← Back to Reviews
in
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson)
48 Frames: An Unexpected Journey.
A mild-mannered Hobbit by the name of Bilbo Baggins is tasked with joining a group of Dwarfs, lead by Gandalf, to the Lonely Mountain in the hopes of claiming their home and gold back from the dragon Smaug.
When word first broke out that Jackson would be splitting the 300 some odd pages of the children aimed book The Hobbit, into another epic trilogy, a lot of people groaned at how thin he would be able to stretch the material. In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, everything and anything that would have ended up on the cutting room floor is thrown in here, such as the Rock Giants. Why? Is it because The Hobbit lacks the thrills and spectacle that is the Lord of the Rings. I'm going to put my bottom dollar on yes. Jackson needed something to fill his films with in order to excite the audience, thrill them and make them have the same awe they did more than a decade ago.
I want to say that The Hobbit works wonderfully, and it does for the most part. There are obvious flaws throughout, but my question is this. How do you rate a film, when it is presented in a format so distracting that it hurts you're overall enjoyment of it? Not only am I talking about the use of 3D, but the infamous 48 HFR which it is presented. Let me get these two issues out of the way first.
The 3D here is utterly useless. There are basically two kinds of 3D being presented to an audience right now. The Gimmick and the Immersive. The gimmick is what one would see in the Saw 3D, Final Destination 3D....any horror film really. Gags that poke out at the screen with gotcha moments. The second, the kind that James Cameron is trying to champion is the immersive one, in which the 3D makes you feel like you are in this world. Objects aren't really shooting out at you, but float around you. The most horrid use of 3D, many would have to agree is Clash of the Titans, but I must say, The Hobbit might give it a run for its money. Not once did I ever feel immersed in Middle Earth. It was not used to the scope and scale it should have been. There was depth, sure, but who wants to see depth with two people talking? It is distracting and overworks the brain to compensate for the film trickery.
Second, the 48 HFR. I would suggest that the average movie goer seek out 24. I know Jackson wants to present the film in 48, but it is simply the wrong movie for this format. First and most noticeable. People move quicker, like they are on fast-forward of your DVD remote. Simple task like picking up a cup, are too quick and make for an awkward and unpleasant viewing experience. Later on this is not as intrusive, but most of the damage will already be done. Second, the clear, crispness of the picture. I am one for HD presentation on my television, but here it seems odd and out of place. Many people have compared the look and feel of the film to daytime Soap Operas. I would tend to agree. It feels like something on TV. The digital presentation makes close up scenes seem really out of place when cutting in from afar. Those far away shots and sequences looks spectacular, most of the CGI is wonderfully realized in this frame rate, but everything sticks out like a sore thumb. The first thing I noticed was the fabric and lines on Gandalfs hat. Feels like it was something out of The Wizard of Oz, or a stage play. The realism of the smoothed over 24 is gone, the digital crisp of 48 is a win/lose situation. I had more problems with it than enjoyment.
With those problems constantly battling my enjoyment back to Middle Earth, I did walk away pleasantly surprised with the film. Everyone is on their A-game, which is of no surprise as Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman are always spectacular. Freeman manages to make a character I didn't care for in the original films, likable. Peter Jackson loves this world and his passion shows. One of the drawbacks would be that the film comes off as too cartoonish. This might be because the book was aimed to a younger crowd, but the Dwarfs and their antics are something out of a Star Wars prequel. Sure, they are meant to be comedic relief, but when dangerous and life threatening situations are happening, you don't want to be seeing them jump from tree to tree like some Warner Brothers cartoon.
Of course, being a prequel, it's fun to see things being set-up for the Lord of the Rings. The best sequences is of course the Riddles in the Dark with Gollum, who looks better than ever. The Hobbit is a wonderful film, that doesn't match the scope, energy or emotion of the Lord of the Rings. Go in expecting a good fantasy, nothing more and you'll walk away satisfied....that's if you walk away from a screening in 24 fps.
