It is quite an achievement, considering how much my fondness for the Lord of the Rings franchise has been slowly but surely worn away.
With Smaug the Magnificent bearing down on Lake Town, Thorin Oakenshield and his dwarves having occupied the fortress of Erebor and the Orc armies closing in, Bilbo finds himself at the centre of a massive battlefield.
There's very little to actually say about this, storywise, but can you blame me? This film is based around about ten pages of book!
It feels like the equivalent of walking in on Return of the Jedi as the rebel fleet attacks the Death Star, or when Gondor falls under siege in Return of the King.
The folly of director Peter Jackson's decision to turn a children's book into a seven hour epic has been fully realised here, making The Battle of the Five Armies quite possibly the worst entry in the franchise (and that is only because of An Unexpected Journey's sheer nostalgia factor) this so-called "Defining Chapter" is little more than a CG infested battle sequence, living up to its name perhaps but definitely failing to feel important or relevant.
It has been a year, you could say the flow has been broken.
The Battle of the Five Armies, in the book, is a brief affair since the story is told only from Bilbo's perspective (the book is called The Hobbit, after all) and he is swiftly knocked unconscious and misses the entire battle. The makes this film's existence the most perplexing and the most difficult to sell, but it appears Jackson has taken this issue and ran with it as an excuse show Legolas doing more crazy gravity defying stunts, to cast Billy Connelly as a battle frenzied dwarf and have a lot of replicated computerised orcs.
Of course there are moments. Richard Armitage plays the murky psyche of Thorin Oakenshield perfectly; this is a storm that has been given time to build and provides this film's only sense of gravity and finality. Smaug, as with the book, remains the reason we are watching despite lasting a pitiful ten minutes here (consider him used like the Balrog fight in The Two Towers) and the film is worse off for not having him longer.
Luke Evans as Bard the Bowman continues to be excellent in the role given to him in the second film, Bard who becomes a valiant hero in the book by the end. Yet, by the power of the trilogy's bafflingly silly screenplay Bard's stand off with Smaug is made ridiculously stupid, making one of the book's other exciting moments more of an eyebrow-raising absurdity.
It also still has the performances, though some are decidedly just there for cameos, the look and feel of the other films, which maintains a level of quality despite all of the flaws.
Even the other reason for making three films, The Necromancer, feels woefully swept under the carpet; reduced down to a rather silly rescue mission featuring the lady Galadriel, lord Elrond and Ragagast the Brown.
Now I am sure people will defend the film, but I honestly struggle to imagine how. This is a conclusion, literally the third act that The Desolation of Smaug was lacking. It fails as a singular film, lacking any new characters or developments that allow it to have its own style or merit, and would only benefit from watching back-to-back with its predecessor.
The way that Desolation has ended made me suspect this sort of palaver would follow, but I had hoped I'd be proven wrong.
Someone needs to make an edit of these films and condense them down to about four hours, because having seen them all I can safely say it can be done. Right now, I have no desire to watch any of them again except the second one.
Feeling a little more like a formulaic blockbuster than its predecessor, Dawn still packs a heck of a wallop in action, emotion and intensity.
Set ten years after the events of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dawn shows us that the ALZ-112 virus (later known as the simian flu) has wiped out nearly all human life on Earth. The ape known as Caesar has prospered with his tribe and now several of them can speak both with sign and vocally. But when human survivors enter their territory hoping to repair a hydroelectric dam that supplies their town, there is civil unrest amongst the apes...
Rise of the Planet of the Apes was unprecedented in its integrity and emotional weight, as well as its subtly when explaining its characters' complexities. In the sequel ten years have passed and our characters' roles have been established for this second act's more kinetic story; we have a struggle of territories and a struggle of trust. Both sides, human and ape, have taken causalities and their pasts are bleak and full of strife.
This is the tipping point where the reality of the premise comes to a head.
At the centre of this is the relationship between Caesar, the ape leader, and Koba, a scarred ape who was also given accelerated brain treatment in Rise. This conflict is incredible and is easily the driving force for the film's second and third acts, Koba has memorable scenes in equal measure to Caesar in the first film.
On the human side things are more formulaic. Jason Clarke plays Malcolm, a survivor and father who sees the possibility of peace between the two races, and Gary Oldman plays the humans' nervous leader Dreyfus extremely well. But most of the characterisation for the humans only lies between Malcolm and Caesar, who both struggle to protect their families against uncontrollable dangers.
It does continue Rise's faithful continuity to the original film; I caught one or two familiar aspects that should grow in importance as time moves on around our characters.
