The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

 

• Released Internationally on 11/12/13
• Released in Malta by KRS on 13/12/13

Review (12/12/13)

3-word review: Necessary, uninspired viewing.

It’s 2013, and this second part of the Hobbit is released worldwide on the 13th of December, and once again features a rowdy company of 13 dwarves. So here’s 13 reasons why you should watch it, and, maybe more convincingly, 13 reasons why you shouldn’t.

13 reasons why you should watch ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’.

1. It’s more entertaining than the rather dull first instalment.
2. It’s slightly shorter, too.
3. It starts off with a prologue sequence in Bree, which might bring you fond memories of The Fellowship of the Ring, as it is intended to.
4. Martin Freeman is once again fun to watch as Bilbo, and Ian McKellen is his usual classy self as Gandalf.
5. The first half is quite fast-paced and features a couple of interesting and fresh new characters.
6. There’s an exciting and well-choreographed action sequence involving lots of barrels and lots of dwarves, which stands out in the book and is brought vividly to life here.
7. There’s finally one place that looks, sounds and feels completely new - a picturesque town on a lake, which is probably the first part of the Hobbit trilogy not to look like a recycled Lord of the Rings set.
8. The leader of said town is portrayed by Stephen Fry.
9. The magical sense of occasion that permeated throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy finally returns once the company reaches their destination and knocks on the door of Smaug the dragon.
10. Smaug himself looks quite stunning (albeit similar to most other dragons we’ve ever seen on screen), and is voiced by the ever-eloquent Benedict Cumberbatch.
11. The way that Smaug is revealed and introduced lives up to all the hype surrounding such a magnificent character.
12. Just like the recent second Hunger Games film, and many famous second films in trilogies, this one has the luxury of ending with a cliff-hanger.
13. You need to see this to be able to see the climactic end to the trilogy next year.

 

13 reasons why you should not watch ‘The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug’.

1. The main flaw of the first film has not been addressed, and in a sense could not be addressed. Once they committed to making three films out of such a short book, there was no way it was not going to be dragging, drawn out and stuffed with ‘filler’ material.
2. The filler material includes the largely pointless prologue scene which feels so forced and fabricated, even including a repeat cameo by Peter Jackson just like in The Fellowship of the Ring, that you can’t but feel let down even before the main titles start.
3. The lack of excitement is a recurring theme – such as in a long, complex scene involving huge spiders, which fails to provide anything new at all when compared to the excellent Shelob material we’ve already seen in The Return of the King.
4. Gandalf is off on his errands as usual, but this time they are tedious, seemingly pointless, and to a large extent fabricated, besides slowing the films pace down even further.
5. Nearly six hours into this tale, it’s still hard to sympathise with, delve into or even recognise most of the dwarves, despite evident attempts to make them distinguishable thanks to ridiculous hairstyles and traits.
6. Evangeline Lilly (Lost) is a new main character, but her role also screams desperation - a desperate attempt to introduce some girl-power and a fresh face.
7. Legolas (Orlando Bloom) is dragged into the proceedings, despite being completely absent from the source material, in what seems like a sad attempt at sharing some of the Lord of the Rings love and linking the two time frames.
8. Surprisingly, the visual effects stand out as below par in certain instances, particularly the barrel action sequence.
9. The attempts at linking the story with that of The Lord of the Rings, beyond the obvious links created by Tolkien, leads to the focus being stolen away from Smaug at certain key moments.
10. Some scenes in the third act are so painfully long and dragging that you start to wonder if there was a pre-determined minimum length established for this film.
11. None of Howard Shore’s new music, including the new themes for the town on the lake, stand out as half as inspired or memorable as the countless themes he wrote for the original trilogy.
12. None of the dwarves are half as endearing as Gimli.
13. The end credits song is an very unfortunate choice, and not a great fit for the tone of the film and the excellent end credit songs that preceded it.

