Down the Hobbit Hole, Part Deux

There can't possibly be a human alive who who has watched Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and didn't fall in love with them. From 2001 to 2003, the man behind such studio bombs as Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners tackled the beloved series of novels by J.R.R. Tolkien, and in doing so became the hero to fantasy fans around the globe, culminating with the climactic The Return of the King's win for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. There are many who consider that movie as among the greatest movies ever made, and many more would include it within their top 10 of all time. That's why people were so excited when Jackson was eventually tasked with taking Tolkien's introductory novel "The Hobbit" and adapting it to the big screen, even if it was going to be three movies (that's about 100 pages per entry), and featured brand new technology that showed the film at a crisp - albeit occasionally nausea inducing - 48 frames per second.

The one moment of rest in this crazy thing.

And it's also the reason many were somewhat disappointed in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a movie that felt both overlong and overly-saturated with blatant Lord of the Rings fan service. While it was still better than most people gave it credit, there's no doubt that Jackson's delicate balancing act didn't quite pay off, as his additions to what was otherwise a bare-bones plot came off as not intended to make the best movie, but please the biggest crowds. However, despite An Unexpected Journey's many flaws, it was still good enough to keep both die-hards and casual viewers excited for Bilbo Baggins' continued adventures in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, which came out this weekend. While Jackson still has to add a LOT in to make up for the fact that he's made a two-and-a-half hour movie out of such a small part of a small book, his continuation of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellan), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and their company of dwarves as they journey to liberate the treasure-laden Kingdom of Erebor from the clutches of ginormous dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). Desolation sees the party arriving at the Lonely Lountain, after contending with Orcs, giant spiders, uncompromising elves, a huge shape-shifting bear, and - worst of all - small-town politics.

That's right, Bilbo, welcome to Camden, NJ.

That Jackson can create a genuinely fun film where his protagonists essentially face their threats through the same means every time (fighting and running, usually in that order) is very much indicative of how good a director he really is. No matter how big or small a budget is, bad directors will usually blow it, while good directors will almost always shine, and this is a man in his element. Jackson, through a mixture of New Zealand scene-capturing and green screen implementation on par with Lucas or Cameron at their best, recreates the world of Middle Earth with such clarity and vision that even the most discerning eye couldn't find fault with his approach. Most notably, the character designs are a huge step up from An Unexpected Journey, where most of the monsters were a bit cartoonish and lacked menace. Here, secondary antagonist Azog (Arrow's Manu Bennett) is vastly improved animation-wise, and Smaug himself is terrifying, through the latter is also enhanced by the talent and charisma of Cumberbatch, who steals the movie much in the way fellow motion-capture specialist Andy Serkis' Gollum did the first time around.

He's one bad mama jama.

Jackson also seems to show a keen insight of what worked and what didn't work in An Unexpected Journey. The Desolation of Smaug, story-wise, is superior in just about every way to the first installment. That's partly because Jackson finally gets it across that this is not Bilbo's story. Yes, the name of the movie DOES start with The Hobbit, and the young adventurer is certainly no passive observer, as things would easily turn out much different without him. But this middle entry makes it perfectly clear that the whole affair is really about an exiled prince's quest to reclaim his homeland, and what that journey does to him emotionally. Armitage's character grows so much this time around, as Thorin finds himself surrounded by familiar territory and the prospect of power looming. Borrowing from Lord of the Rings, the idea of power corrupting the noble is yet another link back to the first trilogy, but thematically it fits and stands as one of Jackson's better implemented connections.

You still can't remember all their names, can you?

