The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

"If you are ever pass through Bag End, tea is at 4. You are welcome ANY time. Don't bother knocking." -Bilbo Baggins

*Spoilers* if you really care.

Now that this trilogy is complete.  I should be critical and true to myself. I enjoyed each film of the Hobbit Trilogy immensely. They are fun. They are enormous in their scope and detailed in their attempts to bring to life the story and the world it is set in. In some ways, it is a shame that they came out after the original Lord of the Rings series. They would be better regarded if they had gone first.

The Battle of the Five Armies is sadly my least favorite of the three.  It is almost an entire movie of action from start to finish. There is barely a moment to spare for drama as our battle grows closer and closer. In his previous forays into looming battles, Helm's Deep, Jackson was masterful in his building of suspense. -Zulu anyone? Jackson might have attempted the same for this battle, but I am glad he didn't, despite the fact that in my mind it did not come off perfectly. If I watched all three movies in a row, I would find no qualm with this extended pay off, but as this was a single viewing, a year after our last installment, I found myself wanting more substance. Of course, there were highlights and positives, and I loved every moment of it, but somehow it wasn't quite enough.

My first thought was that Peter Jackson had taken the idiotic criticism that his last final installment The Return of the King, took too much time getting to the action and was too slow. In my mind that is what made TRotK so amazing. It deferred action in favor of substance.  -This in turn made the battle payoff even bigger and grander. (I still get chills every time the horn blows and the Rohirrim muster to the charge of Theoden.)  I hope this is not the case.

Alternatively, one could propose that The Battle of the Five Armies was never designed to be more than the culmination of three films and a small battle of less significance. (the stakes were lower.) Thus, letting battle be the central theme would be a natural progression from limited canon-esque material. It certainly was exciting, just not particularly good drama.

I personally wish the film had taken more time with Thorin's madness and his decent into Smaug/Gollum like behaviors. It was great to see that arch within the trilogy and this film, but it was not enough. Perhaps the extended DVD version will give me what I want?

For positives, I will state that the deaths of Fili, in particular,Kili, and Thorin were handled amazingly well. I wondered how audiences and the film itself would react to losing not just 1 brother but two and then again with Thorin. It is common enough for one hero to die in a film, but thee is a lot. I think what I liked the most about these cinematic deaths was their difference.  Fili's death was quick and shocking with nothing more and its finality and emptiness for the audience feel.  Kili's death was that of the long valiant struggle against the inevitable and Thorin's death was the classic- I can defeat evil only once I am humbled and willing to sacrifice myself- scenario. All in all three very different deaths.

*Oh the whole battle between Azog, The Defiler and Thorin on the icy lake was excellent.  I am in favor of morning stars, chains, and flails as under used weapons of cinema.  Azog's giant rock flail was great- in particular for how its weight eventually brought the audience to laugh and cheer as he sank into the ice.

On a scale of one wizard who can solve most things to EAGLES!!!-that seem to solve everything, I give The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies 3.7 out of 5 stars.
  

The Seven Samurai (1954)

"When you think you are safe, that is when there is greatest danger." -Kambei Shimada
"I am Hayashida Heihachi of the wood chop school." -Heihachi Hayashida

If you are going to watch just one Akira Kurosawa film I recommend The Seven Samurai. It is awesome! In my mind it sets most of the standards for battle sequences, tactic explanation, and battle thematic development. You can see its effect in such diverse films as Zulu, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Great Escape, Midway, and many more.

I will say that while I am enthralled with this film, I can understand that someone younger or with different tastes would find this movie long, dull, boring, and slow.  The entire film is almost 3.5 hours and contains an intermission. ( I kind of wonder why intermissions went away? It gives the theater owners a second chance to sell concessions.)

But, if you are willing to spend a long evening engrossed in the tale of 7 ronin samurai and a small village vs. 40 murderous bandits, this film is a wonder.

On technical elements, The Seven Samurai goes to great lengths to make sure the audience understands exactly where all the parts of the battle are taking place.  It goes so far as to actually have a map that they cut to with a hand outlining the different gates.  This same map is then cut back to to keep count of the bandits. It emphasizes the kind of mathematical macabre that the samurai employ to take on 40 bandits.

Secondarily, Akira Kurosawa uses wipes and fade to black far more often and effectively than we see in more recent cinema. George Lucas loves Kurosawa movies and all of his Star Wars movies employ wipes and fades in much the same manner. I am not sure why this type of editing has fallen out of favor? It can look hokey, but it can also be very effective.

