Seventh Son - Review

What did Jeff Bridges say?

That's what I was asking myself through nearly half of this movie. And the other thing I was asking myself: Why am I watching this movie? 

The Plot

When an evil witch queen named Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore) escapes from imprisonment, it is up to the last Spook, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges), to stop her. But to do so, he must recruit a new apprentice to continue the legacy of the Spooks. That apprentice must be a seventh son of a seventh son. And that apprentice is Tom Ward (Ben Barnes). Master Gregory must train Tom in the art of the Spooks in time to combat the growing forces of darkness, before it is too late.

Review

People know that I have a huge problem with modern fantasy films, post Lord of the Rings. My article, Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined fairy tale movies, goes in depth about my problems. Basically I always felt that fantasy films shouldn't try to be grand with CGI armies and the need to create an ensemble of heroes. And this film goes back to the basic standards of classic Ray Harryhausen fantasy storytelling: a simple battle between a handful of heroes versus one powerful villain, with about three monsters standing in the way. Simple. The problem with this movie though? It was TOO simple. Like anyone in the audience can predict what was going to happen, even to the point of what people were going to say.

I felt like my five year old self writing a script and seeing it come to life as I think. But then I remember my writing level as a five year old is more complex than what was shown here. Anyone below the age of five could've made a far more interesting story than this one. Which is a shame because I know this is based on a book, and I feel really bad for the author, knowing that his work has been devolved into the seed of a story instead of a fully grown story. There was a lot of potential here in doing an updated fantasy take of "the hero's journey," but instead it is just a very baby steps approach of "the hero's journey."

I wish I can say the acting of two powerhouse actors saved this movie. But they don't. Jeff Bridges and Juliane Moore are two of the best veteran actors a director could dream of having in their movie. But here, they seem to know they are in something horrible because they both over act and chew the scenery. Bridges is once again playing a more drunk version of his character from True Grit, Rooster Cogburn. Which was good for True Grit. It is not good for this movie. Especially if the character is so drunk that I could barely understand a word Bridges was saying. And Moore is pretty much playing a more trashy version of Maleficent. Which, it's cool that she's straight up evil with a very small redeemable quality, but she was just over exaggerating her evilness. To give a good comparison, when Angelina Jolie played Maleficent as evil, it is classy and poisonous. Moore was not classy and just psychotic. Which doesn't work well for a queen of the witches. Especially if all the other witches appear more classy than her.

Then there's our main character played by Ben Barnes and his love interest, Alice, played by Alicia Vikander. These two are obviously very talented actors. The big problem is their material is so thin that they couldn't prevent it from being boring. And if two juggernaut acting talents like Bridges and Moore couldn't elevate the script, how much more can these two rising stars? There are some cool moments for Antje Traue, who plays Malkin's sister and Alice's mother, and Djimon Hounsou, who plays Malkin's primary dragon henchman. But pretty much everyone else in the movie was just there for service and no real development. Even Game of Thrones fan favorite, Kit Harrington, appears at the beginning of the movie, but his part could've easily had been removed and would add nothing to the plot.

Pretty much the first hour of this movie is just dreadful, yet by some miracle the following 30 minutes were pretty entertaining (which is where ALL of the action takes place), only to fall apart flat on its face in the final 15 minutes. The movie would've been better if the first hour was condensed to the first 30 minutes, and the exciting 30 minutes elongated to an hour, with the final 15 minutes being changed into something else completely.

Final Thoughts

I know I said I wanted a simple good versus evil fantasy story. But I didn't want something so... pedestrian. This film could've benefited more from a more proficiently written script. The entertainment doesn't come in till after the first hour, and chances are you will have fallen asleep before the entertaining part comes. And if you do wake up in time for the entertaining part, you'll feel like waking up wasn't worth it because of how abrupt the excitement ends. I know the director of this film is a talented Russian director, but unfortunately his American debut feels like it was made by business men rather than people with talent.

SCORE: 3/10 - The 3 is for having good vs evil, not that many monsters, and simple...it's bad

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Review

"I will have WAR!"

Pretty much sums up the plot of this entire movie.

The Plot

After Bard (Luke Evans) successfully slays the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch), the people of Lake-town are left without a home and seek to find shelter. Their only option is The Lonely Mountain. There, the dwarf king, Thorin (Richard Armitage), has succumbed to Dragon Sickness and refuses to let the refugees enter. With an army of elves lead by Thranduil (Lee Pace) arriving to lay claim to some of the mountain's treasure; Bard wanting to ensure the livelihood of his people; and an army of Orcs wanting to claim the mountain for a strategic holding; the dwarves and Bilbo (Martin Freeman) find themselves in the middle of a massive war that can only continue to escalate.

How will this day end?

Review

Well I'll give it this. I wasn't bored as much as the previous two installments. But I can't help but feeling that this film just proves that what I've been saying (and what many others have been saying) about splitting this story into three movies was too much. Case in point, this entire film feels like the battle of Helms Deep stretched out for two hours. I compare the battle to Helms Deep because to compare it to the Battle of Minas Tirith in The Return of the King would be a compliment. And that is not to knock on the Battle of Helms Deep, because I have stated in my review of The Two Towers that it is one of the best battles ever filmed in modern cinema. But my reason for comparison is that The Battle of the Five Armies feels like it should've lasted the same amount of time that the Battle of Helms Deep did. In which case it should've been 40-45 minutes in length. Not over two hours. Because everything just felt so unnecessary.

Richard Armitage's Thorin once again becomes a dick. He gets afflicted with Dragon Sickness, which is a fancy way of saying someone is greedy, and doesn't want to share the wealth. Even though he promised the people of Lake-town that he would. And he probably should've shared the wealth to them because their resident Bard played by Luke Evans is responsible for getting rid of the dragon that stole the dwarf kingdom in the first place. But at least in this film there is part of his development from the previous film still in tact. Thorin's trust of Bilbo is still there, and I'm so glad it is because it was pretty much the most redeeming part in the film.

As Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is one of the highlights of this trilogy, he's highlighted even more as being paired with an opposing force in each film. Unlike the previous films where my favorite highlights have been a single scene involving Bilbo and one other person, in this film it is Bilbo's scenes with Thorin throughout the movie that are truly remarkable. Finally, a relationship between characters works throughout the course of an entire film. And I am so glad that it is between these two. And if you really think about it, had this trilogy been a singular film, their interaction would appear more tighter and a more cohesive growth of relationship rather than an overly long spread out growth. It's good that what was built in the second movie is paid off in here, but it could've been handled better. I wish I can say the same for the rest of this movie.

The subplot that was prominent in the previous film about Gandalf finding Sauron was put to an end rather abruptly. While it was cool to see Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) go ape shit crazy against Sauron and the ghosts who will become the Black Riders, it seemed like an abrupt end to a subplot that ultimately has no major consequences to the main plot of The Hobbit. I understand the need to explain how everything ties in to The Lord of the Rings, but all out honesty, this scene could've easily been added to The Desolation of Smaug. Because there, it would seem more relevant, and give Gandalf more room to recover for this film.

Then there's the forced romance in this saga. The subplot between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) is resolved here. While the love story is a little bit more believable in this film than the very sad attempt to make it seem cute in the previous one, it felt totally unnecessary. It once again only serves as a way to develop Legolas (Orlando Bloom) into the character people will know from the original trilogy. I'm almost certain that if this trilogy was just one film, there would be no romance and Legolas would just be a nice little role that appears here and there. I would've preferred that instead of this forced development when we already know the end result.

