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.