This is the Unexpected Journey portion of the book turned trilogy series, as such, it is appropriately named. I loved the Hobbit, and I was kind of excited when I heard Peter Jackson was dividing the book into more than one movie. Despite what some of the critics say, there is A LOT in the Hobbit, so it needs to be separated into more than one movie to do it justice. However, I draw the line at two. This does not need to be a trilogy, as evidenced by this movie.
Normally, I dislike movies from books that I have read because the movie never really seems to do the book justice. There isn't enough attention to detail, things are left out, things are completely changed, etc. This movie did not have that fault. It has been a while since I read The Hobbit, about 13 years I believe, but I'm pretty sure this hit every single line in the book so far. So, you would think I would have LOVED it. But alas, it still fell short. I appreciate that when you turn a book into a movie, you're going to have to leave something out to make it a good movie. This movie proves that.
I know I seem overly harsh because on the one side I hate it when they take too much out, but then on the other hand I also don't enjoy it when they leave too much in. However, this is because there is a reason to read the book and a reason to see the movie. One is more for entertainment than the other. A movie is not supposed to be 9 hours long, then it's a mini-series. It is supposed to be a quick fix. I brings the book to life in a way that most people can't. It's a companion, not a replacement. Turning The Hobbit into a trilogy makes the movie replace the book, not accompany it.
There is not THAT much entertainment value in almost 3 hours of setting up all of the things that are going to happen in the next movies. Yes, I enjoyed it, to some extent, but I was also bored to some extent. I want to see the next installment now, not in a year. However, that desire is because I want to see the truly exciting parts of the story that I already know, not because this movie left me wanting that much more.
Sorry for the diatribe on books to movies, but I felt like this was the best way to explain my feelings about the movie. It was boring, not because I wasn't invested, but because I got lost in the bark when Mr. Jackson should have been loosing me in the forest. (Sorry for the over-used forest for the trees analogy we law school kids have heard too often these last almost 3 years!) The acting was good, the story-line is, obviously good, the connections to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, that I missed when reading this prequel before LOTR, is fascinating, and I do look forward to seeing the other two films. I was just underwhelmed with this movie standing alone.
In the end, I give this a 6.5 out of 10. If I didn't love the story so much it would be worse.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Django Unchained
In a word, overrated. Now, don't write this off as a reflection of how I simply don't like or appreciate the true genius of Quentin Tarantino. I absolutely loved Inglorious Basterds, I really liked Kill Bill Vol.1 and 2, I loved Pulp Fiction, etc. I genuinely do like Quentin Tarantino's work and do not begrudge him his taste for excessive violence. In fact, I generally find his violence horribly hilarious.
That being said, I was disappointed by this movie. I don't mean I didn't like it, though a horrendously bad mood caused me to think so immediately after watching it. I just meant that I wanted something better. The Academy seems to agree since they "snubbed" him in not nominating him for Best Director, though his film did receive many other nominations. My bone to pick is not with individual scenes, not with violence, not with the psuedo mockery of slavery, slave owners, and the entire slave culture. My bone to pick is with the disconnectedness of the whole film/story and Samuel L. Jackson.
It starts with Christolph Waltz only wanting Jamie Foxx because he knows what a couple bounties look like. One bounty, and done. However, because Jamie Foxx's "wife" is a slave named Broomhilda. The name is from a German fairy tale and purports to set the plot for the rest of the movie. For a while it does, and I guess in the end it does, but not in the best way. The problem comes in when Samuel L. Jackson fucks shit up and acts like a crazy. I usually appreciate his crass and stupidity, but here I did not. I especially disliked his moderately useless soliloquy towards the end of the film. Though I guess it does make it a little more fun when he does ultimately die.
There are some really funny moments in this movie. Jamie Foxx gets to pick his own outfit, and it's excellent. There is a whole wanna-be KKK scene that severely mocks the entire organization that is also excellent. Quentin Tarantino gets blown up, and a woman gets blown into oblivion, which are also funny. Chistolph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio were both excellent, and Jamie Foxx was predictably good.
So in the end, I give this movie a 7.5 out of 10. It's no Inglorious Basterds, yet it wasn't bad.
That being said, I was disappointed by this movie. I don't mean I didn't like it, though a horrendously bad mood caused me to think so immediately after watching it. I just meant that I wanted something better. The Academy seems to agree since they "snubbed" him in not nominating him for Best Director, though his film did receive many other nominations. My bone to pick is not with individual scenes, not with violence, not with the psuedo mockery of slavery, slave owners, and the entire slave culture. My bone to pick is with the disconnectedness of the whole film/story and Samuel L. Jackson.
