The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

I don’t know why I didn't learn from last year. Especially when I've watched The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey again only recently. Not having read the book since last year (and therefore having forgotten most of the detail) I expected to enjoy the first film a good deal more on a second viewing. Unfortunately though, DVDs come without a massive cinema screen, 3D, and surround sound, and it lost a lot of depth without those. There just seemed to be an awful lot of slapstick humour and unlikely survival after falling down cliffs and getting smashed against rocks.

They’re both wonderful films, don’t get me wrong, but my main overriding feeling after watching both of them has been one of annoyance. Why take a book, turn it into a film, and spend half the film telling a story that is not that book? I know, I know, the Necromancer is definitely there in the book, be it only mentioned briefly, and it’s important to include it to flesh out the story and explain why Gandalf buggers off for a film and a half. I don’t really have a problem with that and it adds necessary complexity. It also gets Sauron involved too – come join the party Sauron – why not? Stick to the plot though! We don’t need new stuff. We don’t need a love story. We don’t need Kíli getting hit with a Morgul arrow. I’m thoroughly convinced that the only reason that little plot twist was added was to a) justify the continuing presence of elfs in the film, and b) so that everyone can be pleased that they knew they had to use Kingsfoil/Athelas (“I remember that because they did that in LOTR – yay”). Of course this means that half the dwarfs stay in Laketown and don’t get to go to the Lonely Mountain as per the entire point of the quest. Silly.

Also I’m a bit hazy on the detail in the book but I’m pretty sure that restarting the ancient dwarven smelters with irritation-induced dragon fire wasn’t how they originally fought Smaug. Good job they started alright though eh!? And does Smaug really need to be hit with a special kind of arrow? And do we really care that much that some dude’s grandfather missed him during the last battle – it’s not exactly his fault. It’s all just creating characters for the sake of giving people a bigger part than they would do otherwise. They’ll be bringing Gollum back next.

I do approve of a kick-ass female elf though. No harm in adding her at all – if they had just stuck to the plot and written her out when they all escaped from the elfs hidden in the barrels. We didn't need either the stupid love triangle (oh there’s a female character – she absolutely has to fall in love) or the battle in the barrels with the orcs by the river. That was gratuitous use of 3D effects in my book.

I think the invention of 3D is very bad for films. In the same way that the diamond slippers in The Wizard of Oz were turned into ruby slippers to make full use of the technicolour technology, films these days are written around exciting 3D scenes. They’re crow-barred in where they’re unnecessary and unwelcome. It’s the equivalent of the running away from the goblins in the mountain scene in the first film.

It’s my fault for having Lord of the Rings up on a pedestal. It’s so amazing though – and every time I re-watch it I think it’s amazing. Even Orlando bloody Bloom. God he’s a muppet in this film. He doesn’t look like Legolas did in LOTR (Bloom is ten years older though I suppose so that’s not really fair, although his hair also isn’t right somehow) and he’s even more poncey than ever. A mixture of the Legolas elfiness and the doe-eyed soppiness he exhibited so humourously badly in Pirate’s of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (“Elizabeth… sigh”). What a wally. Gandalf doesn't look the same either. His nose is different and his hat is too cartoony. It should be less structured and less felty. Am I really asking too much? These films are for some of the biggest geeks out there and they of all people are going to notice inconsistency.

I shouldn't compare it to LOTR. That will get us nowhere. I also need to stop comparing it to the book or, more importantly, my memory of the book. Let us begin.

It’s a really good film. Visually it’s really impressive and the animation is near flawless, particularly with the treasure in Erebor when it all slides down like a little avalanche. Superb! Each individual character is awesome and I was genuinely worried when Gandalf was losing his fight against the Necromancer. Smaug is a wonderful dragon, and the next film is going to be great with more of him in it.

I just need to learn how to enjoy it. 

The Fish Child (2009)

After a long period with very little time on my hands, I’ve realised that almost all of the films I’ve seen in the last six or so months have been big famous films in the cinema. The ones I’ve been looking forward to for ages and the ones that everybody’s talking about. And as good as it is to see the Gatsbys and the World War Zs and so have the ability to discuss them excitedly with others, I thought it was about time to return to what I seem to do best – watching random films that no one has heard of.

So it was that I joined Netflix last night. That’s right: I have absconded from Love Film – abandoning it in favour of the younger, sexier model. Receiving DVDs through the post no longer really suits my viewing habits and Love Film Instant is pretty shoddy so why not branch out? That said, the first three films I searched for weren’t on Netflix either, although they are on Love Film on DVD – maybe I will once more return to the fold, truly repentant and admitting my error in judgement. I may then reap the rewards of Only God Forgives, Mud, and The Impostor... one disk at a time.

