Film Review: THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG (2013)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug theatrical poster

***1/2/***** (3.5/5)

Director: Peter Jackson
Producer: Zane Weiner, Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham
Story/Screenplay: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro; based on The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien
Music: Howard Shore
Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie
Editing: Jabez Olssen
Starring: Martin Freeman, Evangeline Lilly, Richard Armitrage, Orlando Bloom, Ian McKellen, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Ken Stott, James Nesbitt

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images

Run Time: 161 minutes

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, while definitely flawed and not up to the skill that The Lord of the Rings trilogy displayed, still served as a decent film adaptation of Tolkien's book (though three movies are a bit too stretched; two movies probably would have been enough; however, if the third movie delivers, then I won't complain too much). It did have some overuse of CGi and forced epic-ness, but it wasn't the abomination that some detractors claimed it was (and neither was it the masterpiece that its most ardent fans said it was). 

However, I was unable to catch this on the big screen, so I pre-ordered the Blu-ray when it was announced that it was going to be released soon. And sure enough, I got this film in the mailbox and decided to see this film with my siblings and a good friend of ours.

Now let me get to the plot summary: After the events of the previous film, the movie gives us a brief flashback to the events that happened before the journey, where Thorin (Richard Armitrage) is at an inn and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) meets him up there. It is here that Thorin is encouraged to go upon the quest and reclaim Erebor from the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). Later on, the film cuts to 12 months later, where Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Gandalf, Thorin and everyone else is on their journey and they come upon the house of Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), in whose house they dwell while escaping from Azog and his forces. On the journey they encounter spiders, elves, and men, until they eventually come to the Lonely Mountain, to the Desolation of Smaug, and to their homeland in Erebor. 

However, dark forces are awakening that were only hinted at before, and they will arise to cause great disaster that will threaten not only our characters but also the entire realm of Middle Earth.

Now that i got the plot summary out of the way, let me get to the actual review of the film.

Is it the superb and masterful sequel that some claim that it is? Is it the bloated abomination of epic proportions that the detractors claim? Or are these two options only two of many different views of this film.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug fails in many ways as an adaptation and rendition of the original source. While the main journey is there, much subplot has been added into the film (Thranduil, Legolas, and that female character Tauriel (Evangeline Lily)), and there is more CGi and more action than ever was in An Unexpected Journey. However, if one is considering this as a film, then for the most part this movie succeeds as a nice, exciting action flick that has some pretty good filmmaking and serves as a good blockbuster entertainment that doesn't transcend heights and genre limitations like Lord of the Rings did.

The acting is really good, with Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman doing really good jobs as Gandalf the Grey and Bilbo Baggins. Freeman really captures the development of Bilbo and how he has changed from the previous film. And McKellen captures the character of Gandalf as he learns of the evil that is awakening. Richard Armitrage as Thorin is well-acted, showing how the quest impacts Thorin's heart, changing him from a person concerned for Bilbo to a person almost mad for the Arkenstone and consumed by his desire for Erebor and the wealth it contains. Evangeline Lily is pretty decent as Tauriel, though I find her to still be filler that was added just to make the story more "female-friendly" (not to mention that I personally didn't connect with the implied love triangle with her, Legolas, and Kili, one of the thirteen dwarves) and Orlando Bloom is also pretty good in his role as Legolas (though his face looks a bit unnatural in contrast to the Lord of the Rings movies).

All the other actors do well in their roles, including Lee Pace as the dwarf-hating Woodland king Thranduil, but especially interesting in Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of the fierce dragon Smaug. While he isn't the master that some of the fans claim he is, he actually is very good for his role, and the terror he inspires is fitting for his intimidating role. Cumberbatch was perfect for this role as Smaug.

