I haven't seen a HFR I haven't watched a major Hollywood film in HFR since The Hobbit. I didn't get the chance to see Gemini Man in 120 fps, as no cinema near me was screening it at HFR. However, I have settled for the next best thing - a 60 fps 4K Blu-ray. Then I rewatched it in 24 fps. This post will probably not make much sense if you haven't watched the film in 60 fps or 120 fps, but I'll go ahead and rant anyway. This video is a pretty good primer on the differences between frame rates:
First, a bit about Gemini Man. It's the typical formulaic Hollywood blockbuster. A cool concept at its core, but the screenplay has been executed in the most predictable manner possible. Par for the course for Hollywood blockbusters, so nothing much to see here.
Due to technical limitations, 24 fps was selected as the standard in the early 1900s. Since then, this frame rate has stuck as an unwavering gold standard. There's no argument that 60 fps is technically far superior and more realistic than 24 fps. But is it better?
The film community - audience, critics and filmmakers - by and large have answered that with a resounding no. Pretty much everyone prefers 24 fps. Why? Some suggest it's just nostalgia and people are resistance to change - 24 fps is so ingrained in people's psyche that anything else just looks weird. Others suggest that film isn't supposed to be real, so a less realistic frame rate sells the illusion better. Then there are those that believe 60 fps is fundamentally better, but to this day no filmmaker has used it appropriately.
The answer probably lies in the middle.
Filmmakers have always faced challenges moving to newer technologies. The move from black and white to colour meant production designers, cinematographers, and crew had to account for a lot more parameters, and be more precise with their execution. Over time, both film stocks and digital cameras have evolved to capturing higher resolution and wider colour gamuts. While this leads to a richer, more detailed image, it also exposes flaws in makeup and hair, production design, visual effects, special effects etc. There are plenty of examples of films from the 70s or 80s now released in HD or 4K showing obvious flaws.
Over time, filmmakers have learned how to account for this higher level of detail. There's also considerable control in colour grading and finishing, where parts of the image can be granularly adjusted, even removing detail where necessary. A common scenario is removing pores and blemishes from actors' skin, or selectively desaturating colour to hide inconsistencies in production design.
Unfortunately, with frame rates, there's no granularity. It's either 24 fps or higher. Some experiments have tried mixing frame rates between scenes in the same film, but this has found to be distracting by most.
Gemini Man is a pretty mediocre film, but it does have some nicely executed action sequences. This is where 60 fps really works well. I greatly dislike the judder and motion blur a 24 fps presentation brings to shots where the camera is moving rapidly, and somewhat less so when objects in the scene are. 60 fps simply works much better for some of these sequences.
As for the dramatic scenes, things do look weird at first, everything seems to move faster than I expect. But I quickly adjusted to this new sense of realism. I suspect it may have something to do with being used to 60 fps in games, YouTube videos and sports. Clearly, many never quite got used to it.
Is 60 fps better for dramatic scenes where it's mostly just actors speaking with each other? Not really. Is it worse? Yeah, it might be. I definitely felt the acting was somewhat better when I watched it in 24 fps. I suspect this is due to the detachment 24 fps creates, and helps sell the illusion of a character, as well as hide tiny flaws with acting. While watching the 60 fps, I was often reminded that this is Will Smith being Will Smith, while in the 24 fps version, I was slightly more convinced it's a character.
Overall, given the film is heavy on action sequences, I'd be the contrarian and choose the 60 fps version. While the dramatic scenes are slightly better on the 24 fps version, the action sequences are far superior at 60 fps. Granted, I might be saying this because I really wasn't invested in the drama and storytelling of the film.
So, in short, yes, the hypotheses suggested before all have some truth to them. Yes, there's definitely nostalgia involved, and there's a steep adjustment curve to get used to 60 fps, especially for those who haven't regularly experienced 60 fps in games or other content. Yes, 60 fps is definitely technically superior, and does have its merits. However, the technical limitations of 24 fps can work better in creating a disconnect and selling the illusion of artifice; while 60 fps just looks too realistic.
The final question remains unanswered. Have we not explored 60 fps or HFR well enough just yet? This could very well be the case, and my hunch is yes. Perhaps with a different acting style and direction, 60 fps may even work better for dramatic scenes. It's hard to tell, until someone pulls it off.
I remain cautiously optimistic for 60 fps, and yes, I know - this is an unpopular opinion. I'd like to see most non-fiction transition to 60 fps, especially nature documentaries. Certain creative documentaries will remain at 24 fps, of course. While 24 fps will remain the gold standard for decades to come, I do hope to see innovative narrative films leverage 60 fps in new ways in the coming years.
