The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

120px-Film-strip

The entire world will have seen this one by now, so I’ll probably keep the review quite brief. Following on from the epic Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson returns with the “prequel”.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

“I’m looking for someone to share in an adventure.”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: the beginnings of the LotR story, with lashings of dwarf-related humour

See it if you like: deep, expansive, spectacular fantasy

I read The Hobbit when I was about 11 years old, so don’t expect any comparisons to the original text. For the record, I’m now 39 (my birthday was the UK release date for the film!) and my memory rarely stretches past last week, let alone nearly three decades. Reading up on the trivia via IMDB, it’s clear that Jackons has been slightly free with the adaptation as he was with the first trilogy. Some characters are in the film that weren’t in the book, some don’t appear, some bits are jiggled around slightly… In fairness, he did a good job before and the changes – which may have upset purists – helped the story spread more evenly across the films.

Indeed, one of the first tweaks appears at the very beginning where Frodo is seen pestering his uncle Bilbo. Frodo isn’t in The Hobbit at all, but this scene is purely to link the previous trilogy with this precursor.

But what of the rest of the film?

Well, my overall opinion was that it was like a kiddie-friendly version of its big brother. Which, in fairness, is how the books work out. The violence is far less bloody, the plot a little simpler and – dare I risk the wrath? – the effects not as good as the LotR trilogy.

Yes, there are scary monsters and there are a few be-headings here and there… but there’s little (if any) blood. Swords slash and stab, yet come out clean every time. Things move forward more quickly from action scene to action scene with less (though some) time spent in serious conversation. In fairness, the actual start of the film is slow.

As for those effects… well, maybe it’s just the scale of them but they look that bit more cartoony than what we’re used to. They’re still damn impressive, but the slapstick humour dial has been turned up a notch as well making it all a little more child-friendly.

The acting is superb, right across the board. Martin Freeman is a great younger Bilbo, but as ever it’s the older actors who steal every scene they’re in. Christopher Lee (yes, I know, Saruman wasn’t in the book but he’s in the film briefly) and Ian McKellen as Gandalf are both utterly superb. Andy Serkis returns for Gollum‘s “first” appearance (and then went on to become second unit director for the rest of the filming), and in this instance I would say that the effects have been pushed to their absolute limits. Gollum’s facial expressions are mesmerising.

The dwarves are a hearty bunch with a wide array of acting talent thrown about to make up the motley crew, though in honesty when looking down the cast the only name I recognise immediately is James Nesbitt. Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett complete the links to the “big brother” trilogy with their appearances as Elrond and Galadriel – neither of whom, again, are in the book.

Sylvester McCoy, however, turns the tables by playing Radagast the Brown. This time a character who appeared in the LotR books, but didn’t make it into the films. He’s been transplanted to play a part in this one instead, as a slightly bonkers hermit.

All are great performances, including those who – like Serkis – are portrayed almost completely as CGI characters. It may amuse some to realise that one of the the Goblin King’s alter-egos is a flamboyant cross-dresser who calls her fans “possums”…

In short (ha! short! *ahem*), is it as good or as impressive as, say, The Fellowship of the Ring? No.

Is it worth seeing? Yes.

The simple fact is that Jackson’s LotR films will stand pretty much untouched in their stature for many, many years to come. They were something incredible, something impressive. Something people thought was impossible. The technology used for the effects floored you. But in the years that have come since, such digital trickery has become commonplace and – sadly – that takes a shine off The Hobbit. Good though it is – and it’s bloody good – it’s just not as jaw-dropping or impressive.

Oh, and I saw the film in regular 2D. No eye-aching, headache-inducing 3D. No migraine-causing 48fps. Just proper, 24fps flat images. And it was fine.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Red / Burke and Hare / Easy A

Assuming that M Law Solicitors don’t demand I take down this blog post for defaming a film for giving it bad reviews (as they did with my post regarding Parking Eye, which I still maintain wasn’t defamatory as it was in the public interest), please enjoy the following catch-up from the last 2 weeks’ abuse of my Cineworld pass.

Red

“Time to open up the pig”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: a group of retired secret agents take on the CIA to find out who’s put them on a “to be killed” list.

This is another in the current run of bigger-than-life action films that seem to be putting bums on seats at the moment. It’s also one of the best, mainly due to a novel idea and a superb cast. Come on – Helen Mirren with guns? How can that not be cool?

The rest of the eldsters are played by Bruce Willis, John Malkovich and Morgan Freeman. Freeman could be in the biggest cinematic turd in history and would still make his sequences worth watching, but fortunately Red is no such bum-dropping and is instead just good fun.

There’s plenty of action and it makes full use of the common trend of using CGI rather than stuntmen to a large degree. I still prefer more old-school effects (Raiders is the best Indy film by a mile for several reasons, this being one of them), but it doesn’t stop Red being any less enjoyable.

Definitely go see.

