Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (2018)

15. They Shall Not Grow Old

To casual film fans, it probably seems like Peter Jackson hasn't been doing much recently besides relaxing on his pile of “Lord of the Rings” residuals. While it's certainly easy to conjecture that the experience of making “The Hobbit” trilogy was traumatic for Jackson, he hasn't exactly shied away from film making. Aside from producing big budget films like “Mortal Engines,” Jackson has started creating documentaries. For the one hundredth anniversary of the end of World War I, Jackson was commissioned to make a documentary about the war. Being something of an amateur historian of the Great War himself, owing to his great-grandfather being a veteran, Jackson enthusiastically took on the project.  

"They Shall Not Grow Old" attempts to show World War I as it was experienced, by the young men who fought it. The film focuses specifically on the British soldiers who were deployed. Jackson and his team took hundreds of hours of vintage newsreel footage, film and photographs taken directly at the front. Jackson blew the resolution up, meticulously colorized the footage, and added voices and sound effects. Forgoing traditional narration, Jackson instead utilized archive audio interviews with the veterans describing their unique experiences as they remembered it. 

The film begins in black and white, as it attempts to show life in England at the start of the war. The footage immediately gives you an idea of what life was like a hundred years ago. The men provide a very different perspective of going off to war than you'd expect. The young men were eager to fight. Many lied about their age, some boys as young as 14 pretending to be 19 in order to enlist. Most of the men describe being driven strictly by a sense of duty. They saw it as their jobs to go off and fight the Germans. They talk about the dehumanizing process of boot camp - endless marching, hulling hundred pound kits, eating gruel - with good humor. They all seemed to think they were going off on a grand adventure. 

Any illusions of that were quickly dismissed as soon as they arrived in the trenches. I've always heard about the unsanitary conditions the soldiers faced in World War I but "They Shall Not Grow Old" gives me an intimate idea of what it was like. Men sat on wooden bars, in a row, to defecate. All their clothes, all the men only having one outfit they could wear, were absolutely infested with lice. Dead bodies, rats, and the stink of rot was inescapable. Gangrenous trench foot - horrifying photos of which we see - was common and caused countless amputations. The constant mud and rain resulted in more than one casualty. A harrowing story is related of a man drowning in a mud slide, the other soldiers totally helpless to assist him.

Something else "They Shall Not Grow Old" keenly depicts is how tedious life in the trenches was. Death was a constant spectre, men being randomly sniped or bombs sailing overhead. Yet the men were rarely actively fighting the enemy. Instead, while always worrying about dying, the men had to find ways to pass the time. They munched on meager rations. They drank tea out of gasoline cans. Some of "They Shall Not Grow Old's" most touching footage shows soldiers finding ways to amuse themselves while away from the front. We see them singing, kicking footballs around, wrestling and joking around. One moment shows a man dropping a bottle, quickly grabbing it back up, while pantomiming music. All while men were dying only a few miles away. Life goes on, ya know? 

Death, of course, was unavoidable on the front. "They Shall Not Grow Old" shows graphic photos of dead boys, their weeping head wounds depicted in full color. The men talk about the injuries they saw, men blown to pieces by bombs and shrapnel, eyes dangling, limbs twisted off. The interviews describe this in a matter-of-fact manner, some talking about not even being immediately aware of their injuries. Yet death was not the only thing present at the time. Sometimes mercy was too. One man describes giving a German, whose throat he just slit, a final drink. More than once, a man describes putting a suffering friend out of their misery. 

Jackson managed to find footage or photos of almost everything from the trenches. Cameras, however, were not present when the fighting would overflow from the trenches. In order to illustrate this conflict, Jackson and his team uses drawings and paintings from the period. Once more, it is the words of the men who were there that most explicitly explains these circumstances. And what the men describe is pure chaos. They talk about running forward into combat, not sure why they are fighting or who they are up against. Men were falling all around them and all they could do was focus on what was right in front of them. The combination of sound effects and frenzied editing captures that feeling so clearly. 

Something that made trench warfare so different from the conflicts before and after is that the warring factions rarely saw each other. The interviewees in "They Shall Not Grow Old" discuss the few times they actually interacted with the German soldiers, when enemies were captured or after the end of the war. Most of them observe that the opposing side had no ill feelings against them. That they were mostly just doing the job assigned to them. The film gives a clear idea of what it is like, to be a normal person caught up in a conflict totally out of their control. This is also apparent in the segment about the end of the war - when the film returns to black-and-white - when the men describe the difficulties of getting used to normal civilian life again.

Jackson's decision to recolor and add sound to the archival footage was controversial among the admittedly insular World War I archivist community. Some most have thought that changing anything about the original footage was besmirching the historical document, as it existed. Yet Jackson's film brings the war to life like never before. "They Shall Not Grow Old" really gives you a sense of what it must've been like to be there. When footage of a shotgun bomb - an exploding shell that peppered the ground with bullets - is caught, you're really impressed by how carefully Jackson and his team had to search through the archives to find stuff like that. Only occasionally does the colorization process make the images feel a little uncanny. More often than not, it brings a hundred year old conflict back to life. 

The result is maybe one of the most powerful films about war that I've ever seen. By using only pre-existing documentation, Jackson has really given an impression of what it was like to actually be there. By having the men who lived through this describe their time in the trenches, the filmmakers have created about as honest a depiction of war as I think is possible. I don't think any fictionization could have ever caught the truth better. That the film does this for a conflict that is rarely discussed is especially honorable. "They Shall Not Grow Old" is an utterly engrossing, compelling, moving, and insightful documentary about one of the worst conflicts to ever scar the world. [Grade: A]

RECENT WATCHES: King Kong (2005)

Real Peter Jackson fans have known for years that the director was a huge fan of “King Kong.” He referenced it at the beginning of his immortal classic, “Dead/Alive,” as the Sumatran Rat Monkey central to that film's plot originates on Skull Island. Jackson had long desired to remake the 1932 original, discussing a new version of the film even before “The Frighteners.” It was only after the international global super-success of the “Lord of the Rings” films that Jackson had the freedom and financial reach to make his “Kong.” The result was a sweeping, epic “King Kong” that made a few fans but alienated many casual movie goers with its extra long run time and utmost fidelity to the original.

Unlike the 1976 “King Kong,” Jackson's version is a period piece. The story is set in the 1930s, during the time period when the original movie was made. Jackson clarifies this depression setting with an opening montage, showing the struggles of New Yorkers during the age of prohibition. Jackson's presentation is a rather meta take on the original. Karl Denham, Jack Driscol, and Ann Darrow exist in the same world as RKO Studios and Merian C. Cooper, as an early line indicates. The film Denham shoots on the boat directly recreates scenes from Cooper's original. Later, dancers dressed just like the Skull Island natives in the original appear. The implication is clear. This is the real story of King Kong. The 1932 original is a fiction within the fiction, an adaptation of events as depicted here.

Jackson and his team moves the story closer to life in other ways. Bruce Cabot's Jack Driscoll was a two-fisted hero, a classical adventurer. Adrien Brody's Jack Driscoll is a New York intellectual, a playwright who is clearly out of his element on Skull Island. He survives through a combination of luck and determination. Fay Wray's Ann was too often a screaming damsel. Naomi Watts plays Darrow as more complicated, a failed actress all but ready to give up on her dreams. As shown in a stunning dinner set confession, she doesn't believe in true love or happy endings. She's also a vaudeville dancer, with a very physical scene of humor. These are more complex, more defined characters than the pulp fiction sketches shown in the original.

The character that, perhaps, changes the most between 1933 and 2005 is Karl Denham. Merian C. Cooper clearly saw Denham as a kindred spirit, if not a direct author surrogate. He was an adventure ready maverick filmmaker. Yet modern perspective tend to see Denham as a con man, responsible for the death and destruction that follows. Jackson runs with this interpretation. Jack Black's Denham repeatedly promises to donate the proceeds from his finished film to the families of those who died on Skull Island. He goes back on nearly every promise, all in the need of maximizing profits. Black plays Denham as almost unaware of his treachery, a bullshiter who has bought his own act for too long.

