All right, now we're talking. After watching The Evil Dead and Evil Dead II on consecutive nights, now it is time for Army of Darkness, the third and possibly final entry in Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell's Ash trilogy. This was the movie that I had some peripheral awareness of, even before I became a fan of horror movies, if only because this movie poster was on the back cover of every comic book I bought in 1992. One of my fondest Army of Darkness memories involves a few of my moderately normal friends in college asking me to choose what we watched on a movie night; they wanted "strange" things they hadn't seen before, and I chose Army of Darkness and Labyrinth. They were (obviously) excellent choices, but I don't recall receiving any standing ovations. Anyway, Evil Dead II has made me like it more and more with each viewing. Will the same go for Army of Darkness?
Last time we saw Ash (Bruce Campbell), he had been sucked into a void (along with his car) after he defeated the evil wood spirit/demon/thing that plagued the Evil Dead movies. When he landed on the other side of the void, he was in Medieval times and he was once again faced with possessed monsters. This time, though, they have a name: Deadites. While it is possible for Ash to find his way home again, it requires him to go into a haunted cemetery and retrieve the Necronomicon, which is the book Ash burned in the first film. All he has to do is brave the challenges ahead of him and say some magic words, and all will be right with the world. Since not much has gone right for Ash in the last few days (Is that math correct? Do the events of the first two movies take only about two days?), the Deadites rise up and mount a large-scale attack to retrieve the Necronomicon. Who will lead the miserably primitive Medieval peons against the Deadite army (of darkness)? The only man with balls big enough to carry a shotgun and a chainsaw hand, of course.
Pictured: General Ash and PFC Boom Stick
Army of Darkness stayed true to its acting roots, once again going out of its way to not try to impress audiences with the talent of its cast. This time around, Bruce Campbell got to be even more of a cartoon character, both with his physical humor and with the special effects.
Following true cartoon logic, shaking his head fixes this disfigurement
What I like best about Campbell's performance his fantastically over-macho swagger. This isn't something we've seen in the other Evil Dead movies, but it's a big part of what makes this one special. Embeth Davidtz plays Ash's love interest, and she gives the best performance of any female in this series so far. That's not saying much, and it's saying even less in AoD because Ash spends a hefty amount of time sharing the screen with evil versions of himself. Still, she was perfectly acceptable with only a few lines. Marcus Gilbert and Richard Grove were okay as the leaders of the non-Deadite forces, but neither really had much to do. Ian Abercrombie sounded as wise as his role required. Bridget Fonda has a brief cameo as Ash's dead girlfriend in a flashback, but she doesn't even get a line. Ted Raimi did a little better, playing three brief bit parts. There's not much to say about the acting outside of Campbell because the movie relies so heavily on him.
For the villain, they cast the only man who could hold his own against Bruce Campbell: Bruce Campbell
Sam Raimi returned as director and co-writer for a third round with Ash and the Deadites in Army of Darkness. By this point, Raimi had just had his first mainstream hit, Darkman, and got a substantially larger budget for this film as a result. With that in mind, a lot of his choices are curious. Why go the Jason and the Argonauts route with the skeleton army? Sure, I guess it looks cool, but it makes the inclusion of non-skeleton warriors --- who suddenly appear whenever there is a castle interior shot --- seem a little out of place.
None of these brave soldiers make it inside the castle gates
I would have thought the cost for the skeleton FX would be greater than costuming people (which he ended up doing, anyway). This movie is kind of like Baron Munchausen in that it is pretty obvious where the budget went, and it's not always clear if the cost was worth it. I'm not complaining, by any means, about Raimi's love of old-school special effects.
A rubber suit, water, a fog machine, with fake moss and rocks still make for fun scenes
He just made some unusual choices. Chief among those was making Army of Darkness skew heavily toward its comedic elements. It is strange to think of a sequel that purposely strays from the tone of its predecessor --- I can't imagine that happening today --- but I guess Raimi & co. had already gotten the ball rolling with Evil Dead II, so why not go all-out in the final chapter? Raimi's direction did a good job emphasizing the one-liners in the script, and he made the special effects look good. Beyond that, this movie just feels like he was having fun.