And then here comes my big complaint that I have been complaining about for a long time: the overuse of CGI. I didn't feel like I was watching a film that takes place in Middle-Earth anymore once the battle started. In fact it looked more like a console game cinematic that I'm watching on screen. Not once did I believe any of what I was seeing is real. But within that CGI overload, there are some bright spots. Scenes involving Luke Evans' Bard and his people fighting Orcs was actually real. I'm glad that most of the Orcs they faced off with were guys in makeup and not CGI. It recalled memories of the previous films that showed real people fighting in the close shots, only resulting into CGI if it is a wide shot. But unfortunately, the practical guys are swallowed up by the amount of CGI put on screen to the point where it becomes very off putting. 

I admire Peter Jackson's attempts of trying to replicate the grittiness of war he had in the previous trilogy, but in here it just doesn't work. A large battle happens for the first hour then all of a sudden the large battle doesn't seem to matter anymore in the second hour. It is not very well paced, badly edited, and very spotty. I was even wondering at points, "where the f**k did those rams come from?" It just tried to outstretch something that is not meant to be this long into something that is inevitably bloated and in the end very underwhelming. Especially when the giant worms from Dune make a cameo.

Final Thoughts

If you'll notice, not once did I praise the ensemble. Because while everyone is giving it their all, the terrible writing and overload of filler material weighs down on anything that would make them appear to be a perfect ensemble. Which is a shame because I really like Luke Evans and Lee Pace, but in the end they seem more like background characters in this film than important key players. And I feel even more sorry for the ensemble of the Dwarves because other than Armitage's Thorin, I could care less about the rest of them. Martin Freeman is definitely the best highlight of this series and I couldn't have asked for a better person to play Bilbo Baggins. It was nice walking down memory lane, but in the end this is an underwhelming ending to a very disappointing trilogy.

SCORE: 5/10 - This should've been the last 40 minutes of a singular Hobbit movie

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Review

"I am fire! I am... DEATH!"

Famous last words.

The Plot

After braving through the treacherous lands of the Goblins, Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the Dwarves must make their way through Mirkwood Forest. But to do so, they must get out of the clutches of its Elven King, Thranduil (Lee Pace). And if they are lucky, they'll then have to make it to Lake-town, a human settlement near the edge of The Lonely Mountain. Inside the mountain is the kingdom of Erebor, the dwarves home. Inside is the coveted Arkenstone of the dwarves that Bilbo must steal from Erebor's current king, the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch)!

Meanwhile Gandalf (Ian McKellan) is investigating a possible dark conspiracy being perpetrated by a mysterious Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch...again).

Review

Okay now, this is much better!.... by a very small margin. And I mean a very small margin. I'll just start with the positives.

The best part of the entire movie is definitely the one that fans have been waiting for: Bilbo (Martin Freeman) versus Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) in a battle of wits! A hobbit talking his way out of getting killed by a dragon! What is not to like about that? The Sherlock duo is reunited in probably the most ingenious way possible. Cumberbatch is terrifying as a villain. Just look at his portrayal of Khan... I mean John Harrison (really?) in Stark Trek Into Darkness. He just does it so well, and he is even more terrifying as a highly intelligent dragon the size of Godzilla. The sheer vastness and most of the film's CGI budget is definitely shown on screen. He is probably the most realistically rendered creature in this trilogy besides Gollum, and it is completely necessary. The detail of Smaug helps sell that this massive thing is having a conversation with a tiny Bilbo, who is made even tinier because he's a hobbit. Freeman and Cumberbatch are excellent as dueling and complimenting personalities on Sherlock, but in here they are even more incredible as extreme rivals. I find it funny that they did not actually interact with each other on set, but it feels just as natural as they do on Sherlock. These two are pure gold in this movie, and the fact that they're conversation takes place on mountains of gold helps too.

Then there's Gandalf and Radagast's story about finding a Necromancer that is supposedly stirring things up. I guess I just like the wizard characters so much because I found what they're doing to be a lot more interesting than what the actual plot of the movie is. This is probably because I always wondered why does Gandalf keep disappearing in the book and Tolkien fans have also wondered what the f**k happened to Radagast? While I know the Radagast portion of his involvement is made up in the film, Gandalf's search for the Necromancer (also played by Cumberbatch) is canon in the Appendices. Though as much as I like this story, it does seem to be a little bit out of place in this film and does not flow smoothly with the main plot. But there is an upgrade to the main plot.

One of them being Luke Evans as Bard, a man who has to live with his forefather's disgrace of being unable to kill a dragon. Which if you know how big Smaug is compared to a regular human, I think his fellow Lake-town people are over exaggerating how easy it should be to kill one. Because it's not. Though he serves only to be the one guy who helps the dwarves, he doesn't really have much going for him other than a weighted backstory. In fact it really is the only thing that drives him, which I'm sure will follow through in the next film. Evans is a highly underrated actor who makes even the worst roles in terrible movies far more compelling and memorable than they have any right to be. The same goes for this movie. But for now he's just a tool to help the dwarves. And speaking of dwarves...

Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield is starting to become a sympathetic character. Hints of it were shown at the end of the previous movie, but in here is where we really start to see the strong no nonsense king start to break out of his shell. It shows both the best and worst qualities of Thorin, giving Armitage a lot of room to show off why he's casted in this movie. However what I'm afraid of is that this will be the movie where ALL of his character development happens given that the story was unnecessarily stretched out to three movies. Hopefully the next film has more to offer for Thorin.

As for the other dwarves, they don't really change that much. With the exception of Kili (Aidan Turner) who is given the role of giving this movie a love story. Who is the lucky lady? An elf. In fact, a completely original character created for this movie. Because there needs to be another woman in this movie who seems important, but really isn't.

I'm talking about Evangeline Lily as Tauriel, an elven warrior of a lower caste in the kingdom of Mirkwood. She has the luxury of being the woman of Legolas's desire. Yup, Orlando Bloom is here again playing Legolas. While some are wondering why is he in the movie, for fans it makes sense. Why? Because his father, Thranduil played by Lee Pace, is one of the anti-villains in the book. So it would be kind of weird if the filmmakers didn't take an opportunity to sneak Orlando Bloom back into the franchise. Though I was just hoping for a small role, his role has been expanded in order to explain why Tauriel is important. And Tauriel's purpose is solely to make Kili important. When really the one who should be important is Thranduil, the most assholish elf ever put on film. Pace does an excellent job playing a dick, but I keep referring to him as wasted talent. There is so much that could've been done with this character, but he comes off as a one dimensional dick. And people wonder why Legolas hates dwarves initially in The Lord of the Rings? For one: his father was a dick to them. And two: a dwarf is pretty much sending him to the friend zone. Him! So if you really think about it, Tauriel and Kili's love story is only meant to explain this initial animosity between Legolas and Gimli in the trilogy. There really is no other reason to have her or this sub plot in the movie other than that. But on the subject of Pace's Thranduil, he's still a far more compelling one dimensional dick than anyone else in the film. I'm looking at you, CGI orcs.

I'm once again really irked by the overuse of CGI. It is not just the orcs this time, it is the action scenes as well. There was something real about the original trilogy's action because it actually dealt with real people in costumes and make up fighting each other. In here it is mainly CGI guys doing all the action sequences. And this would look incredible in a Pixar or Dreamworks animated movie, but this isn't an animated movie. The hyper stylized action in the movie is just way too over the top compared to the more toned down fighting that happened in the original trilogy. Though people would point to Legolas as doing some pretty over the top things in the original films, I'd argue that those moments were earned because of how cool and collected Legolas is. In this film, Legolas does some ultra ridiculous stuff that makes people wonder why he hasn't done of that stuff in the original. I like Orlando Bloom as Legolas, but in this film I don't like his CGI stunt double. And it's a real shame again that I have to cluster Manu Bennet into this category because he's compelling, but I just wished he wasn't a CGI character. Just thinking about CGI reminds me of how awful the final act of the film involving the dwarves attacking Smaug was, especially when Smaug is much more highly rendered compared to the other crappy CGI that he's surrounded by.

