The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

What is it with “Part 2″‘s right now? They seem to be everywhere. 2013 – the year of the Part 2-er. Mainly, this comment is coming off the back of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire releasing only a few short weeks ago. Back in that review I mentioned the curse of the second in a trilogy, so I’m not going to trip over myself reciting what I’ve already written. Go on – go and have a look, and then come back. Good? Good! Essentially… there’s a lot of pressure on a Part 2. However, the pressure is doubled when one of Part 1’s best characters, Gollum, played by Andy Serkis never appears again in the trilogy. Time to introduce a bloody big dragon voiced by Benedict Cumberbach then right?

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Yes, The Hobbit: The Desoluation of Smaug, or The Hobbit 2 as we’re going to go ahead and call it to save us typing out that long, long subtitle over and over, picks up where The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ended. Thankfully, we don’t need to retread the same turid opening scenes as the first entry though. Further, now that I’m used to the “slightly too fast” 48fps filming, it was much easier to get into than the first entry. This is a solid gold star in The Hobbit 2′s homework book. Essentially, our titular Hobbit, Bilbo (Martin Freeman) must now continue his journey with his band of dwarves so that he can enter through a hidden door in The Lonely Mountain and steal back a jewel for them so that they can restore the glory of the Dwarven Kingdom. Only problem is that a huge fire breathing dragon is sleeping atop it… and he gets disturbed easily.

At the outset, this description would make out that The Hobbit 2 is far more action-packed than its predecessor. And indeed, it certainly begins with a damn sight more action than its predecessors “let’s lay the table and have a sing-song” scenes. This time you have giant bears, orcs and spiders. Take THAT last film. But… well… these action sequences just didn’t captivate me in the same way that the original Hobbit’s eventual action scenes with goblins, orcs, trolls and stone giants did. In the original Hobbit these scenes blew me away or made me smile and laugh. Here? Not so much. Spiders? Yeah, we’ve seen those before in the original Lord of the Rings trilogy. They’re not giant golems are they?! Sure, the film’s eventual climax / third features the huge dragon, and there is some orc action, but for me it wasn’t at the same level as before.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

At least the plot whisks along fairly well and we don’t become stuck in a mire for too long, unlike the first entry. One minute we’re with the elves in the forest, the next we’re in barrels, then a human settlement – it’s all rather brisk. We also get reunited with our favourite archer Orlando Bloom, who takes up a rather central role in the film and becomes involved in a weird love triangle that doesn’t seem to actually go anywhere. Lots of tension, not much affection!

Visually, the film is as you would expect: beautiful. Particularly, Benedict Cumberbach’s Smaug “feels” real enough and is one of the most animated and well-realised dragons that I can remember. You truly feel his personality coming through. Which, for a CGI dragon, is pretty tough to do. Whilst on the subject, it’s probably worth talking about the acting. Arguably, this film belongs to the titular dragon. Martin Freeman is likeable, sure, but he’s not really a “star” here. No, once again, the title of “best character” for a Hobbit film is computer-generated. Cumberbach provides the perfect voice for this character: very English, but at the same time distorted to such a degree that it’s truly menacing and intimidating. Indeed, the FINAL lines of the entire movie are fantastic.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

But that’s the thing… once again, we have a cliffhanger ending. More of a cliffhanger than The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and about on par with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Audience members were left bamboozled and disappointed, again. But at least it shows they were engrossed in the story I guess! To me, the film just felt a tad… empty. There were no closing of story arcs (at all) and too many threads were left open. Sure, keep the majority going, but close some, at least? The film just didn’t sate me in the way that I expected it to, which is a shame. But then again, I’m sure next year’s conclusion can pick up where this left off.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a more immediately accessible watch than Peter Jackson’s first foray into prequel-ville. You’re thrown right into the action, and it never relents. However, I just felt it somewhat lacking. The creatures didn’t impress as much as in the first entry into the trilogy, but at least the 48fps shooting rate wasn’t a distraction this time around. Also, once again, we have a mo-capped character as my favourite. Replacing Gollum was hard… and I’m not saying Smaug totally makes up for this… but at least he’s there to draw the eye and the mind.

At least this is the end of sequelitis for now. Oh, wait… it isn’t. No, not with the new Anchorman on release right now. Sure, we’re heading out to see that soon – but thankfully, it’s not the part of a trilogy. Or so we’d hope. It never stopped The Hangover did it? And look at how well THAT franchise turned out! Thankfully this precious little franchise isn’t even in the same game as thos imposters…

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

Advertisements

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

It’s not unusual for a film to have that “marmite” effect, where you either love it or you hate it. For instance, whilst some (The Phage included) think that Tarantino‘s films are witty, well crafted slices of cinematic gold, others see them as films that just “try too hard” and are filled with superfluous dialogue. Another aspect of cinema right now that’s proving divisive is the use of 3D technology, as not many films use it to good effect and instead use it as a way to put their hands in your pockets and pry those extra coins out. Normally to make up for a lacklustre film. But now, a new contender enters the ring to compete for “Most Divisive Tool in Cinema”: 48 frames per second shooting and projection, thanks to Peter Jackson‘s The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. But is the film worth the money in your pocketses? What’s in your pocketses? You stoled it! You stoled my moneys!! Brings me back my precious!!

