As a review there are quite a lot of things to cover, so I may just resort to getting the obvious items out of the way using bullet points (apologies for the death of narrative cinema here)
- 3D - did it really add anything? Just occasionally yes but on the whole? No. It wasn't as jarring as some other 3D films of recent memory and it was clearly designed with that in mind. However the reason it didn't lack immersion was to do with a different aspect of the film
- HFR - the infamous 48 frames per second. I, personally, didn't find anything to dislike about it. The 3D worked more seamlessly because of it with less blur. The picture was crisp and fresh without too much colour loss due to the 3D. Overall it helped with immersion tremendously and represents just the tech that 3D needs if it's to stay - which sadly it looks like it is.
- Price - this film cost me nigh on £30 to watch. Now I kind of knew I would at least not hate it but frankly I'm generally prepared to pay for the theatre a couple of times a year for that cost and certainly not weekly to see a succession of films whose only distinguishing point might be that I resent paying to see them. Not good at all.
- Violence - it's suitable for kids as young as 9 in my view. My son Daniel would be fine and he's four but my daughter, who is 6, would not be fine AT ALL and I think it's going to be at least a couple of years before she could handle it.
The film itself was like returning to a warm armchair by a fire - as soon as the opening credits started I knew what I was going to get, I knew it was going to work. In short I knew I could trust the director, Peter Jackson to stick with what he did so successfully in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, with that brings the things Jackson can't get right - like editing. Sometimes less is more - but the Hobbit only ever considers that more is more. More dramatic tension, more waiting around, more exposition. The time never crawled while watching it but I also felt that it could have been an hour shorter and, if it had been so, it had the potential to be a rocking classic of a movie instead of being a solid piece of comfort food.
The pacing is ok - if a little mini series in nature and I think here is the real issue. The technology is irrelevant. So too is the question of whether it's a kids movie (it's not, it's a family movie full of wonder). The film is the opening three hour long episodes of a tv series. Only a TV series could take its time in the way the Hobbit does. Only a TV series could focus on individual characters and then shift, for whole entire segments, to others. Only a TV series could breathe like this.
Well, until now obviously. I've read people commenting that it looks like a tv series, or that it's too slow, or that the characters are too episodic. That's to miss the point. Rather than make three movies, Jackson has made three series which together tell the story of the Hobbit. This is both a thumbing of the nose at studio execs but also towards critics who have, at least in all the reviews I've read, completely failed to grasp this aspect of the film's construction.
Freeman is excellent, but to be honest - every actor given more than 10 seconds is excellent - whether it's Christopher Lee's refusal to believe in the truth because he fears it or Cate Blanchett's majestic turn as Galadriel.
I really enjoyed this mini-series. I cannot wait for series 2 next Christmas. In the meantime I will continue to watch actual films and enjoy their form as much as I enjoyed that this didn't even try to stick by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment