Man of Steel

Released in 2013 under the direction of Zach Snyder ("300," "Watchmen," "Sucker Punch") on a budget of $225 million with distribution through Warner Bros.; "Man of Steel" is the 6th theatrical film adaptation (I'm not counting "Supergirl") based off of the 1938 release of Action Comics #1, Superman has since his first publication become a cultural American icon for his tagline of "fighting for truth, justice and the American Way." The first feature film to star this comic book hero was the 1978 Richard Donner film, "Superman: The Movie." By today, it's considerably dated, but it still remains a ground-breaking spark in cinema for these of special effects to create the illusion of Superman flying and grabbing things with his strength as well as kick-starting interest of the Superhero film genre. But the 80's wasn't very kind to Superman, giving forth to some rather lousy movies and only continuing on from then, giving some embarrassingly bad Superman video games. Eventually, Zach Snyder announced he was going to reboot Superman along with "Dark Knight" trilogy director Christopher Nolan. I…did not see it when it came out, but perhaps that was the best thing to have done as there was no safe place from this movie as a war seemed to break out from people who either loved the movie and called it a masterpiece or from people who hated the movie and called it "a betrayal of the Superman name." So I waited until it was available for OnDemand, so what did I think then? 

Um….I've used disappointed too much in the past, so the only other term that comes to mind is "underwhelmed."

Plot: In a far off galaxy, the planet Krypton, which looks more like a dustier version of Vulcan from J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek," Scientist Jor-El (Russell Crowe) tries to warn the council that the planet is doomed to explode due to the depletion of their natural resources. Yet this doesn't seem to stop General Zod (Michael Shannon) from staging a coup d'état against the council. Despite this, Jor-El manages to steal a Kryptonian Codex that contains the genetic code of artificial children, graft the code to the cells of his newborn son, Kal-El, and send him off before the planet explodes, though not before Zod and his flunkies are banished to the Phantom Zone.

Then, in a series of flashbacks interwoven throughout the movie, we see Kal-El try to control his powers as he attempts to find his place in the world while keeping his powers a secret as Clark Kent (Henry Cavill), only to occasionally reveal them to people when he comes to save them. Eventually he finds his way to the Arctic where he locates a spaceship that contains a hologram consciousness of his father explain his origins. Now wearing a blue costume with a red cape, Clark runs into Daily Planet Journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who figures out he has superpowers cause, well, he's really lousy at covering his tracks apparently. But things take turn for the worse when General Zod finds his way to Earth and wants to terraform the planet so they can have a new Krypton. Deciding he's the only one who can save the planet, he suits up and goes on a colossal fight that causes immense collateral damage.

Storywise, the movie has no surprises. It's the traditional Superman origin lifted straight from the Richard Donner movies; but the major problem with the movie is that is doesn't really say anything new about Superman himself. It just plays up the paranoia of people not trusting him because, ooh, he has super powers! Really, it's nothing new that we haven't seen in that other movie Christopher Nolan did, I forget the name, but it had a guy with a superhero suit and nobody fully trusted him then. Honestly, the movie just feels like another summer blockbuster and all the visuals are the only thing that keeps it from falling into the same issues I had with "Elyisum" and "Pacific Rim."

But I know what you're all thinking, what do I think about the whole Superman killing Zod thing? Yeah, sorry for the spoiler alert, but I had to tolerate this annoying internet war that started because of this one moment where Superman is forced to kill General Zod while he fires lasers at innocent people. While I could be that "one guy" and say this contradicts Superman's ideology of not killing this foes, honestly, there are many other things Superman could have done to avoid that.

-Superman could have poked Zod's eyes out while holding him in a headlock

-Subsequently, Superman could have tilted Zod's eyes upward to keep them from moving to the side.

-Superman could have just just flown Zod away from the city and from civilians.

-Superman could have kept fighting Zod in outer space.

-Superman could have just lobotomized Zod, sure he'd be a vegetable, but he'd still be alive.

