The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Released: 2013
Staring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch and Luke Evens.
Rated: PG-13

  At this point introducing any film from J.RR Tolkien's Middle Earth brought to you by Peter Jackson is nearly impossible. The films speak for themselves and The Desolation of Smaug is no exception.

  Rewind to 2001, a series almost forgotten by many mainstream book enthusiast regained a new life in the hands of one unknown New Zealand director. The Lord of the Rings series had been adapted from its book format before, but never in such an appropriate, epic style. Seemingly overnight names like Frodo, Gandalf, and Gollum became household names, and 'Hobbit' may be used as an endearing term to describe your hairy footed uncle who can't recall if this is his first or second breakfast. With multiple Oscars under his belt including one for Best Picture in 2003 and more than a fist full of dollars (highest grossing film of 2003), it was only a matter of time before Peter Jackson returned to Tolkien's material.  

  

  We, the anxiously awaiting (fans) public, knew we'd get the The Hobbit sooner or later, what we did not except was 3 Hobbit films, all filmed in sequence at 48 frames per second with extra material, not published in the original book, but Tolkien's none the less. There was much debate over which portions were Tolkien and which were Jackson's; an uproar sounded in the Middle Earth community, whether it was one of joy or outrage was hard to tell but in the end audiences got much more Hobbit than was expected. 

 I've spent many hours reading, watching, and rewatching the original Lord of the Rings series, and as an avid fan it is my humblest opinion that the more the better! Jackson is a director who, when it comes to STORY, does not sacrifice quality for quantity. Was/is there a whole hell of a lot going on in The Hobbit films? Yes. Does any of it take away for the driving plot line? Debatable, but when you get down to it, the answer is no. Is Peter Jackson a greedy little Dragon who is possibly suffering from James Cameron-Ka-Ching-Ka-Ching syndrome? Possibly. As an avid fan, if you present me with a Jackson quality product that remains almost unwaveringly faithful to it's source material while ADDING even more, I'm going to lap it up. The fact that Jackson can do so much while staying true to the book overshadows any doubts I had about the added material. 

  As a reviewer I see faults in The Hobbit series, An Unexpected Journey more than The Desolation of Smaug, yet as a fan I'm completely enraptured by them both. I tell you this, my dear readers, so you will know, there may be nit picking points accompanied by minor annoyances but in the end The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit has been and will remain my favorite series of all time.

  In my end of the year review for 2012 I named The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey my favorite film of the year on the basis that I had been waiting for it for almost ten years...While this is true, the film was not without it's faults; primarily it's silly, prepubescent humor. The burp, butt and snot jokes were not only disgusting but completely misplaced in Jackson's directorial world. The Lord of the Rings films never lacked jokes and wisecracks, but it's humor never dealt on such a low, bodily level. The Desolation of Smaug regains any traction that might have been lost due to the low blows of An Unexpected Journey by keeping it's humor referential rather than immature, gross out stints. Martin Freeman is a funny actor and very funny in the role of Bilbo Baggins. His physicality and facial expressions lend themselves to the character brilliantly. The script is often quite humorous and I think produces may have read many of audiences reactions to the overall tone of An Unexpected Journey and for that reason darkened the mood of it's sequel.

  The Desolation of Smaug is considerably darker than it's predecessor and rightly so. The first act is over, introductions are finished we know our main characters; we've seen them laugh now we want to see them fight! And fight they do. The Desolation is action packed from start to finish. The fast paced action scenes are engaging and exciting, verging on ridiculous but unimaginable fight scenes are a driving force behind the success of these films. I'm not paying to watch Tom Cruise shoot a gun at a criminal mastermind, I picked this film to see 12 Dwarves and a Hobbit race down a river in wine barrels while pursed by Orcs and high-flying Elves. It's fantasy and fantasy will lend itself to fanciful chases! 

Lee Pace, Director Peter Jackson & Evangeline Lilly

  Speaking of Elves, new comer Lee Pace, beloved from Bryan Fuller's short run and under-appreciated TV series Pushing Daisies, melds perfectly into the world of Elven royalty. He's come a long was from loveably awkward pie-maker. Devilishly wicked and totally unexpected, Pace plays the role of King Thrunduil with operatic bearing. Evangeline Lilly, also new to Middle Earth, was a missed opportunity. A fine actress, Lilly's character whom adds would have audiences believe is the strong, feisty, warrior woman of the series is reduced to an object of affection in possibly the oddest love triangle ever put on screen. I supported bringing in the new, original character of Tauriel thinking she'd be portrayed as a warrior like all the rest; instead she succumbs to the emotional advances of two men...brilliant. This from the director who gave us "I am no MAN", witch king-killing Éowyn. I don't get it. 

  Odd Elven relationships aside, the remaining story line in The Desolation of Smaug stays true to the book as well as any side stories begun in An Unexpected Journey. Audiences weren't left with so much a cliff hanging in the first of the series as something to look forward to, as all good films should. We knew we'd be seeing the great dragon in this installment and the tension leading to the final revel makes it all the more scintillating.   

 

No words review can accurately describe the detail and deadly beauty in the animation of Smaug. It's brilliant, flawless, and any other adjective associated with top notch animation. Every scale and claw was considered...the lighting and coloring are pure perfection...the way he moves and please let's talk about the cutting voice behind though razor sharp teeth. Benedict Cumberbatch with the best and only choice. His voice is pure dangerous allure. Cumberbatch, with the help of visual animation studio WETA, truly became this dragon through motion capture technology. That means voice, movement, and facial expression were all generated by Caumberbatch...and quite perfectly, he gives this inhuman  creature a personality and purpose. A huge hand must be given to the animators behind Smaug, he is a sight to behold on the big screen. No images found online can do him justice.

