It's Tuesday Review Day!
Okay, I talk about films too much. This way, I can exhale all my film thoughts and give weekly (spoiler free) reviews of what I've been watching!
"Tell me a story where everything works out in the end for the evil witch."
Over ten years since ‘Friends’ finished and Jennifer Aniston finally plays a character that’s not Rachel Green...
Claire becomes obsessed with the recent suicide of a woman from her chronic pain support group while dealing with her own personal tragedy.
The main thing to say straight from the start is that ‘Cake’ is an extremely slow film.
It deals with a lot of heavy themes such as suicide, drug misuse, depression and grief. If you’re expecting a typical “rom-com” featuring a ditzy Jennifer Aniston then you’ve come to the wrong place.
‘Cake’ is no doubt a slow burner but it is still interesting nonetheless. Despite a brief 102 minute running time, it feels more like a 3 hour slog so buckle up. Every move that Jennifer Aniston makes is so pained and slow that each scene becomes pained and slow. This sounds like a huge criticism but I actually thought that it worked well for this film. It had to have the slow pace otherwise it wouldn’t have been as effective when you get to the conclusion and resolution. You go through the film trying to piece together Claire’s story with the little hints and clues you are fed but you aren’t really given much until the end of the film.
Jennifer Aniston finally shows some acting chops and plays a character that doesn’t belong in "Central Perk". What really surprised me about this revelation is the fact that she actually does a really good job as Claire.
She delivers a very mature performance as a woman who is struggling to deal with her personal traumas while searching for answers.
It was interesting to watch her cope with both the emotional pain and the physical pain that she is constantly in as a result of an unexplained tragedy. This physical manifestation of her guilt was both compelling and uncomfortable. Claire is in constant agony throughout the entire film and you actually begin to feel all of her aches and pains as the film slowly drags on. You can see glimmers of the woman she used to be with her wit and passion but she is no doubt a broken woman.
The relationships between all of the characters are believable and really suck you into Claire's shattered world. The way the different characters act and react to Claire give you an indication of her personality and her situation which was refreshing to watch in what could have potentially been an extremely stale film. She is a compelling, conflicted, interesting and well grounded female character which is all too rare these days.
Another example of a compelling female actress in 'Cake' is Adrianna Barraza who plays Silvana, Claire's housekeeper/carer, who is left to pick up the pieces of Claire's life. She becomes more than just her paid help as we learn that she just can't bring herself to leave Claire's side. She is well developed and we come to love her as she is like a mother to her. A strong supporting actress that helps boost Jennifer Aniston's performance and raises the bar.
After seeing ‘Cake’, I’m surprised that Jennifer Aniston didn’t at least get a nod from the Oscars with a nomination but she was completely snubbed which is a shame. I don’t think she would have won but a nomination at least would have been justified.
The supporting cast were solid and likeable, especially Sam Worthington as Roy Collins. The relationship that develops between Claire and Roy is heartbreaking and understandable. Both characters are dealing with a massive trauma and are looking for a sense of normality and closeness. It’s interesting to watch the two try and cope together and navigate through the minefield that is grief.
‘Cake’ softly takes us by the hand and presents us with one woman’s journey as she deals with grief and guilt. They say that everyone grieves differently and that is so true in ‘Cake’. Grief is something that we all have to deal with at one point in our lives and I think that this film gently and carefully deals with it and does it justice in the end. It is touching and heartbreaking but you feel a sense of relief leaving the cinema. Whether that relief is the end of Claire’s journey or the fact that the film is over is yet to be determined but it is a nice feeling nonetheless.
Overall, I don’t think I would rush back to see ‘Cake’ any time soon but I think it is worth a watch. It’s a heavy film that is grounded in some hard hitting realism so don’t see it expecting a few giggles from Jennifer Aniston, I’d recommend a few tissues and a bottle of wine if you’re wanting to abide by the cliché...
