Middle Earth and Back Again

While it takes us back to the familiar setting of Middle Earth, Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Hobbit takes us on an unfamiliar experience - a film shot in 48 frames per second.

The plot is framed from the perspective of a flashback during events immediately before Fellowship of the Ring, but otherwise closely follows that of the Tolkien original: a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins, who wants nothing more than sit in his comfy house and sip tea, is dragged by the wizard Gandalf into a great adventure along with a company of thirteen dwarves.These dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield, want to reclaim their lost kingdom from a dragon named Smaug.

Unlike the first trilogy, which covers three books in roughly one movie each, this movie takes around a third of a book that is much shorter than the Lord of the Rings. This is filled up with exposition detailing the fall of the Dwarves, expanded plot points made to lead into the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and expanded parts for several characters. Personally these additions enriched my experience of the movie but I can see why purists might find them distracting or unnecessary.

One thing about the books that was a welcome addition to this film was the inclusion of song. Yes, I know there was that scene in the Prancing Pony and during Elessar's crowning in LOTR, but they were cut in the theatrical versions of the film and exist in their pure form only in the extended versions. Here song ties into the main musical motifs in the movie and they really enhance one's experience.

The casting is spot on. Martin Freeman is a great choice for Bilbo and he shows his acting chops here. The other cast is equally excellent as well, especially the actors carried over from the first film.

I watched this film both in 3D at a high frame rate, and at 24fps on the usual cinema screen. Peter Jackson intended for the film to be seen at the high frame rate, and in many scenes it shows: a lot of the details are lost in the process of transferring to conventional frame rates. On the other hand, high frame rates make some scenes feel like television (if you ever wonder what it would look like, take a look at a hardware/appliance store and take a look at the demos on some of the high end HDTVs. That's pretty much what it looks like.) Some reviewers even compared the effect to watching daytime soaps (!)

I'm a bit of a Luddite in this sense and I prefer the conventional frame rate version. Maybe it takes a bit of time to get used to it. I'd recommend seeing both versions and making your own decision. Personally I don't think it's a technology that's going away anytime soon. In any case, the end of the movie did nothing to stoke the fire of anticipation in my head for the next film, due late this year.