covenant

You missed it, he does.

GoldenJCJ

Cool. I'm glad PJ took my advice about it.

covenant

I had a great time watching this one. HFR was really nice. It is distracting because you just spend so much time looking at details instead of paying attention to the movie. But I really liked it. The 3D was really well done. They added several shit-flying-in-your-face moments, but they fit well with the playful tone of the movie. And speaking of lighter tone, I never saw a drop of orc blood with all the eviscerations and decapitations going on. The only blood I remember was on Thorin's face.
My God, the Riddles In The Dark portion was just flat out brilliant. CGI has really come a long way since the trilogy. And I really hope we see more of Gollum, he out right stole the show.
I'll be seeing it again soon in 24fps just to see how it compares.

whoopdido

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I could write my own review but this sums up my feelings perfectly.

I'll just add that I thought the movie ended at exactly the right place. I was trying to predict where the first movie would end and I think it ended right where it should have. The brief glimpse of Smaug at the end was a great way to end.

And from what little we saw of Smaug, he looks awesome. I really like that only glimpses of Smaug were shown and he'll be saved for the next movie. From what little I saw, I really liked the design and can't wait to see what he fully looks like.

lopper

What about when ? I think I remember seeing some then, but either way it was a relatively bloodless movie.

Dan

Saw it today in HFR.
My impression of HFR: The majority of the film looked excellent in HFR. Battles were easy to follow, motion was fluid and sharp, close-ups of faces were stunning, etc. The only shots where I really had a problem were close-ups of quick hand movements or other quick non-fighting actions (ie: Bilbo walking around his house briskly). In those shots, I felt that the frame rate did more harm than good. Still, I'm "sold" on HFR. I think, more than anything else, filmmakers need to be more aware of how they execute certain shots. I think the parts I had issues with could have been done "better" simply by having the actors perform the motions in different ways. I did think that the computer-generated characters (trolls, gollum, etc.) looked absolutely amazing, and that the frame rate actually added to their "realness," if that makes sense.

My wife's impression of HFR: Terrible. Distracting right from the first frame until the end of the film. She felt that nearly every shot felt "too fast" and she had trouble following what was going on. She called it "blurry" but I think what she really meant was that, in quite a few scenes, the movement DID feel like it was faster than it should have been. She does not want to see the sequels in HFR.

My impression of the actual movie: Totally enjoyable. It got off to a very slow start, but as soon as the group ran into those first three trolls, I was completely into the film. I think it could have easily been shorter, but the length didn't bother me that much. What I did think was silly was:

But I'm sure that's part of the book (which I have not read), so yeah. Not a big deal.

movielib

My wife agrees with you. I agree with your wife. Although I didn't get the feeling of blurriness or things being too fast. But I did hate the HFR. Totally distracting. Like I was watching a taped TV show (albeit perfect looking).

We're going to see it today in IMAX 3D 24fps. Looking forward to seeing a film.

Pointyskull

Saw the HFR 3D version, and while it took a few minutes to adjust to the initial clarity and depth (more with a sense of "wow") I never found the format to be distracting as the film progressed.

Put me in the "I liked it" camp.

Yes, I do wish it was just two films instead of three but I do enjoy Jackson's presentation of Middle Earth. I'm in...

Ky-Fi

Just saw the 2d, 24fps version. As far as the movie, pretty decent.

I liked that Bilbo was a very different person from any of the four main hobbits in LOTR, and that added a different dynamic to his interaction with the bigger world, the danger, and the different races. The dwarves were all well cast, and for the most part the movie captured the vibe and quality of the original trilogy, while still feeling mostly fresh. My only gripe was that some of the action in the goblin caves got too cgi-unbelievable-- I was reminded a bit of the life-raft fall from the plane in Temple of Doom. But all in all, pretty satisfying.

Defiant1

I saw it last night in IMAX 3D 24fps. The 9-minute Star Trek preview was great and there was also a pretty neat trailer for Jack the Giant Killer.