The script also is pretty good, but the film did drag a bit near the middle, especially with the overload of action sequences in this film, all of which are pretty good but which are not great. Many of the scenes border on over-the-top and popcorn-style scenes, with dwarves suddenly having skills that rival the finest Olympic athletes, elves doing acrobatics while fighting evil orcs, Tauriel using cool ninja-esque moves while killing monsters, and more. For the heavy action fan and an admirer of today's action-packed blockbuster entertainment, this movie is heaven. But for those who preferred Lord of the Rings and don't like overloaded action, this film will drag (even though I admit that I didn't hate most of the action scenes in the film). And may I note that this film has an excess of computer-generated images in contrast to the happy marriage of practical and digital effects that has existed in so many great films, masterpieces and classic movies of modern times (Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and many other films come to mind). While the CGi does manage to be good in the long run, there are instances where it looks fake, particularly in the ending where Thorin and all the dwarves unleash a golden statue of a dwarf warrior and that statue melts and covers Smaug (the gold looked so laughably fake). 

Overall, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, while a bit too overloaded with action and CGi as well as other pop-blockbuster elements of today, still serves as a nice action movie that both expands upon the merits of An Unexpected Journey and at the same time expands upon the demerits of the film. It works on the overall level as an action film set in Middle Earth, and depsite its many flaws, there is just so much good work and effort put into this movie that it is near-impossible to compare this to other big-budget failures and fanboy punching-bags like the Star Wars prequel trilogy or Battlefield Earth. 

It is not a perfect film, and neither is it a great film, but it is a good film. 3.5/5

Complexity, Grandeur and Adventure: My Thoughts on LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

The original 1962 poster.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

*****/5

Director: David Lean
Producer: Sam Spiegel
Story/Screenplay: Robert Bolt, Michael Wilson
Music: Maurice Jarre
Cinematography: Freddie A. Young
Cast: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, Anthony Quayle, Jose Ferrer, Claude Rains, Arthur Kennedy

MPAA Rating: PG (1988 re-release); original rating: Approved

Run Time: 227 minutes (restored roadshow version); 222 minutes (original premiere); 210 minutes (original); 228 minutes (director's cut); 187 minutes (1970 re-release)

Studio: Columbia Pictures

REVIEW

“Nothing is written.”

"Complex grandeur," in my opinion, is the best phrase to describe the rich epic masterpiece of cinema that is David Lean's 1962 award-winning film Lawrence of Arabia, which has since been recognized as a classic of the cinematic art by not only moviegoers all over the world but also by top critics and prestigious film groups and organizations. Filmmakers were inspired by this movie, including the famous Steven Spielberg himself. It even inspired the Spaghetti Westerns to one degree or another.

And when I got to see this film for the first time (not on an authentic and pristine 70mm print, the intended format, but on the Blu-ray restoration, which was superb), I was engrossed by this impeccably rich and deep epic, which not only involved me in the vast expanse of the film but also the complexity and layers of the writing and the characters, which is ultimately what made the film endure and what made the visuals all that more special.

The plot centers around the life of the historical figure T. E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) and his conflicted loyalties during his WWI service in the Middle East, where he helps the Arabs in their revolt against the Turks, winning victory in Aqaba and Damascus. However, the narrative unfolds, showing how he is both engrossed by the expanse of the desert and torn apart between his two loyalties.

There is a reason why Lawrence of Arabia is hailed as a classic, and it is not because of misguided nostalgia for the past cinema. While nostalgia may or may not have anything to do with the love this film receives, the reason it deserves the love it has is that it is ultimately a great film and that it is a masterpiece of the film genre, using the full power of the cinematic medium and the power of 65mm cinematography (filmed on celluloid 65mm, which is held to be the best celluloid film any filmmaker can dream of working with) to give us rich cinematic visuals and engrossing narratives and characters, all of which mix the realistic and the poetic nature of filmmaking.

Peter O'Toole's flamboyant and larger-than-life portrayal of Lawrence is one of the best and most complex film protagnoists in history. On the one hand, we see Lawrence being the champion of liberty for the Arabs and on the other hand we see a sadist who delights in killing (this is a running point in several moments in the film, particularly in the Arab attack on Damascus, the famous "No prisoners" sequence). Peter O'Toole and the screenwriters (Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson) bring this out beautifully.

