The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug    6/10
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage
Plot: The quest to reach the Lonely Mountain continues, yet further dangers lie ahead for Bilbo, the Dwarves and Gandalf.

2012’s An Unexpected Journey was a satisfying, exciting and incredibly promising first instalment in the newly established trilogy. It introduced all the characters – old and new - and set up the story for future films perfectly. However, The Desolation of Smaug, the second in the trilogy, ultimately fails to live up to expectations; with poor special effects, numerous pointless back stories and an unsatisfying ending.

The ultimate criticism I have with the film is its special effects. Peter Jackson relies entirely on computer-generated sceneries during most of the film, which becomes painfully distracting and out-of-place when we cut away to a real and genuine environment. Numerous wide shots of the group on their journey rely on stiff and flimsy computer-game-like images, which immediately pull you out of this world. The difference between the genuine, New Zealand landscapes and the CGI ones are cataclysmically noticeable. In addition, the scenes in Smaug’s lair are hideously unconvincing and fake, taking away from the stellar performances and story at hand. This ties in with the script funnily enough; there are a huge number of action sequences in this film compared to the first, which is fine, yet the less dialogue there is, the more the film relies on its visuals, which are simply not up to scratch. There’s also a very poor use of camera shots during certain sequences; during the barrel scene, there are constant cuts to these hideous, blurry water cameras which seem to have been strapped to the barrels as they hurtle down the stream. They’re completely out of place, unnecessary and draw away from the utter chaos at hand.

Following the first film, I’ve argued that a trilogy could be done well; however after this second instalment, I seem to feel differently. The title of the film – The Hobbit – seems to have been misplaced. There are far too many stories involving the Elves which assist very little in the quest to reach The Lonely Mountain. In addition to this Gandalf also goes on trips to bizarre locations which are completely pointless and painfully slow. It just feels as if this film goes nowhere; yes, the group travel further, but the ultimate goal is left incomplete.

Though the special effects are fatally flawed and the story filled out too much, the characters are still captivating to watch. Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is chirpy, quirky and refreshing. Whenever he shares the screen with Ian McKellen, you feel that the film improves staggeringly, yet such scenes are rare this time around. Ian McKellen, as noted, is once again top-notch and fantastic as Gandalf the Grey. There are also performances from Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lily, Stephen Fry and Luke Evans, who all add a little more spice to the story, yet their importance is questioned.

In Conclusion: The Desolation of Smaug has too many pointless characters and storylines (most notably being the tedious Elf/Dwarf love triangle). This instalment proves that quality has been sacrificed for quantity, which raises the question as to whether this was a truly creative decision. Where it does shine though is still in its characters. We get to see each of them – including all the Dwarves – receive their moment to shine, and the barrel sequence is a lot of fun. Ultimately though, the final scene may well leave you sighing.

Film Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire   10/10
Director: Francis Lawrence
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth
Plot: A rebellion occurs after Katniss and Peeta succeed in the 74^th Hunger Games. President Snow must now seek justice and revenge.

Well, well, well. The Hunger Games – released back in March 2012 – surprised audiences worldwide with its chilling political message. Labelled a ‘teen franchise’ before it even began; Gary Ross turned the stigma surrounding this so-called ‘Battle Royale’ copycat and ‘Twilight’ successor onto its head. The first film was shocking yet ultimately unsatisfying, leaving audiences craving for more. This time around, Catching Fire is unbelievably epic and satisfying.

Firstly, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is beautifully shot and one of the most atmospheric films of the year. From the get-go, Francis Lawrence throws us into the murky, distorted yet familiar world of District 12. Cinematographer Jo Willems captures the setting perfectly; the light blues are particularly effective when we see Katniss and Gale together in the forest; giving the forest a chilling effect. In addition, the special effects have stepped up ten notches since the first film. The sweeping shots of the tribute train zooming from district to district are truly beautiful and completely believable. It is however the arena scenes where the budget (approximately $130 million compared to the first film’s $78 million) really shows. Colossal shots – which were left out of the trailers, thank goodness – such as giant waves, fighting monkeys and deadly mists, are captivating to watch on the big screen.

