The Girl in the Spider's Web

The Girl in the Spider's Web - 118min - R

The new installment of the Millennium series is based on a new book written by David Lagercrantz. Stieg Larsson passed away in 2004 however the story goes on.  Lagercrantz captures all of the original elements and does a great job of continuing the legacy.

The filmmaker (Fede Alvarez) does a solid job of making a film that fits nicely into the series but suffers from pacing.  Just a few tweaks in editing could make this a solid franchise that has the potential to continue.

See my review on BlackFlix for more on this film. 

The Legend of Tarzan

The Legend of Tarzan  - 110 min - PG13

This is a reintroduction of this classic tale to the modern age. Does it hold up to the dramatic change in tone and a more modern sensibility? For the most part, it does. Some of the less savory views of the original material have been brought up to date. 

Margo Robbie is a force to be reconded with, Jane is no wilting flower in this retelling.  Read my review here on Balckflix

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials – 132min – PG13

This is the second instalement of the film version of the Maze Runner book series. See what I did there. This move takes place in a desert wasteland inhabited by zombies and survivors that are just as dangerous as the zombies. This two hour journey is a long slog through the setting to get to anything of story substance. On the bright side it is on par with the first one but the first got a meh from me.

This film picks up right after the kids are rescued from the clutches of W.C.K.D. Here’s some advice for potential bad guys out there looking to start up a nefarious organization don’t call yourself by an acronym that is synonymous with evil. There is little wonder that you can get these good kids to join you. They find out that things are not as they seem with their protectors so they have to make a break for it and try and survive out in the scorch.

We get more clues to what the reason for the mazes were and we also get more questions as well. As a second part it completely expands the story of move one with enough story elements to launch into a third movie. But the question is will we be engaged enough to get there? If anything this movie also stands as testament that if this world were to go through a similar event, I would be dead because I don’t run enough. Man they do an awful lot of running. Apocalypse rule #1 Cardio

This one was longer and for the time we didn’t get anything more than longer walking scenes. The walk across San Francisco Bay was tedious for the characters as well as the audience. The unusual circumstance that the first movie gave us is now devolved into a scorched earth setting and lacks the curiosity of the first film.

Despite the length, I still enjoyed the tension of some of the scenes. They have kept up the monster quota only this time it’s darker and more of the zombie variety known as cranks. In the range of zombies they are the running after you kind, but not as fast as 28 Days rage zombies but still fast and surprisingly agile with joints that are not working. The cranks have been infected with the flare virus and one bite will convert you unless you are lucky enough to have a natural immunity.

I have always been a fan of post apocalyptical setting and this one has all of the right elements. A ruined city inhabited by crank zombies. Scarce resources so you have to scavenge for anything you can use to survive. These settings and the constant action is fine but they are only set dressing unless you have a really good story to tell.

I would have liked to have seen more development between the characters.There is no time to actually get to know the characters so their choices seem to be just follow the beats of the plot. Death of a character should have more impact than just a nod. Betrayal should punch you in the stomach not wave at you from across the room. Because of the lack of development we only have time to process the action and never get to focus on the people that the action is happing to.

Will I go and see the third one? Yes, because I’m a movie nut and will see anything. However I will not be counting the days until its release. I may see it because it is showing next.

Is there a series that you have seen on screen and have been reluctantly going to see only because you have seen the first two?

No Escape

No Escape – 93min – R

This is not a relaxing film. It stirs up tense moments on so many different political and familial levels. At times I was worried about the family and others worried about the filmmakers. Regardless of the tense moments it seems like a movie that is out of step with today’s understanding of the world. As a yellow light film it was riding right in the middle of good production value but poor story.

Jack (OwenWilson) and Annie Dwyer (Lake Bell) have moved their family to an East Asian Country for Jack’s new Job. They are far from their family and friends, complete strangers in a very dark landscape. Before they land, the government is overthrown in a bloody coup. The angry mob is out to kill the evil Americans who have come to exploit their water. The Dwyer family is running for their lives and get help from an ex secret agent, Hammond (Pierce Brosnan). He sacrifices himself for the family and they fight their way to the safety of Vietnam.

There was a very seedy feel to the story. The setting was generic Southeast Asian country and instead of focusing on any of the cultural richness of the region, it was a mishmash of prostitution, karaoke and old people living in squalor. There could have been just as much anger and rage by the people being exploited without making them out to be the worst people white people imagine about that area of the world. If anything it would have been more terrifying that a culturally rich country could have such violence amongst it.

