Wir alle warten gespannt auf The Hobbit und eigentlich wähnten wir den Film bei Peter Jackson ja in sicheren Händen, auch wenn ich verdammt gerne Guillermo Del Toros Version gesehen hätte. Doch seit im Frühjahr die ersten sehr gemischten Reaktionen auf den neuen Look zu hören waren, bedingt durch die wahrscheinlich zweifelhafte Entscheidung einer höheren Framerate (bzw. einer Framerate, die nicht hoch genug ist, um wieder als filmisch wahrgenommen zu werden, was wohl bei 55-60fps wieder der Fall wäre), machen sich leise Befürchtungen breit, ob Jackson die immensen Erwartungen erfüllen kann und ob sein ausgeschmückter Kleiner Hobbit tatsächlich etwas taugt. Aus einem 300 Seiten Buch, das eine eher kleine Story erzählt, wieder ein Epos wie LOTR in drei Teilen zu machen, ist keine eben kleine Aufgabe und wenn man nach den Kollegen von Coming Soon geht, hat Jackson sie zumindest für den ersten Film ziemlich vergeigt.
“So many great movies have been made with 3D from “Avatar” to “Hugo” to this year’s “The Life of Pi” and one would think that a visually-driven filmmaker Jackson would make the most out of it, but this decision to film at a higher frame rate really ruins the movie. You do adjust to it eventually, but almost every scene requires some sort of adjustment and the human brain can’t do that and escape into a fantasy world at the same time. It doesn’t help that the movie’s following so many great visual FX coups like “The Avengers” and the “Dark Knight Trilogy” but the 3D is a waste and the results of the 48 fps are so distracting that it practically ruins the film. Mind you, this is coming from someone who is a big proponent of 3D, both filmed and in some cases converted, but “The Hobbit” is clearly a film that would have benefitted greatly from the magical fairy dust of film. We recommend avoiding the 48 fps experiment if at all possible.
For the most part, the writing and storytelling are there, but the visual decisions make it hard to appreciate any of it especially during the action sequences with some of the long shots looking like they’re clunky models. It’s almost as if no one involved with making the movie put it up on a screen to see how anything might look, because that’s the only reason why so much of the movie could look so very, very bad.
The Bottom Line:
Offering very little we haven’t already seen and a horrible decision to use a frame rate that makes much of it unwatchable, this is less a faithful adaptation of Tolkien’s “The Hobbit” as much as Jackson trying to recapture the magic of the “Lord of the Rings” movies and failing miserably. In other words “An Unexpected Journey” may as well be “The Phantom Menace” and God help us all if the next two movies aren’t better than this one.”
Todd McCarthy vom Hollywood Reporter schreibt:
“There are elements in this new film that are as spectacular as much of the Rings trilogy was, but there is much that is flat-footed and tedious as well, especially in the early going.”
Der BadAss Digest schreibt:
“It’s not as bad as you feared, but not as good as you hoped.”
ScreenCrush schreibt:
“Unless your dreams are populated by denizens of Middle Earth, endless footage of them simply talking or walking is a lot less spectacular than Peter Jackson thinks it is.”
Autsch. Selbst die positiven Reviews klingen doch etwas enttäuscht bisher. Hoffen wir mal das es sich nicht bewahrheitet und schauen gespannt auf die kommende Woche.
- Batzman (Oliver Lysiak) •
- Dezember 4th, 2012 •
- 26 Kommentare
- Schlagwörter: LordOfTheRings, lotr, Peter Jackson, The Hobbit, TheHobbit
Pingback: The Hobbit Menace? « stohl.de
Pingback: The Hobbit - Seite 28 - SciFi-Forum
Pingback: Filmforum Bremen » Das Bloggen der Anderen (08-12-12)