Katniss, played by Jennifer Lawrence, is nothing short of phenomenal here. She steals each and every scene she’s in. Her most heartbreaking scene may well be her speech to Rue’s family – a victim of the previous Games - as well as the moment afterwards in which Lawrence is pulled away as the audience rebels. It’s really quite difficult to put into words Lawrence’s excellence in this film.

Though Lawrence shines, there are other notable cast members. President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland, takes a more pivotal role in this second instalment; an earlier scene where he and Katniss have a face-off in her new home is utterly captivating to watch. It’s so very rare you see a younger and older actor and actress play off a scene so perfectly. You don’t for one moment doubt their seriousness and realism in the scene. Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket also returns with some extraordinary costumes and make-up throughout the film; some so laughably outrageous, that you can’t help but love her. Stanley Tucci plays a far different side to Caesar Flickerman this time around; his role, to keep the viewers at home away from the news of the rebellion, is so interesting to watch. The fear in his eyes as all the Victors hold their hands up in the air makes you realise how high the stakes are. You see him realise, for the first time, that he has been contributing to these games. These small touches are the most memorable, which is a reason to believe that this film series is working.

Sam Clafin is also a new addition, who works well as Finnick Odair. His accent is carried out surprisingly well and it’ll be interesting to see how he develops his character through Mockingjay. The most brave, outrageous and excellent addition has to be Jena Malone as Johanna. She is by far the most intriguing tribute to watch, and flourishes whenever she comes onto the screen – her interview before the Games and the ‘lift scene’ are just two of her many highlights.

In Conclusion: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is ultimately flawless. As a book to film adaptation, it works perfectly for book fans and casual moviegoers alike. Jennifer Lawrence is superb and the supporting cast alongside her reflect how this series is truly about its characters. And finally, Francis Lawrence has directed an intense rollercoaster which culminates in a chilling final shot – Mockingjay has a lot to live up to.

Film Review: Gravity

Gravity   8/10
Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Ed Harris
Plot: a tragic accident leaves a medical engineer and astronaut out in space, alone.

It’s difficult to find an adjective a newspaper, magazine or blog hasn't yet used to describe Gravity; but here’s a start, unique.

Following the space antics of Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), Gravity thrusts its audience into the abyss. To begin with, the most impressive aspect of this film is its visual effects. As impressive as the performances are, Gravity presents audiences with effects unlike any they’ve seen before. As a viewer, I didn’t once question whether the events were really occurring in space; the effects are so seamlessly put together, that there doesn’t seem to be one, poorly established or unfinished shot – it all looks so real. In addition, the 3D here is phenomenal. So many films have tried and failed to achieve what Avatar did in 2009, which was a cinematic experience like no other. Gravity continues this ‘must see in cinemas’ hype, which is an occurrence all too rare.

Though its effects are top-notch, it’d be an incredibly thin piece of cinema if its acting didn’t stand up to the mark also. Thankfully, it does. George Clooney does what he does best here, which is… George Clooney. He’s utterly charming as Matt; a character who assists Ryan from the get-go. The main star here though is Sandra Bullock. Her fairly turbulent (pardon the pun) yet – at times – phenomenally successful run in the genre of comedy has become only natural to her. Thankfully though, she has finally returned to the other job she does best; getting down and dirty in a role. Like in the Blind Side, we see Bullock transform into a completely different person, and Ryan is the perfect role for her. Her portrayal is utterly heartbreaking at times, yet steely and determined during others.

Whilst there is much to applaud in Gravity, there are flaws. Firstly, on entering the cinema, I hadn’t once heard how incredibly cliché and corny the dialogue was going to be. At first I considered it a mockery of other science-fiction films but it continued throughout. The painfully random, out-of-place Bullock line, “I hate space” seems forced and if anything, annoying. Unfortunately, such dialogue continues throughout; it seems as if Cuaron (director and writer) was too insistent on keeping these characters grounded (again, pardon the pun), whilst they seem (mainly Clooney’s character) a lot less grounded than they should.