Benedict Cumberbatch gets in touch with his scaly, fire breathing side

  Smaug's animation soars, leaving many of the other animated characters with a rushed, sloppy, even cheap feel to them. One thing The Lord of the Rings series did so well was create real, disturbing characters through the use of great prosthetics. This is a technique not used as appropriately in The Hobbit series, especially where Orcs, Goblins and other nasty folk are concerned...yes animation is cheaper but nothing draws an audience from the moment like recognizing "oh that's definitely CGI" This is a huge attributing fact as to why Smaug's animation is so incredibly impressive. Comparing the detail in his design to that of others is somewhat disappointing.  

  With a darker atmosphere, Jackson really plays up Biblo's developing obsession with his newly acquired ring and creating a strong tie between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Desolation of Smaug is great fun with a couple of nice references for die hard fans and spectacular animation (for the most part) Fans will not be disappointed and new comers to the series should find it just as enjoyable. Don't expect Smaug to be popping up in any category except effects, during awards season like The Lord of the Rings films did, but the heart of this film is in the same place; as is its epic scope and action packed adventure. If there was ever a time to jump into one of the most celebrated fantasy series of all time, now would be it! 

Thor: The Dark World

While Thor: The Dark World has just as many (if not more) plot holes than it's predecessor, The Avengers, I found it equally irresistible and thrilling.

Directed by: Alan Taylor
Released: 2013
Staring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Eccelston, Kat Dennings, & Stellan Skarsgård

I swear I don't hate Marvel sequels, I just wish everyone get their directorial butts off of the Joss Wheaton bandwagon and start creating again instead of copying. 

  2011 was a hype year for Marvel Comics, releasing Thor and Captain America within two months of each other. The hype was all building to the biggest film success of 2012, The Avengers, which beat out Christopher Nolan's Batman finale The Dark Knight Rises by more than 220 million dollars. First glances didn't do much for me, thinking both Thor and Captain America were nothing more than the dumbed down superhero movies that climb to the top of every summer box office, I didn't make an effort to see either in theaters. A year later, both films were released to Netflix and I thought I should see what all the fuss was about, surprisingly I thoroughly enjoyed both!

Sir Kenneth Branagh filming on the set of Thor (2011)

  Kenneth Branagh, the Lawrence Oliver of our generation, is the best Shakespearian Actor/Director working in film today. His adaptions of Hamlet and Much To Do About Nothing are two of my personal favorite films; however, there was a point in his career when his success had clearly gone to his head. Branagh is good, in fact he's great as both an actor and director, but his knowing that lead him to make some serious professional mistakes. Time has matured Branagh from a head strong star, into a mature, highly respectable talent.

  For many, an Oscar winning, Shakespearian trained actor would be the last to take on a comic book -action film. This is what's great about Branagh, he surprises, and his take on Thor was one brilliant surprise. The thing about Thor is the story itself is deeply Shakespearian...rival brothers, buying for their barbaric father's throne...and THAT'S why Branagh was a perfect choice to direct it. His over theatricality in acting HELPS him while directing, creating top notch productions that are visually stunning. The story is there without sub-plots or distractions. The clear cut, classic story line of Thor is perhaps why I didn't react as positively to it's sequel. 

  Now before any Marvel fans break out the pitchforks and torches, let me say this. I LIKE THE AVENGERS. I REALLY LIKE THOR: THE DARK WORLD. I enjoyed them all immensely, they're fun, action packed, and charismatic...that being said, both films are riddled with poor film making decisions and plot holes. If you want a break down of a "good" movie verses an "enjoyable" movie check out my review of The Avengers. The first installment of Thor was a magical combination of both quality and entertaining filmmaking but then came The Avengers and every Marvel film to follow has been an attempt to mirror Joss Wheaton's cheeky humor and over the top action, Thor: The Dark World is no exception.  

 Thor: The Dark World is occasionally confused and jumpy, trying desperately to make many of the same jokes that made The Avengers a success. Don't get me wrong, I was laughing the whole way through. Gags and laughs are great to break the tension, but when they're injected every 10 minutes the build to the climax is rough and almost nonexistent. I wanted to be on the edge of my seat, concerned for Thor in his battle with Malekith but I couldn't when the film was pulling jokes every other shot. The disruption of continuity honestly gets a bit annoying at times...JUST LET THEM DUKE IT OUT! It's NOT Joss Wheaton directing and we the audience KNOW this...and yet it's his STYLE...it seems like a bit of directorial plagiarism...but I don't want to get into that.  

  

  Another reason for The Dark World's confused state is due to it's plot line...there's simply too much and not enough time spent addressing it all. I'm just going to call bogus on this plot line right now because IT IS. Honestly, who wrote this film because I'm positive they just threw darts at a board to see what should happen next in the movie and to what character. But just like The Avengers, I end up not really giving a crap. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would watch it again in a heartbeat! 

...is this a good thing? This is serious question that should be asked...there is so much going on in this film, so many sub-plots, so many inside Avengers jokes, so much MUCHNESS that it should have turn the movie into a failure right? Right, but it DOESN'T...I don't know how Marvel does it, but with all the continuity problems this film has and the contrived plot line, I can't bring myself to say The Dark World is a BAD film. I can, however, say this of Iron Man 3...sorry World, I have to get this off of my chest, Iron Man 3 was ridiculous...ugh, but still mostly enjoyable...damn it...this is turing into the most contradictory review of my career...

  The  problems in The Dark World could have been solved has the filmmakers taken a bit more time...The Dark World is NOT a long film; had it been, many of the holes could have been filled, the pacing smoothed and overall quality of the film improved.

Tom Hiddleston's Loki is dealt some serious time out in Thor: The Dark World

Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth as quarreling adopted brothers Loki and Thor.

  Thor, you know, hangs around being Thor, swinging his Hammer and stuff...beating up on the baddies, check. Honestly it's not the character development people pay to see. They pay to see Thor, his hammer, and his muscles do some serious damage to other worldly villians...and Loki.

  Oh Loki, you are such a little maniacal trickster...Tom Hiddleston again knocks it out of the park in his portrayal of The God of Mischief. In The Dark World, Hiddleston lets loose all that crazy, "I do what I want"attitude and schemes Loki has been harboring while imprisoned. It may be called "Thor", but there is no doubt that this series and The Avengers  owes much of it's popularity to Hiddleston and his devilishly handsome and infuriating Loki. Is he GOOD? Is he BAD? Who's team is he on? The answer to that is team Loki, but he never fails to drive fans and audiences crazy with guessing. Marvel has obviously recognized and monopolized on Hiddleston, having him return to set and shoot extra scenes later added to the film.

As a Doctor Who fanatic, I was ecstatic when I heard Ninth Doctor, Christopher Eccelston was cast as the main villian. Eccelston delivers with some AWESOME prosthetics in tow, but again, I desperately wish he would have been given more screen time. Malekith's battle with Thor is action packed but interrupted by so many slap stick jokes I found it difficult to become truly invested.
The design of Malekith and his army of Dark Elves is exceptionally creepy without being hokey, I was pleasantly surprised and satisfied.

  Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgård return as the blunt and lovable Darcy, and Doctor Erik Selvig...who may or may not be lacking pants in several scenes. These two are hilarious and Dennings especially is a scenes stealer, I would have loved to see her and Loki share some screen time. Natalie Portman is back as itty bitty Jane Foster, hottest scientist to walk the earth. She and Hemsworth have a couple nice scenes but again, much of the time needed to build a serious relationship that the audience can become invested in is lost. Performances around the board are strong included Anthony Hopkins who's Odin still resorts to growling like a bear and refusing to show Loki any love; and Rene Russo plays a Julie Christie-esque Frigga who has a nice, Bad {Ass}gardian moment half way through the film.  

  In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World is not without it's faults but the same can be said for any action film; especially one from Marvel. The company is a cash cow and audience will never be in short supply of Superheroes and Villains to watch on the big screen. The Dark World is leagues better than the slap in the face sequel that was Iron Man 3, and I hope Captain America: The Winter Soldier to be just as enjoyable...although I'm sure I'll have a bone or two to pick  concerning the Cap as well. There comes a genre of film where, as outlandish as it's story may be, I as a reviewer must sit back and enjoy the spectacle; Marvel films, and their subsequent sequels, have proved to be that genre of film.  

It's just too cool to not like...

12 Years a Slave

Steve McQueen's brutally honest film depicts both the best and (mostly) the worst of man kind. 

Directed by: Steve McQueen

Released: 2013

Staring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lupita Nyong'o, & Brad Pitt

Rated: R 

Times Viewed: 1

  Every fall as the weather transforms from glowing warmth to chilling cold, a new film season emerges to draw audiences to theaters. The first budding blooms include previously reviewed films Gravity & Captain Phillips; each release seemingly better than the next. Awards Season may only be in it's early, yet essential months of release, but Steve McQueen's bio-pic 12 Years A Slave may possess what it takes to persist the cold winter winds all the way to March 2nd. 

  12 Years A Slave tells the true tale of Solomon Northup; a free black man, making a living as a violinist in upstate New York before being tricked and sold into slavery.  Frame by frame, director Steve McQueen paints an unrelenting portrait of the human soul in both it's brightest and darkest colors.

Cinematgrapher Sean Bobbitt & Director Steve McQueen

  12 Years a Slave is meticulously crafted, each individual shot looks as though it could be a masterpiece painting. The angles at which cinematographer Sean Bobbitt and McQueen shoot are unique, fresh, and fascinating. Wether it be Benedict Cumberbatch standing in a door frame with Chiwetel Ejiofor at his feet; or Ejiofor hanging from a tree, the source of his punishment and suffering, an unfinished cabin looming in the background, the imagery and iconicism are breathtaking. No frame was shot without the closest consideration, and every shot is intentional and for that reason, powerful.

  From the beginning scenes of the film McQueen uses camera angles, light and sound to establish the right from the wrong, the natural from the unnatural. The film begins with Solomon cutting sugar cane but moves quickly into another scene later that night in which he and a fellow female slave become intimate. The scene was shot from a tight, overhead, horizontal view, the characters only visible from the chest down. The abruptness of the scene is somewhat jarring in not only it's placement in the film but also the angle at which it was shot, with both actors heads situated far screen right. The lighting is cold and harsh. Another rapid cut to atheistically contrasted shot; Solomon and his wife sit in bed in upright vertical positions. A warm light is cast around them and both actors are centered screen, a comfortable distance from the audience. The transition from one intimate scene to another create a vivid image to emotionally influence the audience as to what feels warm and safe, verses cold and uncomfortable. 