It starts with Christolph Waltz only wanting Jamie Foxx because he knows what a couple bounties look like. One bounty, and done. However, because Jamie Foxx's "wife" is a slave named Broomhilda. The name is from a German fairy tale and purports to set the plot for the rest of the movie. For a while it does, and I guess in the end it does, but not in the best way. The problem comes in when Samuel L. Jackson fucks shit up and acts like a crazy. I usually appreciate his crass and stupidity, but here I did not. I especially disliked his moderately useless soliloquy towards the end of the film. Though I guess it does make it a little more fun when he does ultimately die.
There are some really funny moments in this movie. Jamie Foxx gets to pick his own outfit, and it's excellent. There is a whole wanna-be KKK scene that severely mocks the entire organization that is also excellent. Quentin Tarantino gets blown up, and a woman gets blown into oblivion, which are also funny. Chistolph Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio were both excellent, and Jamie Foxx was predictably good.
So in the end, I give this movie a 7.5 out of 10. It's no Inglorious Basterds, yet it wasn't bad.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Les Miserables
I'm still not quite sure how I ultimately feel about this, but I will hopefully have that figured out at the end of this post. There has been a lot of talk about how disappointing most of the voices were, but that wasn't really my problem. Yes, I was a little disappointed in Russell Crowe, I wanted his voice to be stronger, and I was disappointed in Amanda Seyfried, I wanted her voice to be less sharp. However, they were not bad. Hugh Jackman was good, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were good, and the chorus was always good. Eddie Redmayne, Marius, and Anne Hathaway were absolutely amazing, with Eddie Redmayne completely blowing me away (I think I found a new person to fall in love with!). So, the voices were not my problem.
The acting was also well done, but, considering the cast, how could it not be? In fact, I think many people's problems with the voices have to do with the way this particular musical was done. They did not record the songs and then lip-sing while filming. Instead, they did it all together. And remember, this is a movie, not a broadway musical. It's not all about the singing and the dancing, it's about the emotions, the feeling, the drama, the characters. So, filming live singing is going to be more emotional and heart-felt. It's going to be rough.
I think my problem comes in with a related aspect of the new style of filming a musical. Yes, it's theoretically good in that you get raw acting emotion behind the music that is absent otherwise, but you also get a lot of face time because the focus is capturing that raw singing, not making a movie. When I go to a movie I want to see scenes, interactions, movement, etc. I want the story in my head brought to life, when it is a movie based on a book in particular. I don't want to see a HUGE theater screen version of Hugh Jackman's face. He is beautiful, yes, but I want to see the church he's in, the towns he's traveling, the people he's meeting, not his face with his messed up prison teeth. When Anne Hathaway is doing her beautiful rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream," I want to see her life falling apart in a way that does not have me zooming in on her face every 30 seconds. In some ways, that much movement is nauseating, in other ways I just want more. Either way, it's less than satisfying.
The faces left a poor taste in my mouth. There is a benefit to watching a musical movie instead of going to a Broadway musical. That difference is that you can show more, you can do more, you can bring the entire setting to life more because you are only as limited as your budget, not your small stage. And here, the budget appeared to be huge! So, why not make a movie that is a movie, not a series of faces with some scenes thrown in when there just happen to be more than one person singing.
In the end, I think I generally liked the singing, I liked the acting, I fell in love with Marius, I liked the story (yes, despite this being 60% facetime, there was still a story). I did not like the facetime. So, I give this movie a 6 out of 10 as a movie and an 9 out of 10 as a filmed musical.
The acting was also well done, but, considering the cast, how could it not be? In fact, I think many people's problems with the voices have to do with the way this particular musical was done. They did not record the songs and then lip-sing while filming. Instead, they did it all together. And remember, this is a movie, not a broadway musical. It's not all about the singing and the dancing, it's about the emotions, the feeling, the drama, the characters. So, filming live singing is going to be more emotional and heart-felt. It's going to be rough.
I think my problem comes in with a related aspect of the new style of filming a musical. Yes, it's theoretically good in that you get raw acting emotion behind the music that is absent otherwise, but you also get a lot of face time because the focus is capturing that raw singing, not making a movie. When I go to a movie I want to see scenes, interactions, movement, etc. I want the story in my head brought to life, when it is a movie based on a book in particular. I don't want to see a HUGE theater screen version of Hugh Jackman's face. He is beautiful, yes, but I want to see the church he's in, the towns he's traveling, the people he's meeting, not his face with his messed up prison teeth. When Anne Hathaway is doing her beautiful rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream," I want to see her life falling apart in a way that does not have me zooming in on her face every 30 seconds. In some ways, that much movement is nauseating, in other ways I just want more. Either way, it's less than satisfying.
