The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Artwork for Theatrical Release

I never intended to do it, trust me.

I never grew up reading Tolkien. 

The closest I ever got to The Lord of the Rings, were my friends, who did nothing else but talk about their almighty, Tolkien.  But I thought they were weird - an apropos kettle judging.  But then I fell in love with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings universe.

I still don't want to read the books, but I love the films, and the starting salvo of The Hobbit trilogy is really no different, even if the flabbergasted notions are not as present as they were for The Fellowship, The Two Towers and for The Return of the King.

Like the earlier installments, this film is ridiculously epic and grandiose, with an incredible amount of attention to details that exemplifies Peter Jackson's filmmaking in its modern stasis.

The art-direction and cinematography are proper to the established cannon, even when it augments greatly and beautifully.

The compositions are phenomenal, with the right play of shallow depth of field, colors and textures that make for very traditional Hollywood filmmaking, but whose determinism and pristine presentation is intense and a joy to watch.

Martin Freeman as a younger, more neurotic Bilbo Baggins is good, really good; full of the quirks that make for great acting.  His Baggins is more frantic and troubled than Ian Holm's more sedentary, more secretively adventurous Bilbo.

The audio design is good, swelling the music and going silent when needed, mixed, in turn, with the expected nuances that have become the battle hymn of modern action/sci-fi soundtracks.

Artwork for Theatrical Release

The locations do not disappoint.  They are simply stunning and the camera work properly accentuates the beauties and minutia of each location, highlighting of minimizing previously used locations.  Always showcasing the sheer beauty of it all.

Gollum (Andy Serkis) is even more realistic and creepier and scarier than you remember, but even so he's a million times more fun to watch.

The film is even more beautiful than The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and believe me when I say it took me a long time to write that.  But the film here seems more methodical.  More layered.  More purposeful, and less overly dramatic.  Although, having said that, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that there is more action than in The Fellowship of the Ring, and less frenetic sequences than The Two Towers and The Return of the King.

If you're not a fan of the films, skip it; even if that isolates you from cultural references.

If you are a fan, even a casual one, catch it on Blu-ray, it's stunning visually.

Sucker Punch (2011)

Artwork for Theatrical Release

By definition, a guilty pleasure must be both, enjoyable and at the same time embarrassing.  My wife has her regrettably bad film choices (B-films, or more precisely, the really bad B-films that populate the bottom of most discount bins) and I have mine, ever more regretful choices.  Sucker Punch falls heavily on this list, because even though it is striking in presentation, a film like this in any other metamorphosis, would be horrible and unwatchable. 

Or maybe not, if you're my wife.

Setting the pace for most of the film, in substance and sustenance, the intro is very dreamy, yet adrenaline packed, mostly thanks to the music and specifically Emily Browning's haunting rendition of the 80s super-frivolous "Sweet Dreams," shallow camera focus, desaturated colors, and changing camera speeds that flow from slow motion to fast motion to regular, with the ebb and flow required to make all these otherwise disparate elements function.

The music sensibilities remind me a lot of Bjork's trance inducing rhythms, here presented by the before mentioned Emily Browning and Emiliana Torrini who performs an incredibly delirious "White Rabbit," a song made famous by Jefferson Airplane [Monterey Pop (1968)], among many other cryptic singers including Bjork herself.

Artwork for Theatrical Release

There are some truly and honestly inspiring compositions in the film, which, if filmmakers could get beyond the gloss, over-sexualized and hyper-violent nature of the film, they could glean for their own purposes.  Along with Watchmen (2009), and the other crop of recent ingenue films [i.e. 300 (2006), Sin City (2005), et al], Sucker Punch seems inspired and and at the same time aspires to comic book sensibilities and aesthetics:  Which is good news for all those that were regaled by Watchmen, but somehow wished for less blue penises.
 
Having said that, this film suffers from the same problems as those earlier films, mostly the script, which here is horrible, replete with really bad exposition and bad acting to boot, particularly from Abbie Cornish (Sweetpea), although in her defense, that might be more a result of the script, and should not be counted against her.

Artwork for Theatrical Release

To make it worse, some of the battles, the main draw of the film, are very badly choreographed, including fighters on the sideline waiting, out of character, for a strike to be dealt before moving on to their next cue, and some of the traditional New-Hollywood use of badly wired stunts, which look horrible in their weird contortions of the human body.

Sigh!