The craft of filmmaking was great. The camera work and the scenes were well constructed to make you uncomfortable during the escape and the fighting. There are some good perspective shots that put you in the action and in the same hiding places. They also construct situations that will put you on edge. The scene where they have to ride a moped through a mob on the street in clothes they have taken off of people that have been killed by the angry mob is very tense. There was a moment that could have been better used. His bike falls over and he gets help picking it up by a guy who kind of recognizes him but doesn’t. It would have been better to have the guy who helps him is someone who he helped earlier. Say a man on the street is moving sacks of rice and Jack helps him pick up a few bags as he is going to the store for a newspaper.

The lack of blended storytelling makes this film seem very one dimensional. They have absolutely no depth to the characters or the plot. However the use of slow motion scenes and the angles used for some of the shots were great at inducing anxiety. I am not a fan of handheld shots, but in the chaos of a coup it does as designed and gives you a very uncomfortable feel. The pacing of the film is great you go from high action to quiet sneaking and back to high action, but it doesn’t remove any of the tension. Walking out of the film I was finally relaxed that it was over.

Ultimately this film will fall into obscurity and do nothing for the people who made it. The director (John Erick Dowdle) has a good eye for filmmaking but now needs to pair up with a great writer. What would be your dream team for a director and writer combo?

Kill Me Three Times

Kill Me Three Times - 90 min - R

A movie that takes a story and cuts it into thee different versions of the same day.  its a good attempt but a little too light in the bad guy department. See the review in Web Wombat. 

The Warriors

The Warriors - 92 min - R

Movies seen when you are young may not stand up to age and time. This is a movie that I loved when I was a kid, Not so much as an adult but I sympathies with what the film wanted to be so I couldn't actually give it a red. See what i wrote on Web Wombat.  

Mad Max - Fury Road

Mad Max:Fury Road  - 120min - R

I know this movie is getting a lot of love from reviewers and viewers and I did enjoy most of it. It seems like the further and longer into the wasteland you travel the more unusual the bad guys get.  There is no doubt this is a high-octane, high-adrenaline, pedal-to-the-metal, no-holds-barred action movie. Action gets high marks, beautifully done. The grown up in me starts to ask questions and ruins the magic a little. I am forced to give this movie a yellow light to accommodate both sides of me.

I am trying to come up with a way to describe what they did to the story line here. It's a sequel but a reboot. Would that be a se-boot or a re-quel? They retcon the history so we are starting fresh.  I am unsure of where this fits in now because of the changes to the timeline but he still has his car and its running so it must have been before the Thunderdome.  But he is now not just a loner who is mourning the loss of his family he now has his demons haunting him with faces of lots of people we have never seen. Tom Hardy is certainly the new Max. He walks into the role like he has been performing it for years.

The reflex action that causes Maxes hand to flinch up seems a bit contrite we have never seen that action before. It seems a bit forced into the story for plot reasons and we now are seeing the emotional weight that Max is carrying around. I think it was more implied in previous movies and now they are busting out and he is now seeing things.

The introduction of Furiosa is outstanding. Charlize Theron does an excellent job bringing this new character to life with strength and compassion. She is just as powerful on screen as Max. I would even go so far as to say I'd watch the hell out of a movie focused on her struggle with creating a society around the ruins of the one they took over. She is interesting where so many of the side characters in the past haven't been.  

I start to wonder about logistics on how they survive in a land where so many things have disappeared. The spray cans of chrome paint they were spraying on themselves when they were about to die. Death comes hard and fast in the wasteland so really they have a huge supply of silver spray paint? Admittedly everyone else would have been getting the food, water and ammunition it was lucky for Immortal Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) to think "Crap I need to get as many of the little chrome paint cans for my minions in the fanatical army I am going to make."

Cirque du Soleil seem to find work after the apocalypse and that is where you might wonder how cool is too cool.  Most of those shots were all done with vehicles that were standing still and the CGI motion and that is outstanding and way safer than having a rolling fight on the trucks. The guitar player in front of the wall of speakers, you know the blind one with a flame thrower guitar. Yes cool looking but again distracting.  He was playing his ass off for the two to three days they were on the road. That is some serious playing but very silly.

If you are going to see this movie leave your adult taste at the door and don't over think this movie. It is nothing but eye candy. Pure, unadulterated eye candy and it doesn't need a reason.