The CG effects and motion capture here is stunning. Really stunning. The lighting and animation of these animals during all kinds of events, rainstorms and infernos, is really something to see. Koba himself is portrayed especially in a terrifying light! You are properly away with the premise, occasionally I would think: "I'm watching two monkeys beat the snot out of each other... and I am completely invested in it!" but then the success of such a premise lies in the technical execution, and it definitely succeeds here!
For a 12A, I must admit, this is a grim and scary film. While Rise established Caesar and global events, Dawn goes for the jugular and is probably the most intense 12A I have seen since The Dark Knight.
It isn't as compelling as its predecessor. It feels ever so slightly too long: the second act feels quite padded for time with some repetitive scenes. Why explain something twice when you can do it once with more efficiency? Certainly Rise's subtly isn't present; this is a blockbuster designed to have you at the edge of your seat, and I certainly was!
I highly recommend it! I love a good villain and Koba has been building up to this since Rise, and as a sequel it has paid off awesomely. What it lacks in subtext it makes up for in sheer brutality and emotional intensity.
Additional Marshmallows: Ah yes, the 3D. I wouldn't say you need to see this in 3D, although the effect didn't detract my enjoyment at all!
My days of watching all the past X-Men films paid off; director Bryan Singer's return to the franchise not only triumphs but rights many of the wrongs with the series! The future seems bright again. (Yep, I just used the film's title in my opening statement)
In the distant future the world is torn apart by war. The human prejudice against mutants escalated so far as to create robots known as Sentinels; changelings that adapt to mercilessly track and kill mutants. When they begin to target humans too, Professor Xavier and Eric Lehnsherr work together and send Wolverine's mind back in time to the eve of the Sentinels' creation by Dr. Bolivar Trask. But that's the easy part; Wolverine must convince a traumatised young Xavier, rescue an imprisoned Magneto, and find the mutant who can disguise herself as anyone before she can doom all of their futures.
When this film starts, and the opening titles start with that familiar victorious theme from X2 (John Ottman returns for this film's score) I knew things were going to get good! We are shown the bleak future left for our heroes, Iceman, Xavier, Magneto, Storm, Wolverine, Kitty and some new faces as they are attacked repeatedly from super-advanced machines. There is something of an exposition dump during this sequence, which I found a little nebulous to grasp at first. But once they send old Wolverine back to the 1970s, things get interesting.
This film has a great sense of humour. Something of a mix between Matthew Vaughn's First Class (he assisted writing this film) and Bryan Singer's first two movies. We see Logan pre-Weapon-X days with bone claws, but with the memories of future events, confront our heroes from Vaughn's prequel, a confused and troubled Xavier (James McAvoy) and a deceptive Magneto (Michael Fassbender). The film isn't suffering from lame "Oh, its Wolverine in the 70s!" jokes but there is a sense of fun throughout events. Especially when they enlist the help of one mutant named Quicksilver. Possibly the most riotous fun the entire series has ever had!
Of course, things get intense too, Singer has always had an edge to his X-Men films, and Days of Future Past has some pretty unpleasant, brutal sequences! Even the not metal-infused Wolverine gets beaten up badly!
I would also say that for once Magneto doesn't steal the show. There's a lot more focus here on Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique (probably because of her rising stardom) and McAvoy's Xavier, which I appreciated; throughout the films the Professor has had very little to do. This film isn't just action and powers being thrown around, the characters do have something to say.
The film's strength lies in what some might consider its only weakness. Like the roots of a tree, the story links and curls around previous adventures, combining virtually all of the films into one massive experience. As it stands on its own, it is a blasting, continuous adventure giving only brief moments to pause, but if someone has followed all of the films to date (to some extent including the Wolverine films too) they will love it.
I was grateful I'd watched the old films again, though Logan's time traveling allows for brief flashbacks (or is that flashforwards?) to remind us of events past and future. I do love films that act as sequels and prequels.
All of our favourite characters and actors are back in surely one of the most star studded comic book films yet, and amazingly it doesn't collapse under the weight! Sure, there are a couple of lingering questions on my mind, but not enough to detract from the overall entertainment.
I'll definitely be watching it again! Is it as good as X2 in my mind? I don't know yet, but it sure feels like the good old days are back again: good, solid and exciting entertainment!
The second part of the embellished Hobbit trilogy continues, and my opinion hasn't changed from part one... except to say that this film makes An Unexpected Journey look completely unnecessary.
While still being pursued by the orc horde, Biblo Baggins and the dwarf company are led by Thorin Oakenshield and Gandalf through the region of Mirkwood and finally to the Lonely Mountain, lair of Smaug the Dragon. Along the way they meet many foes and challenges and only a few to help them.
Well here's a thing: An Unexpected Journey took perhaps twenty pages of the original text and inexplicably stretched it over three hours, yet The Desolation of Smaug probably covers a massive eighty percent of the story!
