These days, it's hard to find a mainstream movie that isn't presented in "3-D." It's a sensible proposition, after all; motion pictures are expensive affairs, and throwing in a few extra million dollars for a 3-D conversion for which one can charge twice the normal price for tickets sounds like a good way to hedge one's bets. Rare, however, is the movie that actually makes full use of the format for a mind-blowing cinematic experience. Alfonso Cuaron achieved it earlier this year with his 90-minute thrill-ride Gravity, and a little over two months later, Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson has raised the bar for visual splendor yet again with the astonishing presentation of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
I actually missed The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment of the trilogy of films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's novel The Hobbit, when it came out in theaters last year. Due to limited funds and a bit of disenchantment with the decision to split a relatively slim book into three movies I decided to pass, but when I caught the movie on DVD I was beguiled by the visuals; in the nine years since the last Lord of the Rings movie, Jackson had learned a whole lot of new tricks, and even though I didn't see the film in 3-D, or the vaunted "High Frame Rate" format of 48 frames per second, it was a real treat to watch, and my whole family agreed to catch the second movie in the premium format.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug begins with a flashback, in which Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) approaches exiled dwarf prince Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) at the Prancing Pony in Bree and offers to help him reclaim the dwarf kingdom of Erebor, which was forcibly taken from them by the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). It then returns to the present, with the company of dwarves led by Thorin and accompanied by Gandalf and the burglar they recruited, the eponymous hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) fleeing from the orcs chasing them at the end of the last movie. First they take refuge with a "skin changer" or a shape-changing man named Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), and later, they are able to flee into Mirkwood, where they encounter new terrors and perils. The band of adventurers face danger from all sorts of colorful and terrifying characters, like angry elves (including Orlando Bloom's Legolas from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, herein joined by his dad Thranduil, played by Lee Pace, and a fierce she-elf created just for the movies named Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly), murderous orcs, and treacherous humans, but all of these threats will pale next to the terrifying, fire-breathing shroud of death that is Smaug.
Like this first film in the series, this, too was presented in the "HFR" format, and while it was jarring in several instances, it really was an extraordinary experience.
Also, in terms of both story and pure balls-to-the-wall action, this film easily has the first one beat. The staging of the action is nothing less than extraordinary, and Jackson's sleight of hand is now such that it's considerably harder to tell Orlando Bloom apart from his digitally-generated counterpart in the incredibly-staged action sequences. I basically just worked on the assumption that the most dangerous or difficult stunts were done digitally, but really, it's hard to tell where Bloom or Lilly (whose Tauriel also does considerable feats of derring-do) end and their Weta-Digital generated doubles begin. Fans thirsting for orc blood will certainly have their fill here; plenty of orcs are skewered, slashed and decapitated over the film's mammoth running time for our viewing pleasure.
Of course, given the title of the film, the dragon Smaug himself, as the film's primary antagonist (although there is a familiar face lurking in the shadows) has to be a highlight of this film, and thanks to the wizards at Weta Digital, he absolutely is. I regret to report, however, that Cumberbatch's voice seems to have been slightly filtered to make him sound more menacing, though that could have just been as a result of the terrible audio at the theater where I watched this movie, which was in the non-IMAX portion of SM North EDSA. My cousin had the same problem, so at least I know it wasn't just me. The audio was so bad, in fact, that I missed whole chunks of Smaug's rather extensive dialogue, which was really disappointing considering I have been a fan of Cumberbatch's since I watched him on Sherlock back in 2012. If the experience for people in other theaters was similar, then Jackson and his crew have done the audience quite a disservice, but there's no way for me to know.
In any case, this film has much more going for it than just incredible action sequences and CG-characters. As we have come to expect from Jackson's Tolkien films, the production value is really a cut above most other Hollywood fare. The production design of sets like the interior of Erebor and the seemingly abandoned fort of Dol Guldur are absolutely jaw-dropping and in many instances they are as integral to the story as the characters who set foot there, almost as if they are characters unto themselves. Of course, the majestic New Zealand backdrops Jackson and his crew picked add to the splendor.
The story does tend to plod along at some points, and I couldn't help but wonder where Jackson and his screenwriters got all the material for this filler, but overall the pacing was good, and the action was right where it needed to be. All told, I can definitely say I liked this movie better than its predecessor.
