I know your gay? You like Coldplay

BUS WANKERS!!!!

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 182
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 19/12/2012 2:07:31 PM   
ArseOfSauron


Posts: 51
Joined: 30/9/2005
True, it's just bliss to spend more time in Middle Earth - the longer, the better really. Not sure I could have withstood an unadulterated film version of The Silmarillion (better or worse than Gandalf on the toilet? Not sure). Actually, a quick Google search has revealed that people have actually mooted this idea.

I wonder if that is the problem at the heart of people's criticism of The Hobbit. In foreshadowing elements of the War of the Rings, it has tried to recreate the urgent force of the good-vs-evil-and-end-of-days feeling behind the LotR quest. People have said this is padding.

It also attempts to keep the lightheartedness of The Hobbit, with lowbrow (trolls, snot) as well as highbrow ("Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?") humour and a longer sequence in The Shire. People have also said this is padding, or too unlike LotR or too insubstantial to be truly great.

I wonder if you can't please 'em all.

< Message edited by ArseOfSauron -- 19/12/2012 2:15:11 PM >


_____________________________

I ... hate this place; this zoo, this prison, this ... reality. Whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell. If there is such a thing. I feel ... saturated by it. I can taste your stink.

(in reply to pauljthomas)
Post #: 183
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 19/12/2012 2:17:41 PM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
I'm not sure if a Silmarillion movie would work, but I think a Children Of Hurin movie would. And maybe expand other stories from The Silmarillion into full length (because as I understand it The Silmarillion is pretty much lots of stories from throughout the history of Middle-earth compiled into one publication).

Or failing that, an Animatrix style DVD release of animated shorts based on things from that/the Appendices/Unfinished Tales. I'm sure there are ways that Warner Bros are contemplating as we speak about how to get the most out of Middle-earth as possible.

(in reply to ArseOfSauron)
Post #: 184
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 19/12/2012 2:31:21 PM   
ArseOfSauron


Posts: 51
Joined: 30/9/2005
Interesting idea. I like The Matrix trilogy almost as much as I like the LotR one, but I still didn't particularly enjoy The Animatrix. I've never watched it since the first viewing. I don't think shorts are as immersive as feature-length films. I mean, people complained about the lack of individual characterisation in the 3-hour Unexpected Journey!

No doubt what you say about Warner Bros is true.

[Aside: YESSS, YESSS, mission successful. Empire returns to the good old days of the Welcome to Middle Earth and Enter the Matrix forums. Now, how to reintroduce The Monkey Shop? ]

< Message edited by ArseOfSauron -- 19/12/2012 2:42:43 PM >


_____________________________

I ... hate this place; this zoo, this prison, this ... reality. Whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell. If there is such a thing. I feel ... saturated by it. I can taste your stink.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 185
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 19/12/2012 2:58:01 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: ArseOfSauron

It would have been dull if the eagles had dropped them off and they'd just hung about chatting until Durin's Day.


It would be a bit like AUJ then.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to ArseOfSauron)
Post #: 186
I LOVED IT! - 19/12/2012 3:06:33 PM   
El-Branden Brazil

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/10/2005
I am amazed at some of the negative reviews. Most definitely NOT Jackson's Phantom Menace. It is a truly fantastic visual spectacle. I can't wait to watch it again, if only for the twinkling in Gandalf's eyes.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 187
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 19/12/2012 3:36:35 PM   
ArseOfSauron


Posts: 51
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation


quote:

ORIGINAL: ArseOfSauron

It would have been dull if the eagles had dropped them off and they'd just hung about chatting until Durin's Day.


It would be a bit like AUJ then.


Walked into that one, didn't I?

