MY TAKE ON: 48fps

Peter Jackson's two-part movie of The Hobbit was shot in an unusual process.

This December Peter Jackson will be releasing a mainstream movie in a process that has been pushed by James Cameron taking influence from many other technical minds from the world of cinema. As well as the movie being presented in 3D, it will be presented at forty-eight frames per second. That is twice the amount of motion information we are used to seeing in movies. Bringing a higher frame rate to the cinema has always been an interest in the industry. Douglas Trumbull was famous, among other things, for inventing an experimental process called Showscan which displayed 70mm film at sixty frames per second! Trumbull determined that this was reaching the maximum potential of human perception of moving imagery but now he is working on a process that goes up to one-hundred-and-twenty!


So why didn't it take off? One might guess that it was a very expensive endeavor considering that it would have been very heavy on film costs. Now we live in the digital era of movie presentation where the only obstacle is getting theaters to make a few upgrades to their digital projectors to be prepped for high-speed motion.

Here's a new video with Harry Knowles interviewing Trumbull:

                                    

While digital cinema may open the door for an easier way to see movies in a high frame-rate, there is another reason why this change hasn't come about before. We are used to seeing movies at twenty-four frames per second. For over the century of cinema's existence, we have been accustomed to a lack of visual information involving motion. We see movement in movies at a fraction of what we are capable of seeing in real life and our mind compensates. It is easy to assume that our brains are engaged in a very specific way when we see movies. This is a game changer and when you change the game, the rules will probably change too.

Some may think the same thing about 3D. To me 3D isn't as bold as it sounds. Every 3D process is one that is straining to the head for the sake of seeing depth that you probably would have understood in a two-dimensional presentation. I think it's neat but it doesn't have the same impact to me as a higher quality 2D presentation. In theory, a higher frame rate should be more relaxing to the senses because the motion seems more natural.


Techniques in cinematography, lighting, editing and so on, are all elements intended to compliment or enhance our visual experience and it is my belief that these techniques and the way they are traditionally utilized are part of an effort to compensate for the lack of realistic motion delivered to us. What I'm trying to say, is that the art of cinema as we know it may collide with realistic-looking motion. 


What's funny is that television until recently was considered a low-end viewing experience. Growing up, it was a low-res way of watching moving imagery outside of the superior movie-theater experience. To this day, if you watch a sports event, the news, a homemade video or anything shot on video, you typically see motion equivalent to thirty frames per second -just slightly higher in motion-quality compared to film. It looks different. When I was younger, I occasionally saw a low-budget made-for-television movie shot on video that tried to behave in a bold cinematic way - well... it just kind of came off as silly looking. I was curious: Was it the inferior contrast, color, and resolution of video or was it the superior frame-rate that made everything seem a little off?


I feel like that question was answered when I first took a look at a rare version of a classic movie. The classic musical Oklahoma was shot in standard 35mm Cinemascope, but for special presentations, they had also shot it in Todd-AO 65mm at thirty-frames per second. This YouTube video is the closest example of what a classic Technicolor film looked like at a slightly higher frame rate: 

If you have an eye for it, it seems a little strange. What I think the higher frame rate does, is it makes me much more aware of the camera techniques being used, the feeling that I am on a moving camera rig instead of floating naturally along with the character. I'm kind of inclined to believe, that the higher the frame-rate, the less the camera should move.

A reporter for aintitcool.com recently saw a demonstration at CinemaCon in Las Vegas and reactions were bold and varied.


Do I think it's bad that Jackson is using The Hobbit to test this new process? No. I don't. -Mainly because I am so excited to see what this frame-rate looks like. Do I think it will work well with the materiel? I have my doubts. If it does lend itself to stylized fantasy cinema, it's going to be a real treat seeing it this way. Even if it doesn't, it is also going to be presented in standard motion 2D. The trailer to the movie demonstrates that this high frame-rate down-converts to standard twenty-four frames per second naturally.

I am very exited by this change taking place, but I have my doubts that it has a place in traditional cinema. I really think that if this process is utilized by the right artists, it will bring about a whole new animal as far as our understanding of movies go.

The Cabin in the Woods

Richard Jenkins, Amy Acker, and Bradley Whitford control a lethal simulated Horror Movie environment that terrorizes a group of young people in The Cabin in the Woods. Why? Just go see it.

