The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (**)

Peter Jackson ought to be ashamed of himself. Years in the making and many more years of waiting, at last the cinematic adaptation of this teensy 300 page book is complete. Too bad there's not much to show for it. While The Hobbit-and-whatever-the-rest-of-the-title-is doesn't settle into "bad movie" territory, what it represents is far more upsetting: the George Lucasification of Peter Jackson's career.

I will admit right away that I have not been a fan of this trilogy (save for the cleverly-written and oftentimes beautiful "Desolation of Smaug"). What could have made a very fine epic fantasy film was sliced and diced until it was unrecognizable as anything but a fast cash grab by greedy producers, studios that now feel encouraged to split adaptations into more than one film in order to maximize profits and box office revenue (Twilight, Harry Potter, Divergent, and The Hunger Games to name a few). As Bilbo would say, these movies are "like butter scraped over too much bread." It's all fluff.

Picking up from the cliff-hanger of an ending, the film stumbles along and tidily wraps up Smaug's story and then hurries to this grand battle. The battle of 5 armies, no less. Let's see, there are Men, Dwarves, Elves, Orcs.... And then Eagles? Or worms? Or was the fifth army more Orcs? Or maybe those bats we saw... I will not lie that I have little recollection of the book (having read it no more recently than grade school) but the movie hurries forward assuming all filmgoers are well-versed on the lengthy Appendices of The Lord of the Rings novels.

The original trilogy of Middle Earth was grand for so many reasons, least of all it told a beautifully-human story amidst all the magic and goblins and what. The films were such successes because they bridged the gap between book and screen, tweaking here and there to become something fans and non-fans would enjoy. 17 or so Oscars later, it's hard to argue with...

The Hobbit, then, is everything wrong with Peter Jackson today. These films are nothing but effects-laden action flicks that care little for cohesiveness, instead choosing to focus on obscurities to stretch out the runtime to the allotted window. Five Armies, in particular, seems to rehash specific moments from "Return of the King" purely out of laziness, from the villain attacking with a ball and chain, to the very iconic line of "the Eagles are coming." It's a wonder Gandalf wasn't stumbling around Minas Tirith years later going "you guys this is serious deja vu..."

In the end, what could have been? Jackson has dwindled from his roots and lost track of the art behind these movies. Like George Lucas, he oversaturated these movies with an obscene amount of visual effects and flat dialogue. It's quantity over quality. Yes, he helped create this world years ago for Lord of the Rings, but was he the best director for the job with this series? Perhaps Gulliermo Del Toro would have made a better adaptation. Perhaps not... Perhaps what's done is done and Middle Earth can go back to remaining a pleasant memory in our minds for years to come.

(Awards potential: Best Costume Design, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing)

Snowpiercer (*****)

Snowpiercer is without a doubt one of the more stunning films of the year. I found myself drawn to its story and compelled in a way I rarely experience while watching a film. With a small release earlier in 2014 and a quiet jump to Netflix this past month, this little-seen action flick is something that will reinvigorate your sense of "movie magic."

The film falls into a few genres, incorporating each and becoming something a little bit more. It's the near future, and the world has been destroyed by man in attempts to solve global warming. In a truly post-apocalyptic setting, the population is whittled down to a small collection of humans riding the Snowpiercer. This train, over a mile long, journeys through the world and makes a full trip every year. The cars are divided into a caste system - wealthy in the front and going down from there.

The back sees the most horrific settings, as the poor live in tight quarters and are given black, gelatinous cubes as a source of protein. They stage a coup. Working their way from one car to the next, a small group of men and women plan to work their way to the front car and gain control of the engine. Perpetually-running and helmed by a mysterious man named Wilford (who also owned the company that first created the train), the journey through the train becomes something of a march to meet God... Or perhaps more appropriately: a futuristic Dante's Inferno that descends deeper and deeper through rings of corruption.