  "Uncomfortable" is a word many would use to describe any number of scenes in 12 Years A Slave but eliciting an emotion from an audience is the sign of a true director. McQueen utilizes not only camera angles/light but also manipulates sounds and ABSENCE of sound. A score by Hans Zimmer feeds the desolate undercurrent of the film but rises when called upon to become a tool of heightened drama. Sound builds and builds in moments of strife; however, once action has been taken, the audience is left with nothing but the bodily sounds of the characters, accompanied by silence. It's this silence that delivers the true impact of suffering better than any motif ever could. 

Our main character left hanging by a rope, his toes sloppily grace the mudded ground below last for an "uncomfortable" amount of time. No synthetic sound is heard, and with nothing but staggered breathes and the call of birds, this is the most powerful scene in the whole film. Prolonged silences and takes are what drive 12 Years a Slave and turn a possible generic period film into Oscar GOLD.

The beautiful Lupita Nyong'o as Patsey along side Michael Fassbender & Chiwetel Ejiofor. 

12 Years A Slave has quite the list of Hollywood names, those names however are reputable, respected names. 

  Adds are selling this as a Brad Pitt film when in reality his total screen time can't equal more than 15 minutes; that being said, he gives a well acted performance. Pitt's hand is more in producing than acting which, I have no complaints about. It takes a strong and humble actor to have so much invested in a production and yet take such a small role. Pitt's eye and and status in film making have matured immensely over the past 10+ years and I can't help but feel my sense of respect for him, as both actor and person, grown.  

Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch & Paul Dano 

Benedict Cumberbatch's role as plantation owner Ford plays as the contrasting figure to Michael Fassbender's maniacally cruel and unhinged Edwin Epps. Ford, while a slaver non the less, displays acts of kindness, generosity, and humanity. Cumberbatch was a perfect choice for the role, not only a goodnatured face but he also emits a disposition to match. His range of work in 2013 alone must be noted and applauded. I find it hard to believe that this man on screen is the same who plays the cheeky Sherlock Holmes and intimated nerds world round as the ruthless Khan. Benedict Cumberbatch is a rising star who shows no signs of slowing down...and I hope he doesn't.

  Our leading man Chiwetel Ejiofor, a relative unknown to both me and most likely the average movie goer, gives a performance that is nothing short of superior. To pull the truth and raw emotion from a story and script such as this is a feat daunting to any actor, no matter what their status. Ejiofor demonstrates a fearlessness and force that radiates through the screen. As I wrote before, 12 Years A Slave features numerous prolonged scenes of silence with nothing but the actor and perhaps a breath of wind. These scenes could have become dull and lifeless but Chiwetel Ejiofor emotes pain, trepidation, and hope all through his eyes. He knows how to utilize his face without seeming overdramatic and mime-esque. When he does speak, his delivery is believable and powerful.

 

Closely tied with Ejiofor for best performance in this film is unsurprisingly Michael Fassbender. The audience isn't sure whether he's a racist or a sadist, or just plain insane, but what Michael Fassbender creates is nearly beyond words. He demonstrates a calmness that makes his character all the more dangerous and terrifying; a burning and intense gaze accompanies words that had many an audience member shaking their head and murmuring in disgust. Edwin Epps is an unforgiving man, holding true to the belief that these people are his property and he many do with his property as he chooses. In the same fashion, Fassbender's method and performance are just as unforgiving. He could have gone complete passion and emotion, yelling and gesturing about, but he saves it for when it counts...a silent attack that explodes at the slightest push. Michael Fassbender has proved time and time again to be one of the best performers working in cinema today in for his role in 12 Years A Slave I'd be shocked if he didn't receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

  Paul Geomati makes a brief but note worthy appearance and I've never heard an audience applaud so loudly as they did when Paul Dano's character was beaten by Solomon. THAT is a true testate to the power of acting and the influence it can have on an audience. Where Fassbender's character had a quiet  yet deranged force behind it, Dano was it's counterpart. His performance as the overseer Tibeats on Ford's plantation is a boiling pot of superiority and temperament, quick to jump on any slave that shoots him a definite eye and acting rashly with no concern for law and order.

  The performances in 12 Years a Slave were the strongest to have graced in screen in all of 2013 and I will be shocked if there's not one or more cast member who's nominated for an Academy Award. For all of it's successes, the film does get heavy. With very few, if any light moments, the film may prove hard for some to sit through. It's an intense emotional roller coaster from start to finish, but the quality of the production and performances make it well worth the strife. Moving in more ways than one and important in the fact this is not an African American movie, it's an AMERICAN movie. One of the greatest countries in the world, America is also one who's held a blood-soaked ledger.  Steve McQueen reminds us how important our history is, he shows us the good, the bad, and the worst of ALL Americans.

  The only other obstacle I see 12 Years facing is what I've come to call the "Lincoln Bug." This time last year, everyone had Steven Spielberg's presidential bio-pic to be front runner for the Academy's highest award; however, following it's release, interest in the film dissipated and soon it lost to thriller Argo. The problem with Lincoln was it was all talk no action....what everyone thought would be a stirring drama turned out to be a Daniel Day-Lewis performance piece filled with the President telling lengthy stories and jokes...while all performances were excellent (I did cry) as a whole, Lincoln was one of my biggest disappointments of last year. Honestly I don't think 12 Years will suffer the same fate...it's equal parts performance drama and cinematic beauty along with severe depictions of plantation life.

  12 Years a slave received a rousing reception at The Uptown Theater with both the 7:00 and 10:00 shows selling out, the 7:00 showing by 3:00pm! There was not a dry eye in the house during the final scene and credits. Goosebumps, cheers, and tears were a plenty throughout the film; this is one film that MUST not be missed for both it's cinematic achievements  and outstanding cast.