The faces left a poor taste in my mouth. There is a benefit to watching a musical movie instead of going to a Broadway musical. That difference is that you can show more, you can do more, you can bring the entire setting to life more because you are only as limited as your budget, not your small stage. And here, the budget appeared to be huge! So, why not make a movie that is a movie, not a series of faces with some scenes thrown in when there just happen to be more than one person singing.
In the end, I think I generally liked the singing, I liked the acting, I fell in love with Marius, I liked the story (yes, despite this being 60% facetime, there was still a story). I did not like the facetime. So, I give this movie a 6 out of 10 as a movie and an 9 out of 10 as a filmed musical.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Lincoln
Probably the best movie I have seen since starting this blog. I was going to say it was the best movie I have this year, but seeing as how we are only 3 days into the year, that would seem kind of silly. This is another one that was different than what I was expecting, but I loved it even more! Instead of being about Lincoln from beginning to end, or through the Civil War, or anything like it, it was all about the enactment of the 13th Amendment. It was awesome and fascinating.
Daniel Day Lewis was fantastic. So was Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Sally Field, David Strathairnvid, James Spader, etc. This movie was chock full of awesome actors, and they all did well. All of the Golden Globe Nominations - Sally Field, Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Stephen Spielberg - are all well deserved.
As I said, this movie focuses on the final fight to get the 13th Amendment passed before the end of the war. It starts at the end of 1864, when Lincoln secured his second term, and ends with Lincoln's assassination in April, 1865. So, 2 hours and 50 minutes is spent on about 4 months of time. Lincoln needs the 13th Amendment to pass before the end of the war because otherwise it might never have happened. More than once, he explains why he is pursuing what his party thinks is both too much and too little at the same time so emphatically it is truly moving. I got goosebumps more than once when Daniel Day Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones were speaking.
As far as I know, and from what I am told, this movie is almost entirely accurate, which makes it just that much better. It really is fascinating to see not only the methods used to get votes (some of which would end in a suit/conviction today), but also the response to those methods. What I originally thought was Honest Abe, the most honest person in the world, was proven to be more human and more important than I ever realized. You definitely should not show this to children because they cannot truly comprehend the importance of this man. However, this could be a great teaching tool for high school and maybe even college level history classes.
In the end, I give this movie a 10 out of 10. It really was excellent.
Daniel Day Lewis was fantastic. So was Tommy Lee Jones, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Sally Field, David Strathairnvid, James Spader, etc. This movie was chock full of awesome actors, and they all did well. All of the Golden Globe Nominations - Sally Field, Daniel Day Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Stephen Spielberg - are all well deserved.
As I said, this movie focuses on the final fight to get the 13th Amendment passed before the end of the war. It starts at the end of 1864, when Lincoln secured his second term, and ends with Lincoln's assassination in April, 1865. So, 2 hours and 50 minutes is spent on about 4 months of time. Lincoln needs the 13th Amendment to pass before the end of the war because otherwise it might never have happened. More than once, he explains why he is pursuing what his party thinks is both too much and too little at the same time so emphatically it is truly moving. I got goosebumps more than once when Daniel Day Lewis and Tommy Lee Jones were speaking.
As far as I know, and from what I am told, this movie is almost entirely accurate, which makes it just that much better. It really is fascinating to see not only the methods used to get votes (some of which would end in a suit/conviction today), but also the response to those methods. What I originally thought was Honest Abe, the most honest person in the world, was proven to be more human and more important than I ever realized. You definitely should not show this to children because they cannot truly comprehend the importance of this man. However, this could be a great teaching tool for high school and maybe even college level history classes.
In the end, I give this movie a 10 out of 10. It really was excellent.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Jack Reacher
Love Tom Cruise, or hate him, but he does know how to make a good/fun action film. However, if you don't like Tom Cruise, you will not like this movie, so don't bother. He plays his typical action self, sarcastic, self-righteous, all-around-badass. It's entirely unbelievable, but fun nonetheless.
That being said, this is a little different from some of his other action films. There is a little more meat to the story line, which makes this more enjoyable than most. I was not expecting the kind of depth and twists I got, which left me very pleasantly surprised.
There's not really a lot to say. There is action, there is drama, there is law, and there is a creepy bad guy who makes people chew off their fingers to prove their worth and stay alive. What more could you want?
In the end, I give this a 7 out of 10. I reserve the right to write more later :)
That being said, this is a little different from some of his other action films. There is a little more meat to the story line, which makes this more enjoyable than most. I was not expecting the kind of depth and twists I got, which left me very pleasantly surprised.
There's not really a lot to say. There is action, there is drama, there is law, and there is a creepy bad guy who makes people chew off their fingers to prove their worth and stay alive. What more could you want?
In the end, I give this a 7 out of 10. I reserve the right to write more later :)
Life of Pi
I will start this by saying that I have not read the book. I think that makes a difference because reading the book gives you an interest in wanting to see it acted out. Since I didn't have that interest driving me through the movie, I didn't really find it all that interesting.
