Day 182: Movie 43

"These guys are obsessed with balls."

In the halcyon days before the internet, the fabled "red band trailer" was the sort of thing that would pop up before R-rated movies on VHS from time to time, but it was rare to come across one. Nowadays, studios can release red band trailers for their R-rated movies on the internet and give people a little extra bang for their buck by including jokes, blood & body parts that they can't show in a standard green band trailer.

Films without a ton of substance are therefore forced to give away all the best gags in the film for free, ushering in an era when you can say "they gave away the best jokes in the trailer" about even R-rated films. Unfortunately, the new Movie 43 is the latest film to fall victim to this trend, and one that will likely continue as long as studios churn out ninety minute films with five minutes of laughs.




Ostensibly a throwback to the "sketch comedy" films of the 70s and 80s like Kentucky Fried Movie & Amazon Women on the Moon, Movie 43 is a series of short films tied together by a loose framing device involving a hack writer (Dennis Quaid) pitching a film to a producer (Greg Kinnear). Much like in his days as host of "Talk Soup," most of the film's early humor comes from Kinnear's reactions to the various ridiculous and tasteless stories that Quaid is telling.

The talent on this thing is stacked to the gills, but no one seems to be exerting any sort of actual effort, which makes the whole endeavor that much more shrill in hindsight. Kate Winslet & Hugh Jackman play a couple on a blind date (a comedic premise the film comes back to at least two more times) and the joke is that he has testicles on his neck. The visual gag is funny at first and the sight of two respected actors dealing with exposed balls is funny for about thirty seconds, but the longer it goes on, and the more you realize that there's nothing more to the premise than just that, you begin to get the feeling that there wasn't much thought put into these sketches beyond a funny concept.



The film goes on like this, funny concepts with no real pay-off, with the exception of the story involving real-life couple Liev Schrieber & Naomi Watts as abusive home-schooling parents and the one involving two idiots (Johnny Knoxville & Seann William Scott) kidnapping a leprechaun (Gerard Butler). Both of those sketches have a very clear set-up and punchline, but absolutely none of the rest of them do. In fact, the one involving Stephen Merchant & Halle Berry on a blind date has a perfect punchline, but then they keep the sketch going for another thirty seconds, thereby ruining the perfect punchline they had set up.

Some of the sketches seem to be going for nothing more than having either attractive people (Anna Faris, Chris Pratt, Emma Stone) or grotesque people (the supporting players in Stone's sketch) saying really disgusting things. JB Smoove was hilarious in his section of the Faris & Pratt sketch, but I think that had more to do with my affinity for his particular brand of delivery. Then there are some sketches utterly devoid of a punchline, such as the one involving Richard Gere as the head of an Apple-esque company, dealing with the fallout of a design flaw in its newest product. I hate to be a stickler about this stuff, but when there's a set-up, there needs to be a pay-off.



My least favorite sketch by a mile was the Superhero Speed Dating sketch. The main reason is that in they expanded upon an already funny short from 2005 called Robin's Big Date (which I've embedded below). It's written by the same guy, but it took everything that was charming about that sketch, and amped it up for maximum offensiveness. I like Jason Sudeikis a lot, but he was so thoroughly miscast as Batman in the sketch, especially if you've seen Sam Rockwell's take on the character in the earlier version.

As for the rest of the sketches, if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the funniest parts of them. Terrence Howard's motivational basketball coach sketch didn't have a single joke in it that wasn't in the trailer. Likewise the one with Chloe Grace Moretz as a young girl having her first period at a friend's house (although I will give bonus points to Patrick Warburton & Matt Walsh for adding some levity to an otherwise cringe-inducing segment).



There's a ton of talent in front of and behind the camera here, but the laughs are so spotty and few & far between that it's not worth suffering through a full ninety minutes just to get to them. If you watch the red band trailer, you'll see about eighty percent of the funny jokes in the film, and if that fact scares you, avoid this film at all costs. The audience at my screening wasn't laughing much at all, or they would laugh at the beginning of a sketch, when the premise is revealed, and then the laughs would peter out as they realized that there was nothing more to it than that.

There's a dearth of comedies in the marketplace at the moment, so if you absolutely need to laugh at something, this will give you a few chuckles. But I would only recommend seeing it on someone else's dime or if you have money to burn. Otherwise, stay home, watch the red band trailer and then watch Robin's Big Date. That's a much funnier, and shorter, way to get some laughs.

GO Rating: 1.5/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 181: Broken City

"There are some wars that you fight, and some that you walk away from. This is the fighting kind."

On paper, the new crime "thriller" Broken City seems like a can't miss proposition. A pedigreed cast, a director who knows his way around a genre picture, and a release date in the doldrums of winter when films like this can thrive. The unfortunate reality of Broken City is that it's a half-baked idea with a script that feels like it was thrown together in a couple of hours. So what went wrong? Read on to find out...




Billy Taggart (Mark Wahlberg) is a disgraced ex-cop, floundering as a low-rent private investigator. His career took a left turn when he was fired by his police sergeant (Jeffrey Wright) for shooting a man who may have been unarmed. One man that purports to believe Taggart's story however is Mayor Hostetler (Russell Crowe), and offers Taggart a shot at redemption.

The mayor is convinced that his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is having an affair with the campaign director of his opponent in the upcoming election. He calls on Taggart to get to the bottom of the affair, but Taggart is having problems at home with his actress wife (Natalie Martinez) and before you can say avalanche, the subplots, double crosses, betrayals, and absurd character reveals begin to pile up.



I've managed to distill the plot down to a few sentences, but it took me deleting several sentences of description of the various subplots. It's interesting how many thoroughly inconsequential diversions this film takes. There's a ridiculous scene involving Taggart getting drunk at the premiere of his wife's new independent movie, because he can't handle watching his wife have sex with someone else on screen, which is totally jettisoned the minute it ends, and has no further consequences on the plot. There's also a ton of flirtation between Taggart and his "girl Friday" Alona Tal that amounts to nothing more than another dead end.

The case could be made that scenes like these are more about character development than driving the plot, but they only end up seeming even more useless when they do nothing to develop Taggart's character. They only make his motivations more muddled. The film has no central identity from what I can tell, other than, everyone's either corrupt or corruptible, and the number of diversions away from this hint at a film that was either a few drafts away from being polished, or was pared down in editing to the point of retaining a handful of mundane details to make the world feel "fleshed-out." Either way, it's a mess.