If watching movies has taught me anything in life, it is not to build an intelligent robot that looks like a human. It never works. If you’ve ever seen ‘Terminator 2: Judgement Day’, 'I-Robot' or '2001: A Space Odyssey' then you’ll know what I mean... Trust me... Just don’t do it.
Young programmer - Caleb, wins a mysterious competition to meet his genius, reclusive company CEO - Nathan and take part in a breakthrough experiment in Artificial Intelligence with a beautiful robot named Ava.
I actually enjoyed ‘Ex Machina’ a hell of a lot. It dives into some immensely philosophical ideas and poses some refreshing questions that you can’t help but run through your mind long after the credits have rolled. When a film forces you to ponder the meaning of life, you've hit the jackpot.
The film explores the relationship between the three main characters - Caleb (the young programmer) and Nathan (alcoholic/genius/inventor) who has created Ava, the first A.I. ever built.
The experiment is to basically see, after Caleb has been shown that Ava is an A.I., whether or not he believes that she has consciousness, despite knowing she is a robot.
An interesting concept in itself.
How can you prove that she does? Does a robot know it’s a robot? How can you test such a theory when you already know that she is a robot?
All of these questions and more are explored in the film and it makes for a really compelling watch.
Oscar Isaac plays reclusive millionaire genius, Nathan, and he is outstanding. I have only seen him in three films so far but he’s rapidly becoming one of my favourite actor working in film at the moment. He balances the right amount of genius and personality to make him likeable but somewhat untrustworthy and even intimidating. This is an actor who either has a fantastic agent who is getting him some seriously great jobs or he has a keen eye for scripts. He is physically large and intimidating to young Caleb who is taking part in the ground breaking experiment and you can feel the tension when they are examining and blurring the line between man and machine. He captures the more primal physical nature of human beings, even with his gorilla like movements and physique, and challenges the more intellectually minded Caleb to dive into a more emotional analysis of Ava than a rational one.
I love the fact that 'Ex Machina' poses the inherent question about building artificial intelligence, it's not how to create an A.I. but should we create one? It doesn’t look at the technical probability but more at the consequences of creating an A.I. and how it could affect the world and future as we know it. Doctor Frankenstein and his monster with a modern twist.
It throws out so many ideas and challenges the audience to make up their own minds.
The special effects in the film were outstanding and some of the best robot effects I’ve seen in a film. Swedish actress Alicia Vikander does an excellent job as Ava, you totally forget that she is a real person and gradually accept that she is a robot which is a huge undertaking for any actress. I think the fact that she was a relatively unknown actress helped her in this role as the audience doesn’t have any expectations of the type of role she is going to play or her traits as an actor. She has enough personality that you feel something for this machine, along with Caleb, and begin to question the ethics of it all. Is it right to “unplug" a self aware robot? After all it (or she) is only a machine, right?
With some touching scenes, it’s beautiful to watch her performance evolve as you try and work out if she does in fact have consciousness. The audience are invited to take part in the experiment with Caleb, which is truly absorbing. I feel like this is the film Stanley Kubrick would have made if he had lived to make 'A.I.' which Spielberg made in 2001 in tribute to him.
There was a surprising amount of tension in the film that I was not expecting. There are layers upon layers of deceptions and emotional conflicts that the audience along with young Caleb have to try and manoeuvre through to get to the truth. Each character in the film has their own agenda and they develop as the plot does. Combining some clever twists and turns with intelligent ideas and an intriguing plot makes ‘Ex Machina’ an extremely enjoyable watch that will, ultimately, leave you with a lot to think about.
‘Ex Machina’ is an intelligent, entertaining and thought-provoking journey that allows the audience to see things from a different perspective. It poses some profound questions and ideas such as the meaning and creation of life, the line between man and machine and where our species as a whole is headed.
I can safely say that I am glad I went to see ‘Ex Machina’ instead of '50 shades of Grey' this weekend.
James Franco & Seth Rogen have to assassinate North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and save the world from nuclear destruction…
Don’t worry, you read that right.
Talk show host Dave Skylark and his producer Aaron Rapoport are recruited by the CIA to assassinate North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un after they manage to land an interview with him for worldwide broadcast.