The biggest complaint people had about 2005's “King Kong” is that it was way too long. And it is. After spending years in MiddleEarth, it seems Jackson lost the ability to make a movie under two hours long. His “Kong” has an epic run time of three hours and eight minutes. (An extended version exist on DVD that adds twelve additional minutes to this already bloated run time.) The film achieves this length mostly thanks to a lengthy first act. There's a lot stuff on that boat. We learn way more about the crew then we probably wanted to know. Jackson justifies every flight of fancy in the original, with an extended subplot about the shippers handling live animals. It's rather extraneous, leading to a top heavy first half.

Once we get to Skull Island, things pick up considerably. It's these sequences that Jackson's roots as a horror filmmaker become obvious. The Skull Island natives are more monster than human, zombie-like wildmen that emerge from rocks and murder with clubs. (The remake attempts to navigate around the unfortunate implications of the story by making the natives ambiguously brown. It still doesn't quite work.) The elder female looks like a witch, weathered skin with bone-like piercings. Jackson emphasizes the intensity of this scene with a bizarre use of slow motion and shaky zooms.

It's not the only scene in the film that makes audience's squirm. Jackson recreates the notorious lost spider pit. Enormous wetas with razor sharp spurs crawl over the heroes. Disgusting giant worms emerge from pits and swallow victims whole. Massive, spider -like creatures crawl down the cave walls. Really huge, really gross bugs get way too close to the human protagonists. An especially unnerving moment is an encounter with giant centipedes inside a log. If you have a phobia of creepy crawlers, these scenes will probably make you puke.

And then there's King Kong himself, the most brilliant creation in the film. The CGI effects are utterly convincing, Kong seeming as alive as the human cast members. Andy Serkis performed the motion capture for Kong, creating a nuanced physical performance. Kong has an incredibly expressive face and body language. His movement is realistic, as Serkis obviously studied how gorillas truly move. This Kong is covered with scars, hinting at the many opponents he's fought on Skull Island. As detailed as the effects are, it's Serkis' performance that makes Kong such a vivid, life long creation. It's a version of the great ape that honors Willis O'Brien's original masterpiece.

Unlike the 1976 version, Peter Jackson realizes that the dinosaurs are a vital part of Skull Island's appeal. The dinosaurs are major stars of this “Kong.” A brontosaurus stampede is an intense sequence, shoved into the narrow passageway of a canyon. Adding to the tension are velociraptor like creatures, stalking through the stampede, picking people off. The original's pterodactyls are replaced with huge, bat-like creatures. The stand-out dinosaur are the V-Rexes, evolved T-Rexes. Jackson builds on the original fight scene between Kong and the T-Rex. This time, Kong fights three theropods. They clamor down a cliff, caught in vines, the fight continuing. Kong juggles Ann in his hands and feet, putting her in the middle of the danger. Despite the changes he adds, Jackson is also a huge student of the original. The final fight between Kong and the V-Rex recreates the 1933 fight almost shot for shot.

“Kong” has always been a “Beauty and the Beast” tale. Depending on which version you're watching, the love story has been more implied than explicit. Jackson's “Kong” exposes the weeping, romantic heart at the center of this story's tale. Soon after meeting, Ann and Kong develop a mutual respect for each other. She lets the big monkey know that he can't push her around, rather literally. After he saves her life, Ann realizes how much the ape cares for her. In their quiet moments together, she's not frightened of him. It's not love, not for Ann anyway. Instead, she recognizes Kong as a unique creature, the last of his kind. She becomes a friend to someone that has no friends. Jackson's film emphasizes deeply with Kong. Darrow's affection for the gorilla reflects that.

Of course, “Kong” is a creature feature of sorts. The giant ape's eventual rampage through New York City doesn't miss a chance for visceral action. The ape tears through the theater, throwing seats into the air and smashing through the building's walls. We get a first person perspective from car drivers, as Kong causes crashes in the streets. He yanks a street car into the air, tearing it open like a tin can. Cars and military vehicles are tossed around with ease. Jackson employs a frenzied intensity in these scenes, creating exciting, unique action sequences.

2005's “King Kong” contains many thrills. Ultimately though, it is as much tragedy as monster movie. As Kong scales the Empire States Building, an acute sense of melancholy overcomes the viewers. This is where Kong is going to die. When the biplanes cut Kong down, the cruelty of their actions is focused on. His battle against the planes are a final stand against the world that rejects him, one doomed to failure. Before falling to his death, Kong and Ann share one final, pensive glance. Then he slips away, gracefully, blinking out of existence in the span of a minute. James Netwon Howard's mournful score blares out over the final minutes, announcing the death of a most unique creature.

Peter Jackson's “King Kong” is a deeply flawed film. It's so long, so detailed, that it borders on self-indulgent. It's utter commitment to recreating the original's magic almost makes it feel like the most elaborate and expensive fan film in existence. I don't think the final fate of Lumpy the Cook was of interest to anyone but the most obsessive Kong fanatic. Yet “King Kong” is a movie of incredible beauty and grace, a beautifully created and powerful experience. Jackson maybe overdid it but his amazing love for these characters, for this world, shines through. The result is a movie that is nevertheless a masterpiece, a worthy heir to the original “King Kong.” [9/10]

Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (2014)

14. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Once again, December has rolled around. With it arrives another movie based in the world of Middle-Earth. However, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is different then the roughly six thousand hobbit movies to proceed it in one very important way: It’s the last one. Despite being a touchstone for a fairly large nerd subculture, Peter Jackson’s “Hobbit” films have been met with increasing ambivalence by the people who are supposed to love them the most. Even the film’s trailers, packaged with a Twitter hashtag that says “One last one!,” seems more relieved that it’s over then excited to go on another adventure. It doesn’t matter if “The Battle of the Five Armies” is any good or not. We, and by “we” I mean nerds and dorks, are obligated to see it. Is there any chance that the concluding chapter of the over-extended “Hobbit” trilogy will be better then the first two parts?

Picking up where the cliffhanger ending of “The Desolation of Smaug” left us, “The Battle of the Five Armies” begins with the mighty dragon Smaug burning Lake-town to the ground. (Water?) That film’s other cliffhanger, Gandolf’s investigation of an awaking necromancer, earns a hasty resolution too. However, these storylines only make up a small portion of the film. Instead, the third “Hobbit” adventure focuses on the band of 13 dwarves and their hobbit pal Bilbo finally reclaiming their gold. Thorin, the leader of the group, is consumed by greed. This becomes a problem when the elves of Mirkwood and the men of Lake-town arrive, seeking a portion of the treasure. The opposing forces nearly come to blows before a fourth army, evil orcs with plans to wipe out all the goodness on Middle-earth, arrives, uniting the heroes. A late appearance by a flock of eagles provides the fifth army of the title.

The most compelling part of the previous “Hobbit” epic was the dragon Smaug. The dragon was a singular presence, a visual wonder, and the properly gripping villain the floundering films desperately needed. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one bothered by the last part ending just as it was getting really exciting, just as Smaug descended on the cities of man. Considering how overlong each “Hobbit” film is, you’d expect the movie to focus plenty on Smaug and the destruction he causes. Instead, the dragon is dead in the first fifteen minutes. He swoops overhead, burning the village down, creating chaos. Bard retrieves the black arrow and takes aim at the fire drake’s weak spot. Smaug receives an arrow in the crack in his armor and spectacularly falls to his death. Benedict Cumberbatch’s portentous vocals only get a single line or two. The effects are impressive, the sequence is exciting, and the dragon remains a threatening character. Yet “The Battle of Five Armies” cuts off its most exhilarating storyline.