...or possibly on drugs
While I would probably categorize Army of Darkness as more of a comedy than a horror movie, it does have enough gross imagery to stay in the horror genre. One of the odder things about this movie, though, is its rating. Army of Darkness is rated "R." For a movie with relatively little gore (aside from some ridiculous over-use of fake blood in the beginning), no sex, and little profanity, that seems a bit harsh. If you just look at the stills, then sure, I can see Evil Ash looking a bit gross and scary.
But his grosses moment just had him trying to kiss a girl. That is a pretty soft "R." If I was making the movie and received that rating, I would have gone back and gored things up a bit to make the rating worthwhile.
In my "R" cutting, Bat-Deadite is touching her boobies
With its toned-down feel, how does Army of Darkness stack up? As far as horror-comedy blends go, it's one of the better ones. The lines are often corny, but they are classics worth memorizing. That doesn't make it a good horror movie, though. I find myself entertained by this movie every time I watch it, but I'm laughing at the same parts every time, with dwindling results.
"It's not THAT bad. Throw us a *bad pun*"
Maybe I need to watch this with a first-time viewer, to remember what it was like when "Groovy" and "Boom stick" were brand new to me. Will I watch Army of Darkness again? Absolutely. When I have kids, this will be one of the first "horror" movies they will see. Is it my favorite Evil Dead movie? Not anymore. That distinction now belongs to Evil Dead II.
To be perfectly honest with you, I wasn't thrilled with the 2012 Best Picture Oscar nominees. I really liked Django Unchained and Beasts of the Southern Wild, and Argo was also very good, but the rest underwhelmed me. I've never been a huge fan of David O. Russell. I've always found Bradley Cooper a little annoying. I hate Chris Tucker. Suffice to say, I wasn't looking forward to Silver Linings Playbook very much. Luckily, I really enjoy Jennifer Lawrence, and this is the role she won her Best Actress award for. Will that be enough to make this worthwhile for my admittedly subjective tastes?
Do you like stories about people with psychiatric disorders? Are you tired of watching Mad Love over and over again to get your bipolar disorder film fix? Then I have a movie for you! Silver Linings Playbook follows Pat (Bradley Cooper) as he recovers from a mental breakdown that led to him losing his job and wife. Pat's bipolar disorder was treated in a psychiatric institution until his mother, Dolores (Jacki Weaver), took legal custody of him. Now, Pat is living at home with his parents until he can convince his estranged wife that he has changed enough for her to take him back.
"That sounds like a pretty terrible plan"
To do this, Pat has been working out and has decided to read all the books his wife is teaching at her high school. Unfortunately, she has a restraining order in place, so it's a little difficult for him to show off his insane plan growth. That's where Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence) comes in. She is also a little crazy, but in a I've-just-been-widowed-so-I'm-having-sex way. The pair bond over medications and being the disappointments of their respective families and eventually come to an agreement. If Pat is really going to convince his wife that he has changed, he needs to do something that requires dedication and is far outside his comfort zone.
Considering that wearing garbage is something he's okay with, that could take some work
Tiffany needs a partner for an upcoming dance recital and promises to sneak Pat's wife some letters if he works with her. Now, spending a lot of time dancing with an attractive woman who is fifteen years your junior may not sound like the best way to convince your wife to forgive you, but keep in mind that everyone in this story is a little crazy.
The age difference doesn't bother anyone else? Nobody?
The acting in Silver Linings Playbook is universally good. I'm not a fan of Bradley Cooper, but he played his bipolar character convincingly and I didn't feel pandered or preached to. I didn't like his character --- everything from his motives, to the way he reacted to his parents, to his emotional triggers annoyed me --- but none of that his the fault of the actor. This is easily the best work I have seen from Cooper to date.
ACTING!
Thankfully, Jennifer Lawrence was amazing. I thought she showed a very realistic dose of "everyday crazy" and came across as a believable, natural character. She delivered most of the best lines in the film and had the most impressive character arc. Lawrence is the difference between this being a mediocre character piece and being a Best Picture contender.
You don't think Bradley Cooper can carry a prestige picture, do you?
One of the biggest surprises in this film was Robert DeNiro's best work in at least a decade (is it bad that The Score is the last thing I remember him being decent in?). I'm not entirely sure what was behind his character (undiagnosed OCD is my best guess), but DeNiro was vulnerable and energetic. Jacki Weaver was pretty good in an underdeveloped role; I like Weaver, but I think her Best Supporting Actress nod has more to do with it being a thin category than thanks to her work. If she had five more minutes of solid screen time, I am sure she could have changed my mind. The biggest surprise for me was the fact that Chris Tucker was actually pretty good and not at all annoying.