I liked the movie although not as much as the original trilogy's installments. A bit too long with PJ stretching certain sequences out to increase running time. Also, the multiple deus ex machina resolutions were a bit much, but if this the fault of the source material, there's not much that can be done. I read The Hobbit as a kid so I barely remember the events. Still, it's nice to go back to Middle Earth with its familiar soundtrack and cameos from beloved characters.

Dwarves and hobbits must have skeletons made from adamantium or something to survive all those falls though!

Shannon Nutt

Yeah, but that's in the book, so no problems from me. I think more people would have been upset if Jackson had left those songs out.

Solid Snake

But...it was shot digitally.

Why So Blu?

Dwarves do. They're many times stronger than men.

Shannon Nutt

As is most everything from studios these days...but most directors still want to achieve the "look" of film, which it doesn't sound like 48fps provides - at least not Jackson's movie.

Patman

For this particular early example of HFR 48fps movie-making, I'm very mixed on the results. To me, most everyone as touched on much-ness of this next step in movie-making. Characters look artificially sped up when they move, the characters in tight and medium shots have more of the look of watching a zoomed in taping of a theatrical play on stage (yes, like some of the footage you see of Masterpiece Theater on PBS) or daytime soap operas. I hated the daytime scenes in the Shire early in the film, just looked terrible. I almost let out an "Ugh" looking at the footage, it was that distracting. I chalk it up with a combination of camera movements, as well as the lighting not be up to snuff just yet. Perhaps I haven't learned how to take in the extra information that 48fps provides us on the big screen. 24fps has been with us for a long time, and solving most of the issues with camera movement (except for side-to-side panning shots for the most part) and lighting has created what we take for granted as the look of cinema in 24fps. But as the film got darker in lighting, atlmosphere and backdrop (during night time or in caves and goblin dwellings and whatnot), the 48fps footage did not distract as much, but its strangeness was still very much with me as I watched the film. Some of the battle and action scenes looked more like human actors stuck inside a fantasy video game environment. It didn't feel as connected to the world of LotR that I remembered from 8-10 years ago, just saw bits of on cable TV a few nights ago too. Again, just a weird feeling of artificiality seeped in more and more.

As far as the rest of the film goes, it was long on spectacle (eye candy of the middle earth fantasy elements), short on substance (plot, but that's what happens when you adapt a short book into 3 films, and depend on fluffing it out with material from its appendices and extrapolating scenes from short paragraphs from the source material). Sure, I liked some of the character development moments, but it's still a tough slog to sit through a lot of "action" and "adventure" bits to get there. I thought the dinner scene at the beginning would never end. The scene between Gollum and Bilbo was entertaining in spots (from the look on Gollum's face, I seriously thought Gollum was going to actually poop out an answer to the riddles in the riddle challenge), but they managed to drag that scene out a few beats too many. I'm not super-hyped about Martin Freeman's work as Bilbo yet, some of his scenes just didn't work for me, don't know if it was the acting or the directing, but his performance came off a little clumsily for me.

I realize this is a huge undertaking of a film project, just wished they left us wanting for more (or save it for the extended editions later), rather than just overloading our cinema wheelbarrows, just felt a little indulgent at times. That being said, there is a lot of cool stuff to look at and enjoy.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B- (there's a leaner 2-hour cut in there somewhere).

Obi-Wanma

Liked the film, didn't like HFR. The look of being too sped up during pans and movments, especially during close ups, bothered me from start to finish. I had a hard time even paying attention to the narration during the first 10-15 minutes of the film, it was that distracting. I would not see the film again, or any of the sequels, in this format. I know it's not, but I agree 100% that it looks like the motion enhancment crap that they put on LCD TV. The detail was breathtaking, but not enough for me to put up with everything else that comes with it for nearly three hours. Even that though, it made certain props, sets, and effects really stand out as fake looking. For this to become a standard, more attention to detail needs to be paid in those areas.

