Movies: The Wolf of Wall Street

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Martin Scorsese's latest collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio hits theaters, a wild ride through the life of a Wall Street bandit.  DiCaprio puts you right in the thick of Belfort's explosive life, fully earning the film's R-rating with plenty of sex, drugs and language.  In addition to serving as a look at the man's life, though, these aspects actually generate quite a bit of humor, using a somewhat light-hearted tone.  If you can handle it, go see it and let DiCaprio's performance knock your socks off.


Here it is:  my last review of a movie released in 2013.  There were some films that I was tempted to see in the theater but decided not to; many of them I have now seen via Netflix, but not all.  It was a record year of filmgoing for me, which I'll get into more detail in another post.  Next week I'll have my own nominations for various awards (mostly acting), and the following week will be my top 10 of 2013, along with brief reviews of what I caught on Netflix and some miscellaneous awards (underrated, overrated, etc.).  I already have my eye on a few new 2014 releases, but first, The Wolf of Wall Street.  This went under the radar for me until recently, despite being a Scorsese film.  I've enjoyed other Wall Street/financial industry films, and I've enjoyed DiCaprio-Scorsese collaborations, so the decision was made.  The Wolf of Wall Street was directed by the aforementioned Martin Scorsese, and stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill.

Narrated by the main character, Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio), the "Wolf" is introduced at the height of his power for a few minutes at the beginning.  The rest of the film shows his rise, reign, and trials.  An eager, earnest youngster, Belfort shows up in New York City in the mid-1980s hoping to strike it rich on Wall Street.  He starts at the bottom, working for broker Mark Hanna (McConaughey), a man Belfort soon aspires to emulate.  Belfort works his way up fast thanks to hard work and natural sales man skills - but the firm he's working for goes under due to 1987's "Black Monday".

Belfort is almost resigned to letting his old dream of riches die when he finds a little office selling penny stocks.  At first scornful, Belfort begins to realize that there is an even easier way to the riches he so desires.  Working with neighbor Donnie Azoff (Hill), a fellow salesman, and a few others, Belfort begins to live his dream and shows all the decadence, lust, abuse, power, control - and yes, even humor - that went with it.

The Wolf of Wall Street has an impressive cast list - but make no mistake, this is Leonardo DiCaprio's movie.  Since this film is about his character's life, there's only one substantial scene, and less than ten minutes overall, that I can remember without him in it.  So if he stunk, the movie would, too.  Fortunately, Leo knocks it out of the park as scumbag Jordan Belfort.  He really throws himself into everything, from the business aspects to Jordan's personal life to his seedy - OK, immoral - leisure activities (the joy seemed so genuine, in fact, that I started to get a little worried about the actor's own personal life).  A good bit of his performance is showy - but remember, he's playing one of the most arrogant, power- and wealth-hungry individuals in the country.  He gives stirring speeches, gut-busting comic scenes, and even some moving emotional parts.  Bravo, Mr. DiCaprio.

The next biggest part (which is much, much, much smaller) is Belfort's friend and business partner, Donnie (Jonah Hill).  As with Moneyball, Hill shows some real acting chops - and he's also much funnier here than in his recent straightforward comedies like This Is the End.  I'm not sure Hill is a good choice for many leads, but in this kind of supporting role, he is dynamite.  The parts start to get quite small here on out, so here are some brief notes:  Kyle Chandler is likable and believable as Belfort's FBI hound (especially in a scene on a yacht)... Margot Robbie, besides being stunning to look at, does a nice job acting as Belfort's trophy wife... Rob Reiner is excellent and, unsurprisingly, hilarious as Belfort's dad... and McConaughey has basically one scene but it's a powerful one.

Wow, I was not prepared for what this film would be like.  If you find lots of graphic sexual content (much of it pretty crude), copious drug use, and/or lots of swearing (broke the record for number of F-bombs in a mainstream non-documentary film, according to Wikipedia) to be deal breakers... well, you should probably skip this.  In Wolf's defense, the tone is similar to American Hustle:  if they aren't going for a laugh every time, it at least doesn't get too dark or gritty.  Beyond the R-rated nature of the film, it seems to have two main objectives:  to show the audience the mindset of a self-made gajiollionaire and to make you laugh.  It succeeds on both levels.  I've already told you about DiCaprio's great performance but there are a lot of other interesting aspects from the way people around him act to the financial industry culture.  I don't believe every Wall Streeter is a Belfort in hiding, but it is easy (and scary) to believe that many succumb to what Belfort (the film is based on his memoir) did.  Even though some of the humor was a little too crude even for me, most of it was hilarious, even funnier than American Hustle.  Scorsese's trademark soundtrack also is present, but here Russell out-Scorseses the man himself in Hustle.