The Hobbit (2012)

If you’ve been living under a rock for the past 24 months then you won’t have heard about Peter Jackson‘s latest foray into Middle Earth to tell the tale of The Hobbit – a small prequel to The Lord of the Rings. I’m going to get one thing out in the open right now: I’ve never read The Hobbit. Nor have I ever read The Lord of the Rings. So what you’re getting here is a completely objective (as possible) review of the film… and not a review blinded by sentimentality about a book. So shall we begin?

To cut a long short story short, The Hobbit is the tale of Bilbo Baggins, who was played by Ian Holm in the original trilogy (and reprises his role here as the older Baggins), and is now played by Martin Freeman. The story focuses on how Gandalf (Ian McKellan) tasks the young Baggins with a task to accompany Thorin (Richard Armitage) and his band of dwarves as they trek to the Lonely Mountain to reclaim a homeland for their race. Throw in a chunk of side-plots about a Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbach – you won’t really see him here) and an orc warrior that really has a score to settle with Thorin and you’re about there. And of course… you don’t forget about Gollum (Andy Serkis). Nobody forget about Gollum.

The Hobbit (2012)

So far, so suitably epic. And I must say the film does deliver on that word: epic… eventually. The first 30-40 minutes of the film are incredibly slowly-paced and one would argue “tedious”. This is perhaps made all the worse by the new “marmite” of the cinema: 48fps. For those not in the know, you normally see a film at 24 frames per second (how fast the film is shot and projected) – it looks like a film. A bit grainy, but warm and fuzzy. What Jackson has decided to do is update the formula and shoot at double the speed. This should mean double the clarity and enrich the image. But if like The Phage, you’re not used to this style of filming, it’s extremely jarring. The opening prologue looked like it was being projected at 1.2x speed – everything appeared slightly sped-up and comedic. Not quite to the same extent to a Benny Hill sketch, but more like you’d accidentally sped up a DVD by a notch. As many have pointed out, it looks like a television sitcom or sci-fi (think 1970’s Dr. Who). You half expect Tinky Winky or La-La to stroll over the horizon banging on about “tubby custard” or that damn hoover that used to eat the pink gloop (yes, a Teletubbies reference on Film Phage… in 2012. Damn, we’re current!)

The ultimate impact of 48fps is the fact that yes, things appear much clearer… including the make up and prosthetics on the dwarves. Interior sets also look incredibly cheap and false – this is especially noticeable in the aforementioned 40 minute opening in Bilbo’s house. However… However… I warmed to this method of filming. Especially when it came to the large, lush New Zealand landscapes and anything featuring a CGI character, be they orc, goblin or troll.

The Hobbit (2012)

So whilst I speak of the CGI, let’s delve in here. Some hubbub has been made of the fact that the orcs here are 100% artificially generated. In the original Lord of the Rings trilogy, all of the orcs were extras decked out in prosthetics and they looked brilliant. You see, I’d argue that The Hobbit‘s orcs look even more fantastic – perhaps owing to that high frame rate. The same can be said of all trolls and wolves in the film too. All look simply amazing, so credit really has to go to the SFX crew working on the film. This brings us to what was, for me, the highlight of the film… Gollum.

The Hobbit (2012)Andy Serkis deserves some type of award. Or at least acknowledgement that he is a talent to be reckoned with. Whether it’s Gollum here, or Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the mo-cap performance he brings to the piece is phenomenal. Let’s also not forget his instantly recognisable accent for Gollum – perfection. The entire section revolving around him and Bilbo is cinematic gold. And the visual effects make Gollum look even more lifelike than ever before. You’d swear that he was in the room with Martin Freeman. It’s just a shame that by all accounts, this is the only time we’ll see Gollum in the rest of this prequel trilogy… a real shame. Bring on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes then!

Speaking of “trilogy”, I was initially sceptical of how a short story book could be adapted to fill three 3 hour films. It seemed a little over-the-top and very much like a cash grab. I still somewhat stick to those sentiments, but it’s interesting to see how many extra elements Jackson has thrown into the mix. From speaking with others (Phages never travel alone… like hobbitses), much of the material concerning the Necromancer and Pale Orc aren’t part of the original story – they’re part of the broader Tolkien universe. I’m looking forward to seeing how they develop as the trilogy progresses. I’m not sure it needs 9 hours to explain all of this, but I’m not as cynical as I once was… Maybe, just maybe, Jackson can pull it off again. At 48 frames per second.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn’t the masterpiece many expected it to be. The story lags in places and the decision to use 48 frames per second is a massive risk for Jackson. Luckily, I think it pays off once you’re able to immerse yourself in the story and get over the nausea-inducing opening gambit. Resist the urge to head to a 24fps showing in the next screen and strap yourself in. Once you see your first orc, you’ll be happy you stayed.