I'm serious, most of (if not all) my favourite scenes are in this one film, and if I wanted I could just close my eyes and imagine the beginning and end on my own. (It would save me six hours!) We have the barrels, the wood elves, the Mirkwood spiders, Lake Town, Bard, Beorn and of course Smaug the Magnificent! I honestly can't remember anything of comparable substance in the first film, and I cannot fathom the third film having any more material to work with.
Sounds good right? Well naturally the film looks great too; one cannot criticise its looks any more than previous films (although the indulgent use of CG is still there...) The action sequences here are actually better than in the first film, they feel more natural and without the "surfing on wooden bridges down chasms" problems. The barrel sequence is not the same as the book, it too is an action sequence, with orcs attacking and a dwarf being propelled out of the water, rolling across the cliffs and knocking them down! Very imaginative and creative additions.
But like all good artists producing more of the same, familiar imagery, we can only pick at the imperfections.
Tauriel.
I said it already, and I'll say it again. I have no problem with strong female characters, but I do have a problem with a character entirely made up by the film makers to force a pointless love triangle that only snares up the film's exciting climax with needless cutaways. If I may indulge (heck, the film makers do!) The Hobbit is set in earlier times; the elves and dwarves do not like each other. Legolas features in the film, and though he was never in the book I didn't mind his inclusion: he exaggerates the disharmony between the two races (...despite the fact that the Wood Elf King does this fine on his own...) but Tauriel has a romance triangle with Legolas and............ Kili.
Utterly absurd, and I know exactly where this is going in part three, and it is as throwaway as Tauriel herself. She doesn't override the film, but her scenes just take me out of what I want: The Hobbit as a film.
Right, with that out of my system. The subplot that tethers The Hobbit to the Rings trilogy is much stronger here than in the previous film. Gandalf does indeed leave the company in the book to do other "important tasks", these are shown as the film deviates from Bilbo's perspective. It is welcome, if you survived An Unexpected Journey this stuff is more than appreciated by now.
But the same old problem surfaces while watching the film, and as this trilogy goes on, I fear for its longevity. The Hobbit book is not the same as Lord of the Rings, and this is not a good adaptation of it. I dare say this singular film is the best-worst adaptation I've seen. The Hobbit is about Bilbo and his very small perspective of a vast world. It is a children's story. Embellish, but never forget what the focus of a story is...
I still feel there is a better Hobbit adaptation to be made. That Guillermo Del Toro film that was never to be? This outing actually crushes its predecessor into dust, boasting all of the book's finest moments through the wonderful lense of the films' creative team. But, there are still unnecessary additions, and I know that they are chess pieces to make the final film more exciting... But are they literally just pawns in an epic that was never meant to be?
Additional Marshmallows: The HFR (high frame rate) 3D was more familiar to me this time, and took a lot less getting used to.
And the winner of "most unnecessary and indulgent director's cameo" goes to... Peter Jackson! Fabricating an entire opening scene that has little to no purpose other than to get him in there.
... if you are also wondering, is it worth watching only for the dragon?
...
Heck yes!
In a time where sequels and prequels to
cherished franchises are rife and so easily condemned to failure, director Sam
Raimi deserves kudos for this splendid romp of theatrics.
Oscar is a traveling magician in Kansas, he
is no hero and only dreams of wealth and fame. When his womanising antics gets
him in trouble, he flees in his hot air balloon only to be snared into a
tornado. Deposited in the Land of Oz, he is heralded by three witches as the prophesied Wizard of Oz, king of the land. But as the witches squabble over
his unremarkable nature, can he rise above himself and save the land?
Like I say, we have had a lot of prequels
and sequels (and remakes!) trying to cash in on our childhoods, and while I was
never completely sold on the original Wizard of Oz, I can see here that a lot
of effort had been made to make this harmonious with the classic. Sam Raimi has
put his substantial talents towards making a bright, fun and sometimes dark family film. It is significantly better than... oh, shall we say... Tim Burton's
Alice in Wonderland...?
I say that because there is a lot of
computer generated imagery here. A lot. In fact Oscar's first sights of Oz are
almost 100% computerised, which made me a little sad... I understand that Oz is
a magical otherworld, but I still find myself pining for physical creations. It
does mature once we reach the Emerald City and more human characters appear
though, and I should say that CGI or no the creativity and design work are
wonderful.
The film starts out, of course, in the
glorious sepia tones of the real world, yet Raimi extends the contrast with the
colourful Oz by having our world shot in “full frame” and not wide screen!
Hopefully people get this and aren't rushing out the theatre to complain the projection's
broken!