In Conclusion: Gravity’s running time of 90 minutes has become so very rare in today’s cinema, yet it fits its time comfortably and its pace doesn’t falter once. Sandra Bullock is the one to note here, stealing the show throughout, spinning alongside the flawless graphics. Cuaron has crafted a very technically complex film here and you wouldn’t think it had taken so long to make – a real masterpiece in filmmaking. 

Film Review: Monsters University

Monsters University    7/10
Director: Dan Scanlon
Starring: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi

Plot: set at Monsters University, we meet Mike and Sulley before the events seen in Monsters, Inc., where conflicts soon arise.

It’s hard to believe that Monsters, Inc. was released a staggering 11 years ago; yet it still stands today as one of the most popular animations of the 21^st century. Amazingly, a total of three directors steered the first film. This time, however, Dan Scanlon takes to the wheel alone and with great success.

Scanlon is a very risky choice considering he’s only directed an independent ‘mockumentary’ and co-directed a short film. Thankfully, he proves why Hollywood should take more risks, particularly when hiring new talent. Scanlon (who is also one of the six writers for the film) expertly weaves in between characters perfectly; it would be all too easy to spend too much time with Mike and Sullivan, characters we already know and love. Instead, we see new, loveable faces such as Squishy (voiced by Peter Sohn) as well as dark, villainous additions like Dean Hardscrabble (voiced by the increasingly cool Helen Mirren).

Also, for a family film, Monsters University is jam-packed with humour for adults and children alike. Many animations from recent years have failed to entertain those of all ages, with the likes of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles proving the most successful (in my eyes!) Nevertheless, this ‘prequel’ does suffer from feeling like a mere add-on. There is no real reason for this sequel at all; yes, we gain insight into how Mike and Sullivan’s friendship began but it doesn't quite have the freshness of the first film.

In Conclusion: though it isn't a necessary film… who cares! Monsters Univerity pulls off humour, features fabulous voice actors and steers its audience to a satisfying conclusion. Though it was great to visit these characters again, these two films should now sit nicely together... alone (no sequels please!)

Film Review: The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger    6/10

Director: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Armie Hammer, Helena Bonham Carter

Plot: A tale following the transformation of a dedicated man of the law, John Reid, to a man of justice.

It’s surprising this film ever made it to the silver screen; budgetary problems (reaching a staggering $215 million), a chicken pox outbreak and wildfires just a few of the setbacks. Before the film even hit screens, the giant blockbuster was already deemed a ‘failure’ by critics and seems to have suffered financially because of it.

The top tip for watching The Lone Ranger is to not take it too seriously. From the get-go, it becomes a giant, action-packed Western with action scenes bordering on barbaric at times. It is, however, a 149-minute form of escapism, with comedic performances from Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter working perfectly. Depp (Tonto) is incredibly loveable as the Native American warrior; it’s a shame, because the character could only benefit from fleshing out a little more with a sequel.  Armie Hammer also pulls off the role as the Lone Ranger very well; Hammer finally returns to a role more solid (similar to that of The Social Network) after taking on a – frankly embarrassing – part in Mirror Mirror. Helena Bonham Carter, as usual, is fantastic as Red Harrington, thrusting up her leg to reveal a gun at the foot of her heel. Whilst being completely unnecessary, Carter’s part in the film is a breathe of fresh air during the slightly dreary middle act.

Also, the plot of the film seems interesting from the start, yet the entire piece suffers from constantly stopping and starting. It finally finds its feet in its final hour (at which point, critics had probably lost interest and began writing their sour reviews!) For those who are familiar with the original Lone Ranger there is a real touch of nostalgia during this part. However, as the film attempts to recapture the originality of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, The Lone Ranger doesn’t have the same supporting cast, driving force in storytelling or audience craving more.

In Conclusion: The Lone Ranger is full of unbelievably chaotic (yet enjoyable) action sequences and a number of light moments throughout. Not to mention the main cast who all do their best. It does, however, suffer from an overly long running time as well as taking a while to find its feet as an enjoyable, adventurous family film.