One thing I can guarantee is that you’ll leave the screening talking about one character, and that is Gollum. You’ll see children running around hunched over, talking to themselves, and lamenting the loss of their “precious”. A word of warning though. Don’t let them put their hands in your pockets whilst they search for the ring. I think that’s frowned upon in popular culture.

Phage Factor:

4 Star

Believe The Hype?

Philosiraptor says...You read the film was announced, heard who was cast, read the phenomenal previews, saw the trailer and couldn’t wait for ‘your’ film to drop. You’re there first day of release in your seat, popcorn in hand, and two hours later you want to grab the remaining corn kernels, hunt down the director and force them up his/her nostrils to the point it tickles their brain until they apologise for that abomination you just wasted your life on. We’ve all been there. We’ve all bought into the hype of a movie. Why do we do this, and should we continue to buy into Hollywood’s hype machine?

Getting press for your latest upcoming film is something of a no-brainer; publicity’s needed to bring in the customers after all. And nowadays the companies behind your favourite products have capacity to seep into every crevice of your life and expose you to “what’s to come”. But widespread awareness and hype does not a great film make.

Indeed, the same is true for most multimedia, with video games pulling in enormous sales on a yearly basis, especially thanks to blockbuster franchises such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age. Both of which have famously fallen foul of having so much hype surrounding them that they could never live up to expectations. Mass Effect 3 in particular brought in tens of thousands of disgruntled fans who bemoaned the ending of their cherished franchise: not because it was over, but because of how poor it was. Imagine that cardboard box at the end of Se7en didn’t contain a head, but a tube of Pringles that magically carried Freeman, Pitt and Spacey to the moon for a party with Bugs Bunny – that’s how misjudged and down-right weird it was for many. In light of this, the people behind the franchise went as far as amending the ending to suit the public’s demands 4 months post-release. A movie however, is an entirely different beast.

Sarcastic WonkaOne of the most hyped films of 2012 has without doubt been Ridley Scott‘s Prometheus: the long in development spiritual predecessor to 1979’s Alien (I know – it’s aged fantastically for a 30+ year old movie, as has Sigorney Weaver). Every magazine, website and newspaper boy was extolling how great this film was going to be. It was like knowing about the second coming of Christ in some circles. Then when the reviews came out… they were mixed; although it scored a respectable 7/10 with critics and audiences alike, it fell short of many people’s expectations. This was pegged as a “Film of the Year” contender, but it’s clearly not going to get that title any time soon. I mean, sure, we all liked Michael Fassbender acting as an android with scary realism, and liked learning a little about the mythology of the Alien franchise, but the writing sure was haphazard in places; see HISHE‘s YouTube clip below for a brilliant send up. I’d sure like a rewrite on that ending, as opposed to the deliberate sequel-bating that’s so rife right now… but I think I’ll save that rant Opinion article for another day.

Looking for another prime example? How about Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace? Possibly one of the most eagerly-anticipated films ever considering people have been asking “I wonder what happened before Part IV” since it aired in 1977. As I’m sure the majority of you have seen this film it goes without saying that it didn’t live up to the hype… damn you Jar-Jar Binks. And STILL, after we were all bitten by this Ebola-carrying abomination, we still went back again for Episode II, and AGAIN for Episode III. Why? Because we were all promised “this one’s guaranteed to be better” by every publication under the sun. Don’t even get me started on Indy vs. Aliens (commonly called Indiana Jones IV)…

So should we believe the hype, considering how cruelly we’ve been misled by the press in the past? Or do we look to the examples of where the hype was realised, as with Avengers Assemble and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Do we think that Django Unchained, The Hobbit et al., are going to live up to our expectations? Though I must admit, the thought of stretching The Hobbit (a single book) into THREE films probably damages the hype for me. Personally, I think “hype” is great for public awareness of a movie, but shouldn’t be used to gauge quality. We all like to get excited about the latest installment in our favourite franchise / film from our favourite director, but manage your expectations. My advice? Watch a trailer and see the film for yourself… or let The Phage tell you what to think… then watch it.

What do you guys think: is the hype surrounding these massive potential blockbusters merited? Or would you rather go in to a movie blind and be totally surprised by what you see – a bit like walking blind into a dark-room orgy. Sure, it might be fun… but you could come out wishing you were forcing popcorn kernels up your nose, as opposed to forcing **** in your ****, whilst your **** ****s. And no-one likes that.