The acting is good, James Franco as Oscar
is a joy to watch, playing a talented but cowardly man without hamming it up
completely. His friends are fun and full of life, especially the little China
Girl. The Wicked Witch herself is also a joy to watch on the big screen, one of many defining characteristics that proves Sam Raimi is out to make an authentic homage to the classic original.
Having said that, one oddly missing element are songs, in fact the film makes a point of cutting its one and only music number short! Some fans of the original might find this sad... I however don't mind.
So I
enjoyed it for the most part! A lot more than I expected to, maybe a little
heavy on the CGI and the adults in the audience will see a lot of cliches, but by the end you will be loving it as a theatrical romp with both light-heartedness
and scary thrills.
Additional marshmallows: I don't make a habit of commenting on 3D so much nowadays, but here it was effectively used; it didn't ruin the film (I'm sure 2D showings will not lose out) some of the best 3D parts are during the 4:3 "full frame" scenes in Kansas.
The one thing this remake has going for it is that it can be passed off as a prequel. Whether it capitalizes on this or not is another matter...
Set in 1982 (the year John Carpenter's original The Thing was set and released) 2011's The Thing tells the story of the unfortunate group of scientists who uncovered a buried alien ship and alien corpse in Antarctica that worked as a precursor to the events of the original film. The nature of the remake is clear as events are almost identical in both films.
Now I wasn't in love with the original film; it was a distracting experience with great physical monster effects that do stay in my mind to this day (six years on) but as a story... I had seen it before. So in saying that, I don't mind this being a remake/prequel; it certainly made me want to watch the original again, and it isn't a straight up copy (a different title would have been nice!)
However the film itself, isn't exactly ground breaking. Its pacing is way too fast and we have precious little time to get to know the characters (I know I was giving them names: Bearded Man 1, Bearded Man 2, etc) and when this happens you are merely looking at the monster's menu. There was room for story expansion here, but the film is too frantic to bother and does not build tension.
The creature effects... are hit and miss. Naturally they are CG and I will admit some of the "full frontal" transformations are pretty gross, but like others have said you do see the monster(s) too frequently; CG gives the director too much liberty and it costs them suspense and atmosphere. It started looking like video game monsters, from Resident Evil and the like. There are some stationary practical models, but for better or worse everything else is computer generated.
It is the bare bones of a "creature feature", it could have done with slowing down the pace, get some characters developed or story expanded for its "sequel", or at the very least for building some atmosphere.
If you like monster-fests, you can do worse. I certainly didn't hate it; my initial opinion had it pegged as a four cups of cocoa, but as it went on... it let itself down.
Prometheus (3D)
"The most anticipated film of the year" is an incredible burden some times. Ridley Scott returns to science fiction with brazen confidence, but provides as many questions as there were answers.
Set at least thirty years before the events of Alien, Prometheus tells of a science vessel sent out into the far reaches of space by the mega-corporation Weylan industries, their goal is to find the answers of life itself: why are we here, where do we come from? Naturally what they find is much worse.
Prometheus looks great (even the 3D is decent) with gorgeous spaceship visuals and lofty H.R Giger-esque sets. Alien fans will be impressed, and I was sucked into the murky atmosphere when the team start uncovering the mysteries and discovering sights Ellen Ripley may later find.
For a 15 certificate there are some pretty gruesome scenes, specifically one which, like its predecessor, will stick with you long after the film's ended. A tip: don't go see Prometheus if you are pregnant... you'll probably lose a lot of sleep...
There is however an unforgiving amount of mystery, even after the film's end; if you are looking for answers to the Alien origin, you will get some but not all. I was a little put out by this, I hope Scott merely wants people to debate about it rather than spell it out (after all, part of Alien's charm was its mystery) but the "loose ends" here feel clunky.
The characters aren't half bad, lying somewhere between Alien and Aliens; they are unique and far from typical, but not fully fleshed out. There's a smell of a lurking "Director's Cut" about the script, several events appear to happen for sake of convenience, but could be explained with an extra scene or two.
I will need to watch it again, but I love how it is more Alien than its sequels, a more otherworldly science fiction than the popcorn gnashing sci-fi action flicks of today. As a fan of the series the film gave me a lot of new imagery I wasn't expecting but it does not ruin the franchise outright. There will however be a lot of confusion from the masses; Prometheus is unforgiving in its almost "arthouse" sci-fi mystery. This is Ridley Scott, not James Cameron.
I like it a lot, the atmosphere gripped me, the uncovering of old mysteries was chilling and the return to the Alien universe was welcome, but there's an unnecessary amount of questions raised, and some of the script felt missing.
Additional Marshmallows: The initial discoveries made by the science team on Earth include cave paintings on the Isle of Skye, Scotland. I was excited and amused to see familiar territory in a Ridley Scott science fiction film!
