The Hobbit

The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings.

I expressed concern when the first trailer hit, because it looked way too much like LOTR rescrambled with a different hobbit, and having read The Hobbit I wanted a movie that let the merits of that story shine without being overshadowed by the darker, more serious events of LOTR.

Well...yes and no.  The story Peter Jackson is telling here is much larger than what's contained in The Hobbit, which is why I'm finally comfortable with the fact that we're getting three movies (for a great rundown of what Jackson's doing with Tolkein's extended mythology, read this explanation by Dresden Codak author and artist, Aaron Diaz.  His whole tumblr right now is full of awesome LOTR, Hobbit, and Silmarillion facts).  But...

But.

There are two things that weaken this movie tremendously, and one of them is the constant insistence that this movie IS related to LOTR and IS a prequel and dammit, how many parallels can we fit into this film?  It's detrimental; Thorin Oakenshield is a badass with an awesome backstory, he doesn't need to be constantly and bluntly compared to Aragorn.  There's even one instance of a deus ex machina from Fellowship being directly reused, in a scene that was changed from the Hobbit text (not that I'm objecting to the fact that the book was changed - I'm objecting to the fact that Jackson reuses a terrible plot device that didn't work that well in the first place).

Radagast is pretty magnificent and I basically won't hear a word against him.

The other thing that hurts the movie is length; even with the added material, this didn't need to be a three hour movie.  I would go so far as to say it could have fit just as much story, and just as much scenery, comfortably into two hours and been a stronger film for it.  There are two scenes in particular, a chase scene and a battle, that are long to the point of being ridiculous and tiresome.  Edit more better, Jackson!  I know you can do it.

Some good stuff!  The dwarves are excellent.  Even though, for all its length, some of them are confined to caricatures and cut-outs (Bombur's most memorable characteristics are "fat" and "donut beard"), they still end up being memorable, and fun to spend screen time with.  They are also fierce; unlike the hobbits, who will always look a little funny with swords in their hands (intentionally, I think), the dwarves are true warriors.  They are also the best channel for the book's levity to come through; the scene where you meet them at Bilbo's house was one of my favorites in the whole film.

If my beard was this majestic, I'd want to be remembered for it too.

I don't really know how to talk about Riddles in the Dark, except by saying that it's the centerpiece of the movie, and could stand alone as its own short film.  It's amazing, and Martin Freeman (fabulous, amazing, I-don't-think-they-could-have-made-this-without-him Martin Freeman) sells the hell out of it.  It's kind of like Jackson conceived of this scene, and built the rest of the movie to support it (which is entirely possible, it's the cornerstone moment of the film, after all).  It's also a great way of starting the descent into darkness from the bright tones of the opening acts, and it's a great lead-in to part two.

Shall I talk some about Martin Freemen?  He's flawless, really.  He hits such the perfect tone, unassuming and pretty self-deprecating, that when his moments of bravery come he looks just as surprised as everyone else.  He makes those moments believable, as well - it's not like his cleverness in the face of danger comes out of nowhere.  He's always been a smart hobbit, and now he has the chance to be a hero, even if someone else will probably have to tell him when it happens.

Skyfall

I wasn't really a Bond fan until Daniel Craig remastered the superspy into a gritty, punchy daredevil, and I'm pleased to say that Skyfall represents a brilliant comeback from the plodding, dusty Quantum of Solace.  It's exciting, cohesive, and a more streamlined story, which gives some truly excellent character acting its chance to shine.  Reviewers are raving about Judi Dench and Javier Bardem for good reason - Bardem's peroxide blonde villain is slick and slippery, outwardly polished and maniacally twisted.  He is a polished psychopath; Entertainment Weekly compares him, aptly, to Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter.  He's chilling.  And if the Academy can nominate Johnny Depp for Pirates of the Caribbean, surely they can find it in their hearts to recognize Bardem.