**** out of ****

The Cabin in the Woods may be the ultimate post-modern horror movie. Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard have made a hilarious and sometimes scary movie about scary movies. Unlike Scream, a film with a similar agenda, Cabin in the Woods takes the story in a completely absurd yet unexpected direction. It almost reminds me of the zany plot turns an episode of South Park may have. When the most insane parts of the movie take place, there is almost nothing to justify them, except that the writers and I'm sure the audience as well, desired to see it happen on a lustful level. 


It's really hard to say anything else. This is one of my favorites so far this year.

Want to know more?
The AV Club
Ebert
Half in the Bag

Kill List

Harry Simpson and Neil Maskell are killers on the road in Ben Wheatley's Kill List

 ***1/2 out of ****

It's pretty hard writing about this one without giving a lot away. Roger Ebert says everything I think about this movie in his review. It is an excellently directed movie with an approach similar to the experimental work of directors like Soderbergh in achieving a very natural tone through invisible acting and practical camerawork.

At the beginning, it appears to be a family drama about an out-of-work father having difficulty with his wife. Then, surprisingly, his line of work is revealed to be killing people. He takes a hit-job and the story takes a turn I didn't anticipate. The film is not rated, but be ready for some grotesque violence.

The genre this film is destined to be doesn't seem obvious at all. The movie also doesn't necessarily make sense but that didn't disappoint me because I was just shocked with where it went. 

Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie

Eric feels the terror of the mall-dwelling wolf in Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie

*** out of ****

Tim and Eric are an acquired taste. I can't guarantee anyone who's new to Tim and Eric that they will enjoy themselves when subjected to their tolerance-testing insanity. They seem to be focused on making comedy from things that aren't entertaining and it is my guess that they are focused on instinctual humor: It's funny to them so maybe it will be to us.  They love bad special effects, appalling color schemes, bad actors, awkward faces, and throwbacks to all things unwanted and expired. Watching their movie first wouldn't necessarily be any more alienating than watching an episode of their show, Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! except that it's seven times longer and features Eric getting a 'Prince Albert.'

I imagine that switching from the format of a twelve minute Adult Swim show to a ninety-three-minute movie would be a challenge and they handle it well. The pacing is considerably altered allowing them to draw out some bizarre scenes they couldn't have managed on the time constraints of their show.

The movie takes place in a decrepit mall that looks like it belongs in Escape from New York. Tim and Eric must find a way to profit from the establishment to pay back a tyrannical Billionaire played by Robert Loggia and his minion played by William Atherton. This movie would only please a maniac. I was very pleased.

The movie also contains Zach Galifianakis, Will Ferrell, Jeff Goldblum, Will Forte, Ray Wise, John C. Reilly, and bodily fluids of every type. 

The movie embraces stupidity on an unthinkable level and that's what made it really funny to me. The setup involves their debt to Robert Loggia for a billion dollars due to an over-budget movie that only had a few minutes of usable yet moronic footage. That had me laughing already.

I've watched all cinco seasons of the show and while it may have caused a certain amount of brain damage, I'm still aware as a fan that this movie has a very limited audience. Most of them are not old people. Check out Roger Ebert's review!

For a good review, check out the AV Club review.

 

The Muppets

Amy Adams, Jason Segal, and a lot of Muppets in that car in 2011's The Muppets

*** out of ****

I love Muppets. I was constantly in sync with this movie's love for them, while at the same time I felt I could never be fully satisfied with a revival one of my great childhood obsessions in the absence of Jim Henson. The lack of his unique voice and spirit will always deprive The Muppets of an asset that no one can really mimic. Since his death, there have been many Muppet comebacks and none of them come close to how good this one is. Still, for me, 1979's The Muppet Movie will never be topped. 

Jason Segal, Nick Stoller, and James Bobin had a lot of courage for how they approached this material. The movie is very much about how The Muppets are forgotten. It also gets so very right, what was great about them. There was also the risky idea of making the main characters a small group of Muppet fans and having the famous Muppets being the supporting characters. Another thing this movie does that the recent Star Trek movie did as well, is pay more homage than any movie in it's franchise, to the original TV series that started it all.

Here's the Fresh Air interview with Segal and Nick Stoller

There's kind of a mixed feeling I have towards the self-conscious revivalist approach. There's some credit being given to the audience for knowing that this material is old and washed up. At the same time, you wonder how the revival will stand the test of time.

