![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lovingbothHmm. The scenery is indeed great, but the film has a huuuge amount of padding. If you see it, make sure your seat does too.
I liked some of the effects - Gollum is noticeably much better than in the holy trilogy (to the point where I bet someone has done the sums about what it would cost to redo his bits in it vs how much they'd make from a reissue), the big groups are too, and I even thought the wargs were good - but some of the compositing is very dodgy, particularly the eagles.
Some of the script clunks badly. It's been years since I read the book, but I suspect that the clunks come from things JRR didn't write.
The casting equivalent is James Nesbitt. I can see Martin Freeman and not think of The Office, I can see Sylvester McCoy and only think of Dr Who once (when he starts talking to McKellen) but I cannot see, and more importantly hear, Nesbitt without thinking about all his TV work. He is not, and never will be, a character actor. He was fine in the lead in Quite Ugly One Morning - his acting back story brings something to the character of Jack Parlabane - but as a dwarf? Come off it.
In contrast, I went 'what was he... oh, of course' when Barry Humphries' name came up. At the time, I simply hadn't thought it was him.
There are also some odd editing decisions: showing a dramatic moment as a flashback just ensures we know who doesn't die! (For the classic example of this, see Paul Verhoeven's Black Book where the entire film is spoilered.)
On a technical side, I have no idea whether I saw the 48 frames/sec version. It looked very clear (sometimes to the detriment of the makeup effects) but had no adverse effects on me. I suspect most of the problems are for people who see the 'not really 3D' version.
While I remember, the film didn't have a BBFC certificate at the start when I saw it: is that the same for other UK showings?
I liked some of the effects - Gollum is noticeably much better than in the holy trilogy (to the point where I bet someone has done the sums about what it would cost to redo his bits in it vs how much they'd make from a reissue), the big groups are too, and I even thought the wargs were good - but some of the compositing is very dodgy, particularly the eagles.
Some of the script clunks badly. It's been years since I read the book, but I suspect that the clunks come from things JRR didn't write.
The casting equivalent is James Nesbitt. I can see Martin Freeman and not think of The Office, I can see Sylvester McCoy and only think of Dr Who once (when he starts talking to McKellen) but I cannot see, and more importantly hear, Nesbitt without thinking about all his TV work. He is not, and never will be, a character actor. He was fine in the lead in Quite Ugly One Morning - his acting back story brings something to the character of Jack Parlabane - but as a dwarf? Come off it.
In contrast, I went 'what was he... oh, of course' when Barry Humphries' name came up. At the time, I simply hadn't thought it was him.
There are also some odd editing decisions: showing a dramatic moment as a flashback just ensures we know who doesn't die! (For the classic example of this, see Paul Verhoeven's Black Book where the entire film is spoilered.)
On a technical side, I have no idea whether I saw the 48 frames/sec version. It looked very clear (sometimes to the detriment of the makeup effects) but had no adverse effects on me. I suspect most of the problems are for people who see the 'not really 3D' version.
While I remember, the film didn't have a BBFC certificate at the start when I saw it: is that the same for other UK showings?
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-18 02:13 pm (UTC)Well almost incredibly: looking at it from a marketing perspective, it's a cynical attempt to get people to buy a copy of the film twice.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-18 04:12 pm (UTC)I have no idea whether I saw the 48 frames version either.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-20 05:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-21 12:38 pm (UTC)