The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Jo***)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is an unexpected stumble from the gifted Peter Jackson, who's original Middle Earth trilogy managed to win just about every Oscar possible back in 2003. Back at the helm, and divided into yet another trilogy, the quaint Hobbit novel is being transformed into something it is not:  a story massive enough to span three 3-hour films. Just because you have the power to make something, doesn't necessarily make it good. The Hobbit, though, is full of remarkable images, places, and moments, but the sum of their parts is little more than icing on a burnt cake. It might look good, but it's flawed all the way to the center. 

The story begins in present time (or not?) when the elder Bilbo begins writing down the tale 'There And Back Again,' and Jackson cleverly tries to tie in the original trilogy, with an immediate eye-rolling cameo from Elijah Wood (who is not the only returning cast member). We see this is the day of his long expected party from 'Fellowship,' just moments before Gandalf arrives on his carriage. The film does offer lots of nostalgia in that regard, but for a 3 hour movie with its own story to tell, it's clear the writers (the original crew in addition to Guillermo Del Toro) had wiggle room to add what they wished. 

The cast is superb, but it lacks the charisma an charm of the original Fellowship. The 13 dwarves all seem to have their own personality, but there is absolutely NOT enough screen time for each of them, and we only get to know maybe 3 or 4 as characters. The rest are merely fillers. 

Middle Earth is just as we left it: green, lush, but dangerous at every turn. The design of the landscape is no less impressive, as is the technical aspects behind the film - from costumes to makeup. It is clear no detail went unnoticed. Take, for instance, one of the final battle scenes - set in an underground system of caves inhabited by thousands of goblins. Our heroes run through mazes of tunnels and bridges, effortlessly navigating foreign terrain, and the audience is simply overwhelmed by the details put into each shot. It is truly remarkable even to such minute details. 

It must be said about the battle scenes though, more than Lord of the Rings, that the sense of danger is almost always lost. The choreography of each sword swing or punch is so perfectly timed, as are the dwarves narrow escape from certain death time and again. How is it that amid those thousand goblins, the dwarves manage to kill hundreds, while their small group of a dozen escapes unharmed?

And then to the high frame rate… Oh goodness. Of course I had to check out the film at 48 frames a second - its a whole new novelty to the filmgoing experience. I had an idea what to expect, but there is no amount of preparation that can prepare you for the feeling. It is truly jarring for the first few minutes - almost to the point that I considered telling the projectionist that they were playing the film too fast. The image quality is stunning, but the actual movement on screen really does feel like a video game or television show. There is something beautiful about the motion blurs now lost from 24 frames a second, and this new clarity is almost too much. Visual effects become all the more blatant, as do green-screen effects. There were several times throughout the film that it felt like I was watching special effects from 1980's, but there were also times I was amazed at what I was seeing. Do I think this will become the new standard? I can't say for sure, but I sincerely hope not. Seeing a movie like this at 48 frames a second is like getting a sneak peak at the making of a movie - you KNOW you're watching actors running around manmade sets, it takes you out of the experience. 

Overall, what can I say. Perhaps a year or 2 from now when the other films are released, I will have a better grasp of The Hobbit as a whole. It is clear the filmmakers are still clinging to the original trilogy as a crutch-assuming it will aid these films. Howard Shore's score has entire sections pulled from the original film - and usually poorly done. The Hobbit could have been a much more unique and invigorating experience. As of now, I am left somewhat disappointed, confused, and yet still curious for more.

(Awards potential: Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects, Best Makeup, Best Sound Editing)

Skyfall (Jo*****)

James Bond is undoubtedly the most enduring film series of all time. There is iconic appeal: women, weapons, thrills, it's not hard to understand why people have continued to return time and again. With Skyfall, the series has truly taken off, and though I haven't seen many of the Bond films, this is undoubtedly a great film, regardless of it being the 20th-something installment in the series.

Breathed new life by director Sam Mendes (of Oscar-winning American Beauty) the film takes a grittier approach, dealing less with the high tech gadgetry and fight scenes and focusing more on the man. The approach is similar to all Bond films, I imagine. A mind-boggling opening scene, the establishment of a new villain, and Bond's test in trying to find and conquer said villain.

And what a villain we have. Javier Bardem, another Oscar-winner known for his own take on iconic screen villains, plays Silva, a computer hacker with a homosexual flair and disregard for the law, entirely. Here is an actor at the top of his form, and following the recent Oscar win for Heath Ledger, it seems like even action movies can be recognized for their talent on screen as well as off.

Even Dame Judi Dench shines as 'M,' her recurring character. We spend much more time with her outside of headquarters, exploring her own persona as she travels with Bond. It is a reserved performance, but one that manipulates the audience at every turn and shines as a high point of the film.

