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.

Open Letters Monthly: The Hobbit

Behind the criticisms of 48 frames per second, spin-the-wheel options for director, and allegations of animal cruelty, one thing has not been forgotten: Peter Jackson has brought Middle Earth back to us! Todd and I have been eagerly awaiting this movie's release, and we have now witnessed - along with an IMAX exclusive first ten minutes of geek dream Star Trek Into Darkness - the first part of Jackson's newest trilogy, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

When Gandalf the Grey arrives unannounced on the stoop of mild-mannered halfling Bilbo Baggins, little did the Shire resident know it would be the beginning of a grand adventure. A small company of dwarves led by the warrior Thorin Oakenshield is determined to recapture their homeland from the covetous dragon Smaug, and they need Bilbo's assistance. Along the way they will face many dangers, including trolls, goblins, orcs, and even a strange, ring-wearing creature named Gollum...

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is directed by Peter Jackson and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Graham McTavish, Ken Stott, and Andy Serkis.

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.

No Depp, No Pirates

The animated film has really come into its own in recent years. Once an industry dominated by Disney and littered with the refuse of lesser-appealing projects, today the medium looks... remarkably less dominated by Disney. Actually, between DreamWorks Animation, Pixar (okay, it’s owned by Disney, but whatever), Sony Pictures Animation, Studio Gibli and Illumination Entertainment, among others, the world of first-rate film animation is getting much more populated, a boon for the industry. But of all the animation studios out there, only one piques my interest so much to the point that when a new film is released, I make a point of going to see it. Aardman Animation was founded in 1972 as a low-budget animation studio, but most fans know it best for its trilogy of stop-motion films featuring Wallace & Gromit, the absent-minded inventor and his silent canine companion that were released between 1989 and 1995. The series won two Oscars for Best Short Film, and 2005 sequel The Curse of the Were Rabbit was the studio’s first to win the Best Animated Film award at the 78’th Academy Awards. I still have fond memories of seeing The Wrong Trousers on PBS as a child and laughing at the antics of those two characters. Suffice it to say, I’ve generally liked Aardman’s contributions to the medium, whether it be 2000’s Chicken Run or 2011’s Arthur Christmas. The company has managed to combine a solid mix of physical humor with a dry wit, and with the film’s signature animated style, I was more than ready to take in their latest effort, whatever that may be.

You might not be able to afford a better crew... but hope springs eternal.

As it turns out, that film is The Pirates: Band of Misfits. Hugh Grant makes his animated film debut as simply-named Pirate Captain, leader of a band of amateur pirates trying to prove their worth. To that end, the Pirate Captain enters the Pirate of the Year contest, which he has failed to win in over twenty years of competing. The fact is that he is not much of a plunderer, and his repeated failures have caused weariness to settle in. When his crew captures research ship The Beagle, with a young Charles Darwin (David Tennant) aboard, a startling discovery sends the crew to England, and untold riches may turn the race for Pirate of the Year in the Captain‘s favor. Still, he and his crew must avoid the eye of the dread Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) and her sheer hatred of pirates; but if all goes well, the crew will be back in the Caribbean, celebrating their victory before anyone knows any better.

Yup, I'm just going to hang out with David Tennant now. Don't wait up.

Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to love Band of Misfits, I can’t help but be disappointed for two reasons. The first was the humor. Sure, the occasional witty line of dialogue is rapier sharp. Sure, the characters are largely designed to be fun to watch in action. So why isn’t this thing funnier? Well, the film really skimps on the physical humor that usually is a trademark of Aardman releases. Many of the potentially hilarious bits are hampered by the fact that they are thrown into an opening montage that doesn’t flow as well as the filmmakers thought it would. Directors Peter Lord (who hasn’t directed a film since 2000’s Chicken Run) and Jeff Newitt were obviously unsure as to what they were prepared to do, as many of their smarter ideas ended up not meaning much. For instance, Ashley Jensen plays a woman who poses as a man to serve as a pirate, complete with ridiculously fake beard. What do they do with that? Nothing. Nothing matters but the main story, and even that wasn’t as well played as the directors intended.

Don't make Queen Victoria angry... you wouldn't like her when she's angry...

Secondly, why do I get the impression that most of the film’s best ideas were stolen from similarly pirate-themed entertainment? While obviously parts were inspired by the extremely popular Pirates of the Caribbean series, I can’t help but see comparisons between Band of Misfits and the Monkey Island video game series. As I’ve expressed here in 2010 and in my Open Letters piece on the subject, I absolutely love the bawdy humor, clever storytelling, and compelling characters of the classic Lucasarts game series. So when I see a clear copycat trying to do many of the same things (and using many of the same ideas), I can’t help but feel as though I’ve been cheated somehow. Granted, this film does have some unique concepts all its own (the Pirate of the Year Award is an excellent idea, making one wonder why Ron Gilbert didn’t think of it), and pirate lore don’t exactly have a whole lot of different tales going for it. Still, I can’t be told that there’s a comically inept pirate convinced of his own superiority in popular entertainment and not think first and immediately of Guybrush Threepwood.

Occasionally there are other characters. RARELY occasionally.

The voice acting at least does its job well, though few of the actors present really do anything to distinguish themselves. Grant, who hasn’t really been relevant since the early 2000’s, proves there is still a career at 52 years of age, and his charming personality is narrowed only by the character’s limitations, and not his own. Tennant is also great, though I bet you likely wouldn’t have recognized him unless I’d told you it was him beforehand. Imelda Staunton is underused, but uses her short time wisely and to great effect. You might recognize some of the others, but Jensen, Anton Yelchin, Martin Freeman and Brendan Gleeson are sadly underutilized as the Pirate Captain’s crew, while Jeremy Piven and Salma Hayek make the most of what they can as his rivals.

Hoping there's a bottle of rum on the other side!

Though a silent monkey does end up providing most of the film’s best moments (and naturally not appearing until the film’s halfway mark), there was simply not enough to like about The Pirates: Band of Misfits. Sometimes when a foreign film fails in America, it’s because they present too much for the normal American film-goer to take in, or is too far removed from the average viewer’s comfort zone. Pirates has the opposite problem, and while it’s still a decent film that you can watch with your kids, it’s certainly not up to the high standards that Aardman has set over the years. There’s still a new Nick Park film on the horizon (Park created Wallace & Gromit), so there’s still hope for the future. As it is, Pirates won’t tickle your funny bone, and for that reason alone you can simply walk away.