The Film Thread

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

TDKR... see if it improves on second viewing.

Hmm.

They seemed to have sorted out the sound-mixing issues, as Bane could be understood quite clearly and Zimmer's score is toned down a bit. Perhaps I just saw it in a dodgy screening initially, but there was a difference and for the better. However, there are still issues with the film itself that I couldn't quite put my finger on first time round. Basically, it is a film that takes itself seriously, then completely undermines itself in the final stretch.

The first hour, hour and a half are the strongest parts of the film in my opinion. Nolan is brave enough to take his time to tell a story and it works, as characters are introduced and themes are played out. However, after Batman is cast aside for the second time, this patient story telling goes out the window, replaced by fast editing and a rushed final hour, which completely undid the good work of the first half of the film. It is disappointing, because it is as if the director suddenly realised he was making a blockbuster and gave up themes and needed to blow shit up. Yes, it is a Batman film, and you expect action, but the first half of the film is at odds with the second, and as a result if feels as if two different films were tagged together. I thought the whole 'french revolution' scenes and aftermath could have been longer, as the rushed scenes we get are completely ineffective. I got no sense of peril, and I didn't really care that the rich were being tossed out of their homes. I just got to see Hathaway look wistfully out a window, which is, admittedly, no bad thing.

Another huge, huge, problem is the dialogue itself. Everything, everyone says is somehow significant to the plot. Even characters who merely inhabit the world only say lines that add to the plot. No one has room to breath, and as a result the characters are merely there to serve the plot. Of course, I don't expect Altman/Linklater/Tarantino style scenes of conversation that don't do much but flesh out the characters in a Batman film, but some of it would be nice. This problem exists in plenty of modern films (and television), though, so I won't hammer TDKR for it too much.

It is certainly best watched as a big silly blockbuster, and most will argue to see it as anything otherwise is daft, but if Nolan has pretensions for Batman to be more than that, then it should be scrutinised more than, say, Iron Man and the like.

[Ghost]

Just come back from the Hobbit.

I don't care what any of you say, I don't care what the critics say. It was **** epic.

I really didn't think the word for word transition would work. Oh my, it does.

**** I can't wait to see it. But it only releases here in Oz on Boxing Day. They're practically begging us to pirate it. When will they learn?

[Stevo985]

TO be honest if you pirate a film like The Hobbit then you're an idiot. THe visuals are a major part of the movie. Pirating it would ruin it.

[Chindie]

So, the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey... in controversial HFR and 3d.

I'll get the 48fps thing out of the way first. Your mileage may vary. That has to underpin anything said about it, ultimately you've got to see for yourself. Personally... I'm not a fan. The thing that immediately struck me is that it made a lot of things look... well, either weird, or cheap. Actors on screen look tangibly like actors, costumes look noticeably costume-y... and so on. The effect is quite odd - it's been compared to looking through a window rather than at a screen and that... doesn't quite match up with my experience. It's almost, but not quite, like watching someone on stage. There's a veracity of movement in everything but it's always slightly wrong somehow. It's particularly noticeable with the actors movement, it looks almost bizarrely exaggerated. It's an intensely odd thing to watch and I never quite settled with it. It also makes small, and also fast moving, CGI entities look awful. There is a scene where the One Ring shows up, it flies out of Gollums... loin cloth (it doesn't look like it has pockets so er)... and tumbles in the air. It looked like something out of Knightmare, as do the plates chucked around when the Dwarves arrive at Bag End. Another example, the film opens with a bit of backstory explaining why the Dwarves want to get back to the Lonely Mountain, Erebor. This theoretically is a big, CGI show starter and scene setter, and it should be so too. Something Bad happens. And the Bad Event looks awful, when it should look absolutely incredible. The Bad Thing, again, looks like Knightmare should consider suing Peter Jackson. The movement, weight, presence of the Bad Thing is simply not there. Besides the CGI, the effect really does look like you're watching a particularly interesting edition of This Morning. It's very stark.

But it also makes some things look incredible. Shots of scenery (real scenery, mind) are breathtaking. 3d is also helped out by the frame rate. It still suffers from the usual problems - things moving quickly break the effect, things moving to the very forefront of the scene also tend to cause issues, for instance - but it does make the effect smoother, more consistent. And large, slow CGI creations are made even more impressive by the frame rate - the trio of trolls, Gollum, and Another Character are up there as some of the best CG around the great clarity offered by the frame rate only enhances them.

There is an unparalleled clarity to everything, to the extent that where you to pull a single frame of film from the reel (not that there is a reel) it would be jaw dropping. In motion, the fidelity of the look of actual characters (Bilbo and Gandalf notably, especially if they are moving slowly and there is a close up) is incredible but also looks kinda crap. It's an oxymoron but if you go see it and don't buy into Jackson's idea, you'll see what I mean.