But Smaug's overall quality improvement is also because there's more of a flow to the storytelling this time around. Jackson's addition of legitimate Tolkien lore - plus a few improvements all his own - don't feel nearly as ham-handed this time around. There is still a ton of fan service, but most of it - for instance the appearance of Orlando Bloom's Legoas - are perfectly sewn into the plot (although they couldn't resist throwing in a Gimli jab). The prequel elements are still in play, as Gandalf's adventures reveal more elements that won't come to fruition until The Fellowship of the Ring, but gone are the forced cameos from Christopher Plummer, Cate Blanchett (who does still have one small appearance), Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm, and Elijah Wood, which did little more than appease fans of the original trilogy. And you have to imagine that Jackson learned his mistake in including Sylvester McCoy's Radagast the Brown (also known as "Jar Jar") in reducing his screentime in Desolation. I'm just glad the director did not try to shoehorn a Gollum appearance in, as it would have been cool but counterproductive to the project.

Between this and Magneto, McKellan never has to work again.

As to the tale, there are four converging storylines - Bilbo and the Dwarves, Legolas and elf captain Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, added because The Hobbit sadly has no ladies) hunting orcs, Gandalf tracking down the Necromancer (also Cumberbatch) and the political struggle of Lake-town between Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) and the town's Master (the always amiable Stephen Fry) - and while three of those things were most definitely NOT part of the original novel, almost none of it feels out of place or unnecessary. The dwarves even have a bit more to do and say, although I still defy you to identify each one on sight and point out how each individual is important to the overall story. The only one of them to have an arc is Kili (Aidan Turner) who takes an arrow in the knee AND falls head over heels for Tauriel. Well, he is rather tall for a dwarf. However, I say "almost" all the sub-stories fit because the Lake-town political struggle comes late in the game and does little more than pad out the film's already-gargantuan run-time. But it also allows Richard Armitage's Thorin to make a big speech (aww, almost like a little Aragorn) and show what a leader he could be. So between that and setting up much of the struggle for the third movie, it serves its purpose.

Mark my words, Luke Evans is going to be huge very, very soon.

Because of that strong storytelling, Tolkien's characters also have quite a bit more to do this time around. Martin Freeman looks more comfortable in the hairy soles of Bilbo Baggins, and his natural charm combined with the character's everyman heroics make for an easy hero for whom to root. Armitage, McKellan and Evans also stand out, each bringing a slightly different bravado to the big screen that cements their identities in wholly different ways. Bloom, Lilly and Lee Pace (as the elven king Thranduil) add quite a bit of variety, with Bloom's obviously CGI-enhanced skin the only serious gripe I can muster. All the characters have something to add, whether it's plot exposition, or classic sword-and-sorcery tropes, or humor, though Jackson thankfully shies away from singing or childish gags this time around. Everyone's personalities are coming to a head, just in time for the epic showdown that will be next year's There and Back Again.

Because Middle Earth needs at least one kick-ass femme fatale...

In fact, The Desolation of Smaug shows few of it's many flaws on the surface, though some are remarkably vivid. Some scenes, such as an early one with Mikael Persbrandt as the skin-changer Beorn, feel included solely to appease fans of the novel, their actual relevance to the plot shoddy or un-revealed. Some new characters are merely rehashed versions of minor characters from the original trilogy. For instance, Ryan Gage's Alfrid (the Master's assistant) is practically a carbon copy of Grima Wormtongue. And the action sequences, while a whole lot of fun, tend to get more than a little silly and nonsensical, as well as over-long.

He's baaaack...

But the movie's biggest fault (beyond the story, of course) might become apparent if you see it on IMAX screens. Jackson's decision to film his newest trilogy at twice the normal framerate is quite the ambitious affair, as 48 frames per second was the next - albeit untested - effort to create a brighter, more crisp picture. But what happens when you're able to see things more closely is see more visual errors. This is apparent in the Lonely Mountain sequence, were a meticulously-rendered Smaug is perfect, while the settings around him have not been given nearly as much attention, and it shows. It's distracting, and can easily take the viewer right out of the experience, no matter the quality of the cast or director. It's not as noticeable if you're watching on a smaller screen (and certainly not in 3D), but it doesn't do much to positively endorse Jackson's ambitious method.