The soul of the film, The Seven Samurai, is (with no surprise) the samurai:  There's their commander Kambei Shimada, his second in command Gorobei Katayama, his lieutenant Shichiroji, and his pupil Katsuhiro Okamoto: rounded out by extreme badass Kuyou, the happy and inspiring Heihachi Hayashida, and the comical/wise ronin of dubious status Kikuchiyo. Each of them is important and brings something special to the film. It is hard to get great performances out of 2 actors, let alone 7. Also basically any film that has to "assemble a crew" be it in a Bug's Life, or Ocean's 11, owes The Seven Samurai a debt of gratitude.

I encourage all of you without hesitation to watch The Seven Samurai.

On a scale of lone cowboys to ronin, I give The Seven Samurai, 4.5 out of 5 stars.

             

The Social Network 2010

"The Winklevi are not suing me for intellectual property theft. They are suing me because for the first time in their lives things didn't work out the way it was supposed to for them." -Mark Zuckerberg

"I'm 6'5" 220 and there are two of me."- Cameron Winklevoss

"Do I have your full attention?" -opposing lawyer
" I am under oath so I am legally obligated to say "No"." -Mark Zuckerberg

"Have you ever seen me wear a scarf?"-Christy
"No, so this will be your first." -Eduardo Savarin

"It was more of a glottal stop."-Mark Zuckerberg

I appreciate Aaron Sorkin.  He makes scripts that snap. They are memorable, they are witty, and leave no doubt as to the intentions of our characters and their driving motivations. (I'm also pretty certain that I can identify an Aaron Sorkin script within the first 10 minutes. His quirks are usually quite apparent.) I wish more movies writers/directors/producers embraced this more spartan view of their work and the necessity of words. I'm looking at you Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay.

Unfortunately in this case, while I am a fan of Mr. Sorkin, he may have gone too far and scraped away too much nuance and character fat to make the movie beyond just good. This is my second viewing of The Social Network.  The first was in the Theaters in 2011. It has aged well, due to its crispness. However, this time I got slightly less impact out of the characters than I did the first viewing. (This is to be expected, but in my case it was beyond normal.) Now, I notice how the crisp lines leave little for the actors to establish their quirks and create depth and nuance. There is some hesitation in my critique given that actually all of the events are technically told from the future by a biased party. And we are often hazy as to who's perspective is on camera.  We as humans tend to be bad at recognizing subtlety, thus we would remember and present versions of events in a Sorkin-esque way. When I remember my own stories, my lines and my friend's lines are always crisp and each of our intentions are clear. The reality is both far less and far more interesting. -The further back the story the better I was..hahaha

Very nice work, but very slightly beyond my palate.

Oh and I would very much be interested to see someone do a compare and contrast paper between The Social Network and Rashomon.

On a scale of Billions to "Trillions are the new sexy.", I give The Social Network 3.7 stars out of 5.    

Pathfinder (2007)

"They know nothing of our spring." -Ghost

A part of me always kind of wanted to watch Pathfinder.  I like Karl Urban. I appreciate battle movies with swords and who doesn't want to watch first peoples vs vikings?  Silly, unnecessary, and historically untrue: fact.

I will take this moment to call out that I want to see Karl Urban in all the things and I don't understand why he isn't getting more leading man roles. Even in this schlub of an action film he acquits himself nicely.  I wish his neo-future cyber replicant cop drama was still on the air. Yes, he gets to be Bones in every new Star Trek movie.  But, I want more. -even in Chronicles of Riddick when he wields that absurd vibro-electic ax.

I also stumbled upon that Pathfinder (2007) is actually a supped up remake of Pathfinder (1987) -which was nominated for an Academy Award for best foreign film. After reading the synopsis, I surmise that some writers loved the original and pitched a remake in North America with First Peoples and Vikings.  I bet they also promised more swords and fight sequences.  Ughhhhh.

So now that I understand Pathfinder (2007) to be unoriginal, I can truthfully state that I was happier and enjoyed this movie up until I watched it. (excluding Karl Urban). Very little is as sad as an action movie built on solid bones, but bereft of life.

On a scale of pillaging to looting, I give Pathfinder (2007) 2.2 stars out of 5.   

Delivery Man (2013)

"I'm an incompetent delivery man." -David Wozniak

I watched this on my couch from about 2 to 4 in the morning suffering from jet lag. Anything would do. Delivery Man is what I got.

I've written this review before. I will repeat. DO NOT MAKE REMAKES!  If you can help it, don't watch remakes. At their best they live up the original.  They never surpass them.  Never. (I am patiently waiting for an exception to this rule.)

Delivery Man is a remake of the Canadian hit film Starbuck. I didn't see the original.  It is now on my list.  It must be better than Delivery Man.

Pros:  Vince Vaughn is likeable. Chis Pratt is funny. Andrzej Blumenfeld (The Dad) is cuddly and cast perfectly.

Cons: The plot, the music, the jokes, the dialogue, and more and more.

On a scale of lather to rinse, repeat, I give Delivery Man, 2 out of 5 stars.