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

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

Snowpiercer - Analysis and Review

Find it and Watch it. Whatever it takes. Whatever it takes...

It is unfortunate that this film had to premier the same day that Transformers: Age of Extinction because it is obvious which one will make a lot more money. It is also unfortunate that this movie is only showing in 10 cities all over America instead of the wide release it is getting overseas because of what the Weinstein Company did. So even if people wanted to see it, they couldn't. The catch for a wide American release is if the film does extraordinarily well at the box-office with the 10 cities that it is being shown at. This movie was just set up for failure in America from the start. And that is really sad.

The Plot

After an attempt to stop global warming goes horribly wrong, the world gets sent into a new Ice Age. The surviving humans only chance of survival is the Wilford Train that was designed to circle the globe in one year. A train with an eternal engine and the capabilities of surviving the most harshest environments. The survivors are divided into classes. The Rich occupy the front of the train, and the Poor occupy the tail. In a desperate move to seize control of lives they have forgotten from being on board the train for 17 years, Curtis (Chris Evans) rallies the passengers of the tail in a revolt to take over the front of the train! Their mission will take them through a long path of violence and discovery as the ones left standing will soon learn why The Powerful chose to keep The Poor alive. And in the end... what does it mean to ensure World Order.

Analysis

The Best Science Fiction Movies are the ones that ask the hard questions or put a mirror on society. This is an example of one of those films. Unfortunately it is not a film that will succeed in America. I remember watching a trailer reaction video of people who immediately declare it a Hunger Games rip off but on a train. Which fascinated them but they just keep seeing an R-Rated Hunger Games on a train instead of a different dystopian Sci-Fi movie. And because of the trailers being very vague around the premise of the movie other than there is a clear separation between the rich and the poor, the average American Movie Going Audience will just groan at the thought of Hunger Games on a train. When it is clearly not.

The problem is dystopian futures are everywhere these days. Whether it be in The Hunger Games or in X-Men: Days of Future Past or in TV Shows like The Walking Dead, the genre for post-apocalyptic future is everywhere. While The Hunger Games offered a new take on for an audience not familiar with other types of post-apocalyptic futures, any other new take would just be looked at as a Hunger Games rip off. I'm sorry, but it is true. Even if people want to call Snowpiercer a new look and a much better high quality science fiction examination of the post-apocalypitc future, it will always be viewed by an American audience as R-Rated Hunger Games on a Train. 

Most viewers don't even ask: why are they on a train? Why is it snowing outside? Instead what I see from youtube comments or trailer reaction videos from people who don't know anything just think: Oh so they stick some poor people  and some rich people on a train then kill each other and whoever is left standing wins. In other words Hunger Games on a Train. They don't ask, why is the whole world on a train. They don't even think its the whole world, just a few people and maybe the rest of the world is watching. They don't even ask why is it snowing outside? No one even seems to question that part. So in the end, while it is not good to have youtube comments or commentators to be the basis for the representation of the general movie going public the sad truth sometimes is that it is.

I'm aware that both The Hunger Games and Snowpiercer have the class war similarities and the same reasons as to why class war is integral to maintaing a balance in society. But The Hunger Games takes three books/four movies to get that point across. Snowpiercer gets it done in one movie. 

Review

Director Bong Joon-Ho is quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. He is probably best known in the states for creating The Host (2006) the Korean monster film that was a universally praised by critics all over the world as the best monster movie and political thriller made in years. The Host was definitely Korea's biggest worldwide big budget blockbuster and his take on Snowpiercer will be his second foray into the big budget arena. Though in comparison to American big budget movies (100-200 million) this one is only a medium budget movie in the states (60-70 million). But that is still a lot and he handles what he has with extreme care and precision.

He does what directors used to do a long time ago, and if some were to do this now they would automatically be ousted. He took inspiration from a graphic novel and turned it into a film. He didn't adapt the graphic novel to the screen, he took the idea and made the idea into a movie. That is something that would be looked down upon if an American director tried adapting a comic book these days. But because the comic was not too popular even in its native country of France, one can see how easy it would be to create a film off of a pre-existing text without getting any flack for inaccuracies. It was the smartest decision to make and one that won't restrain him from having to follow the story beat by beat. Because the ideas are what resonate with people, not the story in the graphic novel. Him and his American co-screenwriter, Kelly Masterson, handle it well.

But enough about the behind the scenes guys, lets talk about the people in front of the camera. Chris Evans, better known as Captain America, plays a reluctant hero named Curtis who does not want to be a leader and does not use grand speeches to sway his fellow passengers but rather actions of bravery that speak louder than an motivational speech. This is a distinction that makes him different from most character put in this situation. He is not a leader, yet people look to him as if he is just because he's taking the lead without have to lead anyone. This may sound like incompetence but it is the way friends would follow one of their friends. These people know each other and will follow each other till the end. That is shown by the loyal Edgar played by Jaime Bell, the desperate mother played by Octavia Spencer, the silent assassin played by Luke Pasqualino, and the man who inspired them all played by John Hurt. Their plight is driven mostly by the odd character of Mason played by Tilda Swinton who is the supreme example of someone who is passionate about their job but is not evil. The job just makes her look evil. Which is a common theme in this movie: the need for there to be a class struggle to maintain balance. Then of course caught in the middle of this power struggle is someone who once worked for the rich, played by Song Kang-ho, and his daughter played by Go Ah-sung (who played father and daughter in The Host) who were placed in prison for being drug addicts. They prove to be integral to the success of Curtis' revolution as well as shades of who the rich really are in this train.