Anyway, whilst excitedly looking through the recommendations from Netflix and after some repeated “No Netflix – I definitely don’t want to watch Beverly Hills Chihuahua!” I realised that many of recommendations were either crap (various saccharine American chic-flicks), or gay/lesbian films. That’ll be the influence of Mysterious Skin sinking in then. Hopefully the recommendations will sort themselves out in time but they’ve only got one month to impress me before I decide whether or not to pay for the service. The clock is ticking.

This gay/lesbian influence is only likely to increase however after watching The Fish Child (El Niño Pez) – the tale of Lala, a rich teenage girl in Buenos Aires who is in love with her (female) housemaid. This should have everything I enjoy in a film – strong female characters, foreign language, and a bit of sexual violence thrown in (no, I don’t know what’s wrong with me). It also has a bit of zipping about through time as the film is mostly told through flashbacks, showing the relationship between the two women develop as they plan for the future – running away to a fantasy house by a lake in Paraguay.

Whilst a definite story is there, and a good one too (there’s murder and mystery, one which we’re fed pieces of gradually through the film) it’s a story that’s really quite hard to follow. There aren’t many physical clues for us to gauge the timing of each individual scene, and I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that the flashbacks aren’t strictly in chronological order. The characters’ motivations seem to swing between extremes too and not completely believably.

Overall, it was nice (if nice is the right word about any of the films I watch), but I just didn’t get it. Even the title was only explained in a hurried way at the end. Perhaps that was supposed to be a climax – it wasn’t very climactic. The legend of ‘The Fish Child’ barely seemed to be relevant at all, although it was referred to sporadically. My main opinion seems to “that’s a shame, it could have been so good”.

The Master (2012)

Not what I was expecting at all!

To be fair I knew very little about this film. I knew it starred Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator, Walk the Line) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote), I knew it was about a charismatic leader of a cult not so dissimilar to scientology. That’s about it. I imagined it largely to be about this leader, and the transition from having a couple of followers to a reasonably sizeable cult.

It’s not about him. Not directly. It’s about Phoenix’s character Freddie– an alcoholic wartime navy sailor with PTSD and rather an obsession with sex. Him, and his interaction with ‘The Master’.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t really get it. Freddie stumbles drunk onto The Master’s daughter’s wedding boat whilst drunk one night and rather than lock him up they make friends with him, celebrate his concoction of paint-thinner alcohol, and attempt affairs with him. Why? He’s repulsive, and rude, and thuggish, and a thief!

Over time we see more of the cult and its weird culty happenings. It’s the kind of cult that involves regression into pre-birth memories and past lives. It involves ‘processing’ (where have we seen that before?), and also has no interest in discussion of its beliefs or practices, but rather squashes opponents in a much more brutish fashion.

I didn’t care. I tried, and on hearing good things about this film tried for quite a bit longer than I would have done with most other films but I didn’t finish it. I was tired and wanted to go to bed instead.

Gravity (2013)

This film is so good it gave me a panic attack. Seriously. There is so much tension coming and going throughout the film that, by the end, it all became a bit much and I got a bit… hyperventilatey. I can’t really say specifically why without spoiling things but suffice to say, my greatest fear is drowning, with that slow inevitability of being trapped inside something that’s filling up with water. Shudder.

But that’s not what Gravity is really about. What it’s about is demonstrating what good actors George Clooney and Sandra Bullock really are. Playing two astronauts (cosmonauts? What’s the difference? ), Clooney and Bullock are separated from their shuttle (which is irreparably damaged) by a large debris shower. We watch as they attempt to a) stay alive in the deeply inhospitable environment of space, and b) find some way to return to Earth when everything seems to be broken, or without fuel.

Gravity is also about affording us the opportunity to spend a couple of hours enjoying some spectacular views. The scenery is incredible, and the cinematography immense. The plot is simple but it works really well and there is only one ever so small part where Hollywood kicks in and it all gets a bit cheesy. It’s only one line really – you’ll know which one I mean.

Whether you enjoy space films or not, and I’ve sat through enough to know that, in general, I don’t, Gravity is spectacular and wonderful and definitely should be seen on a big screen with loud music and potentially 3D (if you like that sort of thing). Whether it would be as good with a baby screen and small speakers at home I don’t know.

The Fountain (2006)

If pushed to state a favourite director, I would have to say Darren Arronofsky. Black Swan is very high up on my top films ever and Requiem for a Dream is unarguably incredible. I haven’t seen The Wrestler yet. Director aside it doesn’t really seem something I’ll like and I don’t like Mickey Rourke’s face. Pi I feel might be a bit difficult, and so I’m putting it off. Noah, though I am looking forward to immensely, but unfortunately it’s not released until next year. The Fountain therefore offered the logical next foray into Arronofsky’s work.

Set at three different points in time it follows a couple in their search for the tree of life. Merging Myan legend with bible stories and science fiction the separate stories link together frequently to give continuity to what otherwise could be a bitty film.