Final Thoughts

While the confrontation between Bilbo and Smaug does not disappoint, and Thorin becomes a more compelling character, that doesn't mean the movie has vastly improved. Instead I find myself complaining about the same things that I did in the last movie. Too much CGI, uneven pacing, and ultimately a large ensemble of forgettable characters. Just now I remembered that Beorn and a guy played by Stephen Fry was in the movie, and I didn't even mention them in the main review. That just tells me that this film trilogy should not have been a trilogy and instead just two movies. Hell, I think it should only be one movie. Because everything is so spread out that it is killing any excitement in the film. Yet part of me still wants to enjoy it because of that one scene between Bilbo and Smaug, but really it isn't enough.

SCORE: 6.2/10 - It gets slightly better, while at the same time gets slightly worse.

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE
For a review of the next film, CLICK HERE

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review

"I'm going on an ADVENTURE!"

Those were words that I could definitely relate to prior to seeing the first of The Hobbit films. Middle-Earth was my home as a child and so to go back to it again as a young adult in his 20s was like a dream trip down memory lane. But sometimes going back to your past can have two different conclusions: you either relive the old days or you regret coming back because the magic is gone. Well...

The Plot

When the Grey Wizard, Gandalf (Ian McKellan), offers a hobbit, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), the chance to go on an adventure, he quickly refuses. But when 13 dwarves arrive at his doorstep led by the rightful King Under the Mountain, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), Biblo finds himself being dashed away from the comfortable life of Bag End to the dangerous journey to the Lonely Mountain. Their mission? Retake The Lonely Mountain from the Great Wyrm, Smaug.

And that is only the beginning of their journey...

Review

As a Lord of the Rings fan and a Peter Jackson fan... I was disappointed. Was it because I have high expectations? No. My main problem with the film is how it follows the trend of splitting singular books into multiple films. I was completely fine when Jackson and his team announced the film was going to be split into two movies. I was certain there was enough material in there that can be stretched that long without resulting to fatigue. But when it was announced that so much was filmed that they can now turn it into three movies, that's when I started lowering my expectations. And my biggest fears were right.

I should be used to having an over 2 hour yet under 3 hour Middle-Earth film by now but for some reason, this movie doesn't do it for me. I just kept thinking to myself a lot of what happens in this movie is extremely unnecessary as it takes nearly an hour, maybe less but almost an hour, for Biblo to decide that going on an adventure with Gandalf and the Dwarves is a good idea. It just really feels like a very slow drag and not the type of drag that happens occasionally in movies. This entire movie is just one huge drag. And this is mainly due to the very sad attempt of trying to flush out the personalities of ALL the dwarves that go on this journey.

I'm not a hardcore Tolkien fan who knows all the names of the dwarves, but if a movie is effective in making everyone's introduction memorable then I should remember most of them. Unfortunately, I don't. I don't even remember the names of the ones played by James Nesbitt and the other dwarf who seems to be friendly towards Freeman's Bilbo. The only ones I remember clearly are Kili (the one who seems too good looking for a dwarf), Bombur (the obnoxiously fat dwarf with the crazy beard) and of course Richard Armitage's Thorin (this story's Aragorn but not as noble). Those three dwarves had something distinct about them that made them standout more so than the others. Don't get me wrong, they all look visually distinct from one another. But as far as being visually distinct and having personalities, that goes to Thorin, Kili and Bombur. But then again, Thorin should be the one with the most personality. But unfortunately he comes off as the most unlikeable dwarf amongst the crew, and this guy is suppose to be a main character. It is not Armitage's fault, the character was just written that way.

Then there's the returning cast members who mostly comprise The White Council. These being McKellan's Gandalf, Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, Hugo Weaving's Elrond and Christopher Lee's Saruman. They are all very welcoming returns and in fact probably one of the few things I liked most in the movie. Though Gandalf and Elrond are players in the book, the addition of Galadriel and Saruman was definitely meant as a way to tie in to The Lord of the Rings. There really isn't much to say about their performances because they're in it for a short while, but they are good. But there is a new member amongst the White Council who proved to be another highlight I enjoyed about the movie. That character is Radagast the Brown played by former Doctor Who, Sylvester McCoy. It's always refreshing to see another wizard in the mix, even though he's not in the book. Amazingly he's not involved in this story at all, but it was nice seeing someone crazier than Gandalf.

But if we're going to talk about the old and the new cast there are definitely two standouts of this film.  That being Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and Andy Serkis as Gollum. Freeman is just perfect as Bilbo and he completely owns the role as his own. He doesn't feel beholden to Ian Holm's small portrayal of him in The Lord of the Rings, but it definitely feels like his Bilbo could grow up to become Holm's Bilbo. And what more can be said about Andy Serkis as Gollum. He's perfection, and is definitely one of the fond memories of Middle-Earth you'll be happy to revisit. Their pivotal meeting appropriately known as "Riddles in the Dark," is hands down the best scene in the film. Freeman is excellent and the effects on Gollum are outstanding. If only the rest can be said about the other effects in the film.

Peter Jackson pulls a George Lucas by overusing CGI in this movie. Sure there are lots of nice wide shots New Zealand here and there, but for some reason the overtly CG gloss on the creatures and the locations comes off as...off putting. It doesn't have the same grit that the previous trilogy had, and this is pretty disappointing for someone who loved the use of practical and CG effects. But in here, even if there are practical effects, they are completely overshadowed by an overload of CGI. One of the most jarring ones for me was noticing that the Orcs and Goblins were no longer guys in costumes. Apparently Jackson had filmed them with guys in makeup and costumes, but was so dissatisfied that he had them all replaced with CGI monsters that he finds more appealing. While that explains why someone as imposing as Manu Bennet is playing the White Orc, Azog, as a CGI character, it seems sad that Bennet is doing motion capture for a role that doesn't require motion capture. I mean, the guy was in Spartacus for crying out loud! But alas, he was a last minute replacement so he had to be CGI. But that doesn't excuse the excessive nature that Jackson and his team have thrown into this movie.

Final Thoughts

This trip down memory lane has proven to be a disappointing one. While it is great to see some solid performances by newcomers Martin Freeman and Sylvester McCoy alongside old timers such as Ian McKellan and Hugo Weaving, that isn't enough to save the film. Too much CGI in a film franchise that was praised for being the perfect balance of practical and CGI. Poor attempts at trying to develop a huge number of dwarves that we don't really care about, and that includes the one who is suppose to be the main character, Thorin. And this movie is pretty much the living proof of the Clerks 2 complaint: THIS MOVIE IS NOTHING BUT TWO AND A HALF HOURS OF WALKING! WALKING! And not the interesting kind like in Fellowship. I mean the boring kind. 

SCORE: 6/10 - There's still wonder, but a lot of it seems to be missing...and boring

For a review of the next film, CLICK HERE

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - Review

"One Ring to rule them all."

The year was 2001 and I was just 10 years old, not knowing that my life was going to change when I stepped into the theater to watch this film. It's time to look back on the movie that reignited my love for movies and the drive to become a filmmaker.

The Plot

The Hobbit, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood), learns from the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan) that the magic ring of his uncle, Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), is actually the One Ring. A powerful weapon forged by the dark lord, Sauron. A ring that was meant to control all life on Middle-Earth. As the forces of Sauron begin their hunt for their master's ring, Frodo must embark on a journey to destroy the ring in the only place it can be destroyed: Mount Doom, the heart of Sauron's lands in Mordor. He will be joined by three other hobbits (Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd), a ranger (Vigo Mortensen), an elf (Orlando Bloom), a dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), a knight (Sean Bean), and Gandalf the wizard on this dangerous mission.