"I didn't think it was possible either"
The rest of the supporting cast was decent, but nothing particularly impressive. Veteran Bollywood actor Anupam Kher made an appearance as a pretty well-adjusted therapist, John Ortiz was okay as a supposedly "normal" guy that was acting a little crazy, and Julia Stiles was convincing as a horrific bitch.
David O. Russell directed the film and adapted the screenplay for Silver Linings Playbook. He obviously did a good job with the actors, even if you ignore all the accolades the cast received. Just getting DeNiro to wake up and act in a film these days shows impressive pull with a cast, and turning Bradley Cooper into a viable lead character was equally impressive.
*** cue sheepish grin ***
As far as the rest of the movie, I though Russell did a solid job. The script was a little too heavy-handed for my liking --- did everyone have to display a degree of "crazy"? --- but the script was reasonably smart. I felt that the turning point was telegraphed, and I would have preferred for it to be less obvious when Pat worked everything out in his head, but he handled the emotions in the story well enough for that to balance out.
It would have been nice if the plot was surprising at all. This isn't necessarily as formulaic as your typical rom-com, but it's not far off. For a script that could occasionally be very witty, the plot was pretty conventional.
A romantic movie with a diner scene. How novel.
That familiarity is Silver Linings Playbook's biggest obstacle. This movie wants to stand tall as a realistic and funny movie about people functioning with psychological disorders, but it is so eerily reminiscent of other movies about so many other things (Garden State, My Best Friend's Wedding, Timecop, etc.) that it feels like a bit of a rehash. That doesn't make it bad, and Jennifer Lawrence alone makes this worth watching, but a more unique plot and a more lovable main character would have gone a long way toward making Silver Linings Playbook more special.
I am a man of peculiar tastes. I am more than willing to sit through a horrible B-movie to enjoy a single scene, but there are some talented filmmakers out there that I tend to ignore, for no particular reason. Ang Lee is a good example of this. I have liked --- or at least been interested by --- every film of his I have seen to date, but when he puts out a new movie, for some reason I do not make an effort to see it. I do the same thing with Pixar movies, even though I always end up loving them. Again, in some ways, I am very odd.
In fact, the only reason I have seen Life of Pi is because I caught a marathon of this year's Best Picture nominees. There are not a lot of acclaimed films that I have no desire to see, but I will admit that I wasn't looking forward to this one. So, how wrong was I?
Life of Pi is the story of a guy telling a story to another guy, who will turn the whole thing into a book. No...strike that. While technically true, that is merely the framework of this tale --- and I use "tale" for a reason. This is the impossible story of Pi (Suraj Sharma). Pi and his family were traveling by ship to Canada (along with their collection of zoo animals) when a freak storm hit and sank the ship, because God hates Canada. Pi survives the storm and reaches a lifeboat, but his is not the lone survivor. A wounded zebra, an orangutan, a hyena, and Richard Parker (a Bengal tiger) all managed to squeeze into the lifeboat with Pi.
It helps that Pi is 2' tall
Not surprisingly, that status quo doesn't last long; the survivors are quickly reduced to Pi and Richard Parker. Now, all that Pi needs to do is survive on a lifeboat with a hungry tiger in the middle of the ocean, until he can make it to land. That may sound like the makings of a claustrophobic action spectacular, but the ocean is a really big place.
Judging from this, it might be a while
The acting in Life of Pi is understated. Irrfan Khan made for a fine narrator, and his impassive descriptions only emphasized the strangeness of what he described. Rafe Spall does not do much as the writer who is listening to Adult Pi tell his tale, but he provides as three-dimensional of a character as you're going to get with so few lines in the script; it's not tough work, but he plays his part. The bulk of the work is done by Suraj Sharma, as Pi in the story. As the only true character in the film, there is a lot depending on Sharma. He is not outstanding here, but he was likable.
To put it another way, there is an awful lot of this.
Life of Pi was directed by Ang Lee, and it shows, although not in a flashy way. That's not really how Ang Lee movies work. The cinematography is lovely, the acting is understated, the theme has a bit of psychology to it, and the pacing is...well, a little leisurely. If you are familiar with Lee's work, all of that is to be expected. The man is nothing, if not consistent in those regards. I will admit that I was impressed by just how visually impressive this film was. You might not expect much to excite your senses with a guy on a boat for 2+ hours, but Life of Pi was surprisingly dazzling.