Suddenly, towards the end of the film, I remember this film leaving me with an empty unfulfilled feeling, and that doesn't change upon watching it again, or upon watching the extended edition.

And I will, alas, watch it again.

Forgo the extended edition since it adds absolutely nothing to the narrative, unless you find it at a discount like I did, otherwise watch it on Netflix (if available) or rent it.  Avoid network or cable TV viewings though, since the main draw seems to be the hyper-sexualized and scantly-clad lasses, whose contributions to the film, might be diminished through fear of litigation.

Skyfall (2012)

Artwork for Theatrical Release

Let's face it, by now,  you either love the Bond films or you hate them. 

For a small group out there, myself included, Casino Royale (2006) marked the turning point and the inclusion into a franchise that had been more widely known for ridiculous frivolity and the myriad of women that were apparently the kin of higher than hope hippies.

Either way, this film is really bound to make most Bond fans happy, and that's quite a feat considering how broad a spectrum that is.

In what has become a franchise signature, this film starts with an awesome adrenaline packed intro, even if it is a bit slower than Quantum of Solace (2008) and less innovative than Casino Royale (2006).  Either way it sets the pace for the second act which is much slower than would make most people happy, but it's apropos and you'll soon forget about it since the third and fourth act are phenomenal and more contemporary to the current Bond series.

The acting is great and inspired on all counts, which is also constant with the modern Bond universe.

Javier Bardem is brilliant, and chilling, and scary, and thrilling, and an all around incredible actor, twitches and all.  And Dame Judy Dench is surprisingly sympathetic and tragic in her rendition of M, which is a change, even if fleeting, from the heartless bitch she is, even at the beginning of this film.

The directing, by Sam Mendes [American Beauty (1999)], is unnoticeable, which is good or bad depending on what you look for.

The cinematography is good, even if not as palpable and guttural as Quantum, but the seemlessness of the editing more than compensates for it.  Or maybe just hides it.

Artwork for Theatrical Release

The audio design is, as expected, proper and adequate, but the constant droning music is a bit obvious and distracting at times.

The ending is great, as are the sprinkles of retro futuristic nostalgia which marks a thematic change for the Bond films in this series.  A change that might just please fans of the old Bond that have fallen disenfranchised.

Through and through, a solid package and very enjoyable, which is ultimately the purpose of all Bond films regardless of ilk.

One last thought, and it might just be me, but Skyfall reminded me, almost in every turn, of The Dark Knight (2008).  An anarchist villain, a return to basics for the protagonists, a couple of constant plot points, increasing nods to the mythos of the characters, and a brilliant 'cornered dog' sequence crescendo, and just as much fun to watch and decipher. 

Catch it in the theaters now or own it on Blu-ray, based on the IMAX print I saw, it'll be more than worth it.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Artwork for Theatrical Release

It's been about a week since I've seen this film, and I already can remember very little of it, and I fear that what I can remember is probably from the trailers not the film proper.

One of the first things that jumped out at me was the relative shoddy quality of some of the aspects of the sets, in particular the fake weathered wood when Holmes is getting his butt handed to him in the alleyway at the beginning of the film.

All in all, the art direction reads too much like a textbook (read: bad textbook) thesis of post-Victorian fashion and interior design.

Maybe they're saving the budget for the rest of the film.

The editing is not as much fun as it was the first time around, and the slow-motion way that Robert Downey's eponymous character figures everything out, is still cool, but whereas in the first film it was instinctive and innovative, here it feels ill-advised and ill-executed.

I have said it before, and here alas, we go again, fast cutting is no replacement for good fast thinking rhetoric, and when it's paired with borderline bad acting, the bad editing is made ever more recognizable and cringe-worthy.

Maybe they're saving the really good editing for the awesome stuff to come.

Yay!

The script is unnecessarily complex and with too high a language for its target demographic, leading to a horrible mess that will leave neither older Sherlock fans happy, nor young people content.

Un-yay!

I was about a third of the way through the film before I realized that 1) the film was unnecessarily confusing and 2) I just didn't care.  That coupled with the fact that the main reason I watched this film, Rachel McAdams, had been killed in the first 15 minutes, in an oh-so pathetically horrible fashion, made me want to turn the freaking thing off.

As a side note, I would have preferred a re-imagining of her actually dying in the bridge collapse from the first film.  Which consequently, is the only part of that film I can actually remember distinctly, which bodes not well for it since what I remember most vividly is the crappy CGI in that scene.