There is a small appearance by Allison Pill who plays a pregnant teacher with an extraordinarily high positive attitude while wielding an uzi. But then there is a small role played by a well known actor that really brings all the pieces together. And when assembled it shows that in order for there to be order, there has to be temporary chaos to remind people of the horrors of chaos. Without a moment of chaos, order means nothing. It is the same as saying that without the existence of the poor, then there would be no distinction of who is rich or any need to want to do better. The film delves into what these concepts mean and funnels it into a film that literally has the whole world on a train. And on that train that circles the globe, the world is still the same.

Final Thoughts

I'm not going to discuss how I saw this movie. But I'll say that the reason why I had to see this movie through illegal means is because there was no theater anywhere near me that was showing it. And even though there is one in the next city away from me, I'm not willing to drive to a city that is only showing it for limited time in one theater. This contributes to the problem of film piracy and unless the wide release happens then result to any means necessary to see it. It is a great film and I would've gladly contributed my money to it. I will even buy it once it hits the home markets. But for now, if you're lucky enough to have it playing in a theater near you, go see it. For those of us who don't, I should say wait, but knowing the drama behind showing this movie in America: Waiting is no longer an option.

SCORE: 9.5/10 - One of the best Sci-Fi films this year that will never be seen.

Her - Analysis and Review

Yes, this is the best original story of 2013

Spike Jonze definitely knows how to make an original film. Sure, his most well known work is Where the Wild Things Are, but he has made some incredible films. By films I'm talking about short films as well. The guy creates worlds that can only be compared to the quirky worlds of Michel Gondry sans Green Hornet. Yet in each of those films he does have a message that he wants to convey. And the strongest point of an original film is the subtext. Although this one is obvious, the emotions of what he's trying to say can truly be felt.

The Plot

Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is an introvert who works as a letter writer for people who can't seem to write letters to their loved ones. After updating his computer's OS system to a new form of A.I. called Samantha (Scarlett Johansson) the two of them become emotionally close and inevitably fall in love. It is the story about a man and his computer, and what it really means to love someone. No matter who or what they may be.

Analysis

In a technological age, it is not too far fetch of an idea that something like this would happen. While the concept may not be as inventive as his other work Being John Malkovich the real inventiveness is the world that he created for this story to inhabit. I'm aware that Malkovich and Adaptation were scripted by Charlie Kaufman, but it takes a filmmaker like Jonze to really make these work as commercial films. I've always admired his films as being off or far out, even though this film is not too far out there. It still holds his touch just from the world building and how true to the nature of our world that this film touches.

The fact that this film may be a weird idea yet is not too far from being believable does tell us something about our world. Jonze sees this and it is definitely clear that this is a real commentary about the nature of love. What is it? How do we know we're feeling it? What is this emotion that draws individuals to others? That's something that he explores very deeply in this story. And the relevancy of this film is very much appropriate for the time that it was made. This is the technological age where we live on the internet. Some may even find love on the internet without actually seeing the other person's face. Is that real love or is it fake because it is not physically real? If we were to simplify it as that, then yes it is not. But love is not simple. It is complex. And with this film, the complexity level just shoots higher.

Review

It is hard to believe that a man can fall in love with an Operating System that is really just a voice on one's phone or computer. Yet in this film it is very easy to believe that such a thing is possible. Phoenix and Johansson give an incredible heartfelt performance as the unlikely couple. Phoenix is lovable as the introvert Theodore but the person who really shines here is Johansson. To top it all off, she's never seen in the movie once. Only her voice. It is a credit to a voice performance to make us believe that an OS can actually think and feel like a person. When she speaks it's almost as if she is present. Because we know what Johansson looks like we may even picture her standing there next to Phoenix. Her voice acting in this film is incredibly top notch and gives me some excitement knowing that she might voice Kaa in the new Disney adaptation of The Jungle Book. 

The rest of the cast does a pleasant job as well. Amy Adams is charming as a game designer and documentary filmmaker who serves as someone that Phoenix's Theodore can talk to about his relationship. Rooney Mara and Olivia Wilde play pivotal roles as Theodore's soon to be ex-wife and potential new love. Mara's character offers a look at the reality of the situation that Theodore is in while Wilde's offers a reality of his inner desire to just want someone physically rather than emotionally. Everyone of the supporting cast just adds something that shapes Theodore's perception of his relationship as well as build up Samantha's advancement beyond just being an A.I.

Also, not since Looper have a I seen a pretty realistic depiction of the future. While Looper is more depressing but not too post-apocalyptic, her instead shows a future that seems more optimistic and can come into existence in a matter of days instead of years. It is a testament to Jonze for selecting a mixture of different clothing styles from the past with tech from the present to make it feel like a tangible future.

The story may be what one would expect, but the emotional journey that the story goes through is definitely anchored by both Phoenix and Johansson. An interaction between an actor and a voice could easily fall apart, but luckily for them and Jonze brilliant directing it solidifies the film. 

Final Thoughts

It is very easy to see why this film won the 2013 Best Original Screenplay award. It really is an original film that feels not so original because of the world that we live in. It is a poignant love story that deals with the very nature of love and what it really means to love someone. I can say though that this movie is not for everyone. It is original and new, meaning general audiences may be turned off by its slow yet poetic pace or its large use of dialogue. But that is what this film is. If you believe you're incapable of sitting through something like that, then I don't recommend watching this film.

SCORE: 8.7/10 - A truly incredible original love story