Most of “The Battle of Five Armies” is focused on the aftermath of Smaug’s demise. The dwarves have regained their gold and reclaimed their kingdom under the mountain. However, there’s still two hours of movie left. Jackson devotes the lengthy middle portion of the third “Hobbit” to setting up the titular conflict. The men of Lake-town, shakily led by the newly instated Bard the Bowman, would like a little gold for rebuilding their town and think they’re owed it, since they slayed the dragon in the first place. An army of elves, lead by the arrogant Thranduil, arrive as well, seeking a collection of diamonds the dwarves took from them decades ago. There are long scenes of characters debating a truce and arguing their demands. The men of Lake-town approach gingerly, not wanting a war after a dragon just scorched their home. The elves are more demanding, seeking their jewels and refusing to take no for an answer. Considering the battle is what the movie is named after, the film devoting so much time to its set-up makes sense. Yet I wonder if these moments could have been better paced or less laborious.

The reason war nearly happens is that Thorin Oakenshield is not willing to loose a penny of his newly-earned mounds of gold. This is the most problematic aspect of the film. Thorin’s greed is unreasonable and the text recognizes this. He is overcome with “dragon sickness,” an overwhelming desire to horde his treasure. How this tendency is passed along from Smaug to the dwarf is only loosely explained, an inheritance of the location. It’s a contrived plot development, one designed to ramp up tension before the inevitable war. The dragon sickness turns Thorin into  a massive asshole too. He snipes at his fellow dwarves. He accuse Bilbo of stealing the Arkenstone, the movie’s big fat plot device. (Of course, he’s right about that.) This subplot wastes Richard Armatage’s acting ability, sticking him in “blustery” mode. It also allows the film to stumble into melodrama. The worst example of this is when Thorin, gone mad with greed, stumbles onto the castle’s floor of gold. He is haunted by a shadow of Smaug and whispering voices before the floor attempts to swallow him up. Gee, almost as if his greed is consuming him! Real subtle, Peter.

The only good thing about “The Battle of the Five Armies’” middling second act is that it refocuses the story on Bilbo. The hobbit, otherwise known as the main character of the trilogy, was a little overlooked in the last film among the barrels, elf love triangle, and wizards. Bilbo is given a juicy role in the concluding chapter. Thorin’s paranoia is justifiable, as Bilbo really did swipe the Arkenstone. However, he holds onto it not out of greed but because he fears possessing it will only make Thorin crazier. Instead, he uses the stone as a bartering chip, in hopes that it will help prevent war between the three armies. This ends up not working, as Thorin’s greed is irrepressible. The subplot is mostly another example of the movie spinning its wheels before the action starts. However, it does pay off in one notable scene. Bilbo shuffles an item in his hand, causing the dwarf king to jump down his throat, suspecting him of theft. Instead, Bilbo is holding an acorn he picked up two movies ago and the two discuss a happier memory. It is a rare emotional moment in a film full of bigger events and allows Armatage’s and Martin Freeman’s charms to shine through.

All of this makes it sound like I don’t enjoy the action elements of “The Hobbit” films. All of Peter Jackson’s Middle-earth movies are action flicks. “The Battle of the Five Armies” features plenty of diverting action and even a few balletic or clever moments. As the orcs march on the Lonely Mountain, the elven and dwarf army put their differences aside. The dwarves slam their shields down on the ground, creating a wall of protective iron. Just as the monsters are about to attack, the elfs leap over the shields, swords out and ready to attack. The orc army is accompanied by a number of burly trolls. One of my favorite gags has a troll, head equipped with a battering ram, slamming himself into the castle wall, making a large hole. Immediately afterwards, he passes out or drops over dead, which is a funny moment of physical comedy. Thranduil, a fairly useless character up to this point, gets a few stand-out moments. He rides around on a giant battle-elk, which is certainly a unique steed. At one point, after knocking a crap load of enemies off a bridge, he picks up six orcs with the elk’s antlers, decapitating each with one sword stroke. The movie also introduces Billy Connolly as a dwarf warrior who rides on a furry pig, which is a moment whose appeal needs no further explanation. While the action sequences in the last two “Hobbit” joints felt overly dependent on CGI gymnastics, this one brings a sense of fun and reality back to the battles.

Except when it doesn’t. One of the many subplot the film is juggling involves Bard the Bowman. After Smaug dies, the dragon’s corpse crushes Stephen Fry’s leader of Lake-town. Fry’s sniveling sidekick, Alfrid, is inexplicably pushed to the forefront several times. He sucks up to Bard, trying to get in the new leader’s good graces. While the battle is raging around him, Alfrid smuggles gold by dressing as a woman. One review refereed to the character as the most annoying comic relief character in a big budget genre film since Jar Jar Binks. It’s not quite that bad, especially since Alfrid is only in a few scenes, but the character’s appearance at all is baffling. Bard’s subplot is probably the least involving of all the film. He has a wife and son to defend, even though his kid seems capable enough with a sword. At one point, Bard rides a rickety cart down the mountainside, leaping into a malformed troll, sword drawn. That’s an example of some of the film’s shakier CGI. Some times the battle scene actually seems to waste its potential. A pair of giant death-worms burrow out of the ground before disappearing totally from the conflict. Beorn the Were-Bear makes a big entrance, leaping off the back of an eagle, transforming in mid-drop, and taking out some orcs. He too vanishes immediately after that. Out of all the stuff added to these movies, you’d think werebears and death worms would be the stuff worth keeping.

Aside from the giant friggin’ dragon, another plot point was left dangling last time. Last we saw Gandolf, he was trapped inside a cage, hanging off the cliffs of Dol Guldur. The wizard snakes his way out of that bucket of syrup fairly quickly. Arriving to help are three other familiar faces. “Battle of the Five Armies” brings back Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel, Hugo Weaving’s Elrond, and Christopher Lee’s Sarumon. It’s nice to see three of the most talented faces in the series one more time. Let’s face it, half the reason these movies got made was to revisit fan favorites. Weaving and Lee, or more accurately Lee’s stunt double, even get an action scene. The two fight off a group of ghostly knights summoned by Middle-earth’s big bad. All of that stuff is fine. Fun even. What baffles about this scene is its conclusion. Before the trio can make its escape, the mountainside explodes revealing, once again, Sauron’s Ominous Eyeball of Doom. This forces Galadriel to go Super Sayian. Her skin glows green, her voice deepens, and she magiks Sauron back to the netherworld. It’s a laughably silly moment and brings down an otherwise fun sequence.

The biggest plot tumor weighing down the previous “Hobbit” flick was the love triangle between Killi the dwarf, Tauriel the invented elf love interest, and returning hero Legolas. That story arc, thankfully, gets a blunt resolution this time. After Killi and Tauriel share a few romantic moments together, the love birds are separated until the final battle. There, the love triangle is clipped rather dramatically. The resolution isn’t even that important, the movie brushing the remnants of the plot line away before the conclusion. Though Evangeline Lily remains lovely, and Tauriel has a decent action beat or two, her entire storyline remains the most disposable in “The Hobbit” series.

Slightly more compelling is Legolas’ half of that subplot. Tauriel isn’t much more then his sidekick and the two go on an unnecessary journey to check out some giant bats or somethin'. The film builds up Legolas’ dad as a character and star-on-the-rise Lee Pace is given more to do. The seemingly cold elves come to an understanding, Legolas learning a little about his dead mom, father and son learning more about each other. Mostly, Legolas’ screen time is preoccupied with ass-kicking. He grabs hold of one of the aforementioned giant bats. He snipes orcs from a watch tower. Most notably, he has to face-off with Bolg, the archenemy this trilogy decided Legolas had to have. This is when the action scenes leap from amusing to overdone. Legolas and Bolg face off on a stone tower wedged between two cliffs. As they fight, the stone crumbles around them. After banishing the bad guy, the fight scene reaches its absurd pitch. Legolas, in slow motion, runs up the stones as they collapse, just barely escaping death. Sure, I like Orlando Bloom too and the warrior elf continues to be an ideal fit for his charisma. But, once again, the movie overdoes its attempt to make him appear superheroic.

In the “The Hobbit’s” mutation from a simple fairy tale to an epic action-adventure blockbuster, Thorin received an archenemy too. The rivalry between Thorin Oakenshield and Azog the Defiler comes to a head here. The two battle atop a frozen water fall, which certainly makes for a memorable visual. Though the fight starts out interesting enough, especially once you factor in the bad guy’s awesome sword arm, eventually it overheats too. Azog gets the bright idea to swing a large stone around on the ice. Predictably, this causes the ice to crack, which the hero turns against the villain. However, instead of finishing Azog off when he had the chance, Thorin allows the orc prince to make a dramatic escape from the ice. The two scuffle a little more before blades met flesh. Not to spoil too much but “The Battle of the Five Armies” is faithful to the book’s ending and handles the resolution decently.

