Score: **** out of ***** (A-)
Long Story Short: The Hobbit entered theaters with enormous expectations and, while not as good as The Lord of the Rings, it proves itself both entertaining and worthy of inclusion in director Peter Jackson's sensational franchise. In a series of great casting choices, Martin Freeman stands out as one of the best as Bilbo the Hobbit; the dwarves may be average company, but Gandalf is a welcome companion. Come for the humor, sense of adventure, and Gollum, but prepare yourself for a CGI-fest.
The roller coaster ride of great movie releases starting in late October has swept us into the last few weeks of 2012. There are still some very interesting films out or yet to come out; I'm not sure how many I'll get to see (e.g.: limited releases). As for The Hobbit, this was one of my most anticipated films of the year. You may know that I'm a big fan of several action/adventure franchises, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of my favorites. After a rocky journey, to say the least, Peter Jackson at last managed to get the precursor to LotR on the big screen - despite being just one book (and a shorter one at that), The Hobbit will be spread out over three lengthy films. The first installment was directed, of course, by Jackson, and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, and others.
The Hobbit opens with Bilbo, circa start of The Fellowship of the Ring (60 years after The Hobbit) giving the background of his adventure to his nephew, Frodo. Back in Hobbit time, Gandalf the wizard pays his little friend a visit in the land of Hobbits known as the Shire. He invites Bilbo along on an adventure, and though Bilbo declines, he receives thirteen uninvited dwarf guests for dinner that night. Eventually Bilbo decides to join them in retaking the dwarves' old mountain fortress which had been overrun and captured by the dragon Smaug for its immense wealth.
Thus Bilbo starts off on the the first great Hobbit adventure. He and the dwarves tangle with trolls, crazy hippie wizards, elves, goblins, stone giants, and more. The main story focuses on the merry band's struggle toward their destination, but along the way elements foreshadowing the events of The Lord of the Rings sprout up, including a first meeting with Gollum and his precious.
Like LotR, The Hobbit benefits from some great casting. First up is Martin Freeman as Bilbo, who is to The Hobbit what Frodo was to LotR. A brilliant choice, Freeman is a natural Hobbit with a perfectly understated, hilarious sense of humor. Freeman is essential in livening up a somewhat slow beginning, and grounding the events of the action-packed finale. Even among all the other phenomenal casting choices in LotR and The Hobbit, Freeman might already be my favorite. The other main character is returning star Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey. I think it goes without saying that McKellen is a tremendous actor, and he truly seems to enjoy playing the character. Gandalf is a bit more adventurous and risk-taking in The Hobbit than he was in LotR, but he has the same kindness, humor, and wisdom.
Thirteen dwarves share this adventure with Bilbo and Gandalf, and to be honest, I marked them as the "hero," the "granddaddy," the "twins," the "fat one," and the rest kind of blurred together. Thorin (ie: "the hero") is kind of the Aragorn of The Hobbit, but he's a poor replacement. Not bad, just not very noteworthy. The dwarves provide some good humor, but I really saw The Hobbit as Bilbo and Gandalf's journey with the dwarves tagging along rather than the other way around (which is technically how it's supposed to be). There are some more familiar faces, too, most notably Andy Serkis (well, his digital face) as Gollum. Although he's limited to one extended scene (which also happens to be perhaps the best in the film), Serkis is at least as good as ever as the slimy, treacherous, two-faced yet pitiable creature. Also involved are Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel (both elves), and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White (even by The Hobbit he's already kind of an asshole).
Just as a baseline to be successful, in my opinion, The Hobbit needed to retain the feel of LotR, and in this it succeeded for the most part. (For a franchise reboot that did not retain the feel of its predecessors to its detriment, see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). This is particularly true early on in the Shire - a convenient base to start from since LotR started in the same place. The Hobbit contains roughly the same mixture of action/adventure and characterization as LotR - if anything, this film scales down the epic and tries to incorporate more character background (kind of strange since it is a prequel, but still). The quality of the action is probably where The Hobbit suffers the worst in comparison to LotR; there's just too much CGI (no more humans dressed up in Orc costumes) and at times it gets a little ridiculous even for a fantasy movie. On the other hand, the film has a really good sense of humor, especially early in the film before the action gets rolling (thank you, Freeman). Finally, it's great to have Howard Shore back on board as composer: he retains several themes from LotR while adding some new ones which, while they need to grow on me, certainly fit the Tolkien universe just as well.