While this isn't the first time Lee has worked extensively with CGI, I thought the animals and the myriad oddities in the script all looked fantastic. I liked that the film didn't get over-dramatic or strive for an epic feel. Ang Lee had a clear idea of what tone would work for this story, and he stuck with it. A less assured director might have tried to force a more pronounced emotional struggle for the main character, but Lee stuck with the book's subtler plot and it paid off. I also have to credit Lee for his use of 3D in the film. It's not splashy, exploitative stuff --- the 3D is used to make the unique visuals more spectacular.
Which is good, because 3D of floating gets old FAST
Having said all that, Life of Pi was pretty good, but I wasn't thrilled by it. I feel the same way about a lot of Ang Lee's films, so it might just be me; I can appreciate the man's craftsmanship, but I've never really loved anything he's done. If I had to give a reason for that, it would be the pacing. As pretty as this movie was, it never excited me because it always felt like I had at least another hour of the movie left. This is a well-made and polished movie, but I prefer movies with a bit more flair, even if they are more distinctly flawed.
Yes, I accused this movie of having no flair
Speaking of flaws, I noticed some buzz around this movie, concerning its ending. I wouldn't really call it a "twist" ending, but I can understand some people feeling that it cheapened the story as a whole.
Like a plot where someone starves, but also sometimes has dozens of fish
Any time you can dismiss a movie by saying "It was all complete bullshit," you run that risk. Personally, I liked the ending. I thought it salvaged the entire movie. Until that point, I was impressed by the technical aspects of the film, but did not particularly care about any of the characters. The ending is what makes it personal, which provides all of the payoff. For me, that was enough to make me like (but not love) this movie.
On a side note, how strange is it that Roger Ebert can make absolutely no mention of the ending of Life of Pi in his 4-star review, but he shat a brick about the ending of The Usual Suspects? They are, essentially, the same plot device, right?
Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis working together on a film about one of the greatest Americans that ever lived? Yeah, that sounds like a prestige picture. Lincoln boasts not only (arguably) the best director and (unarguably) the best actor working in Hollywood right now, but one of the greatest supporting casts ever assembled for a simple (read: not epic) film. Of the ten top-billed actors on Lincoln's IMDb page, there are a total of 16 Oscar nominations (with 6 wins) and 28 Golden Globe nominations (with 5 wins); only Bruce McGill has not been nominated for an Oscar or Globe. If you wanted acting credibility, you got it in spades with Lincoln. But does the movie live up to its pedigree?
Lincoln is a tad deceiving as a title; this isn't so much a biopic as it is a chronicle of President Abraham Lincoln's (Daniel Day-Lewis) struggle to get the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution passed while simultaneously ending the Civil War, the bloodiest war Earth had seen up to that point. For those of you who are not history buffs (America, I'm looking at you), the 13th Amendment made slavery illegal in the United States. Sure, Lincoln had freed all the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation, but the legal grounds by which he did so were shaky, at best. Lincoln wanted to ensure that his actions had some sort of long-lasting effect that would not be overturned in a court of appeals. It's a pretty cool thing to be the guy who freed the slaves, but nobody wants to be the guy who freed the slaves only long enough for them to bleed in battle for him.
Even a great hat can't distract from that, Mr. President
Unfortunately, his window of opportunity was closing fast. The Confederacy was weakening. It was only a matter of time before they were completely defeated. But once the Confederate states rejoined the Union, the chances of passing an anti-slavery amendment would be nil. Not only would there be pro-slavery Southerners voting, but much of the support for anti-slavery legislation was garnered from the belief that repealing slavery would end the war faster; with the war over, racism would win the day. That left Lincoln with one chance. Assuming everyone in his political party would vote for him (which was a stretch), the 13th Amendment was still a few votes shy of passing --- but there were several men in the opposing party that had lost their elections and were just waiting to be replaced. If Lincoln's men could convince enough of these lame ducks --- and his own party --- to vote for the amendment, history could be made. And, as luck would have it, there was one more date available for a Congressional vote before all the peace hits the fan!
"What will it take to get your vote? A threesome is not off the table."