Let’s just say, I was not expecting much from this movie.
However, in a very strange turn of events, I actually quite enjoyed ‘The Interview’.
It is so hard to tear this film apart because it does it to itself. It doesn’t take itself seriously in the slightest and has so much fun it’s hard not to enjoy it.
James Franco and Seth Rogen are a pair that always make me laugh, despite how hard I try not to. They are always criticised for only playing slightly different versions of themselves in their films but I wouldn’t want it any other way. They are the comedy duo that are crude, funny and often outrageous. They know exactly what they are and they deliver exactly what is expected of them.
James Franco steals the show for me as tabloid show presenter - Dave Skylark. He’s idiotic and charming and that is what we love about James Franco. It’s interesting to watch the contrast between Dave Skylark and Seth Rogen’s character Aaron Rapoport. Aaron wants to dive into some more serious news rather than the celebrity junk that they’ve been covering for the last ten years. They always play those contrasting characters but I felt that it worked a lot better in ‘The Interview’ than it has in the past. They tend to blur the line in their other films but they stuck to it pretty well in this one.
The way Kim Jong-un is portrayed in ‘The Interview’ is just fantastic. The fact that he’s secretly a huge fan of Skylark’s talk show is perfect. The idea that a ruthless dictator actually enjoys watching Dave Skylark’s talk show talk about Eminem being gay or Kim Kardashian's ass just makes me laugh.
Kim Jong-un is played by Randall Park and he does a solid job. He’s funny while being intimidating and really looks the part. Respect for this guy as he must have received a ridiculous amount of heat from Korea for playing the dictator in the way he does...
The film was just under two hours long but it didn’t feel like it at all. The film ended exactly when it needed to and most of the jokes didn’t drag. They hit their punchlines and got out of there when it was right, which is refreshing for comedies of late as they tend to drag on and lose their comedy value. It was borderline repetitive with a few recurring jokes but nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things.
For all of it’s ridiculousness and melodrama, ‘The Interview’ actually comes home with a logical and relevant ending that is both political and interesting which surprised me. It explores the ideology of the Korean dictatorship and maturely deals with it… all the while being totally immature and tasteless. The thought was there though!
I can’t talk about ‘The Interview’ and not talk about the controversy surrounding the release.
There was obviously a lot in the news about the Sony hacks and threats that were happening around the release, which did raise a lot of questions. There was fear of cinemas being bombed and even world war 3 at one point but, with the release being on time in the end and the hush hush of the controversy since then, I suspect the world may have been duped by a clever marketing ploy. Don’t get me wrong, it worked extremely well but it was risky nonetheless.
The controversy helped the movie in a big way. When the jokes are being thrown around about North Korea you can’t help but cringe in horror and laugh at the same time. There were some serious groans and sharp inhales in the cinema as we all wondered how they got away with such blatant satire and ridicule. At the end of the day, it is satire. If you treat it seriously it just makes you look silly. Everything about ‘The Interview’ is ridiculous.
‘The Interview’ is tasteless, outrageous and, admittedly, very funny.
It dips into classic Seth Rogen and James Franco style in the middle of the movie (which wasn’t as funny) but it’s first and last act were ludicrous and hilarious which made up for the slightly indulgent middle section of the film.
The racism in the film is bad but it takes no prisoners. For every joke about North Korea there is a dig at America too. The plot is a huge comment on American culture and attitude which helps restore the balance. The entire film is ironic.
You know exactly what you’re going to get with a James Franco/Seth Rogen film so if you’re expecting something different then you’re going to be disappointed.
Did this film need to be made?
Absolutely not.
Am I glad that it was made?
Absolutely.
Don’t take it seriously, just take it for what it is and you’ll have fun.
"I'm willing to meet my creator and answer for every shot that I took…”
Seeing the trailer for 'American Sniper' in the cinema was a breath of fresh air amongst the stale and generic trailers that were circulating before the Oscar buzz picked up.