The great thing this movie did, was it gave adults a real strong motivation to take their kids to see a children's movie. The nostalgia is strong. The musical numbers by Bret McKenzie are tongue-in-cheek goofy melodies. I think it's cool he scored an Oscar with this movie for the power ballod, Man or Muppet. Still, I think the Oscars, as usual, nominated the wrong song. The real gem in this movie is the first number, Life's a Happy Song, which is filled with so much laughable over-the-top psychotic joy. It put me right in that old familiar Muppet frame of mind.

Here's a radio interview with McKenzie on Fresh Air

Supposedly there was a struggle to get this movie ready in the writing process. I was shocked to find out that Frank Oz wasn't involved and that Fozzie, Miss Piggy and his regular characters were uncannily performed by another voice. According to the movie's trivia section on IMDB, Oz was not happy with a draft of the script given to him and wouldn't be involved. I wonder if it was the same draft that the guy who voices Kermit demanded changes for or he would have his name removed from the credits.


Dopey-looking Jason Segal and bright-eyed Amy Adams fit right into the silly innocence of this flick. I'm not sure how I feel about the naturalistic Chris Cooper as the evil billionaire Tex Richman. He does the best he can with the material but somehow, knowing Alan Rickman was offered the role frustrates me. I think this characters villainy would have been enhanced by someone a little more theatrical. I can imagine Rickman saying every line Cooper has in this movie and it being way funnier.

The celebrity cameos are all inspired choices. The writing is full of good-spirited gags. As a tradition to Muppet movies, the characters are constantly breaking the fourth wall and defying logic by taking advantage of movie cliches. My favorite is that if you need to get to somewhere on the other side of the world fast, just "travel by map".   

I'm really happy this movie got made and that it was in the right hands. It's a little cluttered at times but that's what happens when the filmmakers feel like no amount of excess is enough to express their love for the material. That's also what happens when you get that many Muppets in a room.

The Hunger Games

Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson converse during their training for a forced battle-to-the-death event called The Hunger Games

***1/2 out of ****

When I started writing this review, I found it impossible to get around to writing about the movie because I couldn't stop ranting over why I don't like popular youth-themed novel adaptations being too long and the MPAA's unquestionable favoritism towards potential blockbusters. While I am reminded of them, none of these issues were worth expanding on, as they hardly apply to my feelings about this particular film. So I will wait for another young-adult novel to be made into a movie that actually feels too long, as an opportunity to complain about the artistic process of adaptations being inhibited by fans who are literature-nazis demanding everything they read to be up on the screen. I will also wait for an independent movie to come out that gets an 'R'-rating for teen drinking, drug use, and/or smoking, so I can remind everyone that The Hunger Games was the 'PG-13' movie that got away with murder. Pun intended.

The Hunger Games is a very well produced distopian science fiction film in the tradition of cynical futuristic movies that were popular in the nineteen-seventies. I thought of Rollerball and to a lesser degree, Logan's Run. Then there are the undeniable comparisons made to the 2000 bloody Japanese film Battle Royale which has a very similar plot that is dealt with very differently. The Hunger Games is about a future civilization that, like ancient Rome, is advanced but exerts it's power with savage justice and oppression to maintain order. Battle Royale plays more like an irrational gory nightmare.

Director Gary Ross puts a heavy dose of naturalism to the strange environments of the story. This seems like the right approach. This movie is filled with the potential to alienate an audience with it's very unusual futuristic setting, but Ross makes it as personal as he can. Handheld cinematography and moments of improvised acting grabbed me in the same way episodes of Firefly or the recent Battlestar Galactica did by making the characters so real that the unreal universe they inhabit demands our attention as well.


The suspension of disbelief is necessary. I intend to read the famous books just to see if they can better justify how the cruelty of the annual Hunger Games maintains order when you would think it would only breed contempt and the temptation for revolt. The reason is supplied, but, without giving away details, an event takes place in reaction to the game that suggests the reason isn't good enough. 


I'm not sure what to say the movie, The Hunger Games is thematically about, except that I was totally caught up in it. I was never bored. It is an entertaining and often upsetting story of survival of body and soul in a cruel world. I hope I can say without any bias that a wonderful actress from my town makes every minute of it work. Jennifer Lawrence is a born movie star and brings weight to everything she is in, which is something you don't often get from today's other young and beautiful celebrities.

Check out Mike and Jay's good review on Half in the Bag (and their angry review of Jeff Who Lives at Home which I didn't think was that bad)