_____________________________

I ... hate this place; this zoo, this prison, this ... reality. Whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell. If there is such a thing. I feel ... saturated by it. I can taste your stink.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 188
HFR? Loved it! - 19/12/2012 5:59:31 PM   
Jesservensen

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 1/1/2006
I've watch it twice, first in my local IMAX and I was disappointed in both the quality of the picture, the 3d and the seats. I was too close to the screen to enjoy it. Decided to try the HFR version two nights later, had read the negative comments, but was still curious. I LOVED THE HFR VERSION. I'm sure it's a purely subjective thing, but I was struck by the clarity, great3d and I completely disagree with those who say it isn't cinematic. Can't way to see the next instalments I will only go for the HFR versions now. Give it a try.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 189
RE: HFR? Loved it! - 19/12/2012 10:46:57 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
I'm genuinely dumbstruck on why the clarity which many people are accliaming, considering how the effects and prosthetics are made right now, should be seen as a good thing.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Jesservensen)
Post #: 190
RE: A Joyful Return to Middle Earth - 20/12/2012 12:06:08 AM   
Coyleone


Posts: 569
Joined: 13/10/2008
Well, I loved it. Not getting the criticisms of it being overly long or dragging at all. To me there was very little down time. I enjoyed it immensely, although nowhere near the level of the LOTR trilogy (seriously, anyone who thought it was going to be as good as those wasn't thinking straight), it felt great to be back in that environment and to see characters you knew. I didn't see it in 48fps or 3D, so this is purely based on the film itself and NOT a take on those elements, which a ton of reviews seem to be focusing on, which really shouldn't be the main concern. The visuals were great, the CGI was stunning in places, especially on Gollum/Andy Serkis who provided the standout moments of the film with another amazing performance/visual effects job. Another criticism I'm not getting is the over-use of CGI, yeah, there was more than in the previous trilogy, but not so much more that it became offensive. There was a LOT in the other films anyway, and the main thing that was done here that wasn't in the others was the orks, everything else looked pretty much the same. The final scenes with Thorin and the 'Pale Orc' were pretty incredible. Freeman is so good in his role as Bilbo too I might add. There were a few things I really didn't like, such as the scenes with the 'Brown Wizard', they felt extremely unnecessary and out of a completely different film, something like Narnia. That was a scene where the overuse of CGI did bug me, but it was mostly because the entire scene didn't need to be in there. On the whole this was so much fun and so enjoyable. As a huge fan of the LOTR films, it felt great to be back in Middlearth, to hear that music, see the characters and to see the saga/story continue in prequel form. Peter Jackson's Phantom Menace this definitely is not. I was really concerned about this going in, but everything was put to rest once the 'over long, dragged out' first half turned out to be nothing of the sort for me. Loved it almost from start to finish. 8.5/10

(oh, and the thing with the Eagles did cross my mind at first, but I've learned not to even think about that by this point).

(in reply to AdamChamberlain)
Post #: 191
- 20/12/2012 12:10:51 AM   
philshepp

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 25/11/2005
Much better than I expected and much better than I remember the book being. Gollum is brilliant, as are the set pieces... just a bit too much talking - could have done with an edit to warrant 5 stars

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 192
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 20/12/2012 1:33:09 AM   
england_cmr


Posts: 77
Joined: 1/4/2008
From: Whistler, British Columbia
I liked this film. I didn't love it which is the main difference between this and LOTR. It just felt rather middle of the road, and farely standard compared to LOTR which is just brilliant. My favourite scenes were those that had characters from LOTR; Gollum was absolutely the highlight of the film. He'd never looked better and he was hilarious as well as creepy. Cate Blanchett was great as well. Other than that I wasn't too impressed - some of the effects were 'ok' at best, and I do agree it was perhaps a bit too long. Also it should be noted I saw this in standard 24fps / 2D, so I can't comment on that aspect. Nonetheless, I'll definitley be seeing the sequels, but I couldn't help feeling just a bit disappointed.

_____________________________

1) Inception
2) Wall - E
3) Beetlejuice
4) Big Fish
5) Terminator 2: Judgement Day
6) Spirited Away
666) Battleship

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 193
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 20/12/2012 1:51:39 AM   
snazzy_sophie


Posts: 53
Joined: 21/11/2005
From: Edinburgh
I expected this to be a disappointment that could in no way live up to Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, I was actually in a state of panic the night before the ‘main event’.

Luckily I was proved entirely wrong. Although The Hobbit (part 1) does not carry the same sense of end of the world urgency that LoTR did, instead having a lighter, more childish tone; it was a complete joy to be back in Jackson’s Middle Earth.

I admit I am not a Tolkien fan, in fact, The Hobbit and LoTR are probably the only books I have read cover to cover and wholly unenjoyed. The only part of The Hobbit (novel) I remember is that long-winded unexpected party at the beginning, and only because as a child I would read that chapter every so often in the hope of reading more but almost always giving up.