It was an intense and well crafted trailer that doesn’t give anything away but whets your palette and gives you a taste of what the film is going to be about. Despite hearing that the recently unpredictable Clint Eastwood was directing, I was excited to see what this movie could deliver, especially with Bradley Cooper at the helm.
Chris Kyle, a U.S. Navy SEAL sniper, becomes a legend on the battlefield as the deadliest sniper in U.S. history but struggles to cope with the psychological consequences of his tours in Iraq.
I went into 'American sniper' with relatively high expectations and I think they were met overall.
Bradley Cooper is a revelation as Chris Kyle. Not only is he built like a brick wall for the role but the way he presents himself as the sniper and war veteran is unlike anything we’ve seen him do before.
What impressed me most was his technical knowledge and his mannerisms with the rifle. There was not one moment in the film that I didn’t believe that he had been holding a weapon all of his life. I just accepted the fact that he was a soldier and moved past it, which is testament to his ability and his commitment to the combat realism that Eastwood desired. The way he held the sniper and how he interacted with it while delivering a credible performance was staggering. It became part of him, like an extension of his own arm, and you got the sense that he had rebuilt Chris Kyle from the ground up and got deep inside him as a character.
The physical transformation that Cooper went through also surprised me. We're used to the heartthrob actor from ‘The Hangover’ and ‘Limitless’ but instead, we get an intimidating and powerful warrior who you would not want to be facing down in a war situation. He gained around 40 pounds of muscle for the role which is nearly 3 stones in UK terms. Any actor who gains 3 stones, not in fat but in muscle, is a force to be reckoned with. After seeing the real Chris Kyle and his mannerisms, I began to realise just how well Bradley Cooper had captured him. This is an impressive performance from an actor who I’m beginning to respect more and more with each performance. I definitely agree with the Oscar nomination for Best Actor and I think he should be a contender.
Sienna Miller was unfortunately relatively forgettable in her supporting role as Chris Kyle's wife - Taya. I'm not entirely sure if it was down to the writing of her character, her acting ability or a mixture of both but I felt that she was an interchangeable character. She was functional in the role but I felt like you could have plucked Sienna Miller out of the role and dropped another actress in and it wouldn't have changed my opinion of the film. It's so frustrating dealing with weak female characters in a film that features so many complex male characters.
There are some heart-stopping scenes in the film that will leave you breathless and questioning the moral judgement of Chris Kyle. He has to make some extremely tough calls, including whether or not to execute a child who he believes is going to bomb his comrades. There are several more but the one featured in the trailer is pivotal to the plot and his character development. The heart-stopping scenes don’t only come on the battlefield but in the human relationships that we see on screen. It could have gotten quite boring quite quickly if it was purely an action flick about a sniper but we get so many layers and emotions wrapped up in the action and the drama.
It’s interesting to watch Chris Kyle dealing with the trauma of war. He has a confirmed 160 kills and it’s impossible not to be damaged by the experiences that he had in Iraq. It’s only when he comes home that you realise just how far he’s gone. He volunteers to go back for 4 tours and it takes its toll, not only on him, but on his family too. This psychological struggle running parallel with the physical combat of war is what really highlights the emotional conflicts of ‘American Sniper’ and helps us understand him on a human level. Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper do a fantastic job of bringing the legend down and showing him as the man.
After doing a little research into the real Chris Kyle I did learn some interesting facts that do somewhat contradict the film but I was determined not to get hung up on them as it is only based on a true story. I don’t believe Chris Kyle is exactly how he is represented in the film and I believe ‘American Sniper’ to be a great work of fiction. It is known that Chris Kyle believed the Iraq soldiers to be “savages" and was a notoriously violent man who was proud of his actions rather than modest and damaged like in the film.
This does taint my post-viewing experience as the more I read, the more I question about the film.
