The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Firstly, the version I saw of The Hobbit was in 2D and ran at 24 fps (frames per second), I think, not the 3D version which runs at 48 fps to which a lot of people have been complaining out, mainly how it shows up some of the prosthetics and cheapens the grand images that are part of the film and the Middle Earth series as a whole.

But back to the film that I saw, it is one that is caught between the visual ideas of both of it’s directors, Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson, Del Toro initially signed on to work on The Hobbit films, then departed during pre-production because of delays and financing problems. Jackson then took over as director, as a result it is clear to see the influences of both, the creatures it would seem have come straight from one of Del Toro’s notebooks, the most obvious being the Goblin King and his close subjects. Whereas the world is for the most part Jacksons Middle Earth, with a few exceptions as well, such as the troll camp and Rhadaghast, his home and his sleigh, but I will say no more, look like they have come out of some child friendly Pan’s Labyrinth.

The story itself is one of relative simplicity, as Gandalf brings Bilbo Baggins into the company of 13 dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield, to help them regain their former home of Erebor. The book the novel is based on is nowhere near as large in scale as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, so how they are planning on stretching out The Hobbit into three films is a mystery. The first part is severely padded with invented moments, not a negative aspect as they are generally done well here, but also moments that seem to serve Lord of the Rings, the few of these that there are, tend to relate to Sauron in a guarded way or Saruman.

The true strength of the film, as with others from the eventual six film series, is in the performances, this time led by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, who plays it perfectly. The highest praise I can give him is that there is no other actor I can imagine playing Bilbo now. In one film he portrays are more interesting leading Hobbit than Frodo and Sam were as a collective in the other films. Sir Ian McKellen, as always is superb as Gandalf, as are the rest of the returning actors.

The biggest surprise was Richard Armitage as Thorin, who plays the king without as throne in a really interesting way, he almost completely ignores trying to be at all sympathetic, instead choosing the route of the vengeful child, who wants revenge for the death of his family as well as to return his people to their home.

The dwarves in this film have an interesting but also jarring look about them, which makes it hard to imagine that they are in anyway the same race that Gimli belonged to. In The Hobbit, they range from handsome and beardless to cartoon-esque or with strange facial features that doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. The actors though do shine through this impediment and bring each one to life with the varying amount of screen time and dialogue, mimicking what they did with the fellowship in The Fellowship of the Ring.

As with the other Middle Earth films, The Hobbit has a hefty run time, roughly 2hrs and 45 mins, which in and of itself isn’t a problem, the films in the series were just as long, if not longer but did not drag, The Dark Knight Rises another film released this year has an almost identical run time, but didn’t feel it’s length. The Hobbit, unfortunately does. At times it is flat out painful, especially early on, the sequence in bag end, which feels like half an hour, goes on and on and on. Quite easily, this film could have lost 15 to 20 minutes, which would have helped the film later on, as by the time the ‘riddles in the dark’ sequence starts with Gollum, I was no longer as interested or engaged as I should have been, as this section of the film is easily it’s strongest and was something that really helps to pick the film up for it’s climax.

Despite what I have said, The Hobbit isn’t a bad film, it is saved by its performances and some of its set pieces, mostly the ones close to the end of the film, but it sags under it’s only length. Compared to The Fellowship of the Ring (The film easiest to compare it to) it falls short, it lacks the pacing and energy of that first film.

Hopefully the second film in this trilogy will learn from the mistakes of this one and move with more direction and purpose, a change of subtitle for the next one wouldn’t be the worst thing either.

The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson has quite frankly never made a bad film, he may have only made five, three of which could easily be described as modern masterpieces, I am referring to Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood. This back catalogue of work had me desperate to go and see his most recent film, religious/cult based drama The Master. I left the cinema in a state of utter confusion, even now I don’t know if I like it, or hate it. It will divide people, there will be no middle ground on this film. It is gruelling at points and offers little to no obvious answers or conclusions to it’s nearly two and a half hour run time.

Let’s start with the positive, all of the performances are superb and will surely garner numerous nominations for Joaquin Phoenix (Leading Actor), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Supporting Actor) and Amy Adams (Supporting Female). Phoenix’s Freddie Quell is the World War Two veteran who struggles to find any kind of direction is life, more than happy to just drink have sex and fight. His physical ordeals are visible on his face and in the contorted way that he walks and moves, this is a man literally twisted and disfigured by what he has seen and done.

Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, the head of religion/cult/belief system (I won’t give away their methods or beliefs) called ‘The Cause’ , who comes across Quell when he stows aboard a boat and gets very drunk. Dodd is a man who fully believes in what he preaches, has all the answers and who controls the actions of many people, but cannot stand to be challenged, this roars to the surface at several points throughout the film, usually bringing a shock of both the recipient and anyone close by. Adams plays his wife, who it could be argued is the real driving force behind Dodd and the one who wants to protect everything that they have worked for and towards all these years. She wants to keep Dodd and ‘The Cause’ free from harm, which arguably it could be say is added to by Quell and his arrival.

Visually, the film is stunning, as with all of his previous films there is a beauty and artistic way that each shot if framed, much in the same way that Kubrick did, especially in something like Barry Lyndon. I was unable to see it on the 70mm print due to location, but even without that visuals still stand up. In a time when shaky camera work and found footage is becoming more and more popular, it is refreshing to see a director and cinematographer (Mihai Malaimare Jr.) take their time and show us just how good film can be with a static camera.

The biggest fault that will be found with The Master is with it’s lack of traditional narrative that drives the film. In fact, there is barely any story really within the film, instead focusing entirely on the characters. This is sometimes a strength, but for the length of this film, it really does need more of narrative, not necessarily making it plot heavy, just a narrative, perhaps relating to the outside world and it’s view of “The Cause”, which is something we rarely see, or a goal for them to work towards in justifying themselves to the wider world.

At times the film is hard to watch, it’s pacing is very slow and asks you to try and move through this very opaque and blurry film, filled with complex and damaged characters. At times you will feel frustrated and it’s at this point where you will have to decide whether or not to stick out, or turn off the DVD (when it comes out) or leave the cinema. I stayed, but there were a few that left during my screening.

Argo

Movies and spies has always been a popular combination with cinema goers, so it was only a matter of time before a film that so perfectly allowed their intertwining came around. Based on true events, we follow attempt by the CIA to exfiltrate six of their countrymen from Iran, after their embassy was stormed. Argo is Ben Afflecks third film behind the camera and his second as the leading man in his film, the other being 2010’s The Town, one of the few criticisms he has ever really come under since making the leap to director.

Affleck plays the central role of Tony Mendes, a CIA operative who puts forward the idea for using a film as a cover for getting the diplomats out of Iran, the performance is very stripped down, always played as vague and ambiguous, offering no details about his real life outside of the mission. At times this is interesting, but also, it would have been better to get a little more of this man onto the screen. The one plus of this though, is that it allows the other performances to shine, all of the diplomats are interesting and given just enough time and depth to make you invest in them and ultimately see them escape to freedom.

The real stars of the film, at least performance wise, is the trio of John Goodman, Alan Arkin and Brian Cranston, who play a Hollywood make-up artist, a producer and a colleague of Mendes in the CIA. Whenever one of these men are on the screen, the film really comes to life, adding energy, dramatic tension and humour. Some of the scenes with Goodman and Arkin are the best of the year.

The plot is relatively straight forward and easy to follow, we begin with the siege of the embassy and escape of the six diplomats to the Canadian ambassadors house. After that, the CIA learns that they escaped and begin putting together a series of plans to get them out, some ludicrous, others completely impractical, as pointed out by Mendes in the meeting. Then once Mendes stumbles across the idea of using a film as a cover, the film really finds it’s pacing and direction, which drives us through to the dramatic and obviously exaggerated ending.

One of the films criticisms is that it portrays the majority of the Iranians as nothing but wild, incoherent savages, lusting after American blood. One of the biggest strengths to this argument is that there are little to no subtitles for any of the Iranian conversations. However, it could be argued that it is clear from actions of the Iranians of what they are saying, a confrontation in a bazaar is a prime example of this, when one of the diplomats gets into an argument, neither one is capable of talking to the other and so for the Iranian at least, we have nothing but his actions and tone to decide what he is saying.

Visually, the film is shot cleanly and without much complication, choosing instead to focus it’s attention on the characters instead of spectacle, a decision that Affleck deserves praise for. Many others would have filled this with unnecessary filler, while here it is kept stripped down and fast moving. The performances are the real strength and luckily they are allowed to shine.

Argo is a well made, character led thriller that also works as brilliant satire on Hollywood and the movie business at the same time. It is well worth your time and a film that will have you glued to the screen for the last half an hour.