The acting in Lincoln is, not surprisingly, excellent. Daniel Day-Lewis is THE thespian stud of our times, and he brought his A-game here. Day-Lewis went against the traditional interpretation of the character by making him slouch, feel old, and speak with a soft tone, but he also managed to demand all of the attention in every scene he was in. As luck would have it, that is practically every single scene in the film. I think some of my favorite moments were the scenes where he relied on nonverbals. This is a fairly talky character, so having the quiet moments as highlights is just a testament to Day-Lewis' acting prowess.
Example: right here, Lincoln was this close to killing everyone in a 30 foot radius
Leading the exemplary supporting cast was Tommy Lee Jones, who played a perennially cranky character. Shock! I love it when Jones gets a role that lends itself to his acerbic delivery, and this is easily one of his best.
Sally Field played Mrs. Mary Todd Lincoln, who is known historically for being a bit crazy. Field managed that well enough, but I didn't think her role was anything special.
Buck up, Sally. Sulking is not attractive in any time period.
Despite that, Field did a lot with the part and was surprisingly magnetic onscreen. David Strathairn was good as the eternally exasperated William "I Heart Alaska" Seward. He didn't really have much room to grow as a character, but served well as a mouthpiece to the logistics Lincoln was facing. James Spader, John Hawkes, and Tim Blake Nelson played the three men tasked with drumming up support among the opposition; all three are fine actors, but I would have preferred it if Spader wasn't the one doing most of the work here.
Spader, realizing that this role has nothing to do with deviant sex acts
Hal Holbrook was fine as an obstacle for Lincoln to overcome, although I think this role was a little underdeveloped. Speaking of which, Joseph Gordon-Levitt was a waste of space as Lincoln's eldest son. One of these days, JGL will play a big role in a big movie --- it's inevitable, given his talent and the people he works with --- but the whiny, over-privileged son of the president is not that role.
"What if I tried pouting more?"
Rounding out the cast, Lee Pace was solid in the strawman role of "that really racist guy." This is the first time I have seen Pace play an unlikable character, and he did so reasonably well.
Lincoln was the result of director Steven Spielberg teaming up with Tony Kushner, king of the difficult-subject-screenplay. With regards to the direction, Spielberg nailed all the technical aspects. Design, costumes, filling the cast with nary a bad actor, etc. --- Spielberg is too big of a director to accept anything but the best in these regards. While he has never been the strongest director in terms of cinematography, Spielberg still managed to snag several memorable shots of an American icon.
He also handled the actors quite well. Having a great cast obviously helps with that, but Day-Lewis, Jones, and Field were all deserving of their award nominations, and Spielberg was ultimately responsible for that.
I think Kushner did a solid job with the plot and the dialogue. Both Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) had some fantastic lines, and transforming this political issue into an interesting story was an impressive feat. Lincoln is missing something, though. I want to say that it is something immaterial, like "heart," but I can do better than that. This is a smart script, no doubt. It is just not an emotional one. American culture has reached a point where racism is justly vilified. It definitely still exists, but racists are generally acknowledged as assholes, as they should be.
"Amend that. It should read 'total fucking assholes'"
This might have been a brave film as late as 1975, but in 2012, the subject matter isn't compelling enough on its own. This needed an emotional anchor to twist the audience's stomach in knots while we waited for the inevitable, and that was lacking. There were some attempts. Thaddeus Stevens' change of policy was intriguing, but underdeveloped. Abraham and Mary Todd shared a scene where they got to bare their souls, but it wasn't nearly enough to warm an otherwise cold story.
"You act like a little culture will kill you!"
The fault is not Kushner's alone, of course. Lincoln has been Spielberg's baby for years, and he managed to put out a smart, well-acted and -directed film without that crucial element that makes you cry at the end.