Wahlberg is an actor I admire a lot, mainly because he has a preternatural ease on-screen. He's at home in comedy, drama, action, and he usually manages to rise above an otherwise weak film. He's dragged down to this film's depths however, and ends up getting buried in a sullen and uncharismatic role. Zeta-Jones is thoroughly wasted in a glorified cameo role, and even the usually reliable Jeffrey Wright is relegated to a one-note caricature. Only Barry Pepper, as Mayor Hostetler's opponent in the upcoming election seems to have any idea how preposterous the film around him is and manages to have some fun.

This brings me to Russell Crowe. In the late 90's and early 00's, Crowe was one of the most magnetic & dynamic screen actors alive. His performances in L.A. Confidential, The Insider, and Gladiator are outstanding and he even managed to give an excellent performance in the otherwise overrated A Beautiful Mind. In this film, as in his last role in Les Miserables, it almost seems as if he's making consciously awful acting choices. He looks like a half-baked Miami Vice villain in this film with his bad tan & awful haircut, it's just baffling to me that he's taken a left turn into crazy-town lately. I'm not sure if this is a phase he's going through, and I'm still holding out hope that his Jor-El in Man of Steel will be a rebound for him, but its pretty clear he's in a tailspin at the moment.



Allen Hughes made a lot of great films with his brother Albert from Menace II Society to American Pimp, but here he gives new meaning to the term striking out on his own. It doesn't help that the film's script by first time screenwriter Brian Tucker is awful, but this film's biggest problem is that it lacks focus. It starts off fairly interesting, but proceeds to bring nothing new to the table, and it's never a good sign when you can figure out the big "mystery" by the one-hour mark of a two-hour film. I'd love to tell you that Broken City is a decent time-waster, but it's not even that. There are much better films in wide release right now, and unless you've seen them all, don't waste your time or money.

GO Rating: 2/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

2013 Golden Globe Predictions

So, the Golden Globes are tonight, and as everyone knows, they're pretty meaningless when it comes to predicting who will win the Oscars nowadays. The guild awards are much better predictors, yet there's still something to be said for the awards which are voted on by a mysterious board of about 60 people known as the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Here are my predictions for tonight, and if all goes well, I'll get to watch the show and do some live-blogging over on facebook (I may not get to see it at all, depending upon family matters, so we'll see). I will be doing an official liveblog of the Oscars right here on my site when that night rolls around, and I will let you know ahead of time how that will work so you can register and be a part of it. It'll be lots of fun. Here are my predictions for tonight...

Best Picture Drama: Will Win: Zero Dark Thirty. Should Win: Argo
Best Picture Musical/Comedy: Will Win: Les Miserables. Should Win: Silver Linings Playbook.
Best Director: Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow. Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow.
Best Actor Drama: Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis. Should Win: Joaquin Phoenix.
Best Actress Drama: Will Win: Jessica Chastain. Should Win: Naomi Watts.
Best Actor Musical/Comedy: Will Win: Hugh Jackman. Should Win: Bradley Cooper.
Best Actress Musical/Comedy: Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence. Should Win: Jennifer Lawrence.
Best Supporting Actor: Will Win: Tommy Lee Jones. Should Win: Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Best Supporting Actress: Will Win: Anne Hathaway. Should Win: Anne Hathaway.
Best Screenplay: Will Win: Django Unchained. Should Win: Silver Linings Playbook.
Best Original Score: Will Win: Life of Pi. Should Win: Cloud Atlas.
Best Original Song: Will Win: Skyfall. Should Win: Skyfall.
Best Animated Film: Will Win: Wreck-It Ralph. Should Win: Wreck-It Ralph.
Best Foreign Film: Will Win: Amour. Should Win: Amour.

No clue on the tv side, they always seem to pick the least likely winners (Kelsey Grammer for Boss  or Matt LeBlanc for Episodes anyone?) I'll update this tomorrow to see how I fared...

UPDATE
Alright, so I didn't fare as well as last year, getting 10 out of 14 correct, which is still good enough for a passing score. I didn't see Christoph Waltz coming, but I'm happy that he won Supporting Actor for Django, and I really didn't see Argo, Affleck or Brave coming. It's also interesting to note that the ballots for the HFPA had to be in on Tuesday of last week, so them giving Affleck the directing statue was not a rebuffing of the Academy failing to nominate him. This all makes the Oscar race wide open, I guess, but not really considering Lincoln will win 6 awards on Oscar night including Best Picture.

The 10 Best & Worst Films of 2012

It seems absurd to think about, but every year since 1995, I've done a 10 Best & Worst films of the year list. Looking back at this year in film, it was overall a pretty solid year; Definitely not as good as 2010, but much better than 2011. All of the films on my best & worst list, I have done full reviews of here on the site (except for 2), so I'm just going to write briefly about each of them, and then you can check out the full reviews by clicking on the title.

Honorable Mention (in alphabetical order)

Bernie

The Dark Knight Rises

Mirror Mirror

Premium Rush

The Secret World of Arrietty

Zero Dark Thirty

The Best Films of 2012

10. Magic Mike: Apart from being damn entertaining, Magic Mike went a long way toward proving three things: Steven Soderbergh can direct any film in any genre; Channing Tatum actually has talent as an actor; and Matthew McConaughey is a force to be reckoned with when given the right role. He gets my vote for Best Supporting Actor this year.

9. Argo: A top-notch thriller from an actor turned director who is finally finding his place in Hollywood again. Ben Affleck gleefully proves his detractors wrong with one of the best suspense thrillers in years, and even though the runway chase reeked of revisionist Hollywood nonsense, the rest of the film was sublime.

8. Chronicle: Somebody has to say it, so I will. In a year fraught with superhero movies, this low-budget film managed to be the best of them all. This film was the real deal, and even though I could have done without the found footage conceit, they found an innovative way to use it effectively. The most grounded & realistic movie about people with super powers that you're likely to see.

7. Killing Them Softly: Everything that 2007's The Assassination of Jesse James was, this film was the opposite of in the best way possible. That they were directed by and star the same man is even more impressive. This was the best crime movie of the year, and one that will age well, with more and more people coming to appreciate it in the years to come. 

6. Seven Psychopaths: Far and away the funniest film of 2012, Seven Psychopaths proves that when given good material, Colin Farrell can actually be good and Sam Rockwell & Christopher Walken can shine. A fantastic ensemble & one of the best meta-screenplay concepts of all time combined to make this film one that I can't wait to revisit again and again.