Review

There was a moment when young children in the 70s watched Star Wars and were in awe of what they saw. It was a life changing experience for them. I could say this film had the same effect on me, but in a different manner. Because when I first saw this movie, I was disappointed.

Disappointed that it had no ending. That it just stopped. I wanted to see the journey continue, but it just ended. And it ended in a place that had me yearning for a continuation. And because I was a child when I saw it, I had no idea that there was another one. But when I quickly learned that there was going to be two more because the films were based on a trilogy, all of a sudden my views on it changed to one of wonder.

The acting in this film is definitely incredible. Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd were just wonderful as the carefree hobbits who find themselves thrown into a darkly situation. It can almost be compared as a young naive teenager discover the dark and terrifying real world they actually live in. And these four play it well. Especially Wood, who quickly acknowledges just how serious the situation and is willing to take responsibility, but at the same time also knows how overwhelming the pressure is. I can only imagine Wood used his own pressure of having to please Tolkien fans with his portrayal of Frodo as a fuel to his performance.

Vigo Mortensen is compelling as Strider, later revealed to be Aragorn, the rightful king of Gondor, as he showcases a man who has turned his back on his birthright yet still has the gravitas needed if he should one day return to it. Given this was Orlando Bloom's first big breakout role, it is difficult to judge his acting because in retrospect he's an adequate actor in later roles, yet still his performance here was strong enough to match up with the experienced powerhouses. Particularly his character's relationship with John Rhys-Davies' character. Davies delivers a stellar and boastful performance as a cocky dwarf with such vigor that you would be glad to follow him into battle. This film was also Sean Bean's solidification in pop culture as the guy who always dies. Don't be mad, that's not really a spoiler at this point. But nevertheless, Bean delivers a strong performance by showing the dark side of humanity and how easy it is for any member of the fellowship to be corrupted.

But to me the big standout performances belong to the two wizards in the film. Ian McKellan's Gandalf and Christopher Lee's Saruman were my favorite parts of the film. Both of these classic English actors deliver incredible performances as these powerful beings who walk among men. It is no wonder that McKellan got a nomination for best supporting actor the year this film came out, but that should not take away from how Lee is almost equally as good. With them you see two sides of the same coin. Two wizards who believe in what they're doing is the best for the entire world, yet one of them is obviously wrong. They also have the most incredible fight sequence in the film which I was completely impressed with the simplistic approach of showing two wizards fighting. But it will be Gandalf's face off against the demonic Balrog that highlights the film. Which brings me to another point.

The visual effects and the practical effects in this film are stunning. In a post 2010 world, most big budget films would opt for having everything entirely CGI. But in this film and the two others that followed it, CGI was a tool only to be used when it is impossible to do it practically. This blending of the old and the new is what I believe is the best way to do visual effects spectacles. And the best part is, they don't overtake the narrative.

Final Thoughts

This film marked the beginning of the fantasy renaissance in film, which never really amounted to anything. But what this film did is show that a fantasy film can be put in the conversation as a legitimate film. In other words, have legitimate drama and storytelling. This is shown with the very tamed yet stunning visuals, the powerful acting, the tight script, and incredible direction. But since this is an obvious part 1 instead of a standalone film, it may not have that "umph" factor to fully consider it a good solo film. But it is an incredible beginning. A beginning that will have people coming back for more.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - An incredible beginning that hopefully will continue to be so in the next one.

For a review of the next film, CLICK HERE

Curse of the Dragon Slayer - Analysis and Review

A hidden gem in indie fantasy

I saw this film on Netflix out of pure boredom and curiosity. That curiosity stemming from seeing the previews on youtube then later noticing that it was getting some positive feedback from people who declare themselves to be fantasy fans. Is an OBVIOUSLY low budget fantasy film worth a look than the high production values of Hollywood Fantasy blockbusters. Well...

The Plot

When an elf bounty hunter named Nemyt (Danielle Chuchran) slays a dragon rider, she becomes cursed with a dark mark that has her connected to a dark god. Wanting to find a way to remove the dark mark, she encounters Keltus (Richard McWilliams) a holy knight who is on a mission to destroy the Dark God and Kullimon (Paul D. Hunt) an orc chieftain who seeks revenge against his horde who abandoned him for the Dark God. Together the unlikely trio embark on a perilous journey to eradicate this powerful force of evil.

Analysis

There is one genre that is not built for indie films, and it is the fantasy genre. There are so many expenses needed in order to create a believable world. It is fascinating when small studios try, in order to capitalize on any Hollywood film that carries the fantasy banner. With modest budgets however, these film rarely find a way to live up to the fantastical stories they tell. And most of the time, they are just recycled plots with recycled characters. Yet for some reason, this film, while it has recycled plots and recycled characters, is something special. Something innocent and admirable that other movies made by the production company that produced this seems to lack. I'm not quite sure what it is, but there is just something about it that is... magic.

Review

It should be noted right from the beginning that this is a very low budget film. Yet with the budget this film had, the final product is definitely passable. Even watchable about 90% of the time. The 10% that I find unwatchable are the scenes involving the CGI dragon that is not fully animated or rendered and the giant creature that was made out of terrible patchwork. But as I said before, the 90% that is watchable is pretty damn watchable.

I should also put this up front right now. The story is not that original. I mean, if you're a fantasy fan, you know every single beat of this story. A band of heroes from different backgrounds with different skills must join forces to combat a greater evil. It is the standard fantasy story, and seeing as how audiences tastes have evolved from Lord of the Ring to Game of Thrones, the standard fantasy story may not be what audiences want. Even the dialogue in the story is the standard cliche fantasy dialogue that could even be found in fairy tale stories. So why is this film worth mentioning if the story is predictable and the dialogue is not that amazing? Well... because of the three leads.

I'm not joking when I say this, but there is something compelling about the three leads in this film. Danielle Chuchran, who you will not remember as playing Thing One from Mike Myers' Cat in the Hat, plays Nemyt, a mash up of two fantasy character archetypes: the female elven warrior and the rogue scoundrel. While I'm sure this mash up has happened in fantasy novels, it was definitely fresh to see the two combined for a live action film. Her acting may not be strong, but when it hits its marks with this character it really sells you that this is not a graceful elf from Lord of the Rings but a broken one. Paul D. Hunt plays the Orc warrior, Kullimon, who is not a creature of pure evil like mainstream audiences would associate with Lord of the Rings but rather just a race of people who do things that are not considered good. His charismatic and likable performance that clashes with the nearly ultra serious Nemyt. Their chemistry definitely works on screen, and there is some joy to be seen of having an elf and an orc work together. Something that only World of Warcraft players and hardcore fantasy fans are aware is a possible thing. And lastly there is Richard McWilliams as Keltus, our heroic holy knight. He is definitely not the strongest character of the two and very stereotypical, but being surrounded by two strong characters masks his flaws.

Besides frome the leads, there is something fascinating about this fantasy world that the writer and director created. It feels believable and it is obvious that they are huge fantasy fans. From the possibility of a rogue elf to having the orcs not be evil but just people who want to survive, it really shows that a lot of thought was put into making this a pure fantasy film. Unfortunately making it a pure fantasy film may have been too much, because as I stated before, this is a standard fantasy story. Yet, it is because of the low budget and creativity of the world that makes this film stand out from the others their production company has made. Less is more as it doesn't have clashing armies or CGI monsters attacking every ten minutes. Instead it focuses on the three leads, which is a good thing, even though the dialogue isn't original at least their earnest performances will keep you watching. This film is especially hopeful for independent filmmakers who dream of creating a fantasy film but lack the resources to do so. These people can do it, so why can't others? And maybe some will look at what these guys can accomplish and think of what they can do better.