Dracula (1992)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Released: 1992
Staring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Clary Ewles
Rated: R
Times Viewed 5+

 There is a moment in film making when the artistic choices go beyond  filling a lot, clothing an actor, and underscoring a scene; the artistic team behind Bram Stoker's Dracula immortalized not only a literary character but multiple periods of art and history, all on screen.

   Nothing dates a film more than bad special effects, whether they be shoddy stop motion or CGI. Francis Ford Coppela's adaption of the iconic novel by Bram Stoker will forever stand the test of time due to his traditional method of special effects and camera technique. When one says "traditional"the usual connotation is old, boring, out of day; however, by using practical effects and no CGI, Dracula is  a back of all treats and no tricks. Coppela's collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka, scenic designer Joseph Hodges, special effects artist Roman Coppola, and composer Wojciech Kilar resulted in a true work of classic, cinematic art. 

  The only thing more engrossing than watching Coppola's adaption is watching the production documentaries and videos following the development of the film. I own a copy of the 15th anniversary edition DVD which is packed with hours of such footage. Absolutely no green screen's were used all sets were built on screen and effects only produced as they would have been in the early 1900's. Magic tricks, reverse photography, and double exposure were all used to create the unique and often haunting effects that give Dracula it's classic flair. In this Coppola really must be applauded, his passion and unrelenting dedication to the classic art of film is something sorely missed in today's Hollywood. There are some truly BRILLIANT effects and sequences created in this film...all of which are addressed in this fantastic short The Naive Visual Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I highly suggest checking it out, it's a great look at the technical craft and ingenuity that goes into practical classic film making. 

  Special Effects included, Bram Stoker's Dracula is wickedly theatrical and full of art history and this is most apparent than in it's costume designs. Eiko Ishioka one of Hollywood's most creative and dramatic costume designer's created looks that not only elude to famous works of art , but become art themselves; Dracula's garments specifically span generations and cultures. Coppola refers to images as "swatches" during the visual production period and the these "swatches" from Klimt to numerous other's are...There are just too many brilliant pieces to choose from, each gorgeous in it's own individual fashion...

 The quality of the production design is beyond words, and let's not forget that the film one best Oscar for Costume Design, Make-up, and Sound Effects/Editing...The old age make-up on Gary Oldman is truly THEE best over put on screen, I've yet to see it's rival...Benjamin Button, eat your heart out. Besides age make-up, the creature prosthetics are incredibly detailed and quite honestly perfection; every line was considered, every hair in place. The costumes are pure theater, and the make-up pure magic.

Wojciech Kilar's melodies are equally haunting as the tale they underscore. A multiple repetition of chords that build and build, creating tension; Kilar compliments these heavy tracks with a light as air romanic theme that twists itself and soon becomes a hair raising refrain.This soundtrack is the perfect mix of horror, danger, and romance.

  Now let's address the one conflicting factor that takes this Art History masterpiece of Romanic Horror and turns it from Oscar gold, to B-film camp. The acting...Specifically Keanu Reeves acting.

  Poor, poor Keanu Reeves...he tried, He really, REALLY tired. While he's one of those actors who's been consistently bad in almost every movie he's in I, due to some unknown force, like his movies. {The Matrix, Constantine, & of course Dracula} Some roles are juste cursed and the role of Jonathan Harker is on of them...first of all, he's like Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera...the writer's try SO desperately to turn him into the romantic lead when it's obviously the opposer. Second, he's a bit of a pussy...he goes to the castle, get's imprisoned, get's out then whines the entire rest of the story...I don't think anyone has every felt badly for Jonathan Harker in Dracula's history. THAT, however, does not excuse the exceptionally painful job that Reeves did in this role. His acting befits that of a high school freshman...who doesn't enjoy theater.

  Keanu Reeves is not the only one having a hard time in their roles...Sadie Frost who plays the part of Lucy Winestra struggles through her character by series of sexual moans and screeches. Winona Ryder as a whole makes a mostly successful transition from child star to leading lady with this role, however she does have a couple awkward moments herself. And if I must be totally honest I have to confess that, while he's brilliant, this is not Sir Anthony Hopkin's best role. He was and is perfect for the part, it's simply falls upon some rather odd physical choices he makes that bring the performance down to a satire level.

  Check out this clip below, it shows not only the faltering attempts of Reeves, but also the levels that Gary Oldman brings to his performance of Dracula as well as the rich costume, set, and sound designs...it's definitely a defining scene of the film.

  The shining star in this sometimes fading constellation without a doubt is Gary Oldman. Oldman's versatility and complete commitment never fails to blow me away, Dracula is no exception. In a performance that could have been weighed down by make-up and costume, Oldman uses them to his advantage and brings a timeless, yet fresh take to the most iconic of Monsters. The performance plays on the subtleties and theatricality of the character of Dracula creating a new character who you are both revolted and attracted to. My personal favorite, of all Gary Oldman's performances.

  So if you haven't see it yet, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one to watch this Halloween evening. With his stunning costumes, intriguing set and special effects designs and above all Gary Oldman's performance it's not only my pick of  Halloween movie, but also happens to be my FAVORITE movie.

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

You all think I'm going to talk about the 2004 Gerard Butler, Joel Schumaker adaption of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical don't you? That's adorable.