-Superman could have used a Kryptonite bullet (oh, I'm sorry, Kryptonite was lame? Well I'm sorry you fail to comprehend the concept of weakness for this god-like being that could stop a supervillain)

-Superman could have flung Zod onto the other side of the planet, where there is no sunlight, and keeping fighting Zod until he runs out of juice from the sun's yellow rays and Superman could beat him into submission.

-Subsequently, Superman could have tunneled Zod to the center of the Earth, away from the Sun's yellow rays and let him burn up.

-Superman could have used his freeze breath to freeze Zod in place and then fly him to the Arctic and leave him to be frozen until Global Warming frees him.

-Or, instead of fighting General Zod, do what HowItShouldHaveEnded.com suggested: Instead of talking to a priest for advice, talk to the hologram consciousness of your father for advice then take the ship you came to earth on, set it do that dimensional thingy and throw it at Zod's space ship and force him and his cronies to avoid this huge battle that cost billions of dollars in collateral and untold lives to be lost in the fighting.

All these options and more, Superman could have done to have prevented killing him, but do I call this moment offensive? Oh no, that's not the most offensive moment.

It's the moment where Superman let's his adoptive father, Jonathan Kent, die.

In one of Superman's flashbacks, Clark is having an argument with his adoptive father, Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) when they suddenly get out of the car and witness a tornado approaching all these other cars. Clark and his adoptive mother run away to shelter when Jonathan runs back to save a dog, yes a dog, left int he car, at the cost of spraining his ankle, Clark wants to run out and go save him, but Mr. Kent just holds up his hand and Superman lets his father get sucked up into a tornado. 

Now you might say that he didn't save him was because his dad didn't want him to reveal himself in front of all these people, but this is offensive to Superman. How is it he decides not to save his adoptive father JUST BECAUSE his dad didn't want him to do so? How many times has Superman flown up to people attempting to jump off of rooftops and talked them down from killing themselves? How many times has Superman ever let anyone kill themselves just because they told him not to save them? When has Superman ever stood around and let someone die when he had it in his power to stop them?

This is why I love Glenn Ford's Pa Kent in the original Superman movie, right after Clark has shown off to his jerk classmates, he has a very touching conversation with Clark about being on this planet. Clark playfully races with Pa Kent to the barn as Pa slows down, breathing heavily. He checks his pulse and then collapses on the ground, Clark runs up to check on Pa, but the next scene shows that Pa has died. This is brilliant because it shows that even with all the powers Superman has, he is powerless to stop his adoptive father from dying from a heart attack.

But here? Clark had the power to save him father. He could have used his super breath to blow the tornado away. He could have used his super speed to zoom in and save his father while the tornado sucked him in and fly away while everyone didn't notice. He could have just taken his father's place to save the dog, since he is younger and he could have been smarter to get the lousy dog out.

What is frustrating is how this movie seems to take from other movies: 

-The Matrix: Artificial babies in orbs that are collected? Can they be used to power the machines of Krypton as well? Do you think it's coincidence Laurence Fishburne is in the movie?

-The Matrix Revolutions: A huge fight of two super powered being flying around causing destruction to a city while being knocked back and forth? I'm convinced the reason Zach Snyder didn't use his slow-motion technique he's known for this movie was because people would then figure out he was stealing from the Wachowski Siblings.

-Avatar: Jor-El flies around on a winged creature, how could Avatar not come to mind?

-Tree of Life: the editing focuses on an wheelbarrow turned on it's side and a bucket filled with water with clothespins left inside. You're not Terrance Malick, Snyder, stop pretending you're deep by using these images when they have no poetry to them.

-J.J. Abrams Star Trek: this, more than any of my previous comparisons, it seems that Zach Snyder not only rips off this movie's visual look, but also the lens flare and the computer technique Abrams does where the camera zooms in on a particular action during a fight.