The rebellion is led by Curtis (Chris Evans), a stern figure who oftentimes becomes narrow-minded in his self-appointed quest. He is joined by Gilliam (John Hurt), one of the more elder passengers who has lost all but one of his limbs to injury and punishment. Edgar (Jamie Bell) is a young second-in-command who seems to have hope for the future when it's clear to us that it's all but impossible.

On the reverse side is Mason, a cantankerous creation of a Yorkshire woman played by Tilda Swinton. She speaks on behalf of Wilford to the back of the train, and through violence and a flair for the absurd, she jumps from the screen as one of the film's highlights. She leads the soldiers helmed with restoring order to the train, and yet her allegiance seems to go with the wind.

There is a lot of beauty in this film, even though it is sprinkled with some very graphic and bloody moments. The train itself is a wonder of art direction. From the back to the very front, we see civilization summed up into such a wide variety of rooms, but all contained to the standard dimensions of a train. For a story with such a claustrophobic sensibility, the visuals never lose our interest. The cinematography, too, finds a perfect balance of intimate and action. We fear for what is to be found at every door, and every sliver of light through a window or crack serves as a reality for the darkness these people find themselves in.

Sometimes movies surprise me. I begin with lower expectations and conclude feeling a rush of emotion. Like "Drive" or "2001," Snowpiercer follows in mighty company. A grand film that is a surefire classic in the waiting.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Swinton), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Makeup, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Enemy (***)

WHEN A FILM requires multiple viewings and research and discussion, is it fair to rate it upon first viewing alone? Enemy has got to be one of the most cryptic movies I've seen, filled with an atmosphere somewhere between a dream and a nightmare. This is a movie with spectacular qualities about it, and yet in the end I am left feeling puzzled and disoriented. Don't call me stupid for saying "I don't get it."

Where to start. We have Adam, a history teacher (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is neurotic and paranoid as only an actor like Gyllenhaal could portray. He stumbles upon a film at the recommendation of his coworker, and upon viewing finds a cast member who looks identical to him. In fact, their looks are so similar that Adam begins to stalk his double. He visits the talent agency that represents him, his home... He manages to get the actor on the phone and insists they meet.

Our other character, Anthony (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a troubled husband to a pregnant wife in a marriage anything but spectacular. She suspects him of cheating and it seems like there have been past incidents. He reluctantly agrees to meet, and the two men find themselves face to face in a seedy motel room an hour away from the city. They compare scars, hands... There's no denying that something is very peculiar about the whole situation.

What happens next is partially expected, partially shocking. Keeping this review spoiler free, it is clear that many ideas in this film have been explored before. The success comes from the tone. Denis Villeneuve. the director (remember Prisoners from last year) does a believable job at creating a menacing cityscape without much more than a minimalist music score and some compelling acting from his cast. From hotel to apartment and streets in between, Enemy shines with thorough attention to detail and planning.

After the film finished, I rushed to news articles and message boards as a way to better understand the movie i just watched. Rarely have I felt so lost after a film has ended. While fans have come up with pretty admirable suggestions for the meaning behind it all, what makes it a good film? The fact that a movie sparks debate and theories does not make it great. The burden of that title comes from each individual audience member. While I was at times compelled, Enemy turned out to be a somewhat disorienting movie that would probably look a lot better on paper.

(Awards potential: Best Cinematography)

The Babadook (*****)

THE BEST HORROR movies don't answer all your questions, they don't leave you fulfilled, nor do they often leave you content in your bed at night. So it goes with "The Babadook," the Australian hit that is making waves across the world, heralding in a reinvigoration of the horror genre (even though we are a few months past the Halloween season). Most 'horror movies' have the ability to scare an audience with cheap thrills and jumps that make you throw popcorn in the air and laugh about it moments later. It's rare for a movie to really unsettle you; to burrow under your skin and send chills up and down your back. Horror is hard, but the set up is even harder. This movie is a masterclass.

We have Amelia, a single mother raising her son Samuel. Her husband died in a car crash years earlier, leaving her alone with her thoughts. To her family, she says she is over it. She doesn't speak of her husband and his possessions are locked away in the basement. The only evidence she casually displays is her wedding ring.