Directed by: Dwight H. Little
Released: 1989
Staring: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nye,
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 4

  There are certain movies you watching thinking...I'm really enjoying this, I know I shouldn't because it's probably a ridiculously cheesy horrible movie, but I really am enjoying this. You watch it about three or four times, making jokes in your head but it doesn't matter because it's still a good movie. Then you watch that movie with other people and you realize all those jokes you made to yourself were totally justified and you should probably hide the fact that you bought this movie off of Amazon and you really love it from the general public....Anyone else have that movie?
        Anyone?
                 No?
  Well the 1989 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera staring Robert Englund and Bill Nye is mine. It's 80's, it's gore, it's ridiculous, it's not an accurate adaption of the book, and it is AWESOME. This being said, I have to let you all know....

  The bane of my existence presents itself in two forms. Bad Dracula adaptions {we'll get to this in a review later this month} and bad Phantom of the Opera adaptions. Is it really so impossible to produce a faithful adaption to the book??? The book has all the elements of an awesome horror/romance/mystery movie because it's an awesome horror/romance/mystery novel!
As of 2007 there were over 40 adaptions of Gaston Leroux's book. 
  I really love Phantom of the Opera. I got hooked thanks to a cassette of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical my parents bought after seeing the production in the early 90's. I forgot about the show for a while until 2004 when Joel Schumaker made it into a colorless, sub-par, yet enjoyable adaption. After being reunited with the story I hunted down the book and basically every other adaption I could get my hands on...let me tell you, there are A LOT of adaptions of The Phantom of the Opera. Most bad, all cheesy, but all (save the Dario Argento adaption) have their redeeming qualities.

  The 1989 adaptions' is it's 80's thrill and gore and Robert Englund....Poor, poor Freddy Kru... I mean ROBERT ENGLUND. The poor guy signed his action soul to the Devil the day he decided to do Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm sure he's made quite the pretty penny on the series, which boast 7 sequels to the first as well as the 2010 remake, but they've limited him creatively. ROBERT ENGLUND IS A GOOD ACTOR, I truly believe he is. Sadly, like make villains of 80's horror, he's been typecast to no end. Whenever he DOES land a role that is not Kruger, the character still haunts him. Marking people are mainly to blame for this and I have to say whoever was captain for this ship should have been fired because this is not acceptable...He's basically a marketing strategy

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but what assholes. From what I've read on the web Englund wasn't too happy about this either, and for good reason! I would not want people to go to a film because they expected to see Freddy, I would want them to go to see what else Freddy can do!
.

  This all being said, the character Englund creates is brilliant but he does offer several Freddy-esque characteristics. He has some great, macabre one liners, creepy laugh, and dream-like presence...In reality this has nothing to do with Englund's acting and more about screen writing. This may be a strong statement, but Robert Englund's interpretation of The Phantom is the closes to what I had generated in my mind from the book.
The Phantom is not a nice, cuddly guy chilling in the basement waiting to watch The Notebook with you *cough* Charles Dance *cough* he's a bad ass, crazy stalker. I say this with nothing but love in my heart, but he is out of his mind. He kills people, he LIKES killing people; but he's some how charming and intelligent!

  The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, even Bill Nye is odd in the role of the Opera House manager. Please don't even get me started on Christine...the young Jill Schoelen is not the worst Christine to grace stage or screen but she's not the best either. Her singing voice {which I don't believe is her own, is no where near "angelic"} I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Christine Daae (outside the musical content) that I enjoyed. Always winy, annoying, just uh...Not much praise can be showered upon this cast apart of Englund of course.


Now let's talk about the movie itself. This is NOT accurate adaption of the Leroux novel, it takes many, MANY heavy handed liberties included name, location changes, and TIME TRAVEL. The Paris Opera House becomes the London Opera House, I see no reason for this...it's not like they actually shot in either location...Daae becomes to American DAY a change which I despise and Erik disfigurement comes for the Devil in the form of a midget in a brothel....ya I'm just gonna let that one sink in.  LIKE I SAID, heavy handed liberties...they were taken. I've seen so many adaptions I've learned to take them as they come and all the changes in this adaption, while crazy and outlandish WORK with the film and I *screams quietly* love this movie!

  One of the main reasons, it's gross. Just sick...and so good! While no one has ever gotten anywhere close to showing Erik's true disfigurement on screen, the 1989 adaptions offers a pretty nasty take. Instead of wearing a mask made of any synthetic material or fabric, the Phantom chooses to cover his burned face in HUMAN SKIN...that's right a la Buffalo Bill, this Phantom does some patch work sewing on his own face. This is where that 80's gore and horror come in. We the audience get several scenes of Erik skinning people, sewing the skin to his face, the skin be ripped off...and it's awesomely disgusting. There are some top notch make-up jobs in this film no matter how Nightmare on Elm Street inspired they may appear. Having The Phantom wear a mask of human flesh really bumps up the gross out factor that the original novel held so close {in the scene where Christine takes off Erik's mask he takes her hands, and digs her nails into her skull, pealing off dead skin}

Did I mention, Erik has a really AWESOME Red Death costume in this adaption?

  It's not perfect, it's occasionally ridiculous in it's retro-ness, and it's ghastly gory, but it's for those reasons I enjoy it! I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either! So if you've watched your collection of Nightmare on Elm Street so many times you can pin point the second a prosthetic tongue worms it's way out of a cored phone, give The Phantom of the Opera a try. Not as hokey as Nightmare but retaining a similar atmosphere and leading man of course. Robert Englund's performance is reason enough to watch Phantom but the gory 80's style are PERFECT for a Halloween viewing. Someday I hope this film will worm it's way onto the cult classic shelf along Nightmare, Halloween and Friday the 13th.

  I was going to talk about the Charles Dance tv miniseries of Phantom from 1990 but it's quite an extensive review all ready. All you need to know is I like it for unknown Charles Dance-y reasons.