***

As I've already hinted at, there are plenty of comparisons between The Wolf of Wall Street (WWS) and American Hustle (AH).  While I prefer this film to AH, there are also some things that keep it from an "A" score.  The plot details of WWS and AH are significantly different, but both boil down to main characters making a living from cheating other people.  WWS is able to focus on just one man, where AH gets diluted by four main parts (two of which eventually spin out of control).  Both have a similar "let's have fun!" tone, although AH, especially by the end, is certainly the more optimistic/positive of the two.  WWS's superior script and more even performances are ultimately what put it ahead for me.  Still, I should mention that, while WWS is gripping throughout, it's also long:  a full three hours.  There aren't any particularly weak spots that needed to be cut, but for the good of the whole it should have been 2.5 hours at most.  And while I commend WWS's focus on Belfort's rise and fall, it nevertheless kept the film somewhat limited in its results (i.e.: the brain over the heart).  Those caveats aside, The Wolf of Wall Street is a great film.  If you can tolerate the R-rated stuff, I highly recommend it.

Sports: NFL Playoffs Divisional Round

NFL Playoffs:  Divisional Round

Well, it wasn't a great weekend for my predictions - but more importantly, it was a great weekend to watch the games.  Two of the games were decided by field goals at the very end, and the Chiefs-Colts game was the most entertaining I've seen in years (possibly top 5 all-time).  Really, only the 49ers-Packers game went as I thought it would.  Chiefs-Colts was just bonkers and defied everyone's expectations.  The Saints showed great patience and resilience while the Eagles were ineffective and went away somewhat meekly.  And the Bengals were snake-bitten by a few crucial plays (esp. RB Bernard's fumble) that went against them, plus the miserable play of QB Andy Dalton.

Hopefully we'll get a similarly entertaining weekend for this round.  Although as long as the evil TTSNBN is vanquished, I will be happy.


AFC:

Indianapolis Colts @ TTSNBN
Saturday, 8:15 PM ET

Talking about TTSNBN makes me feel ill, unless it's about how they've just lost, so let's try to jinx them and move on.

Prediction:  TTSNBN - 34; Colts - 20

San Diego Chargers @ Denver Broncos
Sunday, 4:40 PM ET

Ooh, here's a doozy to pick.  There are perfectly rational arguments to be made for either team to win.  On the one hand are the underdog Chargers - they've already beaten the Broncos in Denver this year, and only lost by 8 in their other meeting.  Plus, the Chargers have won five straight including last week's convincing defeat of the Bengals.  On the other hand, the Broncos are the highest scoring team in regular season history, and their QB has broken the single-season yard and TD records.  They went 13-3 in the regular season, and consistently looked dominant.  So which of these arguments prevails?  Since it's almost a tie in my head, I'm going to go with my gut and say the Chargers; I think people are more likely to ignore their advantages and be shocked if/when the upset occurs.  (But I'm rooting for the Broncos!)

Prediction:  Chargers - 28; Broncos - 24


NFC:

New Orleans Saints @ Seattle Seahawks
Saturday, 4:35 PM ET

These teams have already played this year, and it was NOT pretty for New Orleans, a 34-7 beat down. The Saints didn't even get 200 total yards on offense; they had as many rushing yards last week as they did in that game.  Of course, the Saints probably shouldn't count on Brees having one of his usual 300-400 yard passing games because the Seahawks have the #1 pass defense in the league.  On the other hand, the Seahawks' offense seems to be in need of some WD-40 recently, especially after their final home game, a 17-10 loss to the Cardinals.  I would be surprised if either team (particularly the Saints) won big in this one.  We know the Saints have a great offense and the Seahawks a great defense; but what will happen in the reverse roles?  That's where the game will be decided.  With an amped up Seattle crowd cheering them on, I'm betting (only figuratively) the Seahawks here.

Prediction:  Seahawks - 23; Saints - 17

San Francisco 49ers @ Carolina Panthers
Sunday, 1:05 PM ET

When these teams played in week 10, both were on a roll.  The difference was that the 49ers were a proven squad, having made the Super Bowl last year, and the Panthers were still being questioned due to their 7-9 record in 2012.  Well, the Panthers went on the road and slugged it out in a defensive battle, coming out on top, 10-9.  It ended up being huge not only in helping them win the NFC South but also preventing the 49ers from winning the NFC West.  As the week 10 meeting revealed, the teams have a lot of similarities.  Both have athletic QBs who are capable of brilliance, but also of long streaks of 3-and-outs and turnovers.  Both have physical, aggressive defenses.  I think the 49ers win, primarily because of experience but also, strangely, because they got to play last week.  San Francisco got to keep its momentum going last week (its 7th straight win), while the Panthers rested but also maybe had too much time to think about its first year of relevance in a while - and as the home "favorite".