What I deeply appreciated about Skyfall is that it's a serious action film that isn't afraid to be cheeky.  Casino Royale was an introduction to a new kind of Bond - not afraid to get dirty, more inclined to feats of parkour than gadgetry, it showed us the dark side of espionage (while still managing to include the obligatory martini and tailored suit).  Skyfall melds that with the more classic Bond feel, bringing back Q (Ben Whishaw, completely charming in the role) and some of the gadgets, as well as giving nods to some Bond staples (like the indomitable Aston Martin).  While there is never any danger of Skyfall veering into camp territory, it seamlessly brings back more elements of a previous Bond era.  Adele's theme song works into this as well; it has a very smoky, kind of scratchy 60's feel and I LOVE it.

(A side note about Q: I appreciated that Bond and I had the same thought about him at the same time.  Namely: "Dude, you're like TEN.")

I would also like to point out, without spoiling anything, that Skyfall has the best use of Chekov's Gun I have ever seen.  It is MASTERFUL, and it is batshit crazy, and I didn't think it would happen but then Christmas came early and I got the ludicrous death I so deeply deserved.  I won't tell you what it is, but I guarantee you'll know it when you see it.

I had planned to address the "Bardem as possibly gay" question, but...it doesn't really matter.  There's a scene between Bardem and Craig that might be flirting, might be gay chicken, might be a lot of things - the only thing about it that actually matters is that Bardem makes your skin crawl.  My personal interpretation is that Craig's Bond is simply trying to unseat Bardem's villain in the only way he currently can; I can't imagine that someone as savvy as Bond has never used sex as a weapon before.

(Also, if you're honestly getting your panties in a twist about Bond drinking a Heineken, he was on a BEACH in a SHACK.  Dude has to make due with what he has!)

More Scary Movies I Secretly Like Watching

Happy Halloween, my lovely haunted readers!  Tonight is Halloween, and in the spirit of the holiday I would like to both direct you to my Top Ten Horror Films I Secretly Kind Of Like, a list I made last year, and to also provide an addendum list (because, let's face it, I can talk all I want to about not liking horror movies - the truth is I am fascinated by them).

28 Days Later

That early scene, when Cillian Murphy stumbles out of the hospital and into the empty streets of London, is one of the eeriest things to be committed to film.  One of the brilliant things this movie does, that not many have tried to replicate, is change our expectations of the zombies: not only are they brutal, vicious, and hungry, but they're fast.  Zombies went from shambling horrors to rabid predators, more likely to dispense with the moaning and just rip into you with guttural shrieking.  Shivers.

(The use of red in the color palette of 28 Days Later is also interesting to note, for people who notice that kind of thing.  It borders on abrasive and gives me a headache, which was probably the point.)

Drag Me To Hell

Campy, over-the-top, and with a simplistic message (do unto others, and all that), Drag Me To Hell still manages some of the best jump scares in recent film.  Allison Lohman plays the loathsome Christine, a loan officer eager for a pay raise who declines to extend a loan to an old gypsy woman.  Christine apparently missed the memo on why it's a terrible idea to cross old gypsy women, because she finds herself the owner of a particularly nasty curse.  Thinking about the ending still makes me jump a little.  

Halloween

There are two classics on here, included because sometimes the originals are just better.  Halloween is scary because not only are there no ghosts, monsters or zombies, but because Michael Meyers doesn't have anything obviously wrong with him.  He's no Damien, no disciple of the devil, no possessed little boy - he's just a psychopath, enraged by young women who remind him of his slutty sister.  The blank white mask, which removes any trace of humanity, feels more like his face than any real one could.

Night Watch

I highly recommend watching this one with subtitles, because the cinematography actually incorporates them into the fabric of the film.  Watching a vampire lure a human through psychic calling is much creepier when the subtitles are red, and fade away like blood dissipating in water.  This movie, which is also the reason I get nervous around large flocks of crows, is about the supernatural forces that guard against each other and keep the world in balance...and what happens when a force too powerful to contain is released in Moscow.  It's beautiful and exciting, horror with a touch of class.  If you liked Let The Right One In you'll probably dig Night Watch.