Maybe they were saving the budget for an even more kick-ass actress.

Come on Natalie Portman cameo!

As reprieve, once the plot is set in motion, three quarters of the film in (sigh), the action is actually pretty good and enjoyable, although again as mentioned in a previous post (The Island):  A vehicle, in this case a train, that has had two massive explosions, including one that cut the train in half, would at some point notice and stop, no...anyone out there listening...Michael Bay!

But who knows, maybe they were saving their 35mm film reel budget for kick-ass things to come.

Funny, my notes end there.

And that's the problem with the film.  For the amount of money spent on it, it is no more enjoyable than the first, and even more forgettable.

Maybe they were saving their budget for the next film.

Maybe they'll forget to make it.

Please don't buy this film, wait for TBS to run it when the third film careens towards your local multiplex.

If you're a fan of Sherlock, there's a new CBS series with Lucy Liu and PBS is currently running occasional episodes of the British modern remake of the series which is brilliant.

The Island (2005)

Having watched this film for the second time in seven years, I'm not quite sure why I held it in such high esteem before.

Yes it was innovative (sort of).  Yes it's action packed (even if epileptic inducing at times).  And yes it has lots of shots of Scarlett Johansson being sexy and sultry (even if always fully clothed and little skin showing).  But then again what Michael Bay film isn't? 

Which leads me to assume that after a few years of not watching his films, only the mythos remains, and that helps the idea of Michael Bay as a great action director permeate, even if in reality, he's shallow (think Armageddon (1998), Pearl Harbor (2001), Bad Boys (1995), et al).

Think of this film as in the same vein of The Transformers trilogy, and you will be pleasantly surprised and satisfied.  Think of it as anything else, and you won't.

The Island has almost the same exact film-making team as The Transformers trilogy including Steve Jablonsky (composer) and Paul Rubell (editor), although it lacks the same cinematographer, Mauro Fiore who exited the Bay team to go earn an Oscar for Avatar (2009). 

That bastard!

But the fact that The Island still manages to maintain the same cinematographic feel and themes as The Transformers trilogy, leads me to conjecture that Michael Bay is really the guiding light, and the cinematographer is just there to facilitate.  And facilitate he does.

The cinematography is one of the saving graces of this film.  Everything down to the grittiness of the image quality and the perfected color timing, is a pleasure to watch and intake.  It even manages to make you forget that Michael Bay thought Ewan McGregor's American accent was a good idea. 

Not really! 

Cringe.


The camera work is horrible at best, and the overuse of the shaky steady-cam (another Michael Bay joint) is horrible and makes some of the scenes unwatchable and disjointed.  It seems sometimes that Michael Bay thinks that a shaky camera can compensate for bad pacing, or cover up a lack of fighting prowess in an actor.  And while it can, and often times it does so successfully, here it manages to feel forced, and yet still not cover Scarlett's bad fighting skills (for a good example of this done well, watch Iron Man 2 [2010]).

The stylized camera shots and angles are a treat to watch, and alone make this film worth a closer look.  Even if the excessive use of slow-motion and shaky camera movements don't.

The synthesized music feels ill fit and awkward at best, and sometimes manages to go in the opposite direction of the narrative itself.  Sometimes covering the lack of good sound-mixing, which come to think of it, might have been the purpose. 

Sad.

The script, as usual for a Bay film, is horrible, and plot holes abound.  Including enough to make one realize that if this ever happens in real life, we, as the human race, better have better security, including, at the least, a padlock on the door that leads to the great uncontaminated outdoors. 

Oh yeah, and let's not have a giant sign that says "Don't push this button, it will overheat the reactor and cause it to explode."

Sample of Product Placement in Film

Oh, and Mr. Bay, try at the very least, to cover up your product placement the way CBS does on its sitcoms, and don't make them a part of your script rewrites, it's crass.

Sample of Product Placement in Film

The acting was good though, and as usual Steve Buscemi is awesome, but the rest of the cast seems to saunter around in flat unwelcoming characters, including the ones you're supposed to feel sympathy for.

Catch this film on Telemundo over the weekends where I assume it would have an awesomely bad Spanish dub, which might add a much welcomed layer to the film.

If you're a ScarJo fan, or a fan of Ewan McGregor, or alas, even a fan of Michael Bay, then watch this film.  As an action film it soars, but as a sci-fi film or social commentary on eugenics it fails.  For that, go watch Gattaca (1997).