Also, this suprised me quite a bit, and I don't know if it means anything, but I saw the film on 10PM on a Saturday night of opening weekend, and there couldn't have been more than 20 people in the theater (in an auditorium that seats nearly 500)

Supermallet

I was talking to a friend of mine about this last night, and he does VFX for a living. We think that the issue with the HFR might not be that it's more information than we're used to seeing, but rather that it's this unhappy medium framerate. Apparently 60fps looks very smooth without a sped-up feel to it, from what I've heard. Also HDTV's are at 60hz and no one complains about how those look (people DO complain about 120hz and 240hz, but not 60hz). It's possible that when we see Avatar 2, which should be at 60fps, we'll finally see what filmmakers are going on about.

Neil M.

I saw it early Saturday and the theater was packed. Also, the midnight showing was already sold out before noon.

Dr. DVD

Movie set a December opening record with $85.8 million, don't know if that's counting the Midnight shows $13 Million or not. The second place movie only made about $7 million, so people weren't watching much of anything else. Interesting how we have yet to see any movie that opens in December break $100 million for opening weekend. Apparently a majority of the audience were both male and over the age of 25, which indicates there is definitely a generational factor. Doubt any of today's teenage/college crowd gives a crap about this stuff anymore.

That said, I caught it in HFR yesterday and overall found it quite impressive, especially with the FX sequences. However, they need to do some tweaking for action scenes. It gave off a Benny Hill vibe. My gripes the second time were fewer than the first as I looked at is as LOTR: Episode I , but I feel I shouldn't have to do that to appreciate it.

Biggest gripe:

Dr. DVD

That was a part I predicted book fans would like, but casual ones would find stupid.

Gunde

You know what he means.

movielib

Exactly.

So my wife and I saw it in IMAX 3D 24fps today after having seen it in 3D HFR Friday. I liked the 24fps immeasurably more than the 3D 48fps. My wife greatly preferred the 48fps.

I hope our marriage can survive this.

whotony

I wish the two people who astonishingly gave this no stars would come. Here and say what they thought was so awful that it didn't deserve even one star.

Michael Corvin

Saw the 3D HFR last night. Not generally a fan of 3D (only shelled out for Avatar and Final Destination 5) but I enjoyed it here. It was well done. I really enjoyed the flick but hated the modern references (i.e. golf, "tastes like chicken", and a couple others). I also had a similar beef with FOTR using "miles" in it, which looking back isn't nearly as bad as referencing golf.

I had a hard time keeping track of all the dwarves. They did a great job at giving them distinct looks but they ultimately had little personality to build on. I think that's where this film ultimately falls short too. The Hobbit "fellowship" basically all get along. The "fellowship" from LOTR had a much better dynamic combining the different races and the baggage that ultimately comes from trying to work together despite their differences. You have that personal struggle within the group set against the larger good vs evil struggle of the whole series.

The highlight of the film though was the Gollum scene. The animation in his face has come a long way. Gorgeous. I think that scene alone is probably worth the price of admission.

Re HFR: it was distracting beginning to end. The first 10 minutes(dwarves losing the mountain) are very jarring, and it's not a matter of your brain getting used to it, it's a matter of the action slowing down. HFR for action scenes looked terrible. For slower dialog heavy scenes it's okay, or at least not as distracting. Same for sweeping panoramic shots. Slow pans looked amazing, but toss in Radagast and the wolves racing across the landscape with quick camera movements and it just looked silly, just a step above a cartoon. In a movie where the CGI should blend in to help sell the story, all the HFR succeeded in doing was the exact opposite by making the CGI stand out that much more.

Don't waste the extra scratch on HFR. Let's kill this trend before it even starts.

yeah those were pretty fucking random.

I enjoyed the somber tune the dwarves did at Bilbo's house. It was a different song, right, and not the intro to the dish washing sequence? I've already forgotten.

Supermallet

I am a fan of the book. But that stuff works much better in the book than it does in the movie. And at 3+ hours, it was wholly unnecessary. It speaks to the bloat that makes the movie less than great.