It also, and this will drive someone in favour of the tech mad, doesn't look cinematic. We've become accustomed to way films look, we like the... sheen, the lustre, brought about by the low frame rate, it has a luxurious and dramatic quality somehow. The Hobbit: an Unexpected Journey, in 48fps, simply doesn't have that and I think it really takes something away from the film. I recently rewatched the Extended Editions of LOTR to prep for this film and while this film never quite hits the grandure of the spectacle in say, ROTK, it's also missing the presence those scenes have and I really think it's down to frame rate.

Ultimately, I never settled with it. I never escaped the feeling of 'This looks odd', 'that CGI looks crap there but Weta are some of the best... so why?!'. But you really need to see it yourself.

Anyway, the film itself. It's important to go in knowing that it is, and always was intended to be, a bit of a compromise between the slightly grim seriousness of LOTR and the lighthearted, childs bedtime story that is the Hobbit novel. So you do get a film where limbs and heads are hacked off and theres genuine peril (as well as the stilted self serious mythology), coupled to knowing gags and slapstick. This never bothered me but I can see some people not getting on with it.

The film is baggy, you can pick up the feeling that it's been padded out. Strangely, despite that, I never felt it dragged. It does take it's time getting going (we get 2 prologues, and one could easily have been chopped to be frank, shortened if not binned entirely. Radagast's scenes seem to exist solely to set up the Necromancer plot (and provide some comic relief) and given that that isn't vital to the plot of the Hobbit you feel like it's time wasted that could go to the plot you're actually there for (I say that as someone who really wants to see the Necromancer's plot on screen). There are also some action scenes chucked in that don't really do anything for the film and exist only to stop the audience nodding off in a film where not a whole lot happens spectacle wise if you follow the novel word for word. That scene in the mountains is a particularly poor example - spectacle for the sake of it and rather daft. Which is saying something in a film about 13 midgets and an old man walking off to get some gold. It's basically this films 'Dinosaur Valley from King Kong', and pulls you out of the film for how stupid it is. Another plot about Thorin's past seems to have been thrown in to give the film an antagonist.

Performances are decent, McKellen is his usual reliable self, Freeman doesn't set the earth on fire as Bilbo but the role suits him, and the few dwarves that get any real screentime do well - sadly having so many characters that are so alike means a number get maybe a line or 2 and little to do with it. Despite his character feeling a little tacked on, I quite like Sylvester McCoy's Radagast as well, he's quite an endearing if a completely over the top character.The other cameos feel a little phoned in. Richard Armitages Thorin never really convinced me either, which is a shame. He should really be this films Aragorn (not quite the same, he's less of a central presence than Aragorn and more aloof), but he never comes close, he's a surprisingly distant character and quite unlikable somehow, when in the novel he's a character I love.

Theres some good action to be had in the film, and while I dislike some of Jackson's additions I'm not going to say the action is bad, it's decent fun. And there is spectacle, there are some great moments and some great scenes. It ends a little abruptly, as you might expect.

It's a decent watch and you'll enjoy it, especially if you love the LOTR. If you don't, don't go anywhere near it. And if you love the work of Tolkein to the point of being pained at anything not specifically adapted from the text and nothing added - save yourself the heartache. There are numerous little changes, some of them with no basis in the text(s) at all, and many of them will enrage purists.

But otherwise, a decent, flawed watch. No masterpiece, not better than any of Jackson's previous Tolkein forays. You get the feeling, especially if you know the novel, that the coming films will be better from a pure entertainment standpoint. The worst could be behind us, so to speak.

[The_Rev]

I just saw the 2D version. A free promotional screening in fact, which had the added bonus of coming with no trailers and no adverts before the feature started. I can see why people think it might be a bit long, but I cant say I was bored at any point. I loved the opening section in Bilbo's house, but ultimately all the film did was make me want to renew my World of Warcraft subscription.

[Designer1]

Just watched Stripes for the first time in about 20 years. Man, I love Bill Murray, his portfolio of work is so goddamn superb, he never ever fails to entertain me.

[Ghost]

TO be honest if you pirate a film like The Hobbit then you're an idiot. THe visuals are a major part of the movie. Pirating it would ruin it.

No doubt. I know that viewing a blurred crappy version of the Hobbit is a stupid idea and won't do the film justice.

I'm definitely not going to see it illegally and plan on going to the cinema to see it (probably multiple times) but I don't understand why they do this with films.

I mean the world wide release is pretty much the 12th, 13th and 14th of December. It's just a weird decision to wait almost a week and half to see it here.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Just back from The 'obbit.