I should also add that the action scenes that center around Chuchran's Nemyt are probably the most satisfying. It is obvious that the director doesn't know how to shoot action, but at least Chuchran has some excellent martial arts experience as it show with how she handles her blade.

Final Thoughts

There is something charming and innocent about this movie. You can see the passion of the filmmakers who genuinely want to make the best fantasy film they can with what little they have. If this was a youtube production it would be considered amazing, as it definitely looks like one step above a youtube production. The cast is likable, and while it may not be an amazing fantasy film, it is a fantasy film for fantasy fans. If you're not a fantasy fan or an aspiring indie filmmaker or someone with an open mind, this is definitely not for you.

SCORE: 6.7/10 - A valiant effort that could've been better despite their lack of budget

SAGA Deluxe Hardcover Vol 1 Coming this November!

One of the greatest original comic book series out right now

For comic book fans, the name Brian K. Vaughan means something. It means Y: The Last Man, Ex Machina, Mystique, and Runaways. For a TV audience he was a writer for a lot of episodes in Season 4 of Lost and is connected with the current CBS show, Under the Dome. But bringing us back to comic book fans, he's usually listed up there as one of the great ones such as Alan Moore, Warren Ellis, Neil Gaiman, and Frank Miller. And his ongoing comic book series Saga, which is co-created and drawn by artist Fiona Staples, has permanently cemented himself as one of the greatest visionaries in comics.

What is Saga?

Brian K. Vaughan described the series as "Star Wars for perverts." That was in a joking manner, as many people have referred to it more as, "Star Wars meets Game of Thrones." This could give you a clear vision of what people mean by that. The title suggest a large sweeping epic canvas that goes across the universe with multiple characters to follow in this large ensemble tale. But really in the end the story revolves around three people: Alana, Marko, and their infant daughter Hazel.

The drive of the story is really about a married couple, who should not be together, and how they deal with raising a child in a universe torn apart by war. Alana is from a race of fairy and angelic aliens who embrace technology. Marko is from a race of horned aliens who embrace magic. Science and magic don't mix well so they're at war. And so that is where the Romeo and Juliet story plays in the backstory of these two characters who fell in love despite being on opposite sides of the war. And in their union they created Hazel, a horned winged alien.

Now, one might think the drive of this story will be that because of this union she is the chosen one. However as Hazel points out in the narration, this story is narrated by her, she is not the chosen one of some prophecy. She's just a child, and her parents just want to raise her in a world that seems like it is falling apart.

There are definitely other characters I'd like to touch upon like Prince Robot IV or The Will and his partner Lying Cat. But really, you have to read this collection in order to understand how strange and how powerful this series is.

What is this Deluxe Hardcover about?

This deluxe hardcover collects the first three trade paperbacks of the series (issues 1-18). So if you already own those three paperbacks, then there really isn't a point in getting this volume other than having a nice book in your shelf. But for those who haven't, this is definitely a volume that must be bought immediately. It is a weird and powerful story that you won't find in any superhero comics these days. The last time something weird like this that was Superhero related was Joe Casey's Godland which was a direct reference to Jack Kirby's work at DC Comics. 

This price is $50 but it is well worth it. This is the definitive edition of Saga, and how it was intended to be read. If you're an Image Comic addict, like me, then one should've know that they would've collected this series into a hardcover eventually. Patience pays off, unlike DC and Marvel who don't seem to know when is the right time to release a hardcover edition of their best collections.

GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER DC AND MARVEL!

Hercules - Analysis and Review

The Legend comes to life... No not the one with Kellan Lutz

This year saw the arrival of two movies about the legendary Greek Demigod Heracles...I mean Hercules. Sorry, Greek Myth nerd here. Hercules is the way Romans say his name. Heracles is his Greek name. But since the Roman name sounds better, people just stick with it.

The Plot

After accomplishing his legendary 12 Labors, Hercules (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) wanders the Earth as a mercenary after suffering a traumatic loss. With his band of mercenaries, they are recruited by King Cotys of Thrace (John Hurt) to train the Thracian army into an efficient fighting force against a massive army of Centaurs that have divided their land.

Analysis

If you read my Educating the Audience article about Hercules then you know that I have a lot of knowledge on the subject. From his story being an influence to the hit video game God of War to knowing this film is based on Steve Moore's graphic novel, The Thracian Wars. So one can assume that being this knowledgeable would make me a harsh critic for this film. I am, but not as much as one might think.

Review

Remember that movie back in January called The Legend of Hercules starring Kellan Lutz and a bunch of stunt guys from 300 and Spartacus? The film is considered an atrocity. And for anyone who saw it, immediately proclaimed that they are now extremely excited to see Brett Ratner's take. Which given Ratner's reputation as the man who ruined X-Men: The Last Stand, that is saying a lot.

I'll say this right off the bat so that people who haven't seen it yet can go in with this expectation: the fantasy elements of the story are not real. Given that the film is based on the graphic novel Hercules: The Thracian Wars, I partially predicted this would be the case. All the scenes of The Rock... I mean Hercules killing and beating the living shit out of monsters was just a story used to build his reputation. It helps as a great prologue, yet also adds a little bit more dimension to the character as a man who has to live up to a reputation he believes he can't. A reputation that gets him and his companions hired for jobs. And if you looked like The Rock, you would believe all those exaggerated stories are true.

The plot unfolds the way one would think. It is a fairly predictable movie once you know the fantasy element is gone. When someone claims they're going to be fighting centaurs, it actually means whoever saw this was really high and just saw a bunch of people on horseback. But just because it's predictable doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable.

Despite having some really cheesy dialogue, and I do mean really cheesy dialogue, the actors in this film relish it. They don't seem ashamed of what they're saying, because they're having so much fun. And while usually that would detract from the movie, the performances are so good that you'll be having fun along with them. Particularly the major comic relief characters of the film played by Rufus Sewell and Ian McShane as Hercules' best friend and really high fortune teller. They have some of the best lines in the movie, especially McShane's character. 

But it is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson who shines in this movie. While his performance isn't groundbreaking, his charisma carries this movie well. With what little emotive acting he can muster, it is just enough for us to believe the inner demons he possess. This movie could've easily had a dark and brooding Hercules, but luckily it didn't go that route. They take advantage of The Rock's charisma as a man who puts on a front as a proud and welcoming hero who hides his trauma. After all, keeping appearances is part of the con for a man pretending to be the son of Zeus.

I do find it very odd that super models Irina Shayk and Barbara Palvin, who were heavily promoted in commercials, were in the film very little. Palvin was only in it for 6 seconds. Shayk on the other hand was in it for a fair amount of time. Though the promos made it seem like she would be in it a lot  longer. Shayk plays Megara, Hercules' wife and mother of his children, and only has one line. She does play an important role into Hercules' backstory but other than being a loving mother in one scene and naked in another, she didn't really have much to do. Given that she's a model and not an actress (she even stated this in interviews herself) it was obvious that she was meant for just eye candy. But given what her role was, it could've been expanded to add a bit more to Hercules' backstory and weight given what happens to her character.

The action scenes in this film are solid. They are obvious rip offs of Gladiator and Troy, but at least they are good rip offs rather than The Legend of Hercules which does a horrendously bad rip off of the over done fighting style in 300. While this film is suppose to be a realistic take on Hercules, the way he fights does come off a bit too unrealistic. Again though, if you're going to sell to people that you're demigod then the action suits him just fine.