However, on screen, this party is NOT long-winded. I only read one review before seeing the film (one of the more positive ones) and cannot believe the backlash this film has received. Yes, it lasts 2 hours and 40 minutes; but I was not bored for a second – in fact – I could have sat through double that time, and could not believe how quickly it was over.

I expected to hate the dwarves but they were great, as was Freeman as Bilbo and McKellan reprising his role as Gandalf. My one qualm was that Galadrial didn’t serve much of a purpose, bordering on cringey, though this did not seem as prominent on a second viewing.

Basically, Jackson has produced a visual feast for the eyes. Whether the action on screen seems trivial, the effects and New Zeland landscapes are something to be marvelled at. Also Howard Shore’s score should be commended. It includes a lot of themes present in LoTR, but the new Misty Mountains theme is outstanding.

As for this 48fps debacle – I seriously noticed no difference at all. Either something is very wrong with my eyesight or the cinema tricked me. My first viewing was in IMAX 3d and the visuals in that were bright, extremely clear and the 3d was (dare I say it) immense, bordering on distracting at times as I spent a lot of time gawping in wonder at the visuals rather than taking in the story.

Unlikely to win over many non-LoTR fans, but a spectacle that will please Tolkien and Jackson enthusiasts.


_____________________________

http://www.literallygeeking.org

(in reply to england_cmr)
Post #: 194
WOW,, Absolutely Fantastic - 20/12/2012 3:38:26 AM   
Jamie_M

 

Posts: 53
Joined: 27/6/2011
Just saw it tonight on a huge Isense screen in 3d with the 48fps,, Absolutely amazing, never had an experience in the cinema like it before. Took a a few minutes to get used to but after that I couldn't get over how great it was,, well done Peter Jackson. I honestly can't believe some of the negativity this movie has received. Haha, f***ing old dinosaur critic's who were probably sceptic about the switch from VHS to DVD, how do some of you people still have jobs?? The story and sense of adventure were wonderful and had the heart and soul from the book,, can't wait for part 2

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 195
RE: WOW,, Absolutely Fantastic - 20/12/2012 6:38:24 AM   
snazzy_sophie


Posts: 53
Joined: 21/11/2005
From: Edinburgh
Also - one 3 hour film might have been enough, but no doubt it would have left me wanting two more

_____________________________

http://www.literallygeeking.org

(in reply to Jamie_M)
Post #: 196
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 20/12/2012 9:57:12 AM   
ArseOfSauron


Posts: 51
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

I'm not sure if a Silmarillion movie would work, but I think a Children Of Hurin movie would. And maybe expand other stories from The Silmarillion into full length (because as I understand it The Silmarillion is pretty much lots of stories from throughout the history of Middle-earth compiled into one publication).



On second thoughts, what I would like to see (or at least hear) is Howard Shore's realisation of the song that created Middle Earth. What would it be like? A number of voices gradually harmonising and blending (as the black screen starts to fade in and Middle Earth is formed) into the familiar themes of various parts of Middle Earth - like The Shire, Rivendell and Lothlorien?


_____________________________

I ... hate this place; this zoo, this prison, this ... reality. Whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell. If there is such a thing. I feel ... saturated by it. I can taste your stink.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 197
Spoiler Free ... - 20/12/2012 11:13:37 AM   
Nicky C

 

Posts: 703
Joined: 31/5/2006
It's excellent but not a classic, much like Fellowship of the Ring compared to Return of the King, so no surprises there. 4 stars feels right. The movie isn't necessarily too long but there is a generous amount of context. That's fine with me though because I like context. I had two problems with the structure. One was that there are a lot of opponents which made it a little episodic. Second was that the main opponent was not the strongest opponent (but I have an idea about who the real opponent is that so you may well disagree). The acting is universally brilliant (check out young Adam Brown as Ori. He's really 'special in more ways than one' and hilarious with it) but the standout performance is Martin Freeman. He totally gets that Bilbo is really us and he completely takes us with him. The Gollum and Bilbo scene is one of the year's best, hands down. Looking forward to the next one and have decided to find a HFR showing because you never know unless you see it for yourself and make your own mind up.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 198
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 20/12/2012 12:20:26 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1054
Joined: 30/9/2005
Off to see this today in 2D so I'll be able to properly formulate my thoughts on the film, but I think this piece by Vincent LaForet perfectly sums up my feelings on HFR: read me.