Without spoiling anything it's fair for me to say that the film sets the audience up for the epic finale next year, especially considering that it will feature the famous Battle of Five Armies which fans of the book and of Tolkien lore in general are no doubt eagerly anticipating, but standing on its own, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug was a pretty fun film in its own right.
4/5
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Revisiting an Old Favorite: Sideways
There's a little thing going around Facebook asking people to post "10 movies they saw in the last few years that stayed with them." Funny thing is, of all the movies I've seen, and I like to consider myself a fan of movies in general, there's only one that's really, resonated with me over the last decade and a half or so, and that's Alexander Payne's 2004 film Sideways. Sure, I've enjoyed lots of other films in my lifetime and even in the last ten years alone, and I even have many of them on DVD, but as I understand the phrase "stay with you" there's something a lot more than just enjoyment and/or entertainment at work. And so by that standard Sideways, and only Sideways, has truly left a burr in my consciousness.
At its heart, Sideways is basically a midlife crisis movie. I connected to this film because I watched it the year I turned 30, and while the big Four-Oh is two years away for me (a year and a half, to be precise), that film still connects with me in a way that few other films ever have, before or since, and because I cannot seem to find my actual review of the movie (which I wrote right here on blogger) I'll give a little summary.
Middle school teacher Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti), is frustrated in many aspects his life. He's divorced, stuck in a dreary job, living in a drab apartment, and anxiously hoping for his novel to be published. The one thing that seems to give him any joy is wine, in particular pinot noir. As the film begins,he looks forward to is taking his friend, washed-up former actor Jack Cole (Thomas Haden Church), who is about to get married, on a tour of Santa Ynez Valley, one of the great wine hubs of California, as one last getaway before Jack gets hitched. Jack and Miles drink wine and meet people on the way, including winery employee Stephanie (Sandra Oh) and waitress/master's degree candidate Maya (Virginia Madsen). As their acquaintance with the ladies progresses Jack seems intent on getting his rocks off with Stephanie, while Miles grapples with being at a crossroads his life. Will he love again? Will his novel ever get published? Will he ever open his prized bottle of 1961 pinot?
It's just as well that I'm re-reviewing this film, because I find myself laughing at a story trope I wasn't really aware of when I first watched it. I find myself amused, for example, by the well-worn cliche that Miles' novel is basically about him. Watching this, and Woody Allen's 2011 film Midnight in Paris, one would imagine that in Hollywood movies, the only people novelists, especially struggling ones, ever know how to write about are themselves.
What I loved about this movie was how brutally honest and how utterly down-to-earth it felt and still feels. Giamatti was really the perfect choice for the role of Miles Raymond; he invested the character with a heartbreaking vulnerability that made him utterly sympathetic, even at his most pathetic moments in the film. Everyone in the cast was at the top of their game, but this was, for me, Giamatti's show through-and-through. Not being the most dashing actor, he never really snagged a lot of lead roles after that, but he has been working steadily ever since, both in awards-bait, art-house fare and in blockbusters. In fact, like his Sideways alumnus Haden Church, who played Sandman in Spider-Man 3, Giamatti will also play one of Spider-Man's bad guys in next year's The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
I'm actually older now than Giamatti was when Sideways came out, and if nothing else I consider myself fortunate that unlike the character he played in that movie, I am not nearly as down and out as he was throughout most of it. Still, so much of his anguish at feeling he had achieved too little in his life considering his age really speaks to me. I like to think I've had a good life so far, but I cannot escape the thought that I could have done things better.
Still, like Sideways, which ends on a cliffhanger of sorts, life doesn't really end when one particular story does. My story will go on, and even though I suffer from insecurity and feelings of inadequacy like Miles did, I still have time to try my best and make things better.
I also really enjoyed Life of Pi, incidentally, but I'll have to wait for several years to see if it really stays with me the way Sideways has.
At its heart, Sideways is basically a midlife crisis movie. I connected to this film because I watched it the year I turned 30, and while the big Four-Oh is two years away for me (a year and a half, to be precise), that film still connects with me in a way that few other films ever have, before or since, and because I cannot seem to find my actual review of the movie (which I wrote right here on blogger) I'll give a little summary.