I was expecting a lot from Lincoln, and only got most of what I hoped for. This is technically a better film that Spielberg's last effort, War Horse, but that movie drew me in, despite my objections. Lincoln is more cerebral, but leaves emotions at the door, and that turned out to ultimately be a mistake.Even without something tugging at my heartstrings, it is hard to dismiss Daniel Day-Lewis reinventing an American icon. With all the good and the not-quite-bad, Lincoln gets
I can't say that I was super-excited for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Part of it had to do with my work schedule at the time I saw it --- a 12:01AM opening day showing during a time where I worked long and early hours every day --- and part of it had to do with the fact that I grew up with The Lord of the Rings books before I ever got around to The Hobbit. While The Hobbit is charming and fun, it's not epic awesomeness. Still, An Unexpected Journey was being made by the same people who made the excellent LotR trilogy, so there should be little to worry about, aside from a hilarious dose of homosexual undertones, right? I was a little uneasy, though. The Hobbit is not a particularly long book, and yet An Unexpected Journey is only the first part of a Hobbit trilogy, while the significantly larger The Lord of the Rings books were barely squeezed into one (very long) film each. Doesn't it feel like Peter Jackson is milking this one a little too much?
In this prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy, we follow the young Bilbo Baggins (played by Martin Freeman here and Ian Holm in LotR) as he is enticed by a wizard, Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), to embark on a dangerous adventure. The goal is to help a clan of dwarves, led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), reclaim the home of their ancestors. Why does it need reclaiming? Well, dwarves like to mine riches from the earth. Dragons apparently like riches, too. When the wealth of Thorin's granddaddy became well-known, a dragon decided to move in and fricassee anyone who interrupted his enjoyment of his ill-gotten riches.
Artist interpretation
Of course, they're not going to take on a dragon all alone. To go along with Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin are a lot of other dwarves. In case the preview didn't illustrate that point to you, here's an alternate movie poster:
Which one of them is the hobbit?
Bilbo isn't really built for adventuring; he's a hobbit, which means he is small and inexperienced with weapons and the dangers that fill Middle-Earth. He's not ready to face trolls, orcs, or goblins, much less a dragon that could frighten battle-happy dwarves --- and he may never be ready. This is the tale of Bilbo's struggles to find his place in the group and in the world outside of his home in Hobbiton. Of course, something else important happens in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: Bilbo finds that ring that everyone made such a fuss about in those other three hobbit-ish films.
The acting in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is good, but this isn't really a movie built around individual performances. Martin Freeman plays a wonderful everyman, so casting him as the very suburban Bilbo was a good choice that paid off well. As the audience's POV character, he did a good job being confused and frightened for the audience, and I thought he conveyed his character's emotional journey rather well. Ian McKellen was good as Gandalf the Grey; he's obviously familiar with the part, but I liked that he was a little more temperamental and less wise in this film. Of the dwarves, Richard Armitage was by far the most impressive; it helps that he got to play a bad-ass and didn't have to wear goofy facial prosthetics, but Armitage was awfully good at brooding, too.
***Glower***
Ken Stott was the next most interesting dwarf, as the white-bearded right hand to Thorin. He didn't really do anything terribly cool, but he turned in one of the better acting performances in this series simply through his dialogue.
Stott was so good that I almost never laughed at the Cousin It under his nose
Oddly enough, those two cover most of the acting amongst the thirteen dwarf characters. You can argue that James Nesbitt had a few solid moments, or that Aidan Turner stuck out (if only because he looked like the heartthrob of the group), but they didn't really have much to do. The rest of the dwarves made little to no impression at all. A lot of actors from LotR came back for small parts, and they were all fine. Elijah Wood, Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee showed up, said a few lines, and were gone again. Andy Serkis reprised his role as Gollum and he was excellent. Serkis really does a great job every time he puts on a motion capture suit, and I hope he one day gets some recognition for the pioneering work he's doing (fun fact: Serkis also served as a second unit director on these movies). He doesn't steal the film, like he did in The Two Towers, but that's mainly due to screen time. Note to Peter Jackson: there's always more room in the script for Gollum.
He's like Jell-O in that way
The only other actor worth mentioning is former Doctor Who Sylvester McCoy, who got to play Radagast, the batty wizard that was apparently named by a twelve year-old in 1992. McCoy did a solid job with a goofy character, almost to the point where I forgot about the fake bird poop on his face.
Almost
The special effects were as stellar as you would expect from this series of films and these filmmakers. It kind of sucks that this movie revisits so many things that
we've seen before in Middle-Earth, because it gives a bit of a "been
there, seen that" feel to the film. Even with that in mind, the sets
--- particularly the ancestral dwarf home --- are all awesome. The CGI
was excellent, even in the large battle scenes that clearly didn't have
the actual actors fighting in them. I wasn't a big fan of the makeup on
the dwarves, though. Too many just looked silly, even if they are
faithful to how Tolkien wrote them. It's not a big deal, in the big scheme of things, but it irritated me that there were bad guys who looked dirty and creepy...
