The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (6/10): Will you follow Peter Jackson one last time into Middle Earth?

“Will you follow me, one last time?”

Not only is Thorin asking his dwarves to follow him one last time into battle, but Peter Jackson is also asking us to join him one last time in experiencing his vision of Middle Earth. We all know The Hobbit was one short book (about 300 pages), but Jackson decided to adapt it into three full length movies so there is going to be a lot of characters and elements included that aren’t in the book. J.R.R Tolkien fans might be upset and most audiences agree that Jackson made a mistake in stretching the material because this trilogy hasn’t had the same emotional impact as the Lord of the Rings trilogy had. However, Jackson is still asking us to accompany him one last time into Middle Earth in order to tie everything together. He and the producers may have experienced their share of dragon fever by getting greedy and wanting to bank on the success of their first trilogy (it is kind of ironic when you take into account that the underlying message of the novels is that greed destroys the soul), but they are asking us to join them for one last time, and they deserve it. If you are a fan of the franchise this will be an emotional moment for you, but if you don’t care much for this world then you will find the film annoying. It does tie in the first two films of The Hobbit trilogy very well with The Lord of the Rings so it serves as a sort of closure for these epic films. At 144 minutes, this is the shortest film of the franchise and you sort of get the feeling that Jackson doesn’t know how to sum things up in less than 3 hours because this film feels rushed and overstuffed with characters and subplots. It also happens to be action packed with a battle scene lasting for almost an hour. It may be a bit too much, but there is no denying that Peter Jackson cares deeply for the material here and is devoted to it. Despite not being nearly as engaging as The Lord of the Ring trilogy, The Hobbit has its emotional moments with strong action sequences and some solid performances. Jackson is asking us to follow him for the last time, but it is up to us to decide if his passion and dedication is worth the journey. I joined him and was mildly entertained although I found several flaws. Despite not being as entertaining as The Desolation of Smaug, this is still an improvement over The Unexpected Journey.  

The Battle of the Five Armies picks up right where The Desolation of Smaug left us, giving me the feeling that I had paused the film and waited a whole year before hitting the play button once again. It took me a while to recall everything that had been going on, but with the opening action sequence I had to rush those memories in order to understand everything that was going on. The Hobbit is actually one film divided into three parts which makes it difficult to analyze apart from each other. There is a sense of cohesion among these films and we finally get the concluding chapter after an agonizing and extended fist part which felt completely stretched out and an entertaining second chapter where we were introduced to new and familiar characters and an impressive dragon voiced by the great Benedict Cumberbatch. This third chapter picks up with that very dragon destroying the nearby village where Bard (Luke Evans) and his children are. The film begins with an impressive action sequence and then the next hour is dedicated to build up what will be the ultimate battle scene with five different armies preparing for battle. This is where the movie begins to feel convoluted and overstuffed with subplots that feel too rushed. But at times the film does succeed when it centers on the relationship between Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Thorin (Richard Armitage). We know that Jackson knows how to deliver spectacular visuals and action sequences, but what was missing from The Lord of the Rings trilogy was that character development we finally got to see here with these two characters. Unfortunately there are other elements included that don’t work too well (like the love triangle between Kili, Legolas, and Tauriel that feels misplaced). The build up and the action scenes might be a bit too much for audiences, and ultimately the film fails to stand out from other epics. It is an average film that has its ups and downs, but still manages to bring closure. Unfortunately this trilogy never lives up to the grandeur of The Lord of the Rings.

My Review: Cloud Atlas (8/10)

¨I´m just trying to understand why we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.¨

Many critics have called Lana and Andy Wachowski´s new film, Cloud Atlas, ambitious and pretentious, but in my opinion it is a well made sci-fi film that is ahead of its time. Probably on a much lesser scale than 2001 or Blade Runner, but this film seems to have all the elements needed to become a cult film over time. Cloud Atlas is one of those movies you have to pay close attention to in order to understand where the plot is heading; it is definitely not for the casual viewer. It requires your time and patience, but if you stick with this film you will be rewarded by the end. This is by no means as good as Wachowski´s The Matrix (although it tries to remain philosophical), but it is much better than their recent work. Tom Tykwer (The Perfume) co-directed the film with the Wachowski siblings and it is without a doubt his best work yet. The film is unlike any other movie you´ve seen before as it connects six different stories over several centuries and connects them in some way or another. You could say it is kind of like Magnolia, but those stories take place during a similar time period, here the connections take place during the past, present, and future. Two parallel filming units were required for this monstrous production as the siblings directed three stories and Tykwer the other three. Cloud Atlas is based on David Mitchell´s award winning novel, and it was no easy task adapting it for the big screen. I think that their effort will be rewarded over time as it has the potential to become a sci-fi cult film.