Unlike “Return of the King,” “Battle of the Five Armies” doesn’t have six endings. It merely has four. The dwarves bury their fallen comrades and Bilbo heads back home. He has a conversation with Gandolf that drips with foreshadowing. While cute, it’s little more then an acknowledgement of this trilogy’s more popular predecessors. The film retrieves a smidge of its humanity and humor in its final minutes, as Bilbo gets an unexpected, and unwelcomed, surprise upon returning to the Shire. Peter Jackson doesn’t belabor the point and wraps up “The Hobbit” series decently enough. Though plagued with problems, you can’t complain about the ending.

And that’s the last we’ll see of Middle-earth, at least until the Tolkien estate mellows out. This is probably for the best, says I. Is anyone but the most passionate of Middle-earth devotees anticipating Peter Jackson’s ten-part, thirty hour adaptation of “The Silmarillion?” Maybe the director can return to quieter territory next and produce something hopefully better then “The Lovely Bones.” As for “The Hobbit” prequel trilogy, it is plagued with problems. The cast is excellent, including the fantastica Martin Freeman and many of the returning faces. Middle-earth remains an impressive visual creation. Smaug was easily the high-light of the whole ordeal. The third part might even be the best of the trilogy, as it has the least filler and the most diverting action. Out of the three overlong films, there’s easily enough material for one pretty good three-hour epic. (And some enterprising fans saw fit to create just that.) Taken at their theatrical lengths, there’s so much about the films that are frustrating or tiresome. Now that it’s over, I’m mostly just glad it’s over. [Grade: B-]

Recent Watches: Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

In certain nerd circles, “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” was the most anticipated film ever made. It, perhaps, even out-hypes other nerd-culture touchstones like the old new “Star Wars” movie and maybe even the new new “Star Wars” movie. By that point in the “Rings” phenomenon, I was completely burned out on hobbits, elves, and orcs. I even skipped the movie in the theater, not seeing it until it cropped up on DVD. Even then, I think I fell asleep before it was over. Rewatching “Return of the King” for the purpose of this review, I realized this might be the first time I’ve ever actually seen the movie in its entirety, from start to finish.

Like “The Two Towers” before it, the film follows a large group of characters spread out over an epic story of good versus evil. Frodo and Sam, with Gollum in tow, continue towards Mount Doom, unaware that the creature is plotting to betray them. Gandalf and the other hobbits head into Gondor, the kingdom Aragon is the rightful heir to. Sauron’s forces march on the walled city, its current king reluctant to call for help from the neighboring kingdom of Rohan. Uncertain if their forces can stand alone, Aragon and the Fellowship head for help. With Frodo and Sam coming ever closer to Mount Doom, and destroying the Ring, the heroes have to sally forth to another battle.

As in the previous films, “The Return of the King” is most bogged down by its main subplot. Frodo and Sam’s ever-continuing march is the film’s biggest weakness. At story’s onset, Frodo is feeling the weight of the Ring more then ever. Gollum is obviously planning bad things. The film is open with this. The first scene in the movie is a flashback, showing the human Smeagol succumbing to the One Ring’s power, which transitions to him discussing his plans to betray the hobbits. Sam tries to warn Frodo about their traveling partner’s obvious treachery. Naturally, or else the movie would be over a lot sooner, Frodo fails to see what bad news Gollum is. The two hobbits even break up at one point, thanks to an especially silly plan the crawling critter employed. They go their separate ways before, surprise!, Frodo realizes his best bro was right all along. This plot point probably could have been avoided fairly easily but the movie has the excuse of Frodo being influenced by the Ring. The two hobbits’ unbreakable love for each other is highlighted twice. First, when Sam shows up to rescue Frodo just when it’s urgent. Secondly, when the two are at the foot of Mount Doom, when Frodo can no longer go on, Sam hefts him into his arms, carrying him further. For the record, I support LGBTQ rights for men, women, and hobbits. Not sure why I felt the need to disclose that…

Out of all the “Lord of the Rings” movies, “Return of the King” is the one most likely to remind viewers that Peter Jackson once directed horror movies. Gollum is leading Frodo into a trap, of course. At the base of the orc’s encampment, Shelob the giant spider waits. The sequence has Frodo stumbling around a dark cave, cobwebs lying everywhere. Shelob is certainly an intimidating presence, a tarantula on steroids but covered with ooey scars and bumps. Frodo seems to get out of trouble when he remembers a plot device Cate Blanchett gave him two movies ago. He still gets stung, setting up the umpteenth Frodo death tease, which he narrowly escapes through the actions of other characters. Later on, Aragon and friends are sent to recruit some reinforcements for the battle at Gondor. A plot point that mostly pops up out of nowhere has Aragon being the heir to the throne of Gondor, which gives him power of authority over a fleet of ghost knights. Okay, sure. Hey, here’s some wicked cool ghosts decked out in swords and armor and shit! Does that make sense? I'm not sure but the movie moves past it so fast that you hardly notice. And it’s a cool visual.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a “Lord of the Rings” movie without at least one mostly extraneous subplot. Upon arriving in Gondor, Gandalf and Pippin go to the current reigning king, a place holder for Aragon and the father of Boromir and Faramir. He’s not interested in giving up his current seat as king. He’s not even that interested in defending his kingdom from the incoming army of darkness. He’s pretty pissed that his son died and Faramir is pretty hung up on his dead brother being dad’s favorite. When the battle comes to the kingdom, Faramir seemingly perishes in battle. Pippin spies that he’s still alive but the king doesn’t want to hear that. Instead, he’s ready to immolate himself and his remaining son. And he would have gotten away with it too, if Gandalf hadn’t rode in on a white horse like a total bad ass and kicked the guy into the funeral pyre. What affect do these events have on the overall plot? Well, it leaves the throne clear for Aragon when the king is finally ready to return. Could this plot have been resolved in a much smoother fashion? Certainly and, considering the movie is three hours and twenty minutes long, it probably should have been cut altogether. (Though it does lead to that pretty nice sequence of Pippin singing before the war breaks out.)

And speaking of the war! “Return of the King” is the most combat heavy of all the “Rings” films. The film features two huge battle sequences that comprise most of the epic movie’s epic run time. The first begins with orcs and trolls bombarding the white walls of Gondor with big ass rocks. They only hold for so long until the monsters make it into the city, which leads to some fun sequences of trolls tossing people around. There are lots of monsters in the movie actually. Dragons swoop down over the city, tossing foes into the air, which is a sweet gag. The best monsters in the movie are the giant, four-tusked elephants with names very similar to but ultimately different from “elephants.” They make an impression, entering by swiping enemies out of the way with their giant trunks. The way the heroes deal with the oliphaunts makes for impressive spectacle too. Karl Urban tosses a spear into one’s head, taking down two at a time. Later, Legolas leaps onto one’s back, tearing the saddle off, sending the occupants to their deaths.

The most plot relevant monster is that the dragon-riding Witchking. After they weren’t featured much in the last movie, it’s nice to see one of the Ringwraiths get a prominent role. This leads to one of the most satisfying ass-kickings in the movie. Since the Aragon/Arwin love story takes focus again in this one, Miranda Otto’s Eowyn is given a second purpose in the plot. She sneaks to the front line, disguised as a man, to keep an eye on her dad. She winds up in front of the Witchking who, it just so happens, can’t be killed by any “man.” Cue Eowyn ripping off her helmet, letting down her hair, and stabbing the shit out of the bad guy. The action actually peaks there, to a degree. The heroes taking the fight to Sauron at the end, battling at the gates of Mordor, is cool but lacks any super-memorable moments, save from Gimli’s witty one-liners.