Prediction:  49ers - 27; Panthers - 13


Let's hope for another good weekend of football, and above all else... GO COLTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Movies: Anchorman 2

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (C+)

Long Story Short:  Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell and co. return for the highly anticipated - and highly marketed - Anchorman 2.  All the old friends are back plus some new ones, but unfortunately the film serves to prove the saying that you can have too much of (and try too hard to make) a good thing.  Ron and co. are fun, but it's over the top in an overly scripted way, lacking the original's cleverness and spontaneity.  Disappointing.


The review for the last of my highly-anticipated 2013 films arrives this week, and there will be at least one, possibly two more new reviews before my annual movie review.  I've started to get a peak at what's coming in 2014, and so far I haven't seen a lot that gets me too excited - now 2015, that's another story.  We'll get there when we get there, though.  Anyway, when I first saw Anchorman nearly 10 years ago, I liked it a lot.  It wasn't my favorite Will Ferrell (probably my favorite contemporary comedian) film, but it was in the top tier.  As most of you reading this surely know, the film developed a cult status that far surpassed its box office success - "The Legend of Ron Burgundy" was fulfilled.  Of course, I was excited to see what they could come up with when I heard a sequel was coming out.  Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues was directed by Adam McKay and stars Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Christina Applegate, et. al.

You want a plot overview?  Go back and watch the first, then substitute gender competition with adaptation to a new media landscape (aka 24-hour news).  I don't say this in a negative way, but rather because A) it's Anchorman and the plot really doesn't matter and B) I want to give away as little as possible since surprise is such a key ingredient in comedy.

In addition to bringing all the major players back from the first, Anchorman 2 invites a small army of new supporting players and cameos.  Reprising his role as the lead, Ron Burgundy, is of course Will Ferrell.  As much as I like Will, and as much as I like him playing Ron... his performance kind of encapsulates what I felt about the movie as a whole.  He wasn't bad, but the unique energy, spontaneity, and excitement he brought to the first are strangely suppressed if not absent.  He's still fun but rather than being "the Ron Burgundy", he feels more like an ordinary comic lead in the sequel.  Steve Carell, playing the idiot Brick, has a significantly bigger role this time.  Carell/Brick was hilarious in the first, but seeing this perhaps it was better to keep him a fringe player.  The parts focusing on him are some of the funniest in this film, but they contribute to making the film too off the wall.  To complete the old News Team, Paul Rudd is once again great, although his role is as small as in the first; and David Koechner is still pretty funny, but they make his character a little too loony.

Christina Applegate returns as Ron's wife Veronica and fellow news anchor.  She gets a much, much smaller role here to make room for the new people; she's really here for the plot (such as it is) rather than for comedy.  Most of the new roles are those from the new 24-hour broadcast network ("GNN").  Best is Kristen Wiig; she's my favorite female comedian right now.  All I will say about her role is that she has the good fortune to meet Brick.  Also featured are Meagan Good as GNN manager Linda and James Marsden as hot-shot news host Jack.  Meagan is quite good, and goes toe-to-toe with Ferrell several times during the film; her part is one of the film's strongest elements.  Marsden's Jack, however, is a fairly lazy part primarily used for one big but not particularly funny joke.  Finally, there are a lot - a shocking number, really - of cameos.  I hope you haven't spoiled them for yourself if you haven't seen it yet, but I won't be giving them away here.

Anchorman 2 is about as blunt a movie as I've seen in the last several years.  I don't mean that as a positive or a negative, but it has just one goal for every second of its run time:  to make you laugh.  Thanks to that determined, relentless mission, it did make me laugh a decent number of times.  The problem is that Anchorman 2 was not made as a smart bomb in addition to the carpet bomb.  The sequel recycles some of the most famous scenes from the original, and it also comes up with a few clever new ideas of its own.  None of that is necessarily problematic - unfortunately, Anchorman 2 completely whiffs on the tone of the original - a pleasantly spontaneous, generally good-natured but tastefully potty-mouthed (is that possible?  If so, it was), mostly chuckle-producing but the hilarious parts sucker punched to maximum effect.  Anchorman 2 tries so, so hard to make you laugh hysterically every single minute of the film, and most of the jokes are a strange combination of too scripted yet not polished enough.