_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 199
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 20/12/2012 5:32:37 PM   
Ref


Posts: 7461
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Leicester
Having now seen The Hobbit in both 24 fps and 48 fps, I can categorically say that 24 fps is so much better. And I can see why the critics have given it a bad time. However, I truly believe that if they first saw it in the lower frame rate then they'd like it.

It did work in a few places e.g. Gollum, The Eagles and the landscapes. But any combat sequences and it just looked fake.

My advice, stick with 24 fps.

_____________________________

Viewers of a nervous disposition may be interested to know that your television is off and I am speaking to you from inside your head...

Hugh Dennis, Mock the Week

Icon created by the talented JaD

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 200
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 20/12/2012 6:27:54 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ref

Having now seen The Hobbit in both 24 fps and 48 fps, I can categorically say that 24 fps is so much better. And I can see why the critics have given it a bad time. However, I truly believe that if they first saw it in the lower frame rate then they'd like it.

It did work in a few places e.g. Gollum, The Eagles and the landscapes. But any combat sequences and it just looked fake.

My advice, stick with 24 fps.


It depends on the critic though, I didn't like The Hobbit, I'm sure I would like it a bit more if I saw it in 24fps, but I still had problems that had nothing to do with HFR.



_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Ref)
Post #: 201
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 21/12/2012 2:29:15 PM   
MOTH

 

Posts: 3479
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Sittin' on the dock of the bay
I didn’t expect this to be as good as Fellowship of the Ring, and it’s not, never managing to hit the same heights of that film. So let’s just take a deep breath, temper our expectations and try to assess this on its own terms without comparing. If we do that, there is a lot to enjoy in this first instalment of The Hobbit, not least the performance of Freeman, whose bumbling, slightly hangdog manner perfectly embodies the character of Bilbo, but also hints at a stout heart within. Alongside him, McKellen once again shows the class that earned him an Oscar nomination for his first outing as Gandalf. Elsewhere, the actors playing the dwarves struggle to make a mark, handicapped a bit by their number and their heavy prosthetics. The leader Thorin (Richard Armitage) does little but glower under his eyebrows, Balin (Ken Stott) gets a few nice lines, whilst Bofur (Jimmy Nesbitt) sets himself apart by sounding like Jimmy Nesbitt. Otherwise, they’re much of a muchness, lacking the overall appeal of the Fellowship gang (Oops! – said you wouldn’t compare, Precious! Nasty reviewer! Pokes out your eyeses, Precious!). No matter, once we’re introduced to the characters, the journey begins and there’s plentiful action and CGI along the way, as our heroes fight with trolls and goblins and orcs, oh my! And, of course, we have Bilbo’s encounter with Gollum, in which the One Ring comes to him, a sequence which provides the highpoint of the film, especially in the moment where pity stays Bilbo’s hand.

But it’s certainly not perfect. Much has been made of Jackson’s self-indulgent approach to the source material and it’s true that it is rather uneven over the long running time (170 mins), with pacing problems and a few sequences which were just begging to be cut in order to drive things forward in a more compelling manner. And depending on which format you see it in, there’s other issues too. I stumped up an extra coupla quid to watch this in 3D and HFR and I think it’s a bag of shite. It makes everything look like a soap opera set, or one of those behind-the-scenes featurettes. Not only does the film lose its cinema look, scenes with heavy CGI ironically become more artificial than real. It made Middle-Earth look like Planet Earth, and I felt like I was watching BBC’s new programme Walking With Dwarves. Don't take my word for it though. Click here to see that Hitler thinks so too.

Still, overall it’s entertaining fare, with a tantalising ending which leaves my appetite whetted for the second half of the film next Christmas. What’s that? Three films!? Really? Oh. Well, that does seem a bit excessive. (6/10)



< Message edited by MOTH -- 21/12/2012 2:30:15 PM >


_____________________________

I've only gone and set up a blog! This week I've been mostly reviewing The Lego Movie and Wadjda. Click: The Fast Picture Show

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 202
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Disappointment - 21/12/2012 6:51:59 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1054
Joined: 30/9/2005
So having seen the two frame rates that are available I must echo the question that others have asked: WHAT THE HELL WAS JACKSON THINKING???!?!?!!!?!