Did you like this movie if so why? Are we rehashing old properties because we have run out of stories? 

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 - 94 min – PG

I don’t like watching the sequels of films when I haven't seen the original--primarily because they rarely stand well on their own. Call it one of the hazards of the way I do my blog. However this installment of the Blart franchise does a good job of bringing the viewer up to speed on the events of the first one. The down side is that at best this movie rates a cute. It falls short of the green range because of its unoriginality.

Six years after the events of first film Paul Blart (Kevin James) gets divorced from his wife (Jayma Mays) after only six days of marriage before his mother gets run over by a milk truck. There is only so much woe a writer should pile onto a character. He is already a sad character because he is at the pinnacle of his life: a mall cop. Can a main character get a break? There is nothing in his life except his daughter, Maya (Raini Rodriguez). Maya, gets news that UCLA has accepted her at the same time he gets great news that he is going to the Security Officer Trade Association event in Las Vegas. Maya has second thoughts about telling her father she is going away to college because he will be alone. Maya inadvertently witnesses an art heist in the hotel and becomes a hostage. In pure Blarty fashion, Paul takes matters into his own hands and thwarts the bad guys.... again.

This movie boils down to be a family-friendly action film. Aside from being in Vegas and having people holding alcoholic drinks I would say that there is nothing of a questionable nature in the film. The action is completely vanilla in nature and mostly screwball fun. This doesn’t make it a bad film; it just makes it a bland film. Even with all of the gun-play it’s mostly non-lethal and the bad guys just get incapacitated.

The production value, performances, hell even the writing are all ok but below par considering the resumes of the talent. Keven James does a great job bringing this odd duck to life probably because he wrote the script so he has a great understanding of who Paul is. But looking at the body of his work you can see that this is not really his best work.

You can see the director’s (Andy Fickman) style in this film. His films are set in a less sterilized Disney movie of the week range. He is never going to be over the top raw or raunchy but has enough of the real life setting to kick it out of the idealized reality that most Disney films are set in.

The only thing I would recommend to the film makers is stop dumping on Mr. Blart. Too much abuse from life makes the viewer feel bad for him. Pity is not an emotion that you should be aiming for. They did do a good job of resolving the issues between him and his daughter. Having Paul mature enough to see that he is holding his daughter back by being needy is a great story to end with but man, it was depressing getting there. It made me want to go watch a comedy to cheer me up, wait I just got out of a comedy. That’s not good.

I have seen worse films but I have also seen a lot better ones. What other sequels standalone without relying on the original story?

Get Hard

Get Hard - 100 min - R

I'm lukewarm on Will Ferrell's work. His brand of comedy doesn't always match my taste. I was really drawn to it because of Kevin Hart. He is a rising star and his humor has intrigued me. Their collaboration seems to work but the movie had a mix of cringe worthy and full belly laugh moments. More cringe than I care for really. It also had a homophobic vibe. For these reasons I am giving it a yellow light. Will Ferrell fans will like it, I was on the "meh" side.

James (Will Ferrell) is a big shot hedge fund manager who is convicted of fraud. He has a big house and a very expensive fiancee, Alissa (Alison Brie). He knows in 30 days he is going to be serving hard time for 10 years. The only Black person he knows is Darnell (Kevin Hart), the guy who washes his car. Assuming because Darnell is Black, he has spent time in prison, James hires Darnell to teach him how to survive in prison.

The major theme of the story is James not wanting to go to jail. As a character he confuses me. He’s a brilliant trader and can see the trends and makes money hand over fist. I imagine in that work he can link things together. So he completely trusting his father in-law and not suspecting him seems disingenuous. However Will Ferrell plays the completely clueless person so very well that perhaps that is what they were going for.

It was funny watching Darnell abuse James. In his attempt to get James ready for prison, they try and toughen him up. He goes to parks and picks fights with people and tries to physically work out. Nothing seems to work, So Darnell has to level with James. He is going to have to learn to become a bitch. So they go to a gay pick-up spot and because he is faced with his biggest fear, a homosexual act, he find a new motivation to become ready and work harder and becoming... wait for it… harder, pun intended because that’s what the biggest continuous joke is in the movie.

There was a lot of time spent getting him ready for prison and only in the last section of the last act do they think to try and prove his innocence. It really feels like an afterthought on how to tie up the story. It would have been better to have more balance in all of the story lines. One of the biggest things I appreciate in a film is the growth of a character. James does go through a change and walks away from the film with a new point of view.