But thinking back to all of Zach Snyder's other movies and how many of them have scenes that directly rip off other movies (ex. "Apocalypse Now," "Spartacus," "Enter the Dragon") it really should come as no surprise to me the lack of originality Snyder has that he is willing to rip off of better movies to make his movies. Now you might call me out on this and say Nolan did the same thing with "Inception," but there's a major difference between directly stealing scenes and ideas from better movies and paying homage to these movies and using them for inspiration to create a movie that feels fresh. But looking back on Snyder's career, he seems to have quite a track record of stealing other people's work and passing it off as is his own (e.g. "Dawn of the Dead" stole the fast-moving zombies from "28 Days Later" and "300" just did what Robert Rodriguez had done two years prior with "Sin City" and yet Snyder gets the title "visionary director" for it)

Characters:

Henry Cavill: Well, I'll give him this, he really looks like Superman, look at that jaw of his! It looks like he personally chiseled his jaw but as Clark Kent, I'm sorry, but he looks like the cover of a GQ magazine model. Take anther look at Christopher Reeve, the guy did a great job balancing both the stoic and humble Superman with the nervous and stuttering honesty of Clark Kent, if you looked at Reeve's Clark Kent, you'd never even make the connection that he'd be Superman. But just like Christian Bale, you can't really buy that this guy can have an alter ego, he just looks like he's hiding something. But I admit, the parts of the movie that show a young Clark Kent trying to control his powers, are really the more fascinating elements that the movie covers to show how scary it is for the young Clark Kent to discover all these powers and not understand what is going on.

Amy Adams: She's…just there. I'm sorry, but she ultimately leave no impact to me as Lois Lane. Amy Adams just feels like she's playing the same kind of character Maggie Gyllenhaal and Gwyneth Paltrow have played in superhero movies. Amy Adams is a fine actress, don't get me wrong, but she lacks character development as a romantic interest, hell, when she and Superman kiss, it's one of the most out of place moments I've ever seen a kiss to happen since they never even spent pivotal time to develop the tools necessary to develop characters, especially romantic interests.

Michael Shannon: Hey, surprise, surprise, I prefer Terrence Stamp's General Zod than Michael Shannon's General Zod. Terrence Stamp was a guy who had regality to him, he was boisterous and full of pride, he had a charm to him that couldn't be matched. Michael Shannon was just a guy who shouted a lot and a beard. The movie tries to make him looks sympathetic with trying to bring back the Kryptonian race, but he never seems to explain this plan and just seems to yell a lot.

Laurence Fishburne: He's………..there………..he doesn't make his infamous "Great Caesar's Ghost" but he does threaten to fire Lois Lane…honestly, this role could have been played by anyone, he was picked so his name could put more butts in the seat.

Kevin Costner: I already went on a tangent about how offensive it was that Superman doesn't save him, Costner is just doing his same shtick he's done for years. Monotone and uninterested. Now that I think about it, maybe Superman did us a favor in letting the tornado suck him up, no more box office bombs from you.

Diane Lane: The only memorable moment she has is a moment where she an intimate moment with Clark about holding him close to her when he was but a baby years ago, she would listen to him breathe. It shows the intimacy of Clark and his adoptive mother.

Russell Crowe: Word of the wise General Zod, don't pick a fight with the Gladiator himself. He's okay, he's no Marlon Brando, but then again, who is? Brando was an actor nobody will ever match and I highly doubt anyone of Brando's caliber will ever come again in this lifetime. Russell's main job is to dump exposition about Krypton, thankfully he doesn't sing, *shudder*

Christopher Meloni: Word of the wise to future screenwriters, if you make a character who is so forgettable and is only memorable because of the actor who plays them, you know you could do better. All through this movie, I kept calling this character Elliot Stabler cause I recognize him the best from Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. He has no actual character though and he could have been played by anyone and it wouldn't have made a difference.

This entire movie does have a long line of all-star actors, but barely any of them get any proper character development to make these characters that interesting.