The other actors are also lifelike in their portrayals, including Omar Sharif as Sherif Ali, Anthony Quinn as Auda abu Tayi, Jack Hawkins as General Allenby, Claude Rains as Mr. Dryden, and Jose Ferrer as the Turk general, who captures Lawrence and tortures him (it is implied that Lawrence is raped, but it is not depicted explicitly).

Everyone of them feels lifelike and real, and at the same time, they feel larger-than-life, like great historical figures and great men. That is part of what makes the film so great, because even with the pomp and epicness, the film manages to be lifelike and engrossing, rather than feeling artificial or corny (though the opposite is true; films can be too lifeless, as is evident in certain blockbusters of our time).

Also, the writing by Robert Bolt and Michael Wilson is phenomenal; it is so rich and layered, and at the same time not too complex to keep the viewer from understanding the main plot points of the film. And even when one doesn't always remember the specifics, the writing does help, along with the evocative images of Freddie Young's masterful cinematography, which was shot in the beautiful medium of 65mm (and restored meticulously from the original 65mm camera negative at a super-high resolution to bring out the pristine picture of the original source). And David Lean's direction is also superb, and even while I am not too acquainted with David Lean's other work, I am pleased to say that David Lean kept me hooked into the film, even through the super-long (not over-long, just super-long) time length of the film. Films like this are a treat, and I am glad to say that I saw this film.

Finally, I would like to note that Lawrence of Arabia is a very complex and rich film, because even as it gives us awe-inspiring imagery of the desert, it shows the harshness of it and how it changes Lawrence. Also, like I noted before, Peter O'Toole perfectly portrays the character of Lawrence, contrasting both a man of mercy and a man of killing. And even when one is shown that the Arabs are fighting against the Turks for their freedom, one also senses a hatred for war emanating throughout the film, similar to some of David Lean's other films (especially Bridge on the River Kwai). And many more complexities are part of why I appreciate this grand and majestic masterpiece.

A+ (10/10)

Revisiting THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004) - Mel Gibson's Cinematic Masterpiece

This Friday, Mark and Roma Downey, creators of the popular miniseries The Bible, decided to release a new movie entitled Son of God this Friday. It combines clips from the original miniseries with deleted footage to make for a suitable two-hours plus of movie to sit through.

So I decided to revisit Mel Gibson's controversial 2004 smash hit The Passion of the Christ (which I rewatched recently), that controversial movie dividing people and critics, leaving those who loved it (e.g. Roger Ebert, James Berardinelli, Steven Greydanus) and those who hated it (e.g. Jami Bernard, David Edelstein). Defenders compared it to Carl Dreyer's 1920s classic The Passion of Joan of Arc, while critics of the movie had an opinion that was aptly summed up in this one phrase: "The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre" (in loving reference to the infamous horror franchise Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Defenders praised the power of the film conveyed through the graphic violence and technical mastery while the critics attacked it for alleged anti-Semitism and graphic violence reminiscent of exploitation cinema.

As for me, I consider this to be one of the all-time best movies ever, albeit a very underappreciated film. While it does have many moments of brilliance, it is very powerful ultimately due to its exaltation of Christ as Savior and powerful evisceration of anti-Christian doctrine. If one is not a Christian, then one can appreciate the technical elements of the film, down from Caleb Deschandel's superb cinematography to Jim Caviezel's impassioned performance as the tortured Jesus Christ (not in the sense of the dark and moody movie superheroes of today, but rather physically tortured for about two hours) to Mel Gibson's raw direction.

So I will break down several reasons as to why I think that The Passion of the Christ still holds up after its much-hyped debut in 2004.

The Filmmaking

The Passion of the Christ ultimately works not only because it is a great Christian-themed display but because it is a great film.

The acting is phenomenal; Jim Caviezel empowers his role as the crucified and tortured Jesus Christ, starting from the very heartbreaking opening shots with Him praying to God down to the very violent scenes where he is tortured and crucified. His role adds a new layer of understanding to the much-quoted passage from Isaiah 53:5: ^"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." (KJV)

The performance from Caviezel doesn't add to that but rather exemplifies that in a brutal and emotionally cathartic manner; and I would like to note that the intercuts of Jesus' previous moments before His crucifixion work effectively well, not only due to Caviezel's performance but also give us a glimmer of hope and triumph amidst all this justifiably R-rated violence.

