Released in 2013 under the direction of David O. Russell ("The Fighter," "Silver Linings Playbook") on a budget of $40 million with distribution from Columbia Pictures; "American Hustle" is a crime drama filled with twists, turns, betrayals, backstabbing and Jennifer Lawrence saying "sick son of a bitch" to a little kid. Critics have been all over this film like teenage boys at a Call of Duty release, so that means you should go and see it too, right? Let me be the guy to tell you, don't be fooled, cause it ain't worth seeing at your closest multiplex.
It's 1978, New York Glass Factory owner and dry-cleaning businessman Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) has an embezzling system set up as an investment firm with his partner and lover, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). But they are busted by the FBI and only manage to avoid jail time by agreeing to assist FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) in taking down Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), the mayor of Camden, New Jersey, who wishes to rebuild legal gambling to strengthen the town's economy. There is a problem: Irving's wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), a sad and unappreciated dimbulb housewife who is not aware of Irving's criminal involvement or dealings with the FBI. But she is beautiful and vivacious, which leads to Carmine insisting she go along on with dinner party meetings with dangerous mobsters (of course, because it's about gambling in New Jersey…), one of whom is played brilliantly by Robert De Niro.
So, wow, with a story like that, this sounds like a great movie that everyone should see, right? Um…sure, just not for the ticket price. I'll be honest, for those two hours, I found myself often disengaged from the movie's run time: it's a rather uninteresting story with interesting characters. This isn't a movie about black and white; it's grey area. There are no absolutes: no outright despicable characters, and no thoroughly honest characters, making it difficult to find one character to root for when they aren't good people.
Of course, this isn't to say that the characters are badly written. In fact, they are each very interesting and they are cemented by strong performances by the actors. Bale gives a very believable performance as a character struggling with his tolerance for his own level of dishonesty. Adams excels as a character able to play the emotions of others and you're never quite sure if she is in control of her own. Renner is the closest to likable despite his dishonest methods. Cooper is the most dislikable of the bunch, trying to stroke his massive ego, as for Lawrence, she not only soars but is quite possibly gearing up for her second Oscar speech (her 10 seconds about "not liking change" should win it).
The dialogue is well written giving these fine actors plenty to work with, but the biggest failing of this movie is the direction. Russell's direction is slow and tedious and often loses sight of the plot, forcing it to drag down to the point where you lose interest in what's going on, leaving the actors to salvage the movie and then its thinness becomes evident to the viewer.
"American Hustle" is many things. On one hand, it's a fascinating collage of actors playing as characters who refuse to stand anywhere, but the grey area in a movie that gives an affection for the 1970's. On the other, it's a slow-moving film that loses track of it's narrative and drags the movie down, leaving the cast the only redeemable element of the movie. I still think you should see it, but I feel this is a movie that's better suited for your television screen than the theater screen.
Final Rating: 2.5/5
BTC - The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Released in 2013 under the direction of Peter Jackson ("Heavenly Creatures," "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) on a budget of $225 million with distribution through Warner Bros,; "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is the second part of the film trilogy based on the 300 page fantasy novel by famed professor and high fantasy author John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, who also wrote the sequels "The Lord of the Rings." In 1997, Peter Jackson and his long-time collaborator/life-partner Fran Walsh set out to find a studio that would fund their ambitious adaptation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, having to remove some and include other elements of all three books. With help from producer Bob Weinstein, Jackson managed to get New Line Cinemas to agree to finance the adaptation, granted that he deliver them the movie by Christmas by 2001. Jackson delivered and soon, the entire world was introduced to "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," introducing new audiences to high fantasy and showcasing the possibilities of CGI that would follow when combined with practical effects such as models. While this was nice for the studios, it gave Jackson a heavy schedule to go by to ensure he would deliver the movie before it's deadline. Jackson followed up in 2002 with "The Two Towers" and in 2003 with "The Return of the King," the latter of which broke records and went on to sweep the Academy Awards that year by winning all eleven categories it was nominated for, including Best Director for Peter Jackson and Best Picture; a feat that had only been achieved by "Ben-Hur" and "Titanic."