***

This is a difficult film to review.  First of all, for the first time in a long time I had an unpleasant theater experience (not my local theater!) with the people right behind me talking through significant portions of it.  So it's possible I missed a few good jokes and/or didn't appreciate some as much I should have.  I also love Will Ferrell and perhaps had too high of expectations for this film.  Still, I was disappointed enough that I was determined to watch the original Anchorman again to see how big the differences really were.  I concluded that the differences were substantial.  The original felt much more organic, fresher, smarter, and - the biggest indicator - funnier.  Not to mention, it had a sensible hour-and-a-half running time as opposed to the sequel's two hours.  Anchorman 2 isn't all bad, not by a long shot.  I think they had a great premise, the core is all back and they're really fun (even if they aren't given/give as good of material).  And a second viewing may also improve my opinion.  But this should have been much better.

Sports: NFL Playoff Preview

NFL Playoff Preview

Another wild, crazy, and fun NFL regular season has concluded, and now it's time for the even more enjoyable playoffs (that is, as long as TTSNBN loses again).  After the Super Bowl, I'll do a more comprehensive overview, including a look at how my projections turned out - and I'll also probably include a review of how the Australian Open in tennis went.  For now, I'll make my predictions of who will win each playoff game.  This year, rather than make one set of predictions at the very beginning, I'll predict each game that is scheduled to play before the weekend and conclude with which teams look most likely to make the Super Bowl.

AFC:

San Diego Chargers (9-7) @ Cincinnati Bengals (11-5)
Sunday, 1:05 PM ET

These clubs converge having both won five of their last six games.  They also played each other already this year, with the Bengals winning in San Diego, 17-10.  On the surface, it looks like Cincy is the clear pick here:  not only did they beat the Chargers previously, but they had the better overall record and San Diego barely made the playoffs after barely beating Kansas City's second-stringers.  Still, this team beat both Denver and Kansas City (with its starters playing) in the second half of the year, and Philip Rivers has played quite well after some down years.  Still, Cincy has been blowing teams out at home, and their defense is fearsome.  QB Dalton is a question mark, but in the first round at home, they should win.

Pick:  Bengals - 31; Chargers - 20

Kansas City Chiefs (11-5) @ Indianapolis Colts (11-5)
Saturday, 4:35 PM ET

Once again, these teams have a rematch of an earlier game this season (which the Colts won, 23-7).  While both teams finished 11-5, the Chiefs lost five of their last seven while the Colts won five of their last seven.  After finishing at the bottom of the NFL last year, it seemed the Chiefs had risen to near the top of the league, winning their first nine games.  The Colts, meanwhile, seemed to perhaps overachieve last year, but quietly won the division this year regardless.  The Chiefs are a very solid team, but I saw the Colts-Chiefs game earlier this year and the Colts won it quite convincingly.  Andrew Luck is already one of the NFL's best QBs, while if the Chiefs fall behind by more than 10, I can't see Alex Smith leading a comeback.  Home team should win, again.

Pick:  Colts - 27; Chiefs - 17


NFC:

New Orleans Saints (11-5) @ Philadelphia Eagles (10-6)
Saturday, 8:10 PM ET

For much of the year, it seemed like the Saints had the NFC South locked up - but the Panthers kept winning, and took it from them.  Meanwhile, the Eagles eventually stepped up to the plate and claimed the title in the NFC East, one of the worst divisions in the league this year.  Honestly, I haven't seen either of these teams play much this year, so I don't have much clue beyond their records and team stats.  The Saints are once again a much better at home than on the road (especially in cold cities) - but they also are led by one of the best QB-coach teams in Brees and Sean Payton.  The Eagles pin their hopes on newbie QB Foles and coach Chip Kelly (formerly a college coach).  This should be a very entertaining game either way, but I think the odds are better that the Eagles can ride star RB McCoy to the win while containing the Saints' deadly offense with sacks - and more importantly, cold weather.

Pick:  Eagles - 35; Saints - 24

San Francisco 49ers (12-4) @ Green Bay Packers (8-7-1)
Sunday, 4:40 PM ET

These teams met in week 1 - basically a rematch of last season's playoff game.  Both games were won by San Francisco.  However, now both teams look different than when they last met.  The Packers are just working QB Rodgers back in after almost two months missed due to injury, but they've developed RB Lacy in a strong running game.  The 49ers had some stumbles as well as QB Kaepernick has struggled for consistency.  The difference will likely come down to defense; San Francisco has been strong again this year, while Green Bay has one of the weaker units in the league (not helped by injuries).  This game might be the hardest to watch of the weekend (at least for those of us who prefer offense to defense), but the 49ers will grind out the "upset" win.