Production:

Maybe this is coming from a sense of burnout from seeing all these summer blockbusters, but I am starting to get a little tired of Green screen. Even though green screen really opens up the possibilities or visual effects, they just don't impress me all that much. The visual landscapes on Krypton look unimpressive, in fact, it just makes it look like the Kryptonians just landed there in these ships and they haven't colonized the planet yet. While I admit, the visuals work in effect to show the destruction of Superman fighting with other Kryptonians, the fights go on for far too long and eventually, wear thin on my patience. Even the final fight with Superman and Zod, while, I admit, visually impressive, just left me cold and tired. In fact, I'm getting tired of seeing big budget mano-a-mano fight scenes in movies nowadays. "Pacific Rim," "Elysium," "Transformers," it's like the entire movie builds up to the protagonist and the antagonist engaging in a fist fight that runs on for 10 minutes. While I may not agree with RedLetterMedia about everything they say, I will agree with their statement that "stretching a fight scene out for so long in an over-the-top and show-off way is the equivalent of a middle-aged business man whose short, balding and has a tiny penis so he buys a red Lamborgini to compensate." 

This ending fight with Superman and Zod is the film's version of compensating for the lack of character development and ability to connect to the audience on an emotional level by using overblown visual effects.

Costuming is…not as bad as I thought of it before. The spandex looks a little silly on Russell Crowe and General Zod, but I admit, I'm not so much bothered by the Superman costume anymore. It is a little jarring to see Superman without his iconic red tidy-whities, to have that weird padding thing on this sides, it made it less awkward to me.

Music is…really forgettable, which is a shame cause Hans Zimmer can make memorable music when he's allowed to experiment: "The Lion King," "The Thin Red Line," "The Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Dark Knight" if you need examples. Frankly, I didn't find anything that memorable. The official theme does have a dramatic sense of building bravados, but it doesn't lift a torch to John Williams' 1978 theme. Yeah, it seems unfair to compare, but if I ask you to look at the Superman logo, are you going to think of Hans Zimmer's theme from 2013 or John Williams' theme from 1978 that has become the staplemark of a Superman theme (kinda like how the 1960's Batman theme is iconic and remembered even after all these years).

John Williams - 1978 Prelude and Main Title March

Hans Zimmer - 2013 Main Theme

Bottom Line: 

There are a lot of people who are calling this movie a masterpiece and a brilliant reboot.

I say, it's a bloated run-by-the-numbers summer movie that has to take ideas from the original Superman movies and insert over-the-top anime style fighting. While the visual effects of all the destruction looks nifty, the lack of character development makes the movie seem pretentious in the parts with Clark Kent trying to adapt the the real world while the parts with Superman lack the suspension of disbelief or majesty. This movie constantly hammers in the issue that if people saw Clark Kent with superpowers, what the consequences would be, but we never see those consequences outside of fear from a Kansas mother and some concerned soldiers. If they really wanted to show consequences of Clark's actions, they could have shown on the news cults be formed proclaiming Superman as "the Messiah's return" and the arrival of Zod as "Judgement day." Missed opportunities to explore these themes are lost to showing off special effects. The parts with Clark as a kid honing his powers are neat, but we don't get a genuine sense of his abilities outside of just a vague idea of it that you have to be a Superman fan to already understand or know. The movie looks impressive visually, but, just like the Star Wars prequels and "Transformers" it favors special effects over story and character development.

Say what you will about the costumes or special effects for the 1978 Superman movie, the original had one thing this movie lacks: interesting people and the human factor. We see Clark land on Earth and we see him arrive in metropolis under his mild-mannered identity. "Man of Steel" focuses on Superman, the Kryptonian instead of Superman, the Hero of Earth.

A lot of people love this movie, I won't be one of them. I'll stick to that "old and lame" Superman movie that had interesting characters and a likable Superman that I would feel comfortable to save me from a falling helicopter, I'd probably suffer whiplash from this Man of Steel if he grabbed me from mid-air.