5. ParaNorman: Without a doubt, this was the best animated film of the year, and a lovely companion piece to 2009's Coraline. ParaNorman is a fantastically realized and wholly original film, with wonderful messages of acceptance, tolerance & love. In a year packed with animated, 3-D fare, this one stands head and shoulders above the rest.

4. Silver Linings Playbook: You could make a pretty solid case that this is a romantic comedy for people who hate romantic comedies. The reason this film is so successful where the others fail is that it creates characters worth caring about and rooting for. Every performance is fantastic, particularly Bradley Cooper & Robert DeNiro.

3. The Master: Hard to watch, hard to classify, but ultimately, even harder to forget, P.T. Anderson's latest film is a phenomenally unforgettable character study of two soul mates flirting with disaster. Two remarkable performances by the male leads Joaquin Phoenix & Philip Seymour Hoffman, make this a film that both demands and rewards patience & multiple viewings.

2. The Cabin in the Woods: The most original movie of the year was also the most fun and rewarding film of the year. Drew Goddard & Joss Whedon gleefully set up every horror movie trope in the book, and then have an absolute blast knocking them all down. This film is a blast to watch, and holds up so much better on multiple viewings than it has any right to. An instant classic.

1. Cloud Atlas: Years from now, when people look back on 2012, I think there will be a certain embarrassment that will accompany the indifference with which this film was greeted in its theatrical release. The most daring, audacious and awe-inspiring film I've seen in several years, Cloud Atlas is a masterpiece in every sense of the word. An immersive viewing experience that is so masterfully put together, it will blow your mind every time you revisit it. The Wachowskis & Tom Tykwer have made the ultimate book adaptation & set the bar so high for multi-layered ensemble films, that someone will have to reinvent the genre as dramatically as they did to even hold a candle to this film.


The Worst Films of 2012

10. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter: A complete and total misfire, this film bungles every possible opportunity its given to be innovative or even campy fun. Had the people that made this film been willing to have any fun at all with the ridiculous premise that our 16th President was a badass vampire killer, this could have been a decent movie.

9. Moonrise Kingdom: As an ardent fan & admirer of Wes Anderson, I'm baffled by the praise and adulation that greeted this film, his weakest effort by a mile. The characters all feel thoroughly inauthentic and he has substituted quirks for character traits. Unfortunately it's packed to the gills with wacky characters & scenarios, but is almost completely and totally devoid of a heart.

8. Dark Shadows: When he's not reigned in and confined to a limiting set of parameters, Tim Burton has shown himself to be one of the worst directors working. As his budgets have increased, his imagination has decreased, and his films are now hollow shells with none of the personal touches that made his earliest work so wonderful.

7. The Lorax: Another muddled mess of a movie, The Lorax is an exercise in excess. The colors are oppressively bright, the songs are bombastically annoying, and all of the heart and soul of Dr. Seuss' book is buried in a mess of chaos. Economy is the name of the game when adapting a book, and while this is not the worst offender this year, it certainly packed in a ton of unnecessary bloat. 

6. Hitchcock: Another film that has no idea what it wanted to be, Hitchcock tried to distill the essence of a thoroughly complicated man into a ninety minute piece of shlock that he himself would have dismissed as nonsense. Add in a garish makeup job, completely forgettable supporting characters and a plot that verges on preposterous and you have a recipe for disaster, which this film most assuredly was.

5. Prometheus: And while we're on the subject of preposterousness, let's talk about Prometheus. What a nightmare of a film this was. The old working backward strategy for doing a prequel reaches its apex of stupidity here. I only wish they had the balls to make a straight up science fiction film that had nothing to do with Alien, because as it is, it's an insultingly stupid addition to a canon that's full of enough stupidity already.

4. The Expendables 2: How much more of this shit are we going to be made to suffer through? Openly referencing other, better movies is not clever, it just reminds people that these over the hill men used to be in much better movies back before they all looked like aging lesbians. There's no substitute for genuinely clever script writing, and this film has no idea what clever looks like.

3. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey: There's a litany of reasons that I disliked this film so intensely, but the main reason is that it is just thoroughly inessential. Inflating a slim volume to epic proportions only serves to illustrate how little material of substance is there to begin with. This is everything that's wrong with book-to-film adaptations, and frankly, the movie-going public deserves better.

2. Hotel Transylvania: This film is the antithesis of ParaNorman. This film is everything that is wrong with animated films: it's lazy, it's uninspired and the animation is dull & flat. Adam Sandler has half-assed his way through every live action scenario imaginable, so now he brings his unique brand of mindless entertainment to animation. This film's success at the box office only further dampens my hope for humanity.

1. Alex Cross: Movies truly do not get worse than Alex Cross. It's sloppily written, ineptly directed and every acting choice made by every person on screen is mind-numbingly stupid. There's not a single redeeming thing that can be said for this film. Tyler Perry is somehow even worse when he's not mugging for the camera every five seconds and Matthew Fox makes some of the most stultifying choices I've ever seen an actor make. Add to that a plot that borders on cretinous, and you've got one of the worst films ever made.

So there you have it... Argue away!

Day 180: Zero Dark Thirty

"You can't run a global network of interconnected cells from a cave."

In 2009 Kathryn Bigelow, one of the true journeyman (or journeywoman) directors of all time, finally got her due and was recognized with an Academy Award for directing the Iraq War-set film The Hurt Locker. For her follow-up, Zero Dark Thirty, she stays in familiar territory, chronicling the decade-long hunt for the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, Osama bin Laden. In spite of knowing exactly how things turned out, Bigelow & screenwriter Mark Boal have managed to turn a foregone conclusion into a white-knuckle thriller.




The film opens with several audio clips from the morning of September 11, from air traffic control workers to 911 calls from people inside the towers. It sets an appropriate tone, in that it gives the audience a very clear reminder of the importance of the manhunt that follows. A CIA operative named Maya (Jessica Chastain) arrives in Afghanistan in 2003 where she is introduced to Dan (Jason Clarke) one of the main operatives leading torture-based interrogations of detainees. The film follows Maya's attempts to gain intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden & try to succeed where all others have failed, in taking him down.