***
The Hobbit is a very good film; only those who hate the genre in the first place or are already nostalgic for Frodo, Sam and the rest from LotR should disagree. The biggest point of contention on The Hobbit seems to be the decision to break that one, small book into three expansive films. First, I'll say that I think Peter Jackson loves the Tolkien world so much that this was not primarily a financial decision. Second... OK, perhaps An Unexpected Journey was a little bloated. If I were the editor, I would have cut down on the final extended action sequence and some of the LotR-preview stuff. But I think I was bothered more by the overuse of CGI than the length of the film. Seeing this made me appreciate just how much the "human" orcs really engaged me in the action of LotR. Sadly, some of The Hobbit's action comes off more like a video game (for specifics, compare the main orc bad guy in Fellowship to the one in The Hobbit). But, like I did for Lincoln, I'm mostly picking nits. The fact is, Jackson successfully plunged back into his unique Tolkien world without missing a beat. Is it as good as LotR (at least two of which were A+ in my book)? No... but that's not exactly an insult. One final thing: I saw this in 2D (ie: neither 3D nor the 48 FPS version). The Hobbit trilogy has a strong anchor in Bilbo and Gandalf; I highly recommend the first chapter, and am eager for the next.
Score: ***** out of ***** (A+)
Long Story Short: Ang Lee faced significant challenges in translating the book to the big screen but, like Joss Whedon with The Avengers earlier this year, succeeded far beyond my expectations. The film follows the book faithfully and does it great justice with visual flair, both in the best use of 3D to date and the realistic ocean and animals, and performances that support the significant narrative and emotional weight. Highly recommended - and please, go see this in 3D.
With a break of just a week, the fall film season marches on. Yesterday I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which I will be reviewing next weekend. However, I finally got to see Life of Pi before that. As likely many of you know, Life of Pi is an adaptation of the book by Yann Martel. I read and loved it in high school, and was intrigued when I heard that it was being turned into a film. At the same time, I was a little dubious about how well it would translate into that medium. Once I saw the great reviews it was getting, though, my decision was made. Life of Pi was directed by Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Brokeback Mountain) and stars Suraj Sharma and Irfan Khan, both playing the main character Pi at different ages.
If you've read the book, I'll start off by saying that the film is quite faithful to the book (although I haven't read it in some years so I might be forgetting some parts). For the rest of you, it starts with a novelist in Canada coming to the home of an Indian named Piscene "Pi" Patel. The novelist has been directed to Pi by someone who told him that Pi had a spectacular tale to tell, one that would "make you believe in God". So Pi starts off by giving the novelist a background of his life as a child in India, the son of a zoo keeper, owner of an oft-ridiculed name, and sampler of religions. Then the family is forced to move to Canada.
The zoo animals are packed onto a huge shipping vessel to sell, and the family stays with the ship's crew. However, a monster storm sinks the ship, with only Pi making it off on a small lifeboat along with several animals from the zoo. Soon, the inhabitants of the boat are down to two: Pi, and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Pi is forced to try to not only survive in the middle of the ocean, but also co-exist with the deadly animal. I doubt I'm spoiling it for you when I tell you he makes it - but just as important are the ways in which the journey fundamentally changes him.
Life of Pi has a small cast, as you might imagine. Pi is obviously the main character, with Suraj Sharma getting the biggest part as the Pi on the boat. He does an excellent job, primarily with expressing vivid emotions of fear and anger in dealing with the tiger, as well as quiet stares that convey everything from despair to yearning. His performance is essential to anchoring the audience in the story, and he succeeds. Irfan Khan, the Pi narrating his experiences, also gets a chunk of time, and he was well cast. He shows an inner calmness that reflects the fact that this man, now living peacefully with a family, has endured and learned so much that he can take it all in stride. The only other notable character/actor is Santosh, Pi's father played by Adil Hussain. With limited screen time, he effectively portrays a strong, reason-driven man who is strained by Pi's religiousness but loves him deeply.