Final Rating: 2/5

As for the upcoming "Superman Vs. Batman" movie, how will that pan out? Well, Ben Affleck is playing Batman, a nice choice actually, considering the last three movies Affleck has directed and the fact he played Daredevil once, I think he could pull it off. But frankly, leave David S. Goyer out of the screenwriting process and get a more mature screenwriter, or in the case of the original, four seasoned screenwriters (said four are Mario Puzo of "The Godfather," David Newman and wife Leslie Newman of "Bonnie and Clyde," and Robert Benton of "Kramer Vs. Kramer.") I'll see it, sure, but after seeing this movie, my expectations are pretty low.

Saving Mr. Banks

Released in 2013 under the direction of John Lee Hancock ("The Alamo," "The Blind Side") on a budget of $35 million with distribution through Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; "Saving Mr. Banks" is a biopic of the negotiations that occurred between animator and producer Walt Disney and author P.L. Travers over her series of books about a magical nanny named Mary Poppins to be adapted into a feature film by Walt Disney Pictures. I'd be lying if I didn't say I had been wanting to see this movie since I saw the trailer back in August and I can most humbly assure you, fine readers, it was well worth the wait.

In the summer of 1961, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) comes to California to oversee pre-production for the film adaptation of "Mary Poppins" by an enthusiastic Walt Disney (Tom Hanks). Travers proves to be very frustrating, not only for Disney, but also to co-screenwriter Disney Legend Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and composer/lyricist duo, Richard M. Sherman (Jason Schwartzman) and Robert B. Sherman (B.J. Novak), who are forced to put up with her needy demands to ensure she is pleased so she can sign over the film rights to Disney. During the negotiation process, P.L. Travers finds herself slipping back and forth between her rough childhood in Australia with her drunk yet loving father Travers Robert Goff (Colin Farrell) who would mark the inspiration for the Mr. Banks character, struggling to come to terms with her loss and to trust in Walt Disney to make her happy.

RottenTomatoes.com I think said it best "Aggressively likable and sentimental to a fault" and they're not wrong in saying so. This is a touching yet surprisingly dark movie that looks at the the struggling process of appealing to the author and the author's reflection on her early childhood with the relationship with her father and the guilt of not being to change the outcome of your past. The theme of wanting control of your property is a theme that I, as someone who knows how it feels to be told to make changes, truly understand why Travers would be concerned.

Acting is fabulous, Emma Thompson truly inhabits the stiff-upper-lip personality of an English author, she pulled it off admirably, to the point where I forgot she was an actress. The same could not be said of Tom Hanks, not to say he's terrible, heavens no, he embodies Walt's kind and warm personality, but unlike Thompson, I look at Hanks and I just see Tom Hanks just being himself; a gleeful, jolly uncle that you wish you'd had. The supporting cast does it's part, while nobody gives a particularly striking performance, nobody turns in a bad performance either.

"Saving Mr. Banks" is a utterly charming feel-good movie that is almost impossible to hate. Believe me, I'm trying to find something to nitpick, but none of them really effect the movie on a narrative whole. Highly recommended you see this one.

Final Rating: 4/5

American Hustle

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.

Gravity

Released in 2013 under the direction of Alfonso Cuarón ("Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," "Children of Men") on a budget of $100 million with distribution from Warner Bros.; "Gravity" is the ambitious Science-fiction space drama that combines the celebration of life with the fear of dying alone. Never before has a movie like this been filmed and it's all thanks to the creative mind of Alfonso Cuarón.

It's just another day above orbit for STS-157 Explorer, performing some maintenance work on the Hubble Space Telescope. This is the final mission for veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) who hopes to break the 75 minute spacewalk record and the first for Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock). Things go horribly wrong when debris from a destroyed Russian satellite causes a chain reaction that makes the debris into flying death missiles that destroy the Explorer and leave Matt and Ryan floating in space, running low on oxygen and fearing the possibility of returning home starts to seem unlikely sets in for Dr. Stone as all Kowalski can do is comfort her with the sound of his voice.