As a conclusion to the epic series, “Return of the King” is fairly satisfying. We get to see the inside of Mount Doom. Frodo and Sam stand at the lava’s edge before Gollum makes a dramatic re-entrance into the story. As is expected, Frodo is tempted by the ring one, Elijah Wood getting to try out the psycho eyes he has used plenty of times in his post-‘Rings” career. Gollum gets a suitable send-off, being reunited with his precious before taking a magnificent dive into Mount Doom. Sauron’s Omniscient Eyeball of Doom collapses, taking all of Mordor with him. Frodo and Sam accepted their mortality before a last-minute save from the eagles, who probably should have shown up by now.

You’d think, gee, that’s a good ending. But “Return of the King” continues, Frodo being reunited with all his friends and family while recovering from his injuries. Need some more closure? Here’s a scene of Aragon, reinstated as the king of Gondor, declaring the war over, marrying Arwin, and honoring the hobbits. That’s got to be the end, right? Nope. We flash forward to the Shire, Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry returning to their home, happy to be back. Is it over? Nope! Frodo writes down his life story in a book and Sam gets married, starting a family. One more scene? Damn it, movie, I've got money in the meter. Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo, and the elves get on a boat, leaving Middle-earth. It’s a highly symbolic ending, representing the age of magic ending and the age of Man beginning. Our heroes share teary goodbyes and literally float off into the sunset. Yet “Return of the King” still doesn’t end, giving us one more moment of Sam reuniting with his family and returning to his simple hobbit home. Peter Jackson obviously loved the world of Middle-earth so much, he clearly didn’t want to leave it.

“Return of the King” is long so sitting through the whole thing is a bit of a chore. It’s long enough that I’m not interesting in ever watching the super-mega-extended cut. Its epic-ness was rewarded by the Academy giving it every Oscar it was nominated for, being the only fantasy film to ever take home Best Picture. Sure, it’s good, probably as good as any of the Middle-earth movies ever will be. Rewatching the trilogy has been a rewarding experience. At the end of the journey, as I'm sure these snarky reviews have revealed, I’m still only the most casual of “Rings” fans. Yet it's fair to say I appreciate this trilogy a little more. [7/10]

Recent Watches: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

These days, multiple part films made back-to-back but released over several years are commonplace. It’s become a good tactic for studios to wring yet more money out of the loyal fandom’s pockets and guarantees them hits year after year. Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings’ trilogy revolutionized this approach. At the time, it was a huge gamble, as there was no certainly that “Fellowship of the Ring” would become the huge hit it did. Imagine if it had bombed, and New Line had been stuck with the hugely expensive other two films to unload somewhere. Naturally, it didn’t. “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” rolled out the next year, highly anticipated, and went on to gross even more the first film in the trilogy.

“Fellowship of the Ring” had a fairly simple plot. It wasn’t much more then a chase story, setting up the struggle against the Ring, the heroes pursued by the bad guys for most of the film. “The Two Towers,” meanwhile, has a far more complex construction. Three or four parallel plots play out simultaneously. Frodo and Sam continue their march towards Mount Doom, meeting up with Gollum along the way. The remnants of the Fellowship head towards Rohan, a kingdom under the sway of Sarumon’s powers. The resurrected Gandalf, having evolved into a more powerful Pokemon, breaks the control the evil wizard has over the king. This pisses off Sarumon majorly and he sends an army towards Helm’s Deep. Meanwhile, Merry and Pippin hang out in the forest, talking to a tree.

There’s a lot of story inside of “The Two Tower” and the film does a fairly good job of  unpacking it all. Though it’s possible for a half-asleep viewer to mix up Helm’s Deep, Isengard, and Osgiliath, since the whole film takes place under a grey sky, there’s war and mayhem in each location, and the walls are stone and plain at each place. However, the movie hands out interesting plot and crazy action scenes with a decent balance, usually leaving the audience wanting more. When it cuts away from a big set piece, it usually cuts back within a few minutes. And I’m not saying “The Two Towers” is riveting one hundred percent of the time. However, it has less slow spots then “Fellowship of the Rings” and is generally a more exciting and better constructed film. There’s no sequence as droll as the meeting at Riverdell here, that’s for sure.

Of all the plotlines “The Two Towers” is juggling, easily the least interesting is that involving Frodo and Sam’s trek towards Mordor. They’re the most removed from the action, walking towards their destination… Slowly. Frodo, naturally, carries the weight of the world on his shoulders at all time. One of the things that have always thrown me about the power of the One Ring was how it’s supposed to be this great weapon that will allow Sauron to control the world. Yet the only affect it seems to have on people is turning them into junkies and assholes, coveting the ring, absorbed by the sway it has over them. Thus we slowly watch Frodo’s already simpering personality dissolve over the course of the film. He becomes moody, caressing the ring at night and, at the film’s denouncement, pulls a knife on Sam. This causes Frodo and Sam to go over the same conflict they did last time, where Frodo wants to move on alone but Sam insist on staying by his side. Because not even attempted murder can come between their bromance. Faramir’s appearance adds little and that character exists solely to get the more important characters from point A to point B. Anyway, it’s tedious.

Luckily, keeping the weakest subplot afloat is the introduction of the series’ most captivating character. Gollum’s motivations are, by far, the most complex. He desperately desires the ring, as his addiction to its comforting embrace has shaped his entire life. He is vicious and a villain, in that context, willing to do anything to get a fix. Yet he’s undeniably pathetic and, in an odd way, possesses a child-like innocence. The way he sings songs about catching fish or playfully banters with Samwise about the proper ways to eat rabbit is both funny and endearing. The audience’s sympathy for Gollum is ratcheted up because the character is clearly sick. He has a split personality, the calmer Smeagol and the controlling, violent Gollum. This is brilliantly displayed during the scene that most reminds you Peter Jackson also directed “Heavenly Creatures.” The camera cuts back and forth between the two personalities, Smeagol arguing with Gollum. Of course, he’s arguing with himself, the camera cutting between the same shots. Frodo feels sympathy for the critter too, which is why he keeps him around. As a special effect, Gollum is extraordinary, seeming far more real then the Balrog or trolls. Only in a few shots is his CGI status truly evident. They say “actors are the best special effect” and none of this would have been possible without Andy Serkis’ amazing performance.

The second major storyline is more dynamic plot wise if less captivating character wise. Aragon, Legolas, Gimili, and Gandalf in his shiny new robes march into Rohan. When we’re first introduced to the kingdom, there’s some bullshit about the king being manipulated by his obviously evil assistant, with the obviously evil name Grima Wormtongue (because he’s grim and he whispers sinister things), played by the frequently evil actor Brad Dourif. Luckily, Gandalf dismisses that shit immediately. Grima, though competently played by Dourif, is mostly a plot device. He shows Sarumon’s forces how to get to Helm’s Deep. After that, there’s some business about heirs to the throne. Aragon gets a new interest love, which necessitates the film awkwardly disposing of Arwin, not that anybody cares. Mostly, this time is used to develop some personality among the heroes and allow them to develop a comradely with the people of Rohan. Considering they spent the last third of the movie fighting to defend the place, that’s a wise decision.

The movie does have some fun with that action. An entire army of faceless orcs is provided for the heroes to cleave their way through. Which they do with extreme prejudice, creating a ridiculously high body count. My favorite gags both involve Legolas. An often referenced moment has him surfing down stairs atop an orc’s shield and then tossing the shield into an enemy soldier’s chest. Another cool moment has the elf shooting down a ladder, crushing a fleet of orcs under it. The ladders being lifted against the walls  is an interesting enough visual to help mix up the action. There’s a bit too many witty one-liners and light-hearted banter, especially from Gimli who has officially graduated to plucky comic relief by this point. It comes dangerously close to undermining the seriousness of the action. However, as an action film, “The Two Towers” is an improvement over “Fellowship.”