Nightmare on Elm Street

The other classic I felt it was necessary to include.  A lot of horror deals with the invasion of so-called "safe" spaces, but none are as effective as the ghoul that can literally kill you in your dreams.  There's no hiding under the blankets here, and to know Freddy is to be killed by him.  Have fun trying to sleep tonight...

The Others

A shoestring budget and almost zero special effects give this one a lovely classic feel.  While not filmed in black and white, it may as well have been - the single location of the film is inside a great big house with all the windows boarded up to protect Nicole Kidman's children from their allergy to sunlight.  Shadows, light and darkness make up the special effects and create a mood so profoundly eerie that you'll find yourself jumping at nothing.  Very reminiscent of the original House on Haunted Hill.

[REC]

Another fun zombie movie that mixes them in with the found footage trope.  [REC] is kissing cousins with 28 Days Later, dealing with a virus and fast zombies, but adding an element of claustrophobia with the locked down building that the whole film takes place in.  In general, I think the found footage thing is a little played out, but this story of an apartment building dealing with a quarantine and horrifying monsters is exciting enough to get a pass.  

Red Dragon

Edward Norton makes almost as good of a foil for Anthony Hopkins as Jodie Foster.  Ralph Fiennes as the mumbling, wounded Francis Dolarhyde is a softer, though no less dangerous, villain than Buffalo Bill, which gives the whole film a different flavor when it could very easily have ended up being a rehash of Silence of the Lambs.  Also, as an English major, I can't resist the literary influence that Blake has on the film.  

Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

Making fun of every slasher film you've ever loved.  This wonderfully composed satire isn't light on the jump scares or the gore, and it's tempting to cover your eyes even while you're still laughing.  Alan Tudyk and Tyler Labine play rednecks up for some fishing in the woods who have the unfortunate luck to stumble across a group of college co-eds, who become convinced that the two hapless hillbillies are actually serial killers.  This is only reinforced when the kids start dying in hilariously accidental ways (a woodchipper may be involved).

The Wolfman

I refer here to the 2010 version, starring Benicio del Toro and Anthony Hopkins, which doesn't get enough credit as far as I'm concerned.  As a werewolf film it does some things quite well: it tells the story of the inner struggle between man and beast, and wonders if that struggle is universal and some are just better at suppressing it than others.  As any good monster film should, it has philosophical ideals framed in terms of literal monstrousness...but doesn't romanticize the monsters.  These werewolves are not your friends, and they will definitely eat you if given half the chance.

OscarWatch 2012: It Begins!

September is well over and we are deep into OscarWatch - something that was made QUITE clear to me on Sunday, when I went to see Argo.

Argo is a stunning film.  It is tense and claustrophobic, exciting and unbelievable - made even more so by the fact that it IS A TRUE STORY.  I repeat: the CIA inventing a fake Star Wars ripoff, press release and terrible poster included, in order to rescue six people from being publicly beheaded in Iran, ACTUALLY HAPPENED.  As with any film adaptation of historical events, I imagine things may have been spiced up a bit for the screen...although the way Ben Affleck presents it on screen feels very true to life, down to the terrible 70s mustaches and slightly grainy film quality.  It's harrowing, watching the six Americans get more and more convinced that they're going to die in the Canadian Embassy, and thrilling to watch the admittedly half-assed plan take shape.  At one point, Bryan Cranston as the CIA Chief refers to Plan: Argo as "The best, worst idea we've got."  That hopelessness, that desperation, drips off the film - which makes the payoff even more worth it.  Everything about this movie is brilliant and you should go see it, posthaste.

AwardWatch: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay (there's a book!  I wanna read it.).  Possibly a Best Actor nom for Affleck.  Best Visual Effects.  In my fantasies, John Goodman or Alan Arkin pulls a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but I don't think it's too likely.