The original intention was apparently for the film to star Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. While Blanchett would of course been fantastic, I think the eventual casting of Rachel Weisz is perfect. Hugh Jackman too was cast well and took on a role very dissimilar to anything I have previously seen him in. A combination of period costume and space travel is a long way from Wolverine. He does it very well though and managed to make me forget that it was him, which is impressive with three roles to play.

I’m still not entirely sure whether I liked this film as a whole piece. It took me a little time to get into, and perhaps it was a little too surreal in places. There were also some aspects which I didn’t feel I understood sufficiently to appreciate their full meaning.  There were many points however when I was completely bowled over and fully involved in and loving everything I was watching. Throughout The Fountain grabbed my emotions and did with them what it wanted which, when it comes down to it, is all I’m really looking for in a film.  I’m left with the overall feeling that I did like it, although I think that that will be cemented with a second viewing, this time more prepared for what I’m about to watch. 

Monsters University (2013)

Disney owes a lot to Pixar. The use of computers has completely and permanently changed how animated films look and feel, and has allowed a visual complexity which was impossible with traditional animation methods. As well as this, Pixar has completely changed what we expect from a film plot these days. Retold fairy tails or children’s books like Beauty and the Beast, Hercules, or The Jungle Book just don’t cut it anymore, and targeting a film at children is now no excuse for overly simple story-lines  As Rauld Dahl knew, children like to be scared, and they like to laugh, and soppy doe-eyed women being rescued by princes doesn't really manage that. Take Up! as an example – the hero is a grumpy old man and I know some adults reduced to tears by the opening montage. That would never have happened twenty years ago.

Because as old as it makes me feel, it is almost twenty years since Toy Story was released. I loved it, I still do and very surprisingly I loved the sequel, the uninspiringly named Toy Story 2. Even more amazingly, Toy Story 3, released much later, was also pretty damn good, although nowhere near the brilliance of the other two. Other Pixar enthusiasts and I have often disagreed over the best Pixar/Disney film to date, and I know many people rate Finding Nemo above any of the Toy Storys. Hopefully they’ll be pleased with Finding Dory, due for release at the end of the year. With any other production company I’d wonder how they could remake the fish looking for a fish story without overt and tedious repetition but, while there will be many a reference to Finding Nemo I’m sure, I have no doubt that it will stand alone as a solid film.

The same can be said for Monsters, Inc. and Monsters University. Again, a completely new story and one which I don’t think many people saw coming. The idea that the monster lurking under the bed, or in the wardrobe, has a life outside scaring kids and is doing it for a purpose other than just to be mean is fantastic. It’s also something that kids can relate to, just as they can to the idea of their toys coming alive when they’re not in the room or the secret exciting lives of insects in A Bug’s Life (although for my part I did prefer Antz).

Monsters University sees Monsters, Inc.’s heroes Sully and Mike during their training to be scarers. Naturally nothing goes to plan and the two find themselves in a scaring competition to secure their places in the programme. Many of the favourite characters from Monsters, Inc. are present, along with some great new ones. Helen Mirren voices the fantastically intimidating Dean Hardscrabble and I loved ‘Squishy’, a fellow student who is ridiculous and adorable. While I won’t say that it’s flawless this film made me so happy. There’s so much you can do with animation and the Monsters platform really lets the animators have fun. The visual complexity mentioned earlier is also present and most apparent with Sully’s fur – there’s so much detail there – it’s a beautiful thing. 

Dreamworks Animation needs to sort itself out and come up with something new and exciting. There’s only so much they can flog the Shrek franchise, as good as the original film was. I hear Puss in Boots 2 is due for release later this year – that’ll make at least 6 in the series. Then there’s Madagascar 1, 2 and 3 (plus ‘The Penguins of Madagascar and potentially a Madagascar 4 on the way); Kung Fu Panda 1 and 2; and How to Train Your Dragon 1 and the soon to be released 2 and 3. Enough with the sequels!

Go Pixar!

Cosmopolis (2012)

Oh God what a load of crap! I don’t mean any offence to anyone involved with this film but I did not enjoy it. Pattinson is wooden and seems to suit his on-off relationship with whats-her-face Stewart – he has only one facial expression the entire time I’m sure. Maybe I’m missing the point but how does a taxi ride take all day? How can so much happen and yet nothing happens! He meets up with people multiple times throughout the film – they seem to manage to get stuff done between scenes, all he does is sit in a car going from one end of town to the other.

Whether they’ve missed key details of the plot out, or whether I just wasn’t concentrating through boredom, doesn’t matter. I’m fairly convinced that none of it makes sense and is pretty pointless.

Waste of time. I had vague hopes for Pattinson being better than Twilight but apparently not. Bel Ami, then this. That’ll do.