Darnell is a little under developed. His motivation is to get enough money to get his daughter into a better school district. I totally understand that and as a father I can sympathize with his motivation. He plays along with James to get what he wants but there is nothing that he walks away with no lesson learned.

Kevin Hart can take on more as an actor. This role was a little under his skill level. I saw one of his stand-ups and he is incredible. I guess what kept this movie from a red light were his parts. I think he has the ability to carry the right project.

Do you have a favorite performer who you think is ready to take the next step?

Ex Machina

Confessions of a Sci-fi-fan

Ex Machina - 108min - R

I have always been an easy sell when it comes to science fiction. From the first moment I saw the robotic woman from Metropolis I was hooked on the genre. Obviously this film is going to be rated with an easier eye in my book...

Or so you would think.

Perhaps my love for this kind of film makes me look at it with more scrutiny. I found the movie to be a wonderful idea poorly executed. At best, it's a yellow light. There are some captivating cinematic elements, but the pace of the film kills any tension that it starts building. Plus, some of the messages in the film rub me the wrong way.

Nathan,(Oscar Isaac) is the very creepy owner of Big Blue, the world's largest Internet search engine. He holds a lottery and invites one of his minions - sorry, employees - to take part in a new project. He's creating a woman and wants to see if his employee can be taken in by a bizarre and highly sexualized Turing test.

I have to tell you how uncomfortable I am with the implied subtext in this film: Women are objects that are best experimented on. To make a perfect one, make her unable to communicate and sexually available whenever the need arises. The emotional connection it creates with you is all an act to get something from you and if you do give them any freedom they will kill you.

There, it just had to be said. I know I have a pro-feminist streak but I can’t be the only one who saw this, can I?

The cinematography is perfectly done to bring out the maximum amount of creepy, and the soundtrack works to heighten the tension. The problem is the long stretches of tension are interlaced with characters watching each other staring introspectively. When you have so much tension, your audience gets numb to it so when things happen in the story that should elicit a reaction of surprise or enlightenment they are more likely to respond with "Oh. Well that happened. Finally."

Nathan is ultimately way too creepy from the start. To make the end work better they should have slowly shown us his oddness. It should have started out with him being a fun eccentric. Instead he starts off being someone who would make the family robot say “Danger, Danger Will Robinson!”

Domhnall Gleeson as Caleb, the hapless employee, was a great casting choice. He was the perfect test subject and he played his role really well. Alicia Vakander, who played the robot, Ava, did an amazing job at simulating emotions like a robot trying to... simulate... emotions. Your head can go wonky if you think about it too long. How well a performer does at playing a robot is hard to gauge. Are they doing a good job because they are a great actor or are they simply robotic in their performance? Imaging how confusing that direction would sound like from the director. “Ok do these lines but don't emote because you're a robot. BUT you are faking like you have emotion”.

Comparing her work in Seventh Son and this film gives you a better understanding of her range. She is someone to keep an eye out for. Hopefully we can see her (I can't believe I am saying this) with more clothes on.

Alex Garland is one of my favorite directors. His work in 28 Days caught my attention and I enjoyed Dredd, so I was looking forward to this film. This one is not among my favorites in his portfolio. I know he can do a less disturbing story.

What popular movie has a subtext that rubs you the wrong way?

Rosewater

Rosewater - 103min - R

Movies that are based on real life events are hard to to do with out taking too much creative license. As Jon Stewart was in a way partly involved in Maziar's incarceration it makes senses that he  makes a movie. See my review on Web Wombat. 

Jack Reacher

Jack Reacher - 130min - PG-13

This is an excellent example of  how a few apple boxes and some good casting can make Tom cruse look like The Barrel chested tree of a man known as Jack Reacher.  See my review on Web Wombat 

American Sniper

American Sniper - 132min - R

Sitting in the theater with the soundless credits rolling I had time to collect my thoughts and put down on paper some of the things that were going through my head. This movie focuses on one person's journey through the war from his perspective. We see his transformation from idealistic young kid to hardened war veteran. We can see the price that our service members and their families pay for their service. But I have to ask myself: what does this film inspire me to do? What does it tell us about the war that we didn't already know? This film is a yellow light. As a biography it highlights the man Chris Kyle but only the events during the war and his death. They are selecting only the history that supports the narrative of Chris Kyle, American Hero.

Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) is a sniper for the US Navy Seals. The story takes us from recruitment, to deployment and even him marring his wife (Sienna Miller), though his struggle with multiple deployments and his personal life when he returns home. After the deployments he uses his experiences to help veterans acclimate back into civilian life.

I was pleased at how much they focused on just the main character's achievements and how he helped people when he got back. His journey is fascinating and it's important to tell it. His struggles illustrate how hard it is on our veterans and even if the story ends in his death it shows how hard it can be to re-assimilate onto civilian society.

I wonder if the director (Clint Eastwood) will tell this story from the other end as well. In war there are two different perspectives. Watching the story of the other sniper, an Olympic medalist returning to his home only to be recruited in the war, would be a great companion to this film. His films Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima told the war from two sides. Those films did a great job of give us a well-rounded perspective of each side of the war.

I don't think the other movie will ever be made because of the director's politics and because the viewing public would never be ready for it. Our wounds are still too raw to be objective enough to see any other side.

This movie is a political rorschach test. Those who are very right wing are going to see this as a pro American film in the war. The left wing crowd will use this as another example of how bad the war is. But the movie itself does a good job keeping to the middle of the road. Taking no side on the events surrounding the main character gives it a sterile feel leaving the viewer to fill in the motivations that speak to them.

The few nitpicky things that took me out of the moment were the use of CGI to give the blood more of an effect. It unfortunately looks poor and didn't enhance anything but my feeling like I was at a movie. The baby dolls that they used also took me out of the importance of the dialog that was being said. It was again something that took me out of the story at what should have been some very engaging material.

What do you think about the film? What did you walk away with?

Unbroken

Unbroken - 137min - PG13

I have seen solder bio pictures back to back (American Sniper). This one tells the story of Louis Zamperini. He was an Olympian who served in World War II as a bombardier. I think out of the two this one gives us a message, whereas the other was very message neutral. We see a person's struggle to survive but also to forgive. With many war films the overall tone of the picture is dark. They take a toll on me as a viewer. This one wasn't as soul crushing as American Sniper. It's a fine film. The story is good but due to some poor editing choices it earns a Yellow light.

During World War II a bomber crashes into the ocean, Louis Zamperini (Jack O'Connell) and two other crew members have to survive until they are rescued. 45 days later they are picked up by a Japanese navy ship. Louis is sent to a prison camp and fights a battle of wills with the post commander Watanabe (Takamasa Ishihara).

The strongest message in this picture is how powerful forgiveness is. This message is brought to light at the end so we can see the impact of the impact of one act of forgiveness. Mr. Zamperini took a trip back to Japan and forgave his captors for what they did to him. As this picture focused on his brutal treatment the viewer starts to develop the same feelings as Mr. Zamperini. If put in the same position I don't know if I would have been able to forgive.

The lost opportunity was in showing the fact that he forgave his captors on a placard at the end of the film. There is also news footage of him carrying the Olympic torch through the streets. It would have taken about as much time to show him as an old man standing in front of the location where he was in prisoned and even talking with some of the Japanese people talking about forgiveness.

Watching the cast deteriorate before our eyes during the 47 day sea voyage is hard, not to mention the unquantifiable time in solitary confinement as prisoners of war. These were the most grueling parts of the film. The choices that were made for shots lengthen the journey but may not strengthen the story. Angelina Jolie shows wonderful skill in directing films. I may not agree with the choices she made as story teller but her work is good.

The stand out point in the film was the scene where Mr. Zamperini had to stand and hold a beam over his head. Most of that emotion was brought by the two stars Jack O'Connell and Takamasa Ishihara. The battle of wills that climaxes in that scene is well played. The agony of the horrors that Watanabe inflicted on Louis not going to break his spirit and he knew it.

It's kind of cool that at its core this is a movie about a man and his faith. It's not overdone, only mentioned in passing. This is an element that other Christian films seem to be lacking. To steal a line from President Clinton, "We should impress them with the strength of our example, not the example of our strength." If the Christian filmmakers want to draw more people to the theater they need to highlight people who live Christian values and not deliver a 2 hour sermon.

What if anything would you change in the story of unbroken? Take this time to be an armchair quarterback.

Take This Waltz

Take This Waltz - 116min - R

In trying to explore Seth Rogen's career I found this independent film. I submitted a review to Web Wombat.  It's a good film.  I think his true talent is in his approachability and his charisma. we need to get him away from his usual stoner/ fart joke fair.  I suspect he has true talent.