I love Charles Dance...he is my favorite character on GOT and I didn't even know this until I rewatched season 2. Dance is no Lion in this miniseries however...he's almost the opposite.

  Charles Dance is an adorable English man who plays a French man with an American accent while everyone else around him keeps their English accents. I'm sorry but when I hear the voice of an Angel he doesn't sound like he's from Iowa. He is a cute and cuddly phantom who actually sings. Possibly one of the worst Christine's even if she is blond like she is in the book. It's both horribly bad and charming all at the same time. If you're bored you can watch the whole whole mini series on youtube.

 You guys...Tywin Lanister was a total FOX.

NOTE: This is definitely NOT from the 1990 adaption of Phantom.

He's just fun to look at

Captain Phillips

 While Gravity may have been King of last weekends box office, Captain Phillips is packed full of just as much intensity and thrilling action; not to mention brilliant performances. 

Directed by: Paul Greengrass
Released: 2013
Staring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdiraham, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali, & Michael Chernus.
Rated: PG-13
Times Viewed: 1

"Based on a True Story" often leads to over-exposed and ultimate let down of many films in today's market; however, Captain Phillips lives up to the hype and offers the audience a solid and memorable action thriller.

  When Captain Phillips first crossed my radar I wasn't overly concerned with it's presence. Yes Tom Hanks is good but it was just going to be another dumbed down action-withouth action movie, nothing to get excited about. Weeks passed and the hype over the true tale of a brave cargo ship captain grew  and grew, traveling from media sites to my own parents. "That Tom Hanks is just incredible" my Dad boasted "Very good. Very intense" my Mother described via text. With their stamps of approval and the ever present accompaniment of "Oscar Buzz" I thought it was time to give Captain Phillips a chance. If all else fails, it has Tom Hanks, he's always a treat to watch!


  Captain Phillips successfully lives up to it's praise. Paul Greengrass creates a film that is not only laden with suspense, intensity, and action, but REALITY. Too often in Hollywood, action films turn into monstrous feasts of CGI, Good Guy vs. Bad Guy, and unnecessary SFX. Captain Phillips minimizes all the artificial aspects of an action film and allows the story be the source of action, not the effects. Granted, Greengrass had quite the story to work with. NOT to say I believe every event depicted in the film was what happened in real life, but how often is that what a film sets out to do?
  Based on True Event films like Captain Phillips set out to raise awareness and tell a great story. Is that always the right thing to do? No, but it's what making films is so often about, interpretation and presentation, not give an exact account. Yes, telling the real story is important but audiences must understand that this cinema and liberties will always be taken. I'm not here to tell you if Captain Phillips was an accurate presentation of the hijacking of Maersk Alabama in 2009, I'm here to review the film. If a movie like this is presented in such a way that it sparks my curiosity about the real events and compels me to do a bit of research, it's done it's job...along with entertaining of course.

  Greengrass' execution builds upon constant tension without feeling like a one note movie. Captain Phillips isn't confined to one space or vantage point, allowing the audience insight to more than just it's title character while retaining a sense of perspective. That perspective, while slightly slanted, is not singular. From beginning to end, the audience is shown both Phillips' and Pirate leader Muse's lives, motivations, and approach to their respective situations. Greengrass does this by presenting parallels in each man's life, showing the audience that the American Captain and Somali Pirate are not so different. I really loved this. Muse{pronounced "Moo-Say" I think}is , without a doubt, the antagonist; however, he's not completely unsympathetic. Audiences are shown why he's Pirating, his struggles, and his determination to prove himself. You're not necessarily rooting for the Pirates, but because of the insight into their lives and motivations, you're don't entirely want them to fail. A fresh take for the worn, one sided approach Hollywood so often takes. To quote one, Tom Hiddlestone "Every Villain is a Hero in his own mind."  Captain Phillips illustrates this beautifully.  

Director Paul Greengrass with his cast of Somali Actors on the
set of Captain Phillips (2013)

"From the Director of The Borne Supremacy & Ultimatum" had me nervous. These are the films that brought us the current action film staple...SHAKEY HAND-CAM. Yes that lovely, belligerent craft of strapping a camera to one's hand and not giving a frame as to whether the audience can acutely tell what's being filmed for not...Everyone rats on J.J. Abrams for lens flares? Shaky Cam will always be my ultimate enemy...

  So you see why I had my reserves about the film due to it's director, but Greengrass blew away all preconceived assumptions and delivered one helluva great action film. A great story helps, but the way this movie was filmed is what made it a such a success for me. "No tricks" as many characters in the movie often repeat, there were no tricks while making Captain Phillips. No ridiculous camera tricks, SFX tricks, or (most importantly) CGI tricks. This was solid thrills and action done without a single explosion or illogical car {boat} chase. In simpler terms, everything in Captain Phillips made sense. I never felt there was a time when I was apart of a sequence of action that didn't NEED to happen.

  Now action cannot be anything without actors and Captain Phillips' cast is ripe with raw, talented actors. Tom Hanks, I don't think this man has made a bad movie. And don't you dare say the Da Vinci Code because I immensely enjoy that movie! We all know Hanks can be the good guy, the nice guy, the funny guy, but we rarely see him in such a HUMAN role. It's refreshing to see him portraying a though, sometimes verging on unlikable character. Hanks doesn't milk the scene he has with his wife at the beginning, he just makes it real. The same goes for the first couple scenes as his character first takes charge of the Alabama and it's crew. Dare I say, he's kind of a hard ass. But it's truth, it's real. Hanks' final scene, after his rescue, is one of the most heart wrenching on film this year. The pure emotion that he exhibits is unbelievable and leaves not one dry eye in the theater.