Oh, right, he IS in this...

I still contend that Tolkien's first major novel did NOT need to get separated into three films, as there simply hasn't been enough story for our main heroes to engage in without blast after blast of narcissism, nostalgia and unnecessary fan service in a deliberate (and when you consider the popularity of Lord of the Rings, unnecessary) attempt to appeal to audiences. That said, The Desolation of Smaug is still a big step up from its predecessor (let's call it an 8 out of 10), and there's nobody I'd trust more to compile this series than Jackson, who shows he's still got the goods a decade after his last great movie. And let's face it, if and when you see this (and An Unexpected Journey, which isn't great but is still a good, solid effort), there's no chance you won't be chomping at the bit to see next year's finale, which now feels ages away. It's not nearly up to the quality Jackson set with his first foray into Tolkien's work, but his Hobbit trilogy is turning into a decent - and more importantly, fun and exciting - moviegoing experience.

'12 Years': The Best Movie of 2013?

For the second year in a row, one of the year's best films is about slavery. But unlike Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, which was an uplifting tale of the demise of our national shame, or Django Unchained, which was a thrilling, fictional action romp, 12 Years a Slave takes a dark look at American slavery and for a (relative) change of pace tells it from the perspective of the oppressed. It also carries the distinct point of being based on a true story; it's adapted from Solomon Northup's autobiography of the same name, released back in 1853. Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) was a free black man raising a family and making a living as a renowned violinist in New York. But when he was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the deep south, he couldn't dare try and convince anybody in authority as to his identity in a place where simply knowing how to read would be a death sentence for a black man. And so for twelve years, Northup (under the given name of Platt) was forced to pick cotton, build guest houses, punish his fellow slaves, and witness or suffer some of the worst atrocities visited upon man in the whole of our nation's history, all before his eventual (and statistically unlikely) escape all those years later.

We're going to have to learn to pronounce his name, now.

Directed by Shame's Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave is arguably the toughest movie to watch in 2013. McQueen does not shy away from difficult topics, and when a whole race of humans were subject to the kinds of dangers that slaves were subject to in the two decades leading up to Lincoln's presidency, there is no shortage of material for the director to mine. Starting with kidnapping and slavery, we see murder, rape, lashings, lynchings, inhuman punishments, families broken up, and people worked to death. That McQueen and his crew can capture the sheer force of that inhumanity and not flinch at the emotional devastation it brings is more than remarkable; when fellow slaves refuse to get involved in an attempt on Northup's life that literally leaves him hanging from a tree for most of a day, you really get a sense of how that depressingly real world worked on a daily basis. Hans Zimmer's score highlights this all nicely, adapting to the events of this dreary world and excelling where it needs to without threatening to overshadow the scene itself.

Wait... is that Garret Dillahunt? I LOVE him!

McQueen also has the help of an all-star cast to supplement his directing talents. Ejiofor has long been recognized as a talented actor, but not necessarily one that has achieved mainstream success. Arguably his biggest role before now came in the British thriller Pretty Little Things, and that was over a decade ago. Here, he makes the argument that we really should have been paying attention to films like Kinky Boots, Serenity, Children of Men and Redbelt in the years before this. When we're tasked with witnessing Northup's trials over his dozen years of enslavement, you need an actor who can carry that load and look impossibly more tired and worn down from one scene to the next. You can't just ROOT for a character like Solomon; his journey demands that he literally be in the gracious thoughts of the audience, to be PRAYED for, even by nonbelievers. As an actor, Ejiofor manages to elicit that quantity of sympathy with his performance, putting forth a masterful showing that so far outpaces anything else seen this year.

Solomon dearly wishes he knew how to quit him.

