Subpar to the Nearly Perfect Original Trilogy

Rating: 6/10 (17 May 2013)

There are two separate things I want to touch upon in this review. First is how it feels to return to Middle Earth and sit through yet another epic 2 hour 50 minute journey. The other is my reaction to watching a "film" in HFR (48 frames per second). I have not read the Tolkien novels, and didn't find that a problem when watching the original LOTR Trilogy. First of all, it was pleasant to feel that I was watching a production that was in good hands. The pacing (except for about two spots) was energetic, the dialogue and acting successfully avoiding cliché. The period of time spent with Bilbo reluctantly setting off on an adventure was drawn out way too long. I'm sure it is verbatim to the novel, but is obvious that a lot of this slow story development would have been streamlined with a more agreeable running time in mind (save it for the special DVD release). Not being familiar with the novel, I was finding myself being whisked along for the ride (once it gets started). There is intelligence in the creatures they encounter, and consistent backstory with all the elves and dwarfs and orcs and so on.
There are a few more extended dialogue scenes, that on a normally disciplined running time, would have been trimmed to avoid the dullness of exposition.
As much as I was mildly interested in this prequel for the content, I was more eager to witness what may be the birth of a new era in film presentation. Digital theatres will sometimes feature programming shot and presented in video (Metropolitan Opera for instance), with a totally different look. For the first time since silent movies changed from 15 frames per second to 24, there is a new barrier being broken. Video runs at 30 frames per second, so this new 48 frame format bests even the 'live' look of normal video as compared to the look of film. I took a survey of movie reviews to find out the reaction to the HFR showing. Most of the reviews were negative. The look of video has a stigmatism to it, as 'cheaper' looking compared to film. To be sure, lighting as seen on video is generally more harsh than film, where film is known to have better contrast, the ability to see detail in shadows.
I must declare that there was a moment of surprise as the movement and detail were much more crisp that any movie I have ever watched, even animation displayed on an Imax screen. Yes, the higher frame rate looks like video. But every other aspect of the image looked exactly like the same production style and depth as LOTR. More impressively, 90% of the digital effects held up to close scrutiny with the clearer image. There were the following few exceptions. The most major hindrance was the look of the sets that were supposed to be rock or sculpted stone. I guess because having seen the making of documentaries, I know that most of the fake rock is made of styrofoam. Also a sequence where digital wolves are running across the wilderness. I'm sure it was a challenging effects shot because of a moving camera along with moving digital animals in daytime combined with live action. Some of the background did not match in resolution to some CGI, but was forgivable. The look of video only became apparent during shaky hand-held shots. However, my mind's initial interpretation of watching this type of movement in a fantasy environment, was as if I was watching a high quality video game.
It has become a real issue, because audiences need to be given more jaw dropping effects every summer as the bar continues to be set higher, with video games following close behind. One thing that is the most revealing technically with HFR is the lighting. For instance, I could notice the artificial light replacing the supposed candlelight on a table. There also is the perfectly lit miniature of a mountain or a foot bridge with the main characters seen from a distance. But they may not look any better in the standard 24 fps.
So congratulations are in order for both the story and technical achievements as we extend our stay in Middle Earth. The filmmakers did not forget that one their primary jobs for these kinds of films is to make sure the audience is entertained. And entertained I was.
Further notes summing up my first viewing of an HFR movie
PROS Eye-popping clarity, incredible detail especially in wide shots. 3D benefits from brighter and more cleaner image CGI characters are more lifelike, but still only as good as the quality of the CGI
CONS Video look. Slower fps provides the film look. In higher fps, Animation looks like video game animation. Extra sharp resolution makes it easier to spot characters shot against green screen
REACTIONS TO OTHER COMMENTS "Some action looks sped up" - I did not notice anything like that, perhaps they are used a bit more motion blur, or can't handle some fast motions without strobe. "Notice costumes, make-up, and wigs". I was actually amazed how all the production design held up under such intimate scrutiny. "Soap opera, BBC television, stage play". These are all mental associations that these viewers make when first witnessing a narrative feature that doesn't have that film look. But it is not because of the lower quality of the production.
Update: I finally watched the film on DVD in 24 fps. All the effects in 48 frames that looked iffy looked just as fake in 24 frames. So ultimately that is a strike against the effects work for this film, especially to the almost seamless effects work in the original LOTR trilogy.