Burke and Hare

“That… would be an artery”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Two Irish guys stumble across a nice way of making money – selling corpses to a medical school. Only what happens when they run out of fresh meat?

Honestly, can Simon Pegg do know wrong? I honestly don’t think I’ve seen him in a film I’ve not enjoyed yet. When you add the likes of Andy Serkis and Tim Curry to the cast, then top it off with Ronnie Corbett it would take some kind of miracle to destroy it. Get John Landis to direct and you may as well buy your ticket without seeing a review.

Burke and Hare is perfect Halloween fodder. It’s set in the 19th century, it’s grisly, it’s tasteless and it’s funny. I’d not recommend it for younger kids due to some of the scenes being a little too “eeeeewww” but other than that it’s superb.

There are loads of little references in the background (Greyfriar’s Bobby makes an appearance) and the original historical tale does make for decent film material, even if the facts have been moulded somewhat.

Looking at the other horrors available this Halloween, this has to be the best of the bunch.

Easy A

“That’s the one thing that trumps religion… capitalism”

Plot-in-a-nutshell: shy teen pretends to nob schoolmates for cash/vouchers until it all goes too far

I didn’t expect to enjoy this, despite the trailer being “OK”. After all, it’s a teen-girl-at-a-school film, and they’re pretty formulaic. I just went as it was on at a good time for me to fill 90 minutes of an afternoon.

Oh, I love it when I’m proved wrong.

Easy A has a fantastic script, beautiful dialogue, an in credible wit and a decent story. Emma Stone is excellent as Olive, the girl who gets talked into pretending to sleep with a gay classmate to stop him being bullied for his sexuality. Who then recommends him to others, until she’s made out to be the school slut.

The supporting cast are all well-played from her hilarious family, to the wise-cracking English teacher and the bonkers Christian brigade. There genuinely is not a dull moment.

While Olive does bemoan the fact that her life story wasn’t directed by John Hughes, it could have been. It’s that good.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Four Film Fursday

I actually managed to squeeze four movies in this week due to some nice scheduling at the CineWorld. I’m somewhat busy right now so the reviews will be brief.

The Road

Plot-in-a-nutshell: Father and son travel across the US post-nuclear holocaust trying to find safety.

Sounds like a good plot and the film looks beautiful. All faded colours to a point where you could almost be watching a black and white film. Viggo Mortensen looks skinny and haggard as the dying father, while the kid who plays his son is just annoying and squeally at times.

Thing is… nothing much happens. Every time they meet some nasties, they hide and/or run away. Until the next ones. It’s just one series of non-episodes after another. Boring, uninteresting and tedious.

It’s the kind of thing that will garner OSCAR nominations – arty and pointless. On the other hand it’s just not entertaining, and not worth your cash.

Did You Hear About The Morgans?

Plot-in-a-nutshell: The Morgans (Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker) are separated yet, due to being forced into protective custody in small-town backwater America, start to rekindle their relationship.

Yes, it sounds awful. Yes, Hugh Grant plays his favourite character – Hugh Grant. Yes, SJP (as well as having confusing football-sounding initials) looks like a miserable horse. But by gum it works.

The dialogue is snappy and witty. Grant’s comic timing is, frankly, superb. None of the situations or slapstick is so over-the-top that it can’t be taken too seriously. The supporting cast are good enough in their own right.

I am amazed to say that I really enjoyed this film. Not a classic, but for a night out at the cinema it’s really good entertainment value.

Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll

Plot-in-a-nutshell: biopic of Ian Dury, polio-suffering lead singer of The Blockheads.

This film is superb. I’m not a huge fan of The Blockheads, though I do know the classics that made the charts when I was a kid. However, the way the story is told held my interest throughout.

While large parts are just “film”, there are some interesting jumps back into Dury’s past as well as some very off-the-wall sequences using animation and bizarre set pieces. It’s unusual, but given Dury’s quirky personality it just works.

What is amazingly clear is that Andy Serkis was by far and away the best choice for the lead role. Looking at him alongside photos of the “real” Dury is staggering. Given that the film’s in Cockney, I reckon it at least stands a shot at Best Foreign Language Film at the OSCARs, though Serkis deserves some kind of award for this performance.

Not exactly family viewing due to the language, violence and drug use but an incredibly captivating film.

It’s Complicated

Plot-in-a-nutshell: A divorced couple start bonking again despite one of them being re-married. Comedy ensues. Or not.

Another film about a separated couple, with an acclaimed cast but this one lacking a major component of a comedy – laughs. Morgans is far better than this dragged-out effort. There are moments, but they’re too far apart and not as funny anything in the other film.

Steve Martin continues his new habit of not being funny, but at least he wasn’t even trying in this. Meryl Streep puts on a good performance and Alec Baldwin is semi-sleezy as the ex. However, they just can’t save a poor, plodding script.

If you fancy a rom-com or a date movie, go and see Morgans.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]