Pick:  49ers - 23; Packers - 14


Super Bowl Favorites:

In my preview of the 2013 season, I picked Denver and Seattle to meet in the Super Bowl.  As the #1 seeds, they look primed to get there, but in the last ten years or so, shockingly few top seeds have actually made it to, let alone won, the Super Bowl.  On paper, I'd still pick them as the favorites.  Based on recent trends and intuition, I'd say Indianapolis and San Francisco seem to be the most intriguing clubs from Wild Card weekend.  We'll see!

Movies: American Hustle

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  In one of 2013's featured Oscar contenders, director David O. Russell newest film brings back many familiar faces from his previous films.  This one is much goofier and loosely constructed than his other films, like The Fighter or Silver Linings Playbook.  While he gets fantastic performances from leads Christian Bale and Amy Adams, youngsters Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are severely overrated misfires.  More time seemed to be spent on (successfully) making stylish visuals and a soundtrack rather than on a coherent plot, making American Hustle feel "too cool for school".


As we approach the end of 2013, there are still some interesting films left to see before I write my 2013 year-in-review post.  The film I'm reviewing today is a big Oscar contender, and I may be seeing some others, too (along with more "popular" films like Anchorman 2).  My cut off for films is based on its release date for theater(s) in my area, so some may not be on the 2013 review (for example, Zero Dark Thirty will be on the upcoming review as it was released near me in early January ).  As for American Hustle, I took interest in it for the big names in the cast, the director's previous good films, and the Oscar hype.  With over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, the deal was sealed.  American Hustle was directed by David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook) and stars Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence.

Based on true events, Hustle tells the tale of two great con artists - Irving (Bale) and Sydney (Adams) - who cross paths and become close, both personally and professionally.  The two are living the dream in the late 1970s, except for the minor nuisance of Irving's marriage to Rosalyn (Lawrence).  Things turn for the worse when the FBI, led by agent Richie DiMaso (Cooper) discovers their operation.  All is not lost, however:  in pursuit of his own dream, Richie offers them a way out.

What begins as a limited operation to nab other con artists escalates to involve everyone from politicians to the mob.  Irving and Sydney's once-tight relationship begins to fray, yet they must work together in order to salvage any remaining hope they have for their lives and the people they love.

Director David O. Russell managed to corral an impressive cast, the principal parts going to those whom he has worked with before (Silver Linings, The Fighter).  Christian Bale takes the lead role as Irving the con artist.  I knew Bale was a great actor, but wow does he knock it out of the park here.  Not only did he (along with significant and excellent work from the crew, I'm sure) transform his body to literally and figuratively flesh Irving out, Bale just disappears into the complex character.  He's ruthless and ingenious in his schemes, yet compassionate, vulnerable, etc. - a normal person - in private.  Although often sullen and quiet on screen, Bale's Irving always drew my attention.  Amy Adams as Sydney is also great, despite being given less background to work from.  She lights up the screen when in action - hustling some poor fool or seducing Irving and Richie - as well as in quieter moments when she shows Sydney's keen intelligence yet also, like Irving, her personal frustrations.  Russell was spot-on with his decision to cast Bale and Adams as the primary leads:  they prove here that they are indeed two of the best actors in Hollywood.

Although Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence are getting just as much attention from critics and the press, I was far less impressed with them.  They're the "new kids" - also Russell-film vets - and the director clearly wanted to show them off again.  Cooper isn't completely terrible as agent DiMaso; he's at least fun to watch most of the time.  Yet he doesn't really make a convincing FBI agent - I mean, he's not supposed to be a great agent, but there's very little good to be found in his character at all.  You can chalk much of that up to the script, but Cooper is also guilty of overacting on a number of occasions, particularly later in the film.  Lawrence is even worse; her Rosalyn is caricature rather than a character.  She did an excellent job, fully worthy of her Oscar in last year's Silver Linings, but this is just awful - way, way overacted.  The obviously over-the-top parts aren't even entertaining, and the good moments have more to do with Bale's involvement.  Cooper and Lawrence both show occasional glimpses of their potential, but the actors and their director badly miscalculated how to approach this film.  (Almost forgot to mention Jeremy Renner, a major part in the film!  He does a very good job here, much different from the roles I've seen him in before.  I didn't think he could be so charismatic, but he pulls it off well.)

