First things first, one of the things that has been talked about a lot is the new high speed frame rate (48 frames per second compared to the usual 24 frames per second), which combined with being shot in 3D has produced a whole load of horror stories of people feeling sick when watching it, it looking fake or “tv like” and various other things. Put simply – it’s fine. It is different, but as far as I am concerned it is completely fine. I have to say that I was somewhat sceptical that it would be a major issue given a lot of 3D you can see on TV is at a similar frame rate (British TV often is shown at 50 interlaced frames per second anyway), and sure enough it certainly wasn’t causing anyone to vomit in their seat or anything like that. What I will say is that the style that it produces is quite different from what you might be used to in films – it is all very clear, all very crisp, and the nature of the 3D image means you get a much deeper depth of field than is the norm for modern cinema. The result of this does give you an image that is more akin to what you see on High Definition TVs, and this does take a few minutes to get used to – But when you do, and accept this is just a different type of cinematography, then I do actually think it works very well. I’m not 100% convinced about it being more realistic or anything like that, but it certainly is far more akin to seeing an image you would actually see with your eyes, rather than looking through the lens of a camera. In fact the only bits of it I felt were jarring were the couple of occasions where the DP clearly decided to revert back to old school cinematic techniques, Using shallow depth of field switches in a dialogue scene for example, actually leapt out at me as not fitting in with the style of the rest of the cinematography.
So in respect of the filming technique, I think this was a risk well taken and for me at least an interesting step forward in modern cinema. It’s not going to suit everything, but this style will hopefully become exactly that – another style for directors to potentially utilise when it fits a project. The brief stuff I’ve seen on how it was all done (using fully digital Red Epic 3D rigs) is certainly interesting in itself, and a very clear sign that digital filmmaking, and 3D as well is both moving forward with great strides.
How about the film itself? I have to say it is in a lot of ways it is a bit of a mixed bag. There was quite a bit to like about the film, quite a few things not to like, but as I always consider the thing that really matters when it comes to a film is quite simply “did you enjoy the experience” – did I? Well yes. Yes I did.
So that said, let’s start with the elements that weren’t so good. First of all, purely as a stand-alone film, the story and therefore the film itself is quite weak. In adapting what was essentially a relatively short and very simplistic book into a full trilogy if films they have, unsurprisingly, had to drag the story out quite considerably. As a result “The Unexpected Journey” is by design a very long prologue to the full story. Now this may be fine in the long run when you can step back and see the entire trilogy, but stand alone (as it is now) you do feel like not a lot has really happened, despite having just sat through a film almost 3 hours in length.
You also did feel that there were probably a few too many dwarfs in play to get any kind of adequate characterisation. This is a problem inherited from the book, and having 13 dwarfs as the main adventure party does inevitably result in several of those characters being barely more than stereotypes, like “the fat dwarf”, “the young dwarf” and so on. That said the few dwarfs that do get a bit of characterisation (Thorin and Balin in particular) do come across much better.
Finally there is one set piece (the rescue of the Dwarfs from the Goblin King) that comes across as quite ridiculous. Clearly they wanted to put in at least one battle scene that was on the scale of what they got to do on LofTR and this got shoe horned in, but it was a bit silly. You are of course stuck with the fact that you can’t actually kill off any of the characters currently in play, but still it completely lacked any sense of danger or excitement as the Dwarfs effortlessly just cut through wave upon wave of stupid Orcs and bounce around the totally ridiculous architecture in a semi amusing comedy of errors. It’s a shame because the smaller set pieces with the Whargs in pursuit actually do feel much better and clearly the desire to produce something on a bigger scale was a mistake because it really didn’t work.
Moving on, what did I think was good? Well, very much like LofTR the world Jackson has created to recreate Middle Earth is amazing. The visuals and the textures of the different locations (with the exception of the ridiculous architecture in the Goblin Kings lair) are visually breathtaking. The Shire and Rivendell are stand out locations and I have to say the 3D 48fps suits this fantasy style very well indeed.
