Turns Out Jackson Was Right

Rating: 7/10 (15 December 2012)

I walked into the cinema filled with apprehension and a sense of foreboding. I'd read many of the criticisms of the HFR, and was filled with dread. I had some idea of what to expect, knowing more or less what higher frame rates look like, but was still nervous. Once the movie began, however, it didn't take long for a broad smile to appear on my face. All I could think was, "Yes!" I could actually track tracking shots! I could see clearly what was on the screen during a pan; it wasn't a blurred mess that bothered my eyes, like every other movie I'd ever seen! I find it amusing that we've become so accustomed to this that an improvement is looked upon with fear and trepidation, and outright scorn. I suppose progress will always have its nay-sayers. I, for one, applaud Jackson and his courageous decision to innovate in an industry as stodgy as Hollywood. And good for WB for being on board.
As for the movie itself, it was fairly typical Jackson fare. There were some unnecessary and non-sensical additions (e.g. Radagast traveling clear across, or around, or through, the Misty Mountains on his little sledge just to find Gandalf), and some downright, god-awful lighting decisions (also the case in LOTR), such as the night scene of the party sleeping at the "front porch" (right before the goblin ambush). Where was all that bright, warm light coming from?! They were in a cave, at night, with no fire. I'll accept almost any reasonable explanation, because I can't think of one. The same lighting existed in Gollum's lake. He was in the deepest roots of the mountain. I don't understand it. I can't be the only person who thinks about these things. And it would have been more atmospheric to have had the correct lighting for that scene anyway. I've seen many films with EXCELLENT dark or night scenes that look realistic and convincing, and still allow enough light to see the actors' expressions. What Jackson was doing I've no idea.
But there was MORE than plenty about which to be happy. All the good more than made up for any of the failings. There was plenty of humour, and the tale was told at a very good pace (neither too rushed, nor too slow), and was very rich. The familiar story drew me right in, and left me looking forward to the next instalment.
All said, I loved it. I next will see it in 24fps to see if I like it as much.
Well, I just saw the movie in 24fps, 2D. Having seen the film in both frame rates I can conclude only that each mode has its pros and cons. For me, the greatest pro of the HFR was the absence of motion blur. Seeing it in 24fps reminded me of how annoying that is, especially in a movie like this, where the camera pretty much never sits still. But apart from that, I think I like, on the whole, the 'feel' of the 24fps better. All I can really say is that it 'felt' better, more cinematic; I felt like I was watching a movie, and that made me happy. With the HFR, I felt like I was watching... something else, NOT a movie. With the 24fps, I was more invested, more immersed and engaged in the story. The HFR was clearer, yes, which is great in its own right, but at the end of the day, the 24fps struck more of a chord with me; it sat better with me, somehow. I wish a could present a better reason, but it's something on an intangible, almost emotional level, which I can't really explain.
As for the movie, having seen it now 3 times, the annoying parts REALLY annoy me now, although the 2D version seemed darker, so the bad lighting wasn't as glaring (pun intended). But, on the whole, I felt compelled to change my rating from an 8 to a 7, now that my initial excitement and love of the HFR has worn off.