Some reviews I've read of this compare it to Scorcese's films; as I'm not very familiar with a lot of those, I'd instead compare it with Ocean's Eleven.  American Hustle is meant to be a more high-brow production, but they both have the central components of a group con/heist effort and a web of personal relationships.  I'm sure a repeat viewing of the film would help, but it was a little tricky to follow all the con operations in American Hustle - much of it was buried underneath the (very enjoyable) 70s soundtrack, or run through in rapid fire dialogue with lots of con-lingo.  As the stakes grow higher and higher, it adds to a sense of bafflement, and not always of the comic type intended by the filmmaker.  On the other hand, most of the personal aspects work much better.  The strong Irving-Sydney connection is central, with Richie and Rosalyn acting as disruptors.  Bale and Adams do a tremendous job showing a complex, genuine relationship, and the film makes its strongest impact when that connection gets twisted, hurt, and otherwise altered.  A final point of comparison with Ocean's Eleven is the style, and American Hustle flourishes here, from the costumes to the music.  I don't have the vocabulary or the aesthetic sensibility to go into detail, but it's just entertaining.

***

Similar to 12 Years a Slave, here we have a heavily hyped Oscar contender - and while I think it's a very good film, I'd like to tap the brakes a little on this parade of adulation.  First of all, the film does not have four stand out performances:  it has two excellent ones, and two showy but ultimately failed ones. There's certainly a fine line here, because American Hustle is a comedy and not a serious drama.  But I got a strong sense from Cooper and especially Lawrence of trying (whether cynically or earnestly) to up the ante on their Silver Linings success and it ruined their performances.  Fortunately, Bale and Adams' performances are extraordinary (I'd also add that Louis C.K. is, unsurprisingly, hilarious in a small role and could have been even better if playing opposite someone other than Cooper).  I've already mentioned that the style of the film is high quality and entertaining, but that's superficial.  So the "tiebreaker" goes to the story and plot, on which I probably place more importance than many.  While it's an interesting set up, there are too many developments that just happen (mainly related to what Richie and the FBI are trying to do) and too many scenes that end up being pointless (Rosalyn's role in particular).  So while American Hustle has some great style, two outstanding performances and a neat premise, it ultimately doesn't think it has to play by the rules (Richie/Rosalyn; plot).  Good, but not great.

Movies: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Part two of Peter Jackson's three film take on The Hobbit is now in theaters.  No worries of "dragging" that some (incorrectly, IMO) ascribed to the first film to be found here.  But it may have swung too far the other way:  while it has lots of fun action scenes, The Desolation of Smaug mostly neglects its biggest star, Bilbo (Freeman).  Add in a disappointing climax and, while it's still a solid adventure in Middle Earth, it ranks as my least favorite of Jackson's adaptations.


I'm back with some more blockbuster action - another part two of a franchise, no less!  Coming soon:  I'll be seeing American Hustle (from the director of Silver Linings Playbook) this weekend, and hopefully, Anchorman 2 not long after that.  I've also been blitzing through a number of films I missed in the theater via my Netflix subscription; brief summaries of those will appear in my year-end review.  You can read my review of An Unexpected Journey to get background on that film and my feelings on Jackson's Tolkien-verse as a whole.  Suffice it to say here, this was one of my most eagerly anticipated films of the year.  The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was directed by Peter Jackson and stars Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, et. al.

The action picks up just about right where it left off at the end of An Unexpected Journey:  Bilbo the Hobbit (Freeman), Gandalf the wizard (McKellen), and the band of dwarves are headed for the Lonely Mountain to reclaim the old dwarven kingdom, while being pursued by orcs.  It isn't long before a new menace (not seen before in any of Jackson's films) arrives, but the group manages to escape and get a small breather.  Then, as in LotR, there is a parting of ways:  Gandalf leaves to investigate ominous signs, while Bilbo and the dwarves trek through a dark, mysterious forest.  Among other obstacles are the elves, where audiences are introduced to the female warrior Tauriel (Lilly) and reintroduced to the dashing Legolas (Bloom).

Once Bilbo and the dwarves part ways with the elves, they find themselves still pursued by the persistent orcs.  Unfortunately, there is a giant lake between them and the Lonely Mountain.  Bard, a denizen of Lake Town (literally, a town built on top of the lake), is persuaded to give them passage.  Just when it seems that they've finally caught a break, though, Bilbo and the dwarves - and Gandalf, many miles away - face their greatest challenges yet.

As in An Unexpected Journey, part two of The Hobbit features a large cast.  Martin Freeman returns as Bilbo and, when given the chance, reinforces the fact that he is the best actor to portray a Hobbit yet (and that's no offense to Elijah Wood, et. al.).  The problem is that he gets significantly less time to shine in this chapter; however, he still has all the cleverness, humor and does all the little things that made him great in part one.  Ian McKellen gets a surprisingly large part - of course, Gandalf is old hat (literally and figuratively) for him now as one of the icons of fantasy film.  It takes a little while for Thorin, leader of the dwarves (as played by Richard Armitage), to get his time in the spotlight.  When he does, Richard shows that he has gotten the born-leader persona down even better now, and the script really helps to reveal his character's strengths and weaknesses.