Middle school teacher Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti), is frustrated in many aspects his life. He's divorced, stuck in a dreary job, living in a drab apartment, and anxiously hoping for his novel to be published. The one thing that seems to give him any joy is wine, in particular pinot noir. As the film begins,he looks forward to is taking his friend, washed-up former actor Jack Cole (Thomas Haden Church), who is about to get married, on a tour of Santa Ynez Valley, one of the great wine hubs of California, as one last getaway before Jack gets hitched. Jack and Miles drink wine and meet people on the way, including winery employee Stephanie (Sandra Oh) and waitress/master's degree candidate Maya (Virginia Madsen). As their acquaintance with the ladies progresses Jack seems intent on getting his rocks off with Stephanie, while Miles grapples with being at a crossroads his life. Will he love again? Will his novel ever get published? Will he ever open his prized bottle of 1961 pinot?
It's just as well that I'm re-reviewing this film, because I find myself laughing at a story trope I wasn't really aware of when I first watched it. I find myself amused, for example, by the well-worn cliche that Miles' novel is basically about him. Watching this, and Woody Allen's 2011 film Midnight in Paris, one would imagine that in Hollywood movies, the only people novelists, especially struggling ones, ever know how to write about are themselves.
What I loved about this movie was how brutally honest and how utterly down-to-earth it felt and still feels. Giamatti was really the perfect choice for the role of Miles Raymond; he invested the character with a heartbreaking vulnerability that made him utterly sympathetic, even at his most pathetic moments in the film. Everyone in the cast was at the top of their game, but this was, for me, Giamatti's show through-and-through. Not being the most dashing actor, he never really snagged a lot of lead roles after that, but he has been working steadily ever since, both in awards-bait, art-house fare and in blockbusters. In fact, like his Sideways alumnus Haden Church, who played Sandman in Spider-Man 3, Giamatti will also play one of Spider-Man's bad guys in next year's The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
I'm actually older now than Giamatti was when Sideways came out, and if nothing else I consider myself fortunate that unlike the character he played in that movie, I am not nearly as down and out as he was throughout most of it. Still, so much of his anguish at feeling he had achieved too little in his life considering his age really speaks to me. I like to think I've had a good life so far, but I cannot escape the thought that I could have done things better.
Still, like Sideways, which ends on a cliffhanger of sorts, life doesn't really end when one particular story does. My story will go on, and even though I suffer from insecurity and feelings of inadequacy like Miles did, I still have time to try my best and make things better.
I also really enjoyed Life of Pi, incidentally, but I'll have to wait for several years to see if it really stays with me the way Sideways has.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
The Disney Animated Musical is BACK! (A Review of "Frozen")
As someone who grew up with Disney's animated musicals (and who even cried a little at the end of Beauty and the Beast) I was genuinely saddened when it appeared that that the Disney musical, at around the beginning of this millennium, was slowly dying out as a medium, having been increasingly upstaged by the newer, slicker computer-generated product being produced by Disney stablemate Pixar. Soon, even Walt Disney Animation's "homegrown" (i.e. not Pixar) product felt either utterly generic (Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, The Wild) or loosely inspired by plot points from Pixar hits (e.g. Bolt, which borrowed its deluded-hero conceit from Toy Story). Songs were basically taboo, unless they were popular songs that didn't come out of the mouths of the characters. It got to a point where Disney was basically parodying itself in 2007's live-action animation hybrid Enchanted. In 2009, they tried to sell a "princess" musical with The Princess and the Frog, only to be met with cold indifference at the box office. Although 2010's Tangled was still, strictly speaking, a musical, it felt oddly parsimonious with its actual musical numbers. Then, quite conspicuously, the next year brought a distinctly non-musical offering, Wreck-It-Ralph. Now, I'm a huge fan of WIR, and truth be told the fast-talking speed demon Vanellope Von Schweetz from that film is one of my favorite Disney characters EVER, right next to Finding Nemo's Dory and the sous chef voiced by Will Arnett in Ratatouille, but the thought of Disney abandoning the musical altogether left a distinctly bad taste in my mouth.
Fortunately, with Frozen, co-directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, Disney has put that particular fear to rest.
Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen tells the story of two sisters Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell), whose parents, the King and Queen of Arendelle, a fictional, vaguely Norwegian kingdom, separate them at a very young age because Elsa has fantastical but dangerous ice powers which actually hurt Anna when both of them are very young. In fact, Elsa's powers are so dangerous that the castle's gates are closed to the entire kingdom for years. When the two princesses are a bit older, they are orphaned by a tragic incident at sea, and as a result, when Elsa, the elder, comes of age, the gates of the kingdom are opened for her coronation. Anna, now a blossoming young woman, cannot be happier, as she yearns to meet people, and in particular hopes to catch the fancy of a young man, while Elsa is nearly paralyzed with fear at what could happen if people find out about her secret. Suffice it to say, although Anna meets her dashing prince Hans (Santino Fontana), things go awry, and Anna, together with traveling ice salesman Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven, and the magically-animated snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) embarks on a journey to save her sister and her kingdom. In the process, she will learn a thing or two about the bonds of sisterhood, and the power of true love.
The Snow Queen was always going to be a tough story to adapt, as it really doesn't follow a whole lot of the usual Disney cartoon story beats. The protagonists are children not lovelorn adolescents or young adults. The villain is, well, not much of a character, being neither particularly cruel or comical, and in fact, at the time the story is resolved, she isn't even around. It's a small wonder, therefore, that the movie is only an adaptation in the loosest sense of the word. Disney kept the Scandinavian setting, the queen with the fantastical ice/snow powers, and the importance of true love, but it all other respects they've come up with something altogether different, not only from the story they adapted, but from their usual fare. This movie is something quite special.
It's hard to talk about the storytelling virtues of this movie without spoiling it, but I will say that anyone wanting to keep their little girls from getting too preoccupied with finding Prince Charming at such a young age will have next to nothing to fear from this film, and that parents who have at least two young daughters may delight at the message this movie delivers about sisterhood. I have two little girls who fight like cats and dogs so this resonated with me something fierce.
The film does have some flaws; apart from three or four central characters, everyone else in it was given short shrift in terms of characterization. The actual villain of the film, if I may be honest, didn't leave much of an impact at all, and felt more like a story device than an actual character. Still, the patented Disney humor was there in generous doses.
Also, call me old-fashioned, but I miss the Alan Menken tunes from Beauty and the Beast, and which were featured as recently as 2010 in Tangled. Still, that's more a matter of taste than anything, and while not all the songs here, written by the husband-and-wife team of Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, were necessarily my cup of tea, I appreciated the craft behind them, especially the ones that involved powerful vocals like the centerpiece, "Let It Go" as sung by Menzel's Elsa midway through the film. It was gratifying to see Disney finally make up for casting Menzel, a Broadway veteran and one of the stars of the beloved musical Rent, in their 2007 musical Enchanted and yet failing to give her a single musical number. I was also a fan of Kristen Bell going into this movie, and came out of it an even bigger fan after hearing her sing.
Another quibble I had with this movie was how in some ways it felt like a wasted opportunity; Disney was basically rewriting the form book on a lot of their storytelling conventions here, and yet from a visual perspective, Anna and Elsa look, in many respects, like sooooo many other Disney princesses that have come before them. Considering that they had two uniquely attractive actresses playing these characters, it would have been nice had they at least tried to imbue them with some of their performers' features. As it is, both lead characters seem to have been designed primarily to sell dolls (now available at a Toys 'R' Us near you!), just going to show that while some things may have changed, others remain woefully the same.
Nitpicking notwithstanding, I can't really find that much fault with such an expertly-staged production. As it is with every new film, Disney just keep managing to top themselves on a technical level, and are now pretty much at level with Pixar in terms of pure production value, due in no small part, I imagine, to John Lasseter's creative guidance. And with something like eight new songs, this is easily their most ambitious musical effort since the 1990s.
I seem to be detecting a trend here in Disney Animations release pattern: 2010 had the princess-themed Tangled, while 2012 had the video game action fantasy Wreck-It-Ralph, clearly geared more towards male audiences. Next year, Disney's trading princesses for a team of C-list Marvel superheroes as they adapt the little-known Marvel Comic Big Hero 6. It seems, then, that they're alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys."
If they're all as good as Frozen, though, I'll be back no matter who their principal audience is.
4/5
Fortunately, with Frozen, co-directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, Disney has put that particular fear to rest.