Let's take a look at the other hardcore Oscar Bait movies I saw trailers for, and make some predictions over what awards these films will pull:

Life of Pi

Stunning, stunning trailer.  I haven't read the book yet (I KNOW), but if one was going to make a film adaptation about a boy in a boat with a tiger, I would want it to look like this.  And Ang Lee has serious philosophical chops (which worked for Brokeback Mountain, not so much for Hulk), so I think we can expect cerebral and gorgeous things from this one.  Plus, the word from the early release at the New York Film Festival has been largely positive.

AwardWatch: Best Cinematography for sure.  Best Adapted Screenplay is also a pretty safe bet.  Best Director and Best Picture, MAYBE, but it depends on how the Academy feels about another 3D feature by someone with less pull than James Cameron.

Cloud Atlas

This feels like the illegitimate lovechild of The Fountain and Tree of Life to me, which gives me conflicted feelings.  I want it to be more Fountain and less bullshit - but it looks potentially overwrought, over-complicated, and unintelligible.  I won't mind the skips around in time and place if the story stays streamlined, and I don't have a lot of hope for that.  Looks pretty beautiful, though.

(On a related note, a Google Image search of "Cloud Atlas" brings up what looks like pictures from seventeen different movies.  This is my concern: that it will not only be overly complicated, but disconnected and incomprehensible.)

AwardWatch: After last year's Tree of Life event, I don't think this one has a lot of hope for Best Picture.  Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography and Visual Effects and probably Art Direction, Best Costumes and Best Makeup nominations are assured, and it'll probably pull some other technical awards - I can see Best Film Editing and Sound Mixing, and Sound Track if the Cloud Atlas sonata score was written for the movie.

Lincoln

It is deeply ironic that this film is being released in the same year as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  Ironic and a little sad, because AL:VH might have had more pull as a summer action flick if it hadn't drawn the inevitable comparisons to Spielberg's historical beauty.  Ah well.  

AwardWatch: Possibly everything.  Best Actor for Daniel Day Lewis for sure, Best Picture, Best Director.  Best Original Screenplay?  Probably.  Best Costumes and Makeup, because duh, it's a historical.  Best Art Direction, Cinematography, probably a Best Supporting Actor nominee in there (my bet is on Tommy Lee Jones), and Best Supporting Actress for Sally Field.  

Karl Urban is the Judge and Everything is Awesome

Dredd, Karl Urban's latest action gunfest, is currently holding steady on Rotten Tomatoes at a 77%.  For its genre, that's a solid score - more than I expected it to be garnering, before I saw it myself.  Resident Evil: Retribution, on the other hand, is maintaining a 26%.  It should also be noted that none of the flock of Resident Evil movies currently rates above 34% (the first one; the next highest is that whopping 26%).

Why is this significant?  Because I need you to know how utterly criminal it is that there will undoubtedly be another Resident Evil movie, but Dredd will never see the sequels it has so gloriously earned.

I saw both films.  Retribution was fun, and short, and so clearly a bridge to the next RE chapter that it was almost breathtaking; in terms of plot, you learn nothing new and maybe one important thing happens.  It reminded me very much of the fourth Terminator film that way, in that it exists solely to remind you that the franchise continues to chug along.  It has the requisite amount of action, lots of character death, and Mila Jovovich in a fairly ridiculous amount of leather and buckles.  Stuff blows up and blows up good.  I had fun watching it.

Stuff blows up and blows up good in Dredd, too.  Urban, stoically costumed in leather armor and that inscrutable helmet, shoots a lot of people with voice-activated ammunition.  People die in hilariously over the top ways.  Both films share a genetic component; the same dystopian, gun-slinging, face-kicking helix exists on both screens.

The difference is the core that helix wraps around, and maybe this is because we're looking at volume 5 of a franchise versus a new film (well, sort of, but this hardly counts as a sequel to Stallone's 1995 travesty).  Retribution feels no need to tell you a story, because you already know what's going on; whereas Dredd is a pretty impressive piece of tight storytelling wrapped up in some surprisingly beautiful cinematography.