And Ejiofor isn't alone, though the extensive cast has a "mixed bag" status. There are some truly epic, award-worthy performances here, especially from the likes of Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano and Sarah Paulson. While each of their characters have similar character traits (evil, quick to anger, sadistic folk), their skills prevent them from becoming overly repetitive, also thanks to the fact that they have their own unique motivations and desires. Other actors would be lucky to have such depth to work with; both Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt put in excellent efforts, but neither is given incredibly much to do, with Pitt narrowly winning out in sheer importance to the story. It never hurts to have such exemplary talents in your cast; sometimes you just wish more had been done with them. That is especially true when noteworthy actors (like The Wire's Michael K. Williams and Academy Award nominee Quvenzhane Wallis) are loaded into "blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos.

Somehow I don't think he's in the mood for "pat-a-cake"

But even the best films possess a few flaws, and 12 Years a Slave is no exception. McQueen and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt put together some gorgeous shots (Bobbitt's work also excels in The Place Beyond the Pines), but occasionally become lost in them, focusing a bit too long on the beauty of the shot, slightly undermining the nature of the setting. Another quibble (because these are indeed quibbles) is one that other reviewers seem to love, the performance of Kenyan newcomer Lupita Nyong'o. Don't get me wrong, I DID like Nyong'o's performance (even if it's not as groundbreaking as people are saying); it's just that the character itself seems to be a fictional catch-all for black women slaves, a design created explicitly to suffer the tragedies of the era that Solomon Northup was not necessarily in danger of suffering. Again, Nyong'o is fine, but her character seems fabricated merely as a side note to deflect attention briefly away from Northup's story. Personally, I preferred Pariah's Adepero Oduye as a mother separated from her children a more compelling overall character, despite substantially less screentime.

Um, is that Beasts of the Southern Wild's Dwight Henry?

As the closing credits roll, you'll probably never want to see 12 Years a Slave ever again. It's has all the makings of a modern classic, but its subject matter ensures that - while arguably one of the year's best - you're not going to walk away feeling all happy and gleeful and wanting to take your friend to see it as well. It even caps the whole thing off by reminding you that Northup's experience was a unique one; of thousands of free blacks kidnapped and sold into slavery, few were ever heard from again, let alone rescued. 12 Years is a story that took far too long to make its way to the big screen, and the result under the direction of McQueen is quite easily among the year's best. So do yourself a favor and see it once. Even if you never want to see another movie anytime soon, I think you'll agree the risk is worth the reward.

Open Letters Monthly: Star Trek Into Darkness

It's been four years, millions of dollars and trillions of 3D applications, but we're finally getting our new Star Trek. Star Trek Into Darkness is the continuing story of J.J. Abrams' reboot of the Gene Rodenberry 1960's television show, replacing legends William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy with Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto. It shouldn't have worked, but thankfully 2009 saw tons of respect thrown towards Trekkies of all ages, and Abrams' vision proved amenable to moviegoers everywhere. Now he's back with BBC's 'Sherlock' as a villain, and the result is everything you would want from the director before he runs off and directs the new Star Wars sequel.

After a mission in which Captain Kirk betrays the sacred Prime Directive to save his friend, he finds himself stripped of his rank, his friendship, and his command of the starship Enterprise. But a second chance makes itself known when the terrorist known as John Harrison attacks Starfleet, igniting an epic manhunt when he flees deep into Klingon territory. Now it's up to Kirk and the Enterprise to capture one man and make him pay for the lives he has taken. But everything is not as it seems, and Kirk may learn that his brash actions have consequences affecting everybody under his command.

Star Trek Into Darkness is directed by J.J. Abrams and stars Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban, Alice Eve, Peter Weller, Bruce Greenwood, Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

A Mystery Solved

This past December, Todd and I saw one of the more underrated literary adaptations of 2011, the Guy Ritchie-directed Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Thrones. There was a lot to like about Ritchie's sequel, from the amazing portrayals of the iconic Detective Holmes and his faithful companion Dr. John Watson by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, to the clever story and ingenious technical effects, to the perfect sobriety that accompanied Jared Harris, playing Sherlock's arch-nemesis Professor James Moriarty with such distinction that it put far more "renowned" performances of the year to shame. Yes, I loved SH2, whose wit and charm won me over even as many passed it off as more of the same. I'd never seen a better pairing of actors in Downey Jr and Law on the big screen, and certainly not a better Holmes and Watson, not even when they were played by Data and Geordi LaForge. I of course did not believe that I'd see better anytime soon. Little did I know, not only would I find a Sherlock/Watson coupling so perfect that it would eclipse the Hollywood duo easily, but where I would find it... on the small screen.