What really let me down in ‘American Sniper’ was the two dimensional representation of Iraq. The soldiers were all faceless and blandly evil, some to the point of being almost pantomime. This is a gross misinterpretation of Iraq and is insulting to the audience. You could argue that it is Chris Kyle’s point of view of Iraq (which would have worked if it was more accurate to the real story) but that’s not how it’s presented in the film. These were men and women just like us and just like Chris Kyle but they’re so demonised that it becomes almost laughable… Not to say that these atrocities weren’t caused by some “evil" people but it isn’t always as black and white as ‘American Sniper’ portrays it.
Overall, I think that ‘American Sniper’ was a fantastically made film by Clint Eastwood with a powerful performance from Bradley Cooper. It makes you think while entertaining you, which is always an enjoyable experience. It deals in a grey area of the human experience with Chris Kyle but is slightly two dimensional in representing his enemies. It is very misleading if you believe it all to be fact and has a slight whiff of propaganda floating around it but, despite this, it is an enjoyable work of fiction that should be treated as such...
"There are no two words in the English language more harmful than good job.”
Whiplash was a film that I had heard nothing but Oscar buzz and high praises for so, needless to say, I was excited to finally get to see it.
A young jazz drummer with a lot of potential is accepted into a respected music conservatory where he gets the opportunity to be mentored by a cut-throat instructor who will stop at nothing to push his students.
I was feeling an unusual combination of thrilled and somewhat let down coming out of ‘Whiplash’…
First and foremost, J.K. Simmons definitely deserves the Oscar for his supporting performance as the absolutely terrifying Terence Fletcher. There’s a lot of tension in the film but it’s not a ghost lurking down a dark hallway waiting to give you a scare, instead, it comes in the form of J.K. Simmons.There's not one second of the entire time he’s on (and off) screen that you don’t feel his presence. I feel like this is the role that he was born to play. He is brutal, witty and powerful.
I believe that everyone, at one point in their life, will encounter a person like Terence Fletcher. I know I have.
When he is pushing the young drummer Andrew to his limits, you genuinely believe that there’s nothing he won’t do to get the results he’s looking for... Including some more unethical approaches that throw up some interesting questions.
You see both his professional side and his personal life and he manages to balance them perfectly in the character. Which is the act? Is he just pushing his students because it's his job or is he putting on the "nice guy" act when he's outside of the rehearsal room? Who is the real Terence Fletcher? It makes for a very intriguing character.
What I really enjoyed seeing was the band situation where Terence Fletcher takes control. I have been sitting on one of those chairs with a conductor that won’t hesitate to single you out in front of the entire band or even throw you out. It was thrilling to watch because I could really relate to it.
It is tense and you can’t help but cling on to the edge of your seat, wondering what Fletcher will do next. Anyone who has been in a large band will understand the pressures of the situation but Director Damien Chazelle does a great job in highlighting it anyway.
I was extremely disappointed in Miles Teller’s performance as Andrew.
I was hoping for either a great actor trying to mime the drums or a great drummer trying to act well. However, what we get with Teller is a mediocre actor miming the drums badly… Which is so heartbreaking when he is being outshone by his counterpart J.K. Simmons, I’d have loved to have seen two fantastic actors going head to head but you never feel like Teller pulls it off. This might be down to experience but it really shows when they are at each others throats.
His drumming is totally off the mark.
The timing is way off and it’s a struggle to really believe him as a player. It seems like he’s had some basic teaching for the role but I can't help but feel like he should be more than competent for the complex parts that he’s meant to be playing. Maybe I’m just being over-critical because I’m a musician but there was a lot of fast cutting and canted angles to cover his sticks which was either a stylistic choice or purely to cover his lack of ability on the drums. I sense it might be a mixture of both. This was extremely frustrating to watch as it took me out of the movie instantly, I don’t mind miming in movies but it has to be done perfectly to make it invisible.
When it came to his performance off the kit, I always felt that he was just “acting” the whole time. It was forced and there was never a natural flow to his performance that I could sink in to and enjoy. Possibly this is because J.K. Simmons totally embodies his character in every detail, it highlights the other actors who don’t seem as comfortable in their roles.