Samuel is no older than 6. He is a typical boy: plays by himself, has a collection of toy guns, talks about monsters under the bed... To his teachers, he is seen as a disruption and is advised to be taught under supervision. After bringing a weapon to class, Amelia decides to relocate him to a different school rather than try and get to the root of the problem. At a Birthday party for his cousin, Samuel pushes her out of her tree house. There are clear issues visible to everyone but Samuel's mother.

One night, they find a bedtime story to read. "Mister Babadook." It's innocent enough... Until it's not. With nightmarish images that pop out of the pages and rhymes that are peculiarly morbid, Amelia hides the book and attempts to calm Samuel's inevitable nightmares. Where did the book come from? The movie cares and it also does not. What motivates most of the film is essential to understanding its meaning, and yet some things are left up to the imagination, which oftentimes do a better job at scares than any movie ever could.

Night after night, and in a progressively intense nature, their house seems visited by a creature whose silhouette is easily identifiable as the Babadook. Lights flicker and doors knock. It's a wonder they don't keep all the lights on in the house... As I sat watching this film, I knew what the horror conventions were and what the heroine should not do in certain situations (don't open that door!). Yet even under the safety of her blankets, there is no protection.

What elevates this movie above the traditional horror flick is the attention to detail and the incredibly rich set up the film gives us. We know so much about these characters by the time they read this book that we are truly invested in their well-being throughout the nightmare. Maybe you think you know how it will end, or that the "twist" will reveal the true monster. Not so, and surprisingly the end was just as invigorating as the beginning; offering so many more ideas and theories than I initially could have conceived.

"The Babadook" understands horror and pulls from a rich tapestry of source material. It crawls under your skin and slowly settles in. It's one of the most exciting movies I've seen all year, and bar none the best horror movie I've seen in years.

(Awards potential: Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Gloria (****1/2)

"Gloria" is the little film that could, and actually does quite well. A small, arthouse film from Chile, this is a fantastic portrait of a woman who doesn't allow her increasing years to put a stopper on living. Quirky, odd, and at times melodramatic, this movie focuses on a very particular story to cover a wide range of emotions.

We meet Gloria. She lives vicariously. Smokes, drinks, a woman who seems to be the life of the party. She is divorced. Throughout the film, we learn little tidbits about her: her two children, her ex-husband, her upstairs neighbors who constantly bicker, and a Sphynx cat that constantly finds its way into her apartment.

As the story goes, she meets a man, Rudolfo. He owns an amusement park of sorts, and the two strike up a passionate affair. He also is divorced, has two children, and a strong attachment to them. Part of the drama comes as the two find different ways to cope with their families. Gloria feels perhaps more entitled - in a seat of power. Since she has been single longer, perhaps she knows more about how to live as a divorcee. Rudolfo, on the other hand, supports his family financially and doesn't see their relationship as anything inappropriate. One scene shows Gloria taking Rudolfo to her son's Birthday party, where he meets Gloria's ex-husband and her children. To Gloria, this is the way to bring a significant other to a family event. To Rudolfo, it's anything but appropriate.

The main reason to talk about this film is Paulina Garcia, the wonderful actress who plays Gloria. At times happy-go-lucky and at times borderline neurotic, its a fantastic performance that should generate more praise that I feel is being delivered. In a time when major movies fail to write strong female roles for older women, this is a movie that shows exactly what Hollywood is missing.

There's not a lot to cheer about, nor is the film satisfied in leaving us with all the answers. In fact the movie bookends with nearly the same scene. Is she unaffected by her past romances as she would lead others to believe? Or perhaps she lives a lonely, little life beneath a glowing facade of exuberance and socializing. I think depending on how you interpret "Gloria," we have either the most uplifting or depressing films of the year. Who's to say for sure?

(Awards potential: Best Foreign Film, Best Actress (Garcia), Best Original Screenplay)