Filmfan 2
Posts: 973
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
|
Printable Version
RE: Riddles in the Dark - 
]
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