Jump to content

Xavier Plágaro Mussard

Members
  • Content Count

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Xavier Plágaro Mussard


  1. I think it's a must see, because new cinema formats doesn't come out every couple of days. Then a "theoretical" improvement doesn't provide a direct improvement. For me there is a debate, a debate I would like to have with people who have the bases to discuss, and the first step is to watch the thing itself. 

     

    But if you already hate HFR before you see it, then of course is better you save your time and go do something else!  :P

     

    Why? Can you elaborate? 


  2. Tony, I respect your passion, but I don't agree good cinema can only be made with film, there has been so much shit shot on 35mm. Cinema is a mix of storytelling/visuals/music/acting/etc and can be shot in any format! To make art with movie making is a lot more difficult. Peter Jackson is not even trying to make art, he's trying to make money and he is pretty good at it! 

     

    LOTR is a little more serious/epic, The Hobbit is more entertainment, but I don't feel any of them to be satanic! Both are pop-corn eating movies... ;-D

     

     

    how many 1 2 3 fucking movies.

    for fuck sake bullshit satanic hollywood.

    is it 2 movies or 3 whatever it is these scum deserve to lose lot's of money.

     


  3. I saw the film monday night at a press projection in Rome, 4K HFR 3D, the way the film is meant to be seen if we believe in Peter Jackson. 

     

    The film is in the same mood, if only a bit less formal and with some comic bits, of the LOTR. If you liked the Trilogy, you will like The Hobbit. Really.

     

    About the HFR I have mixed feelings. I spent yesterday reading most critics about the film, and I remembered why I never read movie critics. Most spoil the film and most are really useless. Being a critic doesn't mean you have to point ONLY to defects in a movie. Most of course are really anti-HFR, which made me try to "defend" it. But the truth is that, imho, there is little to defend. The 48fps resolve a lot of problems, but in 2012, it also takes you out of the movie a lot of times. The first 15 minutes are spent trying to adjust, but you never adjust 100% in the whole movie. 

     

    I was expecting to be more "surrounded" by the movie at HFR, instead it didn't produce this effect to me. It didn't produce the sensation that I was in the "movie set", either. It really works well in outer scenes, works bad on indoor/close up scenes. The movie is really well done and the CGI really works. But the 48fps it's a big big change, one that I am not sure we will ever adjust to.

×
×
  • Create New...