Actually, that's hyperbolic.

A post or two above I linked to a blog of Vincent LaForet, a photographer and filmmaker, who pretty much perfectly encapsulated my feelings on the frame rate debate, and having seen the 24fps version, much of what he says about how he related to the film during the regular frame rare echoes true for me as well. Jackson is to be applauded for trying something new and at times the level of clarity is quite breathtaking, but it's also a massive hindrance to the movie. The veil is lifted and the magic of cinema evaporates under the bright glare of all that clarity. There's far too much depth of field and the eye has trouble resting on the frame where it should, and the lack of motion blur is disconcerting. Like Vincent says, on the 48fps version the lighting looks pretty awful at times, but when I sat down to watch the 24fps version, it's incredible how that bad lighting suddenly seemed to have transformed into beautiful lighting. Before anyone cries 'stick in the mud!' I should state that I'm no luddite when it comes to the progression of visual technology. I make some of my living through photography so I have a vested in interest in visual media. Sure, I'm not making motion pictures that are shown in cinemas worldwide, but I do have to shoot hi-def footage on my camera every-so-often. There's a rule when shooting with DSLR's that you should always try and shoot at 1/50th of a second as it mimics the look of cinema. I've shot using a higher shutter speed a number of times, which makes things look more like video. Whilst it's never been a massive issue for me (I've never seen my shot footage on a massive screen before), it's only after seeing the HFR used during the Hobbit that I finally see the truth in that advice, and I'm going to endeavour to shoot at 1/50th as much as I can in future.

When I saw the movie for the first time, a HFR showing, I sat for about 45mins in a state of what I can only describe as a kind of shell-shock. Whilst some of the movie looked quite beautiful, it struck me how much the rumblings about the film looking like a TV programme rung true. Whilst it helped sell the 3D and the landscape looked stunning, the sense of removal from the film never quite left me and I was somewhat distracted throughout the entire movie. It ruined my enjoyment of the first viewing of the film and it's only now that I've seen it in the 24fps version that I can put forth any kind of opinion. I had a similar experience to LaForet when watching the film in the two differnt frame rates. During the HFR version, most of the humour went down like a led-balloon, and I can only attribute this to the fact that everyone in the audience seemed so weirded out by what they were seeing. Conversely, during the regular fps showing, the audience that I was a member of seemed to be getting into the film much more and a lot more of the jokes hit the mark. This is only my observation from two viewings and I'd have to sit in on more to see if there is indeed any kind of truth in this, but others seem to be making the same observation, and that's telling about the audience reaction to the change. Whilst I initially thought that the CG looke incredible in the HFR version, I actually liked it more in the 24fps version too.

As many others have already stated, this film falls short of the standards set by LOTR. Comparing the two is kind of unfair given the differing tone and scale/subject matter of the two stories; although they interlink, The Hobbit is a lighter affair and has nowhere near the meat on its bones that LOTR has, and I think this is where the chief problem with the film lies. Jackson and his cabal of co-writers know this fact and have stretched elements of the story out and included material from the appendices that bridge the gap between the two adventures. The result is a film that sags under the weight of a narrative that can't sustain itself, and Jackson has fallen foul of self-indulgence. I went to a LOTR marathon in Edinburgh the week prior to the Hobbit coming out so those movies were fresh in my mind upon seeing The Hobbit, and the difference between them is striking. Whilst the pacing of those films is by and large excellent, The Hobbit seems to follow a horrible stop-start pattern that sets a very uneven pace, and there are moments where the film really seems drag a bit. The movie plays out like an extended edition cut, but whereas the LOTR extended editions add material without ruining the viewing experience and making the film grind to a halt, The Hobbit languishes under the attempt to draw out the running time with all of its additional material. Lord only knows what the extended edition cuts of this film are going to be like; Jackson could do with wielding the scissors rather than weighing the film down further with new material.