...and then there would be good guys who looked like complete cartoon characters.
This is actually one of the better-looking dwarves
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Peter Jackson's work on The Hobbit. As far as his co-writing credit goes (the script was basically done by him and his partner, Fran Walsh), I was impressed that An Unexpected Journey felt like a complete story. Bilbo and Thorin had decently crafted character arcs, there was a natural ending point, and there was no cliffhanger ending. That's tough to do with source material that originally had only 310 pages --- and keep in mind that two more movies are on their way from that same material. I have no idea what the next two films will contain, but I'm alright with the contents of this one. If you're wondering where the hell Jackson and co. found the rest of the material to pad this story enough to get three movies out of it, that was touched on a bit in this interview Peter Jackson had on The Colbert Report:
As a director, I was a little less pleased with Peter Jackson. The tale was definitely told competently. The movie looked absolutely gorgeous, and the pacing was brisk; while my mind keeps telling me that this story was stretched out, it didn't feel that way when I was watching it. I wasn't a huge fan of the action sequences; without someone awesome to focus on (like Legolas in LotR), I was faced with a bunch of characters I didn't really care much about in situations that didn't seem all that dire. Admittedly, part of that impression is due to the fact that this movie looks so much like the Lord of the Rings movies that it suffers when you compare them by scale --- having fifteen good guys fighting a handful of orcs pales in comparison to the odds faced in LotR. But the problems are not just by comparison. Less than a third of this cast was fleshed out at all, so their survival meant little to me.
I only cared about the guy who isn't attending a rap-metal show at the Renaissance fair
That's on Jackson. There is no excuse to have all these characters left undeveloped, especially when there are three movies to fill. Another option would be to imply how unimportant some of them are, but each one has enough quirkiness to make the viewer wonder about them. This movie also suffered a bit from a lack of truly stellar bad guys. The goblin king was kind of gross, but he struck me as more of a bloated tumor than a credible threat.
He has a tumor the size of a grapefruit an obese cave dweller
The albino orc looked fairly cool, but he didn't get the chance to actually do anything cool. He just posed and growled. He was so underwhelming that the top Google image hits for him are either blurry or behind-the-scenes shots.
This was the best pic I could find of Azog, the Defiler. I mean "best" in every way possible.
Sure, Gollum was awesome (again), but he A) wasn't the primary threat B) only threatened Bilbo and C) obviously survived, along with Bilbo, because they are both in The Lord of the Rings.
My biggest complaint with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, though, is with its tone. This story is not as epic as LotR, but it is being presented in the same way. As Stephen Colbert pointed out, Tolkien tried to go back and write an epic version of The Hobbit, but was later convinced that it was a bad idea. It seems odd that the filmmakers would make the same mistake. There's enough grandiosity in Middle-Earth to make this an epic tale, I suppose, but it just doesn't seem like the right fit.
It troubles Gandalf, too
I guess the easiest way to sum this movie up is to say that An Unexpected Journey is missing a lot of the charm that I expected to find, going into the movie. That doesn't mean that it is a bad movie, by any means. It's just not what I expected or, really, wanted in a film adaptation of The Hobbit. It is still a good movie and totally worth seeing. There is a lot to like here. In fact, there is just under three hours of movie to like here (and we have six more hours on the way!). It's just not as overwhelmingly, jaw-droppingly fantastic as the Lord of the Rings movies were. I think that is because this feels like a continuation of those films, instead of a new trilogy with its own identity. Hopefully, the sequels will course-correct that a little.
A quick aside on the format of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: I have now seen this film in the standard 24 frames per second and in 3D 48 frames per second. The former was a much better experience for me. The 3D was fine when I saw it on opening night, but the action scenes looked terrible. However, my experience doesn't match up with any of the other complaints I've read online regarding the 48 fps presentation. Instead of looking like a video game, or looking "too real," or looking like the ClearMotion option on a Samsung TV, all the action looked like it was sped up. It felt like I was watching something out of the silent movie era, or at least an action scene from an early James Bond movie. My assumption is that someone played the 48 fps version of the movie at 24 fps (because that's how fast-motion scenes are conveyed in those other examples). If you have a better theory, I'd love to hear it.