The third branch of “The Two Tower’s” plot has Merry and Pippin lost in the woods. After nearly being eaten by orcs, they’re rescued by a giant tree monster. Treebeard, voiced by John Rhys-David doing double duty, is a great visual. We’ve never had many tree monsters on film before and this one certainly blows the Tabanga out of the water. Treebeard and his Ent brothers brings one of the film’s themes to the forefront. In the first movie, we had extended scenes of the orcs cutting down trees to power their hellish forges. The non-too-subtle ecological subtext is made apparent here. The bad guys are industry, chewing up the world and spitting out weapons and destruction. In the world of Middle-earth, nature can literally strike back. Merry and Pippin show the pacifistic Ents the destruction Sarumon’s forces have reaped. This enrages the trees into action, flooding Isengard and freaking the bad guys out. It’s not nuanced or anything but a fleet of tree monsters attacking smaller monsters and a cool, black tower is a visual I’m glad we have.

Gollum is awesome. The combat sequences are impressive. A number of striking visuals are delivered. The plot is just elaborate enough to force you to pay attention. The film ends with the heroes having won a major battle. But the war is far from over. Gollum comes to a conclusion about what to do with his traveling partners, leading Sam and Frodo into uncertain territory. This is far more satisfying then the shrug of an ending we got last time. Could it be that I’m transitioning into a “Lord of the Rings” fan? No. It’s just that “The Two Towers” is easily the best of the trilogy. [7/10]

Recent Watches: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings (2001)

Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films have come to define what a modern fantasy movie looks like. Along with the “Harry Potter” series and the Marvel superhero movies, they widely dictated and predicted what today’s blockbuster looks would be like. At the time the first film in the series, “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings,” launched, I was mostly indifferent to the whole phenomenon. Elves and wizards had never much been my schtick and, beyond reading “The Hobbit” as a kid, I had never cracked the “Rings” books. Mostly, I was annoyed by loosing Peter Jackson, the cult filmmaker behind such oddball classics as “Dead/Alive” and “Brain Dead,” to the Hollywood blockbuster machine, making movies that were far away from his whacked-out New Zealand films. The reviews of the “Rings” films I wrote for a Jackson Director Report Card a million years ago were overly dismissive and curt. The right thing for me to do would be to give the trilogy a second chance, especially with what is likely to be the last Middle-earth movie just on the horizon now. (For the record, I’m watching the extended cut of this film because that’s the one I own. For the other two, I’ll be watching the theatrical cuts because, um, those are the ones I own.)

The “Lord of the Rings” trilogy is perhaps most impressive as a technical achievement. The reason the movie has so influenced modern cinema is because it’s such a spectacular piece of work. Middle-earth appears as real as anywhere on regular Earth. A massive amount of work went into creating this cinematic world. Look no further then the hours upon hours of special features included on the DVDs. Every bit of armor worn in the film, from the main characters to the most minor orc, was individualized. The hobbit holes and the halls of Riverdell were decorated and detailed to appear lived-in. The Shire looks like a cozy, pleasant place to live. The production design is obviously out of this world. My favorite bit of design work is the orcs’ armor and weapons, all of which jut out at rough, flat angles. Moreover, the film’s scope is epic. Spectacular images are created here. Giant statues, which I’m sure have some obscure name I’m not bothering to look up, mark the passing through a river way. Saruman’s tower is an immediately iconic image, a huge, black shape moving up into the sky. The camera swoops down through the hellish orc forges. Giant staircases crumble in the mines below. It’s no wonder that these films would go on to become the “Star Wars” for a new generation. It presented big, new images to audiences.

No one can really object to the film’s visual presentation. The epic run times aren’t even too much of a problem. Even in the extended cuts, Jackson has a decent grip on pacing. However, I’ve always felt the film, or everything about Tolkien’s Middle-earth for that matter, tend to get bogged down in their mythology. There are at least three sequences in the film where the story comes to a halt. After the first third, after Frodo and the hobbits meet up with Aragon, and everyone gathers at Riverdell, the story reaches a tiresome page. The rest of the new characters have to be introduced and the gravity of their mission must be established. Introducing the rest of the Fellowship is necessary but far too much time is spent on everyone standing in a circle, yelling about what must be down. After another huge action beat, the clash in the mines, everyone meets up with a bunch of different elves in the forest. Again, the film devolves into people dramatically discussing the situation. Before the action-packed finale, the Fellowship ride into the forest. Once again, the film’s focus turns towards the universe-depends-on-it matter of What Must Be Done, with characters being tempted by the mostly-metaphorical powers of the ring, the partnership dissolving, and bonds being reaffirmed. For those invested in the mythology of Middle-earth and wrapped up in the story’s epic struggle of good versus evil, this is probably riveting stuff. For the rest of us, it borders on tedious.

So many of the cast members of Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” movies have become ubiquitous in pop culture. It’s odd to watch the film now and realize the cast is mostly made up of relative newcomers and wizened character actors. It’s weird to think that Hugo Weaving, coming off his name-making turn as Agent Smith, was probably the biggest name in the cast. Ian McKellen, after introducing himself to a new generation of fans in the “X-Men” films, was born to play Gandalf. He grasps the character’s soft humor, comforting presence, slight eccentricity, but ability to deliver noble passages and serious threats. In order to match wits with McKellen’s Gandalf, a similarly legendary actor needed to be cast as Sarumon the White. Filling that part perfectly is Christopher Lee, self-professed Tolkien scholar, paying off on a lifetime of villainous roles. His reverberating baritone is fantastically suited to Sarumon. John Rhys-Davis, similarly, had been waiting his entire, long career for a part like Gimli, that tapped into his inner Viking warrior king. Rhys-Davis finds the humor beneath the blustery dwarf’s exterior and also the pathos, when he is awed by Galadriel’s beauty. Speaking of which, Cate Blanchete as an elf princess is such obvious casting that it’s surprising nobody did it before. Likewise, there was always something gnome-like about Ian Holm, who embodies Bilbo. Viggo Mortenson, as a B-list character actor, was a name on nobody’s lips in 2000. In the somewhat bland heroics of Aragon, he found the launching pad for his career as one of Hollywood’s most interesting leading men.

Which brings me to a problem I have with most of the movie. Despite all the epic hand wringing about the fate of the universe and treachery of man, very little time is spent on developing the characters. Like many epic stories, “Lord of the Rings” primarily works in archetypes. This works for and against the film. Orlando Bloom, before finally proving that he wasn’t going away, was long characterized as a talentless pretty boy. Yet Bloom undeniably has an Errol Flynn-like charisma well-suited to the swashbuckling Legolas. Aragon, however, is a self-serious hero and this is best described in his romance with Arwin. Liv Taylor is wooden and the bland romance adds nothing to the movie. Sean Bean, forever trapped in a world of Ned Starks and Zeuses ever since, isn't given much to do as Boromir. The series’ tendency to prioritize universe over character is most obvious in its decision to make simpering weakling Frodo the main character. Frodo is easily the least interesting of the hobbits, compared to the comic relief of Merry and Pippin or the brotastic love affair he shares with Sean Astin’s perfectly cast Samwise. Yet the film needlessly milks Frodo’s reluctance to become a hero and the weight he feels under his burden as the bearer of the ring/wearer of the ring. Three times, three!, the movie teases Frodo’s death which becomes really fucking tiring really fucking fast.

But whatever, this is an action movie, right? What about that action? The film actually takes a while to get to the sword play, which is intentional. The peace and ideal quality of the Shire has to be established before the Ringwraiths start chasing after everyone. Those wraiths make an impression and, while the heroes’ chase from them nudges into melodramatic, it puts a strong mark on that first third. The battle in the mines, the first major action beat of the film, is certainly dynamic and makes good use of the interesting setting. The battle builds to the confrontation with the Balrog, a character more intimidating then a giant eyeball could ever be, and ends with that awesome “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!” line. The climatic fight, the heroes being cornered in the forests by the orcs, with some decent Viggo-related sword play.

However, not all the action in the film is so consistent. Both major sequences have the problem of going on too long. That giant CGI troll looked impressive back in 2001 but, where most of the film’s effects have aged pretty well, that one hasn’t. Secondly, the climax quickly devolves into arrows fired and swords slashed. Damn, Boromir’s death is as melodramatic as Frodo’s ten thousand almost deaths. And then the movie just kind of ends, everyone walking off towards an uncertain future, the audience left with a sense of resolution that can best be described as “See you next December.”