One of the biggest questions in the film is "Is it worth it?".
What's the point in being the best if you have nothing else to show for it?
If you end up hating your talent, is it worth doing? It promotes the idea that you have to be the most skilled player to be the best but I felt the opposite while watching ‘Whiplash’. I felt that the performances and the music were all skill and no heart. It was shallow despite being technically perfect. There was never any feeling in the music that I thought I’d appreciate in the film, it came from the characters around the instruments but never from the music itself. It became more about hitting every note rather than what the music was about. In that sense there was a slight hint of elitism in the film. You can be the best player on the planet but if there's no emotion or love for it then what's the point?
The stakes are always high in ‘Whiplash’ and they are always raised. Each act just cranks the tension up and tightens the grip around your throat. It was well paced as each scene seems to be larger and more hardcore than the last. It was really fun to watch the constant manipulation from Fletcher and how he takes it to the next level, he keeps abusing his authority and eventually using other students to get Andrew to where he needs to be. He'll be kicking and screaming the whole way but, because of how badly Andrew wants to succeed and impress Fletcher, he'll go along with it.
When it comes to performing the pieces in the film it’s not just about playing them well, it becomes about playing them flawlessly. Fletcher is such a perfectionist that he demands the absolute best from each and every player in the band and is willing to mentally and physically abuse them to get the best. This raises a very interesting subject in the realm of teaching and leading. What is the right way? Is there a right way?
It seems extreme in the film but, at the end of the day, Fletcher gets the results. Did he go about it in the right way? Absolutely not but he did get the best out of Andrew’s skill. Abusing the people you are meant to be teaching/leading isn’t what I would consider the “right way” of doing things, I don’t think it is the “right way” of doing things in any walk of life. I personally believe that that form of teaching/leading almost never works but it makes a compelling case for it in ‘Whiplash’.
Overall, Whiplash was exciting with an unforgettable performance from J.K. Simmons but a slightly uneven and unbelievable performance from Miles Teller. It challenges the audience to think but does feel slightly pretentious (sorry Oscar guys)… Worth a watch nonetheless.
"I'm looking for someone to share in an adventure."
'The Hobbit’ trilogy has finally wrapped after a long, bloated and strenuous 6 years since pre-production started in 2008.
The way I went to see ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy is a reflection of the sheer disappointment that I felt after each one passed.
2012
‘An Unexpected Journey’
I excitedly queued up and was first in line to see it.
2013
‘The Desolation of Smaug’
I went to see it... Hopeful.
2015
‘The Battle of the Five Armies’
I happened to catch it on a Wednesday afternoon a couple of weeks before it left the cinema… More of an obligatory watch to finish the trilogy.
I’m going to discuss the three films as the trilogy, treating them like one continuing story as trilogies tend to be.
After the overwhelming success and popularity of ‘The Lord of the Rings', it was too good to be true when it was announced that ‘The Hobbit’ was in the works. Initially, visionary director Guillermo Del Toro was to take the helm and, without a shadow of a doubt, it could have and would have been an extraordinary adventure.
Del Toro could have brought a different style to the story with his background with films like ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ and ‘Hellboy’. “The Hobbit’ is much more of a children’s book than ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy was and had a much lighter, almost fairytale like feel to it that becomes progressively darker. It would have suited Del Toro to the ground. ‘The Lord of the Rings’ meets ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’... safe to say I was more than excited.
Unfortunately, after so many delays and issues, Del Toro left the project. There were rumours of various directors that could take over but, after many negotiations with New Line Cinema and Warner Brothers, it was confirmed that Peter Jackson was to take over and direct the two films.
A rocky start to say the least…
I had faith in Peter Jackson though. After all, he made ‘The Lord of the Rings’ so it’ll be just as good right?
Unfortunately not...
I became extremely worried after hearing the news that it was now going to become a trilogy instead of two films like first planned.