Two elves play significant roles in The Desolation of Smaug.  Primary is Evangeline Lilly (Kate from Lost) as Tauriel.  She is a welcome addition - and not just as one of the series' few female characters.  Evangeline portrays her convincingly as a fierce, effective warrior; newcomer to the outside world and thus excited yet somewhat naive; and possessing of the warmth of (some of) the elves of Middle Earth.  Unfortunately, she's also saddled with a boring love triangle.  Orlando Bloom's Legolas is a welcome addition to the cast - even if he mostly just kicks orc butt (in the coolest ways possible).  Luke Evans plays Bard, the Lake Town guide.  I know he's a major part of the book, but... bleh.  Aside from being an Orlando Bloom clone, he's almost entirely generic and bland, just like Lake Town itself (more on that later).  And the rest:  Stephen Fry as Master of Lake Town (almost makes the Lake Town scenes interesting)... Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug (nice voice work on the dragon - but there are other problems that I'll get to)... the other dwarves (not nearly as mischievous this time, sadly - only one to get major attention is Kili).

Not enough action for you in An Unexpected Journey?  Then The Desolation of Smaug is right up your alley, although it sacrifices other elements - perhaps too much - in doing so.  This film is definitely a roller coaster ride, with a number of different sets and a variety of action.  Much of it is exciting; maybe this is just my personal taste, but I loved just about any action involving the elves.  Despite being a bit over the top, and goofier than LotR action, a barrel-ride sequence in the first half of the film is my favorite, pure fun and smiles - while gripping your seat.  Yet the "crown jewel" - the showdown with Smaug the dragon - was pretty disappointing.  I love how they ominously set it up, but once it gets going it sets off one of my action pet peeves.  Smaug could and should have obliterated Bilbo and the dwarves a thousand times, but supposedly due to the dragon's "arrogance" or, worse, anything the victims did, they survived.  There's a lot of suspension of disbelief that goes into watching a fantasy film, but when a freaking 100-ton dragon tries and fails for twenty minutes to fry a Hobbit and some dwarves, it gets boring and exasperating.

***

While it's disappointing that the climax of The Desolation of Smaug falls so short, the film overall is still very solid (although not as good as part one).  This is still Peter Jackson's Tolkien-verse, and even if it's stranger than ever, it's still a place to behold.  Bilbo/Freeman and Gandalf/McKellen are as strong of leads as you can ask for, though it's disappointing to see Bilbo's role in particular diminish.  New faces and places pretty much balance out as far as good and bad - good being the elves, Mirkwood, and Tauriel (and Legolas, though he's not technically new), the bad being Lake Town and Bard.  Sadly, Lake Town and Bard figure to play much more prominent roles in the last film.  Yes, the concept of a town on the lake is neat, but there isn't anything else to make it special like the Hobbits' Shire, or the elves' Rivendell or Mirkwood, or the other humans' Rohan or Gondor.  I should repeat as a counterweight to this negativity that most of the action in this film is sensational (including a Gandalf duel), and some of the things they show briefly are great, too.  If you're looking for an entertaining time at the theater, you can't go wrong with either this one or Catching Fire.  I can't help but feel apprehensive about the third Hobbit film, based on the way this ended, but if anyone can pull it off, it's Peter Jackson.

Movies: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Katniss Everdeen returns for the second in a four part series that is already one of the biggest modern film franchises.  The ramifications of the first film's ending dominate this middle chapter of the series, as we get increased political tension and another trip to the brutal Hunger Games arena.  Lawrence still doesn't quite strike me as the best fit for sullen yet strong Katniss, but she's helped by a strong supporting cast (esp. Peeta, Effie, and Finnick).  An upgrade in almost every way from the original, particularly in the action, Catching Fire is one of the year's most solid blockbusters.


We're coming down to the last few weeks of 2013.  I'm beginning to Netflix some of the films released this year that I chose not to/didn't get a chance to see in the theater; I'll make comments on those in my 2013 film review (late January or early February).  I'll certainly be seeing the second Hobbit film and Anchorman 2, but beyond that I'm unsure of what else to expect - we'll see!  As for Catching Fire, I meant to see it on opening weekend - but the show I wanted to go to was sold out, so I had to wait.  As I explained last year, I read all three books before I knew they would become films; it's a fun series, though not in the upper fantasy echelons (i.e.: Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, etc.). Still, I was encouraged by the great early scores it got.  The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was directed by Francis Lawrence and stars Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, et. al.