It was considerably better than I expected, although a few scenes could have been cut for the sake of brevity, however the length issue constantly pointed out in the media wasn't much of an issue for me. I enjoyed the Shire scenes, and given they are pretty essential to understanding Bilbo then I'm fine with taking time. I'm also a fan of all the songs Tolkien writes so to hear them on the big screen gave me a big fanboy hard-on. I can see why the opening section can be tedious to people less enthusiastic about all things Middle Earth, but it worked for me, and I can't ask for more than that.

From that point on the film rattles along at a decent pace, and in the most part is highly enjoyable, with a few questionable decisions here and there. The 'stone giants' scene is a perfect example of something best kept for an extended cut, or abolished altogether. It felt like dramatic tension for the sake of it, rather than adding anything significant to the plot. Admittedly this criticism could be levelled at most of Jackson's embellishments but while, say, the escape from the goblin scene was exciting, the 'stone giant' thing was just dull. This is a small quibble though, as the scene doesn't last long thankfully.

Radagast was an interesting addition, he is purely comic relief but he played his part well. I was less interested in the pale orc stalking Thorin around but I'm happy enough to let that storyline develop, but it did get a bit repetitive. Generally though, the additions help place the Hobbit into the wider LOTR story, rather than having it as a stand alone adaption. This is certainly the best frame of mind to watch the film in, as anyone expecting a childrens story will be disappointed.

I would've liked less CGI: the whole film just felt less physical than LOTR. Yes, it is a significantly more fantastical story (and it will only get moreso in the next film) but less CGI would be nice. This comes with Jackson though, and although he is a good director, it is a shame Del Toro didn't direct the film as the story is well suited to his aesthetic. Again, it isn't a huge problem, but it is a noticeable difference.

Overall it is very enjoyable and a few minor quibbles aside, I'm happy with it.

(I saw it in twod, I'll see it again in the hfr format when I have money, so I can't comment on it but I did notice a few dodgy moments here and there as a result of converting the film down to 24fps).

[The_Rev]

It's still weird to think that most of The Shire is supposed to be Hall Green. Fight the Horde, then catch the #37 into Sparkbrook for a curry to celebrate.

[Jimzk5]

Shall rewatch TDKR tonight and see if it improves on second viewing

I'm yet to watch any of the latest Batman films as im nearly 27 and i stopped watching Batman when I was 12. I've watched the trailers but they really don't make me say I really want to see that.

[villa4europe]

back from the hobbit

i liked it, i seem to have forgot just how beautiful some of new zealand is, wasnt convinced by radagast but did like the thorin back story, thought is was decently cast some of the dwarves arent really in it but thats hardly jacksons fault and im another who really wasnt bothered by the running time, wasnt entirely convinced by some of the humour either

overall though i couldnt shake the feeling that its a poorer version of LOTR, so much of it seems to be the same, at the start i liked that theyd kept the music and the font etc but then i started thinking that the pale orc was a poorer version of lurtz, the dwarves arent as interesting as the fellowship etc etc it peaked during the chase scene with the trolls which didnt have the magic of the scenes in moria, again i find it hard to really blame jackson for it and my opinion of that might change after time, im certainly still excited for the rest

[AVFCforever1991]

2D or 3D for the Hobbit?

[villa4europe]

i went 2D, i get 3D for free with my cineworld unlimited membership but still wouldnt see something in 3D

[coda]

Werner "it's not a significant bullet" Herzog is going to direct Vernon God Little. That has potential.

[PauloBarnesi]

I like the Hobbit as a book. The film sadly is overblown, over long and disappointing. Give me the Jackanory adaption all day long.

[mjmooney]

It's still weird to think that most of The Shire is supposed to be Hall Green. Fight the Horde, then catch the #37 into Sparkbrook for a curry to celebrate.

And Mordor was Moseley Bog. We used to do our school cross-country runs through it. Those orcs were a **** menace.

Haven't seen it yet, will probably go sometime this week. Our local cinema is ONLY showing it in 3D, which pisses me off somewhat. Having said that, Number One Daughter (who is a huge Tolkien fan and normally hates 3D as much as I do) says it was brilliant, so we'll see.

[Stevo985]

Even though I think it'll be a disappointment, I can't help really REALLY looking forward to The Hobbit.

[coda]

Thought The Hobbit was very poor. Talk talk eat run around talk eat. Reminisce about orcs or a wizard with poo on his face. ZZZzzzzz.

In the LOTR their task was absorbing. Now they want some gold back like Scrooge McDuck. I couldn't get engrossed in that.

[AVFCforever1991]

Split into 3 movies apparently..

[PauloBarnesi]

Just started reading the book again. Even within ten pages you realise that the film just doesn’t do the book justice