48 fps?! WHY?!!!

Rating: 4/10 (15 December 2012)

If not for the action packed final hour of this film, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" would have been more of a disappointment than it already was. Directed by none other than Peter Jackson (more about his direction to come) this prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy follows a young Bilbo Baggins (if you don't know who I'm talking about, then you can stop reading now) who (for some reason) is compelled to accompany a rag tag group of pot smoking Dwarf's (all with unpronounceable names) on their three movie quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erbor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Again, if that all sounded like baby talk to you, then stop reading now, because this is not your type of movie. Furthermore, this plot does fall into the pitfall of, if you are going into this movie cold (or with no prior knowledge of J.R.R. Tolkien's novels or Jackson prior films) then your issues will be in finding a reason to care about Bilbo's journey at all, even though he is an intriguing character. Anyway, for the most part this is a watered down version of anything seen in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but still, with Jackson's customary copious exposition and million dollar battle sequences. There is also a welcome tone of levity throughout, that while departs from the beloved source material, does push this very awkwardly slow film forward (somewhat). With all of that said, there is no, no, NO REASON that this story needs to be separating into three 3 hour films! Because isn't Tolkien's The Hobbit only like 300 pages to begin with? Side Note: By now most of you know that this film is the first in a trilogy. And if you are familiar with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, then you have a good idea of how Jackson likes to structure the endings (or non-endings) of the first two films. So, if you are not a fan of 3 hour movies with no endings (and when I say 3 hours, I really mean 2 hours and 49 minutes, but you get my point) then again, stop reading now, this movie is not for you.
48 fps is not cinematic: So does the production company just let Jackson do whatever he wants now?! While the set design is amazing, the score is epic, and the story, while meandering, will satisfy fans of The Lord of the Rings series, the film looks like utter crap. In shooting "The Hobbit" in 48 frames per second, Jackson has chosen to make everything on screen look like the behind-the-scenes portion on a Blu-ray DVD. Everything CGI looks aggressively fake, and far too lit. When characters are walking around, it is obvious that they are walking through massive sets on a sound stage. And as for the characters themselves, not since "Battlefield Earth" has a film looked more like a bunch of actors, running around in prosthetics and hair pieces. This 48 frames technique also makes character motions look extremely sped up, to the point where I thought something was wrong with the projection for the first ten minutes. In short, filming in 48 fps repeatedly takes the viewer out of the cinematic glossiness, by continuously reminding us all that we are watching a movie with actors, on sound stages, wearing bad prosthetics. Trust me, like an old-timey BBC production, the look of "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is total GARBAGE. And worst of all, throughout the film you never get used to it; despite what other critics may be saying.
OK, so Jackson has gone on the record to state that this type of filmmaking is the way of the future. And even though many have complained that 48 fps makes everything look as if you're on set watching the actual filming, he is fiercely unapologetic. And, while I hate to admit that he may be right in this aspect (much like the people who unfortunately proclaim that 3D is here to say) it doesn't change the fact that this 48 fps doesn't work for a movie that is so predicated on a suspension of belief that comes along with its science fiction visuals. And if you think I'm making too much of this aspect, I'm not. The picture quality here is not only distracting, but off-putting. And it's a shame because the plot itself, for what it is (despite its pacing) is enjoyable enough.
There are some aspects that work here, that I haven't touched on already. There are a few cool, battle sequences with Orcs and Goblins and the performances here are all fine; the stand out being Martin Freeman, who plays the neurotic role of Bilbo Baggins better than Elijah Wood ever played Frodo Baggins. Also, I should mention that Andy Serkis as Gollum steals the show here, but it may disappoint many to know that he doesn't even show up until the final hour of the movie, for all of 30 minutes.
Final Thought: Simply stated, if you are a fan of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, then there will be some thematic stuff here to enjoy (mostly near the end of the film) but otherwise don't bother with "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey".
Written by Markus Robinson
Follow me on Twitter @moviesmarkus