Catching Fire picks up right about where the first film left off:  Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) have just survived the children's gladiator event of a near future society.  Although only one child is supposed to survive, they managed to break the pattern.  As we find at the beginning of this film, this result has produced feelings of solidarity in the oppressed population of Panem - and suspicion among its rulers.  In order to get things "back to normal", Katniss and Peeta are pressured to contain the situation as a romance within the Games rather than as a gesture to the broader society.

Still, Panem's rulers are antsy about the state of things, with Katniss and Peeta representing perhaps just the beginning.  Thus, the next Hunger Games - an "anniversary" edition - is changed to consist of only past winners of the competition.  As Panem looks at the new Hunger Games with more at stake than ever before, Katniss and Peeta are once again thrown into peril.

Like other popular book-turned-film series, The Hunger Games assembles a cast of familiar faces to portray even minor characters.  Reprising her role as Katniss Everdeen is Jennifer Lawrence.  Certainly today's most hyped young actress, Lawrence is good here but not great.  She impressed me in last year's Silver Linings Playbook, but she's not a great fit here.  Lawrence shines when given active, emotional scenes (or entire parts - see Silver Linings), but Katniss is mostly subdued, if not withdrawn, and that isn't a strong suit for Jennifer yet.  Although his part is somewhat small, I am much more impressed with Hutcherson as Peeta this time than in the first.  Partly he benefits from having a unique male role as the passive half in a semi-romantic relationship.  But Josh really holds to that (not an easy task for most hotshot young actors) and makes Peeta a sympathetic, relatable character.

Woody Harrelson is also back as Haymitch, former Hunger Games victor/current advisor to Katniss and Peeta.  Woody is always fun to watch and he's a natural fit for this role - but I do wish that they'd really make him an asshole like he is in the books rather than this "benevolent grump".  Elizabeth Banks as Katniss' and Peeta's chaperone, Effie, might be the sneaky (albeit flamboyant) best part in the series so far.  She is just what I imagined from the books, a surprisingly complex character who makes us believe her sheltered upbringing/enthusiastic job is challenged by Katniss and Peeta's situation.  Favorite newcomer:  Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair (a former winner/contestant in this film).  He is charismatic and commands the screen, separating himself from an endless list of similar parts in other films.  Other notes:  Liam Hemsworth (Gale) continues to be the most obnoxious, useless YA aspect of the films... Philip Seymour Hoffman's (gamemaker Plutarch) has bad dialogue but is such a good actor that he pulls it off anyway... Stanley Tucci (TV host Caesar) is the next best supporting series regular after Effie.

There are lots of different elements in play here for Catching Fire as a film.  It's an adaptation (duh), it's the middle chapter of a series, it's YA but also more ambitious at times.  Oh, and it's supposed to make a LOT of money.  As an adaptation, I think Catching Fire is at least as good, perhaps a bit better, than the first (although it's a little bloated).  Catching Fire also does well despite being a middle chapter; it starts right after the first, so no explanation of time gaps are required; and it finishes up the first aspect of the series' plot (i.e. revolving around the Hunger Games themselves) neatly with a tantalizing preview of what's to come.  Although I cringe at some of the YA-inspired moments (basically anything with Gale), they are fewer in Catching Fire than they were in the first.  The action scenes are significantly upgraded as well from the first, in large part thanks to some of the book's creative "obstacles" within the Hunger Games arena (killer monkeys and spinning islands and ghastly gas, oh my!).

***

I left the theater satisfied but not exuberant; the film is growing on me as I think back on it.  I could see possibly bumping it up to an "A-".  The Hunger Games films have so far been about as faithful as a non-R-rated version could be; its successes and failures have largely mirrored the books'.  Katniss is an interesting heroine, although Lawrence hasn't been able to quite fulfill her potential (she has a big opportunity in the final two films, though).  Her relationship with Peeta is one of the most intriguing parts, in both book and film; while her relationship with Gale is equally cliched and boring in both.  The idea of two innocent civilians' - childrens' - actions sparking a revolution is well realized; even if the details of the situation behind it (the government, the oppressed people, the history) are a little more bland.  That's OK, the main focus is on Katniss and her family and friends, and Catching Fire maintains it.  The build-up could have been trimmed, but it still holds the attention; and once we get to the arena, it's more fun than the first film.  Recommended (although, of course, make sure you've seen 2012's The Hunger Games, or read the books, first).