Loosely based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale The Snow Queen, Frozen tells the story of two sisters Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell), whose parents, the King and Queen of Arendelle, a fictional, vaguely Norwegian kingdom, separate them at a very young age because Elsa has fantastical but dangerous ice powers which actually hurt Anna when both of them are very young. In fact, Elsa's powers are so dangerous that the castle's gates are closed to the entire kingdom for years. When the two princesses are a bit older, they are orphaned by a tragic incident at sea, and as a result, when Elsa, the elder, comes of age, the gates of the kingdom are opened for her coronation. Anna, now a blossoming young woman, cannot be happier, as she yearns to meet people, and in particular hopes to catch the fancy of a young man, while Elsa is nearly paralyzed with fear at what could happen if people find out about her secret. Suffice it to say, although Anna meets her dashing prince Hans (Santino Fontana), things go awry, and Anna, together with traveling ice salesman Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven, and the magically-animated snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) embarks on a journey to save her sister and her kingdom. In the process, she will learn a thing or two about the bonds of sisterhood, and the power of true love.
The Snow Queen was always going to be a tough story to adapt, as it really doesn't follow a whole lot of the usual Disney cartoon story beats. The protagonists are children not lovelorn adolescents or young adults. The villain is, well, not much of a character, being neither particularly cruel or comical, and in fact, at the time the story is resolved, she isn't even around. It's a small wonder, therefore, that the movie is only an adaptation in the loosest sense of the word. Disney kept the Scandinavian setting, the queen with the fantastical ice/snow powers, and the importance of true love, but it all other respects they've come up with something altogether different, not only from the story they adapted, but from their usual fare. This movie is something quite special.
It's hard to talk about the storytelling virtues of this movie without spoiling it, but I will say that anyone wanting to keep their little girls from getting too preoccupied with finding Prince Charming at such a young age will have next to nothing to fear from this film, and that parents who have at least two young daughters may delight at the message this movie delivers about sisterhood. I have two little girls who fight like cats and dogs so this resonated with me something fierce.
The film does have some flaws; apart from three or four central characters, everyone else in it was given short shrift in terms of characterization. The actual villain of the film, if I may be honest, didn't leave much of an impact at all, and felt more like a story device than an actual character. Still, the patented Disney humor was there in generous doses.
Also, call me old-fashioned, but I miss the Alan Menken tunes from Beauty and the Beast, and which were featured as recently as 2010 in Tangled. Still, that's more a matter of taste than anything, and while not all the songs here, written by the husband-and-wife team of Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, were necessarily my cup of tea, I appreciated the craft behind them, especially the ones that involved powerful vocals like the centerpiece, "Let It Go" as sung by Menzel's Elsa midway through the film. It was gratifying to see Disney finally make up for casting Menzel, a Broadway veteran and one of the stars of the beloved musical Rent, in their 2007 musical Enchanted and yet failing to give her a single musical number. I was also a fan of Kristen Bell going into this movie, and came out of it an even bigger fan after hearing her sing.
Another quibble I had with this movie was how in some ways it felt like a wasted opportunity; Disney was basically rewriting the form book on a lot of their storytelling conventions here, and yet from a visual perspective, Anna and Elsa look, in many respects, like sooooo many other Disney princesses that have come before them. Considering that they had two uniquely attractive actresses playing these characters, it would have been nice had they at least tried to imbue them with some of their performers' features. As it is, both lead characters seem to have been designed primarily to sell dolls (now available at a Toys 'R' Us near you!), just going to show that while some things may have changed, others remain woefully the same.
Nitpicking notwithstanding, I can't really find that much fault with such an expertly-staged production. As it is with every new film, Disney just keep managing to top themselves on a technical level, and are now pretty much at level with Pixar in terms of pure production value, due in no small part, I imagine, to John Lasseter's creative guidance. And with something like eight new songs, this is easily their most ambitious musical effort since the 1990s.
I seem to be detecting a trend here in Disney Animations release pattern: 2010 had the princess-themed Tangled, while 2012 had the video game action fantasy Wreck-It-Ralph, clearly geared more towards male audiences. Next year, Disney's trading princesses for a team of C-list Marvel superheroes as they adapt the little-known Marvel Comic Big Hero 6. It seems, then, that they're alternating between movies "for girls" and movies "for boys."
If they're all as good as Frozen, though, I'll be back no matter who their principal audience is.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)