48 Frames: An Unexpected Journey.
A mild-mannered Hobbit by the name of Bilbo Baggins is tasked with joining a group of Dwarfs, lead by Gandalf, to the Lonely Mountain in the hopes of claiming their home and gold back from the dragon Smaug.
When word first broke out that Jackson would be splitting the 300 some odd pages of the children aimed book The Hobbit, into another epic trilogy, a lot of people groaned at how thin he would be able to stretch the material. In The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, everything and anything that would have ended up on the cutting room floor is thrown in here, such as the Rock Giants. Why? Is it because The Hobbit lacks the thrills and spectacle that is the Lord of the Rings. I'm going to put my bottom dollar on yes. Jackson needed something to fill his films with in order to excite the audience, thrill them and make them have the same awe they did more than a decade ago.
I want to say that The Hobbit works wonderfully, and it does for the most part. There are obvious flaws throughout, but my question is this. How do you rate a film, when it is presented in a format so distracting that it hurts you're overall enjoyment of it? Not only am I talking about the use of 3D, but the infamous 48 HFR which it is presented. Let me get these two issues out of the way first.
The 3D here is utterly useless. There are basically two kinds of 3D being presented to an audience right now. The Gimmick and the Immersive. The gimmick is what one would see in the Saw 3D, Final Destination 3D....any horror film really. Gags that poke out at the screen with gotcha moments. The second, the kind that James Cameron is trying to champion is the immersive one, in which the 3D makes you feel like you are in this world. Objects aren't really shooting out at you, but float around you. The most horrid use of 3D, many would have to agree is Clash of the Titans, but I must say, The Hobbit might give it a run for its money. Not once did I ever feel immersed in Middle Earth. It was not used to the scope and scale it should have been. There was depth, sure, but who wants to see depth with two people talking? It is distracting and overworks the brain to compensate for the film trickery.
Second, the 48 HFR. I would suggest that the average movie goer seek out 24. I know Jackson wants to present the film in 48, but it is simply the wrong movie for this format. First and most noticeable. People move quicker, like they are on fast-forward of your DVD remote. Simple task like picking up a cup, are too quick and make for an awkward and unpleasant viewing experience. Later on this is not as intrusive, but most of the damage will already be done. Second, the clear, crispness of the picture. I am one for HD presentation on my television, but here it seems odd and out of place. Many people have compared the look and feel of the film to daytime Soap Operas. I would tend to agree. It feels like something on TV. The digital presentation makes close up scenes seem really out of place when cutting in from afar. Those far away shots and sequences looks spectacular, most of the CGI is wonderfully realized in this frame rate, but everything sticks out like a sore thumb. The first thing I noticed was the fabric and lines on Gandalfs hat. Feels like it was something out of The Wizard of Oz, or a stage play. The realism of the smoothed over 24 is gone, the digital crisp of 48 is a win/lose situation. I had more problems with it than enjoyment.
With those problems constantly battling my enjoyment back to Middle Earth, I did walk away pleasantly surprised with the film. Everyone is on their A-game, which is of no surprise as Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman are always spectacular. Freeman manages to make a character I didn't care for in the original films, likable. Peter Jackson loves this world and his passion shows. One of the drawbacks would be that the film comes off as too cartoonish. This might be because the book was aimed to a younger crowd, but the Dwarfs and their antics are something out of a Star Wars prequel. Sure, they are meant to be comedic relief, but when dangerous and life threatening situations are happening, you don't want to be seeing them jump from tree to tree like some Warner Brothers cartoon.
Of course, being a prequel, it's fun to see things being set-up for the Lord of the Rings. The best sequences is of course the Riddles in the Dark with Gollum, who looks better than ever. The Hobbit is a wonderful film, that doesn't match the scope, energy or emotion of the Lord of the Rings. Go in expecting a good fantasy, nothing more and you'll walk away satisfied....that's if you walk away from a screening in 24 fps.