Final Thoughts

There hasn't been any good Greek Mythology films in a long time. By a long time I mean since the Ray Harryhausen era. But this is a suitable film to sate the need for Greek myth movies. Is it amazing? No. Is it bad? Kind of but not terrible. Is it fun? ABSOLUTELY! The way I'd describe it is that this is the movie Brad Pitt's Troy and Sam Worthington's Clash of the Titans wishes it could be. More Troy though since that was a more realistic take than mythological, and they have the same costumes. But all in all, this was fun.

SCORE: 6.5/10 - The best Greek Myth film of this generation...yet not the greatest Greek Myth film of all time

What if - John Boorman made The Lord of the Rings in 1970???

Once upon a 1970s time there was a movie...

...that never happened. That film was The Lord of the Rings. Thanks to Peter Jackson and the entire nation of New Zealand, the world was able to finally experience the incredible epic that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote many years ago. It is hard to believe that at a time before Jackson first started the cameras rolling, there had been other attempts to bring this book to life on the big screen. Granted, there was Ralph Bakshi's animated epic but that was just two of the three books condensed into one movie. But before that, director John Boorman was commissioned to turn The Lord of the Rings into one singular movie. Yup, just one movie. One.

One Film To Rule Them All

Director John Boorman, who is most famously known as the director of Deliverance and Excalibur (though for a select few he is known as the director of Zardoz), was commissioned by United Artists in 1970 to adapt The Lord of the Rings after just buying the film rights from Tolkien. At the time, Boorman wanted to make a King Arthur film (which would eventually happen 10 years later) but was pushed to making the Fantasy Epic while the iron was still hot. Along with his fellow screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg, the two then set out to adapt the book that was divided into three books into one film. Through various interviews with Boorman and Pallenberg, the two of them had indeed read the entire trilogy several times and had every single plot point down in their head. However, because the initiative was to make one movie and not a series of films, some things had to be taken out. By some I mean a lot.

The Fellowship of the Ring, the first book in the trilogy, gets the privilege of keeping most of its narrative intact. This amounts to roughly 1 hour and 50 minutes to maybe even 2 hours. The second book in the trilogy, The Two Towers, gets the greatest trimming by only including three key points: Frodo and Sam meet Gollum; Gandalf is alive; and the nation of Rohan gets established. The portion dealing with The Ents is gone. So yeah, no more giant talking trees. The exodus of Rohan to Helms Deep doesn't happen, nor does the infamous battle of Helms Deep. Nope. Again, it only kept Gollum's introduction; Gandalf's resurrection; and the establishment of the Rohirim. That amounts to probably 20-25 minutes. And then you have the final book in the trilogy, Return of the King, which condenses the entire book into the last 30-35 minutes of the film sans the infamous "Scouring of the Shire" chapter that was also never in Jackson's films. That brings about the grand total of hours to 3. Boorman's epic adaptation would've been a 3 hour Lord of the Rings film. Though one would think that if they were going to make the film for a 3 hour running time why not at least dedicate one hour per book instead of roughly 2 hours for the first book, roughly 25 minutes for the second book, and roughly 45 minutes for the third book. 

It is definitely a film for the 70s

Having went to various sites that have summarized what Boorman and Pallenberg wrote, it is astonishing that they were able to condense the last two books so much. However what is even more astonishing is how much drugs, sex, and violence was going to be in the film. Yeah. That's right. Drugs and Sex. There was violence in the Jackson films, but there was no emphasis on drugs or sex. And by sex I mean like literally getting it on and female nudity whenever it can be shown.

If you have seen Boorman's Excalibur then you have a clear idea of just exactly how this film would've looked like. His take on the King Arthur did not shy away from the brutality of violence nor did it shy away from the desire and lust for sex. That style can be found in his script. Galadriel is no longer the image of the Virgin Mary but rather Venus rising out of her shell. A naked Elf that has sex with Frodo before she lets him gaze into the Mirror. Then there is also Eowyn, the warrior woman of Rohan and now daughter of the king instead of being his niece like in the books. After Eowyn kills the Witch King she enters a state of sickness from her wounds and is stripped naked on the battlefield because the warriors needed to find out where she got hurt. Then of course comes Aragorn who heals her by...getting on top of her and mimicking sex while reciting some incantation. On the bright side for Eowyn, she does wind up marrying Aragorn in this version rather than her book and Jackon counterpart where she gets freindzoned. 

And then there's the shrooms. Mushrooms get the hobbits high. They tend to get high a lot in this movie. And of course like I said, things get a little bit more violent.

In other words this is not the epic gritty yet hopeful fantasy film that people know now. This film would've been more akin to Dungeons and Dragons with the tone and style of Game of Thrones but without the high quality costuming. Now that sounds interesting as hell, and had it came out at the time it probably would've been lauded and criticized. However with Jackson's films, this take on Lord of the Rings just seems like a travesty against the text. But so were a lot of adaptations during that time.

I would've seen this movie

Like I said, it is not until recently that the notion that it has to be exactly like the book or closer to the book became the norm to adaptations. So had this movie existed, and given my love for fantasy, I would've definitely seen this film. Just imagine that. A world with a singular The Lord of the Rings film that is Rated R and would set a precedent for Peter Jackson's adaptations. Or maybe, just maybe, if it had happen... Peter Jackson may not have made the films at all. That is a scary thought. But then again we can only imagine what film history would've been like. 

If you wish to know more about this, just google: John Boorman Lord of the Rings.

You won't believe who he was going to cast.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 - Analysis and Review

And Dreamworks steps up their game once again

How to Train Your Dragon was not a film that was on my radar. Then when I decided to rent the movie and watch it, my mind was blown. It was definitely one of the best animated films I've seen as well as being the most beautiful animated film I've seen at that time. So when the sequel was announced and that first trailer of seeing Hiccup and Toothless flying together first came out I knew this was a movie I had to watch!

The Plot

5 years after the events of the first film, Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) and his dragon Toothless discover the existence of a powerful enemy to dragons. Wanting to keep the peace that he worked so hard to establish in his homeland between vikings and dragons, Hiccup ventures off to confront this threat only to discover that he may not know everything there is to know about dragons. 

Analysis

When Dreamworks Animation made their way into the CG realm to compete with Disney's Pixar, with the excepting of Shrek they tended to make films that either complimented Pixar's work or were just plain lackluster. However a huge shift occurred when Kung Fu Panda emerged. It still had the almost jokey/pop culture referencing nature that the other Dreamworks films had, yet there seems to be a sense of seriousness and legitimate care for the story happening. It was the first sign of a shift. A shift that would amplify to a whole other level with How to Train Your Dragon. It is fascinating that most of my non-film oriented friends would confuse Dragon as a Pixar film. And it it obvious why they would. The movie has been lauded as the first Dreamworks film to be of Pixar caliber, so it is no surprise that people would be in disbelief that Pixar didn't make it. Those two films were responsible for letting the world know that they are definitely a force in the animation world.

Review

This is the most beautiful animated film I've seen so far. It is also the best animated film I've seen this year. There is so much this film does right that it outweighs the wrongs by a ton. This is definitely a true cinematic experience. The voice talents of Jay Baruchel as Hiccup, America Ferrara as Astrid, Jonah Hill as Snotlout, Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Fishlegs, TJ Miller as Tuffnut, Kristen Wiig as Ruffnut, Gerard Butler as Stoick, and Craig Ferguson as Gobber round out the original cast while also bringing out the delicate balance between kids film flair and dramatic nuance. Newcomers Cate Blanchett as Valka (the lost mother of Hiccup), Kit Harrington as the dragon hunter Erit, and Djimon Hounsou as Drago are welcomed editions to the brilliant fantasy film. The development of Hiccup's character from lost mature young man to a confident incredible leader is definitely the major story arc in the film. And it plays well by not only allowing the characters to age from a teenager to a young man, but by challenging him with a situation that is complex enough to put his beliefs to the test. 