The plot is a little difficult to explain as there are six separate stories happening over different time periods and in a way every story connects and overlaps with each other. The movie switches between one scene that can be taking place in 1849 to another in the post apocalyptic future. The first story takes place in the Pacific Ocean in 1849 as Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) is keeping a journal of his voyage while battling some sort of illness and being attended by Dr. Henry Goose (Tom Hanks), and at the same time helping a former slave, Autua (David Gyasi), escape from his oppressors. The next story takes place in 1936 as the composer Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw) is corresponding with his former lover, Rufus Sixsmith (James D´Arcy) about his experience working for the world famous composer Vyvyan Ayrs (Jim Broadbent). In 1973 the story centers around a journalist named Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) who is investigating a murder that took place in a nuclear power plant. In 2012 a publisher named Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) gets hoaxed by his brother and is forced to live in a nursing home while he makes plans to escape. In 2144 a clone known as Sonmi-451 (Doona Bae) participates in a revolutionary underground movement in New Seoul under the guidance of Hae-Joo Chang (Jim Sturgess). And finally in 2321 Zachry (Tom Hanks) is living somewhere in post apocalyptic Hawaii in a tribe that is being threatened by the blood thirsty Kona Chief (Hugh Grant). Every story is interconnected with each other as the actions of each individual impact one another in different time periods kind of like in a ripple effect.

The complexity of each story is the reason why the film is almost three hours long, but if you pay close attention and don’t get lost with all the flashbacks and flash forwards you might just enjoy this film. Cloud Atlas is pretentious for many because it is a little philosophical as it explains how we seem to cross our paths over and over again. Every actor in this film plays several different roles (as many as six) and we can see how each one shapes his or her future depending on the actions they take. The way the film was shot allows for the audience to experience a little sci-fi action (2144 segment), some comedy (2012 nursery home escape), some retro mystery (1973), and even romantic tragedy (1936). That is why this film is one of its kind. The sci-fi scenes were spectacular and the designs quite visionary in style. The film, although very exhausting, is exiting; and I had a great time. I understand why this is such a divisive film considering it is so complex and epic at the same time. The film does feel a bit disjointed and disconnected at times, but when it seemed to lose me it got right back in track again. I think this film was quite original and is worth your time if you are willing to put your mind to it. The performances weren’t as strong as I would have liked, but it is a difficult task to play six different characters at once. By all means check Cloud Atlas out; you will either love it or hate it.

    

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Captain America: The First Avenger (6/10)

¨General Patton has said that wars are fought with weapons but are won by men. Our goal is to create the greatest army in history, but every army begins with one man. He will be the first in a new breed of super-soldier.¨

Summer is synonym of superhero action movies. It seems as if every week we get bombarded with new superhero films, whether it be from the Marvel universe or the DC comics (I know, I`ve said this before). This summer started off with Thor, then it followed with the X-Men Origins franchise, next came The Green Lantern, and now finally we approach the end of the season with Captain America. I don’t have a problem with this at all since they usually end up being pretty good and some of my most anticipated movies for 2012 are actually superhero films (The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises). The question is how long can the producers keep on making these films entertaining and fresh for audiences. Captain America seemed to suffer from some of this overexposure these comic heroes have been having on the big screen. It`s still a good movie, but it didn’t feel all that fresh and we`ve grown used to seeing these heroes do great stuff and fight some terrible villains. The visuals are great as usual, the characters are interesting (comic book characters usually are very well developed since they`ve been in circulation for years), the stories are well developed, and the performances are great (especially from the supporting cast). So the question still remains: why wasn’t I that excited about Captain America? I found it an average and forgettable film despite all these great factors contributing to the movie. I guess I`ve already answered this: it just didn`t feel fresh enough, and it didn`t bring anything new to the genre. I did however still have a good time with the movie although I don’t think I will be seeing it again, and it won`t even come close in comparison to some of the other great superhero films like The Dark Knight or Iron Man.

The story takes place during the Second World War in 1942. The United States is in the middle of recruiting new, young and strong men to fight with the military overseas. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is one of those guys who is desperate to serve his country. He has a great heart, but unfortunately his small size doesn’t help. He keeps on getting rejected, but he is persistent and doesn’t let anyone bully him around. His best friend, Bucky (Sebastian Stan), has been called to serve with the 107 infantry and Steve wishes he could go along. Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci) overhears a conversation the two of them are having and decides to give Steve a chance- due to his great passion- to serve the country on a special mission. Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) are in charge of this secret mission which consists of finding the perfect soldier and injecting him with a special serum that Dr. Erskine has created that will enable him to have greater powers. Steve is the chosen one and the project is successful, but somehow a Nazi spy has managed to sneak in on the experiment and destroys the entire facility. This spy works for Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) who is in charge of the Hydra division, which is sponsored by Hitler and is designed to build special weapons for the War. But Schmidt has something more in mind considering he wants to rule the world and uses science to build these special weapons. Steve Rogers, who becomes known as Captain America after undergoing the experiment, will now have to stop Schmidt before it`s too late.