"The Game is a hand! No, that's not right..."

Todd actually put the seed in me for this series... well, to be fair she was the loudest of a few people who had at least mentioned the BBC show Sherlock in my presence. I'm not much for television in general, despite some of the best-ever shows running as you read this. I've yet to see an episode of Game of Thrones, despite loving the books. I've only seen the first season of Mad Men. The same with The Walking Dead. The Sopranos. Deadwood. Rome. I've seen none of them. I love Battlestar Galactica and Sex and the City, but in all honesty I saw most of their episodes for the first time on DVD, well after they originally ran. I've seen How I Met Your Mother and Leverage on DVD only. It's not that I don't enjoy just sitting down to watch TV; I simply don't make time for it, a casualty of my focus on film. If I sit down to watch TV, it's purely from chance; the best example of which is when I accidentally saw the pilot episode of Burn Notice and proceeded to watch everything Netflix had, even the mediocre-at-best Fall of Sam Axe mini-movie. Another Netflix catch, Supernatural (another one we can attribute to Todd), has held a couple of seasons worth of my attention so far.. Recently I noticed that Sherlock was available and, as I had nothing else to do, I sat down and watched the entire first series of the modern-day take of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's penultimate detective.

As always, there's a good story behind this.

Wow. All I can say... Wow.

Similar in tack to Guy Ritchie's take on Holmes but set in today's London and Europe, the series, created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, explores what the master detective would look like in this day and age. The series first aired in 2010, with a three episode arc that introduced us to eccentric detective Sherlock Holmes and his straight-laced partner, veteran military doctor John Watson, who find themselves sharing a flat at 221B Baker Street by chance, and eventually teaming up to solve mysteries the police cannot handle on their own. Don't get too worried when I say that there are only three episodes in the series' first season; each episode is an hour and a half long, making each story less of a TV episode and more of a miniature movie. Based on the tales and characters of Doyle's fiction, the first season of Sherlock turned out to be a wonderful mixture of mystery, humor and amazing character development, a show so good that even when the second season became available to own this past week, I was sure it couldn't possibly live up to the spectacle of the first... well, I've been proven wrong before.

Miss Irene Adler always knows how to make an entrance.

After the dramatic introduction of psychotic mega-criminal James Moriarty (BAFTA-winning Andrew Scott) at the conclusion of season one's finale "The Great Game", season two kicks off with the introduction of another legendary Holmes character, the mysterious and beautiful Irene "The Woman" Adler (Lara Pulver). In "A Scandal in Belgravia", Adler uses her work as a popular London dominatrix to gather into her possession a government secret of such power it threatens to topple the balance of power in Europe. It's up to Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Watson (Martin Freeman) to steal that secret back, but The Woman proves a greater challenge than anybody expected. The biggest mystery might not be how Sherlock wins the day, but whether the emotionless detective and the calculating Adler might actually be falling for one another. In "The Hounds of Baskerville", Sherlock and Watson investigate reports of giant wild dogs in Dartmoor, and whether they have anything to do with the top-secret genetic experiments of the nearby Baskerville government research complex. Finally,. "The Reichenberg Fall" sees the return of mastermind Moriarty, on a mission to debunk and discredit Sherlock's success thus far in the series. In settling what he calls "The Final Problem", Moriarty wants to humiliate and eliminate his nemesis, leaving the criminal mastermind to operate his activities with total impunity.

No comments, or at least none you would understand...