The story definitely has shades of various great sequels that have come before. But in every sequel to a genre film, means that there has to be a powerful new villain. That is where Housou's Drago comes into the mix. He definitely has the makings of a typical cartoon villain. And while he is pretty much the embodiment of evil in the film, the attempts to humanize him didn't actually fall through. He was definitely a weak part of the story in terms of he would've been better suited as pure menacing grim evil rather than an evil that is misunderstood. Had they found a way to make the humanizing aspect of his character work, then it would've made the movie a lot stronger in terms of having great characters on both sides. But seeing as how they never bridged the gap between pure evil and misunderstood, it doesn't come off strong enough. But he will be memorable by what he does, rather than who he is.

The creators of the film, and I do mean everyone, have to be commended for taking the story seriously without sugar coating it. This is a family film, however a lot of adult themes are explored in the movie such as death and the concept of war. However the one thing that stood out to me was the interaction of Butler's Stoick and Blanchet's Valka. How the creators handled the reunion of the lost lovers was beautiful and touching without being one filled with resentment. It is always good to see films where the creators know who their audience is but knows they are smart enough to understand or handle what they are being shown. It is what elevates this film higher than its predecessor. Not only that, but like I said, the animation and design of this film is incredible. Each frame is such a beautiful image with the detail being more extreme than any of the previous Dreamworks films I've seen. This is truly a great experience to behold for the whole family.

Final Thoughts

There is that question of is it too dark for my kids? If your children are capable of handling The Lion King then they are strong enough to understand and handle this movie. It is important to know that this movie is about grown ups who have to deal with the realities of the harsh world around them. And the execution of how they do so is powerful. This is an incredible animated film.

SCORE: 9.5/10 - The Best Animated Film of 2014 so far (7/14)

Maleficent - Analysis and Review

Not as bad as you think

By that I mean the character of Maleficent is not as bad as you think. This film is about showing the other side of the classic Disney Film, Sleeping Beauty, and a passion project of Angelina Jolie. This year will see the fruition of two passion projects, with the second one being Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's Hercules. It is the beginning of a trend that is starting to take hold by showing the origin story of the villain rather than the hero. While Sony Pictures wish to take that a step further with their Spider-Man universe, this is the first film since the Star Wars prequels that really pegs the question: Can we root of the bad guy?

The Plot

Maleficent, a demonic looking kind hearted fairy, becomes the victim of one man's greed. A man she once thought loved her, but that isn't so. This changes her from the guardian of the fairies to their oppressor who sinks to wield her abilities against the man who betrayed her. That man had since become a king and sired a princess to whom Maleficent places a curse of "sleeping death," upon her once she turns 16. The tale is not the same as one knows.

Analysis

We live in an age of complexity. We require our heroes to be complex and our villains to be even more complex...er. These are qualities that we all love for in dramas or action films and even the superhero genre. Good has to be explained and evil has to be explained. But is that really the case? There is something terrifying about evil we don't understand. Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight was the embodiment of evil and chaos who gives a different origin for himself every time he decides to talk about his life. Given that he's never telling the truth, there is no clear point of origin for this character, and his madness just gets amplified. Even the police couldn't find out where he comes from. He just came into existent. He just is evil. Tim Curry's Darkness in Legend is not only the greatest interpretation of the devil ever put on screen but a being who is literally reveling in operatic evil. He is the way a fairy tale villain should be: unquestionably evil. For my thoughts on the matter of Fairy Tale films click here. 

Those villains benefited a lot from knowing little about them. Which makes them terrifying and almost unpredictable. But then you have a case like Darth Vader, arguably one of the greatest villains (and now a new Disney villain) ever put on film. In the original film, he made his entrance and already for some inexplicable reason you know he's evil. However with the events of Return of the Jedi and what was shown in the prequel trilogy, he may not be as cool or as evil as we once believed. While it works for the overall story arc, it does diminish his character as we originally view it instead of adding to it.

That's where Jolie's Maleficent comes in.

Review

I'll just get this out of the way and say this: Angeline Jolie IS Maleficent! There is literally no one who can play her. Not even that actress from Once Upon A Time could match up what Angelina has done. Yes, I know the Maleficent in Once Upon a Time is a different take on the character. At least that one turns into a dragon...spoilers. But despite that one problem that I had about her, Angelina is just mesmerizing as the demonic fairy who turns into the embodiment of evil. She makes it all seem easy when in truth it is difficult to pull off a character like that without the presence that she brings. 

District 9's Sharlto Copley plays King Stefan, the father of Princess Aurora aka Sleeping Beauty and the man responsible for turning Maleficent into a monster. Unlike his cartoon evil villain in Elysium, his portrayal of the guilt ridden king who slowly descends into madness even more horrifying than the evil that Maleficent has sunk to is truly amazing. You really believe that this guy is losing his mind out of fear and paranoia of losing his daughter but also from the guilt of knowing he's responsible. Is his madness really justified? I guess, but it looks like he descent way over the edge for the sake of giving the film a more horrifying antagonist due to the sympathetic nature of Maleficent in this film.

I can't really speak much for the rest of the cast. Though I have to say, the three pixies taking care of Princess Aurora. annoyed the hell out of me. I didn't like their CGI characters, and I did not like the performances. They're idiots because they have to be idiots so that it forces Maleficent to care for Princess Aurora. I know this story is suppose to be about making Maleficent look good, but making the pixies complete idiots was a little bit too much. Its a shame that such talented actresses (Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, and Juno Temple) were reduced to those roles. 

Elle Fanning as Princess Aurora was...memorable. Memorable in a sense that you're trying to remember just exactly how long one person can stay smiling through a whole movie. She didn't really had much to do except be really really happy. Though I blame the pixie magic that ensured that she will never be sad. But then there is the part of Prince Phillip played by Brenton Thwaites. The heroic prince who battles Maleficent in the animated movie is reduced to a glorified cameo in this movie. He serves the plot just to have a love interest right when they need him the most. 

It's not like the supporting cast was bad. They were good with what they're given. They were just given terrible roles. 

And the story. It would be really compelling if the storybook narration only stayed at the beginning and end of the film, instead of coming in every now and then to the point where it seems like we need to be walked through what is going on instead of just letting the viewer figure some things out. Plus there's something that happens at the end that just makes me quickly think if Disney has some hidden agenda in promoting a certain message. The reason why I say that is because it has been used in another popular Disney film this year. It works well one time. It might even work well in a couple years. But in one year almost consecutively. No. And to think this was written by the screenwriter of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. That makes me even more sad about this tale.

Final Thoughts

The reason why I put Angelina front and center is because she saves this movie. You're drawn into her performance despite the movie not being anything worthy of such a performance. Only Maleficent and King Stefan were developed while the others were just window dressing. All I can say is that I now understand how the people who hate Man of Steel feel. Because like that film, this film will be loved by some and hated by others. I don't hate it, and I praise Angelina. But unless someone asks me too, I don't plan on seeing this again. 

SCORE: 6.7/10 - A powerful performance by Angelina Jolie saves the film 

Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined Fairy Tale movies

2001, 2002, and 2003. Those three years would invigorate my love for the fantasy genre in a completely different way. Because those three years were the release of what will be considered one of the greatest film trilogies in movie history. That is Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings.

It was a film that took fantasy seriously and presented it as a drama with a fantastical setting. It breathed a believable life into these characters in a world that can almost be viewed as subdued fantasy. Magic is not common place and only limited. The races are given distinctive cultures. Everything was just masterfully done. It is thanks to this trilogy that it would pave the way for what can be considered the greatest fantasy series ever achieved on television: Game of Thrones.

