The Hobbit – 3D or not 3D?

That is not the question, it’s the HFR (High Frame Rate) option that you really need to consider…

Being a fan of the Lord of the Rings films and Tolkien in general, I was pretty excited to see what Peter Jackson had done with The Hobbit and so the easy decision was made to venture to the local multiplex for the mammoth three-hour viewing, taking trailers into account. But THEN I was faced with ANOTHER decision; 2D, 3D, or, what’s this? 3D HFR? According to MGM’s official Hobbit site:

Frame rates are the number of images (frames) displayed by a 

projector in one second. 24 frames per second (fps) is the current standard in cinemas worldwide. HFR 3D productions of 48 fps record and play visuals at twice the current rate.

Okaaaaay… So it must be better? 3D HFR it is then. Yippee!

Popping on my recycled 3D specs, I settled down with my contraband of shop-bought popcorn and flask of tea (I know, but this is a bloody long film and pop ain’t my thing), and prepared to be transported from the East Midlands to Middle Earth…

Instead, I was taken back to an experience I will never forget. My first year at university, when with hours to spare every day (who knew that that was the so-called “self-study time” I was paying for?), I sat down to watch the BBC’s live action 1988 adaptation of C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, with my good friend. Time for a bit of good old nostalgia to wile away the forthcoming weeks. We probably watched less than five minutes before deciding it seemed crap, now that we weren’t five years old. I remember, what struck me were the production values, which to be fair, had earned the show a string of award nominations including an Emmy back in the day. But they seemed cheap by 21^st century standards, and the child actors were just too annoying to tolerate. I remember sharing a look with my friend and one of us finally saying “shall we turn it off?”

I had a pang of that same disappointment as I practically laughed through the opening scenes of The Hobbit. I really wanted to be whisked away to a magical world but just couldn’t get over the overly sharp and overly lit look of the film. I couldn’t get my head around this HFR devilry and its evil twin 3D. I don’t have a problem with 3D per se, I’m not a huge fan but I can appreciate it. But on this occasion it just didn’t do it for me. Instead of revelling in the hilarity of the dwarf invasion at Bag End, I was grossed out by the pores of the ugly dwarves’ bulbous noses and the feeling that I could reach out and touch them. Now the same can’t be said for the sexy dwarves, Kili, Fili and Thorin, as I said, 3D does have its benefits. But the scene in which the wizard, Radagast the Brown, is flying across the screen on some sort of bunny-powered twig sleigh, made me laugh out loud, for all the wrong reasons. I was back in my student halls watching a dated after-school kids’ TV show.

Snog marry avoid? Images courtesy of Warner Brothers 

When I got a new fancy HD, LED TV recently, I was amazed and annoyed at way it made all of the TV shows and films look like an episode of Neighbours. Too bright, too clear and now I'm noticing the wallpaper and ooh, I've never noticed that lamp before, wonder where that’s from… 

Eventually, I got used to the TV and the effect it had on my viewing experience, and the same happened with The Hobbit. I got used to the high frame rate, eventually, mostly. But that isn't to say I learned to love it, just that I learned to put up with it as I got more involved in the story. And that was the biggest problem for me, although I did enjoy the film, my inability to exercise my suspension of disbelief and become engaged in the narrative was a bit of a let down. 

By trying to make it look super realistic, it had the opposite effect for me and brought me out of the action and my awareness to the technical elements of what I was watching. I realised just how true this was when discussing the film the next day and finding myself wanting to go back to that very world created by Peter Jackson and co. Although I had been sat in the cinema thinking to myself “there is no way I'm coming back for a second viewing of this”, I now feel like I could watch it again. I think that’s because, afterwards, I was unable to recreate the scary in-your-face effect of 3D HFR, giving it a more magical and dream-like quality in my mind that one would expect from a fantasy film, thus increasing the appeal. If there weren't so many other great films to watch at the cinema at the moment, I would be going back to see The Hobbit again, but in good old 2D.







Whilst researching the general opinion of the HFR version of The Hobbit online, I came across this blog post by an industry director and photographer, Vincent Laforet, who watched all three versions of the film in order to do a direct comparison of the differing cinematic experiences. Impressive, as this was all in one day! I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said, but he goes into more detail about the techy aspects of my points on HFR. For a more informed opinion, check it out:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-hfr-fails-and-a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

“Romeo and Juliet at the bottom”

Love in the Grave (Láska v hrobě), 2011: a love story with a difference…

Having missed it last year, I was determined to pay a visit to the BFI London Film Festival this time around. I flicked through the programme, which I have to say, offers plenty for the casual cinema-goer as well as hard-core film fanatics, and circled a few possibilities. One that caught my eye was Love in the Grave, by writer/director David Vondráček. The film documents the story of former prostitute, Jana, who wins the heart of one-time bricklayer, Jan, before inviting him to move in with her. Sound like a regular episode of Jeremy Kyle? Well think again…


Taking place in a cemetery in the middle of Prague, and filmed over a number of years, Love in the Grave presents a touching account of a homeless couple who find refuge in one of the graveyard's crypts. Actually, I am at odds with the term “homeless” in this case, as when we meet Jan and Jana, both of them have abodes of sorts; Jana in the crypt, and Jan in a poky, dilapidated outbuilding. Maybe “squatters” is more accurate. What makes their story so sad, however, is that during the course of the documentary, they will eventually become homeless; physically removed from their shelter with brute force and treated like the rats they share the grounds with.