One of the things that impressed me the most about Dredd was how much trust it places in its audience.  It is not heavily leaden with exposition; instead, you see a shot of barren countryside, a dense and dreary metropolis, and you hear maybe two lines about the state of the world.  That's it, but that's enough; at this point we have seen so many dystopian, post-apocalyptic settings that we know the drill.  Likewise, no time is wasted telling you how incredibly badass, capable, incorruptible, and the best at his job Dredd is - you know it from his manner and how the other characters around him treat him.  There's more showing than telling going on here.

It is also extremely well filmed.  Long, foreboding shots of empty, rusted corridors and sparkly drug-induced hazes against the standard post-apocalyptic gray and brown color palette make for some striking visuals, coupled with smart camera motion and well choreographed action (I could always see who was hitting who, and if you've been reading this blog enough you'll know that scrambled, jerky action sequences are a particular pet peeve of mine).  Dredd understands that there is a time and place for jerky filming, which is sparely and to make the audience uncomfortable (there's one haunting shot of Lena Headey as the crime lord gouging someone's eyes out that lasts maybe five seconds and gets two replays - I'm still cringing thinking about it, but the point is that it doesn't overstay its welcome).

The last thing I want to remark on is the pretty fantastic job that Karl Urban does in this role.  His acting is so Spartan, so economical, because he doesn't need to grandstand.  It's reminiscent of the way that Ryan Gosling played the Driver in Drive, in that Urban also lets the little things speak for him instead of actually saying anything.  It's all there in the creak of his armor, the set of his chin, the way he never uses three words when one will do.  His helmet, which covers most of his face and never comes off, contributes to rather than hinders his performance; it adds to the menace (in contrast is Olivia Thirlby as the Rookie, who never wears her helmet and trades on her empathy - it's also effective, but in a very different way).  He's all rock solid justice, being hurled against Lena Headey's mercurial ragemonster crime lord: the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object.  Watching them battle it out in the enclosed tower environment is not only incredibly fun, but a memorable experience.

Do the Resident Evil movies blend together in your head the same way they do in mine?

The Words

In spite of myself, I find myself becoming fonder and fonder of Bradley Cooper.

I have never liked him - which is not to say I don't recognize his talent, I thought he was quite good in Wedding Crashers and The Hangover (I was thoroughly underwhelmed by Limitless, for more reasons than him).  I've just always gotten this incredible...smug feeling from him.  He seems smarmy to me, like in real life he'd be kind of sleazily good looking and take advantage of every drunk girl in the room.  (PLEASE NOTE: I have NO IDEA if this is true.  It's probably not.  But it's the air I got from him.)

Well, I'm coming around.  While The Words suffers sometimes from being too clever for most of its plot lines - including never actually stating that it's about Hemingway's lost manuscripts, even though it's totally about Hemingway's lost manuscripts - it is saved by completely absorbing performances and the very bold risks it takes.

Let's talk about that for a minute.  When I was picking a movie to see this weekend, I narrowed my choices down to Lawless and The Words.  The deciding factor, after weighing hearsay, actors, and subject matter, was length: The Words caps out at 97 minutes long.  Aside from movies intended for children, I can't even remember the last movie I saw in the theater that was less than two hours long.  The trend seems to  be toward longer and bigger stories, which isn't bad in and of itself, although it does make for some poor editing choices.  The Words, however, commits to its short length, with tight storytelling and good editing.  There's no wasted time here, and no wasted space.

The only real missed opportunity is Zoe Saldana as the wife of Bradley Cooper's suffering author, who only ever pops up to react to something he's done.  What she does, she does beautifully (no one can cry like Zoe), but she's better than this role, and could have brought some real edge to Dora if she'd been given more material to work with.

But the story is the real star of this show, with three twisting strands: you have Dennis Quaid as author Clayton Simmons, giving a reading of his book.  That book is about author Rory Jansen, struggling in NYC to get his labor-of-love manuscript published.  He finds an old manuscript (A Farewell to Arms disguised by cinematic convenience and a briefcase from the 1940's) and, after finding his despair in it (he will never be half the author this mystery writer is, woe), he publishes it under his name.  Jeremy Irons reads it, recognizes his own work, and finds Rory to tell him the true story behind the transformative writing.