I also appreciated what (admittedly small) characterisation was in place. Thorin, Balin and Bilbo come across very well and in the absence of anything else “The Unexpected Journey” is really all about Bilbo. It’s a reasonable tack to take given you were not left with enough plot to create a proper 3 stage storyline to the film, and I think making it all about Bilbo was probably the only way to pull it off. So while it doesn’t seem like much happens in the film (and it doesn’t) you instead get an arc in the form of Bilbo’s development and acceptance into the group. Of course both Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis were once again on form reprising the roles of Gandalf and Gollum. The scene between Serkis and Freeman is absolutely brilliant and it’s a little bit disappointing to think that we won’t get to see any more of Gollum on screen.
Finally I also am fairly positive about the changes Jackson has decided to make from the book, and even the fact that this is going to be spread out over a total of 3 films (something I was very sceptical about). The changes made all make a lot of sense and really do help tie this trilogy in with the LofTR trilogy. First of all expanding on the rise of the Necromancer (Sauron) and Gandalf’s reason for participating in this quest suddenly expands what is a straight forward quest storyline, into something that actually links in with the overall story universe – important given the fundamental importance of the one ring – something which in the original book as never really made clear. It was also nice to get a proper look into some of the back-story and surrounding world that you otherwise wouldn’t get to see. So I am actually fairly positive as to how this is all going to work out moving forward.
So where does that leave us? As before I have to say as a stand-alone film this one is, to say the least, rather average. It’s not got a lot of plot, and for a fairly long film you will indeed be walking out thinking, they really didn’t do anything. It feels a bit padded at times, you will be struggling to figure out which dwarf is which, and as already mentioned the one big set piece is a bit dumb. But provided you look at it as a prologue to a longer piece I think it is certainly worth seeing. The visuals are amazing, Tolkien’s world is rich and vibrant and from this initial third of the story things seem to bode well for the story. I haven’t read the book in a very long time, but still experienced a little smile every time one of the more famous lines got uttered, and I walked out having enjoyed the experience. Provided the other 2 films do it just as well, I think the film adaptation of The Hobbit will prove to be a successful one… Although one which is going to be about 9 hours in length!
5 comments:
Intriguing! I shall be back when I've seen the film in question, and can find the most minor point possible to argue with you about.
I also noticed the jarring effect in dialogue scenes, but we were watching it at normal frame rate so I think it's more due to it not suiting 3D rather than a frame rate issue. I think the problem is psychologically if you're looking at a 3D image you would expect anything you decide to focus on to be in focus.
I also agree the goblin king rescue was a bit ludicrous. In fact the whole film suffers from Peterjacksonitis, with overlong action set pieces and general excess of monsters hitting each other. About half an hour of cuts to these scenes would have made it much tighter. Still, it was much better than I was expecting and I agree the 3 films idea is not such a bad one after all. Hopefully they will use some of the remaining six hours to flesh out the other dwarf characters, which potentially would even be an improvement on the book.
You found a point to argue about yet Squid?
Give me a chance, I only saw it yesterday ;)
I shall compare and contrast my thoughts (now up on the blog) with yours, and get back to you. For now, I shall simply say that I entirely agree with your comments on the frame rate, though not being well-versed in film-making, I didn't really notice why things were occasionally jarring, just that they were.
On further consideration, I regret to announce that I can't actually disagree with anything you've said; except that I apparently enjoyed the final dash through the gobin caves rather more than you did (it was the Goblin King I saw as the problem, rather than the mad architecture).
Overall, I'd say the film is probably around the level of Return of the King in terms of how much I enjoyed it, though it has the advantage of getting better as it goes rather than peaking midway and then gradually shuffling to a halt. It wasn't nearly as good as Fellowship..., which doesn't exactly bode well when you consider how precipitous the drop in quality was between that film and The Two Towers.
I might be more optimistic if it were obvious what can be done in the second movie, but given we're now halfway through the book I fear padding on an interstellar scale.
Post a Comment