What is your favorite Seth Rogen film? 

The Hobbit Trilogy

The Hobbit Trilogy - 474 min  - PG13

I had the opportunity to do a Hobitthon when the final film of this trilogy came out.  It wasn't affiliated with any theater. It was my son and I watching the first two on video on demand and then going to the final one in the theater. As I was watching this with my son it was easier to take off the critic hat and enjoy it as a fan. I have always stated that the story doesn't have three movies worth of content. The BBC did a experiment and they found that it takes 5.2 hours to read the book where it takes 8.5 hours to watch the trilogy.

Is it quicker to read The Hobbit than watch Peter Jackson’s movie trilogy? http://t.co/V3Ir1MxRqe #BBCGoFigure pic.twitter.com/ICqA4S7sts
— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) December 2, 2014

Face it, this trilogy is mostly fan fiction.  Because of the liberties that were taken with the hints and nuggets of story threads J.R.R. Tolkien left in the stories.  This is the best funded production of fan fiction I have seen. At times it feels like a contrived prequel to the LoTR movies. I can't ignore the heavy-handed attempt at blending the two. This story is a prequel on its own but on screen it feels overly so.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 169 min - PG13

I have already reviewed this film here. I am not going to spend a lot of time on this one. But in retrospect it's probably the best one out of all three. It lays the groundwork to make transition from LoTR seamless, and gives us a look at what started Bilbo's journey. We also start seeing a lot of the fan fiction parts that Mr. Jackson created. 

The book never goes into what Gandalf is doing when he is not with the party. We just see him exist stage left to go do Wizardly things.  We wouldn't understand.  Poof he is gone. Mr. Jackson takes liberties and makes use of these gaps by inserting speculation on what Gandalf was doing.  That is one reason this story takes so long to tell.

We also get a lot more on Azog as he is the Orc who is relentlessly chasing Thorin down. He is a pawn in the larger subplot of Sauron's return. Again summation from Mr. Jackson as to what was happing behind the scenes.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - 161 min - PG13 

Breaking this story up into three parts is hard because you need a clear break point in the action. The second film feels heavier as it relies more on the fan fiction elements.  The end point here is the moment before Smaug takes his wrath out on Lake-town. In retrospect this is a good breaking point because we lead off with a kick-ass dragon fight on the last leg of this journey.

We also get a lot of backstory on the return of Sauron or the rumors of his interference. This second story feels less organic and more contrived to make it blend in with the other trilogy. I suspect that's what makes the final two seems so forced.

There is no doubt about the quality of filmmaking. The scenes draw you in and the sets and costumes are outstanding. The down side is that it's just too much information. I found myself feeling the time draw on. Especially during the setting up of the social structure of Lake-town. 

The humans of Lake-town are not important. We don't need to see how corrupt the government is. It adds needless flavor to a story that is rich enough on its own. It was nice to Stephen Fry on screen. I'm a fan, but it added more time where it wasn't needed. 

Kind of funny how much security is played up. The heroes gotta sneak in and stay out of sight and get in through a loo to Bard's house.  But elves and orcs seem to have run of the place and there is absolutely no sign of any sort of city guard during any portion of the last battle. The Master of Lake-town had people watching Bard's house.  You kind of think that his guards would have thought the parade of bad guys rampaging through town would have been noteworthy.

We also have a huge battle sequence in the dwarf's halls with the dragon. Great to see on screen but really it is only fan boy eye candy, because the battle ended the same with Smaug going to take out the city.  There was no change in the end result from book to mov'e. Yes it was cool to watch, not at the cost of time and attention span. 

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies  - 144 min -  PG13

The fight that was promised pays off here. We jump right into the battle over Lake-town and the death of Smaug. After the fight we see Thorin fall to the dragon sickness and the paranoia starts taking him over.  His affliction with greed sets up the events that lead to war with the elves and humans.  The orcs also take this opportunity to wipe them all out and join in on the battle.

The fan fiction storyline shows us that Sauron's attempted return is thwarted and we have a bit of a redemption story with Thorin and his realization of what a dick he has been. He has a change of heart and joins in on the fight and saves the day but at the cost of his own life.

Anyone who has seen all three films and is reading this I know I am cutting out the love interest between Tauriel and Kili. I am leaving them out of this review to illustrate that not every story element added to the film was needed to tell the story.  Again I am going to be using the analogy of too much spice ruins the sauce.