That's a lot going on, but due to some beautiful cinematics and the aforementioned tight storytelling, there's no confusion about where or when you are in the story.  The only vagueness wanders in at the end, and it's there for a reason: you as the audience are meant to contemplate the truth of the words, and decide for yourself what the edges of the reality for all three writers (Quaid, Cooper, and Irons) are.  It's a lot of meat for such a short movie, and I appreciated the chance to chew on it.

The other big risk here is that The Words is not out to please its audience, or even to provide a satisfying conclusion.  It doesn't even really end.  It's a movie about a moment, and the immediate fallout of a decision, and the lingering self-doubt and guilt that gets left behind.  It is almost refreshing its unwillingness to satisfy anyone, the audience or the characters, and while I don't think I'd make a habit out of watching movies of this flavor, it certainly made for an interesting experience.

The Nature of Kids' Movies

I saw The Bourne Legacy, and I really enjoyed it - there's not much to say about it, though, because it's very similar in structure and tone to Matt Damon's Bourne Trilogy.  I don't think that's a weakness, though; I think it's ok for a movie to be formulaic when the formula works.  Jeremy Renner is an excellent choice to carry on the Bourne name, and I thought Legacy did a very good job expanding the universe and deepening the intrigue.  Good job!

What I really want to talk about today is the other movie I saw that weekend:

ParaNorman, the newest offering from Laika (who brought us, previously, the marvelous Coraline), can be pretty neatly divided into three acts.  The opening act, wherein we meet our hero and learn about his interesting talent (he can see and talk to ghosts), is excellent.  We get a solid sense of Norman and his obsession with zombies and horror movies, and in one beautiful scene we get to see the world the way he does (full of ghosts, who know him by name and wish him good morning on his way to school) and the way the world sees him (a boy with a backpack full of monster action figures who talks to thin air).  Norman is weird and lonely, but you get the feeling that he's largely made his loneliness into armor; the bullying gets him down, but he's also quick to reject motions of friendship by Neil, another outcast.

The second third, wherein we are introduced to the conflict, is the weakest of the film.  The ghosts largely vanish from the scene, appearing only when the plot needs them too, and the film waffles on what the conflict actually is - I got the feeling that it wasn't quite sure what kind of movie it wanted to be, what it wanted to focus on.  Things get a little blurry here.

Luckily, though, ParaNorman comes roaring back for a spectacular conclusion, which both wraps up the story and provides lots of growth for all characters involved.  This was one of the things I appreciated the most about ParaNorman: the characters experience and exhibit real, believable growth.  This, in addition to the wonderful messages about bullying, parental expectations, and the joy of being odd, made it, for me, a strong experience and great all-around kids' film.

As I said before, the last film we got from Laika was Coraline, in general a stronger movie than ParaNorman but very similar in tone and execution.  What I want to know is: why are there so few kids' movies like these?  It is becoming less true now with things like Frankenweenie on the horizon, but why has it taken so long for kids' programming to get its teeth back?  When I think about the shows and movies I watched as a kid (mostly tv, with things like Aaah! Real Monsters, Rocko's Modern Life, and Invader Zim on my regular schedule, not to mention the stuff I stayed away from - Are You Afraid of the Dark?, anyone?), it seems like studios gentled down their kids' fare for a long time into almost unwatchable saccharine slop.

When I saw Monster House, a 2006 film from Columbia Pictures, I celebrated - that movie is wonderfully spooky and creepy, but never wanders outside of inappropriate for kids.  It was fun without being safe, and I (and the kids in my audience) gasped and cheered together through the course of the movie.  I wanted Monster House to be the lead-in to children's film getting its edge back - and now, six years later, it seems it finally is.  I think it's easy to forget sometimes that scary can be fun, and that there's nothing wrong with not playing it so safe in the arena of children's entertainment.  I'm eager to see what's next for animation, and it looks like this fall there are lots of films serving up the spooky.  Can't wait!