mixed feelings...

Rating: 5/10 (13 December 2012)

I'm a big fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the cinematic quality was like a painting in every scene, it was a master piece to say the least and winning the Academy awards once all 3 films were screened was inevitable.
I saw The Hobbit on 12.12.12 as a friend of mine was chewing at the bit to see it. The first thing i noticed was the cinematic values... some scenes were like looking at cheap video, this is due to the frame rate that was used, it looked too clean and as a result the cinematic quality of The Hobbit fell short of the LOTR films.
Why did they choose to go 3D? I don't get it. OK, the 3D effect itself looks very 3D and gives that feeling of distance between the characters and foreground and background, but the frame rate seems to completely take away the cinematic quality we saw in LOTR. When we both came out of the cinema we both complained of head aches, my head ache lasted the entire day! I think this was due to all that was going on on the screen, my brain was trying to make sense of what i was seeing... i guess. I am not saying the film was crap, what i am saying is the choices made cinematically were perhaps not necessary, a bit like polishing firewood.