Another big problem I had with the film is that in some ways, it felt like Jackson was trying too hard to relieve some of the glories of the past movies. There's paying homage to films in a series with winks through dialogue and elements of a scene, and that's fine, but a few times in the film I felt that Jackson went a bit beyond that and just mined sequences from the previous films and trotted them out again here. Rather than thinking that's a nice nod, I was left feeling that Jackson thought 'that looked cool in the LOTR movies, so let's do it again'. He structured the film to play out too much like FOTR, and it won't surprise me in the slightest if the next two films follow a similar structure to TTT and ROTK. It's a shame that Jackson has elected to stretch the Hobbit out into three movies when it should be two, and I feel sad that that's the way I'm thinking as I'm a huge fan of the LOTR. It is to my mind up there amongst the greatest of film trilogies.

There's no bad acting in the movie; the cast puts in good work, even if most of the dwarves are just cyphers in this film. Ian McKellen is his usual excellent self as Gandalf the Deus Ex Machina Grey (all of the LOTR films have relied up deus ex machina's, but the The Hobbit more so), definitely my favourite character of the film, and Andy Serkis steals the movie as the returning Gollum, upstaging almost everyone in the little time that he's on the screen. I wouldn't say that Freeman puts in a remarkable performance thus far; he brought to mind many of his past performances, but I'm not passing any real comment on his performance yet as he didn't have much to do in this film. I'm waiting to see what happens in the other two and I can only hope he gets a chance to properly shine (and perhaps the 13 cyphers may get a chance to become a bit more distinguishable in the other films as well).

I should make a mention of Howard Shore's score as well, which I'm pained to say that I was quite disappointed in. The best passages for me are the material that use choral work for the Dwarves/Goblin Kingdom and for the flight of the eagles near the end of the movie. Whilst it is a good score, it falls far short of the standard set in the LOTR films. There's a few themes established, but I was struck by how much of it sounded like filler, albeit middle earth sounding filler. There were no movements that really took my breath away and gave me goosebumps the way that the FOTR score did, with its themes for Lorien/Moria/the Argonath to name but a few. The use of the Ringwraith theme for Thorin's showdown with Azog was incredibly jarring as well and was a poor choice; there should have been something new for that moment, but I suppose it nicely echoes my earlier criticism of Jackson mining the previous film for visual sequences.

Whilst this has largely been a negative review of the movie, I did enjoy it. It's lovely to be back in middle earth and there are some really lovely passages throughout the film, but the good is sadly outweighed by too many problematic elements. Perhaps I've had my standard set too high by the triumphant work done on LOTR but in The Hobbit, Jackson seems to have lost some of the drive that he had in realising the world of Tolkien so beautifully in LOTR. The 24fps pisses all over the HFR version from a very great height and I can safely say that I won't be repeating the error I made with this film on the next two, which will be seen in the regular 24fps viewings.

A good film, but disappointing for sure.


< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 21/12/2012 7:01:08 PM >


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to MOTH)
Post #: 203
RE: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Disappointment - 22/12/2012 3:05:26 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1896
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
Dear Mr Jackson, please remember that as a filmmaker, the amount of 'information' the 48fps put onto the screen may well wow you, as a filmmaker, because you are looking at films from the perspective of a filmmaker and have a different mindset.

In general, the 'magic' of cinema comes when what is seen reaches the mind and heart and creates an emotional response. If you give the eyes too much to do, with clarity of image and, yes, 3D, the level to whivh the eyes are kept busy means there is no time for the head and the heart to take on board what is being seen before the next wow look at me moment. Film is illusion, and the sense of being immersed in the film comes not from mimicking a sense of perspective artificially but by how engaged the mind and heart is with what the eyes are seeing.

The classic response to criticism of visual technique is that film is a primarily visual medium. But it is not a wholly visual medium. The imagination of a viewer must be engaged with the film. This is why short shots edited into an attack on the 'Falcon in a new hope, with differing framing and sounds for each shot cut to creates a more exciting and 'perilous' experience than being able to go into a wide shot with CGI in the SW prequels. The illusion is only partly created in the former, and the imagination fills in the rest to create a sense of what is happening. If you give the eye to much to do, too much of a receding into the distance depth of field, too much coming right at you 3D money shot-ism, then you remove the capacity for the sense of wonder to even build in the first place, let alone be sustained.

Or sum shit like dat.