Sherlock is easily among the best-written and best-acted television shows I've seen in years, and that's not a short list to join. In this second season, Moffat and Gatiss made a serious attempt to update some of Doyle's classic stories, after creating relatively original tales in the show's first season. The results are some of the best television I've seen in years, especially "A Scandal in Belgravia" and "The Reichenberg Fall". Of course, their brilliant wring would be worthless without excellent actors to deliver the goods, and Cumberbatch and Freeman are simply amazing. The stellar Cumberbatch uses many of the same intricacies that made Robert Downey Jr's depiction of Holmes so wonderful, but manages to outdo the Iron Man with an arrogance that turns off just about everyone around him, while making him utterly irresistible to the audience. Freeman plays Watson as a true everyman, honest and loyal and friendly, the yin to Cumberbatch's yang. Sherlock has catapulted both actors to new heights, and all you have to do is watch a single episode of this show to see why. The show's regular guest-stars are all at least solid actors, but the real standouts are the villains played by Scott and Pulver. Though she only appears in the season opener, Pulver is absolutely intoxicating as the only woman Sherlock ever loves, a character written so smartly and originally she is more of a unique person than Doyle ever imagined. Scott, on the other hand, is power incarnate. Assuredly deserving his BAFTA for Best Supporting Actor on this show, Scott builds Moriarty as a something far different than the posh genius Doyle first created as Sherlock's foil. Equal parts psychotic, brilliant and manic, Scott seems to play what would be if Sherlock actually had chosen to become evil, a terrifying prospect that really makes the character ring true.

The Devil in a Gray Suit.

Possibly the only real flaw with Sherlock is its incredibly short run time; even with episodes three times longer than most sitcoms, three per season is simply not enough, as the dedicated viewer can watch both full seasons by simply devoting a weekend to it. And filming on the third season won't even begin until January, with Cumberbatch's work on the new Star Trek film and Freeman's leading spot in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit already chewing into their rapidly-filling calendars. It's no wonder Hollywood is already breaking out their own modern-day Sherlock Holmes adaptation, with Elementary set in New York and even featuring a female Watson. However, there's just no way to duplicate what Moffat and company have done with the Sherlock Holmes legend. While there's plenty to keep you occupied until 2013, I still say that you should give this series a shot if you haven't done so already. It's arguably one of the best things coming out of Great Britain right now, and if you want to say that you saw stars Cumberbatch and Freeman BEFORE they made it in Hollywood, this is your big chance.

Tinker Tailor on Mr. Anderson

When British author John le Carre released his fifth novel featuring Secret Intelligence Agent George Smiley in 1974, he can be forgiven perhaps for not realizing what he had on his hands at the time. The first novel in what became known as his Cold War-set "Karla Trilogy" went on to become a bestseller of international proportions, had radio and television adaptations made, and remains one of the best known British novels to date, completely revolutionizing the spy drama in the process. So when Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy finally was given the cinematic treatment by director Tomas Alfredson (who made the original Swedish Let the Right One In), there were those fans of the book whose response was “it’s about time!” It helped that the cast brought in was chock full of talent, from standouts like Gary Oldman and Colin Firth to perhaps lesser known Tom Hardy and Toby Jones. Would any of these stellar abilities get any lasting recognition for such a renowned title? And how does this well-anticipated film fare over the course of a two hour movie when both previous adaptations had to be slotted into seven-part miniseries? My trek to the theater to add this to my yearly film allowance would hopefully answer that.

Gary Oldman: classic curmudgeon

In the wake of a blown operation in which British spy Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) is shot and captured by Russian intelligence operatives, a shakedown is performed at the top of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, forcing out "Control" (John Hurt), the SIS’s director, and his right hand man George Smiley (Gary Oldman). Control is convinced however that one of the four men left in charge of the SIS in his departure is in fact a mole, funneling secrets to Russian Intelligence. When Control, already ill, passes away, it is left to Smiley to ferret out what few clues can be found and to see which of the four operatives, code-named Tinker (Toby Jones), Tailor (Colin Firth), Soldier (Ciaran Hinds) and Poorman (David Dencik), is the culprit, and whether the mole has anything to do with the top secret source of intelligence from Russia, known only as “Witchcraft”.