Also, Mel Gibson's raw direction fits well for this film, not only working with the massive amounts of graphic violence in the film but also the raw and intense feel one gets when viewing this film. I don't feel it pornographic or exploitative; rather, I feel it fits well for a film of this type, setting it apart from the other Christ-related films in its rawness, seriousness, cathartic feel and graphic depiction of suffering.

The screenwriting is not very traditional in the sense that it adheres to the standard three-act structure and the standard character-development rules of movie-making; in fact, there is no character development that i know of. But the film does not need character development, in my view, for The Passion shows the sufferings of a perfect God at the hands of those He came to save. This is the basis of the film and it works very well, without being preachy like many a Christian-made movie that has come out. And the events in the film are well-integrated into the structure of the film, interchanging with the bloodied Christ and the Christ who preached messages of love.

And the use of dead languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin) fit well into the authentic, down-to-earth aura of the movie, with subtitltes to assist the viewer.

Overall, The Passion works because it is a very good film; otherwise, it would not be able to hold up.

The Graphic Violence

One of the reasons The Passion stands out among the other films related to the crucifixion is precisely due to the graphic violence that Mel Gibson paints into the film. Normally, such graphic violence would fit well into a midnight exploitation flick, but in this film, because of the emotional catharsis established in the beginning scenes, the graphic violence further serves that purpose, to feel sympathy for Christ and to feel disgusted at this level of brutality leveled at Christ (which was probably much more gory than what was displayed in the film).

Some critics of the film would deride the violence as exploitative, and I will confess that this is true to a degree (and I will confess that the violence can get tedious at times). In fact, Gibson exploits the graphic nature of the violence to grab us and display cathartic rawness. But unlike the average exploitation film, I hold that the "exploitation" in this film is for a noble purpose and doesn't get out of hand by displaying distateful scenes. In fact, even during the very first display of graphic blood, there are moments when it cuts away from the action to display emotions on those who watch, especially Mary the Mother of Jesus (played effectively by Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalene (played by Italian beauty Monica Belluci).

I guess that the emotional catharsis caused by the graphic imagery was also a reason many disliked the movie; they felt that the movie was being too distateful and exploitative in the violence in an attempt to gain an emotional reaction and that thus it made it a bad movie. But I hold that film is "manipulative" in that it uses images and emotions and technology to gain emotional reaction to it. If one could accuse The Passion of the Christ of doing this, then one could accuse some of the greatest movies of all time (Citizen Kane, Schindler's List, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.).

The Themes and Message

The final reason why I think The Passion of the Christ stands out is how forcefully it tells the message without always using words (not to say that words aren't used; in fact, during the many juxtapositions, they are). It displays the themes of salvation, love, forgiveness, and mercy even when we see people mercilessly taunt and torture the God of love, Jesus Christ. And it condemns those who reject the message (which I see is another reaosn why many people dislike this film) by contrasting them to the very goodness of Christ.

To those who condemn the film as anti-Semitic, I would say that the film is not anti-Semitic, not only because it did not cause anti-Semitic riots (as some feared), but because some of the very main characters are essentially Jewish, and the film is proud to display that Jewishness throughout the film, not shying away from it at all. Also, the villains of the film include Gentiles (Romans) along with the Jews, and many of the Jewish villains are not so much average Jews as they are hierarchical leaders that are threatened by Jesus and decide to act to crush Him. This is depicted as villanous, not the Semitism.

Also, the themes of love and forgiveness are effectively displayed, not only through the sufferings of Christ on the Cross but also through those sequences that were juxtaposed with the carrying of the Cross. The scenes with the final Passover, His preaching to crowds, and brief shots of people throwing down palm branches when He enters into Jerusalem, contrast so effectively to the hate that is spewed toward Him by the government and by regular folk who once celebrated Him. It utilizes one of the best methods of spreading a message (contrasting it to its opposite) and uses the power of film to effectively do this very well.

And that is why I hold that The Passion of the Christ is a very great film, especially years after its premiere.

a