She follows several leads, but she is constantly drawn in by information about one man in particular, Abu Ahmed, a trusted courier in Al Qaeda's network, who may have intimate knowledge of bin Laden's whereabouts. The film shows that the path that lead to bin Laden's ultimate discovery was fraught with dead ends, massive failures in intelligence gathering, and lots of pure luck, but mostly through the determination of Maya to not give up at any cost.



The character of Maya is a clear amalgamation of several people, but similar to how Boal & Bigelow created the character of Sgt. James in The Hurt Locker, they feel that focusing in on one main character can consolidate events & give the audience someone they can connect with and root for. As successful as they were in their previous effort, this is the main shortcoming of Zero Dark Thirty. There's no true emotional core to the film; It's purely clinical. The film is riveting and fascinating, but any attempt that they make to infuse any sort of emotional connection to the characters is met with indifference from the audience. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing will likely be up to the individual viewers, but as much as I loved the film, I wanted to have some investment in its characters, particularly Maya.

Getting that out of the way, I can focus in on what worked about the film, and the answer is virtually everything else. The film is brilliantly structured so that every scene gives you a piece of information that leads you into the next scene. It's a classic thriller, in every sense of the word, and the way it ratchets up the tension and the stakes is masterful. The raid on bin Laden's compound that takes up the last half hour of the film is unbearably intense in the best possible way, and most importantly, it's 157-minute running time does not feel anywhere near as long as it sounds. I doubt it will work as well in subsequent viewings as it did in my first, but it's incredibly well paced for such a long movie.



As for the 800-pound gorilla in the room, I have only this to say about the film's depiction of torture being used on detainees. It's an undeniable fact that torture was used and yielded at least partial answers that ultimately led to bin Laden's discovery. The film does not glorify torture in the way that a show like 24 did; It depicts it as being as brutal as it actually is. The film doesn't have a pro-torture stance, it simply has a pro-factual stance, and it was undeniably a crucial part of unraveling the full mystery of where bin Laden was. The film is not interested in examining the moral implications of such tactics, which many will say makes it guilty simply by that virtue, but I don't see this film as the proper place to debate whether or not torture is an effective means of gathering intelligence. It happened, it worked, and the film moves on from there.

The performances are all very good, but they're all in service of the overall plot of the film. Chastain is very good as Maya, but not in the same way that Jeremy Renner shined in The Hurt Locker. It's a very different kind of character, and she doesn't start getting really juicy scenes until late in the second act. She's very good in the film, but is not the main reason for the film's success in the same way Renner was in The Hurt Locker. Jason Clarke is very good in his role as well, as are Mark Strong & Kyle Chandler. Joel Edgerton & Chris Pratt are also very good at establishing some character for the men in Seal Team Six, but once they get their gear on, they're totally indistinguishable from one another.



Zero Dark Thirty is an excellent film, but it's not revelatory. It's a solid thriller and will likely earn its place in cinema history through its social and cultural relevance, and the fact that it's damn entertaining. I'm just not sure that completely sealing it off from an emotional connection to the audience was the right move to make. It's virtually impossible not to admire the film, but the final shot ends up feeling hollow because of the total dearth of emotional connection that leads up to it. The film is pure Mr. Spock logical, all the way, but trying to tack on a Wrath of Khan-esque ending falls short because it skirts everything that's not relevant to the plot, namely personal connection & emotion. You won't help but appreciate the film, but I doubt you'll truly love it.

GO Rating: 4/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 179: The Impossible

Director J.A. Bayona's directorial debut was 2006's The Orphanage, a film that seemed like it was going to be a rote, by-the-numbers psychological horror film. It actually turned out to be one of the better horror films made in the last decade, with tons of style to spare. When I heard that his follow-up would be a chronicle of one family's survival in the wake of the tsunami that hit Southeast Asia in late 2004, I was eagerly anticipating what he would bring to the table. The Impossible proves that his first film was no fluke, and that Bayona is the real deal behind the camera.




The Impossible begins with a family arriving for Christmas vacation in Khao Lak, Thailand. Maria (Naomi Watts), Henry (Ewan McGregor) and their three sons are enjoying the tropical paradise, when seemingly out of nowhere, a gargantuan tsunami swallows up the entire area around their resort. Maria is swept away from the resort, but is soon reunited with her oldest son Lucas (Tom Holland) and they try to stay together and find help. Henry was not taken far from the resort, and finds the two youngest sons almost immediately.

Neither group knows if the other is alive, but Henry is determined to look for his wife and oldest son, sending the two younger sons up to safety in the mountains with a group of survivors. Lucas & Maria are taken to a hospital, as Maria must be treated immediately for some pretty gruesome injuries she sustained in the flood. Lucas bides his time waiting for his mother to recover by trying to reunite other survivors with their families.



First of all, I have to say that this film is unrelentingly brutal. For a PG-13 film, it has some truly harrowing moments that will test the fortitude of even the most stoic film goers. It doesn't spare any of the gory details, yet never feels exploitative. They probably dialed back what some of the actual injuries sustained would have been like, but beware, it is not for the faint of heart.

The film is also emotionally harrowing. It is an emotional rollercoaster, and anyone attending had better be prepared to have a good cry, particularly if you're a parent. It's a daunting film to sit through, and the two scenes where we see what happened to Maria in the current of the storm are as unsettling as any scene from a horror film. Bayona seemed like an unconventional choice for this sort of narrative, but his background in horror serves him well in depicting the sort of emotional & physical trauma inflicted upon these characters.



The performances are all very good. McGregor in particular shines in what is a supporting role, but the scene when he finally manages to call home and let his family overseas know that he and his sons are alive was especially raw and emotional. Watts & Holland do most of the heavy lifting, and the film spends the bulk of its time with them. Watts is outstanding, as always, but Holland shows that he is able to hold his own on screen, and ends up being the star of the film. He is a captivating young actor, and I look forward to seeing what he does in the future.

My biggest complaint with The Impossible is that it's just too emotionally brutal for me to ever want to watch it again. It's a draining two hours, and you'll feel utterly spent at the end of it, and none too eager to relive it any time soon. It's an important film, and deals with the reality of this situation in unsparing detail, I just don't see myself purchasing this film when it's released on blu-ray, nor do I see myself running back to the theater to see it again.



If you're in the mood for an extremely powerful and ultimately uplifting tale about the triumph of the human spirit, you could do a lot worse than The Impossible. It's excellently made and a truly visceral movie going experience, just don't expect to find yourself bounding out of the theater with a new lease on life. It will likely knock the wind out of you, which seems to be its main goal. We need movies like this in the world, I just don't know if I'd be able to handle ever seeing it again.

