The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (dir. Peter Jackson) ***
Look, the deal was that if I see The Hobbit (you know, that movie with the posters all over 42nd street station in NYC), I wanted the full-Peter-Jackson-approved viewing conditions. Only one New York cinema was playing it - I saw The Hobbit in (1) IMAX, (2) 3D and (3) HFR. Oh boy - quite a lot to deal with there, right?
(Note: It still only cost me $13 - cheaper than Brisbane. All I'm saying about that.)
We all know what IMAX and 3D are, but you may not know about HFR yet. Currently, the movies that you see in cinemas are projected at 24 frames per second. HFR (which I'm pretty sure stands for High Frame Rate) means that you see 48 frames per second instead. This is something that Peter Jackson has been strongly championing over the last few months (maybe years). It is a much crisper, cleaner image and gives you more choice as a 3D viewer. I have found that watching films in 3D previously, that I can only see one part of the frame in focus. Here, I can see the whole frame (i.e. if I want to look past the main actor, I can notice the pretty little Ogre in the background).
Ultimately, I didn't like it. To me, it looks like a home video with incredibly impressive special effects. It's really disconcerting, actually. Sure, the image is very crisp, but there is something about it that just doesn't feel right. I had 2 hours and 40 minutes to consider this, but I still couldn't put my finger on what is wrong with it. Maybe it isn't 'cinematic' enough? Or maybe this is the future of cinema and I'm not 'open-minded' enough? Who knows, really.
In the end this time, it doesn't really matter because I found the film itself notably underwhelming. It is quite the disappointment. Don't get me wrong, the film has some incredible special effects and, actually, the costumes and make-up are all pretty awesome, too. There are some undeniably outstanding and exciting moments but sticking with it was, at times, a real chore. Everything is so unbalanced. The pacing is all over the place (I know it's the first part of a trilogy, but the exposition seemed to last forever) as is, sadly, the acting. Ian McKellen as Gandalf was terrific - he's so good in this role - but the other members of the enormous ensemble just seem to be 'on set' doing their thing. Maybe they were too in awe of this great actor and his ability to give such gravitas to the most trivial of moments. Maybe they couldn't focus on their work because they kept considering how brilliant he was in Bill Condon's Gods and Monsters, one of the best films of 1998. An unlikely scenario, but one that I am choosing to imagine here. Andy Serkis was also good as Gollum/Smeagol. Sadly, I found Martin Freeman particularly annoying and far too contemporary. Howard Shore's score disappoints, also. His revisiting of the original themes and melodies felt obvious and, at times, clumsy. The whole production amounts to very little but I do give credit to Peter Jackson for staging some really impressive action set-pieces and Guillermo Del Toro (who you might know as the director of the far superior Pan's Labyrinth) for creating a really cool Jabba-the-Hutt-esque character with the most spellbinding double chin I have ever seen on film. Ever. Now that, in (1) IMAX, (2) 3D and (3) HFR, was spectacular.
 |
| Sir Ian McKellen - the best thing about Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey'. |
I had heard that the HFR version was absolutely bombing with test and preview audiences, so it's interesting to hear your take. Such a shame, I loved the idea in theory :(
ReplyDeleteHope you're having a ball in one of my favourite cities!! :)
Watching the film possibly didn't feel right because the 48 frames caused the scenes to look fake and look like they were actually a film set. Happens sometimes with blurays as well. Humans see at about 60 frames so the closer we get to that frame rate the easier it'll be to see the past the illusion the movie is trying to create. Or maybe it was just crap. I don't like 3D at all, hurts my eyes.
ReplyDelete