The HFR (High Frame Rate - 48 frames per second as opposed to the regular 24) was another oddity. Now I'm not sure if this was just the HFR or the 3D/HFR combination but the pictures seemed rather fake looking, especially at the start. Kind of like a presentation of some new ultra-clean medical imaging system or a Terminator show at USJ Osaka. Too sharp for these eyes. They need a bit of grain.
So onto the film itself. Some pundits have derided it for being too long. I disagree with this but they're on the right track. I've no problem with the running time, just with some of the flabby early scenes - specifically the Frodo bit and the introductions of the dwarf gang. I'd happily watch a three hour film if it's edited ruthlessly. The Hobbit sadly isn't, perhaps a drawback of Jackson's faithfulness.
That's not to say it isn't a good film. I reckon it does many things well. Once we're underway on the titular journey, the pace starts to pick up and from here, it's a very satisfying film. It wobbles a bit when the comic relief gets in the way (mountain trolls who sound like Chelsea fans, belching dwarves, etc) but the returnees from The Lord of the Rings trilogy are a welcome fillip.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0c89a/0c89a7b6dbd83cf90ac3e1a0b3f3d4e1342d395d" alt=""
Not having read the book yet, I'm anticipating some fine shenanigans in the next two films. But I'll be watching with my old friend 2D - you can ram your slow-burning two day headaches, 3D! If I want three dimensions, I'll ride a BMX along a bat infested river or something. Goodnight.
Comments
Post a Comment