Out of Pod Experience

Well, movie bob liked it, and he usually hits my staste, so...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6620-The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey?utm_source=videos&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

Spirit I think is the perfect term explaining the beauty behind this film. It keeps true to the story and the feeling of the book which is a rarity in book based films.

well i am going to watch it tonight with my kids ,

Yeah I was kinda surprised with the review myself. I've been reading Mick LaSalle for over a decade and when covering LOTR, he said somewhere along the line he had read all of the books. Although like most, I highly doubt he read the Appendices or the 13-Volume "History of Middle Earth" which contains the unpublished writings from which a lot of the 'new' material is derived from as well. That stuff is great for those to whom this has great appeal, but for the general public, it would be all a complete bore.

I spent a 2-Year time period reading those 13 volumes. That's the kind of patience I have, but to read most of it one has to have a bit of a background in linguistics and be willing to read through multiple 'only slightly different' draft versions of text and be fascinated by that. Not too many folks there.

Mr. LaSalle seems happy with the last part of the movie that's for sure, but I've been going over some Average Joe reviews, and more than a few of those have hinted at the same "issues".

The problem isn't Peter Jackson making a bad film per se, but films must have a certain tempo to them or boredom can set in no matter how spectacular what you are seeing looks.

See "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (1979) for a great demonstration of that.

This was the same problem I had with his "King Kong". This was the same problem I had with "The Lovely Bones" (which was just a mis-fire as far as a premise to adapt to make a film, but that's not the problem here).

In those two films he had long stretches where absolutely nothing of import was being delivered and then suddenly a breakneck speed thrown in with back to back action scenes, in "King Kong" in particular. It and "The Lovely Bones" just seemed to alternate between off and on, with no middle ground.

Of course I don't really have a final point here to make, and that would be unfair as I have not seen it.

I guess what I am finding interesting and startling is that in all my decades of studying film, it was truly amazing how during the 3 film run of LOTR, I could practically find no review that was not at least near perfect in judgement. That was great, but really really odd. Exceptional. But it's really hard to get lightening to strike twice. (See George Lucas).

Will I see this ? Yes. And I'm probably going to like it. But I had a feeling that this awkward pacing issue would rear it's head, so I'm fully prepared and it won't be a nasty surprise.

Also, maybe there was no way around this issue due to expanding the story (remember those last 3 words there), and he's figured out a way to iron out whatever is causing both professional and armchair critics to feel as they do this time around. I don't get the feeling that they 'have it out" for Peter just because of the earlier phenomenal success.

They seem just as surprised at the fact this issue would even crop up.

But one thing that has been unanimous: I have not found a single person who has liked the 48 FPS projection rate (only some 3-d versions have it). I really wish Jackson had not made this charming story a "technical" experiment for the format, especially with the odd reactions people had when it was first introduced in the late '70's. Myself included.

Perhaps he is reaching a bit too high there? Time will tell.

Please post your reviews though after seeing it.


edit: cleaned up typos.

From the critic at CNN on the 48 FPS issue (again):

"But there's worse, far worse, for anyone tempted to check out the movie in its 3-D, 48 frames per second incarnation (showcased in approximately 450 premium screens across North America). The theory behind this cutting edge technology -- which doubles the 24 fps that has been standard in movies since the silent era -- is that the faster frame rate allows more luminescence, counterbalancing the loss incurred in 3-D. It's clearer, brighter and more immersive -- in theory. In practice, it's clearer, brighter, and utterly alienating.

I haven't seen the movie screened at 24 fps, but at 48, the grain of film has been replaced by the gloss of high definition video, which gives everything and everyone a fake, plastic sheen.

"An Unexpected Journey" may look sharp in TV showrooms or on your PS3, but in the movie theater the picture's clarity comes at the loss of texture, shading and consistency. Shifts from exteriors to dark interiors are especially jarring. Look also at the dull, flat orange taint that is meant to approximate candle light in numerous scenes, and compare that with the glow you find in "Barry Lyndon," or "Fanny and Alexander," or your own birthday snaps.

Did Jackson embrace 48 fps to keep himself interested, because he knew he was retreading old ground? Is he really blind to the limitations of this technology at this stage of its evolution? I won't say it has no future, but for now this emperor has no clothes. It's a colossal misjudgment. He's put his name to the ugliest film of the year, a $270 million three-hour epic that looks like a TV show ("Teletubbies" was the first to pop into my head, and "Doctor Who" was the most flattering comparison I could come up with.)"


Wow. Pretty unanimous opinions it seems of this one. Be sure to pay for 2D or Regular 3D.

I won't post the rest of the CNN review. It would just upset everyone.



EDIT: just noticed and LOL'ed that the title of an Ingmar Bergman film is a no no ! That is an actual legitimate name for girls. And what about the author and screenwriter of "Fried Green Tomatoes", Fanny Phlagg ? Censorship is a difficult thing to navigate once begun, indeed.

2nd Edit: actually, it turns out she spells it Fannie Phlagg. And she was in "5 Easy Pieces" with Jack Nicholson.

I saw it tonight in 2D at regular frame rate, didn't dare experiment, and I had a cracking good time!

Performances were great, effects were great, thought the pace was good overall.

I think it did well as it's own adventure but also sat well within the LotR story too.

Looking forward to two trilogies that will stand well together as a saga of middle earth.

I am planning to see it with friends on Tuesday, couldn't see dealing with the crush of humanity over the weekend.

Saw it yesterday, loved it.

I deleted a bit of spam from this thread.

You left a huge area of white space and no information. It's not the 90's ya know.