Somewhere in 2007, news came out that Peter Jackson, in a dispute with New Line Cinemas, Jackson would not work with New Line Cinema, leading to Warner Bros. to swoop in, buy out New Line Cinemas and put their money down to hit the same gold mine New Line did years ago. Jackson decided not to direct the Hobbit movie, feeling it would compete with his previous Middle-Earth films and it would make his work feel "unsatisfying." In April 2008, Guillermo del Toro ("Hellboy," "Pan's Labyrinth") was signed on to direct, planning to utilize his signature preference for animatronics and background paintings as apposed to computer effects to create a Middle-Earth that felt real instead of abusing CGI to an already CGI-numb audience as well as try to delve more into the philosophy of the world J.R.R. Tolkien envisioned as well as writing a good percentage of the script, hence why he receives a screenwriting credit for each of these movies.
But in 2010, del Toro left the project because of constant delays due to MGM's financial troubles who were holding the project back from allowing Jackson and del Toro to get started. Not helping matters was a worker strike in New Zealand who refused to build these sets and animatronics del Toro and Jackson planned to make for this movie to limit CGI abuse like every other movie has been doing. With pressure from Warner Bros. Jackson had to abandon his plans for a Tintin sequel and take the directors seat so the movie could still be made.
The first movie "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," was released in December of 2012, with some major theaters showing the movie in a previously unseen format 48 frames per second, double the speed of regular camera speed 24 frames per second. In my original review, I detailed my troubles with the pacing, feeling that it stretched out the story much longer than needed and the action scenes felt way too preposterous (especially near the ending in Goblin Town, you know all those characters would have broken bones after falling down that crevice) but still felt that the movie kept in line with the book's first 100 pages and stated that I would still see the next part to see where it goes.
I can tell you right away, this movie may just make my "Worst Movies of 2013," cause leaving that theater with the way the movie ended on a cliffhanger just when the movie had been building up to that…not cool Jackson, not cool...
Plot:
After taking refuge after being chased from The Pale Orc (Manu Bennett), The Company of the Dwarves Dwalin, Balin, Kili, Fili, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur (Graham McTavish, Ken Scott, Aidan Turner, Dean O'Gorman, Mark Hadlow, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Peter Hambleton, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), with the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and their burglar, Bilbo Baggins of the Shire (Martin Freeman) take refuge with the skin-changer Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt) and then make their way to the edge of Mirkwood Forest where Gandalf leaves them to engage in one of many subplots this movie has created in an effort to stretch out the running time and remind people that there exists three Lord of the Rings movies they could be watching instead of this.
They fight off giant spiders, get captured by Legolas (Orlando Bloom, who wasn't in the original book) and his wood elf pals under orders from his father, the Elvenking Thranduil (Lee Pace) as some She-Elf named Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, also not in the book) finds herself attracted to Fili (cause this movie can't be a mainstream movie when it's one big sausage fest), they escape in barrels where they are attacked by orcs (said orcs never made an appearance in the book), they are smuggled into Laketown by Bard the bowman (Luke Evans) where the town is in ruins, being run by a greedy, selfish political leader (Stephen Fry, given very minimal character development by the way in the book to the point that you'd forget he was even in the book in the first place), and, of course, the last great Dragon of Middle-Earth, Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch).
All right, so it seems straightforward enough right? I mean, it still follows the book, it has characters that were in the book, so why am I so angry?
Because many of the subplots this movie produces, feel like deliberate rehashes of the original Lord of the Ring Trilogy in an effort to connect it to that trilogy.
-Kili gets struck by a Morgul arrow; Frodo is struck with a Morgul blade.
-Tauriel uses Athelas and some Elven magic to completely cure Kili; Aragorn uses Athelas to slow the poison and Frodo is cured off-screen
-Gandalf is trapped in a tower by The Necromancer (10 lucky guesses who it is, the first 9 don't count) as he watches an army of Orcs prepare for war; Gandalf is trapped in a tower by Saruman as he watches an army of Urak-Hai prepare for war
-Legolas chases down a horde of orcs that are going after people smaller than he is, that being hobbits, with a man and a dwarf; Legolas chases down some orcs that are going after people smaller than he is, that being dwarves, with a female elf that he totally has a crush on even though she has the hots for someone shorter.