So final thoughts on “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings?” It’s a pretty good movie. It’s certainly flawless as an exercise in world building and nearly flawless as an exercise in spectacle. I maintain that it has a frustrating stop-and-go screenplay that it inherited from the book. Considering how nuts the fanboys got over fuckin’ Tom Bombadil or whatever I can’t imagine the rage that would have erupted if they changed anything else. A pretty fantastic cast makes up for some obvious flaws in character development. Except for Frodo. Frodo sucks. Anyway, onward to part two. [7/10]

Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (2013)

13. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I can’t recall the last time a major nerd event like “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” was met with such resigned duty. No one was excited about “The Hobbit,” a simple story, getting bloated to three long films, stretched out over three years, with a total run time in the nine-hour range. Despite these reservations, we’re all going to see “The Desolation of Smaug.” I liked “An Unexpected Journey,” in spite of the excessive padding. Even then, I approached part two of this unnecessary trilogy with a weary sigh. It’s December. Must be Middle Earth time.

I knew there’d be a bunch of extra double-long bullshit stuffed inside its two hours and forty minutes but I was looking forward to “Hobbit II: Bilbo Harder” for one reason. The motherfucking dragon. Give me a bad ass giant dragon, Peter Jackson. As its subtitle promises, “The Desolation of Smaug” does indeed get to the dragon. Eventually. First, the hobbit and his dwarf friends have to navigate a labyrinthine forest, battle some big ass spiders, encounter stuck-up elves, duel orcs while rolling on the river in barrels, encounter more political hand wringing in a floating human city, and angst out about a key that may or may not work.

All still that isn’t enough to occupy an epic run time. The second “Hobbit” film double-downs on extraneous subplots. Gandalf spends almost the entire film separated from his friends, instead investigating the soon-to-be resurrected Sauron. The orcs that was so important last time spends this film hanging in the margins, building their army. Sort-of beloved fellowship member Legolas shows back up for some action theatrics. His would-be elf girlfriend gets stolen away by the most handsome dwarf. That plot line continues into the third act, two of the dwarfs stranded in Lake-town, one of them dying from a poisoned arrow. Not to mention political conspiracies involving the townsfolk. All of this distracts from the truly exciting stuff involving Smaug. Whatever movie, with your necromancers and boring romantic shenanigans. Just get back to the awesome dragon.

Man, that dragon is awesome. Smaug is, with little question, the best realized dragon to ever grace the silver screen. The film conveys the scale and sheer size of the creature exquisitely. Smaug takes over the entire theater screen. Hobbits, men, and dwarves are tiny next to his claws and eyes. His wings summon up gale force winds. The dragon’s fire is illustrated as a truly destructive force, spraying out as hot, molten lava. A fantasy troupe I’ve always liked is the talking, intelligent dragon. Up until now, that concept wasn’t represented in live-action film. Smaug is actually quite verbose. He mocks and toys with Bilbo, enjoying watching the little creature squirm. The dragon is arrogant, greedy, and proud, qualities befitting any human. Though Benedict Cumberbatch’s voice is digitally altered beyond the point of recognition, Smaug is still a fully formed character. Amazing to look at and interesting to watch, the dragon is, in many ways, a more layered person then any of his human co-stars.

While “The Hobbit: The Book” was a kid-friendly adventure fantasy, “The Hobbit: The Trilogy” has to fit uncomfortably within the epic action film parameters of his mother franchise. It starts out fine enough. The encounter with the giant spiders is well orchestrated. Though not as impressive as the dragon, the huge arachnoids are similarly detailed with a little personality of their own. I love their chattering, nervous language. Bilbo and the dwarfs swinging around webs, stabbing giant spiders left and right is exciting enough to hook you in.

After that, sadly, the film’s action falls into a predictable formula. Legolas and Tauriel slide into scene like video game sprites, jumping around in stylized fashion. During the river chase scene, the elf jumps around on dwarf heads, slashing and shooting enemies. Decapitated heads, axes, and hairy bodies are tossed into the air. Sure, it’s cool to look at. Yet it feels exaggerated compared to the previous trilogy’s more grounded combat. At times, it’s as if the filmmakers are repeating “Look! Legolas is still a badass! LOOK AT HOW BADASS HE IS!” The elves are even shoehorned into the last act. Thorin got an arch-enemy last time with Azog. Legolas gets one too, an orc bruiser he sword fights in Lake-Town. Why is this shit in the movie?

How about those cancerous subplots? Gandalf does time in his own storyline, wearily investigates tombs and castles, occasionally throwing balls of light at monsters. This subplot climaxes with a belabored showdown with the nearly reborn Sauron, a ludicrous battle of light and shadow. Occasionally, Ian McKellen’s natural charm slips through but he seems mostly depressed and bored.

The elves are even worse. Evangeline Lily is fine, charming even, as a character invented solely for the movie, looking all the world like a gender bent Link. The love triangle between her, Legolas, and Kili is especially forced in, an appeal to romance-crazed fan girls. The political upheaval noticed in Lake-town is blatantly inserted to extend the conflict, keeping Luke Evan’s blandly handsome Bard occupied while more important shit happens to more important characters. This becomes a major issue in the scrambled last act, the other story lines constantly interrupting the more interesting dragon related business.

Smaug is so brilliantly created and such a justified threat that you’re willing to overlook some minor quibbles. The dragon looks great, even if that CGI melted gold looks weirdly fake. The way the dwarves distract the beast is silly, occasionally slipping into the film’s bad habit of overdone action. Still, it works, the intensity building, Smaug getting more and more pissed off. He flies towards the water-set city, determined to burn it to the ground, the audience’s excitement at peak level. And then… It ends! Just when the film is getting really exciting, it ends! To be continued, see you next December. Peter Jackson, you tricky motherfucker.

Aside from its non-ending and bloated screenplay, the biggest sin “The Hobbit Strikes Back” commits is relegating its title character to a supporting role. Martin Freeman’s exasperated reactions were frequently the best part of “An Unexpected Journey.” Bilbo is shifted aside in favor of other characters, Freeman mostly replaced by his CGI double. Yet, even with the sharper focus, the dwarves are still sketchy outlines at best.

Peter Jackson’s direction can be overdone, focusing too much on 3D eye-gouging, the camera swirling around in CGI assisted ways. Even the score isn’t as good as last time, only hinting at the richer, deeper themes used in part one. But… That dragon. Man, he’s awesome. I’m trashing “Desolation of Smaug” more then it deserves. The whole time you’ll wish this was the last half of a duo and not the middle chapter of a trilogy. Yet when it works, it works exceptionally well. Maybe some day, we’ll get a proper, abbreviated cut of the whole series, no filler, just the good parts. [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: Peter Jackson (2012)

12. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I’ve made it known in the past that I’m not the biggest fan of the “Lord of the Rings” movies. I’m not audacious enough to say they’re bad films. Wizards and elves just aren’t so much my thing. I don’t besmirch the people who love these things. Having said that, I’ve always preferred “The Hobbit” to Tolken’s more epic trilogy, reading the book as the kid and frequently watching the Rankin/Bass animated adaptation. I like Bilbo as a character, which is more then I can say for Frodo or Aragon or any of those guys. Plus it’s got ugly goblins and a badass dragon, appealing to this monster fan. After the massive success of Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films, an adaptation of “The Hobbit” was inevitable. For a while, Guillermo del Toro was going to direct it, threatening to turn this project into something really interesting. However, following a number of set-backs better chronicled elsewhere on the internet, del Toro left and Jackson stepped in, to the pattering of many a fanboy’s heart. In the end, I think that was for the best. Not only does it add a consistent visual style and approach to the entire cinematic Tolken universe, it prevented del Toro from getting roped into a single 300-paged novel getting bloated to three, excessively long films.