However, in its wake, there haven't really been a lot of fantasy movie to come out as a result. Many people believed that the Star Wars effect would happen. If you don't know what that means, to put it simply when the original Star Wars became a mega hit a lot of studios starting making vaguely similar sci-fi films or start banking on sci-fi properties. That didn't really happen when The Lord of the Rings finished its run. Sure, there was the Harry Potter film series, but not really the classical fantasy that I'm talking about. Then again there was the Chronicles of Narnia which had a great first film then slowly began to degenerate with the later films. And then there was Eragon....amazing cast, but nice try. The strangest thing to happen from Lord of the Rings is that all of a sudden films began incorporating large armies in movies. Which I guess is what studios thought made those films work?

But let's get to the point that I'm pretty much building to. The Lord of the Rings ruined the fairy tale genre.

Small scale becomes LARGE SCALE

What? How is that possible? The reason why I say this is because of three major examples that I can think of: Snow White and the Huntsman, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Maleficent. Three films that are based on fairy tales that are not large scope by any means yet their films made them so.

Snow White and the Huntsman
The classic fairy tale about a young maiden whose beauty was the bane of a vain Queen has been told countless times. It is a simple story with a very small cast of characters. There is the Queen and the Magic Mirror on the side of villainy. Snow White, The Prince,  and the Dwarves represent the side of good. Then there is the Huntsman who becomes a wild card. It is a simple story about how one woman's vanity could cause harm onto others. But in this adaptation of Snow White, the story takes the dark tone but then magnifies it with Lord of the Rings tropes: the world has to be at stake; complex motivations drive the characters; there has to be a gigantic battle in the beginning and/or end. It is strange that the conceit now is to make Snow White some sort of warrior who can lead an army when she has no training whatsoever. All these liberties do make for visually pleasing film, but not exactly a great one. The performances are even questionable, ranging from strong to over the top to non-existent.

Jack the Giant Slayer
Another classic fairy tale, or rather two separate fairy tales rolled into one mainly because they both feature a character named Jack who deals with a Giant. It is a simple story, or rather the Jack and the Beanstalk story is. A boy buys some magic beans, the beans grow into a beanstalk, he climbs, he finds a magical goose, there's a giant, he climbs down, the giant chases, he cuts down the beanstalk, giant slain. There is a lot more added to this story along with borrowing elements of Jack the Giant Killer. In that story the young man in King Arthur's kingdom makes a living of killing giants. Obviously the idea of a kingdom getting attacked by a giant is borrowed, but enhanced in here as making them an army of giants. Jack is still our reluctant hero, but the small big world of the original story becomes overwhelming in this large world in a now even bigger story. Does this make it any better? Not really. At least the performances were great. But at the same time, "less is more."

Maleficent
Arguably one of the most iconic villains in not only Disney canon but in film history. The dark fairy godmother that was pure evil becomes a sympathetic character who has some motivations for being the way she is. Then of course there the overblown use of CGI to make a magical world and bring about creatures that are little more than decoration in a film that could've been put more simply. Also there is the gigantic battles that has now become a staple of fantasy films. While it is understandable why this story has them, one has to wonder did it really need all of them? Granted, even her original fairy tale counterpart wasn't complicated or misunderstood, she was just evil. That was something that seems to be lost in this film along with the overuse of needing to have gigantic armies crashing into each other. There is some gorgeous imagery and it is hard to deny that the only woman on the planet who can play Maleficent is Angeline Jolie, but again some things are better left simplified.

Fairy Tales are simple not epic

That is a common problem that I started developing towards these new wave of fairy tale inspired films. Usually there is just a hero or a heroine that has to confront a problem that only effects a town or a city. These days, it is not just the town it is potentially the entire human race. Granted, not all of them do that, but it always seems like the stakes are higher than they are suppose to be. That is something that I feel is missing. Or rather, I feel like what really is missing is the idea of personal fights. No armies. No extra monsters that don't add to the story other than just being there. Just a hero facing off against a villain. Each side surrounded by just a small group of allies instead of a massive army. That is something that the Fairy Tale Animated Disney films have done so well. Did Aladdin rally the people of Agrabah to storm the Sultan's castle? No, he just had his carpet and his monkey as allies. In Frozen there was no epic final battle where Elsa attacks an army. Beauty and the Beast straddled this line but not having an army but more of an angry mob. Even then the confrontation still resulted into personal fight between Beast and Gaston.

I know there is a need to bring these stories into an epic scale, but they are not epic stories. The Odyssey is an epic, Snow White's tale isn't. But with The Lord of the Rings, epic became synonymous with the Fantasy Genre so much so that even a small fairy tale has to be turned into an epic. That is not how Fairy Tales are and that's now how they work. And again, I'm not criticizing the way these films LOOK. In fact the filmmakers have the right tone and palette for their films but a completely unnecessary way of executing them.

Examples of Fairy Tale films done well with restraint

The Princess Bride

This is definitely one of the classic swashbuckling films as well as the classic fairy tale film. It keeps everything simple and small. There are no grand battles but there are grand fights which have a more mystifying effect than seeing two clashing armies. It is also a light hearted romp that joyfully takes the viewer through a grand adventure on a small scale. The Hero is a hero. And he is joined by a small band of allies in order to save the damsel who is perfectly capable of helping herself but not so overblown. The simplicity of this film is what adds to its charm. It really is what a modern fairy tale should be. Sure it is not dark and grim like the fairy tales of old, but it is not like it loses sight of that fact by dealing with dark subject matter. The performances are top notch and electrifying. Particularly Cary Elwes as Wesley and the now legendary performance of Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya. Heartwarming and dazzling with a tale that will surely make one believe in love. Or if you don't, its still entertaining.

Stardust

This is one of my favorite Fairy Tale stories, as well as my first exposure to one of my favorite directors: Matthew Vaughn. It is often hailed as being the successor to the flair of The Princess Bride and I would have to agree with whoever said that full heartedly. Based on a book by renowned Fantasy Author, Neil Gaiman, this story is a complicated fairy tale with many moving parts yet it still finds a way to be simple. It is not overblown, especially for a film that was made post Lord of the Rings. That is where I found the most enjoyment of this film. Other than a shocking twist involving a certain tough sky pirate, this film just gives off that flair of the whimsical swashbuckle that Pirates of the Caribbean held on to for a while but starting losing sight of it. The confrontation between the villain and the hero is once again very personal without too much over the top. It was just the right amount of borrowing the right elements from Lord of the Rings but not trying to imitate the epic storytelling.

Legend

Another one of my favorites and one that doesn't get a lot of recognition. This was Ridley Scott's only foray into the fantasy genre as he wanted to make a Disney story but in live action and darker. Sound like what directors are doing now right? Nope. What he meant was taking that simplistic nature of the Disney stories, but just bringing them to life. It is a hero of nature versus a villain of pure darkness. And what a villain this film had. Tim Curry displays a memorable performance as the film's central antagonist: DARKNESS! This villain is everything a villain in a fairy tale needs to be. Pure evil. Plain and simple. While it wasn't well received when it first premiered, this film developed a cult following that now sees it as an overlooked gem. People often laud the effects in the film, knowing that if it were made today it would be over blown and unnecessarily epic just like the first draft of its script. We'd be thankful if Legend remains the way it suppose to be: Legend.

Is it really a bad thing?

Seeing as how people flock to the theater in droves to see them, no. But filmmakers do seem to be losing sight of what makes a fairy tale strong. If it was any other fantasy genre, then this need to "Lord of the Rings it" is gladly welcomed. But for a fairy tale, it is best to remember that these stories are simple, but the ideas are grand. Not grand stories for a simple idea. Fairy Tales are not Epics, and they really shouldn't be.