It really detracts from the main story and it feels incredibly distracting. This movie is called "The Hobbit," hence, the main character is a f*cking hobbit named Bilbo Baggins, but most of the movie, Bilbo feels like he's more in the background, we don't get to really know him as well as we did in the last movie. Literally everyone has defended these subplots with saying "oh, well it's exploring more of the world of Middle-Earth and-"
NO.
This is not exploring Middle-Earth, this is just lazily recycling what was already established previously and then reminding audiences of what is to come, when we, as an audience, already know because we already have three movies based on those books that came after this one, why do you need to constantly remind us? Did you think we'd forget? They only came out a decade ago, gee whiz, I almost forgot about those really kickass fantasy movies that I went to see with my family and they left the biggest impression on my childhood mind. Oh yeah, I TOTALLY forgot about those movies, I sure am glad you shoehorned these characters and subplots in to remind me of another movie series I could be watching instead of this one.
By the way, there are other shoehorned elements that, while I don't exactly think they ruin the movie, they do make me roll my eyes and groan:
-Bilbo refers to the ring as "mine" and Smaug calls the ring "something precious"
-When searched through, Legolas finds a picture of Gloin's son Gimli and Legolas mocks the picture
-Peter Jackson cameos as the guy with a carrot in the town of Bree (what, is this one guy the other guy's ancestor who looks exactly like him or does eating carrots in Middle-Earth make you immortal?)
The other problem as to why I was left really angry with this movie are the action scenes, I won't deny, the one on the river with the barrels was actually pretty cool…but then it keeps going…and going…and then I start to lose my patience. It perfectly demonstrates one of the major faults with this movie's direction: the tone.
There was an air of seriousness to the Lord of the Ring trilogy, an air of seriousness to having Frodo reach his destination and the dread of failing Middle-Earth if the Orcs succeed. There was gravity and weight to the action scenes in the previous movies, even if they did tempt death one too many times.
Never once was there a moment that I could take the movie seriously. You have Stephen Fry with a laughable mustache being this shallow greedy dude who doesn't like this one guy because…well, just because the townspeople like him.
The worst being this climactic chase scene in which the dwarves run around in the Lonely Mountain halls with Smaug chasing them when he could have just torched them with fire any time he wanted and not have bothered. It becomes ridiculous with the amount of times the characters manage to avoid Smaug's fire and leap off ledges to grab something to catch their fall, it reached a point where I was just playing the Benny Hill Chase music in my head.
What does this long over-bloated chase scene present afterwards? Smaug just now remembering that Bilbo mentioned that he was a "barrel-rider" and deciding to go kill the people of Laketown. Oh, did you just NOW decide after wasting around, what 45 minutes of chasing these pests that you decided to go kill the humans living in that rat's ass of a town? Glad to see where your priorities lie, oh great dragon of Middle-Earth…not.
Characters:
I can appreciate that the movie spends some time developing the characters, in fact, I fully support a movie that gives time to let the audience know more about it's characters, unlike some movie franchises out there (cough*cough*Transformerscough*cough*) but my problem is, most of the development given are with characters who never appeared in the original book.
Tauriel? The female elf in this movie? She wasn't in the book, in fact, she wasn't in ANY of the books. Peter Jackson made her up for this movie, I guess he just needed a woman to keep this movie from being a sausage fest. For some reason in this movie, they decided to have a dwarf/elf romantic angle, I don't have a problem with it, but, well, I don't really want to say this but…unless you read the book, you'll know it's going to be a short-lived romance…so yeah, sorry to break all your fanfiction writer hearts.
The whole "Necromancer subplot" well, frankly, it's pointless filler to remind the audience about that OTHER fantasy series they could be watching instead.
Legolas is in the movie, which is really out of place considering he wasn't in the book, sure, his father, Thranduil, was in the book, but he was played off as more antagonistic.
As I said before, for a movie that's supposed to be about the titular hobbit, Bilbo feels underdeveloped in this movie. The most development we do get to see is the Ring making him different, but that never happened in the book because, at the time the book was written, the author hadn't conceived the idea at the time of the Ring's importance, because of this, it comes off as out of place, but then, so does the Necromancer subplot.
To be fair though, the acting isn't the worst. My major criticisms lie with the characters they portray, not the actors themselves.
For all my problems with the movie as a whole, nobody gives a bad performance.