Technically, this is one of the most effective films of the year. From art direction (ranging from WWII tunnels converted into government headquarters) to the music (Thomas Newman carries the Bond theme proudly and adds his own beautiful flair), the film comes together at all the right points. And Roger Deakins, of course. Always a nominee, never a winner. With his nomination for this film (I guarantee his nomination, which will be his 10th), he will continue his reign as the greatest living cinematographer in my mind. From the very introduction to Bond (see above) to the climax, which is an action scene shot in virtual darkness in the country until orange flames beautifully silhouette everything in sight, there is no doubt that this is the best-photographed film of the year. There is a clear evolution of color and image throughout the film, and even though it seems likely the Academy will overlook Deakins once again, this film would be a significant achievement for any photographer.

Forget The Dark Knight Rises or any of the other summer action movies from earlier this year. Skyfall ranks not only as the best action film of the year, but easily as one of the year's best, period.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Bardem), Best Supporting Actress (Dench), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects)

Hope Springs (Jo *1/2)

Hope Springs is an alarmingly misguided film. A story about two lovers lost in the midst of a flat marriage, the story follows predictable curves with little originality to become of the years most confused romantic comedies (or dramas?). Here are two stars in the golden years of their careers, yet not even the talent they bring to such a project is able to provide reasonable redemption.

We see a husband. And his wife. She makes his breakfast every morning, while he reads the paper. They have dinner together, he falls asleep in front of the TV, then they part ways to sleep in their own bedrooms for the night. Here is a film that makes observations about what it expects married life is like, yet makes no assertions of its own. We as an audience are not watching a film made by story tellers, rather a film that is content to just sit and watch what the script provides.

On a whim, Kay (Meryl Streep) reads a book about successful marriages and books a therapy weekend with the author (an uninspired Steve Carrell). Finally convincing her husband, Arnold (Tommy Lee Jones) to come with, the film settles into clunky scenes of therapy while we are supposed to find Tommy Lee Jones talking about oral sex amusing. The comedy employed is simply flat, and the dramatic moments are equally stiff.

As with any summer movie starring Meryl Streep, the ending is happy (though I won't spoil anymore here). Streep, fresh off her Oscar win for The Iron Lady, gets a pass here. The actors try their best, but there is nothing in Hope Springs that excited or amused me, even in the slightest. This was one movie I wish I didn't feel obligated to have seen.

(Awards potential: No awards potential)

Moonrise Kindgom (****)

Wes Anderson is undoubtably a visionary filmmaker, one who's style is instantly recognizable with its flat camera setups, dry humor, and quirky music. Moonrise Kindgom provides nothing less - a highly polished and efficient story of young love, family, and adventure.

The story finds us in an Anderson-esque New England setting somewhere in the mid 1900's. A young boy escapes from his 'Khaki Scout' camp in search of a girl he met a year prior. Having only talked through letters and postcards, the two have decided they are in love and set up a plan to run away to Moonrise Kingdom, a place they named and what will become their sanctuary.

This is, of course, trouble for the boy's supervisors and the girl's family, all of whom go searching for the young lovers as they flee on foot. Much of the humor is found in the actual settings and the commitment of the child actors to the seriousness of their roles. We forget these are young people as they disappear behind truly dramatic and oftentimes perfectly-timed performances.

The cast is exemplary, including Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand, Ed Norton, Tilda Swinton (whose character is simply named 'Social Services'), and Bill Murrary. For such limited release, this is truly a wonderful film through and through. Of course the film will have detractors, and the distinct style of Anderson is one that seems to polarize audiences. In a time when films aim higher and higher in scope, visual effects, and action, here is a small film that aims to be nothing more than the simplest of love stories.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography)

Brave (Jo***)

Disney/Pixar's Brave is a delightful movie for children. Filled with colorful imagery of the Scottish highlands and following an easily-accessible story of acceptance and love, Pixar seems to be missing out on their prime audience: adults who have grown to love the originality of their previous films. While Brave is a wonderfully crafted movie, its ranking alongside its counterparts is almost surely at the very bottom.

The story follows young Princess Merida, a free-spirited girl who refuses to be bethrothed to any of the men from the nearby kingdoms. Though her mother insists it is the tradition of her people, Merida would rather live a playful life without the responsibilities her parents are trying to force on her. When she finally runs away, she encounters a witch in the forest who promises to help Merida's situation and change her mother's mind. This being a children's movie, it is no surprise her mother is transformed into a bear, and the two must figure out a way to right their mistakes.

While I can admire the animation and technical skills behind the making of Brave, I found little I could fully immerse myself in. Coming from a company that has made some of the best films of the past decade (Wall-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story 3, The Incredibles....), this film felt like one from a lesser company. Perhaps if the exact same film had been produced by Dreamworks Animation, for example, I would have found myself more engrossed. I understand how harsh a criticism this seems, but I do believe that in Pixar, the audiences expect something more.

First Cars 2, now Brave, I am concerned that perhaps Pixar is slipping from the top of the animation world in favor of more commercially promising films that appeal to a younger audience. While I sincerely hope Pixar has the potential to reclaim the title of best filmmaking company in the world, word that they are creating more and more sequels (Monsters University), perhaps it is a sad, cold fact that even the mighty can fall. Brave is not a bad film in any regard, but at the same time there is little to remember about it, either...

(Awards potential: Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score, Best Original Song ('Touch the Sky'))