 

Trailers:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbitthedesolationofsmaug/

Oz the Great and Powerful

• Released Internationally on 07/03/13
• Released in Malta by KRS on 20/03/13

Preview (first published 01/03/13 in VIDA Magazine)

March is usually a very slow month for new releases, since Oscar fever takes over the world of cinema, and the big releases of last year enjoy a brief renaissance in cinemas depending on whether they win some big awards or not. Thankfully, this year, we have at least one potentially huge film to look forward to this month.

I was never a huge fan of the classic Wizard of Oz film. Maybe it’s because I find Judy Garland irritating as Dorothy, or maybe I saw it at the wrong age, but something never quite clicked. There’s no denying, however, that the whole Oz story, concept and mythology is quite fascinating, with that film being just one of the offshoots. So sure enough I loved Wicked (the stage musical which gives the witches’ backstory) and even the theatre version of The Wizard of Oz. There’s magic, there’s homesickness, there’s little folk, and there are of course flying monkey baddies. Plus the yellow brick road, the intensely green Emerald City, and at the end of it, the Wizard, who may or may not be a complete fraud. What’s not to like?

This film is a prequel, giving the wizard’s history - who he is, how he ended up in Oz, what exactly he is capable of, and maybe why he’s fond of green. So, many of the familiar elements will be there, but otherwise it’s a completely original story. The trailers, posters and other promotional material have all gone to great lengths to show the opulent colour and design of the film, and the way Oz has been recreated looks quite stunning. Disney, which is the powerhouse behind the project, has not too subtly depicted the film as very similar to Alice in Wonderland, which was their behemoth box-office smash from a couple of years ago, and which also had a visionary director recreating a magical world.

That was Tim Burton, and this time it is Sam Raimi, who used to specialise in horror before he gave us a wonderful rebirth of the Spider-man franchise. The coveted role of the wizard was landed by James Franco (127 Hours, Spider-man) and the film features three seductive witches of varying intent - Mila Kunis (Black Swan), Michelle Williams (My Week With Marilyn) and Rachel Weisz (Agora). Zach Braff (Scrubs) and regular, hilarious Sam Raimi collaborator Bruce Campbell (Army of Darkness) also feature. In another move possibly intended to reproduce Alice in Wonderland’s huge success, regular Tim Burton and Sam Raimi composer Danny Elfman was handed the music duties. If all the film’s expectations are met, and if Elfman conjures up a theme even half as glorious as the one he created for Alice, this trip to Oz will definitely be one to remember.

 

Review (20/03/13)

Things started very promisingly, but ultimately this film left me a bit underwhelmed. The opening titles (below) - possibly the best part of the film - are a wonderfully old-school pastiche that sets the tone for the monochrome, fairground prologue that follows, where we first meet the wizard, struggling to captivate audiences at a not-so-grand fair. As in the original Wizard of Oz, we meet characters portrayed by actors who will take on different roles once within the magical land of Oz.

One tornado later, we land in the colourful and slightly trippy land of Oz, which is introduced in a hallucinogenic blend of bright colours, trademark Elfman music and enough surreal imagery to make the Alice in Wonderland connection not-so-subtle.

Things turn a bit odd, and for the lengthy mid-section I was struck by the rather bland acting, despite the proven skills of all those concerned. Maybe they were phased by all the green screens and imagined settings around them. Or maybe in James Franco’s case it’s all part of portraying the uneasiness the Wizard now feels - as he is forced to progress from fooling tiny audiences in Kansas to fooling a very demanding population in Oz.

At many points I felt the film was on just the wrong side of silliness, and the three witches in particular left me disappointed. The uncertainty over which of them is evil or not is supposed to be a clever plot point, but it turns out as slightly annoying and tedious. Still, it’s clearly not a good idea for the laid back wizard to try womanising with them.