GO Rating: 3.5/5


[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 178: Django Unchained

"You doubt he'd approve?"
"Yes, his approval would be a dubious proposition at best."

I can safely say that at this point in time, Quentin Tarantino is only interested in making films that appeal to people who like Quentin Tarantino films. If you do not fall firmly into this category, you will find nothing about Django Unchained to make you a true believer. It is everything people have come to expect from Tarantino. It contains everything his most ardent fans & his most adamant detractors have accused him of: excessive violence, colorful language, revisionist history, larger than life characters. If you're a fan, you'll find a lot to love. If you're not, you'll have plenty of ammunition to mount a constructive takedown of the film. There's a very clear dividing line to this film, almost more so than any other film he's made, and the fact that it plays to such extremes makes that divide all the more pronounced.

Having said all of that, I would count myself among Tarantino's fans. Inglourious Basterds put me pretty firmly back in that camp after I thought that the one-two punch of Death Proof & Kill Bill Vol. 2 had permanently removed me from it. Anchored by two incredibly effective lead performances, Inglorious Basterds had all of the over the top zeal and flair for the dramatic that made it such a bold leap forward from his earlier, more grounded work. I liked the direction that his career was heading, and looked forward to whatever came next.

What came next is Django Unchained, and while there is a lot to love about it as a film, it's not as complete a work as Basterds was in my opinion. The film, set in 1858, tells the story of a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) who is bought by a bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) because he can identify three men, The Brittle Brothers, that Schultz is in the process of trying to claim a bounty on. Being a German that despises slavery, Schultz promises Django that once he identifies the Brittle Brothers, he will pay him $75 and grant him his freedom. Django proves to be handy with a gun, and Schultz offers to train him to be a bounty hunter as well, sweetening the deal for Django.

Django's true aim in life, however, is to find and free his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), whom they discover is currently owned by a detestable man by the name of Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Candie owns a plantation by the name of Candie Land where he trains slaves to partake in "Mandingo Fighting" which is essentially one-on-one slave combat to the death. Schultz offers to pose as a man interested in getting into the Mandingo Fighting game so that Django can purchase his wife's freedom. Matters are complicated, however, when Candie's head house slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) gets wise to their true intentions, and seeks to prevent his master from being taken advantage of.

Let me start by saying that there were a lot of things that I really enjoyed about this film. It's certainly one of Tarantino's funniest films, with more laughs than I expected there to be. I was also a fan of the unusual soundtrack choices he made, such as using Jim Croce's "I Got a Name," Richie Havens' "Freedom," and Johnny Cash's "Ain't No Grave." Previously he had only hinted at such eclectically anachronistic choices by using David Bowie's "Cat People" in Basterds, but he goes balls to the wall inaccurate in this film, and for me it worked brilliantly.

The performances are also fantastic. Waltz proves that he is an actor perfectly suited to Tarantino's dialogue. He has an amazing talent for actually elevating the material, and his line deliveries are fantastic. While he's not as good as he was in Basterds (nor will he likely ever be) he's pretty phenomenal in this film. Foxx is fantastic as well. His character is stoic and doesn't say much, but he uses the minimal dialogue he does have to great effect. DiCaprio is very good here as well, although a choice he made in a scene late in Act II took me out of his character for a moment, but he's otherwise solid. Jackson is great beyond words as well. He's done so much garbage in the past few years that it's easy to forget what a great actor he can be in the right role, and he does a terrific job of making you forget that he's Samuel L. Jackson, something he's almost never wholly successful at doing.

The handful of complaints that I have about the film kept me from loving it fully. First and foremost, it's his most poorly edited film ever. I know that it's a bit of an unfair slight to make since we lost his longtime editor Sally Menke in 2010, but the film suffers from a bit too much bloat. It's never boring, but I could feel myself thinking during certain scenes (the bag mob, the Australians) that they would really weigh the film down on subsequent viewings. There were also no unbearably tense scenes like Basterds had. That film's opening scene and the scene in the basement bar were masterfully shot and written for maximum intensity and a constant ratcheting up of the tension. This film had none of that, save for maybe one scene that telegraphed where it was headed way too soon (the scene in the library between Schultz & Candie).

I was also somewhat disappointed in the character of Broomhilda. She was nothing more than a plot device, and for Tarantino who has prided himself on creating such strong female characters in the past, he really gave her very little to do. Washington is very good in the role, but there's not much that she was given with which to work. Tarantino also should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever allow himself to be in his own movies. He'd been good about this for a while, but his role near the end of the film almost completely derailed the entire film for me. Stop acting sir, you're a terrible actor.

Having said all that, the good significantly outweighs the bad in this film, and overall I really did enjoy the film. The performances are stellar, the directorial choices are appropriately showy, the script has some great dialogue and the humor really helps to alleviate the brutal subject matter. When taken as a whole though, I was just left wanting a little bit less. If Tarantino had reigned himself in some and chopped twenty minutes off of the film, it could have been great. But at the end of the day, I'll take a very good movie over 90% of the other films out there.

[Header Image]

Day 177: Les Miserables (2012)

"Now life has killed the dream I dreamed."

Tom Hooper was no stranger to the world of directing when his last film The King's Speech exploded onto screens at the tail end of 2010, reaping the lion's share of awards including an Oscar for Best Director. Like so many directors that go from relative obscurity to unanimous acclaim, his next film was going to be bigger & showier in an attempt to show that his excellent work on The King's Speech was no fluke.

For his follow-up, he chose the biggest and showiest project imaginable, the epic of all epic musicals, Les Miserables. Did the gamble pay off? Read on to find out...




The musical Les Miserables is one of my favorite musicals of all time. It was the first Broadway show I ever saw back when I was in middle school, and it had a huge impact on me, turning me on to the world of theatre and, more specifically, musical theatre. One of the things that I love about Les Mis is how unabashedly theatrical it is. It is the kind of musical that works best with a huge ensemble cast, large sets, huge production numbers & rafter-shaking singers.

The most baffling thing about Tom Hooper's film of Les Miserables is how schizophrenic it is in this specific regard. At times the film has a huge scope, at other times it's small, tight & intimate, and at other times it's downright frenetic in its editing and pacing. This was more or less my overarching problem with the entire film. It could never settle down and decide what it wanted to be. Even the small, intimate solo numbers (all done in close-up, framed almost exclusively on the right side of the screen) all end with a sweeping crane shot that takes us up to the heavens to view the characters from afar.