Critics and audiences all around have praised this movie to no end and rest assured, I'm with you. 

This movie is one of the BEST movies of 2013.

Alfonso's direction is still outstanding as ever. The movie's opening sequence is proof to that as it manages to show everything that happens in Alfonso's brand of using computer effects and cameras to film in one long take. It's an outstanding use of computer effects that perfectly uses the 3D to it's advantage. From the beginning, we see the Explorer, Kowlaski floats around it with his thruster pack telling some story about his wife leaving him and this time he was in Mardi Gras, the camera following him as it settles on Dr. Stone trying to repair some thingy on the Hubble Space Telescope, Mission Control in Houston (voiced by Ed Harris, very nice choice by the way if you saw "The Right Stuff") comments on her vital signs. All seems normal. Then Mission control orders them to get back on the Explorer when the debris begins to fly in, the pieces of the ship fall apart, Dr. Stone is still attached to the robotic arm of Explorer, she frees herself of the arm and starts spinning around in space, breathing frantically, the camera still continues to follow her, looking at her face from outside her space suit to the camera literally going inside her suit to see her view before gently going back out to look at her face. 

Everything about this movie left me speechless. The visual effects work wonders with the 3D, something I hadn't seen done since "Hugo," the acting, especially from Sandra Bullock who carries the movie, is strong, the direction is fantastic and the visual metaphors employed throughout will stick in your mind.

If you haven't seen "Gravity" yet, why are you still reading this?

Final Rating: 4/5

Tucker and Dale vs Evil

Released in 2010 under the direction of Eli Craig with distribution through Magnet Releasing, "Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil" is an independent horror comedy that revolves around the cliched story of a bunch of crazed hillbillies who butcher teenagers out in the woods- eh? What's that? What do you mean the roles are reversed? Um, okay then.

Our two good-hearted hillbillies, the tough-minded but well-meaning Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and surprisingly bright yet shy Dale (Tyler Labine) are going up to the woods to acquire an abandoned cabin and turn it into a summer home. But, coming up to camp in the same woods are a bunch of shallow and judgmental college students who assume these two are sociopaths when one of their dumb friends bumps her head and Tucker and Dale rescue her, they assume she has been captured. The rest of the movie? These dumb teenagers getting themselves violently killed by accident, like one moron just leaping into a woodchopper while Tucker leans over to pick up a branch. The girl they've rescued, Allison (Katrina Bowden) learns that Dale isn't really that crazy as she assumed and he's actually pretty sweet. Also her possible boyfriend (Jesse Moss) just may be a psychopathic douchebag.

The main theme of the movie is assumption and misinterpretation. Since the movie starts with these shallow teens who assume the locals here are psychos, it comes as a bit of a surprise to the very hardened horror audience to find these "hilliebillie psychopaths" are not that at all and all the usual tropes seen in horror movies all happen based on a misunderstanding. Like when Tucker chases after the teens with a chainsaw, in actuality, he was running for his life from the bees he angered while cutting through a tree. Moments like these are not as funny until the teens die horribly and in a hilarious way, to the point Tucker and Dale assume the teens are killing themselves intentionally.

The acting is surprisingly solid for an independent horror comedy, the teens are perfectly shallow and the title characters are surprisingly likable and delivering really funny lines with one another. The gore effects look fantastic, especially for an independent movie, from the bloodied legs of a college student to the burnt face of Brad, the effects are convincing enough to look real but cheap enough to not go overboard. Music is decent enough to be intense and haunting enough to play itself out as a horror film even though it's tongue is firmly in cheek.

Overall, I'm glad HailtotheChimp requested I look at this movie and it saddens me that it took me this long to finally review it. I can see why he praised this movie, there is a level of intelligence to this comedy that is rare as it strives to uphold the conventional horror tropes but at the same time, it chooses to look at it from the perspective of the 'psychopaths' from most horror movies.

Final Rating: 3.5/5