Watching this documentary, the viewer flits between passive observer, trying and often failing, to not judge these characters, to a far more empathetic stance. And there are genuinely touching and funny moments. Hearing the ethereal pop classic, Stay, by 90s duo, Shakespears Sister, being played on the radio, Jana’s initial enthusiasm turns to despair when Jan “ruins it” by attempting to sing along. It is difficult not to laugh, but we immediately then find ourselves almost crying along with Jana as the poignancy of the lyrics becomes apparent.



At several points in the documentary, Jan talks about “being free” in a tangible sense as well as a spiritual one. They seem genuinely happy at times and reasonably content with their simple existence. There were moments that reminded me of the sense of adventure I'd experienced on camping holidays and my brief attempts at getting "back to nature". Indeed, one of their fellow grave-dwellers says that he is "always on holiday". Good for them, they're actually living the dream whilst the rest of us suckers are slaves to the machine. Well, not quite.  With Jana, in particular, we sense an underlying neurosis, which often has her on the verge of tears and drives her deeper into alcoholism. Glimpses into her past, reveal where this deep-rooted unhappiness stems from. Jan, on the other hand, seems more at peace and detached from external forces. We suspect if he could live out his days in that graveyard with Jana, getting by selling old porn mags, he would die a happy man.

What I found so fascinating about this film, are the questions it raises. Should we pity this couple? Are they better off than the rest of us in some ways? Being somewhat free from social constraints, are they further down the path to spiritual enlightenment? Are we in the so-called “civilised” Western world to blame for the existence of so many displaced souls? And despite living on the edge of society, if it came down to it, are we as humans actually able to escape the inherent framework that makes us what we are? Giving up a material existence is one thing, but detaching from our own subconscious is quite another. As this film demonstrates, it is not necessarily money itself, or rather lack of it, that leads to Jana’s self-destruction, but the ghosts from her past and the forces that govern her; love, guilt, and ultimately, pride.  

Despite throwing up some deep questions, the film is balanced by laughs and doesn't go down the obvious route of focusing too heavily on the grim realities of living rough (we only see one rat in the throes of rigor mortis). I did come out of the film feeling a little sad but also strangely uplifted by the characters’ simple outlook on life. Regardless, it certainly gets you thinking, and that's no bad thing…

Watch the trailer here:

I'll have a Catfish, to go...

As a long-standing member of LoveFilm, I seem to be experiencing some kind of Pavlovian conditioning whenever the distinctive sound of the DVD slapping onto the doormat reaches my ears: "Aha! The film fairy has been!". As I run to the front door and tear open the envelope, my heart either a) sinks (see Eat, Pray, Love post), b) does a Larry David "meh", or c) jumps for joy when I realise the film I'm holding is the one I've been waiting for. Such was the case when Catfish landed on my mat...

Now, this probably isn't the best film for me to write about, as the less you know about it prior to watching it, the better. There is so much I want to say about it as I sing its praises but I will bite my tongue and give you the bare basics.

First things first, Catfish is a documentary, although its "reality thriller" label is a more fitting description. I say this, because there has been speculation that the whole thing was scripted and acted, or as some hard-core cynics would call it, "faked". Having watched the film, I would have to disagree. However, what makes this film so charming, is that it really doesn't matter either way. Even if it was faked or tweaked for dramatic emphasis, it is a brilliantly executed idea and a touching commentary on the society we live in.

Filmmakers Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost, originally set out to record what seemed like an entertaining story about Ariel's brother Nev, an up-and-coming photographer living in New York, and an eight-year-old fan, Abby. But what starts out as a harmless documentary, soon grows into something that neither they nor we are quite expecting...

Some have criticised the film's marketing for being misleading and therefore, said folk have found the ending a disappointment. If, unlike me, you were impressed by the ending of M. Night Shyamalan's The Village, it would be snobby of me to call you stupid, but I have a feeling your standards aren't that high so you'll be fine. If, on the other hand, you felt cheated by the pathetic ending (not so much the revelation but the image of village idiot, Noah (Adrian Brody), flailing around in a ditch), then I can assure you that Catfish is no such disappointment, albeit probably different from what you might have been expecting.

Fear not, Catfish does NOT end like this...

The storyline, which is centred around Facebook, provides a much more interesting take on the hugely popular social network, than the film of the same name - but then, I did find The Social Network highly overrated. The cast are likeable, and Nev is highly entertaining throughout. I implore you to watch it.