It was beautifully done. The scenes were pretty cool, the ocean was beautiful, especially with the glowy things and the whale. If all I was interested in was cinematography, I would have loved this movie. However, as far as story, intrigue, etc., it was severely lacking. I don't want to be too mean, because the "twist" at the end made it all a little more interesting. As a book, I think I would have loved it, the "twist", but for a movie, it did not have the desired effect.
The majority of this movie is an Indian boy trying to survive on a boat in the middle of the ocean with only a tiger for a companion. There is lots of back and forth between the boy and the tiger. There is a little development, but not enough to really keep me for wanting to fall asleep. Like I said, if I had read the book, I think I would have been much more interested. Otherwise, it really was kind of a bore.
In the end, I give this a 5 out of 10. Don't go see it unless you have read the book, or just like pretty movies.
It was beautifully done. The scenes were pretty cool, the ocean was beautiful, especially with the glowy things and the whale. If all I was interested in was cinematography, I would have loved this movie. However, as far as story, intrigue, etc., it was severely lacking. I don't want to be too mean, because the "twist" at the end made it all a little more interesting. As a book, I think I would have loved it, the "twist", but for a movie, it did not have the desired effect.
The majority of this movie is an Indian boy trying to survive on a boat in the middle of the ocean with only a tiger for a companion. There is lots of back and forth between the boy and the tiger. There is a little development, but not enough to really keep me for wanting to fall asleep. Like I said, if I had read the book, I think I would have been much more interested. Otherwise, it really was kind of a bore.
In the end, I give this a 5 out of 10. Don't go see it unless you have read the book, or just like pretty movies.
Silver Linings Playbook
This was really well done! It was completely different than what I was expecting, but I still really liked it. I went in thinking that it was going to be a love story with the girl and the guy just kind of falling into one another while both being crazy. That's not exactly different than what actually happened, but it was done a little differently.
Bradley Cooper's character is bipolar and had a breakdown when he found his wife cheating on him. So, he is pretty crazy. Jennifer Lawrence's character is a little crazy/reckless since her husband died unexpectedly. They find each other and end up falling in love. However, it isn't as much accidental as I thought, and it was much more about their craziness as it was about their developing love story.
Both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence did a great job. I love them. Robert De Niro was also awesome. He played the neurotic, OCD father who is trying hard to make up for mistreating his son and passing along his craziness.
The movie kind of moves both slow and fast at any given time. For a while it moves hour by hour, then skips ahead a few weeks, then slows down again, and finally speeds up to get to the climactic ending. There are also a couple of flash-backs to explain Bradley Cooper's breakdown. So, it can be a little hard to follow as far as trying to figure out what happened when. It also takes about a quarter of the movie to get to the bottom of why Bradley Cooper had to go to a mental hospital in the first place.
I think this seemingly hodge-podge plot line is why my mom did not like this as much. However, I think it's part of why I liked it so much. It kept me riveted to figure out what everyone's issues were, who all the players were, and where exactly the story was going to go. In the end, it did end up being the story I expected, but getting there was completely different. The getting there is what makes this more than just a RomCom, which is why I liked it a lot. I went in for a cheesy romance movie and was surprised with a fascinating romance story.
In the end I give this an 8 out of 10. It was intriguing, entertaining, and left me with a good feeling.
Bradley Cooper's character is bipolar and had a breakdown when he found his wife cheating on him. So, he is pretty crazy. Jennifer Lawrence's character is a little crazy/reckless since her husband died unexpectedly. They find each other and end up falling in love. However, it isn't as much accidental as I thought, and it was much more about their craziness as it was about their developing love story.
Both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence did a great job. I love them. Robert De Niro was also awesome. He played the neurotic, OCD father who is trying hard to make up for mistreating his son and passing along his craziness.
The movie kind of moves both slow and fast at any given time. For a while it moves hour by hour, then skips ahead a few weeks, then slows down again, and finally speeds up to get to the climactic ending. There are also a couple of flash-backs to explain Bradley Cooper's breakdown. So, it can be a little hard to follow as far as trying to figure out what happened when. It also takes about a quarter of the movie to get to the bottom of why Bradley Cooper had to go to a mental hospital in the first place.
I think this seemingly hodge-podge plot line is why my mom did not like this as much. However, I think it's part of why I liked it so much. It kept me riveted to figure out what everyone's issues were, who all the players were, and where exactly the story was going to go. In the end, it did end up being the story I expected, but getting there was completely different. The getting there is what makes this more than just a RomCom, which is why I liked it a lot. I went in for a cheesy romance movie and was surprised with a fascinating romance story.
In the end I give this an 8 out of 10. It was intriguing, entertaining, and left me with a good feeling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)