There was a long debate as to whether or not it was simply a money grabbing campaign to spread it over three films or a creative decision that would best serve the story. I preferred to believe it was the latter but I was still sceptical. One book to be split into three films? How is that possible when they made three ’The Lord of the Rings’ books in three films? Granted, there was a lot of content missing from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ that would have been nice to see in the films but splitting a book like ‘The Hobbit’ into three?
My fears were all realised.
The structure of the three films are totally off.
‘An Unexpected Journey’ was so bloated and long that it became boring and tedious.
‘The Desolation of Smaug’ was relatively well balanced and ’The Battle of the Five Armies’ was simply all action.
If they had shortened the long-winded ‘An Unexpected Journey’ and combined that with half of ’The Desolation of Smaug’ then it could have been a well paced and interesting first film.
Cut down the wearisome, mindless action of ‘The Battle of the Five Armies’ and attach that to the last half of ‘The Desolation of Smaug’ and it could have worked as a nice finale.
Instead of three broken films, you would then have ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ and ‘The Hobbit: There and Back Again' to evenly finish our time in Middle Earth.
Unfortunately we don’t live in a perfect world.
In hindsight, Peter Jackson was the wrong director for the job.
‘The Hobbit’ is an entirely different beast to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and should have been treated as such. I really shouldn’t compare ‘The Hobbit’ to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ but because of the way Jackson made ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy it makes it impossible not to.
’The Hobbit' was desperately trying to be another ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and it just didn’t work. It tried to have a similar tone to ‘The Lord of the Rings’ because of Jackson’s heavy influence when it should have been it's own style. Del Toro would have brought a darker and more magical edge to it that would have suited the more childish aspects of the story. However, with Jackson’s serious tone, it becomes a pantomime of melodrama and silliness when we deal with some of the more "unrealistic" characters and plot points.
Del Toro had spoken about using futuristic animatronics that would take a ten year leap into the future for the creatures in the film which would have been amazing to see. It would have been reminiscent of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' with the gritty practical effects. You would start in the happy and golden shire at the beginning of the journey and slowly descend into a dark, nightmarish fairytale. This would have been interesting to experience rather than the epic films Peter Jackson tried to make them in an attempt to tie them into 'The Lord of the Rings'.
We ended up with a huge amount of extremely fake and silly looking CGI (Computer Generated Images) that end up taking you out of the film. It got to the stage that I wasn't sure what was real anymore, rather than what was CGI. A terrible mistake after how great ‘The Lord of the Rings’ looked with the practical effects and miniature work. The CGI in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ was ground breaking but it wasn’t over-used. The CGI was only used when something couldn’t be done practically and all of the CGI that was used looked so incredible that you forgot that it wasn’t real.
The fact that they were planning on using a real actor to portray Bolg (one of the Orc villains) in the film but later swapped the practical costume and make-up out in favour of a completely CG character, really upset me. When you see the photographs and concept art for the original character, it looks fantastic! However, we are given a totally two-dimensional CG character that has no weight or power and he becomes totally unbelievable.
CGI Bolg
Original Bolg
Peter Jackson has said in the past that he wished all of the orcs in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ could have been CG and that way of thinking terrifies me as a movie lover.
How can you favour CG characters (that don’t ever look as real or have as much emotion) over a practical character that comes alive on screen. You can physically see and feel the character and that brings the reality of it home. They interact with the environment differently and they bring out performances in the other actors that a CG character just can't. There isn’t another orc in the series that comes close to matching Lurtz from ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ in terror or on-screen presence. Why is that? It’s because it’s a real actor!
One CGI aspect of ‘The Hobbit’ that I actually really enjoyed was Smaug the dragon in ‘The Desolation of Smaug’. He was menacing, articulate and actually extremely intimidating. You got a sense of the sheer size and power of him with his booming voice and piercing eyes. It was quite a spectacle to watch him in 3-D in the IMAX. They seemed to have spent a lot more time working on him than any of the other effects because he seems to outshine any of the other CGI that is featured in the other two films.