Which isn’t to say that “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” the first part of the unexpected trilogy, isn’t a good film. I might even enjoy it more then any of the previous “Ring” pictures. But it is undeniably bloated. Jackson seems committed to adapting every miscellaneous bit of Tolken-ilia to the screen. Commerce no doubt is the primary motivator there but the director is obviously just that invested in the material. The relatively simple story of Bilbo’s recruitment and the dwarves eventual encounter with the goblins is padded out extensively. There are two very long prologues. The first of which illustrates all the business about the Arkstone and Smaug, which probably would have been necessary anyway. The second is a lengthy scene of Old Bilbo and Frodo talking and hanging out, taking place before the story proper. An entire subplot is invented about a band of vengeful orcs following the heroes, determined to settle a score with Prince Thorin, obviously added to provide a proper villain to this extended first act. These elements don’t distract too much from the story, unlike an unresolved subplot about Gandolf investigating a necromancer and the growing dark powers in Middleearth. When the quest to slay the dragon is interrupted by a long scene of a goofy wizard trying to save a hedgehog, the pacing starts to suffer. At the very least, it gives them an excuse to put Christopher Lee in the movie, which is always appreciated. And I haven’t even mentioned the rock giants yet!

(I’m not even going to address the controversy surrounding the 45 frames-per-minute decisions, as I didn’t see the movie in that speed. Sorry.)

Easily the most likable thing about the film is Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Freeman’s established persona of an Englishman exasperated and baffled by the crazy circumstances around him has been used before in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” movie and “Sherlock” TV show. This ends up being perfect for the character. Bilbo’s initial reaction to Gandolf and dwarves barging into his home and setting up the pieces for this epic quest is frustration. That little wishing part of his brain can’t turn down the adventure, however. Freeman’s comical aggravation starts out very funny but ends up informing the best character arc in the “Rings” universe. Bilbo really doesn’t belong on this trip, does he? He doubts himself at every turn. The film naturally proves why he is so intrinsic to the quest by the end but spends far more time then expected focusing on the hobbit’s doubts and second-guessing. Bilbo’s own self-realization is much more satisfying then the well-done if obvious conclusion of the dwarves recognizing his strength and importance. Beyond being hilarious, Freeman delivers two stirring monologues, one wracked with self-doubt, the other quietly, gingerly illustrating his decision to stay. It’s the most captivating stuff in the movie. Freeman’s performance is the backbone this entire overlong saga is built on and probably what will get me into the theaters again in 2013 and 2014.

It’s a good thing Freeman’s performance is so central to the film, since the rest of the cast is somewhat unimportant. There’s not much development for them is what I'm saying. I don’t think even Tolken kept track of all the dwarves. (Who am I kidding? That dude had his own Lonely Mountain of notebooks filled with obscure family history and shit.) There’s a fat one, an old one, the brothers, a grumpy one, a young one, on and on. None of them are developed beyond trademark characteristics. Instead of just loading the movie with unrelated bits of Tolken writing, maybe the right way to expand on this story would have been to develop the rest of the cast? Of course, the make-up is all great and I’m sure a massive amount of work was put into costume and design. There are occasional moments of character shining through for a few of them. No, I don’t remember the names or which one did what. Perhaps the next two films will work on that. I hope.

Beyond Bilbo, the characters with actual personalities are Gandolf and Thorin. Ian McKellen brings the gravitas to the character that he naturally carries. “The Hobbit” allows Gandolf’s quiet humor and whimsy to take center-stage more then the grave-intoning that made up “Fellowship of the Rings.” There’s some of that too. The newly hung-on subplots allowed Gandolf to furrow his brow about the growing evil in MiddleEarth. However, the general good humor is a nice touch. It also helps deflect the fact that McKellen obviously looks a lot older now. That’s what you get for making the prequel ten years after the originals. McKellen’s best moments are his interaction with Cate Blanchette, which drips with romantic chemistry and sexual tension. Another thing I like is that McKellen, or more accurately his stunt double and CGI replica, kicks so much ass. Gandolf kills a lot of goblins and actually piles up a surprising bodycount. It’s good to know that the old wizard still has some swashbuckling in him.

Richard Armitage is the film’s second lead, Thorin the Dwarf King. It reminded me a lot of the inflated self-seriousness that defined so many of the characters in “Rings.” Oh, it’s not a bad performance. Armitage imbues the part with a lot of intensity and passion. He’s obviously a very proud character and his family history means a lot to him. Once again, the entire subplot about his battle with the orcs was so obviously added to make this movie more action-y, to please the fans of the first trilogy’s combat. At the very least, Armitage makes the character’s development natural and unintrusive.

The first act is a little longer then it needs to be. At least all that sitting around and talking in the shire actually serves a purpose, as opposed to the other padding. It gives us a good idea of Bilbo as a character and lays out some of the story’s more convoluted exposition in a gentle, handy way. There’s a lot of humor, which adds plenty of levity. The troll sequence, which is pretty perfectly realized from the source material, is a good example of this. You certainly can’t imagine goofy stuff like troll snot sight gags happening in any of the “Rings” movies. For the record, I like the songs. “Misty Mountain Cold” is particularly haunting and is repeatedly reprised throughout the rest of the score. I could bitch about how the stuff about the map only working on a specific night, which just happens to be this night, is contrived. I suppose that’s normal fantasy plot device stuff. It comes with the territory. You just have to go with it, I guess. These moments, and there are several, remind you that you’re watching a genre film.

Naturally, the special effects and cinematography are spell-binding. These movies are in many ways three-hour long tourist advertisements for New Zealand. The landscapes that aren’t just the natural, gorgeous green rolling hills of the islands, in other words the ones made in a computer, look nice too. Riverdell, in particular, is beautiful and I like the way the camera winds through the secret pass in the rocks. The movie’s mastery of special effects is most evident in Gollem. He looks even more real then he did in “Rings,” which was impressive to begin with. You can see the pores of his skin and the translucence of his eyeballs. Clearly, the special effects guys earn their paychecks. It’s a good thing that work done on Gollem is so exemplary because the camera spends a lot of time focusing on his big, expressive eyes and face. It’s cute and funny. Andy Serkis is as fantastic as ever.

The action scenes are, at times, surprisingly shaky. When our fellowship are ambushed by the orcs at the secret pass, there are a few times when it’s difficult to tell which character is shooting arrows and swinging swords. The big flashback scene that sets up the mutual grudge between Thorin and the Azog feels kind of dreary, as it’s filled with a lot of slow-motion, melodramatic shouting to the heavens. Characters clang swords and shields, dismember limbs, none of it meaning much to the audience.

If the action drags for most of the movie, it makes up for a lot in the last act. All of the Goblin City scenes are uniformly awesome. First off, the goblins look great. They are much more visually interesting then the orcs, with their asymmetrical limbs and gnarled, warty faces. The Goblin King, played with hilarious relish by Barry "The Dame Edna Guy" Humphries, is nicely grotesque. Don’t tell me all that fat hanging off his chin doesn’t intentionally look like a ball sack. Moments like these remind us that Peter Jackson once made over-the-top horror indulgences.

The best action also steams from this sequence. Characters leaping from one level of bridges to the other, dispatching enemies along the way, always racing forward, is the movie’s violence at it’s most poetic, creative, and thrillingly constructed. The flaming tree sequence that follows it the movie’s proper climax. While it feels one-hundred percent engineered, some suspense is built. At the very least, Jackson manages to fit a defining moment for Bilbo into yet another scene of fantasy characters yelling at each other and narrowly avoiding blows. It’s a good thing too that we get some character resolution here, since there’s very little actual story resolution in that moment.

My opinion of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” seems to fit most critic’s opinion: Good, but too long. The cliffhanger ending admittedly gets me pumped for seeing Smaug the dragon fully realized in the next film. I mean, when was the last time we got a truly bad ass dragon in a movie? “Reign of Fire?” It’s fairly easy to see how the next two films will dissect and build on the established story. Part two will clearly be everything to do with the dragon and the elves while part three will be the Battle of the Five Armies, I suppose? Despite the fact that these future films will almost assuredly have the same problems as this one, I’ll be there. “The Hobbit” has, undeniably, hooked me in a way “Lords of the Rings’ didn’t. See you in 2013, MiddleEarth. [Grade: B]