The warm feeling of familiarity wafts by every so often, such as when we realise that we are witnessing a partly reverse journey along the famed yellow brick road. The other high points include the sublimely conceived and depicted China Girl, as well as a rousing montage as Oz prepares for battle, which is when the film really picks up. The final battle, which wonderfully uses trickery as a weapon in scenes reminiscent of Bedknobs and Broomsticks, brings things to a reasonably grand conclusion, with the comforting click as things fall into place and we see how it all makes sense. That’s the charm of a prequel, I guess.

 

Trailers:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/ozthegreatandpowerful/

 

Opening Titles

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

• Released Internationally on 13/12/12
• Released in Malta by KRS on 13/12/12

Preview (first published 01/12/12 in VIDA Magazine)

It’s finally here. When the The Lord of the Rings trilogy came to a resounding conclusion back in 2003, the general feeling was that there had never been a more satisfying and well-made trilogy of films in memory, and that there weren’t many other books out there that could be adapted and reach such heights. The trilogy also managed the tricky task of pleasing both obsessive fans of the source material and the general film-going public, and there was hardly any aspect of the whole production that was not standard-setting and flawless. So, inevitably, the ending of the trilogy also brought with it a certain feeling of sadness, like that empty feeling you get after a great holiday. Is that it? Do we go back to normal mediocrity now?

Possibly, but it was inevitable that the ‘other’ great Tolkien story would also get the big screen treatment, despite it being a shorter, less epic and more childish tale. But hey, it’s got hobbits in it, and Gandalf, and even Gollum, so why not at least try. Things got delayed, and there was even a point when Peter Jackson, the director and driving force behind the initial trilogy, took a backseat role and handed the project to others. Common sense eventually prevailed, and sure enough we are now getting this prequel part of the tale with the same cast and crew that fared so excellently a decade ago.

Not all the cast needed to return, of course, but it was paramount that Ian McKellen reprises his Gandalf role, since he had inhabited those grey and white cloaks with uncanny precision and he became Gandalf on screen. Less evident but equally talented was Andy Serkis as Gollum, in that ground-breaking marriage of visual effects and character acting, which resulted in a CGI character that has yet to be matched. He’s back, of course, for the expansion of the infamous ‘riddles in the dark’ scene that got a brief mention in The Lord of the Rings but occurs in detail during the events of The Hobbit.

Bilbo Baggins is also back, since this is of course his story and not Frodo’s, but although Ian Holm does reprise his role, a younger Bilbo was needed for most of the plot, so the main new casting choice was the delightful Martin Freeman (The Office, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Love Actually, Sherlock) as the titular hafling. Accompanying him on his first adventure are thirteen dwarves, portrayed by interesting-looking but lesser-known actors who all seem to share a fine, manly singing voice.

In a nutshell, the plot involves Bilbo accompanying the dwarves, hesitantly, on a quest to reclaim their ancestors’ gold from the hoard of the deadly dragon, Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch - Sherlock, Atonement). Trolls, elves, ‘shapeshifters’ and unusual towns stand in their way, not to mention the pitch black depths where Gollum is fiddling with his precious ring.

The adaptation was originally planned as two films, but earlier this year a not-too-unexpected announcement was made that it will be a trilogy. I hope Peter Jackson has tonnes of great material, and I guess after his previous films we can rest easy in the knowledge that he knows what he’s doing. Let’s just hope it was a mostly artistic and not mostly financial decision. In the previous trilogy it was remarkable how he managed to end each film wonderfully, despite not strictly adhering to the book endings. Here it’s just one book with no immediately obvious satisfying endings mid-way, so that’s at least one surprise those who love the book can look forward to.

At the end of the day, watching more of those characters, in more of those locations, with more of Tolkien’s dialogue, to the sound of more of Howard Shore’s music is better than we can hope for with most other film releases nowadays, so even if it fails to reach the lofty standards of its predecessor, this is still the undisputed highlight of this festive season.

 

Preview (14/12/12)

The Hobbit is no The Lord of the Rings. The scale of the book was much smaller, and the tone was more childish. But Peter Jackson has very evidently set out to make a Hobbit trilogy that is very similar to his previous masterpiece trilogy, and this might be the main reason why I left the cinema disappointed.