  While Hanks is the obviously the big star in the film his rookie co-stars are not to be cast into his illustrious shadow. Much of the hype that's followed Captain Phillips has been surrounding the Somali actors who portray the hijacking pirates. All who, I might add, are from MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA! The four amateurs play it like old pros, all unforgiving and truthful as Hanks himself. Barkhad Abdi, the leader of the pirate crew, is getting a fair amount of Oscar Buzz for his performance and for good reason. Even in his silent moments we see the cogs turing in his mind, calculating and determining. Abdi holds his own against Hanks and gives a truly outstanding performance that is reason enough to check out Captain Phillips.

  If you haven't seen it yet, Captain Phillips is the one to watch this weekend. Where Gravity staggered in acting, Captain Phillips sores above. This film is everything that a GOOD action film should be complimented by top notch acting. It's bound to score at least one Academy Award nom come early next year; this is one Oscar film that can be enjoyed by any and all audiences.

Gravity

This whole problem could have been solved if you had a Time Lord...

Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón
Released: 2013
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Sandra Bullock & George Clooney
Times Viewed: 1

  But all Doctor Who jokes aside, Gravity reiterates a fact embraced by many a Whovian...Space is AWESOME. Not since Kubrick has a director translated the terrifying desolation and beauty that is Space onto the silver screen so spectacularly. Alfonso Cuarón utilizes Space like no other, continuously flirting with varying levels of depth of field as well as sound. The scope of Gravity, at first glimpse, appears vast and daunting but Cuarón brings this epic down to human reaches by interjecting immense cinematography with tight, extreme close-ups of it's leading lady. The director plays with reflections in space suit helmets, POV shots, and even drops nod to Kubrick if you're a cool enough cat to catch it. Alfonso Cuarón's variety, sharpness, and seamless blending of film and CGI creates an irrefutable Sci-Fi classic. The great this about Gravity thought is that it's hardly Sci-Fi at all..no aliens, no laser guns, just real space and real people. 

   Sandra Bullock, who wouldn't have been my (nor I believe the directors) first choice for the role, can be a bit distracting at times...a kinder word than annoying. Bullock was not the worst actress to be cast in a role such as this and did demonstrate great command over her body, hours of trainer where evident in her physical being, but when it came to a vocal presence she's not one I appreciated. She gives literal life to the phrase "Ah, Ahh, Ahhh." This being said, the Academy Award Winner brings a human "real life" presence to the role.

  Opposite Sandra Bullcock, the ever charming George Clooney does what he does best...charms his way through the film. George Clooney plays George Clooney, and the first 10 minutes of the film try so unbelievably hard to establish a (charming) character for Clooney it's somewhat painful. On the verge of cliché, his veteran Matt Kowalski (charmingly) reflects on past missions, mishaps, and memories with Huston as he takes his final walk throughout space, alluding to retirement and lamenting that he'll never surpass the record for most time spent wondering the heavens above.  

  Does anyone remember Michael Clayton? An angry, passionate George Clooney, that's what I'd love to see again...he's a talented actor but I feel he choses roles that too closely reflect him as a person. In that perspective Gravity was a perfect match, but I'd love to see him take a real, unforgiving RISK.

But perhaps I pick on the leads too much...I've yet to decide if my reservations about each actor was due to the performances or a sub-par script; my conscious tells me it's the later. 

  Unfortunately the script (mind you not the story) proved to be the film's weakest attribute. Majority of the film belongs to Bullock who, again, wouldn't have been my first choice for a role like this but my overall impression was she carried many of the scenes well enough. The attempts to build an emotional back story for her character Ryan Stone failed,  transforming from bone dry to down right cliché. Creating back story for a character is important so the audience can develop that emotional connection and, ESPECIALLY in a film like Gravity feel the character's tension, anxieties, fear ex. as they push forward to the climax and an undeterminable end. Again, this was more the writers fault than Bullock's. I do appreciate we didn't get any cheesy flash backs of Stone on earth with her beloved daughter, the accident, and Stone's sedated life afterwards. In the hands of another director, poorly plotted flash backs such as these could have ruined the entire film; thankfully Cuarón keeps us in the now, in the space, and in what's important. Any return to Earth before the finale would have broken the atmosphere and caused utter disaster. For keeping such consistency, I must say bravo Caurón on a bold decision.

  Sound, or the absence of sound surrounds Gravity but doesn't let itself become the most memorable thing about the film...although it does make a sizable impact. Explosions are witnessed in almost complete silence with nothing but Steven Price's haunting and inspiring score to accompany them.

Check it out here!

  

  While the character development and back story may be predictable, the film itself is not. Visually unique, one cannot help but return to Kubrick's game changer 2001: A Space Odyssey and remember the impact it had on audiences and film makers alike. Just consider what Gravity means for this generation? With Star Trek and Star Wars with their own come backs underway, Gravity has certainly forced the sequels to up their game. The CGI is flawless and the use of the 3D is the BEST I've ever seen. The cinematography is unbelievable . Simply unbelievable. I would attempt to describe it but in Gravity's case, the pictures really are worth a thousand words. 

    There's not much else I can or will tell you about Gravity other than GO SEE IT! Go see it in Theaters in 3D. It is without a doubt THEE film to watching this fall season. It's an experience unlike any other that you've had at the theater. Tension, anxiety, and frustration are all felt and shared by the audience. Visually impeccable and emotionally heightened, Gravity simply cannot be missed.