Yes, books... you might have heard of them

As I mentioned before, the exhaustive cast is one of the major draws if Tinker Tailor appeals to you. Gary Oldman reminds us of what a star he used to be in the nineties, as recent years have seen him starring in less-than-reputable titles or tagging on side roles in big series' like The Dark Knight or Harry Potter. Given center stage, however, he cuts a swath through the material in front of him, with every deliberate motion and dour grimace given for a very good reason, with no wasted energy to muddy up his delivery beyond exactly what is needed. It doesn’t hurt that he’s surrounded by a stellar supporting cast, most notably Colin Firth as a rival Intelligence head and one of those suspected to be a mole. Firth plays up the clichéd British arrogance for the role, but because he’s Colin fricking Firth his performance doesn’t come off as trite or silly. Other standouts include Toby Jones as the smug new head of the SIS, Benedict Cumberbatch as Smiley’s confidante and overly cautious agent, and Mark Strong in a relatively small role as Jim Prideaux, the agent (and Firth’s character’s best friend)  whose capture sets off the whole mess. Kathy Burke impresses in one scene as a foul-mouthed source of information (I guess her character had a larger role in the book), vacillating between helpful and flirty with Smiley. Unfortunately, crushing the story of the book down to a two-hour film means a whole got left out, including a lot of back-story for suspects played by Ciaran Hinds and David Denick. It’s a shame as both are well-regarded actors who would have benefited from a little more screen time. Also impressive is rising Hollywood star Tom Hardy as young agent Ricki Tarr, whose appearance in London allows Smiley clues to the mole in his midst. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable with a shaggy head of hair, shows that no matter the role, no matter how out of place it might seem for him, he can do it. It’ll be a shame to see his career go mainstream (such as in the upcoming This Means War), but if there’s any justice in the world, his name atop billboards will inspire people to see his films sooner rather than later.

What's more ridiculous; his career ascension, or his hair?

The aforementioned plot compressions create other problems besides just glossed-over characters. On one hand, the story feels told as if no crucial details are left out, and the tension the film bears throughout feels completely natural to a spy thriller like this. On the other hand, the tension is born from square one, with little downtime for the viewers to stop and catch their breath amid all the potential treason. While no major details feel left out, the same cannot be said for minor, clarifying ones, and some narrative miscues will throw the viewer off for whole scenes at a time, especially some featuring Mark Strong early on. Overall, the whole thing feels as though you need to have read the book to fully appreciate the experience of seeing this film. This is unfortunately the byproduct of plot shrink, and thankfully it’s no more than a minor nuisance on the film as a whole. Sure, some characters and plot points would have made far more sense with a bit more prodding, but for the most part such details would have been nice additions, not necessary exposition.

He may not get an Academy Award, but he's still Colin Firth!

For a film based on a beloved novel, there were certainly plenty of places where a lesser filmmaker would have screwed up. Thankfully, Alfredson did his source material due diligence and brought together the perfect cast, melding them into a story that would have devolved into drawn-out mumbo-jumbo without a strong hand to guide them. This is one of the few times I will argue that a film should have been LONGER, but thankfully this is no reason not to see what amounts overall to a very good film. While perhaps not reaching “Must See” status, it’s just a rung below, and even if you don’t see this Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy in the theaters, I hope you’ll at least consider it a serious rental in a few month’s time. More importantly, I hope the Academy will show the film and especially lead Gary Oldman more love than the Golden Globes have. Oldman deserves a Best Actor nomination for his efforts, as much for how he has been ignored in today’s Hollywood as he has been vindicated in this international thrill ride.