My first problem was one which was rather inevitable. By deciding to make the rather short book into an entire trilogy, and a hefty nine-hour one by the looks of it, there was always going to be a lot of extra material thrown in. This turned out to be even worse than I feared, with plot lines and incidents that are mere footnotes in the book getting entire sequences and lavish detail. They’re interesting to watch, and one might argue that they are fascinating when looking at the Tolkien world as a whole, but with regard to this film in particular they are sometimes dragging, not always very relevant or needed, and they detract from the essence of the quest at hand. I was more than happy when Peter Jackson released the extended editions of the Lord of the Rings films on DVD, with added scenes thrown in. But if he plans to appeal to the general movie-going public, the focus should be on telling a good story in style, rather than on less necessary padding.

The second problem was unexpected. The two trilogies unfold in the same world and share many characters, but I was disappointed to see Jackson rehash and recycle entire concepts, scenes and ideas from his previous films. He seems so intent on reproducing the success of the previous trilogy that this one has been structured in more or less the same way, even where the book doesn’t call for it. We therefore get a prologue in the same style, which is fine, except that it includes scenes of battle (with Thorin the dwarf versus the pale orc) that are uncannily similar to the flashbacks of Isildur battling Sauron. The pale orc is then elevated to a status very reminiscent of Lurtz, who led the Uruk-hai in Fellowship.

Even small ideas like Gandalf appearing to grow in stature when he gets angry, and mounted warriors circling unexpected visitors, are repeated. The whole wargs chase scenes and Rivendell sequences also end up looking like leftover footage from the previous films. We even get a council of sorts half-way through the film, just like in The Fellowship of the Ring, which also serves as a very unnecessary opportunity to bring back some of the old cast for a reunion. And just as Gandalf delivered a memorable line to Frodo before (“All you have to do is decide...”), everything grinds to a halt and sounds the same as Gandalf tries to impart a similar quotable line to Bilbo this time (“...simple acts of kindness...”). It starts to get annoying once the moths and eagles return, and it is ultimately distracting from the story at hand.

Thankfully, the story does contain numerous completely new elements which allow Jackson to present something that looks fresh and original. The new wizard, Radagast, is one of them, and the disgusting but somehow endearing Goblin King is another. The pivotal ‘riddles in the dark’ scene is also a joy to watch, largely thanks to the excellent performances by Martin Freeman as a young Bilbo, and Andy Serkis (via motion capture) in a continuation of his acclaimed Gollum role. The pivotal moment when Bilbo finally picks up the ring, however, doesn’t look like the scene many will remember from The Lord of the Rings, and this is one occasion where some continuity and consistency would have been appreciated.

The arbitrary choice of ending point sort of works, although it hardly has the emotional impact of the ending of Fellowship, and Jackson wisely drops in a tantalising glimpse of the much anticipated dragon, as he did in the prologue, since it is mostly once he joins the fray that we can expect proceedings to pick up in intensity, and hopefully in a fashion completely unique to this trilogy. The end credits song, by Crowded House frontman Neil Finn, is my last minor complaint. It sounds just slightly out of place, and doesn’t blend in seamlessly with the famous orchestral themes of Middle Earth like the three stellar songs from the previous trilogy did.

Don’t get me wrong, this is still a spectacle to watch - especially in 3D and in the brand new HFR (high frame rate) presentation. There’s enough orcs and dwarves and action and humour to keep everyone entertained, and the overall quality on display far exceeds most films we’ve seen in recent years. If this had been released in a world where The Lord of the Rings didn’t exist, it would be taking the world by storm and wowing us all into silence. But ultimately, it tries too hard to repeat the formula of its predecessor, which is not a wise move since it is a weaker story. Maybe a different director would have been a good idea after all, but then again I’ll reserve judgement because I still hope that Jackson has some surprises in store for the next two instalments, and that the trilogy as a whole will be looked back on as a wonderful piece of fantasy cinema.

 

Trailers:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/