The film's sole identity seems to be that it couldn't settle on one. It opens with a huge production number, with prisoners pulling a large battleship into port & seems as if it's going to be huge in scope. Moments later, Jean Valjean is soliloquizing in close-up, and the film seems to be settling in to a smaller, more intimate feel. The very next number "At the End of the Day," looks like it was cut in the middle of a grand mal epileptic seizure, cutting to another grimy extra every few seconds. And the film progresses much like this for the duration of its interminable 160 minute running time.



Anyone unfamiliar with the story, Les Miserables is set in the aftermath of the French Revolution & tells multiple stories that revolve around a man named Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) and his attempts to lead a virtuous life after being released from prison. Along the way he is pursued by a relentless police office, Javert (Russell Crowe), who is convinced that Valjean will return to a life of crime.

The story takes a number of diversions into subplots involving a woman who works at Valjean's factory named Fantine (Anne Hathaway) who is fired and turns to prostitution to care for her young daughter Cosette. After Fantine's death, Valjean swears to look after Cosette (played as an adult by Amanda Seyfried), and they find themselves living in a section of Paris that is home to revolutionaries, seeking to start a new revolution against the current king.

There are literally ten or more subplots in the film, and to go into detail would be exhausting and a bit redundant for people familiar with the show. Needless to say, they all work together to weave a beautiful tapestry of life in Post-Revolution France, and an epic story of good vs. evil, and the power of righteousness & devotion to God. Les Miserables is one of the most overtly religious musicals ever written, but speaking as a devout agnostic, I can say that this will not hinder your enjoyment of it in any way.



Hooper's direction is so woefully misguided, it will make your head spin. As I said before, it bounces between subtle, forced intimacy and frenetic group numbers, but it also varies wildly in tone. Take, for example, the handful of scenes involving the Thenardiers (Sacha Baron Cohen & Helena Bonham Carter), the innkeepers that have been watching Cosette while Fantine was working to provide for her. Their scenes are so hugely theatrical, to the point of being nonsensical. Cohen & Carter mug their way through every scene they're in, and feel as if they've wandered in from another movie. Their performances derail any sense of grounded naturalism that Hooper may have been going for, and only further illustrate why those moments of intimacy seem more out of place.

If I were to say that the film is worth seeing for one reason, it would be Anne Hathaway's performance. Her vulnerability and frailty are devastating, and her performance is almost certain to garner her an Academy Award. I'm honestly surprised that Hugh Jackman didn't just come out in a tuxedo right after her song and present it to her then. It would have saved us all a lot of time. The closest comparison I can think of is Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago. All I can remember thinking was, I wish everyone else was in the same movie she's in. That's how it felt with Hathaway, and the moment her character dies, the film does right along with her.

Jackman is perfectly serviceable as Valjean. His soliloquy after the Bishop gives him a reprieve is his emotional high point in the film. He mostly flounders when required to sing in a high register, and his rendition of "Bring Him Home" was particularly over-wrought. He wasn't bad, but he wasn't as fantastic as I wanted him to be. If he's getting any praise, it likely has more to do with the power of the role and less to do with his performance.

Samantha Barks as Eponine and Aaron Tveit as Enjolras are the other highlights in the cast, and that likely has to do with the fact that they are both veterans of the stage production of this show. Seyfried does the most she can with an entirely thankless role. Eddie Redmayne was okay as Marius, but in his upper register (which Marius spends a lot of time in), he sounded a bit like Kermit the Frog. Russell Crowe as Javert was just awful. I like Crowe as an actor, but he looked thoroughly uncomfortable. He wore one expression through the entire film and his two solo numbers are so boring and one-note, they'll have you checking your phone for missed calls. To be fair, Javert is a one-note character, but the best actors that have played this role have never let it show so brazenly before.



I suppose the power of Les Miserables is that it can survive a thoroughly mediocre production, which I can comfortably call this. I think the fact that I love the musical so much kept me from dismissing the movie outright. There's a reason the show has an intermission when it's presented on stage, and it's the fact that it's long and emotional and the audience needs a refresher. Pushing through the whole show just ends up exhausting the audience & severely diminishes the emotional impact of the finale.

If nothing else, Les Miserables proves that Hooper is not the great director we all thought he was. In small, intimate character studies, he knows his way around, but he flounders so often and in such spectacular fashion with this film that I almost feel like he's not that good of a director at all. The musical will survive in spite of this adaptation, and that is a testament to the power of the music & characters. I hope another director takes a crack at this musical in ten years and gives it the film it truly deserves.

GO Rating: 2/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 176: This is 40

"Scotch doesn't expire, it gets better with age."

With his first two feature films, The 40-Year Old Virgin & Knocked Up, Judd Apatow went from perpetually cursed comedic genius, to one of the most reliable comedy filmmakers in Hollywood. His third film, 2009's Funny People, was greeted with apathy by audiences, much of it having to do with it's lengthy running time and audiences' general avoidance of Adam Sandler films in which he doesn't wear a funny wig or rely solely on bodily functions for humor.

For his fourth feature, This is 40, he piggybacks off of Knocked Up by taking two of that film's supporting characters Pete (Paul Rudd) & Debbie (Leslie Mann), and making them the focus. So is it a return to form, or more of the same? Read on to find out.




Your enjoyment of This is 40 will directly correlate to your appreciation for Judd Apatow as an artist. If you're a fan of his work, you will find a lot to like here. If you're not, this is hardly the film that will change your mind about him. Apatow's consistently good work throughout his career has built up a ton of goodwill with me, and I am generally a fan of his style of humor, so I enjoyed this film quite a bit. It also speaks to me in a very personal way as it deals with a married couple getting older and raising two girls, two subjects I am knee-deep in myself at the moment.

The days of Apatow making a film like The 40-Year Old Virgin are behind him. Much like James L. Brooks in the 80s and 90s, Apatow has parlayed his success behind the camera into making comedies that deal with subjects near and dear to his heart. There will always be sophomoric humor and immature characters within the world of his films, but they're starting to move to the fringes as Apatow narrows his focus on subject matter he cares more about. It's pretty safe to say that he'll likely never abandon his roots, but he's also not about to change horses this far across the stream.