Life of Pi is only the third film I have seen in 3D. The first was Avatar; I found the effects to be pretty, but significantly overrated. Like the film itself, they were just too big and impersonal to leave much impression. The second film was Prometheus, which was simply because the 3D showtime worked better for my schedule; it added little to nothing to the film. Life of Pi, on the other hand, was a perfect choice for using 3D; and an acclaimed, innovative director such as Ang Lee was the perfect filmmaker to handle it. Life of Pi uses the 3D to astounding success in portraying the close quarters danger as well as some dream-like and hallucinatory sequences. Beyond the 3D, the ocean environment is also incredibly well done (the ship sinking sequence is utterly terrifying); and the animals are surprisingly realistic, particularly the tiger.
What propels Life of Pi into greatness, however, is the third wheel of the film (in addition to effective human performances and visual excellence): the story as parable. Now, those who have read the book know the most direct meaning of "parable" here, and it's included in the film. However, out of what seems to be a fairly simple tale of a boy and a tiger surviving in the middle of the ocean, there is so much that can be taken. The best part is, exactly what you take from it can be different from audience to audience, and even separate viewings from the same person can evoke different reactions. To give you a sample of one of the film's themes to me: with a sense of spirituality (not necessarily a belief in one God or another), life can become a series of stories that take on meaning deeper than the immediate struggles or joys that they entail.
***
Life of Pi is my first five-star rated film (since the start of my blog in summer 2010). I consider this A+ rating to mean one or more of the following: the film is simply perfect in just about every way (I can't think of any off the top of my head); the film holds up or even improves on its excellence over time/ repeat viewings (obviously, not a consideration for these reviews); or the film is excellent and also especially appeals to me personally. Life of Pi falls into this third category; I can certainly understand how others might not like the film as much. But at the same time, the strength of the visual style and narrative structure, and the performances to a degree, can't be denied. If you think you'd like to see this film, I strongly recommend that you see this in the 3D at the theater at least once. Let the visuals suck you into the story and then sweep you away, and open yourself to the ways in which the fantastic story can be reflected in your own life.
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: Spielberg continues his historical drama bent with Lincoln, a much different film than last year's powerful War Horse but one that's at least as good. Day-Lewis somehow surpasses expectations in portraying Abe with an utterly breathtaking performances that is one of the best I've ever seen. The other main strength of the film is its restraint, bypassing much of the weighty times of Lincoln's presidency and taking place during a single month just before his death. Whether or not you are a frequent moviegoer, I urge every adult to see this film, in the theater or elsewhere.
Fall movie madness continues, with Lincoln being the latest in not only one of the longest strings of films I've seen in consecutive weekends but also the highest quality of such back-to-back films. My reasons for wanting to see Lincoln were plentiful. First was the presence of Steven Spielberg as director, probably my favorite director of all time, and he has shown himself especially capable and respectful in filming historical dramas. Abraham Lincoln is one of the most intriguing figures in our country's history, and to have Daniel Day-Lewis, possibly the best living actor, portray him was exciting. Thus it was not surprising at all to see Lincoln get an excellent score on Rotten Tomatoes. Lincoln was directed by Spielberg and stars Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, and others.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia's plot chronology, which I rely on since I often don't remember it very precisely, is nonexistent for this film. Lincoln does start rather abruptly, on a rainy night following a bloody battle in the Civil War. President Lincoln (Day-Lewis) sits hunched, almost grandfatherly, below a shabby roof while he listens to Union soldiers express their support for him but also demand for their sacrifice to mean something. The action soon shifts to Washington, D.C., where the film's central plot comes into focus: the attempt to pass the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which outlawed slavery.
Despite having a majority in Congress and a great deal of public support, Lincoln faced formidable challenges in passing the 13th amendment. I won't go into detail, but the challenges come from both friend and foe: Lincoln must persuade a number of Democrats to vote for it to get the supermajority needed, and do it before the surrender of the Confederacy. He must also temper the enthusiastic support of "Radical" Republicans to not scare off his fragile coalition. Even in his private life, Lincoln is enormously stressed by a son who wants to join the army and a wife who is on the verge of a breakdown over the death of their son three years prior.