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 204
48fps stuttery??? - 22/12/2012 7:48:30 PM   
supes2000

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 28/2/2008
having just got back from watchin the hobbit i feel i have to ask if anybody else has had the same experience as me. i watched the film in 48fps 3d in imax and from the very begining it felt like the film was being played faster than it should maybe 1.2. when bilbe moved around or picked something up it happened to fast now i can only assume this was due to the 48fps because all audio was in sync dont get me wrong though i really enjoyed the clarity that 48fps brings to the fore but i for one could not get round this weird anomaly that kept reoccuring throughout the film but then my friend that came along with me didnt have an issue think i may give 24fps ago next....

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 205
An Unexpected Journey - 24/12/2012 3:48:10 PM   
movienut707

 

Posts: 220
Joined: 19/10/2012
A grave disappointment in comparison to Peter Jackson's previous foray into Middle Earth, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is nonetheless an entertaining adventure in its own right. That said, the source novel remains far richer than anything Jackson and company have to offer.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 206
Average - 25/12/2012 12:40:09 PM   
filmsunlimited

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 20/2/2009
Visually, particularly in 34fpm and 3D, this is stunning. However.......... it is still too Lord of the Ringsy for me with characters taking seemingly aeons to traverse places fighting the odd troll and getting nowhere at all. Personally, I think I would have been happy just seeing the Gollum bit and leaving the cinema 20 minutes later!

While the 48 frames per minute did make the film feel more 'real,' I think it is true you can have too much of a good thing and at times, it felt almost too good, too fake to be true. However, the film lies just on the right side of films worth seeing this Christmas.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 207
- 25/12/2012 12:40:26 PM   
sephiroth7

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 14/10/2009
Went back to see this in 48 fps having loved it in 24 fps and I have to say it completely ruined the entire experience for me. There's blatant speed up that reminded me of Benny Hill and when it worked there was so much detail you didn't really know what to look at. If this is the future of cinema then I am in trouble :(

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 208
RE: 48fps stuttery??? - 26/12/2012 3:31:19 AM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1896
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: supes2000

having just got back from watchin the hobbit i feel i have to ask if anybody else has had the same experience as me. i watched the film in 48fps 3d in imax and from the very begining it felt like the film was being played faster than it should maybe 1.2. when bilbe moved around or picked something up it happened to fast now i can only assume this was due to the 48fps because all audio was in sync dont get me wrong though i really enjoyed the clarity that 48fps brings to the fore but i for one could not get round this weird anomaly that kept reoccuring throughout the film but then my friend that came along with me didnt have an issue think i may give 24fps ago next....


The problem isnt that the action is too fast, it is that 48 fps is too clear. I dont claim to be an expert director or in technology but i offer you this: when shooting a bog-awful college video many moons ago a participant was required to drop to the floor in front of the camera so when cutting to the shot action of someone falling from a height would be continuous. But the frame rate of video rmeant the person was a barely visible blur as they fell because the camera was in a fixed position and the person fell past it and whereas eyes follow a person as they fall allowing us to see them fall a camera does not. so the participant,rather than dropping to the floor, lowered himself quickly. on playback the person then 'appeared to fall at a proper speed' for the shot. Shoot a film at 48fps and this problem we encountered with a single shot is writ very motherfucking large indeed. A boring read maybe, but the nub of the problem. cameras cant make little adjustments in relation to moving objects to keep up with movement like eyes can so if you dont make people slow down or use 24ish fps, the thing you film appears to be moving faster than it really is and you get blur, its that simple. And 3d only makes the viewing experience more taxing, and for some people unbearable because the eye ends up trying to keep up with the detail on show when filming at 48fps, the speed of movement 48fps creates AND trying to process the 3D.

The fps combined with 3D is not ready for movies and so a film as long as The Hobbit using it only compounds problems further, because not only is the resulting film hard to literally watch, for some to the point of not feeling the contextually appropriate response to the film, because your eyes may struggle to tell you what you are looking at at times, you have to watch it for nearly three bloody hours!

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 26/12/2012 3:43:09 AM >

(in reply to supes2000)
Post #: 209
RE: 48fps stuttery??? - 29/12/2012 7:07:51 PM   
Invader_Ace


Posts: 1588
Joined: 31/7/2008
I enjoyed it, but feels like I've watched the first part of a good boxset and not a satisfying film.

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Riddles in the Dark Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.408