The film centers on Pete & Debbie's birthday week. They're both turning 40 in the same week and Debbie is dealing with it by avoiding any thought of it altogether, and Pete is dealing with it by having multiple crises at work and at home. Their daughters, played once again by Mann & Apatow's daughters Maude & Iris, are also navigating issues of their own that put their own needs in direct conflict with those of their parents. Both children are wonderful young actresses and very realistically and comfortably portray a myriad of emotions in their scenes in the film.

Like all of Apatow's films, there are multiple subplots. Debbie is dealing with reconnecting with her birth father (John Lithgow) and trying to figure out which of her two employees (Megan Fox & Charlyne Yi) might have been stealing from her business. Pete's issues run the gamut from his mooching father (a fantastic Albert Brooks) to his deadbeat employees (Chris O'Dowd & Lena Dunham) at his record label. Also very good in supporting roles as the couple's best friends are Robert Smigel & Annie Mumolo.



The biggest issue with the film is the pacing. It's downright lethargic at times with absolutely no forward momentum. When a big reveal happens at the one hour mark, I honestly thought it was closer to the second act climax, but checking my phone I discovered it was far too early to be the climax of the film. When the film's climax does arrive at Pete's 40th birthday party, the film finally gains a sense of true momentum, and the final half hour is the film's finest, by far. It just takes far too long to get to this scene with most of the scenes in the film lacking any sort of momentum or propulsion. It gets bogged down in its multiple subplots, most of which provide some very funny moments, but almost none of them relevant to the plot of the film.

I suppose it's a double-edged sword because many of these scenes are very enjoyable and funny, with Chris O'Dowd being the stand-out for me, getting most of the best lines. It's just that with them, the film feels formless and unwieldy, but without them, the film would lack most of its best moments. There are a ton of characters for the audience to relate to and everyone will likely connect with at least one of the characters, but it's almost at the expense of forming any connection with Pete & Debbie. Anyone who's been in a long-term relationship, marriage, or is a parent, will instantly relate to their plight, but more likely than not, your average, younger audience member will find their scenes to be the least interesting.
 


This is 40 is the kind of film that you almost have to decide, before you even see it, whether or not you like it. Apatow fans will find lots to love here, and living through a lot of the same arguments & joys that Pete & Debbie have experienced gave me an instant connection to their story. But by that same token, I can see audience members shutting down and not finding anything to relate to in their lives. It's certainly the most divisive film he's made and even though I liked a lot about it, there was far too much filler for me to love it as much as I wanted to.

GO Rating: 3/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]

Day 175: The Expendables 2

"What's the plan?"
"Track 'em, find 'em, kill 'em."

You bet! It's no big secret that I hated The Expendables. I called it the worst film of 2010 and an early front-runner for worst film of the decade. Just about the best thing I can say about The Expendables 2 is that it's not as bad as the first one. That's about as high praise as I can muster. The main issue is that these films aim too low. Rather than actually trying to make a good movie or even one that's over-the-top ridiculously, knowingly bad, they're just rehashing stupid plot elements from the movies that made them famous in the first place. These weren't good movies, so haphazardly ripping them off just compounds how bad it all is.

Even worse than the mindless action scenes are the handful of scenes where these meatheads just sit around shooting the shit. The only thing worse than over-the-hill lugs running around killing people indiscriminately, is watching the same dolts try and convincingly establish their characters through rapport. Things also just seem to happen with no explanation whatsoever. I'm not asking for big, long explanations for things like how they manage to land their plane and instantly find trucks to ride around in, but a passing explanation or line of dialogue could go a long way toward making everything about this movie less asinine.

The "plot" concerns Stallone's group of mercenaries for hire being sent by Bruce Willis to retrieve some sort of device from Russia that reveals the underground location of plutonium stores. A wrench is thrown into their plan when Jean Claude Van Damme shows up, steals it, and kills one of their own. Now their mission is to retrieve the device, and get their revenge. Chuck Norris even shows up to dish out some exposition and tell one of those hilarious Chuck Norris jokes that were all the rage in the time between his relevance and this movie.

I could spend time dissecting the major issues with the film like the thoroughly misguided soundtrack choices like "Crystal Blue Persuasion" & "Groovin," but it's more fun to nitpick all the stupid little shit that piled up faster than the plot holes. Let's start with Stallone's mustache. It is, unquestionably, the most unflattering piece of facial hair ever out on film. He had a Van Dyke in the first film, not sure why he didn't keep that. The mustache makes him look simultaneously ridiculous and his own age. There's also a scene where Stallone puts on a helmet before he gets on his chopper. I'm only willing to suspend my disbelief so far in movies like this.

The biggest issue I had by far, is that any time they go for a laugh, it falls short. There are tons of unintentionally funny things like VanDamme kicking a knife into the Kid's chest or Stallone reading the Kid's love letter to his girlfriend at the funeral rather than saying anything meaningful about him. Referring to the characters by other characters that they've played (i.e. Terminator or Rambo) is not funny. It muddles things up too much by creating a world where those movies exist within this world, and it becomes so mind-boggling that I don't know what's clever about it. It's lazy. Last Action Hero did this joke so much better when they superimposed Stallone's head on Schwarzennegar's body on the T2 poster. That's a joke that makes sense. None of these jokes in this movie made any sense.

Am I reading into all of this too much? Probably. Shouldn't I have just sat back and had fun? Yeah, sure, I guess, but the problem is that the movie doesn't establish a tone that lets me comfortably know that these guys are in on the joke. It bounces from deadpan "jokes" to dead serious action scenes to ridiculously over-the-top action scenes to meatheads monologuing about how tough life can be. It's all over the god damned map. VanDamme is, sadly, the only one that comes close to acquitting himself. Ever since his fantastically self-aware performance in JCVD a few years ago, I've gained a newfound respect for him, and he's the only one in this movie that seems to be striking the right balance between how ridiculous it all is and how much he's enjoying all the nonsense.

Because lowest common denominator entertainment like this continues to be highly lucrative, there's no hope that the films will get better with further sequels. Even the promise of adding Nicolas Cage to the series for the next installment fills me with dread because he'll likely be the only one having any real fun. Everyone else just needs to drop the self-serious bullshit and lighten up. These movies could be a lot of fun if they were consistent in tone. As they stand now, they're nothing but two hours of aging lunkheads proving why they faded from relevance in the first place. I shouldn't have to continue paying to watch these guys die.