Lincoln shines a bright spotlight on its cast and asks much of them, and they came through brilliantly. Starring, and appearing in nearly ever scene, is of course Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. With all due respect to Denzel in Flight, Day-Lewis is guaranteed the Best Actor Oscar like no other I can remember. I know it's a cliche, but it's about as accurate as possible: Day-Lewis is Lincoln in this film. In everything from his higher-pitched voice to his physical gestures and tendencies, he creates a man whose every characteristic is consistent with the whole and which also matches with someone I could easily believe as the real Abraham Lincoln. Day-Lincoln tells story after story which could easily have become repetitive and boring, but each time he captures your complete attention and interest. He gives a few extended, powerful rants, but also some abbreviated, everyday speeches with equal skill. He is an honorable man, but one not above using lawyerly, morally ambiguous methods to achieve his crucial ends. Day-Lincoln gets a mischievous twinkle in his eye when he tells a joke, listens passively in agony as his wife screams at him, and gives sad, quiet condolences to those who suffered losses in the Civil War. Day-Lincoln is the film, plain and simple.
But there are some great supporting performances, too. Tommy Lee Jones leads the rest as Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens, who is most memorable in his epic and hilarious smackdowns of the slimy, racist Democratic Congressmen. Jones also shines, though, when you can almost literally see him swallow his pride and accept smaller but achievable steps to true equality. Sally Field shows a side of herself that I don't think I've seen before, depicting a brilliant woman on the edge of insanity, to whom tragedy has brought a constant state of rage; yet she also loves her living family fiercely. David Straitharn (Bourne films) plays Secretary of State Seward with excellent formality and a steady dose of exasperation with his boss. James Spader provides a nice shot of humor as a seedy briber tasked with securing/wrangling/begging the needed Democratic votes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Lincoln's son Robert, but in contrast with the rest of the cast, doesn't really do much with the role.
The main genre of Lincoln is, of course, historical drama. The subgenre is politics, politics, politics. The entire film revolves around trying to pass the 13th amendment, and considering the stakes and the difficulties in doing so, it's certainly a worthy plot focus. There are glimpses here and there of the real effects of the major influences on this amendment - the livelihood of African Americans, and the trauma of the Civil War - but again, the focus is really the Washington political machine and the push and pull between the executive and legislative branches of government. This focus prevented the film from becoming diluted, and still managed to have some powerful emotional moments, typically dealing with either exhilarating political victories or critical moments in Lincoln's personal life. Humor is sprinkled liberally throughout the film, fortunately, most of it coming from Day-Lincoln, Tommy Lee or Spader. Finally, John Williams composed the music, as he always does for Spielberg, and it complements the various tones of the film while not attracting too much attention to itself.
***
Lincoln is about as good as its aim allow it to be; while those aims are perhaps a little limited - relatively speaking - the accuracy with which Day-Lewis and Spielberg hit the target is nearly perfect. There is so much rich material to choose from in dealing with Abraham Lincoln's life, even if you are choosing only from his time as President, that I'm sure there was great temptation to do a sprawling biopic. In fact, the screen-writer, Pulitzer Prize-winner Tony Kushner, initially sent Spielberg a mammoth script. But Spielberg wisely pared that tome down to a one month period that represented perhaps Lincoln's greatest struggle and ultimate triumph. Lincoln certainly gives a remarkable look at the titular man, and Day-Lewis is astoundingly brilliant, but it's more about his efforts and achievement for the nation than about the man himself. I'm not sure, then, how much and how long Lincoln is likely to stick with me: on the one hand, it's a tightly focused and expertly executed glimpse at one historical event, like Argo (although Spielberg is almost saying to Affleck, "good effort, kid, but this is how we do it in the big leagues"), and on the other hand, its smart decision to stay limited might prevent it from becoming an all-time classic. My only gripe with it, really, is that the ending is drawn out a bit too long. Anyway, I'm starting to nitpick: Lincoln is a must see for all adults.