Martin Freeman is still good, I appreciate that the movie does take some time to give some more development to the dwarves, even though I still haven't bothered to remember any of their names, Lee Pace and Orlando Bloom are…okay. Though they seem to overact a little bit too much and Orlando still seems to use his stonework to do all the acting for him.
But it goes without saying Benedict Cumberbatch's performance has Smaug is the real highlight of the movie, sadly, I don't think it's as memorable as the performance Andy Serkis gave in the last movie, which sent genuine chills down my spine. I didn't get the same effect from Smaug, but I did feel a genuine sense of dread to see him on the big screen in size. That dread though, disappeared the minute he began chasing the dwarves around, then he became as threatening as a slasher movie villain.
Production:
Cinematography is still good and Peter Jackson continues to show off impressive locations in his native country of New Zealand. The music is still good, but there's not one music track that didn't really stick in my mind like previous movies. Visual effects are a bit of a mixed bag for me, while the creature effects on Smaug look fantastic at times, other times, you can still tell it's just a visual effect. The Pale Orc looks less convincing this time around, despite the advancements in motion capture done by Weta Digital. The background locations show off the combined creative team taking the words of Tolkien and the art department team to make the locations come to life. There is one technical thing I feel the need to nitpick, only because it's something I noticed while watching the movie. At certain points during the barrel-riding scene, the footage switches from the traditional 24fps to the kinds of mounted cameras that sky-divers and white-rapid riders use. It's not terribly important if you never took film training like I had, but it's something very noticeable and it really takes me out of the movie to see camera footage like that.
Bottom Line:
I admit, I was incredibly angry leaving that theater. So mad I ranted angrily while I was in the car on my way home. But I took some time to calm down and properly contextualize my feelings about the movie. Taking some time to think on the matter, I think I can finally explain why the movie made me angry.
Was this really a movie the result of a man who loved the work of Tolkien or a puppet of the studio system that told him to make a fantasy movie directly for kids? I know "The Hobbit" is considered a children's book, but what made Tolkien's work outstanding was that it has universal appeal. You could either be a kid or in your 50's and the books would still satisfy any age group. While this movie is considerably more violent than the previous one (complete with on screen decapitations as one head flies towards the camera at one point), it felt like it was pandering to this new generation of youth who were too young at the time to even see the original Lord of the Rings movies. Why else would this movie as well as the previous one cram in so many references to the other series if it's intentions were to get the kids to go watch them? Is that going to be what happens at the end of the last Hobbit movie? A big message in bold text that says "Bilbo Baggins will return in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring?" While I can give the acting a pass, all the subplots and characters that were not present in the original book as well as the over-the-top chase scenes really took me out of the movie and I found myself constantly looking at my watch wondering when it was going to end. For as long as the Lord of the Rings movies are, there was never a moment I felt bored watching them, I actually felt tired when the movie ran it's course with this over-the-top chase scene with the dwarves and Smaug.
If you still want to see the movie, you know what, more power to ya. I'm not gonna hold you back, see it and make your own decision whether it's bad or not. Be it in 3D or 48 frames per second, make your own conclusions, just don't get too overhyped, you may find yourself feeling empty inside for it after it's over. But if you're new to the entire Lord of the Rings storyline and you want to see a movie that can articulate and cover the entire storyline of "The Hobbit," I suggest the 1977 animated Rakin/Bass TV movie "The Hobbit," it's at least 90 minutes long and yet, they manage to cover the entire book and all it's important scenes in that amount of time and with less money and with famed Golden Age Hollywood director John Huston as Gandalf.
For my money though, I'm just going to tell my friends and family to wait till DVD and Blu Ray and suggest they fast-forward through the subplot scenes.
Final Rating: 2/5
You know what's the most disappointing? I actually had a stub from my movie rewards card that allowed me to see a movie for free, but the woman at the ticket booth said I had to pay a service fee, the woman charged me $5.50 for it, she said "it's cause we're the best theater around." Honey, you clearly never been to Cinerama… I got a free small popcorn for it. So I used it to get the popcorn, but I was thirsty so I got a drink to go with that, that came up to $5.50 as well.
In short, the amount of actual money I spent on to see the movie, I might as well should have bought a ticket for the full price.