Not convinced? Then watch the trailer, if you must:

Eat Pray Love: From 127 Hours to 133 minutes of my life - wasted...

There was I, thinking James Franco could do no wrong these days. After his stunning performance in Danny Boyle's 127 Hours, and his stint of presenting the flippin' Oscars, he is hot stuff at the minute. And it was this opinion of him (and the mention of the wonderful Javier Bardem) that prompted me to stick Eat Pray Love onto my Love Film list. Now, in all fairness, I did this before the film had actually been released, and before I had read any scathing reviews, so when it turned up in the post, I found myself questioning what on earth I had been thinking, tainting my rental history with a RomCom... Bleurgh.

Approximately three minutes in, I was no clearer on said question. I clearly hadn't done my research, and had somehow missed the fact that Julia Roberts plays the film's lead, Liz. More fool me. As I have been trying to avoid dairy, this sudden influx of cheese was more than I could cope with. By the time Liz meets the considerably younger, free-spirited actor, David (Franco), the story began to resemble a Mills and Boon novel (yes, this is an admission of having read one, but it was for an English class I took during my degree...honest).

Just as the joss sticks probably would have been - if I had smellovision - the film was really beginning to get up my nose by the time Roberts was swigging wine and troughing copious amounts of pasta in Italy. This section of the film looked like M&S had decided to adapt one of their "This is no ordinary bowl of cheesy pasta..." ads into a 20 minute short. Interesting...

Before she turns into a meatball herself, Liz jets off to India to pray - presumably that the effects of her carb-infested diet of the last few months won't be long lasting. Now, this bit is a little blurry, as I suddenly realised that my nails needing painting and might have looked away for a minute or two. But there was a guru, who told her she was "afraid to love again" after her somewhat bizarre divorce from her rather pathetic husband Stephen (Billy Cruddup). Aha! So she's afraid...

Liz, moments before being mowed down by the ravishing Felipe...

Perhaps the answer is in Bali? After almost killing her, Felipe (Bardem) looks like he could be her guy. Shame, if he'd have come round that corner a bit quicker, this could have been a very different film indeed. Nevertheless, she survives, and I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say they live happily ever after. Oh, sorry, did I spoil it? Impossible.

It's Arrested Development...

A few months back, having finished my Curb Your Enthusiasm marathon, I needed my next comedy fix, and after a strong recommendation from my dealer (of DVDs), my brother, I agreed to give Arrested Development a go. My first reaction wasn’t good, in fact, it was ugly: “I miss Larry! Who are these horrible, spoilt people?” and “OMG, OTT or wot?!” Gradually, the LOLs went from non-existent to non-stop and by the end of the first disc I was hooked.

I mean, a failing “illusionist” called Gob (pronounced Jobe), who rides around on a Segway and repeatedly sprays people with lighter fluid from the unreliable pyrotechnic trick kept up his sleeve - what more could you ask for in a comedy? Oh, you want more? Ok, well how about an alcoholic mother who smothers her son in a shouldn’t-be-funny-but-it-is, oedipal manner, only to accidently adopt a young Korean boy who she then uses to make her son jealous when he begins dating her friend come rival, played by the brilliant Liza Minelli. Throw in a self-centred daughter who is married to the fantastically named, Tobias Funke, a father who is wanted by the police for suspected treason, and another son who is forced to “keep them all together”. And don’t forget George Michael (the names keep coming) who is desperately in love with his cousin Maeby (told ya), and some fantastic cameos from the likes of Charlize Theron, Henry Winkler and Ben Stiller.

Originally broadcast in the States on Fox, way back in 2003, the first series won critical acclaim, but appallingly, was received worse than a cold shower by US audiences. Some fans believed it was too smart or ahead of its time, others blame Fox’s poor marketing, but whatever the reason, it has since grown a huge cult following, both here and in the US.

Brilliantly simple, and yet hugely complex, there are so many gags and character nuances, it’s difficult to take it all in on first viewing. If you have any sense of humour at all, you should definitely check out this show, and keep your eyes peeled for the highly anticipated up-and-coming movie, which has been on the cards for some time now. Creator, Mich Hurwitz and star, Will Arnett (Gob) recently spoke to fans via a webchat for Empire magazine. Hurwitz was reluctant to give any solid answers re the forthcoming movie, but did have this to say: “It's taken a while to get the elements together. And they're all together now, except the script, the plot and the shooting for the movie. But our hope is [that the film will be made] this year. Seriously. I am in the process of writing the movie with my quondam partner Jim Vallely”.

So, for all you virgin ADers out there, let me introduce you to the Bluths...

Still not convinced? Watch clips from the show at IMDb here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367279/

Screaming for more? Well lucky for us Brits, it’s just begun screening on FX (Sky channel 124) Tuesdays at 9pm .