One of the problems I had with this film was that Chris Evans played a very serious Captain America. He is a much better actor when he is allowed to be loose and funny. I know his character didn’t allow for that, but I guess the producers should have decided for another actor in that role considering Evans is a more charismatic and playboy kind of fellow. Hugo Weaving is usually great in his roles as villains, but in this case Red Skull wasn’t a very fearful one considering all he did was run away each time he had to face off with Captain America. This film could have used a much more intimidating villain. The best performances actually come from the supporting actors such as Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci who share some of the best scenes. In my opinion Evans didn’t have what it takes to be the lead character, but I expect he will be great in The Avengers as one of the supporting actors. He will probably be outshined by Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Samuel L. Jackson, and Jeremy Renner (or at least his Captain America film was by Iron Man and Thor), but that is ok because he always does well in those films where he just lays back in the supporting role. The best part of this film was by far the scene after the end credits where we get to see the trailer for The Avengers. The film looks so great and it will be interesting to see how all these actors work together. Hopefully audiences won’t be tired by then from all the overexposure and producers can maintain the freshness and originality alive.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Wolfman (4/10)

¨Terrible things Lawrence, you've done terrible things. ¨

(4/10) This is a remake of 1941`s Universal Studios monstrous creation named The Wolf Man. One thing that the original had going for it is that it was a creature that hadn`t been on screen before and it became a classic horror film. I can imagine audiences being blown away by this monster and scared to death. Now almost 70 years later they have decided to remake the film using all the technological advances and of course the effects are much better. The Wolf Man seems much more real than the one in the original, but we are already used to seeing these monstrous creatures and have already grown used to seeing these incredible effects. Audiences nowadays need a good story to go along with the effects. I can imagine people being more terrified with the original version because it was something that audiences weren`t familiar with. Nowadays we have been bombarded with all kind of creatures on screen, from aliens, to vampires, to gremlins, to predators, to dinosaurs, and so on. We have even seen a comedy about a teenage wolf man (starring Michael J Fox) so the unknown element that was present in 1941 now is gone. These creatures are not scary on their own; you need a decent script to aid with the frightening scenes. That is why director Joe Johnston (Jumanji, The Rocketeer, Jurassic Park III, and Hidalgo) brought two well known screenwriters to help him with the movie: Andrew Kevin Walker (Seven and Sleepy Hollow) and David Self (Road To Perdition). Unfortunately this time around I didn`t find the script very helpful and ended up with a movie that seemed to miss some important elements. By the way, the effects aren`t that great either (the werewolves in the Twilight saga are done a lot better than this).

The story takes place in a small town near London during 1890. Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) is a Shakespearean actor who has gone to America and left his father and brother after his mother`s death several years ago. Now he is back in England for a short while working on a play and he receives a letter from his soon to be sister in law, Gwen (played by the beautiful Emily Blunt from The Devil Wears Prada) saying that his brother is missing and wants him to aid in the search. By the time Lawrence shows up at his home his brother has been found slaughtered by some sort of beast or demented person. Lawrence promises Gwen that he will find the killer. Lawrence reunites with his father, Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins) and memories from his troubled childhood begin to haunt him. All the while Sir John has a calm and serene attitude and he seems to be hiding some crucial information. Meanwhile Lawrence decides to investigate a gypsy camp because his brother dealt with them a lot. Several other murders continue to take place so a Scotland Yard officer (played by Hugo Weaving) is sent to investigate the strange occurrences. Somehow Lawrence becomes the prime suspect after recovering miraculously from the creature`s attack and the plot develops from that point on.

I didn´t have any problems with the cast, I thought that they all gave good performances and were actually above average for a horror film. Benicio del Toro is a great actor and he has proved that he can carry a movie. Anthony Hopkins is one of the best and even though he isn`t as great in this movie as he is in most of his films his average is better than most good performances from many other actors. Emily Blunt also does what she can with a character that didn`t seem to play an important role although she should have been key if the story was developed better. I think the true star of the film was Hugo Weaving. He had a minor role, but he stole every scene he was in as the Scotland Yard officer. The main problem I had with this film was that there were very few scares and the story was developed very poorly. Some moments were very entertaining, but others seemed to drag and the story lacked its effect. There is some gore in The Wolfman so fans of that genre will be pleased, but there are not many scares so don`t expect to be frightened by this movie. There were mixed reactions in the theater; the person next to me fell asleep in a couple of occasions, but then at the end there were a couple of people that ended up clapping and cheering for the movie. What really made me give this movie four stars out of ten was the ending which I thought was developed poorly and should have been done much better. It seemed to be missing something and it just didn`t convince me. I would recommend you to skip this movie unless you are a true fan of The Wolfman; and it will probably satisfy some blood thirsty gore fans as well.