Some observations I made while watching, all of the hot looking dwarves die. What is that saying about the genetic diversity of the dwarves left to make more dwarves? This may explain why Gimli looks the way he does.

Perhaps I have an untrained eye but I saw no significant improvement in the 48 FPS over the normal 24 It really boils down to whether the money you spend on an effect or technique pays off in the final product. From this reviewer's point of view it could have been skipped. Filmmakers should spend less money on flash and more on substance.

After about eight and a half hours of eye candy I really needed a break and watch something with some really good storytelling. We were going to launch right into the Lord of the Rings trilogy but even my son didn't have the strength or interest in going that far.

Books that are turned into movies will always be a different version. The two mediums can't share the same elements. The changes to The Lord of the Rings were great. I appreciated the changes and understood why they were cut. The changes to The Hobbit really seem to be just filler to make a longer story than what needed to be.

After looking back at my binge session in Middle Earth, my son and I both agree it was a great ride, but we are not going to be taking it again anytime soon. Making a good movie that everyone sees is spectacular, but making a movie that people want to see over and over again is better.

My advice would have been to stick closer to the book. The Hobbit should have been and would have been a great single story movie even with the preamble that set it up for the other films.  But keep the story as one. Then take the secondary story of Sauron's return into a Gandalf film, I would watch the hell out of that film, that blends into the other story. It always bugged me that Gandalf was a part of this group and kept popping off and not an explanation but he was always there when he was needed. If done correctly you could have included scene from the first film and shown it from his point of view.

Drop the Azog and the love story altogether and you make it a wonderful launching pad for your true treasure: The Lord of the Rings.

Johnny English Reborn

Johnny English Reborn - 101min - PG
I choose to review this film for Web Wombat. This is less Mr. Bean and more Rowen Atkinson. Watching him do parkour is priceless. Rosamund Pike dose a great job as well as Gillian Anderson. Great watch for a light easy weekend afternoon.

Did you think the first one was better, worse or on par with this one?

The Hunger Games Mockingjay part I

The Hunger Games Mockingjay part I - 123min - PG13

Studios have a new weapon in their arsenal: the ability to break a movie into two parts to tell a story that fits into one. The final Harry Potter film did this and it was groundbreaking. The Hobbit did this as proof positive that people will buy this kind of storytelling. This film feels like they are stretching the story to fill time. As its really only half of the story, I have to grade it on it's own merits as opposed to a complete story. At this point, I have to award this film a provisional yellow light. I will upgrade it if it turns out the story was worth the long walk it's taking us on.

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) wakes up in a resistance bunker in District 13. We see the events that happen right after the explosion in the games. Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) has been seized by President Snow (DonaldSutherland) and is being held to be used as a political pawn. The resistance wants Katniss to fight for them and become a symbol. Gale (Liam Hemsworth) is also in district 13 as he helped Prim (Willow Shields) and her mother (PaulaMalcomson) escape before District 12 was destroyed. President Alma Coin (Juilanne Moore) and Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) are pushing Katniss to be the face of the rebellion.

The one thought going through my head for the entire film is this is Philip Seymour Hoffman's final role. This film, good or bad, will be his legacy. He was such a talented actor and I enjoyed almost every role he had. I savored each and every scene he was in. I remember hearing that some of the scenes in the second film are going to have to be altered or adjusted because of his death before filming was complete. I hope they don't CGI him poorly.

His loss really overshadowed this project for me. It will be interesting to see how they compensate for the lost scenes.  I know that there is no way to compensate for the loss of such a talented star in our universe.

The performances were great. I felt really connected with the characters. I had one issue with the community members of District 13. Peeta goes on screen publicly and denounces the rebels and what they stand for. I can understand the initial distant for him, but as the other propaganda material is broadcast he shows signs of malnutrition and abuse. Were they so blinded by their hate that the only one who saw what was really going on was Katniss? Even President Coin called him a traitor. This makes me worry about the type of government that will be taking over if they win the war. In case you haven't already guessed I have not read the books.

There is nothing earth-shattering or remarkable about the film. It really feels more like a preamble than a film. I am going to have to re-watch this film before I go see the second one. I am sure that the theaters will be offering this as well. If not I will Netflix the first one and then see the second one in the theaters... Or I will wait until they are both on Netflix.

Would you rather go to two hour and a half movies or one move for three hours?