[Header Image]

Day 174: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

"You were born to the rolling hills and little rivers of the Shire, but home is behind you now. The world is ahead."

Yesterday, my esteemed colleague Andrew brought you his review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. If my opinion didn't vary so vastly from his, I wouldn't burden you with it, but I feel it only fair to give you, my dear and faithful readers, a second opinion on what I feel is one of the absolute worst movies I have ever laid eyes on.



Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy has taken on mythic status in the worlds of film & pop-culture, and rightfully so. As a bold experiment, they were worthy of your time and attention. They artfully condensed three dense fantasy novels into three action-packed films with tons of characters to relate to. The fact that they haven't aged well in the decade since their release does not preclude them from consideration as major milestones in the serious advancement of fantasy filmmaking.

The most significant trend that those films birthed, however, was the notion that any filmmaker could bloat any adaptation of any book up to interminable lengths. Even trifles such as Eragon & The Twilight novels were turned into two-hour plus unwieldy monstrosities. Now the man that started the whole trend returns to the scene of the crime. Peter Jackson took the directing reigns away from Guillermo DelToro & gives us his film version of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings prequel, The Hobbit. Where he previously gave us a book to film ratio of 1:1, he has inexplicably decided now to increase that ratio to 1:3. Now, I understand very clearly what he has said in regards to this decision, I just don't accept his reasoning as sound logic. Cramming in superfluous & ancillary material from appendices and minor works by the same author does not give you license to bloat an otherwise jaunty little novel.

The other fundamental problem is that he's working in reverse. By having already given us the main course (LOTR) with stakes that went as high as the destruction of Middle-Earth, to now go back and try and give what amounts to an appetizer the same sense of import is just nonsense. The stakes involved in the novel and story of The Hobbit couldn't be lower in the grand scheme of things, but since ravenous audiences are demanding of more, bigger, faster, louder, crazier... the follow-up films need to deliver. It's a chicken and egg situation, but ultimately I fault Jackson for his need to turn The Hobbit into something it isn't.



The film opens with another flashback sequence designed to get audiences up to speed on the plight of the once proud race of Dwarves that dwelled in the Lonely Mountain of Erebor, until their home was usurped by a dragon named Smaug. That's all well and good, but the film then gives us the equivalent of a 1970s Christmas Variety show scene where old Bilbo (Ian Holm) & Frodo (Elijah Wood) give us a new perspective on the events of the day leading up to Bilbo's 111th Birthday from The Fellowship of the Ring. Setting up this thoroughly unnecessary and absurd framing device was the first sign that I had that something was afoul in Hobbiton.

Soon, we're flashing back to see young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and his first meeting with Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen). Gandalf has selected Bilbo to be the fourteenth member of a party of dwarves that will be following their pre-ordained leader Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) on a quest to reclaim their home. The fact that this sentence more or less encapsulates the entire plot of not just this film, but all three, can give you some indication as to how much filler we're going to be dealing with. It's never a good sign when I can sum up the plot of three films in one sentence.

Such dalliances away from the main plot include several prolonged sequences involving one of Gandalf's fellow wizards Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy) that do nothing to further the plot. In fact, his only purpose is to alert Gandalf to the fact that an ancient evil has come back to Middle Earth, but since we already know how that all shakes out thanks to the LOTR trilogy, the stakes couldn't be lower. I understand that in the future, watching it all in sequence may make these scenes but important, but as a counter argument I present this thoroughly unnecessary sequence involving a meeting at Rivendell between Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Saruman (Christopher Lee). The scene exists only to get nerd boners pumped up because there's no proper introduction to any of them. We already know who they are because of the previous trilogy, so what exactly is happening here? I just want to know what the intended order should be for these two trilogies.



Those of you jonesing for a bland but messianic leader will get your rocks off on Thorin. He's got all the nobility and bluster built up that Aragon has in the previous trilogy, with a healthy dose of heavy-handed backstory to ensure that you root for him. The most egregious issue that this film has, though, is its never-ending series of climaxes. If you thought Return of the King had too many endings, it seems downright full of restraint in regards to the number of climaxes in this film, all of which, I might add, are resolved through increasingly ridiculous Deus ex Machina. Not one predicament that these characters get in can't be solved by someone or something literally coming out of the blue to rescue them.

The dwarves of Peter Jackson's Middle Earth are a bunch of over-the-top, helpless, comic relief hounds that serve no other purpose than to get themselves into predicaments where they either require rescuing or end with a "fatty make a funny" punchline. This contempt for the dwarves is nothing new, it was prominent in the original trilogy, but it's just getting egregious now. Shoehorning in burps and cutaways to fat dwarves falling down seems to be the only thing amusing Jackson in the editing room.

I got to see the film in the highly touted 48 frames per second projection and I cannot stress enough how much you should avoid this. It was quite the curiosity for me as a film fan, but it caused everything to look like a Discovery Channel documentary. It didn't look like a film at all. It looked like the most expensive documentary on Larping ever made. On top of that, people moved with a sped-up eeriness that recalls old footage of Babe Ruth running the bases after hitting a home run. It serves only to distract and made the cgi characters look like video games. The evil Pale Orc ended up looking like Kratos from God of War, and I don't mean that as a compliment.



While the film is not a total debacle on par with the Star Wars prequels, it reeks of being inessential. Had he devoted one film to The Hobbit and then another to Gandalf's stupid side quests and elf lineage, there might have been a reason for all the bloat. As it stands now, I cannot fathom what they're going to do with another six hours of film time to go. The final shot of the film puts Erebor at such a distance, in spite of how far they've already traveled, that it made me roll my eyes at how much they're desperately trying to keep this thing going.

There's a great film that can be made from The Hobbit and the assorted other stories from the Tolkien ephemera, but Peter Jackson is not the man to make those films. Handing him back the reigns was the worst decision anyone involved with these films made. He is not the genius everyone makes him out to be, and he doesn't have enough perspective on the material to know what should stay and what should go. His love for the source material makes him the worst possible choice to turn it into a film. The fact that this film runs the exact same length as Cloud Atlas which managed to condense a much denser novel into one film, lets you know what my gripes are pretty clearly.

I'll end up seeing the other films in this series, I know I will, but the bar may as well be buried at this point. I don't hold out any hope that things will get better, but as far as I'm concerned, I really dread them getting any worse.

GO Rating: 1/5

[Photos via BoxOfficeMojo]