Another issue I had with the CGI was how the environments looked. You get an organic feel from the ‘The Lord of the Rings’ sets and locations, they look like they could exist and some of them actually did. They went above and beyond to build and create realistic sets and miniatures to give the audience a more immersive image of Middle Earth that drew everyone in. I get that maybe they were going for a more dreamy effect for the locations as it is a more lighthearted film but you can't have it both ways when they're also creating a dark and moody tone for the rest of the film. I always remember seeing the original locations in 'The Lord of the Rings' for the first time. Rivendell was breathtaking, Rohan was majestic and Moria was haunting.
What we get in ‘The Hobbit’ trilogy is awful looking CGI environments that look more like a Thomas Kinkade painting, not that there's anything wrong with a Thomas Kinkade painting, it’s just that this is Middle Earth we’re dealing with, not Disney...
(Rivendell from 'The Hobbit')
(Thomas Kinkade)
Martin Freeman was a good choice for Bilbo, I can say that much for it. He captured the essence of Bilbo and I honestly can’t think of an other actor that I would have rather seen in that role. His prudish attitude and mannerisms are so representative of Bilbo and the Hobbit lifestyle that he blends right into Middle Earth with ease.
The famous scene with Gollum from the book was also a memorable moment. It actually felt like great cinema and like we were getting a flavour of how good the films could have been. It felt closer to the feel of the book and it gave us a ray of hope that we never really felt again.
Most of the action sequences in ‘The Hobbit’ looked like a ride that you would see in Disneyland. They were ridiculous in the context that they were in. If Del Toro had done a similar sequence in the almost fairytale like style then it probably would have been acceptable in that world. For instance, the Barrel sequence in ’The Desolation of Smaug’ was absolutely ridiculous but it should have been a memorable moment from the book that just didn’t translate in Jackson's vision.
This being said, some of the more traditional action sequences from 'The Battle of the Five Armies' was actually quite enjoyable. When it wasn't silly and exaggerated, it was quite a sight with all the various armies all joining in one place for an epic showdown. I revelled in seeing the Dwarven army for the first time, something that you never get a taste of in 'The Lord of the Rings'. However, despite all of the huge action and intricate set pieces, I can't help but feel a little underwhelmed as I've seen them all before and I've seen them done better. It felt like a video game that was made as a spin off for 'The Lord of the Rings', it's exciting to play but I'd rather see the real thing in the movie.
There's a lot of convenient stalling when villains are allowing heroes to have their "touching" moment and (just when you think all hope is gone) there's suddenly someone there to rescue them! You quickly catch on to it and it becomes predictable. They do it so often that it's almost laughable.
The characters that we knew and loved from ‘The Lord of the Rings’ became caricatures of themselves. We didn’t care for anyone, not even Gandalf… All of his lines were like cheap rip-offs of the extraordinarily heart-felt moments he gave us in ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, which is heartbreaking to say. Don't get me wrong, Ian Mckellen is a phenomenal actor but he even said that he broke down crying on the set because of the lack of human interaction working with the green screen and the excessive use of special effects.
"I cried, actually. I cried. Then I said out loud, 'This is not why I became an actor'."
It's so hard to actually care for any of the characters in the film. For instance, the forced love story between dwarf number 7 and the elf lady just totally missed the mark. You never spend enough genuine time with any of the characters to develop a bond that, if broken, would render you helpless. Even when some of the main characters start dying it's hard to care. Comparatively in 'The Lord of the Rings' when a character is dying or in danger, you can't help but cling onto the edge of your seat in the hope that they'll survive. Sometimes even bringing a tear to your eye. Unfortunately, this just never happens in any of 'The Hobbit' movies, even though they were trying their best to get that same reaction.
Overall, the trilogy as a whole is a total misfire. There was so much money pumped into three films that shouldn’t have been made by a director that just needs to learn to let go. A disappointing end to what could have been a half decent set of films had Del Toro made them.
Although, we did get a great song out of the 'The Desolation of Smaug' by Ed Sheeran. I'd say that was a small consolation.
Just stick to 'The Lord of the Rings' and forget this trilogy ever happened.
